
The Economist continues to waver




The Economist's coverage of the climate sensitivity issue was the start of a huge change in the attitude of the mainstream media to the idea that maybe climate change was not quite the problem it was cracked up to be. So it will be interesting to see what the dailies make of the latest offering from that august journal:
The reality is that the already meagre prospects of these policies, in America at least, will be devastated if temperatures do fall outside the lower bound of the projections that environmentalists have used to create a panicked sense of emergency. Whether or not dramatic climate-policy interventions remain advisable, they will become harder, if not impossible, to sell to the public, which will feel, not unreasonably, that the scientific and media establishment has cried wolf.
...if the consensus climate models turn out to be falsified just a few years later, average temperature having remained at levels not even admitted to be have been physically possible, the authority of consensus will have been exposed as rather weak.
This isn't a crisis for climate science. This is just the way science goes. But it is a crisis for climate-policy advocates who based their arguments on the authority of scientific consensus.
Reader Comments (46)
Is this a guest article? There's no name on the web site, but it is very unusual for an article in The Economist to be written in the first person e.g. "I have favoured waiting a decade or two in order to test and improve the empirical reliability of our climate"
AndyL
It does though give authorship to 'W.W' from Houston
Should observations finally determine that a proportion of the scientific community and the media had indeed cried wolf, and crisis envelopes the climate policy advocates, be assured that a new 'crisis' that just happens to require governmental action will emerge. A 'crisis' that necessitates people to change behaviours nudged by ever more expensive taxation policy, legislation that bans or mandates certain goods or services, 'solutions' provided by large corporates attracting vast taxpayer funded subsidies, governance of the whole thing at supranational level by unaccountable bodies, and redistribution of wealth to developing nations to fund their purchase of said 'solutions'.
We will never be free of this abuse of power by the political classes around the world whose dual objectives are control of the people and cashing in on their power.
"This isn't a crisis for climate science"
Yes it damned well is! It'll be less believable than astrology, phrenology & homeopathy!
As a dinner party conversation killer, it'll be on par with..
"What job do you do?"
"I'm a banker/traffic warden"
"Yes it damned well is! It'll be less believable than astrology, phrenology & homeopathy!"
Difference is that there are still millions around the world seeking assistance from homeopathy based on word of mouth despite den continued berating from the consensus of the medical establishment.
The climate change consensus is still to demonstrate that they have got anything right.
The Economist goes where the UK government goes. Chicken, meet egg
Is any language capable of crafting a more empty and misguided phrase than "authority of climate consensus"? I have an awful feeling it was written intentionally and not just a momentary lapse of intellect.
Wow, just WOW.
Is any language capable of crafting a more empty and misguided phrase than "authority of climate consensus"? I have an awful feeling it was written intentionally and not just a momentary lapse of intellect.
Jun 20, 2013 at 9:03 PM | Unregistered Commenterdp
I find it a very telling phrase, personally. He is saying that the call to authority that has been the mainstay of global warming advocacy will no longer be valid.
'the authority of consensus will have been exposed as rather weak'
I prefer the term ' a crock of sh*t' to 'rather weak'.
And the intellectual and scientific credibility of those who have relied upon the fallacy of the consensus will also have been exposed as being worthless.
Bring it on!
I'm beginning to regret that I dismissed Screaming Lord Sutch and his Monster Raving Loony Party without due diligence. They would never have taken AGW, or anything else, seriously. And we would be the better for it now.
Cried wolf? More like Tyrannosaurus Rex.
And they succeeded in their cries. To their great shame. In some cases to unforgiveable levels of destructive, malevolent, unjustifiable by any yardstick known to science or to common decency, scaremongering.
Let us hope this piece in The Economist is a sign that that publication is leaving the politically-convenient, for some, penumbra of pseudo-science and its associated dupes and charlatans, and moving towards the harsh light of real science and reality-based analysis.
A single swallow does not a summer make, but it does bring hope that one is coming.
A single swallow does not a Saumur make...although notwithstanding the pun, I much prefer good Bordeaux
John Peter on Jun 20, 2013 at 8:56 PM "The climate change consensus is still to demonstrate that they have got anything right"
So true!
When climate science was confined to academic institutions, it was like any area of other research, mostly ignored by the public and MSM. They would only hear about developments AFTER their musings had developed into something that was able to be self sustaining and on its way to be proven, with individually handing over money, after making their own judgement.
Sadly this has not been the case in this instance. The 2008 Climate Change Act saw to that!
The big question is how long will the Law and current policies, based around the old consensus, continue and will the contracts based on these old policies be enforceable after they have been shown to be ludicrous by existing evidence that will eventually be allowed to be presented as well as the new evidence.
This isn't a crisis for climate science. It is a crisis for the climate industry.
At least the public will have one less opportunity to be conned out of their money.
Have parts of the MSM finally woken up to the fact that they have been sold- and have been selling a pup?
This is going to hurt.
Really badly.
I hope.
Meanwhile Robert Brown has added to his post over at WUWT which I repeat below as it i well worth a read
According to Leo, the author is Will Wilkinson. Never heard of him, but there is a wiki page.
(which links him to John Rawls, philosopher father of Alec the AR5 leaker)
This isn't a crisis for climate science. This is just the way science goes.
Oh, bullshit!
"— is beyond dumb. Dumber than dumb. Dumb cubed. The exponential of dumb. The phase space filling exponential growth of probable error to the physically permitted boundaries dumb."
Love it. Beautifully expressed. I'd steal it if I thought I could memorize it.
A single fly makes a summer.
H/t P. Wilson.
========
This has nothing to do with climate science.
When the global economy crashed, did The Economist run articles on global economic models ? No. It would be daft to imagine computers are capable of forecasting the future of the global economy and it is equally daft to believe they can forecast the future of climate.
My answer is 42 - take it or leave it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cjEdxO91RWQ#at=58
rgbatduke says:
June 20, 2013 at 10:04 amI think that reality is probably following the most likely dynamical evolution, not the least likely, and so I judge the models on the basis of reality and not the other way around.
There are only two ways to reconcile GCMs with observation:
1) that the observation correlates with a previously identified solution within CAGW, but with a 5% likelihood of this pattern happening, and
2) regardless of what the initial pattern starts like, there is/are ways GCMs recognize for the temps to go from here (ho-hum) to there (>3C) by 2100, i.e. start like Scenario C and end as Scenario A.
Like R, I think the world or anything as large as a world responds pretty much down the middle of the possible groupings, responding not to accidental combinations of many small variables but to the combination of only a small number of large variables - the gross predictive, causitive agents.
It is only in fantasy that a butterfly flapping its wings in China causes a hurricane off the west coast of Africa. There are many reasons for this, not the least is the Threshold Phenomena, meaning that nothing happens if something big enough doesn't get it going. There are too many countervailing influences for all the tiny influences to line up perfectly.
It is a remarkable aspect of the warmists' belief that their times (and themselves, as they are in it and of it) are "special", that a position that the world has warmed along the lesser 5% probability path, not near the actual 80% probability path of REAL world activities.
Perhaps the CAGW refusal to accept that the recent past and the present are "normal" just shows that the warmists are, in fact, as special as they think the current times of Earth are. These eco-green preservationists display the anomalous characteristics of the lowest 5% of understanding, expectations and overall behaviour one would expect from a study of our well-educated, well-fed, well-connected western citizenry.
Al Gore: the Harold Camping of Climatology.
Said W.W. :-
Er, Yup and yup again - cubed.
I'm not renewing my subscription (which lapsed years ago) just yet.
The strong investment in alarmism, which ran counter to everything The Economist used to stand for, has deep roots.
I reckon they still want to believe, and are desperately hoping for a sign, any sign.
If and when they get rid of the resident hippies and get back to proper journalism, my credit card awaits. But, we are still a good way from that point.
Further to Don Keiller's comment above (10:27pm June 20):
This article in The Economist contains the phrase "strident moralising" as a criticism of the MSM
Yet, The Economist has been in the very forefront of such stridency but is now finger-pointing at other "meeja" outlets
Such are the wages of egotism: deeply entrenched hypocrisy, impervious to, unaware of, fact
The only effective recourse we have to this is satirical laughter. John Cleese, where are you ?
"John Cleese, where are you ?"
John Cleese, he went native years ago, he joined the establishment - he probably believes vehemently in CAGW - like all the other 'comedians' in the Londonistan intelligentsia.
We have it on the authority of no less than the saintly sage Gordon Brown that both WW and RGB are flat earthers. To which Bob Ward would add that they aren't peer reviewed.
So 97% (TM) of politicians in the developed world can take a huge sigh of relief and carry on feathering their nests whilst bragging that they are saving the planet.
Bring on the pitchforks and flaming torches.
This is naive.
You think politicians ever take the hit for anything?
"It woz them Mi Lord".
Science will be the biggest loser in this.
You do not get paid all that money, without there being some caveats. One of them being in place to take the fall.
Sceince has a contract with the Devil.
RG Brown's comment here (thanks, noTrohpywins) and his original one back at WUWT are essential reading, as are all of his infrequent but hugely valuable contributions. (See for example http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/a-response-to-dr-paul-bains-use-of-denier-in-scientific-literature/)
Another one to put on the hard drive.
As an old Chartered Civil Engineer, the physics and statistics are above my head. I can just follow what he's on about but that's about it. But the sheer logic and humanity of his comments on scientific and energy policy are as inspiring on the one hand as they are as unlikely to be adopted, on the other.
Sure, ten years from now, there will be loads and loads of scientists and politicians telling everyone that, "Of Course! I realised straight away what a crock cAGW was & how absurd wind farms were and fearlessly tried to expose it ..."
Just as, by 1955, 97% (TM) of the French had been active in the Resistance.
But, I really don't see how we get from where we are now, to that point, without the UK plc going down the tube. Sorry to be glum, but there you are.
And in the mean time, RG Brown is far more likely to get the bitch-slap than any support from his peer group.
who buys the economist anyway? deluded academics who think they know something about how reality works? do me a favour. no half way sensilble man buys this crap.
RGBrown is a great man. I hope he reads this poor comment and keeps it by his side when he is subjected to the enviable slings and arrows given to a heretic of the global warming religion. I rarely call any man great, but the climate wars have already produced many: RGBrowm, Bishop Hill, Anthony Watts, JoNova, (hey I'm not a sexist, she's female), and last but not least You (yes YOU there reading this), who have read the blogs and considered the evidence and realized that the CO2 mantra is nonsense.
@ianl8888
'The only effective recourse we have to this is satirical laughter'
And what a rich lode of material we have to mine!
We've moved on from the days when 'Trust Us, We're Climate Scientists' was thought to be the ultimate closedown line for any argument. Instead its widely seen as a contradiction in terms
Then - for a few years - it was 'peer-review'. And that has been shown to be as much of a busted flush as the 'Trust Us.....' meme. Peer-review = pal-review = 'they've never asked'. (*)
And so we moved to the utterly meaningless 'Climate models predict'. And the tower of insanities built upon that unstable foundation. Model building upon model upon model. Until the 'scientists' can publish a peer- reviewed paper with absolutely no experimental/observational data involved anywhere along the chain of 'evidence'...and still claim (I imagine with a straight face) to be trustworthy scientists.
The pity is that during the mid noughties the public and the politicians were so mesmerised by this house of illusions that they suspended their critical faculties and fell for the trick.
And now we are a lot wiser but an awful lot poorer for our past gullibility. Countless amounts of blood and treasure have been expended on this ill-founded scare.
But for comedic purposes, what a wonderful cast of totally inept characters have been given to us to play with.
The global data custodian who loses his paperwork in an office move within the same campus. Who makes confidentiality agreements and then can't find them. Who finds EXCEL beyond him, but publishes 200 papers without any independent checking whatsoever
The Super Egotist who demands utter unquestioning loyalty and acceptance of his work but won't debate his methods or results.
His fawning toady who can't be in the same TV studio as a 'denier' lest he be soiled by association. So flounces out like a hormonal teenager.
The failed politician who charges $1200 for breakfast with himself but gets no takers. And jets around the world lecturing us all on why we must cut our carbon footprint
The saviour of the world film-maker who finds kiddie murder amusing. But the public didn't.
The document forger so incompetent that it took only a few hours for his work to be detected and traced back to him.
The arrogant 'climatologists' who announce their latest results with huge fanfare and hubris..only to find that their nemesis is waiting in the blogosphere...and for their magnum opus to disappear without trace. Humiliated by better science and better brains and better integrity...and by a bunch of amateurs to boot.
The list is seemingly endless...
We are lucky right now that we have the wonderful Josh to expose and ridicule these strange creatures in cartoon form. But we also need our contemporary Jonathan Swift or Dickens to show them in print..or to take on the stand-up satirical mantle from the masterful George Carlin.
Any takers?
Refs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7RzsRfYNFg
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-commons-emails-inquiry
Thank you, noTrohpywins, for the article(?) from Robert Brown; he displays an unearthly knowledge of the mathematics, yet can explain it in wholly understandable terms, and in a calm rational, non-confrontational way. He also reveals that he has read as widely as the barking-mad Richard “This’ll make me a Saint” Parncutt, so has an understanding of both sides of the argument. With intellects like his directed against them, how can the AGWists win?
(I, too, liked his “Dumb cubed…” How about extrapolating it to, “Dumb to the power of dumb”?)
Martin brumby – you missed out the decimal point; as in “.97%™ of politicians…”
Oh, and don’t forget the 99 preceding the point!
OT but media related
There is still this nasty Hospital scandal going on in Cumbria at the moment.
So
How much are NHS Trusts spending on Climate Change Reduction Coordinators / Consultants Etc.
And why isnt the NHS exempt from the Climate Change Act.
Got to be worth a few FOI requests.
So starting with this link .
http://www.sdu.nhs.uk/corporate-requirements/legal-requirements/climate-change-act.aspx
How much Budget are this NHS cowboy Quango crew getting paid off with taxpayers money.
Another good PC Orientated Public Sector Waste Richard Littejohn Daily Mail headline me thinks.
OT but media related
There is still this nasty Hospital scandal going on in Cumbria at the moment.
So
How much are NHS Trusts spending on Climate Change Reduction Coordinators / Consultants Etc.
And why isnt the NHS exempt from the Climate Change Act.
Got to be worth a few FOI requests.
So starting with this link .
http://www.sdu.nhs.uk/corporate-requirements/legal-requirements/climate-change-act.aspx
How much Budget are this NHS cowboy Quango crew getting paid off with taxpayers money.
Another good PC Orientated Public Sector Waste Richard Littejohn Daily Mail headline me thinks.
Take a look at what Paul Hudson is saying on his BBC Website !
'The return to much colder winters discussed at the conference has coincided with another natural phenomena – that of low solar activity - which has been shown to be associated with weather patterns that encourage cold winters across the UK and Europe. '
Sounds like he could team up with Piers !
Worth reading the whole thing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Have-weather-patterns-really-been-unusual
Coming back to literary matters (as in ‘Yes, yes, apart from all that Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?’):
The cliché, plus a modest extension of it:
A jeux-de-mot that would surely work well with wine in attendance:
A startling one to drive you crazy via the Mistress of the Cryptic:
Jun 21, 2013 at 12:57 AM | Athelstan. "John Cleese, where are you ?"
John Cleese might be part of the Londonistan intelligentsia, but he has left London because "London's no longer an English city".
"The Monty Python star says people in the capital now feel like foreigners in a city where the “parent culture has dissipated”"
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/268680/John-Cleese-London-s-no-longer-an-English-city
So, it's a foreign land.
For someone who knocked "everything that was British" and became rich and famous from it, he can hardly complain, but he did!
And, for me, "I know my place!"
The very sensible article from Paul Hudson brings to mind the emails found in ClimateGate I where the team were asking why Richard Black had not had PH neutered.
Nice to see Paul continuing his level-headed climate assesment as usual. Apparently he was aware of the AMO years ago, whereas some of the more senior climatologists apparently were not.
Still no mea culpa from that rag though. The quote sentence is a ludicrous statement to make
The article in which that statement appears completely contradicts their conclusion, considering:
The scientists, including some of the most academically lauded and widely published, have been among the most vocal and published climate-policy advocate [Hansen and Mann for example].
The scientists, including some of the most academically lauded and widely published, have bolstered or even based their advocacy on the existance of a "consensus".
The scientists have singularly failed, in the first instance to construct a theory that as been validate by subsequent observations [a forgivable failing in science] and in the second instance, to even acknowledge that failure in the theory or reconsider either their level of certainty or the fundamental basis of their theory [an unforgiveable failing in science]
And thridly, the entire rag bag of data maniplualtion, data hording/hiding, obfuscation, journal rigging, pal review, soft "enquiries", invictive, and even criminal fraud [think Gleick], ad hominem etc. perpetrated by scientists and tolerated, nay supported, by climate scientif establishment - ad even the wider scientific establishment.
In fact having written this comment, I have convinced myself that not only is this now a crisis for climate science, it is a crisis for science - brought on by behaviour of sceintists themselves.
And The Economist remains in looloo land.
Robert Christopher, Sir, honestly, no criticism was implied and I do hope that, there was no criticism inferred.
;-}
I can't wait for the rewrite of the Economist article about the five dollar oil prediction "Goofs: We was wrong" from Christmas edition 1999. Perhaps they need to reexamine why it is so difficult to make forecasts.
Jun 21, 2013 at 11:12 AM | Athelstan 'no criticism was implied'
And none was noticed!
"And none was noticed!"
Good!
Geckko indeed its a real house of cards situation, having kept quite while people like Mann where spouting what they knew to be poor science , and in some cases jumped on board to 'open up funding ' even if they knew the idea was rubbish . Many working in science are aware that there all going to get it in the neck if AGW falls , the people and therefore the politicians , will not easily forgive nor forget the claims of 'settled ' science and the way 'the cause ' has been used to purse ideas which made their lives more costly .
Although the causes leaders have no choice but to double down now , has their professional careers and much of their personal standing rest on AGW , but others are more than a little worried about what happens when that house comes down.
KNR on Jun 22, 2013 at 9:59 AM 'when the house comes down'
Who was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change when the 2008 Climate Change Act received Royal Assent?
Do you think that 'when the house comes down' he could ever become the PM?