Bishop Hill Crook feels the hairdryer
Aug 5, 2010 Climate: Oxburgh Climate: Parliament Climate: Russell Media Clive Crook is on the receiving end of a typically mild and philosophical discourse from Joe Romm, entitled "Atlantic Shocker". Crook isn't impressed.
[T]he evident fondness of climate-change activists for delegitimizing dissent and spinning the facts to make them more "understandable" is simply not working. Cap and trade just died for lack of public support. I think climate-change activists are partly to blame, as I argue in this recent FT column. They are harming their own cause.
Romm exemplifies the tendency to the point of caricature. He delights in splenetic hyperventilation. This is his brand, so to speak. It goes down well with the faithful -- but persuading the faithful is not the challenge. He needs to convince the unconvinced. Operatic ranting is not, I would submit, likely to succeed.
Incidentally, Romm says that a proper journalist would have noted that the emails do not contain the phrase "trick to hide the decline". Oh dear, well, yes, I suppose it doesn't. Here is the exact quote:
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.
But so what?
Reader Comments (19)
Well yes it does but you are quoting out of context because you missed out some of the words.
You are just like all the rest .............................
Just started reading a rattling good detective story. Looks like it might be a brilliant piece of science writing, but don't quote me in case i have got it wrong.
PS Somebody has scribbled all over the front cover.
Did anyone ever claim that there was the EXACT quote 'trick to hide the decline'? Certainly, of what I've seen, Steve McI (for example) is always careful to separate 'Mike's Nature trick' (i.e. the inappropriate showing of the actual temperatures overlaid on the proxy graph) and 'hide the decline' (the truncation of data to hide the non-responsiveness of Briffa's tree-rings to modern temperature increases) - I think at most, I've seen written 'trick...to hide the decline'.
The promoters of CAGW actually have a couple of problems with presentation that are of their own making:
1) The assumption that anyone who doubts the upcoming catastrophe is scientifically illiterate - my experience is that little could be further from the truth, as most of the people I know who have doubts are at least degree and often PhD educated scientists (from various fields including physics, chemistry and geology)
2) The further assumption that the 'deniers' are part of a right wing, super funded conspiracy headed up by Big Oil. I realise that some 'deniers' are so because of their political viewpoint, many of us are politically liberal or at least agnostic, and so just have our doubts because the whole catastrophe doesn't pass the scientific 'smell test'. Also, the whole funding conspiracy issue is a sham, because the amount of money on the 'good' side of the aisle is orders of magnitude greater than any funding non-CAGW research (and anyone who doubts that should have a look at the statements made on the website of NERC - Nature and Environment Research Council).
As for the scientific 'smell test', to my geochemists eyes, the concept that human emissions of CO2, which account for something like 3% of the annual carbon cycle (and are within the noise, in that the natural cycle varies by more than that year on year) could lead to run-away temperatures just never seemed to make any sense (especially as it has never occurred throughout the geological record, where we can be fairly confident temperatures have stayed within about a +/- 5 degree band for CO2 levels in the tens of thousands of ppm). Also, we are talking about a gas at trace levels in the atmosphere (and that undergoes a series of interactions with the hydrosphere, biosphere and even the lithosphere), so any changes are likely to be overwhelmed by other influences.
Ian B
I don't have a degree and I have immense doubts about AGW. I would think that a hefty percentage of people who read and contribute to the Bishop's wonderful, open minded, generally easy to follow blog wouldn't have a suitable degree. They, like me, would have an enquiring mind, probably a knowledge of and great interest in the relevant sciences.
I had my "Road to Damascus" revelation 7/8 years ago. I was out and about in my car listening to the radio. Somebody declared that there was no doubt but that the earth was warming up due to mans emissions of CO2.
I nearly exploded and remember saying to myself that that comment was crazy as it is the sun and other natural things which affect the warming and cooling of the planet. Until about 2 years ago when I decided to search the Al Gore created Internet and found this site and many others, I thought that I was the only one on the planet that didn't believe in what I later found to be the AGW scam. Maybe you should talk to ordinary people.
This is the quotation which upset me a tad:
(as most of the people I know who have doubts are at least degree and often PhD educated scientists (from various fields including physics, chemistry and geology).
Peter Walsh
Oh yes it does! The original could be puncuated thus:
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick (of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards), and from 1961 for Keith's) to hide the decline.
I.e.: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick to hide the decline."
In reply to RETEPHSLAW above - I totally agree.
I have a degree in Geology, as it happens, but all my friends and family from back home in rural Perthshire, none of whom have a degree, all agree with me that AGW is a crock. What we all have in common is a good dose of common sense.
Roger Pielke, Jr's take on this kerfuffle, with a wonderful picture to illustrate.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/08/romm-on-attack.html
Peter
Apologies for any offence - my point though is that the doubters and deniers are often portrayed simply as ignorant or politically motivated (particularly by the likes of Mr Romm), and neither of these is generally true.
Perhaps I should also make the point that most of the people I know (regardless of whether they believe in CAGW or not) are degree or higher educated... ;-)
I've got a computing Maths degree.
I first became aware of the scam nature of AGW when I was looking at the recursive simulations of the future climate and saw no way to deal with exponential error.
My hobby interest is economics, whereby the evidence from the USSR for bureaucrat controlled economies being pollution free is rather disproved.
Humility among PhDs is as rare as humor is among accountants. Joe Romm suffers from a catastrophic deficit of both..
Thanks Jimmy Haigh & Ian B and I do hear what you are saying and appreciate the point.
I wonder would it be possible for His Grace to do a poll of his followers to see how many actually do or don't have degrees. Maybe 3 options with tick boxes and a count showing for each. The boxes to be named and each person only permitted to tick one box and no more.
1 relevant degree
2 other degree
3 no degree
Thanks again guys.
Peter
Bernie - "Humility among PhDs is (as) rare ......"
Steady on mate
RETEPHSLAW - have a look at this post at Jeff Ids the Air Vent where the background of some sceptical commenters can be found. Including some you probably recognise.
RETEPHSLAW
I think your poll is irrelevant. The issue is "Can you think for yourself?" Clearly several contributors who are not degree holders (or at least say they are not) such as yourself and Dung, clearly can reason things out correctly. When I am out in Kerry in the pub, I come often have a pint with local farmers who are clearly sharper than I. And then we have all the over-educated idiots running RC as the counter.
I will say that higher education will bring out the questioning mind a bit more, which may well be why so many of those questioning the AGW are educated, or perhaps they went no to get further education because they can think, but the degree is irrelevant. Your mind and how you use it are the issues.
GrantB,
Is your doubt about the PhDs or Accountants? ;)
Grant B thks for the Air Vent item. So many contributions there. I do recognise some names already and have barely scratched the surface.
Don, up front comments as usual. I like that. My wife's sister in law said about me some years back, trust Peter to say it as it is.
I am still unsure as to whether that was a compliment or not.
Havn't been to Kerry for 5 years now. When we came back after almost 21 years in NZ, the 1st thing we did was vow not to leave Europe again. So we have "done" all of Ireland and now working our way around europe. Have plans to one day head down to (excuse this pls) west Cork and also Kerry. I will let you know. Rgds Peter
@ jimmy haigh.
yep, that sure sounds like "trick to hide the decline" to me.
@ jimmy haigh.
yep, that sure sounds like "trick to hide the decline" to me.
DPdlS - Dr Curry agrees with you. As anyone should. From Keith Kloor at comment #174 -
"Science has its own high standards. It depends on the argument, not on the qualifications or particular expertise of the person conducting the research. This is an attempt to dismiss anyone who is not a “climate researcher” from legitimacy in commenting on the basic physics, statistical analyses, the logic of arguments, model verification and validation, etc. The same approach taken by Schneider’s PNAS article. I’m not buying it."
It would be hard to phrase that better. On climate "deniers", her comment abour Sir Roger Penrose in the same post at para 1 is worth reading. I attended one of his presentations in the 80's. Would anyone dub him a quantum physics "denier"?
Peter and Don,
If you have never read "The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity", then you are in for a treat.
http://fravia.com/realicra/basiclawsofhumanstupidity.htm
The author identifies 5 basic rules, the first two of which are:
1) Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
2) The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
It is his contention that the percentage of uneducated people who are stupid is the same percentage of Nobel Prize winners who are stupid.
er.. abour (armenian soup) = about