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)
Richard Betts
AGW says all the worlds problems are due to evil people spewing out CO2
Common sense says, hang on a bit, have you any proof? :-)
John M
I agree, it does not.
But although b and a overlap, they are not identical, and many people get confused between them.
golf charley
Sounds like (b) then (good!)
Sorry Richard posted by accident.
To continue: I know it's extremely irksome for the scientific community to have a bunch of oils telling them to, "Pull the other one." And it must be very frustrating, particularly when you're doing your best, not to have everything you say taken at face value, but what climate scientists have gotten themselves involved with is an attempt to change our society, moreover they seem to be aiding and abetting that attempt with considerable brio.
And no, the deniers/skeptics haven't won, what's winning is reality. Deniers are having the arguments with the climate science community not with the politicians, that battle was lost years ago. The politicians are hitting up against reality like China, India Brazil. Or the fact that the public will soon find that they are paying an extra £10/week in electricity costs as the government tries to stimulate renewable energy. And it won't take long for the public to realize whose science has burdened them with extra massive living costs in pursuit of the impossible, controlling the climate.
Richard Betts, without wishing to sound like a Miss World conterstant.......
Reliable and affordable energy sources allow increased food productivity, clean water, improved sanitation, better health care, quality of life and whiter than white teeth
AGW implies a life with electricity, but only when it is windy, or the sun is shining, or if you live near a big river. A ban on combustion engines, internal and external, and more people dying of starvation and preventable disease. So a life style from about 1800, but with occasional electricity? No thanks!
Richard I cannot speak fro all sceptics, I believe it's a pretty wide church but for me it's the following:
1. Proof that any reasonable person could understand with forecasts that can be checked. I very much doubt that can be achieved so it's a funny science really, one that makes forecasts of doom and only doom for the human race if CO2 increases in the ecosphere;
2. The abolishing of the IPCC and it's scaremongering;
3. We will adapt, of that I have no doubt, so I see little purpose in doing anything to control the climate, I believe it's hubris to think we can. Although I fully support the search for renewable energy, the most meaningful step in achieving the money fro the research would be to stop deluding ourselves that windmills will do the trick. Or solar panels for that matte, at least for a very long time.
Good question by the way. What do we want.
Golf Charley! You missed "World peace."
Sid,
Genuine scientists would not use multiply ambiguous terms such as "forcing" and "feedback." The Warmista who use these terms are as confused about them as anyone. Genuine scientists always work within a highly ramified context of generalized physical hypotheses which specify causal relations relevant to a very topic. Warmista could do the same and eliminate the terms "forcing" and "feedback." The fact that they do not is yet another condemnation of so-called Warmista science. They are not scientists but ersatz Marxist philosophers.
Richard Betts
Veering slightly off topic, have you seen this thread on another site?
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/modeling-beyond-the-spherical-cow/
I would be interested in your views on this. To bring it back to thread, I think one of the big barriers in the discourse is that calorists look at global things and "lukewarmers" and "coolers" look at regional effects.
Dr Betts, your questions are interesting, but seem to me, at least, not exactly on target.
Take the first question:
"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"
I assume we can all agree that 'the science' isn't settled on AGW, including the role of the anthropogenic contribution to the rise in CO2.
That leaves the second part of the question, regarding the changes in energy policy.
I don't believe you haven't noticed the rise of your energy costs, and that you didn't see the part on the bill which shows your contribution to 'green' energy policies. They are already established, human influence on AGW or not.
I am also sure you must have followed the debates here on the efficiency of wind turbines, and on the costs thereof - the latest being that we,via our electricity bills, pay wind farm owners even when their electricity can't be talen up by the National Grid.
So energy policies, based on EU Directives, have already been implemented, to the detriment of all of us. If you think these should be changed back or at least alleviated, that'll be fine by me.
"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."
Sounds good - but where is this 'sound, objective science'?
You are aware that CERN physicists have made available all their results from their experiments in regard to that 'speeding' neutrino, because of the importance and because they want them to be thoroughly checked.
That is how sound, objective science operates.
Where and when have all the data been made public e.g. of the Yamal trees, which have been used for the fabled hockey stick? AFAIK, FOIs are still pending.
Where are the 'sound, objective' data for some of the egregious claims in the last IPCC report, e.g. the burning of the Amazon Rain forest, the melting glaciers in the Himalayas, the 'ice-free' Arctic?
Is it 'sound' science to feed models with the output of other models and then claim the Earth is going to burn?
There are far too many of such examples, of which nobody can be not aware unless they've lived on St Kilda with no access to the internet for the last five years.
So b) would be good, provided your postulate of a sound and objective science were valid.
I am not trying to attack you and other scientists for the failings of a small group - but it is this group which is over-vocal - and so far none of you (again, sadly for reasons I understand) have seen fit to stand up to them.
golf charley
AGW in itself does not imply those things, as AGW is about whether humans are affecting the climate or not (ie: a fact of science, either way).
The things you describe (like a ban on combustion engines) are consequences of one particular choice that humanity may make as a response to AWG (assuming it exists - that's not the point here).
It is important to separate the two. Just because we may not want to give up combustion engines, it would not take away the reality of AGW (if it is real - again that's not the point).
Checking whether AGW is real (and sufficiently probable to be dangerous) is clearly an important part of making the choice of response.
I think the difference between sceptics who aim for (b) and so-called "warmists" who (mostly) also aim for (b) is that they differ in their interpretation of the current evidence for "sufficiently probable to be dangerous".
Richard, that is a great question that is also on topic! I think that just as sceptics are sceptical about different things, "victory" for sceptics would have many variations. As one option, (i) victory would be a more honest debate about the costs and benefits of carbon abatement and other policies, such as e.g. Lomborg calls for. This would require less of the "only 5 days to save the planet" rhetoric about shutting coal-fired power stations down immediately. Then (ii) a more generous assessment of uncertainties within the research community, allowing for a more diverse ecosystem of respectable research topics. This would require removing some of the perverse incentives that favour scientists who reach "its worse than we thought" conclusions, and delegitimise serious sceptics. Finally (iii) it would be a form of victory if it came to be shown conclusively that climate sensitivity is in the low, lukewarm, region. While sceptics like McIntyre are genuinely somewhat agnostic about how large sensitivity is, they mostly tend to the lukewarm side.
Viv Evans
Sounds like you're a (b) too then.
NB I was only asking what you wanted, not saying anything about what is being delivered.... :-)
Geronimo, but all Miss World contestants know that with reliable energy supplies for all mankind, war is less likely!
Jeremy Harvey
Fantastic - thank you!
I would also like to see all three of those. Sadly neither you or I have any influence on (iii) as climate sensitivity is a scientific truth waiting to be uncovered (or narrowed down)! All we can do is try to find the answer. So (iii) would only be a victory if it is the real truth (I assume this is what you think too!)
Skeptics want the right answer, because anything else will lead to failed predictions. What that answer is, nobody knows, and we're going to have to deal with it like it or not. The warmistas have found an answer they like, but their predictions fail.
Yes, if CO2 is a common tragedy, let's get on with the nukes. But there is no evidence yet of a common tragedy. What there is evidence of is global cooling, during which CO2 will be a common blessing.
=================
Problem that I have is, 'dangerous' appears to have all ready been decided by many of the 'politically concerned'
Resulting in high profile and powerful influential people like Bill Clinton and Al Gore saying,on climate change to make 'denial' politically unaceptable...
And Celebs like Orlando Bloom, James Cameron, this month endorsing I Am Sea Level video, with animations/videos of USA cities drowning in 3 - 5 metre sea level rises in just 50 - 100 years..
Along with statements that 150 million Americans are threatened by it..
Some people will pretend they Clinton/Gore mean 'denying' that CO2 is a GHG..
but we all know they mean, BH, WUWT, etc. Those that question the certsinties of the degree of AGW. and of course disagreeing with policies, a seperate but related issue... Ie bjorn lomborg believes in strong agw, but is the 'Sceptical Climate Policy Environmentalist.
He still gets called a 'denier' though.
Richard Betts, what I really want is some common sense, rather than ludicrous scaremongering, oh and that poll of your work colleagues, particularly around the climate of fear, that seems to over ride common sense.
If neither is possible, a sailing yacht will do, and I will happily send you data relating to sea level rise, temperature and acidification, preferably from warmer areas of the world. Afterall, I might just aswell milk the corruption that is AGW. :-)
Agree with PFM. I have resolved to not feed any trolls henceforth. 'Trolls' should be free to post, but they won't disrupt if there is no significant feeding. I can see how the trolls are overwhelmed by the moral degeneracy that they see at WUWT and Bishop Hill, but the topic for discussion is far more interesting and the troll's moralizing disrupts everything.
If I go show up at Deltoid, for example, I try to be courteous and on-topic. I am sure I am viewed as a troll there. Why can't the trolls that come here do the same? Why such low-quality off-topic trolling?
The diagram Bish links to is by Boykoff and Norgaard. The Boykoff brothers have had a dominating influence on the pro-consensus field through their social science articles. Except for Roger Pielke Jr and David Sarewitz and Judith Curry, I have never come across anyone questioning the frames of reference and paradigms they have thrown up. Look at the diagram: not a single element of their top-down model makes any sense anymore. It is totally out of touch with reality - in terms of the intellectual foundations of climate change scepticism today. Kari Norgaard has written a UN-commissioned report about climate change 'denialism' which reached some sappy conclusions. Part of the reason why the clueless enlightened - a.k.a Andy Revkin and the media establishment intelligentsia and the likes of Leo Hickman - present their retrogressive ideas even today, is because it has accepted many of the canards spreading out from the themes set out by Boykoff et al, without question.
Richard Betts
I think I'd go for (b) as well. Main concern is being steam-rollered into taking a policy position whilst our level of ignorance is such as it is - bad news is I don't see that changing in the short term.
BH said,
--------------------------
BH,
Well, I never have said that it does not work. Thanks for generally asking the question to the public.
John
Shub
You are funny ;-)
Obvious Trolls such as Sid should not be permitted to hijack threads. This thread has been hijacked by Sid and is unreadable for that reason.
Richard Betts
Well as you probably have gathered, I'm entirely convinced of the reality of AGW and its potential to bugger things up rather comprehensively by the end of the century.
But I remain a climate policy sceptic and will do so until the incredibly dangerous nonsense about renewables is torn from the energy policy book.
I'm right with Hansen on this. Pretending (fantasising is a more apposite term, and Hansen also uses it) that renewables can play any but the most marginal role in displacing coal from electricity generation is bordering on criminal. The irony of the century is that it is the 'climate concerned' and the pseudo-environmentalists who are the loudest advocates and the most vehemently anti-nuclear.
Until they learn to stop worrying and love the atom, coal will remain king.
Oho! I think you know the answer to that ;-)
Richard, yes (iii) is different from the other two, as it is by definition beyond anyone's power to influence. Hence my words 'a form of victory' - more a vindication, perhaps. Neither of us may have much influence for (i) or (ii) either - but we both, and indeed all, have some.
Shub: a really interesting post. Thanks.
I don't know, Theo; it is heartwarming to see such delusion on display. It makes me think we won.
=============
Richard Betts writes:
"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."
That is reasonably close to what sceptics seek. My particular concern is far more specific. I want to see a return to scientific method. Such a return is necessary because science has been hijacked by people with an agenda. Their most powerful tool has been the promotion of the idea that computer models can substitute for physical theory. The result is that climate science is the only presumably "hard science" that is practiced by scientists who have no products that are recognizable to other hard scientists. With the exceptions of Svensmark and Kirkby, climate scientists have produced no physical hypotheses whatsoever. No physical hypotheses means no prediction and no prediction means no science.
In addition, the so-called theories or models used by climate scientists are outrightly childish. Take the terms "forcing" and "feedback." The use of such multiply ambiguous terms would be a most grave embarrassment to a genuine scientist. Those terms could easily be dispensed with if climate scientists had physical hypotheses which specify the causal relations that fall under the vague ideas of forcing or feedback. But climate scientists are totally unaware of such problems. Why? Because they can get away with claiming that computer models can replace physical theories. To anyone who has done serious work with computer models (or a serious student for that matter), the claim is either a joke, clear evidence of incompetence, or clear evidence of the onset of dementia.
"Watt's confused a reported cloud radiative effect for being negative cloud feedback just because the value had a minus sign."
Silly Anthony! Everyone knows that in Climatology minus means positive and plus means negative!
"It makes me think we won."
Well, it was never a scientific battle to begin with. A science that demonstrates AGW has never existed and does not exist today.
The battle has always been political, which will be ongoing for all of us in some form or fashion until we go to meet our Maker.
Andrew
Ya know, I'm going to use the exact same power structure flow chart when I want to have my next traffic ticket fixed.
Sid the predictable troll yawn yawn
Shouldn't you be spending your time looking for a friend? Even you should be able to find one someday
-------------------------
Richard Betts,
-------------------------
Richard Betts,
I think your comment thread will be useful for future discussion at BH. Thank you.
Neither a) or b). But of course please feel free to categorize my argument based independently on your own judgment, no problema.
My argument is simply, the current climate science processes are not sufficiently scientifically virtuous for any sufficient level of confidence in the IPCC assessment and science products supporting it.
Until that situation is remedied, climate science is suspect of being significantly polluted with the non-scientific. This is not about certain categories of scientists winning (consensus /IPCC /settled /established /skeptic /contrarian / D*****) but the credibility of the climate science process (per se)
winningsurviving. Scientific virtue in climate science needs to be publically and timely verified or our Western civilization/culture will accelerate in not trusting the product of climate science and its current public persona =>the IPCC.Note: It is not a necessary or sufficient condition to be a climate science skeptic to maintain my argument.
QUESTION for you wrt to my argument - I understand you are involved in the AR5 preparation. What will be your process for handling behavior in the IPCC that you may observe which lacks scientific virtue? Have you determined independently to your own satisfaction whether the IPCC’s current processes will handle lack of scientifically virtuous behavior? I sincerely apologize if that is too bold a question on my part in such a public venue.
John
Richard Betts & All,
OOPS, sorry for my double entry at the lead in to my comment to Richard Betts @ Sep 24, 2011 at 6:11 PM
John
It is very interesting that the Greens claim to be successfully beaten by a covert power of Big Oil, Big Coal aligned with the MSM. No matter that the principal news outlets release every weather event with a CAGW connection, Time Magazine etc. devote cover stories to the future disaster of CO2 warming, and they have huge celebrity support and presence, somehow all their friends are also their enemies.
Who is left that is an actual Green supporter? And if they are so isolated, are they then not a minority, as opposed to the majority they claim to represent?
Poets don't like starving in the garret any more than any one else. But if you play the martyr unfairly treated by society, you never have to admit your poetry is lousy.
GW is real
AGW is virtual
CAGW is nonsense
Everyone wants science to win, but environmental activism and zealotry has corrupted climate science to the point where climate scientists can no longer ask themselves of others searching questions.
RB's (a) and (b) can both be discounted.
Doug, it's not, it's not! The best is always censored.
==============
-------------
kim,
You are funny . . . . : )
You know, I think that if Josh ever does a book then some of your classic stuff could benefit it.
A fan, John
Ironic that a troll from SkS comes to free speaking board, successfully trolls and derails a thread yet again and has the balls to criticise everyone else. Obviously they'd love to be banned or deleted so again they can accuse us of their wretched behaviour. But what to do with them? Suspension? Yellow card? Post limit? All requires moderation and effort. But thats what trolls do, wreck good discussion boards, in this instance for reasons other than malicious fun.
Also anyone noticed the new trick of nicking regulars names on boards that dont require membership?
Thanks, John. Je m'amuse and you, too. It's a mercy.
==============
Your last point logically implies that something stronger than partisan advocacy and persuasion is at work. Something more...fundamental? Could it be science?
I must admit that the trolls were a bit out of control today, but then again I do get some first hand data about their psychological profiles. Interesting. Particularly Sid.
A few days ago someone used the term "school yard bullies." A vernacular but descriptive phrase.
Yes, Sid, you have replaced ZDB as my prime research subject -- she has apparently fallen off the grid, but you are interesting as well. Thank you for your inciteful comments, they were very insightful. Do come back.
The graphic in that Mother Jones article is worse than useless and has not enlightened me as to how we "won" at all!
It seems to be every cliche of the "denialist machine" shoved into boxes and then arrows joining everything to everything else. What a joke. I think it should have a couple more bits added to the bottom.
2) ...
3) ...
4) er...
5) PROFIT!
Don Pablo, any chance of an insight into your first thoughts about your new patient?
timheyes "useless graphics". What do you expect from supporters of the hockey stick?
I think I can see a pattern emerging
I'm a Kim fan too. Such nice easy posts to read and always poetic
:-)
John Whitman
I hope you mean "would" not "will".... !
If I were to be aware of deliberate fraud then of course I would confront it. However I believe this is exceptionally unlikely.
If I were to see interpretations of the body of literature on a particular topic which appear to be biased one way or the other, again I would challenge that. Of course in most cases this may well just be a matter of scientific debate, but it ought to be possible to address this on the basis of evidence in the literature, or by acknowledgement of the uncertainties. I do expect that there will be considerable debates on the overall conclusions that can be drawn from the literature on the more uncertain issues (especially future impacts) - that is the nature of science.
I expect that the other IPCC authors would say the above too.
It ought to be able to. There are many authors with a wide range of expertise and perspectives, and we don't by any means sit around agreeing with each other the whole time! Also the various rounds of review are designed to get things checked out, and this will be transparent in that the First and Second Order Drafts and all review comments and responses will be published at the end of the process.
In AR5, there is also likely to be much more of a pro-active approach to getting rigorous and extensive reviewing of *all* chapters, so as to minimise the risk of another Himalayan glaciers-type gaff! (In AR4, some chapters got much more scrutiny than others - the IPCC has learnt from this!)
As I've been explaining on the discussion thread "Writing and Reviewing IPCC AR5" the review process allows anyone to self-nominate and self-certify as an expert and hence see and comment on the First Order Draft. Invitations to sign up for review of the WG1 FOD are now out (see the discussion thread for details) so feel free to sign up if you feel qualified to comment.
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
Richard Betts
I don't think the question whether sceptics have won or lost is the question. Most climate scientists, is it not true, entered that field of study wedded to the belief of universally deleterious outcomes from anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Politically torqued funding for the advancement and promotion of studies confirming such was freely available, not so for challenging them. Hardly conducive to free thinking, even for those of the most scrupulous ethical virtue.
The growth in scepticism evolved, particularly among citizen scientists who had a measure of scientific familiarity and sentience, in spontaneous revulsion to apocalyptic claims and obvious polically inspired propaganda fed to the MSM and media. Their suspicions became hardened through the burgeoning internet debating fora.
In the long run, sceptic 'success' will result in the release of climate scientists from the strictures and obligations of a 'movement' and free them to be able to report conclusions truthfully instead of as required. Trust will then follow, but only then.
Scepticism, in the end, is the climate scientist's conscience and best friend.
---------------------
Richard Betts,
Thank you for your in depth reply.
Going to the discussion thread to see what is happening, thank you for the suggestion.
My concern remains that the IPCC process has been misused and still can be for purposes of bias toward a given scientific assessment finding.
Please do not let my fundamentally critical view of what I consider the questionable political/ideological aspects of the framework/basis of the IPCC and of its assessment processes imply any direct or specific disrespect/insult to you personally. As being part of the IPCC process you may be collaterally insulted by my IPCC statements. Hope you do not take it personally. : )
John
Dr Betts: "There are many authors with a wide range of expertise and perspectives, and we don't by any means sit around agreeing with each other the whole time!"
Not, however, as many as were part of the IPCC formerly, as Paul Reiter would and has testified.
After the climate experts have driven away those with expertise in glaciers and malaria and sea levels and dendrochronology and econometrics and signal processing, what's left?