Monckton and North…. new comedy double act?

What has this got to do with the science? Typically – nothing!

The apology itself is almost as mendacious as the original piece –

On 20 December 2009 we published an article about Dr Pachauri and his business interests. It was not intended to suggest that Dr Pachauri was corrupt or abusing his position as head of the IPCC and we accept KPMG found Dr Pachauri had not made “millions of dollars” in recent years. We apologise to Dr Pachauri for any embarrassment caused.

So when they said

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

and

It is remarkable how only very recently has the staggering scale of Dr Pachauri’s links to so many of these concerns come to light, inevitably raising questions as to how the world’s leading ‘climate official’ can also be personally involved in so many organisations which stand to benefit from the IPCC’s recommendations.

they were not intending to “suggest that Dr Pachauri was corrupt or abusing his position”

Yeah, right.

Surely the only valid complaints against Dr Pachuri were those he deliberately chose to ignore different interpretations of facts on, for example, Himalayan glaciers. His financial dealings, or his writing of fiction (another strange thing people have picked up on, as if there was something wrong with this) are not relevant to the debate on global warming. If there had been financial misconduct, clearly he would not be a suitable chair for the IPCC, but how would that alter the debate on the science?

There are those who are so opposed to the ideas of global warming that they are trying to play the man not the ball (and to be fair, there are those who are so convinced of man-made global warming they do the same). Personally, although I do not like Dr Pachuri’s attitude to conflicting views, I can’t see why it is wrong for him to make money from his expertise – surely this is good capitalist practice in action? It is his attitude towards science, not finance, that is important.

So the setback may well be for deniers, if there are any people who actually deny climate change (denying global warming is simply a matter of tempratures, not anything else). It is not a setback for those who doubt much of the science underlying the current models of man-made global warming.

I agree with Watchmen here. Even if Pachuru had been corrupt it wouldn’t change the science. It’s not as if there weren’t plenty of people making money from worthwhile causes.

I’m glad he was cleared on a personal level and the skeptic tactic of playing the man not the game is deplorable but it really wouldn’t undermine the fundamental arguments if he was siphoning off funds to fund a crack habit.

I agree with 1-5 above, but the fact that the ‘sceptics’ (they aren’t sceptics: sceptics are people who change their mind to suit the evidence) are willing to stoop to this kind of outrageous lie in order to try and discredit the science in the public’s mind is something that needs exposing.

There is also something that isn’t quite ad-hominem here (I’ve made the argument before that not all arguments about people’s personal probity can be dismissed as ad-hominem – in short, if Asil Nadir came back from Cyprus and offered me shares in a brilliant new business venture, then I’d turn him down without bothering to read the prospectus).

If Pachuru was a crack-addled liar and cheat, that would add weight to the suggestion that AGW is a conspiracy to defraud the honest people of the world in order to enrich windmill companies and academic scientists (which is plausible, after all: it’s well known that windmill companies and academic scientists control the world).

If Pacharu’s critics are dishonest lying bastards, on the other hand, that would add weight to the suggestion that the anti-AGW lobby is a conspiracy to defraud the honest people of the world in order to enrich oil companies, power utilities and right-wing pundits (however, this one must be nonsense: it’s well known that oil companies, power utilities and right-wing pundits have no say at all in what happens to the world, ever).

So he’s not a crook – what difference does that make to the science ?

@ 6 “they aren’t sceptics: sceptics are people who change their mind to suit the evidence”

No, sceptics are people who don’t accept that the evidence so far presented has any predictive power in terms of the outcomes (of Global warming) and therefore the default, alarmist reaction which warmist orthodoxy promotes is misplaced, emotive and disproportionate

and/or: don’t accept that the only possible “solution” is for us all all to ride bikes, eat lettuce and turn our TVs off at night

and/or: don’t accept that “green taxes” will make any difference – other than as an illiberal means of controlling the population and creating a european/global superstate

Sceptics in general are open minded about the science, it’s the constructions we are told to put on the science that we object to…………….

The climate deniers are like the Evolution deniers. They constantly claim that the science does not add up.

In the case of the evolution deniers, instead , they hold up the bible, a book written 2000 years ago. So much for science. As for the climate deniers, they have for science jack shit.

What they have instead is billions of corporate money, mainly from the biggest polluters, filtered through right wing think tanks, and promoted by right wing newspapers and crack pots. No surprise to see the sheep like trolls trotting out their talking points. .

“Sceptics in general are open minded about the science, it’s the constructions we are told to put on the science that we object to…………….”

Bullshit.

The deniers are not open minded, and they never will be. Even when their house is under water they will be claiming the science does not add up. Becasue they are nothing more than corporate tools.

@ 8: RIght on!

@ 10: “The deniers are not open minded, and they never will be.” What an open-minded viewpoint, Sally. It allows you to safely ignore anyone who disagrees with you on this subject.

This story is interesting in that it refutes some of the slander thrown around by those who refuse to accept the reality of man made climate change. But ultimately it isn’t going to have much effect, they’ll move on to other smears and lies and further twist the scientific evidence to their ends.

And seriously MM?

A sceptic is someone who’s mind is made up by the evidence. A sceptic is not someone with a disinclination to believe even when confronted with evidence, even if that may be how its used in common parlance.

A true climate sceptic would accept the science, which points, not conclusively, but almost, towards the reality of man made climate change.

and/or: don’t accept that the only possible “solution” is for us all all to ride bikes, eat lettuce and turn our TVs off at night

Hey Matt! Come back, you’ve dropped your staw man!

and/or: don’t accept that “green taxes” will make any difference – other than as an illiberal means of controlling the population and creating a european/global superstate

Hey Matt! Look, you dropped another one!

*straw man, dammit. Bring back the edit function!

@12 “A true climate sceptic would accept the science, which points, not conclusively, but almost, towards the reality of man made climate change.”

I don’t believe that it is that conclusive. It is very difficult because the nature of climate science precludes a hard, physics type approach. Hence all the modeling which is never going to be that accurate with so many variables and possible feedbacks, let alone the shear scale.

It is certainly sensible to try and reduce the amount of stuff that we release into the atmosphere but in my opinion this is because we don’t know what it will do rather than because we are certain of the effects.

The extent of the reduction and how to go about achieving this is another topic altogether.

@10 I assume you keep your frogs in a box.

Sally – Did you actually read my post ? you are confusing my word “sceptics” with your word “deniers”

So he’s not a crook – what difference does that make to the science ?

Why not ask Richard North? Is he still peddling “Amazon-gate”? Or “Pachuari-gate” or whatever else…

“What they have instead is billions of corporate money, mainly from the biggest polluters, filtered through right wing think tanks, and promoted by right wing newspapers and crack pots. No surprise to see the sheep like trolls trotting out their talking points”. .

Yes sally, and of course the warmists have no thought at all for the estimated $43 trillion which will turn over (from our taxes largely) to create the low carbon economy of the future. No, they are just a bunch of benvolent hippies in welsh farms who will be creating green energy on a global scale from cow dung and wind mills, out of pure altrusim.

FFS a bit of greenwash and the lack of a corporate image seems to persuade the eco-mob that “it’s not capitalism man, honest, because I never wear a tie” (see also apple, starbucks, innocent, ben and jerrys, the body shop etc etc)

LO – You are just a bullshitter, making up yopur definition of sceptic and then trying to say that because I don’t fit in your box I can’t be a sceptic. And you accuse me of using strawmans ?

Sunny,

A quick guide to reading intemperate opponents of a viewpoint. Pachurigate was an attempt to discredit the IPCC chairman over his financial dealings – basically a charge that he was using his position to enrich himself (he is, in that he makes money from his climate change work, but there is nothing wrong with this according to the investigation – or indeed, to my quasi-libertarian point of view).

Amazongate was a good piece of investigative journalism, which (ultimately) tracked down the source for a claim in the last IPCC report to a now defunct webpage run by an environmental pressure group with no sources to back it up. To point out the source of a claim is not actually reliable is actually good scientific, never mind journalistic, practice. My personal concerns about Dr Pachuri relate to the fact he tried to defend a similiar mistake about the Himalayan Glaciers, rather than simply admit a mistake had been made – this suggests he may be too personally involved with the process (understandable, but difficult).

Anyway, to sum up. Pachurigate is a non-starter – a stupid attempt to attack a person rather than the arguments. Amazongate was fine (I know there was a newspaper redaction of an article, but that was not about the key issue of what the source was, but rather the misrepresentation of another involved party’s views) – although I am happy to admit a few errors in the IPCC reports hardly disproves the science (I have other concerns therein, but this is hardly the place).

Incidentally, to those such as Sally who love to throw ‘denier’ around. How is the use of a deliberately offensive phrase any better than accusing an oponent of being fraudulent? Play the evidence, don’t make yourself no better than the worst of your opponents. That way the discussion can remain sensible, not degrade to a conflict between two sets of zealots.

So Matt, exactly which aspect of the scientific argument for AGW are you sceptical about?

andrew,

I’m not Matt, but I think a few key points are:

1. The actual measuring of temperatures is not consistent, is over-focussed on urban areas and airports, and is seriously incomplete over large areas.

2. Most predictions are models. Science cannot make a firm conclusion based on models, and the older models (i.e. those that have had a chance to be verified) have generally been proven wrong.

3. The mechanisms involved in man-made global warming are not yet fully understood.

4. The paleoclimatological reconstructions have been dominated by reconstructions which are statistically poor, over-reliant on small numbers of proxies and which do not fit with the recorded modern trend, making the claim that current warming is exceptional rather doubtful.

That said, I am amenable to being convinced about any of these things (although number 4 would be difficult). I just have yet to see the arguments made against accepting them be comprehensively demolished. I would be very surprised if mankind was not messing with the climate in some way, but I can’t accept the current narrative, especially as I have seen evidence that there were clear attempts to stop alternative viewpoints being published (the CRU emails).

Oo-oo. Handbags!

I’ll be back to this when I’m back from work.

The distinction between scepticism and non-belief is a crucial one. While scepticism is healthy, non-belief in the face of overwhelming evidence is the antipathy of scepticism. Recent climate scepticism has been characterised by a visceral mistrust of science, scientific institutions and scientific governance. Never mind that the case for climate change has been painstakingly pieced together over decades – climate change sceptics are busy writing it off on the basis of a few inconsistencies.

But embarrassingly for climate change sceptics, the people who have thought longest and hardest about what it means to be a truly sceptical thinker seem in a hurry to distance themselves from their fellow sceptics. Michael Marshall, from the Merseyside Skeptics group that organised the homeopathy overdose is clear about the legitimacy of climate change sceptics: “In our view, climate change sceptics are not sceptics. A sceptic looks at the available evidence and makes a decision, and for homeopathy the evidence is that it doesn’t work. But the sceptical position on climate change is that it is happening.”

<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/feb/22/climate-change-sceptics"Source.

“the sceptical position on climate change is that it is happening.”

Hmmm, well yes obviously. Only the stark staringly bonkers would deny that climate change happens, its the causation that people take issue with.

Because Pachauri has been cleared of any finacnial gain means nothing, it wasn’t relevent anyway. He is still presiding over the UN IPCC which has become a world class laughing stock under his managemt. As long as he remains at the top, the IPCC will remain a laughing stock and will have no credibility. He has done more for the denialists than anything the denialists could ever concieve. I hope he remains the chariman of the UN IPCC forever.

“What they have instead is billions of corporate money, mainly from the biggest polluters, filtered through right wing think tanks, and promoted by right wing newspapers and crack pots.”

Dear Sally

Surely you’re not suggesting that the billions being funneled to climatologists, alarmists and evironmental groups from governements, ‘green’ corporations and Wall St investment banks is somehow pure? Lol!

I think you had better look around to see in whose back pocket you presently reside.

Only the stark staringly bonkers would deny that climate change happens, its the causation that people take issue with.

You mean people like Lord Lawson – who put up graphs saying that temperatures have declined since 1998 and it was much hotter earlier and so we’re all ok?

As long as he remains at the top, the IPCC will remain a laughing stock and will have no credibility.

In whose eyes do you claim the IPCC is a laughing stock with no credibility?

Watchman,

“Amazongate” was nonsense – the claims in the IPCC report were backed by peer-review science, they were just not properly referenced.

I will answer your points @ 21 when I have a bit more time.

Falco,

Lots of people suggest the climate is not changing. That is why pages like this are necessary. They are becoming less numerous, but people who deny the climate is changing are out there. There is some argument over what is causing climate change, but the overwhelming body of evidence points to many made warming.

Watchman,

1. The actual measuring of temperatures is not consistent, is over-focussed on urban areas and airports, and is seriously incomplete over large areas.

Numerous studies into the effect of urban heat island effect and microsite influences find they have negligible effect on long-term trends, particularly when averaged over large regions.

2. Most predictions are models. Science cannot make a firm conclusion based on models, and the older models (i.e. those that have had a chance to be verified) have generally been proven wrong.

While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.

3. The mechanisms involved in man-made global warming are not yet fully understood.

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate’s sensitivity to CO2.

4. The paleoclimatological reconstructions have been dominated by reconstructions which are statistically poor, over-reliant on small numbers of proxies and which do not fit with the recorded modern trend, making the claim that current warming is exceptional rather doubtful.

The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon – tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes. The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic. The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming. Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies.

Those are just the arguments available from http://www.skepticalscience.com and they are all peer review journal referenced, so you can go to the primary sources from the links provided.

Matt,

You said:

[You are] making up your definition of sceptic and then trying to say that because I don’t fit in your box I can’t be a sceptic.

I say: The Western tradition of systematic skepticism goes back at least as far as Pyrrho of Elis (ca. 360 BC – ca. 270 BC). He was troubled by the disputes that could be found within all philosophical schools of his day. According to a later account of his life, he became overwhelmed by his inability to determine rationally which school was correct. Upon admitting this to himself, he finally achieved the inner peace that he had been seeking.

I say: In ordinary usage, skepticism (US) or scepticism (UK) (Greek: ‘?????????’ skeptomai, to look about, to consider; see also spelling differences) refers to:

* (a) an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object;
* (b) the doctrine that true knowledge or certainty in a particular area is impossible; or
* (c) the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam–Webster).

In philosophy, skepticism refers more specifically to any one of several propositions. These include propositions about:

* (a) an inquiry,
* (b) a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing,
* (c) the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values,
* (d) the limitations of knowledge,
* (e) a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment.

I say: That other climate change “sceptics” have attempted to hijack one of the oldest philosophical schools of thought to lend credence to an anti-science campaign.

I say that the climate science is at times unreliable but that we understand the climate better now than we ever have. Climate change “sceptics” have adopted anything but a sceptical attitude, they have become radically detached from any mainstream epistemological position and just declare “the models don’t work” (where there is evidence they do), moaning that “the evidence is corrupted” (where there is evidence it is not), whining “we need more research” (where that is exactly what we are doing.

My problem with the climate change “sceptic” position is that in large part it is not sceptical, it is the opposite. Closed minded people deriding evidence even when it is presented to them.

To conclude, I’d ask again Matt Munro, have you looked at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php yet? Because you keep making the same mistaken arguments and I keep pointing you towards a site full of contrary evidence. If you were a sceptic, even by your own definition, you would have already looked at this site, and you would be able to tell me why you are unconvinced.

I propose the euthanasia of the epithet “climate change denier”, as someone who has been to Auschwitz any flippant reference to the holocaust has always stuck in my throat. Instead we should call these people climate change “sceptics”, with emphasis on the quotation marks.

“Lord Lawson ”

HA ha ha

What you mean the man who brought thatcherism to the Uk, and then fucked off to live in France because he liked the slower pace of life.

Falco, Watchman & Matt

Left Outside has done a post on your claims http://leftoutside.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/long-comment-from-liberal-conspiracy-on-climate-change-and-matt-murno-crossposted-for-posterity/

Thanks D-Notice, my original comment is above in the comments.

My other greatest hits on climate change include…

http://leftoutside.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/norman-tebbit-on-climate-change/

http://leftoutside.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/ive-just-read-james-dellingpole-for-the-first-time-he-is-clearly-insane/

http://leftoutside.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/climate-fuckwit-of-the-day/

http://leftoutside.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/the-devils-in-the-details/

My personal favourite:

http://leftoutside.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/bugger-a-breif-introduction-to-climate-contradictions/

14. Falco

It is very difficult because the nature of climate science precludes a hard, physics type approach. Hence all the modeling which is never going to be that accurate with so many variables and possible feedbacks, let alone the shear scale.

Sigh.

For the umpteeth time…

…yes, scientific literature can be incomprehensible to the layman. That is why the UN set up the IPCC to do the legwork for us mere plebs. It reviews all available peer reviewed studies and reports back to governments (who are mere mortals like us) in language we can understand so we can grasp the scale of the problem (if any).

You can find the reports here: http://www.ipcc.ch/

In short – the globe is warming, the climate is changing, and humans are to blame.

There is no evidence to the contrary available. That is the position the deniers are in.

@ Sunny “You mean people like Lord Lawson – who put up graphs saying that temperatures have declined since 1998 and it was much hotter earlier and so we’re all ok?”

Hate to point this out old boy but if Lawson was claiming that temperatures have altered over decades, (even if they were actually swinging back at that moment), then he has certainly accepted that the climate is changing.

@ 30 Thanks for that, I’ve taken a look and will respond when I’m not dead on my feet.

@ BenM “yes, scientific literature can be incomprehensible to the layman.”

This was not the problem that I was addressing. You seem to be suggesting that we accept life changing alterations to our society simply on an argument from authority. Being told not to worry my pretty little, (not actually pretty or little), head about the science is insufficient for me.

@ 31 “It reviews all available peer reviewed studies and reports back to governments (who are mere mortals like us) in language we can understand so we can grasp the scale of the problem (if any)”.

And for the umpteenth time “peer reviewed” does not mean “true” I can give you a list as long as your arm of hypothesis that were peer reviewed and later (sometimes decades/centuries later) falsified. The problem is not with the science it’s with governments interpretation and use of that science (see our governments abuse of “the science” on drugs as a recent example). You talk as though governments are neutral agents who just cut and paste the science into jack and jill language that guardian readers can understand. Surely you don’t beleive that governments are neutral ?

@ 20 So Matt, exactly which aspect of the scientific argument for AGW are you sceptical about?

As I said upthread it’s not the science I am sceptical about, it’s the use that’s being made of it. No one, repeat no one, has any real idea what the consequences will be, the outcomes are unknown, even the warmist scientists admit they cannot predict the outcomes. Would you get on an airplane if you weren’t fairly confident – as in over 99% confident that the outcome would be a safe landing ? What warmists are asking us to do is go back to a medievil standard of living/forward to agrarian communism based on an outcome they do not understand and cannot know.
What I am sceptical about is the “we must do something drastic now or we will all die” default position, which is an emotive, not a reasoned response to risk . What I am sceptical about is the single, de facto solution. What I am sceptical about is that giving governments more money and more power will solve the problem.

34, Falco

You seem to be suggesting that we accept life changing alterations to our society simply on an argument from authority.

The irony is that the IPCC is the media through which we ensure that we are not just accepting the authority of scientists.

Being told not to worry my pretty little, (not actually pretty or little), head about the science is insufficient for me.

The further spectacular irony is that you are in this position as an AGW denier.

@ 8. Matt Munro

I appreciate you want to keep an open mind on the science. I am firmly convinced based on my understanding of the science that Global Warming is happening and human actions are the cause.

However, I don’t want to establish a global super state. Whilst I like cycling and lettuce I don’t intend to make them mandatory forms of transport/food. I want to have progressive taxation, so I wouldn’t support taxes which hit the poor hardest even if they’re dressed up with an ‘eco’ prefix.

From the tone of your post, it seems like you are open to the idea that anthropogenic global warming is occuring (you say you’re sceptical not firmly convinced against it). Why not make some positive suggestions about how we can reduce the amount of unwanted GHG in the atmosphere and learn to live in a world with dramatically different climate and therefore weather. The more ideas we get the better, because you are right, science shouldn’t be hijacked in order to promote a specific political ideology

then he has certainly accepted that the climate is changing.

We’re talking about AGW here, not some media invented “global cooling” phenomena

Global warming deniers = holocaust deniers should be arrested and tried for treason and crimes against humanity and then locked away to protect the rest of us. Subhuman scum.

The deniers LOVE to proclaim that “science and politics should not mix”. Why not proclaim “all observation and politics should not mix”?

It follows that we should not conclude that 9/11 ever happened, because it was all a holographic image or a mass hallucination or some other psychological scientific explanation, and hence we should not base any laws/policy on the perceived events of 2001 September 11.

Yet, you NEVER hear GW-deniers (with the rare exception of Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura) suggest alternate scientific theories to who or what caused 9/11,
and then proclaim that observation about what is and politics about what should be should never mix.