I already have a quote of the week, but since the fact that Nature decided to pay any attention at all to the Heartland Conference in Washington, D.C. which ended July 1st, this deserved a special place on WUWT, and thus the first ever “Quote of the Month” is a real doozy. However, given that Nature has chosen to mention the conference at all, I see it as a win.
It is scientists, not sceptics, who are most willing to consider explanations that conflict with their own. And far from quashing dissent, it is the scientists, not the sceptics, who do most to acknowledge gaps in their studies and point out the limitations of their data — which is where sceptics get much of the mud they fling at the scientists.
Wow. Apparently, Nature has never seen the rampant quashing of dissent that goes on at Real Climate, which we documented with data and anecdotal reports nor have they ever noted the lack of curiosity on the part of the Hockey Team when it comes to looking at a failure of statistical analysis techniques, or alternate explanations for changes in environments and natural signals, such as the recently discovered and peer reviewed paper about sheep grazing effects on tree rings being greater than that of temperature.
No, Nature implies that the scientists that they represent are always curious about limitations, without fault, and are as pure as the driven snow, with only truth as motive. Climategate showed the world otherwise.
I do agree with Nature though on one point, the displays by some of the book sellers at the conference were spurious, and I’d much prefer that if Heartland ever does another one of these conferences, that they leave such displays out. But, it seems that whomever the reporter for Nature was, he/she didn’t venture beyond the lobby and listen to any of the presentations made as the article makes no mention of them.
The view of Nature is sharply contrasted by that of Dr. Scott Denning, who did attend the science sessions, both as participant, and speaker. He said of the conference in this article:
“I was treated with respect and even warmth despite my vehement disagreement with most of the other presenters,” Denning wrote, expressing thanks for prominent platforms he was provided during the conference, including an hour-long keynote debate with contrarian Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville.
…
“These were not a bunch of brain-washed idiots,” Denning said of the conferees, rebutting an impression many in the science community might have.
…
An example of “what doesn’t work” in speaking with audiences such as those at the Heartland conference, Denning wrote, “is the condescending argument from authority that presumes that the Earth’s climate is too complicated for ordinary people to understand, so that they have to trust the opinions of experts.”
Nature seems to take the position of judging all skeptics by the books being sold in the lobby, or the proverbial “judging a book by it’s cover”.
The videos of all the Heartland conference presentations are available here:
http://climateconference.heartland.org/watch-live/
While Nature is in the business of dissing conferences, they might want to have a look at what went on at the 2010 American Geophysical Union convention in San Francisco, as Steve Mosher relates here in Craven Attention.
Read the entire article in Nature linked below. They do accept comments.
Heart of the matter
- Nature 475, 423–424 (28 July 2011) doi:10.1038/475423b
- Published online
- 27 July 2011
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7357/full/475423b.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110728
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
=========================================================
UPDATE: Dr. Judith Curry advises a post on this at Climate Etc. with detailed questions from the unnamed Nature reporter.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/27/nature-on-heartland/
Um – not sure that all points of view and open debate are truly embraced here. There seems to be a lot of yelling “troll” when an opposing view point is offered here.
Hahahahahahahahaha
Sorry, couldn’t help myself. I’ve been in need of a good laugh!!
False dichotomy. Scientists are skeptics by nature and skeptics can be scientists.
“It is scientists, not sceptics, who are most willing to consider explanations that conflict with their own.”
I thought that scientists were supposed to be skeptical, requiring significant proof from data to accept a new hypothesis. Also, the statement seems to assume that no scientists are skeptics and also that no skeptics are scientists. This premise seems to be fundamentally incorrect.
So, why, Nature, is it that you bash those with a dissenting view? Are you by your own words coupled with the action they represent, calling yourselves non-scientists? It certainly sounds that way.
There is no doubt that the text tries to create an artificial distinction between a ‘scientist’ and a ‘skeptic’ with a ‘scientist’ being skeptical of their own views and a ‘skeptic’ being skeptical of the view of others; that is my interpretation. As scientists are inherently skeptical, I see a problem selling this distinction.
When ‘skeptical’ views are reinforced by ‘peer reviewed publications’ Nature dismisses them being sourced in ‘scientists’ ‘ own reflctive moments, not critical analysis.
The article captures very well the fact that both sides of the CAGW debate have vested interests. No doubt, and not one-sided. Well, would it not be best then for one to test and reproduce the works of the other? Perhaps share the data and code, hmmm…?
Skeptics are characterised as non-scientists which is patently untrue. Faux pas, Nature.
The claim that the gaps in ‘scientific knowledge’ picked up by skeptics are already ‘filled in’ by scientists is an example of self-serving weasling. Holy crow! A paper is written. Skeptics thrash it with solid reasoning. Another paper is written pooh-poohing the thrashing, repeating the original claims. This typically constitutes ‘gap filling’? Good grief, we have a long way to go.
I agree that Nature was pretty much forced to comment on the Heartland conference and is an admission that it is having influence, which Nature dismisses as not really scientific, but ‘political’. I guess that means the IPCC reports are not political, then, right?
Nature, next time, provide links to the heretical papers so your regular readers/subscribers can see for themselves how truly errant are these paid-for, political, unscientific skeptics. I dare you.
At least those opposing views are not deleted. Perhaps not all points of view are “embraced” but they’re not deleted from existence.
The above is absolutely correct and it considering the evidence from ‘climate science’ is that the sceptics are more scientific than the ‘scientists’.
It is heartening to see the nature journal embracing genuine and overlooked, unfashionable, scientific principles so openly. I now await for them to address the blatant failure of climate alarmist’s who have not managed to adhere the scientific method.and so have failed in achieving the ideals held in the above quote.
Bystander says:
July 27, 2011 at 11:05 am
Um – not sure that all points of view and open debate are truly embraced here. There seems to be a lot of yelling “troll” when an opposing view point is offered here.
Oh I am sure there are any number of folks on here that will “debate” you. Just ask. If nominations are open from the floor I put forth Springer. What say you?
That has to be one of the most repulsive, demeaning, condescending pieces of crap yet written. No wonder I will have nothing to do with the cretins over at “nature”. What an obtuse group, whoever wrote that, and whoever approved it for publication.
I suppose that might be the view from an ivory tower. Or a lunatic asylum. But anyone reading that article and nodding their head in agreement has, apparently, no concept of reality at all. I’d pity them, but that would be a waste of emotion.
No surprise from Nature. They are Scientific American are both owned by the same AGW pushing German corporation.
But I don’t suppose that, even though they claim scientists are their harshest critics, they were planning on this, the first and only comment so far:
“2011-07-27 02:43 AM
Report this comment #25413
Theodore Mihran said: I have been a so-called “climate skeptic” for over ten years. My background is a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and physics from Stanford University in 1950. I worked at the GE Research Lab for 43 years studying the physics of long electron beams, transistor modeling, and integrated circuit testing. I did much computer simulation, and learned from experience how one can “doctor” simulations to achieve anticipated results. My knowledge about climate stems from a careful reading of Prof. Richard Muller’s book “Ice Ages and Astronomical Causes”. My set of four videos on YouTube explain why I believe that insolation, and not carbon dioxide, is the cause of large scale global temperature changes. In these videos I use Muller’s graphs to show that CO2 lags temperature by 800 years, hence it cannot be the primary causative agent in climate change. I have investigated the case for CO2 being the cause of climate change, and cannot find any long-term simulations which suggest this ito be the case. Usually the simulations claimed to prove this are only for the past 100 years or so. They assume there is instantaneous cause and effect, which seems highly unlikely, because historically there has been an 800 year lag. If man-made CO2 does affect climate, it is completely unrelated to the off-cited correlation between CO2 and climate that is evident from the past 420,000 years of ice-core data, because in the later, CO2 clearly is the 800-year delayed result, rather than the cause of warming.”
Oops… they AND Scientific American…
Anthony is right about leaving out some of the more incendiary books and booksellers next time. They do create a climate of “We’re right, and those so called experts don’t know what they are talking about.” They can be pretty ignorant themselves.
Thus they create an impression that those of us who don’t think the case has adequately been made for ripping apart our manufacturing base and our culture are loonies.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the Nature reporter were intentionally creating a characterization of skeptics that is equal but opposite to the characterization we point out when we show the aggressive and snarly one-sidedness of Gavin and Joe Romm and Michael Mann. Maybe she felt it wasn’t in the interest of Nature mag to show that there are quite reasonable people who don’t at present buy the warmist view of what must be done.
Many of the people who do climate science are in fact skeptical they way they should be. But they don’t get the press. Too bad. That is partly the fault of the press, the press would rather have a hot button story that a factual one, it seems to me — you get more eyeballs when you create controversy.
The main problem with the IPCC and the Manns and Jones and Hansens of this world (and the Gavins and Joe Romms of the blogosphere) is that they are the people the media go to, and they are so unrespectful and contemptuous of opposing views that they have created an us or them atmosphere.
So when Climategate and Himalayagate and countless other “gates” expose what actually goes on, many people lose respect not just for them, but for the whole notion that climate change could actually, possibly matter. They don’t chose the “us,” they chose the “them.” We skeptics are the “them.”
One of these years, all the BS will go away — I forlornly hope — and scientists from all sides can actually communicate and exchange ideas and not be pilloried (as Judith Curry is) for doing so. Until that time, we are in a standoff. Which is great if greenhouse gases are actually no problem.
I don’t yet buy the science or the policy prescriptions of the warmists. But I don’t arrogantly say they can’t be right, either. So I look to the day we can actually sort out the science without people being denigrated if they change their view — that goes for both sides of the debate.
Bystander says:
July 27, 2011 at 11:05 am
I think you will find that only those repeating a dogmatic style mantra (often without appropriate backup) or constantly referring to ‘concensus’ are those that are labelled as ‘trolls’. In my opinion, I consider ‘trolls’ to be those who are here (or on any blog) for self gratification/loneliness or to cause downright pigheaded disruption rather than active discussion. A proper argument/debate is a good thing, but not when one side constantly refuses to acknowledge points and repeat a mantra!
(I am reminded of Monty Python…)
“The
scepticsAlarmists like to present the battlefield as science, but, as the News Feature on page 440 makes clear, the fight is, in fact, a violent collision of world views. There, fixed.The world view of Alarmists appears to be that man is bad for the planet, but if you do everything you can to “save the planet” then you are good, and can do anything you want, even if it actually hurts people and the environment, because the ends justify the means. It is essentially a fascist world view.
“And far from quashing dissent, it is the scientists, not the sceptics, who do most to acknowledge gaps in their studies and point out the limitations of their data”
The amount of delusional projection here I have never seen topped except for a believer blogger who made an article arguing the believers are the Gallileos, not the skeptics.
Also, I wish to point out this in the Nature article:
“Instead, in the United States at least, they have cemented their propaganda into a broader agenda that pits conservatives of various stripes against almost any form of government regulation. ”
The author is right to a point. There definitely is some kneejerk Republicanism that does not honestly look at the science alone, but is using it more broadly for it anti-anti-pollution regulation which fit their Ayn Rand ideology that if it were not for the government, the deserved rich would get richer and maybe some of that will trickle down or something. Crackpots are on all sides but in fairness I think the crackpotism is exponentially greater on the believers’ side.
The people at Nature obviously don’t know the definition of the word “skeptic”
–noun
1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skeptic
We have many sleazy politicinas around who use the same kind of conniving spin to discredit the opponents of their many boondoggles. Funny how the same people who are perpetrating these ridiculous spending schemes are also the local AGW alarmists.
Nature is in panic mode, like our local politicians, and striking out in an attempt to regain their credibility and preserve their stature/agenda by making more and more egregious claims and pronouncements.
It’s astounding to watch them ramp up their insults as if that is the road to their salvation.
In reality they are scoundrels on a suicidal march accelerating their imminent demise.
Bystander says:
July 27, 2011 at 11:05 am
Um – not sure that all points of view and open debate are truly embraced here. There seems to be a lot of yelling “troll” when an opposing view point is offered here.
er…
If you troll you get called up on it.
If you post links from deltoid, skepticalscience, realclimate (or worse) as if they are a font of knowledge that we sceptics have, somehow, missed reading you may get called up on it.
If you repeat your premises ad nauseam you will get called up on it.
If you are respectful and polite you will not so much as get snipped, let alone censored (having your entire post deleted in full).
This goes for those of us on either side, or sitting upon, the fence.
Try any, or any combination, of the above at the aforementioned sites and see how far you get.
Nice little experiment right there. Easily tested. Thanks for joining in.
The alarmists and their mouthpieces have devolved into NewSpeak. They accuse others of their own sins so no one will notice their own lies.
Sorry, but I have to point out that the cAGW dispute isn’t a gentlemanly game of cricket.
Anthony correctly points out that Nature’s take on this:-
“It is scientists, not sceptics, who are most willing to consider explanations that conflict with their own. And far from quashing dissent, it is the scientists, not the sceptics, who do most to acknowledge gaps in their studies and point out the limitations of their data — which is where sceptics get much of the mud they fling at the scientists.”
Is as poorly founded on factual evidence as Meltdown Mann’s Hokey Schtick.
But if the debate was about the number of spots on a salamander’s neck, I’d just shrug.
The crux of the matter is that our activist climate scientist chums, with their “gaps in their studies” and “limitations of their data”, are loudly clamouring for action NOW to spend Trillions of dollars (which we haven’t got) on ‘solutions’ (which don’t really work) to a ‘problem’ (which almost certainly doesn’t actually exist).
The direct, and indirect damage that has already been done to the economy of the developed world is hard to over-estimate. Thousands have already died. No, not climate refugees or Pacific Islanders drowning. Typically, little old ladies dying of hyperthermia because they daren’t turn up the heating. And third world kids denied clean water and reliable energy because some greenie crook insists on only providing ‘renewable’ energy.
And we’re supposed to just touch our forelocks, keep schtum about the obvious defects in the “peer reviewed” propaganda pieces and send the climate “scientists” another fistfull of grant money?
I don’t think so.
James H says:
July 27, 2011 at 11:18 am
What you say is particularly true and bears repeating when the premise set forth by these so-called “scientists” isn’t demonstrable through observation. The truth is these people are no more “scientists” than is Al Gore. That’s the true Nature of things.
Bystander, I apologize. I have noticed this trend towards greater negativity as well. It is just growing anger and cynicism in response to those people who do come up just to cause controversy, fling insults, and leave without responding. It is better here than elsewhere, true, but it is not optimal all the same.