Harrison Schmitt, Member of the Board, The Heartland Institute Former U.S. Senator, New Mexico
The Heartland Institute’s Fourth International Conference on Climate Change occured this week in Chicago, USA. It was basically a gathering of activists opposed to climate change science and/or political measures to deal with global warming.
It’s worth looking at the programme and the list of co-sponsors. These reveal the nature of the political and ideological links organisations involved in promoting climate change denial. It also provides some idea of how these organisations operate.
Sponsors include:
Conservative and free market organisations and think tanks like American Policy Center, Americans for Prosperity, Americans For Tax Reform, Atlas Economic Research Foundation Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, Competitive Enterprise Institute, George Marshall Institute, Institute for Free Enterprise – Berlin, National Center for Public Policy Research, Tennessee Center for Policy Research and many more.
The Right Wing Christian group Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.
Many of these groups and organisations have web sites and blogs dedicated wholly or partly to discrediting climate science and scientists.
Steve, McIntyre, from Climate Audit blog
And the programme included many of the well known outspoken critics of climate science and scientists. They include authors, contrarian scientists, journalists, politicians, etc. People like Stephen McIntyre, Bob Carter, Willie Soon, Marc Morano, Sen. James Inhofe, Richard Lindzen, James Delingpole, S. Fred Singer, Ross McKitrick, Anthony Watts, Roy W. Spencer, Ian Plimer, Christopher Monckton.
Some of these operate their own blogs and websites or write for conservative newspapers.
So this was definitely not a scientific conference – although science was discussed. Hardly in an objective manner, though. In general the science presented would have been to attack and discredit the current understanding of human induced climate change. Given the overwhelming ideological, political, and economic interests we can see that the science would have been used to support and promote a conservative free market agenda.
OK – that’s the international face of climate change denial. But it’s also reflected locally in New Zealand. There are strong links between local organisations opposing climate change. The Coalition for Climate science and the Climate Conversation Group are linked with the Act Party and the NZ Centre for Political research. These organisations coordinate campaigns, petitions and meetings. Even parliamentary questions are involved.
And of course all these organisations have their own international links with conservative free market organisations like the heartland Institute.
UPDATE: John Boscawen MP for the NZ ACT Party and their main activist attacking climate scientists was at the conference. I wonder who paid his expenses? (Thanks Gareth).
Importance of propaganda and media
The composition of this conference indicate how this campaign recognises the importance of media and propaganda. The “science” of climate change denial, and its contrarian spokespeople, are linked not only to conservative think tanks (handy for funding) and politicians but also to media. To conservative journalists (eg. James Delingpole of the London Daily Telegraph) and bloggers (eg. Marc Morano).
Another indication of the importance they place on propaganda. The Heartland Institute waived conference registration fees for politicians, journalists and bloggers. They also offered some travel subsidies to members of the media.
“Think tanks” and “institutes”.
Hmm.
There seem to be an awful lot of them about whenever climate deniers rear their ugly heads.
Precious few scientific communities though.
🙂
Yet institutes?
They are a dime a dozen.
Whip up a slick web-site and hire a postal box and…you’re done!
A brand new institute that’s all sciencey an’ stuff.
Make sure to give it a fancy-smancy sounding name…
“The Concerned Citizens Alliance for Good Science”.
or
“The American Prosperity and Renewal Institute”
or
“The Pubic Policy and Economic Initiative Institute”.
Names you can trust.
Names that just sound wholesome and eminently reasonable.
Don’t look at who runs them.
Don’t look at who funds them.
Don’t look at the causes they’ve supported before.
Nope.
No need for that.
Move along now, nothing to see here. Example
and and another example.
There’s really no point in ordinary people having an opinion on climate change if ordinary people are totally clueless as to how this climate change/global warming stuff all got started.
Look carefully at the history.
(No, seriously. Take a good hard look.)
You might not understand the science but the history is a lot more accessible.
Who found out about climate change change in the first place? When? How?
(Hint: It wasn’t a bunch of hippies and commies.)
Who’s doing all the heavy lifting in attacking the scientific communities that are trying to warn the public about climate change?
When? How?
(Hint: It’s not your average work-a-day typical scientist type.)
Fortunately for the rest of us, there are these people called…science historians.
They actually record this stuff.
They write it down.
They give university lectures exposing the whole rotten story.
Get informed or stay ignorant.
The choice is yours.
Yes, but don’t forget the audience are basically there for ideological reasons. They would like to lynch Jones and Mann for ideological reasons. The don’t care about the science.
Consequently they didn’t like McIntyre’s more reasoned approach.
“There’s really no point in ordinary people having an opinion on climate change if ordinary people are totally clueless as to how this climate change/global warming stuff all got started.”
(re-reads own prior comments)
…………..
…………..
(awkward silence)
Nope. I still don’t get it.
…………………….
…………………….
(more awkward silence)
“Marxist solution”?!?
Wha..?
I said that “There’s really no point in ordinary people having an opinion on climate change if ordinary people are totally clueless as to how this climate change/global warming stuff all got started.”
Still sounds good to me. I’m happy to stand by that comment.
How that translates into or leads into anything about a “Marxist solution” is beyond me.
Weird.
(shrug)
You said…So you are proposing a Marxist solution then?
…because I advocated the study of history to empower the common people.
🙂
Which is something that Karl Marx was big on.
🙂 🙂
Got it. Finally.
(blushes)
Only took me a couple of hours to understand you were simply being droll.
Sorry for the delay.
We really do have people coming around here insisting that “It’s all a communist plot”.
I saw your comment and assumed the worst without giving it much thought.
Nice bit of humour but please give a fellow more of a hint next time.
😉
Yes, Galliping. As I have said my post on Monday has Denning’s brief comments made at the end of the conference plus links to his power point presentation.
Both well watching. And thoughtful. As he sees it groups like the heartland institute are missing a political opportunity by attempting to attack climate science. In the end one can’t deny reality but this diversion takes them out of the genuine political process. Sent from my iPod
There is an objectively existing reality. There are facts about our climate and human inputs to it’s change. The scientific process is how we discover and confirm these.
Groups like the Heartland Institute have chosen to deny reality. Rather than deal with the economic and poltical issues they choose to attack reality. To attack science. They can’t win that. Reality always wins in the end.
They woukd be more sensible to engage politically and economically. To deal with the real situation. To take part in developing solutions. If their ideology has any value that would be the honest thing to do.
Instead they choose to deny reality and attack science. Thereby diverting themselves from the real process.
Lindzen said in his talk : “There are some facts that are incontrovertible – that a doubling of CO2 will give approx 1degC of warming in the absence of feedbacks”
That is what is based on physics. The rest is based on models.
The Earth is getting warmer: check
The CO2 levels are increasing: check
CO2 is a GHG that will cause about 1degC of warming in the absence of feedbacks: check
We don’t know with any level of certainty what those feedback effects are: check
So which bits of “reality” have I missed out?
I think most people at Heartland and beyond accept the above.
Is it not reasonable to question the computer models that are the only “evidence” of catastrophic AGW, given the overwhelming evidence that computer models have little or no predictive value in complex systems like climate?
Hank, you are mislead. Heartland is not a scientific organisation. It has no scientific expertise or credibility. No one of any sense sees them as a source of scientific information.
They are basically a free market capitalism think tank. They are ideologically driven.
The most reliable source of information comes from the climate scientists. That is best sumarised by the IPCC reports. Although these are inevitably a little dated and rather conservative. They are very balanced and objective.
The real take home message from these reports is that;
1: the evidence shows certainty that global temperatures are rising;
2: it is most likely (>90%) that human activity through fossil fuel emissions and land use changes is the major contributor to current increases.
This is the current best relection of reality we have . The Heartland Institute has neither the scientific skills or objectivity required to give you a good picture of reality in the climate arena.
Just take a look at the list of sponsors for this conference.
The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, whose report, AR4, is liberally dosed with grey literature from WWF and Greenpeace. This is not a political organisation?
All scientific communities on the planet agree that AGW is happening and that we are responsible for it and that this is bad.
All of them.
No exceptions.
That’s not because of some sekrit kommie konspiracy.
The study of the Earth’s climate involves all of the Earth sciences.
All of them. No exceptions.
Covering multiple independent lines of evidence.
This evidence has been built up over many decades.
The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, whose report, AR4, is liberally dosed with grey literature from WWF and Greenpeace. This is not a political organisation?
Nope.
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — or IPCC, as it is commonly known — was established by the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess and summarize scientific research about man-made climate change (“anthropogenic global warming”).
The IPCC does not itself commission or conduct research, but analyzes and weighs findings by scientists in many nations. It describes itself as the “leading body for the assessment of climate change,” with a mission “to provide the world with a clear, balanced view of the present state of understanding of climate change.”
The IPCC just assesses and sumarizes the scientific research.
There is no evidence or possible mechanism that could allow for the possibility of the IPCC to be infiltrated by “libtards” commies or lizard-people.
The IPCC just put out what the scientific communties from all the different nations are saying. If they IPCC was doing something wrong then…all the scientific communties have to do is publicly complain about it.
They don’t.
In fact, the scientific communities regularly favourably mention the IPCC.
The IPCC does an excellent job.
Hank, you look for excuses to reject the best summary of the scientific assessment yet you support a conference with clear non- scientific ideological agenda and a record of distorting and lying about the science.
Have you ever bothered to read the main IPCC report? Or are you relying on those who will lie and distort in an attempt to discredit it?
I repeat – have a look at the list of sponsors for the Heartland conference.
I’ve guessed your game Hank, as the planet warms up and human discomfort increases you’ll be getting some real boo-hoo material to complain about in the lyrics of your country music songs.
That, along with your hiking habits means AGW is all looking good from your angle, it’s no wonder you don’t want folks looking at the science too closely.
Yes I have had a look a the IPCC report.
I also know that a number of the scientists at the ICCC were contributors to the IPCC.
Yes, they do have any agenda. They are conservative libertarians who believe in small government. The UN is an organisation that by its very nature supports large government.
UN/IPCC/Club of Rome. Please don’t tell me this is apolitical.
The ICCC mostly operate within the parameters of the known climate science. They are not deniers.
The IPCC is not the UN. It is simply a body which has enlisted climate scientists to summarize the best information on which governments can make policies.
As you point out any scientific work in the field is included and contributes.
The IPCC does not make policies although they will consider the likely results of different economic scenarios.
To come out against the IPCC reviews using the arguments you have is rejection of the science. It is stupid because reality cannot be avoided in the end.
The Heartland institute and their co-sponsors have discredited themselves by activism against reality.
Their ideological agenda would have been better served by accepting reality and contributing to discussion of mitigation and adaption procedures.
By not doing so they have removed their voice from the discussion – one which most other ideological and political groups gave engaged with.
But that is the nature if extremism.
If my ideology agreed with Heartlands I would be feeling disenfranchised.
I dunno about that conclusion Ken, Rodney Hide and his mad ACT mates seem to be having plenty to say about AGW within the political processes of this country.
Hugh – your claim: “The ICCC mostly operate within the parameters of the known climate science. They are not deniers” is silly.
The ICCC was just a conference. It doesn’t have a position. The organisers do (largely denial) and individuals who presented.
Now those presented would have views all the way from scientifically realistic to out right denial. Most contributions were political, not scientific.
And, for Christ sake Hugh – who was the keynote speaker? – Madman Monckton. The classic denier.
By the way – you claim to have read the main IPCC report. Do you agree with me? It is balanced, objective and conservative.
Yes Richard – Hide and ACT are vocal. But they are using the dead-end extreme right reaction of attacking the science and the scientists. They are attacking reality.
In the end this only discredits them and they do nothing constructive. they appeal to the worst elements in society.
I would have thought a more politically astute approach would be to advance their own economic/ political proposals for handling the problem.
Cedric said:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — or IPCC, as it is commonly known — was established by the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess and summarize scientific research about man-made climate change (“anthropogenic global warming”).
Ken said:
The IPCC is not the UN. It is simply a body which has enlisted climate scientists to summarize the best information on which governments can make policies.
So, we have an organisation that has an a priori thesis, and then enlists scientists to support that thesis. It does not allow alternative theories, and we have seen that in the Climategate emails.
Anyone who suggests anything else is labelled a “denier”.
And we call this impartial science.
What did James Lovelock say on this?
”
The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet. One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn’t got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now?
They’ve employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear. The Germans and the Danes are making a fortune out of renewable energy. I’m puzzled why politicians are not a bit more pragmatic about all this.
…
We shouldn’t let the lobbies influence science. Whatever criticism might befall the IPCC and the UEA, they’re nothing as bad as lobbyists who are politically motivated and who will manipulate data or select data to make their political point. For example, it’s deplorable for the BBC whenever one of these issues comes up to go and ask what one of the green lobbyists thinks of it. Sometimes their view might be quite right, but it might also be pure propaganda. This is wrong.
On carbon trading:
I don’t know enough about carbon trading, but I suspect that it is basically a scam. The whole thing is not very sensible. We have this crazy idea that we are setting an example to the world. What we’re doing is trying to make money out of the world by selling them renewable gadgetry and green ideas. It might be worthy from the national interest, but it is moonshine if you think what the Chinese and Indians are doing [in terms of emissions]. The inertia of humans is so huge that you can’t really do anything meaningful.
“We shouldn’t let the lobbies influence science. Whatever criticism might befall the IPCC and the UEA, they’re nothing as bad as lobbyists who are politically motivated and who will manipulate data or select data to make their political point.”
Heartland Insitute and NZ ACT party down to the wire.
So, we have an organisation that has an a priori thesis, and then enlists scientists to support that thesis.
Not true.
This doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it.
It’s just conspiracy mongering.
How does the IPCC “enlist scientists” to support anything?
How do they weed out the ones they don’t want?
Do they conduct an interview before “letting them in”?
Were interviews conducted to weed out the undesirable?
If there were then…somebody would have noticed, right?
There would be times and dates.
Paperwork.
People tend to remember these kinds of things.
What scientists were rejected after they failed their interview?
Name names.
Or…perhaps they just selected scientists that published only favourable peer-reviewed scientific papers?
Ok. Um, how?
It does not allow alternative theories, and we have seen that in the Climategate emails.
Really?
That’s very interesting.
Please spell out the connection between the IPCC and the “climategate emails”.
Which one are you referring to in particular?
If there’s some hanky-panky at work at the IPCC and you have the inside story then it is your responsibility to tell the world.
Give us the sordid details.
How do we get from stolen emails to the IPCC not allowing alternative theories?
Spell it out for us, step-by-step.
Don’t skimp on your citations.
😉
If you want to claim that there’s a skerit conspiracy at work in the IPCC then you should really provide some evidence.
The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately…
Privately?
(…awkward silence…)
PRIVATELY??????
🙂
Wow.
Double wow.
The credulity of it all.
Hmm.
Yes.
Very convincing.
Privately, yes. No doubt.
Privately, they will all admit to being aliens. (Just take Lovelock’s word for it).
Privately, they will all admit to being members of the KGB. (Just take Lovelock’s word for it).
Privately, they will all admit to hating god and wanting to destroy everything. (Just take Lovelock’s word for it).
Privately, of course. Privately.
(Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink)
🙂
What did James Lovelock say on this?
And the reason why you treat James Lovelock as a divine oracle is because of what exactly?
What’s he got that inspires you…as opposed to say, NASA?
Or the Royal Society?
Or NOAA?
Or every single scientific community on the planet?
Why does Lovelock trump all the others?
What special science research has he worked on lately that just reaches out and grabs you?
We shouldn’t let the lobbies influence science.
Yeah, there’s a good idea.
What’s the holdup from your end?
The ICCC thingy, remember?
The ICCC mostly operate within the parameters of the known climate science. They are not deniers.
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise…. Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?… Will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”
Ding Dong!!!
Sent from my rocking chair
PS, breaking news, Met Office Computer Models proved wrong again…Oh dear, where will it end?
And yet, Hank, those papers were covered by the IPCC report! Deal with the facts – not innuendo.
Despite what your cherry-picked emails mights say (and let’s face it would you like someone raking through your emails – people do say crazy things) the scientists involved have been cleared by several inquiries of any distortion of science or interference with others’ science.
As for deliberate attempts to avoid FOI requests (deletion of emails) the inquiry has not yet reported. This may be one that does find some unethical or illegal behaviour. Let’s wait and see.
But no inquiry has found any fraudulent science. Not a whisper.
Resorting to these emails is an act of desperation on your part. The “climategate” fiasco is basically a sham. Promoted by people like the Heartland Institute. (Who also, by the way, are promoting the Tea Party fiasco in the US).
Hank – you avoid my question:
“By the way – you claim to have read the main IPCC report. Do you agree with me? It is balanced, objective and conservative.”
Can you bring yourself to consider the real authoritative source of information here instead of desperately grabbing at things like irrelevant volcanic ash models??
(“Breaking News” is always a warning of lies coming up – that’s my experience with our local conspiracy theorists).
And WTF is your problem with “Ding Dong”? Do you have a twitch?
Yes, I agree that the IPCC report is “balanced, fair and conservative”, given that they cherry picked authors to fit their agenda.
As for the “independent” enquiry, I am not sure about Lord Oxburgh. After all, he is an old college mate of Beddington, who picked him. They pre-picked the papers to review. Even Oxburgh has stated on record that he didn’t think he was independent due to his involvement with Global warming advocacy groups. and renewable energy.
Anyway, what is it with Lord Monckton Cedric? Why the quotes around “Lord” He is an hereditary peer. That makes him a Lord. Or are you a Viscountcy denier 🙂
And also, I thought he has agreed that CO2 causes warming, but is in doubt about climate sensitivity (like Lindzen) Why does that make either of them “deniers”?
Yes, I know you have evidence of “lying”, but everyone does that (don’t tell me wife, she thinks I am an accountant). But is he a “denier”?
Even the ding-dong IPCC has stated in the AR4 report that it basically uses “fudge factors” to account for aerosols.
Anyway, it has been fun trolling here. I have some sad songs to write, and some cowboy boots to polish. I’ll try to come back 🙂
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise…. Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?… Will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”
Ding Dong!!!
Huh?
I don’t get it.
How do we get from stolen emails to the IPCC not allowing alternative theories?
Spell it out for us, step-by-step.
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report.
Fair enough comment. Nothing very dastardly.
Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
What papers did they keep out?
Name them.
(This is easy to do. Google is your friend.)
And…how did they keep them out?
How?
Give us the details.
Who wrote these papers that were supposedly “kept out”?
(This is easy to find out. Google is your friend.)
Where are their tear-filled wails of outrage on Foxnews interviews?
Or were the authors (gasp) spirited away by the black helicopters on the orders of a couple of scientists?
Who are we talking about here in the real world?
Name the papers.
Please.
What actually happened to the papers in the end?
Go on, tell us!
Tell us the reality-based history.
(Google is your friend)
How do you keep anything out of the IPCC?
What are they talking about specifically?
Do you actually know?
Your stolen email quote doesn’t help you.
Think about it.
(…long pause…)
Clueless?
I’ll give you a hint.
Ready?
Here’s the hint….
“Phil” and “Kevin” don’t control the IPCC.
Really.
They are not part of some all-powerful secret cabal that pulls the strings of the IPCC.
There’s no conspiracy.
Do a little research for a change.
The more you dig, the quicker the conspiracy theories fade away into silliness.
Hank, you really are all over the place, aren’t you?
Having said that “a number if scientists at the ICCC were contributors to the IPCC” you now claim the IPCC “cherry picked authors to fit their agenda”!
You are making it up as you go.
The authors and reviewers of the different chapters reviewed/assessed what was in the literature. If one if the scientists recently presenting at the ICCC had published of course their papers were included in the assessments.
Such wild accusations, diversions and departures are what I have come to expect from deniers. If you people were honest, that is sceptics rather than deniers, you would discuss the issues.
Having said that “a number if scientists at the ICCC were contributors to the IPCC” you now claim the IPCC “cherry picked authors to fit their agenda”!
You are making it up as you go.
Comedy that writes itself.
Why don’t these people think these things through?
Just a little bit.
😉
Hang on. Let me channel a denialist for a second…
…(channeling denier mode)…
Um, yes. Well…exactly my point Ken.
That’s how those frauds at the IPCC work, you see.
They deliberately let in a helpless handful of real scientists…to lend them cover!
They cherry-picked for both sides!
( Cunning, eh?)
Having all the scientists supporting global warming would look too artificial. The dissenters are deliberately let onto the reservation to add a fake balance.
Yep, it’s all a ploy to throw us off the scent.
…(ends channeling denier mode. Goes off to take a shower.)…
It’s worth looking at the programme and the list of co-sponsors.
Oh yes. Well worth looking at. Richly rewarding.
These reveal the nature of the political and ideological links organisations involved in promoting climate change denial. It also provides some idea of how these organisations operate.
True is that.
One in particular caught my eye.
A particular favourite of mine.
None other that the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
Yes, that Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
As in THE Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
Having said that “a number if scientists at the ICCC were contributors to the IPCC” you now claim the IPCC “cherry picked authors to fit their agenda”!
You are making it up as you go.
Comedy that writes itself.
Indeed, you are missing one important dimension, dear Cedders.
This is time
Time keeping on slippin…
Those IPCC authors may have just got a little tired of the politicization of the IPCC over time
One does not have to be an evil denier, just aware of the space-time continuum.
Buck up chap!!
Rump rump, toodle hoo
PS, Monckton, jolly fine chap. did a spot of grouse shooting once with him. Damned handy with the bally old shooter. What ho!!
Ken, I asked you why you labelled me, Monckton, and Lindzen “deniers” when we all accept the basic radiative warming properties of CO2
You probably had no discussion on that because the question contains an implicit falsehood. i.e. a strawman argument. Gee, it’s becoming obvious why you country guys have difficulty handling altered chords.
One of the worst aspects of these sort of attacks on climate science and scientists is not just the attackers get their facts wrong sometimes, and very often distort the facts (eg measuring temperature changes from 1998) but they make unscrupulous and scandalous attacks on honest scientists.
And you have done this with the IPCC.
It’;s a cowardly way of ignoring scientific evidence.
Are you seriously suggesting that the IPCC is an honest organisation, when they break their own rules?
When their reports are littered with non-peer reviewed Greenpeace and WWF material,
Do you really believe there is no political motive here?
Hank, instead of contantly rolling on into an ever-increasing number of questions how about rolling it back to a couple of Cedric’s earlier posts where he asks you to justify a number of your intial claims.
Get it sorted before the gish gallop becomes a farce.
There is a reason for my spelling typos, I’m running Hadley SM slab climate model – it takes up so much CPU resource all typing takes between 1 and 4 seconds to appear!
Roger Pielke, a leading expert in this field, criticized: “The allegations made in the IPCC report were not only wrong, but they are on a scientific basis, which simply does not exist.”
The blogger is totally correct. The IPCC didn’t break their own rules, Hank. READ the IPCC reports hank, read the IPCC website Hank. Do it for yourself, don’t rely on denier blogs (NOconsensus.org )
Report back to us on what you find on what material is included in the reports (warning, I’ve already read it ).
Creationists and climate change deniers have this in common: they don’t answer their critics. They make what they say are definitive refutations of the science. When these refutations are shown to be nonsense, they do not seek to defend them. They simply switch to another line of attack
I haven’t refuted any science. Duh!
I have given you mostly evidence of procedural issues with the IPCC review process.
Clearly, you don’t see a problem with this.
It’s OK to make up rules, allow papers in to the report that have missed the deadline, etc etc.
Did you guys used to work at Enron?
Similar professional standards existed there.
Funnily enough, Enron were behind the whole carbon scam in the first place. When they were doing rolling blackouts in 2000/1, they were manipulating the electricity spot price.
Funny eh?
Now the public are getting creamed by the same carbon scammers.
Guess what, it’s little old NZ that’s gettin’ rooted first. yeeahha!
Do I care? Of course not, got me a good ol’ forestry block so them Kiwi suckers can pay me old retirement fund.
All you have done is produced a host of links. You don’t demonstrate you even understand what is in them or what the issues are. Maybe you haven’t even looked at them.
Here’s an idea.
Take one of those links. Present a coherent argument. explain where you think the IPCC has gone wrong. Include the evidence.
Enable the issue to be be discussed.
I am sure we could get a rational discussion of you did this. And if you are right I for one would say so.
Laughable (in a sad “special” kind of way).
You missed out the important part…
They never retract, never apologise, never explain, just raise the volume, keep moving and hope that people won’t notice the trail of broken claims in their wake.”
We notice your broken claims.
They’re written down.
(We can still read them by just scrolling up. It’s this thing called the Internet.)
You are doing a Gish Gallop.
You have nothing else because you appear to be a man of little substance and precious little respect for your own words or ideas.
You started out with computer models.
Your choice. Not ours.
Is it not reasonable to question the computer models that blah, blah, blah…
Sadly, you never got around to making any interesting point about computer models.
Reasonable or not.
No specific models were mentioned.
No evidence presented.
Your words were abandoned…by yourself.
So then you Gished along to the IPCC.
A new topic.
(Hmm. ok.)
The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change..(..).. This is not a political organisation?
Sadly, you were incapable of answering your own question.
You never got around to making any interesting point about the IPCC.
No evidence were presented.
You just ditched your own topic with unseemly haste and moved on to…
The ICCC mostly operate within the parameters of the known climate science. They are not deniers.
Yet, though you mention the ICCC the one time, you go absolutely nowhere with it. They operate within known climate science?
Wow.
Could have been an interesting discussion,
But…
Sady, you abandoned your own words and left them stillborn on the floor.
So, we have an organisation that has an a priori thesis, and then enlists scientists to support that thesis. It does not allow alternative theories, and we have seen that in the Climategate emails.
The gallop continues with a trifecta!
Scientists enlisted.
No alternative theories allowed.
Climategate emails.
(My oh my.)
Yet, predictably, this all goes pretty much nowhere at all.
A small detour from the Gish Gallop erupted when you (gasp) actually bothered to return to one of your own topics for a change and…quote a stolen email.
Unfortunately, you were completely clueless about what the email actually meant.
Oops.
What papers were being referred to in the email?
You don’t know.
Who were the authors?
You don’t know.
What happened to the papers in the end?
You don’t know.
How did “Phil” and “Kevin” control the whole of the IPCC when they are just a couple of scientists?
You just dunno.
(Hint: Google is your friend. Look it up, dummy!)
Then you had a quick stab at the Met office.
…Met Office Computer Models proved wrong again…Oh dear, where will it end?
Confusion reigns since nobody (not even yourself) seem to know what the link you provided has to do with anything at all.
Hank’s Gish Gallop doubles back on itself to the IPCC..
Yes, I agree that the IPCC report is “balanced, fair and conservative”, given that they cherry picked authors to fit their agenda.
Sady, no evidence of cherry-picked authors is forthcoming. Instead one ad hoc comment is followed by another…
Those IPCC authors may have just got a little tired of the politicization of the IPCC over time…
What are we to make of the IPCC now?
Who knows?
Without serious discussion or any point being made or any evidence presented….Hank’s words are abandoned by their creator and the general public is left none the wiser.
The Gish Gallop continues…
Are you seriously suggesting that the IPCC is an honest organisation, when they break their own rules?
Yet another aimless question.
This time it’s the IPCC again…but somethings going on with the “rules”…or something.
No actual arguments.
No actual points made.
Ho hum.
Moving on.
Funnily enough, Enron were behind the whole carbon scam blah, blah, blah…
Not really funny.
(You can tell that because nobody’s laughing.)
Why is Hank now talking about Enron?
Nobody’s mentioned Enron.
Oh well.
Hank?
Listen up.
Focus for me.
F.O.C.U.S
Pick.
A.
Topic.
Discuss it like an adult.
Provide evidence. Evidence, yeah?
Why is this so hard for you, a man of your age?
Why does almost every climate denier we get around here seem to desperately need remedial English class and a primer in basic critical thinking skills?
(Sheesh.)
Pick a topic?
OK, here goes (peer review gatekeeping)
Quoting Ross McKitrick: ”
The paper I have talked about makes the case that the IPCC used false evidence to conceal an important problem with the surface temperature data on which most of their conclusions rest. In principle, one might argue that my analysis was wrong (though most reviewers didn’t), but it would be implausible to say that the issue is unimportant or irrelevant.
Altogether I sent the paper to seven journals before it went to SP&P. From those seven journals I received seven reviews, of which six accepted the findings and supported publication. The one that rejected my findings contained some basic technical errors, but the journal editor would not respond to my letter pointing them out. Nature, Science and Geophysical Research Letters would not even review the paper, while the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society never acknowledged the presubmission inquiry. Global and Planetary Change received one review recommending publication, blocked another reviewer before he could submit a report and then turned the paper down.
In the aftermath of Climategate a lot of scientists working on global warming-related topics are upset that their field has apparently lost credibility with the public. The public seems to believe that climatology is beset with cliquish gatekeeping, wagon-circling, biased peer-review, faulty data and statistical incompetence. In response to these perceptions, some scientists are casting around, in op-eds and weblogs, for ideas on how to hit back at their critics. I would like to suggest that the climate science community consider instead whether the public might actually have a point.
Read the full essay to understand why some of us are skeptical about climate science.”
So, maybe you’d like to tell me why McKitrick’s paper was treated this way, given that the paper was generally agreed with, and why this is considered acceptable scientific practice?
There is a link to a PDF (about 17 pages) where McKitrick describes his experiences.
Gee, thanks.
Only 17 pages?
Sounds like a real treat.
😦
There are also references to the CRU emails which you might find interesting.
References to emails?
We might find interesting?
Might?
What is this “might” nonsense?
Pick a topic?
OK, here goes (peer review gatekeeping)
No.
You just don’t understand.
I asked you to pick a topic.
I didn’t ask you to lazily cut-and-paste.
There’s a huge difference.
I am asking you to pick a topic.
And…discuss it.
And…back it up with evidence.
Not vaguely wave us to some pdf file somewhere that we may (or may not) find informative.
I’m asking you to provide evidence for a single topic and discuss it, rationally.
As in YOU discussing it rationally.
It’s ok to provide a citation.
No problem.
But a citation is just a citation.
It’s not a rational argument.
You have to do a little of the hard lifting for yourself.
Do you have a beef with the process of peer-review?
Seriously?
This is not a continuation of your Gish Gallop of shamefully abandoned talking points?
Good!
Thank you for turning over a new leaf.
Now pull your finger out and make an effort to engage in a rational conversation.
Be an adult.
Engage.
Maybe you are on to something.
Maybe you have discovered something that the rest of us have have not realised yet.
Ok.
Maybe.
Could be interesting.
Could be enlightening.
Maybe.
So present the point that you want to make in a coherent, reasonable manner.
I, for one, am willing to give you a fair hearing.
Go for it.
Spell it out for us what you think the problem is.
Give us a blow-by-blow description.
If you really understand the issue, this should be child’s play for you.
Somehow, I don’t think you do.
Judging from your previous antics, I don’t think you even know how to present a rational, supported argument on any scientific topic at all.
For a start, your research skills suck.
Remember this?
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
YOU posted this YOURSELF.
Nobody put a gun to your head.
This was YOUR idea.
You seemed quite confident that it was evidence of something really special…or something.
Yet, when pressed, you ditched it like a hot potato.
Ran like a rabbit.
It doesn’t seem to have occured to you that maybe( just maybe) other people have already been over that particular email.
There’s a story behind that email.
There are names.
Dates.
Papers.
You don’t seem to be interested in the meat of it all.
Had you done some digging (and by digging I mean 3minutes tops on google) you would have found out that your email is not so nefarious as you would hope it to be.
It’s certainly not evidence of a conspiracy or anything insane like that.
You want to talk about peer-review now?
Ok.
Talk about peer-review.
Spell out what you think is the problem.
(Please make sure you understand what peer-review is in the first place though. That’s going to be kinda vital to any intelligent discussion.)
I am not at my PC at the moment so can’t hunt down the relevant links. However, there has been some discussion over a paper McKitrick couldn’t get accepted. Reviewers rejected it for quality reasons (most papers do get sent back initially by reviewers) and McKitrik did the inevitable whining of reviewer prejudice. I think he has subsequently got this or a similar paper into a journal. Some bloggers have critiqued it.
My understanding is that he was criticising another paper rather than presenting new data. It was more a “letter to the editor”.
Hank, search out the info. You should not accept one side of a story like this. Whining when papers are rejected is legendary. You would have to look at the original manuscript and the reviewers comments and make your own informed judgement.
But Hank, I have had papers sent back by reviewers with criticisms. I have always seen this as helpful although unreasonable reviewers exist (appealing to editors usually solves that problem).
But some authors are so ego confused that they will react to reviewers criticisms by whining. Everybody else is wrong but them.
So Hank you will need to do a bit more work, produce some real evidence, to support claims of “peer review gatekeeping.”
McKitrick made the claim that the IPCC had made a false claim in its 2007 report about surface contamination of temperature data.
He found a statistically significant trend between the temperature series and industrialisation: i.e
the Urban Heat Island effect.
This would appear to be a serious issue, not a “letter to the editor” that could be brushed off.
He submitted his paper to seven journals, of which six accepted his findings, and one rejected the paper on technical errors, but the journal editor would not respond with details of these errors.
Nature, Science and Geophysical Research Letters would not even review the paper.
He spent a total of 18 months submitting the paper to six journals.
After giving up on climatology journals, he finally submitted the paper to a new journal called Statistics, Politics and Policy. The paper will appear in the inaugural issue.
Given that temperature data is so crucial to the IPCC’s case, one has to wonder why there was such resistance to publishing a paper that pointed out errors in the data, given that most of the reviewers agreed with its findings.
“Hank” – now have a look at what others say. For example have a look at McKitrick gets it wrong on IPCC which says, for starters:
“But it turns out that McKitrick himself has it completely wrong, as he cites a passage concerning regional warming over the 21st century, instead of the actual relevant passage concerning the period 1975-2005.”
But, more seriously, “Hank” could you explain to us this email I got from Hank Wangford?:
“Dear Ken Perrott,
Someone has taken my name – Hank Wangford – and is posting comments on your website here under my name. He or she has seen my website, hence the quoting of the Nude Mountaineering Society and the fact that I am a Country singer/songwriter.
But whoever it is has no right to my name and is using it fraudulently. There is nothing I can do about this of course. They could do all this under their own or an assumed name but currently folks will attribute these comments to me.
The IP address for the Hank who emailed me is different.
I don’t have the skills to isolate the origins in any more detail apart from the whois link.
Maybe this is more common than immediately obvious though. I follow the #climategate search on Twitter and sometimes notice a whole surge of RTed messages from people who one wouldn’t expect (dolly birds). When I look closer at the normal tweets from these people I find them quite untypical of someone interested in these issues. I wonder if there is actually a campaign to spam twitter and blog comments. This is also suggested by the common irrelevant denier comment that comes through and is never followed up.
I have just had a comment from our friend “Hank” on another thread. At least his Whois is the same. But now he calls himself Porno and links to a pornographic site (I have removed his website link in the interests of decency).
Interesting – is there a link between climate denial and porn peddling.
He seems well conversant with usual denial PRATTS and I think typifies the integrity held by typical climate change denier types. Thankfully they do more harm than good to their own cause.
I’d just like to say that the real Hank Wangford is one of the UK’s unsung musical heroes (at least, unsung internationally). Great entertainer, and very funny. It’s a real shame to see his name stolen and abused in this way. [Wikipedia profile, web site, in performance.]
PS: Someone calling themselves “James” was posting from that IP address to Hot Topic. The pattern is/was very similar to posts I believe to come from one Andy Skrase in Christchurch. He appears to have started using UK-based proxies to avoid easy identification.
PPS: Left a closing tag out of my last comment. Any chance you can fix?
I would like to thank the impostor for bringing the magnificent Hank Wangford to my attention.
Yes. Clearly that was the purpose of it all.
It confuses you that the real Hank Wangford seems upset about the theft of his name on the internet.
What a mean-spirited person that Hank Wangford must be, right?
Clearly the fake is, deep down, a really nice guy.
He should be thanked.
(puke)
Looks like bringing Hank Wangford to our attention was quite accidental.
He now seems to trying to bring hard core pornography to peoples’ attention.
Whether that was his original aim or if it is just party of his psychological need to hide behind others when commenting, I don’t know.
Anyway, if I can work out how to identify similar attempts in the future I will just automatically divert him to spam. He can’t be considered as serious.
I contacted Andy Scrase and he disavows the posts as well.
Imagine how much more his assurances of innocence would be worth if Scrace didn’t have a nasty habit of creating multiple fake identities?
(On different blogs and…on the same threads!)
What motivates a person to do something that dishonest and childish?
Andy Scrace may well not be “porno” but their respective parents clearly raised them the same way with similar values.
Creeps.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
Open Parachute 
Interesting to note also that ACT MP John Boscawen was there.
LikeLike
Interesting! I didn’t pick that up.
He would have got free registration and possible a contribution to other costs.
I would have thought Ian Wishart would have been there promoting his book. He has been rather quiet on his blog lately.
Sent from my iPod
LikeLike
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=144
LikeLike
Sorry, I should have said, the above link is to videos of the sessions and interviews etc.
LikeLike
Thanks Pat – interested people will have to register, though. They will then send you daily emails of conservative, right wing politics.
They are also posting videos at the Heartland YouTube channel. No registration required there.
Scott Denning’s brief talk is interesting. I am posting that on Monday together with his Power Point presentation.
LikeLike
“Think tanks” and “institutes”.
Hmm.
There seem to be an awful lot of them about whenever climate deniers rear their ugly heads.
Precious few scientific communities though.
🙂
Yet institutes?
They are a dime a dozen.
Whip up a slick web-site and hire a postal box and…you’re done!
A brand new institute that’s all sciencey an’ stuff.
Make sure to give it a fancy-smancy sounding name…
“The Concerned Citizens Alliance for Good Science”.
or
“The American Prosperity and Renewal Institute”
or
“The Pubic Policy and Economic Initiative Institute”.
Names you can trust.
Names that just sound wholesome and eminently reasonable.
Don’t look at who runs them.
Don’t look at who funds them.
Don’t look at the causes they’ve supported before.
Nope.
No need for that.
Move along now, nothing to see here.
Example
and and another example.
There’s really no point in ordinary people having an opinion on climate change if ordinary people are totally clueless as to how this climate change/global warming stuff all got started.
Look carefully at the history.
(No, seriously. Take a good hard look.)
You might not understand the science but the history is a lot more accessible.
Who found out about climate change change in the first place? When? How?
(Hint: It wasn’t a bunch of hippies and commies.)
Who’s doing all the heavy lifting in attacking the scientific communities that are trying to warn the public about climate change?
When? How?
(Hint: It’s not your average work-a-day typical scientist type.)
Fortunately for the rest of us, there are these people called…science historians.
They actually record this stuff.
They write it down.
They give university lectures exposing the whole rotten story.
Get informed or stay ignorant.
The choice is yours.
LikeLike
Steven McIntyre’s presentation and the audience reaction was quite interesting, I thought.
LikeLike
Yes, but don’t forget the audience are basically there for ideological reasons. They would like to lynch Jones and Mann for ideological reasons. The don’t care about the science.
Consequently they didn’t like McIntyre’s more reasoned approach.
Sent from my iPod
LikeLike
@Cedric:
“There’s really no point in ordinary people having an opinion on climate change if ordinary people are totally clueless as to how this climate change/global warming stuff all got started.”
So you are proposing a Marxist solution then?
LikeLike
So you are proposing a Marxist solution then?
That’s a bit of a conceptual leap into a parallel universe isn’t it, John?
LikeLike
Prevention of disaster could be a social issue or one of survival.
Is the belief that climate change can be prevented by humans adapting their behaviour, based on evidence.
LikeLike
So you are proposing a Marxist solution then?
Huh?
(re-reads own prior comments)
…………..
…………..
(awkward silence)
Nope. I still don’t get it.
…………………….
…………………….
(more awkward silence)
“Marxist solution”?!?
Wha..?
I said that “There’s really no point in ordinary people having an opinion on climate change if ordinary people are totally clueless as to how this climate change/global warming stuff all got started.”
Still sounds good to me. I’m happy to stand by that comment.
How that translates into or leads into anything about a “Marxist solution” is beyond me.
Weird.
(shrug)
LikeLike
Wait a minute!
(insert sound of a penny dropping here)
AHAH! Now I get it!!!
You said…So you are proposing a Marxist solution then?
…because I advocated the study of history to empower the common people.
🙂
Which is something that Karl Marx was big on.
🙂 🙂
Got it. Finally.
(blushes)
Only took me a couple of hours to understand you were simply being droll.
Sorry for the delay.
We really do have people coming around here insisting that “It’s all a communist plot”.
I saw your comment and assumed the worst without giving it much thought.
Nice bit of humour but please give a fellow more of a hint next time.
😉
LikeLike
Greetings to Ken and Cedric,
Scott Denning was at the ICCC and made the following presentation:
http://www.heartland.org/events/2010Chicago/PowerPoints/Scott_Denning.ppt
I liked his derivation of the 1.2 degrees Celsius/CO2 doubling, something that even leading skeptics like Lindzen would not argue against.
LikeLike
Yes I enjoyed this presentation too.
Lindzen was engaging as well. I liked his comments that he is “no longer a sceptic”.
By the way, as president of the Nude Mountaineering Club, I am not totally averse to the idea of Global Warming!
It might save my family jewels if the planet warmed up a smidgen
link to Guardian article
LikeLike
Yes, Galliping. As I have said my post on Monday has Denning’s brief comments made at the end of the conference plus links to his power point presentation.
Both well watching. And thoughtful. As he sees it groups like the heartland institute are missing a political opportunity by attempting to attack climate science. In the end one can’t deny reality but this diversion takes them out of the genuine political process. Sent from my iPod
LikeLike
“In the end one can’t deny reality but this diversion takes them out of the genuine political process
”
Eh?
Translated:
Unless you agree with our left wing libtard agenda, you are not part of the political process.
LikeLike
There is an objectively existing reality. There are facts about our climate and human inputs to it’s change. The scientific process is how we discover and confirm these.
Groups like the Heartland Institute have chosen to deny reality. Rather than deal with the economic and poltical issues they choose to attack reality. To attack science. They can’t win that. Reality always wins in the end.
They woukd be more sensible to engage politically and economically. To deal with the real situation. To take part in developing solutions. If their ideology has any value that would be the honest thing to do.
Instead they choose to deny reality and attack science. Thereby diverting themselves from the real process.
Sent from my iPod
LikeLike
Reality deniers? That’s a new one!
Lindzen said in his talk : “There are some facts that are incontrovertible – that a doubling of CO2 will give approx 1degC of warming in the absence of feedbacks”
That is what is based on physics. The rest is based on models.
In what way is that denying reality?
LikeLike
Yes! “Reality trumps dogma” to paraphrase Ken.
Hank Wangford, I like your style! Are you new around here?
Gotta get back to “Brave New Climate”.
See you folks in a few weeks, God willing!
LikeLike
Yes! “Reality trumps dogma” to paraphrase Ken. ”
The Earth is getting warmer: check
The CO2 levels are increasing: check
CO2 is a GHG that will cause about 1degC of warming in the absence of feedbacks: check
We don’t know with any level of certainty what those feedback effects are: check
So which bits of “reality” have I missed out?
I think most people at Heartland and beyond accept the above.
Is it not reasonable to question the computer models that are the only “evidence” of catastrophic AGW, given the overwhelming evidence that computer models have little or no predictive value in complex systems like climate?
Hot diggity dog, yeehaa!!
LikeLike
Hank, you are mislead. Heartland is not a scientific organisation. It has no scientific expertise or credibility. No one of any sense sees them as a source of scientific information.
They are basically a free market capitalism think tank. They are ideologically driven.
The most reliable source of information comes from the climate scientists. That is best sumarised by the IPCC reports. Although these are inevitably a little dated and rather conservative. They are very balanced and objective.
The real take home message from these reports is that;
1: the evidence shows certainty that global temperatures are rising;
2: it is most likely (>90%) that human activity through fossil fuel emissions and land use changes is the major contributor to current increases.
This is the current best relection of reality we have . The Heartland Institute has neither the scientific skills or objectivity required to give you a good picture of reality in the climate arena.
Just take a look at the list of sponsors for this conference.
Sent from my iPod
LikeLike
The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, whose report, AR4, is liberally dosed with grey literature from WWF and Greenpeace. This is not a political organisation?
Are you kidding me?
Dang and wang!!
Hot diggly doggly.
Sent from my crappy lappy.
LikeLike
Visit Our Site
Unless you agree with our left wing libtard agenda, you are not part of the political process.
Paranoia.
There is no conspiracy of scientists all around the world that’s trying to get ya.
NASA (for example) is not filled with “left wing libtards”.
Either the Earth is warming… or it’s not.
That’s a scientific question.
It can be answered by science.
Yet people deny that it is happening.
Repeatedly. Loudly. Endlessly. Stupidly.
All scientific communities on the planet agree that AGW is happening and that we are responsible for it and that this is bad.
All of them.
No exceptions.
That’s not because of some sekrit kommie konspiracy.
The science has been done the boring old-fashioned way.
Hard work.
Expeditions to Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctica.
Oceanic surveys.
Then there’s the satellites.
Flora and fauna migration patterns.
The study of the Earth’s climate involves all of the Earth sciences.
All of them. No exceptions.
Covering multiple independent lines of evidence.
This evidence has been built up over many decades.
There is no conspiracy.
LikeLike
The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, whose report, AR4, is liberally dosed with grey literature from WWF and Greenpeace. This is not a political organisation?
Nope.
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — or IPCC, as it is commonly known — was established by the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess and summarize scientific research about man-made climate change (“anthropogenic global warming”).
The IPCC does not itself commission or conduct research, but analyzes and weighs findings by scientists in many nations. It describes itself as the “leading body for the assessment of climate change,” with a mission “to provide the world with a clear, balanced view of the present state of understanding of climate change.”
Link
The IPCC just assesses and sumarizes the scientific research.
There is no evidence or possible mechanism that could allow for the possibility of the IPCC to be infiltrated by “libtards” commies or lizard-people.
The IPCC just put out what the scientific communties from all the different nations are saying. If they IPCC was doing something wrong then…all the scientific communties have to do is publicly complain about it.
They don’t.
In fact, the scientific communities regularly favourably mention the IPCC.
The IPCC does an excellent job.
There is no conspiracy.
LikeLike
Hank, you look for excuses to reject the best summary of the scientific assessment yet you support a conference with clear non- scientific ideological agenda and a record of distorting and lying about the science.
Have you ever bothered to read the main IPCC report? Or are you relying on those who will lie and distort in an attempt to discredit it?
I repeat – have a look at the list of sponsors for the Heartland conference.
Sent from my iPod
LikeLike
I’ve guessed your game Hank, as the planet warms up and human discomfort increases you’ll be getting some real boo-hoo material to complain about in the lyrics of your country music songs.
That, along with your hiking habits means AGW is all looking good from your angle, it’s no wonder you don’t want folks looking at the science too closely.
LikeLike
Yes I have had a look a the IPCC report.
I also know that a number of the scientists at the ICCC were contributors to the IPCC.
Yes, they do have any agenda. They are conservative libertarians who believe in small government. The UN is an organisation that by its very nature supports large government.
UN/IPCC/Club of Rome. Please don’t tell me this is apolitical.
The ICCC mostly operate within the parameters of the known climate science. They are not deniers.
LikeLike
The IPCC is not the UN. It is simply a body which has enlisted climate scientists to summarize the best information on which governments can make policies.
As you point out any scientific work in the field is included and contributes.
The IPCC does not make policies although they will consider the likely results of different economic scenarios.
To come out against the IPCC reviews using the arguments you have is rejection of the science. It is stupid because reality cannot be avoided in the end.
The Heartland institute and their co-sponsors have discredited themselves by activism against reality.
Their ideological agenda would have been better served by accepting reality and contributing to discussion of mitigation and adaption procedures.
By not doing so they have removed their voice from the discussion – one which most other ideological and political groups gave engaged with.
But that is the nature if extremism.
If my ideology agreed with Heartlands I would be feeling disenfranchised.
Sent from my iPod
LikeLike
I dunno about that conclusion Ken, Rodney Hide and his mad ACT mates seem to be having plenty to say about AGW within the political processes of this country.
LikeLike
Hugh – your claim: “The ICCC mostly operate within the parameters of the known climate science. They are not deniers” is silly.
The ICCC was just a conference. It doesn’t have a position. The organisers do (largely denial) and individuals who presented.
Now those presented would have views all the way from scientifically realistic to out right denial. Most contributions were political, not scientific.
And, for Christ sake Hugh – who was the keynote speaker? – Madman Monckton. The classic denier.
By the way – you claim to have read the main IPCC report. Do you agree with me? It is balanced, objective and conservative.
LikeLike
Yes Richard – Hide and ACT are vocal. But they are using the dead-end extreme right reaction of attacking the science and the scientists. They are attacking reality.
In the end this only discredits them and they do nothing constructive. they appeal to the worst elements in society.
I would have thought a more politically astute approach would be to advance their own economic/ political proposals for handling the problem.
LikeLike
Cedric said:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — or IPCC, as it is commonly known — was established by the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess and summarize scientific research about man-made climate change (“anthropogenic global warming”).
Ken said:
The IPCC is not the UN. It is simply a body which has enlisted climate scientists to summarize the best information on which governments can make policies.
So, we have an organisation that has an a priori thesis, and then enlists scientists to support that thesis. It does not allow alternative theories, and we have seen that in the Climategate emails.
Anyone who suggests anything else is labelled a “denier”.
And we call this impartial science.
What did James Lovelock say on this?
”
The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet. One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn’t got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now?
”
Dingaling!! Wangalang.
PS My name is not Hugh, Kenneth
Sent from my banjo.
LikeLike
An a priori thesis of objectivity, sticking to science, finding the best science.
You reject that. Go ahead, no skin off my nose.
You would rather have the extreme right wing a priori thesis of rejecting science.
But it rules you out of rational discussion.
LikeLike
and more from the famous Lovelock…..
They’ve employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear. The Germans and the Danes are making a fortune out of renewable energy. I’m puzzled why politicians are not a bit more pragmatic about all this.
…
We shouldn’t let the lobbies influence science. Whatever criticism might befall the IPCC and the UEA, they’re nothing as bad as lobbyists who are politically motivated and who will manipulate data or select data to make their political point. For example, it’s deplorable for the BBC whenever one of these issues comes up to go and ask what one of the green lobbyists thinks of it. Sometimes their view might be quite right, but it might also be pure propaganda. This is wrong.
On carbon trading:
I don’t know enough about carbon trading, but I suspect that it is basically a scam. The whole thing is not very sensible. We have this crazy idea that we are setting an example to the world. What we’re doing is trying to make money out of the world by selling them renewable gadgetry and green ideas. It might be worthy from the national interest, but it is moonshine if you think what the Chinese and Indians are doing [in terms of emissions]. The inertia of humans is so huge that you can’t really do anything meaningful.
My next song, The Ballad of James Lovelock
(Sung to the tune of “A Yellow Submarine”)
LikeLike
Sorry Hank, not Hugh.
What’s with the
“Dang and wang!!
Hot diggly doggly.”?
Magic chants?
LikeLike
Bravo:
“We shouldn’t let the lobbies influence science. Whatever criticism might befall the IPCC and the UEA, they’re nothing as bad as lobbyists who are politically motivated and who will manipulate data or select data to make their political point.”
Heartland Insitute and NZ ACT party down to the wire.
LikeLike
So, we have an organisation that has an a priori thesis, and then enlists scientists to support that thesis.
Not true.
This doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it.
It’s just conspiracy mongering.
How does the IPCC “enlist scientists” to support anything?
How do they weed out the ones they don’t want?
Do they conduct an interview before “letting them in”?
Were interviews conducted to weed out the undesirable?
If there were then…somebody would have noticed, right?
There would be times and dates.
Paperwork.
People tend to remember these kinds of things.
What scientists were rejected after they failed their interview?
Name names.
Or…perhaps they just selected scientists that published only favourable peer-reviewed scientific papers?
Ok.
Um, how?
It does not allow alternative theories, and we have seen that in the Climategate emails.
Really?
That’s very interesting.
Please spell out the connection between the IPCC and the “climategate emails”.
Which one are you referring to in particular?
If there’s some hanky-panky at work at the IPCC and you have the inside story then it is your responsibility to tell the world.
Give us the sordid details.
How do we get from stolen emails to the IPCC not allowing alternative theories?
Spell it out for us, step-by-step.
Don’t skimp on your citations.
😉
If you want to claim that there’s a skerit conspiracy at work in the IPCC then you should really provide some evidence.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordiary evidence.
The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately…
Privately?
(…awkward silence…)
PRIVATELY??????
🙂
Wow.
Double wow.
The credulity of it all.
Hmm.
Yes.
Very convincing.
Privately, yes. No doubt.
Privately, they will all admit to being aliens. (Just take Lovelock’s word for it).
Privately, they will all admit to being members of the KGB. (Just take Lovelock’s word for it).
Privately, they will all admit to hating god and wanting to destroy everything. (Just take Lovelock’s word for it).
Privately, of course. Privately.
(Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink)
🙂
What did James Lovelock say on this?
And the reason why you treat James Lovelock as a divine oracle is because of what exactly?
What’s he got that inspires you…as opposed to say, NASA?
Or the Royal Society?
Or NOAA?
Or every single scientific community on the planet?
Why does Lovelock trump all the others?
What special science research has he worked on lately that just reaches out and grabs you?
We shouldn’t let the lobbies influence science.
Yeah, there’s a good idea.
What’s the holdup from your end?
The ICCC thingy, remember?
The ICCC mostly operate within the parameters of the known climate science. They are not deniers.
The ICCC.
Hmm, yes.
Let’s have a look at them.
Let’s have a good. hard look at their keynote speaker, “Lord” Monkton.
The smartest man in the whole world.
Trust this man.
(giggle)
Here and here.
Who shows up for these conferences?
Hmm
Where’s the work?
Where’s the work that science demands?
LikeLike
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise…. Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?… Will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”
Ding Dong!!!
Sent from my rocking chair
PS, breaking news, Met Office Computer Models proved wrong again…Oh dear, where will it end?
link
LikeLike
And yet, Hank, those papers were covered by the IPCC report! Deal with the facts – not innuendo.
Despite what your cherry-picked emails mights say (and let’s face it would you like someone raking through your emails – people do say crazy things) the scientists involved have been cleared by several inquiries of any distortion of science or interference with others’ science.
As for deliberate attempts to avoid FOI requests (deletion of emails) the inquiry has not yet reported. This may be one that does find some unethical or illegal behaviour. Let’s wait and see.
But no inquiry has found any fraudulent science. Not a whisper.
Resorting to these emails is an act of desperation on your part. The “climategate” fiasco is basically a sham. Promoted by people like the Heartland Institute. (Who also, by the way, are promoting the Tea Party fiasco in the US).
Hank – you avoid my question:
“By the way – you claim to have read the main IPCC report. Do you agree with me? It is balanced, objective and conservative.”
Can you bring yourself to consider the real authoritative source of information here instead of desperately grabbing at things like irrelevant volcanic ash models??
(“Breaking News” is always a warning of lies coming up – that’s my experience with our local conspiracy theorists).
And WTF is your problem with “Ding Dong”? Do you have a twitch?
LikeLike
Yes, I agree that the IPCC report is “balanced, fair and conservative”, given that they cherry picked authors to fit their agenda.
As for the “independent” enquiry, I am not sure about Lord Oxburgh. After all, he is an old college mate of Beddington, who picked him. They pre-picked the papers to review. Even Oxburgh has stated on record that he didn’t think he was independent due to his involvement with Global warming advocacy groups. and renewable energy.
Anyway, what is it with Lord Monckton Cedric? Why the quotes around “Lord” He is an hereditary peer. That makes him a Lord. Or are you a Viscountcy denier 🙂
And also, I thought he has agreed that CO2 causes warming, but is in doubt about climate sensitivity (like Lindzen) Why does that make either of them “deniers”?
Yes, I know you have evidence of “lying”, but everyone does that (don’t tell me wife, she thinks I am an accountant). But is he a “denier”?
Even the ding-dong IPCC has stated in the AR4 report that it basically uses “fudge factors” to account for aerosols.
Anyway, it has been fun trolling here. I have some sad songs to write, and some cowboy boots to polish. I’ll try to come back 🙂
Purr-purr, bingaling
LikeLike
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise…. Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?… Will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”
Ding Dong!!!
Huh?
I don’t get it.
How do we get from stolen emails to the IPCC not allowing alternative theories?
Spell it out for us, step-by-step.
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report.
Fair enough comment. Nothing very dastardly.
Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
What papers did they keep out?
Name them.
(This is easy to do. Google is your friend.)
And…how did they keep them out?
How?
Give us the details.
Who wrote these papers that were supposedly “kept out”?
(This is easy to find out. Google is your friend.)
Where are their tear-filled wails of outrage on Foxnews interviews?
Or were the authors (gasp) spirited away by the black helicopters on the orders of a couple of scientists?
Who are we talking about here in the real world?
Name the papers.
Please.
What actually happened to the papers in the end?
Go on, tell us!
Tell us the reality-based history.
(Google is your friend)
How do you keep anything out of the IPCC?
What are they talking about specifically?
Do you actually know?
Your stolen email quote doesn’t help you.
Think about it.
(…long pause…)
Clueless?
I’ll give you a hint.
Ready?
Here’s the hint….
“Phil” and “Kevin” don’t control the IPCC.
Really.
They are not part of some all-powerful secret cabal that pulls the strings of the IPCC.
There’s no conspiracy.
Do a little research for a change.
The more you dig, the quicker the conspiracy theories fade away into silliness.
LikeLike
Yes, I agree that the IPCC report is “balanced, fair and conservative”, given that they cherry picked authors to fit their agenda.
How do they cherry-pick authors?
Where is your evidence?
Anyway, what is it with Lord Monckton Cedric?
Good question.
Why would anybody want a nutjob like Monckton as a keynote speaker?
The ICCC evidently thought it was a wonderful idea.
Wierd.
LikeLike
Hank, you gotta answer Cedric’s questions calling out your claims.
So, be sure to come back, y’ hear. Same place same thread. Bring your banjo.
LikeLike
Hank, you really are all over the place, aren’t you?
Having said that “a number if scientists at the ICCC were contributors to the IPCC” you now claim the IPCC “cherry picked authors to fit their agenda”!
You are making it up as you go.
The authors and reviewers of the different chapters reviewed/assessed what was in the literature. If one if the scientists recently presenting at the ICCC had published of course their papers were included in the assessments.
Such wild accusations, diversions and departures are what I have come to expect from deniers. If you people were honest, that is sceptics rather than deniers, you would discuss the issues.
Sent from my iPod
LikeLike
Having said that “a number if scientists at the ICCC were contributors to the IPCC” you now claim the IPCC “cherry picked authors to fit their agenda”!
You are making it up as you go.
Comedy that writes itself.
Why don’t these people think these things through?
Just a little bit.
😉
Hang on. Let me channel a denialist for a second…
…(channeling denier mode)…
Um, yes. Well…exactly my point Ken.
That’s how those frauds at the IPCC work, you see.
They deliberately let in a helpless handful of real scientists…to lend them cover!
They cherry-picked for both sides!
( Cunning, eh?)
Having all the scientists supporting global warming would look too artificial. The dissenters are deliberately let onto the reservation to add a fake balance.
Yep, it’s all a ploy to throw us off the scent.
…(ends channeling denier mode. Goes off to take a shower.)…
I love denialist ad hoc rationalizations.
They are such fun.
One ad hoc leads to another ad hoc which leads to another ad hoc and so on.
The hole they dig for themselves just gets deeper and deeper.
Give them a spade, I say.
(Heck, give ’em an industrial sized drilling rig!)
I love hard work.
I can watch it all day.
🙂
LikeLike
It’s worth looking at the programme and the list of co-sponsors.
Oh yes. Well worth looking at. Richly rewarding.
These reveal the nature of the political and ideological links organisations involved in promoting climate change denial. It also provides some idea of how these organisations operate.
True is that.
One in particular caught my eye.
A particular favourite of mine.
None other that the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
Yes, that Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
As in THE Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
As in this special, special “Institute”.
Enjoy.
LikeLike
Having said that “a number if scientists at the ICCC were contributors to the IPCC” you now claim the IPCC “cherry picked authors to fit their agenda”!
You are making it up as you go.
Comedy that writes itself.
Indeed, you are missing one important dimension, dear Cedders.
This is time
Time keeping on slippin…
Those IPCC authors may have just got a little tired of the politicization of the IPCC over time
One does not have to be an evil denier, just aware of the space-time continuum.
Buck up chap!!
Rump rump, toodle hoo
PS, Monckton, jolly fine chap. did a spot of grouse shooting once with him. Damned handy with the bally old shooter. What ho!!
Bing bing, !!
LikeLike
What are you smoking, Hank?
You are certainly ruling youself out of rational discussion, whatever it is.
Sent from my iPod
LikeLike
You are certainly ruling yourself out of rational discussion,
Ken, I asked you why you labelled me, Monckton, and Lindzen “deniers” when we all accept the basic radiative warming properties of CO2
I get called a “denier” and you expect me to engage in a rational discussion.
Dingaling !!
Sent from my quill
LikeLike
Ken, I asked you why you labelled me, Monckton, and Lindzen “deniers” when we all accept the basic radiative warming properties of CO2
You probably had no discussion on that because the question contains an implicit falsehood. i.e. a strawman argument. Gee, it’s becoming obvious why you country guys have difficulty handling altered chords.
LikeLike
Hank – quote to me where I specifically called you a denier?? I have glanced back and can’t find anything.
I try to differentiate between true sceptics (I am one – all scientists need to be), contrarians and deniers.
No, I am not saying you are not a denier. Let the evidence speak for itself.
I say you are ruling yourself out of rational discussion because you behave irrationally. (Not just the inane add ons).
You squeal and squirm to discredit the IPCC, without any evidence. You invent issues.
You are ruling yourself out of discussion because you aren’t serious.
I haven’t commented on Lindzen. I have previously on Monckton who is, I believe, a nutter. And widely considered so. In his view scientists should have a religion before they can be trusted (Monckton requires religious certification for scientists?). He has told so many lies – in areas I have checked out – such as the “hockey stick” graph 9Climate change deniers’ tawdry manipulation of “hockey sticks”).
One of the worst aspects of these sort of attacks on climate science and scientists is not just the attackers get their facts wrong sometimes, and very often distort the facts (eg measuring temperature changes from 1998) but they make unscrupulous and scandalous attacks on honest scientists.
And you have done this with the IPCC.
It’;s a cowardly way of ignoring scientific evidence.
LikeLike
Invent issues?
Are you kidding me?
Are you seriously suggesting that the IPCC is an honest organisation, when they break their own rules?
When their reports are littered with non-peer reviewed Greenpeace and WWF material,
Do you really believe there is no political motive here?
Do you really believe this?
really?
LikeLike
There you go, Hank. A cowardly attack – no evidence. Nothing to show that the reports are in any way false.
Not serious.
LikeLike
Hank, instead of contantly rolling on into an ever-increasing number of questions how about rolling it back to a couple of Cedric’s earlier posts where he asks you to justify a number of your intial claims.
Get it sorted before the gish gallop becomes a farce.
LikeLike
Totally gutless.
How do we get from stolen emails to the IPCC not allowing alternative theories?
Spell it out for us, step-by-step.
Who are we talking about here in the real world?
Name the papers.
(Google is your friend)
What actually happened to the papers in the end?
Go on, tell us!
Tell us the reality-based history.
(Google is your friend)
Those IPCC authors may have just got a little tired of the politicization of the IPCC over time
They may?
Or may not?
What a useless, empty thing to say.
More ad hoc rationalizations.
Don’t you have anything rational?
Something based on evidence?
Something you can stick to and defend?
Either you have the courage of your convictions or…you don’t.
LikeLike
There is a reason for my spelling typos, I’m running Hadley SM slab climate model – it takes up so much CPU resource all typing takes between 1 and 4 seconds to appear!
LikeLike
IPCC breaks 3 of its own rules
link
More IPCC mischief
link
Picking Cherries and hot fudge:
link
IPCC Cites an Unpublished Journal 39 Times
link
What IPCC learned from press releases:
link
Systemic representation of science of disasters and climate change
link
Roger Pielke, a leading expert in this field, criticized: “The allegations made in the IPCC report were not only wrong, but they are on a scientific basis, which simply does not exist.”
link
McKitrick on Peer review gatekeeping
link
One could go on, of course, but one has a banjo top twang…
LikeLike
Get it sorted before the gish gallop becomes a farce.
The famous “Gish Gallop”.
Originally used by creationists, it’s a tactic that climate deniers now frequently use.
“Creationists and climate change deniers have this in common: they don’t answer their critics. They make what they say are definitive refutations of the science. When these refutations are shown to be nonsense, they do not seek to defend them. They simply switch to another line of attack. They never retract, never apologise, never explain, just raise the volume, keep moving and hope that people won’t notice the trail of broken claims in their wake.”
Shameful.
LikeLike
Hank – I think you need to widen your sources of reading.
You are a classic victim of confirmation bias and the ghettoisation that produces.
LikeLike
Hank’s evidence #1
IPCC breaks 3 of its own rules
link
The blogger is totally correct. The IPCC didn’t break their own rules, Hank. READ the IPCC reports hank, read the IPCC website Hank. Do it for yourself, don’t rely on denier blogs (NOconsensus.org )
Report back to us on what you find on what material is included in the reports (warning, I’ve already read it ).
LikeLike
Arghh….” Totally INCORRECT”
LikeLike
Creationists and climate change deniers have this in common: they don’t answer their critics. They make what they say are definitive refutations of the science. When these refutations are shown to be nonsense, they do not seek to defend them. They simply switch to another line of attack
I haven’t refuted any science. Duh!
I have given you mostly evidence of procedural issues with the IPCC review process.
Clearly, you don’t see a problem with this.
It’s OK to make up rules, allow papers in to the report that have missed the deadline, etc etc.
Did you guys used to work at Enron?
Similar professional standards existed there.
Funnily enough, Enron were behind the whole carbon scam in the first place. When they were doing rolling blackouts in 2000/1, they were manipulating the electricity spot price.
Funny eh?
Now the public are getting creamed by the same carbon scammers.
Guess what, it’s little old NZ that’s gettin’ rooted first. yeeahha!
Do I care? Of course not, got me a good ol’ forestry block so them Kiwi suckers can pay me old retirement fund.
They think they are saving the planet….
suckers…..!!!!
Sent from my Ferrari.
LikeLike
Hank
All you have done is produced a host of links. You don’t demonstrate you even understand what is in them or what the issues are. Maybe you haven’t even looked at them.
Here’s an idea.
Take one of those links. Present a coherent argument. explain where you think the IPCC has gone wrong. Include the evidence.
Enable the issue to be be discussed.
I am sure we could get a rational discussion of you did this. And if you are right I for one would say so.
But so far – nothing
Just piss and wind.
LikeLike
I haven’t refuted any science. Duh!
Laughable (in a sad “special” kind of way).
You missed out the important part…
They never retract, never apologise, never explain, just raise the volume, keep moving and hope that people won’t notice the trail of broken claims in their wake.”
We notice your broken claims.
They’re written down.
(We can still read them by just scrolling up. It’s this thing called the Internet.)
You are doing a Gish Gallop.
You have nothing else because you appear to be a man of little substance and precious little respect for your own words or ideas.
You started out with computer models.
Your choice. Not ours.
Is it not reasonable to question the computer models that blah, blah, blah…
Sadly, you never got around to making any interesting point about computer models.
Reasonable or not.
No specific models were mentioned.
No evidence presented.
Your words were abandoned…by yourself.
So then you Gished along to the IPCC.
A new topic.
(Hmm. ok.)
The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change..(..).. This is not a political organisation?
Sadly, you were incapable of answering your own question.
You never got around to making any interesting point about the IPCC.
No evidence were presented.
You just ditched your own topic with unseemly haste and moved on to…
The ICCC mostly operate within the parameters of the known climate science. They are not deniers.
Yet, though you mention the ICCC the one time, you go absolutely nowhere with it. They operate within known climate science?
Wow.
Could have been an interesting discussion,
But…
Sady, you abandoned your own words and left them stillborn on the floor.
So, we have an organisation that has an a priori thesis, and then enlists scientists to support that thesis. It does not allow alternative theories, and we have seen that in the Climategate emails.
The gallop continues with a trifecta!
Scientists enlisted.
No alternative theories allowed.
Climategate emails.
(My oh my.)
Yet, predictably, this all goes pretty much nowhere at all.
A small detour from the Gish Gallop erupted when you (gasp) actually bothered to return to one of your own topics for a change and…quote a stolen email.
Unfortunately, you were completely clueless about what the email actually meant.
Oops.
What papers were being referred to in the email?
You don’t know.
Who were the authors?
You don’t know.
What happened to the papers in the end?
You don’t know.
How did “Phil” and “Kevin” control the whole of the IPCC when they are just a couple of scientists?
You just dunno.
(Hint: Google is your friend. Look it up, dummy!)
Then you had a quick stab at the Met office.
…Met Office Computer Models proved wrong again…Oh dear, where will it end?
Confusion reigns since nobody (not even yourself) seem to know what the link you provided has to do with anything at all.
Hank’s Gish Gallop doubles back on itself to the IPCC..
Yes, I agree that the IPCC report is “balanced, fair and conservative”, given that they cherry picked authors to fit their agenda.
Sady, no evidence of cherry-picked authors is forthcoming. Instead one ad hoc comment is followed by another…
Those IPCC authors may have just got a little tired of the politicization of the IPCC over time…
What are we to make of the IPCC now?
Who knows?
Without serious discussion or any point being made or any evidence presented….Hank’s words are abandoned by their creator and the general public is left none the wiser.
The Gish Gallop continues…
Are you seriously suggesting that the IPCC is an honest organisation, when they break their own rules?
Yet another aimless question.
This time it’s the IPCC again…but somethings going on with the “rules”…or something.
No actual arguments.
No actual points made.
Ho hum.
Moving on.
Funnily enough, Enron were behind the whole carbon scam blah, blah, blah…
Not really funny.
(You can tell that because nobody’s laughing.)
Why is Hank now talking about Enron?
Nobody’s mentioned Enron.
Oh well.
Hank?
Listen up.
Focus for me.
F.O.C.U.S
Pick.
A.
Topic.
Discuss it like an adult.
Provide evidence.
Evidence, yeah?
Why is this so hard for you, a man of your age?
Why does almost every climate denier we get around here seem to desperately need remedial English class and a primer in basic critical thinking skills?
(Sheesh.)
LikeLike
Pick a topic?
OK, here goes (peer review gatekeeping)
Quoting Ross McKitrick: ”
The paper I have talked about makes the case that the IPCC used false evidence to conceal an important problem with the surface temperature data on which most of their conclusions rest. In principle, one might argue that my analysis was wrong (though most reviewers didn’t), but it would be implausible to say that the issue is unimportant or irrelevant.
Altogether I sent the paper to seven journals before it went to SP&P. From those seven journals I received seven reviews, of which six accepted the findings and supported publication. The one that rejected my findings contained some basic technical errors, but the journal editor would not respond to my letter pointing them out. Nature, Science and Geophysical Research Letters would not even review the paper, while the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society never acknowledged the presubmission inquiry. Global and Planetary Change received one review recommending publication, blocked another reviewer before he could submit a report and then turned the paper down.
In the aftermath of Climategate a lot of scientists working on global warming-related topics are upset that their field has apparently lost credibility with the public. The public seems to believe that climatology is beset with cliquish gatekeeping, wagon-circling, biased peer-review, faulty data and statistical incompetence. In response to these perceptions, some scientists are casting around, in op-eds and weblogs, for ideas on how to hit back at their critics. I would like to suggest that the climate science community consider instead whether the public might actually have a point.
Read the full essay to understand why some of us are skeptical about climate science.”
link
So, maybe you’d like to tell me why McKitrick’s paper was treated this way, given that the paper was generally agreed with, and why this is considered acceptable scientific practice?
Thank you,
Sent from my 8 track studio
LikeLike
People can’t offer intelligent comment on wisps of mist.
What paper?
What journals etc?
LikeLike
Richard,
Follow the link I posted above
There is a link to a PDF (about 17 pages) where McKitrick describes his experiences
There are also references to the CRU emails which you might find interesting.
LikeLike
There is a link to a PDF (about 17 pages) where McKitrick describes his experiences.
Gee, thanks.
Only 17 pages?
Sounds like a real treat.
😦
There are also references to the CRU emails which you might find interesting.
References to emails?
We might find interesting?
Might?
What is this “might” nonsense?
Pick a topic?
OK, here goes (peer review gatekeeping)
No.
You just don’t understand.
I asked you to pick a topic.
I didn’t ask you to lazily cut-and-paste.
There’s a huge difference.
I am asking you to pick a topic.
And…discuss it.
And…back it up with evidence.
Not vaguely wave us to some pdf file somewhere that we may (or may not) find informative.
I’m asking you to provide evidence for a single topic and discuss it, rationally.
As in YOU discussing it rationally.
It’s ok to provide a citation.
No problem.
But a citation is just a citation.
It’s not a rational argument.
You have to do a little of the hard lifting for yourself.
Do you have a beef with the process of peer-review?
Seriously?
This is not a continuation of your Gish Gallop of shamefully abandoned talking points?
Good!
Thank you for turning over a new leaf.
Now pull your finger out and make an effort to engage in a rational conversation.
Be an adult.
Engage.
Maybe you are on to something.
Maybe you have discovered something that the rest of us have have not realised yet.
Ok.
Maybe.
Could be interesting.
Could be enlightening.
Maybe.
So present the point that you want to make in a coherent, reasonable manner.
I, for one, am willing to give you a fair hearing.
Go for it.
Spell it out for us what you think the problem is.
Give us a blow-by-blow description.
If you really understand the issue, this should be child’s play for you.
Somehow, I don’t think you do.
Judging from your previous antics, I don’t think you even know how to present a rational, supported argument on any scientific topic at all.
For a start, your research skills suck.
Remember this?
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
YOU posted this YOURSELF.
Nobody put a gun to your head.
This was YOUR idea.
You seemed quite confident that it was evidence of something really special…or something.
Yet, when pressed, you ditched it like a hot potato.
Ran like a rabbit.
It doesn’t seem to have occured to you that maybe( just maybe) other people have already been over that particular email.
There’s a story behind that email.
There are names.
Dates.
Papers.
You don’t seem to be interested in the meat of it all.
Had you done some digging (and by digging I mean 3minutes tops on google) you would have found out that your email is not so nefarious as you would hope it to be.
It’s certainly not evidence of a conspiracy or anything insane like that.
You want to talk about peer-review now?
Ok.
Talk about peer-review.
Spell out what you think is the problem.
(Please make sure you understand what peer-review is in the first place though. That’s going to be kinda vital to any intelligent discussion.)
LikeLike
It might help if you actually read the article by McKitrick. Then you might actually see there is a problem.
I really don’t have time for all the petty abuse. It really is most tiresome.
LikeLike
It might help if you actually read the article by McKitrick.
It might help if you demonstrated that you have read the article yourself before sending people off on a probable wild good chase.
17 pages?
We have to read 17 pages of possible crap just on your say-so?
Serious discussion doesn’t work that way.
I really don’t have time for all the petty abuse. It really is most tiresome.
That’s rich coming from the likes of you.
You’ve been nothing but “tiresome” since you’ve shown up here.
Do us a favour.
Grow up.
Engage in a real discussion.
You have something serious to say?
Then say it.
Back it up.
Engage.
You want to talk about peer-review now?
Ok.
Talk about peer-review.
Spell out what you think is the problem.
(Make sure you understand what peer-review is in the first place though. That’s going to be kinda vital to any intelligent discussion.)
LikeLike
I am not at my PC at the moment so can’t hunt down the relevant links. However, there has been some discussion over a paper McKitrick couldn’t get accepted. Reviewers rejected it for quality reasons (most papers do get sent back initially by reviewers) and McKitrik did the inevitable whining of reviewer prejudice. I think he has subsequently got this or a similar paper into a journal. Some bloggers have critiqued it.
My understanding is that he was criticising another paper rather than presenting new data. It was more a “letter to the editor”.
Hank, search out the info. You should not accept one side of a story like this. Whining when papers are rejected is legendary. You would have to look at the original manuscript and the reviewers comments and make your own informed judgement.
But Hank, I have had papers sent back by reviewers with criticisms. I have always seen this as helpful although unreasonable reviewers exist (appealing to editors usually solves that problem).
But some authors are so ego confused that they will react to reviewers criticisms by whining. Everybody else is wrong but them.
So Hank you will need to do a bit more work, produce some real evidence, to support claims of “peer review gatekeeping.”
Sent from my iPod
LikeLike
McKitrick made the claim that the IPCC had made a false claim in its 2007 report about surface contamination of temperature data.
He found a statistically significant trend between the temperature series and industrialisation: i.e
the Urban Heat Island effect.
This would appear to be a serious issue, not a “letter to the editor” that could be brushed off.
He submitted his paper to seven journals, of which six accepted his findings, and one rejected the paper on technical errors, but the journal editor would not respond with details of these errors.
Nature, Science and Geophysical Research Letters would not even review the paper.
He spent a total of 18 months submitting the paper to six journals.
After giving up on climatology journals, he finally submitted the paper to a new journal called Statistics, Politics and Policy. The paper will appear in the inaugural issue.
Given that temperature data is so crucial to the IPCC’s case, one has to wonder why there was such resistance to publishing a paper that pointed out errors in the data, given that most of the reviewers agreed with its findings.
LikeLike
“Hank” – now have a look at what others say. For example have a look at McKitrick gets it wrong on IPCC which says, for starters:
“But it turns out that McKitrick himself has it completely wrong, as he cites a passage concerning regional warming over the 21st century, instead of the actual relevant passage concerning the period 1975-2005.”
But, more seriously, “Hank” could you explain to us this email I got from Hank Wangford?:
“Dear Ken Perrott,
Someone has taken my name – Hank Wangford – and is posting comments on your website here under my name. He or she has seen my website, hence the quoting of the Nude Mountaineering Society and the fact that I am a Country singer/songwriter.
But whoever it is has no right to my name and is using it fraudulently. There is nothing I can do about this of course. They could do all this under their own or an assumed name but currently folks will attribute these comments to me.
Hank”
Someone isn’t honest.
LikeLike
Ken, are by any chance Hank’s comments coming from ISP in Canterbury and Christchurch? I suspected it wasn’t the real identity of poster a while back.
LikeLike
Richard – I don’t think its local. Our commenters details are:
“Author : Hank Wangford (IP: 213.229.83.205 , 213-229-83-205.static.as29550.net)
E-mail : hank66@gmail.com
URL : http://www.hankwangford.co.uk
Whois : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=213.229.83.205”
The IP address for the Hank who emailed me is different.
I don’t have the skills to isolate the origins in any more detail apart from the whois link.
Maybe this is more common than immediately obvious though. I follow the #climategate search on Twitter and sometimes notice a whole surge of RTed messages from people who one wouldn’t expect (dolly birds). When I look closer at the normal tweets from these people I find them quite untypical of someone interested in these issues. I wonder if there is actually a campaign to spam twitter and blog comments. This is also suggested by the common irrelevant denier comment that comes through and is never followed up.
LikeLike
Someone has taken my name – Hank Wangford – and is posting comments on your website here under my name.
(…stunned silence…)
Holy-crazy-monkey-jumping-up-and-down-on-a-stick!
What kind of a screwed up son-of-a-bitch would do something that low?
You have issues.
Real, turd-filled issues.
How do you sleep at nights?
You (whoever the hell you are) need to apologise to the real Hank Wangford and then take a good hard look in the mirror.
Creep.
P.S.
To the real Hank Wangford….
I’m very sorry this has happened to you.
CK.
LikeLike
I have just had a comment from our friend “Hank” on another thread. At least his Whois is the same. But now he calls himself Porno and links to a pornographic site (I have removed his website link in the interests of decency).
Interesting – is there a link between climate denial and porn peddling.
LikeLike
He seems well conversant with usual denial PRATTS and I think typifies the integrity held by typical climate change denier types. Thankfully they do more harm than good to their own cause.
LikeLike
I’d just like to say that the real Hank Wangford is one of the UK’s unsung musical heroes (at least, unsung internationally). Great entertainer, and very funny. It’s a real shame to see his name stolen and abused in this way. [Wikipedia profile, web site, in performance.]
LikeLike
PS: Someone calling themselves “James” was posting from that IP address to Hot Topic. The pattern is/was very similar to posts I believe to come from one Andy Skrase in Christchurch. He appears to have started using UK-based proxies to avoid easy identification.
PPS: Left a closing tag out of my last comment. Any chance you can fix?
LikeLike
Gareth,
I contacted the real Hank Wangford and was disappointed to find that he did not write those posts here.
I would like to thank the impostor for bringing the magnificent Hank Wangford to my attention.
LikeLike
I would like to thank the impostor for bringing the magnificent Hank Wangford to my attention.
Yes. Clearly that was the purpose of it all.
It confuses you that the real Hank Wangford seems upset about the theft of his name on the internet.
What a mean-spirited person that Hank Wangford must be, right?
Clearly the fake is, deep down, a really nice guy.
He should be thanked.
(puke)
LikeLike
Looks like bringing Hank Wangford to our attention was quite accidental.
He now seems to trying to bring hard core pornography to peoples’ attention.
Whether that was his original aim or if it is just party of his psychological need to hide behind others when commenting, I don’t know.
Anyway, if I can work out how to identify similar attempts in the future I will just automatically divert him to spam. He can’t be considered as serious.
LikeLike
I contacted Andy Scrase and he disavows the posts as well.
LikeLike
I contacted Andy Scrase and he disavows the posts as well.
Imagine how much more his assurances of innocence would be worth if Scrace didn’t have a nasty habit of creating multiple fake identities?
(On different blogs and…on the same threads!)
What motivates a person to do something that dishonest and childish?
Andy Scrace may well not be “porno” but their respective parents clearly raised them the same way with similar values.
Creeps.
LikeLike
Incredibly interesting post. Truely..
LikeLike
Pingback: Climate scientist’s’ register? « Open Parachute