A couple of letter from today's Guardian may interest people.
Transparency needed on donors to climate sceptic lobby
reddit this
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 26 January 2012 21.00 GMT
Article history
Science is by its nature sceptical: scientists interrogate information and only on repeated investigation does data become science. The science of climate change has been established through numerous high-profile studies (IPCC, NOAA, Nasa) and was even verified by the sceptic-led Best report. In 2009 one of the world's leading medical journals, the Lancet, declared climate change "the biggest global health threat of the 21st century". Denying the links between greenhouse gas emissions and man-made climate change is akin to denying the links between HIV/Aids and unprotected sex, smoking and lung cancer, or alcohol consumption and liver disease. In each of these cases, well-funded deniers have had to be exposed and confronted before appropriate health-promoting legislation was put in place.
The Climate and Health Council supports Nasa scientist James Hansen as he joins the campaign to uncover secret funders bankrolling climate sceptic Nigel Lawson and his lobbying think-tank (Climate experts back unveiling of Lawson thinktank donor, 23 January). The public may finally discover who is secretly influencing UK climate policy – contrary to scientific consensus – today (27 January), when the Information Rights Tribunal hears this key freedom of information case. Some anti-climate lobbyists routinely misrepresent and cast doubt on the work of climate scientists. Although Lawson and his Global Warming Policy Foundation have been discredited and attacked by numerous scientists and senior politicians, his thinktank continues to receive significant coverage, wrongfully distorting the public and policy debate over climate change.
Perverting the course of evidence-based policy on climate-change adaptation and mitigation damages our health resilience, our economic prosperity and our environmental stability. Transparency around climate-sceptic funders is essential. We support freedom of information to reveal those deliberately preventing the UK's sustainable future.
Dr Fiona Godlee Editor-in-chief, British Medical Journal
Dr. Richard Horton Editor-in-Chief, The Lancet
Professor Ian Roberts Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health
Professor Hugh Montgomery Professor of Intensive Care Medicine
Professor Anthony Costello Professor of International Child Health
Rachel Stancliffe Director, Centre for Sustainable Healthcare
Dr. Robin Stott Co-chair, Climate and Health Council
Maya Tickell-Painter Director, Medsin Healthy Planet Campaign
• Citizens concerned about climate change are right to demand clarity about Nigel Lawson's funding. Lawson established his shadowy organisation back in 2009 following the Climategate fiasco, when the emails of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were hacked. There have been five inquiries into Climategate, three in the UK and two in the US, and they have unanimously exonerated the East Anglian scientists of any scientific wrongdoing. If the rationale for Lawson establishing GWPF was Climategate, why has he not now closed it down? One suspects the answer lies in the recent report from GWPF on the new fossil fuel source, tar sand and shale gas, which states: "Shale gas is not only abundant but relatively cheap and therefore promises to take market share from nuclear, coal and renewable energy and to replace oil in some transport and industrial uses, over coming decades."
Dr Robin Russell-Jones
Chair, Planetary SOS
Gransnet forums
Science/nature/environment
The Sceptics' Thread
(80 Posts)If anyone wants to read this thread, it's here. If no-one wants to read it, that's fine.
Yet another physicist is speaking out against what he calls pathological science. This one's a lecturer at Oxford. I used to work in the Earth Sciences building almost next door to the Clarendon Lab. These guys are not fools with 'agendas' of their own. They are very bright sparks and they are scientists of the old school: check everything, check again, free up your data and your methods so others can check. Be open to questioning. Keep asking questions yourself. Science is never settled.
Here's his cv info: nmr.physics.ox.ac.uk/cv.html
And here's his letter to a climate alarmist:
"Richard, I can't answer for our host, but you have to remember why some of us got involved in the climate wars in the first place.
For me this has never really been about climate itself. I don't find climate partcularly interesting; it's one of those worthy but tedious branches of science which under normal circumstances I would happily leave to other people who like that sort of thing. My whole involvement has always been driven by concerns about the corruption of science.
Like many people I was dragged into this by the Hockey Stick. I was looking up some minor detail about the Medieval Warm Period and discovered this weird parallel universe of people who apparently didn't believe it had happened, and even more bizarrely appeared to believe that essentially nothing had happened in the world before the twentieth century. The Hockey Stick is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence, so I started reading round the subject. And it soon became clear that the first extraordinary thing about the evidence for the Hockey Stick was how extraordinarily weak it was, and the second extraordinary thing was how desperate its defenders were to hide this fact. I'd always had an interest in pathological science, and it looked like I might have stumbled across a really good modern example.
You can't spend long digging around the Hockey Stick without stumbling across other areas of climate science pathology. The next one that really struck me was the famous Phil Jones quote: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it". To any practising scientist that's a huge red flag. Sure we all feel a bit like that on occasion, but to actually say something like that in an email is practically equivalent to getting up on a public platform and saying "I'm a pathological scientist, and I'm proud."
Rather naively I initially believed that Phil Jones was just having a bad day and had said something really stupid. Surely he couldn't really think that was acceptable? And surely his colleagues would deal with him? But no, it turned out that this apalling quote was only the most quotable of several other remarks, and he really was trying to hide his data from people who might (horror of horrors) want to check his conclusions.
That's when I got involved in my FOI request. And consequently got exposed to the full horror of "big climate", as clear an example of politicised and pathological science as I have ever seen. And then came Climategate 2009, and "hide the decline". All downhill from there.
When will I be done with climate? Quite simply when it stops being a pathological science and starts acting according to the normal rules and conventions of scientific discourse. At that point I will, I'm afraid, simply lose interest in the whole business, and leave it to the experts to get on with their stuff, just as I leave most of the rest of science to the appropriate experts.
To put it another way, I will be done with climate once I can trust that Richard Betts can be left to do good work on his own. I absolutely trust you to get on with doing good stuff under normal circumstances. But I'm afraid I don't trust you to do good work under current pathological conditions, because you don't stand up against the all too obvious stench emanating from some of your colleagues.
For me the Hockey Stick was where it began, and probably where it will end (and I will daringly suggest that the same thing might be true for our host). The Hockey Stick is obviously wrong. Everybody knows it is obviously wrong. Climategate 2011 shows that even many of its most outspoken public defenders know it is obviously wrong. And yet it goes on being published and defended year after year.
Do I expect you to publicly denounce the Hockey Stick as obvious drivel? Well yes, that's what you should do. It is the job of scientists of integrity to expose pathological science, and it is especially the job of scientists in closely related fields. You should not be leaving this to random passing NMR spectroscopists who have better things to do. But I'm afraid I no longer expect you to do so. The opportune moment has, I think, passed. And that is why, even though we are all delighted to have you here, and all enjoy what you have to say, some of us get a trifle tetchy from time to time.
You ask us to judge you by AR5, and in many ways that is a reasonable request. Many of us will judge it by the handling of paleoclimate, not because this is all that important an aspect of the science, but rather because it is a litmus test of whether climate scientists are prepared to stand up against the bullying defenders of pathology in their midst. So, Richard, can I look forward to returning back to my proper work on the application of composite rotations to the performance of error-tolerant unitary transformations? Or will we all be let down again?
Dec 3, 2011. Jonathan Jones
It appears on the BishopHill science blog about three-quarters of the way down the comments:
bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/12/2/tim-barnett-on-the-hockey-stick.html
I think you should all be warned that Christopher Mockton is a bungling idiot - look him up. Please, for the sake of this planet and the human race do not be taken in by all that stuff Bagitha has put on.
For instance the average temperature rise since pre-industrial times is
0.7 degrees celsius. (2008)
NOT 3 DEGREES WHICH IS ABSOLUTE RUBBISH.
I could go on but I do not have the time at the moment.
But I will.....
Thank you carbon. Pretty depressed about this weeks news re shale gas i.e. they can get at it easily and cheaply. If we burn it all and we surely will then temperatures will rise by about 4 deg - disastrous. This info from Professor of Energy Studies on radio (from Oxford I think) 
The fact that Obama has passed shale gas drilling means the US is another step further away from having a Republican president. Sounds good to me.
Carbon and jess, I'm more afraid of you than of climate change.
Thus far, I've kept away from this thread, knowing that my views may not be accepted.
Thankyou Carbon for posting the above letters you saw in the Guardian.
I read a nasty little piece by Nigel Lawson in the Radio Times a few weeks ago to coincide with the final episode of the recent David Attenborough series about the Arctic and Antarctic.
The series , MINUS the final episode, was bought to be shown in the U.S.A. The audience was to be denied the very obvious conclusions that were shown, that is the visual evidence that irreparable damage has been done.
What could be more sceptical than that?
It's wonderful to see long lists of the great and the good sharing my views. At last I feel vindicated.
Here is some revealing stuff about Monckton who calls himself a climate expert. ha ha These are just bits copied from one of the many sites about him......
Remember HE IS NOT A SCIENTIST
Monckton "has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and, as far as I can tell, no further qualifications." [1]
Monckton later conceded that claiming to be a Nobel Peace Laureate was "a joke, a joke" and "never meant to be taken seriously." But the above claim remains on the SPPI website to this day
In a 1987 article for the American Spectator titled the The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, Monckton wrote that: [6]
"…. there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month … all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently."
July, 2011
The House of Lords have had an ongoing dispute with Monckton over his membership, as authorities have said Monckton is not and never has been a member and that there is no such thing as a non-voting or honorary member of the House. [7]
In July 2011 the House took the "unprecedented step" [8] of publishing online a cease and desist letter (PDF) to Monckton from the Clerk of the Parliaments, which concluded: [9]
"I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not."
June 2, 2009
Monckton presented at the Heartland Institute's Third International Conference on Climate Change. [15]
DeSmogBlog found that the sponsors Heartland's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change had collectively received over $47 million from oil companies and right-wing foundations.
Monckton also cites the Cambrian Period as proof plants love carbon dioxide, although it was a time period where there were no land plants.
According to a search of Google Scholar, Monckton has never published peer-reviewed research in any journal at any time.
Love it
All sounds a bit like the "weather forecasters" in the other thread. For me it is down to a question of who I trust. With a choice between Nigel Lawson and David Attenborough there is no contest for me.
I am with Oldgreymare on this.
I'd forgotten about this thread. Thanks for reviving it, carbon. How are your emissions these days?
The Cambrian Period is famous for the 'explosion' of new life that developed during it. Most of this was in the sea where there was plenty of stuff for the vegetarians to eat. Not sure what your point is, CC.
Monckton is a weird man, I agree, but indulging in the classic Warmist tactic of an ad hominem attack does not change the fact that both he and you have a right to argue about what the warmists are claiming.
Anyway, he is only one of many (and a growing number too) of people who disagree with the climate gods. Many of the many think there are more important things to worry about right now. Human beings have adapted to living in climates as diverse as the Sahara and the Arctic. Why should we suddenly stop being ingenious?
The climate is certainly changing here in SEQueensland, Australia, but I believe it is a natural cycle. I like it, because it is not as hot as 30 years ago.
However, I agree with others here that we should fight against polluting industries, and be as 'green' as possible in our own lives. Queensland ought to have solar panels, ceiling insulation and water tanks as essential parts of our domestic building code.
As for those wind turbines - evil horrible things. They use more energy to produce the monstrosities, than they create for many years, they are visually polluting and their noise drives people to distraction. I've seen pictures of them in the Peak District and they disturb me greatly.
I really want us, as a global community, to cut down our dependence on oil, but it isn't just used for industry, cars and power generation; it is also needed to petrochemical products like plastic. Recycling helps of course.
As for dishonest scientists - absolutely no excuse. Their findings should be subject to proper scrutiny.
My guess B is that some humans will survive.
That is an interesting comment about being more afraid of CC and me than you are of climate change.
Not sure why you find us so scary. Or did you just mean that you are so convinced that climate change is not going to happen that even a pair of harmless grandmothers are more frightening? How does this line up with your claim to be open minded and questioning? Aren't you even a little bit concerned?
If apparently unbalanced individuals are major spokesmen for a particular view it does tend to detract from the credibility of their espoused cause.
Nothing wrong with pointing out they are not very credible individuals.
I am not so much personally scared of climate change as worried for my grandchildren and for the beautiful diversity of life that surrounds us.
I think when the point comes that the majority of the land that humans currently inhabit is under the sea then probably some humans will survive.
The scientific consensus that this will happen is overwhelming.
Some humans will survive marginally and maybe some will survive in a high-tec way. But many many ecosystems and life forms will be extinct and some countries too. Whether this happens within 50, 100 or 300 years is the only question.
It's your doom-laden religiosity about climate change that scares me, jess. A lot of the predictions warmists made ten, twenty years ago have not come to pass, nor anywhere near. Doesn't that affect your faith in the famous "models". Having been brought up under the auspices of a doom and guilt-laden religion, I recognise the signs when I see them again.
Your last sentence illustrates my point. We do not know all that. It is conjecture. There is no consensus. You're kidding yourself about that. The very fact that, for instance, two Oxford profs are disagreeing about climate change (you quoted one; I quoted another) should, surely, tell you that. The very fact that there is so much passion about the rights and wrongs of both sides should tell you that. You even say in your post of 12 Jan @ 17:41 "Scientists argue." Yes. And it is scientists who are arguing about this as well as the rest of us. Because there's plenty to argue about when it comes to climate change.
I take Joan's stance. I find polarised views too dogmatic and think there is much more that we don't yet understand about how the planet takes care of itself. Meanwhile, I think we have a responsibility to treat our environment with respect and appreciation, instead of plundering it for its resources. Local and government policies about climate change/recycling seem to change with the weather, and they conflict with each other. If there's money to be made, green issues often take a back seat.
I was incensed about the harsh policy of punishing householders for getting the wrong thing in the right bin, or vice versa - why were bin men given permission to refuse to take household rubbish, nose through people's rubbish for information, or even tip up bins over householders' gardens, when the lids were not closed down, or plastics happened to be dropped into the paper bin? That policy is now reversed, and rightly so, but it was devised in the name of being green to save our planet. If it mattered, it soon stopped mattering when the ConDems wanted to gain our approval for other unsavoury policies, and so threw the wheelie bin controversy out wth their own rubbish. Hyprocrites, the lot of 'em......and, relax.....
For me the evidence of climate change is convincing, but I think saving the planet's resources is essential whether you believe it or not. We drive a more economical car, don't fly, grow our own veg and try to keep down the food miles. I don't think France is great on the green agenda, but every commune has its recycling point and they seem to be well used and nobody ever expects plastic bags in supermarkets. However round here they still seem to prefer to build nasty little concrete boxes and let the lovely old stone houses fall down.
The only people I find scary are jing and em. I don't think we know wether climate change is a natural cycle or human generated or even just human aided, but I do agree we should be conserving as much as we can.
This is not helped by people like my dustbin man who will not take the black harpsichord bottle but will take the identical blue one, because the first one is black plastic!
Shoul have read harpic not harpsichord ! I have a harp, a lyre and a violin but no harpsichord ? I don't think I would have a bottle for it if I did!
Oh dear it's going to be one of those muddled days?
I'm with joan and carol and jeni and any others of the "we don't know yet; we're only just beginning to understand all this and there's a lot we haven't discovered yet" brigade, and I fully support the idea of greater efficiency in resource use. I suppose I could say I know what I don't believe, but I'm not sure even that would be accurate because things keep changing.
Yes we have gathered that bagitha. I find "religiosity" rather offensive.
This is not "belief" as in belief about a magical omnipotent beings.
It is "belief" as in believing the facts about evolution and vaccination - I and the vast majority of the scientific community accept the facts and don't really think they are worthy of debate, such is the overwhelming weight of evidence. But there about these issues.
The models about climate change are about the details like the speed of global warming, not the headlines. The basic facts that more carbon in the atmosphere will make us warmer (as it has done in geological past) is nothing to do with models. The fact that if the atmosphere warms the sea levels will rise is glaringly obvious. The fact that we are pumping extra carbon into the atmosphere every year is also obvious. There is nowhere for it to "go" apart from a bit of it dissolving in the sea, which will make it more acidic. Not good either. Plants are not going to mop it up - the world is rapidly de-foresting rather than the reverse.
The folk who are saying "ok maybe the world is warming but it is not man made warming" are those with a vested interest in denial.
I did not mean it offensively, jess. Please accept my apologies for that. As we all know, print and no face can be tricky. Sorry.
The facts and mountain of evidence supporting evolution is much much greater and better tested than that of climate change, as I'm sure you know. The sea has a long way to go before it becomes even remotely acidic, as you also know, I'm sure. Nothing is "glaringly obvious" about climate change or there would be no arguments between eminent scientists about it, just as there aren't any arguments between eminent scientists about evolution. There are strong counter-arguments, and evidence, to all the doomsday climate scenarios. As for vested interests, well, I suggest you read Donna Laframboise's book.
Cheers, jess. No offence. Just arguing, as we do.
I understand only a small amount about climate change, but it puzzles me that we live in a little galaxy that is one of billions of galaxies, yet we claim all the changes on our planet are down to the behaviour of its occupants. Isn't there a bigger picture to explain things? (Don't shoot me down, I'm only asking!)
Well said, carol. Everyone understands "only a little" about the climate. That's why the hubris and 'certainty' of some people is so daft.
I should say, Earth's climate. Not that we understand much about climate on any other planet either.
Not all the changes Carol just the ones brought about by pollution, deforestation, mining etc.
I find the one sidedness of climate change discussions of pollution, deforestation etc. confusing jess. Movement of tectonic plates and volcanoes hasn't been incorporated into claims about about the causes of climate change when I read these discussions, and I don't know how this planet's occupants could influence such things (didn't think they could), but don't those phenomena also have an effect on climate?
Eminent scientist are not arguing about climate change; 99% of scientists believe in climate change. (Actually I'm not sure I should be using the word believe because it is not really scientific - let us say accept the current evidence). The majority of so called experts who deny climate change are either not scientist at all, or are being paid by the oil companies, or are working for organisations funded by the oil companies. Let us hear who these supposedly eminent scientists are please - and who they are arguing with??? I do not think I have ever read about arguments between eminent scientists - most scientist are in basic agreement about the facts but have discussions about details.
We should not be listening to these self-appointed climate experts who are not experts and especially ones who are journalists and making money out of stirring things up; and particularly ones who are not scientist in the field of climate change or related subjects.
And let us define science: science must be repeatable; it must be falsifiable (according to Popper - that is something that one can imagine a way of proving it wrong); to be accepted it must be peer-reviewed; it should have been published in scientific journals and so on and so on. There is a whole methodology for deciding what it science and what is not. How many of the things said in the above posts fit this criteria? And whilst we are about it I am not a scientist and I have not been giving any of my own opinions (i.e I am not arguing) I am merely insisting that charlatons and imposters should not be listened to; and that bona fida scientist (not in the pay of oil companies) should be listened to.
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »