ABC Four Corners ran an interesting show last night on the anti-science interest groups who dominate the formulation and official discussion of policy on global warming in Australia. Transcript here, along with discussion from Tim Lambert and Larvatus Prodeo.
What particularly interested me was the number of scientists who had been pushed out of CSIRO, or had left of their own volition, after being tightly censored in what they could say about global warming, and the emissions reductions that would be needed to stabilise the climate (the latter point is particularly sensitive since any actual number implies a target and government policy is opposed to targets).
In particular, I was struck by the fact that global warming contrarians commonly explain the overwhelming support of climate scientists for the consensus view on anthropogenic global warming in terms of careerism. The contrarians say that if the scientists deviated from the dominant consensus, they would lose their jobs or their grant funding.
THe Four Corners report made it clear that, in Australia (as also in the US) the exact opposite is the truth. Speaking out in support of science on global warming is a very bad career move, at least for anyone employed by the government. In climate science, where the big organisations have been CSIRO and the Met Bureau, that constraint applies to most people working in the field.
John Quiggin 
As someone who has commented on these issues in the past, I fear my comments may have been misunderstood.
My point has never been that scientists will get fired for speaking their minds, on either side of the divide. That is a separate discussion from my point.
My point is that if a man’s job and salary depends on the hypothesized existence of AGW, he is not likely to spend too much of his day trying to prove that AGW doesn’t exist, because if he can prove that, he’ll be out of a job — but not because he’s been fired, because the game will be over.
Much is made of the fact that some AGW opponents have received occasional grant money from institutions that don’t believe in AGW.
However, the opposite is even more true. Many AGW proponents receive money, in some cases grants and in some cases their entire salary, from institutions that do believe in AGW.
It is worth noting, however, that both of these are “ad hominem” arguments, which tell us nothing about any statement or any scientific study. It doesn’t matter who is paying JQs salary, or my salary, or James Hansen’s salary. What matters is, are our statements and studies correct or not?
w.
I know the following is a strong statement, but I feel strongly about this, and I’m interested in people’s comments:
–
Science and politics don’t mix. I believe that active researchers should offer objective assessment of the science problem and leave it to others to extract policy implications.
–
w.
Willis says: “It doesn’t matter who is paying JQs salary, or my salary, or James Hansen’s salary. What matters is, are our statements and studies correct or not?”
This is only true in some type of fantasy world that has never existed and which never could exist. The fact of the matter is that none of us mere mortals are capable of expertise in any more than one or two pinpricks in the vast ocean of human knowledge. We have no option other than to employ various heuristics in our endeavours to understand the world.
Hence, as an example, we may value the opinion of Government scientist more than the opinion of a tobacco lobby scientist on an issue such as whether smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer. We do this because, as laypeople, we are incapable of grasping all the complexities of the science involved.
Willis understands my point perfectly well and is yet again being disingenuous. For example, he has previously dismissed science on the basis that it is the product of “Michael Mann and his mates” [Willis’s own words]. On the other hand Willis obviously gives tremendous weight to anything that Steve McIntyre says.
My statement did not concern whether we “value the opinion” of someone over someone else. In fact, Steve is right that we value one man’s opinion over another based on a whole host of reasons.
But I was not talking about opinions at all, I was talking about science … and science, at least on my planet, doesn’t have much to do with someone’s opinion. It’s either right or wrong, no matter what anyone’s opinion might be. Which was my point.
Nor was I responding to a post of Steve’s. Hard as this might be for him to believe, not everything people write is in response to his points. In fact I don’t have a clue which “point” of his he thinks I was being “disingenuous” about.
Anyhow, Steve, care to comment on my most recent statement (in bold, in the post just above your most recent)? At least then you will be right, when I reply I’ll be responding to your post and your point.
w.
PS – Steve also misrepresents my position. I have not dismissed the science of “Michael Mann and his mates” based on who they are. I have said that the “independent confirmations” of Mann’s MBH98 study were not “independent”, because they were done by Mann’s co-authors and co-workers, who I described as his “mates”, and more to the point, because they used the same flawed data and methods that Mann had used in the MBH98 study.
I dismiss the science of Michael Mann for scientific, rather than for “ad hominem” reasons — bad data, bad methods, and bad statistics.
In reply to Willis:-
Willis says: “But I was not talking about opinions at all, I was talking about science … and science, at least on my planet, doesn’t have much to do with someone’s opinion.”
This is an absurdly naive proposition. Science is a human endeavour and consequently it cannot be divorced from human prejudice, frailties, limitations and agendas.
For a more sophisticated understanding of what science is I suggest you acquaint yourself with philsophers of science like Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend.
Earlier in this thread I answered your question on the proper role of scientists. I think the public is the loser when scientists are gagged.
In a democracy the public is supposed to be sovereign. Scientists have a duty to inform the public of their research, subject to any legitimate commercial-in-confidence requirements. Also, their is no valid reason why scientists should refrain from offering their opinions on “policy matters”.
I again reiterate the “4 Corners” program that prompted this debate showed CSIRO managers and Departmental boffins adopted the broadest possible definition of policy so that scientists were effectively neutered. For example, CSIRO scientists were categorically told that public discussion of emission abatement targets and the proportions by which emissions should be cut were forbidden.
For those like Willis and Razor, who support scientific censorship, I would to point out what the appropriate Government minister, Senator Campbell, had to say on the “4 Corners” program:-
“If a bureaucrat is giving directions to a scientist not to say something, then it’s not something that is being sanctioned by me.”
Unless Senator Campbell was being dishonest, even he is not in favour of Willis/Razor style censorship.
I hope you censorious autocrats never get elected to Government!
I can understand why a scientist researching for a company may not be able to release research data and results, but in organisations like CSIRO this is not so clear. Indeed, CSIRO encourages publication and you’re position there (increase in salary etc) is heavily reliant upon it. Furthermore, you are encouraged to give talks at conferences etc so their work is hardly secret (I should point out that the same goes for Uni’s as Uni’s make their reputations through research).
From a scientific point of view there is nothing wrong with openess in publications and presentations as it is the way that scientists interact, exchange and discuss results. It is also the way that a result can be scutinised by peers, who can sometimes ask some tricky questions. At this some will say that these scientists are all in the same club (so to speak) and hence will not be critical of each other, but the reality is that that is not true for the most part. At the end of the day being a scientist means that you both interact and compete with your peers.
Now, comming back to the thread of this discussion i.e., should scientists make comments about their and others results that do not follow what the government want, I would say yes if the information is already in the public domain. This will help the general public understand the breadth of the issue.
I am still hoping that John Quiggin might address the questions I raise in my post earlier up on “February 15th, 2006 at 5:17 am�.
Richard Lindzen has had interesting things to say on this question in the past. Eg, this presentation to the British House of Lords early last year:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/5012507.htm
Well worth a read, eg:
Richard Lindzen has had interesting things to say on this question in the past. Eg, this presentation to the British House of Lords early last year:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/5012507.htm
Well worth a read, eg:
Indeed, Brainiac, this is exactly the sort of claim I was pointing to as being totally refuted by the actual experience reported in the Four Corners program.
Far from benefiting by stating the scientific evidence accurately, the CSIRO and NASA scientists have suffered. Meanwhile contrarians, including Lindzen, can cash in on their willingness to muddy the debate in a way that suits powerful interests.
Thanks for pointing to this example, which illustrates the point perfectly.
I expected a higher standard of debate from someone in your position jquiggin.
Lindzen’s point is that vast sums of money flow into the global warming industry, fuelled by alarmism. You did not address that point at all.
Your link states only that “Lindzen was reported in 1995 to charges[sic] oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services”.
I imagine Lindzen probably charges everyone the same amount, but it sounds so much more sinister if you only mention his coal-interest consultancies. I pay my lawyer $500 an hour for his advice – does that make him a crook? Should Lindzen not consult?
What’s your consulting rate Quiggin? Better be pretty high; your denigration of Lindzen is borderline libel, and that can get very expensive.
Willis, I thought your summary in this comment on the last GW thread was very interesting:
https://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/01/24/yet-more-nonsense-on-global-warming/#comment-44037
Particularly this claim:
Do you have any references?
TIA.
Brainiac, you are being disingenuous. You have simply cut and pasted from Lindzen’s House of Lords statement in which he accuses his peers of alarmism based on self-interest. Professor Quiggin has in turn pointed out that there is money to be made if you are a denialist and that Lindzen is the recipient of such money.
Exxon Mobil alone has forked out many hundreds of thousands of dollars to AGW denialists. In America there are dozens of cashed up think tanks like Froniers of Freedom, George C Marshall Institute, Scaife Foundation and John M Olin Foundation that do likewise.
The money flows like milk and honey in some denialist cornucopia.
I further note that Richard Lindzen’s denialism has not affected his university job. The same goes for many other denialists who feast at the public trough.
Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate made a post on 14 February 2006 that draws attention to the clumsy errors that Lindzen made when addressing the House of Lords. I thought Lindzen was a useful contrarian. He now appears to be just another hack braying nonsense.
see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=222#more-222
Lindzen must be appalled that the Royal Society got conned, not to mentional all the other G8 premier science institutions.
I wonder whether we such also question all the fuss about bird flu just think about the money and new research groups these dishonest scientists have appropriated through the alarmism there.
If they hadn’t have got away with that Ozone hole con we probably wouldn’t be in this postion now.
Steve, you say:
where did I ever, ever say I support scientific censorship?
You also say:
Which question was that? What was your answer? I didn’t ask any question about the proper role of scientists.
“Censorious autocrats”?!? Dude, I think you’re losing the plot here. Please provide some citations and quotations for whatever I actually said in these two cases you are referring to.
w.
Oh please Willis.
You made a post at 11:18 am today which says in big bold letters that in your opinion scientists must quietly do their research and not become engaged in policy debate.
I previously touched on points you later raised in a several earlier posts on this thread. You can easily find them using the “Find” function on your browser should you wish to do so.
I also note with considerable amusement Brainiac’s quote of your post at 3:45pm. You have hammered away like buggery on the validity of climate model reconstructions and the proxies used in the models yet you confidently assert that the climate has been “stable” for the last “couple of billion years”.
How do you know this? Did Gaia tell you?
Steve, you say:
I see that you are referring to the post where I said:
Unfortunately, you have done your usual boneheaded stunt of judging something by who said it, not what was said.
JQ, or anyone else, perhaps you could help Steve out here. He won’t listen to me. Can anyone explain to Steve why he is wrong here?
If not, I’ll be glad to once again go over the idiocy of judging the content of a statement by who said it … but like I said, I’d prefer if someone else did it. My opinion counts for nothing with Steve, but he might listen to one of you.
w.
PS – Life as we know it on earth can only exist within a fairly narrow temperature range. The sun has increased by something on the order of 30%. If the earth’s temperature had risen correspondingly, it would have started out at an average temperature of about -50°C. There is no evidence of this, either in the geological record or the record of life, so I called the temperature “stable”, meaning it had not increased by 30%.
Oh, Steve, one thing I forgot. I said:
I guess you think you replied when you said:
This is typical of the handwaving you do when you make unsupported accusations. I did a search before posting my question. Nobody but you has said anything on this thread containing the words “proper role”.
If you are claiming you “answered my question”, we have several possibilities for your unwillingness to say which question, or what the answer was. None of them look very good for you.
Answer the question, or admit you made it up, Steve. Handwaving won’t do. Perhaps I did ask such a question, but I don’t remember doing so, nor can I find it with the search function.
You, on the other hand, “remember” the question, and you “remember” the answer, but you haven’t said what either one is …
Coincidence? … we can let the readers be the judge.
w.
Willis you are being a buffoon.
Let me cut and paste into this post what I have previously said on this thread about the importance of free speech in science, ie the proper role of scientists.
**************
15/2/2006 5:29 pm
In my view scientists on the public payroll have a right and a duty to address the public on the issues that concern them. The public’s right to hear what scientists actually think is far more important than the right of a Government to avoid embarrassment.
Those who are on the public dime should be true “public servants�, not robots under the thumb of pollies.
****************
15/2/2006 4:52 pm
Climate change research is not “property� and subject to patents. It is information that belongs in the public domain without any restrictions.
****************
15/2/2006 6:36pm
Razor says: “Steve Munn, your theory on a public policy free for all is a recipe for disaster. �
Your point is extremely weak. How is it that CSIRO scientists publicly expressing their views on climate science will lead to disaster? How will this cause the sky to fall in? Are you being honest?
We live in a democracy and it is generally accepted by supporters of democracy that open public debate is a good thing. It may be old fashioned, but I support that view.
The public gains nothing from being kept in the dark like mushrooms. We need to know what eminent scientists think in order to make informed judgements on scientific issues.
****************
16/2/2006 12:56pm
In a democracy the public is supposed to be sovereign. Scientists have a duty to inform the public of their research, subject to any legitimate commercial-in-confidence requirements. Also, their is no valid reason why scientists should refrain from offering their opinions on “policy matters�.
***************
I therefore clearly think that scientists should be engaged in all facets of public debate concerning their area of expertise and that includes discussion of policy options. Bureaucrats should not be trusted to censor scientists on issues of “policy” or anything else for that matter. As the CSIRO and NASA scandals have demonstrated, bureaucrats will invariably abuse such power.
Your advocacy of limitations on the rights of scientists to express their opinions in public is a proven recipe for repressive censorship. In other words, your position is to the detriment of the public interest.
Once again, Steve, it’s all handwaving. You said:
I asked, which question earlier in this thread? Which answer?
You still have not answered. You have done a lot of posting of things you have said … so what?
Steve, let me put this clear. Your repeated refusal to answer this simple question strongly indicates that either you were lying when you said I had asked a question and you had answered it, or you were simply mistaken. Your choice …
There was no question on my part, nor was there any answer on your part. Which is why you can’t say what either of them were. It’s either a lie, or it’s an error, but in either case, you should just admit it, you wouldn’t look so foolish.
There’s no point in posting your views in response to my question about your deliberate or erroneous misrepresentation. I know what your views are, but they are simply obfuscation which is not related to your evasions. You are trying to distract people by volume. You’d do better to attract them with the truth.
Finally, you still haven’t understood what I meant when I wrote:
I appeal again to anyone to JQ, or anyone, to explain to Steve why this doesn’t mean what he thinks it means, and how he is once again being blinded by looking at who wrote something, rather than thinking about what it means. If not, I’ll explain … but he won’t believe me.
w.
Willis Eschenbach Says: “You are trying to distract people by volume. You’d do better to attract them with the truth.”
Snort.
I’m still hoping that John Quiggin might address the questions I raise in my post earlier up on “February 15th, 2006 at 5:17 amâ€?.
Willis
I haven’t been following any of these global warming threads with any care. But the note of desperation in your last comment made me curious enough to read the preceding discussion, just to see what the problem might be.
I found that Steve has made it very clear that (1) by ‘your question’ he meant your challenge to respond to the statement in bold; (2) by saying he had ‘already’ answered it he was referring to the comments he made before the challenge appeared, and (3) given the vagueness of the infamous statement in bold, he feels that his earlier answers are adequate.
So you really have no grounds for complaint. If you make a habit of complaining, without any basis, that people are not communicating with you in good faith, then no one will take you seriously when it actually does happen.
I’m surprised that, after 1200 plus comments on this over the last few weeks, there is still anything
meaningfulto say.Some seem to have taken the above quoted comment by Willis to mean that scientists should be gagged. Willis did not say that active researchers should be “compelled” to stay out of policy discussions. I believe he just expressed a view (or infered a view) that once a scientist takes sides in a public political debate they then become tainted and they would be better off not doing this.
An analogy might help. Personally I don’t think people should eat spagetti with their fingers whilst in a public restaurant. However this does not mean that I think eating spagetti with your fingers whilst in a public restaurant should be prohibited.
Also the above quoted comment by Willis was clearly marked by him as a “statement”. To think it was an answer to a question seems to me to be a mistake. He preceded it with the following:-
Of course none of this means that I agree with the statement made by Willis.
James, thank you for posting. You say:
James, I fear your first statement says it all, so let me bring you up to date.
Before I posted the statement in bold, Steve, who spends most of his time attacking me rather than the points I raise, said he had “answered my question on the proper role of scientists”.
I said “huh?” Since I had not asked a single question on this thread, I naturally said “which question”.
Steve then said I should use the “Find” button to find it, which was bullsh*t. He followed this with his usual handwaving, but still no answer, he just said he was answering a later advance on an earlier discussion or some such wonderful thing, hang on, let me find it, it was beautiful … OK, here it is:
He had previously touched on points I later raised in an earlier post? … say what?
He was not “communicating in good faith” as you suggest. He was lying, James, or he was mistaken, and in either case he’s much too small a man to admit it. I never asked a question, he just made it up, and now he wants to weasel out from under.
Terje, although you are waiting for an answer from JQ (and may wait that way forever), thank you for stepping up to the plate. Your discussion of the statement:
is most excellent and insightful.
I had hoped, however, that someone might recognize the source of the statement. Was I “desperate”, as James says? No way. You see, in a no doubt vain attempt to house break Steve of his nasty “ad hominem” habits, I though I’d give him a nice bone to chew on.
The statement above is not from me. It is from that king of censorship, that doyen of putting scientists in their proper place, that well known advocate of keeping scientists under someone’s thumb, of preventing them from speaking out on politics, that popular provocateur …
…
…
…
Dr. James Hansen of NASA.
Now Dr. Hansen has been involved in his own discussions with his own government on this matter, so I’m sure he’s given the question a lot of thought.
Personally, I agree with him. When I want medical advice, I go to a doctor, not a lawyer. When I want scientific advice, I go to a scientist, not a soccer player.
And when I want advice on policy, I go to a politician … hey, call me stupid, but that’s her/his specialty.
Finally, one of the most important reasons to take policy advice from politicians is that (generally) they are elected, and for just that purpose, whereas the scientists are not elected at all. I prefer to have my political decisions made by people that I have chosen. That way, I can get rid of them if I don’t like their advice.
And obviously, Dr. Hansen agrees …
Does that mean that scientists should be “gagged”? No. They are as free to speak on policy as I am, provided that they do so in their capacity as a private citizen.
What they should not do, and in many organizations such as universities, businesses, or government departments are forbidden to do, is to speak ex cathedra on matters of politics. The head of CSIRO should be as free as I to say that the emperor’s new political plan has no clothes, if he does so as a private individual. What he should not do is say “I am king of the scientists, head of CSIRO, and in my official capacity I say this political decision is wrong.”
He is trained as a scientist, we have hired him as a scientist, and he should not use that pulpit to intrude into politics. If he wants to be a politician, he should learn the political ropes and run for office like anyone else.
Terje, thanks for the insights about Hansens statement.
JQ, your silence on Terje’s question, like your silence on producing evidence for AGW, is of a length that it is becoming an answer in itself.
Steve … thanks for the amusement. Stop judging statements based on who said them, and start actually thinking about what was said. And admit your mistakes, it’s easy, costs nothing, and prevents you from looking like such an idiot …
w.
Well I am still hoping that John Quiggin might address the questions I raise in my post earlier up on “February 15th, 2006 at 5:17 am�.
Dear John Quiggin,
If I have been rude or impatient in my line of inquiry then I apologise. I can never tell if perhaps you might have missed my inquiry. When you can spare a moment I would please like to know if in your opinion the Kyoto Protocol is both low cost and low benefit?
I am not trying to be a jerk. I would just like to know where you stand.
Regards,
Terje.
Terje, the post is coming. I’m just very busy right now. But as several people have noted, I’ve written on this quite a few times before. Just search for “Kyoto”.
Willis, your continued demands for the production of evidence in comments threads, when the relevant evidence runs to tens of thousands of journal pages, for which I’ve already pointed to summaries running to hundreds of pages, are getting tiresome, so I’ll turn it around.
Can you point to ten articles in reputable natural science journals (not E&E) published since, say, 1995 by independent scientists (that is, not members of any anti-environment thinktank or lobby group) that conclude that the balance of evidence is against the AGW hypothesis? This shouldn’t be too hard. I’ve pointed you to a list of nearly a thousand going the other way.
John, I have said from the start that I am an agnostic on the question of AGW. You have said you are an AGW supporter. Not only that, you have made a quite nasty claim that I am not just misguided, but that I am actively denying the evidence for AGW. This is a serious, derogatory accusation of scientific misconduct.
It is thus quite logical for me to ask you to reveal the evidence that you have claimed that I am denying. Since you made the claim of scientific misconduct, since you are the one doing the insulting, you should at least have some idea of which evidence I am denying, beyond your vague handwaving and saying “it’s in these thousands of journal articles somewhere.”
Why am I an agnostic on AGW (more commonly known as a “sceptic” because I don’t agree with the AGW theory)? My point all along has been that at this time in history, there is both insufficient theoretical understanding of how the climate works, and insufficient evidence about its workings, to decide either way. Now, after I’ve said many times that there’s not enough evidence to decide, you want me to point to papers saying the “balance of evidence” goes against the theory? If that wasn’t so sneaky, it’d be funny.
Sorry, bro’, you are the one saying there is evidence that I’m denying. I’m the one saying we don’t have the evidence we need about the climate to decide yet. Asking me to provide evidence which I have said doesn’t exist is a cheap rhetorical attempt to avoid taking responsibility for your own scurrilous, unsupported statement.
As a bozo simple example of how far this lack of evidence extends, we don’t even know what the average temperature of the earth is, or how much it is changing. Three groups of well-known scientists give us three significantly different answers (GHCN, GISS, and HadCRUT). That’s how bad the “evidence” is in this branch of science, we can’t even agree on the answers to the most basic questions of the science — what the temperature is, and how much it has changed in the last century.
Since you claim the evidence exists, and since you are using this supposed “evidence” to make an ugly ad hominem attack, you should provide it, both as a matter of science and as a matter of common decency. Saying it’s in the IPCC report, or saying it’s out there somewhere in a thousand pieces of paper, Willis, you go look, is pathetic. I’m not asking for all the evidence, just whatever pieces of evidence you based your statement on. When you made the statement, you must have had some pieces, bits, tatters, even shreds of evidence in mind that I’m denying … what was that evidence?
If you can’t provide the evidence, that’s OK, then simply say that you made the statement about denial of evidence without any … well … without any evidence, and we can move on.
In other words, back up your nasty claim of scientific misconduct, or retract it, John. You have made a vicious, slanderous accusation that a whole host of people, myself included, are not merely wrong but are guilty of scientific misconduct. Now you refuse to reveal what evidence we are deliberately ignoring? Thats both unscientific and unethical. Have you been taking lessons from Phil Jones? He won’t reveal his evidence either … or perhaps you’re waiting for a letter from a congressional committee before revealing part of the evidence, like Michael Mann did.
Whatever your reasons are, trying to put it back on me is a joke. I’m not the one who made the puerile claim, you are. Either back up your ugly words by revealing your evidence, or retract them.
w.
PS – I’d also be interested in your ideas about James Hansen’s quote, since it speaks to the subject of the thread … but don’t let that distract you from providing the evidence you claim I’m denying.
I’ll take that as a “No”, Willis.
Just to remind anyone who’s coming in late, the evidence to which I’m pointing is summarised here.
John, I busted out laughing when I read your last post, at least we are maintaining a sense of humour about this … however, your refusal to substantiate your accusation of scientific misconduct remains quite disturbing …
In addition, pointing to the IPCC report as “evidence” as you have done in your last post is simply handwaving and misdirection intended to fool the credulous or those who have come in late. What the IPCC calls “evidence” are the results of computer modelling. I believe everyone, even you, John, agrees that the results of computer models are not evidence … otherwise, they wouldn’t disagree so badly. Some computer runs, for example, show cooling over the next century … does this constitute evidence that the climate will cool? Of course not.
John, pointing at the IPCC report and calling it “evidence” is a deliberate lie. The fact that you know it is a lie is shown clearly by your refusal to say where in the IPCC report is the evidence you are citing. Have you even read the section of the report that the IPCC calls “evidence”? Until you say where the “evidence” in the IPCC report is located, you’re just blowing smoke in people’s eyes and screaming “FIRE”, in the hope that no one will notice that nothing is burning …
w.
Willis,
Hate to break it to you, but you’re not allowed to lay claim to the null hypothesis. You want to operate under the assumption that human production of greenhouse gases has no influence on global climate, it does not suffice to apply a high burden of proof to the theory that it does. Evidence is required and if you are able to conjure it, God knows there are plenty of petrodollars in search of a person like you. Else you are simply trading on fallacy.
Please correct me if I am wrong Willis but I believe Professor Quiggin’s use of the word “denialism” was directed at the scientists, think tanks and politicians who should no better. It wasn’t directed at an armchair dabbler such as you (or me). Let’s make this clear; you are NOT a scientist in spite of your pretentious carry-on. Your faux outrage only makes you look like an hysterical self-important kook.
Moreover, to my knowledge Professor Quiggin has not accused all denialists of “scientific misconduct” (your words). People with integrity can be deluded. Most of us mere mortals are probably deluded about one thing or another.
If you were a more respectful and mature individual you would accept that it is totally unrealistic to expect Professor Quiggin to provide a summary of the evidence for significant AGW for your exclusive benefit. This a task that would require no less than a 1,000 word essay. You may not have noticed but Professor Quiggin has a university position, writes newspaper articles, attends numerous conferences as well as running this website for our benefit. On top of that he has a family. Stop being such an unreasonable brat. The world doesn’t revolve around your every whim.
RAZOR, earlier in this thread you raised two issues separately but have worked a theme of public officers bound by government policy. This is a modern invention essentially undemocratic and poor administrative practise. Every citizen has the right to comment publicly on matters of interest to them. A public servant may even comment in their own field of expertise providing they breach no confidentiality or commercial issues pertaining to source material. To dispute policy publicly where you are involved is still an appropriate no no, otherwise the gag has to be contractual. Do AWA’s or other contracts forbid democratic participation? Of course they do not, thus all public servants have the right to a view as much as any other citizen and a right to discourse. Thus there have been many public servants who have left to contest elected positions, without rancour or restriction. You can look back through decades of public administrative law as illustrative, re-examine the old Commonwealth and NSW Public Service Acts. However if you leak because you disagree then you rightly ended up being jumped on but you can comment because you have a right to, you might never be promoted but that is another issue. These days because few do, ministers believe it is an administrative right but it is simply a vacuum.
Steve, you say:
Glad to correct you, Steve, although it’s turning into a semi-permanent task. His remark was directed at all “sceptics”, not at people who should “no better” [sic], and he accused all of us of denying evidence. He made no distinctions as you are attempting to do, it was all sceptics.
I asked him, not for a thousand word summary of the evidence as you pretend, but one or two pieces, shreds, scraps of the evidence that he claims we are denying.
He, like you, has provided no evidence … zero. Zip. Nada. Nothing.
You obviously think that’s reasonable, to make a scurrilous accusation and then refuse to back it up. Given your past behaviour, I can understand your position perfectly, because if he had to back up his irresponsible accusation, you might have to do the same regarding your own past irresponsible accusations.
Me, I think it’s sleazy to accuse someone of denying evidence, and then refuse to produce the evidence, just as it was sleazy of you to accuse me of lying, and then refuse to say what you thought I lied about.
w.
Majoraram, thanks for posting. You say:
I think I see the source of your confusion. I am not operating “under the assumption that human production of greenhouse gases has no influence on global climate.”
I am not saying it has no influence. I am saying that we don’t know if it has an influence, and if it does, we certainly don’t know the size of the influence. This is a very different thing.
This is because our understanding of climate is only in its infancy.
We don’t know the average temperature of the earth, the three main groups of scientists studying the question disagree significantly.
We don’t know how much the earth is warming, again the groups disagree.
Computer simulations of the future climate give us everything from incredible heat to impossible cold, and everything in between, thus proving once again that they are not evidence.
We don’t understand the climate. In the last year, we’ve discovered two large forcings (plankton affecting clouds, and plants emitting methane) previously unknown to science.
We don’t understand the internal energy exchanges between the 5 main systems (atmosphere, lithosphere, ocean, cryosphere, biosphere) well enough to model those interchanges at all.
We don’t agree about the nature and strength of the external drivers of the climate (solar magnetism? cosmic rays?).
We just found out that rising CO2 means that plant transpiration is changing, significantly affecting the amount of water in the rivers … what does that mean for climate? No one knows.
We don’t know the size, and in many cases even the sign, of the internal feedbacks of the climate system.
–
Now you come along and say “a little bit more CO2 is going to make a big difference in temperature”.
OK, you’re making the AGW claim, provide some evidence for it. I have repeatedly asked for evidence for that theory on this forum. I have been given only one piece of evidence, that CO2 absorbs IR.
Yes, it does, but what effect will a small change in IR absorption have on a hugely complex, driven, chaotic, coupled, multi-stable constructal system with unknown feedbacks?
We simply don’t know.
So, I hate to break it to you, but our lack of understanding of climate is monumental. I do not place a “high burden of proof” on the theory that a small increase in CO2 will lead to a large increase in temperature. I merely ask for some evidence that it is true, in the normal scientific fashion. Evidence is required, as you point out, and to date, the AGW adherents have not provided it.
If you have it, bring it on, but nobody on this forum, including JQ for all his bluster, has provided anything more than the fact that CO2 absorbs IR.
Now as you point out there is no evidence to disprove the AGW theory either, but that’s exactly my point — conclusions right now are premature, because there’s not enough evidence, in either direction, to come to any conclusion.
People talk of a “consensus”? … it’s a joke, we don’t even have a scientific consensus on what the average temperature is …
w.
Willis, it’s clear that you have no credible evidence to cite against AGW, and you’re not willing to accept links to surveys/summaries of thousands of articles as evidence for it. So while I thank you for helping to generate the longest comments threads in the history of this blog, I think it’s probably time to call a halt.
Willis’ approach to the issue seems somewhat like the blindfolded man being asked to feel an elephant and guess what it is. He can feel it’s large, has rough skin, tusks, trunk and large ears. His response – I’m not saying it’s not an elephant, I just don’t know if it is, but even if it is I don’t know if it’s an Indian or an Arican elephant.
I noted a story on tonight’s SBS news about Greenland glaciers. Apparently they are melting twice as fast as previously thought. The story is based on research published in last Friday’s Science magazine. The abstract says:
“How much meltwater the Greenland Ice Sheet may be contributing to global sea-level rise depends on the mass balance between the inte-rior of the ice sheet and its margins. The present understanding is that the interior is gaining mass but the margins are eroding even more rapidly. Rignot and Kanagaratnam present an ice velocity map of the entire Greenland Ice Sheet and estimate the rate of ice discharge around its entire margin. A comparison of their results to past data shows that there has been a widespread acceleration of ice flow since 1996, that mass loss has doubled in that time, and that ice dynamics, which are particularly dependent on warming, dominate the rapid retreat of Greenland’s glaciers.” (1)
Of course this new finding does nothing to support the AGW theory. Afterall, as slick Willis tells us, it may well be all due to something else, like cosmic rays in the magnetosphere or magnetic fields or Gaia suffering some heartburn ….
(1) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/311/5763/913f
well if we are going to halt, I would just like to say thanks to everybody for a grear chat. and an extra thanks to willis for trying to keep the bastards honest.
I am also in favour of a halt to this AGW debate.
My main concern is that if we allow it to go on the amount of hot air expelled by slick Willie will exacerbate the AGW problem.
jquiggin Said:
February 17th, 2006 at 8:33 am
Can you point to ten articles in reputable natural science journals (not E&E) published since, say, 1995 by independent scientists (that is, not members of any anti-environment thinktank or lobby group) that conclude that the balance of evidence is against the AGW hypothesis? This shouldn’t be too hard. I’ve pointed you to a list of nearly a thousand going the other way.
I say:
When will you explain why Karlen’s article (published by Royal Swedish Academy) showing that Arctic temperatures do NOT match the usual ever upward portrayal of instrumental temperature readings since 1850 is not taken into account by Briffa et al? (Karlen shows it was warmer in the Arctic in 1930s than now) Anyway even if only one, and even if Karlen is a member of a pro-tobacoo lobby (just as you are a de facto member of the so-called Australia Institute, which is a front for the ALP), at least Karlen should be weighed against the 1,000 refs you keep citing.
Whilst I support majority voting in politics, in science it takes us back to the medieval period. I note that 100 cities in America’s mid-west out-vote temperature readings from my home village in Somerset (England), which since November has been having its coldest winter in 30 years, yet “globally” 2005 was the hottest ever. Bullshit! Tell that to the Muscovites.
Best
Tim
JQ, while I can’t understand how you can point to evidence but not be able to cite one single piece, I’d like to thank you for hosting the discussion. It’s curious to me, however, that
-The discussion is still alive
– It doesn’t cost anything to keep it open
– You’ve been called on to produce evidence, and have not produced a bit. I’ve looked long and hard at the IPCC report, JQ, and I can’t find anything in their “Evidence” section but computer models. You seem sure that it’s there, JQ, but WHERE IS IT? Give a page number, a reference, something. At your request, after you pointed at the IPCC as a source of evidence, I’ve looked long and hard and have found nothing but computer models. You say it’s there.
– I say, where?
– You say, let’s close the thread.
Probably a coincidence.
Steve, you called me a liar, and are likely happy to close the thread without having to back up your scummy accusation. You specialize in attacking me, but have not answered any of the scientific questions, and have responded to very few of the scientific issues, that I have raised.
Terje, you’ve been solid. Although you have disagreed with me at times, your interest has always been on the scientific questions. With the thread closed, where will JQ answer your question?
And to everyone else, my profound thanks. In closing, I’d like to remind everyone that only one piece of evidence has been produced — the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared. If you wish to believe in the AGW hypothesis based on that …
… just be aware that you are standing on a very flimsy base.
Again, my thanks to all.
w.
Willis,
Appreciate your misspelling of my moniker. Again. It’s nearly as clever as the remainder of your shenanigans. And speaking of, your ‘skepticism’, which seems to largely rest upon, “Computer simulations of the future climate give us everything from incredible heat to impossible cold, and everything in between, thus proving once again that they are not evidence.”- a fallacy- is threadbare. Computer models allow us to know the meaning of a set of postulated dynamics. In this case, they show that, if you take the proven physics of the greenhouse effect and combine that with the known massive quantities of annual carbon emissions, (a little bit more CO2????), and educated assumptions about the nature of the remaining forces that bear on annual average temperatures, the result is x. If you want to attack the validity of x, it is incumbent upon you to build your own hypotheses about the nature of the global climate system and to argue that its assumptions are more valid. Simply stating, “computer models are not evidence”, is a yellow argument, and what’s more, horse hockey. Now, we don’t expect you to do that on this blog, but surely with the legions of petrodollars waiting to reward the scientist that can build a credible model of climate that would yield stable or declining temperatures, there must be something you can point to. Something. Anything. This is what JQ has been patiently trying to get you to do (you can lead the sterile offspring of a horse and a donkey to water…).
And by the way, the physics of the greenhouse effect and the known quantities of carbon emissions are not all that’s going for the AGW hypothesis. We also have dramatic and potentially dire warming. What’s your hypothesis to explain that? Oh yes *shrug*, it’s nature’s mystery- let her sort it out. I like it warm anyway. Fill er’ up!
Let me just say again that this to me looks like JQ saying:-
God = AGW.
Bible = IPCC reports.
If the Bible contains the proof of God, but the high priests can’t quote or paraphrase it to the lay people then I find that very concerning.
Regards,
Terje.
P.S. JQ, thanks for reaffirming that you will be answering my question. It sounds like it is going to be a detailed response.
Merredin mentions that organisations like CSIRO need not be secrtetive.
Such organisations have always had problems with intellectual piracy and the commercialisation of products or techniques that they ‘invent’. How often have you heard of some novel invention being snatched by greedy corporations for huge profits whilst scientists go begging?
Institutions such as CSIRO and Oxford now use companies that take new product and move it through to commercialisation ie patents, trials, licenses, funds.
EvoGenix is one, Immunotec is another.
Thanks, Willis for your contribution. I’m not sure what motivated you to keep going against all the crap that was thrown at you. (Steve Munn is a disgrace who should have been made to pull his head in or banned, but John Quiggin seems to follow the Labor tradition of confusing juvenile insults with robust argument).
It seems the only way John can declare the debate over is by closing the thread. (First insult the opposition. If that doesn’t work, take your bat and ball and go home).
Yes, bravo valiant skeptics. Your facility with non sequiturs is only rivaled by the mastery with which you can spin specious analogies.
I’m with Paul, good, interesting work on here Willis.