Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
At the grandly named Adam Smith Institute blog, Alister McFarquhar (an economist who was one of the sixty scientists denying that climate change was real) asserted:
Surveys show two-thirds of scientists either don't know or don't believe man can influence climate
Jim from Our Word is our Weapon left a comment asking McFarquhar:
Which surveys are those? Can you give a reference?
McFarquhar cited Benny Peiser and a survey of economists, neither of which supported his claim. When Jim explained this, McFarquhar asked for help from the ClimateSceptics mailing list and was given a reference to Bray's survey. Jim replied:
A few days ago the only correct reference was Peiser's research - now that I've debunked that you've decided to ignore his admission that he got it completely wrong and you're putting forward more dubious science in its place. I say 'dubious' because Bray's survey was initially poorly designed (ambiguous question, self-selecting sample) and was then completely compromised when the password for submitting a response was circulated to members of the ClimateSceptics mailing list. This meant that anyone on that list could submit a response and be counted as a 'climate scientist'. For all we know you took part in the survey, and obviously you're not a climate scientist. Bray and von Storch's results are thus meaningless, and the only reasonable summary of scientific opinion remains a comprehensive literature review, in which case Peiser has inadvertently done us all a favour by pointing out the remarkable paucity of anti-'consensus' findings.
I would add that Bray's survey doesn't support McFarquhar's claim in any case -- a majority of respondents agreed that "Climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes." (Not a good question in any case -- what time scale does it refer to?).
McFarquhar asked for more help from ClimateSceptics and when none was forthcoming, he corrected his erroneous claim deleted all of Jim's comments, and banned Jim's IP address from even reading the ASI blog.
Update: I thought ASI might delete my trackback, but they've deleted the entire post.
Comments
Reminds me of those old TV ads:
"2 out 3 experts [scientists, doctors, etc] agree."
What they don't tell you, of course, is that they only surveyed 3 people, two of which they had hand-picked.
"And the survey says..."
Posted by: JB | January 10, 2007 2:59 PM
Either way, we should not trust climatologists. Surveys show that 50% of them graduated in the bottom half of their class. Biometeorologists are probably as bad, or worse.
Posted by: Dan J | January 10, 2007 3:08 PM
You'ld think this lot could do their homework. Both Peiser and Bray et al. are widely discussed on the internet.
Posted by: Meyrick Kirby | January 10, 2007 3:42 PM
Surveys show two-thirds of scientists either don't know or don't believe man can influence climate
How many of them are experts in climatology?
Posted by: Roman Werpachowski | January 10, 2007 3:46 PM
Making it worse, I never finished bioclimatology, further dragging the numbers down, Dr J. This sad fact, however, doesn't get my IP banned and I'm a little envious right now.
Anyway,
You'd think this lot could do their homework. Both Peiser and Bray et al. are widely discussed on the internet.
Meyrick, this lot depends upon the fact that their readers don't follow up and uncritically accept anything they are fed.
This Public Service Announcement brought to you by: Librarians and Critical Thinking 101 professors at a University near you.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | January 10, 2007 4:08 PM
Ya know -- I don't think I will go over to the Adam Smith Institute and check it out.
I don't have to, because I can apply the Quiggin rule and conclude with some confidence that all I will find there is a pile of tendentious steamers written by paid shills.
I've now had occasion to cite two useful methods from Quiggin in two days. The man is a toolbox.
Posted by: jre | January 10, 2007 6:07 PM
Actually, you can't check it out at the ASI any more. They deleted the post.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | January 10, 2007 8:37 PM
Plus, the link to McF's post now takes you to their most recent post. So when I updated this post, Movable Type automatically left a trackback at that post. Which they have now deleted.
They should update their about page, which currectly says:
to say:
Posted by: Tim Lambert | January 10, 2007 8:45 PM
Courtesy of Google's cache, here's the deleted post.
Posted by: Meyrick Kirby | January 10, 2007 11:57 PM
Wow, everybody's a scientist nowadays, and qualified to make pronoucements in fields miles from their education and skill. If I thought of signing a petition exclusive to those in a field that far away from my experience and knowledge, I'd have a hard time living with myself. Apparently, economists with a political axe to grind on the other side of the aisle have no such qualms.
Posted by: mndean | January 11, 2007 12:37 AM
Since my Economics qualifications are probably on par with MacFarquar's, can I make assertions about subatomic physics or evolutionary biology based on my supposed scientific expertise?
Posted by: Ian Gould | January 11, 2007 1:01 AM
First these clowns use the name of George Marshall--genuine American hero (help defeat fascism, then rebuild Europe) for the George C. Marshall Institute node in the web of deceivers and denialists. (Usual Exxonsecrets stuff...) But that's not good enough--now a McFarquar besmirches Adam Smith's name. Oh, Scotland must be in mourning. And then is so feckless as to have the posts deleted. This is the gang that can't think straight.
Posted by: David Graves | January 11, 2007 2:10 AM
I guess they're kicking the bucket more or less, since they rely so heavily on distorting and lying.
Posted by: romunov | January 11, 2007 2:12 AM
I 'innocently' asked where the comments had gone but it never appeared of course.
Posted by: ian | January 11, 2007 6:41 AM
"attracts over 3,000 unique visitors a day"
The meaning really depends on their definition of unique visitor.
Most would require a unique IP (which does not even guarantee that the visitor is a different person, of course), but it is quite possible that this definitioon might also include sock puppets with different e-mail addresses.
Who knows?
Word games are the bread and butter of these organizations and "is" rarely if ever means "is".
Posted by: JB | January 11, 2007 8:25 AM
We are talking about a pressure group which cites as heroes Friedman and Hayek. This should give you something of an idea of what they are like.
I am still a bit surprised that they delete stuff.
Posted by: guthrie | January 11, 2007 8:28 AM
Such childish behavior--perhaps he learned it at the Intelligent Design Creationism blog Uncommon Descent, where rational scientists are frequently banned for daring to present facts see here).
Posted by: mark | January 13, 2007 10:08 AM
Mark, are you suggesting that McFarquhar is an ID/creationist? It would be fun if he was.
Posted by: guthrie | January 14, 2007 12:36 PM
Actually, Friedman and Hayek had a fair amount of gold mixed in with the dross. Friedman's dictum about people spending other people's money, and Hayek's analysis of distributed idiosyncratic knowledge, both apply admirably to the opportunism and bounded rationality problems of large corporation management. You can come up with a pretty good free market argument for the superiority of the workers' co-op in dealing with the agency dilemma, just by "using the master's tools to dismantle the master's house."
Hayek and Friedman certainly don't deserve to be classed with third-rate authoritarian chickenshits like the Adam Smith gang.
Posted by: Kevin Carson | January 14, 2007 9:37 PM
Although (or especially because) at times I verge on communist, I would broadly agree with you kevin. That is why I am a little surprised that they deleted the entire thread. All I have seen of the Adam Smith institute is the attack dog approach of its members on economic issues, but I hadnt seen them being authoritarian so much.
Posted by: guthrie | January 15, 2007 4:08 AM