Scepticism goes respectable

There has been some speculation that the tide of opinion on global warming is turning. Here's one example: Even left now laughing at global warming.

And I've just come across another: Nature Climate Feedback, who I've roundly criticised in the past for failing to link to Climate Audit have quietly rearranged their blogroll, adding a link to McIntyre in the process. One really does wonder what was going through their heads when they did this - did they think that they were starting to look foolish by now acknowledging CA, especially now that McIntyre has another paper in press? Or is this the start of a rehabilitation of the sceptical community ahead of a general recognition that the whole AGW thing has been oversold.

Either way, the recognition is well-deserved, if a little tardy.

Comments

[Hoi Polloi]

Re link on Natural Climate Feedback, it's still under the category "Other Voices - 'skeptics', industry and......marginalized views

[Bishop Hill]

It's hard to argue that it's not a marginalised view I suppose. ;-)

[Frank O'Dwyer]

Bishop,

"There has been some speculation that the tide of opinion on global warming is turning."

Since when did sceptics speculate, never mind about blatant falsehoods?

"Here's one example: Even left now laughing at global warming."

Good grief. Was that your best example?

Scepticism gets respect? WHAT scepticism?

[Bishop Hill]

Frank

You are not making a lot of sense.

[Frank O'Dwyer]

Bishop,

That's a rather ironic comment. I thought I was clear enough, and anyway judging by your first link above, sense is not a requirement.

Anyway let me spell it out. The evidence you link to in support of your headline is (a) a standard backwater media denier propaganda op-ed full of easily refuted falsehoods, irrelevancies, and cherry picks (even the 'leftists' are cherry picked), and (b) an entry in a blogroll under the dismissive heading 'skeptics'.

I do not think it overly dismissive to call that level of evidence pitiful. Wish fulfillment might be a better term for it.

So, I see a lot of people patting themselves on the back for being 'sceptics'. But I see no actual scepticism. Is it going to start soon?

[mondo]

Hey Bishop. I think that it is time for another of your excellent summary pieces addressing the Antarctic story in Nature and the controversy that has erupted since.

What is particularly interesting is that we have Michael Tobis, whom most of the RC crowd would count as a fellow traveller, calling RC out on their bad behaviour. In particular, Michael says that Eric Steig made a false statement that Gavin, in his response, failed to address, and so effectively let stand. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/02/antarctic-warming-is-robust/langswitch_lang/zh. Post 64.

An extract: "Claiming that “the code, all of it” is at the link provided in #6 is risible. It doesn’t help in improving the reputation of climate science, which I thought after all was a main point of the exercise here.

A single statement by an RC editor that is demonstrably and visibly false is a very large error. You guys have taken on a big and important job with this site, and you have my gratitude and respect for it. However, that implies taking some care to avoid obvious and embarrassingly wrong mistakes. This sort of thing is costly, and you need to take as much care with your commentary as with your articles."

[Bishop Hill]

Actually I was just thinking the same thing myself, although I gather that Booker is going to do a piece in the Telegraph on Sunday. I'll see what he comes up with first. He probably can't cover it in enough detail to do it justice so I may well pick up next week.

[Bishop Hill]

Frank

You could start a punch up in an empty room! ;-) I didn't think my statements on the tide of opinion were controversial - I've read stories on pro-AGW blogs commenting on a recent spate of sceptical stories. That's really all I was alluding to. (Please let's not debate the semantics of "sceptical" - it would be too tedious for words).

[Bishop Hill]

By the way, I notice Michael Tobis suddenly standing up for data disclosure too. Very welcome, I must say, and not something many people on your side of the debate have been standing up for.

[Alex Cull]

Re being sceptical, Associated Press reported even NCAR's Kevin Trenberth as saying: "This looks like a pretty good analysis, but I have to say I remain somewhat skeptical," also "It is hard to make data where none exist." And that was on Jan 21st, so before the Harry/Gill furore started.