Bishop Hill The warmist's MO
Jul 21, 2013 Climate: Mann Media Andrew Neil has been getting a hard time on Twitter, with Nuccitelli et al shouting that he is misrepresenting things but as usual presenting very little actual evidence to support his case.
There was another delicious example of this kind of thing overnight. Readers will of course remember the Economist's minor scoop about what WGIII were going to say about climate sensitivity. The article was heavily caveated as to the draft nature of the IPCC table concerned:
There are several caveats. The table comes from a draft version of the report, and could thus change. It was put together by the IPCC working group on mitigating climate change, rather than the group looking at physical sciences. It derives from a relatively simple model of the climate, rather than the big complex ones usually used by the IPCC. And the literature to back it up has not yet been published.
Nevertheless the IPCC felt itself duty-bound to issue a statement saying, in effect, "But it's only a draft!"
This was the cue for climatologists to start up with their normal claims of misrepresentation.
;)
And, as you can see, this then gets retweeted all over the shop.
And then MPs wonder why people tend not to trust anything that comes out of the climatological community.
Reader Comments (49)
They won't be satisfied until The Economist removes everything but the caveats.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction".
Blaise Pascal
I can't think of a more appropriate quotation to put my feelings into words when describing the actions of the climatalogical fraternity.
The Cartoonist lapdog does love to bark , but its yapping of a small and annoying dog with no teeth, if it was not for SS moderation, which the Guardian has allowed him to use there too, he been even more of a joke .
@ KnR
"... if it was not for SS moderation, which the Guardian has allowed him to use there too, he been even more of a joke. "
Here, here. That clown Nuccitelli has me on pre mod and doesn`t allow anything through he doesn`t like the look of, no matter how factual. Then he has the gall to criticise moderation on sceptic sites.
Dana is a disgrace and is afraid of free speech. I genuinely detest the bloke.
pesadia said:
If they thought they could get away with shouting 'heretic!' I'm sure they would.
Oh, they do, G, but in Twentieth Century terminology: Denier!
==============================
My guess is that there are enough grown-ups in the IPCC who want to retain some credibility that the likes of Michael 'Piltdown' Mann, and the most rabid of the alarmists will be thrown under the bus. But why is it taking so long to grow up?
===================
kim no AGW no IPCC it is that simple .
KnR: no AGW no IPCC...
Rightly so, and, it should be emphasized, forthwith.
I'm 3 hours into the 3:45 video of the US Senate debate featured on WUWT. My impression, so far, is that the warmists are fully in control. Barbara Boxer (or should that be Barbara Rottweiller?) was dismissive of the Republican-nominated specialists, including Pielke Jr and Roy Spencer. There were several mentions of Exxon Mobil, Koch Bros and comparisons with the rearguard action of Big Tobacco. Lots of references to weather events being caused by climate change, sea level rise, ice loss, etc. No adequate rebuttal (so far).
All the Republican senators on the panel bemoaned the absence of Obama representatives to defend their recent policy decisions, but it cut no ice. It appears Obama's strategy is to stifle debate. "The Science Is Settled".
Contrary to a lot of the comments on the WUWT piece, I'm disappointed that the Sceptic case was amateurishly presented in the face of Democrat certainty. They even had an insurance industry rep on their team, who helped support their case for dealing with climate-related disasters.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8959941/whats-wrong-with-the-met-office/
Add the Barclay brothers to the BHC.
"If they thought they could get away with shouting 'heretic!' I'm sure they would.
Jul 21, 2013 at 10:50 AM | Gareth"
Which is a curious thing to say when Bishop Hill has its own equivalent of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.
Ian_UK,
Where does Spencer speak before the three hour mark (I fast-forwarded to where I saw him first appear at 03:04:45)? Perhaps I missed it.
For those who haven't seen it, the full video link is:
http://www.senate.gov/isvp/?type=live&comm=epw&filename=epw071813
From my perspective, I thought Spencer's 5 and 1/2 minute statement was as clear and concise as I could wish for.
After the DISCLAIMER at the front of IPCC reports, the only thing that needs reading in them is the list of
culpritsauthors.The Economist broke the embargo, as pointed out by the IPCC.
Mann and Nuccitelli claim that the Economist misrepresented the AR5 report. This is either bluff or another breach of the embargo.
(I have not seen the WG1 report.)
@michael hart
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/07/senate-epw-hearing-climate-change-its-happened-before/#comment-85121
"During my testimony (in the Flash video, starting about 3:04 for my oral, and 3:23 for follow-up questions/interrogation) "
Hoping to watch this later. Cricket first :-)
Senate Hearings:
Boxer sets the tone within the first few minutes....'97% of scientists' etc
Pielke made a stab at being balanced... futile
Spencer...ambushed by the 'stand in' for boxer who had to vote in the senate...evoultion v creationism.
Boxer was absent due to 'voting' when both Pielke and Spencer spoke.
A perfect setup for the warmists at the start who get all the attention, then the only scientists at the tail end when everybody has gone home.
Dana's article defending his own team's paper is supposedly 'evidence' that his paper is correct. This piece of brain-dead logic, brought to you by such luminaries as Ben Goldacre.
As far as the IPCC draft, it has been known for ages that only the anointed can perform exegesis.
Re: EM
Could you elaborate on what books are banned and what BHC stands for?
What TerryS said at 3:59pm - seconded
Meanwhile, back in the Superior Court of the District Of Columbia, hardly a favored venue of libel tourists, a judge delivered this in favor of allowing Mann to proceed against those misrepresenting him :
"There is sufficient evidence presented that is indicative of “actual malice. The CEI Defendants have consistently accused Plaintiff of fraud and inaccurate theories, despite Plaintiff’s work having been investigated several times and found to be proper. The CEI Defendants’ persistence despite the EPA and other investigative bodies’ conclusion that Plaintiff’s work is accurate (or that there is no evidence of data manipulation) is equal to a blatant disregard for the falsity of their statements. Thus, given the evidence presented the Court finds that Plaintiff could prove “actual malice.”
The judge's second ruling affirming Mann’s right to proceed in his defamation lawsuit against CEI and the National Review Online for their accusations of data manipulation and fraud rejected the Defendants’ arguments (made in their Motion to Dismiss) that their attacks are somehow First Amendment “protected speech” — merely “opinion,” “rhetorical hyperbole,” or “fair comment.--the determination of “malice” is critical, as the decision explains:
"The Court of Appeals has stated that to recover for defamation, a public figure must prove that the defamatory statement was made with “actual malice.” Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 40 (D.C. 1979); see also, Foretich v. CBS, Inc., 619 A.2d 48, 59 (D.C. 1993) (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 297 (1964). This means the statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
In this regard, the Court points out CEI’s “reckless disregard for truth”:
"Plaintiff has been investigated several times and his work has been found to be accurate. In fact, some of these investigations have been due to the accusations made by the CEI Defendants. It follows that if anyone should be aware of the accuracy (or findings that the work of Plaintiff is sound), it would be the CEI Defendants. Thus, it is fair to say that the CEI Defendants continue to criticize Plaintiff due to a reckless disregard for truth. Criticism of Plaintiff’s work may be fair and he and his work may be put to the test. Where, however the CEI Defendants consistently claim that Plaintiff’s work is inaccurate (despite being proven as accurate) then there is a strong probability that the CEI Defendants disregarded the falsity of their statements and did so with reckless disregard.”
Poor old Dana's having a bad day.
During his Twitter spat with Andrew Neil, one of his brain dead camp followers described him as a "scientist" - so I pointed out that he describes himself as an "environmental scientist" purely on the strength of his day job with a Tetra Tech division that does environmental clean up operations.
Dana promptly blocked me from his Twitter account of course.
The really hilarious news of the day, though, is that Tetra Tech are headlining their website with a promotion of the megabucks they're making from the Bakken Shale Field.
Yes - you read it here first folks - Dana Nuccitelli, The Guardian's guardian of climate purity - is IN THE PAY OF BIG SHALE!
Russell (Jul 21, 2013 at 4:24 PM), sound like good news to me: Prof. Mann having to defend his 'science' in court should be quite revealing... given that the science is settled, what could possibly go wrong?
Andrew Neil hasn't been getting a hard time. They've been trying to give him a hard time, but failing badly.
The Economist's next para, after the 'caveats' one, begins: 'Still, over the past year, several other papers have suggested that views on climate sensitivity are changing.'
I expect that caused a few palpitations as well.
Jul 21, 2013 at 12:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterIan_UK
"Contrary to a lot of the comments on the WUWT piece, I'm disappointed that the Sceptic case was amateurishly presented in the face of Democrat certainty. They even had an insurance industry rep on their team, who helped support their case for dealing with climate-related disasters."tru
I read you as saying that rhetoric trumps argument. If that is true then the skeptic position never had a chance. The Left's rhetorical skills are far superior to the rhetorical skills on the Right. The Right adheres closely to the science and, for that reason, must deal in argument rather than rhetoric. The Right's strongest rhetorician is Christopher Monckton yet he always presents argument and evidence rather than "effective images."
"Where, however the CEI Defendants consistently claim that Plaintiff’s work is inaccurate (despite being proven as accurate) then there is a strong probability that the CEI Defendants disregarded the falsity of their statements and did so with reckless disregard.”
Though the ruling allows Mann to proceed, does it not require him to prove that Lowry and Steyn knew that their claims were false. To me, that seems all but impossible. The opinion is very strange. Most likely someone will argue that the opinion implies that Lowry and Steyn knew that their claims were false. That is "a bridge too far" in a ruling on the question whether a case may proceed.
@Galvanize "Dana is a disgrace and is afraid of free speech. I genuinely detest the bloke."
Nuccitelli always reminds me of the over-enthusiastic, infatuated first-year, offering to carry the big boy's books for him. He's just climatology's groupie, and he must be a bit of an embarrassment to proper scientists (although the likes of The Team probably find him useful).
He's a big fish in the very small pond of the (heavily censored) Guardian Environment section, where banning/pre-mod should be regarded as a badge of honour: they cannot answer you, so they use the big red ban button instead, which allows them to preserve the illusion that they're right.
I guess the Grauniad can't afford to get one of the Big Boys - or even a Brit - to run their environment propaganda.
Cook and Nuccitelli are probably pretty cheap and unlikely to turn up in the office causing trouble or demanding a rise.
Re: Theo
Mann can assert that his work has been proven as accurate and the Judge will accept that assertion. However, when it comes to the trial, an assertion isn't enough, his claim has to be proven. He will have to show how the "investigations" actually investigated his work and how they proved his work was accurate. He will also have to produce all notes and workings, for his work, in discovery and if he doesn't he can lose by default.
I'm not pretentious enough to quote the Latin, so here is the translation of a legal phrase that sums it up:
"The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof."
NOTE: All my legal knowledge comes from reading groklaw.
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Mann-Order-CEI-1.pdf
The DC Superior Court upholds Michael Mann's right to proceed in his defamation suit against National Review and CEI.
It also allows discovery in the plaintiffs' records. Here's a chance to study the denier MO.
I've just paid a visit to Dana's Cif blog and made a few preliminary notes.
Here are some of my first impressions.
(1) 97% (*Note 1) of posts strongly endorse the 'warmist' position. A clear consensus.
(2) The 3% (*Note 1) of 'non-warmist' posts attract 97% of recommends. A clear consensus.
Recommendations:
(1) Cif moderation is too lax and should be policed more vigorously. (*Note 2)
(2) Cif Administrators should uncheck the option to allow recommends (*Note 2)
Notes:
(1) I'm still completing my distance-learning Excel 2009 course from the UEA and am yet to achieve complete mastery of this arcane art. (I have completed the module 'Why uncertainty and error-bars are so yesaterday (sic)' and lost only one and a half marks out of 50 - so chuffed x)
(2) Free speech underpins the democratic process and must be protected at any cost. Contrarian statistics, that employ traditional mathematical techniques, seek only to confuse and deflect individuals from the Truth - suppression of evil is NOT censorship!
Jul 21, 2013 at 5:52 PM | Turning Tide
If you want to see another of climatology's groupies in action watch Heidi Cullen embarrass herself every time she opens her mouth in the video that Ian_UK refers to above; here's an example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H5E9UFOme-s
Jul 21, 2013 at 7:21 PM | Entropic Man
I told you on the other thread that you posted this comment on that you appear to have posted on the wrong blog not the wrong thread.
Jul 21, 2013 at 6:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS
That sounds good. I hope you are right. It will be interesting to see whether Mann permits discovery or withdraws.
The suggestion from EM that Lowry and Steyn have a "denier MO" strikes me as preposterous.
Entropic Man (Jul 21, 2013 at 7:21 PM), you say "Here's a chance to study the denier MO" and I agree: it's a poor gun that cannot point both ways and exposing Dr Mann's MO to a judge or jury should also be interesting... maybe the Bishop could provide some copies of Hide the Decline and The Hockey Stick Illusion?
"The suggestion from EM that Lowry and Steyn have a "denier MO" strikes me as preposterous."
Gosh, it just strikes me as totally confusing. What, in this context, is an MO, please ?
modus operandi
TerryS
Read Bishop Hill for a while and you see derogatory references to websites such as SkepticalScience, Thinkprogress, Realclimate and Open Mind.The first was, for a long time on this site, deliberately libelled.
Published work from Hansen, Mann, Marcott, Nuncietti, GISS, NASA and IPCC are condemmed as fraudulent. References I link to support my arguments are rejected automatically by many here.
Magazines such as Nature, Scientific American and New Scientist are described as propoganda.
At the same time websites such as WUWT and GWPF are referenced as though they are authoritative sources of correct information. Individuals such as Watts and McIntyre are given uncritical belief.
A substantial part of the Bishop Hill ethos is built around the premise that its followers should read and believe those sources which support the sceptic position and that any other sources are automatically suspect and should be avoided.
The Catholic church and any number of autocratic governments have followed this pattern for centuries. George Orwell would recognise it immediately.
@EM
Or in other words, people can speak freely here.
Perhaps you're more accustomed to sites like the ironically named CiF, where only certain viewpoints are permitted to be expressed?
Jul 21, 2013 at 5:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheo Goodwin
You're right - "the devil has all the best songs". I've now watched to the end and things didn't improve an awful lot. Messrs Pielke and Spencer did manage to make some good points, but to an empty room. Why would anybody stay to listen to critics when the President says it's true?
I forgot to mention - there's an excellent follow-up post in WUWT that puts into words what I couldn't, about the involvement of the insurance industry:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/20/the-handsomest-fox-in-the-henhouse/
I love reading Willis Eschenbach's stuff and this is no exception.
Re: EM
You fail to understand your own phrase. "Index Librorum Prohibitorum" means List of Prohibited Books. I have never seen such a list.
Just because people here do not automatically accept at face value what is published at other sites does not mean those sites or references to them are banned. Bishop Hill regularly posts articles that contain links to the sites you mention. Commentators also post links to the sites. In what way are they banned? I would like to see you get a comment posted at Real Climate that contained a link to Climate Audit. It is a near impossibility.
"A substantial part of the Bishop Hill ethos is built around the premise that its followers should read and believe those sources which support the sceptic position and that any other sources are automatically suspect and should be avoided."
I would have to disagree about this. If other sources were to be avoided then why would so many articles (and comments) contain links to them? Linking to them encourages people to visit them and also increases their ranking in search engines. Surely if they were to be avoided then they would never be linked to.
The Catholic church and any number of autocratic governments have followed this pattern for centuries. George Orwell would recognise it immediately.
I think you are confusing Bishop Hill with the websites such as SkepticalScience, Thinkprogress, Realclimate and Open Mind. These sites use heavy handed moderation to excise comments they simply do not like.
Could you point me to where B.H. has libelled SkepticalScience?
Oh please entropic, just stuff it. You are confused. I enjoy reading Hansen. All the hand-waving, the grandchildren pictures, the 1988 testimony, the getting arrested, all the award money, the grandchildren (did I say that already)...
Dave Salt:(Jul 21, 2013 at 4:24 PM),
CEI and NR having to defend their 'science' in court should be quite revealing... given that Monckton & Morano have been shouting ' hoax', what could possibly go wrong?
Jul 21, 2013 at 2:49 PM | Unregistered Commenter Richard Tol
An "embargo" would indicate that The Economist was actually provided with a copy of the draft by the IPCC, with the proviso that it not be used or made public prior to a stated "expiry" date.
However, The Economist, in addition to clearly noting the draft caveats (which obviously escaped Mann's and Nuccittelli's eagle eyes), merely spoke of "one table from the unpublished report, which was seen by The Economist [...]"
So this could mean that they had received an embargoed copy of the draft directly from the IPCC. But I doubt that this venerable publication would want to jeopardize its position wrt receiving future embargoed material (from the IPCC or other sources); so my guess would be that that which they saw was courtesy of a leak.
There were two things that I found interesting about the IPCC's "Statement" of July 19: First, this seemed to be a 180° turn from their previously stated (April 14 of this year):
Second, if on July 19 the IPCC was in "reprimand" mode - rather than (IMHO) the equally possible "confirmation" carefully couched mode - why is it, I wonder, that they did not see fit to chastize former UNFCCC head honcho, Yvo de Boer for his (uncaveated and highly unscientific):
Not surprisingly, neither Mann nor Nuccittelli seemed to have a problem with this opening sentence from The Economist either! However, in addition to being far from "recent" (at least in my books), as I had noted last December:
Oh, wait a minute ... de Boer's claim apparently did not derive from having read - or "seen" - any (leaked or embargoed) draft(s) but merely from "conversations". And, just for the record, in addition to that reported by The Economist, de Boer had also declared:
Double-standard? Or is there an IPCC "principle" I've missed which says it's perfectly OK for IPCC "scientists" to discuss draft "findings" with others who may then report on such conversations with no risk of knuckle-rapping from the IPCC? If the latter, how convenient is that, eh?!
I should note that, circa June 15, when I had again noted de Boer's ... uh ... indiscretion, Richard Betts did say via twitter:
YMMV, but in my view this does not have quite the same "force" as a Statement from the IPCC.
And on a related note ... I noticed last night on twitter that Betts, Richard Tol's fellow WGII Lead Author, had announced that
Recognizing that while he's reasonably consistent on the "brevity" front, accuracy and clarity are not known to be Betts' forté, I had asked some follow-up questions [my three tweets rolled into one here, for ease of reading]:
I should also have asked, "When you say 'final drafts' does this include Zero, FOD & SOD or ??"
In any event, Richard T (if you're reading this), since presumably this decision (which appears to be a change from the process of releasing drafts of assessment reports past) was announced during the WGII Lead Authors' meeting last week, could you shed some light on this?
Or is it simply the case that Richard B. has determined that the scheduled (but "TBC") January 2014 "Electronic publication of full report" constitutes "v soon after [26 September review and "approval" of WGI's] SPM"?
Hilary, thanks. Richard Betts's
was directly after tweets from Gavin Schmidt and Shub Niggurath that mentioned WG3 specifically, as this is where the Economist got the story from (no doubt via a leak, as you argue, so not breaking any embargo). I note that WG3 is only pencilled in for final release in September 2014 (TBC) according to the PDF that is your final link. I take it Richard intended something sooner than this. :)
kim said:
Yes. I find a lot of climate science resembles religion - faith in computer projections, faith in a knowledge of a complext and chaotic planet, a grand central text arranged by a self-selected few, changing the subject when things don't go their way (as in 'even if the science is wrong the policies are good') and an army of converts and lay preachers who are either ignorant of the uncertainties or choose to overstate the evidence in order to find new believers. Were alarmists shouting 'heretic' the similarities would be immediately apparent to everyone.
RoyFOMR: Excel Linear Trends
Phil Jones: "I'm not adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here."
Roy, will you be staying on for the post-professorial course where straight lines are fitted to a set of points?