Friday
Mar052010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Andy Russell's blog
Mar 5, 2010 Blogs Climate: other The Guardian piece I cited in the last article quotes a physicist named Andy Russell who has written to the IoP expressing his dissatisfaction with their submission. It turns out that Andy also has a blog, which looks very interesting and can be seen here.
Reader Comments (37)
After reading his blog, the question is, if Andy Russell had written the IoP submission would it have any more validity?
"It can only be CO2"..."It can only be CO2"..."It can only be CO2"..."It can only be CO2"..."It can only be CO2"...
I am an engineer, and I always looked up to physicists because they always questioned, always dreamed the impossible, to become the possible. A different race, like mathematicians. Climate 'science' is just lazy science. As his blog ably seems to demonstrate.
Sorry, a trivial though seemingly consistent point, like any Climate 'science' AGW proponent in the media he has that same smug grin. This is not flippancy, I am serious.
There have been any number of times in history when a 'group' had such grins, usually before their ultimate fall.
They cannot stop being condescending, because then they would have to engage and that is the one thing they do not want to do. Dictate? of course, engage? no thanks.
Andy is into being in the media - not a criticism in itself, but it may mean he has a slightly different agenda behind his blog than just commenting on climate science.
Congratulations Andy, thanks for letting everyone know you made it to a page in the umm “Accrington Observer” I’m sure the IoP will be losing a good upright member.
It's another picture of Michael Mann/Gavin Schmidt.
Why do they all look alike?
I'm afraid I must disagree about Andy Russell's blog looking interesting. He seems to be getting his 'information' from William Connolley and the Grauniad.
@josh, you mean he could be pursuing some self interest, rather than up holding the august principles of the IoP as a poor lonely researcher? Someone who saw a possibility to make a name for himself and took it? Someone who is probably paid via similar grants that keep the CRU alive?
How dare you imply such a thing. Oh, you didn't imply that. Sorry.
AGW Climate 'science' research is in no way corrupted by the billions of dollars/euros/pounds floating around. No way corrupted by its profile in the media.
He is just an 'umble climate 'scientist'/researcher, with just a 'small' media profile (at the moment, though he can be contacted via his blog for any interviews).
Sorry for sarcasm, but what has happened to science?
I am an Andy who doesn't have a smug grin, In fact,I rarely smile.
I live in NZ and I am reminded by our most famous physicist, Ernest Rutherford, that science is, quote,
"That which is not measurable is not science. That which is not physics is stamp collecting."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford
Not many in NZ have any idea what I am talking about. Which is probably why I don't smile a lot
Andy Russell talks about "all the great work done by CRU” Have I missed something? I thought all their work was being questioned and all based on flawed proxies. Can someone point me to the great work?
It’s very noticeable that with all the Climategate activity, no attempt has yet been made by any of these scientists to engage with the sceptical community to examine the science. What is it going to take before these people “get it” and understand that climate science is sloppy at best and riddled with the corrupting influence of money at worst, and they need to re-establish trust with openness over the science and the way the data is interpreted.
Climate Scientists To Fight Dirty (AGAIN!)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/05/scientists-plot-to-hit-back-at-critics/
That didn't take long - Climate Science gets back to its bad old ways of disinformation and ad hominem attacks.
They really haven't learnt their lesson, have they?
Interestingly, in his blog post on the first session of the Parliamentary Select Committee, he implies that Phil Jones didn't have enough PR schooling to come across as well as Lord Lawson.
Even more interesting, he does not mention once any of the questions from Mr Stringer MP, who as scientist really put Phil Jones on the rack.
I am sure the IOP won't be too disturbed if he indeed resigns his membership in that august body.
Seen the latest nonsense on the BBC website? Headline on the world news "splash" page - "'Case stronger' on climate change "? From the Met Office, apparently not trying to reclaim their lost ground... "Dr Stott denies that the study has been published as part of a fight back by the climate research community."
... and I'm a little pink pussycat.
Quite astonished that Ross suggests in the comments that we can't expect professional software standards in the field of climate science because, and I quote, "Contrary to what I’ve read on some blogs, climate research is not awash with money and people come and go because of that." If Climate Research isn't awash with money then where does all that government and intergovernmental cash go then? On a similar theme, can it really be true that the CRU only have three full-time academic staff?
@Pogo
Have you seen the editorial board of the single paper, brand new journal that the Met Office paper is (not yet) published in? Mike Hulme, UEA is Editor in chief, plus other UEA placemen advising on intenational stuff, whatever that might involve in a global 'science', plus a team member whose role is "Perceptions and Communication of Climate Change". there's also an exec board member whose role is, get this: The Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123201100/home/EditorialBoard.html
All good, solid and convincing stuff. You couldn't make it up? Maybe not, but they have.
No, I was wrong. There are TWO members of the exec board on Mike Hulme's new journal whose roles are "Perceptions and Communication of Climate Change"
Unspeakable dross.
Following on from Jiminy's point, it's clear that there are a lot of rubbish "physicists" about these days, and I'm sure many of them sign up to the IoP hoping that it gives their careers in post-non science some credibility.
From perusing Andy's CV (available from his sister website), it would appear that he left the world of normal physics with a 2.1 from Imperial back in 2000, and went straight to, wait for it, UEA to begin his education in climate modelling.
Frankly, I hope that Andy Russell does follow through with his 'threat' to leave the IoP. I've read a small amount of his blog, and it's clear he is partisan. He comes out with the following:
"The attempts to discredit the science and reputations of the scientists involved with the Hockey Stick graph has continued right up until the UEA email theft in 2009. However, the science has stood up to all the questions asked of it."
So, there you go Bishop - the science behind the hockey stick is all fine and dandy!
This guy is a dyed-in-the-wool member of the corrupt 'climate science' brigade, and is just another parrot for the Team. He's hardly impartial: he is out of the UEA mould - he studied at UEA no less! He did mathematical modelling, looking at general circulation models in the department (Environmental Sciences) in which Hulme, Jones, Briffa and Wigley, Watson et al reside.
He is also a dyed-in-the-wool Guardianista: he says: "I began reading the Guardian at school...it's now become quite a big part of my work. I find the Guardian useful for keeping up to date with stories about climate change and science and always read George Monbiot"
His website has a link to the propaganda piece: "Here's the link to the website of the Al Gore's Oscar and Nobel prize winning film/powerpoint presentation "An Inconvenient Truth""
All of this inclines me to take anything Andy Russell says with a very large pinch of salt.
"Interesting" is indeed an interesting word to describe that blog. His assessment of the discussion is completely one-sided, and not once does he refer to the incisive questions of Graham Stringer to Phil Jones.
JimD
Did you manage to ascertain which eminent post nonscientist has taken on the role of Climate Diversity Officer? The Climate Outreach Director? And whose role is it to ensure Climate Change Impacts on Intelligence Challenged Stakeholders doesn't go unrecognised, and therefore possibly underfunded?
And Rod
to find out where all the tax payers' "climate"
largesseI mean funding is going, take a look at the growing inventory of social engineering and propaganda projects unearthed by Richard North over at EU referendum.Very few of the crumbs get thrown at the climatologists, probably because the politicians and unelected bureaucrats who control this money know just how little bang for the buck they will get from these guys in doing the important job of convincing the masses, compared to direct spending on PR and marketing.
One would think, if there was an impending global climate catastrophe caused by man made CO2 just around the corner, just some of that money might be wisely invested in some real science and technology to help out. Oh, I don't know, in say fusion, or neutron repulsion power generation perhaps? SO2 atmospheric spraying technology, to keep things from all this over heating?
But that would just be silly, wouldn't it.
Gosh you all sound cross about his blog. I thought it good - sure, he's a warmist, of course he is.
This post, for example, was excellent:
http://andyrussell.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/on-the-real-holes-in-climate-science/
Of course we're cross HotRod!
That's the whole point of AGW and its many flavoured adherents and promoters. Its sole purpose is to make us cross.
If we didn't have AGWers to be cross at, what would we all be doing here on a glorious spring Friday morning for goodness sake?
Under his photo:
"I'm a researcher working on weather and climate science. I investigate European extreme events and Antarctic climate change."
Translation: He gets funding from the government to write up scary reports - science be damned.
Just looked at the Met Office report (only the brief summary on their website is available) that it says demonstrates man's hand on the climate. I am curious why they don't mention sea level rise (one of the major reasons for man made climate change says the Royal Society)
Andy Russell's blog links to a Times Online article which quotes Bob Ward of the Grantham Institute as saying: "It does not appear to correspond to any of the official records of global average temperature published by the Met Office, NASA or NOAA and not even that of the University of Arizona at Huntsville."
http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/12/climate-sceptics-get-it-wrong-1.html
Maybe he has a fair point about accuracy, I don't know, but he should be congratulated for being the first to report the campus's relocation from Alabama.
A good day to bury bad news???
The Met Office scraps its seasonal forecasts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8551416.stm
Yes, I must say I thought his blog was interesting. Sure he doesn't agree with me on lots of things, but that doesn't stop it being interesting or well written. Calm down everyone!
I read that Met piece in the Guardian "It can only be us..."
And it is the same old b*ll*cks... sorry.
Cross is the wrong word. Passionate?
I married an Hungarian, and I sometimes think what the great Hungarian physicists Neumann, Szilard, Wigner and Teller would have thought about it. They were passionate in everything they did.
Especially von Neumann. The man had an intellect on a higher dimension than probably anyone living at the time. He could visualise the most complex of chaotic systems and model them.
Would he have said "b*ll*cks* or the Hungarian equivalent "suletlenseg" (it is a translation of the meaning not the object)?
HotRod: "Gosh you all sound cross about his blog. I thought it good - sure, he's a warmist, of course he is.
This post, for example, was excellent:
http://andyrussell.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/on-the-real-holes-in-climate-science/"
Excellent? Surely you jest! That post is just a summary of what's in a Nature paper. But the preamble to that is not very encouraging:
"Glaciergate was equally blown out of all proportion given that the original claim only appeared in one sentence in a 3000 page report." The spirit of RK Pachauri there, I'm afraid. The Glaciergate lie found its way into lots of presentations, and diverted funding away from proper science. After all, hundreds of millions of people are supposed to be reliant on these glaciers...
And, what's more, peer-reviewed science had revealed that Hasnain's 2035 date was bogus years before AR4 was published, as I've shown in my post here:
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/un-ipcc-rotting-from-the-head-down/
There's something very sick there with the IPCC.
Then we find in Russell's post:
"...most of the coverage on the UEA CRU email leak/theft/hack (so-called climategate) has focused on what some of the “skeptic” community wished was in the emails rather than what was really there." Er...I think not! And the link is to a Guardian piece entitled "How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies". You can't control what anyone says about anything, but of course if one wanted to know what 'sceptics' think about the Climategate revelations there are plenty of cogent 'sceptical' scientists who can give a view.
Mac
And a damn silly day to issue statements. BBC 24 hour news a while back ...
Met Office statement : melting ice, more atmospheric moisture, Antarctica warmer, library footage of Polar Bear.
Now over to our all day coverage of Gordon Brown before the Chilcot enquiry.
With incredulity, but in a calm sort of way, I note the Met's stated reason for dropping seasonal forecasts, as relayed by BBC R4 just now, is that "it's just too difficult to forecast the weather in the UK". I just thought that was their job.
Presumably then, they're much better at forecasting the weather in Outer Mongolia. So that's OK then. After all, it's only the UK tax payer funding the Met, and what the UK taxpayer needs more than anything else is jolly good weather forecasting for everywhere else other than the UK.
So the Met have given up, and admitted the job of 3-6 month into the future forecasting is beyond them and their super computers and programmers. But I suppose they'll just have to redirect that portion of their funding over to bolster their even longer range forecasts for the climate instead. Otherwise, here's a new wheeze, they might think of repaying some of their funding.
I just hope nobody asks whether their own admission that short term forecasts don't work casts any doubt on the extra long range forecasts generated by their climate models.
Russell writes: "In my view, it is unfair to criticise the CRU on the basis that they did not comply with data sharing standards that, at present, don’t exist."
They have existed since the 17th Century, and make the difference between Science and the methodologies that preceded it.
I am happy to regard Climatology as a science in its infancy and wish it well- however its practitioners must play by the rules of the game!
It's funny that, Skeptical Chymist: I thought that apart from the traditional scientific standard, we had a legislative data sharing standard called the environmental information regulations, which require proactive dissemination of climate data.
It seems he got his MSc at the UEA according to his cv here:
http://www.andrewrussell.co.uk/CV_Andrew_Russell.pdf
A sad indictment of our scientific education system, that sees good quality students unknowingly corrupted by post-normality, and "seduced" into advocacy by legitimate sounding (PNS) activities such as RMetS Legacies Fund to attend NCCR Climate Summer School in Switzerland (£400), where activism and Hulmist values can be embedded via the summer school indoctrination:
•Emission scenarios and the future of the global climate
•Economics of climate change: an overview
•Assessing costs and benefits of climate change
•Adaptation and Mitigation: instruments, strategic aspects and implementation
•Climate policy and international negotiations
Decidedly socio-economic and political module titles. But hey, that PNS.
2008 NCCR Climate Summer School in Switzerland
7th International NCCR Climate Summer School
International speakers
Kerry A. Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology USA
Phil Jones, University of East Anglia, UK
Franco Molteni, International Centre for Theoretical Physics, I
Anthony Slingo, University Reading, UK
Julia Slingo, University Reading, UK
Rowan Sutton, University of Reading, UK
Among the participants
Andrew Russell, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
You need to understand the climate scientists, it may be difficult..
I have a close friend, who I knew was involved in climate reseacrh, after climategate I asked if it had been a busy week.
They directed me to Real Climate...
Three months later, I actually got around to talking properly about it...
I had discovered, they had their OWN climategate emails.
They had worked for the IPCC, working group 1 and part of team editing the synthesis report.
They were a part of the Kyoto consensus (see Tom wigley, saying reprehensible)
They had signed the Met Office round robin.
They had wriiten thousands of lines of computer code.
They do not think software procedures in industry are relevant to scientists, qa, etc if it 'work's.They leave the politics to the politicians.
My thought was they have a duty to disown (tidal wave politics- they said IPCC stil say 59 cm in 90 years...
and GET THIS.
They had NOT looked at ANY of the climate gate leak information.
Were surprised (genuinely) about having their own climategate emails.
Their jpob (part of it ) advicing big business abount man made climate change.
Working at a major institution, very much at a heart of thinks, ie met office, walker, tyndall cru..
They said as far as their colleagues felt, it had all blown over!!!
If you are a believer, why would you look?
or look at bishop hill, climate audit, etc
very puzzled.
Rod asked "On a similar theme, can it really be true that the CRU only have three full-time academic staff?"
It may be true in a strictly legal sense but it is far from the reality.
Acton, their VC, is a tricky little fellow. What he actually said was "there are three full-time members of academic staff within it". This conjures up the image of three harassed scientists nobly attempting to do their work, despite a flood of vexatious FOI requests.
If you look at the UEA CRU website you'll find that it does indeed list just three "Academic Staff".
It also lists:
* Two professors (I don't know why they don't count as full-time members of academic staff) as Acting Director and Deputy Director.
* A Research Manager and Senior Research Associate (who holds a doctorate).
* Six research staff (four with doctorates).
* Eleven Associate Fellows, all with doctorates.
If Acton had said "The CRU has twenty-three staff involved in research" this would have conveyed a more accurate impression. But it would have been even more laughable as a reason to justify their breaking FOI law.
I think that he should indeed withdraw from membership of the IoP. I suspect that they would be well shot of him.