Bishop Hill St Andrews Green Week
Mar 14, 2013 Climate: MWP Greens Whenever a new batch of Climategate files comes along I always seem to be in the middle of something. Climategate 2 happened while I was at Holyrood talking to MSPs about climate change. Yesterday I had an engagement at the University of St Andrews, where I had been booked to appear on a panel for the "Grill an Environmentalist" session. Herewith a brief report.
The panel consisted of paleoclimatologist Rob Wilson, myself, the university's environmental policy officer, and and economist called Felix Fitzroy and we were overseen by one of the student organisers. Fitzroy was of particular interest because he had written a very (ahem) critical letter about me to the town magazine a couple of years ago. It therefore seemed likely that he was going to provide the floorshow. In the event this expectation proved to be correct.
We were asked to briefly introduce ourselves and explain where we stood on global warming, and we all dutifully did so, except for Fitzroy who, speaking last, launched into an extended diatribe on what a bad person I was, apparently being guilty of promoting "hate" on this blog. As an example of my wickedness we learned that I had said that if the lights went out the finger of blame should be pointed at Nicholas Stern.
It's strange, but in my world there is a difference between blaming someone for something and promoting hate. Criticism serves an important function and people in important positions do need to be held responsible for their actions and to carry the blame when things go wrong. I think this way of thinking is unfortunate, particularly in the light of things like the Stafford Hospital scandal, where a refusal to hold anyone to account has been the source of considerable outrage.
The first half of the debate was marred by Fitzroy's inability to make concise answers and one could see a certain amount of eyerolling and general amusement among the audience as he droned on. As far as I could see he had prepared what he was going to say beforehand: it didn't matter what the question was, he was going to deliver the points he wanted. Fortunately, by halfway through he seemed to have said all he wanted to and kept a bit quieter.
There were a couple of nice moments on the subject of paleoclimate. Fitzroy had raised both the Marcott and Mann hockey sticks during his initial diatribe. I was not given an opportunity to respond to this, but it turned out that I did not have to. One of the questions from the audience was "Was the Hockey Stick an Illusion?". After I had said my piece, Rob Wilson chipped in and agreed that the Hockey Stick was "less than ideal", that it was broken, and that we should all just move on. Later on he discussed the Marcott hockey stick, suggesting that from his brief look at the paper it looked to have problems. From my perspective Fitzroy was left looking like a bit of a windbag.
The audience was made up largely of sustainable development students, so I think it is fair to say that I was unlikely to change many minds, something that was borne out by the votes at the start and end of the debate. Nevertheless, it was a fun trip, and may even have started some new lines of thinking among the students.
Reader Comments (61)
Did anyone record the session? Was the environmental policy officer meant to be the grillee? Sounds a worthwhile excursion, Bish, if only to hone your technique.. :-)
The session was being recorded, although not professionally, so I don't know whether the results will be usable.
I remember that article by Fitzroy- he complained to the editor of the town magazine in excoriating terms because they had published a very nice review of the Hockey Stick Illusion. He is just another academic who doesn't believe in free speech.
Did you mean 'aye'? :)
A great thing to be doing Bish. As we were thinking with Tara, who knows where all that truth and kindness goes in the end. Memory can play tricks but it can also save us. And it's surely what Mr. FOIA would have wanted. :)
FitzRoy wrote a book "An introduction to climate change economics and policy" that reads more like a manifesto than a textbook. The book takes Stern to task for not being sufficiently alarmist.
I'd love to see the contribution from the town mag. Is it available anywhere?
Casting my mind back I think it might not have been published. IIRC I was told that he had written a rude letter but never actually saw it.
"bit of a windbag..."
Careful with that hate speech :)
Faced with audience large parts of which future careers go up in ironic 'smoke ' should AGW fall , I think the author has done well.
It’s the second stringers like Fitzroy who will keep CAGW music playing far longer than absolutely necessary. They make the loudest noise and contribute no subtlety. The principals in the orchestra like the Guardian will have long since moved on by the time these people stop banging the drum.
Talking of which, I was trying to find juicy Marcott Hockey Stick headlines but there’s a marked lack of them. Dot Earth, obviously, but Revekin's article is not as black and white as it would have been. The Independent took the bait but the Guardian..? I can’t find it mentioned. Leo Hickman twitter links to New Scientist but no article of his own? Don’t tell me the climate gang are waiting to see if sceptics could decompose it?
TinyCO2:
Memories of Gergis et al? Not to mention the execrable Lewandowsky. I think this is exactly what they're waiting for. And the bungling conspirators who have produced Marcott just in time for AR5 (the C-word is I think fully justified in this limited context) will not have failed to notice how little impact their efforts now have. It's a changed world out there, if you compare with the early part of November 2009 - a month I pluck out of the air pretty much at random :)
@ TinyCO2
Theres already a smart take-down on WUWT. The Guardian would be mad to promote Marcott, as they'd have to allow comments to justify such grandiose claims. Those coments would be stuffed with links to WUWT. (The mods would no-doubt be busy..)
Regarding its climate coverage, The Indy has become little more than a comic and is best ignored.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/marcotts-proxies/
Promoting hate, on the Hill? No surely not? You wouldn't do that would you? You'll blacken the good name of anyone who dares to oppose you, but promoting hate? No, that's silly. You'll accuse anyone you feel like of corruption or incompetence or stupidity, but do you hate them? No, you want them to love you! You'll set your attack dogs on any prey however learned, but do you encourage them to hate? The thought of it!
Come on get real, hate is the Hill's middle name.
Mar 14, 2013 at 12:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket
WOW, Bish, you really are getting to them aren't you?
Am I an attack dog? Who is? Is BB engaging in hyperbole much?
BB: do calm down. Real hate, such as the twisted contribution of Albert Pierrepoint in November, is always deleted on sight. The vital distinction our host is making is that honest criticism isn't hate. And such criticism is incredibly needed in the climate area. Your attempts to smear BH really aren't getting off the ground - and that wry observation also isn't hate. Another example of the distinction to ponder.
Oh come now BB, you cannot really believe that. As an aside, I wonder how many other people ruminate about something they've heard and disagree with but then realize there may be something to it - re: the sustainable (sustained?) students?
BB: hate is the Hill's middle name.
The real symptom of environmentalism is a failure to develop a sense of proportion. Which is why environmentalists can't tell the difference between criticism and hate. A failure to develop a sense of proportion means environmentalists internalise abstract debates about the climate, policy, and economics, and therefore feel threatened.
Monbiot is a more obvious case. Two films that were critical of environmentalism broadcast by Ch4 at either end of a decade amounted to them having pronounced a 'war on the environment'.
This misconception runs through the entire environmental perspective, in which any kind of mere change is understood as total destruction.
BB
If this is hate, how on earth would you describe the content/attitude on RC, SkS or Joe Romm's site?
I hope someone tells these "sustainable development students" that something that needs subsidising throughout its lifetime is not sustainable
All the same, this is a very useful perspective to hold.
Shub: so true. Especially when you are completely blind to the hate on your side, as jamesp implies. Ben's analysis is majestic and true; the full reality is darker again. Three cheers that such twisted misanthropy isn't getting the headlines it used to, as TinyCO2 showed earlier.
Ben Pile the trouble is some people's total inability to understand why others don't share the same extreme views on the subject has they do , for them if your not with them totally you must be totally against them.
And once you have gone there, and given that your 'saving the planet ', its an easy step to call for 'holy war ' on those that are 'against you'
KnR: But the 'the planet' is an abstraction. People, with their need for food and warmth, aren't. It's still possible that the penny will drop, starting with the most radical and idealistic. We can only put forth truth, the best we know, with kindness. Hearts change for reasons we can never know.
Trying to make a living from trading Carbon Credits in middle of a recession wheres the Economics in that. Even Al Gore sold up to the oil rich Arabs and got himself out of the game.Now the EU is getting cold feet about Global Warming.Now there's a German version of the Tea Party.Farage didnt just triumph in Eastleigh.
Environmental sentimentality during a massive recession after a world wide Banking Collapse is a luxury only the smug wealthy elite super rich can really afford.
Professor Felix Fitzroy teaches Economics related to Climate Change.
Lucky for him.Hes got Climate Change related cushy university job .Most probably unlike most of his post Graduates he used to teach .Who in the non academic real world are still looking for work.
Climate Change same as Media Studies just another made up Mickey Mouse subject.
That isnt Cynical Hate or Bitchiness but just honest reality .
"...I had been booked to appear on a panel for the "Grill an Environmentalist" session."
You could always put them on the back-burner. Come the "Barbeque Summer" I expect there will be more opportunities.
If hate is the Bishop's middle name, what name would Fitzroy give his fellow economist Lord Lawson?
[Snip - raise the tone please]
3x2 [Snip - raise the tone please]
Sorry your Grace. Didn't think that comment was particularly rough. If you want to send me a more detailed explanation then you have my e-mail.
Meanwhile... sorry for lowering the tone. Sometimes, and on some subjects, one just types ...
Richard Drake says
'But the 'the planet' is an abstraction'
And that is the whole point. It is a blank canvas on which anybody can write anything they like and still claim (to their own satisfaction at least) that they are 'saving the planet' and so occupy (they believe) the moral high ground.
It's like god. It is very easy to persuade yourself that your god (or gods) approve(s) of whatever it is that you were going to do anyway...that could even be why people invent them in the first place.
Nobody ever went to war believing that god was on the other side, nor became a 'climate activist' without somehow believing that they were 'saving the planet'.
Economist Fitzroy having published ( http://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/econom/v73y2006i291p533-545.html)
on Monopsony, the single buyer (government/taxpayer) multiple seller (econauts?) condition, it would have been interesting to have him analyse the operating conditions of Green Inc.
The mention of the "University's environmental officer" and the perusal of the phenomenal number of staff descriptions at so many academic and governmental organizations, makes me wonder if there is any comprehensive statistics on how many of these non-productive, well compensated, aphid-like positions there are and how much of the sap they are drinkin?
Rhoda, well maybe a little...
But here's the thing. I generally don't read the main site (the blog) because it is just too nasty. I normally read and comment on discussions where AM doesn't set the scene with his put-downs, insinuations and accusations (all done in such a 'polite' manner of course). Y'all might be inured to (or just in tune with) AM's continuous drumbeat of condemnation, considering it just a harmless expression of opinion, but in my mind it incites general contempt for and, yes, hatred of climate scientists and of any organisation or person adopting the AGW line.
You like to think of yourselves as innocent dears who wouldn't hurt a fly except with your slicing rhetoric; no contributor to BH could possibly be responsible for any hate mail to scientists. You'll FOI to prove it if necessary. And yet I've seen comments alluding to stringing lines across roads and hanging unfortunates from lamp posts. There are people here for whom hatred is not conceptual and who could quite easily be capable of sending the sort of mail I'm sure (really) that most of you would condemn. And AM's signature indictment of all and everybody just encourages that.
BB,
Could you give people an idea of what you would consider to be acceptable criticism of your position? Or is any criticism unacceptable hate?
BitBucket
'There are people here for whom hatred is not conceptual'
care to show your evidenced to support this claim , or do you just 'know' its true ?
Bit,
Well we disagree on the performance of this blog's host, that's for sure! I see Andrew making many sincere efforts to maintain some substantial levels of civility and reason in debates that are often uncivil and vitriolic around the web (and in "real" life). Sure, he has some strong views as do all of us. No one would be attracted to spend any time and energy on these issues without coming to think there were some very good and rather bad ideas and actors out there. But I challenge you to list many people on any side of these debates (on the web) who behave more consistently with civility and dignity, even while engaging critical reasoning. Sure, one can find people who don't really debate at all, cloistered scientists etc., but among the people who are active in public debate, who do you see as exemplars for good qualities which are lacking in our host?
I don't see too much of it and certainly not in any of the sites like RC, Stoat, Eli, Tamino, et al. where nastiness is a way of life.
BitBucket.
Right enough. The more unpleasant denizens of this site supposedly welcome visiting scientists onto this site, but bury them in rude remarks when they do appear.
For example, response to Professor Kevin Anderson varied from discussion of his points (well done) to the sort of unpleasantness that would not be acceptable face-th-face.
The planet will still be here whatever happens. I'm more interested in whether we can keep our civilization running in the long term.
Well one cannot banish rudeness without a very heavy moderating hand, I'm afraid. I do wish that everyone would make more of an effort not to be rude here, especially when we get a visiting "scientist specimen" for friendly dissection etc. There are some who would rather emote and insult than try to sustain a reasoned engagement. I'm human and not immune to the "emote and insult" approach but I try hard to keep it in check, especially with any thoughtful expert visitor who could really add some information and insight to the discussions. Still, one reason I keep coming back to BH is that I think there is a higher proportion of interesting and informative people than one finds in most spots around the web. Sure, Mr. Bit and Mr. Entropic, it is rougher for you guys, but I think you can have a much better time discussing here than, say, I can have at virtually any of the "alarm" oriented sites. People who know me in real life often say things such as I can "get along with anyone" or have good discussions with anyone, but I more than met my limit with a lot of the alarm oriented people in the web climate wars who are determined to be uncivil and often irrational.
@ 'Entropic man'
your comments intrest me because we agree on most things (apart from reducing the world to relying on renewables, it wont happen !!)
you then make the statement above -
"I'm more interested in whether we can keep our civilization running in the long term"
long term to me means getting into space/solar system & beyond, using what resourses our mother planet can provide (carefully of course).
do you really want mankind to be tied to 1 planet because of our fear of climate/unknown ?
ps. Bish, keep up the good work, slowly slowly cachy monkey (or something like that)
DavidC, you can criticise me to your hearts content. I am nobody. If you threaten me with a noose I'll consider you capable of hate and evil, whether it is rhetorical or not. Google "as he hangs from the nearest lamp post" (with the quotes) and see where the only hit before today points (and check the cache).
Dougieh, are you the space cadet by any chance? Haven't seen him for some time...
Skiphil, I haven't tried discussions on 'alarmist sites' - there never seems much point preaching to the converted, so to speak. Also there are so many people on those sites who know more than I ever could, so I have nothing worthwhile to add beyond, "me too". I did come across some discussions in which Wm Connolley displays his wonderfully forthright ability with insults. Great fun, but I judge that given my level of ignorance I'd be just as likely to be at the sharp end of his jibes as a sceptic - he suffers no fools, so I wouldn't mess there.
I come back to BH because I like a good argument and by and large it is polite. I also like some of the people with whom I argue. Some others I like less but find challenging to my biases (we all have them). Others still I just dislike; it takes all kinds. I think you and I would get on fine. I'm not a monster really :-)
But on the issue of hate, the objection I have (and in the original quote too) is not that AM is personally hateful, but that in what he writes he promotes hate, as discussed. I have no personal animosity.
I agree wholeheartedly with Skiphill and suspect that BB, Entropic Man and others with similar points of view about our host possibly possess no functioning conceptual frame of reference to define acceptable discourse in public forums.
I have found AM and most of the regulars here to be very careful to preserve a 'gentlemanly' tone and to be very mild in their expressions of any form of negative comment. Having fled the Guardians' regular CiF 'attack dogs' some years ago for asking what I saw as a very mild question (re the standards that governed the daily measurement of ground-level temperature and precipitation), I find BB's perspective to be more than a little warped and suspect that, in his view, anyone NOT singing from the CAGW song-book is totally out of step with BB and his bretheren.
@bitbucket
Compare and contrast:
'I did come across some discussions in which Wm Connolley displays his wonderfully forthright ability with insults. Great fun'
' not that AM is personally hateful, but that in what he writes he promotes hate'
'
I was tempted to test whether my own ability with insults rises to the Connolley level.
But then I decided that the insignificance of the target meant that it just wasn't worth the effort.
Latimer:
It's also very easy to persuade yourself that your god disapproves of what you have done. Hence people talk and complain about Catholic guilt - and often give up on that god as a result.
That would fit with your thesis of self-interest being the driver. But I don't believe in any of it: either the thesis of self-interest or a god who wants us to feel guilty. There are millions of gods in which I don't believe. For this reason the first Christians were persecuted for being atheists in Rome. It's a non-trivial picture and always has been.
@Latimer Alder
A lot of the what Clarkson calls ecomentalists are Holy Willies or Unco Good (©Robert Burns).
http://www.online-literature.com/wilde/2340/
http://www.interlinear.info/uncogood.htm
BB -- I generally don't read the main site (the blog) because it is just too nasty.
the objection I have (and in the original quote too) is not that AM is personally hateful, but that in what he writes he promotes hate,
I am confused about what you write. But, having noticed this contradiction, I don't think I can be as confused as you appear to be.
Here's another.
I generally don't read the main site (the blog) because it is just too nasty. I normally read and comment on discussions where AM doesn't set the scene with his put-downs, insinuations and accusations (all done in such a 'polite' manner of course).
I am struck by the impossibility of 'only reading the comments' under blog posts in which AM has not 'set the scene with his put-downs, insinuations and accusations', without actually reading the blog posts. In order to know if AM had 'set the scene', you'd have to read the blog post -- the 'main site'. Moreover, AM is at once 'nasty' and 'polite'. Furthermore, under the posts you have 'seen comments alluding to stringing lines across roads and hanging unfortunates from lamp posts.' You object to the polite nastiness in the post, so don't read it, but somehow sense that it's there and only read the comments beneath posts in which it is absent (without reading it) to find nastiness presumably directed by AM. But can't be the case, because you've already said you only read comments under posts in which AM hasn't 'set the scene' with his nasty politeness.
Obvious contradictions put to one side, your argument seems to be that above the line, there's some kind of secret messaging going on, directing nastiness below it.
Let me tell you a secret. People disagree about all sorts of things, not just the climate. And where there is disagreement, there is human emotion on public display. Take any issue, and go an visit a CiF page about it. It would be most instructive for you to chose an debate in which you have no brief with either side. You will find nastiness there. No side in any debate between humans has the monopoly on either niceness or nastiness. Returning to the climate debate, which raises the passions of both sides, you will find it at the sites you have been directed to, directed against sceptics.
One of the reasons the environmental movement has failed is that it tried to set the debate up as one between good and evil -- between polar opposites such as science and cognitive dissonance, and so on. These attempts to polarise the debate have done more damage to the environmentalist's argument than any sceptic blog or denier for one simple reason: the truth was more complex. Evil Corporations(TM) -- even petrochemical firms -- were in bed with green NGOs, scientists and green politicians had their own interests, and it turned out that in many cases, the science wasn't as had been claimed, final, and turned out to have been helped along its way by a little bit of fiction. That's okay -- it's par for the course... We're all human. But the environmental movement set the standard.
Anyone can post here. To say that AM encourages commenters here to express nastiness is as absurd as saying he's directed you to post here in the way you've chosen to.
Bin Pile, you perhaps don't know the site. There's the blog where AM holds forth (bishop-hill.net) and there's the discussions (bishop-hill.net/discussions) where other people decide a subject. Reconsider.
I also did not say that, "AM encourages commenters here to express nastiness". I (and the reported speaker) said his site promotes hate. Aren't you a journalist or something? I would expect you to have a better facility with language for that. Or perhaps not...
The point stands, BB -- you're posting at bishop-hill.net, not under bishop-hill.net/discussions, and you claim to be able to sense AM encouraging commenters to express their hate while admitting you don't read his posts.
You can criticise my use of language all you like; they're still your contradictions.
I also did not say that, "AM encourages commenters here to express nastiness"
You said:
Also,
If your argument had been at all subtle, you might have been able to say the paraphrase was unjust. But your argument lacking any nuance *whatsoever*, you cannot complain about semantic imprecision.
Hey Mr Ben Pile, think of it like eating sprouts if it help you. I don't have to eat sprouts every day to know they are unpleasant. A few times is enough.
On nuance, I'd say you got it the wrong way round again. I'll call you Mr 180 degrees. The more nuanced an argument, the easier it is to misunderstand. Or to misconstrue - you can call it semantic imprecision if you like (is that what they call mis-reporting in journalism classes these days?).
The more nuanced an argument, the easier it is to misunderstand.
Perhaps. But your argument -- such as it was -- was not nuanced. Neither is your broader attempt to moralise about the content of this blog.
But we've veered off-topic -- which is, of course the point of moralising about content, rather than engaging with its substance. In other words, the point of moralising as you have is to deprive the debate of any nuance, to sustain the polarised good-vs-bad mythology.
@richard drake
' There are millions of gods in which I don't believe.'
We can agree on very nearly everything then.
But I get the slam dunk.
I don't believe in any of them.