I'm not welcome at Bishop Hill so when Andrew Montford posts some nonsense (which is pretty frequent) I have to note my corrections here.
Today Monty posts a bit of a cosy chat with Canadian industry frontman and faux environmentalist Patrick Moore. Moore begins thus : "What most people don't realize, partly because the media never explains it, is that there is no dispute over whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and all else being equal would result in a warming of the climate."
Really? I'm always a tad suspicious of anyone beginning their argument with 'this is what it's not about'.
Over on the right hand side of Monty's blog are the links to what Monty optimistically calls 'Science Blogs' . They include Lucy Skywalker author of an essay called "The lynching of innocent CO2" and peddles the old CO2 lags warming line. Or there's a link to the unfortunately titled No Tricks Zone which lists all these posts on CO2 and GHG so they don't miss a trick. Or there's a link to the absurdly self important Climate Realists
hosting John O'Sullivans claptrap such as "Solar Ovens Prove Greenhouse
Gas Theory is cooked " Oh puuuhleeeeeeez, is any further explanation necessary? No.
Odd how skepticism of CO2 being a greenhouse gas is so easy to find amongst *skeptics* also telling us that's not in dispute. File it under the inconsistency of climate change denial.
Tweet
Showing posts with label Andrew Montford. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew Montford. Show all posts
Monty turns the Unabomber ads Upside-down
"Is there one rule for upholders of the climate orthodoxy and another for dissenters?" asks blogger Andrew Montford. Since Monty routinely deletes any comment I post on his blog and even attempts to block me from viewing it I'll have to offer my answer here.
Monty's gripe today is that Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik is a climate denier. No, to be more precise Monty's gripe is that Graham Readfearn's blog supporting the consensus has noted Breivik's manifesto actually cites the work of Lord Christopher Monckton, Alex Jones and Steve McIntyre and echoes the beliefs of many climate change deniers. Whilst what Graham Readfearn writes in DeSmogBlog happens to be perfectly true Monty isn't shy to argue for it to be censored.
This is of course in response to, and to detract from, Heartland's notorious Unabomber ads splashed over the Eisenhower Expressway Illinois.
But there are four important differences between Readfearn's commentary and Heartland's ads which have passed Montford by:
Advertising in a public context requires standards of decency, half the story here is how Heartland lack that. The other half is not the overlap between a mass murderer's views and Montford's; it's Montford's demand that other bloggers should recoil from noting that.
Tweet
Monty's gripe today is that Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik is a climate denier. No, to be more precise Monty's gripe is that Graham Readfearn's blog supporting the consensus has noted Breivik's manifesto actually cites the work of Lord Christopher Monckton, Alex Jones and Steve McIntyre and echoes the beliefs of many climate change deniers. Whilst what Graham Readfearn writes in DeSmogBlog happens to be perfectly true Monty isn't shy to argue for it to be censored.
This is of course in response to, and to detract from, Heartland's notorious Unabomber ads splashed over the Eisenhower Expressway Illinois.
But there are four important differences between Readfearn's commentary and Heartland's ads which have passed Montford by:
- The Breivik story is contemporary. The minutiae of his 'personality' are being picked over by the mass media. Whereas the Unabomber has been on the inside of a Federal Penitentiary for 16 years now.
- Breivik's climate denial leanings are co-incidental to his crimes . Readfearn is careful not to imply that a trait of mass murder is to be on the wrong side of the climate debate.
- By contrast Heartland make exactly that claim in their commentary . The ads put forward no science whatsoever so they can't really be called skepticism. Heartland say in their press release: "The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen"
- The Unabomber ad intends to make an empirical argument to the public, whereas this particular blogpost by Readfearn is largely preaching to the choir and is confined to commentary not scientific argument.
Advertising in a public context requires standards of decency, half the story here is how Heartland lack that. The other half is not the overlap between a mass murderer's views and Montford's; it's Montford's demand that other bloggers should recoil from noting that.
Tweet
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
Tweet
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
Tweet
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 ?
Tweet
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 ?
Tweet
Ethical conundrums confound Monty
The Gleick affair continues to bound around the blogosphere. James Garvey in the Grauniad asks whether Gleick's ethical lapse could be offset by the positives from exposing Heartland's dirty dealings. I'm circumspect because we really need to see how climate scientists view this. But Andrew Montford is not so shy, boldly denouncing it as Garvey's "OK to lie" article.
When I point out to Monty that Garvey said nothing of the sort Monty retreats to note that Garvey actually said 'it depends'
Well if Monty cannot see the difference between the two positions I'm really not sure he is cut out for ethical punditry. Of course the self styled Bishop is a newbie to ethical questions . Despite squeezing the word 'climategate' onto the subtitle of his book nowhere in the Hockey Stick Illusion did Andrew Montford examine the ethics of drawing conclusions from hacked material nor criticize the hacker.
Tweet
When I point out to Monty that Garvey said nothing of the sort Monty retreats to note that Garvey actually said 'it depends'
Well if Monty cannot see the difference between the two positions I'm really not sure he is cut out for ethical punditry. Of course the self styled Bishop is a newbie to ethical questions . Despite squeezing the word 'climategate' onto the subtitle of his book nowhere in the Hockey Stick Illusion did Andrew Montford examine the ethics of drawing conclusions from hacked material nor criticize the hacker.
Tweet
Where are the skeptics ?
A stage magician cuts his assistant in half. A skeptic would reason that some kind of visual trick is at work, that the girl has not really been chopped in two.
The climate blog-o-sphere is quite different though. Andrew Montford makes a Freedom of Information request to the Met Office asking for Sir John Houghton's emails relating to AR3. The respondent answers that they do not hold any such emails. Monty then writes a blogpost concluding "it appears that Sir John has deleted historic records".
Observation nothing - conclusion scandal.
I've tried asking "How can you be sure that he holds emails relating to AR3 ?" Needless to say Monty meets that line of questioning with a stony silence.
Tweet
The climate blog-o-sphere is quite different though. Andrew Montford makes a Freedom of Information request to the Met Office asking for Sir John Houghton's emails relating to AR3. The respondent answers that they do not hold any such emails. Monty then writes a blogpost concluding "it appears that Sir John has deleted historic records".
Observation nothing - conclusion scandal.
I've tried asking "How can you be sure that he holds emails relating to AR3 ?" Needless to say Monty meets that line of questioning with a stony silence.
Tweet
Another completely unsupportable claim from Monty
Once again Andrew Montford brilliantly demonstrates why his narrative cannot be trusted . Montford scrambles a post by contrarian activist (and WGII author) Richard Tol over the IPCC nexus with national FOI laws. Tol isn't actually reporting anything new, but Montford headlines it "IPCC declares itself above the law" and thus another contrarian canard is born. It is however easily debunked. If the IPCC declares something there must by definition be a declaration. However Monty ignores requests to point us to the IPCC declaration he refers to. Come on now Monty, you're making it up as you go along.
Tweet
Tweet
The Ad Hominem attack - Monty's flexible friend
Ad Hominem means against the person. It's very poor form to attack your opponent's character as the implication is that you can't attack his argument.
Andrew Montford complains that this critical appraisal of a recent controversial paper is mostly ad-hom , but he is tantalisingly non-specific. It seems that his gripe is to note motivations as ad-hominem insisting "the motivations are irrelevant to the science." Debatable, since Roy Spencer (the author of the now discredited skeptic paper) is Chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute a motivation which may conflict with the dispassionate search for truth that should be scientific enquiry.
So, having widened the definition of ad-hominem to include discussion of motivations how long does it take Montford to go back to criticizing his opponents motivations? Not long , the folowing day Monty snipes at scientific journal Nature, and delivers a whole blogpost in which he rants (an unsupported assertion) that 2500 IPCC scientists are "corrupt, so bereft of any integrity."
Would it be bad form to wonder perhaps Andrew Montford's motivations are less than a dispassionate search for truth?
Tweet
Andrew Montford complains that this critical appraisal of a recent controversial paper is mostly ad-hom , but he is tantalisingly non-specific. It seems that his gripe is to note motivations as ad-hominem insisting "the motivations are irrelevant to the science." Debatable, since Roy Spencer (the author of the now discredited skeptic paper) is Chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute a motivation which may conflict with the dispassionate search for truth that should be scientific enquiry.
So, having widened the definition of ad-hominem to include discussion of motivations how long does it take Montford to go back to criticizing his opponents motivations? Not long , the folowing day Monty snipes at scientific journal Nature, and delivers a whole blogpost in which he rants (an unsupported assertion) that 2500 IPCC scientists are "corrupt, so bereft of any integrity."
Would it be bad form to wonder perhaps Andrew Montford's motivations are less than a dispassionate search for truth?
Tweet
Bishop Hill largely in the absence of supporting facts
The deny-o-skept-o-sphere's take on the Hackgate scandal has posed a question I'd been meaning to ask for some time:
Which Andrew Montford sidesteps
This is in the context of a cop being arrested as part of the Hackgate police op. But has Monty made up the claim of bribery and corruption , or can he support it?
A question Monty refuses to answer. Instead I recieve a few ad homs from Bishop Hill devotees. This is my personal favourite:
A troll I may be but asking for supporting facts is normal especially when serious allegations of bribery and corruption are made. So is his claim supported or not ? Or did Bishop Hill aka Andrew Montford invent his allegation of bribery of a police officer ?
In a nutshell this is how climate *skeptic* blogs work. Andrew Montford is not used to being called to support his accusations , his blog followers will deal with the correspondence whilst he moves on to the next attack. It's only a week since this thread but already Monty has made at least one other claim of corruption . To date Bishop Hill has not addressed the question directly posed above . Bishop Hill is a blog that maintains serious allegations against some of the world's top scientists yet if it is not convenient the Bishop Hill blog (and the skept-o-sphere in general) will obfuscate and obscure rather than set the record straight and admit a false accusation has been made.
Tweet
Which Andrew Montford sidesteps
This is in the context of a cop being arrested as part of the Hackgate police op. But has Monty made up the claim of bribery and corruption , or can he support it?
A question Monty refuses to answer. Instead I recieve a few ad homs from Bishop Hill devotees. This is my personal favourite:
A troll I may be but asking for supporting facts is normal especially when serious allegations of bribery and corruption are made. So is his claim supported or not ? Or did Bishop Hill aka Andrew Montford invent his allegation of bribery of a police officer ?
In a nutshell this is how climate *skeptic* blogs work. Andrew Montford is not used to being called to support his accusations , his blog followers will deal with the correspondence whilst he moves on to the next attack. It's only a week since this thread but already Monty has made at least one other claim of corruption . To date Bishop Hill has not addressed the question directly posed above . Bishop Hill is a blog that maintains serious allegations against some of the world's top scientists yet if it is not convenient the Bishop Hill blog (and the skept-o-sphere in general) will obfuscate and obscure rather than set the record straight and admit a false accusation has been made.
Tweet
Words to climategate made up by Monty
(retitled)
I've long nursed a notion that the climate denial narrative relies on an environment of chinese whispers, that explains how a large and robust scientific consensus is turned into a popular delusion of some pseudoscientific "hoax" or "fraud" or "myth" simply by the shaving of meaning between successive accounts. It's a point I must return to because it works in a temporal dimension too, like our generation teaching the "controversy" of global warming rather than the science.
Anyhow , an Andrew Montford interview spewed forth a couple of dubious claims that need putting to rights and I was putting together a blog post on those points when I realised his entire interview is evidence of the notion above.
Montford has no special experience to relate on this issue, he's simply read the emails himself and tells the reporter what he thinks ofit all. But would the story be any different if the journalist had read the CRU emails himself first hand, and checked the facts ? Getting to the truth is a collegiate exercise. So in the interests of getting to the truth lets put Monty's words under the microscope.
NS: What do you think motivated the Hockey Team to misuse the data, use unconventional statistical methods, etc?
Montford: It is clear that at least some members of the team felt themselves under pressure to produce, in the words of one of the Climategate emails, "a nice tidy story…as regards apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more". On the whole though the shenanigans seem to have been the result of "noble cause corruption" - they sincerely believed that there was a problem that required an urgent solution and that this justified cutting corners.
The question about motivation is somewhat loaded but Montford's answer is a clear misrepresentation. Reference to pressure to produce "a nice tidy story" does indeed appear in one of the emails, but the writer concludes that argument with the caveat that " the reality is not quite so simple". It's in an email from Dr Keith Briffa beginning with the line "Let me say that I don't mind what you put in the policy makers summary if there is a general concensus." But Monty leaves that out. He also focuses on the four words (out of 848) which conjure up the impression that suits his purposes. Montford is cherry picking his quotes to create a narrative that suits him.
I've pointed this out to Montford but he washes his hands of all responsibility with the reply : Hengist I was asked what made them do the things they did. I said they were under pressure to do so and quoted the words that showed this to be the case. 1
On closer inspection though we find the words that showed Monty's case weren't quite the same as those in the hacked emails. Dr Briffa used the verb 'to be' but in Montford's account it has been changed to 'to feel', and declined reflexively in the plural. Montford's words "It is clear that at least some members of the team felt themselves under pressure" is pure sophistry. Briffa's reflection that 'pressure' exists has been turned into a complaint that he (and others) are under pressure.
But it's Monty's suggestion that this affair is the result of "noble cause corruption" which should set alarm bells ringing, because they do not appear in any of the emails. Bear in mind that this interview was conducted by email , so the inverted commas (signifying the phrase can be found in the hacked emails) are Montfords. Those words are in fact skeptic commentary, but he presents them as if they are to be found in the original emails, they are not. I've pointed this out to Monty 2 but answer comes there none.
1 Comment at Bishop Hill May 4, 2011 at 4:49 PM
2 Comment at Bishop Hill Jun 6, 2011 at 10:41 PM
Tweet
I've long nursed a notion that the climate denial narrative relies on an environment of chinese whispers, that explains how a large and robust scientific consensus is turned into a popular delusion of some pseudoscientific "hoax" or "fraud" or "myth" simply by the shaving of meaning between successive accounts. It's a point I must return to because it works in a temporal dimension too, like our generation teaching the "controversy" of global warming rather than the science.
Anyhow , an Andrew Montford interview spewed forth a couple of dubious claims that need putting to rights and I was putting together a blog post on those points when I realised his entire interview is evidence of the notion above.
Montford has no special experience to relate on this issue, he's simply read the emails himself and tells the reporter what he thinks ofit all. But would the story be any different if the journalist had read the CRU emails himself first hand, and checked the facts ? Getting to the truth is a collegiate exercise. So in the interests of getting to the truth lets put Monty's words under the microscope.
NS: What do you think motivated the Hockey Team to misuse the data, use unconventional statistical methods, etc?
Montford: It is clear that at least some members of the team felt themselves under pressure to produce, in the words of one of the Climategate emails, "a nice tidy story…as regards apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more". On the whole though the shenanigans seem to have been the result of "noble cause corruption" - they sincerely believed that there was a problem that required an urgent solution and that this justified cutting corners.
The question about motivation is somewhat loaded but Montford's answer is a clear misrepresentation. Reference to pressure to produce "a nice tidy story" does indeed appear in one of the emails, but the writer concludes that argument with the caveat that " the reality is not quite so simple". It's in an email from Dr Keith Briffa beginning with the line "Let me say that I don't mind what you put in the policy makers summary if there is a general concensus." But Monty leaves that out. He also focuses on the four words (out of 848) which conjure up the impression that suits his purposes. Montford is cherry picking his quotes to create a narrative that suits him.
I've pointed this out to Montford but he washes his hands of all responsibility with the reply : Hengist I was asked what made them do the things they did. I said they were under pressure to do so and quoted the words that showed this to be the case. 1
On closer inspection though we find the words that showed Monty's case weren't quite the same as those in the hacked emails. Dr Briffa used the verb 'to be' but in Montford's account it has been changed to 'to feel', and declined reflexively in the plural. Montford's words "It is clear that at least some members of the team felt themselves under pressure" is pure sophistry. Briffa's reflection that 'pressure' exists has been turned into a complaint that he (and others) are under pressure.
But it's Monty's suggestion that this affair is the result of "noble cause corruption" which should set alarm bells ringing, because they do not appear in any of the emails. Bear in mind that this interview was conducted by email , so the inverted commas (signifying the phrase can be found in the hacked emails) are Montfords. Those words are in fact skeptic commentary, but he presents them as if they are to be found in the original emails, they are not. I've pointed this out to Monty 2 but answer comes there none.
1 Comment at Bishop Hill May 4, 2011 at 4:49 PM
2 Comment at Bishop Hill Jun 6, 2011 at 10:41 PM
Tweet
Monty's fib fest
A whopper from Andrew Montford who casually declares 'a finding that "hide the decline" was "misleading" .
Hang on a minute , I thought the enquiry into the CRU hack had cleared climate scientists over dishonestly manipulating data.
To climate geeks the three most contested words in the english language are probably "hide the decline". *Skeptics* tend to say it refers to a decline in temperatures (indeed they even managed to doctor the original email and get it broadcast on the BBC, but that's another tale) , whilst the author of the phrase Dr Phil Jones says it refers to inaccuracies in modern tree ring data. Now Monty is giving us a different definition.
We can check the allegation 1, and the all important finding 2 . There is no 'finding that "hide the decline" was "misleading"'. That statement relies on the temperature graph on a 1999 World Meteorological Organization Report being synonymous with 'hide the decline' . Muir Russell did have a criticism of the graph , and the 'hide the decline' email was clearly about the graph on the WMO Report. We know that because the subject of that email was Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement. But Muir Russell did not say that "hide the decline" was "misleading". Why do climate *skeptics* find this so difficult?
Interpretation is at the heart of the climategate dispute. If Montford can't stop himself playing fast and loose with the wording of the Muir Russell Report could he be misinterpreting the original emails too?
1 Muir Russell Chapter 7 Paragraph 9
2 Muir Russell Chapter 7 Paragraph 26
Tweet
Hang on a minute , I thought the enquiry into the CRU hack had cleared climate scientists over dishonestly manipulating data.
To climate geeks the three most contested words in the english language are probably "hide the decline". *Skeptics* tend to say it refers to a decline in temperatures (indeed they even managed to doctor the original email and get it broadcast on the BBC, but that's another tale) , whilst the author of the phrase Dr Phil Jones says it refers to inaccuracies in modern tree ring data. Now Monty is giving us a different definition.
We can check the allegation 1, and the all important finding 2 . There is no 'finding that "hide the decline" was "misleading"'. That statement relies on the temperature graph on a 1999 World Meteorological Organization Report being synonymous with 'hide the decline' . Muir Russell did have a criticism of the graph , and the 'hide the decline' email was clearly about the graph on the WMO Report. We know that because the subject of that email was Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement. But Muir Russell did not say that "hide the decline" was "misleading". Why do climate *skeptics* find this so difficult?
Interpretation is at the heart of the climategate dispute. If Montford can't stop himself playing fast and loose with the wording of the Muir Russell Report could he be misinterpreting the original emails too?
1 Muir Russell Chapter 7 Paragraph 9
2 Muir Russell Chapter 7 Paragraph 26
Tweet
Is climate skepticism pseudoscience ?
From a *skeptic* blog
"My (admittedly inexpert) understanding of the impact of global warming on hurricanes is that because the poles are expected to warm the most, the temperature difference between poles and equator will be reduced and there will be less energy to transport between them. In other words there will be fewer, weaker hurricanes."
From NOAA
" The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. "
Hmmmm. Skeptics like to remind us that theirs is a dispassionate search for truth and that nobody is right all the time. But if their position is supported by ignorance, as the above statement by Andrew Montford would appear to be , then at what point has it crossed in to the realm of denialism ?
"My (admittedly inexpert) understanding of the impact of global warming on hurricanes is that because the poles are expected to warm the most, the temperature difference between poles and equator will be reduced and there will be less energy to transport between them. In other words there will be fewer, weaker hurricanes."
From NOAA
" The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. "
Hmmmm. Skeptics like to remind us that theirs is a dispassionate search for truth and that nobody is right all the time. But if their position is supported by ignorance, as the above statement by Andrew Montford would appear to be , then at what point has it crossed in to the realm of denialism ?
Consistency with Andrew Montford
How much weight should be placed on a particular type of evidence? For Andrew Montford the answer depends on whether the evidence is good or bad for your case .
"The latest bright idea" writes Montford "from CAGW subscribers is to use opinion polls to measure climate change. I kid you not... " Well Montford may not be kidding but he is certainly being economical with the truth. He is referring to researchers taking evidence from remote villagers in the Darjeeling Hills and suggesting that amounts to 'opinion polls' . It's Montford's way of ridiculing a scientific study that produces evidence he disagrees with.
Last month, in his write up of the Spectator debate there was no doubt about the most impressive argument "Benny Peiser's talk was the one that intrigued me. He essentially argued that the science is irrelevant - that the public have made their minds up and that they vote out any party that pushes the green line too far." Doctor Peiser's argument relied solely on opinion polls . And on that occasion Montford found opinion polls very impressive.
"The latest bright idea" writes Montford "from CAGW subscribers is to use opinion polls to measure climate change. I kid you not... " Well Montford may not be kidding but he is certainly being economical with the truth. He is referring to researchers taking evidence from remote villagers in the Darjeeling Hills and suggesting that amounts to 'opinion polls' . It's Montford's way of ridiculing a scientific study that produces evidence he disagrees with.
Last month, in his write up of the Spectator debate there was no doubt about the most impressive argument "Benny Peiser's talk was the one that intrigued me. He essentially argued that the science is irrelevant - that the public have made their minds up and that they vote out any party that pushes the green line too far." Doctor Peiser's argument relied solely on opinion polls . And on that occasion Montford found opinion polls very impressive.
One for the GWPF's Inbox
From : Hengist McStone
To: Benny Peiser
17/04/2011 19:20
Subject: seeking supporting evidence or clarification
Dear Doctor Peiser,
Thank you for the copy of your script you sent me, which I have posted on my blog .
I don’t feel that any of the points I have put to you have been addressed, so please allow me to be a little more direct. The argument ‘that the public have made their minds up’ has been attributed to you . Do you think that is an accurate précis of your speech at the Royal Geographical Society? If so, please direct me to some evidence which supports the argument that the public have made their minds up.
My concern is that between Mr Montford’s account and your own a misrepresentation of the public’s view may have been made. I am simply seeking supporting evidence or clarification on that point.
Salutations,
Hengist McStone
To: Benny Peiser
17/04/2011 19:20
Subject: seeking supporting evidence or clarification
Dear Doctor Peiser,
Thank you for the copy of your script you sent me, which I have posted on my blog .
I don’t feel that any of the points I have put to you have been addressed, so please allow me to be a little more direct. The argument ‘that the public have made their minds up’ has been attributed to you . Do you think that is an accurate précis of your speech at the Royal Geographical Society? If so, please direct me to some evidence which supports the argument that the public have made their minds up.
My concern is that between Mr Montford’s account and your own a misrepresentation of the public’s view may have been made. I am simply seeking supporting evidence or clarification on that point.
Salutations,
Hengist McStone
Doctor Peiser shoots from the script
Benny Peiser responds below. He doesn't take issue with Andrew Montford's précis but the key question remains how is that statement "that the public have made their minds up " supported? First thoughts: It strikes me as odd that for a man arguing that public concern is waning only offers a copy of his script to an enquiry from a member of the public asking to see support for the claim "that the public have made their minds up. " If it's a fait accompli how was it accomplished ?
Dear Mr McStone
Thank you for your query. I have attached below my short contribution at the recent Spectator debate.
With best regards
Benny Peiser
---------------------
The Global Warming Concern Is Over. Time for a Return to Sanity
Benny Peiser
The hype and obsession with global warming is well and truly over. How do we know? Because all the relevant indicators – polls, news coverage, government u-turns and a manifest lack of interest among policy makers – show a steep decline in public concern about climate change.
Public opinion is the crucial factor that determines whether policy makers advance or abandon contentious policies.
Surveys in the United Kingdom and other European nations reveal that the levels of concern about global warming have been falling steadily in recent years. Media coverage of climate change has dropped sharply. And, as I will show, some of the world's leading science institutions have begun to tone down the rhetoric and alarm about climate change.
The public's concern about global warming as a pressing problem is in marked decline not least because of the growing realisation that governments and the international community are ignoring the advice of climate campaigners.
Instead, most policy makers around the world refuse to accept any decisions that are likely to harm national interests and economic competitiveness.
They are assisted in this policy of benign neglect by a public that has largely become habituated to false alarms and is happy to ignore other claims of environmental catastrophe that are today widely disregarded or seen as scare tactics.
Part of the reason for the evident waning of public concern can be attributed to the issue-attention cycle, a concept developed by Anthony Downs in 1972.
According to the by now well established attention-cycle, certain environmental events can trigger public interest and concern. After a while, though, and even if the supposed problem remains unresolved, other issues replace the original concern because the huge costs to 'solve' the problem become apparent while boredom and fatigue set in.
That future impacts of global warming have been exaggerated by some climate scientists is now widely accepted. Even the government's chief scientific advisor, Professor Beddington, has criticised the failure to disclosure the manifest uncertainties in climate predictions about the rate and extent of climate change.
Let me quote Professor Beddington: "I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed."
I fully agree with Beddington. I also agree with Prof Beddington that uncertainty about aspects of climate science should not be used as an excuse for inaction.
However, what kind of political and economic action is most appropriate and most cost-effective cannot be decided on a whim of some scientists but only after careful economic, social and political considerations.
The Royal Society too has revised and toned down its position on climate change. Its new climate guide is certainly an improvement on their more alarmist 2007 pamphlet which caused an internal rebellion by more than 40 fellows of the Society and triggered a review and subsequent revisions.
The former publication gave the misleading impression that the 'science is settled' - the new guide accepts that important questions remain open and uncertainties unresolved. The Royal Society now also agrees with the GWPF that the warming trend of the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt in the last 10 years.
In their old guide, the Royal Society demanded that governments should take "urgent steps" to cut CO2 emissions "as much and as fast as possible." This political activism has now been replaced by a more sober assessment of the scientific evidence and ongoing climate debates.
Last, but not least, the InterAcademy Council, an umbrella organisation of national science academies, was forced to review the IPCC after a number of scientific scandal had hit the UN-led climate body. The review revealed serious flaws and distortions in the IPCC's reports, its structure and its management.
Harold Shapiro, the IAC chairman, said the IPCC's review on the likely impacts of climate change “contains many statements that were assigned high confidence but for which there is little evidence.”
The Council also criticised the IPCC for over-emphasising the negative impacts of climate change, many of which were “not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or not expressed clearly.” The InterAcademy Council (IAC) has called for fundamental reforms of the IPCC. It recommends that, I quote, "review editors should ensure that genuine controversies are reflected in the report and be satisfied that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views.”
It also recommends that, quote, "lead authors should explicitly document that a range of scientific viewpoints has been considered, and Coordinating Lead Authors and Review Editors should satisfy themselves that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views.”
From these and other recommendations is it clear that the IPCC and many of its lead authors have been narrow-minded and have not take into account any other views than the 'mainstream' and that lead authors ignored views that did not tally with their own.
Let me conclude:
The scale and long-term effects of climate change will remain uncertain for decades to come.
Moreover, climate change will be generally gradual. This gradualism means that most people have become used to living with moderate warming, not least because the warming trend of the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt during the last decade.
In all likelihood, we will not know for the next 20 or 30 years who is right or wrong on the scale and impact of global warming. The stalemate in international climate negotiations is likely to become cemented for years to come.
As long as global temperatures remain more or less stable, as long as climate policies and green taxes are a growing political liability and as long as the deadlock between the West and the rest of the world lingers, we should not expect much progress in the heated climate debates.
Unless a significant warming trend re-emerges in the next 10 years, it will be near impossible to revive climate change as a major public concern. I believe we should use this time to restore reason and sanity to a debate that has become far too emotional and doom-laden and all too often depressingly intolerant.
Dear Mr McStone
Thank you for your query. I have attached below my short contribution at the recent Spectator debate.
With best regards
Benny Peiser
---------------------
The Global Warming Concern Is Over. Time for a Return to Sanity
Benny Peiser
The hype and obsession with global warming is well and truly over. How do we know? Because all the relevant indicators – polls, news coverage, government u-turns and a manifest lack of interest among policy makers – show a steep decline in public concern about climate change.
Public opinion is the crucial factor that determines whether policy makers advance or abandon contentious policies.
Surveys in the United Kingdom and other European nations reveal that the levels of concern about global warming have been falling steadily in recent years. Media coverage of climate change has dropped sharply. And, as I will show, some of the world's leading science institutions have begun to tone down the rhetoric and alarm about climate change.
The public's concern about global warming as a pressing problem is in marked decline not least because of the growing realisation that governments and the international community are ignoring the advice of climate campaigners.
Instead, most policy makers around the world refuse to accept any decisions that are likely to harm national interests and economic competitiveness.
They are assisted in this policy of benign neglect by a public that has largely become habituated to false alarms and is happy to ignore other claims of environmental catastrophe that are today widely disregarded or seen as scare tactics.
Part of the reason for the evident waning of public concern can be attributed to the issue-attention cycle, a concept developed by Anthony Downs in 1972.
According to the by now well established attention-cycle, certain environmental events can trigger public interest and concern. After a while, though, and even if the supposed problem remains unresolved, other issues replace the original concern because the huge costs to 'solve' the problem become apparent while boredom and fatigue set in.
That future impacts of global warming have been exaggerated by some climate scientists is now widely accepted. Even the government's chief scientific advisor, Professor Beddington, has criticised the failure to disclosure the manifest uncertainties in climate predictions about the rate and extent of climate change.
Let me quote Professor Beddington: "I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed."
I fully agree with Beddington. I also agree with Prof Beddington that uncertainty about aspects of climate science should not be used as an excuse for inaction.
However, what kind of political and economic action is most appropriate and most cost-effective cannot be decided on a whim of some scientists but only after careful economic, social and political considerations.
The Royal Society too has revised and toned down its position on climate change. Its new climate guide is certainly an improvement on their more alarmist 2007 pamphlet which caused an internal rebellion by more than 40 fellows of the Society and triggered a review and subsequent revisions.
The former publication gave the misleading impression that the 'science is settled' - the new guide accepts that important questions remain open and uncertainties unresolved. The Royal Society now also agrees with the GWPF that the warming trend of the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt in the last 10 years.
In their old guide, the Royal Society demanded that governments should take "urgent steps" to cut CO2 emissions "as much and as fast as possible." This political activism has now been replaced by a more sober assessment of the scientific evidence and ongoing climate debates.
Last, but not least, the InterAcademy Council, an umbrella organisation of national science academies, was forced to review the IPCC after a number of scientific scandal had hit the UN-led climate body. The review revealed serious flaws and distortions in the IPCC's reports, its structure and its management.
Harold Shapiro, the IAC chairman, said the IPCC's review on the likely impacts of climate change “contains many statements that were assigned high confidence but for which there is little evidence.”
The Council also criticised the IPCC for over-emphasising the negative impacts of climate change, many of which were “not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or not expressed clearly.” The InterAcademy Council (IAC) has called for fundamental reforms of the IPCC. It recommends that, I quote, "review editors should ensure that genuine controversies are reflected in the report and be satisfied that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views.”
It also recommends that, quote, "lead authors should explicitly document that a range of scientific viewpoints has been considered, and Coordinating Lead Authors and Review Editors should satisfy themselves that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views.”
From these and other recommendations is it clear that the IPCC and many of its lead authors have been narrow-minded and have not take into account any other views than the 'mainstream' and that lead authors ignored views that did not tally with their own.
Let me conclude:
The scale and long-term effects of climate change will remain uncertain for decades to come.
Moreover, climate change will be generally gradual. This gradualism means that most people have become used to living with moderate warming, not least because the warming trend of the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt during the last decade.
In all likelihood, we will not know for the next 20 or 30 years who is right or wrong on the scale and impact of global warming. The stalemate in international climate negotiations is likely to become cemented for years to come.
As long as global temperatures remain more or less stable, as long as climate policies and green taxes are a growing political liability and as long as the deadlock between the West and the rest of the world lingers, we should not expect much progress in the heated climate debates.
Unless a significant warming trend re-emerges in the next 10 years, it will be near impossible to revive climate change as a major public concern. I believe we should use this time to restore reason and sanity to a debate that has become far too emotional and doom-laden and all too often depressingly intolerant.
Email to Benny Peiser
Subject: Fact or opinion or fiction at the Spectator Debate
Dear Dr. Peiser,
I am writing to ask how you support a statement you are said to have made at the recent Spectator Debate at the Royal Geographical Society. I rely on Andrew Montford’s account , who writes:
“Benny Peiser's talk was the one that intrigued me. He essentially argued that the science is irrelevant - that the public have made their minds up and that they vote out any party that pushes the green line too far. He also noted that they have moved on to other issues, such as the economy.”
I don’t mean to argue with your opinion, but I do ask commentators to distinguish between their own opinion and what is an accepted fact. I suggest that the statement “the public have made their minds up” whilst appearing as fact by way of completeness is unsupportable and is ergo opinion . There has been no referendum in this country, nor anywhere in the world (to my knowledge) to support such a statement. In order for the the public have made their minds up a proposition needs to have been put to them and the matter needs to have been considered. In a democracy there is always some formal way of assessing the public’s will, a plebiscite resulting in a counting of votes. No such formality has ever been attempted on this issue and the statement attributed to you appears to usurp the vox populus and bypass the democratic process.
I would be very grateful if you could affirm that your statement is not fact but your own opinion and offer anything else in support of this statement.
Salutations ,
Hengist McStone
Dear Dr. Peiser,
I am writing to ask how you support a statement you are said to have made at the recent Spectator Debate at the Royal Geographical Society. I rely on Andrew Montford’s account , who writes:
“Benny Peiser's talk was the one that intrigued me. He essentially argued that the science is irrelevant - that the public have made their minds up and that they vote out any party that pushes the green line too far. He also noted that they have moved on to other issues, such as the economy.”
I don’t mean to argue with your opinion, but I do ask commentators to distinguish between their own opinion and what is an accepted fact. I suggest that the statement “the public have made their minds up” whilst appearing as fact by way of completeness is unsupportable and is ergo opinion . There has been no referendum in this country, nor anywhere in the world (to my knowledge) to support such a statement. In order for the the public have made their minds up a proposition needs to have been put to them and the matter needs to have been considered. In a democracy there is always some formal way of assessing the public’s will, a plebiscite resulting in a counting of votes. No such formality has ever been attempted on this issue and the statement attributed to you appears to usurp the vox populus and bypass the democratic process.
I would be very grateful if you could affirm that your statement is not fact but your own opinion and offer anything else in support of this statement.
Salutations ,
Hengist McStone
Did Benny Peiser make this bit up ?
This week a debate on global warming was held at The Royal Geographical Society. Sponsored by The Spectator magazine, it included a couple of notable names from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Benny Peiser and Nigel Lawson.
Now I've been watching the climate scene for long enough to know that "debate" isn't really happening. Mudslinging , yes. So I wasn't tempted to shell out thirty quid to watch something that was unlikely to really challenge my perceptions or inform me. Even though the line up also included the excellent Dr Simon Singh, whose book on codebreaking I am reading right now.
Instead I rely on Andrew Montford's account who writes: "Benny Peiser's talk was the one that intrigued me. He essentially argued that the science is irrelevant - that the public have made their minds up and that they vote out any party that pushes the green line too far."
I wonder how Dr Peiser arrived at the line that 'the public have made their minds up'. No plebiscite has ever been called, nor any proposition put to the public. So how could any reasonable person reach this conclusion? Dr Peiser, a sports psychologist with a background in anthropology is affiliated to the Global Warming Policy Foundation but he has not been elcted to speak for the public. And I am pretty sure I am right when I say that 'the public have made their minds up' is unsupportable.
Now I'm not quibbling that this is how things are working out, but I suggest Dr Peiser is misrepresenting the public's view. I argue that the public have been largely misled, but the fact is there has been no plebiscite or referendum to support Dr Peiser's assertion. And I figure we really ought to get to the bottom of this. Perhaps it is more opinion dressed up as fact. Perhaps Montford's account was a little wide of the mark. Whatever , it looks like I shall have to email the great man himself.
Now I've been watching the climate scene for long enough to know that "debate" isn't really happening. Mudslinging , yes. So I wasn't tempted to shell out thirty quid to watch something that was unlikely to really challenge my perceptions or inform me. Even though the line up also included the excellent Dr Simon Singh, whose book on codebreaking I am reading right now.
Instead I rely on Andrew Montford's account who writes: "Benny Peiser's talk was the one that intrigued me. He essentially argued that the science is irrelevant - that the public have made their minds up and that they vote out any party that pushes the green line too far."
I wonder how Dr Peiser arrived at the line that 'the public have made their minds up'. No plebiscite has ever been called, nor any proposition put to the public. So how could any reasonable person reach this conclusion? Dr Peiser, a sports psychologist with a background in anthropology is affiliated to the Global Warming Policy Foundation but he has not been elcted to speak for the public. And I am pretty sure I am right when I say that 'the public have made their minds up' is unsupportable.
Now I'm not quibbling that this is how things are working out, but I suggest Dr Peiser is misrepresenting the public's view. I argue that the public have been largely misled, but the fact is there has been no plebiscite or referendum to support Dr Peiser's assertion. And I figure we really ought to get to the bottom of this. Perhaps it is more opinion dressed up as fact. Perhaps Montford's account was a little wide of the mark. Whatever , it looks like I shall have to email the great man himself.
Recyclists cover up emissions figures (only they don't)
Not normally noted for caring about the environment The Adam Smith Institute weighs in that recycling has a higher carbon footprint than landfill.
In an article strangely titled "Good sense on recycling at last" libertarian blogger Tim Worstall predicts that a Scottish Government initiative looking at the emissions cost of recycling will be suppressed. "Indeed, I have a very strong feeling that this will be quietly dropped and not spoken of again" confides Tim. So can we hope for the stripey shirted blogger to return to the topic when the matter is 'quietly dropped'?
Perhaps not, because Tim's ingeniously found a way to make the suggestion of a cover-up without any actual evidence whatsoever.
Tim's erudite analysis doesnt quite add up either . "[W]hat they're going to find is that ...we already recycle too much. For example, we crush up green glass to be used as underlay for roads" says Tim as if the Scottish Government didn't know that already . But paragraph 5 of Zero Waste Scotland's press release talks of "giving higher weighting to glass which is recycled back into glass rather than that which is used for aggregates or insulation materials." So clearly the Scottish Governemnt did know that already.
When I pointed out that his is not an evidentiary viewpoint and is purely suggestive Tim answered "Yes because I think that the results will be so embarrassing that they will be suppressed. I'll be pleasantly surprised if they're not, of course."
Of course. But on closer inspection we find that the initiative by Zero Waste Scotland is merely a way of measuring and setting carbon emissions targets . The suggestion that results are to be published (and hence covered up) is purely the work of Tim Worstall.
So not only is it more opinion dressed up as fact. It's also a prediction that is not falsifiable. Tim, you haven't got the hang of the clairvoyant gig have you ?
Hat tip to Bishop Hill for this one.
In an article strangely titled "Good sense on recycling at last" libertarian blogger Tim Worstall predicts that a Scottish Government initiative looking at the emissions cost of recycling will be suppressed. "Indeed, I have a very strong feeling that this will be quietly dropped and not spoken of again" confides Tim. So can we hope for the stripey shirted blogger to return to the topic when the matter is 'quietly dropped'?
Perhaps not, because Tim's ingeniously found a way to make the suggestion of a cover-up without any actual evidence whatsoever.
Tim's erudite analysis doesnt quite add up either . "[W]hat they're going to find is that ...we already recycle too much. For example, we crush up green glass to be used as underlay for roads" says Tim as if the Scottish Government didn't know that already . But paragraph 5 of Zero Waste Scotland's press release talks of "giving higher weighting to glass which is recycled back into glass rather than that which is used for aggregates or insulation materials." So clearly the Scottish Governemnt did know that already.
When I pointed out that his is not an evidentiary viewpoint and is purely suggestive Tim answered "Yes because I think that the results will be so embarrassing that they will be suppressed. I'll be pleasantly surprised if they're not, of course."
Of course. But on closer inspection we find that the initiative by Zero Waste Scotland is merely a way of measuring and setting carbon emissions targets . The suggestion that results are to be published (and hence covered up) is purely the work of Tim Worstall.
So not only is it more opinion dressed up as fact. It's also a prediction that is not falsifiable. Tim, you haven't got the hang of the clairvoyant gig have you ?
Hat tip to Bishop Hill for this one.
Don't let this put you off your Weetabix
Never one to let facts get in the way of a good story Andrew Montford morphs a BBC article entitled "Food sold in recycled cardboard packaging 'poses risk' " into the absurd (and unsupported) suggestion of environmentalists trashing the environment . The BBC article he relies on contains no mention of environmentalists. Nor does it mention environmental damage . But, never mind. It is about a questionable industrial process in the packaging of breakfast cereals. Apparently there are toxins in printers inks. The industrial process involves recycling, and recycling is favoured by environmentalists. And that's good enough for Montford . File under 'tenuous calumny' and 'assertions neither supported nor withdrawn'.
Montford misrepresents ...
Just a quick note to record Andrew "Bishop Hill" Montford's latest straw man. He seems to have it in for Bob Ward of the Grantham Institute , so he posts a thread for his devotee's to attack Bob's latest article in the Grauniad . But I am puzzled by this bit from montford " it's hard to take the article seriously when Ward and his ilk consistently refuse to engage in debate with sceptics because the science is settled." So I've asked "The Bishop" for an explanation , answer comes there none.
Hang on a minute though, isnt this the same Bob Ward who debated with Bjorn 'skeptical environmentalist' Lomborg on Panorama only last summer? There's Bob in the middle, debating, with a skeptic, case closed.
It's hard to take the deny-o-sphere seriously when Montford and his ilk consistently misrepresent their opponents.
Hang on a minute though, isnt this the same Bob Ward who debated with Bjorn 'skeptical environmentalist' Lomborg on Panorama only last summer? There's Bob in the middle, debating, with a skeptic, case closed.
It's hard to take the deny-o-sphere seriously when Montford and his ilk consistently misrepresent their opponents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)