Bishop Hill In which I go beyond the pale
Dec 19, 2009 Climate: Jones Media The Yale Climate Forum has a post up about Climategate - standard "move along now nothing to see here" fare. Perhaps attracted by the Yale name, I decided to make a small contribution to the debate there, picking up on some remarks by the piece's author Zeke Hausfather. Here's what he said about "hiding the decline":
This may be somewhat dubious in that it gives the impression that proxy reconstructions match the observed temperature record better than they otherwise would.
My comment was that "somewhat dubious" is a remarkable way to describe what Jones did. I pointed out that if he had done this as part of a share issue he would be looking at a long jail term. This is factually correct, and was posted pretty much in the terms I've given here.
Unfortunately though, The Yale Climate Forum viewed the posting of a true statement in mild terms as being completely beyond the pale and they decided to delete my comment.
I complain regularly that the climate debate often lapses into those on the other side of the argument claiming that words have different meanings to normal when they use them. The word "Forum" is clearly used in a profoundly different sense at Yale.
Reader Comments (40)
On a similar note, I see that Ben Goldacre has an end of year post looking at the years' bad science. No mention at all of climategate bad science though.
Simpleton: I noticed that too. Maybe one or two of the comments he received about mouthing off recently (pro-AGW dogma naturally) when he admitted to being no expert on the subject had an effect. Maybe he's going to research the subject in depth and come out as a "denier" in The Guardian.
Only joking.
Incidentally, Bishop, I think we should congratulate Johnny Ball for his bravery and encourage him to keep up the good work.
For non-UK readers, Ball is a much-loved TV personality who presented science-based programmes for generations of children. It's a fair bet that many current British scientists and mathematicians first became enthused by his programmes. Many of his grown up (in one sense) viewers will have been in the audience at a recent gathering of rationalists campaigning for free-speech in science.
Ball had been invited to make a speech but found out how far the audiences commitment to this noble cause extended when he devoted his speech to AGW alarmism being nonsense.
He was booed off stage.
The smug ****ers in the audience will, no doubt, fail to appreciate the irony.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/earticle/7841/
Hey, artwest, how do you know the audience were bankers? Or muggers? Or are those the same thing?
Very sad, At one time of day scientist had a discussion, agreed where they could, disagreed where they felt it was necessary and then went to the bar for drink.
Now its about trying to close down debates, smearing the opposite view and its protagonists.
They dont seem to understand, if they are right then their argument will stand up to any question posed.
Kuhn seems to have won out.
New Scientists have been printing really attocious stuff. Far worse than even Gore would claim. However, go and comment and any skeptical comments are being pulled left right and center.
They have lost my subscription. I'll write to the editor to let him know. I've no doubt he'll say F-off. However, I'm also going to write to their parent company to inform them as to why I've pulled my cash from them
I suspect that might get a bit more notice.
dearieme
'Hey, artwest, how do you know the audience were bankers? Or muggers?.. '
I thought he meant lawyers.
Just shows how wrong I can be!!
Bishop,
It sounds like you went into a church of a different denomination and questioned:
-The imaculate conception
-The Virgin birth, and,
-Trans-substantiation
I suppose the burning of heretics would be carbon neutral....
Keith
;^)}
Oh, come now. You must have used some profane or offensive language. Maybe words like "truth", "rational", "ethical", etc.
Am working my way through Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. The introductory chapter to the period after the Middle Ages has an interesting passage on the advent of science into philosophical reasoning, and how science and religion behave differently. He then goes on to describe the nature of this difference, which is essential that religious philosophy brooks no dissent, whereas the opposite is the case with a science based philosophy.
Thanks, Bert, for confirming my view that AGW is not science, rather, religion.
Saw a few good links here about AGW as Neo-Lysenkoism and as a new religion, which seems to fit in with the thoughts of the day. http://agwfraud.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/agw-is-neo-lysenkoism/ Also they've got a good one today on the "meaningful deal" struck at Copenhagen.
Bish, do you think like they do that the failures at Bali, Poznán and Copenhagen will lead more to people asking for a tougher body to regulate any consensus? If such a thing ever happens!
Wow! How is there supposed to be a debate when even a moderate/mild presentation is rejected? Unfortunate.
Bishop,
It must have been the implication of illegality that got your post deleted. There are a couple of other fairly clever and snarky comments that survived. I got a chuckle out of the first sentence in the article:
"No climate-related stories over the past few years have attracted the level of mainstream coverage as those involving personal e-mails..."
One newspaper in my hometown has run perhaps two stories both of witch give the impression that the warmists have somehow been victimized by these ill-begotten emails. And, it's not like we haven't been bombarded by AGW propaganda by the MSM for "the past few years".
Hey, Good Bishop, be happy that they didn't tie you to the stake and burn you as a heretic.
The good news is that the East Coast of the US in facing one of the worst winters in the last 20 years, as is the EU.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580550,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6962492.ece
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/dreams-of-white-christmas-could-become-cold-hard-fact-1981694.html
Nothing like freezing in the dark to convince the general populace that "Global Warming" is a hoax
Out of the mouths of prelates...
"I complain regularly that the climate debate often lapses into those on the other side of the argument claiming that words have different meanings to normal when they use them."
Bish,
I think you have touched on a greater truth than you might have intended here. For some time now I've noticed that proponents on either side of this alleged debate have been talking past one another. There is this sense that there are no connectives, and that the supposed rejoinders, rebuttals etc simply do not register on the recipient.
I've been led to the conclusion that the non-IPCC faction are governed by a strong preference for Popper and the (lets call it) traditional scientific method, while the pro-IPCC faction lean heavily toward Kuhn and indeed Ravetz and post-normal science.
There seems little point in endlessly repeating the necessity for falsifiability, reproducibility etc on the one side and consensus, stakeholders, peer review and narrative on the other, when the two sides fundamentally disagree on what constitutes science, or what particular words mean?
To support this, A read through the IPCC AR4 glossary or the UNFCCC Article 1 definitions can be instructive. e.g. The definition of Climate Change starts - 'a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity.....'
That is not a good start to a definition I would endorse. If you want the natural stuff, that's called 'Climate Variability'.
However, a close reading of the glossary definitions usually allows some understanding of the intended meaning.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'
@Chuckles
I would hope that all scientific progress would benefit from all who have made a contribution to the scientific progress debate: Popper, Kuhn, etc. I would hate to pigeon-hole Kuhn or associate him with the likes of questionable science. Funny, though, I was thinking of Kuhn as well and thinking the paradigm shifts should move us forward, not backward. I need to go back a re-read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I'm sure the current situation is not what Kuhn had in mind.
it's all those grants, see. not that they have any vested financial interest in one set of outcomes over any other, ooo no, not a bit of it.
seriously, though, this swivel-eyed, pro-AGW mindset, what does it actually signify? might it, in fact, be more than a hint that an appetite for religious fervor is as much a part of many avowedly secular minds as of those who have dedicated themselves to a more established religious doctrine?
The Bishop: "the climate debate often lapses into those on the other side of the argument claiming that words have different meanings to normal when they use them. "
Ditto! Over on deep climate, DC has devoted a several hundred word piece to explaining why "trick" and "hide" don't actually mean "trick" and "hide".
BTW, I don't find that (admittedly popular) E-mail to be so damning - I'm more disturbed by gatekeeping and failing to allow proper review/replication.
But I'm struck by the lengths to which some will go to explain this away. Frankly, I think it's a counter-productive defense.
...perhaps my bias is showing.
I posted the following:
It is currently awaiting moderation -- should be interesting to see what happens.
DaveH
You may wish to read this paper prepared by Dr/ Richard S. Lindzen, M.I.T. -
http://www.izzit.org/PDFs/other_resources/Lindzen08-Nov29-ClimateScience+SocioPolitics.pdf
-interesting that this paper came out 12 months before climategate.
@chuckles
Or put another way (academic double-talk aside):
People have an apocalypse gene – no? A commonly recurring theme in human history – no? Climate change is religion:
Only climate scientist (priests) know the truth (can talk to god). It would be dangerous for people to see the data (try to talk to god). People must give up fossil fuels (do penance) or there will be storms, flood, droughts (apocalypse). Scientists (priests) need $billions$ (offerings) to continue their work (conversations with god on behalf of the people). To become a climate scientist requires years of special training and sacrifice with little tangible reward – many fail (trust us, we are priests). We must act now, by the time you see the damage it will be too late (have faith).
(evil) Oil company executives are delaying (wallowing in sin that leads to destruction). Paid (demonically possessed) industry shills spread disinformation (utter blasphemies). It is righteous to silence critics (stop blasphemy) lest people become confused (tempted) and fail to act in time (fall from grace, refuse to do penance and make offerings) .
The acolytes are helping the good priests save the world from the devil. Who’s gonna convince them otherwise?
@ken bc: a crackerjack, Sir. For those who have little time, do enjoy footnote 16 -
"...The editor of Science, at the time, was Donald Kennedy, a biologist ...who had served as president of Stanford University. His term, as president, ended with his involvement in fiscal irregularities such as charging to research overhead such expenses as the maintenance of the presidential yacht and the provision of flowers for his daughter’s wedding – offering peculiar evidence for the importance of grant overhead to administrators. .."
Okay, my longer comment on "the trick" was published. My shorter one on the Trenberth quote has been awaiting moderation for about three hours. And I submitted it first. Here it is.
Tilo Reber said on: Your comment is awaiting moderation. December 19th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Okay, let’s start with the Trenberth quote. You are clearly diminishing it’s significance. The issue is not about 2008 being a cool year as a result of La Nina, but rather the issue is that the entire trend from 1998 to 2008 is flat. It’s an 11 year flat period where we should have experienced .22C of warming if the IPCC projections are correct. It’s the 11 years that are the issue, not the single year 2008. If 2008 had been an El Nino year in an otherwise rising trend from 1998, then there would be no issue. What Trenberth and the rest of the alarmist community are unable to identify are the elements of natural variation that have caused the entire period from 1998 to 2008 to go flat. The fact that they cannot point to the natural elements of variation that are responsible indicates that they don’t have enough information to model the climate in any meaningful way, and that models that project into the future are therefore meaningless.
Your last paragraph reminds me of something said by Clinton's lawyers during his impeachment trial - "it depends what the meaning of 'is' is".
Enough already,
OMG, I'm mailing that to my friends,
Do not worry good Bishop, there's a link to your thread going in the mails to.
Keith
Enough Already (?Martin Luther iii),
I know this is gilding the lily, but...
We must all pay new taxes (buy indulgences to escape eternal punishment for our sinful ways)
I'm sure we can all think of self flagellating pennetants too
Keith
Zeke says he's checking on what happened to your comment.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/doe-%e2%80%9clitigation-hold-notice%e2%80%9d-regarding-cru/
funny how people mock any suggestions of 'conspiracies' about any and everything....
Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor
One person in the nine-member Realclimate.org team — U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley — would take on particularly crucial duties.
Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.
All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/18/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx
I hate censors - shows they are afraid of debate.
Here are my top reasons AGW is science fiction and not science for anyone not shoveling snow today:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11932
Cheers
Hi Mr. Hill,
While your rejected comment here will, of course, get much exposure on this forum than on our nascent blog, just wanted to make you aware we recently created a forum for exactly this type of rejected, deleted, or "moderated" comment. Be be happy to create a post for the article and your comment on AIC, if you like (AIC's email address is on the sidebar of the site).
Cheers,
An Inconvenient Comment
http://aicomment.blogspot.com
It's exactly the same over at Nature's Climate Feedback blog. Not a single of my several posts there (criticizing the role of New Scientist, Nature and Science in the context of climategate) ever made it through.
Okay, I have to report on the Yale site - regardless of how the chips fell. I put in three skeptical comments and all three were posted. One waited nearly 6 hours in moderation, but it also was posted. Speaking for my experience only, I can accuse Zeke of whitewashing the significance of the climategate emails, but I can't accuse him of not conducting a fair fight.
An Inconvenient Comment:
I have some old screenshots of comments that were rejected by RC. Can you take screenshots, and where do I put them?
Hi Tilo,
So far we've been operating on text copies and the honor system, but screen caps could certainly work, too. I don't want to clutter up BH's blog with OT stuff, so please contact AIC at the email address on the right-sidebar of our site if you'd like to talk more about putting them up; we're happy to oblige.
Cheers,
AIC
I was pleasantly surprised that I was able to post a number of "skeptical" or "denier "comments at Climate Progress (Christy vs Schmidt debate posting by Essunger)_with absolutely no deletions. There were the odd personal attacks by some but I have to give credit to many who were thoughtful and courteous in their rebutals and to credit the site
for not deleting any of my comments. It was quite refreshing to debate some of these issues with those of opposing viewpoints. Quite fun actually. Open discussion on these issues must be commended whenever it occurs. However, shame on Yale.
At Yale they should look and see that not only does the environment invalidate the AGW theory but that it also fails the 3 main scientific tests - tarski's theorum, the classical model of science and scientific method. It is noteworthy that one of the principles of the scientific method is skepticism yet this is what many climate realists have been attacked for having by climate alarmists. Therefore the theory of AGW must by reason be abandoned.
http://twawki.com/2009/12/20/tarskis-theorum/
"The fact that they cannot point to the natural elements of variation that are responsible indicates that they don’t have enough information to model the climate in any meaningful way, and that models that project into the future are therefore meaningless."
what bull. This shows you are as guilty as overexageration as you accuse alarmists of being. The case for high climate sensitivity is not hinged on being able to explain each 5 year period (1998-2008 is not the issue, it's more like 2003-2008, and even then the solar cycle would have had influence on some of it)
"models that project into the future are therefore meaningless"
Models don't even project in the sense your words literally claim. They model the dynamics of the climate, they don't throw in temperature and just project the trend out. The only sense that the model results are projections is in the sense that they rely on assumptions about the future emission course.
cthulhu:
"The case for high climate sensitivity is not hinged on being able to explain each 5 year period (1998-2008 is not the issue, it's more like 2003-2008, "
Wrong. The trend is flat from 1998 to 2008.
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/10/updated-11-year-global-temp-anomoly.html
"Models don't even project in the sense your words literally claim."
I'm not interested in mincing words with you. The IPCC claims that we are going to get .2C of warming per decade. That is a projection based on models. You can call it anything you like.
A significant variation from the models that is 11 years long cannot be hand waved off as noise. It can be projected as noise, but after the fact we have to be able to say what caused the flat trend or else we simply don't have enough information about the climate to model it. I'm talking about elements like ENSO, PDO, volcanoes, clouds, etc. All of these elements need to be modeled in order to produce a meaningful model. If those elements are modeled incorrectly or if there are elements that are not modeled at all, then the models are worthless. Obviously if we cannot define what overrode the supposed CO2 effect for the past 11 years, we cannot model it. In fact, we cannot even say that it is a short term overriding of CO2. In order to say such a thing we would have to know what the overriding factor is. All the talk about noise and natural variation is simply handwaving that shows that the AGW cabal is at a loss to explain the flat trend and so they hope to make it go away with generalizations that don't apply to the particular.
[This is from memory, and I'm gettin' old. But I think it's accurate]:
Maybe a year or so ago Zeke Hausfather was trying hard to make some headway on a thread at WattsUpWithThat, and an issue came up regarding his blog: The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media. As I recall, it was pointed out to Zeke that his blog was funded by a leftist foundation with a heavy pro-AGW agenda.
Zeke denied it. Anyway, when he denied it, I went to his home page and copied:
"The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media is grateful for the generous financial support of the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment", and posted it in response. [Grantham is Soros lite.]
Zeke replied with a lame comment, to the effect that he didn't read his home page. I still remember another poster's comment right after that:
"Ouch, Zeke."
"Models don't even project in the sense your words literally claim. They model the dynamics of the climate, they don't throw in temperature and just project the trend out. The only sense that the model results are projections is in the sense that they rely on assumptions about the future emission course."
Conversations with god are difficult (trust us, we are priests).