Deniers, get over it.

Does Prospect magazine have it in for global warming? Take this which argues that uncertainties are reason enough to prevent action. They gave us "global warming will save lives"  from Bjorn Lomborg. And Prospect's lopsided notion of balance meant a fawning review of the Hockey Stick Illusion by Matt Ridley of the GWPF no less.

Now, add to that list philosopher Edward Skidelsky's edict that 'all liberal-minded people should be alarmed by uses of the denier tag' which includes global warming denial in the list.  Along that road we reach this juncture

"A charge of denial short-circuits [ ] debate by stigmatising as dishonest any deviation from a preordained conclusion. It is a form of the argument ad hominem: the aim is not so much to refute your opponent as to discredit his motives."

What about a charge of denial to highlight a distinction from skepticism?  Skepticism is an honest search for truth conducted with an open mind.   Skepticism is not wholesale rejection of a canon of scientific knowledge based on ideological motivations coupled with revisionism of minor points. What word does Doctor Skidelsky offer for that? None. In the AGW debate the word denier is used more to tag motives than to discredit them.

In essence the vocabulary is being loaded . Proper skeptics have nothing to fear from a word, it's just a word .  But the AGW debate has become polarized and, desperate not to lose credibility to the casual observer whilst manufacturing uncertainty the deny-o-sphere feigns offence at the use of a mere word. 

Doctor Skidelsky is giving academic credence to this canard and his entreaty deserves to be dismissed as Orwellian , at best.

Pantomime Horse makes about turn

I should grudgingly credit Andrew Montford for this.  I'm barely a third of the way through the Hockey Stick Illusion which I am finding a little tedious. Montford is telling the story of McIntyre's efforts to unpick Dr Mann's work. But the importance of the Mann et al ( Hockey Stick ) graph is widely overblown , it is not as if climate science rests on it. A major premise of the book is that the Mediaeval Warm Period was warmer than current estimates, which supports the view that recent warming is part of natural variability. And this can be used to support the argument that recent warming is not anthropogenic which can then be used to imply that claims by climate scientists that warming is anthropogenic are dishonest which is the sort of logic that underpins the Cuccinelli case and indeed much of climategate.

A rational person would get off that particular rhetorical bus before it steers off the improbable cliff of absurdity.  

I wonder therefore what the causes of the MWP are, and expecting to find the phrase 'Milankovitch cycles' consult Skeptical Science.  Regrettably, the answer is not so simple. The Mediaeval Warm Period was ( I think) regional not global and, it is due to solar irradiance which IMHO would bathe the entire planet. This presents a contradiction. I have posted at 27 and 31 and until I get a satisfactory answer will consider myself a climate skeptic.  Does this shake my acceptance of AGW? Yes, like a fruit fly landing on a slab of granite. My understanding of climate science is incomplete and imperfect just like everyone elses. I don't know whether SkS will answer my questions in this regard to my satisfaction but my fellow skeptics I have to tell you that the political issue is the sharp warming of modern times and whether we allow that to go on into the future, not what the weather was like half a millenium ago. Allowing our concerns about uncertainties in the paleological record to systematically influence our politics is denialism not skepticsm.

Thud!

Andrew Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion lands on my doormat. I've bought it because there are a couple of points I want to look up. Does Montford display any moral anchorage whilst prying into other people's emails?  There's nothing in the intro to the relevant chapter. Perhaps it's to be found elsewhere in the book but first impressions indicate Montford seems to think it's fair game to read whatever one likes into other people's private correspondence.

Dissing the peer reviewed work of  Mann et al is Montford's stock in trade so I'm curious to read why Montford's work hasn't been peer reviewed . I've recently cribbed this  PDF from Sense about Science which says "Peer review is an essential dividing line for judging what is scientific and what is speculation and opinion. Most scientists make a careful distinction between their peer-reviewed findings and their more general opinions."  Andrew Montford disagrees by omission . A passage entitled So what is peer review for then?  makes no reference to this crucial distinction, instead drawing attention to famous scientific work that wasn't peer reviewed. The passage closes with "Yet peer review is the only oversight there is of the validity of the scientific case for catastrophic manmade global warming and on this flimsy basis governments make far reaching policy decisions that affect everyone and will continue to affect our children for decades into the future."  Hmmmm, if only there were an ounce of truth in Andrew Montford's words.

High priest of climate deniers claims moral low ground

It's snowing all over the UK which for most people means snowmen and sledging, but climate deniers can't resist suggesting this means the globe isn't warming.

Trouble is this conflicts with their summer arguments. This summer saw an unprecedented heatwave in Russia and a deluge in Pakistan. Whilst the real story was of a humanitarian disaster at a time when the death toll was uncertain BBC TV's Newsnight asked if the Pakistan flood could be said to be due to climate change.  No, came the answer, a trend is more than a single event .

It's both sad and ironic that despite millions being left homeless by the deluge in Pakistan, that answer was given by an accountant living in Scotland thousands of miles away.

Andrew Montford didn't lose his home in the inundation, indeed, Montford takes a picture of his backyard to prove the world isn't warming.



Scottish snow which disproves AGW

 When I suggested that his winter argument conflicts with his summer argument and that as a result he should consider donating his disturbance fee from the BBC to victims of the flood Montford's absurd reply is "it's not obviously any of your business." Montford is the man who produced the GWPF's report into the three enquiries exonerating scientists implicated by the UEA hack.  Quite where the boundaries lie between personal privacy and public interest is a moot point but hopefully the answers will be found in the chapter of Montford's book dealing with the climategate emails.  If not, how can Montford pretend that those private emails are anybody's business other than the intended recipients?

The upside down world of Andrew Montford doesn't finish there though, ''you are talking bollocks'' Montford writes ''If you think I am carving a career out of any of this, think again. It's costing me a lot of money.'' Little point in asking for supporting evidence for that because Andrew Montford will probably fall back on his earlier statement "it's not obviously any of your business." So , poor Andrew Montford, the victim in all of this also argues in his book that much of climate science is driven by a desire for funding.

Booker wallowing in Hubris

Its rather sad to see Christopher Booker and Andrew Montford  moan that Amazon no longer seem to list their opuses in 'science' . Both of these writers attack the science that has been held in the scientific literature. Whilst they are writing about science do they have a right to expect their work to be categorized as science? I would argue certainly not . The hockey stick graphs and "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by Andrew Montford , cannot both be right , ergo there isn't room for both of them in 'science' . Whilst Mann's work is  held "The Hockey Stick Illusion" is polemic. The task and freedom of saying what the book actually is about remains with the bookseller.

Christopher Booker has announced he is getting his publisher to 'look into this' and is agitating for arch sceptical publisher Stacey International (Montford's publisher) to act too.

What's objectionable about Mr Booker is that he is trying to control the context of his work. As a Telegraph columnist he enjoys privileged access to the fourth estate, he uses that to attack the scientific method, and then demands the world look upon his efforts as science. Well done Amazon, I suggest they start a category just for Mr Booker and call it Hubris.