Bishop Hill Cambridge Conference on the Beeb
May 13, 2011 BBC Scotland had a correspondent at the Cambridge Conference (neither he nor I were entirely sure why he was there). The results was a short item on Wednesday's DriveTime show, featuring Andrew Watson, Ian Plimer and Alan Howard, the organiser.
H/T Eddie O
Cambridge Conference news item audio
Bishop Hill
Andrew Orlowski's excellent take is here:
Entourages are not something that delegates bring to a conference. Especially if the delegate is a humble public sector scientist. But the private invitation-only event I attended at Downing College Cambridge this week was no ordinary conference. It was an attempt to bring together leading climate scientists and IPCC figures with their critics.
Who, then, had an entourage? Lord Lawson, a splendidly imperial figure, and former Chancellor of the Exchequer, may be expected to bring one, But Lawson had none. University of East Anglia luminaries Phil Jones and Andrew Watson did, however: consiglieres perhaps, taking notes, whispering sotto voce, and fetching the teas and ice cream. They were accompanied by others attached to the Climatic Research unit (CRU) and the Met, whose purpose was not known. It was a beautiful May day. It can't have been for safety, nobody mentioned Climategate all day. The entourages boosted the attendance figures substantially.
Reader Comments (29)
Maybe Phil Jones and Andrew Watson, like Neil Lennon, "don't walk alone".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/hacked-climate-emails-death-threats
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1379048/Celtic-boss-Neil-Lennon-sectarian-death-threat.html
or..............
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/neil-lennon-attacked-by-geese-201105133813/
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/trees-will-not-become-unstoppable-killing-machines%2c-admit-climate-scientists-201002022433/
Yes, we can well remember the Met Office promise of a barbecue summer in 2009. That was based on models.
Thanks for picking up that quote Mac.
"People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful. Our approach is not entirely emprical."
What an extraordinary thing for a scientist to say. I would say, in contrast, that people overestimate the power of models when they are not rooted in observational evidence. Unless the model has empirical consequences which can be tested, the model is valueless to science and you might as well be doing astrology or necromancy.
This is not to say that a theoretical scientist must restrict his attention to "saving the phenomena" - Maxwell, for example, in setting out the equations of electromagnetism seems to have been motivated by a desire for mathematical symmetry - but ultimately, it is in the agreement or disagreement with observable evidence that the scientific value of a model lies.
I strongly recommend all to have a read of Andrew Orlowski's comments about the conference in the Reg pointed to by the Bishop. I found his summary an interesting insight:
"People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful. Our approach is not entirely emprical."
Sounds a lot like Pope Clement VII telling Nicolaus Copernicus why he was wrong.
"People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful. Our approach is not entirely emprical."
That's postnormal science for you, need to find a catchy alternative with a heavy hint of scarcasm ;)
"People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful. Our approach is not entirely emprical." - John Mitchell, Met Office
"It is not the model which prevails - the model follows, being the product of our brain – what prevails is the experimental evidence, that is what counts. Otherwise, science would still be at the neanderthalensis level!" - Professor Christos Stremmenos, Bologna.
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/05/stremmenos-cold-fusion-will-solve.html
There's a summary of the conference at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/13/downing_cambridge_climate_conference/
Don Pablo
I don't think it was Pope Clement that disagreed with Copernicus, it was Martin Luther that called him "the fool who will turn the whole science of astronomy upside down." It was the science establishment of the day that really took against him. He found it difficult to get his work published by the University at Wittenberg, and his supporters found it difficult to get/retain jobs there.
More parallels than you might think with the way things are today.
Quote du jour from John Mitchell at the Met Office:
UAH/RSS trend 1979 - present 0.14C/decade.
Multi-model mean referenced by AR4 trend 1979 - decade 0.2C.
Sorry:
Multi-model mean referenced by AR4 trend 1979 - present 0.2C/decade.
Wow, BBC Scotland went to Cambridge to interview some sceptics? The interviews with Plimer and then Professor Howard at the end were amazing, they added up to at least a minute of uninterrupted scepticism which made it to the broadcast. IIRC the last sceptic I ever heard on Radio Scotland was Jim Sillars - a formidable ex-Labour and ex-SNP politician - about a year and half ago.
The other interesting thing to note is that the conference organiser (Professor Howard) is clearly a sceptic - yet the alarmists didn't runaway. Or maybe they only accepted the invitation on condition that there was a rigid format with little time for questions and there would be no mention of climategate? Either way, getting Jones et al into the same room with dark-siders is progress.
Don't forget that the entourages for the CRU and Met Office are paid for by us taxpayers, so no problem there. Likewise BBC Scotland has no problem spending licence-fee payers' money.
Empirical evidence can be very tiresome - when it doesn't correspond with your computer 'projections' - very good - when it does.
Obviously, if the empirical data don't agree with the models - it's the data that're wrong.
John Mitchell - living in the fantasy world of computer models!
Cumbrian Lad - that's a legend. The quote attributed to Luther was a nineteenth century invention by 'historians' who had an axe to grind: either Roman Catholic, wanting to defame Luther, or anti-Christian, wanting to defame the Church. If you find it at all, it is in the so-called 'Table talk' which is a lot of spurious material that purports to be some of the things he is supposed to have said at the dinner table, but is utterly worthless as a historical source. Luther never referred to Copernicus or to the heliocentric world system in all of his voluminous writings.
"He found it difficult to get his work published by the University at Wittenberg, and his supporters found it difficult to get/retain jobs there." I think you have defamed Luther and the University of Wittenberg. Why do we have to suffer all these legends? Let's have truth, please.
As Owen Gingrich has pointed out, Copernicus was "far from the major international centers of printing that could profitably handle a book as large and technical as De revolutionibus...Furthermore, Copernicus was far from academic centers, thereby lacking the stimulation of technically trained colleagues with whom he could discuss his work."
Ultimately, it was Copernicus himself who held off publishing the work. The Roman Catholic bishop of Chelmo Tiedemann Giese and the cardinal of Capua Nicholas Schönberg encouraged Copernicus to publish. It was the Lutheran Georg Rheticus who finally persuaded Copernicus to publish; the preface was by Osiander a Lutheran minister.
Luther's right hand man Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560) presided over the curriculum at the University of Wittenberg. In 1536 Melanchthon helped Rheticus to obtain an appointment teaching astronomy and mathematics at the Wittenberg University. Two years later, Melanchthon arranged a two-year leave for Rheticus to study with noted astronomers. Rheticus took this opportunity to visit Copernicus in Frauenburg (now Frombork). Rheticus actually spent most of the two years with Copernicus. Rheticus brought him books in mathematics, in part to show Copernicus the quality of printing that was available in the German-speaking cities. He published an introduction to Copernicus's ideas, the Narratio prima (First Report). He finally convinced Copernicus (after 2 years with him!!) to publish On the Revolutions. Rheticus oversaw most of the printing of the book, and on 24 May 1543 Copernicus held a copy of the finished work on his deathbed.
Luther was still alive and would not himself die for another three years. His right hand man, Philip Melancthon accepted the importance of teaching Copernicus's ideas at the University of Wittenberg, and his son-in-law Caspar Peucer (1525-1602) taught astronomy there and taught Copernicus's work. As a result, the University of Wittenberg became a center where Copernicus's work was studied. Erasmus Reinhold (1511–1553), a leading astronomer at Wittenberg who became dean and rector, produced a new set of planetary tables from Copernicus's work, the Prutenic Tables.
None of this squares with the idea that Luther or the Lutherans regarded Copernicus as a fool. As usual, the lie travels better than the truth.
Funny old world climatology. I live in and with the empirical evidence and am still awaiting history to change so that I can bask in that glorious barbecue summer nominated by the models.
While we are talking about the Beeb, I am currently watching BBC2's "Wind Farm Wars".
The impression given is that its a bit of a David and Goliath fight, between a greeny local mum trying to put up a wind farm between cooking supper and getting her kids from school and a bunch of nimbies.
However, when I google Rachel Ruffle, the lady in question, and the RES group that she represents, this is what I find:
www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=798
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/0907RFHomepage
http://www.res-group.com/
http://www.bwea.com/about/board.html
Seems like the nimbies are the real David and greeny lady is just front man for Goliath.
I didn't see the programme but that's an interesting collection of web sites there. Coldfinger.
I would have thought that, unless Ms Ruffle has had a Damascene conversion then either:
1 the Beeb has been conned (which is possible), or
2 the Beeb is in serious (and I mean serious) breach of a variety of things probably including its Charter and needs to be reported to any and every relevant regulatory authority you can think of. And the press as well, though whether they would be interested is hard to tell.
Scientistfortruth,
I've no wish to hijack this thread with extended discussions on the matter, if you wish to go into the more arcane pieces of attribution we can take it over to the discussion forum? The main fact I wished to establish in response to Don Pablo's (probably off the cuff) comment was that far from Clement telling him he was wrong, the Pope was very impressed by the lecture he'd heard from Copernicus' colleague and urged publication. The cardinals were similarly supportive. All sources are clear on this, and perhaps Copernicus' own words give the best picture:
" But while I hesitated for a long time and even resisted, [publication] my friends drew me back. Foremost among them was the cardinal of Capua, Nicholas Schönberg, renowned in every field of learning. Next to him was a man who loves me dearly, Tiedemann Giese, bishop of Chelmno, a close student of sacred letters as well as of all good literature. For he repeatedly encouraged me and, sometimes adding reproaches, urgently requested me to publish this volume and finally permit it to appear after being buried among my papers and lying concealed not merely until the ninth year but by now the fourth period of nine years. The same conduct was recommended to me by not a few other very eminent scholars. They exhorted me no longer to refuse, on account of the fear which I felt, to make my work available for the general use of students of astronomy. The crazier my doctrine of the earth's motion now appeared to most people, the argument ran, so much the more admiration and thanks would it gain after they saw the publication of my writings dispel the fog of absurdity by most luminous proofs. Influenced therefore by these persuasive men and by this hope, in the end I allowed my friends to bring out an edition of the volume, as they had long besought me to do."
The 'most people' he refers to were certainly the then scientific establishment. The eventual publication had a dedication to the the then Pope Paul III.
"People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful. Our approach is not entirely emprical."
Unfortunately that fool Galileo did not appreciate the limitations of observational evidence and that is why he had to be put on trial. Some global warming deniers seem to be intent on repeating Galileo's mistakes. How long will it be before they are put on trial in order to save our planet?
@coldfinger
I have just watched the Rachel Ruffle video. I wonder why should it be felt necessary for RES to "go round the schools" as part of their campaign to get a wind farm in Devon. Another Climate Lesson in progress, I fear.
It was the apparent misrepresentation that got me. Showing her as a local mum trying to save the planet when she is really acting as the employee of a multi-million dollar multinational corporation and front man for other vested interests.
Coldfinger
And no doubt Ms Ruffle omitted to tell the kiddies about the subsidies, the problem with spinning reserves vs actual emissions reductions, the intermittency and variability (slew) problems, grid integration issues, actual cost competitiveness issues etc etc etc.
Just 'Green = Good. Windmills = Green. Therefore Windmills = Good'.
Logic for children indeed.
Cumbrian Lad
As you can see, my beef was with the statements that 'it was Martin Luther that called [Copernicus] "the fool who will turn the whole science of astronomy upside down" ' and that Copernicus 'found it difficult to get his work published by the University at Wittenberg, and his supporters found it difficult to get/retain jobs there.' There are just so many historical inaccuracies doing the rounds out there that keep appearing in papers, and TV and radio programmes.
Coldfinger,
I liked the following line from your first link:
• Climate change: need to stabilise global temperature rise below 2% within next decade
No action needed I would say.
Perhaps I should add:
the % sign is not a mistake - it's in the original.
I appreciate that Scientistfortruth, but although that particular line is not a quotation, but a paraphrase, many attribute it to Luther, and there's a fair amount of evidence to show that he did not support the Copernican view, along with the main academic influencers. Not however worth bothering our fellow congregants with.
Coldfinger - only watched the early part of the 'Wind Farm Wars' programme, but what came across loud and clear was that the farmer whose land was to be used for the wind farm was practically having an orgasm at the prospect of the money he was going to make...
I was in the car (which is very unusual) and although I was out hunting for flints when the main item was on, I listened to some of the banter. To be quite frank, this was the first time I'd ever heard anyone on the BBC talking sense on the subject. Even Clarkson is just a sceptic because he doesn't want to believe.
But now moderate, middle of the road BBC journalists are discovering for themselves that the BBC have been indoctrinating staff with a PC warmist dogma which they must realise is totally against the supposed ethos and ethics of the BBC.