Saturday
Jul132013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Lindzen broadcast
Jul 13, 2013 Climate: Allen Climate: Sceptics Lindzen Last night Al Jazeera broadcast the Lindzen debate at the Oxford Union, which readers may remember took place a couple of months ago.
It is repeated on 13 July 13 at 13:00 BST; 14 July at 02:00 BST; and 15 July at 07:00 BST.
Details here.
Reader Comments (57)
Mehdi Hasan certainly knows how to make himself look like a dipstick. What kind of person interrupts someone who has just agreed that 'the world has warmed' to reassert that a whole bunch of scientists say that 'the world has warmed'?
If I was Lindzen I would have said, "Listen, dickhead. I just agreed with you that the world has warmed. Do you even have the slightest clue what I disagree about? Do you even care? Why should anyone want to watch or listen to you or your programme"
Lindzen has the patience of saint. I'm afraid I don't.
Perhaps a little less saintly patience is called for in these circumstances and the words you suggested for Lindzen should be heard occasionally.
I know we can be fairly rude in the "privacy" of sites like this but in general we tend to be fairly gentlemanly even when dealing with media dickheads (and there are times when I wonder if being a dickhead isn't an essential qualification for being science/environment reporter these days).
To the Bish
Where can I find your report on Climate science and the Royal Society? Personally I am engaged in a complaint to the Institute of Chemical Engineers (of which I am a Fellow) about a silly and offensive "official viewpoint" article and IO am pleading that ICE as a neutral professional body should not go down the road of taking sides in this debate. I reminded them that both the American Physical Society and our own Royal Society have made fools of themselves by jumping aboard the bandwagon of some of the more lunatic claims by the warmists.
Vernon E
Vernon E, try http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/2/9/nullius-in-verba.html for a link to the report. I hope your representation to the ICE will be well-received there.
I have yet to see a better example of fence sitting than that of Prof. Lindzen, but I expect he has to tread on egg shells since MIT has gone fully alarmist and his job might suddenly go. I got as far as the Professor of geography and his statement about fossil fuels and their definite input into temperature. No sir that claim comes from the models and a theory that has yet to be proved through empirical data. Temperatures have risen from the Little Ice Age as any sane person would expect. We have yet to get to those dizzy heights of the MWP and temperatures have plateaued and solar data showing the possible oncoming of another Maunder Minimum.
Vernon E:
As a fellow member of the IChemE I wish you well in your complaint, although I suspect you'll get a polite brush-off. There's been a strong sense of 'following the establishment line' on AGW matters in the TCE (house journal) - there was a particularly nauseating editor's column six months or so ago with emotive references to the Maldives, to which I felt moved to respond (I think there's a new editor now, but more often than not only skim through the TCE these days). The IChemE awarded an honourary fellowship to Beddington on his recent retirement, which didn't impress me either.
@Vernon E. We have the same problem in the Geological Society. Political correctness is more important than scientific integrity. I was going to say 'these days', but I suspect that was always true to some extent. Look at the stories of William Smith (geology) and Gideon Mantell (dinosaurs).
@Oakwood
The same in The Royal Society of Edinburgh (look at the feud between Brewster and Wheatstone). But there's this difference now - in the internet age it won't be long before the views of the membership as a whole in these clubs start to drive matters, rather than the views of just the chaps on the bridge.
You can see the video here too:
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/headtohead/2013/06/201361311721241956.html
... I love the unbiased introduction ;-)
Sadly the problem with wheeling out Lindzen as a skeptic is that he is an abysmal communicator, Monckton on the other hand is, whatever his faults a brilliant and charismatic communicator.
I don’t think Lindzen was an abysmal communicator. His laidback style and Hasan’s yappy interview technique were horribly mismatched, and the cutting clearly did him no favours, but an uncommitted viewer would surely note the biassed interviewing.
The insistence of Myles Allen and Mark Lynas that consensus, 97%, and Big Oil were irrelevant must have shocked the kind of naive environmentalists who asked questions along those lines (Hasan being one among several). Their conceding of these points must be considered as victories for scepticism, though it probably just confused the average believer.
The major problem with a debate like this is that the level of knowledge of the average green-leaning member of the public (as opposed to the sophisticated activist like Allen or Lynas) would make them incapable of uderstanding Lindzen’s dismissive irony. He made it clear that he considers windfarms as cargo cultism. A proper debate on Lindzen’s terms would have required a prior debate on the economy of renewables, third world development, etc. before you got on to the scientific questions of models versus evidence.
Was that Andrew Montford who asked a question about the IPCC near the end, the answer to which seemed to get edited out?
Dung ...
They appeal to different ends of the spectrum. Both (and both styles) are needed ...
As are the Mike Manns, Pachauris, Al Gores and even Paul Nurses ... for our side!
;-)
Thanks for that excellent summary Geoff. Yes that was Andrew towards the end. Comes across well, doesn't he?
I think Lindzen is a brilliant communicator but as you say he was terribly mismatched with Hasan, of whom the less said the better, except for these two things:
1. His quoting of Lindzen right at the start that "If I'm wrong, we'll know it in 50 years and can then do something." I'd never heard the great man say that and I think that's well worth highlighting for a number of reasons, just as Al-Jazeera do as a pull-quote in the page Brady pointed to.
2. His saying at the very end "I hope you're right." Too many seem to have so bought into the significance the doom-cult seems to give them that they cannot even say this.
I think these two points would have made the dialogue worthwhile, without anything else. But there was much else. David Rose is a tremendous asset. But even David's responses were not to my mind optimal. But who of us is ever optimal? :)
Countering the CAGW and policy madness has to be a team effort. Lindzen, Montford and Rose constitute very important members of the team for the UK right now (with Lindzen having settled in Paris with his wife for a busy retirement). And we have Lord Lawson. Absolutely magnificent - in case I didn't make that opinion clear in the previous thread. Just read him in The Sun on shale gas and see the votes of so many in favour.
I hate those that criticise such people from the sidelines, in case that isn't clear from many of my past contributions. 'Our people' never perform optimally in the rough and tumble of a new media opportunity with a novel format - of course not. But as Geoff implies, there was plenty here to make the open-minded believer that "we must do something" have second thoughts. And the mug shots of familiar faces in the audience, starting with David Holland, were a delight to this watcher.
I have just seen the 13.00 broadcast and was somewhat disappointed. Prof. Richard Lindzen does his best, but was rather beaten down. He did emphasize the importance of magnitude, the crucial role of sensitivity and that there is and that policy gestures are futile. He was largely ignored on these, particularly by interviewer Mehdi Hasan.
Prof. Myles Allen emphasized the rate at which emissions are increasing as the major justification for policy. What seems more important to Allen than the chain of evidence, theory and reasoning linking the emissions rise to policies to avert impending climate catastrophe, are the beliefs of others that this chain exists.
I thought Lindzen was excellent, Lynas pathetic, Allen on the ball to steer clear of embarrassments for his side like the ‘97%’ and ‘fossil-funding’ and 'consensus', Rose on the ball in a different way to make some sharp points. I was also more impressed by Hasan than I expected to be. He was bright and lively, suffering of course from the off-the-shelf mindset of his generation on climate change, and interrupting Lindzen a bit too much. Naturally, he is astonished by Lindzen’s views. Hasan has almost certainly been taught by his teachers, his newspapers, his lecturers, his political mentors, that carbon dioxide is a very serious threat indeed, and that the dark forces of Big Oil etc are intent on obscuring that reality. Some of the questioners in the audience were clearly victims of the alarmism, and this hints at the possible scale of the damage that has been done by the relentless scaremongering of the last 25 years or so around CAGW.
Lindzen was admirable for his calm, and his courtesy. How uninteresting is that for newspaper editors, and tv producers, and academics who benefit from, and may even enjoy, scaring people for a living?
Oh dear folks please step away from your own position and ask yourselves who is the audience if Lindzen is on tv? It is not Hasan or the assembled audience in the studio, it is the people watching tv.
You would all make a perfect audience for Lindzen and you appreciate his laid back subtle delivery. A good communicator adjusts his delivery to his audience and that is why Lindzen fails.
I like and admire Lindzen and even more do I admire Uncle Steve but he too is a very bad communicator.
One point of many worth digging into in my view. At 24mins 53seconds Hasan asks a fair question: "You're not a great fan of the environmental movement, are you?" Lindzen agrees and among other things says he detects an authoritarian streak in some environmentalism. At which point Hasan introduces Mark Lynas as an environmentalist and asks him about this.
And Lynas looks very uncomfortable, much more than Rose or Allen when they are introduced (the two other official commentators on either side of him). I'm not sure why but watching again it seems significant. Perhaps because he knows very well that there's truth in this?
It is a really important question. Many of us would agree with Lindzen that there is an authoritarian streak in environmentalism, encouraged by their successes with national governments and perhaps especially with international institutions, who seem to invest their ideas and indeed their lives with global significance.
Hasan was right to put a question to Lynas on this but it should I think have been along these lines: "Are there any parts of the environmental movement that you think have an authoritarian bent?" Of course the guy's not going to put his hand up on just being introduced and say "Yes, fair cop, we're all authoritarians are heart, you got me there." And Lynas first had to distance himself from other environmentalists on nuclear power. So the point about authoritarianism in some (not all) greenery was lost.
Note this has nothing to do with Lindzen's skill as a communicator - he made the point calmly and clearly - but the shallow way Hasan passed it on. And it's very important.
Instead, as a proxy for this, we had loads of mention of ridiculous conspiracy, such as a conspiracy of "97% of scientists" - something Hasan was sure was not credible. Indeed not. But for me the idea that some parts of the environmental movement have an authoritarian bent, by now, is very much more credible. The weakness of the man chairing proceedings meant it wasn't properly explored.
They cut a lot out, especially hassan going on and on about big oil funding and harrasing lindzen about who paid for flights and a speakers fee a decade ago. Myles expressed his frustration about that. Saying excon had paid for something for him, trying to get Hadsan to drop it
Myles Allen was really embarrased to be associated with hassn harrassment at the time. As he commented here a few months ago.
My questions were cut out..... ie I asked Hasan if he knew where his 97% scientists soundbite came from.
I explained.. ie as he cited Doran and Anderegg
( but I can understand why it might have been dropped for good tv purpose) ok with it as, myles lynas rose were not impressed with the continued conesensus line and made this clear
I think the resesrch by hasan was very shallow all the old cliches were rolled out
Mark Lynas said to me after that they (rose, allen, lindzen, himself) would agree about 7 out of 10 things.
And all agreed that current policies were pointless futile symbolic gestures.
The video does capture overall imho the broad spirit of the debate.
And they I think reflected and tone down the sttacks by Hasan. I think that Hasan learned something so I see this as much more if a positive edit than it could have been. Ie The lady next to me was there to see a sceptic being shamed. Josh had a chat with her.
Richard Betts and Jonathan Jones were going to have lunch with her about that.
It is a shame Tallblokes question was cut out. As everyone agreed with him. Ie futile EU policies
So overall very positive. David Rose said a grown up adult debate. I think AlJazeera were hoping for more fireworks. But they were professional and made a good efgort to get sceptics involved. Montford. Holland. Tallbloke, Rose, Corbyn even Watts* was invited. Too short notice. I guess thst us why I got put at the front and singled out for a question ( as a WUWT guest author)
Good chat in the bar afterwards. One of the Al Jazeera team said to me that, he and about 1 third at Al Jazeera sceptical. I think Hassan learned quite a lot. Not least Bob ward having a twiiter spat with him about being irresponsible to give sceptics a hearing at all. Which Hassan dealt with quite nicely.
*[names typos corrected BH]
Thanks Barry, very helpful. I take on board, based on what you say, that this was a positive edit - including in the process not making their main man look as peevish as he really was. Encouraging.
As I said on the discussion site Lindzen was appalling. Incoherent, stumbling and unable to speak a simple sentence without hesitation. My wife found her ironing more interesting!
As Dung says look at it from the point of view of uncommitted viewers. If that is the best the sceptics can do the warmists will laugh all the way to Real Climate. I gave it 1/10 for turning up!
Richard Drake
If Lynas looked uncomfortable about being accused of being authoritarian, it’s probably because he really truly thinks he’s not. The fact that he nudges governments into doing things the voters never voted for, and that he got appointed official representative for a country he doesn’t live in, in order to get into secret government negotiations which he then revealed in the Guardian for political ends, that’s just part of the job of saving the world to him. Somewhere deep inside he must know it’s not how democracy is supposed to work.
Dung
You’re right we have to think about the likely effect on the real audience, not just us. The audience for a Friday night debate on Al Jazeera is not your average voter, I’d guess, but much more like the kind of people who physically turned up to the debate. Getting a small number of eloquent sceptics in a room with a small number of climate activists (who know some of the arguments used in the past - 6°C, 97%, Koch brothers - are dead) plus an audience who are probably a mix of naive believers and the uncommitted curious - that’s already an enormous win for us.
We can think about that, now. It would be a bit much to expect Rose and Montford to think about it at the time. They did an excellent job, (though Rose made a tactical mistake I think in bringing up Galileo and the Inquisition).
Yeah John, I agree. It was crap. We need the youth and charisma of a Brian Cox. Such things are all that matter in this day and age. Andrew Montford has a bald patch. What point is there him even turning up at the Scitech committee on Wednesday? We've lost before we even begin I tell you. And am I going to do anything positive to put any of this right? Am I hell. I'm here to tell it straight, just like you.
It's not my real opinion, in case you're as dense as some others that grace us with their occasional presence here. I'm incredibly grateful for Richard Lindzen's contribution to the global warming debate since 1988. He's earned a ton of respect from me. And I genuinely think he was brilliant on this occasion. But if someone like Brian Cox wants to get truly clued up on the subject, then gain more moral courage than he ever shown in his life before, he's welcome to add his presentation skills to the mix. In the meantime I'm grateful for what we have.
Geoff: I take on board everything you've said about Lynas - insightful as always. But my two points were subtly different from any you've made. Let me put them as questions:
1. Is Lynas aware of any parts of the environmental movement that have an authoritarian bent?
2. If yes, was he thinking as Hasan asked him the question "I wish I wasn't identified in any way with these knaves as well as fools"?
I think, as on many other occasions, people know that Lindzen speaks the unspeakable truth. But I also think you're likely right about Lynas's attitude to his own thinking and doing. And that unconscious authoritarianism is a big problem in and of itself.
As the old book says "Evil men and impostors will increase, deceiving and deceived." It's that ability to be both at the same time that is a hallmark of the crooked timber of humanity.
Richard Drake
Not sure why you chose to mock John Hewitt by making up things he didn't say? Communication is a serious issue and needs consideration. I am not in favour of lying or indulging in dodgy marketing to get our point across but I am in favour of using our best talent.
Thanks Dung, I find myself in total agreement with your comment at 5:06. Richard you are a bit irritable today!
I usually find your contributions well worth reading but today we will have to politely disagree about Lindzen's performance. I do agree about the general contribution he has made to genuine climate science over a long period, but a great communicator he isn't IMO.
'We', if there is a we, didn't select Dick L to represent us. The other side did. Well, I think of Mehdi as being on the other side, and his presentation made that clear. Lindzen is perhaps the best qualified denier/sceptic.lukewarmer by virue of his post. We do not usually expect a professor in his 70s to be a slick media-savvy 'communicator'. But if we had one of those, no way would the other side go in with him or her.
I daren't look at the video in case my intemperate heckling has stayed in.
John, I'm not the least bit irritable. And I would happily agree if someone were to say that Lindzen is not the optimal communicator for all audiences. But you didn't say that and until I challenged you you said nothing positive about the guy. You just said he was appalling. And you ended "I gave it [him?] 1/10 for turning up!"
So I said some sarcastic things back.
I suggest that if you can't take it the best option may be not dishing it out.
If you wish to recommend advocates I would agree Lord Muncton, but more so Prof. Bob Carter. I can recommend a youtube search for some of his videos. I was also impressed with the clear presentation of Murry Salby. I also have great regard for Jasper Kirkby as a communication although he appears to be "locked in a straight jacket" at present. P.S. I have huge respect for Prof. Lindzen as a real scientist. Remember Einstein was not a great visual communicator but had great imagination and insight. Some of the best leaders and politician communicated poorly but delivered the goods !
P.S.S I forgot to mention Piers Corbyn who does not suffer fool gladly but is a good skeptic on the subject of Climate Change and CO2 who has a very direct form of communication ! (also available on youtube!)
A little off topic but the line up of Head to Head debates sounds superb!
I'm no fan of many of them (and Richard Dawkins is, in addition, intellectually stagnant compared to the rest) but these debates sound truly challenging to the old grey matter and the day-to-day prejudices we call Common Sense.
This is public service broadcasting worth paying for.
BBC take note.
Richard Drake
“..if someone like Brian Cox wants to get truly clued up on the subject, then gain more moral courage than he ever shown in his life before, he's welcome to add his presentation skills to the mix.”
Cox did a guest editorial in the Christmas edition of the New Statesman, ostensibly on why people don’t believe scientists, but in fact an anti-sceptic diatribe. Jeremy Poynton and Barry Woods and me and I think Foxgoose slaughtered him, and he hasn’t been back. That’s the kind of small victory which we can hope to have. It wasn’t organised, but where two or three BH artists gather together...
Rhoda
“..we didn't select Dick L to represent us. The other side did.”
That’s clear. Hasan wouldn’t speak to Montford or you or me unless we agreed to appear wearing our tinfoil hats. Lindzen fascinates because he belongs to the 100-97%.
I ddn’t see your intemperate heckling, alas. Can we have a hint so we can judge the effect of your appearance on the screen? Ditto for Barry Woods and anyone else who was there.
Talk of the Devil !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT3HKM01_Cc&feature=player_embedded#at=92
H/T to Andrew Bolt.
Richard I am astonished at your reply. What evidence is there that I cannot take it?
I made a very strong criticism of Lindzen's verbal communication skills which I stand by. First of all, as Dung kindly pointed out, you put words in my mouth that I never said or implied and now you are telling me I cannot take it. I am merely expressing a contrary opinion to yours that as far as I know is allowed on this blog in the absence of our host [sarc off]
I continue to have a high opinion of your contributions on this blog generally. Perhaps we should leave it at that
DaveS & Vernon E
I am also a member of the IChemE and also responded to Claudia Flavenoid-White's absud farewell editorial. Claudia was appointed editor in desperation after the previous incumbent had turned TCE into a sort of tabloid rag mag, but she was forever ramming green propaganda doen members' throats for all it was worth. I also felt moved to respond but my measured letter was refused.
The point is that Chemical Engineers mainly work in the carbon intensive sectors of industry, so they will be first over the cliff once Ed Davey's suicidal Energy Bill to 'offshore' all such industries gets enacted. God knows why the IChemE's policy director Andy Furlong is calling for the DECC to adopt "widely available, carbon-free or ultra-low carbon energy" - what planet is he living on? Anyone would think the IChemE wants to reduce its membership to just academia!
As I actually attended the debate, by invitation, and asked a question (not shown)
It's a bit sad that Al Jazeera are not allowing my comments:
have ago anybody
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/headtohead/2013/06/201361311721241956.html
John, is the issue here your hurt feelings at what I said or my motivation for saying it? I'd be happy to explain further if it's the second that's of interest.
I didn't put words in your mouth, though, did I? That's a typically false interpretation from a third party I'm happily unable to mention by name. I put them in my own mouth, in a highly sarcastic manner. I'd be very happy to explain why.
Geoff:
Exactly so :) And if any two or three of us agree on anything it will be done for us. That's part of the promise.
Richard
As we both know I am the third party whose name you can not speak. Genuinely you are a highly intelligent, superbly educated and vastly experienced person whose average post is a joy to read. However on the odd occasion the fact that someone does not agree with you gets under your skin and then you exhibit a certain nastiness. There is no need for this, we all just say what we think and we fight our corner when others disagree but without any nastiness.
And John wasn't nasty about Lindzen? Give it a rest pal.
Well don't say I didn't hold out the olive branch bud.
John Hewitt can be a rude as he likes about Richard Lindzen and you're in a moral tizzy because I was a bit rude back? As Steve has said elsewhere some people need to grow a pair. Of something or other. :)
John was not nasty to anyone on this blog and he was not "nasty" to Lindzen. He simply gave an opinion about Lindzen's skill as a communicator (as I did and also some others). There was no need for you to make a personal attack on John.
Where was the personal attack, you old self-appointed pseudo-moralist of Bishop Hill you? I was attacking what I considered John Hewitt's pathetic attack on Richard Lindzen. If you show me where I attacked John personally I'd be perfectly willing to reconsider.
Well you did state:
so I naturally assumed that you were rude to John? You self opinionated control freak ^.^I was rude about John's comment but that is quite different from a personal attack. I note you can't offer any direct evidence of a personal attack, only this quibblery. Like so much you've accused me of down the years. The old "Richard Drake must be banned or I can't even bear to be here" shtick, you know the kind of thing.
Mike Jackson wrote in the second comment on this thread:
True. Have you had enough of playing the self-appointed umpire of just one person's rudery yet? Very glad to hear it if so.
I wrongly interpreted your 1.59 AM post as being friendly banter and now see that you are back to your old tricks. I do not want to subject BH to another long argument between us Richard.
Thank goodness for that. Good riddance.
Jul 14, 2013 at 3:09 AM | Richard Drake
Oh, for heaven's sake, Richard!
Speaking of "self-appointed umpire" (as you had in your previous unwarranted sneers, the last and most relevant one of which was at 2:37 a.m.) ... could you please at least make an effort to drop those far too long-standing and oh-so-weighted chips on your shoulder!
I don't happen to agree with Dung's (or John Hewitt's) criticisms/assessment of Richard Lindzen either. And as soon as I've becalmed myself sufficiently to tolerate more of AJ's incredibly self-centred, rude, shallow, and callow parrot, Mahdi Hassan - and view beyond the approx. halfway point of this broadcast - I shall post my reasons!
Perhaps one of these days you will eventually realize that none of the blogs on which you choose to comment - including this one - are "all about you" (and/or your "Rules of Order"™)
In the meantime, I would respectfully suggest that you get a grip, Richard! Take a step back ... and put on your big boy pants!
Those who were at the debate: Any idea how many in the audience were BH regulars / committed sceptics, and whether there was an equivalent group of known, committed warmists? I’d genuinely like to know.
Hilary, it's not about me at all. Who knows, you also may need to get a grip. :)
You are trying to police me, just as the other fellow is. You may not succeed. :)
I'd like to return if I may to whether the concern is over John Hewitt's hurt feelings about my sarcastic answer or whether anyone is interested in my reasons for what I wrote:
It was a parody of a style of Bishop Hill contribution that I detest - as I said very clearly earlier in the thread. I think we should be big enough to cope with it. But perhaps not. Perhaps we need to treat each other with kid gloves even as some of us come out with extreme criticisms of those who are doing all the heavy-lifting in this debate and, in Lindzen's case, have done so for 25 years.