Wednesday
Feb242010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Prospect of change
Feb 24, 2010 Climate: Surface Prospect magazine, the house journal of the bien-pensant centre-left is the latest media outlet to throw in the towel and start discussing the other side of the climate debate. In its current issue it publishes a broadly sceptic take on the quality of the temperature records and notes some of the Climategate revelations.
Well worth a look.
Reader Comments (14)
A good start from Prospect. Interesting though that their editing/proofreading would allow them to repeat the last paragraph!
All we want is debate - people can still make up their own minds
Good find, yer grace.
He kind of spoils it with his (repeated) "I am far from being a climate change denier...but..."
What's he trying to say here ? "I'm one of the cool kids like you, but we need to play fair..."
Is support for the climatistas now so entrenched on the left that you have to play along with them? This kind of reminds us why some bloggers want to stay anonymous.
I liked Les Hatton's comments posted over on WUWT recently:
"I am not a believer or a sceptic, I am a scientist"
It does puzzle me how we have to state our views on AGW as if it were views on whether our kids should receive free dental care, for example.
It's a fuzzy science, and this whole left vs right aspect to it is ridiculous, imo.
"Is support for the climatistas now so entrenched on the left that you have to play along with them?"
Speaking as a left-winger, yes, I'm afraid it pretty well is. People I've known for 30 years denounce me as irrational for questioning the "science" of AGW theory.
It is bizarre that a political agenda given major international prominence by centre-right UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher, by religious zealot Sir John Houghton and by retired diplomat (and Malthusian) Sir Crispen Tickell should be endorsed by those who profess to stand up for little people - but it's also a measure of the political disorientation of the western left.
Thanks, Bish.
It is really good to read this, because I used to support green politics before it got obsessed with CO2. I mean there are plenty of real environmental issues - just think of the rain forest destruction - and all that concern was being channeled into a problem that probably doesn't exist!
IMHO, The honest part of the left/green movement is really a victim of the wretched climate scam.
Yer Grace
Can we expect similar views expressed by actuaries and fund managers in the insurance industry?
the Prospect article is not bad at all, considering. when will the Greens and the like face up to the fact they were merely a facecard for the very interests they constantly decry. to be honest, dave b, i think they do know, but there's been scraps thrown to them, which they are reluctant to give up.
posted the Prospect piece at WUWT and CA (had to post O/T on both, so hope they don't get bumped!
btw it seems al gore may come out soon. time will tell:
Al Gore to come to Manila to speak on climate change
GMA News: SM Prime Holdings is bringing in former US Vice-President Al Gore to keynote a leadership conference where top Philippine leaders from the academe, business, government and nongovernment sectors to learn from the experience and expertise of global leaders.
To be held at the SMX Convention Center at the SM Mall of Asia Complex on April 30, the lecture will have Gore present an Asian version of An Inconvenient Truth, a multimedia presentation on the threat of climate change and solutions to global warming and the subject of the movie of the same title that has won critical and box-office acclaim.
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/184682/al-gore-to-come-to-manila-to-speak-on-climate-change
Re "Dave B"... I can't remember who made the comment "people tend to wed their beliefs much more strongly than they wed their spouses", but it seems to be apposite...
Bish - did Prospect ask for permission to use your typeface? :-)
Thanks for your comments on my humble piece.
Jack Hughes and Dave B - you've put your finger on it. Slowly slowly catchee monkey. :)
More seriously, I see no harm in a measured tone. The point is really to say that we non-scientists ARE allowed to ask questions of the science, and so I picked an area of climate, temperature records, where a layman like me can a) understand the issues to a decent extent, and b) look at them afresh in a post-climategate environment, where we can acknowledge that there is at least the possibility of a bias in the system somewhere.
That can then lead on to an examination of the 'multiple lines of evidence' argument, case by case, and also illuminates the policy response debate.
If you haven't already, read Judy Curry's piece on climate science post-climategate, at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/24/on-the-credibility-of-climate-research-part-ii-towards-rebuilding-trust/
Well, that article just says it all. It's all so simple really isn't it. One sentence at a stroke holes the whole AGW case below the waterline: "there were, for example, periods of warming in the 19th century almost identical to the modest warming we seem to have experienced since 1975." QED. Game Over.
Also, totally agree with the point Jack Hughes makes above, I was going to make a similar point myself.