Climate-change denier Lord Lawson is an expert – he once wrote a book about dieting

This kind of crap is the reason I don’t listen to Radio 4 anymore. It’s bad for my blood pressure.

Pride's Purge

(not satire – it’s the Tories!)

I see climate-change deniers have brought out their big guns to deny the recent flooding and storms are anything to do with climate change.

Former Thatcher chancellor Nigel Lawson went head-to-head with Met’ Office Chief Scientist Professor Julia Slingo – destroying her scientific assessments that the recent extreme weather conditions were almost certainly the result of climate change with the devastating scientific argument that she is just : “this Julia Slingo woman“.

Personally, I don’t know much about the science behind climate change. So let’s take a look at who is most likely to be right on the scientific arguments around climate in general:

Lawson vs Slingo

.

You had me at “it’s just this woman” Nigel.

.

Please feel free to comment.

.

Related articles by Tom Pride:

Climate change sceptic Andrew Neil also once thought heterosexual AIDS was a myth

Climate change deniers –…

View original post 8 more words

Advertisements

7 Responses to “Climate-change denier Lord Lawson is an expert – he once wrote a book about dieting”

  1. Anton Garrett Says:

    There are subtle selection mechanisms at work in the sociology of scientific institutions which are capable of explaining why bias might still exist without any fraud. But I am increasingly concerned at alterations of, and selectivity in, historic data; we all know that data are sacrosanct, and if corrections need to be made then this must *always* be stated explicitly.

    Tom Pride is as ad hom here as Lawson is. Two ad homs don’t make a scientific proof.

    • “There are subtle selection mechanisms at work in the sociology of scientific institutions which are capable of explaining why bias might still exist without any fraud.”

      Interesting hypothesis, presented without evidence. If such is the case, then ALL science should be treated the same way.

      “But I am increasingly concerned at alterations of, and selectivity in, historic data; we all know that data are sacrosanct, and if corrections need to be made then this must *always* be stated explicitly.”

      They are.

  2. Adrian Burd Says:

    Anton, it seems you are trying to imply that climate scientists are altering scientific data in the same way, and for similar reasons, to the way Soviet leaders altered history. Thanks for a nice attack on my (and that of climate scientists in general) professional integrity. I’m sure you’ll claim that that was not what you intended, but then why include the preamble to the maxim if not let the reader make that inference?

    I will no longer be responding. Readers of this blog can make up their own minds by looking at the peer reviewed literature, reading a book or two on climate science, or getting the data and codes themselves from GISS, or maybe the Berkeley Group’s site, or HadCRU, or all three and doing a comparison (I sometimes get my students to do this). I would not advise people use the Alabama RSS data unless you are very knowledgeable about atmospheric physics, satellite sensor technology, and data analysis since that data set has a long history of errors.

    Good luck to you Anton. I, and every climate scientist I know, wish we were wrong. But the data are telling us that we are not. There is a lot of uncertainty in the future — things may not be as bad as the worse scenarios portray, or they may be a lot worse. Whatever the outcome, I hope you fare well.

    • Anton Garrett Says:

      When what are claimed to be data are not actually instrument readings but ‘corrected’ values, contrary to the most basic tenets of science that are taught at O-level; when the original data are not made available or are even deleted; when the corrections are subject to change without explanation or notification; and when the result of the change is invariably to increase the inferred subsequent warming, then forgive me for being suspicious. I have given a specific example which involves at least one of those malpractices (though not all). There are further examples. I have no idea who did it in this case.

      • All those hours I spent in cold telescope domes observing photometric standards in order to correct my observations of galaxies to an accurate photometric scale, those were all wasted, or even worse “malpractice”, were they Anton?

      • Anton Garrett Says:

        How would that follow?

        I am all for corrections being made to data when they are argued for and when the original instrument data are preserved side by side with the corrected data, rather than substituted for them, and when enough information is given for the corrections to be verified, and when notification is given of when changes to the corrections have been made. I call that good scientific practice, as advocated by our host recently regarding LIGO.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: