PDA

View Full Version : A geophysicist publishes a book against AGW... full of woo


240-185
1st March 2010, 03:20 AM
Lately, Mr. Claude Allègre (the French geophysicist) published a book (L'Imposture climatique, Plon Editions)... but it's full of factual errors. Oh, we can't mind of his errors. If only his errors weren't so blatant:

* He defines wrongly the french acronym for IPCC (written "GIEC" in France): instead of "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change", he qualifies it as an "International Groupment for Climate Studies".

* He cherry-picks an article of Science released on March 2007 about the increase of the temperature due to coal combustion bewteen the 70s and 2000.

* He denies the melting of the Antarctic continent. He qualifies it as "not perceptible". He doesn'tg seem to have heard of Isabella Velicogna who showed that between 2006 and 2009, it lost 246 gigatons of ice.

* He didn't read the legends of Erik the Red, where the Vikings discovered the Groenland and provides a wrong explanation about why the Groenland was called "the green land".

* More interesting: he cites non-existant scientists! First, he can't write correctly "Peter Webster" (He writes "Wester"). But what is more hilarious is that he cites the works of a scientist called "Georgia Tech". He hasn't realized that it was in fact the Georgia Institute of Technology, not a person called Georgia Tech! Maybe she's "Virginia Tech"'s sister?

* When he states that "the global climate was 6°C (43°F) hotter 125,000 years ago from nowadays, whereas the CO2 was less abundant", he cites non-existing articles of Science.

* When Mr. Allègre worries about works on clouds not included in IPCC's works, he concludes that it's not "climatically correct", whereas the IPCC states that "the behavior of the clouds is a main source of incertitude on the sensibility of the climate".

* Mr. Allègre deliberately includes graphics that were showed wrong three years ago.

* And last, but not least: he makes an "argumentum ad populum", stating that 50% of the "scientists" don't believe in man-made global warming, 27% "doubt", and 23% believe the IPCC. But these "scientists" are not scientists but... weathers presenters on TV!

Would you still believe a lying scientist who makes such errors? I think not.

(Hmmm, I'm so tired that I can't write English correctly ><)

Hallo Alfie
1st March 2010, 03:23 AM
Sounds like he could get a job at the IPCC. :D

GreenLines
1st March 2010, 04:30 AM
On the third point you wrote "between" incorrectly. Your entire post is now without merit.

Safe-Keeper
1st March 2010, 04:47 AM
On the third point you wrote "between" incorrectly. Your entire post is now without merit. While I strongly dislike the "if you're wrong about tiny thing X, why should I trust you with anything" approach, the complaints in the OP aren't exactly minor errors that creep into every work, no matter how thorough the research. I mean, making up scientists?

tusenfem
1st March 2010, 04:57 AM
I hope he did not write "the global climate was 6°C (43°F) hotter", especially not the 43 part of it, 13 would be okay though.

mhaze
1st March 2010, 07:51 AM
Lately, Mr. Claude Allègre (the French geophysicist) published a book (L'Imposture climatique, Plon Editions)... but it's full of factual errors. ....
(Hmmm, I'm so tired that I can't write English correctly ><)

Two questions:

1. Do you have the book?
2. If so, please provide page numbers for your complaints about it. No referring to some web site that you are parrotting please.

240-185
1st March 2010, 12:13 PM
Two questions:

1. Do you have the book?
No, but...

2. If so, please provide page numbers for your complaints about it. No referring to some web site that you are parrotting please.

1: must be in the book
2: p. 22
3: p. 68
4: p. 68
5: p. 73
6: p. 78
7: p. 94
8: p. 109
9: p. 138

...here's the source (Le Monde, 02/28/2010) (french) (http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2010/02/27/le-cent-fautes-de-claude-allegre_1312167_3244.html)

Now, if you don't trust me, just read the book yourself.

Furcifer
1st March 2010, 12:54 PM
Lately, Mr. Claude Allègre (the French geophysicist) published a book (L'Imposture climatique, Plon Editions)... but it's full of factual errors. Oh, we can't mind of his errors. If only his errors weren't so blatant:

* He defines wrongly the french acronym for IPCC (written "GIEC" in France): instead of "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change", he qualifies it as an "International Groupment for Climate Studies".

* He cherry-picks an article of Science released on March 2007 about the increase of the temperature due to coal combustion bewteen the 70s and 2000.

* He denies the melting of the Antarctic continent. He qualifies it as "not perceptible". He doesn'tg seem to have heard of Isabella Velicogna who showed that between 2006 and 2009, it lost 246 gigatons of ice.

* He didn't read the legends of Erik the Red, where the Vikings discovered the Groenland and provides a wrong explanation about why the Groenland was called "the green land".

* More interesting: he cites non-existant scientists! First, he can't write correctly "Peter Webster" (He writes "Wester"). But what is more hilarious is that he cites the works of a scientist called "Georgia Tech". He hasn't realized that it was in fact the Georgia Institute of Technology, not a person called Georgia Tech! Maybe she's "Virginia Tech"'s sister?

* When he states that "the global climate was 6°C (43°F) hotter 125,000 years ago from nowadays, whereas the CO2 was less abundant", he cites non-existing articles of Science.

* When Mr. Allègre worries about works on clouds not included in IPCC's works, he concludes that it's not "climatically correct", whereas the IPCC states that "the behavior of the clouds is a main source of incertitude on the sensibility of the climate".

* Mr. Allègre deliberately includes graphics that were showed wrong three years ago.

* And last, but not least: he makes an "argumentum ad populum", stating that 50% of the "scientists" don't believe in man-made global warming, 27% "doubt", and 23% believe the IPCC. But these "scientists" are not scientists but... weathers presenters on TV!

Would you still believe a lying scientist who makes such errors? I think not.

(Hmmm, I'm so tired that I can't write English correctly ><)

Could you repost this in French?

I don't see the woo? Where's the woo? Sounds more like a very poor translation coupled with some bad science and poor comprehension. It might make more sense in French.

mhaze
1st March 2010, 12:59 PM
No, but...
....

So you are a parrot?

...

...here's the source (Le Monde, 02/28/2010) (french) (http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2010/02/27/le-cent-fautes-de-claude-allegre_1312167_3244.html)

Now, if you don't trust me, just read the book yourself.I'm sure you see the reason here. Of course I don't trust you because I don't know you or anything about you.

Now why would I go to the bother of reading something to refute you when you haven't read it and admit so?

240-185
1st March 2010, 01:50 PM
Could you repost this in French?
Ahum, yes :S
The main source is here: http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2010/02/27/le-cent-fautes-de-claude-allegre_1312167_3244.html

Of course I don't trust you because I don't know you or anything about you.
What you did there is called a circumstantial ad hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html).

Now why would I go to the bother of reading something to refute you when you haven't read it and admit so?
Maybe because "Le Monde" is a reliable french newspaper?

DogB
1st March 2010, 08:20 PM
Maybe because "Le Monde" is a reliable french newspaper?

And because newspapers are now the arbiters of scientific accuracy! Keep up Hazey.

Furcifer
1st March 2010, 09:24 PM
That's a link to the French article, which is pretty much word for word. I was looking for the actual quotes, but it doesn't matter. I get a sense that this isn't something "lost in translation", the orginal author seems pretty confused.

DogB
1st March 2010, 09:54 PM
That's a link to the French article, which is pretty much word for word. I was looking for the actual quotes, but it doesn't matter. I get a sense that this isn't something "lost in translation", the orginal author seems pretty confused.

I find it a little hard to believe that a working scientist* in any country would mistake 'Georgia Tech' for a person's name.

But I've been wrong before.

ETA- *and an ex-minister of education