A Cool Look At Global Warming

I likes this article today from ecoworld.com:

Greenland’s Ice Melting Slowly

Coming from a web site that you would expect to be firmly on the non-sceptical side of the debate, it is an excellent attempt to expose and correct climate change hype and hysteria.

Ecoworld put NASA scientists in the dock for over-egging a conjectured net loss to the Greenland ice sheet. As Ecoworld puts it: “a net loss of 27 cubic miles per year. Does that sound like a lot? It isn’t.”

It seems NASA scientist Scott Luthcke noted that Greenland’s ice melt now constitutes ”an annual net loss of ice equal to nearly six years of average water flow from the Colorado River.” To which Ecoworld respond:

“Need we add that at an annual flow of 4.5 cubic miles of water, by volume, the Colorado is a relatively small river?”

A while back there was an article published in the New Scientist titled “Silencing the climate sceptics” (4 June 2005 issue 2502 p.14). Now, when I visit the online archive I see that this has been altered to “New probe may silence climate sceptics” (here).

Now why would that happen? I think I know!

The original title was something of a fraud. The article (by Duncan Graham-Rowe) was actually about a proposed method to increase the accuracy of satellite data. No new data had yet arrived. Obviously no open-minded person would presume to know a priori how that data would turn out.

Not so in the case of Mr Duncan-Rowe!

“Those who deny global warming is happening often rely on somewhat error-prone satellite information about our planet…a proposed probe could put an end to the climate change debate”

Well yes - if the data comes out in the wash the way he approves. If it doesn’t then I guess Duncan-Rowe will once again come over all a priori and assume we need yet even more accurate data (until he gets the result he wants).

Anyhoo, feeling not a little incensed when I read the original article, I put pen to paper and wrote to New Scientist. I have always felt that the magazine is soft on global warming, so I was pleased and a little surprised to see my letter published:

“Satellite data has failed so far to deliver the results that advocates of global warming would like. Presumably there is something wrong with the data. So it was good to read the article by Duncan Graham-Rowe about a proposed method to increase the accuracy of the instruments (4 June, p 14). But before giving the article the title “Silencing the climate sceptics” shouldn’t he have waited for the new and improved data to come in?” (18 June 2005)

Now, praise be, it seems Duncan-Rowe has moderated his language and altered the title of his article! Could that be because of my letter? Well maybe, who knows. But is Duncan-Rowe (issue 2) really so very much more reasonable and objective than Duncan-Rowe (issue 1)? I think not.

Why for goodness sake must he insist on prefacing a perfectly sensible and interesting article about the difficulties of satellite measurement with such a prejudicial title? After all consider these three candidates for the title:

1. New probe may silence climate sceptics
2. New probe may refute claims of global warming
3. New probe may provide better data to test global warming claim

So which title would be appropriate - especially for a scientific magazine? Well if science means anything it surely means that you maintain an open mind ahead of the facts. I would think that makes the choice of title a bit of a no-brainer!

In his review in the British Sunday Times of James Lovelock’s new book (”The Revenge Of Gaia“), Richard Mabey writes:

“We give generously to the victims of climate-change-driven disasters such as famines and tsumani, and do nothing to stop them happening again”

Yes you read that right: Tsunami are climate driven disasters!

The zealots will see the hand of global warming everywhere

Take the other week when the big news in London was the unfortunate whale that had strayed into the Thames. The whale got to be the top story on Channel 4 news one evening. They wheeled on an expert (from the Natural History Museum as I recall). No sooner had his interview begun than Jon Snow tried to steer the conversation towards the possibility that this rare event might be evidence for climate change. I think the guest scientist was a bit embarrased by such glib thinking and to his great credit he politely but firmly refused to be drawn on the subject