Monday
Mar282011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Light blogging
Mar 28, 2011 Blogs I'm off on my travels from Monday morning. I should be back on Wednesday evening.
Mar 28, 2011 Blogs 
Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Nov 11 - US Design Hub
on
Launched my very own online store. -
Nov 11 - Kenna Morgan
on
The Benefits of Using Tutorbin for Custom Writing Services
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (129)
J4R
Oh, I get it all right.
But let's say the science isn't wrong. How are renewables going to displace enough fossil fuels to any difference to the global-scale emissions mix? Even if the most hysterical climate doomers are right, renewables are still not the solution. They are simply being misrepresented as such.
This allows the government to rob us all blind for ever, as you correctly observe.
It also allows other types of opportunism to thrive. I couldn't help but notice a box-out in the article about how
EcothieveryEcosubsidyEcotricity founder Dale Vince is threatening to sue the government over its proposed reduction of the stupefyingly huge FIT for SPV.Why? Because
Ecothieverysorry, Ecotricity is half-way through building a gigantic 5000 panel subsidy farm in sun-drenched Lincolnshire.And it wants its 25 year government guaranteed (it thought!) payout. Which of course just also happens to be a stealth regressive tax since it hits the poorest hardest.
Vince has become rich by exploiting government stealth taxes to delve into everyone's pockets. He deserves fulsome praise for his business acumen. If only he could do something about the emetic hypocrisy with which he tries to conceal the truth about what he is doing.
Still, nobody's perfect. Not even eco-heroes like Vince.
BBD, Is that the chappie that was on the radio a few weeks ago saying how good a business model he had because it was all green and wonderful and non-profit; and the interviewer managed to avoid asking how a business model could be regarded as sustainable (i.e. viable) when it was totally dependent on state subsidy?
Re pub (for tonight):
My earlier recommendation was The Hoop and Toy at the end of Exhibition Road (near S Ken tube station). But I see that Latimer’s research has identified The Queens Arms in Queens gate Mews. So I’m assuming that’s the place (despite Latimer’s sad inability to be there).
BTW have you noticed that the motion has been changed from "The Global Warming Hysteria is over. Time for a Return to Sanity" to "The Global Warming Concern is over. Time for a Return to Sanity"? Unfortunately it's not much of an improvement: the issue is not whether the concern is over (it patently isn't), but is it justified? Benny Peiser tells me that “some behind-the-scene debates going on about the motion which was what the Spectator suggested. The suggestions by the other team were much worse, though.”
Cumbrian Lad
I don't listen to the radio much, so I cannot confirm.
The rhetoric sounds about right, as does the astonishing inability of the interviewer to spot the elephantine problem.
Why is it that whenever the subject of renewables comes up in the media and politics, otherwise canny and critical thinkers turn into fawning intellectual pygmies?
Oh, silly me. Political correctness, innit? You aren't allowed to criticise renewables because that makes you a 'climate denier'.
Ed Miliband summed it up nicely a couple of years ago by publicly stating that being agin windmills was as socially unacceptable as driving without a seatbelt (or similar bollocks).
Actually, he missed a trick - he should have said driving children around without seatbelts. He still has somewhat to learn, it appears.
In the sleep of reason, monsters are born.
http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/biofuel-bombers-soon-patrol-benghazi-news-503542
This ranks alongside studies I was once involved in concerning the environmental impact of the materials used in the stealth bomber.
Hi BBD, you said in response to geronimo (why don’t people have the courage of their convictions and use their real names instead of hiding behind false ones) “ .. It's not that I dispute the physics of the greenhouse effect .. ” so maybe you (and gero) should have a look at the analyses undertaken by retired award-winning Canadian science teacher Roger Taguchi on Judith Curry’s “Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/). In particularly see Roger’s comments of 7th, 9th, and 22nd Feb.
David, you mentioned The Sunday Times and those useless windmills that our hard-earned taxes are being thrown away on. It was the scare-mongering Sunday Times that in 2007 started me down the path to confirmed scepticism about CACC after it published a review of staunch environmentalist Mark Lynas’s propaganda booklet “Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet” (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_reviews/article1612169.ece). After reading it I was a very concerned parent and grandparent but after 4 years of research I don’t believe a word that paper says about climate change, CO2, our use of fossil fuels or renewable energy sources. I suspect that Rupert Murdoch has invested in green initiatives like renewable energy. I adhere to the principle that if I am puzzled about something “follow the money” – returning once again to Al Gore, Maurice Strong, George Soros, etc. etc. etc.
Athelstan, as Robert E. Phelan (at last, another who has the courage to use his full name, but what about some background? – I’m a retired Electrical Engineer) said “ .. Interesting link .. ”. We can blame the politicians who support our membership of the EU for much of our woe. On electric cars, they are not the answer to pollution in our cities. They are only good for short journeys and the majority of us cannot afford to have two cars on the driveway, one for inner city and the other for long journeys. The hybrid is the answer (when they make the price competitive with petrol/diesel) because batteries don’t match up for energy density and cost.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete
You are retired. That gives you the luxury to speak your mind under your own name.
Not everyone here shares that advantage.
You appear strongly enamoured with the 'dragon slayers'. I am not.
To my knowledge, several of the nine ‘international experts’ contributing to the book are cranks:
Oliver K Manuel is the originator of the ‘iron sun’ hypothesis about which I do not trust myself to comment further.
Joseph A Olson of the ‘Unified Earth Science Theory’ can’t even spell ‘Hubble’ correctly, for goodness’ sake.
But he is not a man to let the facts get in the way: “One unintended consequence of research into Earth core structure was this author’s discovery of an obscure research paper by Xiaodong Song and Xinlei Sun published in 2008. Based on earthquake wave reflections thru the planet these researchers were able to prove that the Earth’s core is a single 900 mile diameter cubic crystal of iron”.
Wow. Have a look here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080310131507.htm and decide for yourself.
Hans Schreuder doesn’t believe the greenhouse effect exists because it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which isn’t clever. Redundantly, he also thinks there isn’t ‘enough’ CO2 to cause warming.
Martin Herzberg insists that modern warming is causing the rise in CO2, not the other way around, that the CO2 absorption band is saturated, that there isn’t enough CO2 to cause warming and that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans. Which they don’t, by a lot.
Another contributor, Tim Ball, has previously misrepresented his academic credentials. This is a major no-no in science, as in any profession.
Claes Johnson's chapters were critiqued on Curry's blog here (important discussion in comments):
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/
Martin Herzberg's chapter is dealt with here:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon-part-ii/
And the whole thing finishes up here:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon-part-iii-discussion/
So I will remain accepting of the conventional position that the greenhouse effect is real.
James Delingpole follows the money and finds a reason why Singh may be so upbeat, and keen to promote green business
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100080552/simon-singhs-for-the-joy-of-solar-energy/
Peter Ridley.
1. How do you know that geronimo isn't my real name? You falling into the warmist trap of assuming something that isn't usual has to be cause by something else, i.e. I'm using the name geronimo, it's not an anglo-saxon name, therefore I must be using a pseudonym. I could have been christened Geronimo which was a perfectly respectable name before being adopted by an Apache who got into trouble with the US government.
2. In any event what's wrong with a pseudonym provided people are polite and respectful I don't have a burning desire to know their names, nor do I feel their arguments suffer from not having a name attached. You are posting on a site called "Bishop Hill" the owner uses a pseudonym, John Wayne's career would have been blighted if he'd tried to go under his first name, Marion. Live and let live I'd say
Thanks for the link, I read the post, but to be honest there's nothing surprising in there.That's not true, I was surprised that Carl Sagan was involved in claiming it's existence, to be honest it was pretty well known back in the fifties and before that for all I know that Venus had risen to such temperatures because of the greenhouse effect. I believed it then, but now have my doubts, I even read a book just recently devoted entirely to the belief that Venus was actually a passing comet captured by the sun around 4500 years ago. Very plausible, but no real evidence to support it other than references from ancient scripts.
The interesting thing about the Harries paper which claimed empirical evidence of CO2 capturing outgoing longwave radiation in the 15um band was that the OLR in the other bands had gone up and with the spectacular lack of curiosity we see in the activist climate science community Harries didn't think this was worth following up. I don't have to hand how much energy was lost in the 8 to 10um band but why is it going up? That seems to be an interesting question to me>
Yes, it is a pseudonym, but I've given the site my email address and should you or anyone else want it I'd be more than willing to provide it through the Bishop. There we go again another psuedonym!
Gero
Atomic
Well he's in trouble then. I think that horse has just gone lame, at least in the UK.
geronimo
You don't have to defend your right to anonymity in blog comments. Don't be goaded.
Pete Ridley
another who has the courage to use his full name, but what about some background?
And who says that you are Pete Ridley and not really Lord Voldemort's younger brother? I am suspicious of all Ridleys, as is my good friend Harry Potter.
Smoke can be blown in many ways, my good sir, some more obviously than other ways.
hehe.. Don P, that was Tom Riddle :o)
Completely aside, I think JK Rowling's character naming in the Harry Potter series is some of the best I've ever seen. Truly inspired :o)
Mar 29, 2011 at 6:22 PM | Pete Ridley
Pete, thanks for the compliment but I really must agree with BBD, geronimo and the inimitable DPdlS that it is a mistake to simply equate anonymity with a lack of courage. The politics of AGW make this a deadly serious issue and commenters on both sides face the real possibility of repercussion. I do take issue with anonymous trolls and have no compunction about outing them when I can. Background? Well, I'm NOT the physicist at Trinity in Dublin, but I am an academic teaching sociology and anthropology.
The debate. First the facts. It appears there were 673 persons in the audience. The motion was
"The global warming concern is over - time for a return to sanity".
Speaking for the motion were Lord Nigel Lawson, Dr Benny Peiser, Graeme Stringer, MP. Against were Professor Sir David King, Professor Tim Palmer and Simon Singh (Science writer, BBC).
In a poll taken of those entering the figures were
For: 423
Against: 149
Undecided: 101
In a poll taken during the summing up speeches the results were
For: 428
Against: 214
Undecided: 31 (Actually no one voted undecided - it was just the remainder after the for and against votes were counted)
Speakers:
Lawson: Telling points, good arguments, but not as fluent or persuasive as he might have been. 7/10
Peiser: Made the mistake of arguing the motion (!) and overstated the abandonment of global warming concern. Perhaps it will come but its not there yet. Arguments were economic and political. They don't necessarily persuade. 5/10
Stringer: Superb instant riposte to the argument from (alleged) authority. Well marshalled arguments. Focus on the failings of the science. Not flowing. 8/10
King: Persuasive. Played the fear factor ruthlessly and spoke from (pseudo) authority. Sounded inaccurate on issues of the link between CO2 and warming and some of the graphs seemed to my eyes misleading. 2/10 for argument and 7/10 for persuasiveness. Summary 5/10
Palmer: Played the fear factor and spoke from (pseudo) authority. Arguments logically challenged(!) and a mark deducted for trying to infer that Prof Lindzen agreed with him. 3/10
Singh: Used Powerpoint to superb effect and was very persuasive 8/10. Shame about the arguments (summary: I don't have a clue about the science but these people are famous and important so they must be right - really, that was it!) 2/10. Total 5/10
Oh and my declaration of interest: I voted 'For'. Twice.
Much in agreement with Robert, I argue that "netiquette" must be respected. The liberty to speak anonymously is tempered by a duty to be respectful.
I feel no compunction to defend the anonymity of a troll or one who exploits their own anonymity in being inconsequentially abusive towards others. However, the liberty to speak frankly about material issues (climate being a good example) without personal or professional repercussion is essential. There is a balance and the burden to achieve it rests on the individual.
Cameron, thanks!
I picture Singh, analogously, while doing a victory dance after RPG-ing a mighty junk-science tank, unwittingly stepping on a pseudo-science landmine. Hero to zero.
Food for UK thought in Steve McIntyre's latest contribution: "It’s interesting that the very first incident of hide-the-decline in IPCC literature was in a graphic prepared by the UK Met Office." http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/29/provenance-of-the-briffa-file-in-the-jones-1998-archive/
Interesting book review in the NYT -
John Mashey seems to be still defending The Hockey Stick, and having a good dig at McIntyre and our Bishop too.
Have people formed opinions yet whether Montford was a deliberate falsifier or merely an incompetent researcher in the Deming/Overpeck business in HSI? (A crucial piece of the proposition of the book.)
link
Mashey's "friends" are all conspiracy theorists. None of them understand Mashey's "analysis" themselves and when you ask them to summarise the points Mashey makes, they can't.
Mashey is a refuge for those who are suffering cognitive dissonance as a result of exposure to McIntyre's obliteration of the team's hockey stick. It's nothing more than a tin foil hat, in the very classic sense.
Always amazes (amuses?) me the way people like Mashey and his sycophants know that books like HSI is not worth reading without reading them.
They love to tell us what we ought to read (and they're right because the more you read both sides of an argument the better informed you are) but they actively resent the slightest suggestion that they ought to widen their horizons also.
It doesn't take long to conclude that they are frightened that they might actually learn something. Sad, or what!
Cameron Rose: Thanks for the synopsis I had believed that people like Singh, Beddington, Bradshaw, etc. had in fact delved into the science and having done so had decided that AGW was real and very dangeroud. Having had contact with a number of them, including Beddington I'm not sure that they've read even the SPM of the IPCC and are relying on anecdotes and the fact that "all the scientists agree" as all the proof you need. They also seem to be under the impression that the deniers are a bunch of right wing loonies advocating creationism, flat-earthism, homeopathy, etc. etc. I believe that that belief is genuine. Having written us off as a bunch of loonies they then give us magical powers by suggesting that deniers are stopping governments taking action, when every government in Europe (with the honourable exception of the Czhecs, has foresworn allegiance to the great global warming movement, and the press is actively suppressing counter opinions. Boy we're good!
If you have lived just a few years on this planet you will find many issues on which "all the scientists agreed" that turn out to be dead ends. Moreover in the soothsayer department they have zero credibility, not because they're stupid people, although trying to forecast the future is itself a sign of not being the sharpest knife in the cutlery drawer, but because the future is too chaotic to forecast. In short there are too many "unknown unknowns". Probably the only memorable thing said by Donald Rumsfield, but a legacy nonetheless.
Re Cameron Rose
King put up a graph tracking CO2 / temp, exaggerated current levels of CO2 and failed to mention 800/2000 year lag. Claimed troposheric warming but this well known to be absent, failed to mention missing heat, ignored decelerating SLR etc etc.
Singh pure argument from authority, pretty slide but basically bollocks to use Cox's word.
I felt the sceptic side lacked punch. Disappointed that warmists gained so many more votes but then I think the motion was too blurred.
Rather over indulged in the pub afterwards but met the Bish, Josh and a host of others.
Cheers
Paul
Geronimo at 11.13AM
Your analysis of Beddington &co (“I'm not sure that they've read even the SPM of the IPCC and are relying on anecdotes and the fact that ‘all the scientists agree’ as all the proof you need”) rings true. I’d call people who reason like that idiots, but it sounds silly coming with someone with a couple of science A-levels.
The one question which always floors me when I express my scepticism is “So you think you’re cleverer than the President of the Royal Society, do you?” To which I ‘ve found no better answer than, “Well, yes, I do actually”. Any suggestions for a better reply?
Sounds like an interesting debate, Cameron. Interesting that your figures suggest that sceptics had self-selected to go along (well, it was a Spectator debate), and that of the consensus-types and undecideds, none seem to have been converted. The Appeal to Scientific Authority from King and Palmer may explain this. Lawson and Stringer may be impressive - but they are not scientists.
geronimo, I share your bewilderment that so many people are prepared to spout off about the Consensus being well established without having looked into the problem very much. Truth is, it is hard work to look into these topics in detail, and if you have no training in physics/maths, beyond the very superficial level, it gets hairy very quickly. Even for those with training as scientists, the Beddingtons, I doubt that they have taken the time to investigate anything much beyond the 'headline' version of AGW theory. Even the Kings and Palmers have to take quite a lot of it on trust - if they were asked about the state of the art on, say, ocean heat content or aerosol and cloud optics, I suspect they would not impress experts by their range and depth of knowledge. For other people here who are interested, I strongly recommend the Science of Doom blog. From my reading of it, it is very thorough but also (comparatively) user-friendly. It has a (rather well-hidden and very reasoned) sceptical bent to it.
Pete Ridley mentioned people who use their real name. I'm obviously one of the commenters here who reveals least about my name... I did a bit of soul-searching when Jonathan Jones from Oxford 'outed' himself here as to whether I was being too cautious - I belong to a similar scientific demographic to him. Well, some of my close colleagues know I am a sceptic, but many do not, and colleagues further afield certainly do not. I work in a different field in science, but I don't think there is any field of science where being known to be a sceptic would not have some signficant (albeit far from terminal) impact. And in the climate field, I'm basically just another blog-reader, not an expert (though with the advantage that I can read papers behind paywalls, and even make some sense of parts of them). So let my comments be judged by whether they make sense or not, and whether they are gratuitously rude or not, like any other commenter. I prefer it that way!
geoff, our comments crossed paths. I think your answer is fine - though I can imagine not very effective ;-). Speaking outside his area, Prof. Nurse is not intrinsically more trust-worthy than someone with a couple of A-levels and an enquiring mind. He hasn't shown much evidence of a deep knowledge of climate science.
@ GrantB: that rings very true. I saw an analysis recently of bank oil analysts' oil price forecasts compared with the actual oil price outcome.
There was a 0.0% correlation between the forecast and the subsequent actual oil price, but an 80% correlation between the forecast price and the oil price at the date they made it. So if the price today was $80 they'd typically forecast $80 in 3 years' time. If it was $120 they'd forecast $120. And so on.
Essentially, and perhaps unwittingly, they were forecasting the future price based almost entirely on the price now. This is a lot like predicting rain next week on the basis that it's raining now.
This is a structural flaw in common forecasting methodology. Economic forecasters commonly look at the now price, look at what fundamentals affect it and how those might change, and apply some resulting variance to the now.
The now always looms large in forecasts, which is why nothing in climate psientists' forecasts should be treated with anything less than 100% scepticism. Derision is optional.
What was also interesting was the analysts' different hedging strategies around the hostages they had given to fortune. Several made predictions along the lines of "30% chance of an oil price of $140". If $140 oil then happened, they could then crow, See? I said that would happen. If it failed to happen, they could point to the 70% non-probability and say See? I said that probably wouldn't happen.
Others simply made multiple predictions. In 2008 the guy at Merrill Lynch predicted both $250 and $25 as the price oil might reach that year. Hilariously, both guesses were wrong (it maxed out at $146 and bottomed at $38 so he was only 60% off in both cases).
We can see the same pattern in climate psience. The forecasts are continuously adjusted and the more embarrassing ones denied. Any outcome is treated as proof the forecast was right. Warmer winters? That'd be global warming. Colder winters? That'd be global warming. Any outcome = we were right.
This is why energy price forecasting is not really intellectually respectable. No meaningful forecast of CO2 emissions 100 years hence can be made without an idea of energy price, however, which means that CO2 projections 100 years out are simply rubbish based on more rubbish.
@ geoffchambers
I think there are a number of possible rejoinders to that. Some are rhetorical, some are more reasoned.
Among the obvious rhetorical ones are, "Papal infallibility went out of fashion some centuries ago", which opens the way to a discussion of ecofascism as a religion. Another such is "It's not so much that the President of the Royal Society is wrong...it's more that Osama bin Laden, Enron, the Mafia, VAT fraudsters, and cyber criminals can't possibly be right," which opens the way to a discussion of how, if an idea is respectable because the great and good espouse it, the opposite must logically also be true. Yet another is "Which of Nurse's arguments convinces you?" - which usually exposes your interlocutor's unfamiliarity with any of the arguments either way.
Among the reasoned arguments are "Nurse isn't a climate scientist and relies on the assumption that peer review has worked. The evidence is that it involves neither peers nor review", and leads you to THSI. Another, and one I particularly favour, is to invite the other person to mention any scares based in science of which they have ever been sceptical. For example, did they believe we would all die of AIDS? Did they believe in CJD, in SARS, in bird flu? Did they agree with the 364 economists who wrote to The Times in 1981 to say the government's policies would lead to perpetual recession, coincidentally during the quarter in which the recession ended?
All of those were also supported by bad but convenient public-sector / media consensus psience. Once you have established the general principle that you can dissent from a consensus and be right, you are over the initial hurdle. You can then progress to the more recherché examples of mistaken consensuses, such as the consensus belief that pellagra was bacterial, that duodenal ulcers weren't, and so on.
The more fertile ground is also to raise the point that it is actually irrelevant whether the psience is right or wrong if mitigation of the presumed problem is impossible. So I also sometimes respond by saying OK, let's assume for a moment Nurse is right; now, what will carbon abatement 1/ cost, and 2/ achieve?
Since nobody can answer either question, you then ask why anyone would pay an unlimited price for something nobody can show will work. Optionally, ask if he'd like to buy this bridge you've got....
"The one question which always floors me when I express my scepticism is “So you think you’re cleverer than the President of the Royal Society, do you?” To which I ‘ve found no better answer than, “Well, yes, I do actually”. Any suggestions for a better reply?"
geoffchambers, I suggest "Of course I'm not cleverer than him, but I may be better informed".
BBD - can't possibly keep up with your output - but clearly echo everything you've said about The Sunday Times and the Sarah Butler article. Let's see if my letter gets published..!
HaroldW - many thanks for correcting my mis-quote - and for the correct source. I shan't make the same mistake again - having now remembered the past..!
Moving on - recent article quoted on the Biased Broadcasting Corporation's Science and Environment section - saying that 'Urban living threatens the environment'.. Gist of the report is that as now that 50% of us live in cities, this will lead to an increase in storms/floods/heatwaves/plagues of locusts/you name it.. Comments now closed, but the ones that I read were eminently sensible - along the lines of: 'b*ll*cks...'
BBD - can't possibly keep up with your output - but clearly echo everything you've said about The Sunday Times and the Sarah Butler article. Let's see if my letter gets published..!
HaroldW - many thanks for correcting my mis-quote - and for the correct source. I shan't make the same mistake again - having now remembered the past..!
Moving on - recent article quoted on the Biased Broadcasting Corporation's Science and Environment section - saying that 'Urban living threatens the environment'.. Gist of the report is that as now that 50% of us live in cities, this will lead to an increase in storms/floods/heatwaves/plagues of locusts/you name it.. Comments now closed, but the ones that I read were eminently sensible - along the lines of: 'b*ll*cks...'
SORREE folks - I seem to have pressed 'Create post' twice...
Forecasts
"It's very difficult to make predictions especially about the future" (Berra/Bohr)
The reason forecasts are wrong is that it is impossible to predict the future since none of the future has happened yet. Humans stuck with cause and effect mentality that is nothing happens without reason. We are also very bad at understanding which events today matter tomorrow.
Most experts can only extrapolate from the past and are stuck in the current paradigm of consensusthinking. Worse, politicians are obsessed with short term "making a difference" gestures, ignoring the law of unintended consequences. E.g. Biofuels drive up food prices causing riots and upheaval with NO benefit to the planet.
Last night's speakers against showed all of these in spades.
Paul
It was good to meet the Bish and others at the pub after the debate yesterday.
As for the debate itself, I think it's well summarised by a cartoon in the current Private Eye (not yet available on line). With the caption, "That climate change debate in full", it shows two people in T shirts, one with the word "No" and the other "Yes". Each is pointing at the other, saying: "I'm right. You're wrong. Shut up. THE END."
Robin Guenier. At least if Private Eye are now saying 'a plague on both your houses' it is a quite a shift from the 'old days' as described by Christopher Booker in 'The Great Global Warming Disaster'.
He tells us on page 355 that, 'in conversation with my Private Eye colleague Ian Hislop, I remarked casually how flimsy was much of the evidence behind the global warming scare, only to receive an almighty put down to the effect that George Monbiot of the Guardian knew a great deal more about the subject than I did and that I should think twice before daring to challenge such expert authority'.
It would be interesting to know whether Hislop still regards Monbiot as the fount of all climate wisdom.
@ toad
Interesting re Hislop. I can remember when Private Eye was anti-establishment. Nowadays they seem to be resolutely anti-anybody-who-makes-more-money-than-me-or-does-so-in-a-way-I-disapprove-of. Which is to say, solidly of the orthodox left.
For those of you who are reluctant to use your real names let me explain why I like to know who I’m exchanging opinions with. The CACC issue is based upon interpretations of very poorly understood processes and drivers of those different global climates. Much of what is said, even by “experts” amounts to no more than opinion, not science. When someone expresses an opinion which conflicts with mine I like to know if the individual has formed that opinion from a position of knowledge or if it is pure speculation. I can readily check up on a person's’ background if I have a name but a false name makes it very difficult and sometimes impossible.
I also get irritated by the cowardice of those who hurl insults (often very nasty ones) from behind false names or pretend to be another individual. I have found it surprisingly easy to track down such individuals and can give you numerous examples if you are interested.
Geronimo, you said on Mar 29th at 7:53 PM “ .. You are posting on a site called "Bishop Hill" the owner uses a pseudonym .. ”. If you look at each of Andrew’s pages you’ll see a picture of “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by A W Montford. A litle further down you’ll find a link “Follow Bishop Hill” on which it says “Name Bishop Hill Web http://www.bishop... Bio Author of The Hockey Stick Illusion and host of the Bishop Hill blog”. I’d hardly call that hiding behind a false name. It does not then take a genius to work out who runs the Bishop Hill blog, does it and it is very easy to find out Andrew’s discipline, just as it is mine.
On the other hand, try as I might I cannot readily find out anything about Geronimo, BBD, Atomic Hairdryer, Don B, j, Justice4Rinka , etc. who comment on the Bishop Hill blog. Because of that I have to assume that they simply parrot what others tell them.
In your comment of Mar 30th at 11:13 AM you mentioned that you “ .. had believed that people like .. Beddington .. had in fact delved into the science and having done so had decided that AGW was real and very dangeroud .. ”. In my opinion Professor Beddington simply parrots what “experts” tell him and those “experts” are all staunch supporters of the CACC doctrine - no sceptics involved in advising him. Have a look at my “work-in-progress” The UK's Government Office for Science (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2010/12/uks-government-office-for-science.html).
J and Justice4Rinka talk about another staunch supporter of the CACC doctrine Professor Paul Nurse but “ .. his primary research interest is in the cell cycle of fission yeast. In 2001, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on cell cycle regulation” (http://www.sanger.ac.uk/about/people/advisory.html). Not someone I’d turn to for enlightenment about climate processes and drivers. Here’s an interesting article “Climate Change Debate – Reconciliation in Lisbon?” which gives a mention to Nurse and the UK’s primary CACC propaganda-spreader, the BBC. BTW j, have you ever considered the possiblity that it might be the cowardice of scientists who are afraid to declare their positions openly that make it possible for the CACC disciples and supporters to declare that there is overwhelming scientific consensus in support of their doctrine?
Robert (Phelan) thanks for letting us know what your discipline is. My immediate concern was that being an “Adjunct Instructor of Sociology” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/a-detailed-rebuttal-to-abraham-from-monckton/) you are in a position to support the indoctrination of our youngsters with the political propaganda about our use of fossil fuels leading to CACC, evidenced by the distribution of Al Gore’s dishonest “An Inconvenient Truth” to UK schools. I was much relieved to see your advice to ac patriot (another coward) to “ .. Develop some critical thinking and learn to connect the dots. Now click your heels and salute…” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/30/results-of-the-climategate-paliamentary-inquiry-in-the-uk/). You may be interested in taking a look at my blog (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/) because I commented on those “fair and independent” investigations into Climategate and other related issues. I’d certainly be interested in your views on the UN, CACC and World Government – I’m a conspiracy theorist see.
Although it didn’t surprise me that none of those commenting here make no disclosure of their blogs I was a little surprised that you didn’t provide a URL here (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/contributor/13539933). Do you have a blog?
AntonyIndia, thanks for the link to McIntyre’s article.
BBD, ref. your comment of Mar 29th at 7:37 PM, where on earth did you get that totally false impression of me with regard to “the slayers”? I became aware of them in November 2010 and became closely involved with them at the invitation of lead slayer John O’Sullivan in December. In Jan/Feb I carried out what I referred to as my “due diligence” exercise on them in relation to their proposal to try to attract charitable donations to help them set up their company Principia Scientific International. If you had bothered to read my comments on their fund-raising page “A message from John O'Sullivan
TIME FOR YOU TO RECLAIM OUR SCIENTIFIC LEGACY?” (http://funds.gofundme.com/1v39s) then you wouldn’t have come to the ludicrous conclusion that I QUOTE: .. appear strongly enamoured with the 'dragon slayers' .. UNQUOTE.
You may also be interested in reading my comments about them on the Climate Conversation blog (http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/03/fallen-snow/#comment-46584).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley
I don't think you are going to fit in well.
This is clearly meant to be a threat:
And your bombastic tone about your 'courage' and the 'cowardice' of others is offensive and unwelcome.
This is disturbing - you are trying to crack commenters' anonymity. Nobody will be comfortable with that:
And the bit about parroting is both wrong, and offensive. Are your statements entirely original? Or do you draw on your learning? And the difference between acquired knowledge and parroting is?
The reason that there is no 'disclosure' of blogs here is that SquareSpace doesn't let you do that. But you misrepresent that to make yet another unpleasant insinuation about the integrity of commenters here:
Speaking personally, I do not like your tone or your attitude.
Pete Ridley
Re Slayers
Let me get this straight - you thought JOS was going to publish your hypothesis on ice core CO2 analysis and 'became closely involved' to the tune of making a £350 donation.
Then you realised that the Slayers were a little less... reliable? than you had thought, and have now fallen out with them. As evidenced by your comments on their begging bowl page.
Is that about right?
Because if it is, it helps me classify the quality of your thinking. As does your apparent belief that a retired Canadian teacher has somehow refuted a century of work on radiative physics.
Pete Ridley, I have of course considered whether I'm being cowardly. Probably I am - cowardly rather than foolhardy always seemed like a good bet to me. But (a) I have a day job, and although it is true that I do 'waste' some of my time here, I do not have the time (and probably not the skills) needed to pursue the scientific questions in climate science in the way you suggest I should, (b) I don't think that the likely extra effectiveness I would get from revealing my name would repay the professional cost, and (c) as I wrote, in the world of blogs, I think that it is fair to invite people to "let my comments be judged by whether they make sense or not, and whether they are gratuitously rude or not." Unlike what you sort of suggested for the latter, I feel I'm doing OK on that heading, and I invite you to form an informed opinion on the former. Best wishes!
@pete ridley
There are many good reasons why people may wish to blog anonymously. Career, family and friends are just some of them. Don't get so hung up about it - unless you are more interested in parading your gumshoe skills than you are in the actual discussions.
j
As I said to geronimo yesterday, no one here has to defend their right to anonymity. Especially not to a vexatious correspondent like Mr Ridley.
BBD, cheers - I felt no need to justify myself to anyone, vexatious or not - but thought some people might be interested by my thought process.
On CIF (Komment Macht Frei) at the Guardian, a 'left-click' of the avatar used to reveal details about the 'poster', even his/her name. Some were happy, even proud, to be 'exposed'.
However once an identity has been revealed the tendency could be to 'google' that individual and thereafter dismiss all their 'rantings/words of wisdom' according to your own bias.
We tend to give anonymous posters the benefit of the doubt, until they demonstrate unacceptable prejudice..
After all, even George Monbiot talks sense occasionally
Hi BBD', ref. your comment of Mar 30th at 3:34 PM, I made no threat, simply a statement of fact. You seem very touchy about being identified but anyone who is scared of being exposed can always avoid seeking the limelight.
If you are offended by talk of courage, cowardice and parroting then so be it. I didn’t try to offend anyone when making those comments, simply expressing my honest opinion.
Your comment about “ .. no 'disclosure' of blogs here is that SquareSpace doesn't let you do that. .. ” puzzles me. I comment here and my blog URL is accessible direct from this forum (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/contributor/13555015) so how do you justify your offensive comment that I. “ .. misrepresent that to make yet another unpleasant insinuation about the integrity of commenters here: .. ”. Perhaps you owe me an apology for that.
Speaking personally, I do not always like your tone or your attitude either, but that is no reason for us not to exchange opinions, at least not for me. We all have our moments when we are less than civil, even you, e.g. your “ .. Butler's piece. The usual dog's-breakfast of misrepresentations .. some hand-waving .. In other words, the usual energy-illiterate guff written by a hack .. ”. Hardly a complement, is it?
I’ve exchanged opinions with some extremely nasty individuals and even learned from them. There is a simple option – if you don’t like what I say IGNORE it. You and I will never have to socialise so how about we remain as civil as possible and continue sharing ideas.
BTW, parroting is repeating without understanding.
As for “the Slayers” and that £350 donation, no, it wasn’t from me but if you ask John then he may tell you. I am always very wary when someone asks me to donate to something because you never know what the donation will be used for. Once again your analysis is totally wrong, simply because you do not have the necessary facts. I have an E-mail folder jam packed with them.
How on earth did you conclude that Roger Taguchi “ .. has somehow refuted a century of work on radiative physics .. ”. Once again you haven’t bothered to read what I linked to and are expressing an opinion from a position of ignorance.
Hi j, thanks for the comment. I am in the fortunate position of having lots of time on my hands to do the necessary research and do not need to worry about any repercussions from an employer. During my career as an electrical/electronics engineer I encountered many bullies, mainly among the supervisory ranks, but I remembered the one lesson that my daddy taught me. Never give in to a bully. You are absolutely correct when saying “ .. I felt no need to justify myself to anyone .. ” and I for one am interested in your thought processes. When different individuals look at the same “evidence” and draw opposing conclusions then it can be very helpful to understand their thought processes. CACC is a good example, as are religious beliefs.
Latimer Alder, you have the drop on me with your “ .. parading your gumshoe skills .. ”. Please elucidate.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Thanks to j, Justice4Rinka, and Nicholas Hallam for the advice on how to counter the argument from authority. Behind my flip request was a serious question - how did so many obviously intelligent people fall into the trap of accepting the consensus without question? (And this applies as much to the editor of Private Eye as to the President of the Royal Society - both posts need to be filled by intelligent sceptics).
I was interested to learn from Peter Ridley that Robert Phelan is a sociologist, since he once (at WUWT, I believe), gave a most interesting analysis in terms of the development of tertiary education in the US. This corresponded closely to the analysis of the reasons for the dysfunctional nature of modern democracy given by the French demographer Emmanuel Todd. If Prof. Phelan is still around, it would be nice to have his comments.
The time has come acording to The Engineer:
DECC plans roll-out of smart meters across Britain
'According to the DECC, the roll-out of smart meters will take place in two phases. During the foundation stage, beginning now, the government will work with industry, consumer groups and other stakeholders to ensure all the necessary groundwork is done for the second stage — the mass roll-out.
The government expects the mass roll-out to start in early 2014 and be complete by 2019.'
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/sectors/energy-and-environment/news/decc-plans-roll-out-of-smart-meters-across-britain/1008077.article
Pete Ridley
First, apologies for the inaccurate statement about tracing blog URLs from comments here. Yes, you can do it, although not as easily as on most blogs.
However, I absolutely stand by the rest of what I said. You are once again saying that commenters here are cowardly and/or dishonest/ignorant. Whereas you are a paragon of courage and learning:
Why exactly doesn't it surprise you Pete? Please answer this point clearly in your response. I'm sure plenty of people here are curious about this.
It's interesting how you start by now trying to shut me down. That (along with the not-so-subtle threats) wouldn't be a classic bullying technique, by any chance?
Your means of expressing your 'honest opinion' re anonymity are calculated to offend. And you know it. Stop being disingenuous; you are insulting the intelligence of everyone here.
Butler's piece was exactly as I described it. And, no, I am not parroting. I understand what I am talking about.
Re Slayers. You are being evasive and disingenuous again. You were a big chum, and now you are not. But you were, so I wasn't essentially wrong. And if you didn't make that donation, why do you say this:
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/03/fallen-snow/#comment-46584
Peculiar.
You huff and puff:
But I think we are all starting to get the picture by now.
Please summarise Mr Taguchi's arguments for commenters here. I'm very interested to hear your understanding of what he is saying. I'm sure others are too.
Bish - GET HOME NOW - the children are behaving badly..!!