After I published this story:
NCDC’s Dr. Thomas Peterson: “It’s a knife fight”
I wrote to Dr. Peterson to advise him that he had WUWT available to him for rebuttal should he wish. Here is his response verbatim. – Anthony
============================================================
In response to your kind offer, I have typed up the three relevant pages
of the notes I spoke from at that meeting, which I would appreciate you
adding to your forum. I had three lessons that I personally took from
Climategate. Here are my notes verbatim for lessons 2 and 3, which are
the relevant ones to this discussion. You can agree or disagree with the
points I made, but let’s at least start with exactly what I said.
Regards,
Tom Peterson
Lesson 2: If the fight isn’t fair, then don’t fight – and maybe don’t
fight even if it is fair
Only a small percentage of Phil Jones’ emails on that server were released
-The subset that was released was not random
–So it didn’t give a fair representation
-Releasing additional selected emails would make the fight fairer
–But not civil
There is a lot of incivility and ad hominem attacks out there
-We can’t control that
But we can control how we respond . . . or not respond
-Perhaps don’t even fight if the fight is fair
-Fights are never fun
–Even if you win them
The unfortunate downside is that some pseudoscientific nonsense can go
unchallenged.
Lesson 3: Collaborate with communicators
An aside from a Congressman after a hearing:
-You’re in a knife fight and need to fight back.
A science communicator:
-All scientists need to have their own blogs.
A good summary of similar issue though on a different topic by Michael
D. Gershon, M.D. (1999)
-“The experiments I conducted to this point gave me a feeling of
confidence that my work could withstand anyone’s scrutiny, which I
assumed (foolishly, it turned out) would be both logical and reasonable.”
Collaborate with communicators, 2
A scientist’s response to both knives and illogic tends to be more science
-Sound, rigorous, peer-reviewed science
-What we do best
-And in the end it will win the day
–Just ask Galileo
But unlike heliocentrism, we cannot afford to wait a century for views
on climate change to catch up to climate science
So partnering with communicators can help bridge the gap
-From nerdy scientists like myself to regular people.
Thanks for suiting up and showing up, Dr. Peterson. That takes fortitude, as does keeping your mind open.
“There is a lot of incivility and ad hominem attacks out there
-We can’t control that”
========================================================
To borrow the words of a U.S. congressman, “You lie!!”
As Steve McIntyre points out, Tom Peterson engages in the very acts of incivility that he decries. (Isn’t this remarkably similar to another national discussion of recent times?) Alarmists wrote the book on ad hominem attacks and drive-byes. The fact that some skeptics got fed up with being ignored or viciously degenerated and started using the same tactics as the alarmists should come as no surprise. Kinda sucks don’t it Tom? It shouldn’t have been started Tom, it should have been quelled by the more level headed genuine scientists. They should have looked at what McIntyre was saying, they should have acknowledged what Watts was doing and it should have set off alarms to go back and look again at the science. Well, Tom, you and the team didn’t do any of that. You guys went on attack. Too bad, there is nothing left to do about it other than suck it up and reap what was sown. Of course, you could try your other non-approach,
“-Perhaps don’t even fight if the fight is fair” Isn’t this a hoot? The team has painted themselves into a corner. The team ceded the moral high ground from the offset of the climate discussion. The team lost any credibility it ever had because of the alarmism the team participated in. Did you guys think no one would keep track? So, you can choose not to engage, but you lose if you do. You don’t have the credibility anymore. Your morality and hypocrisy has been exposed. The only thing you have left to stand on is your science. And you, me and the rest of the world knows its an awful shaky crutch to be forced to stand on, but you all did it to yourselves.
“But unlike heliocentrism, we cannot afford to wait a century for views
on climate change to catch up to climate science.”
In my opinion, the debate is at least 30 years ahead of the science already.
What little science there is (as far as i know) has not been replicated. Had it been replicated, there would be very little to debate. The fact that it has not and further that the actions of scientists (in particular the Hockey Team) have demonstrated that they are prepared to go to any length to withold their data,rather suggests that they have nothing of any consequence to confirm that which they claim. Climate will continue to dominate this debate and will ultimately prove to be the undoing of the whole AGW Hoax.
Constable: Yer hunder arrest, Sirr.
Murderer: What on earth for?
Constable: There’s a body in your billiard room.
Murderer: Oh, that! I assure you, officer, if you’d only inspect the conservatory, the library, the ball room, the kitchen, the hall, the study, the dining room, and the lounge, you’d see that the rest of the entire house is quite free from bodies, yes, indeed.
Constable: “Yer do not ‘ave to say hanything but it may ‘arm your defence…”
Murderer: Officer, you’re taking that body entirely out of context!
Constable: “…hif yer do not mention, when questioned, something that you later rely on hin court….”
Murderer: You’re calling me a criminal! That’s nothing but an ad hominem attack!
Constable: “…Hanything you say may be given in hevidence.” Put the darbies on ‘im, ‘Awkins.
“But unlike heliocentrism, we cannot afford to wait a century for views
on climate change to catch up to climate science”
Then let’s wait 10 years and see whether somebody finds the missing heat, how about that?
Is that it??
When you sum it up, it’s odd stuff to be talking about. The notes appear to musings jotted down over a coffee at Starbucks. Fits in better with PR guys meeting to work out strategy for a political campaign.
Still seems as though they don’t get it and at this rate never will. This cabal is past the point of no return.
Could be worse though, they could’ve actually taken on board what Willis Eschenbach said. Too proud for that though.
Dr. Peterson: “But unlike heliocentrism, we cannot afford to wait a century for views
on climate change to catch up to climate science”
Maybe we can afford to wait half a century. Hopefully our grandkids will be a lot smarter about climate………. and wiser too. Does anyone think we will not learn more and make more technological progress in 50 years? Think back 50 years.
IPCC AR-4 , Working Group 1 Summary for Policymakers, Figure SPM.2 displays 9 radiative forcing components. The level of scientific understanding was judged by the authors to be high for 2 of 9, medium for 1 of 9, medium to low for 2 fo 9 and low for 4 of 9. More low understanding than anything else. That clearly says to me not enough understanding has been gathered to even define the problem, much less offer solutions or, worst of all, encourage politicians to go off helter skelter imposing non-solutions. As Pogo sez: “We have met the enemy and they is us.”
Dr Peterson, you say one sometimes should back away from a fight, “Fights are never fun. Even if you win them”.
What determines if a fight is worth fighting is not the entertainment value in the fight, it is what is to be gained or lost in fighting – not fighting.
If a maniac with a knife attacks me, I can’t just shrug my shoulders and give him my back because the fight isn’t fair, or I don’t think it is fun, I must protect myself.
When I am taxed to much I must fight for my rights, when my boss pays me to little money I must fight for more, It is not fun but It must be done.
We all chose how to fight, Ghandi fought very aggressively by not using violence, that was his strongest weapon, but you bet he was one of the greatest fighters this planet has seen.
A scientist fights ignorance with science, even if it is not fun, because that is how science progress. Phil Jones fought very hard to keep his data from going public, I guess he had his resons, why give 20 years work to someone who is only interested in finding something wrong with it? Well, this is what science is, a battle of ideas, a good scientist is a tenacious fighter. May the best man win.
Good for the Dr in sharing his notes. It is a place to start.
However, being on record discussing ClimateFraudit is neither civil nor bright. As a certain blogger has recently said, Credentialed but Uneducated. Everything one writes in the course of the job is subject to discovery, so try to behave in a manner you can be proud of.
Karen Dozier’s comment deserves a wider audience. I’ve quoted it elsewhere.
It is also very telling that Tom Peterson compares the warmist science to heliocentrism. Sometimes they compare themselves to Einstein or Newton, sometimes it’s Darwin, now Galileo. We don’t do it under that calibre after cashing in a Noble peace prize, no, we are the most important people since, well one of the mentioned geniusses.
How about comparing yourself to Faraday or Maxwell next time, maybe it impresses the engineers, or how about Turing, you might need a li’l bit of street cred with the hackers. You know, better science communication and all.
Thank you, Dr. Peterson for providing your notes. Others up thread have made some fine points relative to your notes some of what I have to say my repeat what they have noted. Lets start.
Lesson 2: If the fight isn’t fair, then don’t fight – and maybe don’t
fight even if it is fair.
A. Had Steve McIntyre taken this advice, some of the wrong doing would never have been exposed.
B. There never had to be a fight in the first place if Mann and Jones had released their code and data. Had Jones not tried to use the FOIA officer unfairly in our fight for
data, you wouldn’t have had climategate. Had Trenberth and Jones treated mcKitrick Fairly, no fight would insue.
The real lesson is this. Don’t start fights unless you know you can win. Now, Dr. Peterson, it took your organization 2 years to respond to my FIOA to you. I don’t know why it took so long as there was nothing to hide. I’ll assume it was an honest mistake.
Only a small percentage of Phil Jones’ emails on that server were released
-The subset that was released was not random
–So it didn’t give a fair representation
-Releasing additional selected emails would make the fight fairer
–But not civil
###################
If you think this is a fine defense then you have to ask yourself why Hilary Clinton
and the State department don’t use it with regard to the wikileaks fiasco. The idea that there are unreleased mails which would “undo” the facts around the key
climategate crime, beggars belief. Were there such mails, had you read them, you would surely explain for us how the ICO was wrong in its conclusion that CRU
violated FIOA regulations. Were there such mails CRU would be wrong to hold
them back from the independent investigations. As it stands the independent investigations found that CRU brought the trouble on themselves by their behavior in thwarting FIOA. If additional mails would change this conclusion, then surely CRU would have produced them for the inquiry. So either CRU did release more mails to the inquiry and they made no difference, OR CRU did not release these additional mails. If the former, your point is wrong. If the latter, well, one wonders what additional wrong doing the mails may have revealed.
##
There is a lot of incivility and ad hominem attacks out there
-We can’t control that
#####
well, you can do your part. You could suggest to Dr. Trenberth that “denialist” is
not a construct term. You can suggest to others that refering to Steve Mc as “Fraudit” is uncalled for. You can do things to police your side. In a public fight in america if one side is name calling and the other side refrains from joining in the name calling, it becomes pretty clear to the great “undecided” who is being civil and who is not.
Finally, your example from Gershon is Bizarre. I loved his book ( the second brain) and would recommend it to evryone here on the site (” basically you got brain cells through your entire gut… ) Anyways, The quote you provide from Gershon has more to do with the situation that Steve McIntyre faced than the situation you face.
Folks can read the quote IN CONTEXT here
http://juno.cumc.columbia.edu/psjournal/archive/archives/jour_v19no2/second.html
jorgekafkazar says:
January 17, 2011 at 11:32 am
Thanks for suiting up and showing up, Dr. Peterson. That takes fortitude, as does keeping your mind open.
—…—
But I would note that Dr Peterson has NOT engaged in the “debate”at all. Rather, he has lectured and violently attacked his critics with rhetoric and a false doctrine of “Science by Self-Appointed Favorable Peer-Reviewed Consensus Takers” rather than the rigorous scientific analysis he supposedly praises and hypocritically desires.
He presented his notes (which were actually only a summary of only two pages of his one-liner notes to himself) for a three-part speech to others whose entire scope and attitude are NOT repreented. Thus, we do not really know “what” he was going to say, nor what his conclusions are, nor even what his argument will be. Further, as the remarks so, EVERY one of his one-liner notes to himself can easily be – as should be – used to rebut his own CAGW propaganda.
Then, after presenting those 2 of 3 “answers” he has failed to answer any of the 99 comments rejecting with facts and rebuttals the supposed “resolution” of the debate he – as a prominent CAGW propagandist! – is using in the mainstream media and the political tax-writing, taxpayer-funded economic world. CAGW and eco-alarmism was used by Pelosi and Reid to create the legislative environment that raised oil prices in mid-summer 2007 that led to the world’s current recession in spring 2008. Eco-political power IS the method used to destroy the world’s economy and cause the early death of millions, and the life-long enslavement into poverty of billions.
Bringing a knife to a “science” fight? I thought Peterson’s president wanted a more civil discussion.
Tom Peterson: ‘But unlike heliocentrism, we cannot afford to wait a century for views
on climate change to catch up to climate science’
Ah, the old “Chevaliers du terre platte” insult.
Yawn.
Kev-in-UK
“If you had shares in a company and the company boss admitted fraud, but says ‘he won’t do it again’ or ‘we have learnt lessons’ (yeah, like how to avoid being caught!)”
Exactly. The charge is ‘caught cheating’ folowed by a promise, ‘not to get caught cheating again’. Right.
Skeptic: “A skeptic is someone who doubts that something or other is true. The original Skeptics were members of a Greek school of philosophy who believed real knowledge was impossible (except, one assumes, the knowledge that real knowledge is impossible). The Greek source of the term is ‘skeptesthai’, “to look about,” from the Latin ‘skepticus, “inquiring, reflective.” ”
– Paul McFedries, Weird Word Origins, Alpha, 2008
Skeptically yours,
Crispin
Dear Dr. Peterson,
Thank you for providing your notes. It is very clear that you did not suggest engaging in a “knife fight” and that the reference was an aside from Congressperson. Your allusion was intended to be descriptive of the predicament that Establishment climate scientists find themselves in, and by no means a recommendation on your part. Those who might hold you to task for incendiary speech are in the wrong.
The “fight” we (all of us) find ourselves in is not fair. On one side are numerous governments large and small, myriad scientific institutions, the U.N., global monopolists, deep-pocket environmental lobbies, the Main Stream Media, and over $100 billion in funding to date. On the other side are a handful of bloggers with no funding to speak of.
The fight is not fair at all. We (the bloggers) have you licked.
Because despite your eminences, connections, political power, and vast resources, we have better scientists, more probing analyses, the Internet, freedom of speech, and the Truth on our side.
We win, you lose. It’s just not fair.
Again, thank you for your rectitude. I empathize with your position, battered as you are and against the ropes. It is not a pretty sight. Unfortunately I cannot offer you any useful tips, because for all intents and purposes the fight is over. You are outmatched. The end is nigh, and I’m not talking about Thermageddon.
It continues to be a puzzle that main-stream climate scientists complain about misrepresentations and simplistic arguments, but they don’t follow the obvious route of making information available. Here Tom Peterson notes that only a fraction of e-mails were released, but he doesn’t himself release exculpatory e-mails or demand that others inv0lved do the same. Similarly, there are screams of protest when requests are made for archiving and release of basic, unadjusted data and model parameters. The requests are met with (false) assertions of the proprietary nature of the data and cries that following normal procedures for data integrity and openness are cruel attacks on the “team.” Journals waive normal data availability rules without blushing when the “team” are involved. When statistical critiques and divergence of modern data for proxies from theoretical predictions do demonstrate problems with proxy modeling, the publications are delayed and “team” reviewers are allowed to publish virtually simultaneous critiques of the papers without normal access to response by the original authors.
Most of the folks who follow this website and similar climate blogs are open to science. Mostly, we believe the direct effect of CO2 is in the warming direction; but we also note that the models are suspect regarding the sensitivity to other factors–aerosols, water vapor, etc.–as well as to factors that may not be considered by current models. I am open to persuasion, but Lindzen, Happer, M&M, Spencer, Soon and other skeptics haven’t been fully answered by the climate community; and broadly supportive folks like Judith Curry and the two Pilkes are routinely denigrated as if they were “deniers.” A true skeptic like Monckton is nit-picked and denigrated for minor errors in lengthy posts, while the original presentations that he critiques (and which have major whoppers) are widely embraced.
The policies of “Real Climate,” the capture of the review process (i.e., having climate journals refuse to publish critiques of statistics as being too arcane while statistical journals reject them as too ordinary to be considered for statistical journals, as one example), excluding respected polar ice specialists from conferences on sea ice extent, and rejection of direct engagement of critics do not contribute to the moral authority of CAGW believers.
Such behavior strongly suggests that the conventional “experts” know that there are basic issues that haven’t been properly addressed. Doing so will require too much time and effort resulting in delays in implementing the revolutionary changes in energy policies favored by the “in” side and their political colleagues, and that can’t be allowed.
Is he’s saying “only talk through a communicator” because only spin doctors communicators can the spin communicate their science correctly?
And he’s intellectually proud of this?
As if the fight is not fair because we demand the scientific method be followed, post normal rhetoric indeed.
Terry Jackson:”…Credentialed but Uneducated”
Right on!
Schooled and credentialed, but after all, uneducated. The pencil box remains but the protractor is cracked, the ruler broken and the moral compass lost more than a decade ago.
I am continuously surprised by the puerility of the responses to well-founded charges of multiple, serious malfeasance arising from the content and consequences of the actions mooted (and accomplished!) by those active in the Climategate email trails.
I think there is still time for at least some of the Team members to come clean and help get climate science back on the rails. Until then it will continue to be difficult to convince the Ordinary Man there is such a branch of science at all. Bleating and chain rattling is not science. We can do much better than that.
Wait. the warmists are totally ruling the research apparatus of the western world and compare themselves with Gershon, a guy who says about his work “Besides, in those days the National Institutes of Health was tolerant of ideas that opposed received wisdom.” (Thanks for the link, Steve)
That’s even more bizarre than the Galileo comparison. They pretend they’re the underdog – they might even believe it themselves! GISS, NCDC – conspirative cells of the worldwide warmist underground! RC – idealistic bloggers on a mission to bring truth to the world! The ABC, BBC, CBC and NYT – the last beacons of truth in a world dominated by, what, the WSJ? Bizarre.
Dr Peterson’s language about knife fights is absurd, all that needs to happen is for the self named climate scientists to show their data and working outs. If they are unable or unwilling to then their research has no value.
A knife would be useless against his straw man arguments?
Sorry for the repetition but anyone who reads the emails and comes away saying there is nothing wrong is either:-
1 Stupid.
2 Very Stupid.
3 A pathological liar.
4 Clinically insane.
5 On the green gravy train.
Steve McIntyre draws attention to Dr Peterson’s hypocrisy in referring to Climate Fraudit. One thing about the emails i have noticed is these scientists are seem to be always travelling to exotic places, certainly not in a boat made out of balsa wood.
As I have said before the only thing worse than a hypocrite is a sanctimonious hypocrite.
As I remember it:
Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.
My paraphrase (see Steve McIntyre above):
Don’t bring a Peterson, Jones, Mann, or Hansen to a McIntyre fight!
Patrick Davis says:
January 17, 2011 at 8:18 am
I’ve spent some time with those raw, unadjusted CRU data sets from Dr. Phil Jones.
They show that, depending on one’s locale (I only looked at the Western US) that the warmest times were the 1870’s-1880’s and 1920’s-1930’s. After that, it’s been a roller coaster ride. Big deal. This Grand Minimum may soon change all that.
DirkH says:
January 17, 2011 at 12:09 pm
“How about comparing yourself to Faraday or Maxwell next time, maybe it impresses the engineers, or how about Turing, you might need a li’l bit of street cred with the hackers. You know, better science communication and all.”
Yeah, those three are good. You never hear about them. Though, when I take up the question of digital computers and thought, I give a brief history of Turing and explain his famous thesis. As for Maxwell, he is most likely the most underrated scientist in all of history. My son is taking physics at El Supremo Elite PC High School and I asked him what he thought of Maxwell. Never heard of him. (OK, he’s in the textbook.)
Of course, the comparison would fail in one very critical particular. Peterson writes:
“So partnering with communicators can help bridge the gap
-From nerdy scientists like myself to regular people.”
To take Turing as the example, he set aside his science for a short time in which he invented the modern digital computer, cracked the Nazi code, and contributed greatly to winning WWII. Turing just rolled up his sleeves and got the work done. Such people do not need communications partners.
since Gershon is one of my favorites I will quote the entire passage from which Peterson lifted a quote.
You tell me, what lesson should Peterson and other scientists draw from Gershon’s work?
“The experiments I had conducted to this point gave me a feeling of confidence that my work could withstand anyone’s scrutiny, which I assumed (foolishly, it turned out) would be both logical and reasonable. I also thought that my data would be considered to be important by other neuroscientists. I wrote up my results in a series of three articles that appeared in Science and the Journal of Physiology. My suggestion that serotonin might be an enteric neurotransmitter was based on the following pieces of information: (i) Serotonin is manufactured and stored in the bowel. (ii) Following its biosynthesis from its immediate precursor, serotonin is preferentially located in enteric nerves. (iii) These nerves release serotonin when they are stimulated. (iv) Others had previously shown that serotonin exerts the same effect on the bowel as does the stimulation of enteric nerves. If serotonin was not a neurotransmitter, therefore, it was certainly giving a pretty good imitation of one.
My Mother Never Told Me It Would Be Like This
Since I had not anticipated that my suggestion that serotonin might be a neurotransmitter in the gut would be viewed by the scientific world as outrageous, I was upset by the reaction I actually encountered. My first impulse was to feel empathy with those of my ancestors who faced the Inquisition. Later, after I became numb and ceased to feel pain, I understood the reaction that I had inadvertently caused. According to the scientific gospel that was prevalent at the time, only two transmitters, acetylcholine and norepinephrine, took care of all of the neurotransmission that went on in the peripheral nervous system. The thought that an additional molecule might be a peripheral neurotransmitter was considered not just wrong but perverse and immoral. Scientists, more than most people, admire order, and the order that had been established in the peripheral nervous system left no room for another neurotransmitter.
Disorder is so widespread in nature that when scientists believe that order has been encountered, they immediately think that some great force has been at work to overcome the sinister effects of chance. All fledgling scientists learn in Physics 101, if they have not been taught it earlier in Introductory Chemistry, that disorder in the universe is always increasing. This ever-escalating disorder is called entropy. To overcome entropy, the Darth Vader of reality, serious work has to be done. The molecules that assemble to form the human body would never do so on their own if they were simply mixed together. Countless thousands of unlikely chemical reactions have to occur in just the right place and at just the right time. Those with a deeply religious inclination contemplate the sheer improbability of these events and turn to God for an explanation. Scientists, however, have surrendered this option, even if they, like me, believe in God.
When we scientists see order, we tend to think that we have found biological reality. Biological processes exert the kind of work and provide the energy necessary to overcome entropy. They impose order on the otherwise reluctant molecules of life, getting them to react with one another to establish the form that we have come to love. For me to upset the order that people thought had been found in the peripheral nervous system was not to be tolerated lightly. My idea that serotonin might be an enteric neurotransmitter was incompatible with the orderly belief that had been held for a long time and thus was much cherished. “