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/
Speaking of scientists, here is a AP note on a Arctic scientist (drowned polar bear fame) being suspended, & under investigation:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/arctic-scientist-who-wrote-of-drowned-polar-bears-faces-integrity-probe/article2112539/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=World&utm_content=2112539
AGW is not a science, or, at best, it is not a hard science.It could only become such if someone is able to come up with a falsifiable hypothesis. Such statements as “the science is settled” or “the consensus is overwhelming” are risible in the absence of the essential hypothesis. The AGW proposition is without any identified foundation and skeptics might better spend their time attacking this lack than finding fault with the minutia of a baseless proposition.
Besides the lack of an hypothesis the matter can only be examined on a statistical basis. This is inherently subject to bias error but beyond that we have rank bad data. Nobody has ever come up with a method of reaching satisfactory conclusions based on bad data. Nobody, ever.
Well, I shouldn’t be disappointed, but I did leave a comment at the nature article referenced above and I identified a post of Chris Colose as abusing nature’s commentary policies.
Surprise surprise, neither my comment nor my complaint ever surfaced. Which leaves me to believe that nature follows the Realclimate model of post deletion to insure a disadvantage to anyone posing serious questions or challenges to the climate change religion.
My comment as I posted it before moderation at nature:
“A very disappointing editorial; one that calls to mind the phrase “pot calling the kettle black”, leaving this reader with the clear opinion that the author has declared themselves, by their own words , as not a scientist. Indeed, this hate piece is a rather thinly disguised attempt at shouting down opposing views with overly generalized negative stereotypes while using an editiorial forum in a formerly much respected journal.
Looking over the editorial we recognize that the author disses a conference where science was viewed, analyzed and discussed. Further, the author insists that nature is not giving any credibility to people with an opposing view, a very odd statement in a piece where there is also an insistance that scientists have an open mind. No-one would dispute that all of the presentations or displays at the conference were not of equal scientific rigor, but if we take the word of the author, there were no scientists at this conference, only lunatics. A descriptive word comes to mind regarding the author; a word often trumpeted by the entrenched climate orthodoxy and that word is denier. Nice job there, editor, throwing rocks in a glass house.
What chance is there for fair and open minded science when “nature” hosts editorials, like this, with such a negative science view? Surely “nature” will seek to broaden their future articles and editorials so that they inspire all scientists, even those with a differing view to bring forth their questions.
As a postscript; I note that “Theodore Mihran” introduces himself, identifies his credentials as a scientist and gives a brief summary of why he remains skeptical of the orthodoxy climate model centric view. Eric Steig jumps in immediately and attacks the commenter’s concern as specious, then offers a genuinely specious argument as rebuttal. Eric also manages to impugn the first commenter as one of those bad people that uses bad science, again without offering any proof. I would expect that when a Doctor of Physics questions a hypothesis, even a Doctor of Geological Sciences would recognize legitimacy and respond properly rather than to condescendingly demean the questioner. Directing people to RealClimate where more comments are deleted than kept is certainly sending them to a science desert island where discussion is not only discouraged, but actively purged when the party climate religion is not followed.J.M. Palin follows with a personal slur against “Theodore Mihran”. One thing is certain, this editorial fails to inspire scientific, political or even a “world views collision” discussion in a fair and open minded manner.”
My brief career in posting comments at nature is now over as “nature” as I think “nature” is burning those final bridges to scientists conducting legitimate science, scientists and scientific discussion. When the AGW mountain is finally identified as the anthill it really is, it will take decades to recover scientific credibility; that is, if “nature” can ever cross the chasm of science as religion back to science as questioning theories backed by definitive openly reproducible experiments.
Which “scientists” are we talking about in that Nature quote? If I might rewrite the first sentence to make it more accurate:
“It is skeptical scientists who are most willing to consider explanations that conflict with their own.”
And I would add that in the end, the only real scientists are skeptical scientists. And from experience, any scientist who hasn’t found themselves to be wrong on occasion, isn’t being honest with themselves. If one simply admits the error and moves on, no foul. Everyone understand.
I read in this the nascent beginnings of a CYA argument. Oh, we scientists were always skeptical, careful to point out the holes and uncertainty in the science. The alarmism came from the politicians and media, not us…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/27/quote-of-the-month-nature-disses-skeptics/#comment-707440
Ah, let’s try not to be too quick in your assumptions.
We know who wrote the two page Nature article that was linked to in said editorial.
We also know that the person who wrote the two page article, is one in the same person who emailed his questions to Dr. C.
However, we do not, and will not (IMHO), ever, learn the name of the person(persons) who wrote the actual editiorial itself, unless that(those) person(persons) decides(decide) to out themself(themselves).
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”
Actually that might have been fine for Juliet and her Romeo, but in todays spin world there’s a lot in a name. Rather than grouping as Nature did here, I think the separation should be between Alarmists and Non- Alarmists.
Says Brian:
“It’s about understanding the impact humans are having on our Climate, and how fossil fuels and the Greenhouse Gas effect is damaging the future of generations to come.”
The confusion over tense in this sentence is some kind of Freudian slip.
I knew John Maddox (from Penllergaer, Wales) the former great editor of Nature: he must be spinning in his grave.