Bishop Hill Walport's reverse thinking
Jan 27, 2014 Bureaucrats Climate: Sceptics Walport Hidden behind the Times paywall, I gather that Sir Mark Walport is being rude:
Climate sceptics should stop attacking the science of global warming and have a “grown-up” debate, the Government’s most senior scientist has said.
Sir Mark Walport accused climate sceptics of questioning the scientific evidence in order to dodge the more challenging question of what to do about it.
OK, so let me get this right. The world hasn't warmed for 17 years or so. Climate scientists can only hypothesise as to the reasons why. We can't detect any significant changes in the surface temperature record. The evidence about climate sensitivity is that it's much lower than we had been led to believe (but the IPCC obfuscated the issue).
And Sir Mark thinks we are wrong to discuss the science?!
What does this tell you about our chief scientific adviser?
Reader Comments (159)
@ObeliskToucher:
Class!
I seem to remember reading somewhere that a good scientist seeks to prove himself wrong, while a bad scientist seeks to prove himself right by any means.
I have written a letter to the Times about this article. It will be interesting to see if it gets printed.
How does one have a 'grown up debate' with people who refuse to debate, because 'the debate is over'?
John B - indeed...
'Nothing to see here; the science is settled; move along...'
It's quiz time! Where have we heard this argument before? Within the last week? Time to see who's been reading BH carefully. ;)
Re: Jan 27, 2014 at 1:29 PM | Mydogsgotnonose
"Walport seems to be even more of a wally than Beddington, and that's saying something!"
Quite! I have long been of the opinion that the chief qualification for 'Chief Scientist' is simply how much they are prepared to ignore the facts on 'Global Warming' and push the policies!!
Sir Mark Brahe Walport accused sceptics of questioning the scientific evidence of the Sun going around the Earth in order to dodge going to church.
Thy shalt not question the scientific consenus laid down by the church.
"Sir Mark Walport accused climate sceptics of questioning the scientific evidence in order to dodge the more challenging question of what to do about it."
On the contrary, the easy question is "what to do about it," a question that we, as citizens have every right to discuss, because that is a political question about which they still try to deny us a debate. Even if he and his cronies were right about the scientific element and to pull rank and exclude us from the scientific debate, he has no right to try to deny us a platform to discuss the issue of what to do about it. It is the scientist’s job simply to inform. It is our job to debate and to lobby our legislators and governments in respect of the "challenging question."
The answer is of course very simple. We should do absolutely nothing about it until and as long as the other 98% of the governments of the world are doing either nothing about it or are positively reversing their mitigation policies. And until we are joined by countries like China, who by now must have a per capita carbon footprint in excess of the European average, we should continue to desist. If it is a world problem, then the world as a whole should be involved in its solution.
This is a very simple argument and I am surprised at our own governments not taking this approach at the outset, instead of abrogating responsibility to our eco politicised scientists. They may not have been able to challenge the science, but they would have been able to claim the right to make a decision as to what to do about it.
What does this tell you about our chief scientific adviser? Time to call his bluff. However, easier said than done!
The proponents of human-caused global warming have demonstrated to most people who look at this site their unwillingness to debate the so-called science. However, this is not clear to the vast numbers of people “out there” who do not really care one iota about human-caused global warming.
Walport’s suggestion that sceptics should have a grown-up debate with those supporting the “science” of global warming is an opportunity similar to that offered by Paul Nurse to Nigel Lawson. Sadly, the RS/GWPF debate was shrouded in secrecy. Surely, the secrecy of the previous “debate” should prompt a journalist (if there are any left) somewhere to see the opportunity for a good story and publicise that sceptics would relish the opportunity for a public debate.
It's quiz time! Where have we heard this argument before? Within the last week? Time to see who's been reading BH carefully. ;)
anonym
Sorry, not been paying that much attention but it's the warmist meme for 2014.
http://www.thersa.org/action-research-centre/learning,-cognition-and-creativity/social-brain/reports/a-new-agenda-on-climate-change?_ga=1.78990300.954916742.1390834627
I apologise in advance, and fully expect - and deserve - to be snipped but the man is a total w&nk*r.
Science is going through the 7 stages of grief:
1 - Shock or Disbelief
2 - Denial
3 - Anger <- establishment science is here
4 - Bargaining
5 - Guilt
6 - Depression
7 - Acceptance and Hope
Jimmy Haigh: No need to apologise. The man is beyond that and should be held responsible for his unscientific advice, which is continuing to lead to the doing of untold damage to the country and causing misery, poverty and death. Still, he'll get his peerage one day if he keeps at it.
Walport (St Paul's, Clare College Cambridge, a Medic not a specialist scientist) and Beddington (Monmouth School, LSE Economics) were appointed as bureaucrats to fulfil the aim of filling the Establishment with rich boys who had gone to Public Schools. Their predecessor, King (Univ of Witwatersrand) was at least a scientist, but clearly knows little radiative physics. His predecessor was Lord (David) Sainsbury (Eton, Kings College, Cambridge, History and Psychology).
Science policy has been led either by non-scientists or, in King's case, a devout Greenie. It is no wonder that the status quo has been to believe Houghton, a religious fanatic, got Climate Alchemy right when in fact he made a Big Mistake.
What does this tell you about our chief scientific adviser?
I would say enough!!!!! Blending questionable science with politics is a deadly mix.
What does he want to debate? How to blow up coal fired power stations in China? Or p*ssing in the wind?
@TinyCO2 This new warmist conspiracy theory by Jonathan Rowson was talked about on BH The foolishness of the overqualified Dec 17th
(link to his RSA report Facing Up to Stealth Denial and Winding Down on Fossil Fuels )
- It's from Green/left so it's Projection; whatever they accuse everyone else of just reflects what they themselves are doing
- It was previewed in Guardian and Cronies on December 17th (CiNF Comment IS NOT free)
- Most British People Are 'Climate Ignorers' and 'Stealth Deniers ... from (stop)Think (stop) Progress
- Fossil Free Churches used it to call for disinvestment
.. why don't we disinvest from people doing business with the greenmafia ?
Sir Mark Walport would be well advised to bring an adult with him. to
any debate.
Writing as one with a little bitty knowledge of the Welcome Trust where Dr (Prof.) Carport -sorry - Walport was the late director, I was intrigued to read him say that all the scientific papers from said Trust were Open Access and free to all comers.
In so far as a public debate is concerned, is there not one supposed to occur on the 28th in the Mother of all Parliaments with two sceptics present? namely Nick Lewis and the effervessent Donna. I wonder if our Chief Scientist will be present and paticipate.
Mind you. on the same day our 'Irish' President Hussaine O'Bama is delivering his State of the (Dis)union address on Global Warming in a frigid Washington. Should be interesting.
Once again, as a CAGW agnostic, and a card carrying member of the Church Of The Gore effect, I will be intrigued
to see how cold it gets and what will be reported by the Biased BBC and the Gaurdianista.
We live in interesting times.
Sounds very much like "let's you and him fight". I'm quite sure that Walport himself has no intention whatever of getting involved in any debate. He would be on the ropes within the first minute.
What to do about the climatocracy that is notable for failed predictions, failed policies, evidence of blatant rent seeking and moral hazard?
And some appointed putz is demanding that those who point out these problems just stfu and do as he demands.
Somehow I doubt if this is giong to work out the way Sir Walport wants.
- Jonathan Rowson's 2nd article in the Guardian on same day did allow comments
Turning up the volume on climate change isn't changing behaviour
- So when people disagree with you, and you can't actually prove they are denying anything (cos they aren't),
then you can still win the argument by saying they are a STEALTH denier
.. is that what you call a grandmaster technique ?
Anguspangus, I think the quote should go:
"Walport accused sceptics of questioning the scientific evidence for the existence of the CHIHUAHUA OF DOOM in order to dodge the more challenging question of what to do about it."
Let me explain. Our motion to Suffolk County Council before Christmas was about AGW and how little effect the UK has. By analogy with the dry air lapse rate I illustrated how much the world is scheduled to warm, the difference in temperature between the top and bottom of a thousand foot hill. Invoking Otto et al we go to half that, then the UK is 1.7% of that contribution -- six foot three inches. Suffolk's contribution by the end of the century is three quarters of an inch. By heroic efforts -- keeping old people warm in winter, driving cars with full central heating, repairing the roads to better than third world status, putting on a decent bus service -- I got that up to 7.5"
Suffolk's contribution to global warming is the difference in temperature between the head and the paw of a medium sized chihuahua.
Fen did me a lovely poster, SUFFOLKELLA AND THE CHIHUAHUA OF DOOM -- A LETHAL PANTOMIME -- which the Bish has shown no interest in.
The rest of the council was furious -- it really is a religion.
JF
We've now got mugs with the chihuahua on.
As John Carter suggested earlier, I e-mailed the bis.gov.uk/go-science/contact site, pointing out that sceptics have been calling for a debate for years and looked forward to sensible explanations for the flat-lining of global temperatures, absence of 'hotspot', no weather extremes and normal or increased global ice cover.
Probably a waste of time, but it will be interesting to read the promised reply.
Sir Mark Walport seems to fear that the "scientific" "evidence" would not stand questioning.
Maul halten und weiter dienen.
Matt Ridley comments
It is a useful split to make. Scientists should be qualified to speak about a specialism in science. But they do not have the expertise to evaluate whether a policy is worthwhile doing. At the moment that is purely based on subjective beliefs, or more often alleging that it is an opinion held by others who should be experts. It is only by benefit-cost analysis that some sense of proportion can be achieved, and thus some idea if policy is net beneficial or net harmful. There are no such boundaries placed on policy at present.
An example. Stern estimated the social cost of CO2 was $85 or £50 per tonne. DECC’s carbon saving figure is 430kg/MWh. So (ignoring all other costs) it is net beneficial to subsidise a renewables up to £21.50 per MWh. Onshore wind farms get £42, Offshore Wind farms £84, and small onshore wind turbines £168. Additional costs include connection charges to the grid, impact on house prices, loss of birds etc.
Richard Tol, using more mainstream economic analysis, estimates social cost of CO2 at a tiny fraction of Stern's figure, even through accepting the "science."
"What does this tell you about our chief scientific adviser?"
To me, it suggests that there is a growing awareness in govt circles that the CAGW thing is very slowly falling apart and that Walport is very eager that that should not happen.
Our 'Establishment' has probably been told of the Achilles Heel of the Houghtonian Science that started the IPCC, the radiative flux which enters atmosphere from surface. I suspect Walport is advised by the Grantham people who advised Beddington. They are unlikely to reverse their opinion because they have nowhere to go whereas Walport is probablly facing a barrage of well-informed comment about 40 years of mistaken science. If so, good.
Centuries of rigorous scientific endeavour and toil conferred on posts such as Chief Scientific Advisor the credibility and gravitas that the title previously, and rightly, deserved. Walport would appear not to care that his actions, and those of other self-proclaimed scientists, are an affront to real science.
Julian,
am loving the "Chihuahua of Doom".
Very MP & the Holy Grail :-)
Bishop Hill
The problem with your claim that "The world hasn't warmed for 17 years or so. " is twofold.
1) It is false. The only record which still shows 1998 as the warmest year is HadCRUt, which has been demonstrated to under read the Arctic warming. The others show a slowing of the rate of increase.
2) The other 30 odd parameters sensitive to increasing energy content in the climate system are still changing in response to the ongoing insolation/outgoing radiation imbalance.
To Entropic man: please continue to question the "pause".
In a joint press conference NOAA and NASA have just released data for the global surface temperature for 2013. In summary they both show that the ‘pause’ in global surface temperature that began in 1997,
Julian, As a resident of Suffolk, I much enjoyed your Chihuahua of Doom. It was amusing that local commentators didn't (or pretended not to) understand it.
Kevin Marshall. The figure you gave of 430kg/MWh is an out of date number from RenewableUK. The current data can be found by downloading the first report 'Valuation of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for appraisal' from DECC. For this year the figure is 318.4kg/MWh.
Entropic man
demonstrated to under read the Arctic warming.
only by a statistical trick of smearing temperature from many miles away , in short your dead wrong , but keep the faith if it makes you fell better .
The fact he refers to himself as "sir" and believes this carries weight in the 21st century sums up the weight of the man...very light and very vacuous
KNR @ 7.38 ".....makes you fell better". Typo: should be "......makes you fall better", or perhaps ". makes you fail better"
We accept the physics of CO2. We accept that the IPCC/consensus vastly over stated climate sensitivity. The response should be to stop wasting money on windmills, start fracking wherever market conditinos and geolgoy permit, develop nuke power to be more cost effective, stop supporting green NGOs and rent seeking academics.
Ready for a debate?
Perhaps someone of much higher intellect can clear this up for me but isn't the difference in temps over the last decade plus something like .09 of a degree?
Regards
Mailman
KNR
"only by a statistical trick"
Make that four independent statistical tricks. The good agreement between them must have been coincidence. ;-)
Those to be accused of false science are these who have for 25 years lured all western politicians towards 2,000 B$ of common wealth garbage.
The harm is tremendous.
Past 17 No-Warming years is a plain fact they have to explain or officially admit personnal failure.
The others - questionning Global Warming religion - have FACTS in their bag, while pro-warmist have none.
To be forewarned is to be forearmed.
A quote from that Times report, "Top scientist tells climate sceptics to grow up" Jan 27th 2014 - on Walport's musings, is I think rather revealing and highlights imho what is a far wider and reaching mobilization of world bodies and senior politicians - with a view to fashioning a strategy which will draft a fundamental reshaping of international laws in firstly at the forthcoming COP20 in Lima where the ground will be laid for Paris COP -21.
Tomorrow, in his 'State of the Union' address, Obama will commit to a new drive to place climate change policies back to the top of his agenda - with an eye to Paris and a last chance of a legacy, a curtain call on the world stage and a last chance for a dead duck presidency.
Meanwhile elsewhere, Richard North reports:
Be in no doubt Walport's intervention is part of a wider strategy, iMHO: we'd do well to heed the direction of travel and thus be prepared to fight the forthcoming battles at COP 20/21.
See how they think:
The French, are only bothered because this is a chance to put Paris on the map. With much of their power coming from nuclear energy, it conveniently means French emissions are way low, plus the French do not give a tinkers [or believe the catastrophist blarney either] about CO2 emissions, still less give a damn about the world's climate but they can see a chance to [and legally] hobble industry in the USA, Britain and Germany and that's all to the good - ne c'est pas?
A la gloire des mes amis!
@diogenese2
Their nit typos you mroon , there an artform.
To my ear, this sounds as though it may be the "first press" 2014 vintage of whatever "whine" Myles Allen had imbibed when he graced us with his virtual presence in May 2012:
[Edit:] For those who might be interested, my contemporaneous summary of Allen's "historic" visit to this congregation is here
Entropic man if keeping the faith keeps you warm on these cold nights that is fine with me , meanwhile reality continues to bite down hard on 'the caus'e and time when BS sells in the name of 'the cause' is drawing to a close.
But you do show one thing for some the answer to the question of how many years most pass with no statistical significant warming before you accept AGW is false , is infinity because its simply not possible to accept 'the cause ' can ever be wrong , its religion 101 but its certainly not science
Curious George, Mailman
This is GISS global temperature data.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt
The anomaly value for 1998 was 0.62. 2002 was also 0.62. 2007 was 0.63. 2010 was 0.67. If warming has stopped since 1998, why is that year now equal 3rd?
Examine the 5-year averages. For 1998 the average was 0.44C. Every 5-year average since has been larger.
Since 2003 every average has been 0.58C, 0.59C or 0.60C.
This is a minimum increase of 0.14C since the late 1990s. Once again a 17 year pause looks unlikely.
I would accept a pause in the temperature record since 2003. With so much other evidence that the energy content of the system is still increasing I doubt that it is more than a temporary slowdown.
EM is a naive man who has swallowed the AGW story. Anything that supports the myth he takes at face value. Sometimes he makes up his own BS, sometimes he finds it ready-made.
EM should inform the UK Met Office that is it false. They appear to accept it as fact (but at the same time as reassuring the gullible "the xx warmest years since records began occurred since yy").
The "ongoing insolation/outgoing radiation imbalance" is a fabrication of climate science. It is certainly not supported by measurement - the accuracy of satellite measurements is insufficient to indicate an imbalance either way.
The supposed imbalance is based on calculations from approximate radiative forcing models which are inherently incapable of being validated. Believing the results of an unvalidated model is simply a sophisticated-looking form of bullshitting yourself and, if others are convinced by it too, of bullshitting them.
Martin A,
Quite right. Notice too how certain warmists are quite happy to accept the satellite “in/out” measurements as gospel, yet aren’t so keen on the accompanying temperature series. Both of which, incidentally, continue to show 1998 as the warmest year.
You call it naivety, I call it deliberate dishonesty.
I buy the Times and the article was poor. It's conceivable Dr Walport was trying to reach out, but his words come through the filter of the "environmentally-aware" journalist, so end up provocative. It's also conceivable the Wounded Tribe is doing bit of consolatory chest-banging. Let's not all get completely angry until we know the real position, perhaps?