Wednesday
Mar102010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Change of tone at Nature
Mar 10, 2010 Climate: Sceptics Media Nature has returned to the subject of climatology for its latest editorial and I'm pleased to say that they have made a welcome rediscovery of their former considered tone, with not a mention of the word "denier" to be seen.
In fact they are positively critical of the noisier sections of the media, particularly the new media, and their perceived lack of good manners and good science:
Civility, honesty, fact and perspective are irrelevant.
This sentence might have been the cue for some cheap retaliatory shots at Nature, but I shall resist.
Update on Mar 11, 2010 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Readers point out that the word "denier" is actually in the first sentence. That will teach me to post things after the 10pm watershed.
Reader Comments (38)
"Denier" is in the first sentence.
How could Nature forget to use denier in their editorial?
And sure they didn't. They can't even write one full sentence before it has to be mentioned. Just remember this is Nature.
"Climate scientists are on the defensive, knocked off balance
by a re-energized community of global-warming deniers who,"
Oh, and so nice to see that Nature gives some warm thoughts to people like Paul Erlich of the Population Bomb fame (forced abortions and sterilizations was (is) his solution).
"This sentence might have been the cue for some cheap retaliatory shots at Nature, but I shall resist."
I won't.
"scientists must acknowledge that they are in a street fight".
These guys really need to learn some social skills.
I think I now detect a statistically significant signal of sarcasm in the original post. Or laudable but misplaced optimism.
Incidentally, much to the chagrin of Mrs Sean, I romper through The Hockey Stick Illusion on holiday - unbeatable.
Sorry Andrew but I must disagree strongly. As your first comment said "denier" is in the first sentence. The whole tone of the editorial is basically "we have to tell the story better" - irrespective of how good/reliable the story is.
Moving on I see the UN General Sec is now going to ask the "scientific academies" to review the IPCC work. He started by saying that AGW is an established fact so another whitewash coming up.
This editorial looks like it might have been written by the same guys who want to write the "attack ads" in the NYT
See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/04/ad-hoc-group-wants-to-run-attack-ads/
Judith Curry pops her head up from the trenches
Not all climate scientists agree with forcing a political fight.
“Sounds like this group wants to step up the warfare, continue to circle the wagons, continue to appeal to their own authority, etc.,” said Judith A. Curry, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology. “Surprising, since these strategies haven’t worked well for them at all so far.”
Well said Dr Curry !!
sorry, no change of tone there. the PR must be improved, that's all.
A revealing sentence in the fourth paragraph: "For example, the IPCC error was originally caught by scientists, not sceptics".
I think I have inferred the code in use here:
Scientist = Believer in AGW
Sceptic = AGW denier
For those who do not understand the true meaning of Bishop's post, there is a detailed explanation at
http://tinyurl.com/ye9vlda
The IPCC error? Which one? There are so many to choose from, there must have been one that was so egregious even the home team couldn't let it pass unnoticed, even if Pachauri fobbed them off.
Finished `utilizing` a recent copy of nature?
Please remember to flush and wash your hands.
Nothing to see here! Move along! (Sorry, couldn't help it)
Science trumps politics. This simple differentiation separates journals, like Nature, from the sceptic blogs.
Nature's failure to recognise its "enemy" for what it is, and for what it knows, is the reason its alarmist devotees are so clearly floundering in the climate of fear of their own making.
For what it's worth, I can't do with deniers, or climate atheists, either. They're as bad as the climate believers.. politically motivated, belief-driven and fundamentally unscientific.
We're largely climate agnostics, here. Except we do believe there is a climate (durr!). We just don't believe we can know, right now, what it's going to do next.
Haven't the guys on The Team run out of feet to shoot off yet?
Classic psychological pathology from 'Nature"; denial, projection, and victimhood, all rolled into one neat little agit-prop bundle. "Forward, O AGW believer, and Total Victory Shall Be Ours!"
Off topic, this, but you get a rave review in Prospect magazine this week:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/03/the-case-against-the-hockey-stick/
[BH adds: Thanks Mr E. I never had you down as a Prospect reader, I must say!]
how extraordinary this speech by Maurice Newman, Chairman of ABC Australia to his own staff. Note especially the reference to Paul Hudson of the BBC. this speech has caused a furore in Australia, especially among ABC 'journos'. surely BBC needs to now come clean about what they knew when and why they did not/have not informed the public.
10 March: (ABC Chairman) Maurice Newman's address to ABC staff
Climate change is a further example of group-think where contrary views have not been tolerated, and where those who express them have been labelled and mocked. In his ABC Online blog last October Chris Uhlmann wrote a piece called In praise of the sceptics. ‘“Climate science we are endlessly told is “settled”’ he wrote. “But to make the, perfectly reasonable, point that science is never settled risks being branded a “sceptic” or worse a “denier”…one of those words, like “racist”, which is deliberately designed to gag debate…You can be branded a denier if you accept the problem and question the solutions.”
This collective censorious approach succeeded in suppressing contrary views in the mainstream media, despite the fact that a growing number of distinguished scientists were challenging the conventional wisdom with alternative theories and peer reviewed research.
Then came the sensational revelations of unprofessional conduct by some of the world’s most influential climatologists exposed by the hacked or leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Institute. This was followed by more evidence of dubious research and politicised advocacy contained in scientifically unsupported claims and errors in the IPCC 4th Assessment, including in the carefully vetted Synthesis Report. Questionable methods of analysis resulting in spurious temperature data have added further doubts on the underlying credibility of the science.
The lack of moral and scientific integrity shown by the IPCC serves only to reduce clarity and increase confusion, disappoint believers and give fuel to doubters. It has frustrated policy makers, and as polling now shows, it has clearly weakened public belief in climate change and devalued respect for science in general.
In defending the indefensible, Mr Gore, university vice-chancellors and those in the media, do a disservice to the scientific method and miss the point that no matter how noble your work, your first responsibility must always be to the truth.
As you would expect, as Chairman of a public broadcaster, I followed with interest the announcement by the BBC Trust that it would carry out a review of the accuracy and impartiality of the BBC’s coverage of science. It came after a year in which online science bloggers continued to raise concerns about mainstream media coverage.
A contributing factor for the review was the revelation that the CRU emails were known to Paul Hudson, the BBC climate correspondent one month before the story broke – but not reported at the time. While disturbing, it is heartening to know that the BBC takes quality control seriously.
The Guardian noted “The moment climatology is sheltered from dispute its force begins to wane.” Which raises an important question for a media organisation: who, if anyone, decides what to shelter from dispute? And when? Should there be a view that the ABC was sheltering particular beliefs from scrutiny, or failing to question a consensus, I would consider it to be a dangerous perception that could lead to the public’s trust in us being undermined.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/maurice-newman-speech/story-e6frg996-1225839427099
Me tinks the good Bishop may well be known better as the Prince of Snarkness with his "deniers" comment above. Well done, m'lord! You've rallied the minions and let the dunderheads self-identify.
CONSPIRACY!!!
"For example, the IPCC error was originally caught by scientists, not sceptics".
That is exactly the phrase that frequent commenter Frank O'D used on a blog post here recently.
(Actually I think the conspiracy goes deeper because I have long suspected that F O'D is BH's alter-ego.)
Seriously, it says everything about Nature that such a phrase would be allowed to stand. It has probably not even been noticed. All the people who reviewed the editorial just read and accepted its bias as par of Nature's group-think.
This simple thing says everything about Nature.
Paul Erhlich is "scared shitless". What of?
This Nature editorial seems rather similar to their other tracts on the subject, but now they accept the fact that there may be some improvements needed, but otherwise bemoan the fact that nasty "street fight" deniers are making them work for living.
The fact they quote Paul Ehrlich as reference should be an early alarm bell.
They mention that Lisa Jackson recently distanced herself from the IPCC and admonish her for that
Yet earlier they say
Without further detaling that those error finding scientists were not within the IPCC, in fact more importantly they were scientists who had taken up a deliberate opposing view to the IPCC line i.e. they were sceptics.
All in all, the muddled logic of this Nature editorial can only be explained by the fact it was designed as PR spin.
Paul Erhlich is "scared shitless". What of?
Actually he claims his climate colleagues are. Maybe because they are "scared shitless" of being exposed to hiding the true results of their findings and manipulating their data.
A bit of honest introspection and truthful confession might provide the necessary catharsis for their conscience and their bowels.
As for Nature, they havent changed their true nature. The editor uses the words "climate science" and science, and "climate scientists" and scientists interchangeably. They are not. The hockey teams "climate scientists" are just a bunch of crooks manipulating science for their own ends, being supported by people of equal integrity like Pachauri and Al Gore.
I don't like this editorial from Nature one bit. They quote that charlatan Ehrlich and then echo (channel?) him with
"scientists must acknowledge that they are in a street fight, and that their relationship with the media really matters. Anything strategic that can be done on that front would be useful, be it media training for scientists or building links with credible public-relations firms."
No. The AGW-proponents have had a free ride with the media and hundreds of millions of pounds of free promotion. Stephen Schneider of "we have to offer up scary scenarios" fame seems to have spent half his life on TV getting free advocacy time - and probably being paid for appearing, to boot. Suddenly, when sceptics get a little air time, they all cry foul!
This reminds me of Lord Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, who tried to get Channel 4 censured for daring to screen the sceptical documentary in which Christy, Lindzen, Reiter, Calder, Stott, Singer etc appeared. The same Rees who corrupted the peer review process so that astronomers who had findings that differed from his couldn't get their papers published. Oh yes, now he's a Lord, Astronomer Royal and Chief at the Royal Society. So corruption is science pays handsomely.
SFT
"The same Rees who corrupted the peer review process so that astronomers who had findings that differed from his couldn't get their papers published"
That doesn't surprise me but could you supply a reference.
A real fun article in the "Socialist Worker" demonstrates the political agenda and ignorance behind the campaign against sceptics. All below is quotes..
"Real agenda of climate deniers"
"But it won’t be alright for the poor suffering the consequences of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, floods in Cumbria or drought in Africa."
"This is a class argument we need to take up and win."
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=20529
"Evidence"?
"This can produce varying results, which is why climate scientists assess a balance of evidence to reach conclusions. The balance of evidence currently is that we are experiencing a prolonged period of warming which is observable. And this warming matches models of what would happen if the greenhouse effect caused warming—rather than natural events.
The most recent evidence produced by the Met Office, based on 100 studies, confirms this. That’s why human activities such as burning fossil fuels are seen as central to the planet’s climate.
The climate sceptics are not defending the interests of ordinary people or pursuing rigorous scientific debate. Rather, they have presided over 30 years of free market policies."
Scary stuff..
"Paul Erhlich is "scared shitless". What of? "
Hunger
One or two interesting comments in there.
What about the wails of "out of context"? And while they write that:
they do not seem to believe it. Elsewhere in the editorial they support their friends arming themselves with PR spin rather than substance.
Nature seem to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick over the Himalayan Glacier mistake in AR4 as well.
It would have all gone away? It didn't matter? What about all the other mistakes?
The underlying science was that the Himalayan Glaciers are doing fine. The explanation was that the chapter author was a rabid alarmist who only has a passing interest in actual facts. Surely Nature wouldn't want the IPCC to admit that?
Slightly off-topic but I feel it’s an indication of how far CAGW scepticism has to go as far as the commentariat is concerned. You may be familiar with Dr. Ben Goldacre, author of the Bad Science book and website of the same name. I thoroughly enjoyed his book, in which he lays into such faith-based new age fads as homeopathy and, in particular, his criticism of the media’s reporting of MMR. He doesn’t cover climate change in his book, and I had naively hoped he would either be quietly sceptical (bad climate change science surely being the elephant in the room) or else just avoid the issue altogether.
How wrong I was. In December last year he came off the fence as an unquestioning warmist: http://www.badscience.net/2009/12/copenhagen-climate-change-blah-blah/#comments. As we know, quite a lot happened in the weeks and months after this. In February, I posted a comment saying that I had been away on a desert island and would appreciate an update on what had been going on in the world of climate change. His response was:
“While you were away, a man who works in an organisation wasn’t very stylish about correcting a small error.”
That is his considered view on Climategate.
An interesting (and, it has to be said, clever) meme is being developed by the warmists (e.g. the aforementioned Goldacre and The Royal Society’s Lord Rees) that the sceptical response to Climategate is akin to the furore over MMR.
I say there are indeed close parallels with the two situations, but not in the sense meant by the alarmists.
MMR: A seriously flawed study by the charismatic, telegenic doctor Andrew Wakefield of a very small self-selected group linking MMR to autism published in a ‘gold standard’ medical journal (The Lancet) and accompanied by major publicity. Fall-out continues for many subsequent years.
CAGW: Mann’s seriously flawed hockey stick graph published in a ‘gold standard’ scientific journal (Nature) and picked up by the charismatic, telegenic politician Al Gore, accompanied by major publicity. Fall-out continues for many subsequent years.
I don’t want to put a downer on things, but I feel there is a danger amongst some sceptics that the debate is won. The above examples show (even someone who wrote a book called Bad Science, for goodness sake!) just how far there is to go.
@DougieJ - I think as with many things people who have made an effort to understand something are well aware of the flaws and errors in the sphere they have studied, yet make the same errors, display the same acceptance of received wisdom/framing/narrative, in other spheres.
BG is a good example of this. Clearly he's a man who knows how to be scientific, to delve into truth-claims etc, and I enjoyed most of his book, yet when he slips out of his comfort zone he's a bit at sea (in Bad Science you can see this with his occasional forays into 'society' and economics - it's earnest, ignorant, adolescent lefty boilerplate).
In his mind there are proper people and nutters - once he's defined climate realists as nutters he feels able to dismiss any scientific claims without investigation.
It's also part of the standard sleight-of-hand you see all the time: because someone is an expert on X, they can pontificate on Y, as if knowledge as opposed to method is somehow transferrable. So a scientist will comment on philophical implications, or a politician will comment on science, or a popstar will comment on politics. Maybe it's a new type of argument, Argument from Fame? Al Gore/Thom Yorke/Martin Rees said it so it must be true.
@SFT - I second Umbongo's call for some refs and links.
@prm - yes, I know what you mean. It's a crushing disappointment when writers I admire come out of the closet as CAGW true believers. Why don't they just avoid the topic altogether?
A couple of examples are David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen, who I respect for their stance against the prevailing 'we're all Hezbollah now' Left mindset. It's almost as if, having gone out on a limb on issues like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, taking a sceptical stance on CAGW would truly put them beyond the bounds of polite society.
In a way, it's a no-lose situation for them. Should the 'settled consensus' truly crumble as opposed to wobble (far from certain, sadly), they can just say 'we could only go along with what the majority scientific view was'. Strange to say, but Monbiot has actually gone up in my estimation over the past few months - first for his clear admission that this was a big deal and that heads should roll, then for his highly critical line on the mad economics of solar panels.
He at least understands completely that the 'sweep sweep', wagon circling approach is doomed to fail.
@DougieJ - I have a sneaking admiration for Moonbat too - I recall an article a while back when he had an epiphany at some Internationale-type meet, and was suddenly aware that it was all talk, People's Front of Judea/Judean People's Front nonsense and that nothing was based on reality and nothing would ever happen as a result.
He's still a true CAGW believer, and still dismissive of criticism, but then, he's believed it all for years and you don't give up a religion overnight. But he does seem to be a man for whom cognitive dissonance occasionally becomes genuinely, morally toubling and you see an outbreak of intellectual integrity.
Sorry, but skeptics were raising heck about the glacier claims for a long time before the scientists decided to finally review it.
And the other, significant errors of fact and data in the IPCC 4, and now 3, are being found by skeptics.
I am almost ready to wear the brand of 'denier' as a badge of honor, irt the AGW debacle.
Perhaps a t-shirt that says something like : 'member of the vast denialist oil conspiracy'
Or 'official denier t-shirt' on the t-shirt.
Except our AGw true belivers are still suffering from the effects of their humorectomies, and may decide to use the shirts for target practice.
"Paul Erhlich is "scared shitless". What of? "
Hunger
No, hungry cannibals.
It is ironic that Paul Erhlich is "scared shitless". After all, isn't that what he has been trying to do to all of us over the past 40 years with his armageddon predictions of drought, hunger etc....
pat quoted: "A contributing factor for the review was the revelation that the CRU emails were known to Paul Hudson, the BBC climate correspondent one month before the story broke – but not reported at the time." - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/maurice-newman-speech/story-e6frg996-1225839427099
I'm concerned about the suggestion that the BBC's Paul Hudson (declaration of interests: he is my local TV weatherman) is being represented in the sceptic arena as being complicit in a Climategate cover-up at the BBC.
Hudson gets mention in the emails themselves, as the poster of an inconveniently truthful blog about the lack of recent warming. The email (ABOUT, not TO Hudson) itself implies clearly that there are issues of bias and climate alarmism complicity at the BBC, but it is Hudson's honesty about the current warming/non-warming that is the problem for the scientists. The email discusses ways of putting pressure on Hudson from within the BBC, and it is safe to presume that this would be intended to dissuade Hudson from posting honestly in future.
Hudson confirmed that he had been made aware of this email prior to the Climategate leak (presumably by way of a heads-up from someone at CRU - perhaps even the leak him/herself), but this has been taken to mean that he was aware of FOI2009.zip. This leap is too great and is not to the usually-high analytic standards of the sceptic camp.
Hudson continues to post honestly and with good neutrality (if a little infrequently). Given the implications of the Climategate email, it is easy to envision an embattled Hudson receiving unfair attacks or pressure from bosses, scientists and sceptics alike.
"The core science supporting anthropogenic global warming has not changed."
Of course the core science hasn't changed you moron, its the barking data that has been manipulated!
I am under-impressed with Nature.
Enough hunger can lead to that result (not certain of the scared part)...