Tuesday
Jul302013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Polite discourse shocker
Jul 30, 2013 Climate: Sceptics The Guardian has thrown all my preconceptions into disarray by printing an article about sceptics that is not only thoughtful, but is polite too!
Sceptics such as Andrew Montford and Anthony Watts agree with the mainstream view that the greenhouse effect brings about atmospheric warming as a result of carbon emissions, but dispute levels of climate sensitivity. However, others offer far more fundamental challenges to climate science, such as fringe sceptic group Principia Scientific whoreject this orthodox view of atmospheric physics.
Reader Comments (128)
fwiw, I am first a climate policy skeptic, in that so much of what is proposed and enacted as public (and personal, corporate, etc.) policy ranges from inconsequential to harmful to insane.
That is not to say that all is well in climate science, which I do not believe for a moment. But so much of the recommended policy making is so badly done that I focus a lot of my interest there.
I read the first 25 pages of the Hartwell paper and scanned the rest briefly and I was not impressed. Someone said at Copenhagen (I think) that the climate change issue was not really about climate but about moving huge resources from the west to the third world
The Hartwell paper says that we do need to combat change but that right now green technology is too expensive and we should continue with fossil fuels at the same time making greater efforts to improve alternative energy technology. It also says we should transfer huge resources from the west to the third world ^.^
Dung, Richard Drake, Skiphil
The fact that sceptics may have different positions on AGW is irrelevant to the subject of coverage in the mainstream media. I have no position at all. I just want to see serious influential media like the Guardian behaving like adults, that’s all.
The descriptions of the Graun by Athelstan and others are as eccentrically wrong as the descriptions of us sceptics to be found on the Pearce thread. it’s the same left of centre journal as it’s always been, airing opinions from the Tory left to Marxism - and why not? The Telegraph too gives space to Marxists (and even the odd Tory minister).
Only on the subject of environmentalism has the Graun, together with the BBC and a large part of the “serious” media, taken leave of its senses. Someone on the political desk is staging a revolt. If it spreads, reaching the book reviewers, the humourous columnists, and the religious affairs correspondent, it might just have an effect. If this turns out to be good career move for Warren Pearce, Myles Allen, and others, good luck to them.
The whole point of debate, scientific or political or in the pub, is to constrict (or constrain) measures. It’s about deciding what to do.In the meantime, Pearce should be told in no uncertain terms that citing Oreskes, Lewandowsky and Cook destroys any pretension he may have to be a neutral arbiter between warring factions. His logic needs looking at, too, when he says:
Geoff: I agree with you on all that. The strange thing is that although I clicked on a number of Pearce's links I didn't reach Lew, Oreskes or Cook. Perhaps my sunny disposition just filtered them out. :)
geoffchambers commented,
I disagree, the Manchester Guardian is long gone. "Left of centre journal" - you must be thinking of the Times or, the Telegraph.
The language of the left, Progressive and progressive ideology - both are euphemisms for hard left policy - have a read of anything Polly Toynbee commits to print and who is a classic champagne Socialist, a gal that would have felt equally at home in the Politburo as she does pontificating 'ex cathedra' from N1 - and not for her the uncertainties of any or even some democratic process.
Like minded souls of Polly - will come to power. Paraphrasing what a Labour MP and colleague of Miliband said, "if only the public knew what his real views were - of the hard left" - can that be so surprising him being an acolyte of the late Eric Hobsbawm?
Then, the guardian is the banner cheerleader for the EU and the EU is anelective dictatorship, how long before it gives up all pretentions to balloting the proles?
Anyway Geoff - you see pink, I see crimson and each to his own.
Just a quick comment to say that this week's articles in the Guardian were all commissioned (in the sense of invited: they were unpaid) by Alice Bell, who edits the Political Science blog. In her email to me she said "thought you might have an interesting perspective" on the topic of science and the green movement.
Seriously though. An inflammatory item on the nature of conflict in climatism. By "Warren Pearce".
There's a punchline coming, surely.
Tamsin: I assumed that to be true but it's great to have it confirmed. Well done indeed Alice Bell.
The recommendations on the comments to this article present an interesting pattern: Comments that criticize the article as essentially giving unmerited aid and comfort to deniers receive dramatically fewer recommendations than those who essentially agree with Pearce's position that many climate skeptics are pro-science, are on the whole pretty neat folks and deserve to be given a fair hearing.
Tamsin Edwards’ information about Alice Bell’s part in commissioning the articles appearing on the Guardian Political Science page is most interesting. I’ve been rude about Bell over her performance in a Greepeace debate chaired by Guardian editor Rusbridger, (see transcript at
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20121002_bf
but when some of us BH regulars invaded her pitch at New Left Project she defended our right to express our opinions until she was overruled by her editor Dave (call me David) Spart.
To those of us who are interested in the politics of climate change, the essential thing is that a debate must take place (and that’s true whether temperatures go up 4°C tomorrow or hell freezes over). So the essential pre-debate debate is between those who are willing to debate and those who aren’t. And anyone who cites Oreskes and Lewandowsky is placing themselves in the anti-debate camp (possibly without realising) along with anyone who treats the Guardian as a Marxist player in some global conspiracy; whereas those who commission articles which stir things up at the Graun are firmly in the debating camp.
So two cheers for Alice and Warren, whether they want them (or deserve them) or not.
bernie
Sceptic comments have always received more recommends than pro-warmist comments at the Graun, even when they banned most of us sceptics. Commenters who’ve avoided banning like Foxgoose have done so by being sparing in their comments, and so avoiding the attention of the trolls who make it their business to get sceptics banned. It’s a silly Kiplingesque (or le Carré-ish) game with nothing more at stake than the reputation of a once great newspaper which has fallen prey to its editor’s obsession with getting profitable by going on-line, which means picking up enough US hits to attract US ads - far from the image of a Marxist propaganda sheet promoted by some here.
It wouldn’t matter if an accident of history (the Lib-Con coalition and Miliband’s environmental obsessions) hadn’t made the Guardian an influential paper out of all proportion to its readership. They can’t square the circle of being a major influence in the politics of one of the world’s oldest democracies and behaving like Pravda in an important area of government policy. Something’s got to give.
geoffchambers
Do you not accept that there are some people who can not be reasoned with? Has Mann responded reasonably to any of the attempts to debate/reason with him.
Has Nurse agreed to debate Lawson yet, How about Davey, did he debate reasonably with Neil? Richard Betts avoids answering questions just as well as the noble Verma. These people are not going to debate, they have an agenda and they are sticking to it. They need to be fought and defeated not handled with kid gloves.
"which means picking up enough US hits to attract US ads - far from the image of a Marxist propaganda sheet promoted by some here."
The USA, is not the great right wing bastion it once was Geoff, some have argued that, Mr. Obama is a true Socialist and the country of very BIG government - now reflects the politics of the POTUS.
"Marxist propaganda sheet" - most apt.
;-)
Geoff Chambers,
I do hope that your Pravda nickname for the Guardian catches on.
I hope you're right about its dilemma in "squaring the circle" but it seems to me that the hard left are fully committed to maintaining the AGW religion at all costs, even rejoicing in the UK's disastrous energy policy as if deindustrialising the nation is a noble objective.
I work in aerospace. Whilst we appear to sell metal objects, what we are really selling is our intelligence, our skills, our capability. I hate to admit it but if the warmistas manage to cripple our more energy-intensive industries this may lead to a strengthening of more high-tech business; to sharpen Britain's cutting edge, confounding the Harrabin Tendency; an 'unintended consequence' for the fifth column who would de-frigging-carbonise the nation. This, if it comes to pass, will be scant consolation to the millions of citizens driven into energy poverty by ruthless Big Green.
It's amazing how different we can be. I did a list of recalcitrants in response to something Shub said five days ago:
And Dung starts where I left off and comes up with:
I mean really. Verma in the same bracket as Mann? After what Donoughue and Keenan have said? I find that list astonishing. But I suppose we have to be thankful it wasn't eSmiff or else Lawson, Ridley and who knows who would also have been in the lineup. (It's never made explicit if the Bishop himself is implicated in the man's crusade against all those who even mention sensitivity but I think the answer's pretty clear.)
I also made what I think was a useful comparison the other day between Davey and Obama. Obama has never put himself in the position of being forensically grilled on the climate issue as Davey has. We should give Davey some real credit, as well as criticise his use of the 97% and other things. But he's in a totally different bracket from Michael Mann, and Obama, and all the other names I mentioned, because, in Geoff Chambers' crucial distinction above, he allowed for a debate.
We are very, very different on Bishop Hill, as I said earlier, and we need to face it. So do Adam Corner and many others. But policy scepticism will win the day. Let's hope before the damage to the UK from terrible policies increases greatly and prevents shale gas from being the blessing it's designed and able to be.
Dung, Richard Drake
Of course I accept that some peope won’t debate. What will defeat them is the normal rules of journalism and politics; if Davey had refused to be interviewed by Neil, Neil would have invited his Labour opposite number. In normal politics that would be a disaster for Davey. Only on the energy/climate issue has consensus politics based on consensus science allowed politicians to get away with not debating. Neil’s refusal to accept that changed the rules. Journalists gain prestige by doing what Neil did. It gives me a glimmer of hope that we’ll get our debate, not when journalists become sceptics, but when they start behaving like journalists again.
Athelstan
I’m not defending the Guardian when I object to calling it Marxist, I’m defending Marxism, and accuracy. How can we object to being called flat earthers or rednecks if we fling political categories about like that, using a precise political term as an insult?
Tamsin’s revelation that she wasn’t paid for her article changes everything. It means that the Guardian has become a blog, just like here. Just as the fact that IPCC lead authors don’t get paid puts their assessment reports firmly in the category of vanity pubishing.
Funny, I thought people here would like the fact it was unpaid.
Also: most Guardian bloggers do get paid.
Why on earth should anyone like it being unpaid? Would you accept a solar panel from someone who offered to install it for free? The idea that IPCC AR5 is being written for free in people’s spare time is truly frightening.
I hear you Geoff, well said and good points made.
Mud bespattering - is not an accurate weapon.
Having said that, the graun, is the mouthpiece and champion of so much that is wrong headed in Britain and it follows - the world. Encapsulated, the Guardian - in its fawning obsession with Mr. Obama. The MMCO2 warming myth, is manna for the Guardian-ista reporter and readers alike - the implementation of UN agenda 21 is the dream, yes, the Guardian loves most the marriage of Socialism and corruption.
Heralding and advocating CAGW, is part of that madness - the gruan, has always been at the forefront of the scam and 'watermelon' is such an apt metaphor and applicable Guardian-wide.
Most of its [the Guardian] reportage is guff, politically correct and lacking in depth or, perspective. Underlying it all, is a misanthropic vacuity, a crass nihilism which underscores and is at the heart of most if not all Marxist, communist, Socialist ideology. You can observe this most closely in and behind the eyes of Edward Miliband, his brother disguises it far more expertly.
I absolve Simon Jenkins - even though he writes for 'them'.
Hi Tamsin
I just think it tragic that you and Warren are unpaid Guardian bloggers and Dana Nuccitelli is paid!!
Nothing wrong with being paid for your time. wish I was
(hint, hint Exxonn , Chevron Shell, oh, they just back Dana employers - Tetra Tech)
Richard Drake
Just to make it clear, the only link I was implying between
is that they all proved that they were unwilling to have an open and honest debate (lest you should suspect me of darker, deeper motives ^.^)
Adam Corner is an evangelist and, like Myles Allen, is more used to preaching to the converted. Neither of them is used to dissent, and AC does not appear to have read our host’s sub-title.
Tamsin,
No, I think you should be well paid and most Guardian contributors should be unpaid.
Why on earth should anyone like it being unpaid? Would you accept a solar panel from someone who offered to install it for free? The idea that IPCC AR5 is being written for free in people’s spare time is truly frightening.
Aug 1, 2013 at 9:24 AM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers
-----------------------------------------------------
Geoff, in Australia at least, most IPCC contributors do so on their employer's time, usually funded by taxpayers. It is all part of doing our bit to Save the Planet, and is regarded as a feather in the cap of the employer.
johanna
Yes, I know that’s how it works, and that’s what’s wrong.
In the case of a real catastrophe - a drought in Africa say - you’d take all the volunteers you could get on the ground, but not to run the show or collect the data. For that you’d want full-time paid experts. The IPCC has a full-time staff of a dozen or so, I believe (mostly translators). And they provide the information on which the planet‘s energy policy is to be decided. This is insane.
Dana has an article in the guardian attacking warren and tsmsin for falling for concern trolls
So normal intolerance back at the Guardian
Hi all
Thanks for all the interest. Just to confirm re Tamsin's remark - yes, Alice asked me to write something about climate scepticism and science as that's my research area. The Guardian is a large enterprise so one or two blog posts don't reflect any change in the newspaper's editorial line. The Political Science blog has more of an academic bent, simply focusing on 'the politics of science' http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/feb/13/political-science-guardian-bloggers
Hello Geoff,
Just to say that I am aware of Oreskes and Lewandosky's position in BH commenters' affections, and that linking to them was not to meant to imply any endorsement, or indeed an effort to usurp them and become the new psychologist of climate change. Sorry you took it that way.
BW, Warren