Bishop Hill More Singh
Feb 7, 2011 Climate: Sceptics A couple of interesting tweets from Simon Singh this morning. Taken to task by a correspondent for a lack of scepticism on AGW, Simon replies as follows:
I'm applying skepticism to the question is AGW significant or not? With my limited tools, my answers is it's happening. [Link]
...and then...
The vast majority of folk smarter & more informed than me come to same answer, which is partly how I arrive at my conclusion. [Link]
Both these points are interesting. Firstly, it's a surprise to see someone with "limited tools" describing people who arrive at a different conclusion to him as "numpties", particularly as many of those people have tools that are considerably less limited.
But secondly, it also appears to me that Singh is an "interpreter of interpretations" as regards climate change, an approach which apparently is reprehensible in the circles in which he moves. To be clear, I have no problem with interpreters of interpretations - as I've noted elsewhere, most people get their opinions like this and it is an entirely respectable way to go about forming an opinion on something. But when one's opinions are formed in this way, I would have thought a little reticence about the name-calling might not go amiss.
(Afterthough: I wonder if Dyson/Happer/the 43 rebels from the Royal Society are included among the numpties?)
Reader Comments (91)
From bampot to ba'heid and now tube in a matter of days.
"Whit a' dobber!", as they would say in Scotland.
"I'm applying skepticism to the question is AGW significant or not? With my limited tools, my answers is it's happening."
ur English sux, S. If u apply skepticism to 'AGW significant or not?' ur answer 'its happening' doesnt answer ur own Q. Got it, numpty!
Guess that's what happens to author's thinking processes after having a few best sellers.
An example of being 'more Singh-ed against than Singh-ing' perhaps?
Shx,
Indeed, it seems the guy is answering a different question to the one he asked.
Mailman
I do agree absolutely with this sentiment. In the interests of balance and fairness, though, I feel the need to note absence of the same from James Delingpole. Otherwise it is really a case of pots and kettles.
Having said this, however, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that, because of the longevity of James' interest in and focus on this subject, James is most likely infinitely better at the task of interpreting climate interpretations. Singh, on the other hand, is singhularly deficient at making calls, either on climate interpreters or the interpretations they give.
We know that Singh is backing the wrong horse, and we know that his position is untenable. We know this because we know the subject far better than he does *at this point*, some of us have even been where Singh is now. We know the distance between watering holes on the journey into reason that he will need to take, if he really is determined to become an authoritative interpreter of climate interpretations, and we know how deep the bogs are along the way.
Singh's position is premised on belief in things he doesn't know yet. He believes the scientists are honest and the sceptics are the unscientific factor. He believes that, to all intents and purposes, the science is settled. If Singh can put his personal ideologies aside (presuming they are day-glo green to start with) and actually get down and dirty with the science, it is inevitable that he will arrive at the same destination as us. Absent is understanding, but that can be fixed.
In effect Simon Singh is justifying his labelling of sceptics because he believes he arrived at the same point as those he claims are better qualified to judge. i.e. "we have to act to save the planet."
What better example of 'noble cause corruption' can you have.
But only one twit among many.
I bought the Fermat book when the hardback was remaindered. But haven't got round to reading it. It is now destined for the charity bag, unread. Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus.
Jane
I've read Singh's Code Book and it's good. I don't think Singh is "falsus", he is "mistakenus".
Simon H
Yes, I take your point about JD. I wonder if we all need to be politer over climate change. There's an interesting exploration to be made of whether columnists are allowed to be ruder than science journalists. Have to think about that one.
Staggering. Here he admits that he is weighing into an argument he knows little about. I have no problem with people having little or no interest in climate change, but if people have no interest in reading up on it, why would they then suddenly want to wade into the middle of a bunfight between polemic positions?
In "Trick or Treatment", Simon Singh warned against the dangers of adhering to mainstream opinion without evidence using the example of bloodletting. The tweets here are jaw-dropping given that background.
Bish,
Lean may have set a benchmark for you with;
"Britain's substantially resourced – and insufferably self-important – environmental pressure groups"
BH says
Of course we do. But if the emotive and vicious reaction to Pearce is anything to go by, tempers are out of control now (why, I wonder?)
The incessant use of horribly inappropriate similes (tends to be sceptics) and the vile d-word is everywhere and of course mutually self-reinforcing.
Rational debate is all-but impossible now. All that's left is mud-slinging, name-calling and increasingly, groupthink on both sides.
But forgive me; Monday bleakness. I'm sure everything will look rosy by Thursday.
BBD,
Coffee does wonders for my "bleakness" and same day too. Be of good cheer. john
Singh is a Guardian dude with a Guardian dude haircut, innit ? All publicity is good for the bank balance. Get your photograph taken riding the AGW gravy train etc. etc.
Nothing more to see.
What is a tweet? I gave up on technology when texting started to happen with phones (mainly because I couldn't use the buttons or read the screen)
Is a tweet some new fangled version of texting - or something worse?
Jerry
Take a look at twitter.com, or follow the links on the posting. You'll get the idea soon enough.
j ferguson
Coffee. Good idea. :-)
Good to see Freeman Dyson included among the 'numpties'. The fact Richard Feynmann so rated Dyson, despite his lack of PhD, is one indicator. But perhaps the most helpful thing I've seen from him involved two other giants of 20th century maths and physics:
That's from profile by Larry Solomon in April 2007, one of the great series in the National Post that led to the book 'Deniers'. How aware can Simon Singh be of Dyson when he calls us numpties? Feynmann, Fermi and von Neumann are no longer around to guide us about the crucial matter of how scientific climate science really is - but this guy is. And of course Dyson, Happer and Lindzen are on the Academic Advisory Council of the organisation set up by the bumbling Lord Lawson.
We're not arguing from authority in pointing this out - because we believe in going into the details of the arguments and evidence - but we are giving the strong prima facie evidence that we're not idiots.
Jerry
Something worse ;-)
With regarding to being politer, always make every effort to play the ball and not the person. Ie address the argument not the person making it. I believe this blog succeeds where many others fail because most of the contributors try, most of the time, to be reasonable and polite.
And remember, never, ever feed the trolls.
I wonder if Simon Singh had "divine revelation", perhaps in the form of a twitter from God that he should save the world.
If not that, at least a spam email .
Any warmist who mentions Dyson is an idiot. Stick to Delingpole, Monckton and Sarah Palin, the cartoon sceptics. The problem is that the era of highly intelligent, independent, honest scientists is rapidly disappearing.
Bish said
I had a look. The front page seems to be full of one-liners on totally vague topics by people who don't have a clue.
If that's a fair summary I'll stick with something useful like reading a book or maybe some gardening.
Richard Drake
Thank you, sir. This is well worth remembering.
Richard Drake
Some of us are. Others unfortunately create the opposite impression, and we are all then tarred with the same brush.
I don't think you can call yourself a sceptic if you are so impressed by what people cleverer than you think. This at best would be an argument for holding to the consensus, not a justification for calling everybody else an idiot.
A sceptic is somebody who thinks nothing is obvious. The history of science is littered with hypotheses that had near universal acceptance from clever people yet turned out false or, at least, only to be true up to a point. To the sceptically minded, appeals to consensus and authority are an indication that a hypothesis is useful rather than true.
Nicholas
Feynman - "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts".
E Smith
"The problem is that the era of highly intelligent, independent, honest scientists is rapidly disappearing."
Try replacing era with funding.
Some seem to treat the outputs of computer models with the respect others give to divine revelations, Don Pablo. A tweet or twitter from a GCM computer itself might be the thing for the CO2 Prophets if they feel that things are maybe cooling down a bit for them these days...
Maybe Simon could be their intermediary?
Jerry
You think you have problems, I’m still waiting for a 32 inch wide screen phone.
Who wants tweeting bah!
Martyn,
I suppose you are hoping for the line from some blonde, "Is that a phone in your pocket? Or are you just pleased to see me?
Twitter forces the reduction of profound insights into inane and glib, or unfathomably cryptic, one-liners. I can find no value in it.
Of course The Bish likes us to play nicely and (in true ecumenical fashion) be polite to the cAGW crowd.
It's his Blog.
But I find it quite tough at times to take all the slings and arrows of outrageous fatheads and turn the other cheek. If it was about science ("I think you have underestimated the forcings there, old chap!" - "I'm sorry old boy, let's tweak it up a little and see if that's any better?") then there would be no harm done and we could all relax.
Let's not forget that this is a war.
A "War on Global Warming". And, as Roy Spencer pointed out in "The Great Global Warming Blunder", the War on Global Warming is in reality a War on the Poor. And this war is so asymmetric that it makes British forces vs Taliban look like a text book infantry battle.
They have virtually ALL the resources, ALL the politicians and policy drivers, ALL the media, ALL of academia.
We have only the truth and common sense. And who cares about them?
And they are, even now, planning to spend £150 Billion of our money on offshore windmills that won't work. Condemning thousands to lose their jobs and thousands of the vulnerable to die of hypothermia.
And we have to be polite???
Martin Brumby
Yes, we have to be polite, through clenched teeth, as much of the time as is humanly possible.
The consensus already dismisses criticism as the symptoms of madness/stupidity/evil, so calling them names really doesn't help.
Rationality and a good grasp of the basic facts offer the best chance of being heard. Granted, the odds of getting through are still vanishingly low.
I'm on a learning curve here too, BTW. Don't want to sound too holier-than-thou (especially not with the Bish around).
One of the main reasons I encourage politeness is that it also encourages people to say interesting things rather than just venting. The threads very quickly become boring if it's all people bemoaning the state of the world.
I assumed from the start that "Twittering" is what twits do.
Nothing has happened, so far, to change my assumption.
martin brumby
....And we have to be polite???
Yes of course...... (Mainly because it works.)
Martin Brumby
See - I told you the Bish was around...
Fenbeagle
Knows whereof he speaks.
nothing infuriates 'believers' (of all kinds) more, than being extra polite and reasonable and asking for facts and evidence, in the face of rudenes and hysteria.
I had previously thought that Singh was probably more intelligent than Gore, but by following Gore, and for such reasons, Singh has proved me wrong.,
Could we take a moment to applaud those patriots at the DECC (Huhne's lot) who have now selflessly decided to TURN OFF THE HEATING AT NIGHTS AND WEEKENDS and thus help to reduce their 'carbon footprint' by 10%.
Desmond Carrington hopes that the 'DECC's action may also help shift opinions among the MINORITY of the public who think that the seriousness of global warming is overblown'.
This new 'Monbiot-lite' at the Guardian is rapidly making himself a laughing stock !
'I'm applying skepticism to the question is AGW significant or not? With my limited tools, my answers is it's happening.' S Singh
The profound wisdom of a tweet.
A key part in my re-education in 'climate science' was throgh observing the outrageous manners and vitriol of the authors of RealClimate, contrasted with the openness and politeness of so many sceptic blogs, and in particular the Bish and Steve McIntyre.
If you need to behave like a weasel to defend your point of view, then the only sane conclusion is that you've got something fundamental that you don't want people to know about.
Scientists :lets not forget the good Ayatollah Gore who , before he unleashed his wisdom and movie on AGW, read about every scientific report himself, first.
His deeply investigated warmist Angst didn't stop him from jetting between his mansions tho
didn't stop him from pursuing all kinds of interests , also in Hotel Lucia, Portland.
And this is about the best real scientist the warmists can find. I mean , not every day someone pops unto the scene and invents the internet for us.
I'm not surprised by Simon Singh's tweets. He is a smart and numerate person. He could check into the PCA stuff himself. He hasn't yet, and it will be interesting to see if he does. (I suspect that he is mainly interested in the truth - hence the frank admission that he hasn't delved into the details).
Bishop Hill:
In this Feynman quote, Bishop Hill has hit the nail on the head.
It seems to me that what Singh is saying is that he concurs with the oft-quoted "vast majority of scientists" who agree with the consensus on anthropogenic climate change - and its catastrophic consequences. But the "vast majority" do so because they naively assume that the science has been conducted by honest, competent scientists who adhere to the scientific method - just as they themselves do.
But the truth is:
Climate Science is dominated by just a handful of scientists.
These scientists obstruct all attempts at replication of their results and resist releasing their data in any meaningful way – their results have never been truly independently verified.
These scientists bolster their position by peer reviewing each other’s papers and smothering dissenting views.
They appear to have adjusted or manipulated data to give the desired results.
They have employed inappropriate or incorrect statistical methods in their analysis of the data.
They have abused their positions as IPCC lead authors to influence IPCC reports.
So perhaps we should be more understanding as to why Singh holds the views he does.
I think it is absolutely right to be polite. I am a naturally courteous person (he says modestly) but it can be much more effective to be restrained and courteous in debate. It suggests you are a person of reason rather than fanatical belief. Having just read The Hockey Stick Illusion, I was immensely impressed by the measured tone throughout (rather like Nigel Lawson's book), as also with Mr McIntyre's conduct in his long running dispute. Professor Mann by contrast comes across as using bluster in place of evidence.
Don't worry about people being idiots. There'll always be idiots.
But isn't it absolutely amazing what's going on here. Five years ago, ten years ago we would all be silently fuming to ourselves or throwing the radio/TV/newspaper at the wall. Now we can read and chat and realise that however biased the media are people still see through it. It's a wonderful vidication of human rationality - of the basic need to question what we're told, of the fundamentally sceptic core that is at the heart of most ordinary people.