by Judith Curry
I suspect that many readers of this blog have already seen Steve McIntyre’s post “IPCC and the Greenpeace Karaoke” that identified Greenpeace as the source of a key recommendation on renewable energy in the recently released IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation.
Such IPCC transgressions are becoming sufficiently regular that they barely seem like news anymore. The reaction of Mark Lynas to McIntyre’s analysis, however, is indeed news IMO.
Mark Lynas
From his Wikipedia bio:
Mark Lynas (is a British author, journalist and environmental activist who focuses on climate change. He is a contributor to New Statesman, Ecologist, Granta and Geographical magazines, and The Guardian and The Observer newspapers in the UK; he also worked on the film The Age of Stupid. He holds a degree in history and politics from the University of Edinburgh.
In 2004, Lynas’ High Tide: The Truth About Our Climate Crisis was published by Macmillan Publishers. He has also contributed to a book entitled Fragile Earth: Views of a Changing World, which presents before-and-after images of some of the natural changes which have happened to the world in recent years, including the Indian Ocean tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, alongside a bleak look at the effects of mankind’s actions on the planet.
In January 2007 Lynas published Gem Carbon Counter,[3] containing instruction to calculate people’s personal carbon emissions and recommendations about how to reduce their impact on the atmosphere.
In 2007 he published Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet, a book detailing the progressive effect of global warming in several planetary ecosystems, from 1 degree to 6 degrees and further of average temperature rise of the planet. Special coverage is given to the positive feedback mechanisms that could dramatically accelerate the climate change, possibly putting the climate on a runaway path. As a possible end scenario the release of methane hydrate from the bottom of the oceans could replicate the end-Permian extinction event.
In 2008 National Geographic released a documentary film based on Lynas’s book, entitled Six Degrees Could Change the World.
So far, Lynas reflects stellar “warm” credentials. Circa 2010, things started to change.
In 2010, Lynas published an article in the New Statesman entitled “Why we Greens Keep Getting it Wrong”[4] and the same year was the main contributor to a UKChannel 4 Television programme called “What the Green Movement Got Wrong.”[5] In these he took a line similar to other right wing critics of environmentalism such as Patrick Moore, Bjorn Lomborg and Richard D. North, explaining that he now felt that several of his previous strongly held beliefs were wrong. For example, he suggested that opposition by environmentalists, such as himself, to the development of nuclear energy had speeded up climate change, that proscription of DDT had led to millions of deaths and that GM crops were necessary to ‘feed the world’.
This latter position was attacked as patronising and naive by some developing world commentators, including one featured in a Channel Four debate after the programme aired. A number of experts also criticised Lynas’s factual errors in contributing to the film. British environmentalist George Monbiot wrote in theGuardian that ‘Brand and Lynas present themselves as heretics. But their convenient fictions chime with the thinking of the new establishment: corporations, thinktanks, neoliberal politicians. The true heretics are those who remind us that neither social nor environmental progress are possible unless power is confronted.’
Reaction to McIntyre’s essay
Lynas has a blog, whose current post is entitled “New IPCC error: renewables report conclusion was dictated by Greenpeace.” Some excerpts:
That release of the full report happened yesterday. And a close reading of it shows that the IPCC has made an error much more serious than the so-called Himalayagate and associated non-scandals last year – it has allowed its headline conclusion to be dictated by a campaigning NGO. Moreover, the error was spotted initially by none other than Steve McIntyre, who has been a thorn in the side of the IPCC and climate science generally for a long time. Yet this time McIntyre has got it right.
So what to conclude? My view is that the IPCC renewables report has told us nothing – except that Greenpeace thinks we can solve the climate change problem entirely with renewable energy, which of course we already knew. But whilst I still hold the hard-science Working Group 1 of the IPCC in very high regard, I have lost a lot of confidence in Working Group 3. That it allowed its headline conclusion to be dictated by a campaigning NGO is an extraordinary failure, and one which cannot simply be forgotten.
The IPCC must urgently review its policies for hiring lead authors – and I would have thought that not only should biased ‘grey literature’ be rejected, but campaigners from NGOs should not be allowed to join the lead author group and thereby review their own work. There is even a commercial conflict of interest here given that the renewables industry stands to be the main beneficiary of any change in government policies based on the IPCC report’s conclusions. Had it been an oil industry intervention which led the IPCC to a particular conclusion, Greenpeace et al would have course have been screaming blue murder.
One last thing: McIntyre points out that the Greenpace propaganda report which has regrettably destroyed the credibility of the IPCC’s effort on renewables contains a preface – written by none other than R. K. Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC itself. I have great respect for Dr Pachauri, as for the IPCC as an institution. I only wish he – and it – would be more careful.
The comments are even more interesting. Some of the Climate Etc. Denizens and other skeptics showed up to comment on Lynas’ blog, presumably steered there by BishopHill. Bob Ward also showed up to criticize Lynas. In the comments, Lynas recommends nofrakkingconsensus. Barry Woods recommends that he read Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion and Climate Etc.(!) Lynas responds:
I haven’t read the Hockey Stick Illusion, but I will if you send me a free copy! Same with Judith Curry – I have seen her being vilified, but I haven’t gone deeply into it.
I posted a link to my latest attribution post, Lynas replied:
Thanks Judith – it’s a long post, but I’ll have a go!
Another of Lynas’ comments:
Hmm, yes, I sort of agree with you. In principle, anyone can call anyone else they disagree with a ‘denier’ and shut down the argument, like you say. I’ve always been uncomfortable with the term, though I have used it admittedly. I did side with Mike Mann on the Hockey Stick thing, without personally having the expertise to really go in and check the argument about statistical methodology. But I have to admit that McIntyre is right about this, and that I and others should have spotted the problem earlier. There should be no campaigners or anyone else with a vested interest on the ‘lead author’ team for any IPCC publication – ever.
Keith Kloor, Andy Revkin and Bishop Hill have posted reactions to Lynas’ post.
JC’s message to Mark Lynas
I’ve been engaging with skeptics since 2006 (before starting Climate Etc., I engaged mainly at ClimateAudit). People were suspicious and wondered what I was up to, but the vilification didn’t start until I recommended that people read The Hockey Stick Illusion. The book itself, plus more significantly my vilification simply for recommending that people read the book, has pushed me over the ledge and into a mode of aggressively challenging the IPCC consensus. That you are willing at this point to read the book speaks volumes to me. It is my sad conclusion that opening your mind on this subject sends you down the slippery slope of challenging many aspects of the IPCC consensus.
Shortly after I started Climate Etc., I received this email message from a colleague:
A few years ago, I started interacting with a skeptic who somehow passed through my “ignore skeptics” filter. He has an engineering degree and is quite knowledgable. My rationale that “all skeptics are troglodytes” has been tattered, and my view of the climate debate has irreversibly changed.
Opening your mind on this subject is a slippery slope into listening to what skeptics have to say. Sure there are alot of crazies out there, but there is some very serious skepticism at ClimateAudit and other technical skeptic and lukewarmer blogs. I look forward to a growing climate heretics club, where people that generally support the IPCC consensus (either currently or in the past) dare to question aspects of it.
I predict that your actually reading the Hockey Stick Illusion and mentioning it on your blog will get you removed from RealClimate’s blogroll.
Thanks, Professor Curry, for this new topic.
It appears to me that the AGW story is coming apart faster than all the politicians and government scientists can glue it back together.
Thanks again for your help in advancing science.
Like Mark Lynas, I too was a far-left liberal supporter of environmentalism until I belatedly realized that I was being manipulated and led to a totalitarian one-world government.
I am not opposed to ending nationalistic boundaries, but I am strongly opposed to totalitarian government.
PS – It may be helpful if you or Mark defined NGO as a non-governmental organization or explain if another definition was intended.
Like Revkin, Lynas
Has fallback role relief.
Concern for the planet.
==============
I object to the notion “it’s Greenpeace and must be wrong”.
That said, the Teske paper is rubbish. The coal-fired power plants that are being build today will still be generating electricity in 2050. The Teske paper assumes rapid improvements in energy efficiency, so newly build power plants must be a substantial share in the energy mix of 2050. 80% renewables by 2050 would require premature scrapping, that is capital destruction — but Teske claims that was not done. The paper is inconsistent.
That study also assumes rapid technological progress in renewables and none in fossil fuels. That is a silly assumption. It seems to use learning rates that originate from single regression models, and would thus suffer from omitted variable bias.
Richard, right on all points AFAICT.
I agree Richard. Saying ‘Its Greenpeace, so it is wrong’ reflexively is not the right approach.
But saying that Greenpeace is an activist organization, and right though its ‘reports’ might me, it would not be included in an policy-neutral academic exercise a la IPCC reports, as has been decided a priori – that is a right approach.
There are enough sources of credible information on energy, peer-reviewed or otherwise that can be approached, without resorting to use of material from advocacy organizations.
The great Bill Hicks put it better: Bill Hicks on artistic roll call (strong language warning)
Richard,
Is it anymore wrong than saying, “It has been at some point touched by money that may have flowed through Exxon-Mobil, therefor it is corrupt?
That’s exactly my point, Hunter. Don’t stoop to the level of some alarmists.
I think it’s more of “it’s Greenpeace and must be ideologically biased”. Biased doesn’t have to be wrong (stopped clocks twice daily and all that), but providing a platform for an advocacy group certainly doesn’t convey a sense of objectivity. It’s pretty tone deaf of the IPCC.
It is far past tone deaf.
It is arrogance, it is classless, it is substance free, and it is wrong.
It is somewhat sad, however, to watch the demise of a once great political organisation like Greenpeace. In the old days surely someone in their ranks would have asked the question “Why are all these resource lobbyists at the IPCC getting behind putting our boy Teske’s paper in lights?” :)
I completely agree. It’s not the man it’s the argument. Provided the special interest is declared so that it’s non- objectivity can be bourne in mind with the arguments I perfectly happy to listen to any well thought through reasoned arguments, whether it’s from the most benighted of green liberal or the most evil of dark oil selling capitalist.
Agreed, to a point. Though would you argue that an IPCC chapter is the place to hear this sort of argument?
Mmm….perhaps not ideally, but provided the special interest advocacy was explicitly declared, I could bear it in mind. Steve McI objections about “self-assessment” not-withstanding mind you….
And let’s see Sven Leske’s CV as posted on Greenpeace’s website
http://www.greenpeace.org/finland/Global/finland/p2/other/…/sven-teske-cv.pdf
1.] Only a Diploma in Engineering. No post-graduate qualifications
2.] No peer reviewed publications seen, in any scientific journals.
3.] Founder and director, Greenpeace Renewable Energy campaign.
By what criteria was he chosen as an IPCC lead author?
And people were making a kerfufffle about Happer’s qualifications to be a reviewer in an earlier thread!
And let’s see what Leske stated about the report
http://www.energyblueprint.info/1327.0.html
The report says
” Sven Teske, Renewable Energy Director from Greenpeace International, and one of the lead authors of the report said: “This is an invitation to governments to initiate a radical overhaul of their policies and place renewable energy centre stage. On the run up to the next major climate conference, COP17 in South Africa in December, the onus is clearly on governments to step up to the mark.”
“The IPCC report shows overwhelming scientific evidence that renewable energy can also meet the growing demand of developing countries, where over two billion people lack access to basic energy services . And it can do so at a more cost competitive and faster rate than conventional energy sources. Governments have to kick start the energy revolution by implementing renewable energy laws across the globe,” Teske said.”
Is this report even worth any of these suggestions?
As soon as I read the word ‘radical’ my eyes glazed over.
According to Scopus, Sven Teske has published 4 papers: Three in Energy Policy (one as second of seven authors; two as fourth of six authors), and one (first-authored) in Energy Efficiency.
Teske therefore does not qualify for a PhD. He should not have been nominated to the IPCC, let alone selected, because he is not an acknowledged expert.
His influence on the report is not likely to be strong, but his inclusion as a lead author is all too indicative of this whole report – and of the unsuitability of the subject for a IPCC report.
If you read Steve McIntyre’s post and the comments, there are many reasons explained also about why the paper also is bad. Some of the comments, as seen from Steve’s blog are
Steve : ” These scenarios don’t have any statistical meaning nor can any likelihood be assigned to them. ”
RC Saumarez : ” Not only do the reports have no statistical meaning, they have no engineering mean, or at least, to those who actually make things work. If these people were proper engineers, they wouldn’t contemplate the solutions they have proposed. They are a bunch of academics who can model and do little else in the real world because they have not, in general, solved real problems. As for Greenpeace, have it got any track record in real world engineering solutions? ”
Doug : “I spent some time looking into the assumptions on natural gas in the scenario. They assume that the price of gas will track the price of oil, and that use of gas in electrical power generation will fall to 1/3 of today’s level. Recent developments in gas production, price, and usage totally contradict their scenario. Shale gas production will soar in the period they looked at. Greenpeace research could be lacking in expertise in this regard.”
Steve MnIntyre : ” I’ve tried to figure out how the wind energy numbers in Teske et al 2010 are calculated. Within the four corners of the article, they seem to materialize out of thin air, as far as i can tell. If anyone can shed light on this calculation, I’d appreciate. Others – please resist the temptation to pile on with complaints. i’m asking the question seriously and am interested in answers.
While attention has been drawn to the scenario because of the Greenpeace connection, the scenario itself seems to be mostly wishful thinking. Anti-science, so to speak.”
These are just some of the comments. So, other than the obvious issue of the author, Greenpeace and IPCC, the report is in the category of bad – worse, written by people who have no practical idea of what they seem to be writing about. For the IPCC to release this document and proclaim in press releases about 80% by 2050 figure, is a travesty and far removed from any scientific or practical merit.
So people, please read the report and see how lousy and unworkable it is.
The point isn’t that ‘it is Greenpeace and must therefore be wrong’, the point is quit different and far more troubling. I quote from Steve McIntyre’s post on his blog:
“It is totally unacceptable that IPCC should have had a Greenpeace employee as a Lead Author of the critical Chapter 10, that the Greenpeace employee, as an IPCC Lead Author, should (like Michael Mann and Keith Briffa in comparable situations) have been responsible for assessing his own work and that, with such inadequate and non-independent ‘due diligence’, IPCC should have featured the Greenpeace scenario in its press release on renewables.”
No more needs to be said about this report, surely!
IPCC chapters should be written by experts. Experts, by definition, contributed to the literature. Self-assessment cannot be avoided.
It should be managed, though.
Here’s the minus first draft of a section in AR5: http://ipccar5wg2ch10.blogspot.com/2011/05/minus-first-draft-on-markets-and.html
I’m the author. I have strong opinions. So, I invited someone who I strongly disagree with but respect to be my co-author. The next draft will be better.
“I’m the author. I have strong opinions. So, I invited someone who I strongly disagree with but respect to be my co-author. The next draft will be better.”
An excellent procedure.
Richard – first part I agree with 100% second part, I don’t see why it MUST be assessed by “someone who I strongly disagree with” only that it be assed by someone who might be able to provide help for any blind spots. There is, in reality, a group appraoch to assessing the literature, but, you are right in that it is a bit more difficult when the person is in the room!
http://mitigatingapathy.blogspot.com/
Sure. You need different perspectives in the group, but you also need to balance personalities. There are plenty of people who only dare to disagree with me when I’m not in the room.
You should offer reviews to people here then. I dare say you wouldn’t have that issue with most of the posters here :-)
Frankly people who can’t disagree with someone to their face are not really that useful in this context.
My contributions to AR5 are open review, right from the start. See:
http://ipccar5wg2ch10.blogspot.com/2011/05/minus-first-draft-on-tourism-and.html
http://ipccar5wg2ch10.blogspot.com/2011/05/minus-first-draft-on-markets-and.html
fantastic. I’ll have a look.
Richard,
Here is my suggestion on how to manage self-assessment. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/13/a-modest-proposal-in-lieu-of-disbanding-the-ipcc/
Ron: That’s a sound plan. Maybe not for the entire report (as there is in fact a lot of consensus), but certainly for a limited number of controversial topics.
Richard,
Certainly there are agreements about many things, but there are also disagreements about many things. Disagreement in one area opens up room for disagreement in others. A sharp divide exists between warmers and lukewarmers/skeptics. Each camp is logically consistent with their own interpretation of the literature (which papers are important, which are rubbish, which data is foundational to a proper view and which is suspect).
I do not see such a sharp divide between lukewarmers and skeptics. If a sharp divide existed between them, I would have proposed three reports.
While the number of principal authors is limited the total effort put to the report is very large. The authors are not paid by IPCC, but they are paid by someone, usually their home institutes, based on the judgment that the outcome is worth the cost. It’s hardly realistic to expect that two parallel comparable processes could be funded in this way. The coordinating lead authors have certainly much influence, but the reports are not written by them, and the total influence of other authors is even larger than that of the coordinating lead authors.
There are certainly also many other ideas on, how the task of IPCC could be redefined and reorganized. My own is here.
You may want to have a look at the discount rate chapter by Arrow and colleagues in IPCC WG3 AR2. They were fighting like cats and dogs until they effectively split the chapter into a majority and minority report (with both sides claiming they were the majority).
Richard,
Are you referring to the discussion on discounting and related matters on my site, or is your comment related in some way to this thread?
I’ll check the report in any case.
Pekka: I referred to Ron’s suggestion for splitting the IPCC reports into a majority and a minority one.
Here are my suggestions for IPCC reform:
http://ideas.repec.org/p/esr/wpaper/wp350.html
Now accepted for publication in Climatic Change.
Richard, very nice paper, i will do a post on this sometime soon.
I’m the author. I have strong opinions. So, I invited someone who I strongly disagree with but respect to be my co-author. The next draft will be better.
That you adopted this policy is laudable. That this policy was something you adopted and not something imposed by the IPCC is troubling.
Except that it’s wrong Viv.
The final arbiters of what goes in are the Co-ordinating Author and Review Editor. So Teske is not his own reviewer. Those making this claim are mistaken.
The central allegation in this little tempest is false.
I won’t hold my breath expecting to see any updates owning up to this.
What is it about “transparency” that the IPCC just can’t see?
Does it translate from english to “invisibility”, or “must not be seen”?
“Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they’re selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources.”
— Pres. Barack Obama, State of the Union Address, 2011
I wonder if Obama gets his information from Greenpeace. It wouldn’t surprise me.
huxley,
Don’t confuse “renewable” with “clean”.
Obama’s definition of clean includes a huge amount of energy from natural gas, much of it from shale.
I think that’s a great idea, but I somehow doubt that Greenpeace has bought into that.
Having absolutely no more respect for Rajendra Kumar Pachauri (doctorate in industrial engineering and economics, not in any “hard” science at all, much less atmospheric physics, meteorology, or climatology) than I do for any other con artist, I’m of the considered opinion that this latest in the long succession of gaffes, blunders, screw-ups, and manifestations of political corruption, incompetence, and pure rot in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change supports abolishing the IPCC out of hand, blacklisting the officers and other employees of the Panel to prevent them from ever again working for (or presenting themselves before) the United Nations, and declaring a moratorium on further U.N. consideration of global climate change for a period equal to that of the previous existence of the IPCC, which was first established in 1988.
This would mean that the U.N. apparatchiki would have to keep their noses out of this area of investigation and discussion until sometime in the year 2034.
That ought to give the honest scientists working in this area sufficient breathing space to consider the reality of climate change – however that change is actually driven – without the corrosive influence of the IPCC’s political corruption and flaming stupidity.
@Rich: A beautifully harsh, and honest statement of an appropriate solution.
I’m curious, how much respect do you think he has for you?
Obviously you don’t have a doctorate in the hard sciences. If you have a doctorate at all, you haven’t mentioned it.
It does nothing to progress the discussion or to achieve respect for your various laments about the current system when you direct abusive and dismissive rhetoric at highly accomplished people whether it be Pachauri, Mann, Hansen, or Trenberth.
You can disagree with people — I often disagree with Dr. Curry — without being rude and abusive.
Someday, if deniers decide to direct their energies towards doing actual science, you might have spokespeople of similar accomplishments, and wouldn’t you want them to be treated with respect?
highly accomplished people whether it be Pachauri, Mann, Hansen, or Trenberth.
I almost choked over that one. Haven’t seen a more disreputable rogues gallery lineup in a long time.
Robert, and that list,linked forever by the magic of the internet.
A marriage made in irony.
Regarding my considered lack of respect for IPCC bureaucrat Rajendra Kumar Pachauri (doctorate in industrial engineering and economics, not in any “hard” science at all, much less atmospheric physics, meteorology, or climatology), at 10:17 PM on 15 June we have Robert asking first:
…the answer being, of course, no more than any other con artist has for someone he’s trying to gull, cully, and diddle. Then Robert stupidly and without support speculates::
Bachelor of science in Biology, doctorate in medicine, board certification in family practice, buncha CME credit (some of it as faculty), the usual stuff for a career primary care grunt.
But then, of course, there’s the homely old saying that one doesn’t have to be a hen to know when an egg is rotten. The “climate science” of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) contention has reeked so pungently since it first started stinkin’ up the joint thirty years ago that it’s hard for anybody with any kind of education in scientific method (or experience in peer-reviewed scientific publication) to avoid full appreciation of just how completely bogus it is.
How much does it “progress the discussion” to evade address of the methodological and ethical failings of the AGW caliphate and instead insist that only people who’ve committed themselves to the orthodoxy in the caliphate’s taxpayer-funded madrasahs are permitted to speak on this subject?
I will “address abusive and dismissive rhetoric” at arrogant fraudsters like Pachauri because such abuse is more than sufficiently warranted by his conduct, including not only his failures as an administrator of what passes itself off as a scientific investigative body (let’s not forget “Glaciergate” as well as the recent exposure of the Panel’s “karaoke” peddling of Greenpeace propaganda) but also his persisting refusal to eschew the issuance of policy recommendations he knows full well are predicated upon unvalidated climate models and deliberately corrupted observational data.
As for “Mann, Hansen, or Trenberth,” Robert, anybody less familiar than I with your fellah True Believer behavior in these online fora might assume you had your “sarc\” button on when you recited that “Most Wanted” list of unindicted co-conspirators in the great AGW fraud.
The only “deniers left in these exchanges, Robert, are either blindly faithful to a completely blown and unsupported hoax or enemies of society whose vested interest in the perpetuation of this criminal duplicity induces ’em to keep on lying no matter how completely their bunko scam has been exposed.
Which are you,Robert? A religious zealot, or a plain, old-fashioned flim-flam man?
Robert’s the sort of person who believes he can change the diagnosis by an exercise of the will. You’ve known doctors like that. They should be kept as far away from the ill and injured as is humanly possible.
==============
I was actually looking forward to this IPCC report in the hope that it would help me on deciding whether to install a auxiliary photovoltaic electric power system for a house I hope to buy in the near future. Extensive (and hidden?) Greenpeace involvement in the authorship of this report doesn’t say much for the report’s credibility, On the other hand, has anyone actually read the report and commented on it’s technical merits? I expect to dive in some time today and start doing my own checking, but who knows how long it will take to get through this monster!
Well good look and report back with your findings, i must confess i don’t quite have the stomach to do so myself at present. I have far more pressing matters to attend to than reading a greenpeace op ed.
Like cleaning the house ;-)
OMG Greenpeace!!…..segue into hysterical fear-mongering.
OMG Tiljander!!…. segue into hysterical laughter.
Someone else who has no idea.
Looking in the mirro are you?
OMG
Linzden,Carter,Plimer!!……..segue into hysterical fear-mongering.
There’s a widespread misconception that, like in computer technology, huge technological advances can be made in the fields of power generation and energy efficiency – all it takes is the political will to set the wheels in motion.
But that simply is not going to happen – there are some pretty hard and fast physical boundaries. and, unlike computer technology, we’re talking about very mature technological areas, in which all the low-hanging fruit has long ago been picked.
@Peter317: The same limits apply to EXISTING computer technology.
Although, we are getting close to knowing how to replace current PROGRAMMING technology if not current computing hardware. And we may not need to abandon current computing hardware if the new programming model succeeds.
Greenpeace
Well they do know how to dispose of waste products,throw them at people,so I guess they know something about science.
heh. Very good.
They also sell the same in great quantities for great profit.
Dr Curry –
Opening your mind on this subject is a slippery slope into listening to what skeptics have to say.
I look forward to a growing climate heretics club, where people that generally support the IPCC consensus (either currently or in the past) dare to question aspects of it.
I predict that your actually reading the Hockey Stick Illusion and mentioning it on your blog will get you removed from RealClimate’s blogroll.
i have never questioned your ethics, honesty or intent wrt climate science – or anything else. Nor will I do so now – but others certainly will. It will be interesting to see how many blogrolls you are removed from. :-)
For what it’s worth, both my wife and I found your words in this post to be funny, serious, truthful, consistent with the practice of honest science and something that NEEDED to be said. Thank you.
Well, it is more interesting to see which blogrolls I’ve never landed on, including RealClimate
Dr Curry –
I doubt that you missed anything important.
IF I ever get around to blogging, you’ll be there.
Maybe they are not interested in your petulant sniping.
But Michael is interested in it.
Oh they’re interested in it all right, Gavin shows up here within seconds of any comments or post that involve him or Mann. They apparently view my site as full of “misinformation” which is why they dropped Pielke Jr from their blogroll. So at this point, I regard not being on their blogroll as a badge of honor for Climate Etc.
It’s likely, I must agree. Whether or not it happens, I predict (but will never know) that RC will consider it.
I hope Mr Lynas does read “The Hockey Stick Illusion” (HSI). He may be surprised to learn just how often Mr McIntyre has been correct in the past, too. The impact that HSI had upon me was similar to the impact on me that Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” had. In their respective communities – scientific/ideological and religious/ideological – these books have some notable equivalences.
I’ve noted before that each of these disparate communities’ reactions to their relevant books (HSI and GD) is also strikingly similar – those who are less confident in their ideologies, or suspect that there is more to know, and who are most wedded to their dogmas, are the most highly resistant to the propagation of these books. They will not acknowledge their existence, will absolutely NEVER read them, and will vilify any and all who suggest that these books may have merit. Judith is a prominent example of such a heretic, but is by no means the only example of a scientist on the receiving end of an ex-communication order.
It’s also noteworthy that the flow between “believer” and “sceptic”, in both communities, is also almost exclusively one-way – from believer to sceptic rather than from sceptic to believer. The term “denier”, as well as the noted disparaging overtones and impact upon the debate, is also not representative of the sceptic’s typical acknowledgement of the “uncertainty monster” (h/t Judith for the term), which is more agnostic than atheistic/denier – that the truth is that we do not know. An assertion of special knowledge in the absence of supporting observational evidence, or with wanton disregard for (or concealment of) inherent uncertainties, is specifically a religious proclamation – gnosticism – and is fundamentally anti-scientific.
Citation needed.
I think you may be suffering from recall bias. Just for example, Slate recently ran a piece on a denier who changed his mind completely. The money quote, as I recall, was “I was defeated by the facts.”
Here’s a link to a different article about that guy: http://www.frumforum.com/confessions-of-a-climate-change-convert
Note –
almost exclusively one-way – from believer to sceptic rather than from sceptic to believer.
Learn to read what’s written rather than what you want to be written.
Jim, I think you posted one of your daily affirmations on the blog by mistake.
I’m sure JC will remove it for you if you ask nicely.
Yes, Robert – it was an affirmation of your inability to read the written word. Say “thank you”.
But unfortunately, I understood it correctly and you got it wrong.
So you’ve thrown up another couple of off-topic posts only to be spanked by me, again, without my even having to try.
Thanks for the laugh. G’night.
Oh, you don’t know what almost means. That figures.
I think Robert actually, really, seriously believes he wins these little exchanges. Amazing.
LC –
Not only that, but Robert apparently has a “spanking” fixation. I’ve known a several people with that particular mental aberration. Never known one who was mentally or emotionally balanced.
Took me a minute to figure out how to say that “nicely”. I think next time I won’t bother.
Thank you, Robert. I was thinking specifically of Tucker when I posted. This, Robert, is a perfect example of religious witnessing. Every time I’ve suggested that there is a flow away from the religion of catastrophic AGW, someone quickly points me to this very same post by Tucker as if this defeats my point or proves me wrong. The same Tucker post, every time. :)
This discourse sounds altogether too much like two religions bantering.
Too few scientists understand statistics, probability and logic. Or they would understand that they have not made their case scientifically speaking, in a rhetorically defensible manner — and that without purging the existing models and personnel who have discredited the movement, that the hard work by the next generation cannot continue.
To argue that we need a cleaner world is one thing. To argue that you’ve proven something scientifically such that it is persuasive enough to convince a population to bear material financial and behavioral costs is something altogether different.
1) The first bar of science is measurement. 2) The second bar is a theory of causal relations. 3) The third bar of science is repeatability. 4) The fourth bar is falsification. 5) The fifth bar is rational exposition.
The very REASON that we use science in public discourse is to demand that one person alter his beliefs, expectations and plans, due to the evidence presented, in order to prevent involuntary transfers of property between individuals or groups, or to concentrate property behind collective objectives for the purpose of collective benefit. There is no other reason for public discourse.
Science can measure some aspects of climate sciences. But it has only met the first bar. And it is not ready to command involuntary transfers on concepts still open to speculation.
I’m all for criticizing economists and philosophers but at least we recognize that there are fools in every discipline.
This:
“Too few scientists understand statistics, probability and logic”
Bears repeating.
As is typical in politically charged environments, people tend to focus more on the issue of bias than the issue of competence. Regardless of how one feels about the bias revealed in the latest incest between Greenpeace and the IPCC, the organization is once again shown to be incompetent.
Whether from GP or WE it does not matter.
What matters is how it is presented. To this Joe Sixcase, the IPCC has once again decided that I cannot reason for myself, so I must be “sold” something.
Christ, when are you guys gonna grow up and act like adults?!?!?!?
The effect a work like the Hockey Stick Illusion can have can have in opening minds, is the precise reason the left tries so hard to stifle dissent. The best way to keep people in line is to limit their access to information. If you can’t kill the messenger with net neutrality and and other progressive regulations designed to inhibit speech, then use ridicule and vilify the opposition. Heritage, Cato, the Pope Center for Higher Education, Fox News, Limbaugh, anyone who disseminates a perspective threatening to the progressive movement has to be made off limits to the faithful.
The danger of people like Limbaugh and Beck is not their personal opinions, but their place as mainstream outlets for conservative thought. Heritage, Cato or the Pope Center can put out a paper, and their readers may number in the tens of thousands at best. But let Limbaugh mentions such a study, and it becomes part of the national conversation. Progressive activists rant about about Beck’s histrionics. But he does a show on Hayek, and The Road to Serfdom goes to the top of the Amazon best seller list. That is why he is really so hated.
If the Hockey Stick Illusion can so drastically change minds, imagine if rank and file progressives start reading The Road to Serfdom, God and Man at Yale, Radical Son, Liberal Fascism and other conservative books. Oh the horror! The Horror!
You’re as bad as Oliver with his solar obsession. At least that is related to the climate.
This is not “Redstate — Climate Change Annex.” Your hatred of this caricature of the left you’re repeating ad nauseum or love for the discredited hard right fringe is totally and completely beside the point.
Your hatred of this caricature of the left you’re repeating ad nauseum</i
What "caricature"? I know the people Gary's talking about. They're on my Facebook page.
or love for the discredited hard right fringe
Where would I find that hard right fringe – do you have names? Addresses? Why do you think they’re “discredited” anyway? Do they know that?
is totally and completely beside the point.
Then why are you talking about it?
AMNESTY FOR LYNAS.
Only 2 conditions:
1) He removes all his “denier hall of shame” stuff.
2) He shuts up in public and repents in private.
At 9:21 PM on 15 June, Jack Hughes sets two conditions before “amnesty” can be conferred upon Lynas:
‘
Nonsense. The model was set years ago by Joanne Nova.
First, he re-titles that stuff “Skeptics’ Hall of Fame.”
Second, he speaks in public – forcefully and with conviction – his own skepticism and his rage at the AGW fraudsters who have gulled him, repenting nothing other than the fact that he allowed them to sucker him for so long.
If this isn’t a “road to Damascus” moment for Lynas, it oughta be.
I suddenly have the sense that things are cracking wide open. The MSM will pick up the “snoozing sun” story because they have a hunger for the apocalyptic . That’s what’s kept the AGW narrative moving along and it might well be what derails it. Attracting readership is the bottom line and in the end it trumps politics…
When the NYT’s picks it up, and I think they must, that might very well be the death knell for the warming movement. Or at least the beginning of the end…
But there’s something else going on…The slow opening of minds as per Dr. C’s post. I think some of this is a result of the increasingly absurd weather attribution attempts. Even many of the greenies are disgusted. And could the IPCC shoot be any more self-destructive..Not celebrating yet, but encouraged. There are some real heroes scattered among the many villains in this sad story, including Dr. J. Curry.
I see it the exact opposite. If the sun is indeed heading into a prolonged deep sleep, AGW goes to the front burner. The burner ExxonMobil buys for it.
I agree, pokerguy.
[I’ll bet you’re darn good in poker, too]
I thought I saw the cracks developing several weeks ago, when astronomy discussion sites stopped deleting my comments.
These cracks became a meltdown this week when the American Astronomical Society announced on Tuesday, “Sun’s fading spots signal big drop in solar activity”:
http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower-solar-activity-solar-cycle.html
The announcement apparently had to be cleared by top government leaders and scientists, including the US National Academy of Sciences, and probably President Obama himself.
Why else was there the report last week that a “Major Result on the Sunspot Cycle to be Announced Tuesday” of next week?
http://www.space.com/11936-sun-weather-sunspot-cycle-announcement-preview.html
Hey Ollie, when will the sun wake up?
Dr. Curry
Do you have an opinion on the Journal Energy Policy and if so willing to express it? May be out of your field or interests but you might have noticed at Keith’s place your name came up as a possible barometer of reliability. .
It is always nice to see someone’s mind opened, but to be opened it must have been closed to begin with.
One reason that skeptic’s arguments are so powerful is that the skeptic must have an understanding of that which he is skeptical whereas the “believer” need only live within the party line. This is why the “believers” consistently loose debates with skeptics, they only know one side of the story whereas the skeptic just by being skeptical must know both sides of the argument. When you are only half informed it very difficult to be as convincing as someone fully informed. It also helps to have reality on your side as opposed to “projections”.
Perhaps this is why so many believers refuse to engage skeptics, they are afraid their minds will be opened….talk about denial.
Unfortunately, deniers are not skeptical in this sense, so it doesn’t really apply. Unquestioning and fanatical belief in the tenants of psuedoskepticism is absolutely mandatory, or the mob you are leading will turn on you. Look what happened to poor Richard Mueller when he tried displaying the bare minimum of integrity.
“Skeptics” have lost and continue to lose the argument overwhelmingly with scientists, and lose heavily among the educated. They prosper where carpet-chewing fanatics selling paranoia and populist rage have always prospered — among people with little education and an ideological predisposition to believe based on their cultural self-identification.
Look what happened to poor Richard Mueller when he tried displaying the bare minimum of integrity.
AFAIK, there’s nothing terribly wrong with Muller’s integrity – unless you’re listening to the alarmist blogs.
They prosper where carpet-chewing fanatics selling paranoia and populist rage have always prospered — among people with little education and an ideological predisposition to believe based on their cultural self-identification.
Golly, you must be a genius. Nobody here ever observed this.
And now, some reality — Try reading the denizen’s thread and/or keeping up with JC’s commentary of her readership and the influence it wields. Skeptics by and large are well educated, usually with technical degrees of varying stripes.
I find your posts boring. At least try to be original. If I had a dime for every time I’ve heard a variation on the dumb bible thumping NASCAR loving sister chasing mouth breathing redneck deniers….
‘boring’
….couldn’t agree more.
“fanatics selling paranoia …
That’s pretty rich. The paranoia we hear today, at every turn, is from warmists, excuse me, climate change, fanatics telling us that every turn of the weather is another harbinger of doom. Who’s selling paranoia?
“Skeptics” have lost and continue to lose the argument overwhelmingly with scientists, and lose heavily among the educated. They prosper where carpet-chewing fanatics selling paranoia and populist rage have always prospered — among people with little education and an ideological predisposition to believe based on their cultural self-identification.
1. Seems to me that the tide of public opinion is swinging the sceptical way..and will continue to do so. Especially while the ‘scientists’ involved are incapable/unwilling to condut their affairs in ways that the external world considers show their integrity and honesty. Nobody likes a bunch of shysters…and if the IPCC aren’t such they certainly don;t go out of their way to demonstrate their innocence
2. Read ‘the ‘denizens’ thread here, and see how many have had successful careers in science and engineering outside the activist/academic bubble.
3. How is ‘there’s nothing much to really worry about – despite what the self-serving propagandists tell you” – paranoia? Please explain. Because ‘we’re all going to fry in a fiery hell unless you all do exactly what we tell you’ looks a lot more like paranoia to me.
““Skeptics” have lost and continue to lose the argument overwhelmingly with scientists, and lose heavily among the educated. They prosper where carpet-chewing fanatics selling paranoia and populist rage have always prospered — among people with little education and an ideological predisposition to believe based on their cultural self-identification.”
Ignorance and profound political hatred are your motivations with many of the nonsense assumptions about your tribal group being more “intelligent” as the basis of shouting down dissent. Are thousands of earth scientists, engineers and peoples of many fields who dissent “uneducated”??
There was a tiny block of largely leftist inclined, after years of filtering, that managed to control the horrid ar4 conclusions and wording. It was hardly an overwhelming “consensus” and it would have been little noticed without the in-the-tank media operatives and substantial “ideology” of the eco-left, statist agenda which is your self-identification.
Only one tribe has the distinct pattern of at least a closely equal population “stupid” as a habit of achieving political results. While both offensive and irrational it is unmoving and has long since been debunked.
“I see it the exact opposite. If the sun is indeed heading into a prolonged deep sleep, AGW goes to the front burner. The burner ExxonMobil buys for it.”
Don’t misunderstand sir, AGW will be on the front burner as you call it for a very long time, but not in the way you mean. It will be discussed and dissected for generations to come as the great science blunder of the modern age.
“How could this have happened?” children will ask their grandparents in wonderment. “Is it really true the schools were teaching that CO2, the trace gas necessary for life, and which we want in great abundance to keep the earth green, is a dangerous pollutant?”
And they’ll ask, “is it really true that the experts were warning on the very eve of the new “little ice age” that it was instead going to get dangerously hot?”
“I know it seems incredible” the grandparents will say. But such is the folly of man.”
I don’t feel qualified to judge WG3 transgressions, but the relationship between alternative energy sources (nuclear plus renewable) and mitigation is an important topic that needs to be addressed rationally – whether there are enough experts to do that who are free of self-interest is an open question.
One of the critical issues is the level of cost effectiveness that would make alternatives competitive with fossil fuel sources on a scaled up basis. How competitive must that be? I would suggest that substantial mitigation would be possible if alternatives became competitive not with fossil fuels at their current level of availability, but rather with the cost of fossil fuels as they become scarcer and more difficult to extract. The difference between the easily extractable coal, oil, and possibly gas reserves and the total amount of those resources presumed to exist underground is enormous. If only the resources that can be extracted inexpensively are consumed, we might anticipate only a modest increase in global temperatures, with relatively little risk of the most severe harm, whereas if less accessible reserves are tapped, the increase could be much greater, with much more serious adverse consequences. Advances in alternative energy technology that make it unprofitable to incur large costs for fossil fuels might have significant benefits even if the technology failed to discourage consumption of easily available resources. This would apply particularly to coal, less to oil, and even less to natural gas, although it would be desirable to minimize each of these to the extent practical.
It’s worth noting that the most inexpensive alternatives to fossil fuels are conservation and increased energy efficiency, but technological advances in alternative energy sources will also be needed for optimal mitigation.
Fred,
Mitigation is something you refer to as if it well established and proven.
I am unaware of either being the case. It is not even clear if mitigation is achievable, helpful or without great harm.
Can you clarify why you seem to think otherwise regarding mitigation?
Thanks,
Fred,
The great thing is that we don’t even need to wonder when an alternative energy source becomes economically viable. We’ll know because people will stop calling it “alternative”. In fact, if solar, wind, wave etc even get remotely close we’ll all know because some clever capitalist will fund the final big push all by themselves out of pure greed.
A similar big push recently happened with the iPad. When the iPad was designed, the required tech such as screens and batteries was nowhere cheap enough to offer the product for $500 and still make a profit. As the alt energy crowd likes to say, it existed but needed to be cost reduced through massive scale. Apple saw an opportunity to get the drop on a new market and commited to over 10 million units. That’s enough to get suppliers to build factories just for you and they did.
If alt energy ever gets remotely close to viable the same thing will happen all on its own because energy is a huge opportunity. Until then alt-e will remain the exclusive playground of those spending other people’s money with no need to ever demonstrate viability.
I take it that you’re assuming that the current furious and desperate Greenie campaign to suppress frak gas technology’s use will be successful? There is no other possible justification for your claim and assumption that the costs and availability of hydrocarbon energy will “become scarcer and more difficult to extract” in the relevant semi-foreseeable future (several decades to a couple of centuries).
NOTHING will be able to compete on a cost basis with frak gas for electrical generation if it is fully accessed (and the finds in Asia and North Africa etc. are gargantuan enough to put that beyond any interference by Green-crats.)
(Possible exception to the cost comparison: if LPPhysics.com succeeds in perfecting its mini DPF-fusion generator for open global licensing in the planned next 5 yrs. or so, all bets are off. Costs drop 90%+, fast.)
Substituting natural gas for coal would in theory result in an immediate 40% reduction in CO2 emissions per unit energy produced. However, there are till problems with shale oil gas extraction, including environmental dangers from the frakking process and the release of fugitive methane into the atmosphere, where it warms at a rate about20-30 times that of CO2. If these concerns can be adequately addressed, (and they will add to the cost), natural gas will become an important transitional energy source for an economy run principally on alternative energy, with some residual fossil fuel utilization as needed.
I agree that some environmentalist objections to shale gas extraction are exaggerated, but some are justified on the basis of current practices. I don’t see any reason, however, why the extraction process can’t be improved – at least in the U.S. Whether the necessary improvements would be implemented elsewhere is more uncertain.
Fred,
There are allegations of frakkiing problems, and these allegations only lack evidence to be valid.
All we are really witnessing irt frakking environmental problems is how environmental extremists relentless repeat untruths until they are accepted as true in the public square.
It is a tactic NGO’s are very experienced with,and know how to profit from.
At 12:20 PM on 16 June, hunter states that:
Insofar as I’ve been able to determine, hydraulic fracturing (“frakking”) has been used in oil and natural gas extraction since about 1947. The only new twist on this technology has come in the form of dirigible horizontal drilling once oil- and gas-bearing deep shale has been reached, combined with low-power explosive fractional perforation (“perfing”) of the cement casing within the horizontal bores before initiating hydraulic fracturing of the rock to achieve permeability sufficient to make extraction efficient.
This means that shallow aquifers (from which potable water is extracted) need only be penetrated a few times – with extremely wide spacing between such vertical bores – to get down into oil- and gas-bearing deep rock, and through that vertical shaft the equivalent of many, many individual wells can be brought into production.
I think of it as the equivalent of laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Small penetrations of the belly, much work done all over the peritoneal cavity, and then two or three Band-Aids on the skin as dressings.
If the vertical bore’s cementing is undertaken scrupulously, there is actually less risk of environmental adverse effects with “frakking.”
Apparently the idiot environmentalists look at the list of ingredients in hydraulic fracturing fluid (mostly, it’s a slurry of water and sand) and go nuts over the lesser components, the most toxic of which are petroleum distillates – in other words, stuff that’s already in the crude oil and shale to begin with.
This is purest Ned Ludd stupidity in action.
As for the horror stories about tap water containing enough natural gas to give off flames when a match is waved over it, in most of those household artesian wells, that methane was in the aquifer (and flammable in the drinking water) long before any “frakking” had been done anywhere around the supposedly “injured” parties.
More weaseling tricks of the media root weevils and the plaintiff’s bar. Is anybody surprised at that?
Fred –
However, there are till problems with shale oil gas extraction, including environmental dangers from the frakking process and the release of fugitive methane into the atmosphere
If you’re still using the Howarth/Cornell paper for that information, you should know that his numbers/information were just as bad as I indicated in a previous thread. There was a US EIA report that cut him off at the knees as well as a paper by Matt Ridley over at GWPF. And, I believe, a report by the UK government which I haven’t seen.
Jim – Escape of fugitive methane into the atmosphere is universally acknowledged. The magnitude is controversial, with Howarth citing larger figures than some other sources. I read the Matt Ridley article, and my main conclusion from the views expressed on all sides is that more information is needed, and that better methods to reduce fugitive emissions are also needed.
As you can gather from my comments, I am not opposed to shale gas extraction, but the environmental dangers are real, not invented, and the same appllies to fugitive emissions.
Fred –
There are things we can agree on – and then there are the “others”. Let’s start with the latter.
First is that the Howarth paper is (and I’ll be blunt here ) – crap. It’s written with one purpose in mind – to make the drilling industry look as bad as possible. There’s a reason it took more than one attempt and several years to get published. You’d think he could have improved his numbers if he had any interest in being “scientific”. He cites “larger numbers” than ANY other source – and then mishandles the numbers as well. Note – the movie “Gasland” is even worse than the Howarth paper – it flat out lies.
Now for the “former” – there are ALWAYS environmental problems with ANY mining or drilling operation. But the “fugitive emissions” are not nearly as large as have been quoted in some quarters. The numbers quoted by Howarth, for example, would negate the purpose in drilling – the profit margin is not that large that that level of loss would be acceptable – or viable. That’s not a technical or environmental judgment, but a “business” imperative.
In any case, you say – my main conclusion from the views expressed on all sides is that more information is needed and I wouldn’t disagree with that. But – this technique has been used for at last 60 years, possibly more. AFAIK, it falls under the regulatory purview of at least 3 Federal agencies, and has had no more problems than any other extraction industry. Given that and the sudden interest in shutting it down, the only viable conclusion is that it’s been made into a political issue by …. Now who would you imagine would want to do that?
Finally, the environmental dangers are real – but of far less magnitude than you’ve apparently become convinced. At least in the US, Canada and possibly the EU.
The rest of the world is another story. But at this point, you’re NOT gonna stop the Chinese or others from extracting it. It’s their way out of the “oil dependence” as well as ours. And it may be that they’ll start building gas fired power plants instead of the massive number of coal-fired plants that they have in their 10 year plan. It’s also the road to cheap energy for a lot of other Third World nations, so stopping the process in this country would be economic suicide.
BTW – the IPCC discussion thread is interesting because the latest blast from them assumes – no nuclear, no gas. Which is, frankly, stupid. And which nails it down as a Greenpeace /far-left environmental pipedream.
In Texas there is a backlash against shale gas. The state where everybody’s Grandma used to date a wildcatter. These people are about as Greenie as charcoalie.
And cowboys don’t get along with sheepherders.
Fred
As fossil fuels become harder to extract then they will become more expensive and other sources of energy will become more attractive. That is simple economics and a fact of life. What many object to is the use of taxes, subsidies and levies to artifically bring forward that moment, especially when they are not convinced of the evidence that is used as justification..
I hate to say it, but I think you all are getting your panties in a wad over nothing. None, not one, of the authors of the “Greenpeace” Scenario are authors of the SRREN report, which can be found here.. Steve, as he so often does, conflated issues and made a mountain out of a molehill. I have difficulty in seeing the issue here. They headlined a scenario which could keep us below the politically agreed upon goal of 450ppm and 2C total warming, a target which, AFAIK has no solid scientific support. I haven’t had time to read the SPM, much less the full report, but just on the surface it does seem as though Steve’s charges, and Lyna’s echoing of those charges, is a bit misplaced.
“On a global basis, it is estimated that RE accounted for 12.9% of the total 492 Exajoules (EJ)5 of primary energy supply in 2008 (Box SPM.2) (Figure SPM.2). The largest RE contributor was biomass (10.2%), with the majority (roughly 60%) being traditional biomass used in cooking and heating applications in developing countries but with rapidly increasing use of modern biomass as well.”
In what was does burning dung and firewood cut back on GHG emissions?
Are the authors brain dead?
“Happily, the experts at the Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) have the answers: wood is a biomass fuel and, “when burned, these fuels release only the amount of carbon dioxide that they absorbed when growing. Wood from a sustainable source, where replanting matches harvesting, will not cause a net increase of CO? in the atmosphere, so won’t contribute to climate change”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/gardenprojects/3531246/Green-fuel-that-grows-on-trees.html
Is insanity catching?
It’s a lot, when a Greenpeace employee is a lead author of a IPCC report, reviewing his own work.
Of course, we don’t expect you to find anything wrong with it, as you never find anything wrong with any of the shenanighans of the team. You and Nick Stokes defend every misdoing and defend the indefensible, as always. So what’s new?
Between your words and Steve McIntyre’s words, we know whom to believe always and the clue is it’s not you.
Except that he was one out of 120 working on the report (one of 12 on the chapter) and that the report went through several rounds of external review see here. This hardly seems like “reviewing one’s own work”.
BTW, did you read the SPM? I did, it took me about an hour, with time out to fix lunch, watch some interesting holes at the US Open and answer a couple of emails. Most of the SPM does not deal with the mitigation potentials of the various scenarios. If the take home message of the report is supposed to be “we can stay below 450, but it’s going to take a lot of work” (which I personally don’t believe can be done), then it makes sense to highlight a scenario which shows a path to doing it in the press release. Remember, Steve is primarily complaining about a piece of PR. If he has specific complaints about the report, then let him make them, but if his complaint is about the employer of one of the 120 authors who participated in this report, well that is just silly.
then we will hear no more about how wicked it is for people who may have spoken to Exxon Mobil, or worked on a report for the Koch brothers years ago, or got money from an org that got money from an oil company anymore?
One of the most telling things about the whole alarmist mind set to be gleaned from the above post is this comment from Mark Lynas “..I did side with Mike Mann on the Hockey Stick thing, without personally having the expertise to really go in and check the argument about statistical methodology. ..”
So he didn’t understand McIntyre’s obviously well founded and serious criticisms, and most certainly didn’t get a convincing plain language rebuttal / counter-explanation from Mann (as none is possible beyond the usual obfuscation or appeals to authority), and yet continued to fight Mann’s corner.
Lynas does, however, rise above many of his peers in that it has dawned on him that understanding of who is right and who is wrong in the Hockeystick wars might actually advanced by reading an accessible account of the sceptic’s side (the HSI), so kudos there. I can only hope that his coming conversion makes him the ex-alarmist equivalent of he annoyingly evangelical ex-smoker/ ex-meat eater.
I know it’s obvious to denier-believers, but just to humor the rest of us, did he ever get around to writing those up and getting them through peer review? Or is he just one of many impotent “skeptics” complaining out of swollen lips about the beating he received from the business end of the Hockey Stick?
There is a list of Steve McIntyre’s publications on Climate Audit
This one seems relevant to your question:
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf
LOL……Always look before you leap, Robert.
Priceless.
It’s the only one.
They also got something in E&E…… which says it all.
Silence since.
“Silence since”.
Except for:
“Proxy inconsistency and other problems in millennial paleoclimate re constructions”
Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, PNAS, 2009
“Improved Methods for PCA-Based Reconstructions: Case Study Using the Steig et al. (2009) Antarctic Temperature Reconstruction”
O’Donnell, Lewis, McIntyre and Condon, American Met Soc, 2011
“Panel and multivariate methods for tests of trend equivalence in climate data series”
Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre and Chad Herman, Atmospheric Science Letters, 2010.
:)
And O’Donnell et. al, 2010, with authors as Ryan O’Donnell, Nic Lewis, Steve McIntyre and Jeff Condon, which demolished Steig et. al. 2009
Yes, it says it all. About dogma and supression that does not allow any dissenting findings, which dilute the message.
Michael,
You are not really very good at this.
But please do continue.
The fun is watching you act like you are actually advancing your cause.
McIntyre business:
What the puck is in the net?
Broken hockey stick.
============
Before commenting on the IPCC press release, I thought it might be a good idea to read it.
The press release leads with this:
“Abu Dhabi, 9 May 2011 – Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.”
Reading further in the press release, I see:
“While the scenarios arrive at a range of estimates, the overall conclusions are that renewables will take an increasing slice of the energy market.”
“The most optimistic of the four, in-depth scenarios projects renewable energy accounting for as much as 77 percent of the world‘s energy demand by 2050 … ”
” … the lowest of the four scenarios seeing renewable energy accounting for a share of 15 percent in 2050 ….”
http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ipcc33/PRESS%20RELEASE%20Updated%20version%20-%20Potential%20of%20Renewable%20Energy%20Outline.pdf
So the IPCC press release emphasized the most optimistic figure, by having it in the lead sentence, and that’s what the media picked up. I think the writer should have led with the 15% to 77% range, but I don’t write press releases.
What do I think of the scenario that has renewable energy accounting for “as much as 77% of the world’s energy demand by 2050” ? Well, since I haven’t studied the scenario, I think it best I reserve my opinion. But if I had to say right now, I think it’s possible but very unlikely.
So the supposed scandal here is that the IPCC’s press department issued a press release (not a scientific report) that drew attention to another report (whose authors were clearly identified) and accurately described a range of estimates for renewals (headlining with the best number) and correctly including the lower numbers and the fact that the estimates depend on the political will to make changes.
I’m struggling to see the scandal. Denier scandals are pretty simple; they openly lie (Monckton), they commit plagiarism (Wegman), they fabricate graphs (Easterbook), they claim to have cured AIDS and cancer (Monckton again).
“Scandals” on the science side, by contrast, seem to usually require this type of a strong imagination among the outraged. An accurate press release of a study which Greenpeace was involved in? Is there really nothing better to serve as fodder for your daily Two Minutes’ Hate?
I’m afraid this looks like an attempts to discredit the report by
The Plan
1. Play up a poorly worded and inaccurate press release for the report in an attempt to discredit the report.
2. Play up controversial Greenpeace’s involvement in developing the most optimistic RE scenario to discredit the report in the eyes of those who don’t like Greenpeace.
Oooh. A conspiracy theory. Probably Big Oil or the Koch Brothers. They are trying to make the IPCC look like a crusading activist masquerading as a scientist.
A very effective trick. It has already been working for years.
Sorry, have to disagree.
It’s confirmation bias, incompetence and gullibility.
McIntyre sytarts the ball rolling with the insunuation that Teske’s idenitfy was some kind of secret he had to google to find. His affiliation is listed in the Annex. Then it’s on to the furphy that Teske was his own reviewer (Steve knows this is false- he’s been told a hundred times). The Co-ordinating Authors have the final say on what goes in. Teske is not co-ordinating author.
Then Lynas picks up the ball and goes with McIntyre take on the reviewer thing calling it am “error much more serious” than ‘himalaya gate’ and then bursts forth into florid hyperbole with this nonsense “A more scandalous conflict of interest can scarcely be imagined.”
Oh, my smelling salts, quickly!!
He falsely claims Teske is not identifed, but it’s not clear if he means in the IPCC report, or the scenario. But it doesn’t matter, as he is identifed as being with Greenpeace in both.
He seems to think lead authos are “hired”. Demonstrates no clue on how literature reviews work by demanding that “grey literature” shouldn’t be considered (that will be a surprise to everyone!) when conducting reviews.
And then Judith jumps on the bandwagon.
All up a pretty poor performance.
@ michael
Tonto! You’re back. I’ve missed you,
When your side gets caught out, it is fun how you either have to have a conspiracy causing the problem, or poor PR abilities on the AGW promoters side.
“the estimates depend on the political will to make changes.”
If indeed the cost of renewable continue to drop until they are competitive with fossil fuels, nuclear, etc., then there will be no need whatsoever for “political will.” People’s voluntary actions will resolve the issue. The standard requirement for “political will” is simply a recognition that there would need to be artificial costs imposed to present energy sources, and/or continuing subsidies to support otherwise uneconomic “sustainable” energy sources. But of course, subsidies are not sustainable, so the call to political will is simply a call to impose unnecessary costs on people who need energy to flourish.
Yes, you’re completely missing the point here. It’s about several egregious and shameless conflicts of interest, not merely the “80 percent” or the “77 percent” number, which is trivial by comparison.
Rather it’s that an official IPCC report relies on a Greenpeace advocacy scenario, in a chapter written by a Greenpeace employee (as Lead Author), to reach conclusions supported and advocated by Greenpeace and the renewables industry trade group European Renewable Energy Councile (EREC) .
In fact the scenario in question is that of an annual Greenpeace/EREC advocacy report called “Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook,” which Greenpeace has published annually since 2005.
Greenpeace/EREC says exactly the above in their press release of May 9 2011, stating “Sven Teske, Renewable Energy Director from Greenpeace International, and one of the lead authors of the report said: ‘This is an invitation to governments to initiate a radical overhaul of their policies and place renewable energy centre stage.’ … The Energy [R]evolution scenario – a joint project of Greenpeace International, the European Renewable Energy Councile (EREC) and the German Space Agency (DLR) was chosen as one of the lead scenarios of the report.”
The multiple and monumental conflicts of interest in those three sentences is just astounding.
http://www.energyblueprint.info/1327.0.html
FWIW, the Australian Greeenpeace CEO is a Gore disciple. Not sure how much of Greenpeace has done Gore training beyond that.
http://dea.org.au/news/article/dr_linda_selvey_new_ceo_greenpeace_australia_pacific
The 80% emphasized in the press release isn’t in the Summary for Policy Makers.
The closest thing I found was in the following quote from page 19 of the Summary:
“More than half of the scenarios show a contribution from RE in excess of a 17% share of primary energy supply in 2030 rising to more than 27% in 2050. The scenarios with the highest RE shares reach approximately 43% in 2030 and 77% in 2050.”
http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_SPM
Shame, than, that they released the press release a month before the report..and all the headlines focussed on the numbers in the former.
Could this have been a deliberate ploy by the IPCC to get the news agenda? I ask in all innocence :-)
Or are they so lilywhite pristine on their morals and commitment to transparency that it was just another of their famous oversights?
The press release was released at the same time as the SPM.
And yesterday? What was released yesterday, that couldn’t have been released a month ago? And why not? Why all this two-stage malarkey..seemingly designed to confuse people/
These are not the actions of people determined to ensure that their work is subject to complete transparency and cannot be misunderstood. Exactly the opposite in fact.
The full report of 1544 pages was released yesterday. The report was accepted in a meeting that accepted the 24 page SPM line-by-line. The full report was accepted at the same time with a much less detailed procedure and required some further editing. That’s the reason for the one month gap between the release of the SPM and the full report.
It seems to be the same procedure as used for the acceptance and publishing of the full Assessment Reports.
As is so often the case – much ado about nothing.
I’m having trouble seeing what this IPCC ‘error’ is.
Some people don’t like GreenPeace. OK.
What else??
Wrong.
Lots and lots and lots and lots of people don’t like Greenpeace. The courts in New Zealand don’t like it so much that they’ve removed its charitable status.
Steve McIntyre clearly explained that it is not an ‘error”. It is a straightforward conflict of interest. Go read his piece and you will understand it.
It’s not that they “don’t like it”, they ruled that Greenpeace’s political and campaigning activities are not compatible with charitable status. It’s the the same in the UK – they don’t have charitable status here. Much as I’m sympathetic towards them that seems fair enough to me, Amnesty doesn’t have charitable status either.
In the US the Sierra Club does not have charitable status either, although I believe that Greenpeace still does.
Garbage.
McIntyre, as usual, has stated something minor in a rhetorically overblown way.
What is this stunning investigative breakthrough by Steve?- he read the appendix where it clearly states the affiliation of all authors – where it says;
“Sven Teske, GreenPeace, Germany”.
So what’s all this fluff from Mark Lynas about Teske “not being identified” .
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
It’s all there in black and white.
On the authors- I guess if one of them was from the French power utility that generates most of it’s electricity from nuclear, then Stve and Mark et al would be shreiking about how this report has been “dictated” by the nukes. But no, not a peep about this.
What an awful load of twaddle.
This trian wreck of incompetence started with the usual lazy nonsense from McIntyre, Lynas added his wagon of inaccuracy and hyperbole, and now Judith has jumped on board too.
All aboard the Gullible Express!
Yes, Michael, nothing to see, move along now.
RobB,
You’re absolutely right- absolutely nothing in this.
A pathetic beat-up.
And why is it that none of the ‘skeptics’ managed to check any of this and see it was hopelessly wrong? Not a single one.
Sounded to good not to be true, huh?
Oops.
I made my own error.
I said that Steve McIntyre had found Teske in the Annex…no, my mistake.
PI Steve, donning his Sherlock Holmes cap, googled Teske and found {dramatic music} the awful truth.
Steve, next time, just lower your gaze a little and under the links to all the chapters, you’d see this link;
“Annex IV Contributors to the IPCC Special Report”
You mean like this person: BRANCHE, Emmanuel. He’s from Electricité de France.
How about this guy: DEVERNAY, JeanMichel. Electricité de France (EDF)
Or maybe someone like this: DEMAYO, Trevor N. From Chevron Energy Technology Co.
What I saw in looking through the author list was a wide range of people with different sets of expertise from research institutes, NGOs and industry. Moreover, my guess is that if these people have any expertise at all in this area it is inevitable that their own work will be cited. I suppose we could solve this be having non-expert assesment. But then that’s what happens on blogs.
This little tempest in a tiny little tea cup has ‘confirmation bias’ stamped all over it.
Mark Lynas needs to take a cold shower and Judith should have a more, hmmm ….shall we say…….skeptical, take on things that she likes the sound of.
Sometimes there is much less to things than at first seems.
Agreed. I did a quick check on Teske in Google scholar and he has authered several papers on issues relating to renewables so he would appear to have some degree of expertise on the subject, which is presumably why Greenpeace employ him. I guess one might argue that his involvement was unwise politically but there is a big difference between him being one of several lead authors on the report and Lynas’s claim that “renewables report conclusion was dictated by Greenpeace”. Lynas has been an arse over this.
By the way, I can think of several examples of people with impeccable “warmist” credentials “that generally support the IPCC consensus (either currently or in the past) dare to question aspects of it” yet don’t get labelled “heretics” (not that anyone actually labelled Dr Curry as a heretic as it is boringly neccessary to point out). That’s becasue the y do it without being an arse about it.
Substitute Exxon Mobil for Greenpeace in your first paragraph and read them back. Would you still feel comfortable having written them? If not, why not? Pleas explain.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Latimer, see my post above.
Substitute ‘French nuclear power company’ for ‘GreenPeace’ in Lynas’ story and do you still agree with him??
Lynas has pooched this completely.
Which ‘French nuclear power company’? Who (by name)? In what capacity?
EDF. They run about 50 nuclear power plants.
OMG! – this report was “dictated” by nuclear power!!
And who from EDF was involved in the report under discussion? Which EDF employee (by name). And in exactly what capacity were they working for the IPCC as well as EDF?
There are several. I posted their names in an earlier comment. I found 3.
In case you somehow missed, i was labeled as a heretic in this scientific american article, whose headline was “Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic
That would seem pretty conclusive. A rectraction/Apology would seem in order Andrew.
Oh Judith.
Admit it, you love it!
Every chance you get you have a little self-indulgent wallow in this silly piece of sub-editing. It was a headline that was quite at odds with the actual story (which was rather sensible).
Regardless, some of the claims made by Lynas are completely wrong.
Did you think to check, or did it just sound right?
So no apology for being deomnstrably wrong and making false accusations then? just so we’re clear.
Uh Michael, my post is not about auditing Lynas or McIntyre. It is about Lynas actually paying attention to what McIntyre says.
And see where that got him – or is there some special merit in repeating other people’s errors?
This has been a nice example in the propagation of untruths.
And since you weighed in with this;
“Such IPCC transgressions are becoming sufficiently regular…”
you become another link in the chain of uncritically repeating error.
No doubt as a result of this, internet ‘skeptics’ will be posting over the interwebs for years to come how Greenpeace ‘dictates’ IPCC reports.
“skeptics’ will be posting over the interwebs for years to come how Greenpeace ‘dictates’ IPCC reports”
Hang on, that’s not actually what anyones saying now though is it. Unless i’m misreading this, people are just commenting that greenpeace contributed and reviewed their own section. Something which was not implicitly stated in the summary document.
I.e. it was an advocacy piece, not science.
At 6:36 AM on 16 June. Dr. Curry had written:
Having many years ago given up Scientific American as a “Liberal” fascist propaganda rag with shrinking residua of honestly presented scientific content, ‘I’m afraid I’d missed your receipt of that badge of honor, Dr. Curry.
Doesn’t surprise me at all, though. They would have to condemn you. As Joanne Nova has observed, the only credentialed climate scientists who dare to speak their skepticism about this preposterous bogosity have tended for the past thirty years to be those with secure academic tenure, those who do not conduct research on the taxpayer’s dime (who therefore do not have to be – literally – politically correct in their utterances), and those who are retired and no are no longer subject to the professional, financial, and social suppression of colleagues and superiors whose rice bowls such “Emperor’s New Clothes” statements threaten.
Bear in mind the history of Holy Mother Church, Dr. Curry. Martin Luther wouldn’t be remembered today had he not decided to turn “heretic.”
Judith
I was well aware of the SciAm article and the “heretic” headline. There is no evidence in the article of you actually being branded a “heretic” by anyone, in fact as far as I can see the word doesn’t appear at all in the text. As far as the headline bears any relation to the text at all ISTM that it represents your view of the way yu have been portrayed. Fair enough, you are entitled to tell your side of the story, but that’s not the same as being caled a “heretic” by your opponents, which is what you are implying by your use of the word.
Well, my preference of course would be for my view to be in the mainstream, i.e. listening to skeptics, actively challenging the science, and taking a close critical look at the IPCC. Unfortunately, this view is very far from the mainstream climate establishment. The words Judith Curry and heretic are still being used in the same sentence, well past the direct influence of the Sci Am article. The latest in the MSM was in this times.com blog post
http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/05/26/why-the-argument-over-climate-and-tornadoes-is-pointless/
Judith,
But the words “climate heretic” in that piece are linked directly back to the SciAm article! OK, so the tag does seems to have stuck in people’s minds but that doesn’t mean that it is justified.
I mean you talk about “IPCC idealogues” and “corruption” in the IPCC (I understand that you mean institutional rather than individual but it’s still a serious charge) and make confident pronouncements that scientists misprepresent the level of uncertainty in climate science. Could it be that you get criticised not because you are considered a heretic but because scientists honestly believe you are casting unfair dispersions on the integrity of them and their colleagues and they believe your interpretation of the science to be incorrect?
You bet they don’t like my talk of ideologues and corruption. None have said my interpretation of the science is incorrect; whenever I raise an issue about uncertainty they don’t say I am incorrect. In the Discover Magazine article, Mike Mann said ““So when you take uncertainty into account, it actually leads to the decision that we should take action more quickly.” This is all about my breaking with the consensus as scientific/political force and criticizing the IPCC. My criticisms of the IPCC were echoed in the IAC review. So do I think the word “heretic” is justified for this? Of course not, see my response to the Sci Am article. Its the IPCC ideologues that think I am a heretic, not me.
At 9:24 AM on 16 June, Dr. Curry had written of her “breaking with the consensus as [a] scientific/political force and criticizing the IPCC“:
Nonsense, Dr. Curry. You are most certainly a “heretic.” Consider the root of the term “heresy,” from the Greek haireisthai, “to choose.”
You chose to “break with the consensus,” thereby threatening the government-funded rice bowl of the AGW orthodoxy.
Embrace your honorable status as a heretic, Dr. Curry.
When they get to calling you a “denier,” you’ll know that your status has risen further still. Who knows? You might eventually have Algore calling you “anti-science” as he blogs from behind his barricade.
The big time.
I like the sound Lynas paying attention to McIntyre and Laframboise, which is what my post is about. Few people on that side of the fence pay any attention at all to what goes on at skeptical websites.
Often with very good reason…..this incident being a good example of why.
So why are you trolling here then? Why don’t you go do other things in life and not waste time trolling in ” denier ” sites.
Curious to see if the facts carry any weight.
So far, eveyone here, I mean the ‘skeptics’, are completely silent on the glaring errors in the Lynas piece and McIntyre’s.
They both claim that Teske was no identifed as from Greenpeace when he was, very clearly.
Corrections to date – nil.
‘Skeptics’ here who bothered to fact check – nil.
As you were.
The fact that Teske is among the authors is not a problem. Actually you can find my name as well in the list of reviewers, and I know personally several of the authors. Having Teske among the authors is really not a big issue.
That doesn’t mean that I would be happy to see the report as an IPCC report. I have explained in another comment of this thread, why I don’t believe that IPCC should produce this kind of reports. The report represents a lot of good information, but it’s just impossible to write an objective enough policy relevant report on renewable energy. Including this kind of fields in it’s activities IPCC makes it impossible to ever reach the status of science based body that represents objectively information needed policy decisions. Severe conflicts of interest hamper the activity throughout. Even with best effort the authors cannot be impartial. The whole renewable energy field is so strongly dependent of strong economic support by governments that they cannot produce anything that would indicate that the support is not justified.
Pekka, I agree with you on this one. I have argued previously for the IPCC to get rid of WG III and most of WG II; these issues are best handled via other mechanisms. While in principle WGII and WGIII are driven by the results of WG I, this in fact does not happen in an appropriate way. The conflict of interests on these two topics is enormous, and with the rapid rate of information development that is mostly in the gray literature, there is no way to be objective and comprehensive on these topics.
Actually Michael, it is more interesting to audit your errors. Can you point me to where in McIntyre’s piece he says Teske was not identified as Greenpeace? McIntyre’s objection is that:
“It is totally unacceptable that IPCC should have had a Greenpeace employee as a Lead Author of the critical Chapter 10, that the Greenpeace employee, as an IPCC Lead Author, should (like Michael Mann and Keith Briffa in comparable situations) have been responsible for assessing his own work and that, with such inadequate and non-independent ‘due diligence’, IPCC should have featured the Greenpeace scenario in its press release on renewables.”
McIntyre’s main detective work is in identifying the actual provenance of Teske (2010) has a heritage in a publication jointly published by Greenpeace and the Renewable Energy Council. Your attempt to dismiss McIntyre’s arguments based upon an accusation of an error that in fact was not made by him and in any event is not that central to McIntyre’s argument is a strategy that is all too typical in dismissing everything that a skeptic has to say.
Yes, mustn’t criticise Steve.
Says Steve;
“ER-2010 scenatio attributed to Teske et al., 2010…”
and
“However, googling the title led me…..”
Of what a load of melodrama.
No need to wonder who Sven is. Mystery solved in the report Annex IV: “Sven Teske, Greenpeace, Germany.” should Steve have bothered to look.
And of course the reference was in the report chapter, along with the doi to make it extra extra extra easy to find.
“Teske, S., T. Pregger, S. Simon, T. Naegler, W. Graus, and C. Lins (2010). Energy [R]evolution
2010—a sustainable world energy outlook. Energy Efficiency, doi:10.1007/s12053-010-9098-y”
And then to save any poor soul from having to google it, the journal version above cites the earlier version, giving the full reference right where you’d expect to find it (in the reference list Steve!);
“Greenpeace/EREC. (2007). Energy [R]evolution—a sustainable
world energy outlook. GPI REF JN 035. Published by
Greenpeace International and the European Renewable
Energy Council (EREC), http://www.energyblueprint.info”
Steve’s “dectective work”? Good lord.
It took me two minutes to find this out after reading the post .
And then poor Lynas took Steve’s lead – “Sven Teske, who should have been identified (but is not)……”.
But of course none of the ‘skeptics’ bothered to check.
Confirmation bias?
Yes Michael, you just confirmed your own bias.
Michael,
Yes of course, confirmation bias. As one of the world renowned experts on this subject you certainly would know it well. The IPCC press release is lame. Pie in the sky fairy tales that will never happen. Lynas steps out and identifies it as lame and the rest is a lot of yammering.
Maybe stick to dendro. Statistics, policy and politics are clearly above your pay grade.
Would anybody like to explain why Michael’s comment does not reveal Dr Curry’s claim that “McIntyre’s main detective work is in identifying the actual provenance of Teske (2010)” is utterly wrong?
Or: Maybe just this once Dr Curry could explain why she has again chosen to uncritically accept claims from those claiming to be skeptics without checking their factual nature.
If you can please cite a statement made by McIntyre with quotes on it, then provide the documentation that supports he is wrong, then maybe we can have a sensible discussion about this.
“If you can please cite a statement made by McIntyre with quotes on it”
Why is this necessary? You made a characterisation of McIntyre’s argument, do people now have to back up your claim?
“then provide the documentation that supports he is wrong”
Michael quotes from the report above, is he wrong? Do you know? Did you check McIntyre’s “detective work” before making claims about it?
The only thing I said was this: “that identified Greenpeace as the source of a key recommendation on renewable energy in the recently released IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation.”
So what is wrong with my statement? You are saying McIntyre didn’t say this? That Greenpeace was not the source? The implication of my statement is that this was not obvious to people reading the IPCC’s press release. McIntyre pointed it out. You’ve lost me on this one.
Sharper00
What is revealing is that you are discussing MacIntyre rather than the main point of the thread – the incestuous relationship btween the IPCC and Greenpeace. It’s the usual tactic when the going gets tough.
“The only thing I said was this: “that identified Greenpeace as the source of a key recommendation on renewable energy in the recently released IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation.””
According to Michael’s quotes the report itself does this so again where does the “detective work” come in? You are the one who claimed he revealed it’s “actual provenance”.
Is Michael wrong? This is the crux of what I want to know.
“The implication of my statement is that this was not obvious to people reading the IPCC’s press release.”
Is your problem with the press release or the report? I see lots of people annoyed with the report and the IPCC, are you telling me the real issue is with a marketing communications staffer at the IPCC?
“McIntyre pointed it out. “
In his usual style he did so in a way which suggested what he was “pointing out” was obfuscated and hidden, a point many (including you) have accepted uncritically.
Ah I see, you don’t like the idea of McIntyre as “detective.” Or more specifically, McIntyre as detective bolsters implicitly his hockey stick critique. Re Greenpeace, McIntyre laid out his method for identifying this issue. Apparently this point was already well known to some people, see Climate Resistance http://www.climate-resistance.org/2011/05/the-inter-ngo-panel-on-climate-change.html. So would you feel better if Climate Resistance got more credit for this? (climateresistance is on my blogroll, I will henceforth pay more attention). McIntyre is not looking for “credit of discovery” here, he is voicing his concerns about the issue. The real problem that is being discussed is lucidly explained over at Bishop Hill’s http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/6/16/ideological-money-laundering.html.
Sharperoo, so your beef and Michael’s is the way the words “detective work” is used? and somehow you equate those words with secrets or something or…?
Judith,
I gave the qoutes- Steve was playing it up as if it was some mystery.
Who’s this Teslek charster , where the report come from -all there in black and white in the references and the author list.
And then there is the false claim from Steve about Teske “assessing his own work” as a lead author. I pointed this error out here several times, but no response from anyone.
As long as it fits into the ‘hostile-to-the-IPCC’ narrative, accuracy be damned?
This whole thing, as presented by McIntyre ad Lynas, was a steaming pile of BS. Which is a pity because as PP pointed out there are some very interesting questions about the exercise.
It was a mystery to Steve. He described his personal detective work. His conclusions got alot of attention, since people including the MSM pay attention to Steve. It has long been a complaing of Steve’s about scientists assessing their own work, since the TAR when Mann (lead author for chapter 3) promoted his hockey stick.
The only detective work that was required was to read the references and look at Annex IV – all the answers were ‘hidden’ in plain sight.
There do need to be checks and balances, but in principle there is no problem with the current system of expert review. The alternative is unworkable at the practical level (as this little debacle has demonstrated).
Systematic reviews (which is what the IPCC reports basically are) in the medical feild might suggest some further improvements, with emerging standards in the appraisal of quality and methodology, both in deciding what studies are of a sufficent standard to go into such reviews, and of the overall review itself. But none of these things are perfect and they never will be due to huge variety in methods and approaches across quite disparate fields.
Michael, Steve McIntyre did not claim “that Teske was no[t] identifed as from Greenpeace”. Read Steve’s post, if you can bring yourself to, and you will see he does not make that claim. Steve writes:
“It is totally unacceptable that IPCC should have had a Greenpeace employee as a Lead Author of the critical Chapter 10, that the Greenpeace employee, as an IPCC Lead Author, should […] have been responsible for assessing his own work and that, with such inadequate and non-independent ‘due diligence’, IPCC should have featured the Greenpeace scenario in its press release on renewables. ”
Not quite the same thing. What was that about fact checking?
The question Steve raised was, is it acceptable that a Greenpeace document be recycled into the IPCC report, under the (partial) authority of an IPCC lead author who is a Greenpeace employee, and was one of the main authors of the Greenpeace document? Many people, including McIntyre and Lynas, think that is not consistent with the IPCC report being presented as a sober and independent assessment of the state of the matter.
Whoops should have reloaded before posting.
See above
My only interaction with Greenpeace was in college. A Greenpeace meeting was a great place to meet chicks; therefore, I will defend them to the death ’cause I owe ’em.
But i’m trying to imagine a logical reason why one them two geek guys, Socrates or Aristotle, would object to this.
Michael,
It is very amusing for you to be “Curious to see if the facts carry any weight”, as you seem to be a conspicuously fact free zone. You assert above that Steve M. only ever published one paper connected with rebutting hockey team work. When people give you a list of other publications, silence. No retractions, no mea culpa, nada. You then seem to have enormous amounts of free (or perhaps paid) time available to make an endless stream of snark, claiming to discredit sceptics, oncover conspiracies etc., but all of it likewise devoid of factal content.
Please note, this is not criticism. Please do keep it up. If not quite “exhibit A” standard, you are at least in the C or D grade for illustrating to thinking people how low the standard of the bulk of foot soldiers is on the true believers side is.
Jimbo,
Michael is no foot soldier. Second Lieutenant in Custer’s army perhaps.
He’d spook Crassus’ horse with whispers of Parthian treachery.
================
Huh?
Below is a link to Chapter 10 of the Report:
http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch10
Discussion of the four illustrative RE scenarios starts on page 31. Table 10.3 summarizes differences in assumptions made by the scenarios.
Among the four scenarios, the one by Teske et al is based on assumptions that result in the highest RE share (77%) by 2050. I see this as an upper limit to what’s possible, rather than what’s likely. It’s interesting because it gives some idea of what would have to happen to get to that level of RE.
Wow. These same few sock puppet, astro-turfers keep hitting all the well-trafficked lukewarmer blog forums. The handles change but the attack style, themes, misdirection and lack of actual reponsiveness to direct questions is remarkably consistent. If you look across different sites at content, frequency and ratio to other posts it starts to appear coordinated. It’s spookily reminiscent of what $cientology did (and sometimes still does) on anti-$cientology sites. Seriously. I lived through some of that and this is starting to creep me out a bit.
I’m not saying it’s all the warmists. Some are certainly real people. I think I’m starting to be able to tell the real warmers from the “Sock Warmers” pretty easily. The sock warmers never, ever concede a point no matter how small. They go silent and “move on” to another thread instead. Their posts are generally fairly short but almost always are a “one-two punch”. First, they hit back hard (but not very convincingly to careful readers) on whatever the topic is – often with a brief appeal to one of usual authorities (and little to no original argumentation) and then they branch off to hit some other unrelated anti-skeptic meme (eg a blanket ad hom on McIntyre, Watts, Monckton and Michaels). The sock warmist seems like they have a quota so can’t linger to engage. The purpose appears to be getting a quick “smack-down” reply “on the record”. It feels like they are writing for an audience, not the original poster. There is often nearly as much anti-skepticness as there is pro-warmness.
The real warmists generally stick around in a thread to hash things out. Real warmists are selective in their posts (like they are responding only to particular things that strike them as interesting). They tend to write actual replies that are directly responsive to what’s been said. The replies are often quite lengthy and may contain significant amounts of original opinion and argumentation. They may ask real, conversational questions (as opposed to rhetorical, snark or “gotcha” questions). They come across as wanting to convince the other posters instead of merely refute what’s been said.
Maybe I’m being paranoid but we know that Soros has been funding a “web-savvy” eco-PR firm that specializes in managing public opinion. I’m just saying…
Am I crazy? Has anyone else noticed this? Any other behaviors or “tells” that indicate a sock warmer to you?
Yes, you’re crazy. ;) The idea of a paid skeptic commentor conspiracy has long been a fantasy of the Alarmists. It occurs to them because skeptical commentors are so effective and relentless. They simply can’t comprehend why everyone doesn’t simply submit to the declarations of their chosen scientists. Conversely, no one has proposed the opposite because Alarmists from Romm to Robert are so gawd awful at what they do. As evidence I submit recent polling showing only about a third of Americans believe that the world is warming AND man is responsible.
Mark,
Good take.
We know that the believer community has hired propagandists like Mooney to spin messages, and others talk openly about posting at skeptic sites to pushback.
When all you have to pushback with is bs, The tactics you outline are pretty much all there is to push with.
“Am I crazy?”
Absolutely, yes.
You seem to be outraged by the failure of deniers to “own” this site and suppress criticism.
The fact of the matter is that the nature of the internet does not allow conspiracy theorists the freedom they once had to abuse “the man” in a fact-free environment with only friendly listeners around.
I have not noticed anybody failing “to hash things out.” As a practical matter, given the verbal diarrhea of some of the deniers, they are always going to have the last word. There is very little “hashing out” to be done with deniers, whose fanaticism and conviction that those who disagree with them are evil rapidly reduces their counterarguments to either a series of pathetic personal insults or an elaborate description of their fantasy universe, a place so far divorced from any human reality as to leave the discussion with nowhere to go.
Rarely, the very finest of parody is completely unconscious. We are in the presence of something special.
=================
There is very little “hashing out” to be done with Robert, whose fanaticism and conviction that those who disagree with him are evil rapidly reduces his counterarguments to either a series of pathetic personal insults or an elaborate description of his fantasy universe, a place so far divorced from any human reality as to leave the discussion with nowhere to go.
Wonderfully descriptive – you have a future in horror/fantasy authorship. If you learn the meaning of the words.
What a little cooling can do. It cracks the minds and the winds of nature open it.
Chinook flaps around
Hooked, determined to prevail.
Glaciers crack oceans.
============
Over at ClimateAudit Steve McIntyre says “Naturally, I was interested in the provenance of the 80% scenario and in determining precisely what due diligence had been carried out by IPCC to determine the realism of this scenario prior to endorsing it in their press release.”
I am puzzled by “realism of this scenario.” My recollection is a scenario can describe what can possibly happen rather than being confined to what is likely to happen.
Perhaps McIntyre sees the four RE scenarios as forecasts, representing a range of likely possibilities. Given the low scenario has 14% RE share and the high scenario has 77%, I don’t think the IPCC is representing this as the range of what’s likely to occur. That we be almost as silly as saying we forecast between 1% and !00%.
What caught my attention here was “realism of this scenario.”
M.carey –
I am puzzled by “realism of this scenario.”
You miss the point. The entire IPCC structure is built on “scenarios”. The SPM is a “summary” of “selected scenarios”, and is written by a small group of those who are entirely without doubt. Based on their lack of doubt (uncertainty), they make predictions of doom. Not exactly scientific. But the SPM is taken as Gospel by the Believers. And the “scenarios” are accepted, not as a possibilities, but as forecasts that WILL become reality.
Then comes the “solutions” – the “requirements” – for fighting AGW and saving the planet – based on those “scenarios that are not”. They always involve massive sacrifice on the part of the people of the world (and massive death rates) – and massive cash transfers from the developed countries to selected individuals, organizations and Third World countries. Those who are setting those requirements, however, are apparently exempt from the sacrifice. Witness the recent squawk in the UK over energy taxes that would affect “the People” but were unacceptable to scientists because the taxes would make it “impossible to continue their work”.
That last paragraph is unreality. It’s not acceptable for a plethora of reasons.
So… to your puzzlement – the question, as I see it is this — IS this latest IPCC pipedream any more realistic than the previous ones? Is it physically possible? Is there any kind of cost/benefit analysis? What IS the cost? Or is it a rerun of the same old tired non-solutions that keep cropping up in the blogosphere?
I won’t give you the answer to those questions. As has happened so often in the past, the solution is left to the student.
So you saying that the IPCC is promoting fantasy, and that you are OK with that?
Strike my last sentence.
Judith Curry said
“I suspect that many readers of this blog have already seen Steve McIntyre’s post “IPCC and the Greenpeace Karaoke” that identified Greenpeace as the source of a key recommendation on renewable energy in the recently released IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation.”
_______
I can’t find where Steve McIntyre said Greenpeace was the source of a “key recommendation” in the IPCC Report, nor can I find the report referring to it. Perhaps I missed it. Can anyone give me a page number?
M. carey,
He doesn’t, at least not in the main post.
And there are no “key recommendations” in the Report.
Judith is mistaken on both counts.
When the IPCC press release starts:
“Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.”
it appears justified to say that this is presented as a key finding and also as a key recommendation taken int account the choice of words like “right” in the text.
Ah, good old ‘could’ and ‘if’.
What I could do if………
If people read that as a ‘key recommendation’, then the state of our schools need to be invesgiated.
And i need to go back to typing school….
Michael
Coming as the most prominent message of a press release, and containing positive statements as to both the possibility (“could”) and the desirability (“right …policies”) – in what schooling system would that not be considered a “key recommendation”?
People really do use this kind of statements to justify their policy stances here in Europe. They may turn out quite important in the discussions of the EU Parliament and also some national political bodies.
To me the sentence is false. The report doesn’t show that the claims presented in the sentence are true.
Seconded.
Exactly. Statements like that are very policy influencing. It can be very damaging.
And the other scenarios?
Are they ‘damaging’ too?
I don’t understand your reply. Please clarify.
That one scenario you find ‘damaging’, was just one of 26 (IIRC).
What about the other 25?
It is not the scenario that is damaging (if it stays in the report and almost nobody reads it), but the fact that the public/policy makers get the most extreme/alarmist/propagandist “facts”. Then we get something like cap and trade and it does damage for years.
The report is using extensively results from the scenario comparison of Krey and Clarke (link to full text given in McIntyre’s post). From this article the reservations presented in the following quotes must be taken seriously and at face value:
and
and
I have been developing and using similar models for years ( roughly1980-2005) and participated in several large international collaborative efforts. Some of this has been earlier work with the same models that are used in this comparison. All my experience tells that even stronger reservations would have been appropriate. I do think that models are useful tools, but it’s terribly easy to misinterpret their results. That occurs all the time and at a very policy relevant level. When no better information is available people like to give too much weight to model results. Of course they are particularly prone to do that, when the results support their own political views.
I”d imagine that someone might find it damaging if the press release were phrased “renewables may gain less than 3% of the share of global energy by 2050”. That would be consistent with one of the other scenarios.
By definition, a ‘could…. if’ statement is not true.
Grammatically they are hypothetical statements.
It also appears justified to say that they probably didn’t seek the opinions of any engineers when drafting that
Curious to know if anyone has an opinion on whether mass deployment of solar panels (heat absorbing or photovoltaic) would cause surface temperature warming (reducing surface IR radiation) or cooling (by reducing CO2 emissions) or have no net effect???
I have an opinion. It depends what you mean by mass deployment, but even the most massive deployment that I can imagine, can not have any significant influence on warming (by reducing surface radiation). Regarding reducing CO2 emissions, I don’t think we can dominantly influence atmospheric CO2 concentration, let alone global temperature. To clarify, I don’t completely dismiss other possible anthropogenic influence (non-CO2).
the deployment will be tough on the things growing under the panels.
No ‘steering’ from Bishop Hill required. I’ve been readin AND commenting at Mark Lynas’ blog since he started it… (i’ll read anything including Guardian, RC and The Carbon Brief)
I did drop Andrew Montford a note, to say that Mark had expressed an interest in reading ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’, but Professor Jonathon Jones (physics, Oxford) had
beaten me to it, offering his copy..
Interestingly, 2 professors of hard science recommending a book, and Mark’s blog has a number of comments complaining about letting to many sceptics in and he should ‘moderate’ better…
Mark of course stands head and shoulders above RealClimate (he is (was? ;) ) on their blog roll) as he has never deleted or not allowed at all, any comments of mine. Unlike The Guardian, RC, Climate Progress(think Progress, etc,etc..
Innocently MARK (I believe so) recommends Donna Laframboise’s blog in three instances, and thinks it fair comment about Greenpeace. Mark says she is new to him, little knowing according to the usual suspects that she is part of a ‘climate change’ denier central to be smeared all over the blogosphere (see here sourcewatch entry)
Can Mark be that insulated in the green bubble, so Judith’s warning above seems very relevant, I hope Mark spends a weekend reading it. I hope he persuades the Campaign Against Climate Change to stop having a Deniers – Hall of Shame on it’s website (Mark is an advisory board member) if only because it is EVER so counter productive..
As for the hundreds of Sceptics Alerts that the CaCC has sent out against the author of the ‘Hockey Stick Illusion’ well that has been rather counter productive as well…
It started me blogging ;)
It started me blogging…..
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/19/skeptic-alerts.html
http://www.realclimategate.org/2010/11/bishop-hill-targeted-sceptic-alerts/
My view is that the potential of renewable energies is a subject that IPCC cannot study. There is a huge number of papers by proponents of new ideas. This is natural and there is nothing wrong in that, because the goal of research on renewable energy is to develop practical and valuable products and solutions. On the other hand there is little reason to publish papers on problems of specific solutions.
Similarly it’s natural and right that most specialists on renewable energy have positive views on the potential of the particular field that they are studying. Otherwise they were not studying it, and soon they would not any more be specialists on new technical developments in the field.
When a report is written by specialists on renewable energy technologies most of the writers are unavoidably optimists and for their own area of expertize. That’s fine, when the point is understood and all views on future potential are read understanding that they are just optimistic views by promoters of each field.
I started that this is not a subject that IPCC can study, and the reason is in the above observation that the research and the specialists are not even supposed to be impartial. A strong bias is a natural and unavoidable component of research and expertize in the area of technology development supported by very large public funding for both R&D and for deployment. In addition there are also other huge conflicts of interests related to the choices related to renewable resources in particular land use and related economic activities. Almost every country has here it’s own special interests, and that’s visible when these issues are discussed in IPCC bodies. The conflict with representing objective scientific knowledge are too large. Therefore IPCC should exclude these issues from its activities.
The overall scenarios, which promise rapid transition to renewable energy without really large costs, are always simplistic. None of the models is based on a realistic description of technological development and societal dynamics. They are not based on such descriptions, because first of all nobody is capable of modeling well the technological change, many models have certainly been presented, but none of them is really justified, and every proposal can been criticized for being rather futurological guesswork than representing real understanding. Concerning the dynamics of large changes in societies, I don’t think that anybody has even proposed applicable solutions.
Models that include changes of 50% or more in CO2-emissions or in the share of renewable energy go deep into an area, which we cannot foresee. People have written narratives, but every narrative fails severely at some point. People tell even that we have several paths available requiring only that we have political will and make a choice. That’s total nonsense. We cannot know, what the future will be like in 50 years, and we cannot choose the future now. The future may turn out to be a low-CO2 society, but if that’s the case, it’s due to reasons that we cannot foresee. The low-CO2 society might be a renewable energy society, but it might as well be a nuclear energy (perhaps fusion) society. These two societies might be extremely different from each other. Which one will be possible, if either, cannot be chosen freely, but influenced by factors beyond the power of choice.
Nothing in the above means that we should not take seriously the risk of climate change or the limits of fossil energy resources. These are very important issues. We should also build scenarios that extend far to the future to understand better, what our possible choices mean, but we should not make believe that any of those scenarios is right or can be selected. They are useful tools even without these preposterous beliefs.
JC,
Even a BBC environmental reporter gave an inch to the skeptic camp this morning when reporting on the “sun’s slowdown”, daring to mention the question of whether all these emissions reductions are valid or needed in the light of this new cooling.
No doubt he will also now be removed from RealClimate’s blogroll.
Nah, he will just kindly be informed that those who actually study this stuff are confident there’s no “global cooling” ahead. With references to the relevant literature if needed.
No doubt old Harrabin will end up self-referencing his own ‘facts’ before long.
That’ll be quick. Since the new work was only announced this week, you will already have published work to ‘debunk’ it??
Has ‘pal review’ been accelerated from
‘Hi Phil. Here’s a pint. Now say my work is OK. No need to read it’
to
‘Hi Mikey.’I promise I’ll buy you a pint. Now say it’s OK. No need to read it’?
Process efficiency – the climatology way?
Thanks Judith for your words of advice. I can see how this happens – the moment you step even slightly out of line, your ‘own side’ attacks you for being a traitor, and the next thing you know you’re comfortably in the warm embrace of your former enemies… we’re all human, and these kinds of things matter to us. As I discovered some years ago when I first questioned the green dogma on nuclear, it is painful when friends (in some cases close friends) attack you in personal terms. I guess a lot of this is tribal identification, which is one of our most basic human instincts. For me the scientific process is designed to try to get beyond this and confirmation bias, which is why it must be held to the highest standards of transparency and integrity – particularly in a ‘consensus’ exercise like the IPCC.
Barry, you are right that the ‘Sceptics Hall of Shame’ is itself shameful – I wonder if I can appear on it now whilst still being a board member of the Campaign Against Climate Change (in all honesty I’d forgotten that I was on the board – I never have anything to do with them!).
I’ve checked and I’m still on the RealClimate blogroll… long may it continue!
Mark
Welcome to the dark side of the farce.
classic !
Hi, Mark
I am skeptical of CAGW and the need for major political actions but I am still open to having my mind changed so I try to read both sides of the argument and find honestly argued viewpoints, free of political bias, the most compelling. Your honesty and (without wanting to sound sycophantic) bravery in speaking out in the face of hostility from your friends, increases your credibility in my view. Well done, Sir!
And welcome to my warm embrace!!
i’d add as well that as you become more critical of the establishments position it can be too easy to take what the ‘opposing’ side say for granted without the same level of due care- welcome skepticism and always ask questions- of BOTH sides and you won’t go far wrong.
Mark, thanks for your comments. I am not warmly embraced by either side (a few people in the middle like me). I’ve long gotten over worrying about people attacking me (even those I used to regard as friends). I’ve explicitly and consciously tried to avoid falling into the trap of going too far on either side. The IPCC and its defenders have earned my criticism. In the middle of all this, I try to sort through the scientific issues and the arguments being made in an effort to try to improve the enterprise of climate science, which is riddled with confirmation bias in a systematic way. For some illuminating insights on confirmation bias in a scientific community, read this post about the work of Thomas Kelly, Princeton philosopher
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/18/epistemology-of-disagreement/
Opening your mind isn’t about find a tribe to make you comfortable. Once you let one piece of doubt in about the “consensus” and talk to a skeptic or somehow get convinced by a skeptical argument, then your defense mechanism of trusting the IPCC consensus and accepting their conclusions has faced a serious breach, and it becomes more difficult to reject skeptical arguments prima facie because they are made be deniers and are all incorrect.
Judith, I am very sceptical (not in the middle) and I like you very much:)
The fallacy of the golden mean?
There is our best understanding of reality and everything futher away from that is just wronger.
Being in the middle counts for nothing.
As a hard science layman who could be classified as a moderate skeptic it is good to see some honest discussion taking place. I lost faith in the IPCC and sites such as RC long ago.
At 5:30 AM on 16 June, Mark Lynas writes:
Or you find yourself with an ice axe buried in your skull, a la Leon Trotsky.
Be careful in visiting Mexico, and if you’re approached by a one of your climate science colleagues who remains a True Believer in the AGW bogosity, if he’s carrying a raincoat across one arm, be prepared to defend yourself.
Many Thanks for that statement Mark….
But your mere inactive presence give them credibility, and supports the Hall of Shame.
I have also written (months ago) to the Green Party about Jean Lamberts’s (Green Party MEP) and Caroline Lucas’s (Green MP and Green Party Leader) involvment (VP and on the board) linking to a group that has Halls of Shame and Sceptic Alerts (activists astroturfing, imagine the complaints if the roles were reversed)
Halls of Shame go against ALL Green Party ethics and policies ( a relative is a press officer for the Greens and former editor of Greenworld and a parliamentary candidate, a very nice person that is truly green, this refelct on all the grass root activists)
Even if they are not active, like yourself) their silence and mere presence endorses it.,
Just think of of it this way. elected MP’s and MEP’s associated with Halls of Shame….
I have asked them first to use their influence to change that policy, at the very least because it was VERY counterproductive for them. I suggested thatthey should step away if they cannot, as it fails green ethics. I did this privately, they are fully aware. they have not done so.
Have the GREENS learnt nothing, also George Monbiot (Honouary President) how am I supposed to feel about his involvement when he has the MSM at his disposal, and I do not.
Mark, the simple fact is that you were called out for your overreaction and blind belief in claims of others. In your article you made several claims for which you had no evidence whatsoever (as in the press release being dictated by someone from Greenpeace).
I’m very sorry my ‘tribe’ is so bent on demanding people come with verifiable claims. I’m curious to hear how you evaluate the reactions Andrew Revkin collected on his blog by Edenhoffer, Greenpeace, and Dan Kammen:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/a-deeper-look-at-an-energy-analysis-raises-big-questions/
Rich Materese, when you rant, you rant in style and with wickedly accurate humour. I laughed from my belly, the healthiest and most genuine laughter there is, at your evisceration of the fatuously silly Robert.
Great stuff, mate!
Alexander K, I never “rant.”
I vituperate. There’s a difference.
Yep, ‘vituperant’. Thanks, Rich.
===================
Well, I’m very pleased that you chose the path of science rather than consesus.
Science is a journey of discovery and we really can’t complain about where it takes us, we can just choose not to travel in first place.
Embracing a consensus, is just choosing not to travel.
I’m smart enough, wise enough and lived long enough to know that whatever positon I hold, it may in the end be wrong. If there’s one statement that could be said to have converted more believers into sceptics it would be, “the science is settled.”
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this thread is about renewable energy. So far as I can see, cellulose ethanol is the only renewable energy source, at the moment, that has any chance of being a commercial success. The energy can be stored, weight for weight it is comparable to gasoline, and it may well be economically viable if oil supplies cannot compete with demand. The world’s agriculatural industry produces vaste quantities of cellulose as it produces food. This cellulose is “waste” in one sense, even though it has many uses. If a significant fraction of this “waste” can be turned into energy, surely this should be an important consideration.
Let me note, once again, that assuming it is a good idea to produce large quantities of cellulose ethanol, the ONLY chance that this will occur in the immediate future, is because the USA is producing significant quantities of food ethanol.
At &:31 AM on 18 June, Jim Cripwell had written:
Another renewable source of fuel distillates is thermal depolymerization, which is a recycling technology that has the added benefit of converting many of the waste residues of industrial civilization into the equivalent of light, sweet crude oil.
Instead of mountains of refuse choking the landfills, the garbage gets ground up and fed into the TDP process. With the present per-barrel price of crude oil on the global market, TDP is economically viable – and when the costs of dealing with the megatons of refuse generated in these United States alone are factored in, it should be possible to calculate an even more favorable estimation of the advantages inherent in this technology.
Heck, why make cellulose ethanol when that same organic raw material is also grist for the TDP mill?
Rich Matarese writes “Heck, why make cellulose ethanol when that same organic raw material is also grist for the TDP mill?”
Is there a commercial enterprise with shovels in the ground actually building what you suggest, with a significant output scheduled for 2012? If so, can you give me a reference. For cellulose ethanol, I refer you to Project Liberty from Poet.
At 9:18 AM on 18 June, Jim Cripwell asks about thermal depolymerization: “Is there a commercial enterprise with shovels in the ground actually building what you suggest, with a significant output scheduled for 2012? If so, can you give me a reference. For cellulose ethanol, I refer you to Project Liberty from Poet.”
A pilot plant was brought online in Carthage, MO, several years ago, co-located with a large turkey processing plant for the specific purpose of using the offal from that facility as its primary feedstock, supplementing with other slaughterhouse and animal product waste. “Lawfare” was waged against the enterprise (the threat posed by TDP to the “Good Old Boys” of the Oil Patch is real and understandable), and the company that had built and operated the pilot plant was bankrupted. The Wikipedia article on the subject is a reasonable aggregation of information.
Anyone familiar with the “Breakages, Limited, (see Robert A. Heinlein’s 1940 short story “Let There Be Light”) understands that technically viable and economically advantageous innovations like TDP – even though the principles upon which it operates were solidly elucidated more than seventy years ago – threaten the rice bowls of powerfully politically connected interests, and government regulations are created and operate never for the real purpose of protecting the consuming average citizen, but instead for the preservation of dominance in the regulated market segment by well-connected established actors therein.
“Red” faction or “Blue” faction, the whole of America’s permanently incumbent institutional Boot On Your Neck Party is absolutely and entirely mercantilist. With a very few notable exceptions, they’re all crooks and shills, including the Mombasa-born “red diaper baby” masquerading as the lawful President of these United States.
Er, does this surprise anybody reading here?
Thermal depolymerization is an economically viable commercial process which is being prevented from functioning. The “failures” experienced by the enterprising people who had undertaken to bring it to the marketplace in America had been carefully engineered by “Breakages, Limited.
Not capitalism, as George Bernard Shaw mistakenly labeled it, but mercantilism.
Rich, I take it from your reply that there is little hope in the near future of thermal depolymerization being commercially viable. That is why I suspect that cellulose ethanol is more likely to be a success first.
I liked Heinlein too, when I was a teenager. I got bored with his writing when he kept delving deeper into his growing obsession with young women, and breaking sexual taboos. He was a typical liberaltarian. His philosophy evolved as a product of his libido; as his tastes veered further from the mainstream, so did his respect for societal norms. As I have said before on this blog (a comment Dr. Curry turned into a full post, which I trust will not be necessary again :-) ), a libertarian is just a conservative who doesn’t want to feel guilty about his pot, porn or polyamory.
At 10:09 PM on 18 June, Gary M snerks his fallacy about how (supposedly): “…a libertarian is just a conservative who doesn’t want to feel guilty about his pot, porn or polyamory.”
Oh? Most of the ones I know are either former “raised Democrat” liberals (like me, inculcated to worship the first Roman Catholic president) who had to confront the unspeakable non-viability of New Deal and Great Society government diddling with the economy – or people who take umbrage at what the victim disarmament movement really means about government officers’ predatory intent upon the rights of the human beings they victimize.
One of the “free choice” speeches I’d written in my college Rhetoric course was “The Republican Party as a Criminal Conspiracy.” Nothing I’ve seen in the succeeding four decades has changed my mind about that little matter, so you can hardly get away with claiming that I’ve ever been a “conservative” in the current American political sense.
Politician (and OG/GYN guy) Ron Paul once told me that he’d gotten jolted out of his social/traditionalist conservative rut by encountering Ludwig von Mises’ Human Action (a honkin’ thick book which – even in translation – is one of those enormous boluses of turgid prose which only German academicians can crank out). I told him that I’d begun with Henry Hazlitt’s The Conquest of Poverty, which was a title that appealed to me most probably because I’d thought of myself as being on the political left at that time.
Well, he’s a specialist and I’m a GP.
Better to think of the libertarian as today’s instantiation of the “classic” 19th Century liberal. That’s the only real sense in which we can be called “conservative” – as Friedrich von Hayek had observed in 1960, with his closing essay for The Constitution of Liberty.
The title of that essay was “Why I am Not a Conservative.”
Rich,
I understand that liberaltarianism has the same appeal to many that their former ideology, progressivism once had. The need to be a member of an “elite,” somehow above everyone else. The problem with being a progressive is there are too damn many other members of the elite. The benefit fo being a liberaltarian is that now, not only can you look down on those stupid conservatives (who founded this country and mad it great), but now you can look down on your former fellow progressives as well.
You get to be a member of that 1 or 2% of an “elite” that rant endlessly about the stupidity of everyone else.
Conservatives believe in governing according to principles, a democratic republic as a government, the free market that evolved without the direction of any brilliant central planners, and the Judeo-Christian ethic on social issues.
Progressives believe that the elite should have the power to make decisions politically and economically, because their supposed intellects make them better suited to run people’s live than the foolish masses themselves. The form of government is optional, as evidenced by their attacks on the Constitution to male it a “living” document. On social issues, they have found over time that secular humanism makes the masses much more pliable, so they attack the Judeo-Christian ethic all they can.
Liberaltarians are the Chinese restaurants of political philosophy. Some from column A, some from column B, nothing original whatsoever. Can you name one concept, political, economic, foreign policy, or social, that originated with a libertarian? Even the fundamental precept of libertarianism, liberty, is a conservative/moral concept.
I realize liberaltarianism is all the rage right now, like Che and Mao were in the 60s and 70s, but I just have trouble finding anything original there.
like Che and Mao were in the 60s and 70s,
You would think that someone who spends most of every comment insulting other people would have a slightly thicker skin. But then you’d be wrong.
To begin with, the “right now” referred to “all the rage.” You can tell because the words are right next to each other in the sentence. I did not claim that libertarianism just began, just that it is currently “all the rage.” So I will ignore that part of your rant.
As to how I “conjure that the power-lusting”progressive” is convertible – for the same motives somehow – to the ‘Keep Your F-cking Hands Off!’ libertarian?” Easy. People become progressives for different reasons. There are those who lust for power, those I call movement progressives. But they are very few. Most are what I call default progressives. Like you apparently, they become progressives because that is what they heard growing up, and during their education. To use your own words, they are suckered.
The point is you were not a progressive because you understood conservatism and progressivism and chose the better of the two. You were a progressive because didn’t understand conservative principles, and because progressivism appeals to the ego. It is no accident that those who consider themselves intellectually superior are drawn to progressivism, because its central tenet is that the elites should govern the rest of the sheep.
As a sucker progressive, you fed your ego for years by ranting about how stoopid conservatives were (unless this is a newly developed personality trait). Once reality bit you in the behind, you were confronted with the possibility that all those people you had been ridiculing for so wrong were right, and you were wrong, on the most important issues of the day.
But you were in a world that forced you to confront the reality of what you had believed for so long. You have my sympathy. It must be difficult for someone with such an ego to realize that he has been so wrong, about so much, for so long, on the most important issues of his day. You are to be credited, too many choose to embrace the cognative dissonance. You at least chose a new form of it.
Now, conservatives who disagreed with you when you were a progressive are still stoopid, but so are the progressives who you used to agree with. You keep getting smarter, and the pool of stupid people keeps getting larger. How nice for you.
Oh, and you still don’t understand conservatism any better than you did as a progressive, if you think Richard Nixon was ever a conservative.
At 11:48 AM on 19 June, GaryM claims to realize that libertarianism “…is all the rage right now, like Che and Mao were in the 60s and 70s, but I just have trouble finding anything original there.”
What “right now,” GaryM? The use of “Rotarian socialism” to characterize the mercantilist polices of the Republican Party was from a lecture by Frank Chodorov in 1953. You can find audiovisuals of it all over the Web. And H.L. Mencken was referring to himself as “an extreme libertarian” – in the precise political sense – well before his stroke in 1948. It’s online in MP3 files made of a radio interview he gave at that time.
If you’re suffering under the impression that it’s a “right now” phenomenon, may I venture to suggest that you get your head unwedged and do a little reading-up on the history of this political movement? It runs back through the roots of the American republic, and even before that, into the 17th Century and the radicals responsible for decapitating King Charles I in 1649 and chasing his son, James, to hellangone out of Britain in 1688.
Look up Richard Rumbold‘s scaffold speech sometime. You want to tell me that that sentiment fits your conception of what’s “conservative”?
Your understanding that libertarianism “ has the same appeal to many that their former ideology, progressivism once had” is too fatally simplistic to reflect reality. The progressive movement in these United States – think “Teddy Roosevelt” and “Woodrow Wilson” – has centered upon government power as the vehicle by which to impose their peculiar “better world” vision upon their unwilling, inoffensive, innocent neighbors.
So how the heck do you conjure that the power-lusting”progressive” is convertible – for the same motives somehow – to the “Keep Your F-cking Hands Off!” libertarian?
I know how it happened to me. I was taught how to be a scientist in college, I learned how to be a doctor in medical school and in clinical training as a resident, I did some time in the U.S. Public Health Service seeing how government medical care sucks no matter how much the doctors and nurses and other folks at the grinding edge try very hard to make it not suck, and then I got into private practice to find myself required to participate in the plundering of my own employees as the unwilling (and unpaid) tool of the tax-’em-till-they-die-and-then-confiscate-their-estates federal and state governments.
Honesty in scientific method, professional responsibility in the practice of medicine, then hard reality in watching the people who worked for me get ripped off – and I was required by statute law to do the ripping-off, sending it along to the politicians every quarter. Yeesh. How could anybody with a brain and a conscience not get un-suckered and acknowledge the validity of libertarianism?
I’d been diddled by withholding taxes and FICA and all the rest of it since I first held a job with a paycheck, but it wasn’t until I’d been forced to make those deductions from the pay of the people who’d trusted me to employ them that the bloody awful injustice of it struck home. My “road to Damascus” moment.
Then your strange and silly noise about “The need to be a member of an ‘elite,’ somehow above everyone else. The problem with being a progressive is there are too damn many other members of the elite. The benefit fo being a libertarian is that now, not only can you look down on those stupid conservatives (who founded this country and mad it great), but now you can look down on your former fellow progressives as well.”
Well, there’s a dose of plain silliness. You’re supposed to be some kind of mind-reader, GaryM, or are you just projecting your own peculiarities on other people who make you feel insecure about your own conservatism?
I’ve long observed that the kinds of Americans who call themselves “conservatives” today would have been called Tories – or Crown Loyalists – in 1775. You know. The guys who marched to Cowpens with Banastre Tarleton, and the ones who settled themselves atop King’s Mountain under the leadership of Major Ferguson, confident that the ragtag local resistance (which couldn’t even get itself united under a single commander) couldn’t touch ’em.
Yeah, right.
I like your noise about how “Conservatives believe in governing according to principles, a democratic republic as a government, the free market that evolved without the direction of any brilliant central planners, and the Judeo-Christian ethic on social issues.”
Very nice. It’s bonkers, of course. Scratch the average modern American “conservative” and you’ll find yet another garden variety Rotarian socialist, with no more conception of what “free trade” means than he has about what is genuinely ethical “on social issues.”
What’s ethical, GaryM, is leaving other folks to make their own way to hell, each in his own handbasket, without government thugs pointing weapons at him to compel him to live his life in ways that have nothing to do with trespass against the rights of other people. That’s something the modern American “conservative” has never espoused, and never will. Sheesh, just get a look at Richard Nixon’s “War on (Some) Drugs.”
Not that the progressives haven’t done just as badly. Remember Prohibition? That was their idea. Gawd….
It being understood that the “conservatives” of today are interested in “conserving” nothing but Rotarian socialism and the use of government aggression to suppress anything in the behavior of their neighbors that makes “conservatives” uncomfortable (this is supposed to be “moral” somehow?), and the progressives are – as they’ve always been – “Liberal” fascists, just what the heck else is a knowledgeable, honorable, genuinely moral American to turn to except libertarianism?
My response to this…comment…is above for some strange reason.
At 5:40 PM on 19 June (things are getting a little confusing in these reply skeins, aren’t they?), GaryM leaps to yet another mistaken conclusion about me, writing:
Nope, sorry. My dad and many other men of his generation were consciously and explicitly conservative, and I got along fine with him. He was an Eisenhower and Goldwater Republican, active in the local GOP as well as in our Roman Catholic parish. Big-time political conservative, though he didn’t push it on me. I got most of my progressive conditioning out of the parochial schools in which I spent my growing-up years. No surprise about that, especially after John F. Kennedy got elected.
GaryM, don’t you ever get tired of trying to grope your way into wrong-headed assumptions about the backgrounds and motives of people regarding whom you clearly don’t know dot-one?
When I got stuck into Austrian School economics in medical school, he and I used to dicker over public policy issues, with him – a conservative, for pity’s sake – arguing the case for the Keynesian garbage he’d had crammed down his throat by way of Samuelson et alia. in college and business school, me pivoting my points of argument around the disproofs articulated by Hazlitt and von Hayek and Murray Rothbard.
When the “Carter Malaise” and stagflation set in toward the close of the ’70s – something that his Keynesian economics professors had said couldn’t happen but which the Austrians I’d been reading had been warning about repeatedly and emphatically, my father finally had to admit that the case for government meddling in the economy (particularly in that long-held article of Republican religious faith, debauching the currency by way of the Federal Reserve System to create an “elastic money supply”) was insupportable.
The conservatives of my acquaintance – especially the Nixonian “We’re-All-Keynesians-Now” Republicans like my dad – were wrong ab ovo, and continue wrong to this day.
Heck, I understand “conservatism” in its present guise just fine. I think that’s what really grits in your craw, GaryM.
If you don’t “think Richard Nixon was ever a conservative,” do you think that Ronald Reagan was?
And, if so, how come Ronald Reagan didn’t restore sound currency, re-open the gold window, abolish the Department of Education (along with OSHA and the EPA), and end Nixon’s War on (Some) Drugs while he had eight years in the presidency to remedy the damages done by his predecessor?
I find the modern American conservative too ready to claim the heritage of the Founders when, in fact, his sentiments are fundamentally Tory, his political economics are inescapably mercantilist, and the only one among the founders really to his taste was Alexander Hamilton.
Wanna discuss Hamilton’s “blessing” – the national debt?
Reagan was, Nixon was not, a conservative.
“And, if so, how come Ronald Reagan didn’t restore sound currency, re-open the gold window, abolish the Department of Education (along with OSHA and the EPA), and end Nixon’s War on (Some) Drugs while he had eight years in the presidency to remedy the damages done by his predecessor? ‘
It couldn’t be that the House of Representatives was controlled by Democrats throughout both of his terms could it? (And ending the war on drugs is a progressive/libertarian goal, not a conservative one.)
And I only understand your prior beliefs by your description of them here.
If your father was a Kenysian, he was not an economic conservative. And if you were arguing Hayek, you weren’t a very good progressive. Which may account for your later switch. Goldwater did not think much of Keynes’ economic theories, he looked to Milton Friedman for economic advice during his presidential run. Republican and conservative are not at all the same thing. I voted for McCain, but only because I had no choice.
I suppose some of the difference is that I use the term conservative in the sense of the modern conservative movement. The Republican Party is filled with lots of progressives, and in fact has been dominated by them for most of my life. Arlen Specter, John McCain, Olympia Snowe, Robert Dole, Gerald Ford, both Bushes,and absolutely Nixon. The term RINO was coined by movement (genuine) conservatives to describe this phenomenon.
Movement conservatives and libertarians share much of the same beliefs on economics. It is on social policy where there is a great divide.
At 9:16 PM on 18 June, Jim Cripwell had written: “Rich, I take it from your reply that there is little hope in the near future of thermal depolymerization being commercially viable. That is why I suspect that cellulose ethanol is more likely to be a success first.”
On that I’m not so sure. To the best of my appreciation, the people pushing cellulose-derived ethanol are riding on federal government “gasohol” life support, a Red faction rice bowl defended by the corporate welfare Rotarian socialism (“Three cheers for free enterprise, and keep them subsidies, quotas, set-asides, import tariffs, and competition-crushing regulations a-coming!”) of the Republican Party.
Recent noise in the U.S. Senate about eliminating the tax breaks for ethanol as a motor fuel (otherwise known as “burning food to run our cars“) will expose the economic non-viability of cellulose ethanol as well.
It’s good that the radical eco-marxist links that go to the IPCC purpose come to the public view again. CO2 was always just the excuse, even debunked it will resurface in another form at a later date. Many subplots have been used before but the idea of total carbon regulation and wealth redistribution on a fantastic fantasy of world disaster backed by a tiny science enclave will go down in history. A shining example of the present social and political decline.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-panel-in-hot-water-again-over-biased-energy-report-2298055.html
How certain political cultures are formed in fields and professions is really an important part that will always be ignored and systematically discounted by like minded “consensus” groups such as the current administration or the media operatives that are very much to blame for the continued empowerment of IPCC political fiction dressed as “science”.
JC, i don’t think i’ve commented here before but the constant use of the word ‘denier’ by Robert is really offensive. Sorry but I had to stop reading the commets with such drival and i’m aware you have an open comment policy that I totally agree with but with this commentor he knows what the tag means and use’s it to offend.
It’s a shame becuase in general it’s a good lively debate around here.
Shevva, we have had numerous threads discussing this kind of issue. I’ve elected not to ban the word since it is used in common and even academic discourse on the subject. I suggest you just skip over Robert’s comments if you find them offensive.
Thanks for the reply and i understand and repect your desision, I will carry on enjoying your blog and the multitude of commentors you attracted.
Shevva, some of us wear the title of denier as a badge of honor. There is story on this issue I have told several times. During the anti-war demonstarations at the end of the Vuetnam war, the police and demonstrators both wanted there to be no riots. So, they opened a joint headquarters for each demonstration. When the police were not in uniform, they wanted to wear a small lapel icon that would immediately identifiy them as police. What they, the police, chose was
A sliver pig.
Shevva –
Robert is a troll whose main purpose here is to be as offensive as possible to as many people s possible. He doesn’t even confine his offensiveness to the skeptics.
Dr Curry’s advice is best – don’t read him. And certainly don’t anwer him.
Welcome to the zoo.
Bishop Hill has a new post up on this, by Ben Pile of Climate Resistance
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/6/16/ideological-money-laundering.html
Which investigates the European Renewable Energy Council, which coauthored with Greenpeace the report in question. An excerpt:
“Many have questioned the IPCC’s credibility for having allowed an NGO with such a naked political agenda as Greenpeace to influence its statements and advice. But the problem here is far deeper. Trade associations are not only lobbying for their members’ interests, they are being paid to lobby the EU to lobby in favour of the policies the EU has already determined it wants. It pays them also to set the parameters of its policies, and to suggest means by which they can be delivered. At the same time, the EREC publishes research which benefits the EU’s preferred policies at the global, intergovernmental level. And this research seemingly has the backing of a non-governmental organisation, Greenpeace, which prides itself on taking no money from business or government. The next question to ask is this… Can an organisation that represents commercial enterprises really offer governmental organisations impartial policy advice? Imagine the furore that would ensue, were oil companies so instrumental in the design of EU policies and their implementation. Lobbying is one thing; such proximity to policy-making is quite another.”
Thank you for linking to this guest post at bishophill.
I hope it gets a wide audience, because this shows the influence, or promotional circle taking place between national governments, trade associations for renewables, a supra-national lobby group of these, EREC, lobbying the EU in Brussels, with money the receive from that EU (that’s our taxes, btw), Greenpeace and the IPCC.
In other words, lobbying is taking place, cloaked by the mantle of ‘the consensus is’-IPCC, using our tax money to lobby for us to be made to pay even more.
Is that what we now must understand as ‘scientific consensus’?
Michael is getting a bit flusterred that skeptics are not cooperating with his ‘nothing here, move along’ ploy.
Keep it up, troll. You are god’s gift to skepticism.
Dr Curry
I couldn’t read through 200+ posts to see if this was discussed, but I question your including Bjorn Lonborg under the ‘right wing’ label. Lonborg is in environmentalist through and through – not common to the right – who happens to care more about current existing problems than focusing on potential future problems. I don’t see how prioritizing deaths due to malaria and dung burning over long-term climate change makes him right wing. If you know more about Lonborg than I do, I’d be happy to be corrected.
Mark, I don’t characterize Lomborg under the right wing label, his position in this debate is complex and evolving (a position that I personally have sympathy for).
My apology. In re-reading, I see the quote was from the Wikipedia entry you quoted from at length. This is the typical smear Lonborg suffers from. For the crime of wanting the poor of the world to have access to clean water, sanitation, and basic medical care right now, Lonborg gets the typical vicious attack dog treatment. Better to let the brown-skinned peoples of the world die, and change out our light bulbs and recycle aluminum cans.
There’s very little evidence that Lomberg is “an environmentalist through and through” other than his claims to have been a green in the past. As this is a fashionable claim among “skeptics” (not unlikely the way it fashionable for people like Michelle Bachman to claim to have once been leftist) I think we need to ask for some objective evidence that Lomberg is, or ever was, an environmentalist.
Whether you place Lomberg on the right or the left, the most important thing about him is his serial dishonesty. Whole books and websites have been dedicated to cataloging his misrepresentations and outright lies. As it happens, I like where he is on policy at the moment (supporting carbon taxes) but the central thing you have to remember about Lomberg is that you cannot believe a single word he says.
See also: “The Lomberg Deception” and
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
MarkB –
I don’t see how prioritizing deaths due to malaria and dung burning over long-term climate change makes him right wing.
There are some who classify me as libertarian, most classify me as “right-wing, and I DO prioritize deaths due to malaria and dung burning over long-term climate change.
Throwing away the present to save the future is idiocy.
This leads to the question: What have you done to counter malaria and dung burning?
I have used the basically same argument: We who live in the rich world should consider the well-being of present and next generation poor people on the same or higher priority than the well-being of generations of distant future. I may have done a little in that direction, but have I shown real concern at a level that gives me right to present that argument?
Pekka –
Good question.
In my case, I spent considerable time at medical missions in Haiti and Central America. I “adopted” kids in that I provided money for their educaion. And i’ve supported those medical missions monetarily for the last 25 years. My oldest son has also spent time in Haiti – one time during the last revolution. And both my sons have spent a lot of time on “Katrina” rebuilding projects in Mississippi and Louisiana. A year ago, my grandson (11 years old) gave $400 to a medical/anti-slavery mission in Uganda. It was every penny he’d saved in 4 years.
Specifically, “malaria and dung-burning”? No – but I/we do our part in other ways. It’s part of what we are.
“Samuel George Morton, in the hands of Stephen Jay Gould, has served for 30 years as a textbook example of scientific misconduct [12]. The Morton case was used by Gould as the main support for his contention that “unconscious or dimly perceived finagling is probably endemic in science, since scientists are human beings rooted in cultural contexts, not automatons directed toward external truth” [1]. This view has since achieved substantial popularity in “science studies” [2]–[4]. But our results falsify Gould’s hypothesis that Morton manipulated his data to conform with his a priori views. The data on cranial capacity gathered by Morton are generally reliable, and he reported them fully. Overall, we find that Morton’s initial reputation as the objectivist of his era was well-deserved.”
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071
Maybe Gould secretly called Morton a denier too.
Must say I choked on my coffee when I read this:
JCurry: “whenever I raise an issue about uncertainty they don’t say I am incorrect”
Hmmm, let’s see what an expert says.
James Annan : “The “Italian Flag” analysis, at least as implemented by Judith Curry, is incoherent nonsense.”
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/10/she-who-refuses-to-do-arithmetic-is.html
Self awareness doesn’t seem to be a strong point
Why attack the messenger? That won’t save the AGW story now. It’s too late.
VeryTallGuy, “incoherent” means he was unable or incapable of understanding her use of “the Italian flag” concept. There are no other solid details in that link except a link to somewhere else, who in turn links to someone else since that guy does do math and then the person who actually does go through it says he doesn’t like one example she used , even though its an example.
For more on the italian flag, see my in press paper in Climatic Change
http://judithcurry.com/2011/03/24/reasoning-about-climate-uncertainty-draft/
Good enough for Climatic Change, not good enough for Annan, Tobis and Stoat. You be the judge.
Well the attacks against Lynas have begun, courtesy of Joe Romm (surprised?)
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/16/246665/ipcc-renewables-2/
I just read that post twice. Would you like to quote any sentence where Romm “attacks” Lynas? He clearly disagrees with him and outlines why he does, I see no attack.
The whole article is an attack. He tangentially doesn’t like what Lynas says about nuclear. He calls him silly and says he “stretches credibility”. He questions his motives.
He attacks Lynas’ argument, and implies his affection for nuclear power is distorting his view of this issue. The whole thing is pretty tame. He calls his position “silly,” he doesn’t claim Lynas is “silly.” There’s not a personal insult in the whole thing.
You can’t fire up the air raid sirens for persecution every time someone on the internet disagrees with you and says why.
attack can also mean strong criticism, it doesn’t always mean personal insults.
What’s new? They have always “eaten their own” – like sharks.
More like goldfish. Like goldfish, the size (power) of the CAGW proponents who eat their own depends on the size of their goldfish bowl. Shrink their budgets and these fish that look like sharks now, will look more like the minnows they really are.
Heh! Kinda like Robert who thinks he’s a wolf, but in reality is a Chihuahua.
Ahhhh! That’s why on the rare occasions I actually read one of his comments, I get a sudden yen for Taco Bell.
Maybe the egregious errors in Lynas’ piece might qualify for some skeptism and critique? Just a thought.
And it’s very Intersting that these error strewn accounts are lauded, but to point out their glaring deficiencies is an “attack”.
Not all critiques are equally welcome for some reason.
Michael,
Your arc is not in the climbing phase.
There are some errors of interpretation in Lynas’ piece, I don’ see any in McIntyre’s. But the main theme in both is important; by the standards that people expect for the IPCC, Teske wasn’t qualified to participate as a lead author. Further, people don’t like to see Greenpeace (or Exxon Mobil) in positions of influence on the IPCC. The details are less important than these key points.
What are these unwritten standards by these unknown people that you are alluding to Judith?
Some transparency on your thoughts here would be very helpful in determining how this leads to Teske being unqualified , in what is, at the moment, your assertion argued at second hand.
If this is what you think, just say so.
In which Steve admits that he really is just complaining about the press release:
http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/16/responses-from-ipcc-srren/
there appear to be many issues with the SRREN report. It’s not ‘just’ the press release. However, it seems to me that the apparently untrue assertion leading off the IPCC press release deserves to be either justified by IPCC or withdrawn.
Please do elucidate, you are pretty good at obfuscation but I have yet to see anything other than “I don’t like Greenpeace” or “I don’t like the scenario being headlined in the press release”.
Rattus,
Whatever you are doing, if it has to do with persuasion or appearing credible, is not working.
Possibly you could try actually reading Steve’s post, his criticisms are clear enough. The scenario headlined in the press was not chosen buy the press, but by the IPCC who chose to base their press release on one scenario out of 164, months before the actual report was available. It was only recently we found out the 80% (actually 77%) scenario was only one of those mentioned, and of the involvement of a Greenpeace employee in promulgating the press release.
You are saying you see nothing wrong with Greenpeace’s involvement in this? What if the lead author as an employee of Exxon, or the Heartland Institute – would that be alright then?
“You are saying you see nothing wrong with Greenpeace’s involvement in this? What if the lead author as an employee of Exxon, or the Heartland Institute – would that be alright then?”
The lack of response to this question tells you everything you need to know.
The Norwegian Rat and Michael are not going to like the second post at Climate Audit on the corruption of the IPCC regarding this.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/16/responses-from-ipcc-srren/#comment-289678
No, they will not like it, not one little bit.
I followed your link hunter, but the relevance of the particular post was obscure.
Is the URL the right one?
This a more interesting link which shows more backpedaling:
http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/16/responses-from-ipcc-srren/#comment-289640
“No independent due diligence”, whatever that is supposed to mean in this context, in spite of the fact that the SRREN went through several rounds of external review? Hmm… His real complaint comes at the end: where he asserts that the IPCC says that the Greenpeace scenario is shown to be a viable path. The SPM, which by definition is the take home message of the report, makes no claims about the viability of any of the scenarios, nor does it make any recommendations about what path should be followed.
This was in a reply to a direct question about problems with the scenario. I provided some of my own possible objections. But then again the scenario is the product of a project called Energy Revolution, so I would expect it to make some, umm, revolutionary assumptions.
Michael,
Sorry, I did not realize you are unable to read things that disagree with you.
I keep thinking I will find a believer who is capable of a serious discussion, and I have yet to fail to be disappointed.
You and the rat are rather pathetic.
Please keep up your great effort in the advancement of skepticism.
Hunter, this is the comment you link takes me too;
“Steve,
The response from the true believer community tells us all we need to know.
They are apparently tired of their opinion leaders being held to normal standards of behavior regarding corruption, noble and less so, and really want the drumbeat from skeptics, especially you, to stop.
Keep up the great work.
Do not stop telling the truth.”
If this want you want me to look at??
I commend you on your spelling.
Is there something else?
“Untrue assertion” – yes, elaborate, please.
Speaking of which, will you remove/correct your untrue assertion that Teske is his own assessor, as he is a lead author?
Michael –
Why is it that apparently only you and Rattus fail to understand the lack of ethical behavior on the part of the IPCC and Greenpeace?
I think we’re waiting for someone to offer a rational explanation, rather than just moving with the herd, or producing an anti-greenpeace tirade.
So why don’t you give it a go?
Michael, you were asking for ‘fact-checking’ previously. Again, you don’t seem to be very good at this yourself. You claim that Steve made an “untrue assertion that Teske is his own assessor, as he is a lead author”. How is that untrue? Steve wrote:
“It is totally unacceptable that IPCC should have had a Greenpeace employee as a Lead Author of the critical Chapter 10, that the Greenpeace employee, as an IPCC Lead Author, should […] have been responsible for assessing his own work and that, with such inadequate and non-independent ‘due diligence’, IPCC should have featured the Greenpeace scenario in its press release on renewables.”
Note that Steve did not write “It is totally unacceptable that […] an IPCC Lead Author, should […] have been SOLE responsible for assessing his own work […]”. Clearly, he was one lead author and there were other more senior authors (coordinating lead authors), as well as reviewers and so on, who all have some responsibility for Chapter 10. But Teske was a Lead Author of that chapter, and common sense dictates that he must have made significant contributions to the discussion of his own Greenpeace report. This is such a natural supposition that if you want to believe otherwise, there would need to be some evidence provided that Teske specifically was not involved in the writing of the parts of Chapter 10 that refer to his own Greenpeace report. Where is that evidence?
Split hairs much Jeremy?
McIntyre’s allegation is crystal clear – that it was Teske assessing his own work and it was on his assessment that it made it in the report.
Utterly false.
There are several layers of review and approval over and above the lead authors. Any one of them could have recommended that the Tseke et al report be removed. Expert reviewers are appointed to do just this.
Teske’s own view of his work is not what got it in the final report.
McIntyre’s allegation is completely wrong……even with your attempt at back-pedalling.
Michael,
There is no backpedaling b y skeptics, and none needed by McIntyre.
Please keep pretending it is all just something to ignore.
McIntyre on Wednesday:
McIntyre on Thursday:
Nope, no backpedaling there!
Yep, no back-pedalling there.
First, it was aboard the Gullible Express, now it’s synchronised back-pedalling.
Quite a performance.
In my post, I observed that the scenario highlighted by IPCC was an extreme case among the scenarios, that the extreme scenario came from Greenpeace and that a Greenpeace employee was a Lead Author of the chapter supposedly carrying out an independent assessment.
The post was covered by Mark Lynas and Andy Revkin among others and has led to responses from IPCC. None of the responses rebut any of the criticisms.
One out of three complaints relate to the PR.
Rattus and Michael,
You should read for content better before embarrassing yourself. It makes you appear to be in, how shall I say it? Denial.
Yes. Perhaps it would be just better to let the IPCC fail miserably.
The IPCC is accomplishing that very well.
Caesar’s Wife. IPCC needs to be just as virtuous, and largely for the same reasons –the consequences of “infidelity” are too apalling to contemplate. Alas, the wench is conclusively shown to be not faithful, and the consequences, no matter how much she doth protest, are entirely on her.
“that proscription of DDT had led to millions of deaths”
This is a statement that has always puzzled me. As I understand it DDT has only ever been proscribed for agricultural use, not for vector control. In fact environmentalists argue its use for agricultural purposes derogated from its use for vector control because the resultant pervasive low level concentrations of DDT tended to cause the development of resistant strains of mosquitoes just as misuse of antibiotics tends to cause the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria.
If anyone can point me to somewhere where DDT was banned for vector control purposes I would be interested.
Thanks
It is frequently asserted nowadays that DDT was never “banned” outside the US. But if the manufacture is curtailed, supplies are not readily available, and you face threats to aid and loans if you persist in using it (which is what happened) – well, you can say it wasn’t banned if you like, but the fact is very little got used for these reasons, and the consequences have been very dire indeed.
This is helpful but could you please give me some examples where people have had their aid cut for using DDT to control mosquitoes? Also when was the manufacture of DDT banned?
Was the use of DDT for controlling mosquitoes banned in the US? When?
Thanks
Wombat –
Try some Google searches – it’ll pop up. BTDT
This is Peter’s way of saying- yes, that’s right, it was never banned. “asserted” is just thrown in for effect.
The Orwellians in the enviro movement really need you to keep on believing their spin on this.
This on the other hand is no use at all. Perhaps if we don’t want to be called denialists we should not call other people orwellian?
Wombat –
It would make no difference at all. The purpose in the “denier” label is to depersonalize the skeptics so that when they propose committing us to mental institutions or trowing us in jail or levying huge fines for expressing “denialist” arguments, we won’t be seen as human.
BTW – ALL of those tactics have been seriously proposed, by scientists, NGO’s and high-level government officials.
And they have also been used by sceptics against climate scientists. I thought that the whole point of Dr Curry’s blog was to get away from name calling and to engage in a rational discussion.
Wombat –
And they have also been used by sceptics against climate scientists.
You’d need to provide evidence of that. I’ve yet to see the German Green Paerty (or any other) seriously propose to jail consensus climate scientists as they did wrt skeptics. And then there’s David Suzuki in Canada – and…. more.
I thought that the whole point of Dr Curry’s blog was to get away from name calling and to engage in a rational discussion.
That would be a good idea. Any idea how you’re gonna get the warm-green contingent to stop the name-calling? We tried that a few months ago – but that didn’t work out.
Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
Maybe we can look at this one objectively instead of through the weeny lens of Mr. McIntyre; and while we’re at it, more broadly consider the perspective of Mr. Lynus.
Obviously, the basic perspective of Mr. Lynus is different than for Mr. McIntyre: for Mr. Lynus, it is about the mix of strategies to reduce GHG’s. It is not a question of whether or not there is a need to reduce GHG’s as quickly and safely as possible, since Mr. Lynus accepts the science and the need for mitigation via a suite of strategies that includes a significant shift to renewables.
Mr. Lynus is upset that this special report includes a Greenpeace opinion and that it does not include a consideration of nuclear renewable energy sources or recommend global expansion of nuclear.
Regarding the role of Teske, the report is some 1500 pages long and there are hundreds of authors reviewed by representatives from 194 countries, with Teske (a renewables technology expert who works with scientists) being one of eleven lead authors in one chapter. To most people, this speaks for itself in terms of balance and appropriateness.
For sure, Mr. Lynus is free to believe, along with others, that nuclear should be part of the solution to climate change e.g. Barry Brook of Adelaide is also open to this option. It’s been Lynus’ public position since 2008 (when he says he read the book by American author Tom Blees) so it’s not new.
To be clear, Mr. Lynus is talking about new generation reactor technology i.e., with closed-loop nuclear fuel cycles. However, the sort of fuel reprocessing reactors that Mr. Lynus would like to see supported are not in commercial operation and are so expensive and take so long to build that, along with the potential security and safety threats, the global expansion of (renewable) nuclear is understandably not part of the IPCC’s current assessment/report/ recommendations. Again, most people find this to be reasonable in terms of GLOBAL recommendations, at this time. It is is no way a uniquely Greenpeace position or directed by Greenpeace — and anyone who thinks it is, is simply not on top of current discussions and debates. Mr Lynus’ reaction strongly suggests he simply feels snubbed.
Now. Mr. McIntyre. He insists the statement that “Close to 80 percent of the world’s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies” is a ‘distortion’ because it is ‘a statement about the top-end scenario’.
In fact, there is no actual twisting of information. “Could be met” and “if” mean what they are supposed to mean. The press release says a lot more than the first sentence, including “the lowest of the four scenarios seeing renewable energy accounting for a share of 15 percent in 2050.” Mr. McIntyre seems to struggle with some kind of attention-span trouble. Nnever the brightest penny in the piggybank, that one. :-(
As it is, the overall conservative conclusion of the report is 30% by 2050. This is less than what most renewable experts say is pragmatic and fairly easily attainable with relevant policies. And anyone used to reading economics can tell you that we could make a real and relatively easy dent on targets tomorrow in western countries if we made appropriate and reasonable reductions in consumption and increased efficiency of energy consumption.
A press release is what it is: it tries to start with an attention-grabbing piece of information and goes on from there. As it happens, this one is not a mis-statement and the full press release is as representative of the range of information in a report and the conclusion as you will find.
It is amusing, for example, that Teske is considered a problem by those who would deny climate change, but not e.g. past lead author pastor Christy, who has been exposed as a major fudger/liar. Indeed, IPCC does make the occasional mistake with lead authors.
(Funnier still how Republican press releases with no basis in any report i.e. completely made up figures that are a figment of the imagination, have made it onto this blog in the past as statements of fact.)
Of course, Mark Lynus is free to publicize his new book, make friends with Steve McIntyre and continue his personal offensive against Greenpeace activists and now the IPCC, who have hurt his feelings and pride in his opinions.
While re-posting Mr. McIntyre’s skewed polemics and Mr. Lynus’ emotional dramatics is embarrassing to anyone interested in intelligent discussion from any perspective, their brief moment of personal bonding does make for an unusually good male soap opera.
The rest of us can see that the report has good news: a sustainable future is not only desirable, but quite possible.
J Curry
“Good enough for Climatic Change, not good enough for Annan, Tobis and Stoat. You be the judge.”
I wasn’t making any point about whether your analysis was good, merely your assertion that others “don’t say I am incorrect”
There are plenty of others, with great expertise in the area, that *do* claim you are incorrect, as I pointed out.
Annan’s statement was about a methodology I was introducing for consideration, not about some fact of climate science. The echo chamber of Rabbett-Stoat-Annan-Tobis-RC were very busy in the early days of Climate Etc. trying to put down my blog and say i was stupid or whatever. I challenged their little “knowledge monopoly” and they didn’t like it.
I don’t ever recall anyone saying you were stupid – but plenty of criticism of what you wrote and often the way it was written.
Judith don’t you see just a little bit of a problem with being very criticial of the IPCC and a whole bunch of people involved with it, lauding that as a principled good, and then being rather touchy about receiving criticism?
For a very recent example, Stoat has a post up on Lindzen and Choi
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/06/lindzen_goes_emeritus.php
” I was going to say he has jumped the shark but I think that is wrong; this isn’t some Curry-like stupidity, this is more the kind of full blown Black-helipcopters-of-peer-review we expect from an incipient fellow of the Breakness Institute.”
See his previous post on curry stupidity:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/08/curry_jumps_the_shark.php
Judith I’m getting a bit concerned for you. Are you really keeping a file on who said mean things about you?
But, the pedant that I am, I’m going to have to bust your bubble.
You weren’t called stupid anywhere on those two posts. I know how disappointing this might be to you, but I assure you it’s true.
See, if stoat had said – ‘Michael you are stupid’, that’s calling me stupid. Not nice. However if he says, Michael has been guilty of stupidity – well, he’s saying that I’ve done something stupid, ie describing my actions, which is fair game.
And ‘Curry-like stupidity’ is an example of the later. This term refers to the post with the following remarks;
“Judith Curry’s departure for the dark side,…. still think she has good intentions….. she mouths off without having done her homework,……reads very badly for her, and Curry threw her toys out of the pram:…….Gavin points out why her view is wrong……Nor do we need people making hasty ill-thought out comments that they will later pretend not to have meant…….Curry’s other embarassing comment at CP……combines some interesting and worthwhile stuff about Antarctic sea ice … with outrageous lies pandering to the septics……….”
So, they did not “say i was stupid ” , at least not in these examples, and nor anywhere else that I can recall (but I might be wrong ;). )
Anyway, as my father used to say – ‘ if you’re gonna dish it out, you sure as hell had better learn to take it’.
I check the echo chamber climate blogs about once a month to see what they are up to, mostly a yawn. I spotted the LC thread at stoat, I thought they had given up the curry is stupid meme. Yes since the echo chamber blogs dish it out, they had better learn to take it. As for me, I mostly ignore it.
You only read WUWT once a month?
Somehow I thought it was more frequently than that.
Michael –
You weren’t called stupid anywhere on those two posts
For a “liberal” you show an amazing lack of sensitivity and awareness of nuance. Maybe it’s the “progressive” part of you?
Anyway, your rationalization is nonsense. The phrase‘Curry-like stupidity’ is used as an adjective that’s a direct statement of an undesirable characteristic (in this case, a level of stupidity) that is exemplified by “Curry”. Of course, you could ask the question – which “Curry”? Joe? Roger? Neil? Angela? And yes, I know all of those people, but I don’t think Stoat does. And in the context it’s plain who he’s talking about and that he’s specifically assigning that particular characteristic to them. .
So – your statement is nonsense: Stoat owes Dr Curry an apology: and, like Robert, you need to learn to read .
Again, apologies for being pedantic.
I guess we can’t expect a great grasp of English grammar on blogs, but stupidity is not an adjective. Try using it in a sentance as an adjective and see how it goes.
In this case it was used to label a range of comments made by Judith – that’s the crux. Not Judith, the comments she made.
So you’re right, it’s probably my ‘leftist’ ‘progressive’, touchy feely ‘nuance’ and ‘sensitivity’ that makes me say it’s not OK to call someone stupid, but that it’s perfectly OK to note the stupidity of someone’s words or actions. A lower level of snark might label them, ‘wrong’, ‘mistaken’ ,’confused’ ,or ‘unwise’, but the point is the same.
Aftertall, we all say and do stupid things at times., but that doesn’t make us stupid.
Michael –
Stupidity is not an adjective. But Curry-like most certainly is. And in combination the phrase explicitly describes a specific level of stupidity and . specifically labels Dr Curry as stupid.
That it’s a lie has no bearing on the usage.
Your defense of Stoat isn’t even admirable.
Aftertall, we all say and do stupid things at times., but that doesn’t make us stupid
Yes. And neither of us are excepted.
Also, to be precise, the word “stupid” doesn’t even mean what you think it means. It is the opposite of “intelligence”. “Intelligence” is a measure of ones ability to learn. “Stupid” is specifically the inability to learn..
Sorry Jim, but there’s no getting around grammar and syntax, no matter how convenient it would be to do so.
Glad I could help you out with your adjectives – I blame our schools for not explicity teaching grammar as they once did.
“curry-like stupidity” – now that you’ve figured out the adjective, next tell me which is the noun.
Once you’ve done that we’ll move to the next part of the lesson.
Michael –
The noun is “stupidity”. You need to consult your high-school English teacher?
Just spotted this over at dotearth:
Sanity alert: senate votes to end billions in ethanol subsidies
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/sanity-alert-senate-votes-to-end-billions-in-ethanol-subsidies/
J Curry
Thanks for the prompt reply, it’s appreciated and also interesting.
“I challenged their little “knowledge monopoly” and they didn’t like it.”
The reason I posted was that you seemed to be likewise claiming a monopoly, and one that seemed clearly not justified. So, on reflection do you still claim “whenever I raise an issue about uncertainty they don’t say I am incorrect” or would you agree that there are other scientists who strongly disagree with your approach?
Well, I don’t pay all that much attention to what the mainstream climate establishment says about me. Most of the criticism of my from the mainstream is about “breaking ranks” and criticizing the IPCC and interacting with monsters such as mcintyre. You don’t see too many of them showing up to discuss/debate here.
J Curry
Your latest comment seems an outright contradiction of your original stance, so I don’t really know what you think now.
First of all you say that “None have said my interpretation of the science is incorrect”, whereas now you say that you “don’t pay all that much attention” to them.
Help?
If they have a serious critique of my scientific papers or my statements in the blogosphere, they should do a better job than the sliming of me done at RC, Annan, Stoat, Rabett, Tobis, Romm, Greenfyre. When asked by serious journos about my uncertainty arguments (which is the main thing I have been saying) you don’t get too much (see for example the discover article about myself and mann). If you know of any serious critiques that have been made of my arguments please let me know. If someone is making such a serious critique, I would be surprised if they did not at least email me or point it out here.
Just curious, Judith – why are you so concerned about being “slimed” by people for whom you have no respect? And given your concern about “sliming,” who do you seemingly have no concern about the regular “sliming” of anyone that believes that GW might be A, let alone scientists that find credibility in such arguments, that takes place daily at your very blog.
What explains the imbalance in what you find offensive? Why do you overlook accusations of “scientific cleansing” and the like when it comes from the “denier/skeptic” side of the debate?
As an example, I’m quite sure that you read the many attacks on Muller’s integrity at this site (Willis’ tirade was a particularly unhinged example) – why do you seem to find them less morally reprehensible than attacks that have been made against you?
Has your ability to do your science or live your life normally been impacted by attacks from folks like Romm?
And beyond that, I suppose it could be that you have a categorically different view of attacks against yourself than you do of similar attacks made against others – but that wouldn’t really explain the selectivity of how you seem more offended by attacks from “believers/convinced” than you are by “deniers/skeptics.”
Yawn. I have spoken at length about the attacks on Muller, and now on Lynas. I couldn’t care less about the attacks on a personal level, but it speaks volumes about the people making the attacks. What is interesting about the attacks on myself, Muller, Lynas is that all three of us are in the camp of accepting the basic tenets of the science behind AGW, and we are being attacked by people from the warm/green side of the fence for criticizing the IPCC. that is what I find interesting. To me that is far more interesting than Willis attacking Muller.
Judith, attacks at this very site most definitively did not emanate from the “warm/green” side of the fence.
Why are the attacks that come from one side of interest to you but not attacks from the other side? Very curious, that.
Do Willis’ attacks “speak volumes” about his character or his science, or is it only attacks from the “warm/green” side which provide such insight?
Simply repeating that you have a different standard for the two sides does not provide an explanation for why you feel such a different standard is logical and/or justifiable. And even given that you would provide such an explanation – how do you think that you can “build bridges” as long as that double standard is so evident?
Joshua –
attacks at this very site most definitively did not emanate from the “warm/green” side of the fence.
You need to go back and read it again. The “attacks” came from both sides but IIRC, the most vicious ones were from the warm/green side.
Thanks Judith for creating this blog and accepting a variety of comments, however tedious it may be for you personally.
I (and I hope “we”) am impressed with your tolerance for dissent and how that might impinge on the scientific process.
In 1992 the Internet changed everything. It did not stop at peer review.
“Attacks”?
Perjorative labelling is a many splendored thing.
Maybe pointing out the obvious factual errors in a piece, errors that are at the core of the allegations, is simply an excercise in healthy scepticism.
And maybe the labelling says more about the labeller than those to whom they are applied.
@VTG
Tonto!! You;re back! Craftily disguised under a new name. But you can’t hide that OCD so easily from me……….
Latimer
genuinely, I have no idea who tonto is. I’ve never commented here before under this or any other title. I have a long but recently very inactive posting history on the Guardian website where I recall also coming across you?
@VTG
Ah yes …those happy days before I was expelled from ‘Komment Macht Frei’ for failing to follow the AGW/Monbiot party line with sufficient slavishness. And all in the interests of open debate I seem to recall. How are both of you who are left unbanished?
Tonto showed obsessive and tedious interest in every nuance of JC’s position on any matter. Suggesting some issues in the OCD area. In recent days (s)he has disappeared. It was an unhappy coincidence that your remark is very reminiscent of the
stuff (s)he would spout….
Latimer,
interestingly, I gave up on “Komment Macht Frei” for the precise opposite reason to your good self; in my case it was that the total lack of moderation meant the place was so overrun with deniers spouting the usual conspiracy anti-science nonsense it was pointless attempting a civilised debate.
How Strange I mean typical .. calls for extra ‘moderation’ (silencing other voices)
I was far more polite and reasonable than many(pro AGW) that get past moderation at The Guardian… Yet I’m blocked or deleted, no evidence that any comments of mine ever existed..
Then again the Guardain blocked Andrew Montford’s from commenting, on his right to reply article in the Guardian (following Bob Wards Guardian article – attack on him, which received numerous corrections)
Bob(communications director) manged to read the article and write and post a long comment, within 2 minutes of the Guardain article appearing. hence the nickname lightening fingers BOB for his speed reading and typing skills (or did the Guardain show it to him prior to publication) fair enough..
but Bishop Hill was blocked
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/9/10/can-one-trust-the-guardian.html
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/9/10/moderation-in-all-things.html
Judith’s thoughts on the above..
http://judithcurry.com/2010/09/02/test/#comment-78
“Hi Barry, I’ve been following this saga over at BishopHill, just astonishing. HSI has almost become a litmus test for seeing who has an open mind, open enough to at least read the book and ponder the actual issues that it raises.”
The Guardian has – Comment is Free – as the strapline for it’s comments section..
The second (missing) half of the quote, might show why previous editors might be ‘spinning in their graves’ at the deletion/moderation of dissenting (polite) voices..
“Comment is free,” he wrote, “but facts are sacred.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/8583220/Riches-to-rags-as-Guardian-bleeds-33m-in-a-year.html
“When The Guardian celebrated its centenary in 1921, its most revered editor Charles Prestwich Scott, summed up his newspaper’s values in an essay that is still quoted on its website every day.
“Comment is free,” he wrote, “but facts are sacred.” Scott, who devoted his entire working life to The Guardian, including 57 years as editor, was a Liberal MP who believed newspapers fulfilled a “higher function” than simply striving for “profit or power”.
Judith,
Thanks again for the response.
A couple of observations.
Firstly that you’ve again tried to move on from the point I made rather than answer it; goalposts have moved from “None” disagreements to the fact that you do “not pay attention” to critiques to these critiques being not “serious” but “sliming” – together with a long list of those you apparently don’t pay attention to. This is getting more, not less consistent with each reply.
Secondly that from what I’ve read a lot of the frustration of Schmidt, Annan et al appears to come from other examples of your making what appears to be a very hard, indeed sometimes verging on the insulting, statement, then moving away from it without an acknowledgement.
Thirdly that Joshua’s point is valid: the different standards you apply to the tone and content of comments from the two sides of the debate is very, very marked.
As someone observing, when you first started the blog I thought it was a genuine attempt to build bridges. It reads less and less like that as time passes.
At this point I do not have any particular interest in building bridges with the RC-Tobis-Stoat-Romm sector of the blogosphere, although they are welcome to come over here and join the discussion (Rabett, Tobis and Schmidt occasionally show up here). I am interested in building bridges with the technically educated or otherwise literate portion of the public who want to have an open and honest discussion and debate about climate change science, the science-policy interface, and a host of social issues impacted by climate change and proposed policies.
There is a distinction between a slime job and a substantive critique of my scientific views and arguments. If you can find a substantive critique, let me know, I certainly haven’t seen any at Stoat, Rabett, Tobis, etc.
At 3:20 PM on 17 June, Dr. Curry writes that:
Ah, so you’re trying to engage with us libertarians. Good notion. Certainly, neither the social /religious /traditionalist conservatives nor the “Liberal” fascists (or are they calling themselves “progressives” again this week?) want to hear anything remotely resembling objective, factually-confirmed reality from anybody.
Oops.
“This is getting more, not less consistent with each reply.”
should of course read the opposite:
“This is getting less, not more consistent with each reply.”
Now I remember why I gave up commenting on blogs…
Judith,
“I am interested in building bridges with the technically educated or otherwise literate portion of the public”
I think this is an excellent aim and I hope you achieve it. I am technically educated, and speaking for myself alone, to be taken seriously you need to:
– not only challenge the consensus, but also acknowledge the extent to which the existing challenge to that is made up largely of antiscientific, politically motivated attacks, and to excoriate those in the same tone you currently reserve for the scientific community – or better still, tone down both.
– back up your “blog science” with substantive peer reviewed science – which you do seem to be making a start on.
– build bridges with those you name above and you appear to hold in such contempt. They do have expertise, like them personally or not.
Good luck, and I will try hard to believe you are genuine in your endeavour. It’s not always easy.
Look her in the eye and say, ‘This is not acceptable.’
I simply couldn’t depart your site before suggesting that I extremely enjoyed the standard info an
individual provide to your visitors? Is
gonna be back regularly to check out new posts
It is really a great and helpful piece of information. I am
satisfied that you just shared this helpful information with us.
Please stay us up to date like this. Thank you for sharing.