Below are excerpts from a story by Paul Roderick Gregory, in Forbes, plus an examination of how desperate the website SkepticalScience seems to have become in the way they treat professionals.
Excerpts from Forbes:
================================================
Three recent events have brought the controversy over climate science back into the news and onto my radar screen:
First, Ivar Giaever, the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, resigned from the American Physical Society over his disagreement with its statement that “the evidence (on warming alarmism) is incontrovertible.” Instead, he writes that the evidence suggests that “the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”
Second, the editor of Remote Sensing resigned and disassociated himself from a skeptical paper co-authored by University of Alabama Climate Scientist Roy Spencer after an avalanche of criticism by “warmists.” His resignation brings to mind Phil Jones’ threat to “get rid of troublesome editors” (cited above).
Third, the New York Times and other major media are ridiculing Texas Governor Rick Perry for saying that global warming is “not proven.” Their message: Anyone who does not sign on to global warming alarmism is an ignorant hayseed and clearly not presidential material.
What lessons do I, as an economist, draw from these three events?
First: The Giaever story starkly disputes warmist claims of “inconvertible evidence.” Despite the press’s notable silence on such matters, there are a large number of prominent scientists with solid scholarly credentials who disagree with the IPCC-Central Committee. Those who claim “proven science” and “consensus” conveniently ignore such scientists.
…
Second: As someone with forty years experience with peer reviewed journals. I can testify that the Remote Sensing editor’s resignation and public discreditation of Spencer’s skeptical paper would be considered bizarre and unprofessional behavior in any other scholarly discipline.
…
Third: The media is tarring and feathering Rick Perry, we now see, for agreeing with Nobel laureate Giaever and a host of other prominent scientists. I guess if Perry is a know-nothing Texas hick (or worse, a pawn of Big Oil) so is every other scientist who dares to disagree with the IPCC Central Committee. Such intimidation chillingly makes politicians, public figures, and scientists fearful of deviating one inch from orthodoxy. They want to avoid Orwell’s “watching their comrades torn to pieces after confessing to shocking crimes.” How many are willing to shoulder that burden?
=========================
Read the entire piece here.
For a recent example of “watching their comrades torn to pieces after confessing to shocking crimes” one needs to look no further than Dr. Roger Pielke’s attempt to have a dialog with the oxymoronically named website “SkepticalScience.com”. Bishop Hill described what happened there as self immolation, Shub Niggurath lists it as A dark day in the climate science debate.
Whatever is is, it’s the worst example of climate ugliness I’ve seen this month, though not the all time worst (see the “corrections” at the end). It is surprising though, that for a website that recently won the prestigious national Eureka award in Australia, that they’d have to stoop to this level of juvenile behavior reminiscent of Animal Farm, cited by Paul Roderick Gregory in his Forbes article.
Strikeout of opposing commentary, especially that of a professional scientist writing something that doesn’t even appear inflammatory or off topic (since he’s responding to another commenter), is so “grade school”.
Can you imagine the howling that would ensue if I did the same thing to NSIDC’s Walt Meier when he posts something here I might disagree with?
From my perspective, while I once said that John Cook was at least “civil in his discourse with me”, and for that reason I gave Skeptical Science a place on my blogroll. I’m rethinking that now after seeing this latest ugliness.
One thing Shub Niggurath said caught my eye:
More recently however, the tone at [SkepticalScience] has turned shrill. The main proprietor John Cook, who is a climate change communication award winner, apparently approves. These changes have especially been noticeable after a certain ‘dana1981′ – likely referring to the author being born in 1981, began his contributions to the website.
…
And to top it all, in their narrow and monomaniacal attempts at interpreting Roger Pielke Sr’s blog posts, the readers/moderators and authors including ‘dana1981′ were completely blinded to the fact, that one of them – ‘dana1981′ – had in fact, carried out the very same thing they so vehemently denied.
That reminds me of something I once said about the Internet:
Anonymity breeds contempt
I wonder if Cook will rise to the level of respect that the Australian National Museum has granted him with their Eureka award and fix this mess “dana1981” has created, or will he turn a blind eye and take one for “The Team”? I’ve done my part to be reasonable and adopt suggestions, the ball is now in John Cook’s court. Ironically, in the attempt to muzzle Dr. Pielke and have him acquiesce to demands, they handily proved his original point.
The way defenders of climate science are acting these days, it does indeed beg the question Can We Really Call Climate Science A Science?
h/t to Kevin Hearle for the Forbes article
In English, the word “data” is a mass noun – neither singular nor plural. It takes a singular subject. It functions interchangeably with the word “information” (also a mass noun). One says “this information” not “these information” and similarly one should say “this data” not “these data”.
We know that “data” is not plural because it can form a compound noun: “database”, “data center”, “data warehousing”, etc. Plural nouns cannot do that in English. In English, you say “dishwasher” not a “disheswasher”.
In Latin, “data” is plural and should agree in number with the subject when speaking Latin. Or, if your intent is to use the Latin “data” instead of the English “data” you should print the word in italic as you do with any other foreign word.
Yes, I am aware that the consensus among academics is that “data” should take a plural subject. But the evidence in this case is that the academic consensus is wrong.
“Ken Harvey says:
September 19, 2011 at 6:57 am
………..When one speaks of a number of data from a single source then the plural verb in relation to ‘data” is permissible, but not always appropriate. When one speaks of a body of data such as is generally the case with climate matters, the the word ‘data’ takes the singular verb. This is not optional – it is obligatory………..”
Not really off topic Ken, but incomplete. One temperature measurement is a datum. Two or more are data. The files NOAA, CRU, and others maintain, where the data have been homogenized, corrected, averaged, or otherwise manhandled, are “products”. Products may or may not provide some insight into the mechanisms producing the underlying data. They are not “data” themselves, but representations of data.
Sorry to be pedantic, Anthony, but this is a huge pet peeve of mine. The phrase ‘beg the question’ carries a specific definition in logic, sometimes more commonly known as the circular argument. The phrase is not intended to refer, literally, to a question (although this usage has become pervasive in the common vernacular).
Correct verbiage in this case would be ‘to raise the question.’
—.
On topic, the study of climate can be legitimately called science, if practice properly. However, the current incarnation of climate study resembles religious practice more so than genuine scientific inquiry. IMO.
It might be fruitful to detect if there is a mono-mythic theme (see Joseph Campbell’s ‘Hero With a Thousand Faces’) embedded by PR firms about John Cook’s as a mythic hero at the SS (Skeptical Science) blog. If we find a mono-myth embedded in the SS blog then a little dissection would be enlightening to expose its mythic structure.
For purpose of my analysis let’s postulate John Cook is being cast as a mono-mythic hero by some PR spin-meisters.
About the mono-mythic theme, Joseph Campbell says,
So, following a monomythic theme, we have Cook leaving the normal pre-CAGW world of capitalistic consumerism ignorance. He in enters a dark subterranean supernatural (Gorean and Hansenian) world of Gaia spirituality and fervent collectivist ideological wonder where he encounters the truth of planet saving and the evil nature of technologically progressive mankind. He is aided in his quest in the nether world by none other than mother Gaia herself. Cook vanquishes the evil twin brother demons called underground coal and oil deposits. He vanquishes their God called Big Fossil Fuel. Then he returns as a hero to the blogs to bestow the power to smite skeptics by promoting fake skepticism in its place. He is given awards and granted righteousness by politicians and ideological environmentalist; he triumphantly marches forth in his valiant battle against all non-believers in his heroic mission.
Ahhh, OK. So it would make a really bad movie. And I think Cook should go back down again into the dark subterranean supernatural (Gorean and Hansenian) world. He needs some more stuff to bring back, because he isn’t making it as a hero so far.
John
PS – mpaul, thanks for reminding us of the possible use of the monomyth by PR firms : )
Can We Really Call Climate Science A Science?
Sure. The climate scientists have accumulated lots of empirical results about climate, and lots of reasonable mathematical approximations to empirical relationships. There is good understanding of why the climates of Venus, Earth and Mars are as different as they are.
What is lacking is a completeness and precision in this knowledge claimed by some of the promoters of the theory of AGW. There is no solid evidence that the prediction of even a single model for the climate evolution through the next two decades is accurate enough to depend upon, much less through 2050. It isn’t unusual for true scientists to hype their claims (e.g. “God particle” for Higgs boson.) It isn’t unusual for scientists to develop fads and bandwagons either — remember how scientists were bitter and angry about Pres. G. W. Bush’s decision on embryonic stem cells? For another comparison, the execrable eugenics movement did not demonstrate that genetics was not a science.
Even if I knew nothing about climatology, I would be suspicious of the globalwarmists based solely on their behavior. If they knew they had the truth on their side, they would feel no need to act as bullies.
Still, as much as I decry the tactics of the globalwarmists and their supporting hordes, the entity that shoulders most of the blame for the AGW scandal is the Media. Why? Because instead of reporting the news, instead of acting as journalists and seeking out true stories behind the reports and claims, they have taken on the agenda of the globalwarmists and simply do not report anything regarding anthropogenic global warming (AGW) with accuracy. They only give credence to IPCC-approved reports and statements; they pretend there is no credible evidence or argument against AGW. They report the smears against skeptics as truth without investigating the veracity of such claims. They don’t report the totalitarian behavior of the globalwarmists, even when they have piles of affirming evidence. They even promote the myth that all, or virtually all, prominent scientists agree with the premise and conclusions of AGW, whilst only imbalanced cretins, Texas hicks, or oil company shills deny AGW claims.
Despite the best efforts of an agendized Media, support for AGW is dwindling rapidly. Sadly, even after proponents of AGW fall into incontrovertible disrepute, most people will hold the Media blameless. After all, once the Media believe the globalwarmists’ fall from grace to be inevitable, they will descend with a hateful vengeance and shred the remains of the fallen AGW priests and acolytes, whilst absolving themselves of all blame. Truth will still be buried beneath stinking piles of propaganda, because the Media will not out themselves.
Ian W says:
September 19, 2011 at 8:59 am
I think that this allegory is the reason for many of the heated attacks on ‘the deniers’ – “Don’t you see there is a disaster about to happen/shark about to attack?! Get out of the water!!”
================
You make a very good point there. It would explain a lot.
I loose respect very quickly for an author who purposefully conflates “global warming” with “warming alarmism”.
The statement from the author: “The evidence (on warming alarmism) is incontrovertible.”
The actual statement from APS: “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.”
These are very different statements, clearly misrepresented by the author. In fact, even Ivar Giaever states “and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.” So Ivar Giaever is not disputing that global warming is occurring.
Presumably Ivar Giaever is upset with later parts of the APS statement like “If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur.” But note that this “warming alarmism” is NOT presented as “incontrovertible”, merely as “likely.”
Citing MIT’s Prof Hal Abelson:
“Anything which uses science as part of its name isn’t”
R. Gates says:
September 19, 2011 at 11:40 am
“I see the suggestion that climate science is not a science as yet more attempts of the same anti-science rhetoric that would discredit an entire discipline in the attempts to increase doubt about the credibility of the findings.”
Given the way that folks like you and some of these so-called “climate scientists” behave (e.g. grand, sweeping statements supported by precious little or no solid evidence), it’s becoming more obvious to me that “climate science” is discrediting itself, without need of anyone else’s help.
If climate science is the sum of computer models and paleo-reconstructions along the lines of Mann, then it is not science. Many others and I have explained these matters in great detail on WUWT. Arrhenius’ original hypotheses are science, but do not explain forcings or feedbacks. What else remains of climate science?
In view of the spelling dispute, “sceptic” vs “skeptic”, may i propose “climate skience” to distinguish it from the regular kind?
R. Gates says:
September 19, 2011 at 11:40 am
No, a person who specializes in glaciology or atmospheric chemistry is a glaciologist or atmospheric chemist–neither are automatically given any particular degree or additional credibility as a “climate scientist”.
While it is true than any of these scientific fields are rigorous, are models?–not so much. And scale is not a valid excuse to ignore empirical evidence, which pracitcally every model does. Epic Fail in logic there.
That’s a bunch of baloney–and I say that as a scientist myself. What we’re combatting here (and winning, by the way) is the unending, unthinking attempts to conflate inexact modeling, data fudging and a whole slew of unscientific behavior and analysis (may I remind you of Michael “I’m not a crook–hey, stay outta my emails” Mann’s infamous and discredited Hockey Stick, among many others) as “science”. It is not–not by a long shot.
R. Gates–It is obvious you don’t believe any of us climate realists, skeptics, dissidents or whatever you want call us are scientists or realize what the true nature of science entails. I submit that the better scientists–those who are truly doing their jobs as scientists–are the climate realists, skeptics, and dissidents. Your people (Jones, Mann, Trenberth, etc.) are low life science wanna-be’s. They hide behind the law, they chase easy money through The Team’s advantage, and they are anything but honest (they remind me of a bunch of climate mobsters, actually) They will eventually go down in history as the laughable lot that most of us now recognize. They have little or no credibility; they are the true anti-scientists.
You just wish they weren’t.
Stir estimates together and make some numbers crunch and soon you’ve got a science and more than just a hunch.
From reading all of this it’s now quite clear to me that if you add up guesses, you get a certainty
Guilty as charged: “39 and holding,” as Jerry Lee Lewis once sang, echoing Jack Benny. I guess if I remember Jack that makes me an old fogey for sure.
Can’t disagree, except that it may be devolution, as phil c suggests (September 19, 2011 at 11:56 am),
i.e. ‘data’ and their products are being conflated. We old fogies might argue that this leads to less clarity, not more.
* * * * *
As for the topic of this thread, I propose that we ask the Rationalists, the genuine scientists who insist upon the scientific method in the study of climate, whether they prefer to be known as ‘climate scientists’, ‘climatologists’, or something else. To my mind ‘climatologist’ harmonizes nicely with ‘geologist’, ‘paleontologist’, etc., established empirical disciplines which do not need to proclaim themselves ‘science’ for credibility. But it should be up to the practitioners, the real ones, not the ideologues.
/Mr Lynn
“Can you imagine the howling that would ensue if I did the same thing to NSIDC’s Walt Meier when he posts something here I might disagree with?”
You should get some sociology/psychology profs that can do a study on the huge bias of if you do that. Would be an amusing event to watch all the crying and whining only to have a peer reviewed paper later published to show how one sided the “civility” is.
@Brent Hargreaves September 19, 2011 at 6:10 am:
Perhaps Climate Scientology is the most proper term.
Some thoughts on the Pielke-SkS
debatemegaphone paradeslanging matchnon-debate.I see a lot of people simply talking past each other on all sides, here. Skeptical Science had already several times asked contributors to keep to the topic of the thread, long before Pielke weighed in with what, in the moderators’ terms, were indeed diversions. But Skeptical Science, while technically correct that rudeness about faulty science is not ad hom in itself, fails to notice the unavoidably ad hominem effect of high-profile sidebar buttons like
if there is no equally visible note to the effect that
No, Spencer’s faults are shouted, his virtues are kept hidden. The resultant effect IS ad hominem
In my bad old warmist days, I used to regard Skeptical Science as a gold standard of information. That’s one of the places I learned to regard Monckton as someone whom it was not worth beginning to listen to because he was a (charlatan) (liar) (politician) (non-scientist) (etc). Therefore it was at first difficult, then a real pleasure, to find that the real Monckton was nothing of the kind, that in fact he had some of the key evidence for demolishing AGW – arguing against IPCC by using their own science and maths against them. I was told by the warmist consensus that Monckton had been debunked on this issue by Schmidt, which indeed seemed to be the case… until I probed deeper and found that Monckton had answered all Schmidt’s arguments… but the warmist consensus had failed to mention the existence of this clinching document, to which, tellingly, Schmidt had no reply.
That was the moment that turned me from warmist to skeptic.
Before my conversion, I would not have thought I was really “ad hom” with some of the names I called Monckton to myself. But switching sides showed me how easily misrepresentations of someone’s evidence can lead to others feeling justified and neutral in using language and style that really attack the person – and how easy it is to see the language of one’s opponents as ad hom, whichever “side” one is on.
In fact I see a lot more effort at SkS to keep polite and relevant – certainly by warmist standards – than does Anthony Watts. Don’t often disagree with you Anthony, and you may yet make me change my mind. But, dear people at SkS, you must give references to the best work of both sides! If you reference Abraham refuting Monckton, you must also reference Monckton’s reply – and Abraham’s reply to Monckton’s reply, if such a document exists – and so on for as long as this, the true dialogue, continues.
@roger Knights September 19, 2011 at 11:31 am:
I would suggest it is like the Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog in the movie “Monty Python and the Holy Grail“, that they see us as Arthur’s knights who, when they see it is only just a little bitty rabbit, stand up and get slaughtered. According to the alarm ringers we are all in dire danger from what the skeptics just won’t recognize as a real threat. According to us, the rabbit is only real within the imagination of the audience watching the movie – and the movie is the analog to the climate models: To them, though, it is seen to be as real as it is to the characters within the script – but the script itself is just a made-up representation of reality, not reality itself. And they cannot see the disconnect with reality.
No one was walking out of the theater cringing at every shadow, wondering if a killer rabbit was lurking, ready to off us all. We, the skeptics, laugh at anyone silly enough to believe it is real – short of some tangible connection with the real world outside of celluloid.
The modelers somehow think that we should all take their representation more seriously than a movie script. And we are all saying, “And just WHY?” And they say, “Dammit! Didn’t you see the freaking movie?!” …And we just slide down to the other end of the bench…
And we WILL take the models seriously at some point – but not until they come up with one that parallels reality much more closely and can correctly predict at least a year or two in advance without fail, for perhaps a generation.
The commenters here who talk about climate science being in its infancy are more than correct. Predictions at this stage of climate science are actually immaturely foolish. Had two factors not contributed, none of us would be having this “conversation”: First was that the science editors around the world fell hook, line, and sinker for the warming spin, and, secondly, that the spin drew in inordinate amounts of money, which the inhabitants of the backwater of climate science simply could not resist. It was the equivalent of Jeb Clampett finding his land had oil under it.
I wonder how long it will be – and what it will take – before another warmer will follow in Judith Curry’s step into no-man’s land or come over to our side.
The increasing incongruity of climate propaganda is not dissimilar to elements of the former Soviet Union’s various five-year plans in Soviet industry, agriculture, the economy, or the military. If the plan succeeded it was trumpeted as a great triumph for the proletariat. If it failed, the reasons for failure were ignored and the plan was often still broadcast as a success. Over time all but the most ardent party members became cynical of the successes. Eventually, the cost of military expenditures, too much “success” in key areas of the Soviet economy, and widespread popular demand for reform facilitated the changes implemented by Gorbachev. The propaganda from the Climate Politburo (many of whom are not scientists) is seen increasingly by most people for what it is except for those members of the Climate Politburo. The Soviet system did not go quickly or quietly. The Climate Politburo apparently will not go quietly either. It is up to the real scientists to reign in the Climate Politburo. If they don’t the coming backlash will hobble Western science for decades.
I was horrified to find that one correspondent thought that ‘climate science’ should be compared to astrophysics – a real science with impeccable reputation, and as well, highly self-correcting. When he mentions ‘dark matter’, ‘dark energy’ and such, surely he’s talking about cosmology, a much more speculative branch of science.
I expect we’ll wait a long, long time for a major defection from the Alarmist hierarchy. Can you imagine a Michael Mann or a Kevin Trenberth admitting to the world that the dogma in which they have so much invested is at best unsupported by the data, and at worst a complete hoax? Unfortunately, that is what it would take for the major media and their sycophantic ‘science’ writers to turn about and celebrate the Climate Realists, the much-maligned ‘deniers’.
/Mr Lynn
RE: phil c: (September 19, 2011 at 11:56 am)
“Not really off topic Ken, but incomplete. One temperature measurement is a datum.”
OK if you make that distinction, but for many English speakers, one temperature measurement can also be ‘data.’ The word ‘datum’ is rarely used in nontechnical contexts. This might be a case of loanword simplification by those who have not had the once mandatory education in classical languages.
The Pro-AGW link list should be moved to underneath the archive. I can’t beleive you’d put it above the skeptical roll to begin with
REPLY: When you get your own blog, you can arrange such things anyway you want, but in my case “P r o” comes before “S k e” in the WordPress provided links category alphabetizer, and I’m a slave to it’s choices – Anthony
Climate science is related to science the way astrology is related to astronomy. A wacky, greedy cousin. They look at the same things with much different motives.