Bishop Hill The foolishness of the overqualified
Dec 17, 2013 Climate: Sceptics Climate: WG3 Jonathan Rowson has a golden collection of academic qualifications, having got himself a first class honours in PPE, spent a year at Harvard and got a PhD from Bristol. Oh yes, and he's a chess grandmaster.
I'm not sure he isn't a bit slow on the uptake though.
The Climate Change Collaboration, an alliance of Sainsbury family charities have just paid Rowson to produce a sceptic-bashing report under the banner of the Royal Society of Arts. Seeing another formerly distinguished academy dancing to the green tune is fascinating, particularly when the financial reward for doing so is so obvious, but when you see the tone of the report it is more interesting still. This is in essence an extended exercise in name-calling, with "denier" and its variants appearing hundreds of times. What we have then is green charities paying an education charity to spew venom at people who disagree with them.
You get the impression that the money has been pocketed and the report prepared with a minimum of effort:
‘Denialism’ is more assertive, involving campaigns of misinformation seeking to misdirect people’s attention from the truth with means and methods documented in Oreskes and Conway’s classic work Merchants of Doubt and in modern Britain, propounded by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Given that Lawson and Peiser have said repeatedly that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, the denier tag simply will not wash. Did Rowson even bother to look at their pronouncements before writing this sentence? It doesn't look as if he felt his paymasters would be bothered at the lack of some support for such a critical remark or even if it were true. This tells us a great deal the intellectual and ethical standards at the RSA and at the Sainsbury charities.
Rowson, like so many of people who venture into the climate debate from the social science side are unashamedly ignorant about what the climate debate is about. It doesn't matter how many articles you write about climate sensitivity, with all that implies; to the Rowson's of this world you are a denier. This failure to engage with the actual arguments made suggests a highly developed sense of intellectual cowardice or the kind of casual dishonesty that we see so often from greens.
I fancy it's the former. The whole thing is intellectually vapid and so far removed from the reality of the climate debate as to suggest the author simply had nothing better to do with his time.
Reader Comments (111)
Its full of advice from George Marshall and COIN (climate Outreach and Information Network)
You just have to read the fourth paragraph of the paper "....... those who, like the author of the report, fully accept the moral imperative to act, but to continue to live as though it was not there."
This brings to mind the words of a Chinese philosopher
"To know and not to act is not to know" Wang Yang-Ming (1472-1529)
This neatly embraces the conclusion of your last paragraph.
I find the lack of engagement with the science very interesting. I used to follow the JREF forums (http://forums.randi.org/) many years ago, but lost patience when it became clear that a large number of the posters there were essentially just science groupies, with no deeper understanding of or interest in science itself. There was a common attitude that anything appearing in the peer-reviewed literature was to be treated as gospel that could not be challenged. Granted, many of the posters there are homeopaths, astrologers, dowsers etc, who say things that flatly contradict various elements of physics, biology etc and need to be corrected. On climate, however, I would regularly see perfectly valid questions about the science being slapped down as 'denialism'. It seemed that many people were just parroting alleged rebuttals from various official sources (IPCC, UEA, Wikipedia(!) etc) without bothering to understand the issues. (There were also the usual loons claiming that the greenhouse effect contradicts the laws of thermodynamics, or that the instrumental record has been manufactured wholesale, etc, muddying the waters, but you get those everywhere).
This seems to be quite widespread, I think, with many people in the 'pro-science-but-non-climate-expert' camp simply asserting that whatever appears in the relevant learned journals must be correct, without looking into the details. I guess this is partly science-groupy-ism and partly the old 'does-it-matter-if-we're-doing-the-right-things-for-the-wrong-reasons' canard.
There is an identifiable minority in society who, perhaps due to the collapse of mainstream religion, think of themselves as 'scientismists' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism) in the sense that they declare a belief / faith in Science as the One True Path without necessarily understanding much actual science. Perhaps there's an interesting future project for Lewandowski there.
Good post Chris, I concur.
If you can persuade most people with scientific training or awareness to actually get past the "science is settled", let's trust the "scientists" front, then the job is done as they will then be exposed to the shaky foundations of the CAGW case and come to their own conclusions. A process many here have followed no doubt.
Another example of PPE inspired arrogance and ignorance.
The intellectual deficiencies in that report are beyond belief. Addiitonally it is ignorant, vapid, conceited, factually wrong and overwhelmingly arrogant. "2/3 of the British people are in 'stealth denial' ". FFS !!
"Another example of PPE inspired arrogance and ignorance" Wrong - take out the words "PPE inspired" and I would agree. The reality is that the whole CAGW problem has been inspired by those with science degrees, backed up by people from other disciplines. Equally there are many with science degrees, and with arts degrees, who would regard themselves as sceptics. Indeed any self respecting student of philosophy ought to be a sceptic.
No discipline has a monopoly on ignorance; A debate should proceed by addressing the facts, not by name calling a particular group of individuals.
How to keep fossil fuels in the ground - so that the elderly and vulnerable can join them there, along with the British economy.
"Granted, many of the posters there are homeopaths, astrologers, dowsers etc, who say things that flatly contradict various elements of physics, biology etc and need to be corrected. "
As a weird addendum to that, it has long interested me the sneaky way the anti-science tag has been attatched to 'deniers'. As a test I counted everybody I know that is believer or 'denier'. Not one single 'denier' believes in homeopathy, astrology, dowsing, whereas a large percentage (most) of the CC believers do (and are vociferous and scathing against those who don't). Perhaps not surprisingly the most fundamental warmists I know are also the ones who believe all the other nutty things most passionately. Many of them are also 'truthers' and anti-GM.
So much for anti-science.
Foreword by internationally renowned ethicist Peter "nine bob note" Gleick?
In the same vein have a watch of this guy (need a bucket handy):
How to speak to...
Beyond parody. "Deniers are real people too". He's so understanding of our plight.
Someone needs to ask these guys, "have you ever considered you are wrong?" (oh and making a complete fool of yourself). It's as if they've never heard of psychological projection. So cocksure, so wrong.
Just noticed he's called George Marshall so presumably the same guy Barry refers to above.
Stuck-Record
I agree that there is a lot of anti-science among the global warming "believers" but I think that mainly applies because we are talking about the eco-fruitcake end of the market. They are the ones (in spite of what Nurse seems to believe) who go out and trash GM crop experiments because they don't trust all those nasty chemicals, not to mention all those nasty chemical companies who are filling us all with poisons.
It's the same bunch of activists who fall for the lies about fracking chemicals because they don't know any better. Also the same ones who appear to subsist much of their time on chemicals though presumably they consider cannabis to be natural!
Incidentally, don't knock dowsing. There are those who have that "gift", strange as it may seem. Watching them work is interesting and, if you're not used to it, a wee bit scary.
@Alex- I beg to diiffer. Look at the preponderance of PPE graduates in Government.
Of course not all are arrogant and ignorant, but a disturbingly high percentage are.
Yet another "charity" scam.
Given the dire state of public finances in the UK, why are the tax authorities so uninterested in investigating these political slush funds calling themselves "charities"?
From his report
"Green growth – a new model of capitalism that uses energy mostly from renewables and is hyper-efficient: the B Corps,Marks and Spencer’s Plan A and Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan are examples of this perspective that says you can continue to generate economic growth while respecting planetary boundaries"
Hyper-efficient - yes wind generated electricity, tide generated electricity and solar generate electricity - we can see how these are efficient and the huge subsidies needed to allow them to produce electricity some of the time!.
Anyone who coins a term hyper-effieicient really is not in the real world.
It is as if there was a ready-to-wear clothes shop for climate alarm ideas. No need to think for yourself. Just walk in off the street, acquire the equivalent of a suit and you have a stock of catch-phrases, 'narratives', and attitudes that slip on easily and look just the part, fitting-in as they do with current fashion.
But, perhaps, the current fashion is changing faster than they suppose, and these particular suits and hats and dresses are going, quite suddenly, to look ridiculous to all and sundry.
Qualified but no sense - seems to be quite a distinct thread throughout.
Rowson's comment about the GWPF is almost identical to one made to me 6 months ago. The guy is a physicist and when I pointed out to him that calling the GWPF deniers was plainly and demonstrably wrong he was genuinely taken aback. He had accepted the statement made to him by one of his fellow Greens. Most Greens have no idea what the GWPF does or says - it is just a tribal defined position. They also have no science knowledge (unlike my friend) and will trot out an old story until the ice returns.
It all comes back though to the Climate Scientists as we have said before. They are the villains in all this.
I think some - perhaps even many, in the Climate Science area are beginning to feel uncomfortable with how matters are turning out. They relax a little when one of the high priests comes out with the latest cold is warming excuse, but I guess they know the science is weak.
If the Earth cools now (and who knows), some will gradually slide sideways and eventually hope to mingle in the agnostic grouping, perhaps not with the sceptics - that would be too obvious. As we have postulated before some who have bent data and/or been negligent with their science may feel the weight of the law. Politicians will need scapegoats after all.
As Chris Long says above many scientist in other fields just seem to accept the line told to them without much questioning. I guess perhaps they wouldn't see questioning in their own field as positive or needed - is any of this science at all?
I find the blind following of out-of-date positions quite baffling - people who still refuse to accept that temps have plateaued, that sea ice is recovering. It is like stating that house prices are still going upward, when the data shows they are going down. These positions are usually taken by the foot soldiers like Jonathan Rowson. I can only believe that he writes from ignorance and gullibility - I wouldn't believe that anyone with a liking for truth can put out such nonsense otherwise.
97% of all climate delegates have no clue about climate at all. This has been posted before I know but it still amazes me.
Climate Change Conference - June 2013 Bonn, Germany.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-pFyZguJl8
The two killers for me are the second guy doing a Masters in Climate Change at UEA - simply astounding !!
and the South African in the middle - yes but we are ignoring that it - doesn't fit our goals (parphrase)
I had to look up first class honours in PPE because I wasn't sure there was enough to study in toe tectors, hard hats and safety specs to constitute a degree. The correct answer adds up to a real waste of time.
At least he defines what he means by climate change:
So much denial!!
Three different types of stealth denial: emotional, personal and practical.
Emotional: ‘Climate change makes me feel not very uneasy, or not at all uneasy’.
Personal: ‘I disagree or strongly disagree that my daily actions are part of the problem of climate change’.
Practical: ‘I agree or strongly agree that there is nothing I can do personally that will have any significant effect on limiting climate change’
The PPE or otherwise known as the blagger's degree see http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/sep/23/ppe-passport-power-degree-oxford
SimonW - beyond parody indeed, and you were right about the bucket.
I wanted to share the following piece of scientific information, and hope that this is an appropriate thread.
There is a recycling firm in Shipley, West Yorkshire, called Crossley Evans. They are hoping to get into the 'green fuels' business, providing wood pellets for power stations that are being diverted (however insane that is) from coal.
There was an article about this in the local newspaper, the 'Telegraph and Argus', on December 6th. It was accompanied by an inset entitled 'Biomass Factfile'. This said:
"Biomass usually comes from plants or trees and is classed as the fourth energy source after oil, coal and gas. It is low in carbon, renewable and sustainable.
It is estimated that one fifth of global energy could be provided by biomass, without damaging the production of food or use of land.
Biomass absorbs carbon monoxide as it grows then releases it back onto the atmosphere when it is burned, as opposed to burning coal which releases CO2 which has been trapped underground for years - meaning biomass is better for the environment."
Sic. So there. If the plans go ahead, all of us around here are going to die of carbon monoxide poisoning. At least it will be quicker than the long agony of watching politicians slowly wake up to the idiocy of their energy policies.
A wonderful website, Bishop, thank you.
Malcolm Chapman
‘
Forgive me if I remain unconvinced. Come back and see me again when you know a bit more about it and I might listen.@ stuck-record. Sorry but just to be the exception I do believe in dowsing. I can't explain how it works, indeed had I not seen it work I wouldn't believe it myself because it surely shouldn't work, but I have both seen it work and used it myself to (very accurately and unambiguously) find water pipes when renovating my house. Sorry about that :-)
This climate communication by people who haven't a clue of what they are talking about signals to me that the climate change scammers are getting more and more desperate. They can't fall back on scientific arguments because there aren't any - they have nothing left in their armoury other than name-calling. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
They are signalling loud and clear that they have lost.
@ SimonW
By rights you should be on the naughty step for exposing innocent people to that utter gibberish. But as you're merely the messenger I'll let you off.
It says all one needs to know about AGW believers when they need coaching on how to 'talk to a denier'. (Subtle hint; try discussing the evidence, you clowns. You'll soon see your pathetic theory is shot to pieces.)
Gawd, the RSA have been appointed in Wiltshire to do work on governance of community campuses. Will now watch this like a hawk. Will denial come into the discussions?
@ stuck-record - I too have used dowsing to find the water main that runs under my garden - I was shown how to do it by the water company guys with a couple of bits of an old hanger bent into shape. It works.
Back to the report: I was amused by the reference to Ed Miliband who has a 'deep understanding' of climate change. So no obvious sign of any bias there then.
I had a smile on my face when I read in the 'About the Author' section that he "has authored three books". Three Chess books! "The Seven Deadly Chess Sins" and "Chess for Zebras" are a bit wacky but great fun to read with a chessboard at hand.
These activities have resulted in a growing concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, which over time is likely to make weather patterns increasingly irregular and unpredictable.
===============================================================
And really since when was weather ever not unpredictable or irregular ? I sure would not want this tool in-charge my PPE at the rig !!
Alex Sinclair
"The reality is that the whole CAGW problem has been inspired by those with science degrees ..."
Yes, but Don Keiller did not belittle PPE (philosophy, politics, economics?) in his capacity as a prof, with qualifications the length of an arm, at some university. His criticisms of PPE are expressed in his personal capacity as a Cucumber and a grumpy old internet activist with an axe to grind. He is never to be taken seriously unless and until what he says appears in peer-reviewed literature.
> Given that Lawson and Peiser have said repeatedly that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, the denier tag simply will not wash.
Does the denier tag entails that one denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
If our beloved Bishop or anyone could provide a citation for that one, I would be much obliged.
***
Incidentally, Rowson has written one of the best chess book of the millenium:
http://www.amazon.com/Chess-Zebras-Thinking-Differently-about/dp/1901983854
Well at least they aren't as bad as the Germans!
http://notrickszone.com/
Johanna wrote, "Given the dire state of public finances in the UK, why are the tax authorities so uninterested in investigating these political slush funds calling themselves "charities"?" Yeah it is about time charities had to publish their list of donors and amounts. GWPF included.
Man made warming? ........................not proven - you can't prove a myth, what little legitimacy it [CAGW] had has now been totally blitzed - and leaves the man made warmists in denial.
Beyond parody....................
Same here...........................and Jonathan Rowson
Seconds out and counting..............................Alarmists and the Black Knight Rowson v King Arthur [and science and logic].
Arthur: [after Arthur's cut off both of the Black Knight's arms] Look, you stupid Bastard. You've got no arms left.
Black Knight: Yes I have.
King Arthur: *Look*!
Black Knight: It's just a flesh wound.
[the Black Knight continues to threaten Arthur despite getting both his arms and one of his legs cut off]
Black Knight: Right, I'll do you for that!
King Arthur: You'll what?
Black Knight: Come here!
King Arthur: What are you gonna do, bleed on me?
Black Knight: I'm invincible!
King Arthur: ...You're a loony.
"you're a loony" - couldn't have put it better myself, but these alarmists never give up!
King Arthur: how about Mr. Christopher Booker?
Black Knight Rowson or..........could be, erm so many loonies to choose from, I can't think oh alright; Damian Carrington, Leo Hickman, Micky Mann, Al Gore, Jim Hansen, Mark Serreze, Tim Yeo, Ed Millerband, Cazbo Lucas to mention a few.
Moonbat, already has a belfry replete with bats.
Thanks to: The Black Knight (Character)
from Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975).
btw,
["Jonathan Rowson has a golden collection of academic qualifications" - [+PPE] what subjects are they in for heavens sakes - give us a break].
Does anyone know if the RSA gets a chunk of its income from the government (i.e. taxpayers) in the same way as the RS?
And of course there's lots of ways to be a denier while still accepting narrowly that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. They are regularly demonstrated on these pages.
> [+PPE] what subjects are they in for heavens sakes
Ask the Auditor.
Chunder, AFAIK GWPF is not a "charity" for tax purposes.
This site deserves a better class of troll.
The "climate ignorers", the middle 63.9 per cent who "accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change" but "do not accept the full implications in terms of their feelings, agency and complicity" and "gave answers suggesting they didn’t appear to have the commensurate feelings, sense of responsibility or agency that one might expect.", are still labelled as deniers:
1) Emotional Denial (47.2 per cent): ‘I don’t feel uneasy about climate change’
2) Personal Denial (27.6 per cent) ‘My daily actions are not part of the climate change problem’
3) Practical Denial (65 per cent) ‘There is nothing I can do personally that will have any significant effect on limiting climate change.’
So,
1) you're a denier if you have the wrong feelings
2) you're a denier if you think 1 part in 7 billion is insignificant [I've added the word "significantly" to the question here to make it a sensible question since our sample already "accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change"]
3) you're a denier if you think that you cannot single-handedly have a significant impact on global temperatures
No wonder they use the denier term so liberally. They've lost their dictionary and no longer have any idea what words mean. This poor man probably believes he's a helicopter.
Rowson's Opening Gambit, not exactly a Theoretical Novelty, should be sent for Adjudication, perhaps to offer an opportunity to J'adoube. Climate science, unlike chess, is not Black & White.
The Rank & File of BH's readers are too wise to fall for Scholar's Mate, instead pursuing via Prophylaxis, the infamous Minority Attack.
Rowson should be reminded which piece delivers Boden's Mate.
> AFAIK GWPF is not a "charity" for tax purposes.
As far as their own website is reliable for such information, the GWFP is still a registered educational charity.
We can also note this article where the expression "educational charity" is regularly used to describe the GWFP's status, e.g.:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/27/tory-donor-climate-sceptic-thinktank
AFAIK, no apoplexia has been declared for the use of "educational charity" in that article.
Our emphasis.
Re: DaveS
In the last financial year the RSA had an income of £9,361,000 of which £945,000 came from public sector bodies. So about 10% of their income is effectively government funded.
First class degree in PPE? And trades in "stealth denial"? Perhaps opted out of Karl Popper 101?
"To know and not to act, is not to know" (quoting whoever you like). There is no "know". Maybe tentative conjectures to be subjected to our best attempts at refutation. The most we can expect - but mostly ignored in this case.
Johanna, see Willard's post above.
This site deserves a better class of denier.
Apparently "Elementary logic" is part of the PPE syllabus.
How on Earth then did Dopey Davey and various others pass give their sublime inability to connect the dots?
I agree with Willard that GWPF, like Greenpeace, is more of a political organisation than a charity. However its income is just over £400,000 compared to the RSA's £9.3 million and Greenpeace's €268 million. So for every pound of questionable tax breaks Benny and co get, Greenpeace gets about £600.
The thing that makes me laugh about people like Chandra and Willard is that they don't realise they are siding with Goliath.
Dowsing may be nonsense. But it does work. I wish I had a pound for every time I've located pipes / drains / cables / even foundations on site with a couple of straightened out coat hangers.
Ruinable energy certainly is nonsense. And it doesn't work.
Simples!
"To know and not to act is not to know" Wang Yang-Ming (1472-1529)"
"I’ll believe there’s a crisis, when the people who tell me it’s a crisis start to act like it’s a crisis" (Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds (recently, and often).
David S @ 7:06pm
Before we start criticising GWPF for being political, what about Oxfam, RSPB, and all the others who happily spend tens (hundreds?) of thousands on Global Warming propaganda?
Never mind WWF, FoE, Greenpeace and the rest.
I am proud to support GWPF, an excellent and reliable information resource.
I urge every sensible commenter here to join.
As a special treat, you will enjoy declaring your membership fee as gift aid when completing your tax form.
I only wish I could gift aid my modest contributions to the Bish.
> I agree with Willard that GWPF, like Greenpeace, is more of a political organisation than a charity.
I don't recall having made any commitment regarding those claims, and have no problem with "educational charity", just like in this other article:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/21/climate-change-sceptic-not-influential-funder
That the aristocratic Davids of our times can claim to have significant influence over policymakers shows how much progress has been made since biblical times.