Thursday
May132010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Nature on the Hartwell paper
May 13, 2010 Climate: RP Jnr Climate: WG3 Last night I posted a comment on the Nature Climate feedback posting about the Hartwell report. I said that it was odd that they gave earnest consideration to the sources of funding for the Hartwell group but, in giving space to some critical comments by Bill Hare, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, they failed even to mention that he is an advisor to Greenpeace.
My comment doesn't seem to have made it past the moderators yet. Perhaps it's their day off.
Reader Comments (8)
Comments will be reviewed by the blog editors before being published, mainly to ensure that spam and irrelevant material (such as product advertisements) are not published . Please keep your comment brief. Excessively long or offensively phrased entries will be edited.
We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. E-mail addresses are required in case we need to discuss your comment with you directly. We won't publish your e-mail address unless you request it.
It's not like they didn't worry you, is it? :)
I mean "warn" -- not "worry". Need new glasses. :)
OT:
Not quite sure what to make of this:
"The investigation into the alleged global warming data fraud by Virginia’s Attorney General may soon have a whole new angle. This comes from a previously overlooked connection between discredited tree-ring proxy researcher, Michael Mann and Yale’s now deceased climate professor, Barry Saltzman."
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5700&linkbox=true&position=1
Certainly, if true, Mann's rise to prominence from (slightly under an apparent cloud) obscurity seems surprisingly speedy, but the author seems to suggest there is dynamite there, without really laying out any real evidence. I hope there is more evidence of wrong-doing than is presented in the article and that the author is just being careful, rather than there being no further evidence. If the latter, it just increases the risk that Mann will look like he's a victim.
speaking of Mann:
13 May: WaPo: Rosalind Helderman: Moran weighs in on Cuccinelli subpoena
We haven’t heard from a lot from Democratic politicians on the topic of Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s global warming subpoena to the University of Virginia, but perhaps that’s about the change
On Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Jim Moran (D) sent Cuccinelli a particularly blistering letter about Cuccinelli’s attempt to get documents related to the work of climate scientist Michael Mann, a former U-Va. professor.
Read the full letter here (LINK) http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/05/moran_weighs_in_on_cuccinelli.html
from the undated Moran letter:
“Such action is reminiscent of the Catholic Church’s initial response when Galileo Galilei defended his views that the sun was the center of the universe in his famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. It was not until October 31, 1992 when Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled that the Catholic Church brought the controversy toward some closure…
History will neither reflect kindly on those who reject science in the pursuit of short-term economic and political gain, nor will it look kindly on your attempt to tarnish the good name of Professor Michael Mann.”
Quote "Climate Feedback is a blog hosted by Nature Reports: Climate Change to facilitate lively and informative discussion on the science and wider implications of global warming. The blog aims to be an informal forum for debate and commentary on climate science in our journals and others, in the news, and in the world at large."
Olive Heffernan will allow comments on her nature blog posts, which is really what blogging is all about, but not Daniel Cressey. So it is a bit pointless for him to blog. Maybe Olive should have a word or two with Danny-Boy on what "to facilitate lively and informative discussion" and "an informal forum for debate and commentary" actually means.
A bit of background. Daniel Cressey has a degree in Journalism, so I guess he must have been off sick when the other students did the module on Blogging-for-Beginners.
I thought you might be interested in this post of mine; it was sparked by a comment on a review of your book that I had written.
(if the embed doesn't work: http://elizaphanian.blogspot.com/2010/05/time-for-reformation-of-science.html )
"Societies appear to be subject, every now and then, to periods of moral panic. A condition, episode, person or groups of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylized and stereotypical fashion by the mass media; the moral barricades are manned by editors, bishops, politicians and other right-thinking people; socially accredited experts pronounce their diagnoses and solutions; ways of coping are evolved (or more often) resorted to; the condition then disappears, submerges or deteriorates and becomes more visible."
Delineation of the concept of moral panic, Cohen 1972
An interesting half-hour piece on the Hartwell paper is now on BBC iplayer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00s9fgy/Costing_the_Earth_Rethinking_Climate_Change/