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
@Rod McLaughlin
‘‘
Umm… that’s only about a quarter the truth. You are right that the Graun organised a debate on Climategate chaired by GM. There were 5 panellist: Bob Watson, Fred Pearce, Trevor Davies (UEA), Doug Keenan and Steve McIntyre. And IIRC the ‘sceptical’ attendees had to have a whip round to pay Steve’s plane fare, as the Graun. weren’t offering expenses.
So it wasn’t really ‘Steve McIntyre speaking in London’. He was one part of a bigger event.
Here’s the contemporary reportage
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/15/reports-from-the-guardian-climategate-debate/
Fox has left out Taxpayers for Common Sense spokesperson saying it’s another case of the govt picking “winners”. i agree. if it’s wrong for solar & wind, it’s wrong for nuclear:
30 July: Fox News: John Roberts: Mini-nuclear plants the next frontier of US power supply — or the next Solyndra?
A boon to the economy? Or a boondoggle?
That’s the debate raging over a new nuclear technology that — depending on your perspective — is either a game-changer in electrical generation, or a failure-in-the-making that will fleece taxpayers for a half-billion dollars.
The technology, called “small modular reactors,” will be the centerpiece of an entirely new way of thinking about nuclear power…
In his June speech on climate change, President Obama talked about shutting down dozens of older coal plants, which left open the question of how that electricity would be produced…
B&W has taken the lead in the development of SMRs with its mPower design…
TVA was expected to apply for a construction permit last year. But that application has been delayed until 2015 at the earliest.
That’s not the only controversial point with SMR’s. The federal government has pledged more than $500 million to help develop the technology. B&W has so far received $79 million for R&D, with the possibility of an additional $150 million…
That’s not sitting well with the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. It points to the long history of expensive failures in the nuclear industry, backed by 60 years of subsidies.
Ryan Alexander, president of the group, sees the potential for a nuclear version of Solyndra, the solar power company that went belly up after taxpayers poured a half-billion dollars into the company…
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/30/mini-nuclear-plants-next-frontier-us-power-supply-or-next-solyndra/
The ice on which AGW stands seems rotten and while I don’t see an ice free summer any time soon yet, the ice bears of big green are looking at the melting of their slush funds.
I was, however, boggling at the word “whoreject” until I split it into “who reject”. For a moment there …
I couldn’t resist responding to one comment. Here’s the comment:
Robert Lacatena
30 July 2013 6:17pm
This article is nonsense, and a complete distortion of reality. It represents a twisted perspective (Warren’s own?) rather than anything of substance.
Fact: Watts tried to submit his own paper on surface stations and has repeatedly failed to have it accepted (because it is inherently flawed).
Fact: Watts said he would stand by the results of the BEST study, and then when he didn’t like the actual results, he backpedaled and tossed it under his skeptic bus.
Fact: 90% of what Watts posts is scientific nonsense or a gross misrepresentation of real science.
Fact: Watts and skeptic sites have had ZERO IMPACT on the actual science, which is the true measure of the answer to the question posed in this article’s title.
If skeptics are the “true champions of the scientific method,” then where is the evidence? In fact, where is any evidence that they even follow the scientific method themselves?
They don’t engage in science. They engage in name calling and ignorant confusion from the sidelines. They cannot be “champions” of the scientific method because they aren’t even actively involved in science in any tangible way. If they were… you’d know it, because there would be some sort of direct cause-and-effect that you could observe, quantify and use to argue the point.
Here’s my reply:
Mike Alexander Robert Lacatena
31 July 2013 7:24am
Robert L, you wrote:
Fact: Watts tried to submit his own paper on surface stations and has repeatedly failed to have it accepted (because it is inherently flawed).
False. he did eventually get it published in 2011:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD015146/abstract
Fact: 90% of what Watts posts is scientific nonsense or a gross misrepresentation of real science.
Pretty hard to take you serious when you make a 90% claim without backing it up.
If Watts has “ZERO IMPACT” on the “actual science”, then why the vitriolic reaction?
Lewis P Buckingham says (July 30, 2013 at 2:22 pm )
Got it in one.
Yet there is a problem with this strategy related to dividing the market up for targeted advertising. Most articles need to appeal to one group only in order to let the advertisers know who they are talking at.
Conflict doesn’t help – usually they want a uniform target group.
Yet the target group has to be self-sustaining or they will shrink and the group will die – and so will the revenue stream.
The new Guardian echo-box moderation (that denies the opportunity to debate, thanks Dana) has taken the life out of the target group.
It’s infected the whole environment site at the Guardian. For example, look at this exciting story of exploration from the weekend:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/28/explorer-discovers-uncharted-waterfalls-canada
Yet the cynical comments below the story show that the pool of advert-bait must be quite isolated.
Whoreject
Great new word!
The Grauniad is ‘my paper’ (it’s affectionately named that way because, before the era of computerised type-setting, it was famous for its typos in many articles, daily). When I lived in Britain, and when I’ve visited since, it’s the one I buy. It’s left-liberal, or liberal-left, but for Americans those terms don’t convey its position, because for many Americans, anyone or anything ‘left’ of Reagan or Thatcher is almost communist. Sorry, European politics is far more subtle, with many distinctions. The ‘liberal’ part of the description refers to a commitment to open discussion, freedom of speech, debate, and other freedoms. It’s true, The Guardian has made what I consider major errors in its editorial policies (not only on CAGW, but also, for example, on Israel), but I haven’t given up on it. Can anyone name a daily newspaper with which you 100% agree? If yes, maybe you should consider that a transport worker friend of mine (of more than 40 years) refers to The Daily Mail as ‘The Truth’, sarcastically of course. So, at least, The Guardian published on its blog a sceptical article about climate change, with a respectful mention of Anthony and WUWT. That goes with its liberal stance, as described above. We don’t need to go into raging paranoia mode (‘It’s just a trick’), but rather look for ways to continue the discussion.
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….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You nailed it. Here is a fresh example:
Farmers fought NAIS (National Animal Identifcation System) to a stand still.
February 9, 2010 For four years DC Downsizers joined with other organizations and countless farmers to oppose the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).
Finally, the USDA saw the writing on the wall. It is scrapping NAIS!
More realistically:
The war against NAIS then dwindled as people got on with their lives and two years later like a zombie NAIS rises from the dead and becomes Animal ID.
From the USDA website:
Not to worry they will slip in the Commerce Clause making ID within state needed a few years down the road. The major hurtle, getting a framework set-up and persuading people the fight is over and they can turn their attention to other things has been accomplished.
The Elite NEVER GIVE UP they just change the game plan but the goal always remains the same.
Well I have just finished reading the article and every single comment. It is so obvious that the “deniers” and skeptics ( and sceptics ) are interested in the science and what it means while the “warmists” are simply interested in the politics by and large.
It is quite refreshing to see all of the arguments put out in such a public forum but it does whet my appetite for a full on, live, debate between the pro and anti AGW big brains. It really would be the final push that would topple this absolutism into the abyss. Oh and the debate had better cover the silliness of ocean “acidification” at the same time before that becomes the new battle ground between left and right.
Peter Hannan says:
July 31, 2013 at 1:16 am
“The Grauniad is ‘my paper’ (it’s affectionately named that way because, before the era of computerised type-setting, it was famous for its typos in many articles, daily). When I lived in Britain, and when I’ve visited since, it’s the one I buy. It’s left-liberal, or liberal-left, but for Americans those terms don’t convey its position, because for many Americans, anyone or anything ‘left’ of Reagan or Thatcher is almost communist. Sorry, European politics is far more subtle, with many distinctions. The ‘liberal’ part of the description refers to a commitment to open discussion, freedom of speech, debate, and other freedoms.”
In Germany the word “liberal” doesn’t mean leftist at all. It means classical liberalism. So obviously Grauniad readers have hijacked the term for themselves; EXACTLY as the socialist progressives in the US.
I see not much subtlety in that, Peter Hannan.
The Grauniad can best be compared to the hard left German “taz” in my regard. As for subtleties in European policies, well, the UK has the Fabians which control both main parties; now ain’t that subtle – and BBC and Grauniad of course mention the word “Fabian” about two times in a decade.
Quite subtle; much like the more continental Bilderbergers – similar frequency of mentions and no reporting about their meetings on the continent; and just so the US is not forgotten; they have the CFR with 4700 members, and no reporting on the CFR at all.
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.
——————————————————————–
The last paragraph of their article may offer a glimpse of where this might be going.
“The conundrum is that both “sides” (if one can use that term) seem to focus on real science as the arbiter of knowledge claims. In doing so, they risk constricting material policy measures issues of wider public significance than scientific debates about climate change.”
The link to material policy measures goes to here: http://www.academia.edu/3998653/The_Vital_Spark
cn
M Courtney says:
July 30, 2013 at 11:41 pm
“It’s infected the whole environment site at the Guardian. For example, look at this exciting story of exploration from the weekend:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/28/explorer-discovers-uncharted-waterfalls-canada
Yet the cynical comments below the story show that the pool of advert-bait must be quite isolated.”
M Courtney, you do realize that the Grauniad is the natural biome of what would be a typical Green in Germany; and that they all wallow in their conviction that the natural world is collapsing right now all around us? They are atheists and they have constructed their belief in this ongoing collapse to have something to believe in.
Do them a favour and tell them that we’re all going to hell in a handcart; they’ll love it.
It’s eyewash. It’s a one-time event to be trotted out as evidence of “balance” to calm a gullible and uncurious public on those rare occasions when they raise their heads from their iPads, iPhones, and TVs to see what’s going on in the real workd. Nothing has changed.
I agree with this partial quote from the article’s comments. (with some additions)
Variable vested interests, each in itself justified will sustain the fight.
“Mark Eastaugh
31 July 2013 4:45am
This is where you lose the plot.
You don’t NEED a conspiracy when the policy put forward has a whole array of benefits (albeit unrelated to the AGW issue) to a lot of different, highly important groups of people.
1. What government is not going to want embrace a tax/trading system? More revenue, more control. The only reason governments oppose such doctrine is for votes, or because they are (rarely) smart enough to have actually done some medium term economic sums.
2. What financial institution would be against it? Carbon trading desks, exchanges, commission , account fees, huge multi trillion dollar funds sloshing about the planet like ocean tides.
3. What research, institution thirsting for funds, would put up a word of dissent, and risk all that research money and new positions?
4. What multinational organization such as the UN , or the World Bank, could resist such a siren song of power and money?
5. What green organization could rest such a noble cause (saving the world) to enlist to help add to their overflowing coffers?
6. What energy company with a preponderance of gas reserves, or even oil reserves, (seeing the demonization of coal), would decide to stand up and speak against such a fruitful concept.”
I add:
Oil companies would be even more vilified than they are if they overtly spoke out in favor of the status quo.
Plus:
What healthy young adult would not want to become an activist to march and show support and to do their part to end Big Oil’s dirty pollution and heal the planet?
What’s not to like? It has something for everybody.
Kinda makes one wonder how it’s being held back, don’t it?
This is the curse of CAGW … not GW or even AGW.
Me, I don’t think they can stop climate change and I’m not sure if they should try.
cn
WUWT is invited to join the mainstream. Why the surprise and congratulations?The warmists are on the run and are testing the waters for an alliance.
The warmists at the Guardian and the luke-warmists at WUWT and Bishop Hill are both wrong about CO2. They both need an alliance to oppose the non-warmists at Principia Scientific International ( PSI ) and elsewhere.
***
jeez says:
July 30, 2013 at 4:09 pm
I we could stop the posts by Archibald, the credibility here would rise significantly.
***
I’d say there’s a reason for that — to bring out Dr S & others to demonstrate his fallacy.
This may have as much to do with the survival of the Guardian in the light of a steady loss of circulation figures that threatens bankruptcy within two years.
Other publications that have taken a prominent position on CAGW are also losing sales, eg. The New Scientist, which I note has also softened it’s position from a few months ago.
Newspapers that are effectively painting themselves into a corner with their one sided CAGW editorial may find they have nowhere to go once cooling sets in and public opinion undergoes a sea change with it.
I think we will see further attempts to to gradually move editorial into more neutral waters.
Result! I’ve had a marvellous time playing with the alarmist in the comments. So glad you’ve been highlighted.
It appears us skeptics are becoming more assured of our skepticism every day whereas more and more alarmists are looking for a graceful exit.
Eggy_01 says:
July 31, 2013 at 11:07 am
Well played!
Good on you & your mates!
It’s infected the whole environment site at the Guardian. For example, look at this exciting story of exploration from the weekend:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/28/explorer-discovers-uncharted-waterfalls-canada
Yet the cynical comments below the story show that the pool of advert-bait must be quite isolated.
“Lucky for him Niagara has already been discovered…..”
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/30/canoeist-praised-for-changing-the-map-of-canada-after-dramatic-encounter-with-unknown-waterfalls/#comment-982812053
The Grauniad must be looking ahead to the post-CAGW era when the search for the miscreants of CAGW is in full swing. The Grauniad will hope to say ‘It was not anything to do with us; we were very balanced’.
DirkH says:
July 31, 2013 at 4:09 am
“….They are atheists and they have constructed their belief in this ongoing collapse to have something to believe in….”
Dirk I do not know if atheists really fits as a description for the greens. Unless it describes that they are not part of – how to call it? main-street-religions?
I have more the feeling that they are all kind of esoterics, believe in love potions and talismans, believe in Gaya that unites all living beings in one higher spirit, have their kosher food (no meat), kosher energy and so on. It is a complex set of beliefs and rules that is giving birth to a new religion.
Many of us have recognised that it is not possible to rationally convince them when rational conclusion is against their beliefs.
I shouldn’t have read the comments over there – left me very sad for the state of humanity.
“WUWT is invited to join the mainstream. Why the surprise and congratulations?”
Precisely. Warmist gangsterism didn’t worked now it is the honey and cocktail invitation tactic.