30 thoughts on “Spot the “sceptic””

  3. What I find interesting about this whole debate is that the proponents of AGW may lose the battle for the hearts and minds even though they have the overwhelming scientific evidence backing up their views.

    I’m a veteran of a number of years of online debates involving Alternative medicine as well as Psychic/Medium ability, (and, before anyone brings it up, no I am not a believer in those two topics). What I can tell you is taking a line that the Science backs you up and therefore case closed doesn’t cut it. You simple alienate people and harden their resolve to oppose you.

    The very fact that people here are incredibly quick to jump on anyone that dares stray from the perceived mainstream position on this topic and label them a ‘Denier’ is disturbing in my opinion. Also the arrogant tone adopted about how you must truly ‘understand’ the topic before you can comment or that someopne doesn’t really understand contributes to a exlusivity which causes a problem.

    The danger is that you turn off so many people and make the subject so exclusive that noone is really interested in it no matter how much Science supports the underlying argument.

    1. Gosman, you raise some interesting points.
      Firstly – the framing of the debate as left versus right. Well there are two debates really.
      1/ Is AGW real and needing our attention
      2/ What should we do about AGW.

      To frame the first debate in political terms in stupid. You cant choose a reality to fit your political persuasions. AGW is a scientific theory and really has to be evaluated on those terms. If you are unwilling to accept the consensus view about it even as a risk factor, then what choice do you have but get in and understand this yourself? okay, I am speaking as a scientist – I dont mean to sound arrogant but I simply dont know how else to approach the subject. I would value your views truly. I am engaging with a couple of anti US Republicans in private emails, as friends, because I am interested in how this is communicated. While you have pointed to left wing deniers, my experience has so far found these to be on the right wing and its interesting to know why.

      The second debate is absolutely political – it involves decision making that has to be made as a community, local and national. In any such kind of debate, the traditional divides quickly appear and its pointless to expect otherwise. Science has little offer about questions like: “Is a carbon tax the best policy?”. “How should costs be shared between rich countries and developing countries?”. As far as I can tell though, you have section of community who either have a complete distaste for proposed mitigation solutions or complete distaste for those delivering the message (eg Green Peace or Al Gore) and thus react by assuming AGW cant be real.

      As for the labels, well I “denier” is as a pejorative as “believer” is to a scientist. However, deep in the issue are people who will believe without question the most easily refuted junk in a blog, while questioning hard science in peer reviewed journals. I am increasingly of the opinion that if someone is unable to make a sensible position on part 2 of the debate because they cannot conceive of world where AGW is real, then very hard to make any impression in part 1 of the debate. Any straw will do and frankly, denier seems an accurate term.

      But how not to people off the subject is an important question.

  4. “When Climategate broke, the mainstream media, like knights facing archers at Crécy, mostly ran dismissive pieces reflecting the official position of the Consensus…

    … Editors then found — by reading and counting the responses on their blog pages — that there was huge and educated interest in Climategate among their readers. One by one they took notice and unleashed their sniffing newshounds at last: the Daily Express went first, then the Mail and the Sunday Times, last week the Times and this week even the Guardian.”

    This would explain I suppose the recent article by Fred Pearce in the Guardian this week in which he does analyse the e-mails and highlights some serious probelms with the behaviour of the members of the CRU.

    1. If you are still around Gosman, I notice that Realclimate is getting stuck into the Guardian series by Fred Pearce. I doubt you will agree with their angle, but they claim to correct a fair no. of errors in his articles. You might find the debate interesting.

      1. Phil, I think that if Gosman was still around he would have offered comment in Hot Topic’s post on one of the Fred Pearce articles. It’s good to see Real Climate coming out fighting.

  5. Interesting comments Gosman. There certainly is a change in attitude, particularly in the UK MSM. As an (ex lapsed) member of the NZSCIOP I believe we are edging closer to the truth about AGW, and I think it’s a lot less apocalyptic than has been presented.

    Truth of course will win out.

    1. ” Truth of course will win out.” Indeed.

      Mikh, I have stated here what evidence would convince me the AGW is flawed. What is the evidence that would change your mind?

  6. I’m still waiting for someone to respond to my question about the fact that Fred Pearce is now commenting on the contents of the e-mails in his articles. I’m really enjoying reading his pieces about them which are quite balanced and fair as far as I can see.

  7. Gosman, I had an exchange of views with Bryan a few days ago re the Guardian, this article of course wasn’t available then…

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/03/climate-scientists-freedom-information-act

    It is extraordinary, and a credit to them, that the Guardian is dealing with this in such depth. A little bit disappointing too that this blog (so far, although Bryan may yet comment) is either unaware of, or doesn’t want to know about such coverage. A sign perhaps of new realism in the media coverage of the whole issue.

  8. “I’m still waiting for someone’s response to the fact that Fred Pearce is now commenting on the contents of the e-mails in his articles.”

    That’s the way it often is on blog comment threads. Very asynchronous.

    “I’m really enjoying reading his pieces about them which are quite balanced and fair as far as I can see.”

    These seem quite balanced and fair as far as I can see:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/03/yamal-data-climate-change-hacked-email

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud

    But about the Yamal data, was the refusal to release this data not because the Russian researchers who owned the data refused to allow this? This is not mentioned.

  9. Despite dappledwater denying that the northern winter as been a bit cool, it is a tough sell when people are shoveling 6″ or more of climate change out of the drive. The UAH has the satellite temp anomaly at .76. Interesting, but does little to explain the coolest January in Scotland since whenever, or the incoming snow in the US Southeast, or the snow in China or Europe or Russia. So who do you believe, your lying eyes or this satellite thermometer you are not permitted to examine? Telling folks this is a really warm January when they have not seen these lows and snow for many years is probably not the most productive approach. Just saying that the PR may need a tweak or two.

    1. “Despite dappledwater denying that the northern winter as been a bit cool” – Terry.

      Nonsense, you will be unable to link to any claim by me that the Northern Hemisphere winter isn’t cold. The Arctic Oscillation has been in a negative phase pushing cold Arctic air down to lower latitudes. Meanwhile the Arctic is anomalously warm, and so too many other parts of the world.

      http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100127_TemperatureFinal.pdf

      “So who do you believe, your lying eyes or this satellite thermometer you are not permitted to examine?” – Terry

      The MSU satellites don’t have thermometers. And how would you inspect the satellites anyway, even if allowed, and even if you knew what you were looking at?, teleport in a spacesuit?.

      “Telling folks this is a really warm January” – Terry

      Where I live it was a really warm January, December and November too, rainfall only 10% of normal, however I’m sensible enough to realize that: a) the weather in my area is not indicative of New Zealand, let alone the whole world, and
      b) I understand the difference between weather and climate.

      “Just saying that the PR may need a tweak or two.” Terry

      Agreed, a different approach is definitely required.

    2. “Despite dappledwater denying that the northern winter as been a bit cool” – Terry.

      Nonsense, you will be unable to link to any claim by me that much of the Northern Hemisphere winter isn’t cold. The Arctic Oscillation has however been in a negative phase pushing cold Arctic air down to lower latitudes. Meanwhile the Arctic is anomalously warm, and so too many other parts of the world.

      http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100127_TemperatureFinal.pdf

      “So who do you believe, your lying eyes or this satellite thermometer you are not permitted to examine?” – Terry

      The MSU satellites don’t have thermometers. And how would you inspect the satellites anyway, even if allowed, and even if you knew what you were looking at?, teleport in a spacesuit?.

      “Telling folks this is a really warm January” – Terry

      Where I live it was a really warm January, December and November too, rainfall only 10% of normal, however I’m sensible enough to realize that: a) the weather in my area is not indicative of New Zealand, let alone the whole world, and
      b) I understand the difference between weather and climate.

      “Just saying that the PR may need a tweak or two.” Terry

      Agreed, a different approach is definitely required.

  10. Mikh
    “A little bit disappointing too that this blog (so far, although Bryan may yet comment) is either unaware of, or doesn’t want to know about such coverage.”

    OK Mikh, I’ll comment on my own account – Gareth and I don’t cook up common approaches. I’ve had a look at the Fred Pearce article you linked to. I confess I haven’t actually been following the matter since I decided some time ago that there was nothing in it which impinged on climate change and it’s climate change concern that motivates me. I have every sympathy for scientists who are subjected to frivolous time-consuming FoI requests and can quite understand their reaction. I know it is absurd to suggest that the massive IPPC reports were somehow manipulated by a small group of conspirators. So I’m not interested in following the emails. Just as I’m not interested in engaging Gosman in a solemn debate about anecdotal evidence in the IPCC report when it’s such a tiny marginal matter. You can proclaim that as avoiding an important issue if you like. If you do we obviously have quite different ideas about what’s important. I see it as not being sidetracked by trivialities.

  11. Terry
    “it is a tough sell when people are shoveling 6″ or more of climate change out of the drive”

    Why don’t you read Hansen’s essay on the subject, conveniently linked to or summarised if you prefer, in this recent post on Hot Topic.

  12. A bit off-topic, but can anyone provide links to debunking of Monkcton’s claims in his recent debate with Posner? I am particularly interested in the “peer-reviewed science” papers he flung about.

    BTW, is he bipolar?

    1. I don’t think he’s been to either pole…

      Have you got a link to the Posner debate? There’s a Flickr set of the slides he used in Melbourne, so we can check his references.

        1. OK, that’s the one I tweeted a couple of days ago, starting “jaw-dropping hypocrisy”… 😉

          I’m not aware that anyone’s done a comprehensive debunking, but the mp3 is downloadable if anyone wants to give it a try. It’s pretty straightforward Moncktonian nonsense: UN’s climate panel overstates warming by a factor of seven, etc. His chutzpah in asserting that additional CO2 could not acidify the ocean, or that the Great Barrier Reef was better than ever, was truly breathtaking. Poor old Posner had no chance. He did sound astonished at what he was hearing, and said it wasn’t true — but then Monckton went on to the attack and told him to stop making things up!

          I wish Monckton could be subjected to a grilling by someone who had done their homework – like the skewering of the Swindle producer Durkin. If he comes to NZ, I’d be willing to try. First question: why did you misrepresent and redraw a graph of central Greenland temperatures, with the wrong attribution?

          1. “I wish Monckton could be subjected to a grilling by someone who had done their homework”

            I think CM’s your man there, single handed he’s got the wishbone plonkers running round in circles.

        2. PS. I have to say I’d be interested to learn more about his time as an “adviser” to Thatcher. He would have been in his early to mid 30s, which is very young for someone to be a Prime Ministerial adviser — and very young indeed to have done the things he claims in his CV.

  15. R2, Maggie Thatcher was a climate change realist; if Monkcton really was her “adviser”, she evidently took no notice of him!
    I expect he was just a low-level civil service functionary, but who cares? The man is a pathological liar.

    “In 1990, way before climate change became an issue fought from behind fixed lines, a government leader made a plea for action.

    “The danger of global warming is as yet unseen but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations,” she said.

    She argued there was a clear case for precautionary international action, action that would be sensible in any event if it improved energy efficiency, developed alternative and sustainable sources of energy and replanted forests.

    Margaret Thatcher’s interest in global warming dates back to earlier in her prime ministership. Unlike most politicians, she had some professional acquaintance with the area, graduating in chemistry from Oxford University and working for a period as a research scientist.

    In 1988, she said in a speech to the Royal Society, Britain’s national science academy, that three changes in atmospheric chemistry — greenhouse gases, the ozone hole and acid rain — warranted government action.

    She did more than talk about climate change: she set up the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, now with a worldwide reputation for its work. She committed to bringing carbon dioxide emissions back to 1990 levels by 2005. She provided funding for reafforestation in Britain and overseas.”

Leave a Reply