Bishop Hill A meeting of moderates
Jun 22, 2011 Climate: Sceptics Climate: other I am still pretty overwhelmed with "stuff" at the moment. Just life things, really - IT problems (Bill Gates, you are useless), school problems (Perth & Kinross council, you are worse) and of course the day job too. This is leaving precious little time for the blog and for thinking about peace conferences.
Almost off the top of my head, therefore, is the idea that the objectives for such a peace conference should be quite limited. So when Leo Hickman suggests as a starting point...
Unimpeachable, transparent, uncorrupted science
Energy security
"Clean" energy (if CO2 is not your concern, then surely reducing localised air pollution is a valid goal?)
Halting deforestation
Halting biodiversity loss
Conserving marine habitats
Avoiding economic instability
Protecting the poor and vulnerable
Ensuring global food supplies
...it seems to me that he is hopelessly overambitious. At the very most, a conference might address the first point. That would be an important objective. The rest is a wish-list, with many tradeoffs needing to be made. These are not questions to be decided at conferences.
Reader Comments (122)
I do not believe the other side could recognise the uncertainties openly. That would make the science usless for political purposes. They would be left with the precautionary principle, that we should do all the things they want anyway, just in case the worst happens. Personally I would recommend a lot of caution before adopting the precautionary principle as a way of life, but that's just me. A principle which if applied to itself disappears in a puff of logic may not be the way to go.
"Standalone System Sweeper"
I've used the Bitdefender (Linux-based) equivalent successfully, but we're trying to guess the Bishop's IT problems. I'm sure there's plenty of help available here if he needs it, assuming the altar boys can't fix it...
Leo Hickman,
I too, like others here, only wish to have impeachable and falsifiable science. The unimpeachable variety of science has only ever existed as a con.
Your utopian wish list is a very nice list which no really nice person would argue with, but I have a very firm belief in setting acheivable objectives and ticking them off as they are acheived, one at a time. The science objective is huge on its own, so it must be broken up into chunks that can be dealt with.
The rest of your list is ephemera until we have impeachable and falsifiable science.
And, Leo, please have a chat with Al Gore, if he listens to you. His latest attack on 'Deniers' isn't helping the cause for dialogue as a step toward acheiving impeachable and falsifiable science at all!
Crikey,
That is a menu of personal social objectives, not an agenda for improving the application of scienctific princples in the field of climate science and policy.
Crikey,
That is a menu of personal social objectives, not an agenda for improving the application of scienctific princples in the field of climate science and policy.
Is current AGW theory falsifiable? Is there any information which could make Schmidt, Mann, Pachuri, IPCC et al do a complete 180 degree on what they believe?
If not, then it isn't worth talking to them, because they are simply not interested in science.
The rest is pointless as you are debating with a religious frame of mind.
1) "Unimpeachable, transparent, uncorrupted science" is not an objective, it is a prerequisite. It is something to be agreed beforehand and obeyed. Without it, any conclusions are meaningless. In fact, it is the state we are in at the moment!
2) The other topics will be easily solved by politicians, ignorant of any business, engineering or scientific disciplines, but with a global awareness and well versed in authoritarian methods.
There are plenty of candidates around, eager to display their skills.
3) Action by sovereign, democratically elected governments would have been an alternative, but we don't have many of those, certainly, not in Europe.
The IT problems relate to getting WinXP machines sharing a printer with a Win7 machine. Yes, I know, I need a network printer!
That's such a comprehensive list with so many theo-political implications that you would need a new ethical framework in which to handle them - say, a new religion.
Oh.
Wait .............
The arguement is about the science of climate change.
1. What do we know with certainty.
2. What do we think we know.
3. What do we not know.
4. What is unknowable.
Yes, get a network printer, and use homeplug to connect up. Its real simple and your troubles will be over. Also, you'll be all set for when you finally do move to Linux!
Leo Hickman
I assume that you accept the engineering constraints that will prevent renewables from ensuring security of supply or significantly reducing emissions?
This being the case, I also assume that, like George Monbiot and Mark Lynas, you accept the necessity of substantial global expansion of nuclear in order to displace coal.
If this is not the case, can you sketch out your view of energy policy? It would be helpful to know where you stand on this most important policy issue.
Printer problems! Oh well then, why didn't you say so. Clearly you have sinned and need to go on an extensive pilgrimage to atone for them.
Nothing, not a thing, zip, zero, except divine intervention can solve printing problems.
The long list helps explain the grandiose, self-righteousness of some commentators on climate variation: they are, don't you know, intent on 'saving the world', and therefore look down from a great height and with ready disdain on all who dare squabble about their reasonings and actual impacts. Good intentions may well be overwhelmingly important for such people - relegating actual impacts, actual evidence, actual science into a secondary role.
I agree that attention for the proposed debate/meeting of minds needs to on the first topic line. The focus should be not so much on trying to answer the questions of human impacts on climate - that is largely a matter for subject-matter experts (although when they venture into policy and politics, I think it is widely agreed that all us can debate them with legitimate authority). I suppose that this meeting of minds would take place over many months (6 to 24?) if an early meeting was successful enough. The perspective involved would seem to be that of well-informed observers of the science and politics and public-opinion of climate variation. Here are some questions for it which occur to me:
1. How readily do the expert participants (the ones we are 'observing' that is) seem to share data and ideas - in particular, how well do they pursue the scientific ideal of making every effort to expose ideas to test and falsification?
2. Given the complexity of the field, how well do participants make use of relevant areas of expertise? I am thinking particularly of statistics and physics and software/modelling areas, but no doubt many others are involved. For example, do they hold regular inter-disciplinary meetings, routinely invite critical reviews on specific items, and so on.
3. What can we discern about their, the expert participants, personal motivations and inter-personal skills? This seems a frivolous, even impertinent, line of enquiry but I think it is justified by the huge potential impact of their work, or at least of the political use/interpretation of their work. It is legitimate to wonder about their political persuasions, their willingness to refute over-inflated interpretations of their work - by the IPCC 'summarisers', by politicians, by pressure groups, by journalists. This might also include their attitudes to personal/group abuse directed at various parties.
4. What projections/predictions do the experts present us with that they deem capable of disproof and over what timescales? Can they point to what they regard as sufficient data collection taking place to help them decide in due course?
5. What can we observers of these experts begin to construct by way of our understanding of what is common ground, what is without much dispute, and where the toughest/vaguest/contentious areas are?
6. Can we begin a process to produce a compilation of strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC? It is not clear who might do this, given the compromised position of bodies such as the Royal Society, but perhaps an ad hoc group could be created that could be widely respected. This is an important area since opinions about the IPCC seem to range from those who regard it as an all but umimpeachable source of gospel, to those who see it as a profoundly corrupt organisation unworthy of any trust at all.
Scope: "expansion of nuclear"
Which nuclear fuel cycle?
U - Uranium: currently used for nuclear power generation, with all its well known advantages and disadvantages
Pu - Plutonium: fast breeder reactors; not many exist to generate power; the conditions are more extreme than in Uranium reactors but there is more nuclear fuel available
Th - Thorium - it has many advantages, including: it is not initially radioactive, it is plentiful in many parts of the world, the half lives of the isotopes present are shorter and it is very difficult to make weapons from the process, but the biggest drawback is that many current nuclear experts dislike it because their experience (and their countries investment) is in Uranium or Plutonium technology and, although it has been demonstrated very successfully in mid-20th century, the technological know how has almost died out.
As McIntyre keeps pointing out, you need to watch the pea under the thimble. Every one of these topics is a distraction -- deliberate or otherwise -- from the main argument.
Is the late 20th-century warming unprecedented or not? Where is the scientific evidence that it is?
Is this warming caused to a very great extent by mankind? And where is the scientific evidence for that?
Are Hansen's notorious 'tipping points' a realistic prospect on any likely time scale? Where is the scientific evidence that they are or even that they are possible given the previous history of the earth and the Laws of thermodynamics?
Are the data being used to build the case accurate? Reliable? Unfudged?
Once we have the "transparent, uncorrupted science" we will all be better placed to reach sensible conlusions and (if necessary) take action.
The other seven matters are secondary since, there being no firm transparent, uncorrupted, empirical scientific evidence as yet for AGW, there is no evidence that any of these things can be addressed by taking any action in relation to global warming.
They are at best a conservationist's wish-list, some of them contradictory (as has already been pointed out), and all of them open to dispute as to interpretation and by extension desirability.
It’s easy to be confused and irritated by Hickman’s game of footsy, particularly as readers of his Guardian article know nothing of his hot and cold utterances here. But one shouldn’t lose sight of what’s on offer - not a conference (that’s just part of the daft wartime rhetoric) but the chance of having our views presented in the mainstream media by the first among our equals.
This is a very big deal, and those who dismiss the Guardian as just a loss-making left-wing propaganda rag are making a big mistake. It’s the propaganda rag of choice for a large part of the British Establishment. It was propounding the abolition of slavery and votes for women when most of us were in short trousers. Someone there wants to reclaim the heritage of CP Scott and sent Leo with a message. The messenger may have got a bit confused, but let’s be patient with him.
Warmists say: "Global problems require global solutions."
Skeptics say: "They like global solutions, so they've fabricated a global problem."
Warmists say: "Skeptics are selfish and greedy people who refuse to consider changing their wasteful lifestyles even at the risk of destroying the planet."
Skeptics say: "Warmists are happy to destroy the capitalist world for a minor or non-existent problem, because of their envy of successful individuals and rage against a system which does not suit them."
Bridge those gaps and you're doing well.
Actually there are two very simple questions one could put to Hickman, the responses to which will instantly tell us whether there's any point in engaging with him.
1/ Does he agree that the use of "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline" was dishonest?
2/ Was Stephen Schneider wrong when he said that you have to choose between being effective and being honest?
If it's No to either of those then he's wasting our time.
I haven't been on CiF for months, as I became tired of their clearly one-sided moderation policy on these matters. If Mr Hickman can confirm that the policy has been changed to bring the site into line with its title, and is being properly enforced, and other readers agree that this has indeed happened, then we should do him the courtesy of engaging in the debate with him. Until then he is not entitled to a hearing.
geoffchambers the trouble is CIF past record , remember how Bob Ward was per-feed the article before it got on CIF against ethical practice, and its hard core stance on AGW , look a the statements of its own management and consider Monboit's insult and attack approach on AGW skeptics that must be approved by this same management . This suggest this will not be a
'chance of having our views presented in the mainstream media by the first among our equals.'
But ambush , of some short .
Hey Bish/Your Grace
Your time, involvement and guidance of this blog is very much appreciated. Thank you. I too have been overwhelmed with 'stuff' lately and it ain't going to end any time soon. Maybe it's a case of 'Hide the downturn'.
But I am putting the Hockey Stick Illusion top of my to-do list.
Justice4Rinka at 12:54 PM
Surely the right strategy would be to accept Leo’s offer of a space to put our point of view, and THEN ask your very pertinent questions
David S at 12:57 PM, KnR at 12:59 PM
I’m very well aware of the problems at CiF, having been banned five times. The last time when editor Damian Carrington asked me to reveal my identity, which I did, resulting in all my comments being wiped. However, Hickman is not responsible for this. The moderators are independent. The problem comes from warmists who use the “report abuse” system to get inexperienced and overworked moderators to apply the rather strict rules in order to eliminate arguments they can’t deal with. As Hickman has said here, the majority of comments are eliminated as “off-topic”. Expressing scepticism of AGW in a discussion of how to avoid doom is like shouting “God is dead” at an ecumenical conference.
A very good starting point for such a rapprochement would be an open discussion on the claims, evidence and arguments that the Bish produced in The Hockey Stick Illusion.
I don't think many AGW supporters have taken the trouble to work through this, so they do not understand why the rest of us regard climate science as a cloacal mess where mathematical incompetence tied to intellectual deceit leads to the pre-ordained conclusions. I think they should engage with the sceptics, especially Steve McIntyre and the Bish, rather than the other way round.
"Someone there wants to reclaim the heritage of CP Scott"
I hope you're right, Geoff, but do you really think Leo was sent..?
"WinXP machines sharing a printer with a Win7 machine"
Do the machines network OK, or is that problem? Win7 like to create a 'homegroup' which doesn't recognise XP workgroups (backward compatibility never being MS's long suit).
More here
[Networking fine. Can see the printer. But drivers are an issue. I have the x86 drivers available on both machines but it doesn't like it. Works fine if you install as a local printer.]
Sorry for typos - trying to emulate Bob Ward...
First things first, Hickman cannot get the signal. Yes, he can't. Most journalists are like that because they have a day job, deadlines and they cannot devote time to reading a blog, on a daily basis, getting to 'know' its readers, and sidestep rhetoric even while allowing and accomodating for its regular appearance. Mr Hickman's busy writing articles like 'what's the best ecofriendly way to dry your clothes indoors?'.
Secondly, anyone who steps out of line in the consensus camp can expect a proportionately-sized blowback. You'd either get a: 'serves you right for trying to make new friends, what we are not good enough for you?' or a 'Huhn...I told you so'.
The nature of Hickman's list is proof for this:
a) this is how far back up the tree he has to go, to be somewhat sure that there is some common ground (like protecting the poor), and
b) it is only these items such as these that would not elicit raised eyebrows or any blowback, from his own circle
Unfortunately, is this how badly environmentalists distance themselves from the world around them they can only connect on a basic human level - like food, water and air? Why have we been excommunicated from their worlds?
Civil interaction and exploration of shared, common goals is certainly possible. But that would be a "slippery slope", Mr Hickman, as Judith Curry pointed out recently. Many sceptics are closet environmentalists. Some are more radical. Many are upset at the climate hijacking. Combine this with their demands for reforms in the science-policy landscape (by reforms I, for instance mean 'complete dismantling') and you will find power in your hands.
Sad, too, Shub, that those who've figured out that this whole conceit is a war on the poor are the Chinese, who've forced themselves to neglect the environment. And they do have power in their hands.
Reaching everywhere all over the globe to find more of it, too. They understand the meaning of the hydrocarbon bond.
======================
The later parts of the wish list are nothing to do with science. "Halting deforestation" is factually wrong because forests are increasing worldwide, though not in purely equatorial regions. The rest is also tendentious.
Nor is it inherently desirable that a "consensus position" should be established. If it depends on consensus it isn't science.
I think there could be some agreement on scientific structure:
peer review; Sean O'Brien's Scvientific Integrity Act http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/how-a-scientific-integrity-act-could-shift-the-global-warming-debate/ ; appointment of government scientific advisors not being purely a matter of government choosing those who say what they want; either ending government funding of scientific professional bodies or having the funding determined over decades not subject to politician's whim; I would also say that most government funding of research should be through X-Prizes for actual achievement not grants to the "great and good" for trying (prizes work at least 33-100 times better but don't give politicians patronage)..
We don't need agreement on what we believe, but agreement on how to get the politics out of science so that they can find out.
Again, another welcome and hopefully well intentioned step. Some good comments already but here is my tuppence worth.
Just concentrating on the "unimpeachable science" is ambitious in itself.
Suggested Topics/Issues
1. Disbanding of the IPCC: While science can used as a tool for servicing politcal agendas, it will always be open to corruption. The IPCC is the clearing house for this activity. Papers are generated & reviewed with this in mind.
2. Magna Carta style list of names: Magna carta (bizarrely) contains a list of individuals that, because of past behaviour, may never hold public office. If Mann, Jones, Briffa etc ever did do a legitimate piece of research, would any right minded person actually be prepared to accept it without personally going thru every step, every line, over and over? Then, as now, the key issue is trust.
3. Pal review as Peer review: Will always be opinion (problematic)
4. Cull of dodgy papers: Hockey sticks, adjustments to SST, UHI effects & others. These papers are still being referenced! Let's draw a line and have a clear out.
5. Freedom of Information: FOI is not the right mechanism for resolving scientific disputes. However, while the practice of "Hiding behind", "losing", "prevaricating" is endemic in climate research, ALL exemptions under FOI legislation should be removed. Naming and Shaming does keep it honest. If you are going to publish, you had better make sure you are prepared to stand by your work in the clear light of day. Keep it real, your reputation and your livelihood depends on it!
6. Models: Clear statement on the value of models. There is a place for models, they are a tool, but their limitations often not expressed, or "glossed over" in the interest of providing compelling evidence for this, that or the other.
Reading it back, I'm starting to have some sympathy for Leo. It reads more like a list of demands than anything moderate and constructive.
The problem with such wish lists and precationary principal type things is that they are never presented in full - which is not a list we can all agree on but as a series of choices. Whilst all points are noble they all come with an opportunity cost.
So when we say we want less deforestation there is a cost. The cost might be that we pay more for furniture. Or it might be that someone somewhere dies. What each person is willing to pay for each action or precaution is different. So whilst a well off media Moby lookalike in Islington may think it acceptable that everyone pays an extra 40% on their fuel bills the same is not true for many others in this country who just cannot afford such costs.
Nearly everyone wants everything on that list, but not at the price we are being asked for it. If it was life or death for us personally we would pay. That is why the science had bloody well better be right.
So, Bish, what progress? (Don't relinquish editorial control of your own position, like Dellers did. Although the Guardian for one would never print unrebutted anti-CAGW stuff, IMHO)
Careful Bish! Remember what happened to Wat Tyler when he went to parley!! ;-)
The more I learn about Leo, the more the phrase "verbally incontinent opportunistic moral exhibitionist" tends to spring to mind.
Shub says:
“... is this how badly environmentalists distance themselves from the world around them they can only connect on a basic human level - like food, water and air?”
Brilliantly put.
Behind the science, behind our political and psychological differences, there’s a philosophical divide between environmentalists and the rest of the human race.
But we shouldn’t let that affect our dealings with Hickman, Lynas, or anyone else who approaches with a smile and a white flag.
geoffchambers and Shub
WRT the anti-humanist tendency in authoritarian environmentalism. The clue is in the name ;-)
General note: this is not a personal attack on LH.
How about a mock climate/policy debate using Leo's framework and the announcement that we're going ahead with our nuclear programme. It is perhaps relevant given AGW seems to be driving energy policy at the moment.
Unimpeachable, transparent, uncorrupted science: The science behind nuclear power is well established. There is room for debate about some aspects like safety, but green groups often exagerate the risks based on fairly dubious science.
Energy security: Nuclear can provide this. We've lost much of our local capacity for building these and their components, ie the decline of our steel industry. We may still need to import fuel, but that's often from friendly countries. We have little or no domestic capacity to manufacture windmills, solar panels or other renewables, so would need to import those along with spares. If we attempt to build up that industry, we'd have to heavily subsidise it to compete with cheap imports. Nuclear provides dependable baseload capacity, most renewables do not and are more vulnerable to the vaguries of the market. Some renewables are also more at risk of climate change, eg wind or solar. Nuclear is more 'climate proof'.
"Clean" energy: Nuclear power is low carbon. There is a problem of disposing of waste, but there are solutions available. Some, like deep burial are obstructed by green groups again on less than scientific grounds. Nuclear would mean less reliance on CO2 emitting gas power stations to back up intermittent renewables like wind or solar.
Halting deforestation: Nuclear may help. Less need to clear forests to use as biofuel, or make room for biofuel crops. There would be less need to clear or level hilltops to plant windmills. Some trees may get planted to mask the view of a nuclear site.
Halting biodiversity loss: Nuclear takes up less space than large wind or solar farms. Nuclear may kill fewer bats or raptors.
Conserving marine habitats: Not sure what nuclear benefits there may be other than perhaps providing warm water. For renewables, how does planting large offshore windfarms, rows of wave power generators or altering tidal systems to provide tidal power conserve marine habitats?
Avoiding economic instability: Renewables create this by providing expensive unreliable power. Nuclear provides more dependable, predictable power.
Protecting the poor and vulnerable: Renewables are inflating energy costs creating energy poverty. Biofuels inflate food prices as agricultural land is diverted to produce biofuel crops, or sometimes covered in windmills or solar panels.
Ensuring global food supplies: Again diverting land to growing fuel does not do this. Increasing energy costs increases food production and processing costs.
With that in mind, why would anyone pro-AGW be anti-nuclear?
The simplest effective way to protect a Windows system is to never access the internet as an administrator user. Just set up a limited user for that and only login to an admin acount for installs/updates etc.
Compiling a wish list is good, surely? In pursuing the aims you can, you remain aware of what's had to go on the back burner.
To the list you might add a moral dimension - it cannot be right for four or five greedy generations of mankind to consume all the fossil fuel that was ever laid down?
@JohnH
If you are including coal in your comment - it is hardly four or five generations, it has been used since at least the Middle Ages.
@john h
'To the list you might add a moral dimension - it cannot be right for four or five greedy generations of mankind to consume all the fossil fuel that was ever laid down?'
You'll have to explain that for me. It isn't obvious. Leave out the telltale 'greedy', and explain to me why 'it cannot be right'.
Ah, a nice little "begging the question" list.
I've just been re-reading Leo's original "peacemaking" thread on CIF.
Obviously I can't comment there, as a multiple, life-long, persona non grata - but I do drop in and recommend comments now and again.
Here's a bizarre thing. Last time I looked the sceptics were doing pretty well with a lot of recommended comments and the "home team" were struggling a bit.
Today, the usual suspects are all in double figures and sceptic comments which I added recommends to when they were already in the 20's are back in single figures.
Am I suffering from some kind of bizarre browser/cookie malfunction - or is something deeply weird going on?
Re JohnH
But is it right to instead saddle our future generations with massive amounts of debt, or deny them the luxuries we've enjoyed? Do we want the future to be one of wartime austerity as people like Ms Lucas seem to want for us? Personally I'd be hoping future generations are enjoying themselves, making oil and gas as they need. Not sure why they may want coal but could probably make that as well if they wanted. Assuming they have energy that is.
Re Foxgoose.
That's normal. Pro-AGW types don't seem able to resist adjusting data when the results are inconvenient for them
FG
"sceptic comments which I added recommends to when they were already in the 20's are back in single figures"
One of the amusing aspects of CiF used to be that the recommends for sceptics often wildly exceeded those for the faithful. Clearly that had to be stopped when it became too obvious.
Not sure I can help much with the printer drivers, Bish, assuming they're all up-to-date and/or appropriate to the hardware they're running on, e.g. is your Win7 machine 64-bit? Worth getting an additional cheap printer, perhaps...
Foxgoose, last year someone (here?) pointed out that most of the proAGW comments at CiF were from people studying at UEA, or past graduates, prompting access to that info to be removed.
I am sure it is quite easy to form and motivate a lobby group out of people who see their future employment prospects threatened
Would Leo like to pass comment on this?