Bishop Hill Judy, Gavin and me
Apr 18, 2010 Climate: Curry Judith Curry has set the cat among the pigeons, posting once again at RealClimate. Her points are all rather exciting for me:
there are people making politically motivated attacks against climate research (Marc Morano and Myron Ebell come immediately to mind). And then there are people questioning many aspects of climate research and the IPCC process and making arguments based upon evidence (e.g. Steve McIntyre, Andrew Montford).
And this too:
Gavin’s statement “-especially in the light of the tsunami of baseless accusations against scientists that have been hitting the internet in the last few months-“ makes the mistake of dismissing all accusations/criticisms. I agree, it is difficult to sort through all the crazy statements and identify the substantive arguments. So I will help you out. I have seen no mention on RC of Andrew Montford’s (Bishop Hill) book “The Hockey Stick Illusion.” If Montford’s arguments and evidence are baseless, then you should refute them. They deserve an answer, whether or not his arguments are valid. And stating that you have refuted these issues before isn’t adequate; the critical arguments have not hitherto been assembled into a complete narrative. And attacking Montford’s motives, past statements or actions, etc. won’t serve as a credible dismissal. Attack the arguments and the evidence that he presents. I for one would very much like to see what RC has to say about this book.
Unfortunately, RC are not up for this, which is a shame, but perhaps inevitable.
Gavin's response also includes this comment on my world service interview last week.
Montford was interviewed on the BBC World Service the other day and was given copious time to expound on what he thought the most crucial neglected issue was. He chose to discuss McKitrick's problems in getting his repetitive and singularly unconvincing papers on the (non-)impact of socio-economic variables published. If this is the worst example available, the IPCC process is in fine shape.
There is much to take issue with here. Firstly I don't remember being given "copious" time to expound on the neglected issues. It seemed like about 30 seconds at the time, but a quick review of the interview shows that the whole thing lasted just over a minute and a half. But the main point is that I didn't discuss Ross's difficulties in getting past the gatekeepers at all - I said that he had made an accusation of falsification that hadn't been addressed by either inquiry.
Reader Comments (66)
Since we know now that the famous claim of only high quality, peer reviewed science as the the basis for the IPCC reports, it seems implausible in the extreme that anyone can still claim the IPCC has any credibility.
The IPCC isn't corrupt, it is farcical.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/04/whats-left-if-we-disregard-non-peer.html
There is nothing so pathetic as a guru being quizzed or challanged and because of it, reverting to his basest nature; the beast in us all is only a scratch away t'would seem. The lady gave the folks at RC an opportunity to expand, and to improve upon, their oft stated "scientific" contentions; instead, they reverted to kind and slew the messenger. The human tragedy of 21st Century $cience and ineptitude marches on. Only the pirates and scoundrels are making any progress while the rest of us search in vain for a handhold to climb up out of the pit.
Matthew Pearce
I take it 'some other groups' are objecting to this passage:
"Although inappropriate statistical tools with the potential for producing
misleading results have been used by some other groups, presumably by
accident rather than design,..."
They're in a hole and they're still digging. Silly Billies.
Three points;
1. We will never influence Gavin or Dhogaza and their friends. We may by making logical scientific points influence the "middle ground". Remaining polite at all times in the face of provocation will help. Judith Curry posted on WUWT a little while ago and I was very disappointed at the reaction by sceptics, but we seem to be rather more welcoming here.
2. As I understand their position both Steve McIntyre and Andrew do not deny that there has been some warming in the last 100 years. How much is due to man is still open to serious scientific work. Neither believe that warming of several degrees in the next 100 is at all likely but both are prepared to listen to serious research. Their position may still be some way from Professor Curry, but BH is very happy to hear from her.
3. RC from recent blogs is not even remotely interested in debate with people of different views. The reaction to Professor Curry was childish. The comments on Andrew's interview are provably wrong.
[Andrew if I have misrepresented your views I know you will comment!]
{BH adds - no that's a reasonable summary of where I stand, although the issue of climate sensitivity is not one where I claim a great deal of expertise}
RC is an incredible blog to say the least. I wonder if they will burn Dr. Curry at the stake in effigy or for real?
Phillip Bratby: "The likes of Gavin Schmidt have dogmatic beliefs (religious minds) and it is virtually impossible to alter a true-believer."
I understand your point but I think you belittle religious people with this statement. Gavin Schmidt's behavior is not in keeping with the tradition of Apologetics to be found in most religious traditions where people present reasoned arguments to counter an intellectual attack by an outsider, whether within or outside a tradition. No, Gavin Schmidt's behavior is worse: his attacks are viscious, ad hominem dismissals. They lack any semblence to religious Apologetics. And considering he claims to be a scientist who is supposed to be moved by evidence not by blind emotion, he fails on two accounts. RC's behavior over time has been, for me, convincing evidence that their position represents the worst type of disrepectful close-mindendness, not fitting anyone of great intellectual depth and it increased my doubts of CAGW since these guys at RC are supposed to be the geniuses behind the theory. It's outrageous that they have been allowed to publicly behave in such an unprofessional manner. I don't want my hard-earned income going to idiotic government policies based on a theory supported by the likes of the Gavin Schmidts, Michael Manns, and Phil Joneses of the climatology community. Shame on them all.
This post has inspired me to write a Climate Country Song
♫ Someday we'll find it
The C02 and Global Average Temperature connection
The Bish', Prof Jones' Mum, Our Gav and Me ♫ :.)
Andrew
John Hewitt writes
The amount of warming over this century will be the product of the quantity of GHG emitted and climate sensitivity. Is it really the case that BH and SM believe there will be little warming over the century and, if so, is it because they believe GHG emissions will be and/or climate sensitivity is low?
Richierich: Can't speak for McIntyre,Watts or the Bishop, but the GHG emissions from humans will add around 1C by the end of the century, all other things being equal. The argument for runaway warming comes from the feedbacks, and frankly there is no evidence whatsoever that the increase in temperature increases positive feedback, else we would long ago have passed the same way as Venus.
The problem that the RC old guard face is that they made the argument that there is a 'consensus' among scientists.
Having made this argument, every time the 'consensus' is perceived to be threatened, the RC old timers overreact in their desperate attempt to delineate the 'consensus' from the heretic.
Not very healthy - but this seems to be their position. Ceasing to overreact would be to admit that there is no scientific consensus. But continuing to overreact reduces the consensus by alienating people.
The RC calculus (in the political sense) seems to be that climate change legislation (and research funding for life) will happen before the scientific 'consensus' position is absolutely untenable.
This may well be a winning political strategy, but it isn't science.
I've been pondering some more about the motivations and actions of those who populate warmist blogs like RealClimate. And the only conclusion I can draw is that they are mightily scared.
Unlike most here, who probably have/have had/will have relatively satisfying careers in fields other than 'climate science', my guess is that the RC guys are defined by their field. The blog header tells us this 'Climate Science from Climate Scientists'. I suspect that they have little else in their lives.
And when they have had things very much their own way for fifteen or twenty years, have acquired status and influence because of their position as 'climate scientists', have even been granted a share of the Nobel Prize, they tend to become arrogant and complacent.
When small challenges like that from the M&M appear, they feel that they can ignore or belittle them. Especially when the challengers do not belong to the self-defining club of climate scientists. And you can see this behaviour every time a warmist says 'not a climate scientist' and 'not peer-reviewed'. Which really means...you're not in our gang matey so you;re wrong. Or asserts that they have already refuted point X without making the slightest effort to explain how. Because surely their own word will be taken as proof enough. And who would be bold enough to challenge their authority?
But what they see now is no longer a small challenge (*), but indeed a tsunami of criticism. Climategate showed up some of the inner workings of the RC club. And though it may have satisfied a bunch of like-minded academics that no laws were broken, it showed to those of us outside that circle the shoddiness of their work and the weakness of their processes. And the warmists know that some very experienced and very intelligent people are very very sceptical of their claims. And aren't going to go away anytime soon.
And then Copenhagen was a damp squib. How galling that must have been. If only it had succeeded, the AGW-case would have been cemented into international laws and treaties. And however hard bloggers here and elsewhere could have tried, the chance of getting these things revoked would have been vanishingly small.
And the brotherhood is beginning to shrink. Monbiot has effectively jumped ship, writing about Welsh politics rather than AGW. Judith has courageously tried to point out that the Emperor may have fewer clothes than previously thought. Trenbeth has again admitted that his energy balance equations are all to pot. I doubt if Phil Jones' health will allow him to take an active role in future. Mann has gone definitely quiet. Gore has disappeared from view. The Met Office is back pedalling on some of its wilder contributions. The IPCC process is in tattered disrepute The BBC is broadcasting occasional sceptic views. And now some Bishop or other in UK has published a contrarian book and getting rave reviews!!
No wonder they are scared. From the position of global domination a short year ago, their walls are crumbling. And the only defensive tactic they have ever practiced is abuse and bullying. Recognising that their ammunition stocks are low, they continue to spout the same old lines.
But we must remember that these guys have everything to lose. If this AGW stuff goes belly up, the chances of them ever getting to the same status is zero. They will forever be remembered as the guys who tried to fool the world...and failed. And that is what, at heart, they are so scared about.
(Steve & Ross I sincerely mean no disrespect...it is not the quality of the challenge but its position in relative isolation that I am referring to)
Stirling assessment English
You have just omitted to mention the withering consensus and that in the past was easier to conform than to conflict.
Great analysis, Stirling, and well-written.
Another factor is the "consensus" within the meejah / pop-stars / public discourse. So far this has been a cost-free position to take: pretending to care for the planet, for the children, for the 3rd world - without needing to do anything. So easy to just say "nice things".
The obverse of this is that until recently it was hard to say "nasty things". Like not pretending to care about the planet - or the solar system for that matter. You risked unpopularity.
You are right Shrub: "They function to keep the pot boiling. Their true aim is policy 'victory' and not anything related to science." And my brother (Phil) is about the best (worst?) example.
"I am trying to provoke people to have open minds and think critically about climate research." Amen to that Judith. I am sure her time will come.
I am envious of Judith's CV, RC allowed her to post. I tried to give my two penneth (no bad language or any kind of verbal abuse) but my posts never appeared ^.^
More than a year ago I was promoting on CA that the global temperature record needed open reworking from its origins. I was not alone, but we were on the dark side.
Up above, Kim writes of Judith Curry "And her call for a whole new and transparent reworking of the present and paleo temperature records is absolutely right on."
Judith has a known reputation for expertise, but she's no longer being seen as an enemy of the dark side. Sociologically, this is quite interesting, because people in a transition state can gather more attention than people in a stable logic state.
I'd be looking out for more people who have done the binary bounce. They have a two-sided credibility and hence a wider audience. How about another thread, one on descriptions of the Eureka moment - and why it happened - including those (if any) who gone in the other direction.