Bishop Hill Nurse accuses Lawson of cherrypicking
Feb 16, 2013 GWPF Royal Society Paul Nurse has used the occasion of a speech to the University of Melbourne to make an extraordinary attack on Nigel Lawson . Discussing people's concerns over global warming, he suggested that this was causing some to attack the science.
We saw that in Britain with a politician, Nigel Lawson, who would go on television and talk about the scientific case. And he was trained as a politician - you made whatever case you can to convince the audience. So he would choose two points and say "look no warming's taking place", knowing that all the other points that you chose in the 20 years around it would not support his case, but he was just wanting to win that debate on television.
Strong stuff. Very strong stuff.
The audio file is here. Key quote at 42 mins.
Bishop Hill
There is a transcript of the whole talk here (h/t Tallbloke)
Reader Comments (74)
So what does Paul Nurse think of the current ten year average of UK Central England temperature trend from the Met Office at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/ ? Which points would Paul Nurse pick ?
The ten year average data for the UK CET anomaly is not about "No Warming" but the cooling currently happening in the longest temperature record available.
'0.8C warming in the last century,' so says Nurse. I've always understood that AGW theory held that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere could only affect temperature from about 1960. So, Nurse should have said the, ahem, consensus view is that 0.4C of warming since 1960 is anthropogenic and the 0.4C of warming before 1960 is courtesy of Mother Nature.
And Nurse has the cheek to complain about "personal attacks on scientists......"
It is a war. The battle lines are drawn. It really is time to stop being either surprised or astonished at this sort of stuff.
Surely we have all come to EXPECT it now? If not, why not?
When you select today as one of the points, that is not cherry-picking. When you go back to when it was last an increasing trend based from today, that is not cherry-picking either. It's saying it has not warmed for n years. And naturally by that method you end up highlighting the most recent warm peak. Of course you do, you didn't cherry-pick it, it was just defined by the method. What we have to ask Nurse is how long do we expect a flat line. When the CO2 has risen by thirty points in the disputed cherry-picked period, out of about 110 points of anthropogenically produced carbon (do I need allegedly in there?) that is more than a quarter of the CO2 rise and no temp change. They don't like it up 'em.
You know, when a scientist moves into the admin, or society presidency, or committee work, that means he has finished with being a scientist. I wonder whether Nurse would like to debate the question with an Oxfordshire housewife?
Come on, Nurse, say that to Nigel Lawson face-to-face, not while you are hiding away in Australia.
I know of Nigel Lawson but who is Paul Nurse? Some nobody who has a TV slot I suppose.
Argumentum ad hominem. An unsettled scientist?
Im looking forward to the skewering thats coming his way very shortly :)
Regards
Mailman
What does Nurse think is happening with this trend, from our familiar friends at CRU/UEA?
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/datapages/naoi.htm
and the present cooling trend in Germany?
http://notrickszone.com/2013/02/15/how-germanys-climate-scientists-suddenly-changed-their-predictions-of-warm-winters-to-cold-snowy-ones/
I dislike the cherry picking point. In science, one cannot cherry pick data (or results from an experiment) to prove the correctness of a theorem, but it is acceptable to cherry pick data to demonstrate that there is a problem with a theorem.
If the theorem is correct, it should be able to explain all data (and all experimental results), even if cherry picked.
This is of course, simply a facet of another well known principle. One can perform say a 1000 experiments the results of which are consistent with the theorem being correct, but it only needs one experiment (properly cinstructed and conducted) that yields results inconsistent with the theorem to demonstrate that the theorem is not correct (or at least not correct in total).
Since the so called basic physics of CO2 is such that whenever the concentration of CO2 increases there must be a corresponding increase in temperature (it does not permit that the temperature can remain static still less decrease), it is an extremely pertinent observation to point out that temperature increase has slowed and/or stalled and/or even fallen slightly. this needs an explanation consistent with the CO2 induced warming theory.
Again I see Nurse has many political value opinions that he clearly wants to pretend are objective scientific facts.
One value he clearly has is that the level of influence in society is too low from climate scientists.
He then goes on to manufacture a case why this is so with only consideration to his pet bogey men.
The fact that he only explains lack of “traction” in such a vague way - talking about some vague organised opposing human agency- without once thinking that the perceived strength of expertise in current climate science is weak, or that is clearly seen as riven with overt politicisation, is quite revealing.
This change of gear to vagueness of opponent and lack of consideration of the corresponding weakness or the proposer is typical of Nurses rhetoric.
He seems to think the anointed “experts” should just be seen as scientists and therefore as pure of intent, and so essentially we should just take their word in public policy.
This again confirms my impression of him as a trade union leader in an amalgamated union sticking up for the lowest skilled part in the amalgamation who have the potential to hold the tighter reigns in public policy influence – i.e. here the climate scientists.
The fact that he considers there is “less traction” on the alarmist side is a big give away. You don’t have to look far to see that climate alarmism is common currency with political leaders e.g. Obama’s weird weather rhetoric.
If this isn't good enough “traction” for Nurse then I think we have to worry about his scientism tendency.
I'm afraid Nurse seems to have lost any scientific credibilty that he may once have had, so I have neither the time nor the inclination to listen to what he has to say.
All I will say is that, of all the people associated with the GWPF, he has just cherry-picked Nigel Lawson to attack. Why is he so keen on cherry-picking? Is it because he cannot refute the arguments of all the scientists and engineers at GWPF?
Business as usual.
For those not familar with the Left and how it works, take the time to read David Horowitz artcile posted at Powerline. Ignore the title and his political advise and focus on the Left's operations. Google Horowitz if you're not familar with him and his history.
Link:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/02/david-horowitz-how-republicans-can-win.php
I take it that Nurse simplied called Lawson a clever liar? Lawson should call him out?
A lot of what he said was spot on but I wanted to heckle 'why don't you practice what you preach!' I can certainly agree that science seems to be a creative skill, which explains UEA's climate science and creative writing combo.
My conclusion is that there's no such thing as an impartial sceintist who can comment sagely on things like climate science. The best solution is to have partial people from both sides putting their points. He doesn't like that because his side is losing.
What is it with left wing people who can't see that they've taken a political side? They view the world through a 'I'm not biased, it's everyone else that has a problem' filter. They're really weird. They think money funneled to their side is perfectly acceptable but conservative funding is corrupting. That left wing supporters are following their beliefs but right wing people are bought/evil. That right wing ideas are abnormal but left wing positions are the centre/normal.
In an interview for the New Statesman, Nurse said of politics in relation to science and the Royal Society itself:
http://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2011/06/british-science-nurse-society
Haunting the Library picked it up that ball and ran with it here:
http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/impartiality-in-science-cast-aside-political-activism-and-attacks-on-sceptics-now-called-for/
Now we have an about-face - true to form of the approaches to debating deployed by the climate clergy - and an altogether more hostile attitude to the influences of politics within science when it serves him (44:12):
Prior to this, Nurse berated Nigel Lawson's strong arguments during a broadcast because they were "...overspilling political views into science...", which in his opinion meant that "...confidently stated opinions... to attract public and political attention..." were somehow anathema to his own position!
The next time we hear from the Royal Society's Science Policy Centre, we'll know that it will certainly be 'as far as possible' from science!
Is this the same Paul Nurse who stated on television that man-made CO2 was seven times as high as naturally-emitted CO2 (when the actual figures are c3% man-made, c97% natural)?
Why, yes it is.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100074031/sir-paul-nurses-big-boo-boo/
Clearly on top of the detail, then ;-))
Has he no shame? Seriously?
Emotion based science
or Faith based science ?
- which one best describes sci-activist Paul Nurses view ?
Bloody idiot!!
Of course, Paul Nurse could never be accused of 'cherry picking' himself, could he..?
Pot....kettle....black....
The point is, Nurse, old chap, that the recent flat/cooling trend leaves in tatters a decade-worth of cretinously hysterical doom mongering from your very learned colleagues.
People much like yourself, when you think about it, which you don't, and never will.
Hopefully there are enough members of the RS left who have the integrity to take their leader (Dear Leader!) to task and make him explain himself. Once a highly respected organisation, Nurse is sending the RS down the same path as the BBC and turning it into an activist organisation that will one day become irrelevant. Pity really.
Here’s the bit following your quote. I’ll post the bit before in a sec.
I think I know why Paul Nurse appears to prefer being in Australia than here, if this is a good example of how the politicians think Down Under: http://www.2gb.com/article/andrew-bolt-steve-price-feb-12. Move about 26:00 minutes in and realise why the end of all civilization in Australia is imminent. As I have mentioned on another post, with politicians like Craig Emerson in charge (citing the World Bank as a climate reference ffs!), there is no hope for that country.
Most of us who contribute to this, and similar, blogs would be referred to as “denialist”; however, what are we in “denial” of? Most, if not all, of us accept that climate change can happen and is happening; that the world is warming; that CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas; that CO2 levels are increasing; that the rise in CO2 is probably human-caused (i.e. anthropogenic); and that the rising CO2 levels might influence the warming of the atmosphere. What we are in “denial” about is that there is any cause for alarm about the “climate change”/global warming; that it is ALL the fault of humans; and that there is anything significant that can be done about it. Not so much as denial, more like yet to be convinced. The alarmists, however, deny that there can be any further discussion or debate about the issue – “the science is settled.” Just who is in denial, here?
I know you are not supposed to be Snobby and Trolly
But Sir Paul Nurse "Ex Council House Scientist".
Don't forget to call him Sir. now.
Poor old man. He never went to public school like Dellers , Monbiot , Lawson or our Tony ,Dave and Nick and the rest of the Establishment he trying so hard to kiss up to.
Pharos - There you go just cherry-picking again!!!
I like the bit in Tim Osborne's NAO piece -
"Note also that the winter 2009/10 had the most negative NAO index measured during the almost 190-year record. "
Interesting - Is my memory defective (it often is my wife says) but I thought that IPCC AR4 predicted an increasingly positive trend to NAO ?
Is that right?
him being in oz fits with the "do as we preach not as we do ourselves" part.
they (the posh left) all seem to jet often to australia I cannot imagine it would be for a higher purpose than self service.
Here’s the bit just before the Lawson bit.
geoffchambers - thanks for those postings - interesting.
I think you have to count people like Sir Paul Nurse as useful idiots who will go spouting for the cause until the ice edge reaches the Royal Society.
It is almost as if he, and others like him, hibernated in 2007 and have just woken up and spouted without checking the latest score.
More null verbiage from Nurse. But should we hold on to him for fear of something worse?
He really is a second rater, isn't he. He misrepresents Lawson's views (and other "denialists"). No scientist of integrity would argue like that. No wonder he wraps himself in the comfort blanket of "consensus".
If your model predicts an exponentially increasing line when the real world measure's flat then your model is wrong.
Once again we have a resounding silence from the world's most eminent scientists as their great leader trashes their credibility.
He used to sell the socialist worker rag. Judging by his pathetic antics, once a Trot always a Trot. As for accusing sceptics of cherry picking - you couldn't make that up. Cherry picking atypical data points has long been the favourite modus-operandi for trolls and eco-zombies infesting sceptical blogs for lack of any substance to make their case.
I wonder if Lawson and Nurse could be related? Might explain Nurse's attitude...perhaps a test could be run?
I shall never forget Nurse's television show when, supposedly, he was objectively investigating all sides of 'the climate change'debate.
It was abundantly clear that interviews, with sceptics such as James Delapole, were being heavily edited to suite Nurses blatent advocacy.
Indeed, it seemed that whoever at BBC was actually making the edits was so disgusted with what he was asked to do that he made it obvious what was going on.
Nurse probably sees himself as some sort of government cheerleader, but he least of all should accuse anyone of 'cherry picking' after the above disgrace.
The Royal Society, under Nurse, fails science and brings itself and science into disrepute. Attacking Lawson seems typical of knight and loyal servant of 'the cause'.
William
I interviewed Delingpole about the Nurse interview,and he also sent me the letter from the BBC producer that completely misrepresented the programme to him.
I wrote it up here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/03/has-the-bbc-has-broken-faith-with-the-general-public/
I think it sad that a scientist of his calibre has fallen to this level. At sixty four years young, it is not too late for him to re-engage his mind.
Does he have no friends left who will quietly whisper in his ear: "Actually, Paul, cAGW is now looking like an increasingly foolish prediction."
Science needs his help, not his slings and arrows. Those who infuse such politics into science need to be rooted out, leaf and twig and branch.
Apart from anything else, paul nurse does his best to demonstrate how not to speak in public.
His metaphor sounded like "mataphor" and he keeps saying "there's.
I found it very difficult to concentrate on what he was talking about.
Interesting, Geoff.
I think it's a crucial point too...... and the corollary even more so since, by extension, if global warming should prove not to be due to human activity, the "political and ideological views" of the deniers would appear to be nothing more than than the application of logic and common sense.
Paul might have a unique insight into the reproductive behaviour of yeast cells - but logic doesn't seem to be a strong point with him.
I loved this quote from an interview he gave to the New Statesman (or Old Trot - as we frothing neocons like to call it) -
"As a scientist, you work in total obscurity until suddenly you earn a Nobel prize. Then journalists ask your opinions about anything and everything and you're expected to say something. There's no reason you should have anything sensible to say."
He seems to have manged to put that behind him though.
CAGW, the modern day Piltdown Man.
Is there any journalist (or anyone else for that matter) who will be able to contact Paul Nurse in the next few days and ask him if he has ever heard of "the most influential tree in the world" and whether or not it is just possible that a fair minded person might think that that tree, even though it wasn't a cherry tree, was cherry picked?
Climategate reveals 'the most influential tree in the world'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6738111/Climategate-reveals-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world.html
Christopher Booker, Daily Telegraph, 5 Dec 2009.
I can't take anything Nurse utters at face value, for me, albeit with a scientific background he is just another Socialist leaning politician who believes in statism, ie, big state government and that: green taxes are somehow going to solve the world's ills.
Lord Lawson, is a fair minded pol, he is if anything overly fair minded and sparing of the alarmist camp fruitcakes.
Nurse, has fallen off his trolley and had to go to Australia to vent his grievous guff - what it does do, it shines a light on the accuser and it illuminates a very small minded and petty unpleasant character.
Nurse recently devoted a Guardian CIF scare piece to how terrible it would be if the UK left the EU as it would lose all those EU science grants.
He didn't know - or chose to obscure - the fact that the UK is a net contributor to the EU and so could replace the grants with money to spare.
So, ignorant and/or obfuscating - a glittering career in politics awaits.
TonyCO2: simple reason why, its called brain washing and associating with other of a similar mindset. If everyone you surround yourself with thinks and acts the same - to you that is normal. Now this is fine if the people you surround yourself with are not brainwashed and usually operating off a largely fact based/rational mindset; but I fear Nurse has truly fallen deep down the rabbit hole of political science and the corrupt mindset that leads to - its a slippery slope down the garderobe..
Paul Nurse perhaps does not realise that the GWPF academic advisory council is stuffed full of distinguished professors including some Fellows of his own august Society, who probably wince at some of his cringeworthy utterences.
Feb 16, 2013 at 1:18 PM | Steve Jones
Yes, Nurse is rebranding the RS as James Hansen has rebranded NASA. Nurse might want to buy himself one of those "Raiders of the Lost Ark" hats that Hansen wears.
I recently attended a small meeting at the RS, chaired by Nurse. It was non CAGW related.
Those I went with knew nothing of Nurse, or his CAGW opinions, but all emerged remarking that the man was a complete buffoon and simply astonished that he was in charge of anything.
From the Guardian. Apparently Sir Paul Nurse's New York house hosted a meeting of the "Good Club" whose membership apparently includes: Bill Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Oprah Winfrey, David Rockefeller and Ted Turner.
The GWPF have mirrored this blog on their website and added a couple of interesting clips, including an old interview between Nigel Lawson v Chris Rapley convened by Paxo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74E2D6oNSHc
and another with Ed Miliband
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX3fgW1f7Wk