Bishop Hill A mention
Oct 9, 2011 Climate: IPCC I am mentioned in passing at Judy Curry's blog, where Andrew Lacis has written a post about one of his papers (H/T Shub).
If you were to go and read the acknowledgment that is at the end of the Science paper, you would see the very standard “thank you” for helpful comments from numerous GISS colleagues, and a “thank you” for funding support from NASA program managers.
But, you would not see there any mention of Bishop Hill. Why so? And, would the Science editors have really let that happen?
It started with the following (February 9, 2010) posting on the Bishop Hill blog that stated:
While perusing some of the review comments to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, I came across the contributions of Andrew Lacis, a colleague of James Hansen’s at GISS... Remember, this guy is mainstream, not a skeptic, and you may need to remind yourself of that fact several times as you read through his comment on the executive summary of the chapter:
He goes on to explain what happened that made him write those review comments.
Back in 2005, having uploaded countless review suggestions for the IPCC AR4 Report, toward the end, I did make some intemperate remarks that were directed at the Executive Summary of Chapter 9.
I was irked by the persistent use of wishy-washy terminology such as ‘likely’ and ‘very likely’ that was totally uncalled for. One example:
“It is likely that there has been a substantial anthropogenic contribution to surface temperature increases in every continent except Antarctica since the middle of the 20th century...
As he goes on to explain, these expressions of doubt were unwarranted:
...the relevant physics is inescapably clear that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is indeed enhancing the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect, and thus causing global warming to happen – all directly attributable to human industrial activity. To characterize this fully documented global warming only as being ‘likely’ a ’substantial’ anthropogenic contribution is clearly resorting to unscientific understatement that does nothing to clarify or accurately portray our understanding of global climate change.
Hmm...This is the comment that I highlighted at the time:
There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn't the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community - instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.
I must say I'm struggling with the idea that sceptics would be annoyed that someone would use words expressing doubt about AGW, rather than certainty.
Am I missing something here?
Reader Comments (36)
The Back Bench shivers.
We, the ninety-nine percent
Feel the chill, don't you?
==========
"Am I missing something here?"
The annoyance of skeptics as Lacis sees it is that the Executive Summary read like a political message not a wholly scientific one. It would annoy us dupes and minions of the fossil fuel lobby because it suggests the entire process is exactly as our Big Oil paymasters suggested.
Is Lacis mistaken? The Executive Summary is wishy washy because the science wasn't and isn't certain, not least because so much of climate science is based on models. The IPCC do admit to modeling uncertainties in their reports and the science is not terribly settled. They would be fools to ascribe the science a concrete certainty it simply does not possess. Even if the levels of certainty they do throw around (very likely, etc) are higher than is warranted it still leaves them some wiggle room should successful counter arguments and the uncovering of previously missed mistakes change the landscape of climate science.
Bishop Hill is a Broad Church. A bit like Conservatives. Blowhards to Church Mice. But we have deep profundity.
did you wind up a scientist, bish? really! he's only trying to do away with all the wishywashyness. with works such as 'principal control nob. governing earth.' (i think). i thought the snowball earth theory of 600Ma probably had something to do with the unwishywashed. because it's bollocks. i've just qualified (to some extent) in this stuff and you'd be amazed by earths history. but the tropics never froze. anyway, many thanks to the principal control knobs for the funding.
James Evans in the subsequent comments summed up Lacis's problem accurately and succinctly IMHO:-
I would particularly be interested to know how he squares this previous quote with his new paper:-
Since he says there's no new science in the paper - is "The Big Control Knob" a sort of religious symbolism for the missing "self-evident attribution".
A bit like the Holy Grail.
Compare Goldacre's treatment of 'the drug is proven safe' type scientific arguments with the respect that Andrew Lacis and the rest of the computer monkey's 'the science is settled' is held.
Dear Kev,
I hope I've put the record straight now.
- Andy
In one of my deleted comments there, I wondered why Judith had allowed so much imbecility to become a guest post...
The following was included in Andrew Lacis' piece at Judith's:
" Whether humans like it or not, and whether humans realize it or not, global warming has been so, and continues to be, fully under human control via fossil fuel burning."
I have read and re-read it and unless i've somehow misconstrued the context, he's saying that humans can control global warming via fossil fuel burning. Control? What could he have in mind?
Maurizio-
Your comment's deletion raises the question 'Does JA now regard idle arm-waving to be the equivalent of scientific debate? One hopes not.
Kim
Yet another brilliant Haiku..
Perhaps, the ice age cometh.
PW
I think Lacis's blatant attempt to overwrite his own documented historical statements, by means of a faked up "scientific paper", is a new low point for "the team".
The shameless dishonesty and cynicism ranks with the climategate emails in the glimpse it gives of the real motivations and ethical standards at the heart of "climatology".
I get the impression from re-reading Judith's thread this morning that this message is now coming through loud and clear - despite the efforts of his supporters to pretend to discuss the paper as a genuine scientific contribution rather than a blatant team propaganda move.
Interestingly, Judith seems to have stopped censoring "non-technical" comments now - at least she hasn't blocked any of mine (although the weird time-stamping makes arguments difficult to follow).
Maybe she realised that she'd been conned.
IMHO this disgraceful episode should be exposed as widely as possible.
Note how he first asserts that Global Warming is fact, then further down switches to Climate Change. In horse racing they call that each way betting.
Nik
Foxgoose - perhaps prompted by a comment of mine (why not even Mosher got a reply?) Judith has just declared the Lacis thread isn't technical any longer. I leave to XXIII century sociologists the analysis of whose fault it has been.
The exact words of 'curryja' at 7:04am local time being:
The context is strange. What concerns me, if that really is Judith, is the license or encouragement it gives to those who don't want ever to see dialog between the convinced and the sceptical.
There was plenty to criticise in what Lacis wrote, without becoming enraged by his tendentious language. As always the Bish set an excellent example above. But lack of civil debate is never a victory for truth.
Hello Richard - another Italian anecdote for you. A true story. A famous comedian was invited to a national women's rights assembly. He went on stage and promptly started: "You whores!". The audience failed to appreciate the joke and he got booted off at once.
There's always a limit in establishing the contract between communicating people. Lacis placed himself beyond that limit, from the get-go. He can't be trusted as an Inspiration to establish "dialogue between the convinced and the skeptical".
….......... Scene 1 – Andy is sitting in his office doing some routine temperature extrapolation, a nervous looking colleague pokes his head round the door............
“Andy, Big Jim wants ya in da basement right now, some of de udder guys is there sez it won't wait”
…........Scene 2 - Andy enters the windowless basement room, Big Jim is sitting at the table, the others lounge around, avoiding eye contact but ostentatiously polishing their knuckle dusters....
Big Jim - “Andy, Kev tells me de deniers over de Bish's patch are all over town puttin it about dat you've bin sayin we're all washed up 'n our racket is blown. Thats real bad Andy”
Andy - “Don't listen to him Jim, it's all crap – you know I'm one of your main men”
Big Jim - “But Kev's bin over there and seen what you wrote with his own eyes – you said the AR4 racket was 'beyond redemption and should be deleted' – dat makes me very unhappy Andy"
Andy - “OK OK, I blew it Jim, I'm real sorry I was drunk and trying to impress this broad....”
Big Jim - “Shut it! This is serious Andy and your gonna have to make amends. I want some blood spilt over at the Bish's place to even the score”
Andy - “I can't go over there Jim, it's up ta here with hardcore deniers – I'd be blown away before I even got in da door”
Big Jim - “ OK, I got anudder plan. There's always deniers over at Loose Judy's place – you can get in there and waste them. Judy 'n me go back a whiles 'n she owes me a couple of favours – she'll get you in there and give you some cover , you can take Gav as back up. ”
Andy - “You don't know what your askin Jim, Loose Judy's isn't like it used to be – it's crawlin with deniers , just sittin drinkin 'n waitin for trouble to kick off - we could be massacred”
Big Jim - “You've offended me Andy and risked the whole racket. Either there's denier blood on the floor at Loose Judy's Sunday night – or you take a drive in the Buick into the forest Monday with Gav and Pierre. D'ya understand me”
Andy - “ Yes boss”
Big Jim - “I thought you might”...............
Foxgoose
Very amusing. Credit where credit's due.
Brilliant, Foxgoose. There's gotta be scope for Josh here.
Fg, that should go at Judy's but beware, she's still trimming a little. After a reference to a Star Trek episode about a planet populated by children I put 'Scottie spies the Lord of the Flies', and it disappeared into the void.
Lacis has made an angry fool of himself, and he'll probably blame Judy.
=============
Foxgoose, brilliant. Thanks.
Brings back a memory. Was it Mosher or Bender created something as funny as this awhile back over at CA?
Lucy - not sure about the CA one but I recall a wickedly funny "Bob Ward goodnight scene" here at the Bishop's!
FG :-)
Foxgoose
:-)
Somehow I can't imagine the Faithful writing stuff like that...
Judith's started a new, technical thread on the Lacis, with heavy moderation. Good on Steve Mosher and the lady.
Thanks for the kind words on my piece of whimsy.
I did post it at Judith's yesterday and it wasn't deleted.
I did have a look at the new thread, Richard, but I have a real problem with this whole episode because it seems to me to be a charade.
The Lacis 'Science' paper was published a year ago, there wasn't much new science in it and it's been fairly widely discussed.
In his preamble to his recent post at Judith's, Lacis appeared to say that the paper was only written to counter the effect of the Bish drawing attention, in Feb 2010, to his highly critical 2005 comments on the AR4 summary.
His post appears to be a melange of "highlights" of the paper, liberally sprinkled with anti-denier propaganda and invective.
As such, the whole post becomes nothing more than a political manifesto for "team science".
Since Lacis has made it obvious that the motivation for both his post and the original paper were simply to mount a political defence of his original injudicious remarks, I think it is mistaken of Judith to try and limit discussion to technical points on the "science".
A blatantly political and deceitful statement should fairly be subject to a comprehensive political and ethical, as well as technical, rebuttal.
I find the choice of the word 'charade' fascinating.
Let's go back to basics. Someone called Judith Curry is aware that, of those well-known names holding the conventional view of AGW. one of the few regular readers of Climate Etc is Andrew Lacis. They interact, it seems, in a very civilised manner and Judy persuades Andrew to write something specifically for Climate Etc.
Now of course when Dr Lacis does so, some of his language is not the best for all the regulars at Climate Etc. There's nothing surprising in that at all. It's a bit like taking a kid straight out off the street in the Bronx to give a lecture at Harvard. Some of his language is not going to seem appropriate to the new situation, because of the kind of people he's been mixing with. This is a commonplace of sociolinguistics. But you'd admire the pluck of that kid from the Bronx, right?
My interest here for many moons has been in what makes for good interaction between convinced and sceptical. I note pretty carefully occasions when, hopefully with the best motives, some folk seem to get it completely wrong. It especially bothers me when attacks are launched against people using their real names, that drive them away from this or other blogs, by those conveniently hiding behind the mask of pseudonymity.
One of the worst examples of what I think was an unnecessary breakdown of communication with someone convinced of AGW orthodoxy, who was brave enough to stick their head above the parapet on Bishop Hill, was Sarah Mukherjee in June. However much this woman has got wrong about global warming she at least risked put her reputation on the line by trying to establish some communication on Bishop Hill. I think it's well worth noting her final message therefore.
I especially dislike and distrust it when such real world names are driven away by negative comments from those who are not willing to pay any reputational price at all for their behaviour. If I was evil and wanting to destroy all real communication between the two camps of the AGW debate I would bear this possibility of 'easy wins' strongly in mind.
But who on earth would want to destroy such communication? I suggest we put our thinking caps on, folks. Does the phrase 'divide and conquer' ring any bells?
So, the whole process is a 'charade', is it Foxgoose? I tend to agree with you. But not perhaps for the reasons you were hoping.
Foxgoose
More! More!
Well, Richard, the whole Lacis debacle was a charade, and I can tell it to you with my full name, and website (where there's a large picture of me right on the banner). You can find me in LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter (and Usenet of the mid-1990s...)
Feel any better now? :)
As for the kid from the Bronx, I have already posted the anecdote about the Italian comedian. Don't you see any link there?
Richard
Although eloquent, there's one thing missing from your very reasonable sounding exposition - motive.
Lacis admitted that he wrote the paper mainly as a counter to the Bish revealing some extremely sceptical comments he had made against the 2005 AR4 summary.
He then used weasel words in his post to try and completely change the meaning of his original comments through 180 deg, into being supportive of the AR4 conclusions - even suggesting they should be strengthened.
Constructively arguing a difference of opinion with someone requires a belief in their good faith. If someone prefaces their argument with a blatant piece of dishonesty - there is really nothing to be gained from continuing the discussion IMHO.
As far as being hostile to BBC journalists is concerned - I'm afraid I plead guilty on all counts. They have a near monopoly on serious current affairs reporting in this country (as well as 4bn per year of our money) and a legal charter obligation to represent all shades of opinion and be politically impartial - which they cheerfully ignore in favour of their preferred soft-left student politics.
I must say I've always found your own interventions on here positive and constructive, so I guess we'll just have to agree to differ ;-)
I just reposted Foxgoose's climatexploitation story as "Climatefellas"
Oops...here's the link: http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/climatefellas/
Well, thank you Maurizio
Richard
Drop me a line when you can.
Mosher not bender
Richard,
Thanks for that interesting comment. I see that Andrew Lacis has replied on the long thread about his article. He does not seem to have taken too much offense - "I tend to be amused by the heated rhetoric, not distressed.", he writes. Thanks also for linking to the comment by Sarah Mukherjee. I had not read it, or seen her interactions with some regulars on the thread about her lecture. You are right, it is a shame when people get the impression that climate sceptics are the loony fraction of the green ink brigade and disengage as a result. I guess that comments below the line on most blogs are quite robust, though - I was certainly taken aback by some the responses I got when I started posting, even though I had been lurking for ages so should have known what to expect. Some people seem to be able to deal with this - e.g. Richard Betts, whose Met Office job might have and did earn him some quite pointed comments here, mostly seems to thrive here. On the other hand, I think our host may have been on to something when he said Sarah Mukherjee was showing some signs of being thin-skinned.
In my view, perhaps the most important aspect of a good commenter is not the level of rudeness (within certain limits), or anonymity - but the amount of substance and/or wit in comments. Shub, for example, is quite often more brusque than I prefer to be, and is anonymous (I assume for good reason), but he/she is almost always interesting! I think if this blog and its comments manage to be consistently thought-provoking, that will attract readers such as Sarah even if they choose not to comment themselves.