Andrew Montford at Bishop Hill writes:
The Guardian has thrown all my preconceptions into disarray by printing an article about sceptics that is not only thoughtful, but is polite too!
Sceptics such as Andrew Montford and Anthony Watts agree with the mainstream view that the greenhouse effect brings about atmospheric warming as a result of carbon emissions, but dispute levels of climate sensitivity. However, others offer far more fundamental challenges to climate science, such as fringe sceptic group Principia Scientific whoreject this orthodox view of atmospheric physics.
I can’t quite yet believe this was printed in the Guardian about me, while at the same time giving Greg Laden a swift kick in the pants:
Watts found himself under frequent challenge by members of the group on his blog, leading him to post his own experiments on YouTube to disprove their claims. As well as being a nice example of scientific claim and counter-claim on the web, Watts’s actions also helped position himself as a “mainstream” sceptic who can challenge key areas of climate science without entering into pseudoscience, a brush he had previously been tarnished with.
Watts’s public experiments provide an example of one more area in which sceptics seek to uphold standards, through transparent and auditable scientific practice. One of the most contentious issues arising from Climategate was the effort to withhold from publication data subjected to freedom of information requests. When physicist Phil Moriarty challenged these practices as being outside of accepted scientific standards, he was lauded by numerous commenters on the Bishop Hill sceptic blog as a “real scientist”.
Thank you sincerely, Warren Pearce
Congratulations, Anthony.
“whoreject” Is this some sort of primping?
Are you certain that, having been unable to strangle the sceptic cat, the consensus is not now trying to choke it to death with cream?
pseudoscience…
I’m thinking he’s giving a lot more credit than I am….
I see most, if not almost all, of it that way
Past that….it’s a more than well deserved kudos to Anthony and his high standards
Last sentence in the first quote from the Guardian:
interesting word, but more likely a typo.
Wow! Me too!!
Is this a significant shift in how warmist publications (as the Grauniad most definitely is) are now dealing with CAGW I wonder?
In every one of the education wars, like reading, science, or math, there came a point where the rhetoric softened. The actual implementation never changes, but if the rhetoric softens people of good faith assume a victory or compromise and get on with life. This was never about the environment or temps for many people, especially the UN and Club of Rome.
Since I am monitoring what is going on in the UK as well, I can tell you everyone’s curriculum is about to be about real world problems and global challenges and taking AGW as a given. The Regional Equity planning is premised on AGW and it is going into effect. I have seen the curriculum and I have the agency reports laying out what is up.
Anthony, you and Andrew deserve the credit and kind words but no way is this a change in direction. But neither of you is likely to be monitoring what Pearson is putting out via digital learning to classrooms. And a couple of years of modeling visually what is not so will makes the influential false beliefs paramount. Reality will not be what guides the typical student’s perspective. And at 18 they get to vote en masse. Despite acute carefully cultivated ignorance.
Some well deserved recognition.
Keep up the excellent work Mr. Watts.
OT but An Arctic Hockey Stick has formed for now on the N Hem Ice chart.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
Southern hem another daily sea ice record set..
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
Combined World sea Ice us about.25 under 29 year mean.
Anthony 97% of what is posted here and what I have read by you is nothing but real Data and Facts.
You do deserve a thoughtful & polite write up about you.
Anthony, they gave an example of your experiment that disproves Scientific Principia, but they never mentioned your experiment that showed Al Gore was full of cr*p. Until they start making the same comments of people like Gore who have it wrong as skeptics who have it wrong then we still have a way to go with the media.
I am absolutely stunned, but also reassured.
Anthony: Congratulations on the persistent and diligent attitude to science. Facts are facts. Speculation is speculation. And climate science is…..
Wow! The greenies will choke on this. The outcry… no, I don’t want to go there.
I’ll just stick with Wow!
Did you read the comments one character called PeterSimmons was doing the usual name calling (flat earthers… etc), when he was challenged by Answeris42 asking what scientific qualifications he had of course he never answers the question, either a troll or an unqualified cheerleader for the extreme greens 🙂
The new paradigm after the old publishing model collapsed was to become an on line news source that will be quoted, create conflict and tag a rent seeking ad onto the clicks.
This model then allows for the odd random article to not only assist the model but to make ‘clear’ the unbiassed aspect of the new model.
Now the Guardian has linked to a site with millions of redirected clicks on offer, WUWT, this will drive readership and, of course, the revenue stream.
Unlike with Reuters, where they have woken up,this Guardian article is a good way of tapping a rich vein, but only that.
As such it remains an outlier in the mix of climate articles.
“who reject” may be a more appropriate.
Reading the comments on that website makes my head hurts… They will never “get” it no matter how hard we try to present facts. They’ve already made up their mind and put fingers in the ears and go “LA LA LA LA LA LA”.
Truly amazing to see a piece about climate sceptics in the MSM that isn’t at best patronizing and at worst insulting and offensive. Can’t say the same about most of the comments on the Guardian website though – you can feel the sense of shock that the ‘deniers’ have been allowed through the hallowed doors for even a few moments. The whole place will need to be disinfected.
The creation of religions has always been a tango of bait and switch.
This CAGW religion’s creation is no different.
The most important thing is never to examine the following too carefully:
1. How accurate the data actually is.
2. How reliable the methods of measurement are.
3. Whether the statistical analysis tools used are appropriate.
4. Whether the messages used to present the data are measured, accurate and representative.
5. What levels of uncertainty exist and for how much longer they will exist prior to a resolution.
It’s the same in the way absolutely everything is presented in the Press: wilful distortions in one way or another, claiming that the readers ‘can’t understand the details’. I’ve never come across people who can’t understand if the communicator can communicate well. If you can’t explain your science to a person with no training in the subject, you shouldn’t be deputed to represent your branch of science to the general public.
The truth of the climate religion is that you just write a new gospel if the old one doesn’t fit.
The truth of global politics is that it is in the interests of the shadowy powers behind the thrones to have a bunch of fairly ignorant representatives in Parliaments: that makes scams so much easier to be swallowed. That’s as true for City of London/Wall Street scams as it is for ICT scams as it is for gambling scams as it is for scientific scams. They hate forensic, honest minds as the money making from scams goes down if you have 100 of those sorts of people on your case.
Where is the rigorous analysis of the frequency, timing and sequences of articles written about CAGW in the Guardian, the Independent, the BBC??
That is the only way to tell you what the true objectives are: one article is meaningless.
With 100 articles, you start to get the picture of how things are going, how they are evolving.
Time for someone to present that sort of analysis perhaps??
Not to mention he has to deal with number of regular sceptic ‘crackpots’ including
yours truly.
some essential background:-
Warren Pearce, last week, gave sceptic Ben Pile (climate Resistance) an article at Warrens Pearce’s project (at Nottingham University) – with a must see Prof Mike Hulme (UEA) comment (in the comments, panning John Cook’s 97% paper)
http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/23/whats-behind-the-battle-of-received-wisdoms/#comment-182401
“Ben Pile is spot on. The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?” – Mike Hulme [ founding director of Tyndall Centre for Climate Change]
Prof Mike Hulme clarified further (link to comment)
http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/23/whats-behind-the-battle-of-received-wisdoms/#comment-182771
Dana virtually demanded a right to reply…
http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/29/an-accurately-informed-public-is-necessary-for-climate-policy/
A psychologist should take a look at the Guardian comments under Warren’s new article!!
Except one did Dr Adam Corner (who published Lewandowsky’s Moon Hoax work in the Guardian)
http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/25595216
Adam moans to Warren about abuse at Bishop Hill, but fails to spot the abuse of sceptics and Warren in the Guardian comments. I’m in the comments as (BBCbias) responding to Adam
Dan Kahan (Yale) and Judith Curry had a few things to say about Dana, Cook’s paper and Prof Mike Hulmes comment about Cook’s 97% paper.
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/7/27/weekend-update-the-distracting-counterproductive-97-consensu.html
http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/26/the-97-consensus/
http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/27/the-97-consensus-part-ii/
I even sneaked a challenge or 2 into the comments at Skeptical Science itself (not moderated.)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/making-science-work-ben-pile-rebuttal.html#96775
http://www.skepticalscience.com/making-science-work-ben-pile-rebuttal.html#96792
Given that this is the same Prof Mike Hulme (Tyndall Centre, UEA) who was trying to get sceptic Prof Stott off the BBC airwaves in the climategate 2 emails, things have moved on!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/climategate-2-impartiality-at-the-bbc/
except as Mike Hulme made clear John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli and the co-authors can’t see this.
A return to real journalism was in order for some time. This seems very appropriate.
Good for His Lordship & A. W., but instead of mentioning “never-ending audit”, the author ought IMO have extended kudos to Steve McIntyre as well. Still, a welcome departure for a formerly relentlessly CACCA-spewing organ of the anti-human International.
Well done, that man. If you were a Brit, you might have been made a Lord. Pity Brenchley is already taken! Still, as a former colonial, you ain’t done too bad.