Bishop Hill Leo Hickman on anonymity
Feb 24, 2010 Blogs Climate: other Media The Guardian's Leo Hickman has added his thoughts to my earlier piece commenting on his call for climate bloggers to lose their anonymity. This, he believes, will create trust in what they are saying. Many readers have responded with thoughtful contributions, and in particular I'd echo Lucia's point about the nature of the problem being one of the public not trusting the scientists rather than the other way round, as Leo seems to think. Turning Tide also points out that anonymity of commenters does encourage readers to assess comments on the arguments made rather than any spurious authority of the writer.
I think though that there is a more important point to be made about anonymity. People on the other side of the global warming argument are very aggressive in their denunciation of those who question the mainstream position on global warming. Leo Hickman himself has noted* calls by Mark Lynas, Paul Krugman and James Hansen for climate "deniers" to be put on trial. Steve McIntyre has noted previously that several of his regular contributors are statistics post docs, who post anonymously for fear of reprisals.
A glance at the council of NERC, the body that funds most climate research in the UK, suggests that money for anyone questioning the global warming mainstream would be hard to come by. We might well also assume that no climatologist who questioned AGW would get a job at the Met Office while it was run by a deep green like Robert Napier. The scientific institutions in the UK are entirely politicised, to the extent that even the venerable Royal Society is entirely dependent on government money. There is no truly independent voice of science in the UK, just many different echoes of the official position. There are no private universities, as there are in America, where the odd sceptic might find a tenured position, that would offer the possibility of free expression of dissident thoughts. Here, scepticism is a one-way ticket to intellectual oblivion, with the Guardian cheering on from the sidelines.
*Leo discusses their position, but doesn't condemn them. While I don't think it's fair to criticise someone for what they haven't said, if Leo wishes to dissociate himself from the positions of Messrs Lynas, Krugman and Hansen, I am happy to clarify the point. If he wants to go further and call for the activists to be cleared out from NERC, or perhaps balanced by the appointment of some sceptics, I would welcome that too.
Reader Comments (49)
AGW activists should not be on the NERC council - this is a clear conflict of interest.
I think it great that you are emphasizing this. As I said previously, the merits of the critique should stand on their own despite the identity of the auditor. Don't many institutions that care about equality attempt to judge things with blinders in regard to politics, race, gender, etc.
As an example, I had a friend who was trying out for a position in the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Each person trying out played behind a screen so the judges were not influenced by male/female, etc... The person was judged on the merits of the playing/sound/technique/etc.
Same should happen here. The merits of an argument or critique can stand or fall on it's own. Everyone can verify the integrity of the argument without knowing the true identity of the author.
Don't some of our favorite fiction authors have ghost writers?
does not anonymity diminishing trust, or indeed credibility, in a thought out and well reasoned argument indicate that they are less concerned with the content of that argument, and instead more concerned with personalities, titles or position - regardless of how that was achieved?
Maybe Leo Hickman is suffering from the shock that sceptics can actually exist independently of the huge support group of the AGW alarmist world that he himself snuggles in, and so possibly he really thinks all these voices can only all be from Oil shills. I don’t feel he is being particularly straightforward on the subject here. I notice he gives some grudging nods towards the authenticity of Watts and McIntyre but then rather implies they are hostage to their blog audience "it must be a difficult horse for McIntyre and Watts to ride at times without playing to the crowd."
He says this without giving any specific examples of any problems. Or any hints of what could be detrimental to their auditing ability. It seems outside his ability to be able to deal with what he sees before him and he has to spice it with some unspecified innuendo that can never be proven - he knows damn well that anonymity will always be needed while the issues are so polarised.
"Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement."
- Dr. Heidi Cullen, Climate 'Expert' - The Weather Channel
In today's vicious environment created by the eco-activists, denying anonymity can only further retard the progress of science.
Bishop,
But this is merely a rhetorical sleight of hand whereby 'climate bloggers' suddenly present themselves as the unelected spokespeople for 'the public'. Only the 'sceptical' ones, natch. However real scientists are just as much part of the public as you are. The difference is that (a) they can legitimately lay claim to authority that most 'climate bloggers' cannot, and (b) they are held accountable to scientific standards, while 'climate bloggers' are not held accountable to any standards.
That is why it is big news when the IPCC makes one error in a 1000 page report, but Steve Goddard can tell us about CO2 snowing out in the Antarctic, and nothing happens. Or Watts&Co can repeatedly fail to understand fundamentals such as the difference between trend in anomalies, and absolute temperatures, and nothing happens. Or Monckton, Peiser & Co can misquote Houghton, and carry on regardless.
If 'climate bloggers' want to pretend their results have scientific merit, then why shouldn't they be held to the same standards as real scientists? For example, shouldn't it be possible to investigate them for scientific misconduct if they are suspected of that? How can that be done if they are anonymous? How can you be held to any standard at all?
As for public trust in scientists, the very best way to preserve that is for 'sceptics' and lazy and incompetent journalists to stop lying about them, misquoting them, and misrepresenting them. Meanwhile it is a fool's errand to bargain with people who are not only ideologically compelled to 'mistrust the scientists', but are typically the very ones spreading baseless FUD about them in the first place.
While 'sceptics' merely propose that scientists be 'investigated', fired, imprisoned, killed or all of the above.
It's true that they rarely call for a trial first.
Frank,
There will be no action on climate unless there is a broad public consensus.
A significant portion of the public now sees scientists as shills for a left wing political agenda.
From the perspective of these people like Watts do have more credibility than scientists.
Engaging in smear tactics will only further erode the credibilty of scientists.
If you want to see some action on climate scientists will have to engage constructively with their critics and that will require that they admit previous errors/exagerrations and acknowledge that the science is not as settled as they have previously claimed.
Of course, if scientists do not want to see any serious policies adopted they can continue doing what they have been doing.
Frank O'Dwyer, couldn't disagree with you mate, mate. You sound just like the climate change hysterics in Oz. Clive Hamilton is one, and he's got 5 days of posts going on the taxpayer funded ABC website running the line that skeptics are all in the pay of big oil and if we're not then we're whipped into frenzy by certain tabloid bloggers and blah blah blah. Just like Hickman Hamilton's calling for the IP addresses of the skeptics.
The IPCC didn't make 'one error' in a 1000 page report. It made sundry political and drafting decisions in its Summary using insubstantial press releases and other off the cuff theorising from unscientific sources, publishing false material about AGW to make it look immediate and catastrophic when it is neither, if it exists at all. And the main contributor to much data, CRU, has been revealed as cooking their own findings as well as fudging what peer-reviewed literature there was, cos they always went out of their way to block skeptical arguments or even just contrary arguments from getting published.
And whether or not skeptics for people to be sacked is not the point - warmenists like you and Hickman and Hamilton call for skeptics to be outed. All very McCarthyist really, typical of lefties.
I reckon that cartoon Bish has up today about the warmenies 5 stages of grief is spot on. You're in 3 Frank. And you're not alone. We have them down here in Oz.
Raven,
"There will be no action on climate unless there is a broad public consensus."
There has been a broad public consensus for some time and still no action. Whether we will get action now remains to be seen, and whether that action will be effective is debatable. I suspect not - and most likely we'll get to see what 2xC02 or even 3xC02 looks like the hard way. In which case let's hope you 'sceptics' are right. If you are, it'll be a case of right result, wrong methods - and the real scientists will still tell you so and even figure out why long before you do - but still let's hope so. And if not, let's hope you live to see it and explain it to your children or grandchildren.
"A significant portion of the public now sees scientists as shills for a left wing political agenda."
A significant portion of the public believes in creationism and astrology.
"Engaging in smear tactics will only further erode the credibilty of scientists."
No doubt that's why 'sceptics' do it.
Or you suggesting it is a smear tactic to note that Steve Goddard really did talk about CO2 snowing in the Antarctic, or that Watts really doesn't get stuff that should be blatantly obvious to anyone with a basic education, or that Houghton really was misquoted? These things are simply facts. Unlike about 99% of "climategate".
WB,
warmenists like you and Hickman and Hamilton call for skeptics to be outed.
Stop lying. I haven't called for anyone to be 'outed'.
Frank, Hickman says anonymity should not be used by skeptics. Think about it for a sec. No longer being anonymous, Frank. What's the opposite of anonymous? That would be identifiable. And how is that great identifiability going to come about Frank? Voluntarily? More likely by by McCarthyist interrogation and actual 'outing' Frank. Come on mate, it's not hard. That's the side you're on. And Hamilton has just this week turned his giant mind to checking IP addresses. Didn't say he'd do it, natch, but it's always nice to learn how you lefty warmy alarmists think. Hickman didn't say he'd force any anonymous skeptic to be outed either, but that's where his giant mind is going.
You warmies just don't like knowing other people think differently. The Houghton quote? Who? I don't even know what you're referencing when you refence the McIntyre Watts stuff but whatever. S they've made mistakes. No bigger than silly Phil Jones and his 'statistical insignificance' in warming. Honestly, mate. Take a breather. You're coming off awfully upset.
To add to the last, neither McIntyre nor Watts is calling for me to be pay tax for carbon emissions. So seems to me they can be as wildly wrong as you say they are, I don't care. You want me to stump up cash for your 'science'? You need a better class of science, Frank.
Frank, or where Mann can make a slew of not just mistakes but [snip] in papers that are fully peer reviewed and supported by "the consensus", and yet, do I hear a peep of complaint from inside the tent ? Do I ?
Are you prepared to acknowledge the dishonesty and errors in Mann 98,99, and even 08 ? Are you ?
The IPCC errors are far more important, this is supposed to be a scientific document (it isn't), it is supposed to be authoritative, we're supposed to undergo huge changes in our lifestyles based on this mish-mash of hearsay and political dogma. And the real clincher, at least some of these "errors" were known to be wrong before the document was released, but were not corrected as the statements had a desired political impact. Not only should these errors (or [snip]) be called out publicly, but those presenting them be brought to account.
Frank
It's not sleight of hand. Also, whether or not bloggers are unelected spokespeople for the public is irrelevant to the issue raised in Judy's essay.
Leo Hickman was responding to an essay by Judy Curry in which she identified the problem that climate scientists have lost the trust of the public and it's fairly clear this loss of trust has occurred. Climate scientists consider this a problem because they would like to have the trust of the public for various and sundry reasons.
Either you accept that this is a problem for climate scientists or you do not. If there is no problem, then it does not need to be solved. If it is a problem for "X", then "X" needs to figure out how to solve that using means that are actually in "X"s power. So, if it's a problem for climate scientists, them climate scientists need to do something-- not simply tell other people to adapt to the whims and needs of climate scientists.
How does Leo suggest we solve the problem of trust? He explains why climate scientists don't trust bloggers and demands concessions from bloggers to gain the trust of climate scientists.
Ok... so climate scientists don't trust bloggers. Message received. Scientists are unhappy that they don't trust bloggers. To relieve their own unhappiness, climate scientists want bloggers to adapt their behavior to be more pleasing to climate scientists. Message received.
But this is an entirely different problem-- that is if it's a problem at all. The general blogger response is: So? How is this our problem? Did we complain that you don't trust us? Nope. I for one have never complained that, say Gavin, might not trust me. I don't care if the lead authors for the IPCC don't trust me. Why should I care? Why should SteveMc care? So, why would I hop to and adapt my behavior to gain their trust?
Even if I did, how does this solve climate scientists problem which is they crave public trust, but have lost it.
Leo or climate scientists demanding bloggers work diligently to gain the trust of climate scientists will do absolutely nothing</I> to solve climate scientists problem which is: They want the public to trust them and the public does not trust them.
Even if you think that the bloggers are somehow not part of the public, or don't speak for even that part of the public who read our blogs, the solution to climate scientists problem is not to respond "Well! We don't trust bloggers. You bloggers go out and change!" The climate scientists need to figure out how to modify their own behavior to regain the public trust.
To the extent that some bloggers are members of the public, this means that the climate scientists may need to figure out how to make bloggers trust them. To the extent that bloggers are just isolated people who in now way reflect the opinions of the wider public, the scientist may ignore them.
Frank,
Show me where "Skeptics" have called for killing
Isn't peer review supposed to be anonymous?
I know that in practice, you often either know the others in the field or know someone who does know them, but still.
Now to one of Frakn's other points:
Only one mistake in the IPCC report? really? how's about attributing opinions to Pielke Jr without asking him?
that 's just doubled the error rate.
Hey Lucia, agree with you - it's for the climate scientists who've lost the trust of regular citizens to do something about trying to win it back. Hence the Met has come out and said they'll redo some data. Frank, like most warmies, just does not accept that it's possible to be a sentient human being and not share his worldview. As a result the people who don't share his worldview have got to be denialists, their denialism has to be trumped up, they have to be part of a conspiracy and above all they have to be meanies. Hence the 'death theat' malarkey.
You know how lefties think it's censorship when they're arguments are ridiculed? Or when , say, a blog run by a person decides not to publish their comments because there's no law says they have to? Well, lefties think it's a 'death threat' when a skeptic writes something like "you've going down, warmy alarmists".
The reason they always grab the wrong end of the stick, whether about science, censorship, popular anonymous skepticism of warmy alamism expressed on blogs, etc, is because they self-select their companions, so they're shocked when they find independent thinkers or different thinkers. Exhibit A, Phil Jones and his happy CRUmeisters trying to make sure non-warmy authors don't get published.
Oh, and last thing, FOI is an important tool and there was nothing, not a think, to prevent release of data to McIntyre of anyone else. There was no confidentiality or intellectual property rights basis not to release basic climate data. None. To call the people making FOI requests somehow vexatious is pretty stunning - how on God's green earth can climate data possibly be confidential or copyrightable? I don't get that. Maybe there's some way - perhaps Frank can explain...
February 24, 2010 | Frank O'Dwyer
"There has been a broad public consensus for some time and still no action."
"A significant portion of the public believes in creationism and astrology."
Indeed.
lucia,
Actually that is not yet fairly clear at all and such polling effects as exist now may vanish with the snow, and/or if journalists ever get their act together.
But it's certainly fairly clear that climate scientists have been subject to a vicious and dishonest smear campaign, isn't it? So if there is indeed a 'loss of trust' this would be the very first thing to look into, wouldn't it?
Non sequitur. A significant section of 'the public' is lying about climate scientists, and being lied to. The very best solution to that would be for the people doing the lying to stop. Your argument here is not much better than 'she shouldn't have worn that short skirt'.
Also, this pretence that scientists have to meet ever higher standards in order to 'regain the public trust' is just a cute way of implying that (a) the public are right not to trust them until they do and (b) there is in fact something that scientists could do to get conspiracy nuts such as WB to trust them. Both conclusions are manifestly false. You may as well argue that if biologists would only do X, Y and Z, the creationists would stop quote-mining and welcome evolutionary theory with open arms.
Meanwhile I'll continue to note that the bloggers calling for all this don't meet any scientific standard at all. I don't hear any of them telling the public that they themselves shouldn't be trusted.
WB,
Free clue: I am not Hickman. I spell my name differently to help you tell us apart - but apparently it is not enough.
Again, I haven't called for anyone to be 'outed'. Stop attributing this view to me.
"in the UK,.......There are no private universities, as there are in America": there are no public universities, as there are in America, either. The American public/private categorisation simply doesn't apply in Britain.
During the cold spell in January the BBC had a survey that indicated that there had been a fall in global warming belief. The BBC reporters said that they didn’t know why, but supposed it was down to the snow.
Did it not occur to them to ask?
I doubt the change was down to Climategate as many people still haven’t heard of it. So why? I’m depressed to conclude that it was the cold weather. After at least 10 years of brain washing the only lasting argument the public have absorbed is warm UK temperatures equal global warming. When the warmth stops (it’s been colder and wet for about three years) global warming is over.
Many sceptics have at least a working knowledge of the main sceptic arguments. They’re logical and easy to remember. Most AGW supporters can’t get beyond the ‘they’re oil shills’ and ‘we must think about the drowning polar bear’ arguments. Someone has even had to write them an iphone app so they can crib the answers to sceptic arguments.
Seems to me that climate change promotion has hit the buffers.
The general public don’t distrust climate scientists they just couldn’t pinpoint a single one of their arguments.
WB,
I'm beginning to think that a lot of the objections coming from the collectivist crowd are projections of their own views, with a few straw men thrown in, just for the thrill of knocking them over.
Note the accusations of "Nazi"
Then take a look as NSDAP and Fascist policies:
Central planning including theft of industries and nationalisation of department stores ("Warehouses" in the Nuremberg trialls translation of the 1932 NSDAP election manifesto)
High Tax (total taxation in the case of those who weren't of the chosen flock)
Huge "environmental/green" influences on policy (note the organic wholefoods and vegan preferences of the leadership).
Micro managing all aspects of life from cradle to grave, including national health systems, smoking bans, state organised leisure persuits...
Hardly the type of viewpoints we see posted here, but much more the kind of things that those who smear skeptical and agnostic people with the label "Nazi" go in for themselves.
Interestingly, Hitler put priests onto state stipends, so they could be pressured into preaching the way the party wanted them to
Echoes there of the politicization of the British higher education system, which Bishop alluded to.
I wish people would stop referring to the 2035 glacier thing as an "error".
The claim was repeated multiple times by Hasnain. Before it appeared in the IPCC report, it had been thoroughly debunked by a properly conducted field study headed by Gwyn Rees (Hasnain was a member of this study group). Hasnain repeated the claim in the New Scientist, which drew a scathing response from Rees as long ago as June 2004. In a letter to the New Scientist, Rees complained of misrepresentation and said "the widespread perception that the region's glaciers will disappear within 40 years is ill-founded".
Rees's study was published in a peer-reviewed journal, yet the IPCC still chose to run with Hasnain's version. Hasnain has since admitted that the date he quoted was "speculative" and that no peer-reviewed source would have published it.
The claim was subsequently a strong factor behind the EU's launch of the HighNoon project to look into the problems posed by imminent melting of the glaciers, which resulted in TERI (the organisation headed by IPCC chairman Pachauri) receiving a large grant, and was also used to support a grant application to the Carnegie Corporation for half a million dollars to look into the water security and humanitarian threats due to melting of the glaciers within a few decades. This grant application was made by The Global Center, a collaboration between the Icelandic govt and our old friend TERI. There's a press release about it on TERI's website. (Fortunately, the Carnegie money was never handed over, ostensibly because the Icelandic president asked Carnegie to suspend it due to the political and economic difficulties in Iceland).
Now, ask yourselves, does the false claim NOW sound like an error to you?
See Richard North's excellent EU Referendum blog for full details of the story (look at the January archives).
Frank Dwyer--
First you provide no evidence to support your contention that anyone'd lies have lead to the loss of public trust in climate science.
Now let's move on to this ridiculous statement:
Uhhmmm...you seem to be suggesting that climate scientist losing the public trust is somehow equivalent to a woman being raped. Is that what you meant? I will assume so for now.
As metaphors, this is idiotic because
a) climate scientists do not have an absolute right to be trusted while
b) a woman does have an absolute right not to be raped.
In contrast, if a woman wants the respect of people who, for some reason, think it's disrespectful to wear short skirts, then the only way she is going to get that is to not wear short skirts. She has a right to wear short skirts; they have a right to decide what whether or not they respect her. That's <I>their right.
Trust is earned. To earn it, you must behave in a way that makes people trust you. It's important to recognize that even if you think they are irrational, they get to decide their standards.
"We might well also assume that no climatologist who questioned AGW would get a job at the Met Office while it was run by a deep green like Robert Napier."
Lot's more on eco-imperialist Robert Napier on my blog posting here:
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/eco-imperialism-every-environmentalists-dream/
And Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist at the Met Office:
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/met-office-fraudcast/
On a lighter note, let me share a recent conversation with my teenager. I was relating how socially difficult it was for a friend raised by atheist parents in the 50s. My daughter responded, "Yeah, kinda like having parents who don't believe in global warming in Boulder." (Our hometown, Boulder, CO, is extremely left, green, and home to NCAR and NOAA.) She's asked me NOT to discuss my views in front of her friends, especially one whose father is a past NCAR director.
My reasons for posting anonymously are threefold:
1. I'm a newbie and fear sounding stupid. Anonymity helps me overcome that.
2. Boulder is a small town and being publicly identified as a skeptic could come back to bite me. I have had past and current dealings with NCAR as a vendor.
3. There's many more entertaining ways to embarrass my teenager.
Frank,
I'm still waiting
Show me where "Skeptics" have called for killing
If it exists, I want to give the culprets a serious bollocking
lucia,
Oh it's merely a hypothesis. I'll assume you're not going to deny there has been a dishonest smear campaign - how many people think 'hide the decline' refers to global temperatures, for example? And if people were told enough baseless lies about 'climate scientists' fraudulently manipulating temperature data, and if that was repeated often enough, they might think that scientists were actually doing that, mightn't they. I mean you could see how that could happen, couldn't you? Especially where it was cold outside.
So maybe that might have something to do with things here.
Nope. The comparison is with the 'blame the victim' attitude. Lies about people - especially baseless allegations of fraud - are not acceptable, and it is not acceptable to blame the victim when that happens. The people who are being lied about aren't the ones who need to change their behaviour.
@Frank "dishonest smear campaign" implies deliberately organisation. Do you have any evidence for this allegation?
The most well-chewed-over "misrepresentations" of the leaked emails stem from perfectly understandable first readings.
Joe Public may not understand climate science, but they DO understand when people are lying, cheating and generally behaving in a disreputable manner when they think they're not being observed. The man on the Clapham omnibus knows what a "trick" is even if he doesn't know his ENSO from his elbow.
Frank--
Climate scientists aren't victims.
You still have done nothing to support your contention the loss of trust is due to lies. As far as I can tell, the climate scientists lost trust because the public read accurate stories describing behaviors the public considers untrustworthy.
Do some lies appear on blogs? Sure. That's always happened. Some lies appear on alarmist/activist blogs; some appear on stone-cold cooler skeptic blogs. But I don't think these are what caused the loss of public trust in climate scientists. It's the <I>true stories that caused the loss of trust.
Keith,
"Capital punishment for Dr James Hansen. Climategate is high treason."
http://twitter.com/andrewbreitbart/status/6173170765
(AFAIK Hansen isn't even mentioned in the emails?)
Then there are the death threats to Jones and others.
More common are the allegations of 'fraud', calls for 'investigation', and demands for scientists to resign etc, calls for Gore to be imprisoned etc.
But clearly it is those on the other side that are the aggressive ones.
lucia,
So nobody has been saying that scientists have been 'adjusting' global temperatures to 'hide the decline' (in global temperatures)? Nobody has formed that impression as a result? Is this really something you wish to argue on this blog of all places?
What about poor Sarah Palin - she got that idea from somewhere surely?
I have personally met and spoken to people (educated people, at that) who think that UEA got 'done' for fiddling global temperature data.
No evidence for that claim, especially as those 'true stories' are precious few and generally provide zero reason to mistrust climate scientists in general, and most of them even provide reason why they should be trusted (such as independent corroboration of their results).
As it happens I agree with the commenter above who said that this may be more related to the recent cold snap and 'look, snow!' than anything to do with climategate. But the poor reporting of climategate surely won't have helped.
Exactly how much trust has been lost and how lasting that damage is will not be clear for some time. It'll also depend on whether any actual wrongdoing is found by the inquiries. If not and especially if record global temperatures are seen again soon, then 'sceptics' may regret pushing themselves into the limelight, as 'the public' may start to take more of an interest in how much they can be trusted. In my opinion that is unlikely to work out well for them.
One thing is for sure - acting like the smears are correct isn't going to make anyone trust anyone, and it's surely not going to stop those who are simply making it up.
Frank--
Why do you thinkg those things caused the loss of trust? I think the precipitating factors is the actual contents of the climategate letters, glaciergate, Pachauri's handling of glaciergate etc.
You think there is no evidence this is the cause? Fine. But there is no evidence that anything else is the cause. There was always rhetoric and distortions in both agw advocate and agw-skeptic camps before these the obviously true stories in climategate and glaciergate happened. The loss of trust only occurred after true</I> stories of misbehavior were reported.
If climate scientists want to try to regain trust without modifying their behavior, well... good luck with that!
As for temperatures rising: Of course if temperatures soar soon and catch up with projections, this will tend to make people believe predictions of AGW were true. That's because people do believe in empirical evidence.
BTW: No one has suggested acting as if any false stories were true. So, stop trying to rebutt strawmen; that's just pointless.
Scientists should avoid being and appearing evasive. They should strive for greater transparency. They should communicate uncertainties-- in both the upper and lower directions. they should do all theses things whether or not they trust blogger, or the public and whether or not they think people lost trust in them because of a few mistaken stories.
We all know what happens to dissidents in the "Peoples" Republic of China.
This is symptomatic of a wider and very sinister malaise, nay evil intent to suppress free speech and as a consequence basic democratic rights of citizens of all free nations.
We poor downtrodden proles in the "Peoples DEMOCRATIC Republic of the Soviet states of Europe are not free and therefore WILL ( have lost) have our rights to free speech rescinded.
Only in the land of the free (The United States of America) can we hope that the AGW scam will finally be laid to rest.
When right thinking dissent is trampled into the dust, when brilliant scientists are referred to as 'flat earthers' and the supremely arrogant and totally wrong headed statements are uttered such as "the science is settled", then all sapient and perspicacious human beings know something is up....................Let them be damned, the alarmists are frightened and intellectual pygmies.........the argument has been upheld by the realists and they ( people like Hansen and Gore/Pachauri/Romm - feel it....!
There only recourse is a natural one, close the argument down, then rant at the winners and call them names and act true to one's (the Alarmist's) own nature.
If the alarmists were so sure of their arguments and of the science, then why the consternation at dissenting voices?
Because the whole shebang is a pack of trumped up b*****ks designed to be eye-catching - 'the Himalayas are doomed' and has more to do with venal and quite scandalous politicking than anything to do with empirical science.
The fault is with men not with the climate, which will take and make its own course - in total disregard of man, our insignificance on Earth and in the Universe as with all things geological - fleetingly irrelevant.
Could I make a suggestion to the posters? Frank O'D has had his say, and a lot of people have rebutted him, but he appears to have taken over the thread. No one on here will be convinced by his arguments, or accusations, and he won't be by anyone else's.
As it happens I think Leo's call that people shouldn't be anonymous on blogs is a bit redundant. I don't know of any sceptic blog where the blogger is anonymous, pseudonymous yes, but not anonymous. In fact the only blogger I'm aware of who tried to remain anonymous was Tamino, a warmist blogger.In fact he had good cause because when his name eventually surfaced it turned out to be an inversion of cheap sunglasses sold by Woolworth's.
As for posters Leo, I think the atmosphere surrounding this debate is so poisonous that any hint of apostacy by junior academics or anyone working in a government department would be career limiting. I my self remain anonymous because I don't want my wife to know I'm posting on blogs when there's the garage to clear and two garden sheds to build.
If someone had painted graffiti on the walls Kremlin/Gates of Heavenly Peace/Reich Chancellery that Stain/Mao Tse-tung/Hitler was a mass murderer and a despot would it matter if it is was unsigned?
Political graffiti is as old as civilisation.
There was a time, after cheap mass printing became possible, when anonymous pamphlets were handed out on the streets. This used to drive the establishment crazy, tracking down the presses and the editors (even as recently as the late 20th century.)
Many of these blogs are just another form of political graffiti, or pamphleteering. To try to say you 'should not do this' or 'you should not be anonymous' etc. shows a lack of understanding of the processes of that make up the Questioning of Orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy should always be questioned, it does not matter how it is done or if it is attributable. And by its very nature Questioning of Orthodoxy, has to be done outside of the Institutions that enforce the Orthodoxy.
As 'denier' is used frequently against a sceptic like myself, I will use it as an example. In the 1930's scientifically supported orthodoxy is Germany stated Jews and Slavs were genetically inferior. In Germany had you written a letter to the local paper editor questioning this orthodoxy, we all know what would have happened you and family. In fact the letter may well have been published as example of 'how stupid someone can be'.
Perhaps though in the anonymity of the crowd, one person making shaking his head at the persecution of a person by the Brownshirts may have transmitted it to the next and the next. One person? Probably not. 100? Maybe. The Emperor's new Clothes is not just a child's fairy tale.
As some may have noted, I am disappointed with the Guardian. Their history should lead them to be at the forefront of questioning orthodoxy. Yet we have papers like the Mail and Express (papers I generally would not read) leading the way.
Doesn't that indicate something is wrong somewhere?
May effective anonymity and Questioning of Orthodoxy continue even in this Communication Age.
Well done Frank for being the voice of reason, keep up the good work.
@jm
I am not sure about the 'voice of reason bit', but if F O'D was not real I would invent him. He stops this place turning into group think. He has far more perseverance than I could manage, and he certainly gets me thinking about his arguments.
IMHO, the best thing that these poor opressed climate scientists could do to restore some confidence in their probity is to start acting like proper scientists. Archive data, methods and code. As polticians in the UK are fond of telling us proles "If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear".
As to anonymity... If I want to take a punt at a published paper, and (and it's a big "and") all the data etc is available, then as long as I make all my workings etc similarly visible - as does Steve McIntyre on CA - it doesn't matter one jot whether I sign the piece as "Pogo", my real name and qualifications, or The Emperor Zog. The work should stand or fall on its merits, not on who wrote it - because that's what's got "The Team" into the mess it's in now.
The Poor Guardian, as well as disappointing me as an ex-Guardian reader (that in itself of course, is not significant) they seem to have disappointed Gavin (also a reader) for wandering off the Realclimate message...
Guardian disappointing Real climate
So they are annoying Realclimate and they have indicated here on this blog (Leo Hickman: "from what I understand, the term "denier" is no longer used in news pieces in that manner.") to be more circumspect in their use of the denier term.
"Leo Hickman has added his thoughts to my earlier piece commenting on his call for climate bloggers to lose their anonymity. This, he believes, will create trust in what they are saying. "
With the added bonus of weeding out the non-believers in the scientific community.
Why would climate change skeptics [sorry I mean "deniers" (1)] want anonymity?
So what if they are accused of treason or threatened with being put on trial in future by the likes of Krugman, Lynas and Hansen(2).
Don't you know "deniers love this sort of attack, of course"(3)?
It's not surprising really that "we're heading for one hell of a day of reckoning" (4)
---
(1) Source; Leo Hickmann - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jul/01/climate-change-denier-treason
(2) Source; Leo Hickmann - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jul/01/climate-change-denier-treason
(3) Source; Leo Hickmann - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jul/01/climate-change-denier-treason
(4) Source; Leo Hickmann - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jul/01/climate-change-denier-treason
I'm late to this discussion but I noted earlier the suggestion that sceptics IP addresses should be checked out. Real Climate already do this. I tried to make a posting there once upon a time of a mildly sceptical nature, politely worded with nothing about motives, just sticking to the science... my comment was held up in moderation for almost 2 days and then appeared, heavily redacted - thereby avoiding the point I was making - with a direct in-line ad hominem reply from 'Mike' (Dr Mann I presume) slagging me off while making a pointed reference to my location. Since this wasn't apparent from the message I posted, it seems clear that they routinely check out IP addresses. At the time I was shocked because I thought RC was a genuine debating forum rather than a propaganda tool of advocates, and I was only midly interested in the subject. The direct outcome of this was to make me question AGW more closely & in the end become a "lukewarmer". Which I suppose shows how their behaviour is in the end counter-productive.
I think this behaviour suggest an alarming level of paranoia. Why would they do this other than to identify the "enemy" and take steps against them? The climategate e-mails show they routinely hijack peer review & try to prevent their opponents from publishing. In that climate (no pun intended) no wonder people take refuge in anonymity.
Despite Frank O'Dwyer's entertaining cognitively-dissonant ramblings I am firmly convinced that his favourite climate scientists are more sinning than sinned against. Perhaps Frank is really Gavin in disguise? Maybe the Bish should check out his IP address?
Seriously, I don't think they are likely to hunt down and kill a skeptic, or even try to put the skeptic on trial. (Although some kook doing the former doesn't sound impossible).
I do think however that there are plenty of warmists who would have no compunction at all, about using trying to use identifying information to shut up skeptics.
The reason is it is already mainstream in warmist circles to say there's a moral obligation to try to stop climate skeptics expressing their views - because the skeptics are allegedly destroying the planet, or facilitating others to do so.
It's part of the "science is settled" meme (which is usually used in an attempt to shut down not only discussions about the amount and degree of warming, but about actions that could be taken in response)
You also see in the subversion of peer-review.
And most of all, you see it in online discussions and emails.
See e.g.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/03/bbc-climate-change-denier
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/02/climate-conspiracy-bbc
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/02/shut-up-for-the-children.html
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/16/hamilton-denying-the-coming-climate-holocaust/
A couple of things spring to mind:
1) Peer review often includes anonymous reviewers. So do blogs. Whats the difference?
2) With the onerous lible laws in the UK, anonimity protects those who post dissenting views.
3) Already pointed out, truth is truth: it doesn't matter if Snoopy the Dog finds a critical error or Prince Charlie himself. An error is an error.
Re: Libel laws.
There's a lot of discussion in realclimate's comments (none with added interventions by Gavin as far as I can see) about using libel laws against skeptics. Some more extreme than others, e.g.
"I think scientists have better things to do with their time, but at some point someone has to make an example of somebody…"
(comment 12 - http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=3041 - in reference to libel or other legal actions)
There's also comments such as these (again, none with added interventions by Gavin as far as I can see):
"Do not get to much distracted by the denialist puppets. Soon they will be silenced."
(comment 11 - http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2808 )
"Perhaps this should change. What is dearly missing is a single well-resourced non-partisan professional organization — not hobbyist bloggers doing it by the side — engaged in the legal side of this. Libel suits are just one thing. Investigative journalism desmogblog style is another. Then there’s things like holding journalists accountable; FOIing denialist professors, approaching their home universities about scientific malpractice; assisting researchers targeted by smears; etc. etc. But it all takes a lot of time so don’t expect scientists, or any hobbyists, to do this. It’s for professionals."
(comment 82 - http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2808 )
So the question is, what entitles such people to know your identity, just because you've expressed contrary views in an informal online comment?
I just posted some long thoughts on the earlier thread that first mentioned Leo Hickman's suggestion about anonymity. I now realise this was was the (slightly) more current place for them. So here's a repeat.
Hmm.
Anonymity has been very useful as a way for blogs like Climate Audit and this one to tap the expertise that dare not speak its name. But there does come a point when people 'grow a pair', as Willis Eschenbach has quite rightly urged all climate scientists to do on WUWT (and I guess that has to come first), and use their real names. Whatever one says about the falsity of arguments from authority none of us can be experts in everything and thus we all rely on others and their reputations to some extent. A good example for me would be Edward Wegman. I already thought from my own reading that McIntyre and McKitrick had got the maths right. But it helped that Mr Wegman said so too. That increased my confidence. It's obvious to me therefore that Leo Hickman has a point. And it's worth offering up thanks for those like Steve McIntyre who've made themselves known from the outset and have taken such outrageous flack and attempts at character assassination as a result.
Roger Harrabin's request for the names of UK physical scientists who are willing to question climate science is likewise understandable. He may have to make do with Freeman Dyson! The man is a genius, of whom the UK should be very proud. But Dyson's case illustrates three aspects of the difficulty: 1) he's lived in the US almost all his adult life, where, despite all, there is more freedom to dissent (just consider James Imhofe's recent interviews); 2) he's very old and his reputation (and money) is therefore already made; 3) he's one of the few genuine cross-disciplinarians across all of science.
The last point is extremely important. It was very helpful of Tennekes to draw attention to 'Hermetic Jargon' or the silo effect, which he also is good enough and brave enough to want to break through. But one of the reasons I judge that people elect to go anonymous on blogs like this is that although (like professional statisticians) they may have some very relevant expertise in the debate of the hockey stick and other things, the way science is organised and funded it's not the done thing to make criticisms in one's own name across official disciplines. It can I'm sure have a detrimental effect on one's career, even if the expertise involved is very applicable. This is crazy and needs to be fixed. Because if one very immature and over-funded area of science (so-called) has become totally corrupt - and I follow Lindzen and Eschenbach in thinking about climate science that way - then that creates a massive problem.
This of course also plays into whether Boulton should have got the gig with Muir Russell or whether it should have been someone with impeccable credentials in another area of science. Hang on, Russell himself is a distinguished physicist. Why didn't he have the confidence to do it himself? One can see the point writ large there.
I'm not a professional scientist and I'd be interested in any reactions from those that are. Or indeed from those that anonymously claim to be.
Frank O'Dwyer
Are you the Frank O'Dwyer who has an agreement with the Real Climate website?
I found two cookies there last night -
frankodwyer.com
uea.ac.uk
Is this Frank's style?
http://www.frankodwyer.com/blog/?p=268