Some fun before the weekend

This posting by Donald Clark made me laugh.

Have a nice weekend.

Monckton to overthrow government..

...or something like that. Lord Monckton is apparently to be the new deputy leader of the UK Independence Party and politicalbetting.com is wondering if global warming sceptics will now all leave the Conservative Party.

The irrational polemicist

George Monbiot has written the most extraordinary review of the book I'm currently reading - Matt Ridley's Rational Optimist. I'm not sure I've ever read such a bilious review of a book before, and certainly few that have been devoted quite so much space to ad hominems. If anything, Monbiot comes over as slightly deranged. Ridley has nevertheless posted a polite and detailed rebuttal here (James Delingpole weighs in here). But despite appearing to be the rantings of a lunatic, Monbiot's is still an interesting piece - mainly for what it leaves out.

Click to read more ...

Climate lessons

Regular commenter John Shade has started a new blog called Climate Lessons, which will look at the way environmentalism and other green issues are taught in schools.

Why not pay him a visit?

Bob Ward again

Bob Ward is on a roll. Today he has an article in New Scientist in which he gives us his professional opinion as a PR man on how climatology can save itself. This is the bit I found interesting:

"Don't underestimate your critics and competitors". This means not only recognising the skill with which the opponents of climate research have executed their campaigns through blogs and other media, but also acknowledging the validity of some of their criticisms. It is clear, for instance, that climate scientists need better standards of transparency that allow for scrutiny not just by their peers but also by critics from outside the world of research.

I praised Bob yesterday for his call for openness and I'm going to praise him again here for making clear that he doesn't see openness as a limited thing that should apply only to the Royal Society. My one concern here would be the words "for instance". That clearly implies Bob recognises that sceptics have valid criticisms beyond the need for transparency, but the question is, which ones does he think are kosher?

Later in the same piece he says this:

It is also important to engage with those critics. That doesn't mean conceding to arguments based on ideology rather than evidence...

...and again, it's hard to disagree. But arguments based on ideology are a problem from a sceptic perspective too. Can those on the other side let go of the Hockey Stick and the absurd argument that its dramatic shape has been replicated by other studies (conveniently overlooking the flawed ingredients that are behind them)? We can only hope.

The paleo studies are mostly rotten. We just need someone to admit it.

Bob Ward on openness

Bob Ward has an interesting letter in the Times, prompted by the rebellion of Royal Society fellows over the Society's statements on climate change. This is the intriguing bit:

To avoid creating even further misunderstanding about the causes and consequences of climate change, the Royal Society and its Fellows should now open up their internal debate to the public, and clarify whether the criticisms made by the “sceptics” have any validity.

Openness has long been a clarion call for sceptics, so Bob's intervention is most welcome. Let's hope that his enthusiasm for transparency extends to the availability of climatologists' data and code.