Monday
Nov302009
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Tom Crowley on BBC
Nov 30, 2009 Climate Regular readers of Climate Audit will probably need a strong stomach to take Crowley's comments in this BBC Radio interview.
Update on Nov 30, 2009 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
There is a transcript here.
Reader Comments (15)
Presumably this is the same Tom Crowley who wrote
How about the fact that Inuit Indians of the Northwest Territories in Canada have seen robins in their homeland. The Inuits have lived there for almost 10,000 years and don't even have a word for robins!
Unfortunately not true
As I don't have a strong stomach and have been feeling somewhat nauseous today, can you summarise for me?
http://neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2445
I believe this guy here has done a partial transcript.
No thanks. I've stomached enough AGW crap in my lifetime already..
The whole piece is about 9 minutes long. Dr. Crowley comes across as an apologist for Phil Jones, repeatedly claiming that Jones is honest and would not do the things that the emails seem to indicate that he has or would like to do. The other discussant, Phil Stott, is much more circumspect - but then he is a skeptic.
The discussion does not touch on (a) stonewalling FOI requests; (b) manipulating the peer review process; (c) manipulating the IPCC process and (d) mishandling raw data. Seems like Quentin has 2 or 3 other programs -worth of material.
One recurring theme here is the notion that scientists have better things to do than to answer repeated questions from Steve McIntyre, Willis Eisenbach, Dave Holland, etc. This misses the whole point that there articles do not include the data and procedures used. Second, such questions would be no big deal if they packaged up their data and code in SIs that would from the start all replication. The time requirement, IMHO, is bogus.
"This misses the whole point that there articles do not include the data and procedures used. Second, such questions would be no big deal if they packaged up their data and code in SIs that would from the start all replication. The time requirement, IMHO, is bogus."
This IS the point that many miss. Unless of course they think McIntyre and Co. simply like requesting to have things disclosed that are already disclosed. You know, just for the fun of it or something. I'm thinking of asking for and compiling a list of all the FOIA requests along with the claims of "the data has been released" from places like RC and the like, to show just what was released and why each request was necessary. If any such compilation exists already, someone please let me know before I waste my time.
Hi guys,
Thanks for the link. I've been checking the mainstream media coverage of climategate, and as I wrote, that is the only good coverage from the BBC I can find!
It's a full transcript of the segment on climategate, and I've put links to all the people mentioned at the bottom.
Steve
Richard A,
I think this is what you're looking for:
Timeline of the Emails re FOI request
http://neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2421?page=2#comment-2134
As you'll see I've been covering this non-stop. I thought I had it somewhere :)
Steve
"I am not a crook." --Richard Nixon
Hey, here's a short antidote to Crowley
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2009/11/toon_112709_FULL.php
The biggest irritation is that Crowley simply repeats the old lie, and it is a lie, that the data that has been requested is readily available in public from a variety of sources. Why didn't Stott in this case call on that lie ? It is one of the most common arguments that the alarmists are making, that the FOI etc requests were simply a form of harrassment that they became entitled to ignore because the data is/was already available.
What's more, I'll assert that Tom Crowley knows that it's a lie, and yet repeats it ad nauseam in public. Yet another reason that you can't trust any of that mob on anything.
I heard it live and was disgusted by Crowley. Prof Philip Stott is a regular sceptic on the programme, but I believ that he has to take a more moderate line in case the BBC chuck him off the programme. His blog is a marvellous read. see http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times.html
Like Phillip, I heard the programme live, and agree with his sentiments.
There is also the point that Philip Stott is a scholar and a gentleman: he simply isn't capable of the sort of rude directness required to deal with scoundrels like Crowley.
His previous blog is still up, and Stottie's print approach is sometimes Swiftian:
http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politics/A_Hot_Topic_Blog/A_Hot_Topic_Blog.html
Climate Audit's criticism of the hockey stick graph are on target.
Common sense should suggest that something's fishy about the hockey stick, which used tree-ring proxies from Siberia to rewrite the historical temperature record and suppress the Medieval Warm Period.
And we have proof:
Lucia explains how to construct a hockey stick graph out of random data
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/17/how-to-trick-yourself-into-unintentional-cherry-picking-to-make-hockey-sticks/
Mann is speaking out about the emails right on a radio show now. If you had stomach to hear Crowley, not sure you can bear Mann.
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/11/30.php#29153
John Podesta, president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, former chief of staff to President Clinton, and author of "The Power of Progress."
Stephen Power, reporter, Wall Street Journal
Michael Mann, Director, Earth Systems Science Center, Pennsylvania State University
Kenneth Green, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Bishop Hill - I've posted this at CAmirror as well.
The link below is the one of the most considered responses to this story (IMHO) :
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23774747-the-climate-change-apostles-must-be-open-to-challenge.do
But as well as just listing links wouldn’t it also be useful to create a perceptual continuum for the media coverage, something like this:
0) Don’t report
1) Hacking is illegal
2) Nothing to see here
3) Looks bad but just academic infights
4) Hmm something is strange – sack the ‘bad apple’
5) Hmm something is strange – let’s investigate their science
6) Hmm something is strange – let’s investigate the IPPC
Beeb is at 2 along with most of the press, The Economist went straight in a 3. The article linked above rates a 5. Monbiot hits a 4, although his knights of carbonia addition should lose him points.
There might be more subtle shades but it seems to accord with what I’m reading or not around the world.