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
Expect mass cancellations of Guardian subscriptions in 3… 2… 1…
@vukcevic
Crackpot,hardly.
Your ‘alternative’ views keep others on their toes, looking at the data and testing their theories.
Keep it up!
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.
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.
The level of vitriol in the comments is illuminating – these people really don’t like having their worldview challenged, do they?
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.
‘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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
GPWayne comes right out with it, doesn’t he:
Talk about going Bulsworth! (Or whatever it is the press says President Obama longs to do)
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.
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.
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.
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.”
What’s next WUWT and Bishop Hill become part of The Guardian Environment network 🙂
Or does he’ll freeze over first?
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.
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.
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:(
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.