Bishop Hill Someone is thinking
Nov 25, 2010 Climate: other A thoughtful article on climate change in the Guardian - whatever next?
The piece in question is this one, by Andrew Holding of the Medical Research Council. He thinks the way to deal with us pesky global warming sceptics is to open things up:
[T]hose in academia are constantly debating and modifying their ideas over time as new evidence comes to light, and those who hold minority viewpoints are valued for their opinion, but only when they can provide evidence for their stance, not for their ability to sign a petition.
Sounds good to me.
We need to tear down the ivory towers of the past and remove the walls dividing the public and academia. Journals need to be open, and in complex cases, such as the evidence for climate change, we need to provide the skills and tools that people need to discover the answers for themselves. If we ask them to to accept our viewpoints just because we are the experts, we have already lost. We would be no different than anyone who stands on a pedestal and proclaims the truth.
The idea that climate journals are going to be open is probably wishful thinking, although we must admit, I suppose that there has been some improvement since the pesky sceptics started making a noise about it.
Scientific inquiry will not always provide the right answers first but, unlike other methods, it will eventually get there even if it has to admit its mistakes. There is plenty that we don't know yet, but what we do know is that, given the same resources, tools and time, there is no reason for the public to disagree with the established consensus.
Admitting mistakes is again a wonderful sentiment, but I'm just not sure that mainstream climate science is ready to make this step yet. Climatology still has to get past the "biased method + bad data -> correct answer" stage.
Reader Comments (93)
For reading recommendations, I also like
The Great Global Warming Blunder by Roy W Spencer
The Chilling Stars by Svensmark and Calder
The Honest Broker by Roger Pielke Jnr
Why We Disagree About Climate Change by Mike Hulme
and from the humour or know thy enemy section,
Six Degrees by Mark Lynas
Storms of Grandchildren by James Hansen
Robuk and Justice4Rinka.
You two must be absolutely desperate. Once again we see the astonishing cherry picking used by, hmm, well, Andrew Montford has asked me not to use this word on his blog, accurate though it is, let's say 'men in tights'.
I notice you conveniently ignore all David Viner's actual work, which makes likely temperature increases and timescales from AGW quite clear. Instead, the two of you you pounce on a decade old quote from a newspaper interview, which has been hawked round every men-in-tights messageboard for each of those ten years since.
It's not even very conclusive. In climate terms, 'a few' could be taken as referring to centuries. There's no clarification, and using it as a stick to beat climate science with depends entirely upon your interpretation of the words 'a few'.
And once again we see the astonishing hypocrisy demonstrated by all the other commentors on the Bishop Hill website. You lot all like to think of yourselves as swords of truth and pillars of integrity. Yet when a clear piece of quote-mining and misrepresentation like this is aired, it goes completely un-chastised. The silence is both deafening, and telling. As are the tactics used in the first place.
Suremantine,
Thats a pretty heavily edited video where it seems that parts of Plimers responses and challenges to the non-scientist on the other side were perhaps deliberately edited out so as to make him look like a raving loon.
However, perhaps you should look deeper in to the so called debate and perhaps while you are doing that you might ask yourself why George refused to debate Plimer in person when he challenged Plimer in the first place.
In fact, I believe, it wasnt until George had a few questions from Plimer, who he then ran through some of his "friends" for help that he finally agreed to debate with Plimer.
Mailman
"You lot all like to think of yourselves as swords of truth and pillars of integrity."
Yes we do.
Try saying something without calling people 'deniers', 'men in tights' or whatever the next thing that should strike you.
ZDB: "Instead, the two of you you pounce on a decade old quote from a newspaper interview, which has been hawked round every men-in-tights messageboard for each of those ten years since."
It would seem to me that if Viner forecast the eradication of snowy winters in the UK, it would be prudent to wait to see if he's right, you can do that by waiting, say ten years on when we're all up to our armpits in snow and point out to Dr. Viner that he was wrong. Any time before that he'd just move the goal posts are you're attempting to do here and say not enough time has passed
And of course Viner and Parker were not being in the slightest bit alarmist by bringing in that old and much abused technique: 'Think of the chiiillldren!'
Hi ZDB how long should we give David Viner for his quote to be correct? I know that ten years is statistically insignificant.
Peter Whale - have a look at his work and use that as your base.
Don't be silly, ZDB. The context is abundantly clear and the entire story was based on cherry picking anecdotes now and declaring them to be data.
- "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past".
- "The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall"
- "1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days"
- "the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold"
"snow-free winter in Britain"
"the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club ... have not skated outside since 1997."
That is the actual context in which this Viner character solemnly intones, "Children just aren't going to know what snow is". I can't see anyone talking in centuries there, can you? What I can see is a load of camp-following idiots drawing inferences about global climate from what's been happening in the last few weeks in "lowland Britain".
I don't doubt you are absolutely furious that nonsensical ecofascist claims and predictions can be dug up and laughed at 10 years later. That's rather the point, isn't it? What are ecofascists going to do in 20 yeras time when prediction after prediction has failed? Object to people digging up 20-year-old predictions and laughing at them?
Wow - that latest post by Justice4Rinka is either staggeringly inept, or simply dishonest.
Let's go through those quotes one by one with an eye on climate science.
The first, is the title. Written by the journalist, a certain Charles Onians, and completely unrelated to quotes from the climate scientists interviewed. Why did you use that quote justice4rinka, are you not able to differentiate between the fluff in an article and the scientist quotes?
Second line - again, the journalist. Third quote, the journalist.
Doing very badly so far Justice4Rinka, you're trying to beat climate scientist with a decade old bit of newspaper fluff.
Quote about "the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold"? Guess what, the journalist again. As is the next quote about snow-free winters.
The last quote that Justice4Rinka used is the only one that's not actually by the journalist. It's by a bloke that likes to go ice skating instead.
If I were you lot I'd be distancing myself from Justice4Rinka at a rate of knots. He or she writes absolute rubbish.
Zed
Just a thought, but consider this:
The rate of atmospheric (tropospheric) warming projected (predicted) by a large number of the 21 or so GCMs that the IPCC tracks has been higher over the last decade than the observed values.
Improvements over the last decade in measuring ocean heat content suggest that it is not rising as fast as projected, and indeed may be lower than is compatible with the best hypothetical match with a climate sensitivity to CO2 of +3K per doubling of the pre-industrial level.
So the argument divides between those who claim that 'it's worse than we thought' - although the quantitative observations do not support them - and those who say 'perhaps climate sensitivity is poorly constrained and lower than previously believed'.
Since you like your pejorative tags, the latter are sometimes called 'lukewarmers'.
Fair enough?
Don't be silly ZDB.
You asserted that the ecofascist quoted might have been talking about centuries. I simply pointed out that every word of the whole article was based on what was happening in recent weeks. The inclusion of an ecofascist quote was plainly intended to shore up a farcical argument from anecdote. If said ecofascist was talking about centuries, he was the only one. Meanwhile he, and of course every other ecofascist of the day, was quite happy if a couple of mild winters in Peterborough got mistaken for evidence of CAGW.
The second ecofascist quoted quite clearly was talking about a timescale of a few years. We know this because he started with "ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow" and went to conclude that "Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time".
No snow. Then, in 20 years, snow as freakish weather. Pretty solid predictions there. Oh dear!
To be an ecofascist is to choose between being honest and being effective. Stephen Scheider told us so. You can't successfully spread climate alarmism based on the truth. You have to lie. You have to.
So you're on a tricky wicket, ZDB, but you made your choices. I'm not surprised you're angry. Count on getting angrier. And don't assume that nobody but you has read the article you're so furious about.
The full debate between Monbiot and Plimer is 25 minutes long and available in three parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBQCsMJm3Zg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7y6xJbcW4A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPdhUdF6SJ4
If you watch the whole thing, Plimer comes off even worse.
Hi ZDB I looked at David Viner 's work. He is so bad he needs to make those quotes to get his funding.
"I simply pointed out that every word of the whole article was based on what was happening in recent weeks."
Nov 26, 2010 at 4:19 PM | Justice4Rinka
No. The reason that article has been hanging around men-in-tights blogs for ten years, is because of the quote from a genuine CRU climate scientist saying that in a few years, snow might become a rare thing. All the other points you have alluded to were added by the journalist. You genuinely seem to have a hard time differentiating between the qualitative importance of the two.
The scientist quote came first, with the rest being built around it afterwards. So the only signficant factor, is what is meant by 'a few'. It isn't qualified by David Viner in the article, at which point I suggest that people look at his work for some idea of what 'a few' might mean.
The statistics and opinions by the (rather oddly-named) journalist, are entirely irrelevant when it comes to climate science. As I said, this article is used as a stick to beat climate scientists with every time it snows, resting on the interpretation of 'a few' meaning 'by now'. You can't use the words of the journalist to define what David Viner was implying. Again, to see that, look at his work.
Zed, do stop your reflexive use of the snide undermining tactic. Who cares, and what possible difference does it make, what the bloody journalist is called? Eh?
Come on.
And please cite Viner specifically instead of vaguely waving in his general direction.
The Guardian is setting up a completely unbiased FAQ about climate change!
Just joking.
Randerson in the comments says that they have contacted John Cook to ask him to contribute.
There is a box where you can ask your questions though - anyone like to take up the challenge?>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/nov/05/ultimate-climate-change-faq
I think DeadHead's getting his/her knickers in a twist because they're giving him/her a hard time, as usual, on the Daily Mail site. No change there, then...
No ZDB. The reason that article is remembered (I hadn't seen it before) is because it's exactly typical of the kind of ecofascist propaganda that left wing rags pass off as "news". It's a news article, Zed: "no more snow". Not Op-Ed. It's actually in the Environment section. This is what's happening in the environment in 2000: snow has ended forever. Cuz of global warming.
In fact they looked out the window, made up some lies and recruited the usual suspects - rentaquote mediocre pseudo-scientists. Maybe they were following a Greenpeace or WWF suggestion to sex up the news a bit? Who knows. But the whole article is cherry picked statements, assertions and anthropocentric prophecies, all based on portents in the sky. The ecofascists were happy to accept it all as helpful propaganda in 2000, but in 2010, now it's shown to be balls, they want to wish it away.
The quotes from the professional buffoons are hilarious and verbatim. They said what they said, and this is SOP for ecofascists. They are quote whores. Want an alarmist quote? Here you go: "In 20 years da kidz will have never seen snopw and it'll be a freak event". Note the internet allusion too. Snow will be so unheard of it'll be like Club Penguin - available only as a virtual experience.
Get used to it. This and others like it will never be forgotten.
genuine CRU climate scientist
?
Ah - Natsman who posts under Chris of Correze on the Daily Mail site is here. As ever, I see your self-imposed exile didn't last.
I'm not quite sure shy you say I'm getting a hard time. I exposed your total lack of evidence as normal. Do people here know you believe the Bilderberg group runs the world?
It must be killing you not to be able to rig the voting on the comments for most of the day like you normally do.
You're too gullible a troll to ignore completely, DeadHead - a bit of sparring never hurt anyone.
Mr Delingpole has been asked by Acton to not tell the truth, but he still can't resist. LOL
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100065446/motes-beams-and-the-university-of-east-anglia/
They have realized that there's more than one way to skin a cat. They still intend to "skin it", and for all it's worth too.
ZDB
Is it true that you work for 118? That would explain why you seem to think you have "all of our numbers"
How soon will you be denying the fact that scientists ever said it was going to get warmer.
ZDB has already started doing that, Chris. In the Indy article linked above some climate buffoon said there'd be no snow at all in a few years and ZDB wants to pretend that years meant centuries.
It's not that the lying has started, it's that it never stopped!
Hello, zeds
Hi, zeds,
Here is another snippet that will remain on the net for posterity.
http://s446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/?action=view¤t=jones1_Join_to_AVI_1.mp4
climate change primer no1, without any dispute :
" An appeal to Reason", Nigel Lawson.
@ phinnie
It is very good. And you are right to bring it up since it has been missed from the recommendations in this thread so far.
Have a crack at Taylor (Chill) if you get a chance - quite formal, but very well worth the effort.
@Robuk - entertaining stuff but what a shame there appeared to be no legally trained people on the committee. The simple rule of thumb is to ask a single, short directed question which gives the witness nowhere to go in terms of waffle (and doesn't reveal your hand too early):
"Did you provide the names of the wather stations used in your analysis to Mr McIntyre?"
...
"Why not?"
...
"I'd like you to restrict your answer to the following question to a yes or a no. Did you state in an email dated blahblah addressed to X "I'm not providing my data to you in order for you to find something wrong with it?"
...
"Do you think it is acceptable scientific practice to withhold data that lies behind published research?"
etc.
For books I would add "The Climate Caper" by Garth W. Paltridge. I like that it portrays the inside working of Academia, which is in itself a corruption of science. Being a working scientist in related topics, I entirely agree with him.
Suramantine,
Perhaps you and I are watching a different series of video's?
I thought Plimmer actually did pretty well against a trained media monkey and a Mann Made Global Warming attack dog (or more a sausage dog since being neutered by climategate).
But what IS interesting is Georges denial. He says that he is devistated by the behaviour of Jones et al, disappointed, gutted even BUT he still refuses to allow himself to doubt the very work of those who were committed to undermining the peer review system for AR4.
Actually, one of the other videos on that youtube page is of George and David Bellamy, in which George accuses Bellamy of using data hosted by a convicted fraudster. Its amazing isnt it, that George would use that line of reasoning when he is attacking someone who dared doubt man as being the sole cause of Mann Made Global Warming YET he has no issues what so ever in believing everything he is being told by so called scientists like Jones.
Mailman
A book I enjoyed (not sure if it has already been mentioned in this thread) is:
"Red Hot Lies - how global warming alarmists use threats, fraud and deception to keep you misinformed"
by Christopher C. Horner.
Some chapter titles:
- Media on a Mission: Lies, Distortions, Cover-Ups, and the Reporters Who Push Them
- Poisoning the Little Ones: Propagandizing Your Children
- Stupid Science Tricks: Keeping that Gravy Train Chugging
- The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: The UN's Four-Alarm Liar
ZDB (to Natsman)
"I see your self-imposed exile didn't last."
Nor did yours, unfortunately. I liked the DM comment from 'Mrs ZDB' though:
"My husband told me that it was eight inches but it turned out that it was only two"
Sounds about right. :-)
Proof that the Beeb still knows a good story when it sees one!
What do you think could bring together a South Uist crofter, Oxfam, Mexico and fishing nets?
Correct, Climate Change!
“Fishing nets used to ‘anchor’ sand dunes on South Uist!
“Oxfam said some islanders were concerned climate change had increased the frequency of damaging storms.
It has called for a world fund to be set up to help vulnerable communities.
With Oxfam’s backing, former crofter Seumas MacDonald, of South Uist, will meet representatives from other communities on a visit to Mexico.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-11846613
I could not possibly make any further comment!
ref http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/nov/05/ultimate-climate-change-faq
The paper is a total joke and I doubt Randleson will respond in any way whatsoever, he didn't when he wrote in these pages earlier this year, however,
Just posted this on the FAQ site at the G.It won't get through and is already in the memory hole I expect.
'''''I am interested why inconvenient questions can't be asked in the G without a banning?.
No abuse/accusations, just reasonable points of concern.
I dare say this won't get through either.
I'll publish this on Bishop Hill just to give the heads-up plus the comment that got me re-banned recently.''''
"theoriginaljones
25 November 2010 9:44AM
Liberalintheoldsense
25 November 2010 8:43AM
I have looked with an objective eye. The examples I used are simply a couple of the more egregious ones but there will be many many others. The cynicism is inevitable unfortunately. (ref Gore,'perhaps' with some justice, how much more evidence do you want from that quarter?). But I don't want to seem like I am attacking you, you are most reasonable in your comment.
I claim no special qualifications or knowledge in the area (but I am scientifically educated to post-graduate level) and have to derive an opinion from what I see, hear and read and I cannot now see how I used to think in the concrete way I did. I have an uncomfortable feeling it's because a very biased picture has been painted. I no longer accept that the current ideology for AGW is a self-evident truth.
(or the new label 'catastrophic global climate change...or whatever label fits the agenda).
I feel the questions of doubt should be able to be aired without fear of some sanction or other but this is not the case though. I myself was on the receiving end of some quite unwarranted abuse for simply saying in former company 'hmm, that's a good point, need to think about that' in response to some contradictory evidence to the AGW theory.
There is something vaguely totalitarian about this approach.
Nope, summat very wrong with it all.
I don't doubt climate change, that would be irrational, just our responsibility for it and what seems to be a political ideology that has hijacked it for partisan ends".
I got well laid into for this by follow-up comments........the concrete insightlessness was actually rather funny and interesting.
On this particular thread only one out of about eight comments submitted was left up as a 'deleted comment'. For the rest they even erased the fact that I was even there??!. Impressive. They also carefully deleted replies that referred to my erased comments....and indeed erased some of them too......no abuse, etc...just inconvenient.
The 'egregious' examples I refered to in my comment above were Gore(y) and Patchy.....
Um... shouldn't they be adjusting the old readings downwards? I mean, the buoys are more accurate, aren't they?
The more I follow climate science, the stranger things get.
Regarding that ridiculous Independent article about snow being a thing of the past: where was the public outcry from scientists objecting to the distortions contained therein?
If that article didn't reflect the 'consensus' view of warmists, why weren't they up in arms about the distorted view that article presented?
*crickets chirping*
The comments / paper from Dr Vicky Pope was reported in NZ via the Times article and it also centred on how 2010 was going to be the hotest year on record. Clearly this has to be absolute BS. The NH had a very cold winter and so did the SH ( in relative terms) as observed by a very wet cold Australia, a very cold South America etc. How can they say it will be the hotest year on record ?
Does anyone know of a website that could organise a world wide petition with the results sent to the British Met Office / CRU / NASA ? ( Simple statement saying something like " We don't believe your statement that 2010 is the hotest year on record" -- if it could be set up to go "viral" something could be achieved)
Bob Tisdale has a guest post on Watts explaining the Warming Increase claimed by Vicky Pope, looks like its actually the opposite to me and shows how shoddy their work is, Harry would have made a better job ;)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/26/does-hadley-centre-sea-surface-temperature-data-hadsst2-underestimate-recent-warming/#more-28356
You'd think that the Met Office might at least wait until the year was over before pronouncing on it. It certainly doesn't feel that warm, although I realise that my own senses are nothing like as accurate as the MO models...
"Um... shouldn't they be adjusting the old readings downwards?"
a) More work
b) Admits dodginess of past data (who knows what else might be wrong)
c) Admits current temperatures lower than widely trumpeted
The official explanation is that it is only the trends that matter - in climate science (as opposed to the other sort) the actual data aren't important.