Comments on: Sunday Times opens another gate

By: Bryan Walker

Bryan Walker — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:56:29 +0000

Further to my comment (no 5) on Jerome Ravetz I was pleased to read this post from Joseph Romm on Climate Progress this morning. He is taking Andy Revkin on Dot Earth to task over an IPCC comment but reserves his strongest attack for Revkin's noting of the Ravetz article as "interesting." "pure antiscientific garbage" is Romm's verdict, and he indicates why in his usual bracing fashion.

By: Le Chat Noir

Le Chat Noir — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:32:54 +0000

It’s deeply worrying that the Deputy Editor of the Guardian has gone over to the dark side. Next time I take a cab I’ll see if I can get a fatwa issued against him!

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:58:29 +0000

The mysterious journalists have their in-group dynamics (!). The email theft and a bit of winter weather in the media capitals of Europe and the US has set off the UK Tele’s paranoic opiners. A bit like sharks, a bit of pink in the water will bring the rest of the media,no matter how slim the pickings. No one wants to miss out. And like frenzied sharks,they are likely to damage themselves. Most of this weeks blood in the water is from the errors the journalists have made in seeking the mistakes in AR4,though they’re yet to realise it. Katz’s time would be better spent looking into that.

By: Gareth

Gareth — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:43:06 +0000

Bryan: the Guardian has been a favourite newspaper for me for over 50 years…

Only 35 in my case. I do at least one Guardian cryptic crossword a week, preferably one set by Araucaria, by some margin the finest compiler in the world (what, hyperbole, moi?)…

By: Bryan Walker

Bryan Walker — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:02:04 +0000

Mikh, the Guardian has been a favourite newspaper for me for over 50 years, but I think their judgement was well astray in deciding to devote so much effort and time to this investgation. To my mind it was never called for. In the execution it is far too ready with its judgements and I feel for the scientists who have been subjected to it. And when it is all done the author makes it clear that it in no way alters the reality of climate science. Yet his investigation is treated as revelatory of something important. I see the deputy editor Ian Katz has made an attempt to justify the series by writing "only by looking thoroughly under every rock can those of us pressing for action on climate change maintain with confidence that the scientific case remains sound." Where has he been? The case has been sound for years and the evidence mounts alarmingly. The heading to his article strikes me as ridiculous: "The case for climate action must be remade from the ground upwards." Journalists sometimes need to be reminded that their place in the scheme of things is not as arbiters.

By: Phil Scadden

Phil Scadden — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:22:34 +0000

Mikh, you seem so interested in the unimportant sideshows, but seem to shy away from any core science. The physics and the match of model to prediction is what impresses me. The basis for my “conviction” if you like. I can spell it out in detail but so far you failed to answer questions on
a/ what evidence would convince you otherwise (I’ve spelled mine out)
b/ if convinced of AGW, how do you think we should proceed.

If you cant answer b/ then I am also convinced that nothing can convince you and discussion is pointless.

By: mikh

mikh — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:58:36 +0000

Well, Bryan I must say I’m surprised to read that.

Your and my attempts to rage against the dying of the light come from 180 degrees apart, and I struggle to understand your conviction, as I’m sure you do mine.

I rather like this initiative from the Guardian in its attempt to shed light.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/series/climate-wars-hacked-emails

By: Bryan Walker

Bryan Walker — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:56:50 +0000

Mikh, I tore myself away, and was unimpressed. The philosopher of science has a superior take on the findings of the working scientists. I notice he relies on some old faniliars – the hockey stick, the use of computer models, uncertainties about climate sensitivity. He also takes it as given that Climategate is a scandal exposed. He finds Roger Pielke and Mike Hulme agreeable commentators. He himself seems to take final refuge in opacity in relation to anthropogenic global warming. I could see no reason to trust the human future to his musings. Give me a blunt James Hansen any day.

By: The annotated Rodney Hide: treating parliament with contempt â€” Hot Topic

The annotated Rodney Hide: treating parliament with contempt â€” Hot Topic — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:49:41 +0000

[...] “gates” are certainly proliferating in the media, when the substance of the allegations is examined [...]

By: mikh

mikh — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:29:58 +0000

How about Sciencegate ? or even greengate ?

“To have a political effect, the â€˜extended peersâ€™ of science have traditionally needed to operate largely by means of activist pressure-groups using the media to create public alarm. In this case, since the global warmers had captured the moral high ground, criticism has remained scattered and ineffective, except on the blogosphere. The position of Green activists is especially difficult, even tragic; they have been â€˜extended peersâ€™ who were co-opted into the ruling paradigm, which in retrospect can be seen as a decoy or diversion from the real, complex issues of sustainability, as shown by Mike Hulme. Now they must do some very serious re-thinking about their position and their role…”

If you can tear yourselves away, this is Jerome Ravetz, of Oxford University “…an environmental consultant and professor of philosophy of science best known for his books challenging the assumptions of scientific objectivity…”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/climategate-plausibility-and-the-blogosphere-in-the-post-normal-age/#more-16262