Bishop Hill Tamsin's SciFoo talk
Jun 12, 2013 Climate: MWP Climate: Mann Climate: Sceptics Tamsin Edwards points us to the talk she wants to give at Google's prestigious SciFoo conference. It's called "Tea with the Enemy".
Some science has a bad relationship with the public: in particular, climate science and many life sciences. Whether due to misinformation or misunderstanding, controversy or contested results, politicisation or fear - or all of these - such scientific "hot potatoes" are dangerous because non-experts must engage with, trust, and understand scientific results to make well-informed decisions about themselves and society. They can also damage the reputation of science in terms of its impartiality or aim to improve human understanding and quality of life.
In the past couple of years a new wave of predominately UK climate scientists and sceptics have found a way to "take the heat out of climate change". We have open lines of civil and respectful dialogue - "tea with the enemy" - and believe we have made tangible achievements in improving public trust in climate scientists and evidence. In contrast, climate conversations in countries such as the USA and Australia continue to either be polarised, with aggressive name-calling and defensive entrenchment of views, or else pointless from the point of view of the above, by preaching only to the converted.
I'd like to share my positive experiences in engaging with climate sceptics and talk about the extent to which we can, or already do, apply this approach to other areas - both geographically and scientifically. Where is the common ground, and where are the difficulties? Is it just too late to try and erase some battlelines? Are there substantial cultural or societal differences between European and USA/Australian scientists + public that explain or limit these approaches, and how about the rest of the world? Some scientists disagree with our approach - what are the pitfalls? Can we learn lessons across different sciences or is, for example, personal medical risk just too different to global environmental risk? I'd love to hear your views.
These are interesting questions. As I noted in my post the other day, I wonder if the militants in the UK have been put on the back foot by the Climategate revelations. That there are militants who have poisoned the debate and wrought havoc on the careers of dissenting scientists is not in doubt. But it is important to note that there are honest scientists and that they are operating in the same milieu as the militants. It is therefore necessary to make nice and to realise that demanding that the good guys condemn every transgression by the bad guys is not going to get anywhere.
I agree with Tamsin's observation that trust in climate science has been improved by these efforts - we have moved on from "all climatologists are crooks" to "some climatologists are crooks". But the corollary of my observations in the last paragraph is that the honest scientists need to realise that their profession isn't going to completely emerge from the quagmire until bad science and bad scientists are called out. We simply cannot go on pretending that the Hockey Sticks - either Mann's or Marcott's - have any place in the scientific literature; we cannot allow the Empty Statement on climate change to pass as a consensus on anything. I'm sure readers can suggest others.
Nevertheless, progress has been made, and that is to be welcomed.
Reader Comments (66)
To Rhoda check this post out. Basic run down is they took 4 models and found they produce 4 completely different fantasy world and all got the same "correct" answer.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/09/more-climate-models-fail-a-chink-in-the-armor-at-science/
Basically yes the answer is programed in everyone knows it. The method is just for show.
on the models Tamsin
how much have we the taxpayers worldwide spent?
and what are the tangible results of our spending?
a cost/benefit analysis by any other name
"If one thinks there should be a debate, then one must think it too early for action. If not the debate is just another shoddy attempt at reprogramming me."
It is too early for action. It is most definitely too early for action. We do not know if action will be required now or sometime in the future. And so on...
The reason is that we have no science of climate that can provide reasonable predictions about climate change. Why would we take action when we cannot predict what we might be acting against?
I am convinced that Tamsin is a very nice young lady, but rather naive in her defence of Climate Scientists in general when one considers the specifics of the political chicanery and the misery and deaths from fuel poverty alone that have been caused by the output of climate science-driven alarmism.
When commentators are motivated to make comments such as "ethics is a county near London" and for a significant portion of the public to understand this acid/funny comment on how politicians such as Lord Deben and Tim Yeo use the alarmists of climate science to line their own pockets at the expense of the voting population, most sceptics have moved beyond any possibility of 'being civilised' in our discourse with climate alarmists.
The post-WWII debate about the mis-use of science is still quite clear in the memories of older members of the public such as I, which makes me for one rather less forgiving of 'The Team' and any scientists who are aligned with them or stay silent in the face of evil through being frightened of being deprived of their own secure income and reputation if they speak what they know to be the truth.
Sorry Tamsin, but 'tea with the enemy' has connotations of being entertained on a sunny afternoon by string quartets composed of prisoners inside a WWII death camp and persuading oneself that one is 'civilised'.
Jun 12, 2013 at 12:54 PM | Tamsin Edwards
"The vast, vast majority of climate scientists are quietly working away on their own research, with exactly the same impartiality and - when exposed to them - thoughtful consideration of sceptic criticisms."
Is there one of them who is respected in the community yet is working to show that some main thesis of mainstream climate science is false? If yes, please produce the work in progress. If not then mainstream climate science is not science.
Jun 12, 2013 at 10:43 PM | Rhoda
I'm not sure exactly how it is programmed in but the rest is exactly what you said. You can't derive any evidence from a model that you programmed to generate in the first place.
For years I hoped this fiasco would end in ridicule and farce, but one day my friend Peter Bocking told me that too many people had died already.
===========
'Look at that frightful ass Spode swanking about in footer bags! Did you ever in your puff see such a perfect perisher?'
H/t The Plum Orchard.
===========
When I consider Tamasin's brave address versus the actions of her employer, the UKMO, I must ask, "Are you kidding me ?" I think that the day UKMO comes clean will be the day when sceptics will seriously consider the advances of TE and RB ... until then it's nothing more than a flirt. As nice people as are TE and RB, they are hugely overshadowed by the bear of UKMO and its political meddling ... I might be an Aussie, but UK institutions such as the UKMO are the pillars of alarmism in Australia.
Tamsin works at the University of Bristol, not the Met Office
Smug alert.
Sorry but something isn't quite right. It feels like a cocktail of freshers' week and the worst ever TED talk.
I'm now in fast browse/mass ignore mode on BH and less likely to contribute for a while. But two parting shots here. Tamsin is a force for good - that's surely obvious, whatever the lower-level quibbles. And the Bish's Empty Statement aka Vacant Shibboleth, Shallow Slipperiness or whatever we finally land on is a really important endeavour. Good luck. :)
South CO2 Bubble.
=============
"
I'm now in fast browse/mass ignore mode on BH and less likely to contribute for a while. But two parting shots here. Tamsin is a force for good - that's surely obvious, whatever the lower-level quibbles. And the Bish's Empty Statement aka Vacant Shibboleth, Shallow Slipperiness or whatever we finally land on is a really important endeavour. Good luck. :)
Jun 13, 2013 at 1:18 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake"
poor comment a best. You as she claims is a force of good.. yet we ask for more then mere words and logical fallacies. Plus as a proud member of the army of darkness being a force for "good" is meaningless.
Richard Drake
"Tamsin is a force for good - that's surely obvious..."
If she listens, learns and responds positively to significant sceptical arguments we can start evaluating this.
If it turns out that all we get is a PR exercise, with however softly softly an approach, trying to convince us how wrong we have been about the bad old ways of climate science, then in no way is this a force for good.
Bish It is therefore necessary to make nice and to realise that demanding that the good guys condemn every transgression by the bad guys is not going to get anywhere...
But the corollary ... is that the honest scientists need to realise that their profession isn't going to completely emerge from the quagmire until bad science and bad scientists are called out.
Corollary? Sounds more like flat contradiction to me.