Bishop Hill Shucks
Jun 25, 2011 Climate: Sceptics Climate: other The FT magazine has a brief piece looking at the work of Emily Shuckburgh: remember her?
Emily Shuckburgh spends much of her time wrapped up against the cold on the far side of the world, measuring atmospheric and ocean eddies for the British Antarctic Survey. But over the past few months she has been rolling up her sleeves and travelling across the UK to confront the public heat over climate change.
With support from Living With Environmental Change, a partnership between government departments and funding agencies, she has run a series of focus groups exploring people’s views on media coverage of science. She endorses projects such as oldweather.org, an attempt to engage the public directly in analysing historical sea temperature data. On secondment to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, she has also been posting videos on YouTube and engaging with “sceptics” via blogs.
Do you think we should have been charging for our time?
Reader Comments (64)
global warming alarmists = global cooling deniers
who's the real denier?
Never heard of her. Which blogs? Does she post under a pseudonym? Deceased zombies? Does she own a Ford Prefect?
The FT continues...
Oh dear.
This sentence is a medley of Prof Jones whining about FoI and Simon Singh's bother with the chiropractors. Odd example because Singh styles himself as a sceptic and the crippling lawsuit was launched by the chiropractors. So it wasn't "Big Oil versus Plucky Little Scientist" - it was more like "Big Quack versus Pedantic Journo".
On that note I'm ducking out...
If she's "engaging" with skeptics, she's a rare breed indeed.
Most of the alarmists merely hector those who are not of the Faith.
"With support from Living With Environmental Change, a partnership between government departments and funding agencies"
The gravy train rolls on!
I am happy to give back all my payments from Big Oil if I can "engage" with Dr Shuckburgh...
When it comes to Climate Science, it would be nice if science could be the major part of science, rather than propaganda and agenda seeking.
Yes, that would be very nice - how about challenging some of the bogus "analysis" behind the various forms of hockey stick, for example, or the rampant cherry picking involved in selecting paleoclimate proxies. Or even getting a good understanding of the limits of modelling.
To characterize those of us who are sceptical about the AGW story as "anti science" is not only a travesty, but a clear indication that those who make this claim have not talked to us or engaged with us in any serious way. Many of us have degrees in the physical sciences and are pained to see what passes as "climate science" - we find mounds of evidence which shows us that all is not well in climate science and we're expected to ignore it??
Is there any way of finding out whereabouts in the UK she has rolled up her sleeves and confronted the public? I'd be very inclined to go to one of her confrontations.
She may have left a comment on the Antarctic Fox cartoon post. See the 6th comment http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/5/22/antarctic-fox-1.html
I haven't found any comments from her (using her real name) on Climate Audit, WUWT or The Air Vent. I guess posting the single comment on this blog is all that is needed to qualify as engaging with "sceptics" via blogs.
She hardly "engaged", first question she disengaged, called in the "Arctic wolf boy who cried".
Funny how they can spin a bunch of unanswered questions into some form of kudos claim.
“Scepticism is a major part of science, and it’s a shame it has been appropriated,” says Shuckburgh.
Scepticism was never appropriated, it was found on the internet after it was abandoned by alarmists.
I was under the mistaken impression that the FT had a high standard of journalism, but that is one of the most overtly one-sided and ill-informed articles I have read in a broadsheet. Jack takes the word of the usual warmist spinners (Beddington, Ward) without question, and likewise cites Paul Offit, the man who approved mercury containing vaccines for children and yet has substantial financial interests in vaccines and pharmaceutical industry. Irrc his conflict of interest has even been flagged by the mainstream media in the US, who rarely question the country's corporate elite. And for Jack to blame recent outbreaks of measles and pertussis on solely on anti-vaccine parents, when in reality many of the outbreaks are in well vaccinated populations just shows his bias and ignorance. The fact is that the efficacy rates of DTaP and MMR are very poor - its one of the reasons why kids have to have 3 of the shots over their early years. The alleged protection given by the new HPV vaccines also wears off after few years. This is of course a good business model for the pharmaceuticals - your customers (or rather their children) have to keep coming back for 'boosters', which are, least in the case of MMR, exactly the same as the original 3 shots. The governments pay, accept liability if there is an adverse reaction (but rarely pay out), and do all the advertising for free. And there is very good evidence that vaccines are one of the environmental triggers which have led to the autism epidemic, as this recent review by an industry insider confirms - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21299355 .
I also find Jack's central argument that scientists are not good at getting their message across in or to the media astonishing. A few dozen second rate climate scientists armed only with a half-baked thesis, dodgy data and dubious statistical techniques have successfully managed to directly influence energy policy in most of the industrial world, and have almost free hand to spout their alarmist nonsense (about the terrible danger presented by a 0.5C rise in global temperatures, which is probably all down to natural variation anyway) in the media in the UK, Germany, Australia.
Hmmm, I am with Philip Bratby, can anyone else find evidence of Shuckburgh engaging people via blogs?
I had a look around and I found a video of her on the youtube DECCgovuk account where the last posted vid is one of Chris Huhne talking about the crucial issue of redesigning electric pylons so they look fluffy.
Of course if someone who is a bit outdoorsy, with a vested interest in seeming deep, meaningful, windswept and interesting, good luck to them: however I await with baited breath any actual scientific insight they may bring. But being associated with this article could make me think that the claims that any climate skepticism is merely on a range that is pathological, as hinted here, is just using a self supporting technique that is every bit as self serving as the Koch brothers ;)
You see? If you query any climate orthodoxy you are on a "range" of evil.
The fact that Ward is quoted shold be the big warning sign.
This shite is behind a paywall!? People pay for that!?
"Engaging" with us poor benighted flat-earthers (and anti-science deniers and BigOil shills and nutters etc. etc.) seems to be the flavour of the month.
Is someone offering a free "conference" in Tahiti for all those true believers who express themselves keen to "engage"?
So far, plenty of insulting and disparaging language. Plenty of megaphone diplomacy. Very few signs indeed of anyone with even a little curiosity about what sceptics are actually sceptical about.
If they were serious, sales of HSI would have gone through the roof. And the calibre of the troll postings here and at WUWT might have improved a bit.
Now, I know that the Bish, and Anthony Watts at WUWT likes commenters to play nicely. They are obviously both gentlemen. So far as I am concerned I try to play by the rules and humbly confess and apologise for my frequent transgressions. I'm doing my best, dammit!
But I am personally very doubtful that there will be much progress in this "engaging" tactic. What "engagement" is likely with Monbiot, Ward, Romm, Gore? How about Jones, Meldown Mann, Hansen, Gavin and the rest? Perhaps BuffHuhne and Milipede? No?
There is as much chance of progress in any genuine "engagement" as there is of getting an honest debate going with the Taliban about Human Rights, Religious Freedom and Democracy.
Or (perhaps nearer) discussing crime fighting and business ethics with the Mafia.
As I said on Unthreaded, there’s a nice cosy leftie website that has claimed that it’s ready to engage with dissenting voices. So I – and a few others – took them at their word on a thread about a PR claim that communicating the dangers of AGW was about presentation: “Climate change is no longer a scientist’s problem – it’s now a salesman’s problem”. Well, that led – inevitably I suppose – to name calling (“ignorant climate change deniers”), banning and eventually, when it became too challenging, termination of the thread. It is, as Martin says, very like getting an honest debate going with the Taliban - albeit it a (so far) non violent, well-meaning Taliban.
It’s all here: http://makewealthhistory.org/2011/06/17/the-sizzle-selling-climate-change/#comments
Interestingly, one of the sceptics has continued the debate on another thread – this time about commenting guidelines. Could be interesting.
Interesting. It looks like we were a project while Emily was on secondment. If we were then I am not sure she should get very high marks from her employer.
On the other hand if we are, ie the project is on going, then at least she has made a start.
Personally I welcome all types of 'engagement', discussions, posts, comments etc, even some of the verbal brawling. And I have a feeling we will see more of it in the coming months.
BTW if anyone can help I am still mulling over what this means "She could be a poster-child for the findings of Sir Muir Russell’s report on Climategate."
Sounds, like, really really bad.
Has anyone looked at the organisation "Living With Environmental Change"? It seems to be a super QUANGO designed to waste more taxpayers' money. It relies heavily on the findings of the IPCC, the Stern Report and WWF. How many ways can bureaucrats find to waste our money?
From http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/programmes/lwec/
The closer we get to the truth, the more devious and agressive arguements are employed by those who see they are losing the debate. Keep Calm and Carry On.
I'm attempting to Keep Calm as above, but this article couldn't be more biased if it tried. About time Mr. Andrew Jack engaged with a wider section of informed opinion if he wishes to be taken sreiously.
She links to oldweather.org. If you are really bored today have a look! I did.
I almost posted there, about my great uncles memories of heatstroke and sunburn on the convoys to Russia during WW2.
Of course in todays climate, as reported by scientists,, you can sail to the north pole, drop anchor, and fry an egg on the deck of your ship.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, it is late June, raining and cold in hampshire. But that's the weather for you
There is a big difference between talking at and talking with , and so far the 'engagement' is still very much at the 'talking at ' stage of lecturing the unbelievers and telling them how wrong they are .
Its climate science which has short to eradicate the idea that is central to science of 'critical review ' and when it comes the misuse of scientific evidence, the climate scientists could certainly teach others how to do it from their expertise .
@ Jack Hughes,
In Australia, a Dr Ken Harvey wrote to the Federal Therapeutic Goods Administration over promotion of a slimming product which carried alleged doubts about substantiation of results of efficacy. Before the TGA could act, and taking precedence over the TGA, a court case was launched by the marketer, seeking "general and punitive damages for libel in the sum of $800,000". The matter remains to be heard.
This is another example showing that care should be used in criticism.
lapogus,
"I was under the mistaken impression that the FT had a high standard of journalism..."
May I be the one to disabuse you of this view.
The FT is a propaganda rag of corporate vested interests, very pro EU, and most definitely not an objective organ [of the fourth estate - is there any objectivity in Wapping Central?] in any way whatsoever. The gormless journo's working for Murdoch, must toe the line obsequiously and obediently.
In effect, a financial pink[o] grauniad for the city boyz puppets and their 'Masters of the Universe' : AGW is an enormous cash cow in need of endless milking - for these lads................. .
Em's is talking to the converted, how nice of her to deign to speak with us, we shall forever cherish and savour the memory, grateful and much chastened were we................?
I think you are all safe.
The extent of her blogging activity seems to http://blog.decc.gov.uk/author/dr-emily-shuckburgh/ and her one You Tube Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQOnjeY_WC0 is linked to from the decc blog.
@HAS
So the claim that she's 'engaging with "sceptics"' is really a canard, and she's actually ducking the issue?
But nice to know that, in these difficult times, the 'funding agencies' still have sufficient funds (taxpayers' money) to support such activity...
overwhelming numbers..
can we transcend "unbiased reporting", and slap a number on this?
Have there been 100 requests in total. just genuinely interested how many AGW related FOIA requests have there been.
at 30h to handle a request , that's the price of one man year's work.
How many people does 10:10 employ ?
Looks like another UEA money spinner
http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/watkinsona
Choo Choo - all aboard now.
I was reading old archival articles yesterday - mid 80s. They was speaking about the same things: can't model clouds, the real question is sensitivity, and then of course, passages about the 6.5 F rise by the year 2030.
So all that 'engagement' with Shuckburgh was as test subjects? In an experiment? How dishonest!
Another one of the endless stream of green gravy train quangos that scuttle out whenever a climatology stone is upturned.
Have a look at the "people" page on their website and check out the "advisers".
http://www.lwec.org.uk/people/advisers
The usual bunch of "big green business" beneficiaries on the make - as ever.
The "directorate" are even more depressing.
http://www.lwec.org.uk/people/directorate
Form the profile of the "Head of Directorate" Ken OCallaghan
...Ken is interested in cross-organisational strategic research issues, in interdisciplinary research, and in how interactive research activities interface with often equally synergistic policy and business problems.
It's interesting that several of the "directorate" migrated from another green gravy-train quango called ERFF - whose full name gives a clue as to the real agenda:-
From the bio for one Mary Barkham -
"......she set up and then lead the Environment Research Funders' Forum for eight years. ERFF brought together the public sector funders of environment research and led the development and launch of Living with Environmental Change in 2007/8."
So it's really all about helping with the organised presentation of snouts to the public trough.
It's a good job the economy is doing well enough to fund all this sort of crap - isn't it?
cheers,
gary
I don't think she's taking the issue very seriously - she's just dabbling in it.
Putting a webbed toe in the water...?
It’s been my contention that the issue of CAGW is more of a social movement than anything else. Social movements are intended to reach a goal of some kind (the end of slavery, temperance, triumph of Islam, the classless society, what have you) but they rely heavily on creating a new world view that explains everything and forging alliances with other interest groups (the Temperance Movement in the U.S. achieved it’s goal with the passage if the 18th Amendment in 1919, supported by the Suffragists(who achieved their own victory in 1920 with the passage of the 20th Amendment) religious revivalists and the Ku Klux Klan, amongst others). It isn’t often one gets to read a coherent statement of a climate scientist’s world view, but take a look at Dr. Shuckburgh’s thoughtful essay on “The Survival of the Human Race”, available here:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/staff-profiles/webspace/emsh/dcls/9780521710206c01_p1-20.pdf
It may be a thoughtful essay, but I found it chilling. CAGW is but one prong or aspect of a much larger social movement, and this social movement has been building up for a century. It was NEVER about the science.
Yes - it's odd that "climatologists" are the only scientists you meet with this secret yearning for world domination.
I think they all have a secret imaginary life - sitting in in the underground bunker on their private island and stroking their pussy while they plan our doom.
Foxgoose
I wouldn't go that far ;-) At least not on the basis of the one's I've encountered. And surely they would be worrying about rising sea levels inundating their island HQs?
BBD:
Foxgoose did say is was an imaginary life, so perhaps they are imagining an island like Gibraltar or one of those Greek Islands with high cliffs.
Foxgoose: what makes you think that all climate scientists keep cats? I would think they'd be dog people, since they seem to relish dog-like loyalty and obedience in their human associates.
Did I mention cats?
;-)
Foxgoose
Now, now.
... problem is her solutions are quackers.
I do think that the 'outreach' campaign by the 'other side' is getting what it wants, which is, well, teeth-baring.
As a humble student of the long game, I suggest that this is sapping credibility from the sceptical position exactly as intended.
BBD, EU carbon credits are plummeting in price as Greece tries to flog them en masse
Tory MEP's starting to revolt over EU Carbon cuts
EU agreement on carbon cuts kyboshed by Poland anyway
Maybe the alarmist outreach project is a little bit late in the day?
golf charley
You're mistaking me for an activist. I'm a sceptic.
BBD
When the famous four broke political ranks and formed the breakaway Social Democrats, the most bitter arguments came with those that talked about jumping ship, and then did not.
In the last 18 (?) months, Curry broke ranks, and got savaged by past colleagues, which she simply shrugs off. Monbiot and Lynas more recently have had a pause for thought, and got a bit of a kicking from their "mates"
Politically, AGW has failed in Canada, India and China. It is not recommended for Republicans in the USA. Australia hangs in the balance. Kyoto is dead.
And now they want to try outreach!?
Nuclear is now back on the UK agenda (thanks for the link btw)
BBD
We crossed!
I have never mistaken you for an activist!
I am concerned that you are being defeatist.
I may hold qualifications in surveying and engineering, but I would never attempt to discuss or argue with you about darwins/newtons/einsteins 34th law of thermoducknamics.
That is why I read your posts, and hope to learn
Please accept this as a compliment
golf charley
You are much too kind.
I think if we are going to delve into the realpolitik, then I won't argue the point. Just have a look around. Yup. Few friends in high places.
The political consensus is in, but it has backed the wrong horse on energy and the consequences are waiting for us down the line. And there will be blowback.
Defeatist? Long game?
Defeatist, long game?
Implosion of the EU would be a start
But short term, the MSM waking up to AGW hysteria would be good
golf charley
I seriously doubt that it will happen unless there is a sustained downturn in GAT.
Shedding skeptics off her back like raindrops.
================
Martin Brumby, you might want to visit Ace of Spades if you want a more forceful discussion of AGW. They aren't dedicated to AGW but they do cover it a lot. Be advised that the language is not moderated.
What is the difference between a "sceptic" and a sceptic?
It is probably the same as a "scientist" and a scientist. i.e the implication is that the former is not using the scientific method. However, the tone of the FT article seems to denigrate the "sceptics" that Dr Shuckburgh has engaged with, which as far as I can see is within two recent threads on this blog.