Bishop Hill Peterson and knife fights
Jan 20, 2011 Climate: other James Hrynyshyn has written about Tom Peterson's "knife fight" quote, which I mentioned here the other day. According to Hrynyshyn, Peterson was quoting somebody else.
What Tom was doing when he made the reference to a "knife fight" was recalling what had been said to him after a climate science hearing in Washington. His notes for his presentation include:
"An aside from a Congressman after a hearing: -You're in a knife fight and need to fight back."
But Chris's Tweet didn't have room for the context. So when the blogosphere's most popular climate-change pseudoskeptic, Anthony Watts, came across the little snippet, his interpretation did not square with the facts. Instead, he attributed the knife comment to Tom, rather than the congressional aide.
I'm not sure I'm wholly convinced by this. If Peterson had quoted the congressman in order to refute or criticise him then that would be one thing. But there is no indication that this was the case - it looks very much as if Peterson was using the quote to illustrate a point.
Bishop Hill
Peterson's response at Anthony Watts site contains this:
A scientist’s response to both knives and illogic tends to be more science
-Sound, rigorous, peer-reviewed science
-What we do best
-And in the end it will win the day
–Just ask Galileo
So perhaps he was criticising the knife-fight scenario.
Reader Comments (18)
And whilst you are asking Galileo about "rigorous, peer-reviewed science", you might also sound him out about "consensus" science, as well.
Peterson talks with forked tongue.
errata: not Chris Mooney but James Hrynyshyn in the first link you cite
I find it hilarious that James Hrynyshyn can write about this, citing my lack of research into a twitter quote, and offering my forum while at the same time he misses the fact that Peterson ghost wrote a critique: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/24/ncdc-writes-ghost-talking-points-rebuttal-to-surfacestations-project/
And then his companions "borrowed" my preliminary non quality controlled data to beat me to publishing a paper before we had the surfacestations project done:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/rumours-of-my-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/
That's "quality science" according to Hrynyshyn? Heh. It's more like a political game if you ask me.
[Thanks Anthony - fixed now]
Not being too familiar with these
socialtime-wasting networks, would it be correct etiquette to say ..... the twits are in a flutter?I have a post scheduled in a few hours on this, found some interesting things. Off to bed for now.
Isn't this typical of the fall back position of Alarmists when their rhetoric comes under scrutiny.
1. I was mis-quoted.
2. I was mis-represented.
3. I mis-spoke.
The point is such excuses no longer wash, the alarmists have a long track record - what they said is actualy what they meant to say.
Peeking around Hrynyshyn's other blogs I find that Anthony is in good company:
'In other words, the problem is not so much how climatologists are behaving, but how their work is perceived. Revkin, on the other hand, suspects something more troubling lurks behind the scenes. Perhaps his long history covering the subject has given him insight that the rest of us don't have. I'd like to defer to Revkin, given how much good material he produced over the years. But it's not easy. (Mention Judith Curry, and similar doubts arise. She's a scientist with a respectable record of producing solid science, but who has recently decided that the pseudoskeptics deserve a hearing. To say that that particular approach has ruffled some feathers among her peers would be an serious understatement.) A common thread in the reaction to Revkin's decline seems to be that journalists need to spend more time learning about the subjects they cover before they actually begin to cover the subject. I've come to that conclusion, too. If someone as experienced and talented as Revkin can still, at this late date, fall into the trap of providing unjustified "balance" by quoting discredited sources, journalism has a problem.'
http://scienceblogs.com/classm/2010/08/the_strange_case_of_andy_revki.php#more
"A scientist’s response to both knives and illogic tends to be more science"
-Check. No true scientist resorts to PR and smear tactics when their science is questioned
"Sound, rigorous, peer-reviewed science"
- Check. And never leaky, weak, pal-reviewed 'science'
"What we do best"
- Depends who 'we' are and how 'we' conduct ourselves.
"And in the end it will win the day –Just ask Galileo"
- In the end we are all dead - Just ask JM keynes.
In the meantime an awful lot of damage can be wrought by bad politics building on bad science based on lack of knowledge of cause-and-effect using the wrong statistical methods on poorly managed data derived from unreliable instrumentation.
Kevin Trenberth is inciting hate speech against those who question the science of global warming, by calling them "deniers". Trenberth is promoting hate speech by attempting to label those skeptical of global warming as "holocaust deniers".
See his recent speech here, where he maliciously labels global warming skeptics as "deniers": http://bit.ly/dFeMdM
Calling someone a "denier" just because he/she questions the science of global warming is deeply offensive, especially to Jews. Since when has hate speech been ok? Calling a skeptic a "denier" is just like calling a gay person a "faggot", or calling a Black person a "nigger". But this is exactly what Trenberth is doing and getting away with, because no one in the climate science community has the cojones to stand up to him.
And note the timing of the release of his speech--just a few days after the Jared Loughner shootings! I think Trenberth did this on purpose: to encourage unstable individuals to physically harm global warming skeptics--people like the eco-terrorist that took people hostage at the Discovery Channel office.
So here is my request: please shame KEVIN TRENBERTH for inciting hate speech against global warming skeptics (which is 2/3 of the US population, according to recent polls). In whatever way you can. Stop this guy before his hate speech causes physical violence against global warming skeptics.
Thank you,
Heh, Revkin has discovered that the clip he just rammed home is empty.
=================
"A scientist’s response to both knives and illogic tends to be more science
-Sound, rigorous, peer-reviewed science
-What we do best..."
What a pompous arse he sounds to be.
Anyway, in Climate Science, all too often "sound, rigorous" is just the opposite of "peer-reviewed". And to be very sound, I must point out that "rigorous" is really a property of mathematics not of science.
So a part of a speech is mentioned on 'Twitter' and now we are relying on the 'notes' of the person who said it, and the person who reported it, to gauge the true account?
It doesn't work like that. Tom Peterson can simply come forward and say what he said and the rest get to decide whether to take him up on his word. Or an independent account of what was said is obtained.
There is a lot of people out there who continually insist on painting CAGW critics as deniers and thugs - who are particularly interposed in the channels of communication between the critics and the scientists. Nature magazine immediately springs to mind. Nature has declared, twice in a row, that climate scientists are in a 'street fight'. Simon Lewis a scientist appears to heed Nature's words in fighting back with advice from his PR and grapevine friends. As far as his personal involvement in the climate debate is concerned, he truly believes it is a 'street fight'.
And the thing about "not having room for the context" is BS. Why 'twitter' something when you dont have the "room" to say what it is?
And the above account by Hrynyshyn doesn't square with the 'researching nukes' bit either.
Tom Peterson's actions over time have demonstrated quite clearly that he views this as a knife fight. What more do we need?
Are we back to citing other people work again?
Up now:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/20/twittering-heights-and-knife-fights/
Thanks Anthony
For the benefit of readers here, I posted a comment at WUWT pointing out that I had emailed the organisers of SCIO11 to see if there was an archive video of the knife fight session. I didn't get a response.
Galileo died a broken man, crushed by the Holy Inquisition and under house arrest.
Was it a Congressman or a congressional aide?
I agree we should all try to be civil to each other and to keep to the scientic discource rather than to resort to PR or slinging off against each other.
But I feel we can be a bit too precious about all this mud slinging.
During WWII, Australian troops were criticised for digging personal shelters rather than staying on open ground to be killed pointlessly.
They were contemptiously labelled Rats of Trobuk.
They took that label to themselves and wore it as a badge of honour.
They were tough resolute fighters when the need arose.
I AM a denier.
At least in one sense.
I deny that I have seen any evidence of temperature rises in a number of widely seperated Australian locations for the past 100 years or more (after due allowance for UHI in two ill sited locations).
As Anthony would say, WUWT?