I'm gobsmacked

Andrew Montford at Bishop Hill writes:

The Guardian has thrown all my preconceptions into disarray by printing an article about sceptics that is not only thoughtful, but is polite too!

Sceptics such as Andrew Montford and Anthony Watts agree with the mainstream view that the greenhouse effect brings about atmospheric warming as a result of carbon emissions, but dispute levels of climate sensitivity. However, others offer far more fundamental challenges to climate science, such as fringe sceptic group Principia Scientific whoreject this orthodox view of atmospheric physics.

I can’t quite yet believe this was printed in the Guardian about me, while at the same time giving Greg Laden a swift kick in the pants:

Watts found himself under frequent challenge by members of the group on his blog, leading him to post his own experiments on YouTube to disprove their claims. As well as being a nice example of scientific claim and counter-claim on the web, Watts’s actions also helped position himself as a “mainstream” sceptic who can challenge key areas of climate science without entering into pseudoscience, a brush he had previously been tarnished with.

Watts’s public experiments provide an example of one more area in which sceptics seek to uphold standards, through transparent and auditable scientific practice. One of the most contentious issues arising from Climategate was the effort to withhold from publication data subjected to freedom of information requests. When physicist Phil Moriarty challenged these practices as being outside of accepted scientific standards, he was lauded by numerous commenters on the Bishop Hill sceptic blog as a “real scientist”.

Thank you sincerely, Warren Pearce

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Congratulations, Anthony.

GlynnMhor

“whoreject” Is this some sort of primping?

Are you certain that, having been unable to strangle the sceptic cat, the consensus is not now trying to choke it to death with cream?

Latitude

pseudoscience…
I’m thinking he’s giving a lot more credit than I am….
I see most, if not almost all, of it that way
Past that….it’s a more than well deserved kudos to Anthony and his high standards

David

Last sentence in the first quote from the Guardian:

…Principia Scientific whoreject…

interesting word, but more likely a typo.

Dave Lowery

Wow! Me too!!
Is this a significant shift in how warmist publications (as the Grauniad most definitely is) are now dealing with CAGW I wonder?

In every one of the education wars, like reading, science, or math, there came a point where the rhetoric softened. The actual implementation never changes, but if the rhetoric softens people of good faith assume a victory or compromise and get on with life. This was never about the environment or temps for many people, especially the UN and Club of Rome.
Since I am monitoring what is going on in the UK as well, I can tell you everyone’s curriculum is about to be about real world problems and global challenges and taking AGW as a given. The Regional Equity planning is premised on AGW and it is going into effect. I have seen the curriculum and I have the agency reports laying out what is up.
Anthony, you and Andrew deserve the credit and kind words but no way is this a change in direction. But neither of you is likely to be monitoring what Pearson is putting out via digital learning to classrooms. And a couple of years of modeling visually what is not so will makes the influential false beliefs paramount. Reality will not be what guides the typical student’s perspective. And at 18 they get to vote en masse. Despite acute carefully cultivated ignorance.

Russ R.

Some well deserved recognition.
Keep up the excellent work Mr. Watts.

@njsnowfan

OT but An Arctic Hockey Stick has formed for now on the N Hem Ice chart.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
Southern hem another daily sea ice record set..
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
Combined World sea Ice us about.25 under 29 year mean.

@njsnowfan

Anthony 97% of what is posted here and what I have read by you is nothing but real Data and Facts.
You do deserve a thoughtful & polite write up about you.

Hum

Anthony, they gave an example of your experiment that disproves Scientific Principia, but they never mentioned your experiment that showed Al Gore was full of cr*p. Until they start making the same comments of people like Gore who have it wrong as skeptics who have it wrong then we still have a way to go with the media.

Gareth Phillips

I am absolutely stunned, but also reassured.

RichardLH

Anthony: Congratulations on the persistent and diligent attitude to science. Facts are facts. Speculation is speculation. And climate science is…..

Wow! The greenies will choke on this. The outcry… no, I don’t want to go there.
I’ll just stick with Wow!

byz

Did you read the comments one character called PeterSimmons was doing the usual name calling (flat earthers… etc), when he was challenged by Answeris42 asking what scientific qualifications he had of course he never answers the question, either a troll or an unqualified cheerleader for the extreme greens 🙂

Lewis P Buckingham

The new paradigm after the old publishing model collapsed was to become an on line news source that will be quoted, create conflict and tag a rent seeking ad onto the clicks.
This model then allows for the odd random article to not only assist the model but to make ‘clear’ the unbiassed aspect of the new model.
Now the Guardian has linked to a site with millions of redirected clicks on offer, WUWT, this will drive readership and, of course, the revenue stream.
Unlike with Reuters, where they have woken up,this Guardian article is a good way of tapping a rich vein, but only that.
As such it remains an outlier in the mix of climate articles.

pat

“who reject” may be a more appropriate.

Lou

Reading the comments on that website makes my head hurts… They will never “get” it no matter how hard we try to present facts. They’ve already made up their mind and put fingers in the ears and go “LA LA LA LA LA LA”.

Brian Davis

Truly amazing to see a piece about climate sceptics in the MSM that isn’t at best patronizing and at worst insulting and offensive. Can’t say the same about most of the comments on the Guardian website though – you can feel the sense of shock that the ‘deniers’ have been allowed through the hallowed doors for even a few moments. The whole place will need to be disinfected.

rtj1211

The creation of religions has always been a tango of bait and switch.
This CAGW religion’s creation is no different.
The most important thing is never to examine the following too carefully:
1. How accurate the data actually is.
2. How reliable the methods of measurement are.
3. Whether the statistical analysis tools used are appropriate.
4. Whether the messages used to present the data are measured, accurate and representative.
5. What levels of uncertainty exist and for how much longer they will exist prior to a resolution.
It’s the same in the way absolutely everything is presented in the Press: wilful distortions in one way or another, claiming that the readers ‘can’t understand the details’. I’ve never come across people who can’t understand if the communicator can communicate well. If you can’t explain your science to a person with no training in the subject, you shouldn’t be deputed to represent your branch of science to the general public.
The truth of the climate religion is that you just write a new gospel if the old one doesn’t fit.
The truth of global politics is that it is in the interests of the shadowy powers behind the thrones to have a bunch of fairly ignorant representatives in Parliaments: that makes scams so much easier to be swallowed. That’s as true for City of London/Wall Street scams as it is for ICT scams as it is for gambling scams as it is for scientific scams. They hate forensic, honest minds as the money making from scams goes down if you have 100 of those sorts of people on your case.
Where is the rigorous analysis of the frequency, timing and sequences of articles written about CAGW in the Guardian, the Independent, the BBC??
That is the only way to tell you what the true objectives are: one article is meaningless.
With 100 articles, you start to get the picture of how things are going, how they are evolving.
Time for someone to present that sort of analysis perhaps??

vukcevic

Not to mention he has to deal with number of regular sceptic ‘crackpots’ including
yours truly.

some essential background:-
Warren Pearce, last week, gave sceptic Ben Pile (climate Resistance) an article at Warrens Pearce’s project (at Nottingham University) – with a must see Prof Mike Hulme (UEA) comment (in the comments, panning John Cook’s 97% paper)
http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/23/whats-behind-the-battle-of-received-wisdoms/#comment-182401
“Ben Pile is spot on. The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?” – Mike Hulme [ founding director of Tyndall Centre for Climate Change]
Prof Mike Hulme clarified further (link to comment)
http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/23/whats-behind-the-battle-of-received-wisdoms/#comment-182771
Dana virtually demanded a right to reply…
http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/29/an-accurately-informed-public-is-necessary-for-climate-policy/
A psychologist should take a look at the Guardian comments under Warren’s new article!!
Except one did Dr Adam Corner (who published Lewandowsky’s Moon Hoax work in the Guardian)
http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/25595216
Adam moans to Warren about abuse at Bishop Hill, but fails to spot the abuse of sceptics and Warren in the Guardian comments. I’m in the comments as (BBCbias) responding to Adam
Dan Kahan (Yale) and Judith Curry had a few things to say about Dana, Cook’s paper and Prof Mike Hulmes comment about Cook’s 97% paper.
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/7/27/weekend-update-the-distracting-counterproductive-97-consensu.html
http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/26/the-97-consensus/
http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/27/the-97-consensus-part-ii/
I even sneaked a challenge or 2 into the comments at Skeptical Science itself (not moderated.)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/making-science-work-ben-pile-rebuttal.html#96775
http://www.skepticalscience.com/making-science-work-ben-pile-rebuttal.html#96792
Given that this is the same Prof Mike Hulme (Tyndall Centre, UEA) who was trying to get sceptic Prof Stott off the BBC airwaves in the climategate 2 emails, things have moved on!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/climategate-2-impartiality-at-the-bbc/
except as Mike Hulme made clear John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli and the co-authors can’t see this.

Duster

A return to real journalism was in order for some time. This seems very appropriate.

milodonharlani

Good for His Lordship & A. W., but instead of mentioning “never-ending audit”, the author ought IMO have extended kudos to Steve McIntyre as well. Still, a welcome departure for a formerly relentlessly CACCA-spewing organ of the anti-human International.

Otteryd

Well done, that man. If you were a Brit, you might have been made a Lord. Pity Brenchley is already taken! Still, as a former colonial, you ain’t done too bad.

Expect mass cancellations of Guardian subscriptions in 3… 2… 1…

Other_Andy

@vukcevic
Crackpot,hardly.
Your ‘alternative’ views keep others on their toes, looking at the data and testing their theories.
Keep it up!

otsar

I would not get too carried away. They, at the Grauniad, are most likely working on rehabilitating their credibility and are repositioning themselves old SSR style, to push their agenda from another angle.

TomR,Worc,MA

I’m headed over to the comments section to watch the banning bloodbath firsthand.
Tom

Watts found himself under frequent challenge by members of the group on his blog, leading him to post his own experiments on YouTube to disprove their claims.
Glad to see that the The Guardian is warming up to you, but to play a devil advocate one could look at it as they are just in effect using you to try to reinforce the sagging standard AGW theory.
Yes, they are trying to discredit many of the commenters and others associated with this blog, and many skeptics generally, that don’t believe there is any evidence or proof that CO2 affects climate level temperatures. All we have, these skeptics may say, is an arguable theoretical model, no evidence. Look at the recent 15 year temperature pause that even The Economist has highlighted, and you see the clear disconnection of CO2 & temperature, which leaves open at the least the possibility that CO2 is not driving temperatures. I maintain that we need to challenge the supposed “established physics.” And another point, even if the warmist physics is true, considering that there doesn’t seem to be evidence of a CO2 / temp causal correlation, maybe “Gaia” is a homoeostatic system with lots of mechanisms to limit temperature variation … such that even a sharp rise in CO2 may have a minimal effect even if the warmists’ basic physics is correct. Who knows exactly, but there’s a basis for doubting that CO2 is doing anything regarding temperature, and if it’s not doing anything, the warmist physics is wrong.
Also, not to pile on, but is being “mainstream” really such a laudable thing? I know, it’s better than being “fringe,” but for a while it seemed like we were fringe, and it was the mainstream that was perpetrating the global warming deceptions, and calling us fringe (as they try to do with the “97%” line), and denigrating us as “deniers” actually. Being among the ragtag skeptics is the laudable thing, not being among the mainstream deceivers.
But again, congratulation AW for the positive press you have received from The Guardian.

Peter Wilson

The level of vitriol in the comments is illuminating – these people really don’t like having their worldview challenged, do they?

Mark Bofill

Wow.
What’s next? Am I going to read a balanced analysis from SkS acknowledging uncertainties and the possibility that AGW will be minor?
Heh. Got a bit carried away there.

RichieP

‘Duster says:
July 30, 2013 at 2:37 pm
A return to real journalism was in order for some time. This seems very appropriate.’
I shouldn’t hold your breath if I were you. Greeks bearing gifts and all that. The Guardian isn’t likely to change its spots quickly, if at all.

rogerknights

Robin says:
July 30, 2013 at 2:09 pm
Since I am monitoring what is going on in the UK as well, I can tell you everyone’s curriculum is about to be about real world problems and global challenges and taking AGW as a given. The Regional Equity planning is premised on AGW and it is going into effect. I have seen the curriculum and I have the agency reports laying out what is up.

The bien pensant mainstream is putting its credibility on the line on a very dodgy proposition and thereby setting itself up for a huge fall in its credibility if global warming remains elusive.

paul

Robin says:
July 30, 2013 at 2:09 pm
“In every one of the education wars, like reading, science, or math, there came a point where the rhetoric softened. The actual implementation never changes, but if the rhetoric softens people of good faith assume a victory or compromise and get on with life. This was never about the environment or temps for many people, especially the UN and Club of Rome……
Anthony, you and Andrew deserve the credit and kind words but no way is this a change in direction. But neither of you is likely to be monitoring what Pearson is putting out via digital learning to classrooms. And a couple of years of modeling visually what is not so will makes the influential false beliefs paramount. Reality will not be what guides the typical student’s perspective. And at 18 they get to vote en masse. Despite acute carefully cultivated ignorance.”
Excellent warning, Robin. I don’t see any sleepers here, though. We all have been through way too much during this episodic war over science. In the U.S. we have Ayers, Sunstien, et al who will never stop their elitist totalitarian propaganda war against critical thinking, let alone CAGW. Since the totalitarians have won over most academia they now are advancing against “home schooling”. Education has always been, and will be, a prime battleground.

Mark Bofill

Wow the comments over there are a hoot, aren’t they.
I need to make some popcorn. 🙂
If you read this: thank you, Warren Pearce.

The Guardian politburo start to realize the game is up. Instead of fighting the enemy they are trying to find a new strategy which is possibly the only way for their continued survival. That strategy is to reform by small step at a time while still avoiding a total collapse. Openness and restructuring are the new buzzwords.

paullm

Anthony,
Please excuse me for not saluting you and others noted for being recognized even by the opposition as formidable adversaries while using superior methodology.

paullm

Anthony,
Please excuse me for not saluting you and others noted EARLIER for being recognized even by the opposition as formidable adversaries while using superior methodology.
Time for supper!

Mark Bofill

GPWayne comes right out with it, doesn’t he:

Climate science has a message whose implications are unavoidably political: only consensual, egalitarian cooperative measures can assuage the worst of climate change, and that message is socialist in nature, if not by design. It is at that junction, where science and social responses to it occur, that sceptics become deniers, because they now oppose climate science, not merely question it.

Talk about going Bulsworth! (Or whatever it is the press says President Obama longs to do)

milodonharlani

rogerknights says:
July 30, 2013 at 3:11 pm
Hope you’re right about the MSM’s credibility, but the NYT wasn’t fazed by its correspondent Duranty’s covering up Stalin’s crimes against humanity.

eyesonu

Hum says:
July 30, 2013 at 2:18 pm
Anthony, they gave an example of your experiment that disproves Scientific Principia, but they never mentioned your experiment that showed Al Gore was full of cr*p. Until they start making the same comments of people like Gore who have it wrong as skeptics who have it wrong then we still have a way to go with the media.
————–
Lewis P Buckingham says:
July 30, 2013 at 2:22 pm
The new paradigm after the old publishing model collapsed was to become an on line news source that will be quoted, create conflict and tag a rent seeking ad onto the clicks.
This model then allows for the odd random article to not only assist the model but to make ‘clear’ the unbiassed aspect of the new model.
Now the Guardian has linked to a site with millions of redirected clicks on offer, WUWT, this will drive readership and, of course, the revenue stream.
Unlike with Reuters, where they have woken up,this Guardian article is a good way of tapping a rich vein, but only that.
As such it remains an outlier in the mix of climate articles.
==================
I would have to agree with the above comments.

davidmhoffer

Mike Alexander says:
July 30, 2013 at 2:45 pm
Expect mass cancellations of Guardian subscriptions in 3… 2… 1…
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh dear no, this is the climate debate. We have precedents.
The editor will have to resign, stating that although the article was factually accurate, that s/he shouldn’t have allowed it to be published anyway. Followed by an apology to Kevin Trenberth.

eyesonu

Anthony, first of all I’ll pass on congratulating you or the Bish for featuring in Pearce’s article in the Guardian. It’s a mere token of the respect you truly deserve and really late for the party. But at least it’s a step forward. It does show that WUWT and BishopHill are serious contenders in the march for the truth. There are many others that I have not included here as I am only responding to the article.
I will extend my congratulations to you, Montford, McIntyre, Curry, etc., etc., for hosting serious scientific discussions. Now, I could not even begin to offer well deserved congratulations to all the guest posters and commenters so please accept this comment as that well deserved and sincere congratulations. A powerful army of “ones.”

Stacey

What’s next WUWT and Bishop Hill become part of The Guardian Environment network 🙂
Or does he’ll freeze over first?

ETERNALOPTIMIST

I always knew the 97 percenters were NOT scientists, I knew the people who would not share a platform were NOT scientists. Heck, I even knew that the tree ring guys were Not scientists.
I DID know that Steve Mac was a scientist. I am now chuffed to bits that A Watts is included. A Watts – scientist.

Ryan

Clearly the guardian doesn’t watch close enough. There are loads of pseudoscientific hogwash posts on this blog.
REPLY: Yes, some of them come from you, but I still allow your comments anyway. – Anthony

paul-since you brought up homeschooling apparently David Coleman, the former McKinsey consultant who is the architect of the Common Core that is actually the OECD international Competency push in pursuit of the Green Growth welfare state, has reached out to the head of the Homeschooling Legal Defense Fund. That letter has been circulating in recent days and I don’t think it is a good sign the homeschoolers will be allowed to continue.
As the College Board that Coleman now heads revises the SAT as he has said it is doing they will go to Higher Order Thinking Skills which is not synonymous with analytical. That is likely where the homeschoolers will get trapped. Plus perhaps the new OECD PISA American version that tracks attitudes and answers to open-ended nonlinear questions with no fixed answer.
It is hard to comprehend how essential the belief in AGW is to this vision for transformation.
Anthony-one of the aspects of the curriculum is to get students to accept like a mantra that the models are grounded in empirical observations. No, they are not in the least.
Ed certainly intends to be the backdoor on this.

RoyFOMR

The Leopard in the Basement, on BH today, pointed to another ‘Gobsmacking’ article in today’s Guardian that is also worthy of a a perusal.
Titled “The green movement is not pro-science”, it’s a few thoughts from Robert Wilson, a PhD student in Scotland.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/30/green-movement-science?commentpage=1
Robert and Warren may feel grateful for any support you may wish to offer as they’re both getting a severe bashing from Grauniad regulars!
Here is a comment I put on the Bishop Hill unthreaded sectio a few days ago.
I think it not inappropriate to repeat it here:
Fallen back in love with the Grauniad, I have!
Not all of it though; just the CIF environment section.
And it’s all because of “Scooter-Boy Dana and “I took on Lord M AND survived” Abraham with their fascinating articles and sharp intellects.
No, it’s not the ferocity of the censorship, from which I believe the acronym was coined, that draws me back but the one-man, one-vote recommend facility.
If you haven’t tried it before then do so. No need to register; just point your mouse at the button, captioned Recommend, and click if you like the post.
There is caveat however. Some of the denizens of those blogs do seem to get a wee bit exercised if their party falls behind in the polls.
Please use your vote sympathetically – many of the regulars there appear to suffer from a surfeit of ‘issues’ already:(

milodonharlani

With all the traffic that Warren Pearce’s piece has brought to that rag’s site, maybe his voice of reason will become a regular feature. Where else is its lunatic fringe readership going to go? Trying reason may be a big winner for the bird cage liner.