I’ve still not received any reply from Nature Climate Change editor Rory Howlett to my query about why he allowed the term “deniers” in scientific literature (Bain et al), and neither has Bishop Hill to my knowledge. Lord Leach however, has weighed in, and has sent me his letter for publication here with permission. – Anthony
=========================================================
Dear Dr Howlett,
The use of the term “denier” does your journal a disservice, both for its vagueness and for its insulting overtone.
What does a “denier” deny? Certainly not Climate Change: nor global warming since records began in the late 19th century: nor the likelihood of human influence on temperatures. What, then?
A “denier” denies certainty on a complex and still young scientific subject. A “denier” questions assumptions about the near irrelevance of solar, oceanic and other non-anthropogenic influences on temperature. A “denier” prefers evidence to model projections. A “denier” tests alarming predictions against actual observations. In short, a “denier” exhibits the symptoms of a genuine seeker after scientific truth.
I wish the same could be said of “consensus” writers – or that they showed the same restraint and courtesy towards different opinions shown by sceptics such as Watts Up With That
Yours sincerely
Rodney Leach
==========================================================
I was surprised to see WUWT mentioned. I thank Lord Leach for the hat tip.
If you haven’t written a letter, you still can. See the details here:
Nature’s ugly decision: ‘Deniers’ enters the scientific literature
Some letters to the editor in the UK might also be helpful.
UPDATE: Jo Nova has an excellent letter also:
Dear Dr Phil Bain,
Right now, it’s almost my life’s work to communicate the empirical evidence on anthropogenic climate change.
I can help you with your research on deniers. I have studied the mental condition of denial most carefully. There is a simple key to converting the convictions of people in this debate, and I have seen it work hundreds of times. Indeed, my own convictions that lasted 17 years were turned around in a few days. I can help you. It would be much simpler than you think.
Firstly, to save time and money we must analyze the leaders of the denial movement. I have emailed or spoken to virtually all of them.
They are happy to accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming, that humans produce CO2, that CO2 levels are rising, and that the earth has warmed in the last century. According to Hansen et al 19841, Bony et al 20062, and the IPCC AR4 report3, the direct effect of doubling the level of CO2 amounts to 1.2°C (i.e. before feedbacks).
All they need are is the paper with the evidence showing that the 1.2°C direct warming is amplified to 3 or 4 degrees as projected by the models. Key leaders in the denial movement have been asking for this data for years. Unfortunately the IPCC assessment reports do not contain any direct observations of the amplification, either by water vapor (the key positive feedback4) or the totality of feedbacks. The IPCC only quotes results from climate simulations.
Since science is based on observations and measurements of the real world, it follows that a denier of science (rather than a denier of propaganda) must be denying real world data. I’d be most grateful if you could explain what “deniers” deny. Deniers repeatedly ask for empirical evidence, yet must be failing badly at communicating that this is the crucial point because none of the esteemed lead authors of IPCC working Group I seem to have realized that this paltry point is all that is needed. All this mess could be cleared up with an email.
The evidence for anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming, so the observations they deny must be written up many times in the peer review literature, right? After five years of study I am still not sure which instrument has made these key observations. Do deniers deny weather balloon results, or satellite data, or ice cores?
When you find this paper and the measurements, it will convince many of the key denier leaders. (But being the exacting personality type that they are, deniers will also expect to see the raw data. So you’ll need to also make sure that the authors of said paper have made all the records and methods available, but of course, all good scientists do that already don’t they?)
As a diligent researcher, I’m sure you would not have described a group with such a unequivocally strong label unless you were certain it applied. It would be disastrous for an esteemed publication like Nature to mistakenly insult Nobel prize winning physicists, NASA astronauts, and thousands of scientists who have asked for empirical evidence, only to find that the Nature authors themselves were unable to name papers (or instruments) with empirical evidence that their subject group called “deniers” denied.
If those papers (God forbid) do not exist, then the true deniers would turn out to be the researchers who denied that empirical evidence is key to scientific confidence in a theory. The true deniers would not be the skeptics who asked for evidence, but the name-calling researchers who did not test their own assumptions.
The fate of the planet rests on your shoulders. If you can find the observations that the IPCC can’t, you could change the path of international action. Should you find the evidence, I will be delighted to redouble my efforts to communicate the empirical evidence related to climate change.
Awaiting your reply keenly,
Joanne Nova
—————–
REFERENCES
1 Hansen J., A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy and J. Lerner, (1984) Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. In Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, AGU Geophysical Monograph 29, Maurice Ewing Vol. 5. J.E. Hansen and T. Takahashi, Eds. American Geophysical Union, pp. 130-163 [Abstract]
2 Bony, S., et al., 2006: How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes? J. Clim., 19, 3445–3482.
3 IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8.6.2.3. p630 [PDF].
4 IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. Fig 8.14, p631 [PDF] see also Page 632.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
gnomish says:
philC is phishing for talking points out of Anthony to be used to subvert the message.
And what message is that?
he’s won’t mirandize. he will propagandize. any comments that he can get will be used against you if he can do it.
Most of what I’ve done is ask people if they’ve read WG I. How could I possibly use that against anyone?
Phil C says:
June 20, 2012 at 11:43 am
Vince Causey says:How about the passage that states that the 20th Century warming is very (90% probability) likely to be caused by human GHG emissions?
Refresh my memory, where exactly does it say that in the report? It sounds familiar, but my search of the document doesn’t it.
=============================================================================
Phil, it says this on P.10 of the Summary for Policy Makers.
Phil C says:
June 20, 2012 at 8:49 am
“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you start publicly identifying places of scientific agreement with the IPCC WG I report, it will go a long way towards silencing the use of the “D” word. As of right now, the absence of any mentions of agreement is interpreted as a rejection of the entire body of those scientific findings.”
Here are your assertions:
1. telling us over and over will strengthen your argument
2. agreeing to parts of a manifesto would reduce the bullying tactics of the IPCC bible thumpers
3. if there is no occurrence of agreement then all skeptics reject all IPCC findings
4. there is a temporal condition attached to #3
Here are you assertions addressed:
1. argumentum ad nauseam is not a valid form of proof ;^)
2. “if you agree with me then I’ll stop calling you a poopy head” is not a very compelling argument but great for getting compliance from kids in school yards by bullies.
3. “if you don’t agree with me then you are all poopy heads” is a slight variation on the previous argument. Clearly, Phil intended that “a rejection of the entire body of those scientific findings” to mean the dreaded “D” word. Phil did leave himself wiggle room by stating “the absence of any mentions of agreement”, not as an assertion, but as the condition of his “if” statement. It reads like “if the blue fairy appears to me then she will grant me all my wishes” – it does not mean that blue fairies are asserted to be real.
4. maybe Phil can clarify what he meant by “as of right now”. Did he mean when he wrote it? Was it good for one attosecond or was it bracketed by +/- 5 seconds? Or did he mean this day? Year? Century? What does that say about the truth of the statement in the past? In the future?
Finally, as to the validity of “the entire body of those scientific findings”:
The IPCC manifesto is based on a large percentage of non scientific literature ( http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/IPCC-report-card.php ). It is a sad fact that 20% of WG 1 Chapter 1 is pure fiction (aka grey literature). The peer reviewed studies referenced from this manifesto are cherry picked ( http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/documentation-of-ipcc-wg1-bias-by-roger-a-pielke-sr-and-dallas-staley-part-i/ ). There were many qualified peer reviewed studies available at the time of the writing of this document that contradicted the studies chosen.
If you would just plainly state what we are supposed to be denying, that would go a long ways.
WG I
I believe you are being asked for specifics.
Ed Barbar says:
June 20, 2012 at 11:38 am
hey ed b i think you hit it fair and square.
C
Unfortunately, it is all about science…
Except it’s not.
That a computer program that has been written with the assumption that increased CO2 leads to increased temperatures predicts higher temperatures because of assumed higher CO2 is not science. Hiding data and using secret processes to manipulate the data is not science. Abusing the peer review process to suppress valid research is not science. Bullying and abusing people who don’t parrot your claims is not science. Committing crimes in order to attack critics of your work is not science.
Doing all the above while saying your “results” say society must be reorganized in order to stave off disaster isn’t science, either.
I’m sure there’s some well-done, real science that supports CAGW. Unfortunately, there’s a lot more of it that contradicts CAGW, and much, much more of what’s done in support of CAGW is just plain not science.
Phil C says:
June 20, 2012 at 11:43 am
“Vince Causey says:How about the passage that states that the 20th Century warming is very (90% probability) likely to be caused by human GHG emissions?
Refresh my memory, where exactly does it say that in the report? It sounds familiar, but my search of the document doesn’t it.”
======================================================
Chapter 9.2.1.1 “Summary of ‘Forward’ Estimates of Forcing for
the Instrumental Period” which contains the passage “The combined
anthropogenic forcing from the estimates in Section 2.9.2 since
1750 is 1.6 W m–2, with a 90% range of 0.6 to 2.4 W m–2,
indicating that it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a
substantial warming influence on climate over that time period.”
Section 2.9.2 does not offer any more evidence, and states that “Table 2.11 summarises the
key certainties and uncertainties and indicates the basis for the 90% confidence range estimate.”
But table 2.11 contains no empirical data or quantitative data.
@Phil C says: June 20, 2012 at 12:01 pm
I do understand the science and cAGW science is speculative bunk.
Phil C says
‘I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you start publicly identifying places of scientific agreement with the IPCC WG I report, it will go a long way towards silencing the use of the “D” word…’
I will go further back in history. I will look for some common ground with the theory of Phlostigon. Now I agree that some things burn, some dont. Thats exactly what the theory claims.
so now, somehow, the erroneous basis for the theory of phlostigon is corroborated and validated??
Phil C
“Refresh my memory, where exactly does it say that in the report?”
What a weasly reply. You know exactly what it refers to. It is the main take-home message of the AR4, fed to every news-consumer around the world in 2007, The exact wording was;
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”
first given in the SPM, and where a footnote explained that ‘very likely’ meant 90% likelihood. So far, nobody has managed to support that claim based on real published and properly carried out science. None of the believers can even come up with any references allegedly making such claims.
Still it was echoed all over the world by people sounding just like you. (And you might want to recall that the take-home message from the AR4 predecessor, the TAR, was a graph that looked like a hockey stick, alledging som ‘unprecedented’ warming right now)
But maybe, you were really completely unaware of what the IPCC has tried to feed to the media!?
“…Unfortunately, it is all about science, and if you are going to educate yourself, you have to do it with science. And that requires reading what the scientists who do the research are writing…”
Fine.
Just tell us which journals have been declared “acceptable” for reading.
Tell us which scientists are the priests we should listen to.
Tell us which scientific disciplines make up the core of “climate science”. For example, should scientists with math degrees be included? How about physics? Statistics?
Who do we believe if the scientists themselves allow their political beliefs to color their science?
Selective reading and comprehension skills disability, eh? Maybe if you tried some new glasses. Then reread the entire WUWT archives and you’ll learn much about the parts of climate science that we believe are good science. Oh, I forgot. You’re a troll and only live from post to post not to adhere to admirable science in prior posts.
Let me understand this; you claim that if the sceptics among us would certify the portions of the IPCC reports accurate that we agree with?
So, IPCC has used hundreds of pieces of science, aggregated it together, ignored criticisms forwarded by authors who contributed to the science. IPCC then finalized that with a grandiose summary, not to mention demands on world governments and citizens.
Ending this simple list of facts is the silly science idea, that is, if one part is wrong, then all of the summaries and aggregations are wrong too. Not just maybe wrong, but absolutely wrong.
Retract the WHOLE blamed sorry sick lot of bad science. Expunge those who manipulate research to serve their own desires and conduct proper research. After four and a half billion years, the earth will still be here, waiting breathlessly I’m sure, after a decent interval for proper climate science.
Phil C
“”
What a weasely reply. You are of course aware of the main AR4 take-home message, echoed all over the world and fed to every living news consumer back in 2007. The exact quote is:
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”
where the ‘very likely’ was explained to mean 90% likelihood in some footnote. You can find it here
Funny that you pretend to be completely unaware of that claim, you who posture with “it is all about science”.
As many others (and Jo Nova) point out; Then just show us that science … or admit that you have never seen any such !
Why do deniers of natural climate change label those who affirm that climate change is constant and natural, “deniers”?
[Moderator’s Admonition: OK, we’re getting too free with the use of the “d-word”. Turn-about is not always fair play. -REP]
Vince Causey says: Section 2.9.2 does not offer any more evidence, and states that “Table 2.11 summarises the
key certainties and uncertainties and indicates the basis for the 90% confidence range estimate.”
But table 2.11 contains no empirical data or quantitative data.
Section 2.9.2 makes reference to Boucher and Haywood, 2001, which is where I would turn to for more evidence. Table 2.11 assesses level of scientific uncertainty of radiative forcing across sixteen categories. Is there one or more of those categories for which you would suggest a different level of uncertainty?
Jonas N says What a weasly reply. You know exactly what it refers to.
No I didn’t. I needed to look it up in the document. And for evidence note that you’re quoting Summary for Policy Makers. I’m making reference to Working Group I — different authors and different documents.
Phil C says: June 20, 2012 at 12:01 pm
This is probably a very good idea. Perhaps you could convince (inter alia) Michael Mann of this. It might also be a good idea for you to share this insight with the U.K. Royal Society’s Foreign Secretary, Martyn Poliakoff, whose contribution** to
the carnivalRio+20 included “stressing“:*See: Royal Society’s green chemist waves little red book in Rio
Phil C.: Al Gore is not a scientist.
Why is it that so many of the scientists sound like Al Gore? Certain catastrophic positioning. The science is settled. Refusal to really engage in a discussion of the demerits, instead using other tactics to force agreement.
In any event, and unfortunately, I have improved my understanding of the Science. I’m saying “I don’t want to.” But I do. I have understood enough to convince myself the so called “Scientists” who have built a consensus around AGW are not credible to me. I continue to look to see if there is something credible, but each time I look, it seems there is another chunk that doesn’t make sense, that leads me to believe it is advocates, ego-maniacs, and religious nut cases pushing an agenda.
I’m sure there are some people out there who are doing “good science.” Good science is not what concerns me.
You seem to think there is some kind of “healing” process that needs to take place. I’ll tell you what needs to take place to “heal” the divide.
1) Since AGW advocates are certain humanity is going to suffer hugely, ALL data, even de-selected data, must be made public.
2) All methods must be posted in useable computer form.
3) All models must have error bars, and an indication of what conditions invalidate their conclusions.
There have been other suggestions about how to improve the science, so this isn’t an exhaustive list. Merely hitting some of the important ones.
Sounds simple to me. But it simply won’t happen. Ask yourself why.
A bit o/t, but did anyone else laugh at this —
In the rigorous world of high-energy physics, researchers wait to see a 5-sigma signal, which has only a 0.000028 percent probability of happening by chance, before claiming a “discovery.”
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/latest-higgs-rumors/
“The combined anthropogenic forcing from the estimates in Section 2.9.2 since 1750 is 1.6 W m–2, with a 90% range of 0.6 to 2.4 W m–2, indicating that it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate over that time period.”
It was better before they edited out the rest of the statement:
“…or, of course, that our estimates are wrong, because let’s face it, we don’t understand climate very well, do we?”
My favorite assessment of error is from Gavin, when he said the temperature record is accurate to .01 degrees even though there have been multiple adjustments larger than that.
DNFTT
atheok says:Selective reading and comprehension skills disability, eh? Maybe if you tried some new glasses. Then reread the entire WUWT archives and you’ll learn much about the parts of climate science that we believe are good science. Oh, I forgot. You’re a troll and only live from post to post not to adhere to admirable science in prior posts.
On that low note I’ll sign off this thread. I’ve responded to roughtly ten of the replies to my initial post and follow up replies, asked a number of questions along the way, and now get accused of being a “troll”?”
Phil C
So yo claim not to be aware of what the most prominent claim in the AR4 was!? Interesting ..
But very similar passages (as the SPM-one) where found in WG1 ch9, but still without any reported science behind them.
Above you, kinda, implied that you had actually read the IPCC WG I …. are you now trying to pretend you are unaware of such claims? Or distancing yourself from the SPM, the alleged summary of the science!?
Are you more happy with the WG1 phrasing of:
“It is very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases caused most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century.”?
But maybe you hadn’t read WG1, just tried to give that impression. And of couse, you still have not seen any science affirming such prominent claims. As you said, you weren’t even aware of them, Just commenting at WUWT as if you knew …
??
Phil C. If it helps, I don’t see any evidence you are a troll. Wish you would continue to engage. Disagreement about points, in my view, helps to clarify positions, or even demonstrate flaws in the reasoning. That’s why skeptics are good and necessary for Climate Scientists.
PhilC, it’s not necessarily WG1 that you know is a humungous time-spinner, it’s what the Summary For Policymakers did to WG1 when they “summarized” it. It’s the SFP that is rubbish and yes, I have looked at it. You’re being tiresome and trying to make folk waste energy dancing to your tune. Click my name for all the stuff that refutes SFP. And if you still cannot see that my material refutes SFP, you clearly do not think like a real scientist for whom “nullius in verba” is paramount.
Sorry, philthy, 97% of Skeptics agree with Atheok’s assessment…