2011-02-04 05:55:01Fred Pearce errs again
Julian Brimelow


Please read this (you might want to put your head in a vice as Joe Romm would say):


Some sane, scientifically-based comments to offset the nonsense would be appreciated. And maybe even a complaint to NewScientist is in order. 

2011-02-04 07:07:05
Mark Richardson

I'm not too pissed off by that.


There are some reasonably good reasons to think 2 C is a good target, but it's mostly a political choice. There have been some political problems - I think some pro-AGW scientists have 'talked up' some stuff unscientifically, whilst most anti-AGW scientists you see on the news are simply lying (Or shit at science perhaps).


Just because there is overwhelming evidence for AGW and most good scientists reach that conclusion doesn't mean we shouldn't pull out mistakes on people who happen to come to the overall same result IMO!

2011-02-04 08:42:12
Julian Brimelow

Hi Mark,

His article contains several errors and grossly misrepresents Gavin Schmidt. That is what infuriated me, that and his uncritical take of the "skeptics". 

Personally I do not like the term "pro-AGW scientists"-- pro science perhaps, I'm sure they do not want AGW to be a real.

I agree about 2 C being arbitrary.....not sure it was politically motivated though. But if we are to reduce GHG emissions, one needs to set tangible targets.

Either way Pearce's article is, unfortunately, just another example of shoddy journalism by him of late, and something that should not have seen the light of day (at least in its current form).


2011-02-04 11:30:27Pearce
Dana Nuccitelli

Might be worth noting that Pearce is one of the people on Monckton's email list.

I wouldn't go so far as to call 2°C arbitrary.  Like Mark said, there are some pretty good reasons behind it.

2011-02-04 12:44:37My thoughts
John Hartz
John Hartz

I just read the article and skimmed the comment thread to it.

It's hard for me to understand why legitimate scientists would attend such a confab. There was absolutely nothing to negotiate or reach common understandings about.

The net result is that the deniers emerge with more credibility -- and probably a lot of video that will be sliced and diced into propaganda clips for use by the Climate Denial Machine.

2011-02-04 15:21:41
Julian Brimelow


Thanks for the link. Re me saying "I agree about 2 C being arbitrary", I stand corrected, and Mark said nothing about 2 C being "arbitrary"-- speed reading gets me in trouble.

IMHO I think that a ppm target makes more sense, and that is probably why I said what I said.  Regardless,  I'll be more careful in future!

2011-02-04 21:48:54
Paul D


Tim Lambert posted on the subject, with a letter from Gavin Schmidt to New Scientist:


Last year I went to the annual Tyndall Centre public debate at Southampton University which was about climategate and Fred Pearce was on the panel.
I wasn't very impressed at all, because he didn't seem to know about what the climate science community was doing and for someone in the know, he seemed to have very little knowledge.

2011-02-06 19:04:28
Rob Painting
Fred Pearce is a twat. I cancelled my New Scientist subscription after his crap kept appearing in the magazine. 
2011-02-10 16:00:18Bullseye
John Hartz
John Hartz

If you have not already done so, check out Tamino's "Bullseye" post on Open Mind.