Heretics Corner

Anthony Watts can't do Attribution

Update: This post has been substantially rewritten now that Anthony Watts has printed my comment to his blog.

Anthony Watts declares on his blog : USA’s record warm March 2012 not caused by “global warming”

To support this assertion Watts draws on the work of Dr Martin P. Hoerling of NOAA . Hoerling finds GHG forcing "likely contributed on the order of 5% to 10% of the magnitude of the heat wave" which turns Watts's headline on it's head. Dr Martin P. Hoerling is an expert on attribution. Anthony Watts is not. So there's a wide gulf between the words of a NOAA scientist and what the blogger says the scientists said. WUWT cannot reflect the highly nuanced question of attribution. And that's not opinion, that is observation.

Sophistry takes on science

Amazon Book Review of The Hockey Stick Illusion
1 Star

This book has become something of a cult classic amongst those seeking to deny anthropogenic global warming. Telling the story of Stephen McIntyre's assault on Professor Michael Mann's temperature graph which demonstrates the steep rise in late 20th century temperatures.

The statistical methods under dispute are analysed in tedious detail by Montford, but The Hockey Stick Illusion is notable for what is left out rather than what the author has chosen to include. This sleight of hand reaches a crescendo on page 212 when Montford slips in that McIntyre would not be offering up an alternative global temperature reconstruction but was “merely demonstrating that Mann's was not robust." This second hand unfootnoted account of where McIntyre has set the bar for his own quest is all we have to define "discredited". Whether that speaks to McIntyre's confidence in his own work or his objectives is a good question which Montford never asks, probably because the answer would result in criticism of his hero which is outside the scope of this hagiography.

So McIntyre's approach never actually leads to a destination, it's the journey that counts. And because Montford always faces the direction opposing scientific consensus on climate the book misleads the reader as to the scale and importance of observed recent global warming.

This is wrong because science is what is known, not what you want it to be. Someone once described science as lighting a candle in the darkness, sadly Montford and McIntyre's science is the opposite.

Numerous researchers have replicated the hockey stick graph but McIntyre is not one of them. A true skeptic would smell a rat at that point. A scientific theory remains valid until it has been disproved or somebody comes up with something better. Neither has happened, so this book settles for the next best thing – magnifying the uncertainties inherent in scientific research whilst translating it into a popular narrative – and because this takes place under the shadow of public policy a dash of libertarian flavour is added too. For that Mr Montford will probably be remembered as the 21st century's most successful propagandist.

GWPF paymaster is Big Oil fundraiser

So now we know. Michael Hintze the bigshot behind hedge fund CQS and Sugar Daddy to the Prime Minister is a key backer of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Climate contrarians are claiming that Hintze has no link to big oil. That is not true.

The GWPF maintains strict secrecy about the identity of it's backers and has always claimed that it doesn't accept donations from the energy industry or individuals with a significant stake in the energy industry. Leo Hickman (h/t) explains why this part of the story was spiked "lots of hedge funds, pension funds etc have things like this but a bit of a stretch to say that means he = big oil I think"

The odd £30milllion that this appears to be worth to Hintze may seem like a drop in the ocean only because Hintze is a billionaire, but it's still a significant sum of money.

Barry 1316 characters all for you

Despite writing for WUWT Barry Woods seems like a nice chap. He's got a chemistry degree from a redbrick university and was my first climate follower on Twitter. I need more than 140 characters to address some minor point. So if your name's not Barry Woods CLICK ON THIS LINK you'll find it far more interesting.

Barry, you suggested that 1 or 2 degrees of warming might result in no negative impacts, I've asked to see some science to back that up but you haven't come up with any. OK peer reviewed science apart, I've asked for you to expand your idea, but you haven't answered me.

So your notion that negative impacts can be mitigated against positive impacts needs setting straight. The positive impacts aren't going to be felt by the same people as the negative impacts. So one can't mitigate against the other. I suggest it belies a difference in approach between right and left because broadly the left strive for social equality and the right strive to justify social inequality. You object but you're providing no support for your stance . Sure Canadian wheat farmers are set to benefit from AGW but I don't see that assisting the plight of climate refugees living at sea level in Bangladesh, do you ? Give me one fair example of positive impacts mitigating against negative impacts in the real world.

* Update 11:10 am: Barry tells me he also has a Masters Degree in computer modelling/cybernetics. And here's Barry's considered response to this post.

* Update 2: Apparently my requests for science supporting Barry's claims have 'crossed over the line' and Barry has blocked me on Twitter.

Message for Mr Montford

I have briefly been able to view the Bishop Hill blog and catch up with the comments there, thanks to a neat little widget called HideTheIP. Montford has now blocked my proxy IP so I don't know whether this comment (left on BH blog at approx 8.52pm 25th March 2012) has been modded , answered or deleted.

Mr Montford,
At 9pm you asserted that I had lied about how you had reported Heartland . Well lying is a very specific allegation, if I have lied I would be delighted to apologise to you, but I am flummoxed as to what you could actually call a lie.
The next step therefore is for you to point out the supposed lie. What are the actual words at issue ?
It should be noted that I had already attempted to address this question before you blocked me . At 8:19 pm I asked if you would care to enlarge on your characterisation of my contributions as 'dishonest'. You have not done so .
I have to also observe that despite blocking me from access to your blog last night commenters here have continued to make comments about me for some time afterwards. That is hardly conducive to grown up discourse is it ?
Blocking me from reading to your blog on my PC serves no one, except of course it positions yourself as a gatekeeper to climate skepticism . That does not sit easily with your oft repeated claim that climate science should be more open.
Salutations
Hengist McStone

Monty slams the door

In what appears to be some kind of fit of pique I have been blocked from viewing the blog Bishop Hill on my PC .

The blogger who runs Bishop Hill Andrew Montford has also blocked me from following him on Twitter.

I was the subject of numerous ad hominem attacks in the comments on his blog, and I suggest, rather than curb the worst excesses of his loyal followers it became easier for Mr Montford to fake outrage at me and demand contrition. It's a tactic straight out of the ex cathedra toolbox.

So what could it have been that upset Monty? Well, all I've got so far is this tweet via Barry Woods. But when I asked for moderation Monty's response was that my contributions were dishonest. He was no more specific than that. It was immediately after I asked him for substantiation of that remark that I was blocked, first by pre-moderation, with a message that my comment would become visible after an editor had approved it. Needless to say Montford has not substantiated his claim that I was dishonest, so I do not know quite what he is supposed to be outraged about, nor why I should be apologising to him.

So where does that leave all those claims that 'climate science should be more open' when Britain's premier climate skeptic blogger has to act as gatekeeper to his own blog ?

Letting The Think Tanks Do The Thinking

First out of the traps when the Heartland docs were posted online was new darling of the skept-o-sphere Megan McArdle. Indeed the Washington D.C. based hack has penned 9732 words on the Heartland document dump , and not a single one of them actually examining the shady antics of Heartland exposed in the documents.

In February Megan claimed "I don't blog about the science" and then went on to assert that "the science is so uncertain". Earth to Megan: scientists quantify their uncertainty, that is part of science, so the bald statement "the science is so uncertain" would disqualify her claim not to blog about the science. But that isn't the only absurdity in Megan's stance

"I not only believe that anthropogenic global warming is happening, but also support stiff carbon or source fuels taxes in order to combat it." MEGAN MCARDLE FEB 16th

"I've basically outsourced my opinion on the science to people like Jonathan Adler, Ron Bailey, and Pat Michaels " MEGAN MCARDLE Feb 28th

Okay let's forgive the management speak. What kind of ardent advocate of carbon taxes picks this likely trio as experts on anthropogenic global warming?

Ron Bailey holds a degree in philosophy and economics, he is the author of Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse published by the Cato Institute . Jonathan Adler worked for the Competitive Enterprise Institute for nine years,and before that was an intern at Cato , his area of expertise - Law. Pat Michaels the only actual scientist amongst Megan's 'experts' needs no introduction, oh, he's a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute . So all three of them have close ties to think tanks, all three of them have ties to the Cato Institute.

So Megan's claim to believe in global warming can be likened to supporting Arsenal, but having all your favourite players from Spurs. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Megan has outsourced her rationale to the Think Tanks.