Bishop Hill Academic takedown
Mar 19, 2014 Climate: WG2 Energy: gas Greens One of the perennial gripes of the sceptic community is the failure of academics to rebut the wilder eructations of environmentalists. That being the case, it's welcome to see two residents of the ivory tower giving voice to their disdain for recent distortions by our green friends.
First up is Richard Betts, responding in the comments thread to a preposterous article in the Independent, entitled "Official prophecy of doom: Global warming will cause widespread conflict, displace millions of people and devastate the global economy":
I'm one of the authors of the IPCC WG2 report, and I think this article by the Independent is highly irresponsible, especially the headline.
The author of this article has chosen some juicy bits which back up the "climate doom" meme, but ignored other information. The headline writer has then done the same with the original article to come up with the headline of catastrophe.
They've also completely ignored all the important discussion in the report on adaptating to climate change and increasing resilience.
The upshot is a very biased, alarmist headline.
The problem is this then risks damaging the credibility of the report. There's much more to it than the impression given by this article, especially concerning other (non-climate) influences on human health, economies, etc.
Yes, anthropogenic climate change is real and poses major risks, but manufacturing scaremongering headlines by cherry-picking leaked reports is not at all helpful in informing a response to this complex situation.
I strongly encourage readers to read the actual report for themselves, and not rely on journalists who just want to get a scary headline.
Bravo.
And then there's James Verdon, who has been writing about the RSPB report on unconventional oil and gas, and finds all manner of misconduct by the authors:
In addition to the cherry-picking, there is also much in the report that is simply irrelevant to the UK setting, or taken wildly out of context. The induced seismicity section is almost wholly irrelevant, because this is predominantly an issue associated with subsurface re-injection of waste fluids, a practice that will not be conducted in the UK.
There is so much wrong with the report that it's hard to know where to begin.
Reader Comments (57)
I,m thinking about logical fallacies and catch 22 , when Yossarian is admonished for breaking every ball that comes near him from the table tennis table he is asked "what would happen if everybody behaved like that?" and he replied "then i,d be a fool to do anything different"
Nobody is stepping out of line until the money stops flowing ,ask Mr Milo Mindbender.
'In a climate of skepticism, the only way for scientists with a scam to get attention (and government grants) is to concoct ever more over-the-top claims.'
Picked up by Samizdata as quote of the day spotted in this Washington Times editorial:-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/18/editorial-the-inevitable-apocalypse/
Colour me unimpressed. For years, Richard Betts has stood silently by while absolutely ridiculous claims were made about climate catastrophes, as admirably listed by John Brignell. Now that the tide is turning, he makes an equivocal comment on a newspaper blog and people are excited and overflowing with forgiveness?
Here's the thing. When good and honest scientists like Judy Curry were being traduced, where were the people who will now start coming out of the woodwork? Curry, to take one example, has been personally and professionally attacked by "the Team" going back years. Richard Betts never lifted a finger to support her.
Johanna said: "Colour me unimpressed. For years, Richard Betts has stood silently by while absolutely ridiculous claims were made about climate catastrophes........l. Now that the tide is turning, he makes an equivocal comment on a newspaper blog and people are excited and overflowing with forgiveness?
Here's the thing. When good and honest scientists like Judy Curry were being traduced, where were the people who will now start coming out of the woodwork? ".
I say: "Colour me unimpressed. For years, Bishop Hill (or insert any one of a number of names) has stood silently by while absolutely ridiculous claims were made about the greenhouse effect, C02 etc........Now that the tide is turning by previous skeptics towards a "lukewarm position", they make equivocal comments about the essential correctness of most of climate science on a blog and people are excited and overflowing with forgiveness?
Here's the thing. When good and honest scientists like Mike Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth (add any number of names) were being traduced, where were the people who will now start coming out of the woodwork? ".
I guess Johanna (like lots of people here) is just another hypocrite.
@ Monty.
This is a parody, right?
No, it's not. I'm a climate scientist and over the past 15 years or so I've looked aghast at the misunderstanding (deliberate?) and illogical rantings on sites like this about simple physics. Most of this by people who haven't a clue about science.
Now as soon as Richard Betts criticises an article for being too alarming (which I happen to agree that it was) all the 'skeptics' start crowing.
Where is the balance? Next time some idiot here starts questioning basic Greenhouse physics I hope you'll be among the first to criticise? Right? If not, you'll be a hypocrite won't you?
"basic Greenhouse Physics"?
Definitely a parody.