Friday
Jun182010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Hockey Stick Illusion at Collide-a-scape
Jun 18, 2010 Blogs Books Climate: Curry Climate: HSI Keith Kloor's Collide-a-scape site is currently discussing the Hockey Stick Illusion. Many of the usual suspects are arguing that it should be ignored, with Judy Curry arguing the case that it matters.
Please keep it ultra-polite and don't rise to any bait that is set out for you.
Reader Comments (12)
The Collide-a-scape discussion brings up repeatedly the same old meme about climate skeptics' "political and economic motives."
AGW proponents continue to mutter darkly about climate skeptics' "political and economic motives" as if there are no such motives among their own supporters. Could it be that Al Gore has no "political and economic motives," with his investments in carbon traditing? Or Rajendra Pachauri and his involvement with TERI? Or the thousand-and-one climate science grant applicants? Or government-funded entities like GISS?
The climate change legislation being proposed at all levels of government will dramatically increase the economic and political power of carbon traders, windmill makers, and bureaucracies. Above all, climate scientists supporting AGW have gained immense political influence and public prominence which will certainly enhance their political and economic futures. Yet their motives are never questioned.
One thing that the left have been very good at over the decades is demonising business, especially big business.
Even some of my most reliably Conservative voter friends assume that Big Oil (Pharma, Coal, Whatever) "would say that, wouldn't they?" while accepting uncritically that government doesn't do that sort of thing.
To what extent that situation has changed in recent months I'm not yet sure but there has been a widespread mindset for most of my life that "vested interests" mean vested business interests.
The increased level of attack on skeptics' "political and economic motives" has all the hallmarks of a fairly well-orchestrated campaign (I've seen enough of them in my life) but I suspect it may backfire on them. It is starting to smell of desperation.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100617/NEWS01/100619733
Well it's a start. Exactly what error they are talking about I don't know. Perhaps they are talking about all of the text and diagrams.
Collide-a-scape has some honourable history in the climate debate, Kloor isn't an obvious window licker - ye think!?
Oops, Michael throws Naomi under the bus over 'old' and 'new' skepticism. It's about time, fella.
==============
The comments on Collide-a-scape make for very depressing reading. The troll-like tactics of the AGW lobbyists just make you want to scream. It really is a religion to them, isn't it?
I dont want to name names, but the minute a few commenters make their appearance, the whole thread, any thread takes a turn for the worse.
One can formulate a Climate blog law to that effect. The moment Commenter X makes an appearance, the thread is doomed.
You must stop talking about me that way, Shub :)
I was about to interject one of my whimsical World Cup reflections but stay with me, this one is different. The fascinating debate on Collide-a-scape soon gets bogged down in the politics - or at least the assumed politics of the assembled sceptics. The Bishop having alerted me to it this morning I started to read - about 60 posts. Just now I switched to BBC One to check how Australia were doing against Ghana. It was half-time and they had a feature from the BBC bus that is going round South Africa. They were at an orphanage for kids with HIV. This place has no electricity but via the BBC bus they've been watching the game and of course they were avid football fans, to a man (and woman). Gary Linecker, Alan Hansen et al were rightly entranced by the spirit of these children, despite the tragedy of their stories.
But when the BBC bus moves on this wonderful place, founded by a local mother of enormous compassion, will not just not have the world cup to watch, it won't have electricity for anything else. The question for us all, sceptics and sceptics alike, is whether we feel that the science of AGW is so certain that it is worth adding even a cent to the price of electricity to put that right. I think not. And that too is a political stance.
I enjoyed comment 102 - Judith Curry saying that Andrew's book "does a masterful job of explaining the whole issue.... in a readable and compelling way". She goes on to say that the proponents of AGW must if they can, provide evidence of errors, not simply the ad homs and irrelevant comments we have seen so far.
I've enjoyed reading Collide-a-scape for the last several months. Sure the usual suspects show up attempting to derail the discussion with the age old ad hominem and it's a shame that does tend to derail the discussion. But there have been some very good exchanges there, good ideas brought forward. Keith Kloor often takes comments on an interesting point and starts a new thread which will be very interesting until the usual suspects troll away and it falls to wreckage again.
Personally I feel that on such a neutral site as Collide-a-scape the usual suspects are self defeating, they illustrate how fanatical the CAGW crowd really is. They've actually made the argument that people of a skeptical nature being polite is just a tactic to gain the moral high ground. LOL! I really don't think they have a clue how such rude behavior in a reasonable discussion is seen by others.
And Judith Curry has said many nice things about the Bishop's book. I'll have to order a copy from your US distributor.
Yes, Keith Kloor's Collide-a-scape thread with Judy Curry discussing "the Hockey Stick Illusion" & her campaign of openness & reform is interesting. That is about it. Judith Curry is saying things that shouldn't need to be said in the referenced thread and others she has participated recently that I have read.
What matters to me is that all research used in support of public policy be subject to & pass rigorous audit and public debate.
There is nothing I have seen, heard or read that indicates to me that 'Climate Science' used in public policy decisions will mature to that point anytime in the near future.
Until then, the only thing serious about 'Climate Science(CAGW)' I find is the unjustified public expense and infringement it has been allowed to inflict upon society.
From the opposing team we have:
The Climate Files - Frea Pearce - Guardian..New Scientist
I think it is even more damaging than the hockey stick illusion, as it come from their own side..
Even though he leaves a lot out: (harry_read_me.txt big ommision)
still believes in it all and minimises things.
Don't forget I'm considered a 'sceptic' by many.
--------------------
I hope Judith Curry reads it.
--------------------
I have just bought Fred Pearce’s – The Climate Files..
Fred is, a guardian correspondent, with RealClimate part of the Guardian’s environment network. George Monbiot Endorses it.
Fred is also the journalist whose phone converstion 10 years ago, somehow ended up as IPCC evidence (via various reportings of it) in grey literature as evidence of glaciers melting by 2035, which he talks about.
The Guardian is a true advocate of all things AGW.
It is an interesting read…
It is actually more critical, in my opinion, than any of the enquiries of CRU,and the IPCC.. and is really critical of many people, yet still holding true to climate science is robust.
In fact there is a classic post at Realclimate, where RealClimate attack the Guardian for shoddy journalism, and an equally classic response where the Guardian defends it self.. (especially the comments section of both)
I personally have been blocked from commenting at both RealClimate and the Guardain, at all, with comments that the BBC allow.
Yet I would recomment this book to all, it does cover a lot of background of climategate, no doubt based on a series of articles fred Pierce did in the Guardian. (only 3 months! after - everbody knew all that his investigation had uncovered!)
It seems to give a fascinating insight into the advocates side (journalism ) of the debate. Pretty accurate background info on the climategate leak/hack. Seems willing to say the most plausible source, is a disgruntled insider, or a compilation of material for an FOI release, just accidentally being found.
What is perhaps interesting, is what Fred, in my opinion, chooses to leave OUT of the book… or seems to minimises as not very important, the science is still robust.
ie , he mentions the sceptics initial misunderstanding of ‘hide the decline’ people thought the emails were refering to temps dropping since 1998..
Fred minimises (for proxies) that the deline refered to proxies, as being hidden in plain sight and not a big problem, just waiting an explanation of why the divergence.
Yet proxy results declining, when the thermometers were shown to be rising without explantion, call into question temperature reconstructions of the past using them .
As the proxies were supposed to reconstruct temperatures in the past, disagreement with actual thermometers can not be good.. In fact most people would say throw them out they are not reliable, if they fail now, and it can’t be explained, when temp are rising. How can they be used to show temps were low hundreds of years ago, when equally it could be argued that temps could be much higher, as you now have evidence, (ref thermometers) that this could be the case.
In my mind, the book is damge limitation, get an explantion out there and move on..
And YET:
CRU, MANN and team and the IPCC must be seriously damaged by this book, it leaves a number of questions in climate science hanging,and shows the methods and procedures of ‘climate science’ to be slip shod, and the ipcc to be flawed in many ways and the behaviour of key scientists (ipcc lead authors amongst them), to be very unprofessional, to be kind.
Ie Tom Wrigleys (Forme CRU boss, IPcc luminary) criticisms of them privately are highlighted.
Yet no mention of the awfulness of ANY of the code, and the harry_read_me.txt file and the awfullness of the data handling, data integrity, etc
It really is fascinating.
It is equally fascinating what is left OUT.
The Guardian has been evangelical and vitriolic against ’sceptics’ and ‘deniars’.
George Monbiot, famously was one of the first people to call for Phil Jones to resign (I think denying foi request – are red flags to – journalists) and he received a lot of flak from ‘alarmist advocates, yet George is evangelical about AGW, he has a deniars pack of picture cards of shame, on the guardian website, Ian Plimer, Senator Inholfe, and others pictured (bizarre behviour for a ‘quality newspaper)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10
And possibly one of the first to compare scepticism as unaccetpable as holocaust denial.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/sep/21/comment.georgemonbiot
Yet his call for Phil Jones to resign, left him feeling ‘never more alone’, as he was attacked from the ‘alarmist AGW activist side…
Absolutely fascinating!!