Bishop Hill Seitz is no guarantee
Dec 23, 2015 Climate: Sceptics 
Take a look at this 1990 article by Russell Seitz, placed online recently here. It's colourfully written, but ironically it sets out a sceptic position rather well. Does this sound like something that you might have written?
A disturbing reality confronts us: the deliberate creation of a double standard, with one set of facts for internal scientific discourse and another for public consumption.
On whether CO2 is a "big" problem:
Clearly, a sharp-toothed carnivore is on the prowl. But we've yet to see a full-grown specimen. Are we dealing with Snoopy or Cerberus? It's hard to tell- it's only just a foundling pup, and the question of its diet remains to he wrestled with-it might grow into either. But grow it will-slowly, and for a long while undetectably. One of these centuries, we're going to have a real dog in our front yard. But what kind? And when? An interdisciplinary consensus on the magnitude of the "greenhouse effect" and its impact on sea levels in the next century won't come cheap-or soon.
On activists and scientists:
On CO2, some [scientists] have cast objectivity aside and openly made common cause with the eco-politicians. The salvation of the world affords an enchanting pretext for those predisposed to societal intervention. They have already raised the abolitionist banner, pointing to the prospect of Bangladesh awash and water skiing down the Mall to the Capitol-a prospect no more likely in my lifetime than nothing happening.
On nuclear:
Rather than embarking down the soft energy path that leads back beyond the Industrial Revolution's roots into a future dark age, the Greens should pause to consider the effect on the environment of renewing and perfecting our mastery of the atom's pale fire. The prospect of nuclear power's second coming presents environmental millenarians with a real source of cognitive dissonance: it is they who are the problem. It is their delaying tactics that wasted years and squandered billions at Seabrook and elsewhere. And it is their past indifference to the environmental consequences of the fossil fuel that the reactor might have saved that makes a mockery of their present rhetoric.
Reader Comments (233)
I do not share Steve's strong desire to see science reduced to sound bytes-
If he finds scientific publications too demanding , he can always try my WSJ, NYTimes ,TLS, Washington Post ,NR, LRB , etc. op-eds, essays and reviews online.
I'll repost one example , <I> Climate of Here on my blog shortly:
http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com
Merry Christmas to all . and to all a good night
Russell, Happy Christmas!
Unfortunately 97% of climate scientists are very fond of sound bites, especially if they are endorsed by the President of the USA.
Would you object if someone copied your post here, so it got a wider audience? Maybe that would upset your interpretation of UK/USA copyright/plagiarism etc.
Russel
Even though it's christmas time ... Your response is pathetic
I have now read the piece on his website that Dr Seitz considers to have answered Steve McIntyre's question. It does in a way - but not in the way that Dr Seitz had hoped.
What you will find there is a diatribe with all the obscurantism but none of the insight of his 1990 essay - full of numerous logical fallacies (ad hominem, genetic, popularity, authority), but lacking in science. To be kind, he has clearly left the reservation (of science). He's clearly in his anecdotage — and good luck to him. But if he thinks that this post provides any answers to anything, that is rather sad.
Dr Seitz sees it all as a matter of Democrats v Republicans, and he's a Democrat! So there! I might counter with a quote form Michael Crichton, since Dr Seitz quotes him: 'Data isn't Democrat or Republican - it's data.' That this appears not to be the case in climate science is the problem. But even the agreed data falsify the predictions — and that alone should be the test for science.
I did have chuckle at this passage in the piece Dr Seitz posted:
'Should it evoke a certain sense of déjà vu, you can confirm it by reviewing “A War Against Fire,” a report from the front I wrote for the (then-) echt conservative quarterly The National Interest long before Gore started running for Environmental President.'
If Dr Seitz paid closer attention to Democratic politics, he should have known that Al Gore ran for the Democratic nomination in 1988 — the year he organised Hansen's Congressional testimony and two years prior to Seitz's 'War Against Fire.'
Russell, with all due respect for your being so willing to engage, please consider how evasive your response and attitude come across. What would Feynman do? Your position has clearly changed over the years. This is a conversation, not a year long survey.
In a conversation the person unwilling to state their point when offered the clear opportunity to be heard is seldom seen as the reasonable party.
Reders should note that Aynsley's Gish Gallop of epithets : 'he's a Democrat " " Logical fallicies (ad hominem, genetic, popularity, authority), but lacking in science. To be kind, he has clearly left the reservation (of science).
are directed against a life-long Republican who
1. Served in the Reagan administration
2.Michael Crighten called upon for science advice for both Congo and Climate of Fear
( he certainly didn't take all of it )
Gore did not run for president environmental or otherwise in 1988; having received only 10% of the vote in the New York Primary. Gore dropped out of the race for the Democratic nomination .
Al made the term "Environmental President " famous with his 2000 run
I dare not note Aynsley's lack of science publications, lest he go back to 'Authority ' in the cliche' loop.
The quality of Aynsley's ellipsis can be judged from quote he just butchered -
Bear that bipartisan commitment to the integrity of science in mind as you consider “Phaetons’ Reins,” his overview of what the climate wars have come to. I recommend making the detour to read it because the atmosphere is the Earth’s most complex dynamic system, and there is no way I can do justice to the debate in so few words as I have here.
Should it evoke a certain sense of déjà vu, you can confirm it by reviewing “A War Against Fire,” a report from the front I wrote for the (then-) echt conservative quarterly The National Interest long before Gore started running for Environmental President. Its conclusion stands. If any species of principle is at once worth conserving and profoundly endangered, it is that the political neutrality of scientific institutions must first exist in order to be respected.
Russell, I like your style. Reading it seems a bit like listening to a quartet instead of a soloist. the piece takes the same amount of time, but there is so much more music. And besides, it's fun to write. And if it cannot be fun, why do it?
a guide to the perplexed really is needed. The earlier guide required that his reader know the literature. Your response to Steve suggests that you agree. But he does seem to know the literature.
You impress me as someone who's view on this could be very compelling. Is it really not worthwhile to give us a bit more detail on how you came to change your mind on this?
Have good holidays. And please continue to comment here.
He took the road more traveled, and that has made all the difference.
=======================
Kim, even selecting a road more travelled, does not stop some people having no idea where they are, how they got there, where they were before they even started, and where they ever thought they were going.
Confucius said that every journey must start with a single step. Dancing around in linguistic circles, is no indication of destiny being attained.
"I see it now; Russell is the Dork of Cork." --John Constable
The Dark of Cark might be anyone after a fourth pint.
Pass the port to jorgekafkazar.
Another few rounds and he'll explain the Dork's descent from the father-in- law of chemistry, and Robert Boyle's youngest daughter.
Russell you wrote a lot about sceptics but nothing about the science or your current opinions of it. It seems to be a feature of warmists that you need one side or the other to have the answers. Thus as you are unimpressed by sceptics, you have to agree with the consensus. What if the truth is too complicated for either to understand in 2015?
It was my pleasure to spend some brief time in Cork this past September. There is an delightful pub near the 19th century Catholic Cathedral on the side of the River Lee near the old Butter Market (re-purposed as a lovely museum currently). The whiskey selection was superior, and the bar staff pleasantly willing to indulge a couple of tired tourists who had lots of questions and much thirst. The talk was pleasant, civil and reasoned.
I can imagine Dork getting tossed out of there after 10 or 12 idiocratic monologues.
Russell,
Your responses so far do not sound as if they even convince you.
Perhaps you can imagine you are in the same excellent pub in Cork (or someplace more convenient) and between a shot or two of, say 21 year old Red Breast on me, and are asked to politely and in clear language explain a couple of the highlights of how you got to where you are from where you were. Give it a try. I would even be willing to gift you a bottle of the same if you do so and care for one of the better whiskeys available.
Hunter , Try this for a start-
http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-very-large-grain-of-salt.html
then hit the Adamant link on the sidebar of VVatts Up With That for more and earlier examples of my running critique of both sides of the Climate Wars -
beware of the man with just one blog.
Russell,
so instead of answering Steve's very reasonable question you resort to some ad hominems about a person who is only piling on?
After which follows some referal to the fact that the "atmosphere is the Earth’s most complex dynamic system"?
What an extremely weak response, sir.
Here for Hunter ( and why not Wijnand ?) is the Adamant climate wars section direct link
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/climate_wars_/
Russell,
I admit that Gore was more prominent in his 1988 race for the Democratic nomination for his desire to ban rock music with obscene lyrics, but his environmental stance was clear enough. He might well have branded it as such in 2000, but it was clear enough in 1988: a. he was running for the presidency; b. he was a notable environmentalist. Was the publication of 'Earth in the Balance' in 1992 a sudden departure? He ran for the presidency in 1988 and was involved in the Hansen testimony that same year.
The piece you posted in response to Steve McIntyre's request for explanation explained nothing. After your ad hom there ('If he finds scientific publications too demanding ' - how patronising!), you post something that smears numerous scientists because of supposed links to Fox News, neo-cons, fossil fuel interests, etc. Now you attempt a cheap shot at me for my 'lack of science publications'. I didn't mention the lack of your political science qualifications, but pulled you up on your facts. Note the difference: one is about reason and evidence, the other argumentum ad hominem.
Let me pull you back to the science, to reason and evidence and challenge you to respond clearly, without obfuscation, without ad hominem comments - which is what Steve McIntyre requested.
All climate model runs contain assumptions that forcing by CO2 will lead to warming, which will produce increased concentrations of water vapour, the far more powerful GHG. As you pointed out in your 1990 essay, the evidence for this was indeterminate. Evidence to support it remains weak. Indeed, when my colleague Garth Paltridge (and others) submitted a paper reviewing 50 years of radiosonde data that reported a lack of convincing evidence for rising water vapour, it was rejected initially, with one referee recommending this result because they thought the authors might be trying to undermine the case for policy action. The paper was accepted at another journal, but the case (detailed at Steve McIntyre's blog) is a typical indicator of why peer reviewed climate science can no longer be relied on as a source of authority.
Given that the observations for the for the past 18 years show no statistically significant warming, so that the model runs have all been falsified by this data and are more consistent with the theory that there is no or weak positive feedback from water vapour, why are you more confident that the theory of CAGW than you were in 1990? (Occam's Razor suggests we go with the simplest explanation - that there is no amplification - as the observations are consistent with that, rather than resorting to ever-complex conjectures such as 'the heat is hiding in the deep oceans'.)
Simple question. Please give us a clear answer - no ad homs. arguments from authority, or other fallacious lines of argument, but a clear statement based on reason and evidence. No links to your obscurantist blog posts - just a clear statement. That was all Steve McIntyre was asking for. If you are incapable of doing so, readers can draw their own (and quite obvious) conclusions.
"I do not share Steve's strong desire to see science reduced to sound bytes-"
All the posts I've read at Climate Audit are detailed and carefully argued pieces complete with supporting references. Only an idiot would think they could pull off the deception that Steve McIntyre has a "strong desire to reduce science to sound bites".
What an amusing thread. Brings to mind Buckley's quip that he would rather be governed by the first 400 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. The more things change, the more they remain the same, eh?
def: vvussellarrhoea:
-To cite oneself, elsewhere, but not actually address the asked question (see aTTPitis).
vvussell does not want to answer the question, because it is about tricky subjects involving science and facts.
Instead, he would rather promote Hilary Clinton for President, with her top tips on double book-keeping in home economics, E-Mail security, and specialist dry cleaning for troublesome stains.
As I pointed out to Buckley at Harvard's 1970 Symposium On The Coevolution of British & American Conservatism, his choice of pages merey confirmed his excellent taste in government :
The most common name on them was 'Adams '.
And the second most common name on the list was Eves?
Russell,
Thanks for the reference link to your post that managed to confuse the reality of CO2 as a GHG (I did note with interest that water vapor was a player even then) and simultaneously miss the point of skeptics (and reality) that we are not acing a climate apocalypse.
I will buy the first round of whiskeys, but no bottle of cherished 21 Red Breast for that.
Hunter, I cannot type fast enough to recapitulate all i've written about existential threat inflation since 1984.
Nor can I read it for you- have a good time at the library.
Well played, Russell.
Buckley agreed I had a point, and I went on to appear in three episodes of Firing Line</I>
While Hunter waits for the library to awake from its long winter's nap, he is welcome to read my rants at Reason
https://reason.com/people/russell-seitz/all
Russell,
Your response to direct, reasonable questions written in plain English is to ask us to read irrelevant pieces/postings from years ago.
It is clear that you have nothing worthwhile to say.
Russell,
This internet thingy, even on Christmas evening, is still open.
But it is late and the lovely Mrs. Hunter is kindly requesting my company.
I look forward to reading your older stuff asap.
A cynical acquaintance pointed out the possible correlation between increased funding opportunities for climate crisis promotion in academia and the increased volume, progression and deep entrenchment of climate fear belief in academia.
I suggested he not be so cynical.
I look forward to reading your writing.
Russel wrote:
This strikes me as an utterly duplicitous response, or one that is too cute by a long shot.
Murray N. Rothbard was able to boil down extraordinary complex subjects (economics for example) into small, easy to understand bits. He wrote academic, precise papers that were peer-reviewed and published. He wrote academic books. But he also wrote many things written so that the non-expert could understand his position.
You were asked to give one or two or three reasons for your change of mind on the subject. You failed to give even one. Note: you were not asked to justify the reason or to explain it in detail. You were just asked to give a reason or three. You failed to do that.
Why? You leave me no course but to speculate why you are afraid to give a reason. I speculate that the reason is that you changed positions because it was politically expedient.
~ Mark
a sympathetic wind shift?
Mark Stoval, or maybe Russell doesn't know why he changed his mind and it's just an emotional thing.
Russell,
The essay about carbon Prohibition was interesting.
https://reason.com/archives/2008/07/23/carbon-based-prohibition
I agree that the moralism of the climate obsessed is, as you imply, highly misplaced as was that of the Prohibition promoters.
It is interesting that you seem to accept without critical review the underlying claims of the climate outcomes the obsessed predict. The metric of 792K tons of atmosphere per person would have been a great place to start, by the way.
But the one about the fact that industrial emissions are not that much higher than human biological emissions of CO2 would have been a good candidate as well.
And your conclusion,
"A personal CO2 limit of less than a ton per year does not even imply the right to buy that much fuel, because CO2 is only 27 percent carbon. Multiply your 1,745-pound annual CO2 ration by 27 percent, divide the result by 365 days, and…yikes! It’s 21 ounces of carbon a day—and falling. If the global population reaches 9 billion by 2050, expect a daily fossil fuel ration of a latté cup of gasoline, three Pilates balls of natural gas, or a lump of coal the size of a turnip.
If you suspect life on a pound of coal a day might be solitary, brutish, nasty, and short, you’re right. The countries with the smallest carbon footprints already feature the shortest life expectancies on Earth. Not that real prohibitionists should mind—when it comes to carbon, Sudan is bone dry."
Is brilliant.
So again, why the hate on towards skeptics?
TinyCO2, I would have found that an understandable reason. Or maybe there's yet uncertainty, which I can understand. ...puzzling.
Since he wrote the article cited by the Bishop Russell has evidently joined the consensus that to quote POTUS “climate change is real, man made and dangerous” and he no doubt feels much more secure and comfortable to be a part of the crowd of believers. However in recent decades so much of the reputational capital of (formerly) prestigious bodies (such as the Royal Society) has been sunk into supporting the CAGW theory that there is little room, and no incentive, for institutional Academic scientists to criticise or dispute it. This places Russell and his colleagues in the company of a disparate collection of scientists, politicians, NGO’s and “Green “ activists most of whom only use “climate science” as a drunk uses a lamp post.
Bridgeman wrote as far back as 1959 - ” To attempt to broaden the concept of science to include social responsibility, as appears to the popular temper at present can result only in confusion.”
“Global warming’s inability to meet the falsifiability standards set by the Scientific Revolution and claims that what should be accepted as knowledge should be based on appeals to authority. The lack of a falsifiability test has led climate scientists and governments, the IPCC and UNFCC– not to mention the green NGOs and their constituencies of fellow travellers- into putting their faith in the existence of a “scientific consensus” as a guide to scientific truth. But “verification by consensus is always to be accepted with extreme reservation” and consensus lies at the heart of what the IPCC does and it relies on the proposition that the subjective opinions of individuals can be converted into scientific knowledge through the formation of a consensus.
The purpose of consensus is to gain legitimacy for taking collective action and in the case of CAGW that there is no fundamental difference between belief and knowledge as long as there is collective agreement among those experts who claim to have scientific authority – in this case the class of academics who describe themselves as “climate scientists”. This concept allows “scientists” to escape the rigours of science and to disguise the reality that their pontifications ( a word carefully chosen) are somewhere in the realm of pseudo – science or futurology. Once such a consensus has been formed there is a strong incentive to maintain it and to reject the possibility of falsification as to do so would mean the actions required by the consensus might not be taken and thus any people who expressed doubts represent a threat that must be de-legitimised.
Russel says - If any species of principle is at once worth conserving and profoundly endangered, it is that the political neutrality of scientific institutions must first exist in order to be respected. As far as climate science is concerned it is too late – the political neutrality of climate science- if it ever existed - was long since destroyed.
With acknowledgements to Rupert Darwall
Spectator, interesting points!
We started with climate science and scary stories.
Then we had the Holy Hockey Stick, and Mann made science
Then we had no evidence of global warming, and no fresh evidence
Then we had the Cook consensus, which we must believe, because the President of the United States believes it, and the Pope said something, but not in English.
We just seem to be missing out quite a lot of science, and vvussell can't remember it either.
We already know that aTTP believes in climate science but NOT Mann's Holy Hockey Stick, but he won't say what is wrong, in case it appears he only realised it after reading the work of McIntyre, Montford et al. Of course if it was the physics that was wrong, you would have thought he would want to take the credit, in which case why did he not speak out earlier?
Climate science gets more like a crime thriller every day.
There has been some talk comparing what happened to the capital markets in the run up to the 2008 debacle to what other areas of leadership level society have been or are doing: Oligarchic, self-absorbed, consensus led, increasingly complex and less productive. Climate science has not improved its predictive models despite vast sums of money. the embarrassing papers that are clear examples of rent seeking are well documented. The complex of non-scientific organizations clustered around and profiting from climate concerns is vast and growing. The inability or refusal of climate opinion leaders to answer obvious questions or to defend clear problems and failures is plain to see.
Part of this has to be from a "group think" process that allows a suspension of critical thinking
Certainly if we consider the clear writing of Prof. Seitz's past with his current communication style (even when offered a nice bottle of world class Irish Whiskey), it seems we are witnessing an example of the results of this process.
I hope he reconsiders. He was once bold and innovative, from a review of his CV.
Hunter, nice rationall logic, rarely applies in climate science!
The 3Ms of 'Means, Method and Motive', are as relevant today as ever. vvussell clearly had the Means, understood the Method, and when it came to Motive, well there could be hundreds of thousands of them. Maybe even more.
Part of this has to be from a "group think" process that allows a suspension of critical thinking
Certainly if we consider the clear writing of Prof. Seitz's past with his current communication style (even when offered a nice bottle of world class Irish Whiskey), it seems we are witnessing an example of the results of this process.
Au contraire , Hunter you get what you pay for , and blog comments scarcely qulify as writing , foe as Doctor Johnson observed, no man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money. Editing doesn't come cheap either.
vvussell, do remind us of your qulifications, and the foes committed by Dr Johnson. It has just gone 10pm in the UK, and you seem to have enjoyed your Boxing Day afternoon tea.
Do you remember accusing someone here of dyslexia, due to spelling mistakes? Does Harvard approve of discrimination against those with communication difficulties through poor hearing or the written word?
re: vvussel and the dork; one is a cupid stunt and the other blompous pockhead. Take your pick. Sorry but my Xmas truce on idiot trolls is over.
Dr. Russell, it may be something if a surprise but we have communicated by the medium of writing for this entire conversation. The same medium you selected for the essays you have been quoted in context from in this blog post and conversation. In those writings you were clear and thoughtful. I do hope to see a repeat of that from you here as well, eventually. Your choice of phrase about getting what one pays for is interesting, by the way. If you are a man who enjoys a fine sip, you might look up what I am sincerely offering for an example of clear explanation of your journey. Steve's terms of just a few select main points is perfectly acceptable and seems quite reasonable. Give it a shot, as it were. Cheers.
hunter, the possibility remains that vvussell can't quite remember the question properly, and his inability to answer it, is not deliberate.
There are many pshrinks in climate pscience who would be more than happy to help, and if the right money is readily available, will come to any required conclusion. Climate pscientists get annoyed if you try to remove the 'p'.
Sorry to drop out, but Boxing Day is better spent shooting than arguing.
"What a lovely day. Let's go out and kill something"
vvussell, no one was asking for an argument. Just an explanation.
The comments and viewers of this thread, must exceed your best expectations for free publicity for your own blog, but you have chosen to waste it.
Well, I'm surprised there is any argument here. What with the continued warming, battling along despite skeptics regular predictions of imminent cooling, I'd have thought a little defeat would have been conceded. And the topic moved on, maybe to, "Its too late to cut CO2 emissions, we'll just have to adapt".
But no, the climate hasn't changed here, nor at WUWT, or at Jonova, or anywhere skeptical. BTW, I hear New York City was unseasonably warm on Christmas Eve...
John Brookes,
Do you still commit the fallacy of confusing weather events with climate?
Apparently so.
John, by the way, seems as ignorant of the issues as Russell is to discuss them, only less interesting.