tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post6340376575860738806..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: HeartlandGate?eduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger272125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-59902266004718167032012-03-31T19:39:47.966+02:002012-03-31T19:39:47.966+02:00Dear Mr Von Storch,
I saw there was a discussion...Dear Mr Von Storch,<br /> <br />I saw there was a discussion of this individual recently on your blog.<br /> <br />Connolley appears to be controlling the Wiki pages. He can rely on a large number of editors<br />to be present so that only his version is presented.<br /><br />For example, Wiki is preventing a correct description of the 'greenhouse effect' being shown on Wiki.<br /> <br />Wiki wants you to believe that the atmosphere heats the Surface. Anybody attempting to show that the surface heats the atmosphere will be banned.<br /> <br />While attempting edits on Wiki as user andrewedwardjudd, my comments were supported by the references already on the page: <br /> <br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrewedwardjudd#Here_is_an_example_of_how_the_wiki_greenhouse_effect_page_is_mixing_up_scientific_reality_with_the_clearly_expressed_opinions_of_the_editors_on_the_talk_pages.<br /> <br />I went as far as to phone up the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory Senior Scientist, Yochanan Kushnir Ph.d, who wrote reference 9 and he confirmed that the surface heats the atmosphere, and the surface is warmer because the atmosphere slows down the heat loss from the surface and the colder atmosphere cannot heat the hotter surface. That was the main point that I wanted to get onto the Wiki page. <br /> <br />Wiki administrator Dave Souza said I had an odd unsupported opinion that the atmosphere heats the surface and was always intrumental in getting me sanctioned.<br /> <br />After I was banned my wife informed the editors that Dr Kushnir fully supported what I had said and even after this editor Dave Souza kept up the obfuscation that Kushnirs telephone comments were not valid for Wiki. Souza referred to my wife as das Weib when he reported her. Obviously he knew the abusive content of that expression when used to describe another mans wife. My wife was banned.<br /> <br />Connolley appears to be the chief abuser of anybody who attempts to make unapproved changes, but he has other names he can use to ensure no disputing editor can make changes.<br /> <br />Connolley did a write up of his behaviour with me on his blog, where he kept up the insulting behaviour in the comments continually saying i did not know what i was talking about.<br /> <br />Fairly well known climate scientist James Annan called me a loon on this blog. Later on Annans blog, when i asked for an explanation, Annan deleted the comment and said 'do go away silly troll'. He followed up with more comments on Connolleys blog that if he told me what he did on the internet he would have to kill me. Connolley thought this was all a big joke. You can see all of that here.<br /> <br />http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/03/how_not_to_edit_wikipedia.php<br /> <br />These people behave like children but evidently they have some power to alter our reality.<br /> <br />Other editors have tried to make similar changes and been banned.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=next&oldid=337450239<br /> <br />The whole experience was very odd and it was only later that i found out this had all happened before and Connolley was a well known activist.<br /> <br />Please feel free to use this information as you wish<br /> <br />Regards<br /> <br />Andrew JuddAndrew Juddnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-196963650568847772012-03-04T11:31:43.770+01:002012-03-04T11:31:43.770+01:00Folks,
it seems that blogspot has a problem with m...Folks,<br />it seems that blogspot has a problem with many comments, as in this case.<br /><br /><b>We are closing this thread now</b> and open a new thread <a href="http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2012/03/continuation-of-thread-on-heartlandgate.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-11132896493457817202012-03-04T01:48:42.872+01:002012-03-04T01:48:42.872+01:00Roddy,
my posts keep disappearing, so apologies i...Roddy,<br /><br />my posts keep disappearing, so apologies if I repeat here something that turns up later.<br /><br />(a 'furfy' is an improbable story - Aussie slang. It's more commonly spelled furphy.)<br /><br />You offer a 6-page press release and a 100-page detailed report and you tell me the latter is a more sober analysis. Well, I have to agree.<br /><br />If I focus on the headline of the press release, and I ignore the rest of the article, and I don't read the SPM for WGIII or the report itself, then yes, I am left with the notion that it is <i>possible</i> energy consumption could be reduced by 80% mid-century.<br /><br />The figures are described in the article as the most optimistic of four represenative scenarios. Do you reckon that optimistic headline is going to interfere with policy-making? Or do you think it highlights a lack of impartiality on the part of the IPCC?<br /><br />For an apples to apples comparison, here is the WGIII SPM - this is the front material, not the full report.<br /><br />http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/publications/assessment-reports/ar4/.files-ar4/SPM.pdf<br /><br />That seems like sober stuff to me.<br /><br />As to the greenpeace guy, what's his name? Which chapter should I look at to find out? I'd like to follow up. I am not qualified to assess whether his scenario is plausible, but I can do other checking.<br /><br />> "I can vaguely accept some consensus on GHG warming, 1% per doubling etc. I struggle with there being a consensus on sensitivity."<br /><br />I think you mean 1C per doubling, the response to forcing if there are no feedbacks. Why do you struggle with their being a concensus on sensitivity? There is a range of values, from zero to 10C, and the majority of scientific opinion clusters around 3C per doubling.<br /><br />[eg, http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html]<br /><br />But there is considerable uncertainty and wide error margins on all the estimates. What I 'struggle with' is the skeptical contradiction that it's all too uncertain, but, at the same time impacts will <b>certainly</b> be minimal.<br /><br />"Do you think the science is settled, as it were, on impacts over the next 50 years? Surely not?"<br /><br />Absolutely not. Neither does anyone else who has a serious interest in the matter. I think impacts could be greater or lesser than the mean of scenarios. Tell me, how much credence should I give to those people telling me impacts will <i>certainly</i> be minimal?<br /><br />Roger Pielke Snr said it best - it's not because we know what is going to happen that we should move to mitigate CO2 emissions; it's that we DON'T know.<br /><br />The concensus among economists (who have studed and published on the matter) estimating a range of scenarios is that mitigating will be more cost effective than adapting in the long run.<br /><br />barryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-396431480994582732012-03-03T21:06:07.152+01:002012-03-03T21:06:07.152+01:00What's a furfy?
You raise two points - being ...What's a furfy?<br /><br />You raise two points - being green shouldn't disqualify you from IPCC work, and the economics of climate change has a consensus?<br /><br />1 You're right that there were plenty of studies alongside the Greenpeace one, and maybe a Greenpeace member can take his Green hat off when doing this stuff, be objective, I'm not sure. <br /><br />Let's look, briefly: source http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ipcc33/IPCC_Press_Release_11612_en.pdf<br /><br />2008 world energy consumption was 490 exajoules.<br /><br />The Greenpeace man's projection was for world energy consumption of 407 exajoules in 2050.<br /><br />Of which 314 would be renewable, 77%.<br /><br />Of which 130 was solar pv, 1/3 of global consumption.<br /><br />So in 40 years we have globally cut consumption by c. 20%? Do you find that number sensible? I don't. Not with Chindia et al motoring along.<br /><br />The 1,000 page report wasn't released for several weeks I recall, and was eagerly awaited to see who could have come up with these amazing projections. Surprise - it was the Greenpeace man.<br /><br />The first line of the press release was 'Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century'. They talk about that projection more in the release. They barely mention any of the others.<br /><br />So the sober IPCC highlighted, to the almost total exclusion of the others, the most extreme, and imho wholly unrealistic, scenario.<br /><br />Set that report against this one, written by the Renewable Energy Foundation, a pro-renewable charity, specifically on the impacts of renewables on fuel poverty in the UK, but it covers a lot of ground. A lot more realistic on the practical matter of decarbonising energy, and the costs.<br /><br />http://www.ref.org.uk/attachments/article/243/REF%20on%20Fuel%20Poverty.pdf<br /><br />2 I don't think there's an economic consensus on ACC impacts AT ALL. There isn't even one on what decarbonisation would cost, a far simpler task. The IPCC are even highlighting the possibility of cutting world energy consumption by 20% in 40 years.<br /><br />Do you think the science is settled, as it were, on impacts over the next 50 years? Surely not? <br /><br />Let alone on the somewhat easier tasks of estimating energy consumption, how much can come from non-carbon sources, and what that would cost.<br /><br /><br />I can vaguely accept some consensus on GHG warming, 1% per doubling etc. I struggle with there being a consensus on sensitivity.<br /><br />I cannot accept consensus on impacts, nor on the economics of impacts, nor on the economics even of decarbonising.Roddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104358721079710535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-82131820015864065382012-03-03T17:19:55.146+01:002012-03-03T17:19:55.146+01:00Roddy,
I haven't read Romm's blog for age...Roddy,<br /><br />I haven't read Romm's blog for ages. Way too much politics for my taste. As far as I can remember, he got the science right, and was even balanced on it. Maybe he doesn't do that anymore.<br /><br />You said you had qualms about greenpeace personnel writing on economics in the IPCC. Why? If they are technically qualified, does their membership automatically disqualify them? I think Richard Lindzen is a very biased person on the subject, but that doesn't disqualify him from bringing his expertise to the IPCC. It bothers me more that government reps are part of the process, and can influence the language used in the IPCC reports.<br /><br />This idea that people can't be trusted to do quality work and be objective if they have an opinion on the subject - it's a furfy. But more importantly, such work can be tested by others. In the case of the greenpeace economists, we have a range of studies from non-greenpeace people as well. There is a general economic concensus on climate change, too - amongst the people that have done the hard work.<br /><br />Expertise is what matters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-53114558180682799432012-03-03T17:12:24.728+01:002012-03-03T17:12:24.728+01:00For some reason that I dont understand, there are ...For some reason that I dont understand, there are indeed some comments missing. The counter stands at 271, but only 266 comments are shown.<br /><br />There are no comments caught in the spam filter. <br /><br />In case of further problems, everyone is welcome to send me his/her comment by email at eduardo.zorita at gmx dot de, and I will post it. <br /><br />Sorry for the inconvenience , but google blogger as a few annoying bugseduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-33058226205470607042012-03-03T13:38:31.711+01:002012-03-03T13:38:31.711+01:00@ barry
"do you have a point?"
The fol...@ barry<br /><br />"do you have a point?"<br /><br />The following two contributions are summing up the state of climate science quite well.<br /><br />When you read them both carefully you will find that it is not about being absolutely wrong or right - as the ongonig battle of opinions would suggest -but much more about uncertainties and open questions.<br /><br />These contributions and the dicussion at the end of JC's blog should make you rethink your statement that "There is a central understanding on the human contribution to climte change, and it is articulted by the IPCC and the science institutes around the world"<br /><br />http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf<br /><br />http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/27/lindzens-seminar-at-the-house-of-commons<br /><br />V. LenzerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-71171568059066324182012-03-03T09:04:32.033+01:002012-03-03T09:04:32.033+01:00Barry, some of my comments here are missing, altho...Barry, some of my comments here are missing, although you may get them, as I get yours, by email alert? Or you may not. I alerted our host to missing comments, yours and mine and maybe others.<br /><br />Thank you too for reasonable discussion.<br /><br />I don't know who wrote that review, and the name wouldn't mean anything. It just reflected part of what I feel too.<br /><br />Here's a Physics Today article highlighting harassment.<br /><br />http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v65/i2/p22_s1?bypassSSO=1<br /><br />We all take away the bits we 'like'. I for example take away the Trenberth comments on the need for a US carbon price - is he an economist? He has every right to suggest that this will help global warming, sure, but I'm not sure he knows what he's talking about, and dropping acid rain into the sentence doesn't help me on that.<br /><br />I think people who send hostile messages to them should be arrested; Heartland don't do that. They make their case the old-fashioned way afaik, meetings, newsletters, press, blah blah. I agreed with you in a missing comment, it's certainly politics, but that's what policy is.<br /><br />If you wanted to hear what Satan himself has to say, here's Bast, Heartland's founder, being interviewed. http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-purloined-climate-papers/F3DAA9D5-4213-4DC0-AE0D-5A3D171EB260.html<br /><br />I agree with you that Inhofe's smearing is unattractive, but that's life, democracy in action!<br /><br />The FOIA attacks on Mann are crazy.<br /><br />Pielke Jr writes on the science/policy interface, it's not easy stuff, how it works and how it should work. Democracy in messy action again I suspect.<br /><br />Cheers.<br /><br />I put my email roddycampbell at gmail dot com in a missing message.Roddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104358721079710535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-31970499355151932532012-03-03T08:37:41.448+01:002012-03-03T08:37:41.448+01:00Roddy,
thanks for a reasonable discussion.
I'...Roddy,<br /><br />thanks for a reasonable discussion.<br /><br />I'm finding less time than I thought I'd have to post. So, briefly.<br /><br />I don't know who you're quoting there, but apparently they think that scientists engaging in public discourse on climate change equates to straying from 'evidence and facts'. I think Michael Mann would argue that the scientists are getting active to remedy a public discourse that has been skewed by inaccurate reporting and ill-informed, distortionary attacks on climate science. I have not read his book, but I would bet his words are being misrepresented. The circumlocution of your (unreferenced) author is familiar rhetoric.<br /><br />It's taken a long time to awaken this 'sleeping bear.' The distortion of science has been going on for some time, as has the public and congressional smearing of climate scientists, with accusations against their integrity and work, courtroom fishing expeditions to get hold of their private and work emails and general attacks on the character of the earth science community. Whether or not you approve of these approaches to testing science, I doubt you could argue that it is reasonable to ask the boffins to take it all, as individuals and as a community, without uttering a peep. Of course there will be a response after years of harrassment.<br /><br />The idea that scientists cannot be trusted unless they lock themselves away in their garrets until called for is another tawdry bit of story-telling amongst the claptrap of the punditry. I'd rather leave the punditry to the pundits, ignore their blather altogether, and get my science from the science community at large - as opposed to one or two highly selected sources.<br /><br />I'll try and reply to other points soon.<br /><br />barry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-26507090475925547222012-03-03T06:59:06.830+01:002012-03-03T06:59:06.830+01:00Barry, re scientist advocates, this is from the LA...Barry, re scientist advocates, this is from the LA Times review of Mann's new book:<br /><br />'Mann ends his book on a prophetic note with a chapter titled “Fighting Back.” He expresses hopefulness that he and his fellow scientists can turn the tide of public opinion not by remaining unbiased observers on the sidelines, as they have done traditionally, but by taking a more active role in the debate....... “Something is different now,” Mann concludes. “The forces of climate change denial have, I believe, awakened a ‘sleeping bear.’ My fellow scientists will be fighting back, and I look forward to joining them in this battle.”<br /><br />[para on Gleick]<br /><br />....... Mann’s conclusion is the only sour note in an otherwise highly readable and intelligent book, and why his own growing profile as an activist might come back to haunt him. <b>Scientists, like journalists, really are more credible when they stick to the evidence, report the facts and let society come to its own conclusions. You handle the science, professor Mann; we’ll handle the punditry.</b>Roddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104358721079710535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-46920930914723613452012-03-03T06:13:28.917+01:002012-03-03T06:13:28.917+01:00Barry, I got your reply by email, but it doesn'...Barry, I got your reply by email, but it doesn't seem to be on the web-site, which is odd.<br /><br />I think we're probably operating in parallel planes. <br /><br />I'm more concerned with WGII and WGIII, impacts and policy responses, in the end, and as I said, it's the incoherence of policy responses that irritates, and, yes, the alarmist projections of impacts - malaria would be a traditional example.<br /><br />'Now, do you truly believe that policy on GHGs is influenced by commentators who say that the world will come to an end? This is what you appear to be suggesting.'<br /><br />Yes, I think there's a bit of that. Greenpeace oppose Africans having electricity unless it's solar, because otherwise the 'world will end' from the ghg emissions. They had a serious impact on the World Bank decision.<br /><br />The EU introduced a 10% biofuel mandate - there was farmers lobby in that, but it came out of a desire to decarbonise, which came from science telling us we have to. It's a bad example I guess, because science (mainly) tells us biofuels probably don't net impact CO2, and economics tells us they will kill people from higher food prices.<br /><br />You mentioned 'children won't know snow', that wasn't a pundit, that was a UAE climate scientist? It's not that rare. Hansen is a senior climate scientist and tells us the world is ending?<br /><br />'But there is a campaign to discredit climate science that is decidedly populist ... which is born of a political agenda.'<br /><br />I agree, although I wouldn't call it a campaign (you agree, calling it disorganised). It's about policy responses, not discrediting. I would be part of that movement (as per my two long comments, it's resistance to the policy options being chosen on the basis of WGII and III and Hansen telling us that the world is ending (temperatures up several degrees, sea level several meters). Policy is politics, so it will be informed by politics as well as science, and will be populist too.<br /><br />For many it's about money, as I said previously we didn't get interested until 100's of billions started being spent on the basis of IPCC science (Germany E100bn into solar alone over its lifetime I believe). So that's politics too?<br /><br />McIntyre describes how he started being interested when he got a leaflet from the Canadian government with the Hockey Stick saying that the world was ending and action needed now (I paraphrase!). I would guess his politics are well-meaning Liberal Democrat (UK middle party), and he has harsh words for Heartland's libertarian obsessions.<br /><br />Do the Grantham Institute (LSE) 'publish documents that give an even-handed rendering of the state of understanding' or do their 'viewpoints all trend the same way'? Their policy director Bob Ward is uni-directional!<br /><br />Do the Rapid Response Team in the USA (Scott Mandia et al) give an even-handed rendering?<br /><br />I don't read the literature as you do, so you can tell me whether Nature give an even-handed rendering?<br /><br />'incoherent reasoning (eg, how can the urban heat island effect be causing the rise in global temperatures') - you puzzle me. The suggestion was that UHI might affect the measurement of land warming, never the warming itself. And you will have noted that intelligent sceptics have dropped that line of argument?<br /><br />I don't know anyone who doesn't accept that it's warming, and we're affecting that. I agree HI will muddy the waters anyway they can with their $4m a year on CC activities, and I'm sure you would agree Greenpeace do the same with rather more?<br /><br />Science/policy is a disordered process. You might find this paper interesting? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eet.543/abstract <br /><br />I find this comment box annoying! - feel free to email me at roddycampbell at gmail dot com instead.Roddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104358721079710535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-75604410096253772512012-03-03T04:51:12.168+01:002012-03-03T04:51:12.168+01:00"In your simplistic view there are science an..."In your simplistic view there are science and scientists fighting on one side - and what you are calling the "skeptical milieu" on the other side. The former helding up the "usual high standards in science" - meanwhile the latter are just telling "rubbish"."<br /><br />Yes, that's right, Lenzer. This is a simplistic and generalized view, which overlooks more nuanced criticism, the few voices that (I think) are critical of mainstream climate science based on a pure regard for science, and instances of intemperance on the part of the mainstream climate scientists. Apart from doubting my objectivity, do you have a point?<br /><br />barryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-50464849674308466072012-03-03T04:39:39.465+01:002012-03-03T04:39:39.465+01:00Roddy,
Agree that "the climate continued to ...Roddy,<br /><br />Agree that "the climate continued to change through 2011" is nonsensical. It's hardly the only example of disinformative language from the mainstream. I don't know if Gleick's verbiage here is careless or deliberate, but it is much more polemical than illuminating. However, the statements you were talking about are alarmist ones. I don't see much of that kind of language informing the general debate. An example I can think of from the UK is, to paraphrase, "our children may never see snow." But, as I suggest, this kind of thing is unusual.<br /><br />Now, do you truly believe that policy on GHGs is influenced by commentators who say that the world will come to an end? This is what you appear to be suggesting.<br /><br />Do you think that policy on GHGs will be influenced by the intemperate language of Peter Gleick? Do you think policy <i>should</i> be influenced by pundits banging on about climate change in the popular media?<br /><br />I don't.<br /><br />But there is a campaign to discredit climate science that is decidedly populist, which distorts the science and propagates falsehoods (whether well-meaning or mendacious), and which is born of a political agenda, not a dispassionate appraisal of the literature. Heartland's output is a pertinent example. They do not publish documents that give an even-handed rendering of the state of understanding, they magnify minorty viewpoints, and those viewpoints all trend the same way. WUWT is another example in blog form. On the main, they publish junk science.<br /><br />There is a central understanding on the human contribution to climte change, and it is articulted by the IPCC and the science institutes around the world. This is not a conspiracy, it is a concensus, and is the result of scientific study. Sound science is what policy should be based, and sound science is what the public should be informed by.<br /><br />Strongly reasoned, well-supported criticism of the understandings of climate change are necessary for a robust education on the matter and debate - eg, Roger Pielke Snr in the past. But there is precious little of that at the forefront of the popular debate. Instead, we see the amplification of minority views, misleading commentary, and incoherent reasoning (eg, how can the urban heat island effect be causing the rise in global temperatures if "man is too insignificant to affect climate").<br /><br />The politically-based campaign (mostly unorganised) to discredit the understanding of AGW <i>does</i> have an influence on policy. It is designed to prevent or delay any policy on GHG mitigation, and it is effective. <br /><br />Science should inform policy, not the other way around. I would argue that this disordered process is the root problem with the debate on climate change. The mainstream commentary is not immune to this disorder, but nowhere near as afflicted and disinformative as the 'skeptics'.<br /><br />barryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-76885166208590248092012-03-02T23:31:28.438+01:002012-03-02T23:31:28.438+01:00The ugly part of this is that they (Heartland, CEI...The ugly part of this is that they (Heartland, CEI, Koch et.al) have succeeded in re-framing the debate so that WE have to prove THEY are damaging our environment before they will stop. <br /><br />THEY are making the changes to the environment. Re-releasing the same amount of CO2 as was sequestered in the last 3000000 years ... in 150. <br /><br />We all live in Bhopal now, and we are complaining to management about the safety of what it is doing. <br /><br />What should we do next?bjchiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09064437293931256675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-164489086072774212012-03-02T12:02:47.162+01:002012-03-02T12:02:47.162+01:00Part 2
- I'm in my 50's, and suffer fro...Part 2<br /><br /><br /> - I'm in my 50's, and suffer from middle-aged middle-class Western white man syndrome, I know that, of being irritated by how many things I've been told would happen that never did, and never seemed likely to. Some/many of those might be because action was taken, the Prec Princ was successfully invoked, but many good science-based predictions/projections have seemed rubbish from the start. (There was an interesting reaction to that over Fukushima, where the UK advice to Brits in Tokyo was that crossing the road was more dangerous, which was a surprisingly brave position to take, based on scientific advice.)<br /><br /> - I'm drifting off your topic, but trying to paint a picture.<br /><br /> - I wrote this blog post on a coral article by Veron which perhaps describes what I mean. http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/12/8/awarmism.html<br /><br /> - There's intellectual dishonesty all over. Since this is a Gleick thread, I'll quote him. In his Forbes piece http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/05/the-2011-climate-b-s-of-the-year-awards/ the opening lines are 'The Earth’s climate continued to change during 2011 – a year in which unprecedented combinations of extreme weather events killed people and damaged property around the world.' He then awards a Bad Science Award to Fox News (correctly, I'm sure!) for cherry-picking cold weather events to question warming. It's a silly example, it was a silly piece, but Gleick did it all the time, see Pielke Jr's blog.<br /><br /> - Of course Gleick is unrepresentative, we know that now :) because he took up burglary, but is he completely unrepresentative? He held high posts, won high awards.<br /><br /> - I do find Greenpeace activists being involved in modelling potential energy policy scenarios for the IPCC potentially dubious.<br /><br />I've gone on long enough, given you plenty to shoot down!<br /><br />Cheers to you too ....Roddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104358721079710535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-39818646169896745202012-03-02T12:01:48.643+01:002012-03-02T12:01:48.643+01:00Barry - a ramble.
Thanks. I don't know how t...Barry - a ramble.<br /><br />Thanks. I don't know how to focus the discussion really. It's so huge. Of course it's a continuum of attitudes and agendas, advocacy blurring with science and policy arguments. I'm no expert on AGW science, so try not to pick me up on too much detail, I'll jot down a stream of conc bullet points to try and give a picture, none will be so tightly worded as to be individually defensible!.<br /><br /> - WUWT (let's ignore comments on any blogs discussed and just discuss the theme of the posts). We may never agree (on anything!) because by and large I wouldn't consider Watts anti-science, or even mindless. That may be because I share (as per previous comment) frustrations, and his output is so huge I'm sure lots is bollocks. Nor would I consider Climate Audit anti-science, either by motive or ignorance.<br /><br /> - I would say that blogs like these have tapped into attitudes like mine that are frustrated by policy decisions that seem to have no basis in science or logic. We see wind-farm and biofuel policy decisions that can make no difference to GHGs being implemented on the basis of WG1, that we are warming the planet, and we can't join those dots. (In the UK these amount to regressive taxation on the poorest, and achieve nothing). We didn't care when it was a few million to save the panda or the tiger, we recognise the benefits of clean air and water, but these ghg policies are hugely economically important.<br /><br /> - these attitudes also oppose policy decisions designed to benefit people - eg the very strong opposition to South Africa building new power stations caused the US and UK to abstain at the World Bank under ghg enviro pressure (it got built). I care more about poor Africans having electricity, and I don't want to throw them under a bus to save ... what? i don't know. Straying into inter-country and inter-generational ethics now!<br /><br /> - In support of that position I'd cite Monbiot and Mark Lynas (I don't know where you're from or whether you know of them). Google them if not. Both have turned on aspects of environmentalism because of its disdain for logic - so Monbiot opposes UK solar FiTs, supports nuclear, has called out Greenpeace et al on non-science Chernobyl reports and so on, while remaining died-in-wool enviro who thinks the world is endangered by human activity. They've also become frustrated at the way the enviro movement cannot distinguish wish from reality, and the scale of the decisions being badly made.<br /><br /> - 'Can you point me to a blog that is the mindless equivalent of WUWT on the environmental activist side?' - Joe Romm's Climate Progress is infinitely more idiotic?<br /><br /> - I find it interesting how Roger Pielke Jr is called out by scientist advocates whenever he criticises findings, eg extreme weather, a particular area of his.<br /><br />end of part 1Roddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104358721079710535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-24590164935253860322012-03-02T10:49:21.386+01:002012-03-02T10:49:21.386+01:00@ Barry
"zombies - ignoramuses - deliberate ...@ Barry<br /><br />"zombies - ignoramuses - deliberate time-wasters ..."<br /><br />Quite a collection ... hard to imagine in what type of name-calling this would end up - if you were not a "patient person" ...<br /><br />Maybe you are not patient enough to get a suitable understanding of the opposing camps on the battleground.<br /><br />In your simplistic view there are science and scientists fighting on one side - and what you are calling the "skeptical milieu" on the other side. The former helding up the "usual high standards in science" - meanwhile the latter are just telling "rubbish".<br /><br />Are you serious?<br /><br />There are many well renowned skeptical scientists doing relevant and respected research on all kind of climate issues. <br /><br />Do you suspect them all to be "interested in pushing an agenda" and "sabotaging the effective communication and discussion of science?"<br /><br />"my 'bias' informs my comments"<br />It looks that way, indeed.<br /><br />V. LenzerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-63266933934301565542012-03-02T10:23:39.553+01:002012-03-02T10:23:39.553+01:00Roddy,
yes that all made sense.
Probably because...Roddy,<br /><br />yes that all made sense.<br /><br />Probably because I spend a lot of my time reading up on climate change in the scientific literature and the science based blogs, I do not often come across "world is ending", "our children won't know what coral is" type statements. Greenpeace statements on climate change rarely make the news in my country.<br /><br />If I look in the local press, I don't see "sky is falling" messages either. To me, you are talking about extremists with a low media profile. I certainly don't see much evidence of them on the regular science blogs.<br /><br />Do you recognize that kind of extremism at this blog? At realclimate? Skeptical Science? Even desmogblog?<br /><br />OTOH, the kind of anti-science nonsense I am talking about is seen regularly at these blogs, and have entire blogs devoted to them (WUWT). Can you point me to a blog that is the mindless equivalent of WUWT on the environmental activist side? I suppose the opposite number for Heartland is greenpeace. And the zombie arguments I noted are pushed into the press by very active, very vocal political operators and pundits, fed by the 'skeptic' milieu. It's all about agenda. I don't see the opposite number of that muc in the public arena.<br /><br />I have to concede that my perspective may be too narrow to have noticed the extreme activism you have referred to. I think I saw something like that in a Canadian tabloid a while back, or sometimes as quoted by reporters and bloggers who have antipathy to the message.<br /><br />I don't know anyone in greenpeace.<br /><br />You have drawn an equivalence to the skeptics as I describe them. I take it you concede that my perspective is not wrong, just potentially one-sided. Can you open my mind, then by pointing out the prevalence of the views you have iterated, in the MSM and popular blogosphere? Because my impression, right or wrong, is that such extremist viewpoints usually only make it into the public sphere because someone who doesn't like them emphasises them, then giving the impression that this is somehow widespread.<br /><br />I totally agree that the media sensationalises and is often unreliable. That's de rigeur and a different point.<br /><br />Look forward to your reply. Cheers.<br /><br />barryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-26528135898544347092012-03-02T08:50:19.221+01:002012-03-02T08:50:19.221+01:00Barry, I liked that comment. I too wish I could w...Barry, I liked that comment. I too wish I could write better to express what I feel sometimes about the nonsense.<br /><br />As I was reading your comment I found myself substituting 'environmental activists' for sceptics. Your sentence 'I'm a patient person, but I want to break something when these zombies keep rising from the dead, propagated by a milieu far more interested in pushing an agenda than furthering understanding.' expressed my feeling at the seventy-ninth 'world is ending', 'our children won't know what coral is' headline, and I'm afraid a lot of that is pushed by a milieu more interested in agenda than understanding.<br /><br />To take it a long way away from AGW, I follow the RSPB (birds). I have the same dog in the race as they do, let's have birds, lots of different sorts of them. But let's have an organisation, a system, a milieu, that can recognise when they're wrong about the science, or wrong about the policy. Let's have them recognise, as an example, that a well-managed shooting estate can provide a far more sustainable environment for bird life, and employment too, profitability is a useful basis for sustainability. Don't default to some kind of Gaia wilderness property is theft nonsense. Especially in the most densely populated country in Europe. It does the birds no good, it reduces diversity. Deal with the world. The zombies that keep rising in that area, cherry-picking of data (let's leave waders out of the table), are quite frustrating. (They do a lot of good stuff too of course).<br /><br />The media prefer bad stories - 'egrets close to extinction' sells better than 'egret population in healthy state', and that doesn't help. The audience is often lay-people, and I don't think Gleick's articles in Forbes were unaware of that! <br /><br />I have a cousin who used to run the UK Green Party. He still believes 1m people have died from Chernobyl radiation, and that the WHO and UNHCR are part of a corporatist cover-up. Talk about a zombie rising from the dead, over and over again!<br /><br />Life isn't perfect, we probably (certainly?) all have agendas, and the reality is we have to deal with people who want different things, and quite a lot can't recognise what is possible and what is not.<br /><br />I think the sceptic hype over Gleick has been that sceptics recognise, as discussed earlier in the thread, that scientists have their fair share of people motivated by career, papers, fame, sex even, jealousy and so on. This stuff is tractable. But what Gleick did was closer to Rainbow Warrior (if somewhat less effective!).<br /><br />Does that make any sense?Roddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104358721079710535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-45743753332831691022012-03-02T07:30:14.323+01:002012-03-02T07:30:14.323+01:00"And there is this tone of superiority which ..."And there is this tone of superiority which reminds me of some of the CRU emails when critical papers were dismissed as "pure crap" etc"<br /><br />Sometimes crap IS crap. In the case of the CRU emails, they were private communications, not public. But make your point with specific cites - this is just rhetoric until we know what is being talked about.<br /><br />The popular/semi-popular (blog) climate debate is a battleground and no side has behaved purely. But the flood of 'skeptic' blogs over the Gleick affair implies that such behaviour from a scientist is very unusual, and the mainly condemnatory comments from scientists regarding his action cements the notion (as if it was ever in doubt). It may not be said by the skeptics, but their furore is based on a tacit understanding that the standard to which science is held is very high (regardless of the appropriateness of conflating academic integrity with morality).<br /><br />Gleick's frustration and the caustic approach to skeptics by people like Wiliam Connolley is understandable. The skeptical milieu can get away with all sorts of distortions and outright falsehoods, whether self-deluded or mendacious, and the corrupted messages are resurrected year after year throughout the skeptiverse (and then into the MSM), despite demolishment after demolishment, because the standard of rational debate is so low in that milieu. Thus, we are still hearing that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect, or, in the mainstream press, that the lag of CO2 to temps in the paleoclimate record 'proves' humantiy can't be responsible for modern warming. Politically driven 'institutes' like Heartland push this sort of rubbish.<br /><br />I'm a patient person, but I want to break something when these zombies keep rising from the dead, propagated by a milieu far more interested in pushing an agenda than furthering understanding. It is maddening, and it grates to be informed that we must respect these dissenting voices, these ignoramuses or deliberate time-wasters.<br /><br />When the audience is laypeople, the practise and language of science is quite vulnerable to the rhetoric of punditry and politics. Scientific *truth*, with its caveats and confidence intervals is the first victim on an unlevel field. Gleick's action has no impact on the science of climate change, but it does have an impact on perceptions, and exploiting perceptions is all the skeptics need to do to get what they actually want (which is not *the truth*). The skeptic audience, for the most part, are unable to differentiate between one man and the community, and between this act of 'burglary' and the validity of climate science. Casual punters may likewise have neither the discretion nor the patience to clarify such distinctions.<br /><br />The Connolley/wiki saga is also meta stuff. It doesn't matter how much arrant nonsense was edited into (and later out of) the climate wiki by other people, these people will never be held accountable, even if their stuff had been left in, because truth and integrity is not a premium for climate skeptics, generally speaking. Squashing the AGW message is the priority, and that is why skeptics have one standard for climate scientists, and one for the critics. And that is why, as many have noted, they proffer all manner of justifications to excuse the person who stole the CRU emails, while condemning Gleick for stealing the Hearltand documents.<br /><br />My comments here will no doubt be intepreted as a partisan commentary. The typical skeptic will simply believe that I have pro-AGW agenda and that my 'bias' informs my comments. But I have no dog in the race concerning AGW. I'm completely cynical about it. No, what compels me to comment is my disgust at the sabotaging of the effective communication and discussion of science. The silver lning in the recent disappointment is that the magnitude of the Gleick anomaly reminds us of the usual high standards in science. I wish I was a better writer, so that I could emphasise that more succinctly.<br /><br />barryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-48825861059090149602012-03-01T19:04:57.922+01:002012-03-01T19:04:57.922+01:00@ Mike
"We all have to deal with people who ...@ Mike<br /><br />"We all have to deal with people who disagree with us, and pretending they don't exist and/or are liars isn't very honest or helpful"<br /><br />You're maybe right as long as you stay halfway on the ground of rational - and therefore skeptical thought. <br /><br />But when it comes to religious belief, just forget it. <br /><br />It's impossible to challenge the orthodoxy and the papal infallibility of a true believer.<br /><br />As Dekker puts it: "We can't have a constructive debate where we can both learn if one side refuses to accept basic logic and reason".<br /><br />Of course - and from his point of view it goes without saying - it's well determined what "basic logic and reason" declare to be proven and to be part of the "consensus" in climate science.<br /><br />There's a nice quote on belief posted by M. Hampel in the neighbour thread ...<br /><br />"It is all guesswork, doxa rather than epistēmē… Science has no authority… It represents…our hope of emancipating ourselves from ignorance and narrow-mindedness, from fear and superstition. And this includes… the superstitious belief in the authority of science itself"<br /><br />V. LenzerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-24892995294512434462012-03-01T17:55:52.904+01:002012-03-01T17:55:52.904+01:00"Here is one lie, just one post ago : "w..."Here is one lie, just one post ago : "whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy". There is not a single paper disputing that we humans are changing the climate. Let alone a 'controversy'. Let alone a 'major controversy'."<br /><br />I'm a little surprised that you would think this is so absurd. I'm assuming we all agree that the statement really means "human beings are changing the climate <i>a lot</i>". Once you include that, there are some who disagree. For instance, Lindzen and Roy Spencer; I think both of them feel that human contributions are lost in the noise. So there is a controversy. Is it a "major" controversy? - I guess that's a judgment call, and perhaps Heartland values anti-AGW scientists more than you probably would. <br />No way would I call that statement a lie, and I find it a little hard not to be nervous of someone who would. We all have to deal with people who disagree with us, and pretending they don't exist and/or are liars isn't very honest or helpful.MikeRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00127456522803816485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-7168051614963442192012-03-01T15:03:01.637+01:002012-03-01T15:03:01.637+01:00Rob Dekker,
You wrote,
"I admire that Hans ...Rob Dekker,<br /><br />You wrote,<br /><br />"I admire that Hans responded to this assertion (and nobody else apparently), which increases my respect for our host."<br /><br />In fact, I also answer you, and I think said relatively similar things to Hans.<br /><br />Meanwhile, in your response to Hans, after promising to make a case that HI are "lying" you end up only arguing that,<br /><br />"either the Heartland is lying, or they are just venting empty rhetoric based on some belief system that is so deeply ingrained..."<br /><br />Problem is, that's exactly what I said. It is far more likely that they are arguing from a different belief system. <br /><br />You go on to say that they must feel they don't need evidence. Well, that also doesn't follow and can't be proven. But it seems like we have established that you know you can't prove that they are "lying".Alex Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10591760549272940968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-60464574186141271252012-03-01T11:20:33.778+01:002012-03-01T11:20:33.778+01:00Got it, thanks.
So the fuller context is:
Dr. Wo...Got it, thanks.<br /><br />So the fuller context is:<br /><br />Dr. Wojick has conducted extensive research on environmental and science education for the<br />Department of Energy. In the course of this research, he has identified what subjects and<br />concepts teachers must teach, and in what order (year by year), in order to harmonize with<br />national test requirements. He has contacts at virtually all the national organizations involved in<br />producing, certifying, and promoting science curricula.<br /><br />Dr. Wojick proposes to begin work on “modules” for grades 10-12 on climate change (“whether<br />humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy”), climate models (“models<br />are used to explore various hypotheses about how climate works. Their reliability is<br />controversial”), and air pollution (“whether CO2 is a pollutant is controversial. It is the global<br />food supply and natural emissions are 20 times higher than human emissions”).<br /><br />Wojick would produce modules for Grades 7-9 on environmental impact (“environmental impact<br />is often difficult to determine. For example there is a major controversy over whether or not<br />humans are changing the weather”), for Grade 6 on water resources and weather systems, and so<br />on.<br /><br />A first comment would be that the sentences in quote marks are headline snippets I guess.<br /><br />I agree the sentence is absurd, even ignoring GHGs, as per Pielke Sr's non-ghg AGW work.<br /><br />But I'd need to see more before I'd be happy with the liar word.<br /><br />It's a dangerous word which generally has negative utility - for example I think Greenpeace lie about Chernobyl (eg on foetal deformations), but I'd rather say they produce poor research which conflicts with the best scientific evidence, probably because of their anti-nuclear agenda, a sentence I'd be happy to apply to some of Heartland's, replacing anti-nuclear with an appropriate phrase.<br /><br /><br />Not apropos this precise conversation I enjoyed this piece by Megan McArdle.<br /><br />http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/why-we-should-act-to-stop-global-warming-and-why-we-wont/253752/Roddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104358721079710535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-75610200638984248572012-03-01T10:47:10.456+01:002012-03-01T10:47:10.456+01:00OK, Roddy, I guess my post got stuck in the spam f...OK, Roddy, I guess my post got stuck in the spam filter, so here it is without the URL link : The quote is from Heartland's Fundraising docuent, page 18, as part of Dr. Wojick's “modules” for grades 10-12 on climate change.Rob Dekkernoreply@blogger.com