Wednesday
Dec022009
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill This made me sad
Dec 2, 2009 Climate What a book a Devil's Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horribly cruel works of Nature.
Charles Darwin
Nature has said its piece on the Climategate story, in an editorial that would not have looked out of place in the in-house magazine of Greenpeace. My overwhelming emotion was of sadness at what environmentalism has done to a once-great publication.
See here.
Reader Comments (27)
Nature says: "But when climate modellers test this assertion by running their simulations with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide held fixed, the results bear little resemblance to the observed warming. The strong implication is that increased greenhouse-gas emissions have played an important part in recent warming, meaning that curbing the world's voracious appetite for carbon is essential"
So this is what the scientific method has come down to in the 21st Century: simply run the codes and consider the output as all the evidence you need to explain real-world behavior. Whatever happened to the step where you make a clear/unambiguous prediction and then check it against real-world data?
Amazing!
I stopped reading after the first sentence where the author (editor) refers to climate change denialists. As far as I am concerned this is akin to starting an article with a reference to someone being a fascist, or calling someone Adolph Hitler, because they don't believe what you believe. Godwin's Law needs a AGW corollary berating the users of the term denial as immature name callers instead of thoughtful debaters.
Can Nature even be considered a magazine of science when the editor does not have an open mind to the possibility of being wrong?
Errors of fact also. The antarctic ice is not decreasing in area.
As an active palaeoclimate scientist and also someone who has published in Nature I am deeply disturbed by this editorial. I have written to the editor and cancelled my subscription. There is no room in science for such closed minds. I fear that the editorial is now running behind the pack. By all accounts there is every chance the UEA investigation will be thorough and watching the Vice-Chancellor on television this evening he certainly was very careful to not defend CRU.
Also note the unwarrented presupposition that the emails were stolen "stolen" and the apparent lack of awareness of the fact that there is more than just emails in the leaked files.
And this would seem to make Nature an exponent of climate McCarthyism. According to Wikipedia, McCarthyism is "the politically motivated practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence." Where is the evidence that those who have requested disclosure, including Steve McIntyre, are "denialists"?
Dagfinn - It's not lack of awareness IMO, the emails can be be fudged away with 'out of context', 'scientists are human too', 'it's private conversations and just normal scientific chitter chatter' (apparently it's normal for scientists to chat about redefining peer review, happens all the time, go figure)
The documents rather than the emails will be the key, I think, to unraveling this thing to the point where it reverts to real science.
The pro AGW'ers know that so they only talk about the emails.
Geeez I'm getting cynical - I wonder why?
I posted earlier on another blog that the major institutions and journals need to seriously rethink their positions. That their initial support for and defence of AGW is understandable (or forgiveable if you prefer!) given their natural assumption would have been that the peer-review process was functioning and that no scientist would fudge their data to fit their theory - or if they did, that the normal processes of science (peer review and duplication of results) would catch it.
So their initial position is defensible. What they are doing now in keeping quiet - or in Nature's case, fighting back to defend the scientifically indefensible - is a disgrace. And if - a big if - there is a window of opportunity for them to recant and admit they screwed up before they become a laughing stock and permanently damage the reputation of science, then it's a short one and getting shorter by the day.
I only wish I had a subscription to Nature so I could cancel it...
It is sad to think of a much respected journal going through such contortions.
It brings to mind the idea of a once respected investment adviser having to admit in public that he's fallen for a 419 scam and explaining to an incredulous audience that it was convincing, it passed every reasonable test and the email would have touched anyone's heart.
Although wicked people have said it's a scam, the email is very convincing and he has every confidence that the promised millions will materialise. He defies anyone to prove that the email was not genuine.
i don't know this is so bad. The editorial seems to have been written with a certain lack of restraint, a hectoring tone that is reminiscent of some of the writing of one M. Mann. You don't suppose...
anyhow, the more bilious the editorial, the easier it is to pick holes in it. I think it is quite possible to pick rather uncomfortable holes in that editorial.
I just note that there is a meme coming through that the data must be published. That is a good thing; because up till climategate, obstruction was the name of the game.
per
This is the worst editorial I have ever seen from Nature. This is disgusting. Nature must have decided to go down on a collision crash to salvage their previously published papers from this climate gang. Never will I take anything published in Nature for being top of the bill. Rather, it will be suspected to be machinated, fabricated, as was the case with the famous stemcell research.
I am waiting for a correction.
"I only wish I had a subscription to Nature so I could cancel it..."
Damn you, Phil A. That's exactly what I wanted to say, but you beat me to it.
What unspeakable garbage. It reminds me of the worst of Donald Kennedy, at Science. By the way, I was on a radio program with Michael Mann on Monday, countering his garbage. You can listen to it here: http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/11/30.php#29153
Mann is trying the usual "nothing to see here, move along" routine. I call him on it.
Ken
Nature is no longer a science journal.
"One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results."
That must be an example of "adding context" by ignoring the rest of the sentence.
The moment someone uses the 'denier' insult, I stop reading, because that someone is in denail.
Bugger 'denial' !!
Notice the magician's misdirection - focus on the emails, damning enough indeed but subject to interpretation, and distract from the other, clear as day, evidence such as HARRY_READ_ME. Did the author of the editorial ctually read any of the released files ? Or is it a cut and paste from a Team press release ? Grrr
Can I ask everyone what their ultimate aim is here ?.I assume it’s to demonstrate that bad science and conspiracy has been at work and that the case for AGW is far from proven…
ok, sounds reasonable until you consider what the likely result of this would be…. to undermine the new found urgency on addressing the issues surrounding our dependency on oil.
Volume availability of oil will end within our lifetime. Unless we begin to transform away from our current oil energy based culture our civilisation as we know it will collapse in 20-30 years (if you think I’m exaggerating go and check how much our food production is dependent on oil)
Immediate reduction of emissions will mean the finite oil resources we have can be stretched longer, buying us much needed time
Immediate huge investment into renewables and nuclear will mean these technologies mature BEFORE the oil runs out
Demonstrating that the climate science conclusions cannot be trusted will result in a collapse of the international resolve to address the issues above.
whatever you feel about the efficacy of the climate science, it has finally forced governments to sit up and take notice. In my view THIS IS A GOOD THING ! (where GOOD = essential for the survival of our culture as we know it).
So I for one hope that you all fail in your attempts to discredit much of the climate science (even if it deserves to be). If that means some people get away with conspiracies, bullying, and bad science that’s maddening/frustrating/un-fair I agree...but it’s a small price to pay when you consider the alternative. This is not a green or environmental issue, it’s a survival of our civilisation issue. Please, all of you; think about the end consequences of your actions.
Alex, you mustn't conflate issues associated with peak oil, energy security and energy technology with the climate change debate. As I see it much of the politically driven agenda with regard to climate change is about the transfer of trillions of dollars from developed western economies to the developing world. It has little to do with developing new energy technology.
Peak oil, energy security are issues that need tackling now but they need addressing in a reasoned and responsible matter. You mention nuclear power and I agree there should be massive development of this energy source. However, look at how the so called environmentalists view nuclear power and have done everything to arrest progress. Instead we get irresponsible policies that view wind power as some kind of salve for our lack of an energy strategy.
Alex,
My personal reason is I want to see good science, and I don't want to be a slave on the Gore family plantation.
As a geologist, I well remember the panic in the early 1970s following an international conference in Rome, where (shock horror) it was revealed that there were only 25 years reserves of oil, copper, tin etc etc etc.
Reason being, "reserve" requires detailed investigation and bankable feasibility study, that is expensive, and as money has a time value, there are better uses for the money than spending it proving up reserves that you won't touch for at least 25 years.
The result of this "dire warning" was lots of state sector explorating, resulting in a metals price collapse at the end of the 1980s. It wasted time effort and money (as state sector action nearly always does).
I agree that altenatives to oil and gas need to be found, I don't like paying good money to Saudi and Russian dictatorships.
but,
The alternatives need to be economically sound and politically acceptable alternatives, not the bullshit presently on offer.
BTW Fossil fuels are far from exhausted. I did a little work on coal in Botswana, it is virtually un explored and untouched. It looks absolutely massive. Former Colleagues were drilling a 50m thick coal seam in Mozambique (2m or 3m would be thick by UK standards). The formations containing the coal run up into Kenya (obviously not continuous) and are virtually un explored.
"I only wish I had a subscription to Nature so I could cancel it". I had a subsciption to New Scientist and cancelled it. I only wish I had a subscription to Nature and another subscription to New Scientist so I could cancel both.
This Nature editorial is terrible, arrogant, defamatory towards skeptics, and continues the blind and shallow assertions that shed heat instead of light.
One clear logical fallacy is this gem: "Denialists often maintain that these changes are just a symptom of natural climate variability. But when climate modellers test this assertion by running their simulations with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide held fixed, the results bear little resemblance to the observed warming."
Lets consider: We have folks who say CO2 man-made-induced variability is diminished because of negative cloud feedbacks (Lindzen, Spencer). We have other folks who postulate cosmic ray influence on cloud formation and climate. Are either of these in the IPCC GHG models? Of course not! Neither are other alernatives to the "Its all about Co2" theory. So the models dont account for natural variabilty due to not having the models set up that way. For the editorial to use this fact that models set up to prove X dont prove Y and therefore X must be correct is mind-blowing in its fallaciousness.
It's 2 fallacies in one: 'the models havent been proven wrong so they must be right' combined with 'models dont show what these 'denialists' claim so those things cant exist.'
There are many more errors of fact and logic but the tone, and verbiage indicates a politician not someone interested in science is writing their editorials.Its disgraceful on many levels.
Alex, bad science is not more allowable in instances where that bad science is of more consequence than where it isn't. If anything, there should be HIGHER scrutiny on science that impacts public policy.
If the real issue is that we may one day run out of oil (even though we just uncovered 100 years supply of natural gas in the USA thanks to the marvels of being able to extract natural gas from shale), then make
that the focus, and not use some other concern to excuse fraud and bad science wrt climate change.
It's funny how the science elites go after creationists so hard, and yet I've never had a creationist demand I change my lifestyle and get taxed drastically on behalf of a myth - yet that is what the "global warming is a crisis" folks are doing. Shameful.
On a side note, other 'sicence' journals have walked down the same path of disrespectable adherence to agenda-driven junk science on behalf of leftwing eco-extremism. We see the globaloney nonsense in Scientific American, other 'popular science' journals like Discover, and, thanks to Jones and Mann,at some of the peer-reviewed ones as well.
The scandal is wide and deep. An entire field of science - Climate Science - has been corrupted by an agenda-driven desire to paint things worse than they are to convince gullible publics to do things that they ought not do.
"This is not a green or environmental issue, it’s a survival of our civilisation issue."
Alex, on further reflection, your analysis is nuttier than the true believers in Global Warming.
Consider: If the problem is lack of oil, and NOT CO2, then the solution is simple - USE COAL! We have 300 years of coal reserves globally. LOTS OF COAL. What has stopped us? People who think CO2 in the air is a terrible thing.
If, by the magic of a phony "threat' of CO2, we do not have access to 'dirty coal' then there is MORE pressure to use the 'cleaner' fossil fuels, such as natural gas. The 'climate change' folks have, thanks to eco-extremists opposing nuclear and the impracticalities of solar/wind, forced increasing use of natural gas.
What you dont realize Alex is that global warming hysteria is acutally making the problem of limited oil/gas you speak of WORSE. (And if you think we have limited coal, you are completely mistaken).
Anyone interested in expressing outrage at this editorial should write to nature@nature.com
Alex,
Your post is absurd. You are confusing the limitations with natural resorces with the idea that using one of those recources will cause irreverable change to the climate.
These are deep problems and not likely to be solved by basing one's idea on a falsehood.