Bishop Hill Climate fairy tales
Oct 9, 2013 Climate: IPCC Climate: Sceptics ;)
Climatologists have achieved a remarkable consensusThere's a really sensible article in the Guardian by Ehsan Masood, which is a complete antidote to all the nonsense being spouted in Parliament this morning by all and sundry. It effortlessly knocks down the fairy tale constructed by the mainstream media, with its invocation of bad oil-funded deniers prowling threateningly around the peace and harmony of the scientific endeavour:
...those of us in the business of science and environment journalism need to be careful that we don't overstep the mark: sceptics are not all climate deniers. Scepticism is complex and encompasses a range of opinions, many of which are perfectly valid, even if, personally, we don't agree with them. Moreover, shutting out dissenting voices is a disservice to our audiences, to institutions such as the IPCC who benefit from the scrutiny, and ultimately doesn't help engender much trust in institutions of government.
In the process it makes it clear that the idea of a consensus is a bit of a sham:
Those of us who do keep an eye on the IPCC know that how it works isn't always pretty and that, for all the talk of consensus, there's always been plenty of debate on the inside, and, yes, plenty of scepticism, only some of which reaches the outside world.
Mahsood's observations about the failings of mainstream science journalism - the relentless focus on scientific triumph over analysis of competing positions and the tricky nitty-gritty of scientific disputes - seems important to me. Definitely read the whole thing.
Reader Comments (37)
Obligatory fish slap video.
==================
Lord Deben has a warning for us
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10366387/Science-in-favour-of-climate-change-akin-to-evidence-linking-smoking-to-cancer.html
For the Guardian, a remarkably sensible article indeed. Readable, even. But to say that Pachauri and the IPPC are being attacked from the right hardly demonstrates that Masood is any more on top of sceptical reality than the rest of the media climate collective. Nor does it do justice to Donna Laframboise and her friends who have so thoroughly plucked, sliced and diced Pachauri and the IPPC that none of them have a feather to fly with.
Always at the last minute they hide the pea.
"And, yes, while much of the science of climate change is settled, or on the way to being settled, there remains plenty of argument about its impacts, and about how to deal with it."
So we can have a say in how the climate might change to in Manchester or what we should do about it but we can't argue that there might not be any significant reason why Manchester should expect climate change. They keep trying to move on from the science because they've failed so abysmally to make their case. The answer is 'no, we won't move on to the next point on the CAGW agenda'.
" a series of revealed truths to be announced periodically at press conferences"
But that's [IPCC AR1-2-3-4-5 reports] exactly what it and they all are.
You can read a lot of things into those paragraphs, inferring sweet reason and balance - they won't be found.
Yes, that's a very good and insighful article, and the cartoon is also very appropriate! There definitely is lots of debate and argument in the process of writing IPCC reports.
In fact, I've just saved a copy of the cartoon and will use it in any talks I give on the IPCC process - so thanks for that!
If you are looking for any change in editorial and journalistic viewpoints relating to "climate change" at the Grun you will look in vain. They will all go down with the ship.
And that IS settled!
Richard Betts
Are the debates and arguments about the science, the actual numbers, or the art?
Report writing is a very special art.
As a fan of the cartoons about Asterix (the little one) and Obelix (the big one), I think Richard might have to be very careful that he doesn't infringe any potential copyright issues here.
René Goscinny (stories) and Albert Uderzo (cartoons) may not be happy little bunnies if they are used without proper authorisation.
Green Sand
The science and actual numbers. See the review comments for examples.
P M Walsh
Yes, this is a good point, and it also applies to other things (eg: reproducing figures from papers).
Incidentally, I did once want to use a Winnie-the-Pooh figure in a book chapter (using Pooh Sticks to illustrate internal variability & long terms trends) but Disney either didn't let me or wanted to charge a lot of money (either way, it didn't happen).
Gon't worry they got back on track , and the latest one is all about evil fossile fuel funded 'deniers' and how the BBC should never give them any air time .
The Grun of course if FULLY And TOTTALLY committed to ‘the cause ‘ its own environmental editors made itclear some time ago that was the situation and would remain so while they were there . Handing large parts of CIF over to the SS kiddies and allowing them to use the same moderation they have on SS , tells you all you need to know about the Guardians stance on this issue.
In light of the above comments and Mike Haessler's interesting if somewhat flawed tabulation of 'Skeptics v Warmists' and the subsequent comments at Climate etc, I think it is important to consider who the 'skeptics' are. In my opinion they can be divided into 3 broad sub-sets (although there is clearly overlap between each).
1 - Science / Engineering skeptics. This probably encompasses most of the lukewarmers as well as some of a more skeptical bent. Generally accept that CO2 absorbs outgoing radiation at specific wavelengths, leading to some insulating effect, but have doubts about the subsequent links in the 'cause and effect' relationship that make the models average about 3 deg C per doubling. Find the 'hiatus' persuasive empirical evidence that the sensitivity is markedly lower than modelled. (I wouldn't include the Sky Dragons in this group, as they are deniers of widely accepted physics).
2 - Impact / miitigation skeptics. The group whose main focus is on the likely impacts of a changing climate and what can realistically be done about it with regard to economics, engineering and mitigation v adaptation. mainly skeptical of the proposed mitigation measures such as renewable energy, carbon texes and unenforcable international emision limits.
3 - Political skeptics (encompasses many of those who are reasnably characterised as deniers). Probably a more significant group in the US, where climate change is seens as an issue of the Democrats. As a group generally see the science of climate change as a means to support liberal government policies, with many considering the science as being deliberately manipulated.
Not wishing to go OT, but his mention of GMOs and how the science around it is settled (about them being safe) triggered a thought. If we could compare "GMO is bad" belief with "global warming is true", I'd suspect you would find correlation in those beliefs in certain folks. This would then mean that on one hand, they "deny" the science (GMO), but on the other they berate those who "deny" the other (global warming/change/weirding etc.)
I think the notion of unseemly vigour in IPCC discussions is belied by the power of the lead authors to do what they, or their chairmen, think is necessary for the ongoing success of the organisation. Santer's work 1995 and 1996 is perhaps the best documented, e.g.
And so another instalment of the nightmarish 'fairy tale' was launched upon the world.
The cartoon has had the effect of sending me to websites with more Asterix et al. They are wonderful. And the movies, thanks to excellent producers/directors and of course Gerald, are great, too.
As for the edging away from the precipice of the Graundian et al, watching it as though it was Big Brother doesn't interest me. It is like Pravda before the fall admitting that there are such things as breadlines. Who cares? In economics, that is what we call a lagging indicator.
Oct 9, 2013 at 3:32 PM | Ian Blanchard
I fall into all three groups although my political skepticism is less from my political bent but rather simply by default due to being in groups 1 and 2.
BTW, I think Bjorn Lomborg is the CEO of Group 2.
MikeC
I certainly see the three sets as forming a venn diagram where all interesct each other.
I'm certainly in the first group and by a combination of that (i.e. likely low sensitivity and therefore low risk of severe consequences) and the absurdity of some of the mitigation proposals (wind turbines for base load electricity - we moved away from wind power for good reasons), I am weakly in agreement with group 2.
Sometimes it is hard not to have sympathy with those in group 3 as well, when you see the manipulations that the IPCC pull to obscure the unfavourable comparison of models with reality. However, it is worth noting that there is more to climate science than just the IPCC reports (even if much of the science and scientific funding is directed in a way to support IPCC activities - see Judith Curry's very forceful newspaper piece of last week regarding how the IPCC influence is far from beneficial to scientific research).
One of the key things that Climategate showed me was that even the 'consesus' scientists are much more divided than is shown by the media (and hence Prof Betts comment about plagiarising the cartoon in the header post). There are a few very vocal climate scientist-activists for whom the message seems to be the key thing and who appear to be willing to twist data to fit the required conclusions, but there are also a lot who appear to be just trying to do the best work possible under the constraints of their subject. I'm not surprised that some of them (such as Drs Betts, Wilson and Edwards) react poorly when they are accused of being dishonest.
As a final comment relating to the cartoon and the Guardian article, it is worth considering Kissinger's (attributed and possibly mis-) quote about academic science:
'Academic disputes are so bitter because the stakes are so small.
Unfortunately this is not true of climate science, but the mechanisms in place are the same as for more purely academic disciplines.
Please excuse my ignorance but are the people who comment on Guardian articles always so obtuse? I thought beaker's comment was very clear, then it got parsed to pieces. Up in down and in is out.
Richard Betts
Yes, have read a few, some good debate. However so far I haven't found any that explain what the sleepless nights in Stockholm were about.
Ian Blanchard
To which the appropriate response is "if you lie down with a dog don't be surprised if you get fleas".I would like to be more sympathetic but I find it increasingly difficult as the politicians, the media and some of the scientists make ever more extreme claims (the science of climate change is nowhere near as conclusive as the relationship between smoking and cancer and Deben either knows that in which case he is a liar or he doesn't in which case he is talking through the back of his head) just as the empirical evidence for which I have been asking for two decades is busy letting them down.
We are now seeing so much hand waving that very soon it will be creating enough wind to generate electricity. That combined with the hot air might even be enough to make renewables viable.
As a drilling person, I could be said to be in the pay of Big Oil. And Little Oil, Government Oil, Big Gas, Little Gas, Government Gas, Geothermal , Carbon Capture (Could these last two be "Big Green"?) .
Really, what does it matter? Does it invalidate any comment I make?
Why would Big Oil even take part in these discussions or care about the direction of comments here or in the Guardian? Even Greenies buy their products and all the decarbonisation in the world over the last 20 years has not dented the demand for hydrocarbons. Only Little Oil/Gas, companies like Cuadrilla, are vulnerable enough to be hurt by Environmentalists.
I don't really have much to say about the climate anyway, only about issues and misconceptions related to drilling and technology. I've still been hit with the "Big Oil Funding Climate Deniers" link - which turned out to be a donation of around $15,000 from Exxon to a group called Heartland, rather dwarfed by Exxon's other donations to both US political parties and various community groups. That could be the beginning of a discussion, but for the accusers, it's the end of it.
According to www.gov.uk,
.. so that means every recipient of government funding , including renewable and "green" groups, is "funded by Big Oil" , no?
I thought the article was surprising for the Guardian (and originating from someone working with the BBC to boot) but was poor at the end. It effectively ended with "the science is settled" but we can still debate the actions required, that was not the premise it seemed to begin with.
As usual, the most remarkable aspect are the comments from staunch AGW supporters and Guardian readers. They are so incredibly narrow minded and seem utterly lacking in any form of scientific inquisitiveness. I thought the following extreme comment particularly damning of the calibre of thinking and bigotted views of those supporting AGW in the Guardian comments (which were 97% or so supportive of AGW):
"kerryflote
09 October 2013 1:42pm
You are quite right. Climate change sceptics are not all alike. There are three kinds: he irretrievable stupid, the criminally irresponsible and those who are bought. They are all James Hunts."
The author of that comment clearly cannot understand anything about science, if they truly believe that. Quite astonishing really, how readers of a supposedly liberal newspaper can exhibit such nasty, vitriolic and bigotted views. On a par with Brown/Miliband's "flat earthers", I hope "kerryflote", if you read this, that one day you may have to eat your words. And hope you then might have time to reflect on how many unnecessary winter deaths may have occured because of the effect of climate change policy on energy prices, sacrificed on the alter of AGW and political vanity and stupidity.
"...shutting out dissenting voices is a disservice to our audiences, to institutions such as the IPCC who benefit from the scrutiny, and ultimately doesn't help engender much trust in institutions of government."
Subliminal recognition there that the institutions of Government are lined up with the IPCC, Grauniad, BBC etc?
Richard
Arguments about Climate Change may be settled but arguments about Climate Sensitivity aren't.Really its Carbon Sensitivity.
So is the Guardian the only Newspaper that will still sign up to Lord Levisons Royal Charter.
Yet after a warning from the Head of MI5 Piano playing Alan Russbridger proudly proclaims that he will still continue to release secret material from CIA renegade Edward Snowdon.
Very traitorous The Guardian .They betrayed their fellow newspapers to Levison,now betraying British agents inside Terrorist Organizations.
Left or Right or Climate Sceptic or Alarmist Democratic Free Speech is all of our business.
Mick Hume the old Editor of Spiked on line wrote in the Sun On Sunday that the American Constitution simply guarantees the right of Free Speech to every American Citizen.
If that can be true for every Political debate then its can to be true for every scientific debate.
The left do love to hate those who don't share their views unreservedly. Some years ago I used to go to a folk club frequented by lefty student activists who liked to sing "It's a hard life wherever you go", apparently without irony.
For those who don't know the song, the chorus includes the line "If you poison your children with hatred, then a hard life is all that they'll know".
Then they'd go off to the latest demo and scream their hatred for the target of the day. I suspect some of them are now regulars at the Guardian comments section.
"they are all james hunts"
If the commenter is referring to the great racing driver James Hunt, she is on a hiding to nothing. The public (all over the world of motor racing) would vote for James over bedraggled, whining losers like her and her friends any day.
kerryflote's avatar
"kerryfloteUruguay, Male Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Interests
The end of capitalism. Bringing Bush and Blair to trial for crimes against humanity. Annoying those of a religious persuasion."
Does that tell you all you need to know about "Guardianista" commenters?
It is not all settled if we are still wondering how it impacts us.
The AGW climatocrats are reduced to empty circular truisms like in this article exemplifies that do not hold up under scrutiny.
Or, worse, they are grasping on bald faced appeals to authority, or worst of all, imposition of authority. Because they have no evidence based case.
That we should be called "Climate Deniers" is about as pathetic as it gets....denying what? When the warming stopped and the Aqua Satellite found no evidence of hot spots in the Troposphere it was game over but not as you would know. They waffle on about incoming and outgoing radiation and the difference between the two without realising the factors that cool the planet...negative feedbacks such as clouds rain and volcanic ash are all but ignored. In 2006 CRU, when challenged by Prof Bob Carter stated that "their earlier models did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variations", were the politicians and journalists who were assessing the "evidence" of AGW a few years previous aware of this? Would they know what it meant?
Of course not.
So the world would heat up by between 3-6C over the next 100 years....but whisper it there will be no clouds, no rain, no volcanic ash, no "iris effect" et al.
Many things have happened over the last decade or so all pouring cold water on the AGW scam.....and when we reach the point where there has been no temperature increase for 15 years whilst CO2 in the atmosphere has increased it is game over.
It is about time we stopped being polite and got right in their faces...big time.
johanna, I suspect that "James Hunts" is a bit of Cockneyesque rhyming slang for the female organ!
The apposite comment in the article is this one: ‘Much science journalism doesn't help, in part because it isn't like political journalism. The culture of a lot of science journalism is to report on the final outcomes of a scientific process...’
Since politics is accepted as a matter of interests – personal, party, national, international – journalists have no great difficulty in reporting on clashes of interest in politics and what may lie behind them (undoubtedly with some slant).
But the subject matter and practice of the -- at least ‘hard’ -- sciences have been assumed to be ‘objective’, i.e. above interests, with a single-minded commitment to reality/truth.
As a result, excepting for historical cases or cases of fraud or other bad behaviour, in the traditional view, mention by journalists of interests – personal and/or political – has been regarded as foul play, in that such mention has been seen as an illicit undercutting of the validity of the subject matter.
With the growth of ‘alternative’ media such as the internet, full play has been given to claims that the proponents of opposing views are driven by interests, and therefore can be dismissed as serious commentators.
This is especially the case where science intersects with human values (evolution, health, and now climate).
So despite their different practices, both the traditional and alternative media operate under the same assumption: that mention of interests undercuts the validity of a scientific opinion.
Where I see the way forward is to incorporate the interests of parties into science journalism in a way that generates more light than heat.
Adam, I kinda knew that. :) Either way, the public would prefer it to her!
Brendan, some good points. I'm thinking disclaimers like "The writer is a misanthropic scientific illiterate and paid-up member of Greenpeace/FOE" or whatever (but I repeat myself).
There's a really sensible article in the Guardian by Ehsan Masood [...]
None to popular with the Grun commentariat though.
Johanna, I was just reading an editorial in "Upstream" (http://www.upstreamonline.com/ a weekly reporting on Upstream activities like drilling ) which a"mentioned majors like BP and how they work with Nature Conservancy in the USA and have a non-executive director on the board of WWF International.
Most "Big Oil" companies are quite conciliatory to Green groups, because a) they can afford it, b)it's good politics and c) if there's money to be made in alternative energy or carbon capture etc, they want a piece of it. Only Exxon, among "Western" Big Oil cos stand a bit aloof from this as they prefer to choose their own recipients rather than let pressure groups influence them.
They don't really want to be associated with individual bloggers who always carry a whiff of crankdom, whatever their position.
kellydown
Your point C is particularly relevant - the oil compannies are in an enviable position in terms of the infrastructure they have available should alternative fuel sources (in particular fuels for transport) become commercial. It matters little whether your car runs on gasoline, LNG, biofuels, hydrogen etc, you can be certain that the current big oil companies will all have a big slice of whichever pie we are eating from in 30 years time...
The problem is, he has shut the door on sceptics by saying (1) that the science is settled, and (2) claiming AGW/CC is a politically based hoax is unwarranted. If AGW/CC isn't political, what is it? It's certainly not scientific!
Johanna: ‘I'm thinking disclaimers like "The writer is a misanthropic scientific illiterate and paid-up member of Greenpeace/FOE" or whatever...’
Not quite what I had in mind. Further on the issue of interests, it may always be the case that the dissenting party is regarded as an exception to the majority view. Here is a comment from Wikipedia on evolution:
‘While various religions and denominations have reconciled their beliefs with evolution through concepts such as theistic evolution, there are creationists who believe that evolution is contradicted by the creation myths found in their religions and who raise various objections to evolution.’
So it’s the interests of the dissenting party that are highlighted. The majority view is not identified as having any baggage.
Presumably, since the majority view encompasses a wide range of interests, no particular interest can be identified as being influential, although anti-evolutionists probably think otherwise.