Monday
Oct252010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Political science
Oct 25, 2010 Climate: other Royal Society Martin Rees appears unable to resist the temptation to ride roughshod over the Royal Society's tradition of avoiding political controversy. His latest contribution is a fairly naked piece of political advocacy - an open letter to media and business leaders, written jointly with Anthony Giddens, a left-wing academic. In it, the two men call for "a renewed impetus to international collaboration", reduced carbon emissions and the like.
It is remarkable to see two such prominent academics demonstrating such a remarkable lack of familiarity with simple logical thinking: they allude first to the floods in Pakistan, then say that they cannot be connected to climate change and then state that they represent "a stark warning".
Strewth.
Reader Comments (44)
Normal service resumes, say one thing but hint at another, the hint becomes the soundbite and sticks, but if you ever get called out for telling Porkies you fallback on the misquoted context getout knowing you meant it all along.
Politicians not Scentists !!!!
Never underestimate the stupidity of academics.
Martin Rees doesn't do logical thinking. He appeared on the radio when Ofcom reported on the Great Global Warming Swindle. You will recall that the Royal Society went in with a completely over-the-top complaint, but apart from making a few nit picking remarks as a sop to the complainants, Ofcom gave Channel 4 the all clear. In particular they ruled that the 'Swindle' documentary wasn't 'dangerous'. Rees was on the radio in no time fulminating that Ofcom had got it wrong and that the documentary WAS 'dangerous' because it might make people question the AGW agenda. Well, there's a logical fallacy: begging the question, or petitio principii.
But let's not forget that the Royal Society declares that there is no safe level of climate change: and even the slightest change, by whatever cause, is by definition 'dangerous'. So our climate has always been in a dangerous state, according to the Royal Society, even before man appeared on the earth. That makes the meaning of 'dangerous' practically meaningless, and the Royal Society a laughingstock.
Don't get me going on Rees and his astronomical con tricks. I'm afraid many scientists (and government chief scientists) doesn't seem to realize that logical fallacies undermine everything they are saying - and one doesn't have to be an expert or a scientist to be able to say that a person is wrong when they indulge in fallacies.
Pretty awful, disgusting dare I say. Our host says it all about the inherent logical fallacy, but I have to quote it to believe my eyes:
The use of "unprecedented" here when talking about a relatively short window of modern human observation reminds me of the phrase “The evidence is incontrovertible,” pointed out by Hal Lewis. This is just tub thumping demgogic politics not science. Yet the mantle of science is used to back it up.
Here is an interesting test point - I predict any argument or gainsaying of this polemic will be countered by people saying you are arguing against scientific authority. This would show the slippery slope of reducing science to the idea of it being a "philosopher king" truth giving religion - that Rees seems wilfully to playing into
Given the nominal eminence of the two authors, it's a pretty weak read. I would think any properly indoctinated sixth former with no science skills would be able to cobble together that list of non-sequiturs and come up with the bland prose sticking them together. It has no passion, no excitement, no drama. The last paragraph (supposedly a call to action) drips off the page as if they'd not quite finished, but remembered that the local pub had a happy hour with 15mins to run, and they just dashed off a few lines to finish it, hit 'send' and ran for the bar.
@ScientistForTruth
*gets you going*
It's called losing the plot. It's an inconvenient truth that there is no firm evidence of net CO2-AGW and the claimed proof is ultimately dependent on incorrect optical physics of clouds dating back to Carl Sagan. He put out a typical physcist's fudge, adapted by Hansen at NASA. NASA has subsequently invented fake physics apparently to justify its position.
So, those who went to the alarmist side are left hanging in the breeze, taking every opportunity to justify themselves but in reality they know they blew the reputation of objective science.
The big problem isn't AGW which increasingly looks to have been from clouds not CO2, but oceanic changes. However, there's plenty of time to understand that - say 50 years.
A pretty boring piece and I find the use of the word "torpor" annoying (use a clever word, where a simpler one would get the message across.)
Lobbying. Pure and simple. Reads like a press release.
Lobbying and true science? Incompatible bedfellows.
The emphasis on extreme weather events is very worrying. Sir Martin is marking time, waiting for the Big Heatwave, which is sure to turn up one of these years. The cutbacks in health and social services will probably result in deaths, (though, to judge by the 2006 experience, these will be cases of extremely fragile people dying a month or two earlier than they would “normally” do). And what will the government do then, poor things? Issue sensible guidance about staying indoors and drinking water, or tell us to switch off the air conditioning to save the planet?
“A report produced by NOAA in 2009 analysed findings from some 50 independent records monitoring temperature change, involving 10 separate indices. All 10 indicators showed a clear pattern of warming over the past half-century”.
This must surely be wrong. How can you have ten different indicators of temperature change? Kelvin, Celsius, Fahrenheit and what else? Seaweed?
What’s the Latin for: “Take the word of no-one, especially when he’s fingering your wallet”?
Banal knee-jerk correlation of the latest extreme weather phenomena to 'climate change' is now firmly established in the BBC, the press, and in parliamentary wisdom (excepting hard winters) without really realising that in so doing they make total plonkers of themselves. Here we have the president of the Royal Society, doing precisely that.
Does the Royal Society have a code of conduct for members, that includes phrases such as behaviour liable to bring disrepute upon the Royal Society? If so, does scaremongering without evidence count?
How is that warmists complain that non-climate scientists should not be criticising their "science" but it's ok for cosmologists to thump the tub for them?
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Dr. Judith Curry has deconstructed the IPCC's circular reasoning rather effectively in her recent three part analysis.
Not one AGW believer has so far shown flaws in her effort.
I would suggest that as we see in this RS statement one way to look at the AGW social movement is that it is a meme of circular reasoning that has trapped its adherents.
Is Martin Rees doing this as President of the RS? It is referenced at the bottom of the letter. If so, would he not have had to put it forward to a committee of Fellows, or can he just publish whatever he likes, using his title to add weight? In view of the revisions to the RS GW statement recently, there might be some annoyance from some members of the RS. Could that be why Rees chose to publish it, apparently rather obscurely, abroad.
I have removed the doomsaying and advocacy for action from the text of their letter and am left with the following four statements which I have taken the liberty to re-arrange into a logical order;
"If the world continues to depend on fossil fuels to the extent it does today, CO2 will reach double pre-industrial level (sic) within the next half-century."
"This build-up is triggering long-term warming, the physical reasons for which are well-known and demonstrable in the laboratory.”
"Extreme weather events will grow in frequency and intensity as the world warms."
“No-one can say with certainty that events such as the .... unprecedented weather episodes..... were influenced by climate change."
An excellent example of a logical fallacy. Textbook case?
Actually, it is logically possible to use a fallacious argument and yet speak simple truth in affirming one's conclusion. The point is that the argument doesn't prove that the conclusion is true if the assumptions are correct.
In a parallel way it is entirely possibe to attempt to give false witness (lie) and yet unknowingly tell the truth.
It is no less possible to be the intelligent head of a worthy institution and a manifest bigot who refuses to openly and seriously engage with the best arguments presented by the best proponents of a position with which one disagrees.
Nothing could be more extreme than a prolonged period without something, somewhere in the world being extreme - such as continual perfectly average weather for the location and time of year.
How could Messrs Rees and Giddens have reached such heights in academia? Any aspiring Cambridge undergraduate who put forward such sloppy reasoning, nay idiotic reasoning, during an entrance interview at King's (Giddens) or Trinity (Rees) College would certainly not be offered a place, nor should he be. There's no fool like an academic fool!
@Jiminy Cricket: Torpor is a perfectly valid word and has no direct equivalent, it would have to be replaced by multiple words to convey the same meaning.
That doesn't detract from the rest of your comment though.
It was a pathetic effort, to say the least. Surely they can do better? Or is it the beginning of the end?
I think that COP16 -- due to start in little more than a month -- will be an interesting event, or non-event, to watch. Already the BBC announced that they will not have live coverage because they "spent all that money" in the Chilean mine rescue. Right --
Speaking of mixing politics and science.... Now we know why Prince Charles is such a big supporter of offshore wind farms - because they make a lot of money for the royal family.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323228/Queens-38m-year-offshore-windfarm-windfall--owns-seabed.html
@FZM: "How could Messrs Rees and Giddens have reached such heights in academia? "
I suspect that you have limited experience in the way academia actually works. It is a highly political environment, with politics often trumping academic considerations.
As an illustration, the professor at a department where I once worked had a document that needed ratification by by the university senate. He knew that there were people on that senate that would object to some of the content, and others that would argue just on principle. His solution was to carefully choose a specific word for inclusion in the title of the document.
As expected, the meeting began with one of the assembled geniuses taking exception to the title. The prof. had pre-prepared some pretty good arguments as to why that word was chosen, and a long and healthy debate ensued. After 45 minutes (the time allocated for discussion), the prof. conceded that he had been convinced, and offered an alternative title (the on he had originally been intending to use). After a few minutes of discussion on that, it was agreed to change the title. Time being up, and there being no further objections, the report was ratified.
That sort of play is highly regarded. Being able to make progress through the organizational politics ensures rapid advancement.
I notice that there is only one comment on the article. I have posted a comment but it has been held for moderation for several hours.
The warmist/alarmist campaigners are remarkable in several ways, and one of them is that they are often of strikingly low calibre. The absurd posturing of the Royal Society has been one illustration of this, the shenanigans of the IPPC is another,the bordering-on adolescent scheming and censorsing of the RealClimate blog and of Wikipedia provide more, and of course the climategate revelations supply the icing for this not very wholesome cake. But of course, they are also often strikingly successful at influencing politicians, and so we must perforce take them very seriously indeed. It would be more congenial to have a better class of 'opposition', but then perhaps in the harsh world of politics if they had been, the CO2 hypothesis would never have got this far.
Didin't David Adam on this blog recently said that we should listen to Lord Lawson talking about policy and economics but not about science, because he is inexpert in it and it should be left to the scientists.
Well if Mr Adam was consistent he would presumably think that we should ignore what Martin Rees has to say about policy and economics relating to AGW, as he is inexpert in the field.
So I'm looking forward to Nature denouncing Lord Rees' foray into a subject that he's not qualified.
Or is it one rule for one side and another rule for the other?
PJP: yes, you are right. I earn my living in industry, so know little of academia. Your story reminds me of the novel Porterhouse Blue by Tom Sharpe which poked fun at a fictitious Cambridge college.I wonder whether Messrs Rees and Giddens are characters which Tom Sharpe would recognise.
I found this on "IceNews" when I was looking for news on Katla, as I'll be flying from the US to UK later this week (just curious).
It opens with "The following is an open letter on climate change sent from Anthony Giddens and Martin Rees to leading media sources in over 50 countries."
But this was issued on the 23rd, and I can't find it on any mainstream sites. Does this mean even the MSM are getting bored with the catastrophists?
@Bob Layson says;
"It is no less possible to be the intelligent head of a worthy institution and a manifest bigot who refuses to openly and seriously engage with the best arguments presented by the best proponents of a position with which one disagrees."
In this instance, the supporting argument is revealed. That argument fails upon simple inspection thus saving much time that may have been spent by the engaged with the engager. However, the RS may want to engage with the head of their worthy institution not so much on his opinion but on his logic.
"... long-term warming, the physical reasons for which are well-known and demonstrable in the laboratory."
- News to me !
Help me understand the alarmist hypothesis. Climate is continuously described a s weather forcing agent. As I understand climate, it is a mathematical construct, that is a compilation of regional weather events over extended periods of time. Climate reflects the anomalies in weather expressed in global terms as applied by AGWers.
How can the analysis of historical records be considered a force in nature that can alter present and future weather? Climate is whatever weather shows it to be.
Martin Rees: "No-one can say with certainty that events such as the flooding in Pakistan, the unprecedented weather episodes in some parts of the US , the heat-wave and drought in Russia, or the floods and landslides in Northern China, were influenced by climate change. Yet they constitute a stark warning. Extreme weather events will grow in frequency and intensity as the world warms."
This is reminiscent of an earlier piece by Lord Smith of the Environment Agency, as published by the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8568377.stm
"The most intensive rainfall ever experienced in one location over a 24-hour period in England fell on Cumbria last November, and caused the tragic consequences of the severe flooding that we saw in Cockermouth, Keswick and Workington.
We cannot say for certain that these things - or indeed the intense heat recently experienced in Australia, or the droughts in Kenya - were caused by climate change.
But we can see with our own eyes that climatic, weather and temperature trends are changing, and we know that these hitherto exceptional events are likely to become more frequent over coming years."
So they are saying for certain that extreme weather events like these will be a clear sign in the future that global warming is happening, but they can't say for certain that they are a clear sign in the present or recent past that global warming is happening.
They are saying that they don't know exactly why things have happened in the past or are happening right now, but nevertheless they know exactly what things will happen in the future and why they will happen.
Que sera, sera.
The past is a mystery,
But the future is ours to see.
Que sera, sera.
What will be, will be.
I see this as Rees, the RS and many others being lured (or kidding themselves) into playing in a game
for stakes they can't afford. They haven't got the sense to fold and take their losses, so we see a desperate attempt to bluff with a dead hand.
The Giddens/Rees "open letter" appeared in the Huffington Post on 22 September - see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-giddens/open-letter-on-climate-ch_b_734676.html
A dead letter perhaps?
What I do not understand is why the fellows of the Royal Society continue to put up with being led by someone like Rees. They surely can't all be establishment toadies who are so happy to have been elected that they will put up with anything.
The Royal Society has a wonderful history, but led by the likes of Rees is starting to look sadly tarnished.
@ Bob Layson "Actually, it is logically possible to use a fallacious argument and yet speak simple truth in affirming one's conclusion."
Er...surely it's not LOGICALLY possible to use a fallacious argument. If it's fallacious, it's illogical. Don't you mean "it is possible to use a fallacious argument and yet speak simple truth in affirming one's conclusion"? I can agree with that. But if a person tries to support a conclusion on fallacious and illogical argument then it's only fair to point out that the argument is fallacious, and - in the case of the president of a national academy of science - utterly unworthy of both the speaker and the institution he represents. If it is not ignorance, then it is rhetoric designed to deceive, and both are bad.
@diggerjock
Babbage's Reflections on the Decline of Science in England is worth having a look at. It suggests that Roy. Soc. hasn't ever - or at least hasn't always - been in a state of innocence. Though that's not to say that it hasn't been better at some times than others. Also, there's an element of damned-if-you-do here. Back in the 1820s when the Society was humbler and strapped for cash, it was in danger of becoming a glorified gentleman's club.
To suppose that climate change can cause particular weather patterns is to make a category mistake.
It would be like believing a symphony can cause a succession of notes.
Giddens gave us the "third way" which was instrumental in establishing New Labour and the leadership of Tony Blair.
New Labour gave us cronyism, sleaze and corruption.
Tony Blair gave us an illegal war that resulted in the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
Giddens has a lot to answer for.
Giddens gave us the "third way" which was instrumental in establishing New Labour and the leadership of Tony Blair.
New Labour gave us cronyism, sleaze and corruption.
Tony Blair gave us an illegal war that resulted in the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
Giddens has a lot to answer for.
Frightening. Does he have early Alzheimer's, a financial incentive maybe with his pension fund or a profoundly 'socialist' view of the world.
Martin Rees is an embarrassment to science and the prestigious position he holds.
I kinda like Martin. He's a bloke unencumbered by logic while saddled with authority.
He's a blokes bloke. Never lets thought get in the way of hope and blind belief!
Reminds me of Chic Young.
They were simply the names on the tin, it was organised elsewhere.
Giddens: Member of the Advisory Council of the Institute for Public Policy Research, David Miliband worked there in the mid 90's. Giddens was also an adviser to Tony Blair; he is a regular contributor to the research and activities of think-tank Policy Network.
The letter finishes with:
"We are writing to ask if you will be willing to publish it in your newspaper in the near future. Could you let us know by responding to Michael McTernan at Policy Network.
The Policy Network has Mandelson as Chairman and acts as the secretariat for the Progressive Government Network. "The Progressive Governance Network brings together centre-left heads of state, governments, politicians and intellectuals from across the world to address key challenges in a globalised world."
"launched in 1999 by Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Gerhard Schroeder, Wim Kok and Massimo D’Alema. Since then, conferences and summits have been held in Chile, the United Kingdom, the United States, South Africa, Germany and Sweden, amongst other locations.
The previous two summits were hosted by then heads of state, Chilean President, Michelle Bachalet and UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. Recent participants have included, amongst others, Brazilian President ‘Lula’ da Silva; US Vice-President Joseph Biden; Director-General of the WTO, Pascal Lamy, (EU Trade Commissioner before Mandelson); and Spanish Prime Minister, José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero."
"The Letter has been personally endorsed by President Felipe Calderón of Mexico, where the Cancun meetings will be held in December – and it has been read and supported by President Obama and former leaders Tony Blair and Bill Clinton."
No surprise there then....
"Martin Rees is author of "Our Final Hour", 2003: "A Scientist's Warning: How Terror, Error, and Environmental Disaster Threaten Humankind's Future In This Century - On Earth and Beyond".