Saturday
Jul102010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill HSI in the National Post
Jul 10, 2010 Peter Foster has written a long and very supportive review of The Hockey Stick Illusion in Canada's National Post.
The Hockey Stick Illusion leaves no doubt about Mr. Montford’s reporting abilities. He tells a gripping detective story in which the star gumshoe is semi-retired Canadian mining consultant Steve McIntyre. Mr. McIntyre, unfortunately for his opponents, happens to combine mathematical genius with a Terminator-like relentlessness. He also found a brilliant partner in Ross McKitrick, an economics professor at the University of Guelph. Their story is one of intellectual determination in the face of Kafkaesque “peer review” and Orwellian “freedom of information.”
Reader Comments (164)
Hmm ... these results suggest that "opinion formers" are not much good at forming opinion.
Of interest is the response to global pandemics
Only 9% of opinion formers and the general public now think it is an international priority.
Another bad winter and this will be the level that action on climate change will drop to.
Remember to, this is only international priorities. When you consider domestic priorities like the economy, jobs, health, education, crime, housing, etc, then you would have to say that action on climate change would become a very low priority.
Further when the true scale of costs in dealing with climate change become apparent to the public in an era of massive public sector cuts then support for action will turn into outright hostility. No politician, nor political party, will be willing to wage war on CO2 emissions if it is going to costs them votes.
In summary: Support for action on climate change is not a high priority, favourable support is soft and will decrease whilst hard support against will only increase. Climate science and climate politics have already lost the war on "hearts and minds".
Jiminy Cricket
Interesting point about gender. Management courses generally split people into two categories- the larger group, generally less self-confident, that are socially motivated and tend to work best grouped in teams or at least with detailed instuctions and needing frequent positive feedback for their work from their bosses, and a smaller more confident but difficult to manage group, typically well qualified, that prefers to tackle challenging work without interference. A good manager recognises this and deploys his troops accordingly.
In my opinion it is the latter group, who tend to gravitate to the sciences, that dominate the sceptics, and the former that is more content to passively follow the crowd.
The gender split is definitely asymmetric, more women in the former, more men in the latter, but remember that the former is always the dominant group. That is why politicians spin and weave through their propaganda to sway the majority. It is really a cunning abuse of the democratic system.
Finding - Which of these views comes closest to your own? (General Public)
37% - ‘It is vitally important to minimize climate change; the government should take tough measures here in the UK to reduce carbon emissions, whatever other countries do’
30% - ‘It’s important to tackle climate change, but the UK should ONLY take tough measures IF other countries take similar measures’
28% - ‘I am not currently convinced that climate change is a serious threat; the UK should not take any action that makes it harder to sustain our standard of living’
9% - Don’t know
Is it just me, or is that a lightly loaded question?
lightly = Slightly
Uggboot
This is a blog, not a advertisement form. Kindly take your shite kickers elsewhere. Besides which most of us wear rubber Wellies when out in the muck. Cowboy boots leak.
Pharos
And where do the Managers fit in this theory? :)
DP
The Peter Principle- in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.
Dennis
Slightly loaded is a gross understatement? Even the fourth question suggests that even if you are not currently convinced, you soon will be. And of course the questions are loaded so that climate change = man-made global warming. I am convinced of natural climate change, warming is good, cooling is bad and there is nothing we can do to alter the climate in any significant way.
Perfect metaphor;
High and dry above the muck.
If shoe fits, wear it.
============
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/climategate-and-the-big-green-lie/59709
The view from a carbon taxer. Worth a read.
Crap survey.
"threats to the British way of life" is meaningless.
Pharos
The Peter Principle-
I guess that means those of us not in management are too incompetent to be managers. Sorry, I believe in the opposite. Only the incompetent are made managers by the guys at on the top, who probably inherited their job, because such incompetents are not a threat.
Still, you do make an interesting point about the "unwashed masses". Most are lemmings.
Phillip Bratby
there is nothing we can do to alter the climate in any significant way.
Totally agree.
It really is a good book.
DP No. I dont mean that. But probably the best managers are from type one, people people, who can motivate the hands on type two types, able to trust in them and go with their recommendations. I was a type two promoted to manager, the company got taken over, back to type two work and promoted to manager again, got taken over again and back to type two hands on work a third time, as a consultant. I never liked or was cut out for management. I am probably a reluctant Peter.
Mr Moderator: I don;t know where the remarks below should find a home, but since this debate was extensively discussed here in anticipation earlier perhaps you could find somewhere. Tx
Just back from the Climategate debate run by the Guardian tonight. We’re assured that the Guardian website will have a full video of the whole proceeding sometime tomorrow. So just some very sketchy impressions.
Steve Mc obviously read the remarks from last night’s meeting and insisted on speaking from a lectern. This was a good move as it gave him more ‘authority’. And he was (mostly) crisper…making his points more directly. The others spoke while seated.
George Monbiot chaired the meeting and I think he did a fair job of it. He tried hard to be unbiased, and only once or twice strayed into partisan territory. And he managed to keep the speeches and questions mostly to time and to the point
Fred Pearce took a longer perspective than the others. He spoke well and described Climategate as a tragedy rather than a conspiracy…the tragedy being that the CRU guys had adopted siege mentality. Climategate has certainly widened his perspective.
Trevor Davies representing UEA/CRU was appallingly bad. He mouthed platitudes by the shedload, but was unfamiliar with the details of any of the subjects likely to be raised. And was several times embarrassed by doing so. Apart from the fact that he had a sharp suit. I can find nothing positive to say about him. Struck me as a devious smooth cove.
Bob Watson opening remark was that he hadn’t read the e-mails in question. This was a bad mistake – many in the audience were very familiar with them, and not happy to be lectured by somebody who wasn’t. IPCC was imperfect but the best that could be devised 95% of scientists agree…it is now just a risk management exercise. Errors corrected quickly…As good as having Ravendra, but no need for the extra slot at Heathrow for him to land his jet. Very much the Scientific Establishment figure.
Keenan was interested in research fraud and the lack of accountability in science as a whole. He accused Jones of committing fraud, even after being given a chance to withdraw the remark. Davies tried to defend Jones but had no details. Keenan showed a more street-savvy business approach than any of the other participants. I’d like to have heard him at greater length.
Overall conclusion: there was no conclusion. Everybody agreed that openness and transparency were good, that debate should be with all parties and that uncertainties should be made more clear.
But my own view is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. This one still has legs and will run and run.
Great to have a quick pint afterwards with Peter B, Dung and Atomic Hairdryer. And to meet Josh who didn’t join us for a beer as he was Steve Mc’s minder tonight.
To bring it back to the subject at hand, I would still surmise that most traditional scientists and most sceptics, fall in group two. The recruiting explosion in climate 'science' research, I would surmise, is dominated by those from the ranks of type one, motivated primarily by their attraction to environmental 'care', rather than dispassionate scientific rigour, and severely compromising impartiality and logical deduction.
Sorry Latimer, crossed posts with your important summary, while I was just killing time pontificating.
Thanks Latimer, I appreciate the summary.
Impacts of 4 degree world shown on Google Earth map - 14 July 2010
The UK Government has launched a Google earth map showing what could happen to the world should average global temperatures rise by 4 degree Celsius.
DECC Minister of State Greg Barker attended the launch event, where the Foreign Office unveiled their interactive map, developed in collaboration with the British Council, Met Office Hadley Centre and Google.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/
Latimer Alder
Thanks for the summary, must have been good watching GM being "neutral" and well done to him if he managed it.
Thanks
Presumably the government will also commission an interactive display showing the outcome in the equally improbable event of Ministers actually understanding the science behind their decisions?
Google Earth zooms in on dangerous climate change (Press Release)
Wednesday 14th July 2010
A new interactive Google Earth map showing the impacts of a 4°C world was launched today by the Government.
Pushing the barriers with Google Earth technology, the multi platform, interactive map highlights some of the changes that may occur if the global average temperature rises by 4°C above the pre-industrial climate average.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/FCO/FCO.aspx
Thanks Martyn
"Impacts of 4 degree world shown on Google Earth map - 14 July 2010"
The challenge now is to campaign that, in the interest of prudence, the DECC produce the same showing a MINUS 4C scenario along with a detailed explanation of how they would furnish the UK's energy requirements under such a scenario.
.
hmmm!
15 July: Times Higher Education: Hannah Fearn : Hidden Danger: Willetts warns scientists to be more transparent
The “regrettable wariness” about sharing data shown by climate scientists at the University of East Anglia has added to the dangers that science faces from “complacency and arrogance”, according to the universities and science minister.
Speaking at the Royal Institution last week, David Willetts warned that scientists could “morph from admired public luminaries into public enemies” if they did not behave transparently and allow others “to test and challenge both methods and results”.
His comments were made after the publication of a report by Sir Muir Russell into the “Climategate” affair…..
Steve Smith, president of Universities UK, said that he would meet with the Information Commissioner to seek advice on how the FoI laws should be applied to research.
“Researchers must have freedom within the law to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without the fear of intimidation and threats,” Professor Smith said.
“We cannot have a situation where researchers dealing with controversial areas of study are faced with a barrage of requests for information on early drafts of research and discussions, with the sole aim of disrupting that work.”
Trevor Davies, pro vice-chancellor for research and knowledge transfer at UEA, said universities needed clarity on both the timescale for releasing active research data and the kinds of research data that should be covered by the act.
The problems researchers faced were compounded by the fact that the FoI Act did not allow for fair requests for information to be distinguished from those intended to disrupt work, he said.
“There is a real danger of important research being ground to a halt because of this difficulty,” Professor Davies said.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=412546&c=1
Veni, vidi, imbibi!
Apologies if I've got that wrong, but then I haven't spoken Latin since around the RWP, which didn't happen anyway. But was nice to meet some of the faithful and add some more CO2 into the atmosphere. In sympathy with our absent Australian readers, we drank Fosters.
Will write up my report tomorrow. Highlights for me seeing Steve in the flesh. Where would we be if it wasn't for his tenacity in unravelling this tale of woe? One answer would be the best part of 10 years further on in the debate, if only climate scientists had been open from the outset. Trevor Davies seemed pleased by UEA's new spirit of openess (not in the old University of Easy Access way) and is apparently thinking of ways to improve public engagement. I'd suggest not wasting even more money on PR people and Web2.0 wonks. Talk to Dr Curry, she's waaay ahead of you.
On the FOI subject, I still don't quite understand why scientists are making such a big thing about it. It's only been UK law since 2005 after all. Seems to have come as a bit of a shock to some of them that we have laws that apply to them as well. Shades of the Unseen University there, and given the email fiascos, they may want to adopt that university's motto:
Nunc Id Vides, Nunc Ne Vides
As much as it irks me,I do regard GM as an Honest broker.
That his passion, sometimes, overtakes his critical faculties may, by some, be seen as a weakness I would make this tentative conjecture; our most implacable opponent may, one day, become our strernest supporter!
This may not happen, time alone will judge but let's wait for the dice to decide!
However the cuboids cast your future,George, your name will be up there amongst the footnotes at least .
Interesting times, indeed.
Uggboot
As noted, we wear rubber Wellies, not leather cow boy boots out in the moors, as the latter leak and let the cow urine in to make our feet smelly. And if any of us were interested in cow boy boots for whatever reason, your sad attempts to interest us in your product are very much counter productive. BUZZ OFF. You are most annoying.
Latimer Alder
Thank you for a most informative account, while Pharos and I were discussing Management Theory 101. I found it interesting that the audience was a bit more sophisticated that expected (i.e. not packed with warmist trolls, from your account.) And George Monbiot actually behaved himself! Now maybe there is hope!
Atomic Hairdryer
I can hardly wait for the the sun to rise in California, my cats wake me up (they are insistent about being fed, you know) and stagger with a cup of coffee in me hand to me computer to see yer summary. Should be most interesting.
I do hope you had a pint of Guinness for me, as requested. That would make me day, it would!
Atomic Hairdryer
Talk to Dr Curry, she's waaay ahead of you.
Sorry I missed this on my first reading. The question is "in what way?" Could you explain? I missed something, I suspect.
O/T but just in case you missed it: NZ winter temperatures (UHI notwithstanding) have been breaking record lows in both islands. Bitterly cold weather for the winter to date. Maybe your NH winter wasn't an aberration...
GixxerBoy --- The Australians are also getting much lower than normal winter temperatures.
So the head of the Inquiry did not feel it important enough to meet the head of the unit under enquiry.
'Under questioning from McIntyre, Davies confirmed Sir Muir Russell, the chair of the six-month inquiry published last week, had not met Phil Jones, the current head of the CRU, in person after his inquiry's panel was appointed in February. Evidence from Jones was instead taken by other officials.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/15/uea-hacked-emails-climate-change
How on Earth can these people justify their remit and the expenditure to produce a severeley lacking report?
Now you know why the Scottish Parliament building went so over budget...
"Davies said: "There are lessons to be learned. We need to be much more aware of interactions between the mainstream media and the blogosphere and contribute to public debates."
He said the university had a series of initiatives planned for later this year to such effect."
I wonder what the initiatives are which will enable UEA to learn lessons and be more aware of the interactions? More likely he means they will contribute to public debate by increasing the propaganda output.
Hoost mon och away the noo, don't you be horrible about my Muir. He's a good boy he is...as I was saying to my wee pal Phil Jones' Mum only yesterday over a stick of Edinburgh Rock and a wee bittie shortbread from one of those Tartan tins with Ally's army on the side.
All you clever people on blogs keep on criticising our boys. They're just doing what we told the....get a nice government job and stay on till you get your gold plated pension. The system can't touch you for anything other than playing away with the junior officers or failing to abide by the latest Elf'nSafety so they've got it made.
Her Phil - he's got it even easier coz there's not much Elf n Safety involved in sitting in an office all day. (though I did hear of a nasty incident when he opened a cupboard and a shelf full of old computer tapes fell on him...he soon threw those out anyway coz they were raw data..and you can't keep raw stuff unless its in a fridge nowadays).
And stop picking on my Muir about that Holyrood place. Just coz the books didn't quite balance first time around it wasn't his fault. He was just the man responsible and he was hoodwinked by the contractors...Englishmen mostly. Anyway it was only a little overspend. 900% isn't much when you work on a government contract.
And then they all say that my Muir didn't sort of interview her Phil properly! Well Muir is a busy man and has lots to do ... cars to be driven in and meetings to fall asleep in and stuff. so he didn't actually have time to interview him in person.
So he asked me to talk to Phil's Mum for him and I did. I asked her straight. I said.' Phil's Mum - has your Phil been a naughty boy?'. and she said 'He's a good boy my Phil' straight away, Didn't even have to think about it. So that was that. I told Muir when he rang his old Mum and he was mighty pleased. Och away Mum he said, thats a relief...I thought I might actually have to go to Norwich - wherever that is - to visit the scene of the crime, far beneath my dignity,........
So he was ever so pleased that I'd solved his problem for him....he;s a good boy is my Muir and he loves his old Mum..and his pension and his car and his driver...........
(As told to our tartan correspondent Latimer McAlder)
George Monbiot was actually a very good chair overall..
You do really need to see the video, to see how bad the UEA’s Trevor Davis was, especially how, the admission that PHil Jones was not seen by Muir Russell after the enquiry panel had formed, was dragged out of him…
I think the Time journalist, asked for confirmation from Davis, whether Mcintyre account was correct, ie the head of the enquiry, had not the head of the department (Phil Jones) to be formally interviewed, after the panel had formed.
George to his credit, did not allow Davis (UEA) to get away with anything, stonewalling after Steve Mcintyres, filleting of the enquiry, George pursued the question, with Davis, until after much note shuffling, not sures, mumbling, refering to notes, Davis eventually mumbled Phil Jones,- met Muir Russell in January, Steve Mcintyre said, 'confirming', BEFORE the panel had formed.
Bob Watson’s admission, that he had only read a FEW emails was just laughable, given the debate…
Fred Pearce did come across very well (Fred and George came across as journalists)
Keenan was very concise and tough, maybe overstepped the mark, saying all climate science was rubbish (assuming man made kind)
What may be lost because he said that, is he talked about the human ‘cost’ of it all, hundreds of millions of poor affected, because we ‘must’ do ‘something’ about AGW,even as the uncertainties get bigger for AR5.
His other valid point, that struck a chord, was how there is no processes, for challenging academic fraud, incompetance, no way to hold anybody academic to account,(fraud/incompetance) Citing an example, (not climate science) that he was pursueing, where the university, said no method to do this.
Keenan I think impressed the journalists, like fred George Roger Harrabin, with his conciseness, and interest in accountability of academia, no 'waffle'.
Former IPCC man Bob Watson, could only keep repeating, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, 95% scientists agree, very superficial platitudes, that just did not work in a debate, where every one was knowledgable.
Roger Harraibin asked him a question from the audience, and the response from Bob was very poor, totally not answering the question, whijh I heard at least one of the journalists present, saying Bob did not answer the question.
Fiona Fox asked a question, pretty much attacking the Guardian journalists, for being irresponsble for reporting about climategate. Fred Pearces reply was perfect, comparing to how reporting MP's expenses was referred as attacking democarcy initially, but long term better fro democarcy (cf climate science)
Fiona Fox, sounded to be like a very strident 'activist', really need to here it for yourself..
Personally, it was good to finally meet people, Fred Pearce was very easy to talk to, glad to meet Roger Harabin, if only so that I could introduce him to ‘Josh’ and a couple of others. I was in 2 minds whether to say hello, as I had perhaps ‘bothered’ him enough with emails, Roger has been courteous to ‘engage’ many times.
The journalists present could not fail to see, what the Muir Russell enquiry was really about, following UEA’s and Bob Watsons poor performance here
George Monbiot, WAS a very good chair...
I had thought - oh huh, when he started of with the 'Climate Change DENIAL community', but it would be picky to highlight any detail.
He fulfilled the role of chair correctly. (if only he's stop denial stuff in his blog - that totally alienates me, annd many others,)
He came across well, with a sense of humour saying:
"He was the ideal chair, beacuse he had managed to alienate, everybody!"
Thanks Barry. I wish I could have been there. Sounds like Watson was just as I predicted - how did he ever get to where he is? Well we all know the answer to that one.
The question is, will the debate be reported widely and fairly? What will Roger Harrabin and the beeb have to say?
Barry Woods
Your remarks about Monbiot’s chairing of the discussion are most interesting. Monbiot is a hugely influential investigative journalist, and a hugely influential environmentalist activist. He can’t continue to do both. Which he decides to do will make a news story far more interesting to the chatterati than the complexities of the climate debate.
I think someone in the community (or team) must have upset Fred Pearce at some point, as he came across very well as an investigative journalist ( a green minded one, still very much AGW as a problem) wanting answers, acountability and transparency. Realclimate and team would be wise not to attack him for simply doing his job.
That is why, I've said his book is probably 'more' important' initially than 'the hockey stick illusion'. As Fred CANNOT be dismissed as a sceptic/deniar. And it is VERY critical of the IPCC processes and those at Cru and ' the team'
If Roger Harrabin's lucky might get a nice personal Josh cartoon, out of it.. !
I met Josh, for the first time on Tuesday, and he was quite keen to get Roger's email address. Rather than give Roger's email address out, I thought, much better to introduce Roger to Josh.
Many people (activists) there probably disliked Keenan, but I think he came across very well to the journalists there (vs the establishment 'wafle') The journalists/analysts there, BBC, Times, etc all seemed keen to speak to Keenan and Steve Mcintyre afterwards and seemed to be genuinely interested in the issues and enquiring.
Ie Not the reprehensible people (big oil denialists) the CAGW advocates had tried to paint them as..
Steve Mcintyre came across as totally genuine, with his explanation of why he intially got involved - ie in Canada a leaflet was sent to every home, with the 'hockey stick' graph in it, and it looked like a 'salesman's' pitch to him, and 'suspect'
I hope to see a full video. Trevor Davis response to 'The Times' question is just painful to watch.. (should be used as a video for PR people as an example, of how to do everything wrong)
He could have 'easily' said a dozen 'simple' things, even just simple deflections, to not make it look like the car crash answer that he gave.
I await George Monbiots next blog on this with interest, and others. BBC, Times, etc
O/T
Anyone seen the new Google Earth Climate Change Map, which includes Not only the Global Average of 4 degrees, but it predicts an 8 to 16 degree change in the arctic. It also shows areas of drought, forest fires, sea level rise, etc. Tours of the climate issues. All for free (well, paid for by us anyway).
I recommend watching PT. 2 of C4 news coverage from last night. The small segment was about 6 mins in.
Or just download the app Google Earth yourself.
All very alarmist with the Government seeming to be pushing harder than ever to drive their message home.
http://www.google.com/gadgets/directory?synd=earth&preview=on&cat=featured&url=http://maps.google.com/maps/gx?oe%3Dutf-8%26output%3Dghapi%26q%3Dhttp://www.fco.gov.uk/google-earth-4degrees.kml
Interesting accounts of the meeting from PeterB and HotRod at http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/14/report-from-the-climategate-guardian-debate/#comment-235480
Re the debate, I'm sorry to hear there was no conclusion or vote at the end. I assume it would not have gone well for the warmists!
Some truely excellent reports in this thread. Could it mischievously be possible that the BBC, Guardian, and Labour/Libdem members of the Commons Science Select Committee are going to deliver the final coup-de-grace?
Piers Corbyn's review now at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6006
@ James P - It wasn't a debate, but I got the impression (based on applause) that the audience was about 50/50. Though having said that, the journalists sitting next to me didn't applaud anyone (trying to appear impartial ?) and I reckon journalists made up a very large part of the audience !
I am going to write a bit more after Atomic Hairdryer writes his report (with whom it was nice having a beer afterwards),
I agree with Barry Wood's impressions. Trevor Davies stood exposed as both an empty suit and an emperor with no clothes. Fred Pearce - whose book I did buy there - was strong on the ethical sides of the story but he still takes too much for granted with regards to the science.
Doug Keenan made a very strong impression, I think, when he confirmed his accusation that Phil Jones had committed fraud and that he'd say the same in a court of law. His contempt - intellectually and ethically - for the CRU crowd was palpable.
I had forgotten this gem by Bob Watson, reported by Piers Corbyn:
"You only have to look at Mars, Earth and Venus. Mars has least CO2 and is coldest and Venus has most and is hottest”."
Nothing more needs to be said, actually.
Bob Watson is an embarassment to science. He needs to go from his position as chief scientific adviser to Defra. I suggest writing to Caroline Spelman and Tim Yeo suggesting they get rid of him and replace him with a scientist.
Look at Bob Watson's career
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Watson_(scientist)
and think how he came across....
Totally out of his depth, and of course he had read a 'few' emails..
Career:
Watson joined the World Bank as Senior Scientific adviser in the Environment Department in 1996, became Director of the Environment Department and Head of the Environment Sector Board in 1997 and is currently the Chief Scientist and Senior Adviser for Sustainable Development. He took up a position as Chair of Environmental Science and Science Director of the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia, United Kingdom, in August 2007[1] and joined the British Government's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) as Chief Scientific Adviser in September 2007.[2]
Prior to joining the World Bank, Watson was Associate Director for Environment in the Office of the President of the United States in the White House and prior to that, Director of the Science Division and Chief Scientist for the Office of Mission to Planet Earth at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
He was Chairman of the Global Environment Facility's Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel from 1991 to 1994, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002 and Board co-chair for the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment from 2000 to 2005. He is currently Director of the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development and co-chair of the International Scientific Assessment of Stratospheric Ozone. He has been Chair or co-chair of other international scientific assessments, including the IPCC Working Group II, the United Nations Environment Programme/World Meteorological Organization (UNEP/WMO), and the UNEP Global Biodiversity Assessment.
Bob Watson always reminds me of the Kenneth Williams joke, but I won't go there.
See also the report by Robin Guenier at http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=316#comments