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)
Pharos
Quite like that - I''m going to put it on twitter...
John Whitman
Thanks - I won't!
I'm used to it - goes with the territory.... :-)
Richard Betts, the man credited with being the first naturalist was Gilbert White of the village of Selbourne Hants, not exactly a million miles from where I live. He also made extensive weather notes and observations, and wrote a book about it.
Does the Met Office have a copy, and if so, how do his observations compare with modern met office statistics?
I admit that I have not read his book, but I think I will be shortly.
BTW in response to your "what do you want" post, I did ask for a yacht, any news? :-)
Richard Betts, sorry again to pester, but the quote from Pharos, it is good isn't it!
Does Mann have any friends or even a conscience?
golf charley
I've have a look in our library.
Computer says "no"
:-)
Richard Betts
The AGW/BBC/Guardian standard response should have been
"due to cutbacks inflicted by the TORY Govt, no funding for this vital research will be allowed, and all mankind will suffer as a result"
Richard, you are seriously off message, there is hope yet! :-)
Donna Laframboise has some very robust and well researched criticism of the WWF's involvement with scientists involved in the IPCC.. Thoughts?
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/09/23/how-the-wwf-infiltrated-the-ipcc-%E2%80%93-part-1/
Extract:
"In remarkably candid fashion the WWF says it wants to
inspire stronger action on climate change in the [climate science] community. We aim to build a movement of individuals…who want to be active in addressing this threat.
No one, therefore, lied to these “leading climate scientists.” No one soft-peddled what was really going on. The WWF explicitly told them it wanted their help in frightening the public so that the WWF could build a movement.
Scientists who join the WWF’s panel are required to complete a form that indicates their willingness to evaluate testimonials the WWF collects from ordinary people who believe that they themselves have detected human-caused climate change."
----------------------
The whole article is preety robust stuff, but does seem to have merit in it's criticism.
With respect to conflicts of interests. it is usually recommended in most endeavours to declare even potentiall 'perceived' conflicts of interests,
Richard Betts
Gilbert White. I am sure that Hubert Lamb would have used his data. Is he also stricken from the records for daring to agree with the MWP?
I really like the MWP. It is warm and nice. Far better at advancing civilization than a long cold period.
If we are headed for a modern warm period, what are the risks?
If we are headed for a modern cold period, I think the risks are greater.
I think, based on ENSO, that we are headed for another winter in the UK, colder than average.
What does the Met Office think, or do they just stare at computer models saying hot, hot , hot!
All the above MY opinions and thoughtd, but please what am I missing?
ref Pharos comment, and some advice to all scientists:
The biggest sceptic of a scientists work, should be the scientist themself. Just so they don't do anything silly and make a fool themselves when they publish it..
---
Though someone else phrased it better ;-) (ie think of all the angles, etc, so when it gets published into the bear pit of science, it stands a chance or survival to another day)
Richard Betts
If you can not get some of your work colleagues to post here, what does that tell you about their integrity?
golf charley
insight into your first thoughts about your new patient?
Against the Bishop's house rules, which I agree with. I was merely giving Sid a warm welcome and being transparent about what my interest in this blog is. I do miss ZDB, she was so much more fun.
Don Pablo, your professionalism exceeds that of the pro AGW brigade.
Don Pablo, your professionalism exceeds that of the pro AGW brigade.
Sep 25, 2011 at 12:01 AM | golf charley
--------------------
Don Pablo,
Wrt golf charley's observation of your professional ethics, I concur..
However we are eternally curious. : )
John
Sep 24, 2011 at 4:20 PM | diogenes
Sorry, only just seen your post.
I know Lenny Smith and agree he makes some very good points about not overselling the models. Making climate science useful to decision-makers involves a lot of close engagement with them to establish what decisions they actually want to make, and helping them assess risk based on what we can and can't usefully say. Sadly, a lot of environmental consultancies are getting involved with advising business and international bodies on climate change thinking they can just re-package the IPCC or UKCP09 reports - but this is next to useless to anyone wanting to make business decisions on adapting to climate change.
On your point about regional change - yes I agree, this is what really matters.
golf charley
We're way off topic now, but I can confirm that Lamb's classic tome is in our library and displayed quite prominently - I can even picture which shelf it is on.
Incidentally, if ever anyone is interested, it's actually a public library - the National Meteorological Library. So you can drop in and read about Lamb's work on the MWP if you like!
Nothing whatsoever - it only tells me they're not into blogging!
But thank you for the implied compliment about my own integrity - at least, I will interpret it as a compliment for the moment, and sign off now and go to bed happy :-)
'night!
Richard Betts, please do take it as a compliment!
Mankind took it a giant leap forwards, by setting foot on the moon.
Mankind took a giant step backwards, by listening to Mann
Richard Betts, I need to go to bed aswell.
When you wake up, could you advise whether, as an honest scientist, you think that:
a) Mann's Hockey Stick Graph
and
b) Jones 1990 Nature paper on UHI
should be struck off the redord, for being wrong, and without statistical backup.
It is a minor point, but it annoys me a lot, when people looking for truth ignore the truths before them
John Whitman
However we are eternally curious. : )
This is not the forum for that. The Bishop has his rules for good reasons and I concur with them.
However, there are several others who have from time to time pasted comments that are appropriate. I refer you to their musings. "School yard bully" comes to mind as does "arrogant" and "narcissistic".
The psycholdynamics of some individuals, such as Mikey Mann, are far more complex than that. I am presently re-reading Jung (in part) since I haven't looked at his work for forty years. But there are other authors I can suggest if you can find them The Power Elite by Charles Wright Mills, a sociologist from the 1950s who had some real insight into what is going on.
And for political psychology, I recommend a number of now ancient books by Erich Seligmann Fromm -- he actually covered a good deal of what is going on today with the following:
Escape from Freedom I believe published as Fear of Freedom in the UK. This in 1941, and reflecting the zeitgeist of the the 1930's. This is the one to start with. If you like that, there are a number of other later books worth the time. However, in Escape from Freedom you might have some insight in the 10:10 infamous "red button" video.
Very interesting reading if you can find it and and plow through it.
Sid
I know where you're going wrong, mate. You must be using a Global Climate Headline Model.
When the CERN news broke, your model producted that Anthony would have a headline saying
"BREAKING NEWS – CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Climate Change"
But that wasn't what happened. Instead, it read:
"BREAKING NEWS – CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Cloud Seeds"
Occasionally it is worth checking in with reality, rather than rely on the models.
Bit late into the fray but I hope you will excuse me for having to work extra hours to pay the ever increasing household bills.
Firstly the report that is the subject of the post is obviously heavily related to American politics and is basically decrying the fact that the socialist policies of the democratic government have not been strong enough to effect a lasting impact, much as they have done in Europe. The situation in the States is more politically tied because of the electoral system, democrat or republican , right or wrong, good or bad, won or lost, no middle ground.
To relate this to the European situation should be the indication that the tide of opinion has swung from AGW is a scientifically proven problem, to it's more of a pollicy to achieve social reform.
As for the questions raised by Richard Betts which are very appropriate I would be happier if b) was ammended or perhaps a c) was introduced.
The 'sceptics' winning would be defined as:
The removal of political influence within accademia thus establishing that any policy decisions are made appropriately by being clearly based on sound objective science and cannot be influenced by specific projects ticking the political box's of the day and thus receiving funds in preference to others.
Just my 2p worth.
dadada dum click click
dadada dum click click
dadadadum dadadadum dadadadum click click
Sid - Are you Lurch or Thingie from the Adams family?
Looks like the plot for a Hollywood disaster movie (or Dr Who plot). A small shadowy group of super-intelligent people with limitless resources (all American) are about to dominate the world with their evil untruths. The vastly superior numbers of real scientists (>97% in fact), who have absolute truth on their side are omnipotent.
Wait a minute - they have not got limitless resources. Check out those individuals and trusts. Most are small funds, especially next to government funding of the consensus.
Then it must be down to their vastly superior intelligence then, put to evil uses. So the most intelligent people, who know the truth of AGW, but cleverly disguise this to get their hands on small pots of money (that may not exist). This instead of joining the consensus, dominating it by their superiority, and getting the government grants and the prestige from being at the top of their profession.
It is not impossible that Mother Earth is making a true forecast, but neither is my winning the lottery with a £1 bet, nor global temperatures rising by 4+ degrees this century.
Possibly the truth is something more mundane. If you say you are dogmatically right all the time, despite having been shown to have exaggerated or got things wrong on numerous occasions, people will become cynical and start believing the opposite. They will become more so if you peddle conspiracy nonsense. This is regardless of whether truth is on your side or not.
The original Mother Jones celebrated her 100th birthday shortly before dying at the age of 93.
If that makes no sense to you, neither will Harkinson's article.
I have to say that this "victory" is meaningless.
MJs articla credits a win to Front Organizations that don't exists, based on "greed" that provably doesn't matter. (How else do I credit the Climate Institute, funded by WWF, BP, Shell Oil, and the US EPA?)
This is not honesty, but the continued Leftist search for scapegoats, instead of honest assessment of evidence - including the lack thereof. In other words, MJ is indulging its True Believing contingent, based on the fact that Democrats lost the House last year, and stand to lose the rest next year.
Honesty is in short supply people, no where less than in "climate change." I have trained in environmental science and lived in the heart of the beast (Boulder, Colorado, USA) for about 20 years. And the self-delusion only worsens when Power and Privilege is threatened.
Although honest scientists are fortified by expressions of courage to come out out of hiding, the dishonest are moved to paroxysms and hysterical blindness. It it to the latter I credit the MJ piece, not the former. And the enemy of functional skepticism and progress in science is The Lie - the deliberate transmission of counter-factuals.
This is the realm of "PR" and advertising and propaganda. And this, to the last is the enemy that needs slaying.
I have commented on this article and the warmist feedback is very interesting. They cannot accept that climate science is broken and always has been.
The sticking point is 'back radiation'. They place a pyrgeometer upwards and measure a signal. It's real. What they cannot accept is that at equilibrium, if they invert the sensor, they measure the same signal so the two cancel out. The signal is Prevost exchange energy, the oldest Law of Radiation.
Explaining it properly requires deep statistical thermodynamics but in essence, It's the corollary of Kirchhoff's Law of radiation, which is that at equilibrium, emissivity = absorptivity. In effect, Prevost exchange is a standing wave that does no thermodynamic work.
The proof of all this is a recent Dutch PhD which did the measurements up an 800 foot radio mast; the net signal [from the Earth's surface] fell exponentially, Beer-Lambert in action.
The problem we face is poor teaching in universities. Professors of physics don't teach correct physics.
1.
I don't think the sceptics have "won". The alarmists are certainly "losing". But that was always going to happen because their case is so weak.
One thing which appears to have been overlooked is that the MWP MUST have been warmer than the 20th century because Greenland had no ice, and Eric the Red and his people were farming there. I have noticed over the years in which I have been observing the situation this fact is mostly ignored or overlooked The IPCC and its followers don't want to know the facts.