Tuesday
Oct112011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill More on record-keeping
Oct 11, 2011 Blogs Climate: other Shub Niggurath has raised some more concerns about the standard of record-keeping at Skeptical Science.
Oct 11, 2011 Blogs Climate: other
Reader Comments (83)
I have just been through this thread and deleted large numbers of sniping comments.
I will continue to do this if you cannot stay polite to other commenters.
Stephen Schneider, founder and editor of the journal Climatic Change
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." I hope that means being both. (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct.
An excellent, well-researched piece by Shub. Well worth a read. Like many of the commentators before, I was struck by the parallels with George Orwell's 1984, where Winston Smith's main job is to "correct" past issues of The Times.
Read for yourself at http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/3.html. Winston Smith's editing for the day is four items :-
times 17.3.84 bb speech malreported africa rectify
times 19.12.83 forecasts 3 yp 4th quarter 83 misprints verify current issue
times 14.2.84 miniplenty malquoted chocolate rectify
times 3.12.83 reporting bb dayorder doubleplusungood refs unpersons rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling
BH
You deleted a substantive comment illustrating anti-nuclear bias at SkS. Why did you do that?
Think how much more effective it would have been to highlight the paragraphs discovered yo be erroneous and then annotated with more current understanding. Then they would have something that was actually useful. But instead they have mediocre propaganda.
Why do those lacking any hint of imagination always want to control the rest of us?
BH
Normally, I would let this pass. You are the boss. But anti-nuclear propagandising in the context of policy responses to AGW is as bad as it gets. So I am more than a little surprised to find that you have removed the comment.
BBD
I had to delete so many it is not surprising if something substantial slipped in too. There are several commenters here with whom I am now going to err on the side of snipping. You have all had plenty of warnings.
That is an excellent article, positively Laframboisian.
BH
Understood. May I repost a slightly edited version containing no reference to other commenters?
Yes, provided you understand that my patience is coming to an end.
Perhaps JC (the Australian one) has developed some *messianic complex. 'Twould explain much about attempts to re-write history in the absence of a financial incentive?
*In which an individual holds a belief they are, or are destined to become, a savior.
The comment by Poptech on Shub's blog October 11, 2011 at 18:52 seems to succinctly summarise the situation:
'All of those accusations are accurate. I will testify to them. SKS has become one of the most intellectually dishonest climate sites on the Internet as they censor all dissenting opinion from anyone that can hold an argument but leave all the responses by their believers intact.'
BH
Please accept my assurance that this is not aimed at testing your patience. However, if you remove the comment, I will of course accept your decision.
Anti-nuclear bias
In Climate Change Denial, Haydn Washington and John Cook survey the topography of the climate 'debate'.
On p143, after a highly optimistic review of the potential of renewables W&C get to nuclear. Their first sentence is:
Having begun with their conclusion, the authors provide a couple of pages of what is, essentially, anti-nuclear propaganda.
Why, one wonders, is Cook so anti-nuclear and pro-renewables? Well part of the answer lies in the acknowledgements at the beginning of the book. A certain Dr Mark Diesendorf is thanked for his contribution.
Those who are interested in energy policy responses to CC will know Diesendorf's work well. It is characterised by its relentless and often extremely speculative promotion of renewables. In some quarters, Diesendorf is not highly regarded.
SkS is overtly pro-renewables and anti-nuclear (although contributors like dana1981 make unconvincing protestations to the contrary). The obvious dangers of promoting an anti-nuclear bias seem to have escaped Cook completely. None other than James Hansen points them out bluntly:
Anyone who claims that CO2 is a real problem for humanity and opposes nuclear power is a hypocrite.
The rest of what they say is rather pointless, frankly.
Not one so-called alternative energy source is as clean or low impact on the environment as nuclear power.
Not one alleged alternative energy source, whther it be wind, solar or hydro will combine to have the small land footprint and zero emissions profile per watt of power produced as nuclear.
Nucelar offers the most stable of power supplies, clean and with as little waste per gigawatt. of delivered power.
No other so-called green energy is as dependable or can be used for base loading like nucelar.
Shub Niggurath's detailed and painstaking documentation of Skepticalscience's shenangans seems to be in the same admirable spirit as the dogged pursuit and exposure of The Team's dodgy statistical methods by Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre.
'According to the IEA, global
demand for energy is now expected to grow at a
rate of 1.5% a year to 2030. China and India alone
will account for over 50% of the total increase over
this period. Fossil fuels currently supply around
80% of primary energy and this figure is expected
to remain largely the same through to 2030.'
http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/ser_2010_report_1.pdf
Warning- large file
The fact is, once oil gas and coal deposits have reached the status of proved reserves, they are normally already explored, delineated, under exploration/development licence and production contracts. In other words, there is so much inertia already rolling that, at the end of the day, however much politicians and greens might attempt to load the dice, proven reserves will almost inevitably be developed, and used somewhere or other. Imposing taxes just leads to higher prices. It does not stop production. All they can substantively do is stiffen licence terms for exploration of the more uncertain potential reserves for the future.
BH,
Thanks for allowing BBD's post on the anti-nuclear bias.
I am admittedly a person with a strong pro-nuclear bias. Probably comes from 10+ years working in the commercial nuclear power industry, along with 3+ years on nuclear subs. (That my dad happened to be in at the start of the commercial nuclear industry designing system controls, first for naval warships and subsequently power generating plants might also account for it.)
With that acknowledgement, I have to agree with hunter that anyone who advocates strongly for AGW, in particular the catastophic sort, yet is anti - nuclear is at best a hypocrite and if not that, certainly an idiot. For me, such a stance is truly indicative of some personal political and social agenda and not a result of advancing scientific knowledge. If one truly believes humanity, civilzation, the planet, whatever, is facing a grave threat from AGW, then to not only ignore but work against nuclear power generation strikes me as the action of the suicidal.
Can you please delete this post in which I say nothing of any substance.
I think SkS should become "CtB" for Cook the Books.
Please delete me, let me go.
timg56
Exactly.
SkS needs to reconsider its editorial stance because in the hard analysis, it is contradictory.
The CICERO unit for climate research at the University of Oslo, on their web page "Facts about climate" links to SkepticalScience with the comment:
"Sound skepticism
If you want to follow the discussion promoting a sound skepticism in climate science, visit the website Sceptical Science, wich is continuously updated by the physisist John Cook."
(My translation)
http://www.cicero.uio.no/webnews/index.aspx?id=11539&lang=no
Maybe they haven't discovered the true meaning of "continuously updated" yet...
And BTW, a couple of years ago skeptics were usually dismissed with the words: "He/she is not a climate scientist".
In the "about" page Cook says about himself: "He is not a climate scientist".
So that's quite a "remarkable" U-turn from CICERO.
Best regards from Norway,
Bebben
BBD,
I am quite impressed in how you have overcome your faith's strictures regarding nuke power and seem to realize that nuclear energy will play a very significant role in any future energy scenario that does not involve destroying the economies of the West or preserving the environment.
How do you reconcile that so many of your fellow believers remain dogmatically opposed to nuke power, and still maintain fellowship with them on the CO2 obsession?
hunter -
There is a wide spectrum of opinion in at least two primary dimensions -- what we can infer from scientific theory and observation, and on public policy. For example, Hansen who believes that global warming is a serious danger, has spoken out against U.S. cap-and-trade, calling it an opportunity to “gam[e] the system at public expense.” And he has criticised the German anti-nuclear reflex as well. While others who fear the effects of global warming are dire, are stridently anti-nuclear, believing either in a huge increase in renewable energy sources, or in drastic reductions in energy usage, via depopulation or efficiency improvements.
On the "other side of the fence" one can count those who think mitigation is not the road to follow. This encompasses those who think that there is no global warming at all, those who think that there will be only minimal global warming effects, and those who think that the effects might be large but that adaptation is a more sensible approach than mitigation efforts, for one reason or another.
It doesn't help at all to lump individuals together in order to form "us" vs. "them." It's frankly a way of not addressing the concerns, by attributing opinions -- typically the more extreme ones -- to all with whom one does not agree. From such laziness comes such as Andy Lacis' recent denunciation of oil companies' "dupes and minions."
So comments to BBD about his "faith's strictures regarding nuke power" are just completely out of order. BBD is not responsible for those who oppose nuclear power. And frankly, I think we would do better without the condescending tone of the word "faith." From his writings, it's obvious that BBD has spent a lot of time and effort in parsing the scientific literature to arrive at his conclusions. You don't have to agree with his opinions, certainly -- but it's clearly not merely a matter of faith for him.
HaroldW
Thank you.
hunter
They are stupid.
What hasn't been resolved is why someone like John Cook, a committed christian, has deliberately distorted history to secure arguements on climate change? Not only that ,why has John Cook, a committed christian, gone out of his way to smear people who hold different views on climate change?
The answer is zealotry!
In spite of being an atheist, I found it offensive that opponents of Roy Spencer tried to smear him by suggesting that his Christian beliefs undermined the validity of his research, which should surely stand or fall on its own merits. There is enough to criticise in Cook's Orwellian approach to truth without stooping to similar tactics here.
BBD
so why don't you go argue at SkS then ?
tutut
Been there, done that.
"SkS is symptomatic of how climate science gets done, i.e. carefully constructed distortions of evidence and reality."
Oct 11, 2011 at 11:05 AM | Mac
Yeah - that's right Mac. Thousands of scientists all over the World are acting in a huge conspiracy, with no whistleblowers, to distort evidence and reality, for very little money.
The only people who have integrity and have got it right, are a tiny number of people on a fringe view blogsite, almost all of whom aren't actually climate scientists.
Would you listen to yourself.....
Oct 11, 2011 at 11:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed
One day you'll come out with a little bit of actual science and astound us all!
got the t-shirt?
thats a complement , that is :)
RKS,
What the social movement centered on cliamte change/global warming is diong is not really any different at all from what eugenicsts were doing about 100 years ago.
And yes, they sounded just as arrogant and used the same bogus arguments as you.
tutut,
I asked about the value t-shirts, mugs, large t-shirts, organic t-shirts, and large mugs. No response yet.