Bishop Hill Academic sceptics
Feb 22, 2010 BBC Climate: other Roger Harrabin emails to ask if I know any UK-based physical scientists who are sceptics. Not many is the answer, but then I don't know who the vast majority of my readers are anyway.
I do serve a lot of pages to readers at .ac.uk web domains, and I can see that at least some of these are from physical science departments, so it's fair to say that such people exist, although they are perhaps few in number. If so, Roger H would like to hear from you, in confidence, if necessary. He also welcomes evidence that putting one's head above the parapet in this way is a career-ending move.
Commenters have already noted Paul Dennis's remarks at WUWT to the effect that he responded to Roger H's earlier call and didn't get any reply worth the mentioning, but I would suggest that this could reasonably be interpreted as an oversight. Best to make the effort I would say.
Reader Comments (45)
Just a question? I ran into something about physical science related to climate science on another blog where someone was asking "How can you question physical science?" or "Are you questioning the physical science behind climate science?".
My response was along the lines of logic. I certainly do not question physical science, but instead I question how humans put things together to attempt to derive causation. Similar to that BBC experiment where CO2 was being pumped into bottles to prove the CO2 causes temp to rise.
While you may not be able to question the physical science of that particular experiment, you could question any logic or philosophy of causation that might try to expand the results of the experiment to the Earth's atmosphere.
So what are we talking about? Physical science or logic within physical science or climate science?
Is he only wanting to contact academics, or will us retired physicists with nothing to lose not be suitable?
Following Harrabin's similar request on WUWT I emailed him twice, and he twice acknowledged my email. Further, I gave a heads-up to the individual suggested to Harrabin, and learned the two of them were to meet.
My conclusion is that the BBC is trying to play catch-up in the climate game which they previously believed, and perhaps currently believe, had already been decided. roger.harrabin@bbc.co.uk
"He also welcomes evidence that putting one's head above the parapet in this way is a career-ending move."
Is he trying to tempt heads over parapets in order to end careers?
I responded to Harrabin, since I fit the requirements. I received a one-word response, "thanks", and nothing more, two and a half weeks ago. Perhaps this is another 'oversight'.
Harrabin is a sock puppet. He is very close the people in the CRU and I am reliably informed that the sceptics at UEA don't trust him.
I wouldn't trust a MSM journalist as far as I could throw him—tho' I'd be interested to see just how far that would be. Look what the Guardian did to Anthony and Jeff at TAV. Shameful. Let them find their own among their dwindling audience.
I've had email dealings before with Harrabin and the man not only lacks basic manners, he is simply not impartial. This has been borne out by seeing his justifications for not publicising stories that questioned AGW theory cast aside in order to promote it.
Perhaps he will respond to those who contact him once he has received approval from Jo Abbess to speak to those she deems least likely to question effectively the AGW narrative.
'...to ask if I know any UK-based physical scientists who are sceptics..'
Assuming that the number of physical scientists is a 'big number' and the number of openly sceptical scientists is a 'small number' we can claim a consensus.
Or assuming that the number of physical scientists is a 'big number' and the number of openly alarmist scientists is a 'small number' we can claim a non-consensus.
Kevin:
I agree, questioning the basic physics behind the experiment is not where I'd go either. You can, however, most certainly question the set up of the experiment and the significance of it.
It doesn't show let alone prove what the BBC experiment tried to demonstrate - that doubling or trebling CO2 will dramatically warm the planet. That rather dramatic rise of temperature did not reflect an increase in CO2 from 0.039% to 0.056% (doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels) but to maybe 10% or even higher. Details of the CO2 increase were not included.
I'm quite sure WUWT carried a story by a science professor who replicated the experiment in his science class, teaching his students how difficult it is to set up, conduct and analyze scientific experiments in the first place.
As for the search for academic sceptics, the ones I know tend to be engineers or in the more traditional sciences and none are willing to risk their careers. AGW is like one of those massive waves that the surfers long for - you can ride it, be swallowed up by it or stay away from it. You can't fight it and be considered sane.
But as UEA scientists unconnected to CRU are already complaining about a backlash of mistrust and doubt, I expect they will not allow themselves to be tarred with the same brush. Given the expected savage budget cuts and the vicious interdepartmental fight for funds and staff, there'll likely be a number of losers in the climate sciences all over the country.
Beware a broad effort to identify and cut qualified skeptics out of the nameless herd - for eventual character assassination and professional slaughter.
Once burned (or burnt!)...
Fool me once ...
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/greens-take-on-sceptics-20100220-omrw.html
He placed a similar request on WUWT I think it is fair to say many of the posts said the guy was not to be trusted. It would be nice to know a lot more info.
Why not post request for some credentialed academic professing a discipline entirely unrelated to the manifest corruptions of so-called "climate science"? An expert on Chaos Theory allied with Fractal Geometry would be apropos, since Lorenz showed that linear extrapolations of "complex dynamic systems" such as earth's atmosphere are mathematically impossible due to "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" (the Butterfly Effect). Then surface colleagues of Germany's Gerlich and Tscheuschner, whose 2009 paper for Braunschweig's Institut fur Mathematische Physik asserts that a "runaway Greenhouse Effect" analogous to that of Venus is forbidden by Boltzman's Second Conservation Law of thermodynamic entropy.
Whatever their political persuasions, scientists in experimental fields are constrained by mathematical/physical reality in contrast to non-empirical botanists and Warmists, who deal in easily obfuscated hindsight only. Faced with genuinely scientific intellects accustomed to objective, rational measurements and observations, we suspect that arguments by Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al. --aye, all that they inherit-- would dissolve, and like (their) insubstantial pageant faded, leave not a wrack behind ("Tempest", Act V).
Given Climate Cultists' extreme duplicity, vile ad hominem attacks exhibiting not a grain of integrity or even common sense, the sooner the "baseless fabric of (their) vision" vanishes, the better for scientific inquiry as for all concerned.
It's not bleedin' physical scientists 'e needs to talk to, it's Mums. Mums know if their boys is good boys, don' they? 'Course they do. Mums know best, that's wot I say. Bloody BBC and its licence fee.
"Boltzman's Second Conservation Law of thermodynamic entropy." Nope. The Second Law isn't a conservation law.
On specific issues there are undoubtedly more sceptics even within climate science than you will be able to find. During my time in graduate school I knew many climate scientists personally (and still do) including a few who worked with some major players. None were sceptics or would self identify as such, but more than a few were uncomfortable with some of the conclusions being drawn by the ipcc process and with some of the shoddy reasoning going into the report, especially the summary for policy makers (mind you with was 7+ years ago or so). One even predicted that the SPM and hockey stick would 'eventually come back to bite us in the ass'.
But the general consensus view was compatible with Schneider's regarding 'offering up scary scenarios' and the younger scientists who were concerned were often were also often simply afraid to be tarred with the potentially career ending label of sceptic. Indeed, when one postdoc i knew found a serious flaw in one of the models, he was quietly advised to just fix it and tell no one.
Another, recently informed me that the hijacking of the IPCC was 'poor behaviour on the part of a small handful of sensationalists engaging in tunnel-visioned choir-preaching' and that 'the vast majority of climate scientists don't speak up because they are too busy doing honest science and are not interested in engaging in politics....that is not related to their own research.' When I suggested that science, by its very nature, must be self policing and that this 'poor behavior' represents a failure of the whole community, he basically acknowledged that for many (i inferred younger researchers) confronting the dogma 'is more than uncomfortable, [it's] terrifying.' Indeed, i suspect that the use of the term 'terrifying' here refers to another mutual friend who discovered a calibration error which significantly reduced a warming estimate. He checked his result neurotically for two months before presenting it to his boss. The day he submitted it he had a nervous breakdown due to his unshakable conviction that he had just ended his career.
Every other scientist i knows takes at least a little pleasure in revealing the mistakes of their peers. Only in climate science, it seems, can there be apostates.
So will you find many sceptics. My guess is no. But that doesn't mean they aren't out there.
He just wants to be able to report that he tried really hard to find a qualified sceptic, but no one replied, and no one told him it was a career-limiting move, so obviously all the noise is being made by unqualified agitators.
Great way for the establishment to weed out the traitors.
I'm a sceptic from the physical science department in Aberystwyth... but it's Computer Science.
While I suspect that the fear of academic CAGW skeptics is justified, the lack of visible skeptics raises credibility questiosn. Some "secure" academics need to step up.
To Dearieme--
We stand corrected. Boltzman's "ergodic principle" is not a Conservation Law as such, but one of entropic "heat dispersal" towards an equilibrium minimizing temperature imbalances. On this fundamental level, since heat-engines can never be 100% efficient, there can be no Perpetual Motion. Phenomena such as superconductivity are not mechanically heat-driven, but electromagnetic effects subject to the First Law (matter/energy can neither be created no destroyed). In any case, classical as well as quantum systems default to maximum entropy over time.
Gerlish and Tscheuschner make this distinction plain. Apologies for a substantive mischaracterization on my part, and thanks for clarification.
"He just wants to be able to report that he tried really hard to find a qualified sceptic, but no one replied, and no one told him it was a career-limiting move, so obviously all the noise is being made by unqualified agitators." - Brian Williams
That's probably true. But does it matter? It's not who or how many sceptics there are that matters, but the force of their arguments.
And, quite separate from that, it's clear the public belief in AGW is collapsing. People aren't fools. They know when they can smell a rat. And AGW has started to stink to high heaven. What are they going to do? Tell people that they must believe in AGW whether it stinks or not?
A while ago I finished the book "The Deniers" by Lawrence Solomon. It's from 2008 but I found myself to be in rather good company concerning myths of AGW. Perhaps Roger Harrabin should read the book and ask those people. But I'm afraid none of them is UK-based.
It would be very easy standing here looking in, to recommend people 'stand up to be counted'. Most of us reading this are not faced with those dilemmas.
If the roles were reversed and it was Greenpeace, you could be sure they would groom people to fall on their swords. Afterwards? Greenpeace is a political organisational so once your political capital is expended so are you.
So I would ask myself some very serious questions before volunteering (over and above the staple 'never trust a journalist'.) I am not going to question Roger Harrabin's integrity but...
He works for the BBC. Based on past events can you be sure that the BBC will stand by you? Roger is one man inside a large animal. Even if he promised, do you trust the BBC animal to protect your interests? It is not a question of whether you trust Roger, it is whether you trust the BBC.
Roger wears many hats - many advocacy hats. He has conflicts of interest. Outside of the BBC when he is having a coffee break chat at some conference, can you be sure that he will still equally protect/represent your interests? I am just talking natural human behaviour in a social setting.
Why the BBC? The BBC is a brand pure and simple. Attributing any other warm fuzzy feelings to it re impartiality, bias, trust etc, is living in some fantasy world that never existed. There are other channels that would have a far larger effect that would preserve your interests.
I can understand Roger's problems. He has been told or allowed to reach out. You do not have to doubt his word, to mistrust the BBC.
Roger has to do more than just say: "Hey I am with the BBC, trust me." Those days are long gone.
Personally I would bypass them, but as I said I am not faced with those dilemmas.
So are we saying, in essence, that despite the public's distrust of AGW, and the reams of data published by the various interested websites and blogs, and all the papers produced by various informed experts on the subject, and the general debunking of IPCC, CRU, Met Office, NASA, et al, that NO-ONE can be found with the relevant qualifications to dispute AGW in a discussion? Are we really saying that? If so, it beggars belief. Strange, isn't it, that most reasonable thinking folk know very well what's going on - the scam, forged data and disinformation, lies and obfuscation, but they can't produce anyone academically and scientifically to argue their case when given the opportunity. God help us all at the election, because the same thing's happening there - we know it's all wrong, but there's sod all we can do about it, whichever way we vote - the result will be much the same.
Harrabin has form.
Stay away. I'm sure this will appear soon as "I cannot find a climate skeptic in academia" puff piece.
@Khazi
People have a mortgage to pay. What is basically the problem is that people with a moral dilemma have no one to whom they can trust within the Political and Media elites.
The saddest point is that this would have been the perfect crusade for the Original Independent. this is the sort of cause for which it was founded. However, the Independent is a basket case. You cannot even rely on Private Eye to provide to cynicism.
There is chasm between Politics/MSM on one hand and the populace.
All the broadsheets are hemorrhaging readers. Why one of the Broadsheets does not realign itself to a more neutral/open stance on AGW I do not comprehend.
If one hoisted its banner it would obtain a motivated, educated readership overnight.
Strange how the MSM, like parliament, does not reflect the views of the constituents.
If you were going to stick your head above the parapet, Harribin wouldn't be the man you'd choose to do it with.
Perhaps if Mr. Harrabin would explain why he wants to speak to academic sceptics they could get a feel for what the matter was about. My view, he is either trying to get some questions from academics he could ask the warmists, or he's writing a puff piece on the lack of academic support for the sceptical position.
If I were an academic sceptic I'd keep it to myself rather than get hounded out of my job.
With the universities heading for a bout of budget cuts do you think anyone is going to stick their head above the parapet ?
Who knows, Roger Harrabin might be helping them draw up a list of flat earthers to flatten some more.
This is the main problem with the funding system. Because it comes mostly from the government, they couch the grant terms with their political slant.
They create an orthodoxy.
Look what happens now to people who question Darwinism (I don't, by the way). They are hounded out.
Most of you will be too young to remember Eric Laithwaite, the inventor of MagLev trains. He got an idea that the gyroscope had strange features that could help to defeat gravity, and was hounded out.
There is no place in academia, (certainly not in the UK) for people who question orthodoxy.
The only scientists who can do so are either retired, or in a wealthy US institution with tenure (e.g. Richard Lindzen).
It is a real scandal of our times that, even though science is supposed to depend on scepticism, once a theory has entered orthodoxy it becomes untouchable, much like the Aristotelian garbage protected by the Vatican in the days of Galileo.
The liberal left-wing democracies of the world spoke ex cathedra that AGW existed. A grand scheme to implement global socialism. The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if the whole thing was thought up at a Bilderberg meeting.
This thread is really exploring a tantalising psychological conundrum. All over the world, the trial of AGW is being carried out at several levels - that of the science itself, and that of the past conduct of the science, but also covertly in the ruminations of individuals and the institutions to which many of them belong, Anyone with any kind of investment in AGW theory must be beginning to realise that there is a rising chance that they have bought into a canard, and must be wondering where their best interests lie - sell out now and cut your losses, although you know that by doing so you will be adding to the misery of the cohort you have forsaken; or hang in there and trust that Climategate will blow over, leaving AGW alive, if chastened.
This applies also to the many academic sceptics hitherto intimidated into silence, except that they have no past utterances to repudiate, only their silence, and they must judge when the time arrives, as it surely must soon, when their careers are more likely to be advanced than impeded by breaking it. And the first to tell all will reap the kudos - soon they'll be two a penny. AGW shares might be at an all time low, but it's still possible to sell them short - that won't last. Come on, sceptics - protect your profession - avoid the rush -tell your story now!
Would be interesting for Roger to do an analysis of how many scientists are used on the BBC's airwaves to talk about global warming... maybe I'm tuning in at all the wrong times, but I only ever hear green campaigners, politicians and pop stars issuing all these dire warnings and telling us "climate change is real, it's happening and it's caused by man". Oh and "the science is settled."
Mr Harrabin could always contact some of the eminent experts in their fields who have resigned from the IPCC in disgust over the years, horrified at the distortion, fraud and manipulation they witnessed. Someone will have their numbers at the BBC from when those major developments were covered in BBC bulletins. Oh darn it, apparently they were completey ignored, because the stories didn't come gift-wrapped from Greenpeace or WWF.
You should be very careful before trusting a journalist. His (or her) interests are not your interests. It is foolish in the extreme to do so on first contact. Years ago I had lots of contact with local, national print, radio and TV journalists about what were, at the time, very public (non-scientific) issues. I even took training on how to deal with the media. Over time,there were two that I came to trust and a few others that could be relied on to report what I said with reasonable accuracy. Then there were the rest. And sitting at a level below the rest were the politicians. You have been warned.
I'm sure this will appear soon as "I cannot find a climate skeptic in academia" puff piece. - John
I'm sure it will. But will it make any difference? When Harrabin publishes his puff piece, he'll only be telling us what we already know, and saying to the public what has been said to them for the past 10 years and more ad nauseam. What good will that do? Public confidence is collapsing anyway. Nobody's going to believe a word about anything that comes out of UEA any more. They're finished. And it's not just UEA. The whole of academia is ceasing to be trusted. The only real question now is: How far has the rot spread? How many bad apples are there in universities all over Britain, and all over the world, in departments which may have nothing to do with climate science at all? They can wheel out any number of eminent professors and authoritative scientists, but that won't help them any. Pretty soon there are likely to be hard sciences fighting to distance themselves from the infecting rot of pseudoscience that has been stealing its tendrils through the body of academia, corrupting everything, for many decades.
All this is nothing new. 500 years ago, the most Holy Roman Catholic church was discovered to be utterly corrupt and depraved, with popes having mistresses, and selling indulgences like, well,.. like carbon credits, and the scandal tore Christendom apart, and it the rift has never healed. Now it's Science's turn to go through that same ordeal. If it follows the same pathway, there'll be a remaining rump of Holy Roman Catholic Science which will continue with all the established orthodox dogmas, which will include global warming of course. And there'll be a separate, diverse, plural Protestant Science. Science will be divided.
Khazi:
"So are we saying, in essence, that despite the public's distrust of AGW, and the reams of data published by the various interested websites and blogs, and all the papers produced by various informed experts on the subject, and the general debunking of IPCC, CRU, Met Office, NASA, et al, that NO-ONE can be found with the relevant qualifications to dispute AGW in a discussion? Are we really saying that? If so, it beggars belief. Strange, isn't it, that most reasonable thinking folk know very well what's going on - the scam, forged data and disinformation, lies and obfuscation, but they can't produce anyone academically and scientifically to argue their case when given the opportunity. "
So, there are plenty of academics who are sceptical, but they are all poor wage slaves or too morally or scientifically weak to put their heads above the parapet... Or could there be a more simple explanation? Perish the thought!
He’s a journalist. He knows how the internet works. He knows where WUWT lives. He’s employed as an environmental correspondent by the BBC, has been pushing the AGW agenda for years and now he wants help composing some questions?
Where declaring oneself a "sceptic" is a career handicap is when one submits a research proposal to EPSRC, NERC etc. Many of my colleagues have inserted sections on the importance of considering the effects of global warming into their "case for support" because they know that it ticks the politically correct box and improves their chances of being funded. They don't "believe" in AGW, but they are realistic about the political belief in the certainty of AGW amongst the power brokers in the funding councils. This AGW adjunct to research projects has insidiously crept into almost every area of government funded research in the past decade and it is almost always a complete waste of resources. I would say in their defence that they are not climate scientists and do not have the specialist knowledge necessary to question the underpinning science that led to the funding distortion that climate scientists have created.
[BH adds: If any of your colleagues would like to explain this (anonymously or otherwise) to readers here, I'd be glad to hear from them].
So, they don't "believe" in AGW, despite not having the specialist knowledge to question the underpinning science. They also distort their grant proposals in order to keep the tax payers gravy train flowing. Sounds like "Scepticgate" to me!
Roger Harrabin's request is rather simplistic and probably reflects his inability to do his own investigations. One important issue is how he defines a "sceptic". If, for example, it is somebody who questions whether there is evidence that there is increasing frequency and magnitude of floods resulting from climate change then he could simply call the UK Centre for Hydrology and Ecology (CEH). According to the BBC the experts are sceptical that the November 2009 Cockermouth floods are indicative of climate change - a view that is widely held by warmists and other politicians. The BBC quotes CEH as follows:
"Whether this is due to climate change is an open question; these records are fairly short, and increases in rainfall and flow over this period may reflect variability associated with changes in atmospheric circulation over the North Atlantic," they suggest.
Indeed, trying to see the Cockermouth floods in an historical context, they are even more equivocal. "(T)rends over a longer period (more than 50 years) are generally much less compelling, and in general, there is limited evidence for long-term trends in flood frequency or magnitude anywhere in the UK."
The BBC reference is:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/11/is_cumbria_a_victim_of_climate.html
Richard Black of the BBC did a blogging piece in 2007. He started by saying that he did not understand the position of AGW sceptics. He then e-mailed a number of prominent sceptics asking why they did not believe in AGW and claimed to have distilled their responses which he summarised in his blog. Set against the objections of the sceptics was the "settled science". What Black did not tell his audience was that he had help in editing the responses to the objections of the sceptics from Gavin Schmidt. Schmidt and Mann run the realclimate website as most here will know. I doubt if harrabin is to be trusted and he should be tyold that and why.
I know "the science is settled" brigade sneer at this... shows how much store they actually place on real numbers, but Mr Harrabin might find a useful name or two here:
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
On Lord Monckton's SPPI blog an anonymous but prominent scientist today offers his contribution to spreading the word on the sceptical view of man-made climate change.
From an ABC radio report yesterday, WRT sticking one's head above the parapet:
More at: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2829301.htm
It does seem a bit odd that Harrabin wants ID's of practicing UK sceptics. Would it not be more logical to go also for retired scientists, unless maybe there is an ulterior motive? OR, maybe he really is interested in explaining that loss of career risk may be the reason for few volunteers?
I’ll Email this example to him.
I am not currently in the physical sciences, but have "got the union card". I was intrigued by McIntyre's investigations, but disappointed in his responses when probed (he evades scrutiny of areas where weak...and also runs with talking points rather than insight...insight is only important if it serves a debate point.)
Some scientists that are "not on the team" that I respect are Jollife, Zorita, and Burger. They are more pure and honest and revealing, though. I would caution others to be pretty wary of McIntyre and even more so of his imitators (Willis, John Id, Watts, etc.) who combine bias with less brains.
-a physical scientist's view...