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.

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

Quote:

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

Originally Posted by 240-185

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

Originally Posted by mhaze

Two questions:

1. Do you have the book?

No, but...

Quote:

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)

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

Furcifer · 1st March 2010, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by 240-185

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

Originally Posted by 240-185

No, but...
....

So you are a parrot?

Originally Posted by 240-185

...

...here's the source (Le Monde, 02/28/2010) (french)

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

Quote:

Could you repost this in French?

Ahum, yes :S
The main source is here: http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/articl...2167_3244.html

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Originally Posted by 240-185

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

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem

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

1st March 2010, 03:20 AM	#1
240-185 Muse Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 510	A geophysicist publishes a book against AGW... full of woo 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 ><)
240-185 Muse Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 510	__________________ Like a toy, the black dinosaur walked towards a Goomba and asked him: "What do Truthy Chain Chomps say when they bark? Twoof! Twoof! Twoof!" badum pschhh My 9/11 Crackpot Index Last edited by 240-185; 1st March 2010 at 03:25 AM.

1st March 2010, 03:23 AM	#2
Hallo Alfie Alexithymically superadjusted Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 10,023	Sounds like he could get a job at the IPCC.
	__________________ Alfie is a real goose. Lionking http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=14601 'Sex by surprise is a form of "rape" unknown outside of Sweden.' Bit Pattern http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...91#post8776491 'Show me a young conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.' Francois Guizot

1st March 2010, 04:30 AM	#3
GreenLines Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Minnesota, USA Posts: 370	On the third point you wrote "between" incorrectly. Your entire post is now without merit.
	__________________ Smikes, ja.

1st March 2010, 04:57 AM	#5
tusenfem Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2008 Location: Graz, Austria Posts: 1,111	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.
	__________________ 20 minutes into the future This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages (Max Headroom)

1st March 2010, 07:51 AM	#6
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,397	Originally Posted by 240-185 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.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

1st March 2010, 04:47 AM	#4
Safe-Keeper Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sogndal, Norway Posts: 7,124	Quote: 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?

1st March 2010, 12:13 PM	#7
240-185 Muse Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 510	Originally Posted by mhaze Two questions: 1. Do you have the book? No, but... Quote: 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) Now, if you don't trust me, just read the book yourself.
240-185 Muse Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 510	__________________ Like a toy, the black dinosaur walked towards a Goomba and asked him: "What do Truthy Chain Chomps say when they bark? Twoof! Twoof! Twoof!" badum pschhh My 9/11 Crackpot Index

1st March 2010, 12:54 PM	#8
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by 240-185 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.

1st March 2010, 12:59 PM	#9
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,397	Originally Posted by 240-185 No, but... .... So you are a parrot? Originally Posted by 240-185 ... ...here's the source (Le Monde, 02/28/2010) (french) 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?
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

1st March 2010, 01:50 PM	#10
240-185 Muse Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 510	Quote: Could you repost this in French? Ahum, yes :S The main source is here: http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/articl...2167_3244.html Quote: 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. Quote: 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?
240-185 Muse Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 510	__________________ Like a toy, the black dinosaur walked towards a Goomba and asked him: "What do Truthy Chain Chomps say when they bark? Twoof! Twoof! Twoof!" badum pschhh My 9/11 Crackpot Index

1st March 2010, 08:20 PM	#11
DogB Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,496	Originally Posted by 240-185 Maybe because "Le Monde" is a reliable french newspaper? And because newspapers are now the arbiters of scientific accuracy! Keep up Hazey.
DogB Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,496	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell

1st March 2010, 09:24 PM	#12
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	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.

1st March 2010, 09:54 PM	#13
DogB Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,496	Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem 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
DogB Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,496	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell Last edited by DogB; 1st March 2010 at 10:03 PM.