Saturday
Aug282010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Revkin on the HSI (or not)
Aug 28, 2010 Climate: HSI In the comments to one of the DotEarth threads Andy Revkin pointed out yesterday, the great man has this to say when asked whether he had read the Hockey Stick Illusion.
Others have far more capacity/time to dissect climate books than I do (given that this is not a climate blog, but tracking issues ranging from wildlife trafficking to population growth). I recommend folks go to Realclimate for some informed critiques of that book.
I wonder if he missed my response and Steve M's evisceration of the Stahle thing, which left Tamino looking, ahem, less than straightforward.
Reader Comments (46)
Bish. The link to your response doesn't work.
It's funny how all these commentators are too busy to actually read anything factual. They seem unquestioningly to prefer to take their mate's word for it. Now's that's good second hand journalism.
Correction. The link is now working.
I wondered for a while about the depressingly poor picture that Revkin gave after and since Climate Gate. On the other side, he may have no real options given the agenda of his employer and the financial interests in the background.
But Andrew Revkin is part of the story himself. He doesn't come out well from the Climategate emails. Instead of assessing the merits of McIntyre's audits of the Teams' work, he lines up softball rebuttals from his friends in the Team.
Mann: "Fortunately, the prestige press doesn't fall for this sort of stuff, right? mike"
Revkin: "thanks heaps"
http://www.climate-gate.org/search.php?keyword=revkin&submit=Search
When the emails emerged, Revkin was in damage limitation mode from the start. For example, he refused to cover the story because the files were "stolen". He was equally eager to bury the story after the Penn state enquiry - you linked to the transcript:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/7/19/revkin-on-the-hockey-stick.html
Revkin's agenda is much more transparent than any of your other critics. He's obsessed with human population growth - the blog's full name is "Nine Billion People One Planet" and any environmental issue that provides evidence of man's wickedness is enthusiastically promoted.
Revkin has one interesting trope. He characterises critics of the Priesthood as people " who are dead set to oppose any restrictions on greenhouse gases" or "opponents of climate policy". The implication is that the scientists sets both the moral agenda and the policy agenda, and neither can be questioned. All in all, a remarkable example of post-Enlightenment thinking!
What I still find staggering is that the "team" are still trying to manipulate the debate, do not look at valid counter points and arguments, but somehow insist they hold the moral highground!
I think it is this holier than thou attitude that is making the average guy in the street sit up and take note of what they are saying and then coming to the conclusion that the "team" are a bunch of shysters.
I keep coming across marked change of attitude in the MSM - just this morning on the BBC Today programme there was an article on how the likes of the Toyota Prius with its dual eclectic/battery and ICE/petrol power is in fact far more expensive to run due to depreciation and the cost of replacement batteries. The general comment seemed to be "expensive and green".
OK so not a big story really in that all this was predicted many years ago, but the point is that only a short while ago I doubt that the BBC would have carried such a story with its inherent critiscm of green technology.
The BBC in the past ignored the issue of Cadmium batteries and what the hell we do with them when they are spent as well as ignoring the higher manufacturing "Carbon footprint" of manufacture as well as the "cost" of transporting the things halfway round the world.
So whilst we can bemoan the tunnel vision of the likes of Revkin - we should also sit back and applaud. They do more than most now to make sure that people ask questions.
Doug: I'm not so sure about the BBC, or certainly parts of it. This morning's Farming Today was about coastal erosion, mainly concentrating on East Anglia. The words "sea level rise" and "climate change" were constantly inserted, even though the discussion was about the longshore drift which has been going on for hundreds of years (you only have to go to the Suffolk coast between Dunwich and Aldborough and see the maps from Medieval times. The woman from the BBC even spoke about 1953 when the sea level in the storm rose way above her head where she was standing. There is a disconnect between the reality of what they are talking about and the need to keep inserting those dreaded words "sea level rise" and "climate change". I presume it is the BCC editor who instructs the presenters about the required amount of propaganda to insert, regardless of the relevance to the topic under discussion.
Un-buh-leeev-able...
And such a shame. HSI is an easy and enjoyable read. Perhaps Mr. Revkin will be able to escape the pressures of his job during the upcoming holiday and settle back into his easy chair while (American for whilst) sinking into the contents of HSI. His schedule might be too constricting, but we can only wish for him the best.
Yes, I heard the Farming Today programme - that was Anna Hill. I was also gobsmacked at her apparent lack of knowledge. The impression she gave was that coastal erosion had more or less started with the storm of 1952, and that climate change and sea level rise was causing it, and that erosion had progressed ever since! Utterly dumbfounded at her apparent ignorance, but I suppose she's toeing the party line, and injecting references to climate change and sea level rise at every opportunity in the hope that eventually it'll stick with us poor, dumb plebs - does nobody EVER put these people right?
Dear Mr. Bratby,
Perhaps you or Doug are familiar with Dorothy Leigh Sayers' "Nine Taylors" in which the flooding of the fens of East Anglia (where in she apparently grew up) figured largely (and, obviously, were drawn from events predating said 1953 storm). If you could enlighten a stranger from the other side of the pond, one who lives directly upon an estuary of the Chesapeake Bay, which behaves quite differently from the fens of East Anglia, that stranger, myself, would be deeply gratified. I would be happy to be more informed as to the more experiential aspects of East Anglia. Also, with reference to C. S. Lewis' "Silver Chair", is it likely that the native land of Puddleglum was drawn from the fens of East Anglia?
Thanks to anyone who can better inform me...
Bishop
Your navigation link to 'Read the reviews' is not working.
[BH adds: Thanks Pharos. Fixed now.]
pluck
You could start by reading this http://www.shipatdunwich.co.uk/history.aspx
Dún Aonghasa is a fort which was built on the Arran Islands off the coast of Galway in Western Ireland. It is about 2200 years old. Originally it was circular and built perhaps 2-300 yards from the coast line. Now, only half of it exists due to coastal erosion from the Atlantic. Gradually it will disappear totally.
At last, something which cannot be blamed on Global Warming/Climate Change!
Mind you, I don't think the BBC (British Buffoons Corporation) has heard of the place. Better not tell them, 'cos if they find out about it they will manage, once again, to pervert the course of history.
Wikipedia actually covers it rather well and factually.
Peter Walsh
I had already left a comment (still in moderation) on Revkin's NYT thread challenging his idea that he need not read HSI , and that all he needed do is refer to the RealClimate hatchet job on it. Others on that thread have also queried his avoidance of HSI.
In my comment I added that it would be wrong of him to avoid reading the forthcoming "review of the ClimateGate reviews" and simply refer to the inevitable RealClimate attack.
One has to register to add comments to NYT threads - but I think it was worthwhile, Revkin has been a key "commentator" on AGW for years. Or rather - one of the groupies.
Andy Revkin - What a shameful example of partisan advocacy masquerading as journalism. Read the book and make your own comments and critique or shut up - just who do you think you are serving by debasing the journalistic function in this way?
Mind you - I don't know why I'm surprised - as "Andrew's" telling contribution above highlights, you are a PR man rather than a journalist.
At this juncture, even an alarmist like Judy Curry has seen how pathetic RealClimate is. For Revkin to advise people to read RC's reviews is tantamount to an admission that he considers himself a loyal member of the propaganda team. He's not even bothering to put up much of a pretense of balance anymore.
Bish - I've not been following closely recently so this may already have been noted or discussed - apologies if it is a repetition and OT (excuse - my link is partisan journalism....)
BBC Radio 4 are running a two parter, "Uncertain Climate", starting this Monday morning at 9:00am under the strap line:
"Roger Harrabin asks whether the arguments surrounding climate change can ever be won."
The website decribes it thus:
"In a special Radio 4 series the BBC's Environmental Analyst Roger Harrabin questions whether his own reporting - and that of others - has adequately told the whole story about global warming.
Roger Harrabin has reported on the climate for almost thirty years off and on, but last November while working on the "Climategate" emails story, he was prompted to look again at the basics of climate science.
He finds that the public under-estimate the degree of consensus among scientists that humans have already contributed towards the heating of the climate , and will almost certainly heat the climate more.
But he also finds that politicians and the media often fail to convey the huge uncertainty over the extent of future climate change. Whilst the great majority of scientists fear that computer models suggest we are facing potentially catastrophic warming, some climate scientists think the warming will be restricted to a tolerable 1C or 1.5C.
At this crucial moment in global climate policy making, Harrabin talks to seminal characters in the climate change debate including Tony Blair, Lord Lawson, Professor Bob Watson, former diplomat Sir Crispin Tickell and the influential blogger Steve McIntyre.
And he asks how political leaders make decisions on the basis of uncertain science.
Producer: Daniel Tetlow."
I'll be very interested to hear the evidence he uses to support his conclusions quoted above - especially with regard to the "consensus of the great majority of scientists": Who exactly are they and what exactly do they agree on?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tj525
Andy Revkin has replied very unconvincingly at 8.04am on 28 August to my post immediately above - also logged at at 8.04 am (after moderation). Like others, I had expressed surprise that he had not read HSI.
He takes the line that the Hockey Stick hardly matters. "A small brawl in a sideshow". No comments on the ethics of it all.
I simply cannot understand his argument. He appears to accept that recent warming is not unprecedented (and refers to the hockey stick debate as something in the past tense).
But he then argues that this does not matter - what we face is temperature increases going beyond anything yet known. Without stating what those earlier limits might have been.
He is ducking and weaving, I'd say. Surely the Hockey Stick debate is most definitely not over - there are strong arguments about its validity - and important accompanying arguments about the ethics of the scientists involved so far in the debate.
Maybe the Hockey Stick debate is over because Gavin says it is.
I can just see the AR5 now...
'Ermm, well... um.. Phil said he saw a tornado the other day, isn't the right Phil?'
'Yes, yes I did. Big it was too!!! If I'd had my handycam with me I would have got it on film. Briffa saw it as well, so that makes two of us. They're only going to get worse, you know?!'
'I think that answer was spot-on!'
End of Chapter 1...
What is really amazing is Eli Rabbits post.... Revkin is hardly a skeptic or lukewarmer, but you cant stray to far without earning the rabbits ire.
I, too , was flabbergasted by Revkin's admission and his dismissal of the importance of the historic temperature record to the scientific case for AGW. Revkin's assertion that the bulk of the scientific argument in favor of AGW is the computer model of the future is mind-boggling to anyone who has lived long enough to have witnessed the astounding tripe that computers periodically produce when data, algorithms, assumptions and programs are faulty. See "The Limits To Growth" and The Club of Rome. See also "Mortgage-Backed Securities." See Long Term Capital Management.
R Connelly,
I posted yesterday on Andy Revkin's DotEarth blog that some of the pro-AGW'ers have taken out the long knives against him because Andy hasn't hewn to the AGW line. He does try to keep an open forum and he has explicitly stated that the data is more ambiguous, the error margins on projections much wider and the policy proscriptions are possibly intractable given human nature and national/international politics. If Andy had to choose on which side of the line he was on AGW, I think he would stand on the AGW side. But not very deeply into their camp.
Andy has been nothing but courteous to me, AGW'ers and skeptics, alike. And often with good humor. It's why he attracts a wide range of opinions and posts from both sides of the aisle.
Yes, he'll throw in RC as a response, but will also quote Pielke, Sr., WattsUpWithThat, other skeptics and other experts that will emphasize the uncertainty in the science.
His site is headed by "9 Billion People - One Planet". True for 2050. And he has pointed out that world population will decrease after that. He spontaneously responded to one of my posts to note that of the 2.2 billion new folks scheduled to visit the planet, 1.0 billion are coming from Africa and 0.6 billion are coming from India. That floored me. My thought was "How does anyone expect to influence those folks' carbon footprint when they're trapped in poverty and desperate to use any and all means possible to get to a better life?" I'm sure he's asking himself the same questions.
As for HSI, I think Andy made a mistake referencing RC as a response and saying this was "A small brawl in a sideshow" when it was actually a huge take-down of an iconic AGW graphic waved in everyone's faces for years. What happened was you "captured the enemy's flag" in one battle. We may have won that battle, but we certainly haven't won the war. But that day will come.
"far more expensive to run due to depreciation and the cost of replacement batteries"
What we need to know now is whether electric cars are more expensive in terms of environmental impact - which I suspect they may be when you take the pollution caused by large-scale battery manufacture, their use of rare materials and the complexities of recycling them. The cars themselves are much the same in their manufacturing impact, however they are powered.
I did a similar calcuation for solar panels recently, and the payback time was about 25 years, assuming you could use or sell their entire output at this latitude (50degN) and without extra subsidy...
"AGW'ers have taken out the long knives against him"
So not only is AGW a religion, but its followers are fundamentalists!
A Revkin 'The risk of substantial future temperature rise outside the bounds of the medieval optimum or even earlier Holocene hot times is the issue determining whether society should curb emissions or not. The hockey stick fight is a small brawl in a sideshow at a big event with many tents where there's a solid forward-moving body of evidence.'
K Kloor 'Why do you feel the need to revisit the hockey stick debate? It’s not central to our understanding of climate science, nor does it factor into the policy debate. The general public is surely not paying attention to it anymore. So why do you feel so compelled to defend this particular book by Andrew Montford?'
J Curry: 'I am not so much defending this book as recommending that people read it. Climate scientists can learn a lot from Montford’s book. Not in terms of who is “right” or “correct” in terms of the science (that is still being debated), but how to avoid unnecessary conflict in the climate debate. While the hockey stick is not of any particular scientific importance, Montford’s book explains why the hockeystick became a big deal, owing to the IPCC’s choice to make the hockey stick a visual icon for the IPCC in its marketing of the IPCC. Therefore, in the public’s mind, challenges to the hockeystick metaphorically became challenges to the entire global warming argument. And the Climategate emails, while not illuminating any actual scientific misconduct, provided a view into the underbelly of how the consensus was actually built: upon human judgment that was influenced by petty rivalries, a sense of self importance, a political agenda, and the brutal dismissal and even sabotage of competing viewpoints. Not a pretty picture. The fundamental mistake made by the climate researchers involved in the hockey stick debate was to mistake McIntyre et al. as merchants of doubt (a la Oreskes and Collins), when instead they were motivated over a concern for public accountability of the research. The response of the climate researchers to McIntyre and McKittrick, by attacking their qualifications and motives rather than trying to work with them or at least understand what they were trying to say, backfired big time and arguably culminated in Climategate.'
Yes, just a sideshow. Everybody's watching the brawl. The big event has been postponed indefinitely due to disappointing ticket sales.
That was three differing reactions from the AGW mainstream in regard to the HSI.
The hockey stick matters for the same reason that Jones' UHI mess and Rahmstorf's "worse than we thought" joke matter. It shows the massive incompetence of climate science. No one checks anything. The problem isn't just that these guys screw up. It's that no one seems interested or capable to straighten out the enormous messes they make.
The hockey stick matters, not only because the process by which it became iconic reveals the incompetence of climate science, but also because of what we learn from the establishment's bizarre efforts to continue breathing life into it long after it was dead and buried. That establishment is corrupt.
When Revkin admits that the science is incompetent and the hockey team/establishment is corrupt, we can agree with him to let the hockey stick rest in the bottom of its well-deserved grave.
stan
I agree - it is not good enough for Revkin or Gavin or whoever to back away from the Hockey Stick, to try to reduce its significance in the whole debate.
The Hockey Stick shows - to me at least - that "climatology" has feet of clay. Statistically unsound, even if the data points were acceptable. And ethically unsound in the way proper discussion has been suppressed.
I am unclear whether the Hockey Team stood by their guns out of inability to reflect on others' arguments, maybe because the statistical arguments went over their heads, or out of an arrogant determination to cling to their position "come hell or high water".
It looks increasingly as though the high water has arrived for them, will likely wash them away, long before there is any sign of high water for the world at large.
Here is Revkin's reply to John London (nr117):
revkin was the first to attempt to establish the narrative over Climategate, and he failed spectacularly. but there were others, such as the Los Angeles Times of 22 november:
22 Nov: LA Times: Jim Tankersley and Henry Chu: A climate change dust-up
But advocates of action to curb global warming dismiss those claims, and political leaders and analysts say the Senate bill to limit greenhouse gas emissions will sink or swim based on economics, not science.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/22/world/la-fg-climate-hacker22-2009nov22
can't wait for your book on the Media Team, bish.
"...you cant stray to far without earning the rabbits ire."
Yup. Bugs Bunny is one sick puppy.
I should perhaps add that the Keith Kloor statement above was not necessarily his opinion, but an interview question. AIthough his Collide-a-scape blog has dissected the HSI reaction in several landmark debates, and he interjected many comments of his own, I found his own view obscure, and possibly still evolving. I am even unsure he has read it. In fact, apart from Judith Curry, have any of the vociferous AGW mainstream critics read it for sure?
Pluck..
Not sure how East Anglia differs from Chesapeake Bay but have spent a fair bit of time in and around Dunwich. The Ship Inn is one of my favourite spots for a weekend break, good food, good beer and good fun with a good (or bad) woman. I think there's still an archaelogy team working there trying to map the old sunken town better.
As I understand it though, East Anglia's problem is a combination of longshore drift causing coastal erosion and the geography of the North Sea. That's shallow and has been expanding since the last Ice Age. The geography of the sea and neighbouring land generally being flat makes it flood prone. The '53 flood was an unfortunate combination of spring high tide co-inciding with a strong NW storm meant tides were 5m above normal. and severe flooding.
On a more positive note though, North Sea storms also mean if you're staying at the Ship Inn, go wander the beach when the sun's low and you can often find amber washed up. The movie Flood-
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0790665/
builds on the spring tide/storm surge to make a disaster movie and vaguely shows why it happens. Not the best film, but kinda fun.
"have any of the vociferous AGW mainstream critics read it for sure?"
Here's my response to Andy's advice concerning the HSI.
"Referring people over to Real Climate for reviews of the 'Hockey Stick Illusion' is like asking Steve Ballmer his opinion on what he thinks of the iPhone. We should be striving for a bit more impartiality here...
Cmon Andy, you're a journalist! If you're at all interested in the topic of trust in climate science you need to set aside the time to read this book for yourself- that way you will not have to rely solely on the opinions of the very people implicated in all this. You will have your own opinion. Surely that's of some value?"
It seems to me that this is half the trouble with this whole debate. We continually assume too much of others and what they're telling us, we never actually check for ourselves. I think it's a little bit sad that for all the talk on Andy's site about the difficulty in getting people to change their life styles, that there's probably very little introspection happening on the part of those same people on the problems associated with challenging their own beliefs. It's somehow o.k. to want to change other peoples beliefs, but having our own beliefs challenged just seems like too much trouble, too frightening (plus anyway, we're on the right side here, fighting Big Oil and all that...) No wonder we're unable to do anything about this cultural inertia. These guys just need to have a little look in the mirror to see what that's all about.
The Hockey Stick Illusion isn't just about the hockey stick, and it's either plain silly or knowingly (deceptively) wrong to say that it is. What it is about is the very thing Revkin is trying to sort out in his opinion piece here. The difference between him and Andrew in this instance is that Andrew has actually put the time and effort in to understanding these issues. That makes Andrew the superior journalist in this case. If Revkin is genuinely interested in a serious journalistic approach to this issue then he really needs to start looking at the other side of this with far greater objectivity than he is currently showing.
I'll give it to him that atleast he's made a start.
The beginning of all this - the causa prima - is the delegitimization of skepticism carried out by the Climate Establishment, from well over a decade. It starts with Sonia Boehmer-Christiansen, through Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, then McIntyre and so forth.
Did any of these people show any lack of credentials, ill faith in their dealings - over and above their climatology peers?
Why did people like Revkin swallow wholesale the Team's perspective, from day one then?
These guys have contributed to the delay of advancement in climate science to a great extent.
Shub: "These guys have contributed to the delay of advancement in climate science to a great extent."
Spot on.
Were there to be a flow in the development of science, the preventers of skeptical examination of the evolving science can only be seen as attempting to restrict this flow.
You would think that a scientist would want his errors discovered sooner rather than later lest he waste a significant part of his career on work premised on a fallacy.
It is likely that many of the folks who claim that they have not read the good Bishop's book or the Climategate e-mails are a little economical with the truth.
Admitting that you have read the material puts one in the awkward position of having to voice an opinion. It is so much easier to feign ignorance.
Political Junkie
"Admitting that you have read the material puts one in the awkward position of having to voice an opinion. It is so much easier to feign ignorance."
Excellent observation, which rings true to me & explains many excuses not to read or ignore HSI from the Team.
Revkin is not the only mainstream journalist who is in denial. They seem to be committed to avoiding, ignoring, belittling or spiking any coverage of skeptics.
The dodge that the HS is not important is simply another form of denial by AGE believers.
I had posted the following yesterday afternoon - and it's still stuck in moderation:
Andy wrote:
Methinks you are looking at the IPCC through somewhat green-coloured glasses (the same glasses that permit you to dismiss a book you haven't read on the basis of "critiques" - which, in the eyes of at least one who has read it, would suggest that your preferred critics haven't read it either!)
Ross McKitrick is amongst those who do not share your view of the IPCC. In an article in today's National Post, he concludes:
"The IPCC began before the Internet did, and its structure is now obsolete. It adopted a rigid bureaucratic structure that had some relevance in the days before the Internet imposed deep transparency on public organizations. But times have changed and public expectations have evolved. Henceforth, from the start of the chapter review process, the attention of international bloggers will be intense, and every aspect of the report-writing process will occur in a fishbowl. Without major reforms to the process, the next Assessment Report will simply explode on impact. All it will take is for one error to be found, or one email to be leaked, or one graph to be manipulated, and the entire report will be discredited.
"This is not because there are armies of nasty, unreasonable bloggers out there. It is because the IPCC has become one-sided and brittle, and has no real ability to cope with legitimate differences of opinion. That makes it inevitable that there will be growing numbers of critics who see it as biased and insular. The choice is whether simply to press onward with the hope the IPCC will somehow regain its former glory, or to consider whether the critics actually have a point, in which case the process needs correction."
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/08/27/fix-the-ipcc-process/
Indeed, AR5 is not off to a very good start in the choice of chapter lead authors:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/ipcc-author-profile-alistair-woodward/
hro001
Bravo. The day (s)he socked it to.. the Harper Valley PTA.
And Revkin responded
'I agree with him on most of the points he makes (brittle, obsolete), but not on the conclusion that one e-mail will destroy it.'
Well, magnificent, quite staggering result. He's got courage, on that thread, I'll grant him.
Thanks, Pharos (at one time, I considered that song my personal anthem!)
Revkin's response was somewhat surprising (particularly considering his initial "position" vis a vis the IPCC). As far as the "one [leaked] e-mail will destroy it" is concerned ... Revkin has a point, I suppose; but I rather took McKitrick's phrasing as merely exercising rhetorical licence - to which I do believe he's quite entitled :-)
Whenever I read Joe Romm, I feel I am listening to some mentally retarded person speaking, (no offence to the mentally challenged people intended).
He quotes someone, to support climate science:
"The difference between modern science and almost any other human enterprise is that science is self-correcting through the most rigorous process ever invented". [continues said passage in attempt to scrape credit off of the moon mission and smallpox eradication for climate science]
And this is a person who is a PhD who writes on science issues on his blog, for years and years now?
The cringe-inducing stuff is enough to melt your brain and flow out of your ears.
As long as climate science will have such embarrasing jokers defending it, there is no real reason for skepticism whatsoever.
People like Andy Revkin and Kloor are definitely, 100% more intelligent.
Go ahead, hurt your mind
http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/29/andy-revkin-climate-science-aclimate-journalism/
HI!...
Amazing Dude, this is extremely good information, appreciated. central heating replacement