What-Gavin-Said-Gate seems to be the current climate-blog kerfuffle with on going discussion at collide a scape. It all started when Fred Pearce wrote:
“But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss. ”
Fred’s paraphrase summarized Gavin’s declination using what has become something of a political charged anti-slogan: i.e. “The science is settled.”
This choice was bound to cause fireworks. After all, Gavin did not literally say this. Gavin is very upset about this as are numerous Gavin supporters.
Others defend Fred Pearce’s interpretation. So, the question is: Is Fred Pearce’s paragraph fair? In some sense?
My view is: Kinda sort of no and kinda sort of yes.
I may be in the minority, but I think as a paraphrase in a newspaper it is certainly very, very sloppy. Yet, as a paraphrase over beer during a back and forth conversation in a bar, I also think the paraphrase communicates the gist of what Gavin wrote, but does so using a political anti-slogan often used to communicate a rather complicated — or if you prefer ‘nuanced’ argument.
I say “anti-slogan” because this slogan attributed to Gore appears to have never been used as a slogan by Gore. It is rather, the slogan created embraced by the detractors of Gore’s views to summarize a position held by activist warmers. Summarizing Gavin’s reason for declining the invitation using the anti-slogan preferred by his detractors is certainly tendentious.
That said, although I may be mistaken, but it also appears to me that Gavin’s declination did fall in the class of arguments that those who use this anti-slogan mean when they characterize an argument using the phrase “The science is settled”.
In its stronger more ridiculous form, the argument encapsulated in the anti-slogan “the science is settled” is reflected in the italicized portion of this Trenberth quote:
It is important that climate scientists learn how to counter the distracting strategies of deniers. Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended. In a debate it is impossible to counter lies, and caveated statements show up poorly against loudly proclaimed confident statements that often have little or no basis. Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility. On the other hand there is a lot of scope for debate about exactly what to do about the findings.
This statement appears to characterize attempts by those with whom Trenberth disagrees to discuss anything about science to their lying about “facts” and insists that all discussions be limited to debating what to do about the purely factual findings of scientists.
The possibility that someone “out there” might wish to discuss various interpretations or representation of facts, or even discuss whether some issues are even are facts is missing in this view. One must insist that the only discussion is what to do about the facts– with Trenberth and likely those who agree with Trenberth being the arbiters of what is a fact and what is not a fact.
Now let’s examine the precise wording of
Gavin Schmidt’s email declining the invitation to attend the Lisbon conference actually said:
I’m a little confused at what conflict you feel you are going to be addressing? The fundamental conflict is of what (if anything) we should do about greenhouse gas emissions (and other assorted pollutants), not what the weather was like 1000 years ago. Your proposed restriction against policy discussion removes the whole point. None of the seemingly important ‘conflicts’ that are *perceived* in the science are ‘conflicts’ in any real sense within the scientific community, rather they are proxy arguments for political positions. No ‘conflict resolution’ is possible between the science community who are focussed on increasing understanding, and people who are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position.
Like Trenberth, Gavin categorizes discussion of the scientific findings mentioned in the invitation to the Lisbon conference as representing no conflict in the scientific community. This doesn’t directly accusing those who wish to something touching on these issues as trying to deny facts about science but it does convey the notion that on these points the science is settled to the extent that it’s not worth discussing. I think at least some readers would think Gavin’s words convey the notion that those who wish to discuss these issues can only wish to do so in an attempt to identify teensie-beensie little nit-picky issues to cast doubt on scientific interpretations that, at least for the purpose of debating policy, might be considered indistinguishable from facts.
This is argument is what those who actually use the anti-slogan “The science is settled” mean to convey when using the anti-slogan. That Gavin may be able to point to blog post after blog post showing that he does not literally believe what the term “science is settled” would outside the political debate about climate or that he doesn’t mean what the phrase might mean if uttered by those who would never, ever use it doesn’t change what the phrase conveys when actually used at climate blogs, in climate forums and in newspaper editorials.
So, for this reason, Fred Pearce’s paraphrase is kinda-sorta fair.
Of course, Fred’s paraphrase also kinda-sorta is unfair for a number of reasons. First it appears that Fred Pierce never read what Gavin actually wrote. If I understand correctly, he wrote based on someone else’s paraphrase; this is always dangerous. He didn’t provide any further context to permit the reader to decide if they would interpret what Gavin actually wrote as “The Science is Settled”. Worse, Fred wrote a sentence that appeared to put this politically charged anti-slogan in Gavin’s mouth.
Steve McIntyre corrects me. He witnessed Pearce reading Gavin’s email declining the invitation. See Steve’s comment below.)
Odder still, I think anyone familiar with the climate-blog-wars would know that Gavin would never actually write “The Science is Settled”. My take on Gavin’s personality is that he would never has used such a phrase before it became an anti-slogan; he certainly would avoid it after it became an anti-slogan. It seems to me Gavin doesn’t use slogans and he doesn’t write in a way coins slogans. I don’t think even think he ever uses made up words, and so is unlikely to ever coin a new word or slogan.
Given what Fred actually knew, it would have been better for him to have written something like “Tallbloke characterized Gavin’s reason for declining using the anti-slogan ‘The Science is Settled’.” Or, not knowing what Gavin wrote, he could have simply omitted Gavin’s reason. Or he could have contacted Gavin and asked Gavin to explain, and gotten permission for a direct quote. All these would have been less sloppy.
Mind you, if Gavin’s response had matched the letter he’d sent to the Lisbon organizer, then people commenting at blogs would probably have quoted what Gavin said and then followed it with their interpretation of what it meant to them. Reading the response, some might have very well have summarized it as “in other words, ‘The Science is Settled’ ” and we might be almost exactly where we are today, debating what Gavin’s words actually communicate to those who read them.
In the ensuing argument, Gavin could certainly point out that if one interprets “The science is settled” literally — and not as an anti-slogan– then he doesn’t believe the science is settled. We could likely agree that Gavin would never, ever, ever suggest all questions in climate science are literally settled , and certainly never use the phrase “The science is settled”. Some would still insist that what Gavin meant was “The Science in Settled”.
This view might have some element of truth. After all, just as “where’s the beef” does not literally mean “where’s the beef”, Axis of weasels doesn’t literally refer to actual furry animals, and “all animals are equal” has nothing to do with animals, when someone paraphrases and argument with using the anti-slogan “The Science is Settled” the person using the anti-slogan does not intend to communicate the idea that the anyone literally believed or said every question is climate science is settled.
This is simply not what those who use the anti-slogan mean by that phrase. Like it or not, what a idiom, slogan or anti-slogan communicates is to a large extent determined by what those who use the phrase mean when using it, “The Science is Settled” does point to the reason Gavin gave for declining the invitation to Lisbon– and if Fred Pearce has merely characterized it that way during a discussion over a beer, I’d have understood what he meant. I’d say his usages was fine.
Used in a news report in New Scientist? Not so much.
Lucia, you say:
Your surmise here is incorrect. I can confirm with absolute certainty that Fred Pearce read Gavin’s email because I was sitting with both Pearce and tallbloke at dinner (we set out as part of a larger group and got separated) when tallbloke showed Pearce the email in question, which Pearce read carefully.
Lucia:
Gore used “The science is settled” during a 2007
House Energy ConferenceHouse energy Subcommittee Hearing on Global Climate Change, according to this NPR story:SteveMc–
Thanks! I surmised based on reading serveral stories and not finding anyone saying that Pearce actually read the story. Obviously… I was wrong!
Carrick- Does the transcript have Gore literally say “The science is settled”? Or is that a paraphrase? There are no quotes in the NPR story, so it seems to me that was a paraphrase of what Gore said even back then.
Gore and his supporters may not have objected to use of the phrase until later, but my impression is it may very well be a paraphrase.
As you point out, Fred was wrong to use it the way he did.
.
Your defense of the phrase face-to-face over a beer is simply an acknowledgment that sloppy thinking, broad brushes, and us-n-them attitudes are common in informal settings.
.
It appears to me that Fred got caught in a The Tribe -v- The Team dialog and accidentally (?) brought some of the loaded phrases home. A learning moment for him, I hope.
Thanks Steve. I’ve been trying to take the heat for the whole thing, but truth will out. :o)
Oh well, round two…
Lucia, it is a paraphrase, but even not ever said (I think it was), certainly this description is not apt: “It is rather, the slogan created by the detractors of Gore’s views to summarize a position held by activist warmers.”
I’m trying to track down the video (there’s a link on Steve’s blog, but it doesn’t work).
The title for the hearing is “Perspectives on Climate Change” if that helps any.
I very much believe he made that remark at least once… or my memory is turning to mush.
Ron Boberg:
Why do you think it was wrong for Fred to use the quote this way?
A paraphrase made by tallbloke was used by Pearce as if it originated from Schmidt. It wasn’t a very good paraphrase of what Schmidt wrote. It wasn’t clear where the paraphrase originated. Pearce was attempting to capture Schmidt’s lack of attendance in a quick clause. He should have gone to the source rather than rely on The Tribe’s rendition.
Ron, he read the original email. That’s not a third hand account. Maybe tallbloke’s description of it is…
Ron–
I agree summarizing Gavin’s argument as “The Science is Settled” conveys an “us -n them” attitude, but I disagree on your reason.
So, first, I’ll explain how I disagree.. People communicate in shorthand and use slogans all the time. In back and forth discussion, people engage each other and ask for clarification. The shorthand in and of itself doesn’t necessarily imply “sloppy thinking” or “us-n-them” attitude.
Using short hand might convey an “us vs. them” attitude if one was to assume that only “insiders” understand what people who say “The Science is Settled” mean when they characterize an argument that way. I find it difficult to believe that Gavin who has been out there blogging and participating in forums for some time truly doesn’t know what someone who uses that phrase means to convey. But maybe he really doesn’t. But since I find it difficult to believe most climate bloggers and climate change news readers really doesn’t know what people use by that phrase, I don’t see expecting someone to understand what it means to convey an us-vs.them attitude.
That said– the following things written by Gavin and Trenberth do show an “us-n-them” attitude:
“and people who are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position.” So does “in any real sense within the scientific community,” and “distracting strategies of deniers”.
I find it very difficult to interpret those as not “us-n-them”.
Now, for why I agree with you that summarizing Gavin’s argument as “The Science Is Settled” conveys “Us-n-them”. Fred chose the language of Gavin’s detractors to summarize what Gavin said and then gave no details. That does convey an “us-n-them” view. Absolutely.
re Carrick:
.
During a dinner? Better than relying on just an offhand comment and the framing that no doubt occurred during that dinner shared with the Tribe. But that still a long shot from considering it outside that atmosphere. And still even further from contacting the source.
In his blog post last December about whether the science was ‘settled”, Schmidt stated:
This statement seems entirely consistent with Schmidt’s other statements on the matter. I, for one, had previously thought that Schmidt himself took the position that it was settled science that “increasing emissions of CO2 (in particular) are posing a substantial risk to human society” and am more than a little puzzled at Gavin’s present objection to Pearce’s characterization of his position on this point.
Ron– It appears Fred read Gavin’s email. That was previously unclear to me. It appears it would have remained so except that SteveM saw Fred spending time carefully reading Gavin’s email!
Ron, that said, I went back and read Gavin’s email as published by tallbloke and agree with Gavin on this.
I’m afraid I got a bit derailed over the “Gore never said ‘the science is settled’ historical revisionism.” (Which as far as I can tell, this “talking point” started with a William Connolley deleted wiki post.)
“Carefully.” During a dinner? Call me a ‘skeptic’
.
And did he read the full email? Apparently the version that tallbloke published at Curry’s was missing parts. Did Pearce have the complete version?
Yes. Some people, including Fred Pearce, can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Ron:
What’s’ that got to do with anything?
If he read the email over dinner, he still read it. Not third hand.
Most good science progress occurs with napkin sketches over dinner. Don’t be knocking the dinners.
Gore’s transcript is here.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_house_hearings&docid=f:37579.pdf
He didn’t say “the science is settled”. He said “The debate on science is over with.”
As I said in a comment at Bishop Hill’s, no one should be shocked that journalists paraphrase. And this is pretty much a difference without a distinction. Does someone really want to hang their hat on the difference between the two statements, or on the meaning of Schmidt’s e-mail and why it’s so different from literally saying the words “the science is settled” (which wasn’t even in quotation marks if I recall)?
So now we have climate scientists questioning the behavior of traditional allies, Pearce and NPR (who behaved like Pearce). It seems to me that if climate scientists want to complain about those two, they better stop clamoring for public exposure.
They seem to be woefully naive as to how the media operate.
Ron–
I get that you think Fred didn’t read carefully during dinner. The difficulty is that I think the reason for declining Gavin communicated in that email is precisely what those who use the phrase “the science is settled” use it to describe.
The phrase is a slogan. Slogans are nearly always tendentious. But people do tend to understand what both slogans and their less tendentious cousins mere idioms mean. And someone saying what Gavin wrote amounts to “The Science is Settled”, is using a slogan that is out there on blogs, in forums, in newspaper editorials etc.
Carrick–
Do you mean you agree that reading the invitation that like Gavin you are also confused about what conflict was going to be resolved? I too probably would have been confused about the precise nature. Also, I think taking policy discussions off the table would be unwise.
Whatever the conflict the MWP, there are actually quite a few people who, notwithstanding concern over varves think that we should take some steps to control GHG’s. It’s useful for any meeting on conflict resolution to capture that and not useful to take the discussion off the table.
Some people might have paraphrased Gavin’s declining as owing to confusion over the goal of the meeting, or a desire to focus on policy or something else. There is more than one thought in what Gavin wrote. Since Fred did not quote the email, readers couldn’t interpret what Gavin said for themselves.
John M, thanks for the link. My internets are slow today. So it does appear that the supposed quote started as an NPR paraphrase.
Here’s the audio:
“If you look at the peer reviewed scientific literature, the debate is over.”
Lucia:
No, just that I agree with his statement that debating about the climate 1000 years ago isn’t going to be helpful.
My next question: In your opinion, was the agenda of the Lisbon Conference limited in the manner suggested by Gavin’s email? (Did Gavin fairly characterize the conference in his letter declining to attend.)
So Pearce’s overall conclusion was basically correct even if the process by which he arrived at it in this particular case doesn’t exactly hold up in its particulars?
The difficulty is that I think the reason for declining Gavin communicated in that email is precisely what those who use the phrase “the science is settled†use it to describe.
.
Which is the heart of my complaint. Pearce is parroting The Tribe without going to the original source. Enough of that for today, though.
.
Well, with this one further observation: “What-Gavin-Said-Gate” is an obvious framing device. What Gavin said is not in doubt and is neither scandalous nor scurrilous.
thingsbreak–
Could you clarify what you mean by the process he used not holding up? Are you objecting to his using a 2nd hand paraphrase? I was mistaken when I wrote that Fred didn’t read the email. Turns out Fred read it. So, that was his own paraphrase so that part of the process would hold up.
But otherwise: If we are evaluating the question of whether Fred’s characterization managed to correctly summarize the argument Gavin wrote we don’t actually need to analyze the process. Either Fred’s characterization was correct or it was incorrect. Likewise, either 2+2=4 or 2+2≠4. You don’t need to know whether someone did their sums using a calculator, relying on memory, or holding two toothpicks in each hand and then counting them one by one or relied on astrology to to tell them the answer.
If they reported 2+2=4, we could say: Yes. They got the correct answer.
Carrick
No. I read both Gavin’s response to the Lisbon committee and his interpretation of the invitation at other blogs, and I have absolutely no idea how Gavin interpreted the invitation the way he did. I would never have interpreted the letter from Lisbon the way Gavin did, and it appears Gavin totally misunderstood the purpose and goals of the meeting.
“It is rather, the slogan (The Science Is Settled) created by the detractors of Gore’s views to summarize a position held by activist warmers.”
I’d like Lucia to produce the information she used to determine that this slogan (The Science Is Settled) was created by “detractors of Al Gore’s views.”
Andrew
As always, much more kerfuffle than this is worth. However, I see no other interpretation of his statement that only policy discussion is relevant now, than “the science is settled.” I find nothing wrong with this as a paraphrase. Does he really believe that the value of climate sensitivity is irrelevant to policy choices? That the relative attribution of warming to CO2-induced effects (vs. other causes) makes no difference to policy?
But I’d like to focus on a different part of Gavin’s response to the organizers: “No ‘conflict resolution’ is possible between the science community who are focussed on increasing understanding, and people who are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position.” It is precisely this attitude which has created such bad blood between the “ins” and the “outs.” Gavin creates a false dichotomy between the “science community” who are interested solely in knowledge (untainted by any political prejudices) and those outside who first come to political (policy) conclusions and then seek to justify it by selective editing of the science. Whom we put in the latter category? McIntyre certainly; perhaps you, Tallbloke, Motl; possibly Lindzen, Spencer, Curry too for all I know. Which category would Gore fit in? Romm? Hansen?
Having read blog comments for a while now, I wouldn’t deny (may I use that word here?) that there exist persons who fit the “conclusion first, evidence later” mold. But (a) they don’t only sit on one side of the figurative aisle, (b) Gavin Schmidt is not one I would trust to make such a discrimination, and (c) they didn’t seem to be the ones meeting in Lisbon.
I also think the “cherry-picking” part is ironic, given that he broadly sweeps away discussion of the 1000-year history as irrelevant. Yet a few years ago that was the keynote of AR3. Now he seems to recognize that such reconstructions are not nearly as reliable as he once claimed. Was MBH98 et seq. “cherry-picking”? It no longer matters, because its currency for some time was used to promote the idea that the current era in unique, and now it’s no longer worthwhile to debate science, only policy. I liken this to ignoring the rotting foundations and blindly building higher — and to heck with the building inspectors.
@ Lucia
To use/rework your analogy, it sounds to me like Pearce reported “4” (Gavin’s reason for not attending is that “the science is settled”). You (and others) seem to be saying that because 2+2 (your interpretation of Gavin’s overall position on the issue) equals 4, Pearce’s reporting “4” is correct (or at least not as ridiculously unprofessional and inaccurate as some of the rest of us might feel). However, in this specific instance, Gavin’s actual stated reason for not attending was unequivocally not explicitly either “2+2” or “4”, even if we stipulate for the purposes of the conversation that his overall position is 2+2, which equals 4.
In other words, you (and others) seem to believe that because Pearce’s conclusion/paraphrase of Gavin’s statement is an accurate reflection of the overall reality of the situation, it doesn’t matter that Gavin never actually said those words- the outcome is realistic despite the process being something decidedly other than a straightforward reporting of the facts.
Let’s be clear, Schmidt (and many other AGW propagandistas) will always find an excuse to be not in the same room, even the same building, or even the same city as M&M…
Nobody stops you to ask Fred Pearce before writing this blog. It only creates more speculation.
Lucia:
Could you link a copy of the original invitation letter from Lisbon?
Carrick
Tallbloke ran verbatim followed by Gavin’s response:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/gavin-schmidt-response-to-lisbon-invitation/
Hoi–
Nobody stops you to ask Fred Pearce before writing this blog.
True enough. But I thought I reflected the uncertain aspect of what I knew by using the phrase “it appears that Fred Pierce never read”. Given that Tallbloke had reported on the story and it seems Tallbloke intended to give the impression that he and not Fred was the source of the paraphrase, it did appear the source of the paraphrase was Tallbloke and not Fred. (Note Tallbloke wrote “I’ve been trying to take the heat for the whole thing, but truth will out.”)
Here is the invitation letter that I received. The wording in Gavin’s seems to have been similar. They mention issues that they have “in mind” – there was nothing to preclude Gavin Schmidt or anyone else in suggesting different issues.
Although the organizers included James Risbey of CSIRO, they also included Ravetz who posted up two commentaries at WUWT last year – which Schmidt would have been aware of.
Thanks Lucia. Gavin also posted the original invitation here.
You don’t need to document if Pearce carefully (or not so carefully) read Gavin’s email. And you don’t have to parse that email or Pearce’s use of “the science is settled” paraphrase to determine Gavin’s clear opinion: he will not engage anyone in serious discussion if that person does not agree with the consensus climate science view that rather extreme future warming will take place. He will sometimes tell those people that they are mistaken. But he will not debate them. Seems to me he thinks the science is more-or-less settled.
Thingbreak
I’m saying that if Pearce reported 2+2=4, we could assess whether that statement is correct without debating “the process”. You seemed to be suggesting that we need to review the process to determine whether the statement is true. We don’t.
If you want to debate whether the process was or was not professional, you should go ahead and do so. But that’s somewhat orthogonal to whether or not certain specific statements happened to be true or untrue.
Equally, if you want to debate whether Fred’s characterization of Gavin’s email was correct or fair, do that.
But suggesting that Fred’s characterization was wrong because you think the process might have been flawed, is silly. These are separate.
Wrong. This is not my point. Fred did not quote gavin. He paraphrased. Paraphrases are not quotes.
If Fred’s paraphrase does convey the reason Gavin gave for declining then Pearce’ paraphrase is accurate as a paraphrase. You seem to want us to treat a paraphrase as a quote and that’s just silly. But maybe you mean something else.
As far as I can see, it’s perfectly fair to characterize Gavin’s actual stated reason for not going as being “because the science is settled”. Of course, I may be wrong, but if you think otherwise, you might explain that instead of simply decreeing that Gavin did not say 2+2 nor 4. Please explain why you think that response cannot be paraphrased as “the science is settled” with that phrase conveying the meaning intended by those who use the phrase. (And for that matter, what it seemed to convey in the original NPR story in which it appears to have been coined!)
I thought the Lisbon thing was ill conceived, personally. Conflicts in science have always been resolved through release of data, metadata and full explanation of how the result was arrived at, simples.
Ron B seems to be deliberately ignoring the day to day paraphrasing used by all media when summarising someone’s lengthy paragragh into a convenient and easy to understand soundbite. Gavin S did not say ‘Science is Settled’ but he sure as hell said it in as many words but word can be interpreted in many different ways and Fred’s interpretation as valid as anyone else.
SteveF (Comment#68085) February 5th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
What sort of serious scientific debate can he have with someone who thinks
Seriously. Once you go down that rabbit hole, you never come out, there are millions of people out there who demand to be satisfied that their ignorance be salved before they will accept any movement in the ‘debate’ to actions to prevent AGW. You will never change their mind.
On Tamino’s site I said:
If Gavin Schmidt will acknowledge that the people gathered at Lisbon who would have been happy if he’d joined us are not well characterised as:
“people who are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position.â€
I’ll happily acknowledge that my characterisation of his stance was overly coloured by that part of his response and unfair as a standalone comment.
If he does that and specifically asks for an apology, I will apologise to him.
Grant wasn’t impressed 🙂
Hey bugs #68088, did you see that weasel word ‘May’ in there? I’ve sent a plot to Miskolczi for interpretation, since he uses the radiosonde data. I await a response to it.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/shumidity-ssn96.png?w=614
Ron
I was inspired by “Pearcegate” used at Deltoid.
I’d like Lucia to produce the information she used to determine that this slogan (The Science Is Settled) was created by “detractors of Al Gore’s views.â€
Andrew
…out of the corner of my eye,
Was that you passing me by?
Andrew
bugs,
What? What are you talking about? Who said anything about Miskolczi? I said that IMO Gavin makes clear he will engage nobody who does not already agree that future warming will be quite large. Pointing to some crank theory is hardly a relevant reply.
.
Further, you don’t need to look too hard to determine that most climate scientists (with a few exceptions) seem to adopt pretty much the same position. Those few who do not (like Judith Curry and Hans von Storch), are broadly criticized by people like Gavin. That tells me quite a lot about Gavin’s thinking.
Also on Tallbloke, from his Hall of Fame.
Unless I read this wrong, he is denying the Theory of Relativity.
AndrewKY
Please follow Carrick’s method of addressing the issue that bothers you. You can see the method in Carrick (Comment#68050). The creator appears to be NPR, who would not be “detractors”. I concede I should use “embrace” rather than “created”.
ISTM that 5 of Gavin’s 6 sentences reinforce the notion that he is declining to attend because there are no legitimate scientific issues in climate science that might be advanced through discussion with people with a non-Consensus view.
Preface.
The issues worth discussing (outside of professional-climate-scientist circles, perhaps?) are policy matters. Challenges to the consensus view of the MWP are as trivial as speculation about the weather.
The only issues worth discussing (outside of professional-climate-scientist circles, perhaps?) are policy matters.
The genuine scientific discussion that goes on in climatology is among scientists who concur with the broad scientific consensus on AGW. People outside the Consensus who claim to dispute establishment findings are disingenuously making policy-focused arguments.
In climate science, the science community is limited to people who are in agreement with the Pro-AGW Consensus position. People who disagree with (any?) tenets of the establishment position are disingenously making policy-focused arguments.
The idea that there are genuine scientific disputes on any important tenet of the Pro-AGW Consensus merits sneer quotes.
.
Pearce used poor judgement in using a charged slogan to paraphrase Gavin, in my opinion. And he should have made clear that the phase was not a quote.
““But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt. Dr. Schmidt indicated that those who dissent from any aspect of the field’s consensus views on global warming have nothing to contribute to advancing the science. Thus, in his view, there was nothing to discuss.â€
That summary misses Gavin’s insinuation that people who disagree with him and his allies are acting in bad faith. Bud so did Pearce’s.
SteveF (Comment#68094) February 5th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
That quote was from Tallblokes blog. Tallbloke was at Lisbon, and there is video of him handing Curry a tshirt with a cartoon by Josh, which she seems to greatly appreciate. What is Gavin going to be able to contribute to that sort of a circus? McIntyre is quite happy to associate with Tallbloke, and treat him as a respected friend, but the hellfire and brimstone at CA still hounds scientists doing leading edge research.
bugs (Comment#68095)
You read it wrong.
My take on the results from Miller which were confirmed by Yuri Galaev in 2003 is that they were measuring something real. What it is, we don’t know. Because we don’t know is not a good reason for denying the results of the empirical findings. Please don’t characterize me as a ‘crank’, I’m a qualified engineer with a degree in the history and philosophy of science.
Einstein said this of Miller’s experiment: “My opinion about Miller’s experiments is the following. … Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory.â€
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, July 1925
Given that our best instrumentation and our interpretation of the data we get confirms general and special relativity, we are left with the puzzle of what Miller and Galaev were measuring. I simply post about interesting puzzles and don’t worry overmuch about how they contradict each other. It’s all good stuff we can learn from, and any of these theories may be suddenly revived by some unexpected experimental result. As Einstein said:
Experimentum summus judex
If Gavin did not mean that the science was settled sufficiently such that only the political (policy?) decisions remain, what did he mean. When he replied he had an opportunity to have detailed exactly what he meant. His reference to past climate as weather 1000 years ago and it not being relevant to any policy discussions certainly cries out for further explanation. Why refer to past climate as weather?
Perhaps Schmidt meant that the science is not settled in so far as it could be worse than we thought. Instead of being vague why did not he say specifically where he stands.
Perhaps he thinks, as a number of skeptics or so-called skeptics do, that the question of future climate change rests with climate models now that the reconstruction methodologies have been shown to be problematic.
Would the pure scientist dance around the issues like Gavin appears to be doing in this case?
The full Al Gore quote appears to be:
“Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af
This quote, said to be from 1992, surfaced in June 2007 but no one gives a source.
(Comment#68050). The creator appears to be NPR, who would not be “detractorsâ€. I concede I should use “embrace†rather than “createdâ€.
Sloppy work, Lucia….
I would also add that it’s not exclusively “detractors of Al Gore’s views” who “embrace” the “settled science” theme.
Listen for MSNBC Andrea Mitchell’s use of the “settled” and “settled science” from 1:50 to 2:00 of this video.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/greghengler/2010/08/18/msnbcs_mitchell_shocked_gopers_are_challenging_settled_science_of_gores_conventional_wisdom
Andrew
Rog Tallbloke (Comment#68099) February 5th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
I would recommend Gavin not waste his time trying to reconcile anything with you. That McIntyre can reconcile with you quite readily, but not Gavin, also shows me why Gavin should not go there.
bugs:
But then, you personally have no interest in reconciliation in any case.
So your opinion is completely meaningless here.
As a slogan or not, “the science is settled” has such ambiguity that it can be applied to anything, and anything concluded from it. What is “the science”? What does “settled” mean? It is a near-content-free statement of only political import (in the cited paraphrases it almost always seems to mean that we know enough to start making decisions). It has no relevance to science and would never be used in a scientific context.
That Pearce (whether or not following Tattersall) chose to accuse Gavin Schmidt of using such a content-free excuse for not attending is the travesty here. Gavin had real solid reasons for not going – which he expressed clearly. Why were they concealed in Pearce’s piece, and a fabricated quote used instead? Pearce’s bias is rather clear – but then it has been for some time, unfortunately.
Carrick (Comment#68104) February 5th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Lucia can say of similar opinions as Tallblokes
“I’m laughing myself to tears here. I am familiar enough to know that you are making errors.”
Not very reconciley.
Isn’t Gavin debating angels on pinheads here? Virtually everything he writes at RC is along the lines of there is a ‘consensus’, is completely dismissive of sceptical views and questions, and fully supportive of the IPCC.
So he admits the science isn’t ‘settled’, but surely he only means that in terms of ‘we climate scientists know there are issues that still need to be understood but in general the science is totally robust and cannot be questioned’
Sounds very much like the ‘science is settled’ to me.
This is a longer version, by Gavin, from RC.
Much of the ‘skeptic’ side is outrage over the disagreement over color of a brick or two. Those who argue there is no greenhouse effect are clearly just wrong.
The following is quoted from the written submission of the Honorable Al Gore before a congressional hearing on March 21, 2007:
“First of all, there is no longer any serious debate over the basic points that make up the consensus on global warming.”
The full text of the written submission is reported here: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=23668
“First of all, there is no longer any serious debate over the basic points that make up the consensus on global warming.â€
There isn’t.
Re: RobWansbeck ,
Thanks for digging that up Rob. I’d never seen evidence of Gore saying that exact phrase, but it appears he did.
There is no source for that quote. It is just repeating what other people have said on the internet.
.
Am I the only one here who finds it weird that Tallbloke pulls out Gavin’s e-mail at a dinner to show it to Pearce? Did he have it on him? What is he doing walking around with an e-mail from Gavin Schmidt? Or did he pull out his laptop to specifically show Fred Pearce the content of Gavin’s e-mail? Why? Did Tallbloke say: ‘Lookee here, Fred, that’s saying the same as “the science is settled”, innit?’ The e-mail wasn’t even addressed at him. Couldn’t he have forwarded it to Pearce?
.
More context, please, from one of the key witnesses preferably…
I found another one:
U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson today defended the science underpinning pending climate regulations despite Senate Republicans’ claims that global warming data has been thrown into doubt.
“”The science behind climate change is settled, and human activity is responsible for global warming,” Jackson told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “That conclusion is not a partisan one.””
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/02/23/23greenwire-epa-chief-goes-toe-to-toe-with-senate-gop-over-72892.html
That is a politician, not a scientist, using her own words.
She has a master’s degree in chemical engineering. Funny how she got that degree without doing or understanding science.
Obama said the science wasn’t settled in his State Of the Union Address, Jan 2010.
“I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.” 😉
Here’s a official link to a list of scientists who fit this description:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
bugs,
And you don’t think that politicians are advised by scientists in the EPA?
“That is a politician, not a scientist, using her own words.”
bugs,
That is the point, as liza as indicated.
Evidently, she just made it up, right bugs?
Andrew
Neven,
Yeah, Tallbloke could have forwarded Gavin’s email to Pearce, but as they were sitting at the same table that might have seemed a tad redundant.
I guess the Lesson Of Lucia Jackson is that sometimes American Progressives/Liberals Just Like To Say Stuff.
“It is rather, the slogan created by the detractors of Gore’s views to summarize a position held by activist warmers.”
…
Oh I’m Sorry, did I get my Liberals and Their Quotes confused? 😉
Andrew
As a hypothetical, suppose Pearce had phrased his paragraph as follows, instead of using “the science is settled.”
“But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt. Dr. Schmidt indicated that those who dissent from any aspect of the field’s consensus views on global warming have nothing to contribute to advancing the science. Thus, in his view, there was nothing to discuss.â€
From the point of view of Team (cf. Tribe) supporters, would there have been anything objectionable, in that case?
.
Sure, but why show that e-mail in the first place? And was it in paper or was it on a laptop? How did the conversation get to that point?
.
FP: So, why did no one of the Team show up?
TB: They invited Schmidt, but he declined. Do you want to see his answer? I have it here with me. I can show you, I can show you.
FP: No need, I can guess why he wouldn’t want to come. Would be a waste of time for him, wouldn’t it?
TB: He says the science is settled, he does.
FP: On second thought, let me see that mail. Yes, he is indeed saying that. Can I use that?
SMcI: I’m seeing ya, Fred. You’re reading Gavin’s mail. Says the science is settled, isn’t he?
.
.
All kidding aside, I just don’t get it. Why would Tallbloke want to show Pearce that e-mail? Why would Pearce want to see it? Who brought it up? How cana journalist be so stupid?
.
It’s… I can’t find a proper word for it. Like gossiping old ladies or something.
“In answer to colloquial questions like “Is anthropogenic warming real?â€, the answer is yes with high confidence.”
When Schmidt says that he says nothing that might be crucial to the debate/discussion about global warming. The reasonable participants on all sides of this issue would readily agree – the devil remains in the details.
We could agree with that statement and yet disagree on what the climate proxies show and whether they have major methodological problems. Or how robust the climate models are at this point in time – or even on estimating the uncertainty of the historical instrumental temperature records.
The crucial general questions are how much climate change and to what effects?
The important specific questions are: do reconstructions under estimate the temperature variations back in history and what effects do arbitrary pre-selections of proxies do to the statistical calculations in estimating uncertainty?
The dancing that Schmidt does on these issues befits the advocate but not the scientist.
Oh and by the way these issues, that are yet to be resolved, are not simply analogous to the color of a few bricks in a large building – they are the issue(s).
Bugs,
Why didn’t you just man up and admit this to begin with. We know you guys all think the science is settled but you have to dance around the issue, for what purpose.This is a ridiculous but entertaining argument. Lets define science and define settled. Oh I have an idea, lets discuss what the meaning of is is.
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment#68125) February 5th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
There is a ‘greenhouse’ effect.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
It’s concentration in the atmosphere is well on the way to doubling, and more.
The temperature is rising.
Sea ice is shrinking, as are glaciers.
Sea level is rising.
The stratosphere has cooled.
This has been predicted, these are the basic points.
Re: Neven ,
I’d guess he was walking around with his laptop which he often uses to download email. He said, something. Pearce was dubious so Tallbloke showed Pearce the email. I can imagine other things that might have happened but lots of people carry their laptops around when at meetings. So, this doesn’t seem weird at all.
What Gavin said was
He sees the ‘other’ side as not being interested in the science as a whole, but only in cherry picking on small pieces of the science that suit them. They aren’t interested in advancing the science. He sees them as taking up a political position, then attacking the science because of that political position.
I have to shut off my computer now (bed time), but I hope some more people will give their thoughts on this question:
.
.
You know, Tallbloke telling Pearce off the top of his head what Schmidt’s answer was, sounds plausible. But actually show him the e-mail… Weird behaviour. Somebody isn’t telling the entire truth here.
Re: Neven ,
I can’t say your fictional version of the conversation is incorrect. But how but this hypothetical.
FredPearce: “So, who was invited?”
Tallbloke: Names all people invited.
FredPearce: “Interesting. Do you know why Gavin didn’t come?”
Tallbloke: “He declined”.
FredPearce: “Did he give a reason?”
Tallbloke: “Sure. I have his response on my laptop. Let me find it. Go ahead and read it.”
On my planet, this sort of conversation is pretty common between people.
Something else I don’t understand (but perhaps I haven’t read everything):
.
Tallbloke claimed he said to Pearce that Schmidt wouldn’t come because he said the science is settled. But now Steve McIntyre tells us that Tallbloke let Pearce read the e-mail. Why didn’t Tallbloke straight off that he let Pearce read the e-mail?
.
This is what Tallbloke says on his blog (he must be thrilled with all the hits):
.
.
Again, why didn’t Tallbloke saved himself the trouble and tell everyone straight off that he let Pearce read the e-mail?
Okay, here’s a piece to the puzzle I overlooked:
.
.
So Tallbloke was answering someone’s question and said Schmidt said ‘science settled, not coming’. Fred heard that and when they got separated from the large group he asked Tallbloke to show him the data. Luck had it an auditor was there, otherwise it might have escaped people’s notice.
.
Pardonnez the irony, but things keep being added to this story, whereas it should be pretty straightforward. Any news from Pearce yet?
Neven
Who knows? Based on what Tallbloke actually wrote, it appears he thought not saying so would take heat off Fred. (See above). Tallbloke may have been misguided, but that appears to have been his motive.
On a moment’s reflection, the phrase “the science is settled” can only have a meaning in the context of policy for as Gavin points out and we all know the science, as a matter of strict science, is never settled 100% for sure. So in a pure science context that statement is meaningless, but in a political context, vis a vis Al Gore, it does have meaning and we well know what Gore was implying. Now if we can decipher where Schmidt stands on “the science is settled” in the only context it has meaning we might be getting somewhere. Anyone care to guess?
“There is a ‘greenhouse’ effect.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
It’s concentration in the atmosphere is well on the way to doubling, and more.
The temperature is rising.
Sea ice is shrinking, as are glaciers.
Sea level is rising.
The stratosphere has cooled.
This has been predicted, these are the basic points.”
So Bugs you found another way to make the generalizations that Schmidt did. What is your point or perhaps I should say specific points?
How is this ironic?
The main thrust of the Pearce article was not about Gavin.In an almost throwaway, Pearce paraphrases why Gavin did not come.
Gavin gets all upset. He complains, some Friends of Gavin start chattering at blogs drawing attention to the paraphrase. Gavin’s explanation of his position does not include the letter he actually sent to the Lisbon committee. Why didn’t he include it? Who knows.
Turns out Tallbloke happened to have the email. He provides this extra information. Why? Probably because someone, somewhere said they’d like to know what, precisely, Gavin wrote. Tallbloke knows. He blogs.
At the time, it doesn’t occur to him to say precisely how he got the email— why would it? He prefers to not mention that he showed it to Fred. Why does he leave this out? I don’t know. It doesn’t strike me as particularly odd– he’s focusing on providing information people asked him.
Turns out Tallbloke showed it to Fred. I happened to say it seems Fred didn’t read it– but I happen to be wrong. Turns’ out SteveMc knows I am wrong. Whatever reason Tallbloke had for not mentioning he showed the email to Fred, Steve either doesn’t know the reason or doesn’t agree with it. Possibly if he knew it, he wouldn’t agree with it. So, Steve tells me my impression is wrong.
Now everyone knows Tallbloke had the email had showed it to Fred. They ask why Tallbloke had it and why he showed it to Fred. So… we learn that.
I know you seemed to complain about gossiping above– but people gossip. Men gossip a lot. Young men, teenage boys, old men. So so old women, young women and teen girls. People gossip. Big deal. Happens. Nothing unusual. Nothing about any similarity to gossip or new information being revealed as conversation ensued is “ironic” or even surprising.
It’s what happens.
Thanks, Lucia. I hadn’t seen that. Tallbloke taking heat off Fred. Noted.
.
In the thread over at Curry’s I read this now by Tallbloke:
.
.
Paper or digital?
.
He got Fred to read it out loud over a couple of beers. Did he get Fred to dance naked on the table as well? I knew Fred was easy, but this easy…
He appears to have gone to ground.
Neven
I danced on tables as an undergrad. Kept my clothes on– but still.
Does this matter?
Comparing Fred’s recollection to the contents of the letter it appear that his memory permitted him a correct paraphrase. However, he might have found himself unable to remember it word for word and so didn’t quote. He didn’t quote. He reported only as much as he could remember with confidence.
I don’t see this as a problem.
We have grown-up men getting so excited about an e-mail that contains nothing spectacular that they walk around with it and read it aloud to each other over beers. And then when people ask questions they answer in parts. You’re right, Lucia. Completely normal behaviour.
.
They are obviously going cold turkey after getting hooked by the cornucopia the climategate hack offered. How thrilled they must have been when Tallbloke accidentally received Schmidt’s e-mail.
.
But that is normal. Completely normal. And all of it Gavin Schmidt’s fault, of course.
Neven–
Let me see: At dinner people have a conversation that involves exchanging relatively short (less than 2 paragraph long) bits of information and asking each other questions rather than one person droning on an one 1 hour long uninterrupted dump on some topic of interest to only him. Seems normal.
People at blogs engage a question that is asked giving the answer. Seems normal to me.
It is not Gavin’s “fault” that people have this sort of conversation. I haven’t suggested that, and no one has suggested that. In fact, no one other than you has suggested there is anything wrong with this sort of conversation. Naturally, people who think these sorts of conversations are normal would not say they are anyone’s “fault” anymore than anyone would say it’s someone’s “fault” the sky is blue.
I can agree with this take.
Not particularly, because it is a totally irrelevant point. Journalism is not conducted by investigating what you think a person believes and putting words in their mouth to that effect. Did Schmidt say the science was settled or words to that effect? No. Did Pearce therefore print something false, and not merely false, but echoing the propaganda of one side in a public debate? Unequivocally yes.
I’m a nice person, so I would say what is called for is a correction, an apology, and a different beat for a while. If one had the misfortune to work for an old-school journalist, this mistake would fall somewhere on the spectrum of job-ending to career-killing.
“It is not Gavin’s “fault†that people have this sort of conversations.”
It’s Gavingate, and not Fredgate.
“I’d like Lucia to produce the information she used to determine that this slogan (The Science Is Settled) was created by “detractors of Al Gore’s views.â€
BTW, lucia, you never produced the information I politely asked for. You acknowledged that your conclusion was in error, after the fact, but my request was still ignored.
I’d still like to know the process and data from which you came to your flawed conclusion and why you chose to regurgitate something so obviously unsupportable.
Andrew
bugs–
Whomever-gate it might be, no one is saying it is anyone’s “fault” that people sit at dinner and discuss things in the normal way everyone discusses things.
Andrew_KY–
Do I sometimes ignore you? Yes. I think it is often wise to ignore you.
Bugs…these are the bedrock of settled science?
There is a ‘greenhouse’ effect….yes
CO2 is a greenhouse gas…..yes
It’s concentration in the atmosphere is well on the way to doubling, and more….as it has many times in the past.
The temperature is rising…not in the last 15 years and at a similar pace to past warmings this century
Sea ice is shrinking, as are glaciers…not globally…and glaciers as a continuing trend since the last ice age
Sea level is rising….at the same pace it has for 2 centuries
The stratosphere has cooled….but the troposphere has not warmed (interesting tactic there)
This has been predicted, these are the basic points…and most of them are UNSETTLED
Key part of the invite that may not be understood by people that don’t understand the rule-
“Since the topics are so sensitive we would have Chatham House rules”
which is often used in the UK to discuss sensitive or controversial issues. People can speak freely and not be quoted. Journalists understand these rules else they don’t get invited to interesting discussions.
Pearce is a journalist. Journalists follow the story. Part of the story at Lisbon would have been the lack of some high profile ‘alarmists’. Understanding why would be a reasonable question for a journalist. Explaining why would be a reasonable thing for an organiser. The Chatham House rule meant the comment could not be directly attributed, but had to be paraphrased to some degree. It’s pretty normal under the rule for otherwise sensitive documents to be shown, if they help the debate. Gavin took exception to the paraphrasing, which seems a ‘reasonable man’ interpretation. By giving permission to publish Gavin’s response, it eases the rule and advances the debate.
Chatham House makes it a little arcane for people unfamiliar with it, but personally I think tallbloke and Pearce behaved ethically. Lisbon had been criticised as an event for sceptics, so reasonable to enquire why that may have been the case and report on it.
“Andrew_KY–
Do I sometimes ignore you? Yes. I think it is often wise to ignore you.”
Lucia,
O Font Of Wisdom… 😉
Am I going to get an explanation or any further info concerning my particular request in this thread?
Andrew
It seems to me the paradox Schmidt alludes to is readily apparent in the invitation:
By framing the issue as addressing things necessary in “the cause of coping with climate change” and then ruling out “policy issues,” the organizers are implying that uncertainty over the MWP or climate sensitivity are the central issues in “coping with climate change” and need to be resolved before the science of climate change can be taken to suggest the need for action on policy.
The letter, as Schmidt recognizes, promotes the psuedoskeptic meme of major, important disagreements about climate science revolving around things like the MWP.
He points out, I think correctly, that there is a push to promote these areas of ongoing discussion and revision of climatology as major disputes among scientists and damaging the cause of “coping with climate change, as well as to the reputation of science itself.” That is a false framing, driven, as Schmidt pointed out, by people with a political agenda cherry-picking data.
Political as opposed to scientific debates are all about framing, and the invitation makes it clear that the framing of this meeting is designed to promote pseudoskeptical messaging. Schmidt understandably declined to participate, and unsurprisingly pseudoskeptics were forearmed with their framing of that (“Schmidt won’t debate on any scientific questions anywhere ever” “Schimidt believes the science is settled.”)
There is no way Gavin could have declined to participate without triggering that messaging — wherein we see the sad difference in preparedness between those that spend most of their time studying and describing the physical world, as those that spend the vast majority of their time on political propaganda, incorporating a thin sheen of secondhand science when it can be put to use.
“This statement seems entirely consistent with Schmidt’s other statements on the matter. I, for one, had previously thought that Schmidt himself took the position that it was settled science that “increasing emissions of CO2 (in particular) are posing a substantial risk to human society†and am more than a little puzzled at Gavin’s present objection to Pearce’s characterization of his position on this point.”
Saying “increasing emissions of CO2 (in particular) are posing a substantial risk to human society” isn’t the entire statement, as you have posted it yourself. He said, “Science has led to a great deal of well-supported concern…” Is it me or is everyone mangling the meaning of “settled”. Just because he thinks that ‘something’ has led to concern, that does not mean that the ‘something’ is settled. Remember, he is a scientist. It is big deal to say the science he studies is settled, and Pearce’s words made it sound like Gavin thinks the science is settled. That’s damaging. And it’s clearly wrong. It undermines his ability to communicate it effectively, whose thoughts aren’t already solidly hardened. Had Pearce repeated that line above, completely, it would have likely been accurate, if I read Gavin’s posts accurately. Mangling the meaning of words doesn’t fix it. It’s not semantics or hair-splitting unless we all agree to dumb down the debate to where the correct meanings of words aren’t important. Is using the “settled” rhetoric so important that this death-grip on it means we can attribute whatever meaning we want to it?
“Not particularly, because it is a totally irrelevant point. Journalism is not conducted by investigating what you think a person believes and putting words in their mouth to that effect. Did Schmidt say the science was settled or words to that effect? No.”
OK Robert, since you evidently do know what Gavin meant or said, please inform to what Schmidt reply meant to you. What did weather a 1000 years ago mean? Some context here if you will.
Gavin said that in a strict science context the science is never settled. That is not at all controversial or to the point in the present context. Would Schmidt disagree with Al Gore or any other policy wonk who says that the science is settled in a policy context? Or is Schmidt’s reply worded in such a manner that we really do not know what he meant and thus his reply is merely words with no definite meaning?.
Lucia, Pearce’s referral to Gavin was not anywhere near a “throwaway”, it was one the of the central pivot points of the piece. Perhaps you have forgotten the lead sentence in the paragraph that followed:
“Across the spectrum, participants were mostly united in disagreeing with Schmidt.”
But, contrary to Pearce, even Schmidt “disagrees with Schmidt”.
That’s a yes, then. It’s also due to our activities that it is rising.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/trend/plot/uah/trend/plot/rss/trend
It has been rising, including the last fifteen years.
The global sea ice extent.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Sea level is rising….at the same pace it has for 2 centuries
The CSIRO has a nice graph of the history of the sea level rise. It had been relatively steady, till recently. The rise has accelerated recently, due to warming temperatures.
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/fig_hist_2.jpg
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_intro.html
Another yes.
As I said, all ‘yes’s. The climate sensitivity is ‘not settled’, there is much ongoing research, the basic facts are all correct.
Arthur Smith (Comment#68154) February 5th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
I would also take issue with his use of the word ‘spectrum’. That implies a broad range of views, when it was hardly that.
bugs:
You are utterly full of bullcrap. As usual.
Arthur Smith, one thing you’ve left out of the equation is the description of the conference objectives given by Gavin in his “rejection letter” are entirely inconsistent with the stated objectives of the conference. I happen to agree with most of what Gavin writes, but it turns out not to particularly apropos of the conference he was being invited to. There was no restriction against policy being discussed, he just assumed that. And like Gavin, debating about what happened 1000 years ago with very different (and unknown) forcings, is a waste of time. It’s something better left to more formal and deliberative forums.
I would guess his error occurred because he assumed the intent of the conference without reading the entire invitation. IMO this is a hastily written letter to a conference organizer that has started another ministorm on the blogosphere. I don’t see much more to it than that.
“There is no way Gavin could have declined to participate without triggering that messaging — wherein we see the sad difference in preparedness between those that spend most of their time studying and describing the physical world, as those that spend the vast majority of their time on political propaganda, incorporating a thin sheen of secondhand science when it can be put to use.”
So, Robert, perhaps the invite was to Gavin, the advocate, as much as Gavin, the scientist, even though the invite indicated that the discussion would not be personal or policy related. You are surely not implying that Schmidt is suddenly the pure scientist in the matter of AGW. Schmidt objected, I think, to topics that he felt were agreed upon by the science community and apparently settled for policy purposes.
Interesting that SteveM has alluded to policy makers going ahead with policy even with the state of incompleteness of the science on AGW, but that SteveM evidently thinks that does not preclude discussing the science. So Gavin, as a scientist, thinks the science is not settled but that as an advocate that it need not be discussed with groups with differing POVs, less it make the science appear less settled. Is not Gavin in his reply merely stating the policies of RC?
Carrick (Comment#68157) February 5th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
So what was the ‘spectrum’ of views there? It looks like mostly ‘skeptics’ or ‘d*****’ there. The few that weren’t, did they actually agree that Gavin said ‘the science is settled’?
Re: Robert (Feb 5 18:20),
> I’m a nice person, so I would say what is called for is a correction, an apology
😉
“Lucia, Pearce’s referral to Gavin was not anywhere near a “throwawayâ€, it was one the of the central pivot points of the piece. Perhaps you have forgotten the lead sentence in the paragraph that followed:
“Across the spectrum, participants were mostly united in disagreeing with Schmidt.â€
But, contrary to Pearce, even Schmidt “disagrees with Schmidtâ€.”
I think the whole point is being lost here and that is what did Gavin mean by his reply. Let us all agree that “the science is settled” was used in the Al Gore political sense and that it is meaningless in a purely science sense plus the fact that even hinting at it being settled could inhibit grants for the Gavin Schmidts in climate science.
Was the use of “science settled” a bit of a partisan snark? I think so. Did Schmidt’s reply contain some partisan snark? I think so. We are all adults here so lets get past the snark and attempt to determine what Gavin Schmidt’s reply meant. Surely he could have been content with a simple, no, or I am too busy and have higher priorities.
Also it was my view that others in the wide consensus group were invited. What were their replies if any.
Re: Robert,
Nonesense. I can think of many possible ways to decline that Fred would not have characterized as being motivated by anything that might remotely be described as an opinion that “the science is settled”. Gavin could have replied,
*”Thank you for inviting me but after consulting my schedule, I find I need to devote myself to other matters.” or
* “Thank you for inviting me but I will not be attending.” or
* “Thank you for inviting me, but my cat has been having diabetic seizures and I can’t leave it alone unattended”. or
* Thank you for inviting me, but I am standing up as best man in a friends wedding that weekend. or
* Thank you for inviting me, but my boss forbids me to attend. or
* Thank you for inviting me, but I’m having root canal surgery and can’t make it.
* Thank you for inviting me, but I have numerous tight deadlines and find I have fallen behind on my modeling runs, so I think it wiser I decline.
Gavin didn’t need to provide any reason for not attending. But even if he felt compelled to give a reason, there are many reasons he could have provided that would not have triggered Fred’s messaging. Unfortunately, Gavin did not give any reason remotely similar to those above. Gavin’s reply actually sounds as if he advanced the argument some people would describe as translating into “the science is settled”.
A clear reading of Gavin’s response does not literally support a “science is settled” paraphrase. However, it does support the kissing cousin statement “the questioned science is irrelevant”.
Now to explain the amount of time spent defending the irrelevant.
Carrick (Comment#68158) – you are apparently unaware that Gavin was responding to an original invitation that listed specifically the things his response discussed. It’s all been posted elsewhere – Curry’s has the full correspondence, read the history.
bugs, if you really think climate skeptics are monochromatic, then you simply don’t know how to read or think. One or both of the two.
Kan–
Gavin wrote this in his actual reply:
I don’t read this as “the questioned science is irrelevant”. I read that sentence as “there is no real conflict in the questioned science”. That is — “this science is settled”.
I recognize that after Fred Pearce wrote his article, Gavin may have written something that sounds like what he really meant was the conflict was unimportant. Maybe Gavin really only thinks the conflict is unimportant– but said something that sounded like these conflicts don’t exist
Arthur, I’ve seen the full invitation and Gavin’s full response.
Specifically can you show where the proposed agenda excludes policy discussion, the main reason given by Gavin (“renders it pointless”) for not attending?
Bugs,
So you admit the science is settled. You’ve grown a pair. I can respect that. But Gavin and the rest won’t. At least not explicitly but through innuendo. That’s what this is about. Clarity: It makes one wonder if that is a goal of some people? Just kidding, I know the answer to that.
Lucia,
Gavin posted his email response to the conference invitation on Climate Etc.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/lisbon-workshop-on-reconciliation-part-iv/#comment-37920
The last sentence of his response is:
“You would be much better off trying to find common ground on policy ideas via co-benefits (on air pollution, energy security, public health water resources etc), than trying to get involved in irrelevant scientific ‘controversies’. “
chuckr (Comment#68170) February 5th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
“The science” is too broad a scope, and in the long run, science is never settled. At our level of understanding, the evidence supports several basic conclusions, the ones I have listed. That is what Gore claimed in his quote, and he was correct.
Kan–
Interesting. First, I wonder, is that really the full email? It doesn’t get around to saying whether he’s accepting or declining the invitation. Did he leave that information out of the full email?
As Neven seems frustrated by the game of progressive revelation, and you seem to think this whole thing resembles a game of telephone, it might have been nice if Gavin had shows this fuller response sooner. Presumably Gavin had it on his laptop and could have provided during his very first complaint on the issue– right?
Still, as far as I can see the current version of the “full” response could be paraphrased as
”
Paragraph 1: I think the science is settled. No conflict resolution is possible with people who don’t want to agree the science is settled.
Paragraph 2: I think you should discuss policy because the science is both settled and the scientific topics you mentioned are manufactured.
(In my view scare-quotes around “controversies” tends to convey the notion these points are not settled is fictional and so he is conveying the notion that the science is settled on these issues. )
I can see how it’s difficult to interpret this as Gavin saying there is absolutely nothing to discuss in any and all contexts. But then, I never read Pearce to be saying Gavin thought there is absolutely nothing to discuss about anything and everything. I read Pearce to be saying Gavin thinks there is nothing about science worth discussing. (Could someone reading in good faith have interpreted Pearce differently from me? Sure. I’m just stating what I interpreted Pearce as writing.)
The fact that Gavin is at a loss to see how someone might read his words this way Pearce characterized them… well… maybe he ought to talk to a good copy editor to help him figure out how to write emails that more clearly convey what he intends to communicate. Because reading the extra paragraph, I still think Pearce’s paraphrase is pretty fair!
Lucia,
I am only reading what Gavin claims to have written – and his claims to the intent – literally. Therefore, I will grant him his claim that he dis not state that “the science is settled”. It is only the irrelevant that is in dispute. Relevance is only meaningful, relative to what your current position is.
For the record, it is Gavin who used the telephone analogy, not I.
BRe: bugs (Feb 5 21:02),
Ok, I’m taking my respect back. The conclusion is what everyone is referring to with the settled science claim. You know that don’t you.
Kan-
No one said Gavin literally said the phrase “The Science is Settled”. As far as I can tell, everyone believes Gavin did not say that. Whatever Gavin’s intent was, it appears his first paragraph conveys precisely the argument that other people characterize with the anti-slogan “The Science is Settled”. Gavin may not like people paraphrasing that argument with that phrase, but it appears he did mean to convey that particular argument. The extra paragraph you supply, and Gavin’s lament after suggest nothing to the contrary.
Could you rephrase this. I’m not sure I understand what you are trying to say.
It is unfortunate that Gavin did not elect to provide the “full” version of the email sooner. He must regret that he contributed to the telephone like progressive revelation where people weren’t able to read precisely what he wrote at the earliest possible convenience.
Carrick (Comment#68167) February 5th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
The visible spectrum goes from blue to red, I would say Lisbon is mostly blue to green, and even then there were ‘green’ people there with long running vendettas against Gavin.
Warning….. Paraphrase to follow.
When it became obvious that the “science is settled” argument was preposterous we claimed we never said that. The “conclusion” is now settled.
Huh?
That’s right we never said the science that supports our conclusion is settled and you are disingenuous to imply that.
OK?
It serves no purpose to discuss the science that is not settled as you refuse to see that the conclusion has been settled.
We all know what he said — the letter which the journalist cited as his source has been published in full. How can you not know what he said?
This is why people like you struggle to get along with the empirically minded. We have Schmidt’s statement, but you would rather ignore the bald facts of the matter and treat the question of what was said as a figurative or metaphysical one. It’s the religious/Platonic attitude of seeing the observed world as a veil of falsehood that conceals revealed truth of whatever stripe.
You don’t know what Schmidt said just like you don’t know that the world is warming and CO2 is the primary cause . . . reminds me of the great line in “A Chrismas Carol”:
I believe you really don’t know when you ask me what Gavin said, as amazing as your ignorance seems to me. But you might know it.
Which is precisely what is most pernicious about attributing the distortion to him. Putting an enemy’s words in someone’s mouth as explanation for their actions is dishonest propaganda of the vilest sort. It would be as if someone asked Steve McIntyre why he blog frequently and publishes in the peer-reviewed literature rarely, and then reported the answer to be “Because, according to McIntyre, he lacks the scientific chops to get his arguments past peer review, but enjoys the the attention he gets as a famous skeptic.”
President Obama, why did you decline that interview with Fox News: “The president admitted that as a secret Muslim from Kenya, he feared the hard questions about his birth certificate no other network would ask.”
Ms. Palin, why would someone with evident national political aspirations chose to star in her own reality series: “Face it, guys, I’m a semi-literate waver of bloody shirts. Who is going to put me on television and make me appear something resembling a normal human being? Not “60 Minutes” that’s for sure.”
Political opponents specialize in “spinning” each other words into something which confirms their narrative about that person. A journalist publishing that spin from where it originates may be doing their job. To attribute it to its target is simply lying.
“He must regret that he contributed to the telephone like progressive revelation where people weren’t able to read precisely what he wrote at the earliest possible convenience.”
.
I doubt it. If I were him, I would regret that there is a Tribe which feels that they are justified in treating private emails as public, reading their own meanings into them, paraphrasing them to say what they do not, and then pilloring the strawmen caricature that they have created.
.
But then again, he might just see the humor in this self-same Tribe, after indulging in this toxic personalization of what is supposed to be a technical disagreement, insisting that it be treated with respect and its arguments be handled with priority outside of the normal scientific process.
.
This is the response of the Tribe which supposedly sought ‘reconciliation’ and ‘peace?’ Putting anti-slogans into the mouths of those whom they supposedly sought a common understanding? This is what Lisbon birthed? Good riddance to it and its midwives.
Lucia,
To clarify my statement “It is only the irrelevant that is in dispute. Relevance is only meaningful, relative to what your current position is.”
According to Gavin email response, all [current climate] science controversies are irrelevant (I am giving him some leeway for some unknown future discovery not related to the current ones). Therefore, we are all (including Gavin), with many words and conviction, just disputing what is, scientifically irrelevant.
So yes, Gavin’s last sentence only re-enforces the implication of “the science is settled” (without saying it of course), but it is far more revealing about his position.
Kan (Comment#68185) “According to Gavin email response, all [current climate] science controversies are irrelevant”
Not quite – according to Gavin the SCIENCE is not the reason for the fundamental differences between the groups.
Consider – imagine tomorrow we discovered that amazingly not only had the Chinese invented super accurate thermometers sometime around 300 AD they had also sent ships around the world, planted those thermometers in Australia, South America, Easter Island, Antarctica etc etc AND to top it all record those temperatures for over a thousand years – so we had a world wide instrumental record covering the onset of the MWP and the start of the little ice age.
If that record showed that the MWP was localised to Northern Europe and at the lower end of estimates for its peak would that REALLY resolve anything? Imagine the opposite – the MWP was very toasty AND global – OK a more interesting result but as the AGW hypothesis doesn’t say greenhouse gas forcing is the only factor in climate change historically. The MWP is scientifically irrelevant but it isn’t whay there are big disagreements over global warming.
Even if we take a more core issue – climate sensitivity – what role would the conference play? The question of climate sensitivity is of more direct relevance but it is one playing out in scientific channels – it isn’t something up for negotiation nor is it terribly mysterious in terms of what people’s positions are. Lindzen and Spencer think it is low and Hansen thinks it is high etc. It isn’t like they could all get together and work out a compromise (or if they did in what way would that be different than the IPCC?)
The premise of the conference was flawed and confused – it was casting at as warring parties that might find peace if only the “sides” understood each other a bit better. That MIGHT make sense in terms of POLICY but the conference overtly ducked that issue.
Ron Broberg:
They are public, when they’re made public. That’s what “public” means. We’re supposed to pretend they don’t exist? What a goofy argument.
Funny that you don’t see yourself belonging to a tribe, whilst you seem willing to fall on the sword for Gavin on this one.
Nyq:
Who says it ducked that? Besides Gavin who appeared confused himself over what the plain English of the invitation stated and declined to attend, I mean.
Ooops my last email wasn’t supposed to read “The MWP is scientifically irrelevant but it isn’t whay there are big disagreements over global warming.” – it was supposed to read “The MWP isn’t scientifically irrelevant but it isn’t why there are big disagreements over global warming.”
To Carrick (Comment#68188) “Who says it ducked that? ” (policy)
It was in the invitation: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/gavin-schmidt-response-to-lisbon-invitation/
“We would try to stay off the policy issues, and will also exclude personal arguments.” – that was what I meant by “ducked”. I’m sure policy probably came up but the conference aimed to avoid it (i.e. “ducked”)
As Eli pointed out, JC is prepared to treat the Greenhouse, or Tyndall, effect as ‘settled’, ‘mainstream’, ‘consensus’. The concept is not foreign. It is well supported science that is pretty well beyond dispute, but even then there will be ongoing research into it. Gravity is well understood is many respects, but there is still research going on into it.
lucia : I say “anti-slogan†because this slogan attributed to Gore appears to have never been used as a slogan by Gore.
Al Gore on his blog, July 2010 : http://blog.algore.com/2010/07/climategate_scientists_vindica.html
“It’s time to stop debating settled science”
Lucia, are you being a anti-anti-slogan revisionnist, a denier ?
Lets see what JC says when someone questions ‘accepted’ science
rather than a reconciliation between ‘alarmists’ and ‘skeptics’, are we seeing the opposite in progress, a split between ‘skeptics’ and ‘d****’?
if they had let the comment pass as a flip commet by a journalist, then no one would have heard of it..
I’ve commented at Deltoid, that the ‘storm’ over this, looks like the pro side, turning on each other. Massive own goal criticising Pearce. remember he is the media that they need.
Carrick (Comment#68169) – you claim:
The invitation letter Gavin received is posted as the first item here:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/02/gavingate.html
The letter says:
Did you read something different?
Jean
One feature of slogans is that they must have words in the exact same order. For example, a Regan slogan was “Where’s the beef!”. It wasn’t, “I don’t see any beef” or “That burger has no beef!” or “Those guys used tofu instead of beef!”
So, “stop debating settled science” is not the slogan. “The settled is settled” is the slogan.
I’m not saying Gore didn’t convey the message that people now refer to with the slogan “The Science is Settled”. I’m saying Gore may never have used those words in that order. (I’m back to being uncertain whether the canada free press article in 2007 really has a direct quote. As someone noted, the did not mention any source.)
Lucia-
The are salient reasons why “the science is settled” ought to be considered an “anti-slogan.” Warmists cannot seem to win any debates with skeptics. Therefore, the words invite an earned derision, and remind the losers that they’ve earned it, to their regret.
In fact, I recall Schmidt getting bested by skeptics at the Intelligence Squared sponsored debate in New York City in the spring of 2007:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9082151
If even scientists up in alarm over CAGW cannot win debates on the merits, why should the people who do listen to scientists be impressed by their case?
Sorry for the html boo-boo.
Again:
.
Like I said: it’s all Gavin’s fault. Gavin made them do it!
.
Lucia, if you’re not careful I will be pulling out my Accused-analogy soon. 😉
.
.
Well said, Ron Broberg. It is a farce, but that’s what you get when you invite people like Steven Goddard and Tallbloke (who received even more privileges).
.
Any reaction from Fred Pearce yet?
Memo to Gavin Schmidt and his loyal defenders on this thread with regards to the retrospective meaning of Schmidt’s reply and the appropriateness of using the term “the science is settled” to describe what he said in context of the Al Gore political implication:
In this case I am going with my lying eyes.
Memo to the group who invited Gavin with regard to “fixing” the current impasse and perhaps widening the consensus spectrum:
Disagreement is not bad and competition in ideas is good
Memo to those who strive to determine and talk about the specific issues of AGW and not get caught up in the partisan battles where the battle lines are not even defined:
Keep talking.
Lucia, with regards to “Where’s the beef”.
Walter Mondale used this slogan when running against Ronald Reagan in 1984. Reagan won the election.
Bugs,
The invitation specifically identifies the topics to discuss:
“The issues we have in mind are Medieval Warm Period, ‘ice’, climate sensitivity, and temperature data.”
Which of these do you think Gavin’s scientifically irrelevant statement was intended?
NPR is certainly not antagonistic to Al Gore’s views and took the meaning from his testimony that he thinks the science is settled (in context of policy considerations) even though it does not appear in quotes. If that were in error I am sure Al Gore would have wanted to correct it. Maybe he received a reprimand from Gavin Schmidt.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047642
“Al Gore took his climate-change crusade to Congress on Wednesday, telling lawmakers that they need to adopt an immediate freeze on greenhouse gases in order to fight global warming.
The former vice president — and star of the film An Inconvenient Truth — spoke about global warming with the House Energy committee and the Senate Environment committee.
“The planet has a fever,” Gore said. “If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don’t say, ‘Well, I read a science-fiction novel that tells me it’s not a problem.'”
Even once-skeptical Republicans are coming over to Gore’s side — and it seems the debate has shifted from arguing whether there is a climate crisis to disagreement over how to fix it.
The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers. Carbon-dioxide emissions — from cars, power plants, buildings and other sources — are heating the Earth’s atmosphere.
Gore said that if left unchecked, global warming could lead to a drastic change in the weather, sea levels and other aspects of the environment. And he pointed out that these conclusions are not his, but those of a vast majority of scientists who study the issue.
Members of the committee, Democrats and Republicans alike, listened very carefully to Gore, as they seemed to take to heart his final message: that in a few years this whole debate will look very different.
“This is not a partisan issue, this is a moral issue,” Gore said. “And our children are going to be demanding this.””
Oh I love arguing slogans!
“Where’s the Beef?” was used by Mondale against Gary Hart in the primaries…which Mondale won.
Fat lot of good it did him though.
I’m completely convinced by the fundamentals of the Global Warming narrative. Rising CO2 starting with the Industrial Revolution, the validity of Radiative Transfer Equations, the greenhouse-gas effect, doubling [CO2] directly driving a ~1.2C increase in average SAT, CO2 partitioning among various reserviors, contributions by non-CO2 actors (land use, CH4), knowledge of the Earth’s climate history on millenial and epochal scales, the crucial importance of positive and negative feedbacks to the pace of warming that is in store for the next two centuries.
In my opinion, most of the scientifically-literate “skeptics” who dispute this broad foundation are not as well-versed in the necessary math, physics, statistics, chemistry, or geology as they suppose. Many of the remaining “deep skeptics” emphasize “iconoclasm” over “consilience” — a long tradition in the sciences that typically peters out at the end of a blind alley, but very occasionally leads to a breakthrough.
Gavin’s “Edifice” analogy (see Bugs’ #68018, supra) is a useful overall framework for thinking about the sciences that underpin climatology, and even for thinking about climatology itself. Though, in my opinion, Gavin trivializes the “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns” with this description of progress in the field: “The community spends most of its time trying to add a brick here or a brick there and slowly adding to the construction.”
.
There are times when we must seek the advice of practitioners of esoteric specialties, in our own lives, at work, and as citizens. Would you rather be counseled by a humble and friendly oncologist (neurosurgeon/aeronautical engineer/vulcanologist/programmer), or one who is arrogant and hostile? I think we all would answer, “The important criteria are different — excellent professional judgement supported by broad and deep insights, and unencumbered by conflicts of interest.”
It’s common to be faced with an expert who only extends respect to those who share his or her particular expertise and particular point of view. The key for us non-experts is to judge whether the specialist’s arrogance is justified — to assure ourselves that his or her insights are likely to guide us to the best possible resolution of the situation. When this obtains, we’ll choose Arrogance, no problem!
At times like this, we are also charged with considering the other alternative: that the expert’s posture is a symptom of hubris. Wikipedia notes, “Hubris often indicates being out of touch with reality and overestimating one’s own competence or capabilities, especially for people in positions of power.”
.
On the surface, this thread is about a trivial issue. “What Gavin Said.” What makes the discussion interesting is the undercurrent: how this sample of (for the most part) scientifically-literate blog-commenters have come to judge the quality of the Establishment climate-science community, and thus the correctness of their scientific perspective (e.g. the “IPCC Consensus”), and thus the utility of their public-policy advice.
I don’t count anybody who has changed their mind about the merits of What Fred Wrote about What Gavin
SaidEmailed.What Gavin Said is a proxy for something else.
Memo to Kenneth Fritsch; try addressing people closer to your own level of intelligence and accomplishment. They are more likely to be interested in what you have to say.
Have you read the email yet, or do you still regard what Schmidt said as a question of faith, best answered by psuedoskeptic metaphysics?
After reading over this thread, I must admit to being a bit amused by the amount of energy spent on what Gavin thinks about the state of climate science and why Gavin will not engage people who in any why doubt the consensus climate science POV. It strikes me as a bit like arguing about the details of the Pope’s belief in God, or arguing if liberals/progressives think universal access to the best available health care should be considered a ‘right’. IMHO, none of these arguments is terribly interesting.
Must be nice to have embraced the psuedoskeptic ethos: Is your willing ignorance of science making you a laughingstock of serious people everywhere, including scientists, military and intelligence services, governments and corporations? No problem . . . just will yourself ignorant of that reality, too. Now your discredited nonsense seems to you to have won every debate, overcoming every opposing argument.
There’s something majestic about such a massive case of cognitive dissonance. Like a poodle that thinks itself a terrifying alpha dog.
Would you care to support that particular bit of pseudoskeptic claptrap with evidence of any kind?
No, then, I take it. The lying is interesting enough, but engaging people who challenge the propaganda is hard work, and dull besides; involving, as it does, the unpleasant necessity of wrestling with facts which stubbornly refuse to conform to the party line . . .
Wow Robert,
You seem pretty angry at (scared of?) that little poodle.
Thanks JohnM and Kenneth for correcting my attribution of “Where is the beef” as a slogan.
Re: Ron Broberg),
My diagnosis: Shewonk tries to use irony to express a stupid view that would sound obviously stupid if she didn’t use irony. She ends up sounding silly but someone thinks it’s brilliant to the argument being stated in what appears to be irony.
In my view, people can’t just write A and later claim what they wrote meant ~A. No. Not even if they are the author.
Robert
Ahh… Robert’s comments.
Like the Chihuahua’s yapping
entertains poodles.
Robert is so much more tolerable and deserves so much more attention then Dr. Shoosh.
HA HA HA HA HA HA. (And please don’t go on and start telling me the difference. I see the difference! Robert believes.)
Arthur Smith and Nyq, just pointing out the obvious. When the invitation said: “We would try to stay off the policy issues”
That isn’t a mandate.
Gavin (and others) if they thought these were critical, could have insisted that these were part of the discussion. I’ve certainly railed against conference organizers (along with others) and gotten them to add in things I thought were important. I’m sure Gavin has too.
Maybe you guys don’t go to workshop like environments and don’t under that these are much more flexible in their agenda than large society meetings.
.
Yet, we all believe that Schmidt never said ‘A’
.
.
So we all believe that Schmidt never said ‘A.’ ‘A’ is what Tallbloke originally claimed was a fair summary of what he told Pearce. ‘A’ is what Pearce wrote in his op-ed. ‘A’ is what you have been arguing that Schmidt really meant while casting aside Schmidt’s own objection to this sloganeering and his own explanation of his meaning. You have elevated your beliefs about Schmidt’s intent and meaning over the author’s own explanation.
.
As Susanne as wryly observed: “Even if Gavin … had an intention for what he meant, there is no author and every reader’s interpretation is of equal merit.”
John, you are mistaking amusement for anger, and awe for fear.
Carrick, no doubt Schmidt could have pushed for that, but what I think you are missing about what he is saying with regards to the invitation is that the objectionable thing is not discussing X issues and not policy, but in diagnosing the problem that exists — the problem that the organizers say has prevented dealing with the problem and damaged the reputation of scientists — as one of scientific controversy over these points.
Note that Schmidt considers one of the positions to be engaged with the idea that we should do nothing at all. But what he is saying, in essence, is that the dispute is between people who want to do something and people who want to do nothing, not between people who have one account of the MWP and those that have another. The MWP is a proxy issue, and a conference that sets up the proxy issue as though it were the real issue has already set its messaging in such as way as to promote the psuedoskeptical narrative.
Schmidt is not refusing to discuss the kind of issues the conference is ostensibly about, nor is he refusing to talk to “skeptics” about the essential points of disagreement. He is refusing the particular framing of this conference, which uses the former as a screen to promote the narrative of the latter.
Lucia, I don’t know who convinced you you could write poetry, but they lied. To summarize your syllable-counting whining: Yap, yap, yap.
Robert,
Now how could I have missed you were “amused”?
I guess I tend to hang out with too many normal people to have noticed your behavior as being one who is “amused”.
Robert–
I’ve never claimed to be a good poet. 🙂
Ron–
Saying so directly and then explaining why you think what he said did paraphrase to “A” might be a wiser course than the one attempted by SheWonk.
And the email has now been posted, and it appears Tallblokes original paraphrase matches the content. It appears Fred read the content and, somehow or another, must have thought the paraphrase was fair– and so used it.
Look–Gavin wrote what he wrote. He may need a good copy editor to better say what he means. But he it seems to advance this argument in that email in other places, including this blog post:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/06/what-do-climate-scientists-think/#more-4284
So, even if he objects to it being characterized as “The science is settled”, and wants to tell us that he doesn’t literally think all scientific points are settled, I think he does agree with the main argument that is referred to using the snide anti-slogan “The Science is Settled”.
The difficulty with what Susan wrote is that Gavin seems to have actually meant the argument conveyed by the phrase “The Science is Settled”. The only way to say otherwise is to decree that those who use the phrase– and some do so frequently– mean to describe some other argument. I don’t really think you can do so because what Gavin wrote is what they mean by that phrase.
Awkward phrasing aside, you sound rather angry here yourself. Or perhaps afraid?
I applaud your judgment in that respect.
.
My last word on this thread:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)
Robert,
I believe you are now doing what is called “projecting”.
Anyway, here’s some more guys that appear to be “amused”.
Good stuff starts at about 1:30.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34iCcGw8N6Q
Which one are you?
“Have you read the email yet, or do you still regard what Schmidt said as a question of faith, best answered by psuedoskeptic metaphysics?”
I read it before I entered the discussion and I am merely relating the meaning I put to his reply. I guess you are attempting to put meaning to what I am saying. You even attempt to estimate my intelligence level. It does not mean that you or I are correct, but why the feistiness about the issues? Like SteveF says, I do not think in context it is important what Schmidt said or the exact interpretation of it, but I do think it is an opportunity to complain about the lack of specificity in discussing issues of AGW and AGW policy and particularly with regards to the broad spectrum of views that exist on these matters and yet the seemingly quick offer to take and make partisan sides.
Robert, I see you have posted on your interpretation of the essence of what Schmidt meant by his reply and while it is not at all clear to me what you are attempting to say (and, no, I did not think it is an intellectual disconnect) I will have had a go at interpreting it.
“Carrick, no doubt Schmidt could have pushed for that, but what I think you are missing about what he is saying with regards to the invitation is that the objectionable thing is not discussing X issues and not policy, but in diagnosing the problem that exists — the problem that the organizers say has prevented dealing with the problem and damaged the reputation of scientists — as one of scientific controversy over these points.”
It is all about diagnosing the problem that exists, and the problem that the organizers deem important, being considered a scientific controversy. Could you reiterate on what is the “problem”?
Kenneth, I am sure that Robert actually hit on the real reason that Gavin didn’t want to attend:
He wanted to do nothing that would legitimize the critics. I’ll note that Robert is attempting to read Gavin’s mind (he’s addressing points that Gavin never raised), but he’s probably accurate on this.
Kenneth
“Memo to the group who invited Gavin with regard to “fixing†the current impasse and perhaps widening the consensus spectrum:”
No-one expected ‘consensus’ or ‘compromise’, nor was that the intention. As one of the organisers of the event (Sofia Guedes Vaz) put it:
“We want to create an environment where the fight can take place in civility.”
They invited an expert in non-violent communication who managed to generate a consensus (that her presentation missed the mark). After Ross M took her outside and showed her the 10/10 video of teacher blowing up skeptical kids she came back with a slightly modified attitude the following morning.
The exercises in negotiation of semi-contentious issues like data maintenance were useful and showed that people on opposite sides could ‘do business’ together. Generally the workshop was a ‘getting to know you’ and ‘talks about talks’.
I think overall it was a worthwhile initiative, and has created some points of common ground both in the science and policy spheres.
Carrick, what you opine was my opinion of Schmidt’s intent from the beginning. I think the fact that he had more to say about situation than a simple declining of the offer or even a “why should I draw attention to skeptics”, and in a rather nuanced manner, is where the “science is settled” for policy purposes interpretation comes from.
If I were an advocate/scientist in Gavin’s shows I would have declined the offer. If I were a scientist, I think the instinct to discuss and even argue those points near and dear to my field would probably overcome a lot of other trepidations I might have about the process.
I do continue, however, to want to know what the “problem” is in Robert’s post- as it must have been made clear earlier and I simply missed it.
Also I continue to be curious about the replies of others who were invited to the conference or if others with Gavin’s POV were invited.
Re: Ron Broberg (Feb 6 11:51),
Thanks for the link to “Framing.” IMO, one of the dominant frames of climate scientists and their advocates is that people who dispute Consensus assertions-of-fact are acting in bad faith (or are serving as the useful idiots of those who are).
This is strongly implied in a number of places in Gavin’s short email, and is a staple of prominent pro-AGW-Consensus science and advocacy blogs.
The mirror-image belief is often displayed at “contrarian” blogs such as WUWT.
Whatever the degree of accuracy of this dogma in historical or current-day terms, it has had an unfortunate effect on many members of the climate-science establishment.
It has diminished their abilities to evaluate arguments about aspects of climate science on their own merits.
This reduces my confidence in the reliability of the forecasts and projections that the establishment makes, e.g. IPCC AR4 WG I.
Pielke Jr. — who may or may not be right in his own views of climate change — is insightful when he discusses the implications of replacing the “Honest Broker” model with the type of advocacy that is common today.
Carrick (Comment#68220) “Gavin (and others) if they thought these were critical, could have insisted that these were part of the discussion.”
Sure or could have decided that the conference wasn’t one he wanted to attend – or gone anyway but tried to hijack the discussion – or gone away and felt grumpy – or organised a rival conference – or simply not replied – or gone as an observer rather than a participant – or gone incognito wearing a Steve McIntrye mask drawn by Cartoons-by-Josh – or protested outside the conference – or protested inside the conference.
Of the many things he could have done one of the ones he didn’t do was say that the science was settled.
Kenneth, if I had been in Gavin’s position, I would have gone. I think the opportunity to get people to reframe how they view the conflict would have outweighed the risk of potentially legitimizing critics that you didn’t want to see legitimized.
BTW,
Have any of you AGW Believers read The Lord of The Flies by William Golding?
Andrew
Carrick (Comment#68236),
“I think the opportunity to get people to reframe how they view the conflict would have outweighed the risk of potentially legitimizing critics that you didn’t want to see legitimized.”
.
Perhaps that is right, but then Gavin would have to have dealt with both Judith Curry and Steve McIntyre in the same meeting room or (even worse!) over lunch or dinner. Might be just too unpleasant to deal with. Besides, I don’t think Gavin has given any indication of wanting to reach an understanding with either of them. Even climate scientists are human.
I would not have minded going myself, since everybody outside the conference itself would have been speaking my second language. 😉
Nyq:
I agree… I don’t think that was a fair characterization of the intent of Gavin’s comments.
(Of course some issues, like radiative effects of CO2 are settled issues at the “is F=ma true?” level.)
Hi All,
I’ve been very impressed with the breadth of the discussion on this post and Lucia’s posting of the poodle video bought to mind an important questions relating to climate science, that has never been answered to my satisfaction. What exactly is a ‘crazed sex poodle”?.
Holy kerfuffle Batman! A multi-page post and 180 comments here, 110 at Tamino’s, 139 at deltoid. All that for a (known) sloppy journalist writing a sloppy sentence in his report of a fringe conference?
.
I believe the sanest comment in this whole matter might well be MikeA’s just above mine.
And so it goes…
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=3440#comments
AMac: “…one of the dominant frames of climate scientists and their advocates is that people who dispute Consensus assertions-of-fact are acting in bad faith (or are serving as the useful idiots of those who are).”
That certainly has been my experience with most (excepting JC and a few others). It does not seem possible to them for anyone knowledgeable to sincerely doubt the consensus.
MikeA, toto —
I think all of the serious-minded people who take exception to certain aspects of the AGW Consensus (SMPWTETCAACs? lukewarmers?) who’ve commented in this thread would agree with you that the narrow topic of this post is teeny-tiny in importance.
To frame the thread a bit better: on non-technical posts, Our Hostess often allows the discussion to move laterally. Pearce’s reporting of Dr Schmidt’s remark can serve as a jumping-off point for discussing broader issues.
Deltoid and Tamino’s probably much the same, from their perspective. Not my cuppa, though.
I am sure I remember Bill Clinton saying “the science is settled” in 1997. However, all I can find is that he said the science was “solid”, “and “clear and compelling”; close enough maybe.
Certainly it is a phrase that only crops up in Google news archive from 1997 onwards.
This issue exploded for one reason. People have tried to defend the indefensible. There is one positive aspect to the whole affair. No one has yet blamed Sarah Palin. But don’t kid yourself this issue is entirely about politics. The CAGW can’t defend their true beliefs ( CAGW is settled) so they re brand them. And they will keep re branding until something sticks.
“No one has yet blamed Sarah Palin.”
chuckr,
Lucia has. According to her above post, any detractor of Al Gore’s views can be blamed for using slogans that may or may not accurately summarize the position of activist warmers.
Try and digest that Whopper before you go back for seconds at halftime. 😉
Andrew
AMac seems to hit the hit the nail on the head (Comment#68245), as usual. It’s amazing how this, scientifically totally unimportant piece of email can result in (until now) 186 comments of silly “he said, we said”. It illustrates where 0,7 degree increase of temperature can lead to. Climate science is in a sorry state.
.
Claes Johnson has been dealt with by alarmists and sceptics thoroughly. Haven’t seen this happening when Nobel Laureate Al Gore launched his own Oscar winning Pulp Fiction. All we heard was the Big Silence from the AGW congregation. In fact Hansen wrote about AIT (2006 “Threat to the Planet”) this: “The story is scientifically accurate and yet should be understandable to the public, a public that is less and less drawn to science.”
Like Carrick I think it was a hastily written email, accompanied by an extremely sloppy piece of journalism.
Gavin should assume by now that everything he writes will be subject to public scrutiny, and that if it can be interpeted badly it will be.
It’s all rather sad and pathetic really, and an excellent excuse to not engage.
“Perhaps that is right, but then Gavin would have to have dealt with both Judith Curry and Steve McIntyre in the same meeting room or (even worse!) over lunch or dinner. Might be just too unpleasant to deal with. Besides, I don’t think Gavin has given any indication of wanting to reach an understanding with either of them. Even climate scientists are human.”
Since we are into speculations here, I think that my recollection of Gavin Schmidt serious nature in situations that might call for letting the hair down – no pun intended – would probably have been a bit strained in this situation. Then again while Schmidt gets a lot of play in his position with RC, I do not see Schmidt as a major player science-wise. I would be interested in the other invitees to the conference. From the list, I recall seeing as attendees Judith Curry, Peter Webster and Hans von Storch who might be considered part of the broad consensus and I would assume others from this group were invited. Perhaps we are all missing a larger point here on what did transpire at the conference that might facilitate future discussion between the consensus and skeptic groups. I also think that Schmidt’s reaction was not unexpected given his personality and mission at RC.
Personally I favor the dissection and analysis of published papers as can be provided by blogs. I must admit that I have learned from reading at RC and other blogs on all sides of AGW issue and that it is rather a simple task to separate the advocacy parts from the science. The key sometimes is what is not said as much as what is.
Hoi Polloi:
RC in fact hasn’t been silent. Steig wrote a very positive piece on his movie.
They also respond very negatively to any criticism of Gore’s version of horse manure.
Hi All, This parsing, umbrage and outrage at an insignificant (basically) news article, by the CAGW beleivers can be explained by the old saw:
A drowning man grasps at straws and a falling man clutches at air.
Sorry, CAGW has now reached this stage and there is worst to come , despite the believers’ adherence to dogma.
As one who himself often gets himself in trouble by being too abrupt in his language, I suggest that if Fred had simply added a little phrase, like this:
none of us would be spending time discussing this.
“Claes Johnson has been dealt with by alarmists and sceptics thoroughly. Haven’t seen this happening when Nobel Laureate Al Gore launched his own Oscar winning Pulp Fiction.”
..and in other news people still aren’t saying the same thing about apples as they are about oranges.
What is wrong with it? An independent judge found most of it supported by the scientific evidence. It is far more correct than STSD.
Fred’s summation was accurate.
Gavin and the cheer squad don’t want anyone discussing how smug, arrogant and dismissive his reply was let alone why he or any of his team mates won’t even attempt to have a civil debate. They have created an issue out of nothing and distracted many from the real issues.
Judith Curry must be disappointed but must now be getting the message at how disingenuous and slippery Gavin and his ilk are.
As for Gavin, I think that under that bullying childish persona is an under confident bureaucrat with just enough smarts and ego to build his empire but is now out of his depth and terrified of exposure. He knows his “science” is weak.
As an empire building bureaucrat he will never be open, accountable or honestly debate issues….. in other words he doesn’t do science and is scared his snout in trough days are threatened.
oink oink
If it helps, the former Brit Prime Minister, Gordon Brown and one of his senior ministers, Mr Ed Milliband, are both on record, post the Copenhagen conference, of using the phrase “The science is settled” re the postulated Anthrpogenic Global Warming and Mr Brown added to this that “anyone who denies this is a flat-earther.”
Neither can be considered to be scientists.
As a footnote, wise men discussing how many angels would fit on the head of a pin would summarise much of the picking over of very small and irrelevant nits in this thread. Some commenters seem rather desperate to be offended on Mr Schmidt’s behalf. I suspect Mr Schmidt is perfectly capable of being offended all on his own.
It was Fred Pearce who thought it was such a big deal.
Is climate science sufficiently settled to offer trustworthy guidance for policy purposes, beyond “no regrets”?
I suspect that positions on that question would map to a meaningful divide on the AGW issue.
Bugs:
The judge asked Monckton to stop after 15 items or so, because the court didn’t need to consider the rest of the several tens of errors in Gore’s movie to reach the verdict that it was misleading.
The way you twist this around reminds me of Pravda reporting on the result of a head to head race with their top sprinter and Jesse Owens.
“Brave Russian athlete takes second place – American finishes second to last”
Bugs, I suspect Fred Pearce thought Gavin’s reply to the hosting group’s invitation was unexpected and could be non-controversially paraphrased by “the science is settled”. Most who follow AGW, CC or whatever derivative is the term du jour as a generally interesting topic generally understand what is meant by ‘the science is settled’ which is nuanced by which person says it. Which, in itself is not a big deal in my opinion. If you disagree, that’s fine, but it just comes down to personal opinion about the acceptability of a generally-understood phrase that seems to have become a stock phrase.
Sorry, typo alert!
for ‘unexpected’, please insert’ unexceptional’
Thanks
Having read what Gavin says he said in the e-mail, it is reasonable to paraphrase and summarize him as asserting the ‘science is settled’.
His, and his supporters, odd reaction to this is puzzling.
But in all things, the AGW promoters need to maintain total control of their messaging. Messaging, as we see from the many climate science discussions of it, is fundamental to their mission.
“AGW promoters need to maintain total control of their messaging”
hunter,
Except you can only move the goalposts and/or blame someone else for stuff for so long before it gets tiresome and silly, even to the people who do the moving and the blaming.
Andrew
I agree with Hunter. The invite talked of discussing key issues like sensitivity and temperature data. Gavin said something about there being no conflicts in the scientific community – which is pretty close to saying the science is settled. So I don’t know what Gavin is complaining about. He is certainly wrong to claim that Pearce’s statement was ‘patently untrue’ or ‘completely made up’.
At worst it’s a paraphrase.
Gavin himself has ‘completely made up’, or paraphrased, the idea of ‘conflict’ that he uses five times in his response, though the word was not used in the invitation.
Rog Tallbloke (Comment#68263) February 7th, 2011 at 6:41 am
Bugs:
The judge asked Monckton to stop after 15 items or so, because the court didn’t need to consider the rest of the several tens of errors in Gore’s movie to reach the verdict that it was misleading.
The way you twist this around reminds me of Pravda reporting on the result of a head to head race with their top sprinter and Jesse Owens.
“Brave Russian athlete takes second place – American finishes second to lastâ€
Having admitted you lied about your role in the ‘science is settled’ piece by Pearce you now pull the same trick about the court hearing on AIT! Judge Burton said that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate†in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong. As a result he found 9 points that required guidance notes for teachers (not 15 or more), in order that it would satisfy the requirements to be shown in schools. The judge didn’t ask Monckton to stop because Monckton didn’t take an active part in the hearing (he raised the money and prepared the litigation behind the scenes). I hope you’re more accurate in the material you prepare in your day job?
It is a little late in the thread for this and, yes Lucia had already linked to these documents, but I am placing side by side here the invite that all invitees received and followed by Gavin Schmidt’s reply.
The invitatation:
“We have been following your activities with regards to the science of climate change, the controversies and the challenges, etc.
We are writing to you now about a proposed workshop on the issue, which we are hoping to organise for next January, the 26th to 28th. It will be sponsored and financially supported by the Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen of the European Commission’s DG Joint Research Centre, and will take place at the C. Gulbenkian Foundation in Lisbon.
We have been trying to find a way to begin to overcome the polarisation on this issue, which as you know has already done great damage to the cause of coping with climate change, as well as to the reputation of science itself. At this stage we are planning to have a workshop where the main scientific issues can be discussed, so that some clarity on points of agreement and disagreement might be reached. We would try to stay off the policy issues, and will also exclude personal arguments.
The issues we have in mind are Medieval Warm Period, ‘ice’, climate sensitivity, and temperature data. We would hope to have smaller groups discussing these in some detail, hopefully with scientists who are very familiar with the technical issues to lead the discussion.
Since the topics are so sensitive we would have Chatham House rules unless the consensus desires otherwise; and there would be some public report of the proceedings.
We are just now finalising the invitation list. I do hope that you find this a useful activity to engage on.
With very best wishes –
Sincerely-”
Gavin Schmidt’s reply:
“I’m a little confused at what conflict you feel you are going to be addressing? The fundamental conflict is of what (if anything) we should do about greenhouse gas emissions (and other assorted pollutants), not what the weather was like 1000 years ago. Your proposed restriction against policy discussion removes the whole point. None of the seemingly important ‘conflicts’ that are *perceived* in the science are ‘conflicts’ in any real sense within the scientific community, rather they are proxy arguments for political positions. No ‘conflict resolution’ is possible between the science community who are focussed on increasing understanding, and people who are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position.
You would be much better off trying to find common ground on policy ideas via co-benefits (on air pollution, energy security, public health water resources etc), than trying to get involved in irrelevant scientific ‘controversies’.”
The wording in the invitation is probably less detailed than I would have written, but its main point is the polarization of the climate science discussion with regards to AGW and its potential mitigation. Robert in his posting at this thread referred, I think, to the polarization as “the problem”. Gavin refers to the essence of the invitation as “conflict”. I would think that polarization would be intended to mean the partisan divides on the science and policy here where in actuality there is a broad spectrum of views in all camps on the uncertainties involved in both past and future warming, the detrimental/beneficial effects of future warming and, from a policy prospective, what might be the benefits/problems with mitigation.
Polarization as I interpreted it above, is, therefore, totally different from how Schmidt framed the issue. Gavin then goes on to indicate the invite is disingenuous because in his view the conflicts are made up by the organizing group here in order to push a given policy position.
Then we get from Schmidt: ” None of the seemingly important ‘conflicts’ that are *perceived* in the science are ‘conflicts’ in any real sense within the scientific community, rather they are proxy arguments for political positions.”
Which is saying, in my view, that anyone who might see conflicts in the science (or challenge the science findings) must be doing it for political reasons and therefore not be interested in the science. Schmidt further seems to indicate that only question is how to implement the mitigations for AGW and suggests looking to other attempted mitigations that are already in place.
Therefore, I submit that Fred Pearce should have said that Schmidt sees no important conflicts in the climate science regarding AGW and that the remaining discussion should be about mitigation policy and how to implement it.
Now while Schmidt here only represents one person’s point of view, I think his views may be representative of a large group in the wider group that might be called the consensus group. That might be important going forward for those who are attempting to unwind the partisan polarization on the issue of AGW and the relevant science. (Polarization as I interpret it here is to me the major problem with the AGW discussions, in that where individual scientists and advocates stand on the issue is seldom differentiated and the specific topics get lost in the overiding partisan ones). Which leads me to my continuing curiosity about others, in the wide consensus group, reaction to the depolarization attempts of the conference.
Re: Kenneth Fritsch (Feb 7 09:59),
Assume that a climate scientist/Consensus advocate sees things as follows:
“The evidence in favor of high climate sensitivity (say, > 2.5C per [CO2] doubling) is very strong. As a scientist, I have a duty to keep policymakers and the public informed of the state of the science. Naomi Oreskes and others have documented how fossil-fuel interests have acted as Merchants of Doubt. They have lavishly funded a number of initiatives, which have successfully injected confusion into the public debate by inventing controversy, and by misrepresenting the controversies that always exist at the cutting edge of science. The people who have spearheaded the dissent from the consensus view of the climate-science paradigm have been driven by ideology, money, and policy preferences. They are aided in their quest by dupes and useful idiots. These deniers can’t grasp how the multiple pieces of the climate-science puzzle fit together — or if they can, they value their current individual well-being more than the fate of the Earth.”
From this perspective, the key one-sentence message is “Earth’s climate is changing with dangerous rapidity, we urgently need to craft policies to control carbon dioxide emissions.”
The bits and pieces of the science that might be open to revision or correction are not terribly important. GCM parameterization, aerosols, water vapor feedback, paleoclimate — even in the very unlikely event that the consensus view was wrong on all these issues, the overall conclusions would be unaffected.
Since we know the motive of the Deniers is to sow doubt and confusion, our best option is to stay united in focusing on the policy implications of our dire findings. We might, possibly, end up defending some slightly questionable work, but our grandchildren will thank us for staying on-message. They will be able to sort through the details of 1000-year-old weather at their leisure, if they care.
Meanwhile, “depolarization” is a Trojan Horse that is intended to maneuver the true scientists into a split-the-difference negotiation with those who are either too ignorant to grasp the issues, or too cynical to care about either scientific integrity or the risks that our planet faces. No thanks.
.
I can imagine looking at things this way.
Phil,
Now Tallbloke is a ‘liar’?
It is quite telling that the AGW faithful consistently confuse differences of opinion as ‘lying’.
Tallbloke’s take on what Gavin said was quite reaasonable- to reasonable people.
But then that would explain why the AGW faithful are so carefully avoiding this and other uncomfortable issues so often.
Footnote: in the RC comments, DeepClimate notes that New Scientist has updated Fred Pearce’s “the science is settled” paraphrase, and now correctly conveys Dr. Schmidt’s reasons for declining the invitation.
AMac, I believe your quote above is from a post by Gavin Schmidt at RC and that the link is somewhere in this thread. Could you please give the link and specify who is commenting? Also I am not sure where Scmidt’s quote ends and your comment starts.
I say all this because I think Gavin’s reply to the invite and his above post that you quote from are important for those who want to understand where some of the consensus stands on the issue of depolarization. The Gavin subgroup appears to be not only stating that the science is “well positioned” , “settled”, “beyond conflict”, you take your pick or provide your own summary, but that the skeptics are simply knowing or unknowing political stooges for nefarious interested parties to the “conflict”.
I would say discussion with the “Gavin” group by “luke warmers” or those conflicted about the uncertainties in future warming predictions and historical climate is nearly impossible, given the assessment of them by Gavin Schmidt. What the conference might reveal is the depolarization of some members of the consensus such as Judith Curry, Peter Webster and Hans von Storch and from the so-called skeptics group such as the well known members in SteveM, RossM, and others who attended the conference.
If I take Gavin’s comments correctly I think his reply might well have been meant for those of the consensus who attended the conferences. Certainly he would be wasting his time replying to fossil fuel stooges.
Also Gavin’s post at RC from above indicates clearly that he probably has few reservations about any unintended consequences from mitigation attempts for AGW. It is also implied in his reply to the conference organizers when he suggests considering AGW mitigation as a pollution regulation.
The more I think about Gavin’s reactions and replies and understand the conference’s intent to depolarize, the more important I think these statements are vis a vis getting a better view of the wide spectrum of views on AGW and potential attempts at mitigation.
Re: AMac,
It’s interesting to see how New Scientist dealt with this. The original paraphrase is striken out, but is perfectly readable. The update is merely an update and provides the exact wording of the letter declining the invitation including the references to cherrypicking, use of “scarequote” and *stars* to emphasis (or show irony).
New Scientists did not include links to Gavin’s later re-explanation of why he wasn’t coming.
And… also, I have to admit I am now curious as to whether there was MORE communication. After all, Gavin added an extra paragraph. Someone in comments referred to that as the “full” email. But that seems unlikely. After all– if that’s all Gavin wrote, he never said whether or not he was accepting or declining the invitation! Still… New Scientists calls it “the email”. Hmm….
Anyway, now at new scientist, all individual readers have information permitting them to make up their minds. I have to say, that email… well… I’ve already said what I think it communicates!
Re: Kenneth Fritsch (Feb 7 12:11),
Sorry, my Comment #68271 is open to misunderstanding. That text was not a quote or paraphrase of any actual person. Rather, it was an effort on my part to imagine how the thinking of a “typical” establishment climatologist/advocate might run.
My point is that this perspective is plausible. I think it is consistent with Dr. Schmidt’s emailed regret to the Lisbon invitation. It is also consistent with much of the broader pro-consensus reaction to the kerfluffle.
That doesn’t make it “correct.” It’s just my speculation.
I like your sense of humor Bugsy. In other words if most is supported by scientific evidence then it’s all nice and dandy. Can I please use that quote in case RC or DC are criticizing a sceptic paper?
Re: Kenneth Fritsch (Feb 7 12:11),
As far as your remark,
I don’t have links on this point to hand, and I won’t put words in anyone’s mouth. That said, in my opinion, it is very common to encounter that sentiment in posts by many pro-Consensus scientist/advocate bloggers, and even more so among their regular commenters. For example, my remarks on Tiljander have repeatedly led to me being characterized in such a fashion.
AMac,
“Rather, it was an effort on my part to imagine how the thinking of a “typical†establishment climatologist/advocate might run.”
.
Yikes! I thought it was a real quote as well, since it says all the same things you hear from advocates of immediate and large reductions in GHG emissions. You could post it at any of the well known echo chamber sites and receive only positive comments. A little scary… are you an agent for the ‘other side’? 😉
One thing that comes through loud and clear in both Gavin’s response to the invitation, and to his reaction to “settled science”, is that the CAGW team has been drinking heavily of late from the PR font.
Tallbloke proposes the MWP as a possible topic, and Gavin dismisses it as discussing, “”what the weather was like 1,000 years ago”. The key word their is weather, which is the latest catch-all dismissal word. “It’s weather, not climate!”
And the reaction of the entire CAGW community to the misquote/paraphrase of Gavin regarding “the science is settled,” I can just hear the PR consultants telling them, “You can’t say things like ‘the science is settled’. It makes you sound inflexible, dismissive, and arrogant. You instead need to say things like, ‘There is widespread agreement among mainstream scientists, and it is important that we move on to policy issues.'” There really isn’t any other reason to make such a big deal over this, other than to appear more flexible.
I know Steve M is fond of saying that the Team needs new voices, but at this point they seem content to run to PR consultants to change their message.
So why send him the invitation?
Rog Tallbloke (Comment#68263) February 7th, 2011 at 6:41 am
Gore makes many more claims than the nine “errors” found, the judge found most of them founded on scientific evidence, like I said. That’s a lot more than you can say about STSD, which is just wrong, wrong, wrong.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untruths/
Tuvalu is, for example, going under.
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/rising-seas.html
The debate is still going on about Kilimanjaro.
So even Gores’ “Errors” are debatable, unlike STSD, which is beyond debate. The two are not comparable.
bugs:
That’s the ticket. Let’s advance science by having politicians summarize the science and have it ink stamped for correctness by judges.
Which judge were you referring to by the way? This one?
Anyway, hopefully STSD isn’t going to be the standard against we judge all good science in the future.
A list of 35 inconvenient truths.
We could spend weeks picking this piece of crap apart, were there any value in it. At least CJ was presenting what he thought was fact. In places, Gore was presenting what I’m pretty sure he knew were falsehoods. (Of course he’s a politician, so not only is he a trained liar, part of his job is to lie convincingly.)
Point is, other than your inability to be honest about your own charlatans, there is little value in dwelling on them. Addressing what the IPCC documents say is a much more productive use of all of our time.
Bugs:
Steve didn’t organize the conference. He was an invitee.
bugs:
Mostly with the voices in your head. Man-made climate change and environmental impact isn’t limited to CO2 emissions.
It’s expected that people like the RC group won’t be honest, their salaries are riding on the hype that CO2 is the only major threat that we are facing.
If it’s one of 20 threats facing us, suddenly the message becomes a lot more diluted, and critical plus-up funding depended upon by them becomes more precarious.
The height of Tuvalu, like most coral atolls, changes with sea level (anybody who knows anything about coral atoll ecology knows that). The issue is only whether the sea level change is rapid enough to temporarily inundate the island.
That’s where Gore’s lie about 6-meters comes in versus a reality of 30-cm/century. 6-m and it’s in trouble, 30-cm is nothing compared to the changes in sea level over the last 1000 years.
The fact that none of the climate scientists can honestly admit to the multitude of errors in it is extremely telling.
It’s also interesting that Monckton, whom you regularly p*ss on, has his facts more on straight than Gore, who you seem incapable of honestly admitting the errors of.
If you want to know why you have zero credibility, think about this and look in a mirror.
The other thing is, STSD has few supporters.
On the “warmingist” side, almost everybody has endorsed Gore’s books and movie, including RC itself, as I pointed out above.
If anything this asymmetry in the response towards STSD versus Inconvenient Truth is an inditement of the AGW crowd and their unwillingness to engage in honest debate. It’s not something I would keep reminding people about, were I on your side (politically that is).
Sorry Lucia, I love your blog but I think Pearce summarized Gavin’s e-mail correctly. While Gavin may not directly say “the science is settled”, he certainly wants to give the rest of the world that impression. The entire tone of his directly quoted e-mail can be summarized thus:
1. Let’s not argue about whether there are questions about causality or magnitude of change.
2. Assume we’re right (about man causing global warming or climate change) and argue instead about the correct policy for dealing with this.
Therein lies the problem — he’s using a standard polemicist’s technique of having you assume his position axiomatically. The rest of the kerfuffle is Gavin and Company trying to distract everyone else with the “I didn’t say that” argument — not quite as bad as Clinton saying, “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” but close.
DerekH–
Hmmm….I agree that Gavin gave the “The Science Is Settled” argument. The regrettable thing is that Pearce used a catchphrase that conveys this impression:
Not precise words in lower part of image? I would avoid using that specific phrase because it’s gotten to be loaded. But it’s a loaded phrase that, in my opinion, does match the argument Gavin advanced. So, on that, I agree with you. (Note however, that some of my readers disagree with both of us.)
Re: Kenneth Fritsch (Feb 7 09:59),
“the invite that all invitees received”
No, it wasn’t. I got something quite different, and so did Steve McI. I think all the initial email invitations were individual.
Nick– All got differently worded invitations? That’s interesting!
Re: lucia (Feb 7 16:04),
Well, when I look more carefully, Steve McI’s and Gavin’s do look very similar. But certainly mine was different. By then the planning might have changed.
Nick–
Yes. If I’d had to guess, a whole bunch of identical invitations would be sent out. Changes might be made during later stages. Maybe they were still getting names of people to invite?
I’m still bummed they didn’t ask me. I would have loved to hob-nob in Lisbon. 🙂 (Actually though, it’s probably best I didn’t go. On a blog, someone asked if anyone danced on tables… and you never know. I might have. Then I’d be all over youtube by now! )
Nick Stokes, I used SteveM’s copy of his invite from above and it appeared to be the same as the one that I saw from Gavin Schmidt online. Could you copy your invite here so we could all see it?
At Comment #68083 Steve M said the following:
“Here is the invitation letter that I received. The wording in Gavin’s seems to have been similar. They mention issues that they have “in mind†– there was nothing to preclude Gavin Schmidt or anyone else in suggesting different issues.”
There was a link, in a Carrick post as I recall, in this thread that lead to the Gavin invitation which when I read it appeared to me be exactly like the one SteveM received.
AMac, what you wrote is very similar to what I saw from a Gavin Schmidt piece that was linked at a blog, probably here, as part of the ongoing Gavin reply saga. Now I’ll have to find it won’t I.
Linked from Lucia’s Comment #68226
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/06/what-do-climate-scientists-think/#more-4284
An excerpt from a Schmidt and Steig post at RC:
“So, do the climate scientists who have publicly declared that they are ‘convinced of the evidence’ that emission policies are required have more credentials and expertise than the signers of statements declaring the opposite? Yes. That doesn’t demonstrate who’s policy prescription is correct of course, and it remains a viable (if somewhat uncommon) position to acknowledge that despite most climate scientists agreeing that there is a problem, one still might not want to do anything about emissions.”
In this instance, not quite so harsh as you echoed, AMac, but I have heard what you have indicated in less formal comments.
Re: Kenneth Fritsch (Feb 7 18:21),
There’s an art to conveying a message while at the same time being able to claim, “I didn’t say that!” Its something that most of us learn as children, I think. Then, it’s something that many of us have to unlearn at least for certain circumstances. It can be pretty toxic to personal relationships. More generally, it can be an enemy to clear thinking.
It does seem plausible to me that these sorts of sentiments are common among Consensus advocates. And “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that they aren’t out to get you” — a few weeks back at C-a-s, commenter grypo steered me to some documents from Discovery in a court case that showed fossil-fuel-industry shills were funding a seamy “deny-CO2’s-role” initiative (alas, I’ve lost that link).
Here is the Gavin Schmidt’s invitation so you can compare it with the invitation SteveM received. They appear to be identical. Nick Stokes that makes you odd man out. Please copy your invite. Also, I apologize for not including your name as among those in the wider consensus group attending the conference. Perhaps you can give us your view of the conference.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/gavin-schmidt-response-to-lisbon-invitation/
Dear Dr. Gavin Schmidt,
We have been following your activities with regards to the science of climate change, the controversies and the challenges, etc.
We are writing to you now about a proposed workshop on the issue, which we are hoping to organise for next January, the 26th to 28th. It will be sponsored and financially supported by the Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen of the European Commission’s DG Joint Research Centre, and will take place at the C. Gulbenkian Foundation in Lisbon.
We have been trying to find a way to begin to overcome the polarisation on this issue, which as you know has already done great damage to the cause of coping with climate change, as well as to the reputation of science itself. At this stage we are planning to have a workshop where the main scientific issues can be discussed, so that some clarity on points of agreement and disagreement might be reached. We would try to stay off the policy issues, and will also exclude personal arguments.
The issues we have in mind are Medieval Warm Period, ‘ice’, climate sensitivity, and temperature data. We would hope to have smaller groups discussing these in some detail, hopefully with scientists who are very familiar with the technical issues to lead the discussion.
Since the topics are so sensitive we would have Chatham House rules unless the consensus desires otherwise; and there would be some public report of the proceedings.
We are just now finalising the invitation list. I do hope that you find this a useful activity to engage on.
With very best wishes
The wording on that invitation is interesting. It assumes that “the cause of coping with climate change” is axiomatically correct and necessary and that the polarization is what has damaged the reputation of science. I would contend Science is never tarnished by open debate but rather by surreptitious and hidden actions.
Putting the debate of the actual science to the side for the moment, Eschenbach, Soon, McKittrick, McIntyre et al have placed their arguments, their data and their processes out in the open for all to examine and counter. There isn’t even the hint of any behind-the-scenes bad actions like the abuse of the peer review process, attempts to silence critics, circumvention of FOIA requests, etc. that were revealed in the Climategate emails.
Can we expect notes more detailed than Pearce’s article? I’m curious if the discussion indeed started with those two premises or if even those were challenged. Did those who attended promise to stop using the loaded terms “warmist” and “denialist”?
hunter (Comment#68273) February 7th, 2011 at 11:42 am
Phil,
Now Tallbloke is a ‘liar’?
Indeed, as he said above:
Rog Tallbloke (Comment#68053) February 5th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Thanks Steve. I’ve been trying to take the heat for the whole thing, but truth will out. )
He also appeared to make up the exchange between the judge and Monckton (or gullibly accepted it from somewhere else).
It’s clear that Tallbloke’s initial statement about how Pearce got Gavin’s reply wasn’t true and he knew that it wasn’t!
Derek H (Comment#68352) February 8th, 2011 at 1:33 am
Putting the debate of the actual science to the side for the moment, Eschenbach, Soon, McKittrick, McIntyre et al have placed their arguments, their data and their processes out in the open for all to examine and counter. There isn’t even the hint of any behind-the-scenes bad actions like the abuse of the peer review process, attempts to silence critics, circumvention of FOIA requests, etc. that were revealed in the Climategate emails.
Really, apparently you missed the resignations from the editorial board of ‘Climate Research’ because of the improper review of Soon & Baliunas 2003, i.e. because of ‘behind-the-scenes bad actions’ specifically, ‘the abuse of the peer review process’.
I have been wondering if Schmidt really wanted his reply to the conference organizers displayed in public. He may well have been better off public relations wise to merely have taken a pass on the science is settled dig. His reply could come across to many as somewhat mean-spirited.
Of course, if his reply were intended to forewarn the members of the broad consensus group about this conference any to follow of like agenda then, of course, going public makes sense.
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment#68270)
“Therefore, I submit that Fred Pearce should have said that Schmidt sees no important conflicts in the climate science regarding AGW and that the remaining discussion should be about mitigation policy and how to implement it.”
Three points:
1) I made Fred read the mail out so he couldn’t take notes.
2) I fluffed the hack from email into notepad and missed Gav’s final para off so Fred didn’t see that.
3) Fred was protecting me as a more detailed summary would have ID’d me as the source, since a brief characterisation of Gavin’s response had been on my blog since 07 Jan, that reads:
“Gavin isn’t coming. It is not good etiquette to quote from private correspondence, so I’ll just say that he didn’t see the point in attending if the policy dimension was to be excluded and we are just going to discuss the science, because his side’s science is right and all the sceptic’s scientific arguments are just a smokescreen for their agenda.”
To summarise.
Gavin writes an email. In short time, it’s public knowledge, Tallbloke is obligingly showing it to anyone who is interested. Gavin is supposed to go and reconcile with the likes of that?
bugs–
Divorcing spouses aren’t required to wish to reconcile and often don’t. Gavin isn’t require to wish to reconcile nor try.
Clearly he didn’t want to– or thought it impossible. What is at issue is the reason for not attending the conference he provided to the organizers.
Kenneth
Well… we’d have to ask him to know for sure. But I suspect he did not want it shown. Had he wanted it shown, he could have just shown it when he first complained about what Pearce wrote. Instead, he wrote a new explanation that reads somewhat differently.
Pearce’s paraphrase would not fit the rewrite— but then it was written after Gavin saw how the first one was summarized.
bugs (Comment#68600)
“Gavin writes an email. In short time, it’s public knowledge, Tallbloke is obligingly showing it to anyone who is interested.”
..
..
That’s a lie.
Anyone who has substantial dealings with the news media knows that you are generally lucky if the reporter paraphrases what you say or write with an accuracy anywhere close to what Gavin got from Pearce. By normal journalism standards, Pearce basically quoted Gavin nearly word for word.
Rog Tallbloke (Comment#68630) February 9th, 2011 at 9:25 am
Well clear this up for me then. Why did you have a copy of Gavin’s email? Who else had a copy of it? And why were you showing it to people? Were people talking about Gavin not turning up because ‘the science is settled’?
lucia (Comment#68615) February 9th, 2011 at 8:18 am
I would have thought it was why a private letter to the organizers is in the hands of someone who presumably had no right to have that letter, and is showing it to people who have no right to see it.
bugs (Comment#68860)
If you don’t know the answers to these questions, which I have provided in sundry places, why are you making categorical statements? Apart from that being a common trait of people on the opposite side of the debate?
bugs (Comment#68877)
I think the non attendance of not only Gavin but any of the Team is of legitimate public interest, since they are the ones recommending huge changes to the world economy.
Why won’t they debate those sceptical of their position on neutral ground where they don’t have their fingers hovering over the delete key?
Rog Tallbloke (Comment#69037) February 10th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
You don’t think CA has a delete key. Try posting something contrary to what they want you to say, and watch the black hole appear.
Why is this all about Gavin? He is one scientist among many. He just happened to put up a blog on climate, but they doesn’t make him anything more than one of many climate scientists.
As for this being neutral ground, the leaking of Gavin’s email proves it was anything but.
bumping to see if there are any answers.