Bishop Hill They get paid for this stuff...
Aug 12, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Oxburgh Climate: Parliament Climate: Russell [Update: I've just noticed that Gardner's article goes back to May, so it predates some of the findings about how the Oxburgh report was put together. I'll leave the post here anyway, because it's still instructive to see what Dan Gardner said in the light of what we know now.]
There's an interesting piece on global warming sceptics in the Ottawa Citizen, by Dan Gardner. I've never heard of Mr Gardner before but the Telegraph's Tom Chivers called him "the wonderful Dan Gardner" so I thought I would take a look at the article, which is called "Weighing the evidence".
It's well worth it because it turned out to be silly enough to get me laughing out loud. He starts off by discussing the famous Stephen Schneider quote about "we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have." and goes on to say that sceptics never add Scheider's corrollary about "Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." Now this is wrong, because of course there are lots of people out here who try to be honest and will sacrifice effectiveness to remain so. Which is why, in The Hockey Stick Illusion I do mention Schneider's corollary.
Gardner can be forgiven for not having read HSI, although perhaps we can offer up some mild criticism for sounding off in such forthright fashion about sceptics without having done so. However, his article shifts from mildly wrong to...well...extraordinary, when he gets onto the question of Climategate.
Two investigations of the leaked e-mails were launched, one by the British Parliament, the other by the university. Combined, they represented one of the most thorough reviews of scientific work ever conducted. Neither found misconduct.
Yes, you read that right. The Oxburgh Report was part of one of the "most thorough reviews of scientific work every conducted"; all fifteen person days of it. All ten pages. A review where the accused gets to opine on what evidence should be examined; where the accusers can't present challenge the defence's evidence. Where the investigation was deliberately directed away from the most serious allegations.
Is he serious?
Reader Comments (37)
To be fair, the 'wonderful Dan Gardner " isn't exactly that complimentary about Bill McKibben either (linked from the Tom Chivers blog post)
The history of failed prophecies poses a dilemma for McKibben. He hasn't an ounce of skepticism in his body. He's a True Believer. It's evident that, in his mind, there is simply no possibility his prophecy will fail like all the rest, and so the jeremiads of the past are of no interest to him.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/world+again/3054274/story.html
Perhaps one can take "the wonderful Dan Gardner" with the original meaning of the word "wonderful", i.e full of wonder. You wonder how Dan gardner can be so full of naivety/stupidity.
And why would you want to forgive Gardner for not having read THI? All these alarmist commenters should read up what sceptics are actually saying, before spouting off and trying to put words into their mouths, or worse.
Maybe someone can donate a copy of HSI to Mr Gardner
I still need to do my second reading to catch all the detail, so I am reluctant to give up my copy.
Even back in May, the superficiality of the Oxburgh review must have been apparent. I still find it amazing how Gardner can see it otherwise.
Easy mistake for Gardner to make. He just lifted his quote pretty much directly from the UEA's press release here:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/oxburgh
Released by the UEA 1st.. I mean 14th of April.
I think Mr Gardner would find that Ross McKitrick's analysis of the "reviews" surprising...
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/inquiries_response.pdf
The Oxburgh report has been a joke from the moment of its release. Neither then, nor at any time since, have any of my AGW[+] friends used the Oxburgh report as the basis of any portion of any claim of CRU exoneration.
Though we have learned much about the report's make-up since its release, everything that has since come to light has simply confirmed what was immediately apparent to EVERYBODY on April 14th.
As Mr Bratby notes, if we use words in the context of their original meanings, Dan Gardner is indeed "wonderful". By the same token, GISS adjustments are "fantastic" and the Hockey Stick is "fabulous". Literally.
.. oh, and the Oxburgh report itself? Well, the extent of its detail and insights into the CRU are quite simply "incredible!"
"Two investigations of the leaked e-mails were launched, one by the British Parliament, the other by the university. Combined, they represented one of the most thorough reviews of scientific work ever conducted. Neither found misconduct."
That's the point I laughed out loud myself.
"...most thorough reviews..." ROFLMFAO.
I'm in Ottawa. The Ottawa Citizen never publishes anything resembling questioning global warming - the science has been settled years ago! Dan Gardner is a regular Ottawa Citizen columnist renowned for frequently getting the wrong end of the stick. His columns frequently just regurgitate left-wing ideas along the lines of the CBC and BBC. His columns are not worth any attention.
"Is he serious?"
No, he's a "journalist" and a Warmonger so he is allowed to just make sh*t up, ignore contradictory facts and believe in the Prophesies of Saint Al.
And people wonder why newspapers are going out of business.
Oh well, Dan failed the giggle factor……again.
Gardener's article is nothing more than a sermon from the pulpit to the believers; the MSM = The Ministry of Truth. Surely Gardner was wearing his white robe and was bathed in "the light" when he wrote this sermon on "casting out demons".
Gardner is a regular Ottawa Citizen columnist renowned for frequently getting the wrong end of the stick.
WRONG END OF THE STICK!
HaHaHa
Bishop,
I don't find it amazing at all.
If you look at the Amazon reviews of your book - both the UK and US sites - you either have 5-star reviews of people who have actually read and understood your book - and 1-star reviews of people who very obviously haven't read the book at all - yet they felt the need to write negative reviews, based on what they think the book says; some of them are just rants.
What you don't have are thoughtful reviews actually criticising the book on substance. There is no middle way - even supposed thoughtful reviews such as Tamino's are actually strawmen. Can anyone think of a single exception? I cannot.
As patronizing as it may seem, what we see here has a simple explanation: some peope are actually able to read the book and understand what the issues are, and some people cannot. Most journalists are included in the latter category - yet some of them still feel the need to have what they think is an "intelligent opinion" of the matter. What they won't do is admit that such a book is way over their heads - so they either go for appeals to authority, or ad hominem, etc.
So, just like some people simply aren't able to actually read the book and understand what it actually says, others (or the same people), like Gardner, simply aren't able to understandf what is going on with the reviews.
Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, I took a course on Social Psychology, which had a section on "true believers". A large proportion of the population, some 30% or so, would believe anything they are told by an authority figure. I suspect the actual number is larger.
I would be curious to run a poll of Wonderful Dan's readership and find out 1) how large it is and 2) how creditable he is with them. It does make you wonder.
Fred from Canuckistan
And people wonder why newspapers are going out of business.
I think the answer is more complex. I think that it is due to the cost of setting up a blog is about zero and so there are thousands and thousands of blogs which people can select what they want to "learn" about. Just look at the plethora of blogs regarding AGW.
Still, you are right. Wonderful Dan is doing much more harm to the paper than helping it. You would think the people owning it would figure that out.
Should anyone be interested, I've commented to Chivers with the key evidence disproving the IPCC's claims of high amplification for AGW. It's nothing to do with the presence or absence of the MWP or errors in temperature measurement. It's a fundamental misconception of the optical properties of clouds which has apparently permeated the whole of climate science, and which means one of the key corrections to the temperature over-prediction of the models has no theoretical justification. Nor is it proven experimentally: no 'polluted cloud cooling' means the models are wrong and/or the calibration is wrong.
Should anyone be interested, I've commented to Chivers with the key evidence disproving the IPCC's claims of high amplification for AGW. It's nothing to do with the presence or absence of the MWP or errors in temperature measurement. It's a fundamental misconception of the optical properties of clouds which has apparently permeated the whole of climate science, and which means one of the key corrections to the temperature over-prediction of the models has no theoretical justification. Nor is it proven experimentally: no 'polluted cloud cooling' means the models are wrong and/or the calibration is wrong.
I was surprised that Dan Gardner had fallen into the acceptance of AGW trap by using the Argument from Authority argumental fallacy. His otherwise excellent book: The Science of Fear,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx9tZ-g3H8g
..., in the updated edition, he even misunderstands the causes behind the recent financial crisis, forgetting the huge role that The Fed, politicians of both sides and Fanny Mae/ Freddie Mac played.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv1kzhuhUWg
It looks like his System 2 ("Head") has fallen victim to his System 1 ("Gut") on, at least, the AGW issue.
@ Peter B , Aug 12, 2010 at 3:07 PM;
There is another category, mostly and sadly made up of journalists who are proud of their keen minds, and that is the extraordinary attitude of not reading anything, be it HSI or similar books, or even visiting here or at other places such as CA and WUWT.
It is as if they fear to become mentally contaminated - just like Victorian spinsters who feared to even use the word 'trousers' ...
@ Viv Evans,
I think both categories are the same, actually. If you are not able to actually process information such astthat in HSI, Climate Audit, etc, it is a very tempting cop-out to say you already understand it all by focusing on simplistic explanations while at the same time demonizing those who just want to "seed doubt".
That applies also - or especially - to the so-called climate "scientists". For instance, in the Guardian debate, I saw Bob Watson going for the fall-back position of "well if you add CO2 to the atmosphere, it gets hotter". So easy - as long as you understand *that*, you don't need to think about anything else - not about cost/benefit analysis, not about how fast it will actually get warmer, not about feedbacks and other factors that are obviously not understood (Kevin Trenberth's "travesty"). That's also how people like Bart Verheegen argue - in the end, what they call "science" can really be reduced to: CO2 will make the world get hotter, so we have to stop CO2 - and no need to think about anything else.
To me it's obvious that, in the end, their thinking is really no more sophisticated than that, and the explanation is simply intellectual limitation - but an intellectual limitation that dares not look in the mirror, hence the "fear of becoming mentally contaminated" as you put it - which is nothing more or less than the fear of doubt, which is the fear of actually having to exercise some critical thinking and having to reconsider all your understanding - which true scientists take for granted as part of the scientific method.
I think it was obvious to most people watching, say, Bob Watson and Trevor Davies in the Guardian debate that they are, simply, not very clever. That is also obvious as far as Michael Mann is concerned, from his e-mails. The list goes on. I don't think there's much more to it than that.
Aug 12, 2010 at 5:39 PM | Peter B
What you describe is a symptom of cognitive dissonance.
"If you look at the Amazon reviews of your book - both the UK and US sites - you either have 5-star reviews of people who have actually read and understood your book - and 1-star reviews of people who very obviously haven't read the book at all - yet they felt the need to write negative reviews, based on what they think the book says; some of them are just rants."
I stopped taking Amazon reviews seriously the moment I found out you can write "reviews" of anything they offer without buying the darn thing first. Naturally they can't control if reviewers actually read and understand a book, but I'd have thought they'd check at least whether a reviewer (probably) owns it, i.e. if he/she bought it recently from them. After all, if you are not a customer, you have no business putting stuff on their website anyway, have you?
@ Alexander
Good postings on Chivers' blog. I notice that he completely ignored your response when he questioned your original post. Perhaps he did not have the knowledge or he knew that going back to respond would leave the CAGW modelling arguement floundering.
I genuflect in your direction sir !
Priceless, I presume this isn't a spoof.
If the UK reviews of CRUgate were 'some of the most thorough reviews of science in history', then the next truly thorough review of science will be the first.
Thank you for your comment mactheknife, it's taken a year to absorb climate science and, apart from the MWP and the UHI, it mostly hangs together so long as there is no Exocet to blow it apart. The key argument is the limitation of the Twomey/Bohren theory to 0.5 albedo. What I wonder is whether NASA has deliberately tried to put people off the scent.
The edifice appears to be toppling. There was a sea change last weekend when even the young meteorologists apparently rose up against the modellers who had not predicted the Pakistan floods/Russian heatwave. However, the same happened 132 years' ago: 6x22 year solar cycles and the lunar effect: Piers Corbyn predicted events last Spring.
To summarise, the Achilles heel of the modellers is the aerosol correction. The physicists clearly know it: I suspect they are hoping to get to pension age with the grants so daren't blow the whistle. The key comment in 'previous work' is Twomey Theory first then no cloud albedo difference between northern [polluted] and southern [unpolluted] hemispheres.
Alexander
Judith Curry (vs Gavin Schmidt et al) is still battling away on her Collide-a-scape debate here,
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/08/03/the-curry-agonistes/comment-page-9/
with significant discussions including clouds albedo and uncertainties. It's still a live blog, if you're interested...
"Is he serious?"
Bishop,
I'm afraid he is.
In Canada, this kind of "voice" in the media outweighs an alternative (i.e. balanced) view by 4 or 5 to 1. He gave himself away when he attacked another journalist (Rex Murphy) who has left (no pun intended) the left leaning CBC to present a less politically pressured point of view.
Who really cares what two journalists think anyway. If he were serious he would have presented a cogent, logical argument based on the science. He did not. He appealed to his left leaning readership base, one ironically that still enjoys pompous Rex Murphy's pronouncements.
In Canada, we don't call it "Oz"awa for nothing--an emerald (green) city that would have no other reason for existing if it weren't the capital of Canada.
Debating a journalist is like seeking out good ole Charlie Brown's Great Pumpkin, who rises only from a pumpkin patch anointed by Hallowe'en Spirits as the "most sincere." Putting on his best pumpkin-face, Dan Gardner of the Ottawa Citizen floats skyward uttering coprophagic proctocranialisms, technical terms for junk science of his sort gone awry.
gardner's another paid hack, but at least what he writes doesn't get circulated worldwide the way bbc does:
so richard black has apologised for being "mistaken" on the rice yield story!
Tim Spence on WUWT says:
- They’ve put a small correction at the foot of the article but the headline reads :-
“Rice yields ‘to fall’ under global warming” -
richard black has changed "falling" to "to fall".
when Mike Post (WUWT) complained about the new headline, richard black apparently responded:
"Thanks, Mike. No, the headline does still work because the research is projecting yield falls in the future"
how disingenuous richard.
will Nature retract and apologise for Natasha Gilbert's "mistake"?
10 Aug: Nature: Natasha Gilbert: Temperature increases damage rice yields
But as temperatures have warmed over the past 25 years, rice yields have fallen by 10-20% in Asia, which produces the lion’s share of the world’s rice...
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/08/temperature_increases
The Independent has seemingly pulled their AFP-attributed piece following criticism:
Global warming threatens Asian rice production: study
Rising temperatures in the past 25 years have already cut rice yields at several key growing locations by 10-20 percent."
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/global-warming-threatens-asian-rice-production-study-2049267.html
but the cached version remains online and AFP still has it:
AFP: Global warming threatens Asian rice production: study
Rising temperatures in the past 25 years have already cut rice yields at several key growing locations by 10-20 percent
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jQdV69W_J5hApCILihf6sFg0Xpng
how many picked up AFP's "mistaken" piece in French or English?
for example, it is in Australia's Age newspaper:
Age: Global warming threatens Asian rice
Rising temperatures in the past 25 years have already cut rice yields at several key growing locations by 10 to 20 per cent
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/global-warming-threatens-asian-rice-20100810-11ufd.html
then u have those websites who picked up on richard black's article:
Rice yields falling under warming
Global warming is cutting rice yields in many parts of Asia, according to research, with more declines to come.
Source: Copyright 2010, BBC
http://www.waterconserve.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=177919
DailyRadar: BBC News - Rice yields falling under global warming — Rice fields and dark clouds Dark clouds hang over future farming under climate change, the study suggests
http://scienceblips.dailyradar.com/story/bbc-news-rice-yields-falling-under-global-warming/
Bangladesh: Rice yields falling under global warming (Courtesy BBC)
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/latest_news.php?nid=25255
Ghana: Rice yields falling under global warming
http://accra-mail.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21250:rice-yields-falling-under-global-warming&catid=62:business&Itemid=211
Ethiopia: Rice yields falling under global warming
http://www.ethiopianreview.com/news/201001/?p=340947
Lebanon: Rice yields falling under global warming
http://www.beirut-online.net/portal/article.php?id=7795
UAE: Rice yields falling due to warming!
http://sport.khaleejtimes.me/article/05V32Zqf1U31u?q=Africa
put "rice yields falling" in a google search. i got 34 PAGES of links to this story, incl most of the CAGW websites!
did natasha gilbert and AFP's writer just happen to make the same mistake as richard black? did The Independent's editors not read the study and realise the AFP mistake? do i believe they all made a "mistake"? nope.
Pat
As I commented at WUWT of Richard Black "Of course nobody will notice the correction. The damage has been done, presumably as intended."
Hey, look at this: some poor schlubs consider, y'know, SHARING their data with anybody who's interested (as opposed to "qualified") to be a GOOD thing!
The poor fools!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/health/research/13alzheimer.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp
"coprophagic proctocranialisms"
I think I may use that!
ChrisZ - "I'd have thought they'd check at least whether a reviewer (probably) owns it, i.e. if he/she bought it recently from them."
I've often thought that, although in practice, the knowledge of the reviewer usually makes itself apparent, even though such reviewers appear unaware of it. The 1-star reviews of Bish's book are entertaining for the comments that follow most of them - our host seems to have plenty of support which, of course, is as it should be.
<<"when Mike Post (WUWT) complained about the new headline, richard black apparently responded:
"Thanks, Mike. No, the headline does still work because the research is projecting yield falls in the future"
how disingenuous richard.">>
Hey Pat, cut out the "apparently"!!
Kind regards
Mike Post
Just popped this onto Watts Up:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/12/bbc-to-issue-correction-on-rice-yields-story/#comments
----------------
Richard Black has posted on his blog, a sort of apology, but insists the headline is correct, because of 'projections' of rice yield. !!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/08/as_several_of_you_pointed.html#comments
Fantasy Climate Joke: BBC internal memo:
BBC journalists salaries 'to increase' due to the recession
ie 'post normal' spin/journalism,
The real story, the rate of increase in Percentage salary cuts for BBC environmental journalists have gone up. ;)
-------------
The headline is misleading,
Rice Yields 'to fall' under Global Warming
(presumably left out the man made bit, as a bit of spin as well)
It implies that rice yield has fallen, now in the REAL world, perhaps forcing prices up for the world's poorest people.
Food prices has risen due to catastrophic man made global warming alarmism.
Well done BBC...
As Richard Black says in his blog:
"Projections may not turn into reality, of course - but there it is. "
Real world story ever higher rice production, but let's have a story about projections that promote an CAGW alarmist agenda, at the BBC, instead.