That’s the title of my Fin column for Thursday 11 March 2010, which naturally picked out The Australian newspaper as a prime vehicle for these attacks. The Oz replied next day, with characteristic mendacity, pointing out that, on the same day they
ran an opinion piece by climatologist James Hansen, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies chief who also happens to be known rather snappily as the “father of global warming”.
Only problem was, they weren’t running Hansen to defend science against their attacks, but because his policy views (he opposes an ETS and supports nuclear power) could be used in their continuing wedge campaign. The piece (can’t find it to link ran under the headline “”Only carbon tax and nuclear power can save us”
Anyway, here’s my piece
Science the victim of dishonest attacks
It is a commonplace to observe that Australia’s scientific institutions and organizations, have played a central role in promoting Australia’s prosperity and in maintaining our country’s place as a leading contributor to the growth of knowledge.
In city and country alike, we rely on the predictions and analysis of the Bureau of Meteorology, predictions that have grown steadily more accurate over time. The prosperity of our rural sector has been built to a substantial extent, on the work of the CSIRO and other organizations devoted to agricultural science and natural resource management.
Universities have also played a crucial role. My own University of Queensland includes among its alumni such great scientists as Peter Doherty, whose work on immunology won him the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1996.
In recent years, science and scientific institutions have come under increasingly vociferous attack, with accusations of fraud, incompetence and even aspirations to world domination becoming commonplace. These attacks have mostly focused on environmental and public health issues, but they are gradually coalescing into an attack on science itself
A few examples
* In November 2003, Quadrant magazine published an article by Ted Lapkin blaming environmentals scientists for a supposed ban on DDT that had, he claimed cost millions of lives. DDT was never banned in anti-malarial use, and the claim Lapkin repeated had been cooked up by a tobacco lobbyist, who sought to put pressure on the World Health Organization, then campaigning against smoking in the Third World.
* On March 5 2006, Miranda Devine wrote that ‘Environmentalism is the powerful new secular religion and politically correct scientists are its high priests … It used to be men in purple robes who controlled us. Soon it will be men in white lab coats. The geeks shall inherit the earth.’
* On March 26th 2009, Jennifer Marohasy, then a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, accused the Bureau of Meteorology of tampering with weather data to fake evidence of global warming
* Andrew Bolt of the Sun-Herald has repeatedly asserted that climate scientists are conscious frauds, motivated by a desire for government grant money, most recently a few days ago in a blog post entitled ‘That buys a lot of Baas’.
* The Australian newspaper has campaigned against science and scientists so consistently that picking a single example would be misleading. Blogger Tim Lambert, who maintains a running series on The Australian’s War on Science is now up to instalment 46
All of this has reached a crescendo in the wake of the so-called Climategate affair in which a group of ‘sceptics’ harassed climate scientists at the University of East Anglia with a campaign of deliberately vexatious form-letter Freedom of Information demands, hacked the University’s email system to obtain the email files generated in response and then published distorted versions of those supposedly proving that global temperature records had been fudged in a ‘trick’ to ‘hide the decline’. Subsequent inquiries showed that the selectively quoted phrases referred to perfectly legitimate methods of data analysis, but the enemies of science had a win in the media.
Scientists have been constrained in fighting back by the fact that they are ethically constrained to be honest, whereas their opponents lie without any compunction. A striking example was the response of Phil Jones, the main target of the Climategate hack, when presented with deliberately loaded question about the statistical significance of global warming trends over short periods.
Jones answered honestly, and proceeded to explain the problem with this kind of analysis. The Daily Mail promptly ran a headline stating ‘Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995’
As the Economist observed, this was a flat-out lie, noting that ‘anyone who has even a passing high-school familiarity with statistics should understand the difference’ That did not stop dozens of anti-science commentators from passing it on.
Now, however, science is pushing back, at least in Australia. Along with other scientific institutions, Universities Australia is organizing a national policy forum on climate change to be held in Parliament House next week which will not only restate the findings of science on this issue but respond to the stream of attacks on science.
Australia can, if need be, do very well without Quadrant, the Institute of Public Affairs and The Australian. We cannot do without science and scientists. The time has come to make a choice.
John Quiggin 
@Freelander
My point precisely Freelander – I make no pretensions at being an expert climate scientist but I do at least acknowledge the time and effort which in many cases across the damn globe amounts to years and years of skill and expertise –
and we happen to get these two minute noodle “know it alls” in here who claim “science” is all wrong.
The insanity and sheer arrogance of the delusionists is frightening and maddening and ridiculous. Climate science is not their pet political football. They are nothing but a noisy misguided arrogant minority who refuse to accept the work of thousands? Tens of thousands?? with expertise that amounts to an ocean compared to their microscopic drop in at a few angry websites?.
They deserve no less than the ordinary man’s utter derision and contempt.
@Christopher Polis
As for you Christopher – what you actually suggested was that scientists wipe the plate clean and start all over again…
Is that so that you can catch up with science? I didnt know you expected climate science to raw beginners as well.
Post above should read “I didnt know you expected climate scientists to train raw beginners as well (and study the climate).”
Of course the world will stop when you say it should.
I don’t know how the issue of climate change can get dealt with when so much misinformation is around. How do you tell people like Polis that it’s McIntyre and Wegman’s claims that need some sceptical expert scrutiny before being accepted as fact or Fisher that every graph of every measure or indicator of climate change is a hockey stick using similar and different methods over and over, or that there’s so much data available that denialism is reduced to talking up ‘missing’ data to avoid looking at the mountain of stuff that’s there for them to look at. But why would they bother looking at all that data; it’s a major effort to find anything in it that can be construed (even if everything that can’t be is passed over) to show that AGW isn’t happening. Take away tree rings – warming is still happening. Take away Mann’s hockey sticks, all versions, and it’s still warming. Take away all the CRU data and it’s still warming. The icesheets are still melting, the glaciers retreating, the oceans warming, the sea levels rising. But McIntyre – who definitely is not an unbiased outsider or has shown himself to have any exceptional data analysis skills – is taken on faith by the quasi-religious followers of climate change disbelief because he’s one of it’s high priests. Sticking it to the scientific establishment might have some low grade popular appeal but the stakes are too high to dismiss thousands of scientifics studies and assume as an article of faith that Earth’s climate is beyond 7 billion people to mess up. What all the arguing can do is – given the long lag-time between emissions and their full effects – carry us past the short window of opportunity to act preemptively and avoid the worst case scenarios. We dismiss and ignore the scientific advice on this at our peril.
@Paul Norton
One look at The Hinterland Voice was …impressive! Holocaust denial, climate change denial with and without Monckton, fluoridation and vaccination evils exposed; it’s a corker.
My choice (made some time back) is to stop buying rubbish newspapers. That means The Australian and Courier Mail. I have Guardian Weekly on notice after they reprinted some of the rubbish the daily ran by Fred Pearce attacking CRU et al.
This isn’t an anti-free press issue. A newspaper ceases to play a useful role in promoting free exchange of ideas when it becomes a mouthpiece of special interests, a propaganda rag. That doesn’t mean the paper should be closed down. It just means it is no longer a credible source of news. Like Pravda in the Soviet Union. The act that it does the bidding of a powerful industry rather than a police state is a trifling nicety (though business would have us believe an organisation should be regarded as a person with respect to rights, a very big business is really more like a government in its capacity to oppress). So no, I don’t need it, and wouldn’t miss the paper if it withered and died.
@Ken
Hi Ken,
you said:
Yep – but it’s no longer “unprecedented”. And that’s why need to hurry through a “solution”, isn’t it?
Yep – but not as much. Another reason to rush, yeah?
All of which have slowed down recently, not accelerated. Perhaps the PDO and AMO and AO have flicked us into something like the 1940’s-70’s, or perhaps we are at the cusp of an even longer or deeper cooling, or perhaps it’s just “weather noise” like Gavin says. Worst case for your “side” is that it’s weather noise, right? I mean, that’s worst case for warming. So what’s the issue with waiting 10 years if a century of warming is overwhelmed by such noise?
McIntyre has interests the same as everyone including Hansen and Gore do. I do not object to Hansen and Gore suggesting this might be a problem. Nor do I have an issue with anyone making the odd dollar or billion from it. I’m prepared to stipulate that McIntyre’s interests should be considered when thinking about the issues he raises providing you are prepared to do the same for “your” side. Fair?
Still, I’d prefer that we don’t even bother with who’s funding who etc etc – can’t we just argue the science?
You see, unlike many who have only bothered to look since climategate, I’ve been following McIntyre as well as other blogs for in excess of 10 years, so I’ve been lucky enough to watch a lot of it unfold as it happened. Perhaps it’s just me, or perhaps it’s just the style of writing from both sides, but I’ve completely given up on RC and the deeper it’s gone, the more ridiculous the RC cheer squad has become.
@Neil Fisher
Still they keep coming….the noisy yapping minority – the obstructionists to progress and science and humanm advance….lets not forget the word minority…..for nothiing really stops progress in the end
but they seem to have some role to play to slow the process, to intensify the debate
Perhaps the delusionists are important after all..more important than we think….they keep the debate in the news whilst everyone else takes a while to realise the withered fruit and emptiness, in any social sense, in any sense for mankind, in any sense for our collective advance as a species… of their truly sad..or what appear to be sad arguments. These arguments are published but they are more persuasive for change than against.
The denialists and people like MacIntyre should keep noislity objecting I say….not because their objections will win in the end but precisely because they will persuade other less interested people that they are wrong.
That is their purpose.
@Neil Fisher
Switch your brain off and nothing is happening at all. Shoot yourself in the head and you needn’t care if it is unprecedented or not.
The fact of the matter is that the warming is unprecendented and anthopgenic in character. Unless it is staunched, sooner or later (but probably sooner, i.e. by about 2075) humanity will have an unmanageable problem. You might not care about that, but most of us, including those of us who won’t be about to experience the worst of it, do. We do care about our legacy.
Civilisation matters. Science matters. Together, these tell an unimpeachbale story and recommend a course. If you want to opt out to hang with those whose cultural noises fit better with your aesthetic, that is a matter for you but don’t pretend that reason demands this course.
@Fran Barlow
Lovely comment Fran.
Neil, you obviously weren’t paying attention before the rabid dogs turned on CRU. CRU used to be the more “sound” warming trend because it was a tad lower than GISS. (That there was a good reason for this, namely CRU didn’t include Arctic weather stations, where some of the strongest warming is happening, was incidental.) Now that CRU’s only marginally lower warming is also undeniable, they’ve become a focus of attack. I’m watching UAH, the last bastion of the coolists (is that a word?), which is trending up nicely. Are Spencer and Christy next in line for the attack dogs, I wonder, as perceived traitors or apostates?
@Neil Fisher
I’m not a climate scientist and wouldn’t have a hope of making an informed decision based on reading much of the research. I have to take the science on trust, plausibility and risk management. Is there any other option for the majority of the population who don’t have the time and expertise to engage directly in the debate?
On trust and plausibility, most of the reputable scientists would need to be either misguided, incompetent or corrupt for AGW to incorrect. I haven’t seen much evidence of substance pointing to this. I can however see evidence of dubious tactics on the denialist side (FOI denial of service attacks, Plimer’s track record etc.). The denialists aren’t even a side anyway, they aren’t internally consistent and aren’t producing a coherent theory. There body of work mainly consists of finding errors in mainstream research. Their product at this stage seems pretty small in comparison with the scale of the IPPC’s work.
On the risk management side, what assurances can the denialists or those arguing for inaction provide that doing nothing is a risk worth taking? I don’t believe a good case has been made that mitigating CO2 emissions is beyond a reasonable insurance premium on something that is both unknown, could involve catastrophic tipping points and would be virtually impossible to reverse. In all seriousness where do you get your confidence that we should just wait and see what happens?
“There (should be their) body of work mainly consists of finding errors in mainstream research.”
“Their product at this stage seems pretty small in comparison with the scale of the IPPC’s (should read IPCC’s) work.”
One day I might manage a comment without typos.
Steve Fielding might be dumber than an earthworm, probably is, but these AGW denial spammers seem to lack the intellect of a lobster in a pot being slowly brought to the boil. Doing something about CO2, as long as we don’t wait too long, should not be too costly at all. Are they really so certain that they are right and all the scientist wrong that they think doing nothing is a good gamble? Funny gamble. Do nothing with a tiny payoff in slightly lower energy costs on the miniscule chance that they are right and AGW is a hoax, and a massive downside to them and their offspring if they are wrong, and some tipping points are hit. Makes you wonder about the source of their motivation. Historically though, the majority of the human race have always been nuts. No reason for this era to be different.
How can someone who won’t use Realclimate because they critique the claims of McIntyre using maths and science and – surprise, surprise – are unflattering towards this high priest of climate change disbelief who accuses them constantly of incompetence and bias ever be persuaded that McIntyre’s claims need rigorous critical analysis? How can someone who thinks speculation about AMO, PDO and AO might bring on more and sustained cooling given all that recent cooling(?!) – evident in the past decade that has given us 9 of the 10 hottest years on record (GISS), accelerating icesheet loss in Greenland and Antarctica (Grace and Icesat satellite data), the highest sea levels (CSIRO – tide gauge and satellite altimetry), the lowest summer Arctic ice extent, most glacial ice retreat (NSIDC), the greatest ocean heat content (University of Colorado) be persuaded of anything? But maybe CRU data is in doubt based on McIntyre’s ‘expert’ utterances and therefore global warming maybe isn’t happening?
I don’t know how policy can really advance when the votes of those who buy into the idea that climate scientist are universally incompetent, biased, basely motivated and scoundrels are actively wooed by politicians who appear to have no qualms about perpetuating misinformation and unfounded fears as well as the idea that climate scientists are universally incompetent, biased, basely motivated and scoundrels. As well out to tax us back into the stone age. The well founded fears about climate change are capable of being avoided by policy and actions that are reasonable, feasible and desirable, but leaving our planet’s fate in the hands of those who have no problem with bequeathing intractable, catastrophic problems to future generations for the sake of short term profits, vested interests and political populism scares me deeply.
@Alice
Nothing but ad-hom. Ho hum.
@Fran Barlow
Got a cite that doesn’t rely on tree ring proxies? GISS and HADCRU both show similar rates of warming in the early 20th century as even Jones admits. Despite the fact that the GMST metrics are adjusted by more than 80% of the “detected” warming, the CI is listed as less than the (post hoc) “adjustments”! Signal processing has marvelously advanced over the last several decades, but the only way to pull a signal out of the noise is to have a priori knowledge of what the signal looks like.
The only evidence for anthropogenic causation is models (see below re models).
Indeed they do – couldn’t agree more. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Theories are not proof. Models are not proof. I might accept them (models) as plausible, even likely, if they have been formally validated and verified, but they have not only not been validated, they have been shown on several fronts to fail validation tests in the published literature and as Lucia has shown on her blog, they fail verification at the 95% CI. In light of those facts, I have very little confidence in their output having any relationship to reality above “extremely tenuous”. You may see things differently and that is your affair, but when you demand that I change my life and lifestyle, you’d better have evidence that convinces me.
@Michael
Not so – there’s no need to assume some sort of conspiracy when sloth, greed and ignorance will suffice. Having worked for several years at CSIRO (yes, I was on the research staff and no, I’m not a scientist, let alone a climate scientist), I am well aware just how highly politicised it is – at least for anyone who wants to get a promotion, or even get their pet project off the ground. It won’t happen unless you mention the “magic phrase”, which is currently “climate change”. Most scientists will accept what appears in the published research because they implicitly trust the peer review system – the one that Jones and co have sullied the reputation of for (at least) climate science as evident from the climategate emails. Now that it’s become plain that there is a cloud over this part of science, they are starting to remember the Royal Society’s motto: (roughly translated) on no-ones word. The Institute of Physics statement shows just what I’m talking about. This is not “denial”, it’s healthy skepticism – the very backbone of the science you claim to love.
UN IPCC is under even more of a cloud thanks to the numerous examples of people pushing their own agenda, including: citing a paper incorrectly when that paper was written by a lead author; highlighting the risk of water stress to a further 2 billion or so people while supressing the fact (in the same paper!) that 3 billion or so would be under reduced water stress and so on in what’s turning into a seemingly endless list of blunders, obfuscation and outright lies. It’s highly distressing to me because of the damage it does to the reputation of science and scientists in general, and it’s also confusing because if the people responsible for this report truely believe we are facing a catastrophy, then this is likely the very worst thing they could have done – it was never going to stay hidden and they must have known that.
All of this is in the public domain and (should be) well known to anyone who takes an interest in the topic (as I have done for the last 12 years or so). The pathetic refusal of these self-appointed “climate experts” to acknowledge and correct errors (regardless of their significance) is troubling enough, but when you see the same excuse time after time (it doesn’t matter) and they don’t correct the scientific record, it certainly makes one wonder how many “insignificant” errors are required before the conclusion is altered, especially when they all seem to be in the same direction – a direction that just happens to favour their current theories. Sounds like confirmation bias combined with massive hubris to me. Why should I truest these people when they won’t trust an expert in a field they are relying on? For example, they completely ignored what Wegman had to say on MBH9X even though the paper relied on stats and Wegman is almost unimpeachable in terms of an authority on stats. “He doesn’t understand” they moan – yes, quite so, he doesn’t understand their arguement because they haven’t explained it clearly enough for him to replicate their results – a problem Wegman did not have with McIntyres arguement which he (Wegman) described as cogent and compelling.
Just a sample taste of why I find myself firmly in the skeptics camp on this matter. More if you want to hear it.
@Neil Fisher
No don’t have any cites supporting AGW that don’t rely on science and facts. Given that science has been totally discredited and so has the idea of relying on data and facts (at least in the eyes of deniers), I suppose that means AGW has been blown out of the water. Ignorance and wishful thinking has won the day! Hurrah! Has skeptic become a euphemism for brain dead?
I’ve deleted this comment, which was based on an assumption that the Neil Fisher commenting here was the same person as one who holds a public position. If there’s actual evidence of this, maybe you could provide it to me offline. JQ
This is a non-verifiable accusation and one that can equally be applied to all other areas of science and the denialists as well. How do you prove that confirmation bias isn’t operating for you?
Has Stephen McIntyre ever been wrong about anything or made accusations that have been proven to be incorrect? I’m satisfied that you can cut and paste from denialist blogs just as I can easily find sites that refute McIntyre. How do we establish that he is free from confirmation bias? What accountablility is there if he is proven wrong?
This is quite a claim. I’m afraid you haven’t established that there is widespread international collusion.
“Most scientists will accept what appears in the published research because they implicitly trust the peer review system”
Very interesting idea. Academics don’t attack and subject to searching critiques, the work of others when it has been published. Science is just one big club where nonsense is continually being built on nonsense. Of course, some go with the flow. But science is to a greater extent than elsewhere a meritocracy, and those who simply go with the flow and uncritically accept nonsense ultimately flow to the bottom.
@Neil Fisher
And here we have the most important part of your post — the defining part. Your advocacy is moved by the desire to protect what you take to be a cultural right — a right you believe will be infringed if mitigation is put into place — rather than any bona fide scientific objection. If a thing is a right, then science doesn’t matter, but the politics of this is exactly as Republican spin doctor Fran Luntz outlined it all those years ago — if people beleive the science is settled, you will lose.
So defending your culture entails muddying the integrity of the science, and, as every PR agent knows, tainting the scientists who deliver it to us is a lot easier than tainting science. While most people find science a virtue, many people feel threatened by people they think of as remote from them or more intelligent. Imputing corrupt self-interest is an easy knockdown.
The bizarre thing is that if you are like most people, you will have made sacrifices so your children will have at worst, the same life chances you had. You will hope that that attitude will carry forth when they have children and so forth. Yet here you are putting the life chances of all of your descendents and the rest of humanity for all time at serious risk so that you can temporarily live slightly higher on the hog. Let me assure you: at the moment it dawns on your grandchild or great grandchild that you were amongst the malfeasants who authored the impoverished world they had been presented with, the fact that you left them a few extra dollars in the will won’t have you remembered kindly. Your action makes no sense.
You surely must know, in your heart of hearts, that what you are doing is just plain mad. Nowhere else in the world would 95% confidence not be good enough when a disaster was in prospect. You wouldn’t get on a plane with a 5% confidence that it would deliver you safely unless you were <5% confident that any other course was better. Yet here you are saying 95% is extremely tenuous. You're happy to run a massive open ended uncontrolled experiment in altering the composition of the biosphere that underpinned the development of humanity from primitive primates to contemporary humans. It doesn't bother you that on the one planet in the universe where we are sure life exists, people want to fiddle with the controls.
No. All you can talk about is how some unnamed people might mess with your lifestyle. Your misanthropy, selfishness and profound cognitive dissonance is simply breathtaking.
@Fran Barlow
Well said. It’s what I was thinking but didn’t have the eloquence to express. Neil Fisher and the troll stacey are “Unpersuadables”. The power of the human mind to delude itself is quite breathtaking. I like the way the denialists project their own lack of goodwill onto climate scientists – a uniquely “slothful, greedy and ignorant” branch of science.
@Michael
Thanks … a little teacherly though IMO. Professional habit and curse.
yes … and have you noticed Abbott does exactly the same thing?
@Fran Barlow
I’m not sure Abbott has any solid belief in anything.
Abbott is right Michael,
If Australia cut emissions by 100% it would have no measurable impact on stopping carbon from increasing in the atmosphere at the rate of about 1.5ppm per year. So an ETS is useless until we have a commitent from the big emitters.
The 7 largest emitters make up for 76% of emissions, the other 24% is made by 203 countries of which Australia is one; unless the 7 largest emitters cut, there is no point Australia or the other 202 minor emitting countries doing anything that would impoverish their economy……
@Tony G
I agree we shouldn’t impoverish our economy but then an ETS wouldn’t do that. However by not pricing pollution we are giving a big fat subsidy to polluters.
@Tony G
Tony,
(i) if you cut your posts to this site by 100% it would make zero difference to the outcome of the global warming problem. So, why persist?
That is a genuine question. If you can answer that,, you could be starting to get an answer to your own post.
(ii) More generally, if the seven largest emitters cut their emissions, do you think we should then cut ours? Why? That also would make zero difference by the same reasoning, wouldn’t it?
(iii) Your whole post seems to imply that you accept that AGW is occurring (due to CO2 levels) and that CO2 mitigation strategies are worth pursuing if we can get them right. Is this so?
@Jim Birch
Tony concedes expressly that he would prefer all but seven of the world’s countries to do nothing, which would ensure the other secven also did nothing.
So his position is just a thinly disguised attempt to say “everyone should do nothing” dressed up as its opposite.
In short, it’s simply dishonest. The set “everyone must do something” does not have “but anyone can do nothing” as one of its subsets.
Certainly Tony G’s posts make no difference here. We have already seen the nonsense he spouts all over the more moronic parts of the blogosphere.
Tony G,
I responded to this argument of yours directly in a previous post but you did not appear to read it. If you had read and understood it you should not be repeating an argument that you know is flawed.
Imagine introducing CPR legislation is a game where everybody would be better off if it was enacted than not enacted, but each party has an incentive to cheat (i.e. not to bear the small economic losses from introducing it themselves). If we want to reach the optimal outcome where all parties introduce similar systems and bear the losses fairly then we need cooperative agreements between the parties. The primary value of Australia introducing a CPRS is that it makes it easier for other countries to do the same, as they know that they will not be unfairly penalized for doing so. It also adds pressure to other countries to do the right thing…
If Australia did implement such a scheme and no other countries followed suit I would probably agree with you that there is no point in damaging our competitiveness for negligible environmental benefit. I doubt that this is the case though.
@Donald Oats
I didn’t see the post before it was snipped, but I can confirm that I am not now and have never held a public position – no council or state or federal govt elected position, no administration or other support work in any such organisation, politcal party, or even any NGO, except as listed here. I have worked as a salaried employee of the NSW govt in the electricity industry until around 1991 and had a 3 year contract with CSIRO as an electronics technical officer in a lab in the Division of Radio Physics. I am now self employed in the automotive parts industry.
I am curious as to why this makes a difference – I do not know or care what positions other posters here have except, quite obviously, I am aware of our hosts details as much as any casual visitor is likely to. If it makes a difference to anyone at all, I would be happy to expand on any of these details – I have no hidden agenda and nothing to hide, which is why I am happy to use my real name and not a nom-de-plume. Others may decide to use whatever handle they desire and in most cases, I could not care less – the only time I would be prepared to investigate is if I felt physically threatened or was stalked etc and would likely approach this through offical channels if our host did not act appropriately which I consider unlikely.
@Michael
Michael, I’m not suggesting that CSIRO is any different to any other large organisation. It has it’s own internal politics. It’s influenced by the funding choices of the govt – inevitably, I think. This does not mean that they are all corrupt or wrong or anything like that, just that the description of what gets funded is subtly distorted in order to ensure reasonable levels of funding are secured, and that some otherwise worthwhile projects get sidelined if they don’t. That’s nothing new and will likely not change in the forseeable future.
It’s quite likely that I do have my own confirmation bias just as you are likely to as well. So?
It is quite likely too that McIntyre has made mistakes – he is, after all, a human being. He is quite careful about the claims he makes and I believe he thinks them real issues. He argues cogently and provides code and data (or links to same) so you can check his work if you desire. He is poking and prodding at areas that interest him and he has time to chase down. What is wrong with this? If you can show him wrong to his satisfaction, I believe he would withdraw a claim. Again, I find no fault with this approach. If you have specific accusations against McIntyre and are willing and able to post them here (dunno if that’s OK with our host though), I would be happy to discuss them with you.
I believe it to be accurate. Are you suggesting that most scientists disbelieve the published works of their fellow scientists? Surely not! I’m afraid I don’t understand your issue with that particular statement.
@Neil Fisher
It seems that I have mistaken you for someone else, who also worked at CSIRO and has the same name as you. That person then moved into a private organisation which has an interest in the matter of global warming; I apologise for mixing you up with someone else – I should have asked you first. Anyway, since that person is not you, the rest of my (snipped) comment is moot.
Like you I use my real name.
@Freelander
Over time, the published literarture converges on a consensus. It’s not always right, but it’s always the way to bet. It works best when everyone is open and honest and actively help people trying to demolish the work. That’s one of the reasons it’s quite a difficult thing to do – not everyone is temperamentally suited to such activities. Most of the great discoveries come about because someone contested the considered wisdom of experts. This is not to say that I am such (ha! I wish!), or that McIntyre is, or anyone else. The price we must pay for the dicovery and promulgation of new paradigms is the intrusion of such people as well as those who try and fail – the reason for the failure could be that they are wrong, or it may be that they just don’t make a particularly good arguement!
My opinion on AGW, such as it is, is not likely to make much difference to anyone and is extremely unlikely to affect policy by any amount, let alone any more than any other ordinary citizen. But I am entitled to have that opinion and as far as I am am aware I am still allowed to express it whereever and however I may. As are you. I would not have it any other way.
@Fran Barlow
The science is critical. The politics, while relevent to implementing appropriate policy, is otherwise largely irrelevent as far as I’m concerned.
Corrupt self influence is part of human nature and no-one is immune to it. Open and honest people admit to such interests up front. Some IPCC people have not done so, which is regretable, largely because the appearance of a conflict of interest – especially when it’s not disclosed – is damaging and should be avoided where possible, even when it is tenuous and unlikely to affect your judgement, as it applies to public policy you simply must disclose it.
In my view, this is over-reaching on the available evidence. I expect you disagree.
If anyone wishes to judge me in the future, I cannot stop them. I will make the best judgement I can on the information I have and act on it. I suspect you are doing the same, as any sane person would. That we disagree on this particular subject does not mean either of us are right or wrong, just that we hold different opinions. The world is considerably cleaner and greener than it was when I was a child, and I hope that trend continues.
Are you suggesting that I should disregard the massive benefits of the technological revolution of the 20th (and indeed the 21st) century to my health, standard of living and pretty much every area of my life? You would have me give such things up without what I consider good evidence that the harm is more than the benefit? You call me mad?
I make no such claim. I am saying that someone is telling me that they have a confidence interval less than the post-hoc adjustments they have made to the data – adjustments deduced in large part from the data itself. That’s quite a claim to make, don’t you think?
No, I’m not happy that this is what is happening – however, it started well before I was born and will likely continue for some years yet, so my happiness or otherwise with the situation is hardly relevent. And it certainly does concern me that some people want to fiddle with the controls – not in terms of CO2 emissions, but in terms of geo-engineering. In my view, we simply do not have sufficient data of sufficient accuracy over a long enough period to even be able to tell if we have modified the climate from CO2. It seems pretty incontestable to me that we do affect climate, but in many more ways than simply CO2 emissions – surface changes for example.
If someone “messes with my lifestyle”, then I demand that they justify it. Vague fears about what might happen if the latest scientific fad is correct do not impress me. When someone makes a projection and their “forcing” is underestimated, while their “resultant” is less than the projection, I find I cannot believe anyone who says this shows things are “worse than we thought”. When people advocating massive changes to the entire economy that will result in changes involving billions and even trillions of dollars of public monies, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that such advocacy will be scrutinised closely. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask that we have the very best science available to aid in our decision making, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask that any mistakes are quickly corrected no matter how small they may be – we need to get this right, and details matter. Would you have me cower in fear at every crackpot who claims the world will end in fiery death for us all unless I pay them my “indulgence” money? I would hope not.
@Donald Oats
No problem – as I said, I didn’t see the comment, and am not offended by anyone who makes an honest mistake providing they acknowledge it when it’s shown to be wrong. No offense taken. As I said, if you would like to know more about me, please ask. I didn’t mean to imply that any particular person is posting under a nom-de-plume – if you say you are using your real name, I have no reason to doubt you. I might doubt such a claim if it came from someone posting under “freelander”, but then again I wouldn’t be surprised to know that’s somehow related to that posters real name either (I have no idea if it is or not, and as I said it makes little difference to me.
So the Howard Government and eight years of Bush in the US created an environment in which scientists were encouraged to uncritically produce results supporting AGW? You are an unpersuadable. The science will never be 100% certain so you can always justify inaction. You are entitled to your opinions. Enjoy your retirement tilting at windmills with Tony G.
“You are entitled to your opinions. ”
But not to your own facts, unfortunately. The world is getting warmer, whether you choose to believe it or not.
I’d put this in ‘Weekend Reflections’, but it’s not up yet.
As usual, we’ve scooped the pool on the outrageous abuse of power exercised by the hopelessly crap Murdoch press (Courier Mail in this case).
We love to boast. Go to our “Media Page” and scroll down to our Tuesday piece:
http://www.springhillvoice.com/evennewermedia.html
“There is a Reason Murdoch Keeps The More Backward Of His Troops In The Boonies”
David Fagan apparently denies that his getting the shove to a non-existent role has anything to do with his attempt on Tuesday to hurl his feather-like weight around. Poor delusional little fellow, just doesn’t get how it works out here in the real world, does he?
Will his wife, Madonna King, stay on in her job at ABC radio 612? Will she quit in protest? Will she have her usual, comprehensive and informative column in Saturday’s mono-media paper tomorrow? [just checked that, and the answer is “Yes”, So has hubby David – lamely trying to justify his existence]
Stay tuned for more exciting developments. We have a bet going that this little episode will get a run on Monday’s ‘Media Watch’, let’s see!
@Neil Fisher
You can say that again about McIntyre. McIntyre is just a dishonest crank with no dispassionate and objective interest in scientific inquiry.
@Neil Fisher
Garbage. One thing the crank websites you get your ideas from will tell you little or nothing about are empirical methods of determining climate sensitivity as described by, for example, James Annan.
@Neil Fisher
More garbage. A century of warming has not been “overwhelmed” by “weather noise”. Even the coolest year in the last nine (2008) is 0.5°C warmer than the warmest year around a century ago (1900).
@jquiggin
I would have said “fortunately” rather than “unfortunately”, but anyway…
As I said: it’s difficult to accept that error margins can be less than post-hoc adjustments made to the base data. Off the top of my head (I’ll dig a little and come up with some references if you desire, but I’m sure you can find it yourself too) the increase in GMST 1900-2000 (the 20thC) is around +0.8C. GISS adjustments difference between 1900 and 2000 is around +0.6C (ie, the adjustments create this much warming trend in the data). GISS claimed error margin +-0.5C. (the last being the most difficult to find). The “signal” appears to be in the noise, and is only as large as it is reported because of post-hoc adjustments to the data (ie, remove the adjustments and the remaining signal is inside the claimed error margin). In the majority of cases, the adjustments are based on the properties of the data itself (eg homogenise) although there are some based on meta-data such as TOBS. Now, any and all of these adjustments to the data set may be valid (or not) but even if I were to accept that they are all correct, I cannot see how:
i) error margins can be less than the post-hoc adjustment
ii) data from the early 20th C can be volatile – it changes month to month as more data becomes available (it’s an artifact of the infill methodology, BTW). For proxy data, this would understandable, but for instrumental data?
@Neil Fisher
I think this is another case where a little learning is a dangerous thing. There are a very large number of much better educated eyes than yourself with much better knowledge of statistics and the types or mistakes that could be made, who looking at the various pieces of research, so it would be outstanding if you are able to find some simple mistake that everyone else has missed. Have you ever considered that you may be suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect?
It is not uncommon for researchers to get a statistician to have a look at this aspect of their work, both as part of the checking process and for advice on how best to go about the work in the first place. Also, it is not uncommon for statisticians, amongst others, to be looking at how raw data has been adjusted to obtain a more useful data set, for among other reasons writing papers showing how what was done could be done better. Just because you cannot understand why does not mean there is any problem.
Not all things are readily understood by all. There are many things that don’t seem to be understood by anyone. Understanding can be hard work and does not always result in success. On that note, someone earlier criticised a researcher because they claimed, they had not explained what they had done clearly enough for some particular critic to have understood (apparently that critic’s complaint). That need not be the researcher’s failure.
@Chris O’Neill
Perhaps you would be enlightened by studying McIntyres blog on the subject you linked to at RC, so you can get both sides of the story. You might start here, where you will find McIntyre has placed his request for the data and the reply he recieved on line. Here’s a breif synopsis for those who are loathe to go to SM’s blog: SM politely asks for specific data or links to same. BS suggests all the data is available raw, and asks not to be contacted again. Here’s the thing: the raw data is several gigabytes of climate model output, what SM asked for was several megabytes worth of intermediate calculations upon which a published paper was based. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me to ask for such a thing – all BS had to do was copy some files to his university’s FTP server and send SM the URL. Nor does it seem unreasonable to ask for this data rather the the raw data, since others have apparently replicated the work and come up with similar, if not identical, intermediate data, although they used different statistical techniques on this intermediate data. SM wishes to attempt a sensitivity analysis on the stats used (a “what happens if out of the manifold possible choices, we select something different?” approach, which is quite a reasonable thing to do) NOT replicate the conversion from raw to intermediate data. SM attempts to get this intermediate data by asking the publishing journal if it will intercede on his behalf. Journal replies that their policy, unlike most academic journals, does not require archiving of data. SM complies with BS’s request not to contact him further and instead submits an FOI request for the data (as he is entitled to do). There are several threads on this at CA, because SM writes these things more as a lab note book than anything else.
You might also find this CA post informative as well.
This is one of many cases where someone who is known to question the consensus is treated extremely differently than those who support it – for instance, Warwick Hughes was treated very differently by Jones once Jones realised he wasn’t “on side”.
@Chris O’Neill
Heh – yeah, good one Chris! Your 0.5C is less than the adjustments to the data. Post-hoc adjustments. Estimates you know. For the purposes of the arguement, I will not question the actual adjustments, just the fact that this style of adjustment must increase the error margins, because they error margins must now include the raw data.
But even ignoring this point, 0.5C is the margin of error – there is no significant change at this level! IOW, by your own data, the coolest year of the last decade is indistinguishable from the temperature 100 years prior.
@Neil Fisher
Why would you waste your time supplying someone who has an obvious agenda with all that material so they can do a self styled ‘audit’ of your work? We can see the ‘fair dealing’ that the hacked emails received. If McIntyre wants to do real research in the area, no one is stopping him. He can do that research the same way that everyone else does. He could collect the raw data the same way it had been obtained in the first place. From the original sources. With someone who has clearly started with a conclusion, that AGW is bunk, and seems intent on ‘proving’ that conclusion no matter what, why would anyone treat their request as a request from a genuine researcher?
“Climate Audit” the name says it all. McIntyre is not pursuing a disinterested search for the truth but wishes to ‘audit’ the research of those he doesn’t like, so he hopes, he can find mistakes to criticize them with. Even if he finds mistakes, they don’t prove his side. They simple achieve his objective of throwing mud on climate science. Put simply, it is not about proving them wrong it is about smearing them so no one takes their work seriously.
Is McIntyre qualified to undertake these audits? No.
@Neil Fisher
If you make an adjustment to data based on (conditional on) other data, then surely if you are using a good method, your (expected) ‘error’ should be smaller? If it were not, why not use the unadjusted data which by your claim would be better? You are suggesting that you have discovered that everyone who does adjustments in replacing better with worse. If true this is a big discovery. Why not write a paper on this and get it published. If correct, I imagine it will be widely cited.
Sorry “is replacing better with worse”.
@Freelander
because that is how science works – if even your enemies cannot fault your work, it is likely pretty robust.
In case you are unaware of it, CA was created to give SM a place to tell his side of the story after RC misrepresented his work and wouldn’t allow him to comment, even though his comments were of a technical nature and did not contain any ad-hom or other “banned” content – they just didn’t like it! Yes, Gavin and co at RC, through their own actions, helped create CA.
Where ends correcting the scientific record and begins mud-slinging? The proposed expenditure based on the results of this research is a mind-bogglingly large amount of public money. Wouldn’t you agree we need to get it right? Would you like to learn in 10 years time that you have paid 100% more tax than you needed to because someone forgot to carry the one? You’d not be very happy with your accountant if he did that, now would you? You’d be screaming blue murder if the tax office did it. Yet you claim it’s mud slinging when SM does it? Yeah right.
Yes, he is. Instead of slagging him off, why don’t you show us all where he made a mistake?
@Neil Fisher
Why is it difficult to accept post-hoc adjustments made to the base data, assuming they are as large as you claim? You would be screaming blue murder if the adjustments weren’t made but they reduced the warming trend. If this is such an issue, why is it necessary for anti-adjustment advocates to dishonestly declare that such adjustments are “blatantly bogus” when the reasons for adjustment are honestly laid out for all to see? Also, if the surface temperature record is such a genuine problem, why is it necessary for “sceptics” to make up lies about “bad” stations causing greater warming when they do no such thing?
You can believe the liars if you like but when we’re talking about the future well-being of the entire planet I’d rather believe the people who not demonstrably telling lies.
If you don’t like the data from the early 20th C then just use the data from 1964. You’ll find there’s been 0.7°C of warming trend since then.