Bishop Hill Science Media Centre's casual misrepresentation
Jun 20, 2013 Climate: Parliament Science Media Centre The Science and Technology Committee's first hearing on public understanding of climate science was, as expected, a bit of a charade, with softball questions being tossed by green-tinged MPs in the direction of like-minded witnesses. There was little by way of truth-seeking behaviour and precious little truth and light either, and the impression you get is that most of the MPs on the committee have little or no interest in the issues being discussed. It really leaves a very poor impression of Parliament.
As one would expect, the Empty Statement on consensus was tossed around a great deal, without anyone on the panel apparently wondering what it was that scientists were (allegedly) agreeing about.
Tom Sheldon, the witness from the Science Media Centre, did what the Science Media Centre usually does and alternated between drivel and outright misrepresentation. Sheldon's claim that Nigel Lawson regularly appears in the media saying "climate change isn't real" was later on called out by Graham Stringer, who, using the proper Parliamentary language, pointed out that this claim was simply untrue.
Sheldon also tried to extol the virtues of specialist reporters in informing the climate change debate. This is probably the time to relay a couple of anecdotes. From time to time I have tried to interest mainstream journalists in stories uncovered on the climate blogs. One example was Nic Lewis's expose of the IPCC's rewriting of the Forster and Gregory results in AR4. When I mentioned a big IPCC scandal the journalist's eyes lit up. However, when I mentioned "Bayesian priors" his eyes rolled instead, and the conversation was quickly moved on elsewhere. Another journalist, who I was trying to get to address some of the issues around paleoclimate simply shrugged his shoulders and said he couldn't understand them.
So much for specialist climate change journalists. If they had scientific backgrounds they might well be helpful, but - as I repeat ad nauseam - environmentalist journalists do not cut the mustard. The green beat should be shut down and its duties split between science and economics journalists.
The hearing is here:
Reader Comments (61)
I was just thinking the same thing Rhoda. I remember looking at the reconstructions of old chemistry labs. They had one from the '50's which had an old wooden polarograph in it, - I'd used the same model working in a lab in the summer (and that was the late '70's). Those old galleries were amazing places to wander around after lectures, or over the weekend (free and warm, very important to a skint student). I remember a year or two back wandering into the new gallery behind where the space exhibits were and thinking how empty, grey and soulless it was.
I've got to echo what Omnologos said about "Bayesian Priors".
Can you explain why this is important? If you can, you might fulfill a great service (as you have, already, with your articles and books). If not, there's no value in disparaging people who don't get it (probably most of your readers).
O/T, I'm afraid.
@Stacey
I watched the whole Horizon. Balanced, if too much weight (for my taste!) given to the "anti-brigade's" protests.
Maybe there's hope for the old girl yet!
I used to love the Science Museum. I last visited it a few years ago when they were in the middle of ripping out everything and replacing it with the latest in "interactive" displays (broken PCs). I don't imagine I will ever go again.
This is happening to all museums - displays must cater for the lowest common denominator who apparently has the attention span of a hyperactive gnat, and be based on the guiding principle so beloved of the BBC that things are never interesting, only people can be interesting.
Jun 20, 2013 at 3:37 PM | ssat
Is it just me?
When I google 'Senna the Soothsayer' the first hit is:
Jun 20, 2013 at 5:37 PM | dennisa
Thank you for the link to the 2006-7 British Antarctic Survey Report. I note that in Professor Rapley's introduction he trumpets:
I wonder if he's told the Met Office they're barking up the wrong tree.
I confess I teach there (at IC), a little anyway. Love the Natural History museum though - the building alone is a work of art. Had a gala evening there a few weeks ago, pissed earth scientists staring at dinosaurs and rocks. What a great night!
The Natural History Museum. Everything from dinosaurs to dinoflagellates. And they've even got the micro slides from the historic Challenger Expedition. Time was they used to let you alone with them and a microscope. Doubt thats still the case though.
I'm late to this thread but I would like to respond to Charlie Furniss's "It's all so complex that it comes down to belief in the end" and similar sentiments. Since not long after I first started looking into this in 2006/2007 I have always thought, and still think, that it's not complex, the evidence is clearly against the alarmist predictions. That evidence being:
1. Both sides agree that temperature rises of more than about 1 degree C per doubling of CO2 depend upon the existence of positive feedbacks.
2. Positive feedbacks would imply that any warming (even fractions of 1 degree C) should lead to further warming, which should then lead to further warming, etc., i.e. an instability which we do not see.
I don't think any more argument is needed but a graphical illustration of "which we do not see" can be found here: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
If anyone's still reading this thread and I've missed something, I'd be interested to hear about it.
For those who might think that that graph shows instability, consider the Minoan or Medieval Warm Periods. Both show temperature increases of about 1.5 degree C, which is of the same order of magnitude as, in fact slightly higher than, the increase we are told would be caused by a doubling of CO2 with no feedbacks. According to the alarmist predictions, positive feedbacks should then have caused further temperature increases, instead we see temperatures decrease again.
That person from the SMC - Tom Shelton - really is an arbitrary, inconsistent and misinformed individual. That he refused to say his comment about lawson saying climate change isn't real was incorrect was disgraceful. He says the GWPF use the global temperature standstill to undermine climate science, but that standstill IS CLIMATE SCIENCE that the likes of Tom Shalton want to ignore. It was the GWPF who for years were saying that this standstill was important, and now they have been proven right. Tom, the GWPF did climate science a service that you with your blinkered, biased way of seeing people with, as you say "anti climate science agendas" are to narrow minded to see. As for your statement that only scientists should talk about climate science, if that had been followed then the current standstill pause would not have been discussed.
Clueless.