Bishop Hill Climate incentive, climate invective
Oct 6, 2013 Climate: Sceptics Climate: other 
Clive James has made another of his intermittent forays into the climate debate. In the course of a review of Brian Cox's Science Britannica programme he had this to say:
Fronting Science Britannica on BBC Two, Professor Cox visited the Royal Society and Bletchley Park in his quest for examples of the scientific method. Finally he dropped in on the Royal Institution, where he and the editor of Nature puzzled together, but not very hard, over how there has come to be an “overwhelming scientific consensus” favouring the concept of dangerous man-made global warming.
Neither of them asked what kind of scientific consensus it was if, say, Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute of Advanced Studies declined to join it. Isn’t the overwhelming scientific consensus really just a consensus between climate scientists, and therefore no more impressive than the undoubted fact that one hundred percent of gymnasium attendants believe that regular exercise is vital to longevity?
I think James is mistaken actually. The overwhelming scientific consensus is, as shown by Cook et al, nothing more noteworthy than the everyday observations that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that increasing concentrations will make the planet warmer; the "dangerous" bit is unwarranted extrapolation. And as readers at BH are aware, the Royal Society heard a vigorous debate last week over the strength of aerosols' influence on the climate, something that is critical to determining to what extent global warming is "dangerous".
Nevertheless James' remarks seem to have provoked the ire of the usual suspects:
Simon Singh: Sad to see Clive James buying into climate contrarians' propaganda
Jim Al-Khalili: Shame his clever prose wasted on drivel
Tamsin (who I would not classify as a suspect, usual or otherwise) meanwhile seems to have done a bit of a reanalysis of the article and concluded that James has decided that climate scientists have ulterior motives. This looks as though it's going to result in a letter of protest direct to James and possibly an open letter too.
It's all a bit absurd if you ask me. James has observed, not unreasonably, that there are eminent people who think that the global warming thing is overdone. In similarly uncontroversial terms he has drawn attention to the fact that people, including even scientists, respond to economic incentives. That scientists have an economic incentive to find evidence in favour of global warming being a problem is undeniable. Every single man jack of the climatological community is engaged in that field because they have weighed the financial and non-financial benefits against alternative employments and have decided that climate science is what they want to do. While Tamsin says that climate scientists could get better-paid employment elsewhere, we know in fact that every climate scientist thinks the non-financial benefits of their field outweigh the financial disadvantages.
This doesn't mean that global warming is a scam or that climatologists are all crooks; just that they do have an incentive. This is why Clive James is right to apply at least some kind of a discount to their opinions and to take heed, at least to some extent, of the "contrarian voices"; the ones at which the Simon Singhs of this world hurl their invective and which others strive so hard to silence.
Reader Comments (101)
I missed the financial interest part of the article. But Tamsin seems upset about it and wants to write him an open letter explaining the issues. However she doesn't have his email address.
I have no idea where you and Tamsin have got the idea from this piece that James thinks cli-sci is even aligned with economic incentives, let alone driven by them.
His example of gym teachers recommending exercise is just light-hearted groupthink, he could have said doctors bossing us around telling us to stop at two glasses of red wine - it's what they do. In his view climate scientists often view part of their job as warning us about dangerous climate change - that's what the IPCC does after all.
But unless I've missed other contributions by James, or am naive, I really don't think he means to suggest venality.
Geronimo, think of the 100% gymnasium attendants saying that regular exercise is vital to longevity... Maybe they really believe it, but their belief is almost certainly driven by the need to get everybody to their institutions, paying for the exercise.
I still think the best analogy is the religious one. 100% of priests believe there is a god.
Right now, the climate priests appear to be setting up the deep ocean as the Second Coming.
Climate Scientist (n) : an avereage weather forecaster.
It seems a shame that Simon Singh, a man I previously admired and who was himself silenced after expressing an opinion which went against the consensus, is so prepared to try to silence others who may disagree with a different consensus.
For Jim Al-Khalili this is just par for the course.
It might be nice for a few sceptics to write to Clive James and thank him for being brave enough to give his own opinion on this subject. It is certainly a job-threatening move for someone in the media - there will be opportunities which are now closed to him.
If the science is settled why are we still funding climate change research? They've said what we are doing wrong and stand by their claims so we can surely de-fund the lot of them and they can find other issues to look into or other forms of employment.
They are getting very touchy about protecting their Cultural Revolution. Can't be long before one of them says: "Those who are against Climate Consensus will have their dog skulls smashed into pieces”
This is one of Clive James' best:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00n9lm3/A_Point_of_View_Clive_James_The_Golf_Ball_Potato_Crisp/
I don't think he is worried about his career on BBC anymore, given his age and state of health. Long live Clive.
I doubt that there is a single climo below the age of 45 who joined the field and didn't realise that (C)AGW is the Great Provider of income, jobs and careers. No (C)AGW = much, much less of all three.
If they did, then they're a lot stupider than they'd like the rest of us to believe.
Although arguments from authority have no validity in themselves, it's fair enough that Clive James who has other matters to attend to, should wonder how it is that persons of inarguable intellect and scientific achievement have serious concerns regarding the idea that we are experiencing dangerous man-made global warming.
In his response 'Jim Al-Khalili: Shame his clever prose wasted on drivel' invites the question as to why a superbly resourced scientific community of AGW adherents cannot, once and for all - expose so-called drivel for what it is beyond reasonable doubt - in a properly framed entirely credible public debate. It seems that this is beyond them, at least it has yet to happen. So as usual in this debate, rhetoric wins over examination of the data.
The GWPF version of this piece has the wrong link at the end - still climate related, but not the Clive James review.
Nice to see CJ's thought processes are as clear as ever. He won't make many friends dissing St Brian, though!
In similarly uncontroversial terms he has drawn attention to the fact that people, including even scientists, respond to economic incentives.
You write this as if people, regular people, think scientists (whatever they are, PhDs perhaps?) are special. Climatologists have single handedly destroyed that reputation for at least one generation.
Slightly off-topic (and with apologies) Paul Nurse was on Radio Four earlier this week (caught in passing I'm afraid, so I can't give a programme or time) explaining how a Nobel Prize should be treated with caution by the recipient as it led to him being regarded as an authority on subjects on which he is not qualified to pronounce.
This from another TV favourite who likes to lecture us on the 'reality' of AGW - a subject on which he is, er, no expert.
I smile at logic of serious joggers who waste 10% of their time adding 5% to their longevity.
Consensus is not part of the scientific method it is only opinion! The use of consensus is a ruse to hide the lack of evidence.
Simon SIngh is amazingly hypocritical, in his book "Trick or Treatment" Chapter 1 asks "How do you determine the Truth?". It concludes that the truth must be evidence-based and uses the example of Blood-Letting where there was a strong consensus. This dominant consensus was blindly accepted by the medical experts who ignored the evidence to the detriment of many people. .
The BBC will never change its opinion of CAGW and poodles like Brian Cox will merely do what he is told to do. It is interesting that people like Brian Cox who blindly support the CAGW camp, will never entertain public debate! Too scared of real scientific discussion. It is good Brian Cox works in the BBC and not in real science where he may do more damage.
What happened to the proposed meeting between Royal Society experts and Lord Lawson's experts?
Sent this to "The Sunday Times" today in response to some hand-wringing from Camilla Cavendish (Oxford PPE)
whose qualification clearly qualifies her to write with authority on climate change.
Dear Ms. Cavendish, your article about Greenpeace protesters who have been arrested in the Arctic touches on many issues.
However aspects of it reflect the intellectual vacuum in which most of the “debate” about climate change operates.
Your report of a survey in which you say that it is “striking” that 72% of people believe that the climate is changing is meaningless.
The basic fact is that the climate has always changed and always will. The only question of any relevance is whether Humans are actually causing climate change outside the boundaries of normal variability.
The fact is that they are not.
Take these excerpts from Chapter 2, of the latest IPCC report. (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter02.pdf) which deals with “extreme” weather. Among the findings:
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”
“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.”
“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems.”
“Based on updated studies, AR4 [the IPCC 2007 report] conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated.”
“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low.”
These are the kind of “Inconvenient Truths” that do not make it to the “sexed"-up” Summary for Policy-Makers.
Oh yes and by the way there has been no significant increase in Global temperature for the past 15 years, despite the models predictions and ever rising atmospheric CO2.
This paper
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf
Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years
John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett and Francis W. Zwiers
that was recently published in Nature Climate Change (2013) shows just how bad the models on which Governments, including our own, base their (ever more expensive) energy policies on.
The trouble is that most of those who report on climate change have little or no science background.
As with all aspects of journalism, due diligence, not simply parroting, is required.
Yours sincerely,
Don Keiller
(MA. PhD, Cantab).
Clive James' analogy is superb! The consensus argument distilled into a great one-liner. More please!
An open letter? Sounds like a call to action for a few column inches along with a twitterBash/ by the clergy to *out* this nasty closet sceptic. He'll think twice before opening his mouth about big Cox, agw and the RS again! Can't have influential journo's dropping apt, twitter-length, consensus-swatting witticisms on the public at large. They might change their minds, or slip it into conversations over the dinner table!
Gym attendants... Must remember that one ;)
Don, I remember an article by Camilla Cavendish many years ago in The Times when she made the claim (except she treated it as holy writ) that "the science is settled". I have held her in little regard ever since.
Sadly it all reinforces idea warmists ain't clever people
Skeptics might also be interested in an item by James Le Fanu, on health issues. An excerpt:
...These doom-laden scenarios are of course grist to the mill for such organisations, which justify their own existence by exaggerating, under the guise of scrutinising the scientific evidence, genuine concern for the future of the planet. Well it is not going to happen, or not in the way they anticipate. Global warming has ceased and the mathematical models that underpin this “mother of all health scares” turn out to be not up to the job. It is a most astonishing fact that not one of the allegations of environmental threats to health of the recent past has ever been convincingly investigated. As Aaron Wildavsky, the author of the most thorough and balanced analysis of the subject, But Is It True? A Citizen’s Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues, observed: “Of all the subjects I have studied in over 30 years as a social scientist, environmental issues are the most remarkable in their being so little truth in them.”..
Simon Hopkinson - "100% of priests believe there is a god."
Until they become theologians. ;-)
I was slightly surprised when Clive James suggested in the article that Cox's 'signature visual signs... spell not just scientific deep thinker, but rock star', he didn't think it worth mentioning the good professor's earlier career as keyboardist in D:Ream.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWy7J5-18vU
Tamsin's rare lapse of judgement may be explained by the fact that most of the article is poking fun at her PhD supervisor Brian Cox.
Cox and Singh threw in their lot with global warming alarmism in 2007, against The Great Global Warming Swindle. They have too big a reputation each to be seen walking back on any scientific topic, let alone global warming. There is no way for them back.
@Don Keiller
Bloody good letter!
Re: Oct 6, 2013 at 2:04 PM | shub
Shub, Cox and Singh were not the only ones who hit out at the Great Global Warming Swindle -
here for example in a presentation on Climate Change Denial by Tamsin Edwards ....
http://www.academia.edu/1740608/Climate_Change_Denial
"Tamsin says that climate scientists could get better-paid employment elsewhere"
Well, I certainly hope they would never get a job in bridge building or aircraft design.
Marion, what a great find. ;)
Clive James may have been provoked by the conversation between Brian Cox
and Dr Philip Campbell, editor in chief of Nature magazine.
One particular comment made by Dr Campbell, was:
"It's so unfortunate that we don't seem to be getting papers that show that it (CAGW)
is wrong"
Prior to the climate change discussions, it was a very interesting programme.
The irony was obvious of course due to the repeated assertions that all the great
discoveries had been confirmed by experiments which validated them.
"Jim Al-Khalili: Shame his clever prose wasted on drivel"
Tis a shame such a clever man, a physicist, a man who really, really should know better - could make comment with such prosaic drivel.
Cox, likes to spend time with his mates and congratulating themselves on their self supposed superior intellect - as time imemorial and history has amply demonstrated - clever men can be outed as fools, comedians and loons, Brian, Darra.
And consensus is no redoubt against the force of truth.
Am I missing something here?
Surely Brian Cox's enquiry into scientific method ought to be examining on its 'tour d'horizon', by using scientific method, whether Global Warming theory conforms.
This is partly a petty point - "enquiry into" = looking wistfully into the camera and skimming over the surface.
And partly a harder one: the fallacies of CAGW ought by now to have resulted in unambiguous refutation, a QED. Has the religious mania of Global Warmery so paralysed the critical faculties of Cox and thousands more that there's a blind spot, an area immune to scientific method? Or are we sceptics wrong? If this carries on much longer I'm gonna admit defeat - join them and plant a load of palm trees in Shropshire.
Philip Campbell's argument is like that of David Suzuki's, when stepped out on a TV programme in Australia. To a question on why global warming is not evident in the temperature record, Suzuki's response was "Erm, where are you getting this information from, what is your source?" The man asking the question quoted GISS, HadCRUT and UAH and RSS! Boffins like Campbell rely on editorials and papers crossing their desk to gauge 'the science' when a simple look at the data directly would sometimes suffice.
From the Coyote blog: (http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2013/09/appeals-to-authority.html)
"I smile at logic of serious joggers who waste 10% of their time adding 5% to their longevity"
I smile at your smiling. Committed runners love their sport, as I do. We run for the pure pleasure of using our God given bodies in the way they were intended. While additional longevity is a nice side benefit, that's not what it's about. It's about living life to the fullest while we can.. Sad that you don't get that.
Re: Oct 6, 2013 at 2:35 PM | pesadia
"The irony was obvious of course due to the repeated assertions that all the great
discoveries had been confirmed by experiments which validated them."
Yep that's what got me too.... in the section from 43:00 for example -
"...scientific journals can be trusted...what's printed in them is as close to a statement of fact as you can hope for...can trust in them...because of peer review..." !!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p01d56f7/Science_Britannica_Method_and_Madness/
- page ends with the twitter address yet Tamsin says she can't find Clive's email. Well I am disappointed with Tamsin, I suspect she's be got at by the Green Gravy train people. Now that media is granting her appearances she is soft on the IPCC.
10 tweets down is a retweet of @Liz_lizanderson
Clive James on Top Form as ever. RT: “@Telegraph_TV: Clive James: I'm not sure I trust this science rock star tgr.ph/18SENNg”
6:04pm - 3 Oct 13
- So I retweeted that.
In science you should firmly define terms.
- Now people can see different cloths, but reassure themselves all others see the same "consensus".
BUT Good on James, he spoke up about the naked emperor.
I don't think financial considerations are the primary movers of the climate science heavyweights.
Cherry-Picked Climate Scientists
Climate scientists often chastise ‘climate deniers’ (whatever that means) for selecting subsets of a particular dataset and using it to argue that catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is not yet observed.
Setting aside the fact that climate science is flooded with cherry-picked studies, there is a more serious issue with climate science. The person that becomes a climate scientist is a cherry-picked sampling of the world’s scientists and engineers. Very often, a student will become interested in climate science because of a strong desire to protect the world from destructive human activities. This foundational belief impacts every aspect of the climate scientist’s life, especially their work product. It often results in a data diode, ignoring, discounting, ad-hominemizing or trivializing observations or conclusions that run counter to their tightly-held beliefs of man-made eco-destruction.
The cherry picking becomes acute and consequential to society when scientists are selected to author or edit major reports, such as the UN IPCC’s quinquennial climate change assessments, the last of which (AR5) was just completed. Without exception, scientists selected to shepherd these reports have strong convictions that humans have only unipolar, negative impacts on the environment. The resulting reports, given overt influence over public policy, consist of cherry-picked data provided by cherry-picked scientists with an axe to grind.
There are thousands of examples of advocacy statements made by climate scientists over the decades. It is simply impossible to believe that these statements: a) do not represent the personal opinions of the scientists; and b) reflect an unbiased evaluation of the scientific evidence available. This fundamental problem with climate science contributes profoundly to the accelerating erosion of the field’s credibility in the eyes of not only other scientists and engineers, but of the public in general- you know, the people who fund the majority of climate science.
Eliminating this problem should be the number one priority of all scientific organizations.
For example, Michael Mann in September 2013 provided a perfect example of the problem: “I can think of no greater calling than to be in a position to inform what may be the greatest societal challenge we human beings have yet faced.” Statements such as this should automatically bring in-depth scrutiny of any scientific claims that he makes.
'Tamsin says that climate scientists could get better-paid employment elsewhere'
If the (C)AGW gravy train continues to collapse as it has in the last two or three years, many may well require to put this doubtful proposition to the test quite soon. I can't see long-term climate funding continuing at anything like its present rate.
I wonder just how employable a 40 yo failed climate modeller with FORTRAN skills really is. Most employers want people with a track record of doing things, not just writing papers about them. And they want models to work, not to be possibly beautiful but actually useless artefacts.
I guess McDonald's is always expanding........
I'm sure like the politicians, on the side many are already consulting for renewables and multinational eco-charities.
Some sound bites about peer review courtesy of the Science Media Centre:
Some sound bites about peer review courtesy of the Science Media Centre:
Tamsin Edwards is a down at heel physicist who can't get a real job. Trying to sell her double bass and looking for a flat mate on twitter recently, presumably because she is broke. She is on a short term contract as a climate 'scientist'.
Climate science is complete nonsense. See here.
http://goo.gl/70tzt
Starring Freeman Dyson, Peter Chylek , James Lovelock and other scientists, all cuter than Tamsin Edwards and Brian Cox.
BBC Cute Science. It's still bollocks when you put a (slightly more attractive than the normal geek) face on it.
I had a girlfriend who was a TV spokesperson for the Green Party. In romantic moments, I used to tell her she was the un-ugliest politician in Scotland. Ugliest woman I ever dated.
Cox didn't play on 'Things can only get better' by the way.
The irony was Cox brought up lot’s of good points , such as making data available , but then total failed to deal with the issue of not happening, which is a problem rampant in climate ‘science ‘
As for the editor of nature , he pulled the classic ‘think of the children ‘ line , although the rubbish he was allowed through into Nature , which went against all the points Cox raised. Would suggest he is thinking more about keeping the number of readers up and dam any scientific integrate .
@ Manniac Noon
You missed out the words "well-below" before average. I suspect a large proportion of climate scientists have no concept of how to forecast weather.
Terrys
According to Dr Philip Campbell, and I quote:
The reviewers "Rip the papers to shreds, digging into the data"
Maybe he believes it.
I'm disappointed in the reactions of Simon Singh and Jim al-Khalili, broadcasters who I admired.
Not because they disagree with Clive - that's fair enough. But they have simply retorted weakly that he is a dupe or a driveller.
Regarding financial interest, it needs to be acknowledged honestly but it doesn't invalidate arguments or solely explain someone's opinions.
.
People will defend their reputation and opinions as fiercely as their source of income - there is no better illustration of this than the online comments sections of news organisations and bloggers.
A consensus among scientists about science must be about well formulated scientific claims. No one has surveyed even the subgroup of CAGW climate scientists about well formulated scientifif claims.
Marion, thanks for that, it looks as though Tamsin can prove it's humans causing the warming only one mention of water vapour and no mention of clouds. She did touch on one point that interests me and that is the "evident" deadly embrace of higher temperatures ---> more CO2 ----> higher temperatures ---->more CO2. Why hasn't that been seen as catastrophic warming in the past? What breaks that loop? Do they know?
"increasing concentrations will make the planet warmer"
I'm sorry, I missed when this was demonstrated. And by who, with what process.
Andrew