Thursday
Dec262013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill No challenge
Dec 26, 2013 BBC Climate: Sceptics Even in the season of goodwill to all men, the mispresentation of the climate debate continues apace. This morning we had Professor Steve Jones interviewed yet again on the subject of BBC coverage of science, with the great man once again given the opportunity to portray the climate debate as being between "science" and "deniers".
Once again I wonder whether the BBC has ever interviewed a denier, in the sense of someone who disputes the existence of the greenhouse effect. Once again I wonder why the BBC feels that we need to have this false representation of the debate put forward. And once again I wonder at the failure of the BBC's interviewers to challenge it.
The audio is below.
Reader Comments (310)
Entropic,
I've read the link provided but please do tell me what I'm supposed to think?
Surely you aren't mirroring what I mentioned in my post at "Dec 28, 2013 at 7:12 PM"?
Mailman
Entropic
Re Article Sea Ice
In the same way your "rapidly accelerating rise in sea level" of six months ago has faded away? The problem with referring to very short term changes is that people remember (here at least) go and look more than once. It's then a case of Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
SandyS
Glad you spotted the irony.
EM
I thought at first this was an attempt at humour but then realised that this is the way warmists think. We don't bother measuring the sea ice as such; we measure "confidence boundaries" vs some (no doubt carefully) selected average and then pretend it means something.Let us get this patently clear.
My link was intended for one purpose and one purpose only: to show Chandra that 2013 ice melt was less and ended earlier than 2012 and was also less than the previous three years.
Arctic ice coverage, like sea level and most of your other global warming "signals", is meaningless.
Why? Because you don't have and don't care about context. The fact that we can accurately measure (we think) variations in ice cover for 34 years but couldn't for the previous several thousand renders the current state of the ice irrelevant.
That, and the other favourites of the eco-high command (sea level, acidity, CO2 concentration, weather events, weather extremes) are nothing but fables to scare children and a comfort blanket for the eco-foot soldiers.
The longest running metric that is reliable is temperature and even that tells us precious little considering the extent to which it has been manipulated. None of the others has a pedigree long enough to prove anything. Ice cores are not reliable; tree rings are certainly not reliable; sea level is showing nothing to get excited about; the effects of reduced alkalinity are made up on the spur of the moment to suit (and just as quickly shot down by those who actually understand marine science); virtually all the claims regarding extreme weather events are lies — I have to call them that because Chandra tells me that ignorance or mendacity are the only options for those who challenge the priests of climate change so I apply the same standard to them and the data clearly state that tornados and hurricanes are at historically low levels.
In one breath they forecast more extreme weather with warming; in the next (or perhaps it's the guy in the lab next door that didn't get the memo) they tell me that the temperature gradient between equator and pole will decrease with warming and you do realise that those two concepts are incompatible, don't you?
I could also go on at length about the observations of Arctic ice cover in past decades (the 1930s especially) noting that while "deniers" (as you and your pals call us) accept that these observations are less reliable than modern ones you are the ones who deny that they have any validity at all because they are "anecdotal" or "only cover parts of the area", a problem which doesn't seem to faze Hansen when it comes to interpolating (ie "making up") data to fill his temperature gaps.
I'll leave the way the debate about the greenhouse effect has been efficiently shut down for another time.
Mailman
The Heartland Institute are lobbyists, propagandists for hire. Their smoking website is a fine example of the genre.
Mike Jackson
It was an attempt at humour. Next time I'll add a smiley face.
Regarding your comment on ice extend to Chandra, see SandyS' 11.29 comment on short term changes.
EM,
Oh, is that all it is. I thought you were trying to point something interesting out...instead all I see is someone playing the "they said something politically incorrect (in this case sticking up for the rights of smokers) therefore how the hell can we trust anything they say on another topic that is completely unrelated to their dirty, politically incorrect thoughts" card.
The evil bastards!
Mailman
EM,
Sorry, one more thought. Apparently its ok to be an advocate for Mann Made Global Warming (tm) as long as your propaganda supports the religion of Mann Made Global Warming (tm).
On the other hand, its not ok to advocate for scepticism and a willingness to actually look at the science behind the religion of Mann Made Global Warming (tm). For that organisations like Heartland and individuals like Christy et al should be tied to a pole and burnt for their heresy!
Mailman
My theory is that humans only behave with the religious fanatic profile when they are trying to sustain something that is not supported by facts, but by faith. IOW, it is the necessary behavior for someone who deeply *wants* to believe X but X is not actually supported by evidence. They seem to want to be fanatics, and will sacrifice integrity and reason to be one.
So those who dare question X get treated in predictable ways by true believers in X, no matter what X may be.
So for the religious profile, those profiting off of AGW- the wind mills, food for fuel, the endless list of faux NGO's, the academics, the media hypesters, etc. etc. etc. are all just doing well while doing good. But anyone or any group that dares question AGW, no matter how well qualified, is by definition at least a heretic to be shunned, if not outright condemned.
Entropic
And there I was thinking it was me being a touch ironic. I didn't realise you did irony.
EM
So my initial thought was correct. It was intended as humour!
Obviously my antennae aren't working at full capacity today. I'll try harder.
hunter
Isn't the problem that critics of X get vilified by the supporters of X for what the believe about Y and Z?
So Lindzen is not to be trusted on climate change because of his (alleged) stance on smoking; Morner is not be trusted on sea levels (for all he's probably forgotten more on the subject than most of his critics will ever know) because he believes in dowsing; Spencer is not to be believed on temperatures because he's a creationist.
The one consistent thread that runs through all this is that nowhere is the evidence for the expert sceptic's view or hypothesis itself challenged scientifically. One more small, but significant, piece of evidence that the believers are unsure of their ground or or their own ability to defend their argument.
Fanatics (and most eco-activists are fanatics) are, almost be definition, liars. As I said in my response to Entropic Man this morning many of the increasingly tedious tales that are spun to promote the excesses of the global warming cult are — to put it politely — seriously open to challenge. This doesn't matter to the activist; his only concern is that you should believe what he says and act accordingly, not that what he says is necessarily truthful.
Mailman
Did you go any furthur into the website? You will find an argument mirroring your own applied to smoking, AGW and every other scientific debate on which Heartland is paid to lobby.
At first sight it makes sense. Indeed, it is standard practice for any scientist to apply this scepticism to his own results and discuss any shortcomings.
As used by lobbyists it has a subtext that because all scientific evidence is imperfect, you should never believe the scientists.
This meme has become deeply embedded in some circles. It never worked too well regrding smoking as the medical and actuarial evidence is very strong. Among sceptics of global warming it has been widely copied. Your own comment and Mike Jacksons long comment at 12.13 expressed it clearly.
Did you notice your own reference to the "religion of Mann Made Global Warming" ?Such phrases are also characteristic of propoganda. It can be very easy to repeat propaganda which establishes your status as a member if a group, rather than actually analysing the problem itself.
EM, paid by whom?
Who pays Heartland to lobby climate denialism? Do you have a link you could share? Thanks in advance.
Mike Jackson
Lots of examples of good and bad work from scientists. Newton spent as much time on alchemy and spiritualism as on optics and gravity. Linus Pauling did brilliant work on proteins,while getting Vitamin D as a cold cure completely wrong.
Lindzen, Morner and Spencer are not sidelined for odd views on other topics. They have suffered the usual fate of scientists whose work fails to match reality, which is to be quietly ignored.
Wijnand
Try this as a summary of the Heartland Institute's activities and funding. There is also a reference list at the end for further reading.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute
Their own website homepage is at
http://heartland.org/
If you are wondering where Sourcewatch gets its funding.
http://www.prwatch.org/cmd
"CMD is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit that accepts donations from individuals and philanthropic foundations through gifts and grants. A copy of our most recent 990 filing is available upon request.
The following foundations have provided at least one grant of $5,000 or more to support the work of the Center for Media and Democracy since its inception in 1993. Those listed in bold are current funders.
• American Legacy Foundation • Bauman Family Foundation • Careth Foundation • Carolyn Foundation • Changing Horizons Charitable Trust • Courtney's Foundation • CS Fund • Deer Creek Foundation • Educational Foundation of America • Ettinger Foundation • Ford Foundation • Foundation for Deep Ecology • Foundation for Political Management • Funding Exchange • Richard & Rhoda Goldman Fund • Grodzins Fund • Helena Rubinstein Foundation • HKH Foundation • Litowitz Foundation • Marisla Foundation • Mostyn Foundation • Open Society Institute • Park Foundation • Public Welfare Foundation • Proteus Fund • V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation • Rockefeller Associates • Rockefeller Family Foundation • Rockwood Fund • Stern Family Fund • Schumann Center for Media and Democracy • Sunlight Foundation • Threshold Foundation • Tides Foundation • Town Creek Foundation • Turner Foundation • Wallace Global Fund • Winslow Foundation
Since there is a definate political smell surrounding all these American lobbyists, I'll leave you to sort out whose word to accept.
Regarding your comment on ice extend to Chandra, see SandyS' 11.29 comment on short term changes.
Dec 29, 2013 at 12:33 PM | Entropic man
Entropic I was pointing out to you that a discussion we had 6 months or so ago regarding sealevel rise which You claimed was accelerating has now reverted to mean as it has done over a long period now. You seem to have successfully ignored that, as you do with anything contrary to your view (if you can get away with it).
Entropic
Lindzen, Morner and Spencer are not sidelined for odd views on other topics. They have suffered the usual fate of scientists whose work fails to match reality, which is to be quietly ignored.
<Irony>That's presumably why Gavin Schimdt could bring himself to have a proper face to face debate with Roy Spencer on TV, and had to slink on and off stage?</Irony> So well known it appears on WUWT today
Sandy S
Indeed it has. Best guess is that the initial drop in 2010 which got some scetics excited was due to 500 gigatons of water dumped by a cyclone onto Australia. The acceleration in rise rate was the recovery due to its subsequent evaporation.
A lesson to all those on both sides trying to stretch short term noise into long term trends.
Sandy S
I remember the occasion. Schmidt was probably correct to avoid the trap.
Your quote above proves my point. The three I mentioned are sidelined because of their views on other topics. If you haven't read comments like "But Morner believes in dowsing" (sub-text: "so he's a nutter; ignore him") or "Of course, Spencer's a creationist" (sub-text: "so he's a nutter; ignore him") then where have you been the last 10 years?
Your own sub-text of "because all scientific evidence is imperfect, you should never believe the scientists" is farcical and what I said in the post you refer to was: My criticism is levelled more at the eco-parasites than at reputable scientists. The trouble is that reputable scientists appear to be few and far between in climate science. The received wisdom about all the examples I quoted is currently being challenged within the science community. The scientist-activists that have the ear of government have rarely if ever accepted the scientific challenge directly. They shout and wave their hands about; they obfuscate; they persistently play the man not the ball as I have said above; they use any and every possible excuse they can find, including abuse of the laws of physics if they can get away with it, to avoid having to address an alternative hypothesis which may — and I really do stress 'may' — be correct or may not. But they appear not to care about the science; they are simply desperate not to be proved wrong and apparently they will go to almost any lengths to make sure they aren't.
To which I could reasonably add: regardless of the cost to the taxpayer or the future well-being of the people which in the long run is what really counts. Isn't it?
EM, thanks, I will check it later.
Wijnand
Before you follow Entropic Man's link to Sourcewatch you might like to look at this link as well.
Let's get a balanced view, eh?
wijnand
Have fun. You've entered a propaganda war zone.
One point to consider, the Sourcewatch donors are listed on their parent website. The Heartland Institute prefers their donors to remain anonymous. Transparency,anyone?
EM
Don't for one minute think that I believe populartechnology.net to be unbiased; even I am not that stupid.
But I would argue that it is at least as even-handed as Sourcewatch!
And that old canard about who funds what! Really, EM!
You'll be saying next that Morner can't be trusted on sea levels because he believes in dowsing. (:<)
4:22 PM Entropic man
phew... next onto their fashion sense then ? I look forwards to climate fashion champion Viv Westwood putting an appearance at BH to criticise deniers climate related sartorial mistakes.
match reality? - crikey, we're way beyond pot, black kettle and you throw that in?
The serial propensity of adherents of the AGW cult to avoid informed and evidenced public debate and then wag their fingers at "deniers" from pulpits in front of the faithful - is BS (or should I say RS?), cowardly and fundamentally dishonest - like the BBC's treatment of the topic - to get back on topic. I note that pavement panhandling Greenpiecers and FoE-ers were instructed earlier this year not to engage with "deniers" on the street - what's that about? (A physicist pal of mine after savaging some Andean hatted leafleters had a twinge of remorse about chopping them up and elicited the "do not engage" instruction - that they had ignored in their zealousness)
@Entropic man
Could you spell out for a thicko like me exactly what the logical force of donor-establishment is with relation to truth or falsity? Or in establishing that if X argues for P, but X also argues for Q, and Q is "whacky", therefore X's arguments for P can be discounted or even ignored?
Or am I missing the point here?
This applies just as well to those who say "sceptics are powered by big oil" as those who say "alarmists are financed by big government" (except that citizens are entitled to question what use is made of the money they pay in tax).
Also, when you say "Schmidt was probably correct to avoid the trap" - why is discussion a "trap"?
EM,
As I said earlier it appears that according to you advocacy in favour of Mann Made Global Warming (tm) is ok while anyone who DARES question the religion of Mann Made Global Warming (tm) must have their motives questioned, their funding questioned, their other work questioned so as to delegitimise them. The sole reason for this is so the religious fanatics of the religion of Mann Made Global Warming (tm) don't have to address their sceptical scientific challenges...which is exactly what you have done here.
You use their support of smokers rights to deligitimise their views on climate science just as you have tried to use their source of funding to cast further doubt on their veracity (just as others do the same to the GPWF) BUT people like you NEVER address their scientific views on the catastrophilia that passes for climate science these days.
To be honest EM, if I was a sponsor of either heartland or the GPWF there is no way in hell I'd ever want my identity made public NOT because I have anything to hide but precisely because I value my safety and the safety of my family!
Mailman
Actually, it was Vitamin C.
Ouch.
Mailman, I'll slap a +1 on that.
Remember the "we are many and you are few and we know where you live" threat from (IIRC) Greenpeace. I suspect that their persistent demands that organisations like Heartland and GWPF reveal who their backers are are for the same purpose that Herod asked the Magi to reveal where Jesus was. (Topical reference!)
I'll take slight issue with you on the "religion" aspect of global warming. In my experience religions are usually quite happy to debate and thereby (perhaps) make converts or at least convince people of the benefits of their beliefs. Certainly I try to behave that way myself as much as I can and at the end would happily agree to differ with you.
If you'd used the word 'cult' I would have agreed 100% because what you describe fits cultish behaviour perfectly.
Mr Jackson,
You are quite correct, cult is a much better word than religion when talking about those who worship at the alter of Mann Made Global Warming (tm).
Thank you for the correct :)
Regards
Mailman
Entropic man
Trap? Or avoid being embarrassed by science.
A lesson to all those on both sides trying to stretch short term noise into long term trends.
No more references to sea-level, sea-ice, glaciers, snow coverage etc. from you then. That'll be good.
Actually, it was Vitamin C.
Ouch.
Dec 29, 2013 at 7:19 PM michaelhart
That's an error that EM might possibly be excused - I think he is dislextic.
Vitamin C? Even I make mistakes ;-)
In my experience most research scientists differ greatly from your image. Their first motivation is curiosity. Their professional status is defined by the quality of the research they publish.
That has three tests.
1) It must pass peer review. This is not a test of correctness, political or otherwise. Think of it as quality control.
2) It must pass scrutiny from other scientists after publication. If it adds to understanding and can be used as a springboard for further research it gets citations from other scientists in their own papers. The more citations, the more substantial the reputation of the paper and the scientist. Papers with obvious errors may be refuted by letter or other papers and get no citations.
3) It must pass the test of time and reality. Papers which are shown by experience to describe reality and make significant progress in our understanding become classics. Their authors get professorships and even Nobel prizes. Papers which turn out to be wrong are forgotten, along with their authors.
Academics are, almost by definition, not immediately economically productive. They tend to be employed by universities or other institution, financed ultimately by governments. They would mostly earn more in other professions. They do compete for research funding. Their chance of getting it depends on the quality of their previous research.
Given their career structure there is no incentive to produce bad or deliberately inaccurate research.Their ultimate test is nature and as Richard Feynmann said, "Nature cannot be fooled".
When the volume of warmist attacks on sceptics and sceptic organisations rises to a crescendo as we see here, it usually means something somewhere is not going well for them.
At the moment I'd put it down to the ever increasing embarrassment of the Antarctic junket stuck in the ice that's not supposed to be there. Even the BBC can't spin this one away, the world is pointing and laughing.
SandyS
Deal, if you can resist things like "Arctic ice recovery since 2012 or "no warming for 17 years"
Martin A
Thank you, dyslexia gives me bad spelling, but that mistake was just bad memory. I said that bad research gets forgotten :-)
Entropic man
I plead not guilty to that charge, only use them as examples when people quote rapidly accelerating sea-level rises and the like.
When I type in on Firefox there is a spell checker, admittedly US English but it does stop typos and some basic errors.
NW
The ship trapped in Commonwealth Bay entered through scattered ice floes. The wind then changed and blew the ice into the bay to pack around them.
What has this to do with AGW?
In five trials with 598 participants exposed to short periods of extreme physical stress (including marathon runners and skiers) vitamin C halved the common cold risk.
*Completely* wrong?
SandyS
I use Internet explorer and was given a Nexus for Christmas. I could use a spell checker, but have not yet found one to use here. It would explain why some commenters manage much more technically complex presentation.
Splitpin
Unfortunately no one else could replicate his results. Even the best can be caught out by a statastical outlier occasionally.
Entro - I suggest taking a look at the 2013 paper I pointed to. Its survey of published work shows that regular vitamin C can indeed reduce the duration of colds and the probability of catching one. Whether or not Pauling's precise results were reproduced, to say he was completely wrong is erroneous.
There's more than a little wishful thinking in EM's attempt to describe current University research. Way back when it may have been nearer the mark, but in todays academic research world, driven by the need to publish and league tables, it's largely about politics and who you know than about quality of work.
I studied in a department with more than it's fair share of Nobel laureates. A number of staff there spent years on work and published very few papers, but when they did they were big hitters, well worth reading. There is today a large volume of pretty ordinary papers published. I read quite a few in fields I'm still up to date with, and to say they are 'good' research would be stretching definitions.
He is right about good quality work lasting. But in the short term politics, fashion and inflluence are more powerful.
Mann is a good example of that.
For effective value for money research, look to the private sector. Or even to the startups from university profs with an eye to the filthy lucre.
A better example to cite with Pauling would be the structure of DNA - Pauling made a prediction before the structure was known which was not correct.
So, of course, not everything that Pauling thought and wrote proved to be correct.
However, Pauling worked in an area of science which employs the scientific method. Making an incorrect prediction was useful (in showing that an idea was wrong or needed to be refined).
In climatology an incorrect prediction, going against the preordained conclusion of AGW, is career suicide).
(Ask Phil 'Mike's Nature Trick' Jones, the upside down sediment fitters, the GCM people who refuse to show how their models can predict any known, previous climate change, etc.)
In response to Chandra and Entropic man.
1. Sagan's aerosol optical physics, introduced into atmospheric physics by Lacis and Hansen in 1974 and present in the IPCC modelling, was based on a misinterpretation of van der Hulst's work where he scaled the backscattered irradiance of sols of different sizes using 'lumped paramaterisation'. Sagan thought it was one process: there are two; look for the root 3.(1-g) factors. A rainy cloud backscatters much more than theory predicts. The claim that clouds with highest albedo have smallest droplets is wrong. in 2004, NASA buried Twomey's work - he had warned of the second effect and AR4 was approaching. Because aerosols delay droplet coarsening, the sign of the indirect aerosol effect has to be reversed: aerosol pollution is the real AGW.
2. The IPCC models falsely claim AGW has been from CO2 by a Bad Mistake from Meteorology - they imagine the Power output from a pyrgeometer is a real energy flux. It is not, being a Radiation Field, a potential energy flux to a sink at 0 deg. K. Hence they erroneously add in 333 W/m^2 'back radiation' then offset ~half by wrongly applying Kirchhoff's Law of Radiation to ToA get the 157.5 W/m^2 'Clear Sky Atmospheric Greenhouse factor'; this is ludicrous.
3. You can easily prove it by using MODTRAN to calculate the vector sum of the surface and atmospheric RFs for 16 deg C. It is ~160 W/m^2, an operational emissivity of ~-0.4. MODTRAN is a purely radiative calculation designed to mimic real atmospheric processes; in reality that 160 W/m^2, the solar SW thermalised at the surface, is split into 17 convection, 80 evapo-transpiration and 63 IR (23 in self absorbed H2O bands, the rest in the atmospheric window). The 6.85x exaggerated IR warming and 33 K GHE, a 3x exaggeration, gives the imaginary 'positive feedback'. The final part of the scam is to offset the temperature rise using double low level cloud optical depth in hind casting. This was discovered by the US' top cloud physicist in 2010 but he has not apparently been able to get it peer reviewed.
To summarise, on top of mostly correct physics is imposed incorrect assumptions from Meteorology (incorrect 'back radiation'). Meteorology and Climate Science must stop teaching non-standard physics. The politicians and the activists using this incorrect science for political purposes with zero respect for the great majority of honest scientists in the subject, have to accept they have been rumbled.
EM
Good point, EM. So maybe you can explain how it is that when you point to similar conditions blowing ice out of the Arctic the reaction from the warmists is to shout "liar", "shill", "denier", and then stick their fingers in their ears and start singing.You really cannot have it both ways.
IE10 has a built-in spellchecker though since I don't use IE I wouldn't know whether it's switched on automatically or not.
If your using IE9 you could try installing Speckie.
SandyS, Firefox has a UK-English dictionary add-on but it will default to US-Eng every time Mozilla sends an update as far as I can make out.
Hope all this is of some help.
Damn you Mike Jackson! I was about to ask the same question!!!
Wind blowing ice in to Antarctica = bad luck.
Wind blowing ice out of the Arctic = irrefutable evidence of Mann Made Global Warming (tm).
See, it's just so obvious.
Regards
Mailman
Mailman
SandyS and I have been over this ground. One event is weather. A persistent change in system behaviour is more likely to be climate related.
Mailman
EM is right.
The Antarctic problem is weather because no green propagandist/Guardian-BBC-ABC
useful idiot"journalist" would be foolish enough to risk getting that sort of egg on his face.The same problem in the Arctic is "climate-related" because ... well .... because they say it is.
EM
In this context please define "persistent", remembering that you have only had 34 years of accurate recording of the seasonal behaviour of Arctic sea ice. Me, I'd like a couple more of these 60-year cycles before I committed myself.