Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Is Tom Chivers serious? | Main | Embarrassed science - Josh 146 »

HSI in Counterpunch

Another Hockey Stick Illusion sighting, this time in political newsletter, Counterpunch.

Anyone who believes groupthink is not a problem in the insular self-righteous climate science community, should read the Hockey Stick Illusion or wade through just a few of the infamous emails hacked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.)

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (12)

The article is very good, I advise you all to read it.

Feb 10, 2012 at 9:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterLuis Dias


From the piece:

GCMs [climate models] are complex mathematical constructs made by like-minded or group-thinking minds. They are not the products of individuals. This requires a consensus-based mentality and the intense communal effort required to build these models reinforces that mentality. The need to raise money to pay for these models further intensifies the communal outlook.

Feb 10, 2012 at 10:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterJack Hughes

Luis Dias says
"The article is very good, I advise you all to read it"
I would go much further and say it is brilliant and a must read.

Feb 10, 2012 at 10:09 AM | Unregistered Commenterpesadia

The article is excellent, and look where it’s appearing. Counterpunch is an American site for those who think that Obama is a right wing stooge of Big Oil. It’s for sliced watermelons who like to show that beneath their green veneer they’re really red right through.
One of its founders, Alexander Cockburn, once had a memorable spat with Monbiot, (Monbiot won on points by pointing out that Cockburn had got some of his facts from a rightwing paper, therefore we’re doomed to burn, Q.E.D) and the site has since toed the Green line very carefully. This will upset US Greens in the same way as is currently happening with Vahrenholt in Germany.

Feb 10, 2012 at 12:30 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

Brilliant article - I particularly like Chuck Spinney's analysis of the three steps to a 'self-licking ice cream cone' - precisely what we have seen from the IPCC and its 'disciples'...!
The more we see articles like this - the harder it will become for the 'alarmists' to maintain their stance - and EVENTUALLY the politicians MIGHT get the message, that they are off down a blind alley with our money...

Feb 10, 2012 at 12:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid

Of course, there is another article in Counterpunch published on the same day that is taking on the wind turbine noise issue. It ties up nicely with a current post on the same theme over at WUWT.

WUWT and Counterpunch being on the same side and making similar arguments is a sight to behold.

Feb 10, 2012 at 1:47 PM | Unregistered CommentersHx

This one is interesting, too. Written by a self-avowed environmentalist.

Feb 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterNullius in Verba

There was a time, a long time ago, ,...I spent a lot of time at Alex Cockburn has always been a skeptic (climate, that is), and a pain in the side of the warm agenda. Counterpunch has excellent researched political articles - a great source of in depth information (if you know how to read).

Anyone looked at Asia Times Online? I wonder what their writers have to say about global warming. I don' think David Goldman writes about climate stuff, though, and despite his occasional runs of obnoxiousness, I can imagine what he is likely to say.

Feb 10, 2012 at 6:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

sHx - Yes it is slight surprise that WUWT and CounterPunch should be on the same side -

BUT that is because most us see things in black & white. One of the things that typifies the GroupThink that Spinney talks about is an ability to go along with anything your side does and says. It amazes me how scientist AGW believers can see no wrong-doing in the ClimateGate emails - nothing to see here; all out of context etc.. The demise (how can it be anything else) of the Royal Society is brought about by a complete lack critical analysis, just because they are in our gang.

I would guess that if Franklin Spinney (if he is as left as the website) and I met in a pub we might not agree about much, but here is a man who can see better than most, after 28 years in the Pentagon, that government money corrupts just as much, or more, than private money. It certainly doesn't get cut off as easily - see NHS reforms in the UK. As I said in the "unthreaded" yesterday, the fact that Chuck Spinney sails in a live-aboard yacht makes him an OK guy for me anyway!!!

It is wise to remember also though that those of us on the sceptical side of the game have to guard against the same problem of supporting everything we see as "sceptical" uncritically.

I think it is heartening that a growing number of people on both sides are willing to be more objective in their judgements. The news of the last three weeks alone shows some major shifts taking place. It will be a long haul yet though.


Feb 10, 2012 at 7:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterRetired Dave

Nice to see so many Counterpunch readers here. For those who don’t know it, it’s well to the left of anything you’ll read in the Guardian or the BBC. One of it’s best writers is a founding father of the state of Israel. Another worked for Ronald Reagan. Unpredicatable and recommended.

This is by MartinHutchinson, Asia Times 5/10/2011

“Start with the science of global warming. There's clearly something there, but it might be infinitesimal... What's not at all clear is the size of the effect the additional carbon dioxide is having on temperature - will we warm by 5 degrees Celsius in 2100, or only by 0.05 degrees Celsius?
“The work of climate change scientists, much of which has been based on construction of elaborate computer models rather than direct observation, has however been suspect. Data used in the IPCC reports has been discovered to have been tampered with, and the integrity of climate change science called into question.
“It's not surprising that corners have been cut and inconvenient data suppressed. These scientists' livelihoods and funding depend entirely on there being something real to worry about and we should not realistically expect higher standards of integrity in today's scientific profession than in the remainder of our sadly degraded intellectual and political life”.
“The claim by the left that climate change represents "settled science" is thus laughable. The magnitude of the effect is not settled and much of the work in the field, constructing computer models based on dubious and incomplete assumptions, should not be dignified with the name of science”.

The article goes on to discuss CERN, ENRON and Solyndra, among other things. Recommended.

Feb 10, 2012 at 7:49 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

Nullius in Verba - yes a very interesting article - thanks.

It is of course directly related to the Chuck Spinney article.

It demonstrates the irony that by supporting the AGW story, as I bet this gentleman has, you are supposed to support anything the "cause" says you should, and anyway someone will see an opportunity to make a buck. That's a toxic mix everywhere.

It isn't just being sceptical of AGW theory that is not allowed, it is seeing anything as ill-advised, that the "movement" decrees, that also marks you out for abuse as a big-oil shill. We all know that it has lead to disasters such as the bio-fuel obligation, now even seen as bad by Friends of the Earth, who demanded it just 8 short years ago.

I think it is shifting a bit now as the world doesn't warm (and might even cool) and the world realises that it has lots of hydrocarbon it didn't know about - which is already marked out for burning by many countries already.

Feb 10, 2012 at 8:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterRetired Dave

@Retired Dave

My favourite left wing publication is Green Left Weekly. To this day, I still purchase a copy of the GLW from activists in the street corners, whenever I chance upon, and I pay 'solidarity price' of $5 AUD, instead of the regular price of $2 for a copy, even though I can read everything on the web for free.

Some habits are hard to break. :)

I don't expect the GLW to do a turnabout any time soon on climate change but it would be nice if the issue didn't dominate the progressive green agenda to the extent that it has. Hopefully, more voices from the left will come out and call for a stop to this madness.

Feb 10, 2012 at 9:10 PM | Unregistered CommentersHx

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>