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/
So scientists that support the AGW orthodoxy are “scientists”, however scientists sceptical about the AGW orthodoxy are not scientists but “sceptics”. Obviously there’s no prejudice at Nature.
@Martin Brumby says:
July 27, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Very well said, Martin. This is not some sort of game. No wonder passions run high on both sides. Judith Curry’s take on it is very level-headed in discussing various ways to promote debate or discussion between the opposing views. Denning seemed to be saying, too, that discussions over dinner at the conference were insightful and engaging rather than ‘denialistic’. Promote discussion, I say – but instead, as IPCC modus operandi shows and as warmist blog censoring shows and as the difficulty in publishing skeptical papers shows, it is the warmists who quash dissent and discussion.
I’m sorry, but forgive me for being totally naive, but isn’t a healthy scepticism supposed to be at the heart of the scientific method? Science is about enquiry and investigation which necessitates a questioning mindset. A ‘real scientist’ must therefore be, to a greater or lesser extent, a sceptic.
Without scepticism there is only belief and credulousness. Without it there is no scientific enquiry, only the proclamations of a proselytising priesthood. Nature and the RealClimate folks seem to have forgotten this. Or perhaps they are blinded by the money.
As ever, the whole CAGW furore reminds me of the Piltdown Man scandal, where a desire to prove theories backing racial ‘superiority’ (In reality more likely stemming from acute racial inferiority complexes), polarised and warped the views of scientific researchers for over forty years.
in australia this week, we have had visits from CAGW sceptic, Czech President Vaclav Klaus, and former British PM and CAGW believer,Tony Blair. our Prime Minister refused to meet the former, but chose to meet the latter.
very little MSM coverage of Klaus’ views on the subject, which means he wasted his time answering questions at the National Press Club, what little coverage there was mentioned his visit was paid for by the Institute of public policy, a libertarian think tank. far more media coverage of Blair, with not a mention that his trip was being paid for by Visy, who hope to profit from the carbon (dioxide) tax/ETS. and no questions or mentions of who invited Blair or his substantial financial interests in putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions:
Markson Sparks PR: TONY BLAIR TO SPEAK IN AUSTRALASIA FOR FIRST TIME
In an exclusive speaking tour presented by Anthony Pratt and Visy, Tony Blair will visit 5 cities over 3 days: Sydney, Auckland, Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth.
According to Anthony Pratt, Chairman and CEO of Visy, Tony Blair’s visit will be a unique opportunity to hear from one of the world’s most admired leaders. “I first met Tony Blair in 2006 and we share a common interest in finding solutions to the challenges of climate change that bring business, Government, and the environmental community together.
http://www.marksonsparks.com.au/default.aspx?URL=personalities-AthletesDetails.aspx&h=133
26 May 2010: London Evening Standard: Tony Blair to earn millions as climate change adviser
The former prime minister will be paid at least £700,000 a year to act as a “strategic adviser” to Khosla Ventures, a venture capitalist firm founded by Indian billionaire Vinod Khosla…
He has told friends he needs £5 million a year to fund his lifestyle…
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23838369-tony-blair-to-earn-millions-as-climate-change-adviser.do
14 July: Age: Price scheme encourages companies to come clean
But Visy will get most of the carbon permits it needs to cover its recycling and paper-making operations free in the early years of the carbon scheme.
Both operations qualify as trade-exposed industries.
Visy also hopes to win some of the $10 billion funding allocated to the new Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest in projects to convert waste into clean energy…
http://www.theage.com.au/national/price-scheme-encourages-companies-to-come-clean-20110713-1he4a.html
questions for Nature:
1. how come none of the AGW scientists ever put in FOIs for data?
2. how come it took Joe Romm a week to jump all over and turn upside down the CA (h/t chu) expose that former News of the World Deputy Editor, Neil Wallis, was employed by UEA to do what amounted to damage control on behalf of the CRU scientists post-Climategate?
3. how come i have only seen sceptics submitting FOIs to UEA to get to the bottom of Neil Wallis’ work on behalf of the CRU scientists?
I am certain that there are far more skeptics that are scientists than believers in the AGW meme that are scientists. Certain.
Speaking of Dr. Judith Curry, has there been any update on the BEST data review? IIRC it was almost done months ago.
They seem to have forgotten that the be scientific you have to be sceptical.
From the macro to the micro….
I used to be an ardent supporter of local newspapers, good for sport local news and events…but just recently I noticed that the little paper in our NSW town ‘supports’ the Carbon Tax and still prints Warmist Drivel.
A copy gets delivered free twice weekly so I’ve made a laminated sign instructing the delivery person to file it in the ‘Green Rubbish’ bin!
The other day a copy got into the house somehow and onto the kitchen table. I’d had a glass of wine and my resolve was weak so I opened it up and found once more the bizarre, anti-popular stance on the tax incorporating a few nasty references to deniers/right wing blogs etc.
As I closed it in disgust, I also noticed that the ENTIRE BACK page was an advert dedicated to SOLAR HOT WATER SOLUTIONS…there was also a two page advertorial for a SOLAR ELECTRICITY FEED BACK scheme. All over the paper there were half and quarter page adverts promoting…green power…green hot-water…etc etc. Thanks to Government distortions of the electricity industry in Australia, there are grants and free money splashing around to install the new ‘low carbon’ economy, and the smart people are taking advantage of it…
I understand The Advocate is only just putting its mouth where its money is.
But it’s still banned.
Speaking of Newspeak … I am wondering if the Ministry of Truth has truthfully depicted “Don” – should this even be named storm, or is it a Tiny Tim and therefore a marginal call … or … complete BS?
Marvelous!
The vehemence with which warmists attack skeptics, the anger, the passion with which they approach those who disagree ON TECHNICAL POINTS their beliefs, is astonishing. At a time when the warmists claim to be the majority, to have the truth on their side, these displays of aggression are undeniable displays of bravado and bluster covering up for weakness and fear.
The warmists are very much afraid that they have lost the “fight”, and, worse, that, the mainstream, Joe Public taxpaying ordinary guy is coming to think they are wrong … because, the worst fear of all, they ARE wrong.
If the warmists are right, only a few years more – five at most – will be needed to show that CAGW is a developing situation. But observations are not moving as they are “supposed” to, and they know it. The cracks are showing, and the warmists are desperate to turn everyone’s attention away while they try to fill them in and repaint.
pat says: July 27, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Excellent and very important comment, Pat.
Follow the money…..
What a wonderful bubble they must live in, Climate scientists feed the MSM and in turn the MSM feeds the cliamte scientists.
This sort of denial and blinded approach by the so called experts and there cut-and-paste friends in the meeedia can not be good for science.
Why when climate scientists play the lottery do they always assume they are going to win it? and why do nature and SciAm and others always run around declaring that the scientists have won it? check your ticket again boys you ain’t even close.
Sorry being a UK resident if I do not fix the above I will probably be arrested under EU law:-
‘check your ticket again boys and girls you ain’t even close.’
It was a simple click before reading but over here in the EUSSR you have to be careful.
It is sad to remember that forty years ago Nature was a very highly respected scientific journal.
Expanding a bit on other commentators here……
What happens if or when you interview almost anyone (here in the UK at least) as they grab a trolley/basket and go into a supermarket about what they intend to buy.
You will hear all about how that person cares for the environment. You will learn how they will buy organic food (despite the extra cost), how they support British farmers and believe that ‘Fairtrade’ is a really good idea and that they’ll look out for it and buy that also. Also how they will buy lots of ‘healthy stuff’ to feed the kids and family.
A little while later and if you can catch them and if they’ll allow you, check what is actually in their shopping trolley. You will see an assemblage of the cheapest and most fat and sugar laden gloop they could possibly lay their hands on. All those high principles will (in 90%+ of cases) have been entirely blown away, replaced by a ‘cheapest is best’ principle.
Consider teachers, especially recently here in the UK.
Ask any teacher about their chosen career/vocation and what do you get? An ‘off pat’ diatribe about how lovely it is working with children, about shaping young minds, about what a privilege and responsibility it is to be an educator of the young. Then, you might compare their salaries, benefits, working conditions and future pensions against those of the private sector. Miles ahead in every case.
Lucky people eh?
So what happens when these dedicated and selfless souls are asked (as they just have been) to contribute an extra few percent of their already generous salaries to their own pension fund(s)?
They walk right out on strike. Straight off, just like that.
Stuff the children, stuff their education, stuff their parents who need time off work to look after the displaced kids and double stuffing for the parents who are the ones paying these salaries and pensions in the first place.
Stuff those self proclaimed high ideals. Its all about me me me, more more more, and money money money. UK kids learnt as much in one day than they do in their entire time(s) at school.
Right now where I am, a TV is playing in the background and the “First Division Association” of UK public servants are putting a case why they shouldn’t contribute to their own pensions. Again, ask any Public or Civil Servant why they do the job they do and you get the same response as the teacher(s) will give, I’m only doing this for ‘the good of the children, the people, the country or the planet. But when push comes to shove, turkeys don’t vote for Christmas (Thanksgiving??)
And we are constantly told what selfless souls (publically funded the lot of them) climate scientists are……………
Yes, Nature is caught in an ineluctable dilemma and trap. Splitting skeptics and scientists into non-overlapping chunks of the Venn diagram leaves them with nothing but insupportable assertions of unanimity to hold onto.
@Doug Proctor July 27, 2011 at 10:21 pm:
Yes, the majority, as in “One for me, zero for you, two for me, zero for you, three…”
They count “votes” by counting, “Okay, Phil Jones, you make one, Steve McIntyre, you aren’t one of us, so your vote we don’t count, and Keith, you make two, and Roy Spencer, you aren’t one of us, so you don’t count, Gavin, you make three, and Anthony, as a meteorologist of the wrong persuasion, you also don’t count…” on and on. At the end, they have a head count of X for warmists and zero for “others.”
And thus is a consensus made.
The fact that many of these “scientists” and their journalist cohorts either espouse, or silently assent to the notion that Big Oil funds and is responsible for climate skepticism is cause for me to doubt their acumen with facts and reasoning. That creates a bias on my part which I freely admit. I shouldn’t have to point out that this bias neither disproves or proves the theory of AGW.
You see, my life experience is different. I clearly remember when I was labeled a near-crank for being anti-smoking. Everybody (it seemed) smoked! Representatives of big tobacco went before Congress to deny the link between smoking and lung cancer. Some lessons I drew from that period is that big money can buy bad science, skepticism is a valuable ally, and being called names is completely irrelevant to truth-seeking.
When scientists compare Big Oil to Big Tobacco I am baffled. I have looked at their “evidence” and it is as flimsy and shallow as an Oxburgh report. If anything the analogy is backwards re Big Climate.
It would also have helped if the science-media complex had not adopted the error-ridden and financially-conflicted Al Gore as their poster child.
Discover a source of energy that is very cheep and abundant and then we will see the good folks over at Nature become the biggest sceptics, but they seem to be ok with expensive “renewable” sources of energy.
You don’t have to be a world leading scientist to recognize an emerging pattern.
I’m very sceptical about Nature journal’s motives, remember when they proactively engaged in damaging the results of “cold fusion” in the 80’s, they were one of the largest sceptical voices and at the same time they were proponents of the more expensive “hot fusion” which after decades of funding and research it hasn’t produced a single watt of useful commercial electricity, meanwhile the underfunded Cold fusion enthusiasts are beginning to emerge with commercially viable generators and producing electricity quite well. go figure!!
In the old pre-Post-normal scientific times dictionary:
Sientist = Skeptic
In the post-normal science dictionary:
Scientist = Believer, as in faith; religion.
Skeptic = Whoever is not a blinkered believer but checks out the science for himself.
In Al jazeera there is currently an extreme-type pro-warmist blog by Steff Gaulter. Twice Itried to post a comment with a link to CERN’s Jasper Kirkby’s lecture on climate science, showing, amonst many other graphs, the perfect correlation between ocean temperature variability and solar variablity. Both posts have been censored. I tried a simple neutral post which went straight through without any “Your comment must be approved by a moderator before appearing here” pop ups. Most probably they have a filter for skeptic’s websites.
Then nature accuses skeptics of censorship. What cheek.
But i did manage to trick the censor. I first pasted a linkless comment which went through, then I ‘edited’ the comment, since DISCUS lets the commentor edit the comment. So, if the warmists think they are intelligent…….
BTW, here is Kirkby’s beautiful lecture:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/07/cern-cloud-jasper-kirkbys-talk-in.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29.
P.S. And oh by the way http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-arctic-scientist.html , a government scientist behind much of the polar bear hysteria is under investigation for misconduct.
So a Nature scientist is non-skeptical, a faithful sort of being. Its the new green religion. Galileo would be rolling.
As to the idenetity of the editorial’s author:
Dr Judith Curry: “Yes, Jeff Tollefson was the person that emailed me the questions”
“Henry… Why shouldn’t we use links from skepticalscience? ”
Didn’t you read what Nature said?! They’re “skeptics” and can’t be trusted!
(tongue firmly in cheek)