Bishop Hill Solid rock
Jan 25, 2014 Climate: MWP Climate: Sceptics Climate: WG2 Yesterday Michael Shermer, the founder of the Skeptics Society, issued one of those mildly irritating calls for global warming sceptics to run up the white flag:
Libertarians, tea partyers, & free market advocates: you're on the wrong side of the climate issue. The science is rock solid. Follow data.
Being a global warming sceptic who falls into more than one of the categories mentioned, I asked Shermer whether he wanted to discuss the issue or whether he was in broadcast mode. As he didn't reply I proceeded to press him to explain exactly what was the science was that he felt was "rock solid" - was it cloud feedbacks, uniform priors in ECS, deep ocean heat transport, climate models? Libertarian sceptics wanted to know.
Eventually he seems to have felt obliged to come up with something to support his view and he pointed to an article on the eSkeptic site by a geologist called Donald Prothero. I have a vague feeling I discussed this at the time of publication a year or so back, but suffice it to say that it's awe-inspiringly pathetic stuff.
Shermer seems to feel that the science that we should all accept as "rock solid" includes, for example, the millennial temperature reconstructions. I kid you not. Prothero's article cites the Moberg study, which is far from the worst in the corpus, but does include the use of bristlecones. This presumably means that Shermer also feels that the use of bristlecone pines in temperature reconstructions is "rock solid", despite the world and his wife - including the National Academy of Sciences! - agreeing that they are unsuitable for such applications. And slapping the instrumental temperature record on top of the reconstruction is not a "rock solid" procedure in my book either.
Also in Shermer's "rock solid" files are melting polar ice caps, despite a 30-year increase in Antarctic sea ice extent, and melting glaciers. It seems that neither Prothero or Shermer have heard of sublimation. And what about Prothero's claim that the population of India are are all going to die because they rely on meltwater from the Himalayas for irrigating their crops? Have neither he nor Shermer heard of the monsoon?
If this is the "rock solid" science, I hate to think what the "slightly dicky" science is like.
Reader Comments (70)
My 2nd paper predicts the fall of atmospheric water vapour content observed by radiosonde data in the upper cloud level. This is what controls climate change from tai and CO2 variation. There is no enhanced GHE; wildly incorrect physics as any competent scientist or engineer should have worked out from first principles.
Crickey a comment if mine there from 2 years ago! Stirring stuff indeed and of course I couldn't agree with myself more! :)
Regards
Mailman
Anything prefixed with 'Skeptical' or 'Skeptics' has as much in common with the description as 'Democratic' does in the title of countries so monikered.
The 21st century western world is knee deep in bullshit so it's best to be sceptical about everything.
I think it's relevant to read about how often people fall for those emails we used to get so often - "I know you are an honest person, so I can trust you to help me transfer the $12M I have stolen from the Nigerian bank of which I am the Chief Accountant. As a gesture of appreciation for your help, I propose to transfer 10% of the sum into a bank account of your choice (etc etc)". It's a human tendency to believe what we'd like to believe even though it fails basic tests of plausibility.
It's best to be sceptical about things that accord with our preconceptions. It's not that hard to be sceptical about things that have already been shown to without any firm foundation (eg CAGW) or the obvious-nonsense soft targets preferred by Shermer
Likewise for any academic subject having the word 'science' in its title.
Alas, JREF invited none other than Michael Mann to their "skeptic" convention last year. Skepticism no longer applies to climate it seems. Eugenie Scott, renowned anthropologist and prominent anti-"intelligent designer", has also fallen under the sway of the AGW cult. It's sad, but perhaps not a lost cause.
Schermer DID write "Why People Believe Weird Things" after all...
Much like any country that has "Peoples" and "Democratic" in its title most likely isn't rule for the benefit of the people nor will it be particularly democratic.
Mailman
Jbirks,
I first came across JREF when following their 9/11 debunking threads but their Mann Made Global Warming (tm) threads are particularly hard to work out simply because they have adopted the tactics of the clowns they so thoroughly demolished routinely in their 9/11 threads!?!?!?
Regards
Mailman
I'm willing to cut Shermer some slack. He catches a lot of flack for his libertarianism from dyed in the wool left wing skeptics. His Skeptics Society hosts Skepticblog (http://www.skepticblog.org/) where he sometimes blogs. Donald Prothero is a frequent poster there with lots of interesting posts. While his views are far left, his posts generate a lot of good debate from both sides in the comments.
Canman
I'm sure they both write interesting stuff on many different subjects. On global warming their opinions are ill informed and facile and their demands that we listen to them while refusing to discuss alternatives are positively ridiculous.
I consider mainstream skepticism to be largely irrelevant. Their key features:
Leftist atheists, have poor understanding of politics.
Equate religion with belief in God, ignore new religions and Islam.
Focus on trivial fringe beliefs like paranormal and bigfoot.
Ignore the most important issues: environmentalism and economics.
The scepticism these type of people promote is of the 1984 variety , that is your given the choice of good or very good but not the possibility of any negative opinion of 'the cause '
Frankly given that in science its 'critical analysis ' that is supposed to be used , were you actively look to see if there are mistakes , climate 'sciences' addiction to the approach outlined by PJ 'why should I give you the data you only want to find something wrong with it ' shows how far aware this area of politic advocacy is from good science.
Donald Prothero might be "cut" "some" "slack" by me if he retracted the vile insult about Richard Lindzen being a lung-cancer denier. Perhaps Prothero read this in a certain piece by Nuccitelli and was ignorant and unskeptical enough to take it at face value. Fine. Apologize and retract.
As it is, these skeptoids (to use the apt name of their own blog) strike me as unimpressive, forgettable champions of nothing. "Be skeptical of everything that isn't true!" Wow, that's a life-changing philosophy. Is it anything but a mirror image of the Big Idea being expounded at AndThenTheresPhysics today: "Come on, let's start respecting the expertise of the scientists we reckon are correct!"
Someone else on the wrong side of the climate issue:
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/01-02/fundamental-uncertainties-climate-change/
I wonder if Professor Paltridge is a libertarian, tea partyer or free market advocate.
The article is well worth a read.
It's funny because that is exactly what we real skeptics are telling them: Follow the data! Too often people see warming and just assume manmade warming. They just don't seem to grasp the concept, or find the abundant data, that tells them the Earth has somehow managed to warm and cool itself all by itself throughout history. It is only the climate models that separate out the manmade variety, based on a loose assumption about a declining natural variation, now proven utterly wrong.
As for being on the wrong side - I think he really means morally wrong. But that's highly debatable. In my book anyone who thinks high energy prices are a good thing is morally wrong: Speaking as a non-libertarian, who does not believe any markets are free anywhere but I will admit to thinking we are taxed enough.
Movement skeptics are like newspapers: it's often when they start writing on a topic that you know something about that you start wondering how good a job they're really doing at covering others.
Jan 26, 2014 at 12:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterMax Roberts
To be fair, James Randi has always maintained that scientists were easy dupes for both charlatans and those true believers in the so called "woo woo" phenomena. He considers, with some justification, that his magician training gives him an eye for the sleight of the hand or mind that may fool other observers. Perhaps the lesser minions of the JRF, having smacked down the homeopaths and dowsers, feel they are hence qualified to smack down CAGW skeptics. Unfortunately, unlike paranormal phenomena, climate as per Dr. Curry is a wicked problem, certainly not amenable to the JRF favorite double blind trials. In my opinion, James Randi has done great work in his promotion the of skepticism of paranormal phenomena but as is often the case, the great man's acolytes do not measure up to his stature.
Robert Austin,
Thanks for reminding me that James Randi is one of the movement skeptics (duh!)—I should probably descathify my previous scathing remarks, partially, in light of that. Hard to denialise Randi's contribution to teaching the science/pseudoscience difference, albeit in a more elegant age when it was much simpler to tell them apart. Especially repugnant is how the relatively old man was treated by his co-skeptoids when he dared to examine The Science™ for himself, and consequently (for obvious reasons) attempted to wander off reservation. Do you remember that incident? They sure learned Randi not to take skepticism too far!
Scumbags.
Shermer is a former believer in voodoo health and energy and such things. He is a "reformed sinner" who now rages against his former "foolishness". He has had a paradigm shift but is still a personality defined by block beliefs: right now he is a CAGW champion of the consensus. Should he shift his friends to a largely pro-warming (Warm is better than
Cold) he will come out strongly against the warmist position.
He makes a living from being close to poles, but moreover it defines him in the struggle for Reason. The funny thing about those who argue so vehemently that black has no gray edges, is that their passion seems more important than their reason, and more entrenched.
I listen critically to all sides on the CAGW/The World Is Doomed (but In the Meantime I Can Make a Buck) fight. He no longer impresses me as being open-minded. The term "rabid skeptic" comes to me, a nailed-down condition somewhat contradictory to the nature of an actual skeptic.
Activist groups (even "skeptical" activist groups) inevitably lose sight of rational argument in pursuit of championing their causes. In this case, it would be for the frequently defending at all costs, of establishment science.