Bishop Hill Tamsin and the hornet's nest
Aug 1, 2013 Climate: WG3 Climate: other Greens I've been otherwise engaged in the last 24 hours so I missed all the excitement over Tamsin Edwards' post at the Guardian's Political Science blog, in which she calls for scientists to steer clear of political advocacy.
I believe advocacy by climate scientists has damaged trust in the science. We risk our credibility, our reputation for objectivity, if we are not absolutely neutral. At the very least, it leaves us open to criticism. I find much climate scepticism is driven by a belief that environmental activism has influenced how scientists gather and interpret evidence. So I've found my hardline approach successful in taking the politics and therefore – pun intended – the heat out of climate science discussions.
Judith Curry has an excellent round up of the responses around the web.
Reader Comments (114)
She is known to talk to sceptics and Alice Bell at the Guardian 'thought she might have an interesting perspective on the topic of science and the green movement'. We are really privileged to know her. And with Dr Curry that's three women at the fore of a significant change of tone and content. It can't be bad.
As I meditated on this overnight, including Geoff Chambers' very interesting history with Alice Bell at the New Left Project I was taken back to one of my greatest heroes on the left, Rosa Luxemberg:
Her male 'comrades' in the days of Lenin and co of course tried to silence her. That might be worth reminding some Guardian readers and others about as we go along.
Aug 1, 2013 at 7:48 AM | Richard Drake
///////////////////
But surely Lenin is a hero of most Guardian readers.
Richard Verney: I think you might be surprised. The break with Trotsky and subsequent news of the show trials, Gulag and terror famines, admittedly suppressed by the Manchester Guardian for a while despite the efforts of its Moscow correspondent Malcolm Muggeridge, has in the end had its effect on how the male heirs are viewed. Luxemberg's example is a far better one as many would now concede.
Hi Tasmin, first, good to see you take up Alice's invitation. But:
Yes Tasmin, it hasn't helped, but that suggests that climate science is trustworthy in the first place. The reality is that much of climate science is founded on incomplete and dodgy data, dubious assumptions, compounded by the use of Mannian statistics. Not to mention linear computer models which have at best a superficial understanding of complex atmospheric physics, clouds, and longer term oceanic cycles. A little misplaced environmental advocacy is hardly the key problem with climate science, and I would argue that it is at least a little disingenious to say so.
She’s totally wrong though, isn’t she. Why scientists and scientists alone should be sworn to silence on a political issue is beyond me.
lapogus +1
lapogus: tamsin ... tamsin ... tamsin
Why scientists and scientists alone should be sworn to silence on a political issue is beyond me.
I think the point is not that Tamsin Edwards (Citizen) should be in purda with respect to policy but that Tamsin Edwards (Scientist) should be. In other words scientists can and should speak with authority on matters of science but should not then speak with authority (as scientists) on other areas such as policy where they have no more expertise than other citizens.
If a scientist is not seen as "independent" then, as several people have already said, this may undermine their reputation for honest science. The suspicion being that their scientific work is being manipulated to fit the policy they are advocating. In other words evidence based policy is seen to be policy based evidence. This was one of the damning things about Climategate, uncomfortable scientific facts that were known to the "team" were not to be spoken of in public for fear of diluting the message.
Scientists are, of course, far from being objective in their scientific work. We all suffer from confirmation bias which by and large does not matter a great deal since science is eventually self correcting (the real world is always right in the end!). However we get into serious difficulty when that creeps into policy advocacy since we then seriously undermine trust in science itself.
I thought it was a first class article by Dr Edwards. I only hesitate to commend it because one of the comments underneath was along the lines that if climate sceptics welcome it that would prove it was wrong!
Would Tamsin actually have the budget to be employed without such advocacy?
In a video posted here, her boss was shown doing the full advocacy to first year science students. In the past did they get a presentation from what is in reality a backwater subject with little or no true universal laws to form its bedrock?
Her boss seemed to be loving his time in the limelight with both students and politicians.
Climate Science is leveraged far beyond its scientific value.
Climate scientists have their position thanks to such advocacy.
If I was Tamsin's boss I would be reminding her to be careful what you wish for.
geoffchambers - you are missing the point. No-one is advocating that scientists are 'sworn to silence'. An expert in climate science is not necessarily an expert in policy. What value climate sensitivity is, and what we do about, are 2 separate skill sets. A climate scientist, if they are honest, would prefix every opinion on policy with "of course that isn't my field and my opinion is worth no more than anyone else's". As they generally don't, the press, public and politicians tend to treat them as policy experts as well.
Add to that the problem that you have policy advice from people with a vested interest. We are rightly sceptical of, say, energy policy advice from someone who owns shares in a solar panel firm. By the same logic, we should be sceptical of climate science policy advice from someone whose living depends on climate change being a big deal. They need to 'declare an interest'. That's not treating scientists differently, it's treating them the same as everyone else.
Jiminy - on the "What goes on in schools thread", I referenced a Pearson Exploring Science textbook. The section I highlighted is full of policy discussion points.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/7/26/what-goes-on-in-schools.html
I think Tamsin's right. Her blog is entitled "All models are wrong." I can live with that. And although I wouldn't make the same stipulation for every epidemiologist, say, I think climate is a very special case and that Tamsin is taking the right line at the right time.
It's the policies that are barmy and it's our job to put that right.
Jiminy Cricket
Currently the person responsible for my funding is my direct boss Tony Payne, not my head of department. And the latter also agrees with me, at least broadly.
P.S. My funding is running out fairly soon: anyone have a job going?
It might be helpful if someone defined a "climate scientist" The word climate covers such a multitude of scenarios and events that I find it difficult to accept the term climate scientist. Is there such a person ?
Well spotted, I have history here. Apologies again Tamsin.
Arthur Dent, Alex
It sounds to me as if she wants to prevent scientists from expressing their opinions on policy in order to preserve their reputation for infallibility on the science. Like the Pope refusing to pick the winner of the 2.30 so as not to taint his authority on the question of the immaculate conception.Tamsin goes a lot further than saying scientists “should not speak with authority (as scientists) on other areas such as policy where they have no more expertise than other citizens” or that they should “prefix every opinion on policy with ‘of course that isn't my field and my opinion is worth no more than anyone else's’". She’s saying scientists should shut up, period. She says:
Of course, if all scientists obeyed her edict, her life would be much simpler, since she wouldn’t have to publicly disagree with them.
Far to late for this call , DR Doom showed the way and others were more than happy to jump on the bandwagon , some do little more now then 'advocacy' having given up 'science' long ago.
There are lots of jobs in the "renewables industry" for anyone one wanting to "tackle climate change".
Removing advocacy from climate science is a forlorn hope. The main influential scientists who support CAGW are advocates. Other climate scientist have allowed extreme alarmism and attacks on sceptical scientists without a whimper. Therefore, they have lost credibility.
Given the huge amount of money that feeds into AGW (including evil fossil fuel funding), the science has long since vanished.
Most of the people at climate conferences are not scientists at all. Climate science is advocacy and the public are realising that!
I don't think it is going too far to say that the advocacy and alarmism of the climate science community is undermining our democracy, and indeed the democracy of the entire western industrial civilisation. There outpourings and prognostications have given strength to the environmental movement and we are introducing energy policies, worldwide, for which no electorate would vote for. (Preposition at the end, this is something, "Up with which I will not put" Winston Churchill).
They are wilfully providing proppganda to a group of people who truly believe the world would be a better place without humans, who happily killed 10s of millions of people by enforcing a ban on the use of DDT to fight malaria, and would continue to do so given the opportunity, indeed are doing so with their litigation against the use of golden rice (See pointman's excellent essay on his blog).
Tamsin is right, they should not be advocating policies, nor should they be telling us that 2C is safe and 2.1C isn't when they have no idea whether that's true or not. If you provide policy information you are unsure of with the certainty of on who knows, then you're an activist undermining your own society.
Well - my CIF honeymoon is over anyway.
I made two polite comments on Tamsin's article; one pointing out that the John Snow "Broad Street Pump Cholera" story (beloved of activist scientists) is a myth - and another reminding Dana that he's part of an activist group.
Both have been disappeared as non-compliant with comment policy.
Greg Laden, on the other hand, has a post left up denouncing sceptics as "nefarious..smarmy..bigfoot hunters..UFOlogists.....JFK conspiracy nuts etc..etc)
That's fine, apparently.
Plus ca change.
@ArthurDent
That's how I read it too. Speak freely on your area of expertise. Don't use the expert's pedestal to amplify your other views.
The problem is not advocacy by climate scientists. The problem is the production of the desired results, by methods incapable of being confirmed by physical measurement, and the presentation of these results under the guise of science.
For examples, look no further than the Met Office's climate models and the MO's assertions that their models have been validated.
Thanks for the article Tamsin, gets the discussion going, my two penny worth:-
Some of the issues of conflict arise because the "establishments" for whom scientists work have become policy advocacy units carrying out "policy related science" (their words)
Scientists related to such establishments are therefore logically seen as policy advocates.
The "establishments" appear to put as much if not more emphasis on their media output and their "focus group" PR position as they do with their scientific output.
Hence the nonsensical alarmist articles in the MSM are very rarely challenged by actual scientists, it is not their brief, that is the role of the PR department who naturally see such action as counterproductive to their aims. At present PR and spin is more important to these establishment and The Establishment than scientific output.
From Tasmin's bio:
"I finished my particle physics PhD and was trying to work out what to do next; I was looking for public sector jobs or something else that felt ‘worthy’. I have a friend from school whose older brother is a climate modeller and we were all in the pub one Boxing Day when he suggested climate modelling to me.
I’d thought that maybe you had to do environmental science to get into that, but he said he’d gotten into it from astrophysics and anyone with a background in physics could learn the rest on the job."
She is indeed a bit green, behind the ears.
Aug 1, 2013 at 9:43 AM geronimo
Yes. Be careful.
- You should never use a preposition to end a sentence with.
- And you should never start a sentence with a conjunction.
- You must be sure to never split infinitives.
geoffchambers at Aug 1, 2013 at 8:14 AM
OK. Let us try that thought. Let us look at other professionals.
• The judiciary is expected to interpret the law. They are expected to report if the law isn’t working. But are they expected to make the law as well? We separate out those two functions for a reason.
• The clergy are expected to speak out on issues of moral guidance. They are expected to speak about their social work. But are they expected to advocate policies? That would appear a bit theocratic.
• The Media is expected to investigate society and publicise wrongdoing. They are expected to hold the powerful to account in the spotlight of public opinion. And here we do expect editorial comment –advocacy. But do we expect the press to mix investigation and advocacy? Would a scandal about a politician be ignored because they agree with his/her policies? A closer question this as the role of the media is currently being redefined in the UK but it is not clear that mixing the two roles is acceptable.
Personally, I don’t think Dr Edwards is totally wrong here.
From her archive of seminars, one called Climate Change Denial:
http://s21.postimg.org/683vjke7r/Tasmin_A.jpg
http://bristol.academia.edu/TamsinEdwards
NikFromNYC
If Tamsin has changed her mind/view since this seminar then IMHO this is to be welcomed.
geoffchambers,
I don't get the impression that monastic silence is being asked for. What Tamsin is advocating(!) is neutrality when it comes to how science informs policies. As well as having the self-awareness to steer clear of mixing personal views with professional ones imo this would also have to include speaking out when politicians and other scientists are pretending things are more certain than they are.
NikFromNYC: Richard Lindzen has more than once objected to being called a climate change sceptic, because it gives the illogicalities of the alarmist case too much credence to say one is sceptical of it. He's gone on to say that "as far as such a thing is possible, I am a climate denier." Without knowing what Tamsin said in that presentation I don't think the title tells us anything at all, in other words.
Martin A: In my view there isn't just one problem. "Production of the desired results, by methods incapable of being confirmed by physical measurement, and the presentation of these results under the guise of science" is for me, like you, a massive problem. But intimately related to that, advocacy by climate scientists is also a massive problem.
Tamsin may not have solved every problem is her first article for the Guardian. Even if all her readers agreed with her, which appears unlikely, she may not have done. But when one is starving a few crumbs can be better than no loaf at all. And they are courageous crumbs. :)
There are plenty of studies that show we are predisposed to trust "the men in white coats" and the non-scientific "climate scientists" ride on the back of that. It also seems that other scientists are especially prone to this and cut their counterparts in other scientific branches too much slack (e.g. Goldacre, Cox). Anyone who can bypass this deference and judge the debate on its merits can quickly see through the shakiness of the alarmist case.
So I think Richard T put it very well. Don't LET THEM use their expert's pedestal to amplify their views.
And Tamsin, you are intelligent and still young. Some (unwanted) advice from an old fool:
Take this latest grant renewal as an opportunity to reassess your career. Do an honest audit of your skills. I am sure there are many, including the "soft" ones you are displaying by starting and engaging in this interesting debate. Then get the hell out of this stinking Climate Science cesspool and into a more rewarding branch of science. You've done your adolescent "save the world" phase, how about a job in the private sector, they must be crying out for experienced modellers to solve real world problems. I'm sure you'd find it massively more enjoyable and rewarding (in both senses) than your current role.
Jump before the game is officially up (and grants are cut) and you are pushed.
All meant in good spirit.
MCourtney
You make my point for me. Lawyers, clergyman and journalists regularly sound of about anything and everything. Why shouldn’t they? Any attempt to codify who should be allowed to say what on what subject can only result in a bizarre caste system.
Tamsin Edwards is not just putting forward her own personal moral code here (which is no doubt admirable). She wants to impose it on her colleagues. The article is riddled with oughts and shoulds. The only “should” I’ll agree with is this discussion is that we should be treated as adults, which means assuming that we are capable of telling when people are acting as advocates, being biassed , or misusing their authority.
She seems to want to reduce the complexity of our world to a binary system in which scientists should not speak about policy, and non-scientists shouldn’t speak about science. This is the last thing we should be discussing.
The diappearance of Foxgoose’s comments under Tamsin’s article is disgraceful. I hope Tamsin will complain about it to the comments editor at the Guardian. Of course, as an unpaid contributor, her influence will be zero, but it would still be the right thing to do.
Fox Goose
Can you elaborate on your comment about John Snow, and the cholera pump ‘myth’, providing a link, please?.
I've included this in lots of the science books I've produced over the years, for many reputable publishers, and am concerned that there might be a problem with the story.
Aug 1, 2013 at 9:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterConfusedPhoton beat me to it. As yet I have not seen any evidence that there is such a beast as climate science. There is weather forecasting which is pretty good out to four or five days; utterly pointless beyond that as is evidenced by the Met Offices continuing debacles. There is Atmospheric physics to keep an eye on the soot; useful for me as an asthmatic. There is Oceanography + marine civil engineering (See the Netherlands for hints) We know that trends depend on La Nina/El Nino: PDO/AMO Jet Stream, etc. and are all reversible. We know from the evidence that there are no trends in Hurricanes, Storms, Rainfall, Tornados, Floods, on a global basis, Even a Congressman managed to work that out. We have no real idea if the temperatures are going up/ down or sideways on a global scale. We know some places are a bit warmer perhaps, some a bit cooler, more ice here, less ice there. We have no idea what sea temperatures really are or were. ( I was one of the people taking sea temperatures to the nearest degree in a bucket, now I see them repeated to me in three decimal places.) We think the sea level is rising or is the land sinking....choose your place. Add a foot to the levee every 50 years if you are that worried or stick your posh ocean front palace on stilts. So as far as I can see, climate science is a construct, based on no actual physical evidence. I have been around for a good few years and have yet to see anything in terms of weather, heat or storm that I have not seen before. The only consistent temperature records appear to be European Cities for 400 years plus which show no trend, and we are told they have to be adjusted because the observers were unable to read them properly through their animal skin hats. History gives us grapes in Yorkshire, farms in Greenland, a frozen Thames. Yet we are told to believe that that is flawed because some idiot astrologer is reading tree rings.
Quite frankly I am disgusted by so called climate science, with its constant parade of computer gamers, soaking up money that should be put in to cancer cures, food distribution and infrastructure in poor countries, education for girls, ( It is known that this is the best way forward in poor countries), fighting malaria, dysentry, HIV, The salary of one Climate scientist would buy enough Mosquito nets to save thousands of children from a lifetime with malaria. The amount of money that has been thrown at that charlatan Hansen would pay for miles of roadway, diesel and trucks to deliver aid to refugees in Somalia. The money spent on the Met office garbage grinder that cannot even tell us if it is a wet or dry summer should be spent on desalination plants in Gaza. I don't need to go on, you get the drift.
My answer to global warming/climate change/climate/ disruption/chaos...whatever the hell this weeks buzz phrase might be, is DEAL WITH IT WHEN YOU SEE IT. There are 870,000,000 people in the world who are hungry today, (http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats) , right now, and they really don't give a rats ass what happens in 100 years time and nor do I. So, Tamsin, you can see where the real problems lie. If your funding is about to finish can I suggest you turn your youthful enthusiasm and undoubted talents to some of the real current issues that need solving.
Tamsin mentions pressure from environmentalists, but surely the worse pressure for younger scientist is from senior high profile scientist to stay on climate message, some subtle, most unsaid but known, some less subtle. ie Dr Peter Gleick did NOT like the name of Dr Tamsin Edwards blog, when she launched it:
http://allmodelsarewrong.com/all-blog-names-are-wrong/
I have to say I prefer Tamsin's ideas about communication of science, in response to Dr Peter Gliecks thoughts about me and who I ‘associate with’, Tamsin replied to Peter:
From: Tamsin Edwards
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:29 PM
To: Peter H. Gleick Cc: Barry Woods
Subject: Re: Clarification
Dear Peter,
Just a quick note.
One of the most important things I have learned in my (fairly extensive) public engagement activities is not to lump people together in a homogenous group. I repeatedly defend Barry because he works hard *not* to be Anthony Watts.
I hope you’ll consider taking each person and their views on their own merits, or lack of, in future conversations. I would personally be infuriated if I was dismissed on account of the behaviour of a group of people I talk with. Every single person I talk with has a different viewpoint, and I learn a lot about how better to communicate climate science by listening to them. If we dismiss swathes of people by association then our attempts at communication become futile: we end up only ‘preaching to the converted from an ‘ivory tower’, as it were.
Of course, if communication of climate science is not your aim, then it is your choice if you prefer to communicate with nobody!
My best wishes,
Tamsin
———————————–
http://unsettledclimate.org/2012/02/02/clarifications-and-how-better-to-communicate-science/
less than 24 hours later ;-) Dr Gleick phished the Heartland Institute.
Gareth
If she’s advocating telling the truth, then her recommendation is trivial. if she’s advocating anything more, I think she’s wrong. Imagine a law, or even a voluntary code, which prevented someone who genuinely thought the world was in danger from speaking out. It’s unthinkable. There are laws protecting free speech, which a Hansen would insist on exercising, and he’d be right. Tamsin’s less belligerent colleagues probably wouldn’t, under her regime.- Guys, why THESE DAYS are you paying so much attention to the Climate Scare Porno Mag called the Guardian ? (You give it respect beyond it's worth. It's contents are gibberish only taken seriously by a few 10,000s of people albeit influential : confirmation bias greenies, media people & some politicians.)
- 1. Of course scientists can lobby ? think of another context e.g. MMR... would MMR scientists let anti-vaccine pushers have a clear field ? No !
- 2. But be aware when they do lobby it can effect their laboratory results "Hey mate I have an important TV interview tomorrow, did your experiment results come in yet ? any juicy bits ? They do show that XYZ don't they ?"
- Or that take a side instead of having an open mine and hence the results they get in the lab become heavily biased.
- Big difference between "Validated Science" & the extrapolations made on it : "Scientists say" is JUST an opinion it's not science.
Barry: Thanks for taking us through that little bit of history again. Gleick's self-destruction is quite some achievement of you both! And you're surely right about the pressure that can be exerted. Why has Tamsin developed such independence of mind? Aside from her own personal qualities this was also the time Richard Betts chose to try and engage with sceptics. Being sceptics, some of us think he was up to no good. It's not an evaluation I share. Now Tamsin has been given the opportunity to make some regular Guardian readers sit up and think - and us as well.
@geoff
Tamsin practices monastic silence on things outside her expertise; and argues that others should follow her example.
I'm on record as saying that climate scientists behaving like political activists was one of the factors that converted me to scepticism. I am probably one of the people Tamsin is thinking of when she says that advocacy has damaged trust, and then backs this up in the comments with "My statement that trust has been damaged referred to my (fairly extensive) discussions with climate sceptics, both online and in person.". I'm also the author of the favourite quote on her web page.
So I'm obliged to agree with her entirely, and therefore disagree with Geoff. It's a fundamental principle of science that every question needs to be approached objectively, and when climate scientists start saying things like "I've signed my department up to 10:10 campaign and have a taskforce of staff and students involved in it.", they've lost it. I appreciate that this may be seen by some as a naively idealistic view for such a politically charged issue.
Geoff: We agree I'm sure in sciences that can be validated in a reasonable timescale. But I think Judith Curry is dead right to interpret Tamsin's contribution in this way:
The lack of trust and the very long timescales needed to falsify anything in climate science mean that it's a special case. But must off now. Love to all :)
As the activists do a pretty good job in keeping the science out of their advocacy, one might only expect the scientists to keep their advocacy out of the science.
geoffchambers at Aug 1, 2013 at 10:41 AM
I was trying to openly consider your suggestion that professionals (scientists) can also be advocates.
My examples show that other professionals do act as advocates – speaking out on their sphere of influence. But within limits that are known for their field.
• Judges don’t make policy.
• Priests don’t use the State’s monopoly on force to maintain the moral order.
• Journalists don’t use their right to invade privacy for biased partisan ends (in theory).
I still don’t think Dr Edwards is entirely wrong as she is arguing that the limits of scientists’ public advice are not clear. Do we want a perfect Technocracy?
She clearly isn’t arguing for scientists to be silent as she is arguing for something herself.
But please note that on this subject I am not an extremist; I do agree with the right to free speech. And I do consider your viewpoint to have some merit. That is why I examined its implications.
They don't have to mention carbon taxes to be involved in policy: They are mired in it whether they like it or not. Personally I want them to think more about the consequences of being wrong due to reliance on models that are obviously unfit for the purpose of policy-making. Quite simply, without the unproven positive feedbacks inherent in most models there is no scary scenario, only a beneficial one, and therefore no need for any policy at all! This much is even admitted by the IPCC.
But currently they all happily divorce themselves from the fact that the policy based on these suspect models is hugely important to the rest of us. This irresponsible stance then allows them to routinely put out press releases and grey literature that is totally unsupported by theory or observations. When challenged they then blame the hapless journalists for not reading the original papers. They then have become radical activists without even mentioning carbon taxes. But nobody is ever brought to task for this constant over-hyping of unsupportable worst-case scenarios. Quite the opposite, it seems being grossly pessimistic about mans influence on the planet is a far better career move than actually being correct.
Isn't it is a question of honesty and openness too? To be honest is sufficient in most walks of life. To be honest and to be seen to be honest is essential for political leaders in a democracy.
Climate science is prominent not because there is a demonstrable and immediate danger of civilisation collapsing worldwide from adverse weather conditions. Climatology has become politicised only because it is of opportunistic use to ambitious politicians. Environmentalism is no more than a political movement. Politicians have commandeered the 'science'. Fellow travelling climatologists have either themselves been fooled by all the political propaganda or are simply dishonest.
It is mainly the blatant dishonesty that feeds the scepticism of people with at least a modicum of technical literacy, but also all the unwarranted secrecy. Why is it so difficult to find out exactly what the damned GCM programs do? The suspicion must be that many of the developers know full well that they building on quicksands and are afraid of being found out.
CO2 is no risk to the world but apparently it is very, very risky to climatologists (Murry Salby, Bob Carter, ... Tamsin Edwards | Aug 1, 2013 at 9:11 AM?).
Something interesting.Today is the anniversary of Lewis Fry Richardson hailed as the father of modern weather forecasting.Back in 1913 he started using present weather Data and standard equatios. to predict the next days weather.Very primative but over time it got better.
But what make him interesting is that he was a Quaker .When the war Office started using his weather forecast to direct peacetime millitary operations he resigned from the Met Office.
So Tasmin you could find yourself in some very illustrious company.
Things dont change politicians hippies and pacifists still politicizing the weather.
geoffchambers
The idea that facts should speak for themselves, which is a corner stone of science. cannot live with the 'need' to promote an ideology of any form. The latter lives in the land of marketing , religion and politics were the 'objective' means much more than the means to get there. An outlook the correctly called 'prophets' of climate 'science share.
However the issue of a loss of trust in all science is fair , but its a self inflected injury either by keeping their mouth shut over poor pratice or even lies with this area or by jumping on the funding bandwagon, science in general will suffer when the AGW house falls.
For the people will not forget the lies , the misinformation and silence of those that should have acted as gate keepers to filter out the BS that reflects much of climate 'science' but did nothing or stuck their own noses in the slops bucket.