Bishop Hill More Horizon fallout
Jan 29, 2011 BBC Climate: Jones Climate: Sceptics Royal Society There is more fallout from the Horizon programme, some of which is more in the realm of tittle tattle than science and some of which isn't.
The tittle-tattle first. The famous pop-sci author, Simon Singh is trying to pressure James Delingpole into doing another interview, in which Singh gets to bring along a climate scientist to support him. This strikes me as a tad ungentlemanly of Mr Singh. What would be interesting is if Singh and Dellers both got to bring their chosen expert along - given that the Horizon programme majored on Climategate, we could have Phil Jones and Steve McIntyre to discuss the trick to hide the decline, for example.
Delingpole meanwhile has fired back at Singh in a typically robust posting. I was particularly taken aback by his observation that Singh's has claimed that he (Dellers) had "the arrogance to think he knows more of science than a Nobel Laureate", which is not something that Delingpole has said to my knowledge.
On the subject of the Trick, a blogger called Flay wrote an interesting piece about sceptics yesterday, and we had an good discussion about the Trick. Climatologist Andy Russell appeared briefly and attempted to defend what is, to my mind, the indefensible. Flay also wrote a post about the Hockey Stick, which unfortunately I had to fisk for him, but he took it in good part, and I must say I have come away with quite a favourable impression of him. Just wish he wouldn't use the d-word.
Meanwhile, in the comments to the last post on the Horizon programme, Aynsley Kellow, who is a professor in the School of Government at the University of Tasmania, has said that the Horizon show included a howler on the relative levels of anthropogenic and natural carbon emissions. If he's right, it could be a tad embarrassing, both for Sir Paul and for the man who actually made the claim, Bob Bindschadler of NASA. I've emailed Dr Bindschadler to see if he will comment.
Bishop Hill
Singh has posted a response here.
Bishop Hill
The post originally identified David Allen Green as being party to the suggestion that James Delingpole do another interview. THis was incorrect. See here.
Reader Comments (61)
It occurred to me to find out who Bob Bindschadler was. I wondered where his expertise lay, given that he was pronouncing on carbon fluxes and modelled tropical cloud formations.
Answer: He's a glaciologist, specialising in remote sensing measurements of Antarctic ice.
He's probably a damned good one, too. But it explains why he might not be on top of carbon fluxes, and why his word on tropical cloud formations should not be preferred to that of, say, Richard Lindzen.
But he is a 'Climate Scientist', so I guess we should trust him, take him at his word, and not worry about that 'Nullius in verba' thingy.
Prof. Kellow
Once again, thank you for an insightful comment.
@ DaveB: "'Hers was a serious and critical consideration of the issues giving due weight to the uncertainties and the balance of the demands of political action.'
Not sure what you mean here though I would like to know."
When I commented I had just re-read the section in Statecraft 'Hot Air and Global Warming'. Nine pages long makes it impossible to repeat here. But to give you a flavour here are the concluding words:
"The lessons drawn from past predictions of global disaster should be learned when it comes to considering the issue of climate change:
- We should be suspicious of plans for global regulation that all too clearly fit in with other preconceived agendas
- We should demand of politicians that they apply the same criteria of commonsense and a sense of proportion to their pronouncements on the environment as to anything else
-We must never forget that although prosperity brings problems it also permits solutions - and less prosperity, fewer solutions
-All decisions must be made on the basis of the best science whose conclusions have been properly evaluated"
Seems reasonable to me. I note what you repeat about her earlier role, but the conclusions, along with the remainder of the section seem to me serious (intelligent and knowledgeable) and critical (not unduly susceptible to assumptions or deferential to scientists).
@ Eric Smith: Thanks. Now I know what you think.
Cameron Rose:
Thanks for that. I see I can get the book for £2.50 plus the usual £93 p&p so I suppose I'd better do just that to round out the picture.
For God's sake, don't tell the fellas . . .
Here's something about Singh's challenge that seems unreasonable. Singh berated Delingpole for thinking he knew more about science than Nobel laureate Nurse; Delingpole responded by (among other things) saying that Nurse is a biology professor and so has no special expertise in climate science. So now Singh thinks he can win this argument by having Delingpole debate climate science with ... a specialist in climate science? Not by having Delingpole debate climate science with Nurse, or some other highly-honoured geneticist/microbiologist?
I think I'd rather see a team of climate realist scientist alongide Matt Ridley as the realist science journalist, rather than Delingpole, who really doesn't come across well on screen and in interviews.
Sir Paul Nurse in his Horizon presentation quoted at length the "concern" expressed by a group of National Academies of Science (NAS) members.
On www.globalwarming.org/2010/03/05/ you will find reports from e.g. the Washington Times and links to the NAS's own little email scandal. What they were doing was planning how to coordinate with one another in a media campaign to downgrade the significance of Climategate and in a quasi McCarthyite effort to identify, diminish and and discredit any scientists who dissented with their climate orthodoxy.
There is no evidence that the Royal Society was involved in any of this (no one has asked to see their emails) but Sir Paul's effort on Horizon is exactly the kind of thing you would expect if he was involved in their conspiracy.
Sir Paul Nurse in his Horizon presentation quoted at length the "concern" expressed by a group of National Academies of Science (NAS) members.
On www.globalwarming.org/2010/03/05/ you will find reports from e.g. the Washington Times and links to the NAS's own little email scandal. What they were doing was planning how to coordinate with one another in a media campaign to downgrade the significance of Climategate and in a quasi McCarthyite effort to identify, diminish and and discredit any scientists who dissented with their climate orthodoxy.
There is no evidence that the Royal Society was involved in any of this (no one has asked to see their emails) but Sir Paul's effort on Horizon is exactly the kind of thing you would expect if he was involved in their conspiracy.
It's all looking very odd:
First we have science poker where a Nobel prize in biology can beat a pair of PhDs in Physics.
Now we decide science questions by debate. What is the motion going to be?
For me the big question is this:
And this question will not be answered by debate but by said climate scientists making testable predictions that turn out. Just like astronomers and physicists and all branches of engineers: we demonstrate our skill by making correct and testable predictions - not by debating skills.
I have not tried to press Delingpole into an interview. Can you please correct head post?
Thanks.
David Allen Green
I don't think you should waste much time on "Flay". In his first reply to you he
invoked solipsism, and in his second, the "I'm not convinced" defence (which
I guarantee he never will be, about anything).