Bishop Hill Winning the easy way
Sep 24, 2011 Climate: Sceptics I chanced upon this article by Josh Harkinson of Mother Jones, which says we sceptics have won.
It's news to me, but that's not actually what attracted my attention. I was intrigued by the intricate flowchart showing how big business and big energy drives the thinktanks who drive the front organisations, who drive the media machine. In particular I was interested in the "front organisations" that link the think tanks and the media machine (including bloggers like me).
Examples of these front organisations are given as The Global Climate Coalition, The Information Council for the Environment, the Center for Energy and Economic Development, the Greening Earth Society and the Cooler Heads Coalition.
Who?
Actually, I've heard of some of them, but not recently. With this is mind, I checked them out:
- The Global Climate Coalition closed in 2002
- The Information Council for the Environment is gone, but I'm not sure when
- The Center for Energy and Economic Development was merged with another body in 2008
- The Greening Earth Society seems to have shut in 2008
Only the Cooler Heads Coalition actually appears to be still in action, although I sense that they may have a certain lack of web traffic - their Alexa rank is around the 400,000 mark (cf Anthony W at 17,000).
So Josh Harkinson's article is doubly remarkable: firstly because of the welcome news that we sceptics have won and secondly because we appear to have done it largely by using a series of front organisations that don't actually exist.
Who says laissez-faire doesn't work?
Reader Comments (127)
Small point, the linked article says it was written by Josh Harkinson.
Thanks, fixed.
Bish - The fix hasn't carried through to the bit above the fold?
Got it!
The following is a good post on Guido's blog. Says it all really.
http://order-order.com/2011/09/23/science-is-never-settled/
Daedalus
Other front organisations for CAGW - BBC, Guardian, Royal Society
Having read through the comments section it really just highlights just what a waste of time it is talking to Mann Made Global Warming jihadis! Also, that xTrollope guy deserves a medal!
Regards
Mailman
Think this comment on the thread sums up the underlying psychology of the believers.
"Only revolution (violent or non, whatever can effectively interrupt and replace, not reform, the existing powers) is going to save the natural world or human liberty. The United States is the enemy of life. "
The great irony of such an article is that sceptical views are almost impossible to find outside of the blogosphere; the Warmists have pretty much complete domination over the MSM, academia, governments, scientific journals etc - and they still can't kill off us miserable sceptics!
Thank God for CA, WUWT, the Bish etc - these are the only places where people can still search for the truth about climate.
"Thank God for CA, WUWT, the Bish etc - these are the only places where people can still search for the truth about climate."
I think "search for truth" with regards to WUWT is very apt. Because you really do have to *search* for it through all the errors.
Eg Anthony Watt's horrendous gaffe about the new allan cloud paper last week that exposed once again the failings of WUWT. Those of us that accept mainstream science that stumbled on his article immediately saw the error he had made. The dozens of initial comments to the post at WUWT demonstrate his readers not only failed to spot the error (dumb readers is a good sign that a blog is failing to educate about it's very subject area), but they lapped it up unquestionably. Hardly helped that the author acted very authoritative about the matter even though he clearly overestimates his own expertize.
An error like that would never have been made at SkepticalScience, let alone remain undetected by dozens of commenters. Almost every WUWT post contains a fatal error in it's logic. From sticking global temperatures on the end of greenland temperatures, to averaging data wrong, to just plain out there illogical arguments.
The worse thing about these errors is that they almost always lead to severe conclusions that global warming isn't happening or it can't be caused by man. There's little or no self-doubt mentioned. So you only have to fall for one of the errors to be utterly misled on an important subject.
Error after error, which are covered up by cheerleading and lack of post-correction.
So yeah I am sure you can find interesting true information on WUWT, but you'll have to know quite a lot already to be able to avoid all the errors, in which case there are better places to go for truth.
An error like that would never have been made at SkepticalScience
Sep 24, 2011 at 10:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterSid
You are having a laugh surely! After two days of SkepticalScience here, you must be having a laugh!
Here you go Sid, took 5 seconds to find!
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/skeptical-science-digitization-problems/
Good FUD, Sid.
Pete H that error is nothing like the one Watt's made about the Allan paper.
Watt's confused a reported cloud radiative effect for being negative cloud feedback just because the value had a minus sign. He then waxed on it as if he was competent and even stated that the figure confirmed Spencer's. That's not even a schoolboy error. That's a nursery error.
Plus Watt's didn't even correct the post, he just changed one word in the title (I suspect he doesn't even understand why the post is wrong. Incompetence at it's finest.)
And if you want to claim WUWT is more accurate and reliable than skepticalscience you'll just sound like a fool. Go ahead..
WUWT that over and over again posts the GISP2 greenland core and sticks *global* instrumental record on the end instead of the *greenland* instrumental record and reaches the false conclusion that recent *global* warming is insignificant. They don't even learn from their mistakes.
Funny he does not mention the simple fact that the underlying science was never backed up by factual data, and relied on gullible advocacy and journalists to maintain the scam
The past week has shown that WUWT is more accurate and reliable than skepticalscience.
SkS is a revisionist propaganda site that indulges climate zealots.
WUWT is still the world's most viewed climate website.
No comparison really.
Here's another example of WUWT's incompetence compared to skepticalscience:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/27/skeptical-science-john-cook-embarrassing-himself/
Anthony reads a sentence literally, either purposefully or due to pure ignorance.
Skepticalscience says that "“the usual suspects in natural climate change – solar variations, volcanoes, Milankovitch cycles – are all conspicuous in their absence over the past three decades of warming.". Quite clearly describing the inability of the trends in these factors to explain the recent warming.
But Anthony decides to interpret this as skepticalscience claiming among other things, that there have been no volcanic eruptions in the past 3 decades...
You know a little common sense would go a long way to rejecting the idea that skepticalscience was claiming Pinatubo had not occured.
But either because it's an easier argument to deal with, or because Anthony really is that dumb, he goes ahead and makes a post knocking down a blatent strawman anyway.
You don't get strawman posts like that at skepticalscience. The desperation of that post as an excuse to attack SkepticalScience poses the question - why?
It's because lately skepticalscience has been shooting down a lot of errors in WUWT posts and I guess it's made Anthony livid!
"And if you want to claim WUWT is more accurate and reliable than skepticalscience you'll just sound like a fool. Go ahead.."
Sep 24, 2011 at 11:37 AM | Sid
Oh dear! Show me where I made any claim about WUWT! As for the reliability of SkS. I will say now though that A.W. runs his blog on much fairer/honest lines then any warmist site and certainly treats decent visitors with respect. No "strike outs" and all that has come to light last week. It seems to me that A.W. has an open invite for any climate scientist to produce articles for the blog. Maybe you should revisit the site to confirm what A.W. did regarding the post. I seem to remember he put his hands up.
As for your insinuation that I am a "fool". Well, having a flaming war over insults is not my thing and as I respect B.H. wish to keep things on subject I will say no more.
Regarding my last sentence Bish....Unless it is a certain troll! ;)
Sid, one last thing. Does it not seem fair that if you have a complaint about WUWT that it would be fair to take your argument there and let A.W. stand up for himself?
Hi Sid,
I wonder if you could help me with a problem I have been having for several years.
As you know many people claim that there is good evidence that man's CO2 is causing dangerous warming, but all I can find are a lot of allegedly unusual weather events and the IPCC’s claim that their models do not work without adding in CO2. But that claim presumes to know ALL possible contributions to climate and such knowledge is currently beyond our science.
So what is the evidence that man is causing dangerous warming?
Thanks
JK
Sid I think we can all understand your frustration that SkS's reputation for truthfulness is baseless. I suppose it doesn't help to have contibuters like dana1981 who are corporate sponsored climate zealots.
The big difference between WUWT and SkS is that WUWT is an actual sceptical site whereas SkS is a just propaganda site.
I forgot WUWT's shoddy reporting of the recent CERN results too. Although that was a skeptic-community wide failing.
The rest of the world reported it fine, including the dreaded mainstream media. Climate skeptics however managed to embarrass themselves by exaggerating and spinning the results to suggest that it was proven that cosmic rays cause climate change.
Which speaks volumes about the integrity of a group that likes to pretend they are all for honest non-exaggerated reporting of science.
"Sid, one last thing. Does it not seem fair that if you have a complaint about WUWT that it would be fair to take your argument there and let A.W. stand up for himself?"
Why doesn't A.W take his arguments to skeptical science?
"It seems to me that A.W. has an open invite for any climate scientist to produce articles for the blog."
Yes because if there's one thing AW wants more than denying science, it's more traffic. And getting big names to post there benefits him in that way.
Keep it coming Sid - the more you speak the more damage you do to SkS.
SkS doesn't need enemies with friends like Sid.
On the subject of 'front organisations', there is an interesting current Post on "No Frakking Consensus" which explains the terrible financial and communications hardships suffered by WWF, and their so neutral relationship with IPCC scientists!
"I forgot WUWT's shoddy reporting of the recent CERN results..." (Sid)
You're losing it, Sid. I listened to your arguments for a couple of posts; but the line above is a line in the sand. WUWT reported a very interesting result as "BREAKING NEWS – CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Cloud Seeds
That is not "shoddy" -- or if you meant some other story, then please let us have the URL (use Ric Werme's guide to WUWT on the WUWT sidebar).
It is shoddy Rodger.
"CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Climate Change"
No. It. Didn't.
Sid -
I see you've successfully deflected attention from the Bishop's post. How about we return to that, please?
Sid,
I understand your frustration - many who post here also share it. False claims and false interpretations of claims about AGW/CAGW should not see the light of day. Now assuming you are in agreement with me on that statement where would you start? MWP perhaps or historic temperature proxies or atmospheric positive feedbacks? No? Well you choose, after all, you (and I use the term loosely) started it, why not finish it?
The false claim about the MWP that springs to my mind is the regularly repeated false claim that the MWP was warmer than the present day.
Well HaroldW it is related,
The post is "sceptics have won".
Lets say someone is convinced AGW is not a problem.
Perhaps it's because of 3 pieces of "evidence" they've gleaned off WUWT:
a) They read on WUWT that a CERN experiment had proven that climate is influenced by cosmic rays
b) They read on WUWT that the MWP was warmer than today
c) They read on WUWT that Allan's paper confirms Spencer's results (which through more misinterpretation is hailed as proving low climate sensitivity)
Ie they've been misled.
Sid: I quoted: "BREAKING NEWS – CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Cloud Seeds"
You quoted back at me: "CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Climate Change"
My quote is a copy and paste from WUWT. Are you talking about a different story? and, if so, can you give me a link?
It's in the link, the copy pasted Calder interpretation that makes up the bulk of the post
Sid, there is an excellent book called"The Hockey Stick Illusion" it is well worth a read.
It is the same book that Dana1981 wrote a review of, without even reading it, there's integrity for you!
Perhaps you would like to explain why it is so important for you, to decide the MWP did not exist, when it was widely accepted to be a matter of fact accepted by scientists, geologists, historians, archaeologists etc, until a certain Mann came along with his shoddy statistical tricks.
So this post is about the AGW argument being lost. I think that is premature, but your responses here are simply mudflinging. In the absence of any supporting science, I guess that is all you are left with
Actually Josh Harkinson says (in both the copy and the headline ) that it's climate change deniers that have won. He doesn't say sceptics have won , he doesn't even mention sceptics .
I thought your position was that there was a big distinction between climate change deniers and climate change sceptics.
@ Sid, Sep 24, 2011 at 1:52 PM
"Lets say someone is convinced AGW is not a problem.
Perhaps it's because of 3 pieces of "evidence" they've gleaned off WUWT:
a) They read on WUWT that a CERN experiment had proven that climate is influenced by cosmic rays
b) They read on WUWT that the MWP was warmer than today
c) They read on WUWT that Allan's paper confirms Spencer's results (which through more misinterpretation is hailed as proving low climate sensitivity)
Ie they've been misled."
You assume, firstly, that sceptics only ever read WUWT.
That assumption is wrong.
You assume, secondly, that only at WUWT was the MWP ever discussed.
The second assumption is wrong as well. Actually, it is surprising you even claim this on the site of the author of the best book about the MWP/Hockey stick.
You assume, thirdly, that the debate about the Allen paper means that sceptic sjust nod their heads and assent.
Last assumption -wrong again.
Well, i assume that you never do more than glance at the titles of the posts on WUWT and never enter a debate there.
Secondly, I assume that you've never sullied your eyes reading CA - or perhaps that makes your brain hurt ...
Thirdly, I assume that you never read, never mind post at, Lucia's or Dr Curry's blogs.
My assumptions lead me to suspect that you have nothing to offer except talking points given to you by your masters at SkS - like asserting without any argument or substantiation that the CERN report at WUWT is not right, by mangling the title of that post.
It is always dangerous to assume that others - e.g. sceptics - swallow whole and unquestioned the talking points, given by perceived 'masters', just because you do so, and that with the help of you and the likes of you we'd see the light of AGW.
Thanks - but we can and do make up our own minds.
Sid,
You brought up an essential thought. Thank you.
Thank you for confirming that open discussion about your claims is the best approach to intellectually arming people with all sides of the argument and all the info. We will actually individually decide all issues for ourselves without others making our decisions for us.
Most here already knew, but you have reconfirmed that we are all our own intellectual protectors. The other option is to give that intellectual self-protection away to someone dressed in an intellectual clownsuit (pick any alarmist for example).
With all the manifold backgrounds and ideas of the skeptics (I call them independents), their common ideas on climate do seem to persistently conform more to stark reality than the alarmists. That is the only reason the alarmists are losing.
I guess your point is that WUWT, Climate etc, BH etc are bad because they allow the above argumentation to happen without the censorship or manipulation that happens at SS. I guess your point is also that where such argumentation is not allowed or is manipulated (SS for example) then that is where truth can be found. Am I correct that these are your main points?
Errors openly discussed are a basis for education and progress in science. Not doing so is the abandonment of the enlightenment and return mysticism.
John
I would be very interested to hear how "the sceptics winning" would actually be defined.
Is it:
a) convincing decision-makers that human influence on climate through greenhouse gas emissions is sufficiently small as to pose no danger, and hence avoiding any changes in energy policy etc
or:
b) establishing that any policy decisions affecting greenhouse gas emissions (whether decreasing them or not) are made appropriately by being clearly based on sound, objective science and having also been considered in the wider context of the other social and economic consequences of those decisions.
If it is (b) then "victory for the sceptics" would be victory for everybody as it means the right thing gets done, whatever that might be, based on evidence.
However a lot of people think it is (a) for political reasons or other vested interests.
What do folk here think? Is climate scepticism about "proving that AGW is not a danger" or "checking whether it really is a danger"?
Anthony Watts is "educated," meaning that despite his non-academic, real-world expertise, he professes himself "ignorant and curious"-- willing to admit errors, always seeking out new, impartial, scientific data based on fact.
Alas that AW should misinterpret an abstruse minus-sign as "negative' [we caught that misapprehension too], but compared to the Green Gang of Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al. (nevermind the egregious Joe Romm and Gavin Schmidt) Mr. Watts is a positive Diogenes carrying his lantern in broad daylight, searching for an "honest man" (read CAGW advocates of the Al Gore persuasion).
the warmist argument that "it must all be anthropogenic" because big volcanoes etc did not happen the last 100y emanates from the fact their system dynamics knowledge is limited to DC response.
A chimp is more perspicacious !
Richard Betts,
A thoughtful question. I puzzled over your choices for a few minutes and then concluded that a third choice is missing:
c) b does not preclude a.
Is climate scepticism about "proving that AGW is not a danger" or "checking whether it really is a danger"?
Unlike a number of commenters I dont claim to speak on behalf of a group but only on my own behalf. As far as I am concerned climate scepticism is indistinguishable from the proper role of any scientist and is therefore about checking if there really is a danger.
Sid,
Your carpet-bombing "tactics" remind me of a certain commentator, Adam Smith who suddenly popped up on Jo Nova's site a short time ago and has choked discussion in a similar. Any comment on that?
...in a similar way, I meant of course.
That graph in the MJ article is totally meaningless,where is it supposed to lead to? If it is circular how does it achieve anything? I think we see some subliminal self diagnosis there, he's projecting his own propaganda failures onto his antagonists.
Their own PR is so useless they make up a graph straight out of some paranoid fantasy to explain away their own philosophical bankruptcy ;)
------------------------
Richard Betts,
The 'winning' context of your comment is not a firm fulcrum for leveraging the issues for discussion.
Rather the fulcrum issue is whether there is integrity, independence, openness and transparency in the current climate science processes at the following levels: funding, research, publishing and the IPCC's assessment.
The idea of winning applied to that fulcrum forms two visions of the current climate science situation. Skeptics (aka independents) envision a significant lack of consistent application of those scientific virtues by the established/consensus/settled body of climate science. Supporters of the so-called consensus of the so-called settled climate science of the IPCC envision nothing fundamentally violating those scientific virtues.
Our Western culture, originally nurtured on the idea of science as objective and independent, seems to be strongly saying that the established climate science body has demonstrated lack of those scientific virtues. The solution is simply to strictly and publically demonstrate the timely reinforcement those scientific virtues. Let’s discuss 'winning' in that perspective.
My view is there is a significant problem in the past +20 years in the application of scientific virtues by the so-called consensus of the so-called settled climate science supported by the IPCC.
John
Richard, it's neither (a) nor (b). You are making the mistake of assuming that climate scientists are omniscient and that there proposed "solutions" will be perfect. To be honest most ofnthe solutions put forward, like moving to 30/40/50/60/70/80% renewable by 2050 don't have any prospect of being implemented in the real world. So you see when suggesting we need to reduce CO2 we need to examine that as a solution with others who may be more skilled in the assessment of the economic, social and engineering aspects of human society than the contributors to the IPCC. What I see, and I've made this point to you before, is a whole bunch of honest scientists producing papers to the best of their abilities forecasting events in a chaotic system with a 95% certainty. You don't have to be very Lpo
bright to be suspicious of these forecasts. Moreover, behind these scientist, and indeed among them, are the envirofanatics who want to bring down western industrialised society. Quite what they see replacing it with is not clear to me, but like the MWP the poverty and degradation endure by most people befor the rise of the western industrialised society seems to have been forgotten.
Richard Betts
Hansen and co won the original debate, that CO2 is the only driver of climate change, by simply excluding contrasting views, and then declaring a consensus.
The subsequent search for evidence has not exactly been conclusive
Endless tax payer funded reports into what could happen if/when the climate changes are interesting, but one can get an accurate idea by simply looking back through histroy and see what changes happened in the past..
Despite your best efforts (meant sincerely), climate science has become hijacked for political advocacy, to such an extent that with every new claim, further credibility is lost. Times Atlas anyone?
That funding for research is easier to obtain if an AGW angle is thrown in, just creates an articial environment for research.
How do we end up with a Chief Scientific Adviser to the Govt, who is not really a scientist?
How did the Climate Change Act ever get through Parliament?
How come we have an energy policy that is unsustainable, and expensive, and contributes to a rise in the death toll amongst the poor and elderly, during colder than average winters?
I am not holding you personally responsible for this, just indicating what a stupid mess has been created, and the only people who have applied any common sense, are tagged with derogatory terminology.
Any chance of a poll amongst your colleagues to ascertain true support for AGW, and whether there is a climate of fear, around speaking up, whilst working for an organisation so wedded to the cause?
Why why why do we continually feed the trolls. I'm getting increasingly frustrated by this site.
John Whitman
Thank you - sounds like (b) to me. ie: sceptics don't want to prove a particular answer, they just want to find the right answer, but you also think that others, ie: the "consensus" side) have their own version of (a), which is that they have decided what the answer should be and are determined to stick with that no matter what.
Is that a fair interpretation of your argument?
Hi geronimo and golf charley
I see your points but I'm not trying to talk about climate scientists here. I'm trying to understand what sceptics are "aiming" for (if anything - you don't really have to have an aim if you just like discussing things!). If it's not (a) or (b) then can you succinctly describe what it is instead?