Bishop Hill What is the Gaelic for "integrity"?
Mar 17, 2014 Climate: Sceptics GWPF Benny Peiser emails to tell me that there is a bit of a kerfuffle over the Irish Sea. Benny has been invited to appear on a TV show called 'Prime Time', opposite Professor John Sweeney, a geographer at the National University of Ireland who doubles as the President of An Taisce, the Irish National Trust.
However, it seems that Professor Sweeney is not sufficiently confident in the strength of his case to want to argue it in public, and An Taisce has issued the following press release.
Prime Time invited John Sweeney, Ireland’s leading Climate Scientist, onto the Panel and some members of An Taisce into the audience for next Tuesday’s show on ‘Climate Change’. We looked forward to contributing to the debate on how we should deal with the serious problems that ‘Climate Change’ will present to our children and grandchildren.
However, we have since learnt that Prime Time will be flying a ‘Climate Denier’ in from the UK for the night. We suppose that they have the idea that a ‘Punch and Judy’ show between opposing members of the panel will make ‘Good Television’, one which will certainly generate much heat but very little light.
John Sweeney has decided not to participate and An Taisce has decided to boycott this Prime Time show.
An Taisce is asking the Director General and the Programme’s Producers to explain if they understand ‘Climate Science’ and the difference between scientific balance and journalistic balance. Is Prime Time fulfilling its ‘Public Service Broadcasting’ remit? We are sure that it would be possible to find some expert that does not agree that smoking causes cancer but would RTE put them on a panel to discuss lung cancer?
The scientific debate on the validity of climate change has ended with the realisation that for the sake of future generations global warming must be restricted to 2oC.
Public deserves a debate that discusses how to achieve this and:
- Enables an honest discussion of Climate Change policy choices within the accepted bounds of peer-reviewed science.
- Encourages a national discussion on fair and independent annual Green House Gas (GHG) budgets and binding National and International targets
- Emphasises that Ireland must play its part in actually achieving real change.
The general public is largely unaware of the threats to their future and their children’s futures. For the public to have an honest picture of the nature of the climate change risks they face and an involvement in how they are tackled, the debate must move on to problem solving.
As to Benny's credentials as a "climate denier", readers might care to peruse this paper authored by Benny ahead of the meeting of sceptic scientists with Royal Society fellows last year. Item 1 reads:
The greenhouse effect is real and CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Another day, another scientivist called out. Having thus established that Professor Sweeney and An Taisce are happy to release scurrilous and false press releases readers can draw their conclusions accordingly.
Is An Taisce, by any chance, the Gaelic for "No Integrity"?
Reader Comments (110)
So I take it Sweeney's outfit has been furiously opposing windmill proposals in "areas of scenic beauty or high amenity significance; where architectural, archaeological or environmental issues need to be considered".?
Well it wouldn't have been much of a discussion anyway. All these talking heads use the same dumb playbook. A bit odd that a geographer is the leading climate scientist. Odder that he want to discuss policy but not with the global warming policy foundation. Odder still that he thinks he has anything at all to contribute to an energy policy discussion beyond wearing a sandwich board that says "the end is nigh".
Of course these hypocrites don't want energy solutions, they just want their face in the papers, billed as planet-savers. If these Irish children and grandchildren end up with nothing but crap windmills, blackouts and an even bigger debt as a result of hopelessly optimistic energy policy based on hopelessly pessimistic science then they won't be best pleased.
Harry Passfield says: "So what is Paul Nurse doing arguing for CCS etc in the DT today? Is he qualified under the 'Monty dictum'?
Paul Nurse is a Fellow of the Royal Society. Difficult to compare him with a lightweight like Peiser!
Thanks.
'Yes. For precisely the same reason that a biologist or geologist wouldn't waste her/his time debating with a creationist; or a geographer with someone who thinks the earth is flat!'
So what part of Peiser's work corresponds to creationism or flat-earthism?
"I hope the Bish will mark as spam all mentions of creationism "
Oh come on now, most eco-catastrophists are economic-creationists.
'Paul Nurse is a Fellow of the Royal Society.'
So is Paul (Population Bomb) Ehrlich....
OT but here's the link to Nurse's latest outpouring of the 'debate is settled' meme in the DT referred to by Harry Passfield
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10701265/Climate-change-weve-put-off-the-difficult-decisions-for-too-long.html
I agree with the 'Empty-chair' suggestion, and would like to encourage the PrimeTime-producers to go forwards with the concept. But
1) First inform Sweeney that they would like him to reconsider his stance. And ask him to elaborate on his motivation for backing down, and also ask him what he meant by 'climate denier' and with his 'smoking causes cancer'-analogy, and how it pertains to this debate. Whereafter
2) They should inform him that if he doesn't show up, they will host the debate as an empty-chair event, and where his correspondence and public statements on the matter will be presented as the (empty) chair's position to which Peiser then would be allowed to respond to. And possibly expand on other CAGW-memes often put forward by the likes of Sweeney ...
3) And that they will continue to forward questions to him and during the show both display them, and hiss possible answers (or lack thereof) whereafter they again let Peiser respon to both ..
That should at least put some heat under his pants, and would additionally make for a good show and about relevant questions about this alleged climate crisis and the debate around it ...
Monty bares his, uh ad hominem, and falls on the flat face of the earth.
===========
I figured An Taisce was Gaelic for "Brave Sir Robin". Oh well.
Monty: The point of debate is to convince the audience not your opponent. Even if Sweeney was allowed to bring a claque with him, the debate would still be unfair. The overwhelming evidence for CAGW is concealed in the 1000 page IPCC reports, which you probably havn't read (who has?). Your opponent can cherry pick quibbles from any part and raise questions about issues you know nothing about, lord knows there are enough of them, making you look like a right idiot. On the other hand you know nothing of the opponent other than that he is a denier and obviously wrong. At least you know the position of creationists and flat-earthers. How fair is that? Sweeney was quite right to decline - nobody should have to face having their arse handed to them on a plate.
Dear Monty.
Have you noticed that spouting nonsense gets you the written equivalent of a slap?
Is the slapping starting to sting yet?
Why is it that the 'warminista' are so obsessed with 'creationism' and 'flat earth' and even that smoking increases the risk of protracting lung cancer ...
As if these were arguments, let alone strong arguments for CAGW or whatever they believe in ...
Why!?
omnologos:
Check.
Check.
Something has to account for the irrational fear. They seek to scare society, including children, for no reason at all, and they fall victim to irrational fear themselves. It will surely be seen as poetic justice - the moment the open debate they're desperately trying to prevent takes place and they themselves lose all influence.
For the record John Sweeney is a Scottish geography teacher who indoctrinates at NUI Maynooth.
Monty, stop with the straw men. The issue is not whether or not a person is scientist or not, but whether they are willing to debate their side of the argument.
Failing to do so because of made up reasons is like those who decry giving racists a voice when in reality, if their arguments were strong, they would walk all over their opponents and show them to have no basis. That's why it's right to put people like the BNP on a stage as it highlights their weak arguments. So you should be clamouring for Peiser to debate with Sweeney as Sweeney should (in your view) walk all over Peiser as your arguments are strong - aren't they?
This reminds me of an old joke. What do you call a gay irishman? A Gaelic. Monday morning humor.
Jonas, it is one of their established tactics - mention such things in the same discussion as climate sceptics as much as possible in an attempt to conflate them. One of them even wrote a paper purporting to show that climate sceptics also believed these things - it was as usual with warmist papers, utter unscientific rubbish.
NW: Yep, all smear tactics and all topped off with a single word in summary: deniers. But that is hate speech. We should hit that very hard indeed.
NW and Richard Drake
I was hoping to get Monty to provide the (obvious) answer, or even better, trying to explain this ...
:-)
Um with respect, Mr. Peiser was hardly going to savage him, after all he is a believer. It seems to me, that, both Sweeney and Peiser would agree on more than they'd argue about, and all of that begs the real question. We posit, to the National Irish 'save the children' from the deniers inc - what are they so scared of - could it be that, even the true believers in Ireland smell a crock?
Independence? Oh dear never mind.
One more thing, most people think that Irishmen labour under the illusion that their government and main TV channels are independent of external influences. When actually, everybody and his dog in Ireland knows, Eire is run from and through the ECB by the Kommissars of Brussels and RTE is about as pro EU as is the BBC if not more so.
It took 'em 700 years to throw off the 'English-British yoke' and straight away they threw themselves into the arms of Brussels - it's a complex.
Aha! We now seem to have an explicit definition of what "deniers" deny, which has been so hard to obtain. E.g., Dana Nuccitelli seems to equate deniers with mere disagreement with him.
And we hear that the science is unequivocal on this figure, more remarkable! Especially as that value was obtained from -- how shall I put this delicately? -- a place lacking insolation. And not believing it is as ignorant as believing that the Earth is flat.
I wonder how many on-the-fence persons are swayed by such obvious caricatures.
The good professor apparently is no better at his field - geography - than he is at climate science. In a video statement, he insists that Ireland is "certainly among the top ten nations in greenhouse gas emissions per capita." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYaEnWkef2o
In fact, Ireland ranks 21st. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita
Jonas N: You were right to do so. Anything that turns back this vile tide.
HaroldW: On the obscure and highly nonscientific origins of the 2°C target I found Three views of two degrees helpful when I discovered it some time after December 2010.
I fear that many on-the-fence persons are swayed by such caricatures. But that's where 'denier' comes in. When you look at its history it's the dirtiest and most revealing gambit of all. (And Dana's definition remains the industry standard for me!) If anything is going to snap people out of taking the caricatures seriously it's a united front from climate dissenters of all types in declaring denier hate speech and out of bounds for the future. As well as this being right in and of itself.
How long do we have to pretend that AGW promoters have any case, since they routinely rely on ducking the discussion and calling names of those with whom they are too delicate to debate against?
The 'Monty Dictum' seems to be as flexible as the backbone of Dr Sweeney. Apparently, not only 'Climate Scientists' (who they?) but Fellows of the RS are the only ones capable of arguing the case for/agin AGW - no matter WHAT the qualification held by said Fellow. So I guess that rules Monty out along with a few on here.
However, as we are now debating the policies that will flow from the warm-mongers control of the levers of power, I wonder what qualifications we'll need for that? I also wonder if the erstwhile Monty thinks that the name Monty 'Don' is a qualification.....(not a gardener, are you, Monty?)
Monty dictum is that the same as scientists/experts say?
How long do people tolerate a group of so-called experts who cannot debate and rely on name calling as they run away from a reasonable discussion?
+1 for Richard Drake's comments. I am against hate speech laws of any kind no matter how well intentioned. But the d-word is EXACTLY the same as the N-word and used for the same purposes. To marginalise, disempower and humiliate. And more often than not the people who use the d-word get the same 'thrill up/down their leg' as people who used the N-word did. Those who were unaware of the Holocaust link, are not repelled when they do find out.
I would not have such a person in my house, nor stand for them employing it without speaking up. If they are simply ignorant/do not speak English as a first language, of course they would be open to apologise. But argue? Nah - heave-ho, out you go.
Regarding Monty's argument:
I am an Earth Scientist (Geophysics, Oceanography), I have been a Distinguished Lecturer ambassador around the world (for SPE), I am a recipient of a significant award in Geophysics (from EAGE) for my world leading expertise in geophysics and stochastic modelling, I am an invited lecturer at IC and I have the letters FRAS after my name.
Am I allowed to join the debate, or am I an ignorant flatearther who should be ignored because my views don't count?
I would bet hard currency that in a public forum I could run rings around someone like Prof. Sweeney. And that's what he (and people like you) are afraid of. The "I am not debating you bacause you are going to find holes in my argument" position is starting to look pretty thin. So when did the climate debate actually take place?
Words of cowards, the warmists are too cowardly to actually stand up for what they believe. They don't want the debate because the reality is they will lose. There is no catastrophe looming, just some modest warming, likely beneficial to all.
The proper thing for RTE to do would be either to empty chair him as Ivan suggested, or invite somebody else of some credibility to take his place (assuming any such would do so).
The entirely improper thing would be censorship - cancel the show. Anybody want to bet against impropriety?
Dublin-based blogger Peter O'Neill has been rather critical of Prof Sweeney, in a post entitled "If you see something, say something – but who should feel obliged to do so? And when?" http://oneillp.wordpress.com/2014/01/13/gibbons/#more-1424
"At this point we finally come back to the question of who should speak out, and when.
Professor John Sweeney, as well as being President of An Taisce, is also Professor Emeritus at the National University of Ireland, Maynooth, described by NUI Maynooth as “IRELAND’S LEADING expert on climate change”, IPCC Contributing Author and Review Editor for AR4, nominee of the Irish Government and participant at various IPCC Working Group sessions. and contributor to the IAC Review of the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC.
I find it inexplicable that Professor Sweeney can ignore this misrepresentation of the IPCC Report, with which he must surely be familiar, in the press release from An Taisce, of which he is President. I know that I could not do so."
Thinkingscientist: Well said!!
Why the Prof. pulled out just to be sure, to be sure.
Another priest of the Church of Latter Day Alarmists.
Funny but for people with such big mouths always ready to demand action now because of the great certainty their unquestionable right.
When it comes to actual having to prove it by being questioned , the alarmists go all quite and run away rather than stand their 'settled ground ' and prove their case .
Now I wonder why that would be ?
It will be Nature, not the alarmists or their pet trolls, who decides whether Benny Peiser is right or not.
RTE should use an empty chair, and explain that Sweeney would not debate -
Global Warming - Dr. Gavin Schmidt refuses to debate Dr. Roy Spencer
Prof John Sweeney can be emailed at: john.sweeney at nuim.ie
coniston: Thanks. Of course in calling 'climate denier' hate speech I'm not necessarily agreeing that hate speech should have been criminalised as much as it has. I'm simply saying that denier is one more example, exactly, as you say, on a par with the last word here. Which reminds us that in Mark Twain's day things were different. But in this day I'm quite sure denier is hate speech. I'd personally go easy on sending people to prison for saying it but the social stigma should mean that any user would soon come to feel ashamed. That's where we want to get to.
Prof Sweeney seems to like his jollies to the various CAGW "mutual reinforcement" sessions around the place... it does rather look though as if he's not overly keen to venture outside his comfort zone away from his pals in the troughing Irish "climate justice" NGO crew.
It would seem there are danger signs... There was much bleating from his buddies in FoE, Oxfam et al when the Irish government refused to accredit him as an official representative at COP19 in Warsaw one has to assume that the Irish government such as it is - fingered Prof Sweeney as a lightweight probably along for the ride....
I believe this group's definition of "denier" is one who casts doubt on claims of catastrophic global warming.
póg mo thóin
Prof John Sweeney is a fraud who has deceived the Irish public, his University has no proper standards as required by law, as has the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has provided him with several millions in financial support. This takes explaining, but essentially his employer, the National University of Ireland (NUI) Maynooth and the EPA are both public authorities. As such under the UN Aarhus Convention, EU law (Article 8 of Directive 2003/4/EC) and national legislation (S.I. No. 133 of 2007 as amended) they are required to ensure environmental information is "accurate, up to date and comparable".
On May 03 2011 John Sweeney under his University name published a letter in the Irish Times on 'grasping the nettle of climate change':
"A recent briefing given by officials in the Department of Finance (published on their website on April 7th) to incoming Ministers paints a disturbing picture of how entrenched and misguided attitudes continue to inform policy formulation at the highest levels with reference to Ireland’s climate change obligations.
Advice to the Minister that “the policy agenda on climate change has been driven recently more by ideology and target-setting rather than being informed by a rational assessment of what is possible and what is in Ireland’s interest, given the costs and benefits involved” is particularly perplexing.
For public servants to describe the legislative proposals of an elected government in this manner would appear to exceed their contractual remit as implementers rather than fashioners of public policy. One hopes the Minister reminds his officials that judgment on what is or is not a “rational assessment” or what a “costed menu of alternative sensible climate change policies” involves, is the preserve of elected representatives".
For a public servant (University Professor) and not a private individual to publish the above in a major daily demonstrates somebody who is not in control of their professional sphere. An Access to Information to the Environment Request to the University of Maynooth by myself demonstrates that; (a) it did not have any procedures to ensure the accuracy of the environmental information of its academics and (b) there was a refusal to provide environmental information to back-up statements made in public on climate change, even though it was home to ICARUS, the climate change research group headed by Prof Sweeney. In fact anybody can become a Professor in that University and shout their head off in public about whatever tickles their fancy; academic freedom reigns supreme. Furthermore, the University does not comply with the legal procedures in responding to such access to information on the environment requests.
Sadly if one cares to bother to read the climate change research reports on EPA's website, one only has to get to page 4, where there is a big disclaimer. So much for their legal obligation in relation to accuracy of information.
http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/research/climate/#.UydqGPl_vmo
"Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the material contained in this publication, complete accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Neither the Environmental Protection Agency nor the author(s) accept any responsibility whatsoever for loss or damage occasioned or claimed to have been occasioned, in part or in full, as a consequence of any person acting, or refraining from acting, as a result of a matter contained in this publication".
Indeed, in November 2013 one finds in the National Media the Irish Farmers Association (IFA) complaining vehemently about the gross inaccuracies in the climate change reports produced by the same NUI Maynooth , which had failed to correct them. They couldn't even get the facts about the current situation right and refused to correct them when alerted to the issue:
http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/impact-of-climate-change-on-farmers-1.1580957
Sweeney is a buffoon and his bluff was called as finally RTE were willing to put on TV somebody, who could present facts and call it as it is. Society will always produce buffoons like Sweeney, the problem is all the players, such as his superiors in the University and his financiers in the Environmental Protection Agency, who have failed to ensure the necessary legal standards in relation to accuracy of information. They are the people who should be brought to task and Sweeney just ignored as the buffoon he is.
When Roy Hattersley pulled out of appearing on Have I Got News For You his place was taken by a tub of lard. What would be the appropriate object to replace a climate alarmist who is unwilling to debate the science?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmys4LH9jTE
Ted calls Sweeney " a climate alarmist who is unwilling to debate the science". I doubt he is unwilling to debate the science with Peiser (given that Peiser doesn't have a clue about the science). I imagine he just doesn't think that debating climate science with a sports psychologist is going to advance the debate at all.
thanks.
Sweeney is not a scientist either. He is a geography teacher.
"Professor John Sweeney has been a lecturer at the Geography Department NUI Maynooth, since 1978"
http://icarus.nuim.ie/people/sweeney-john
I guess all one needs to do to become a Climate Scientist is agree with "the consensus", is that it?
Is 'Monty' a short form of 'Montebank'?
Yes
An Taisce was once an organisation which deserved respect, and did valuable work.
Unfortunately for An Taisce, the current leadership have chosen to use IPCC reports rather in the manner of the old joke about the drunk and the lamppost, that is for support (i.e. to throw at sceptics) rather than illumination (they reserve the right to rewrite IPCC reports as necessary to meet their requirements). This of course leaves them rather exposed if they risk debating with anyone aware of what they have put on record.
What if Benny Peiser were to bring up their press release of October 27th 2013, with the claim: “with the recent IPCC report stating that there is now only a 50-50 chance of avoiding runaway temperature rise”. Now, the IPCC AR5 WG1 report states no such thing - do not waste your time looking for a runaway temperature rise, the only reference to a runaway temperature effect you will find is, amusingly, to a counterfactual hypothetical change in atmospheric composition “leading to a runaway drop of the greenhouse effect that would plunge the Earth into a frozen state”. An Taisce appear to have first followed the example of one of the members of their climate change committee in an earlier magazine article, who cherry picked RCP8.5 and ignored the remaining three scenarios as well as the text stating that the IPCC does not associate any likelihoods with these four scenarios, to come up with a claim that claim that the IPCC says “we have no better than a 50/50 shot at avoiding an impending 4°C global warming calamity”. This misrepresentation of the IPCC report however does not seem to have been judged sufficiently alarmist, so then runaway temperature rise was substituted.
Perhaps I am being unfair to An Taisce in assuming this rewriting was done deliberately. The members may perhaps have elected a leadership with reading comprehension skills around 7/8 years at the last AGM, and who find IPCC reports just too challenging. Or perhaps diogenese2 is right in asking "who has?" read the reports, and the An Taisce leadership have found it easier just to write their own, saying what the IPCC 'should have said' in the first place. For further details of this, see If you see something, say something – but who should feel obliged to do so? And when?
As Verity says, I have been critical of Professor Sweeney, and his silence in respect of the misrepresentations of IPCC AR5 WG1 just discussed. To be fair, he at least seems to avoid the temptation when interviewed to attribute every extreme event to climate change, even when those around him are less inhibited. Although I have not written about it, I would also for example be critical of some of his reported comments on the IPCC SREX report. It is of course possible that he too could be critical of those same reported comments - I've had the experience of seeing a reporter's views appear in place of mine in the past. In the case of the misrepresentation of IPCC AR5 WG1 just discussed however I challenged An Taisce on this, asking also whether Professor Sweeney is “prepared to stand over this practice under his stewardship?”, and copied the email to him. His silence indicates to me that he is prepared to stand over it.
Rather more likely that this was simply an austerity measure. If he was not required there in any official capacity, keep the cost down. Time will tell.
They, policy based science workers, want and can only perform their sermons as the priests do?