Pearcegate

Fred Pearce is going down the David Rose road publishing fabricated quotes. Gavin Schmidt in a letter to New Scientist (so far unpublished there) writes:

In the piece entitled “Climate sceptics and scientists attempt peace
deal”

Fred Pearce includes a statement about me that is patently untrue.

“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.”

This is completely made up. My decision not to accept the invitation to
this meeting was based entirely on the organiser’s initial diagnosis of
the cause of the ‘conflict’ in the climate change debate. I quote from
their introductory letter:

“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, in my opinion, the causes of conflict in the climate change
debate relate almost entirely to politics and not the MWP, climate
sensitivity or ‘ice’, dismissing this from any discussion did not seem
likely to be to help foster any reconciliation.

At no point did I declare that the ‘science was settled’ and that there
was nothing to discuss. Indeed, I am on record as saying the exact
opposite

Pearce might well note that even I am included in the “spectrum” that
“disagree[s] with Schmidt”!

Fred Pearce did not interview me for this piece. I should like to
request that in future, if my views are of interest, that he (or anyone
else) should actually ask me directly. I am not hard to contact.

Yours respectfully,

Gavin Schmidt

PS. I am not a ‘leader of mainstream climate science’ either.

Commenting on Pierce and the workshop are:

Things Break:

I’d ask whether New Scientist wants this kind of indefensible behavior associated with their brand, but clearly they’ve given Pearce free reign to troll for page views however he sees fit.

William Connolley:

And… if you haven’t been part of the climate wars, you might wonder why exactly any of this matters. But “the science is settled” has been one of the mantras used almost exclusively by climate denialists as a term of insult for those actually doing science (Pearce is fully aware of all this back story, of course. He isn’t using the phrase accidentally or carelessly). It is a feeble attempt at a double bind: is the science settled? ha ha, then you can’t be a scientist because real science is never settled. Is the science not settled? Oh great, then we don’t need to do anything until it is. The answer, of course, is that we know now (and indeed have for years) enough about the science to know that the world is warming now due to human activity, and will be warming more into the future from more anthro stuff.

Tamino: “This isn’t a misquote — it’s just a fabrication.”

Joe Romm:

Any conference where most of the participants are obsessed with the Hockey Stick, consider it “totemic,” and think its underlying science is unresolved simply isn’t a serious scientific meeting. Similarly, no serious journalist should simply publish two sentences questioning the underlying science without any quote from a real climate scientist or citation to the NAS and the multiple, confirming studies.

Scott Mandia:

Pearce states …

Equally contentious is the charge – the pet subject of several in Lisbon – that the IPCC is “in denial” about whether ocean oscillations, which can absorb and release heat from the atmosphere but are not well represented in climate models, could explain the global warming of the past 40 years.

How does a warming ocean cause nights to warm faster than days, the troposphere to warm while the upper layers are cooling, winters to warm faster than summers, measured increases in downwelling heat, and measured decreases in outgoing heat from the planet?

What magic are the oceans performing that are mirroring the effects of greenhouse warming while simultaneously stopping the effects of massive increases in heat-trapping gases?

Eli Rabett:

Many have placed their bets on Fred. Eli is not quite so sure, where, better put, from whom would Pearce have gotten his information. Jerry Ravitz who is trying to muscle his way in springs to mind and, of course, luminaries such as the Steves are right up there.

Update: At Judith Curry’s blog tallbloke writes

To set the record straight:

Because I was an ad hoc member of the invite committee I got an email asking my advice on who to invite in lieu of Gavin Schmidt and some other prominent people who had declined. The organisers inadvertantly included Gavin’s response on that email, and when I was asked one evening in Lisbon why certain people weren’t there I gave a quick praisee, including a brief reference to Gavin’s response. This made it’s way to Fred, hence the reference in his blog piece reporting on the conference.

I would just stress at this point that what I said constitutes my opinion and not what Gavin said verbatim. However I would also like to say that Gavin’s complaint to the New Scientist does not include any praisee of the passage in his original response which gave rise to my brief summary. I therefore reject Gavin’s claim that I ‘made stuff up’, and respectfully suggest that we can lay this one to rest if in a spirit of openness Gavin simply reproduces his response so people can see for themselves what he said.

If I am assailed by accusations that I have wrongfully maligned Gavin with my brief summary comment I may feel obliged to defend myself with a closer paraphrase.

Yes, they had an ether crank on the invite committee.

Update 2: Gavin Schmidt posts his actual email:

Thanks for the invitation. However, 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’.

I don’t think it is accurate to summarise this as “the science is settled”.

Update 3:
Steve McIntyre:

I can confirm that Fred Pearce read Gavin’s email to the organizers declining the invitation to the conference, because I (by chance) happened to be sitting with Pearce when he was provided with a copy of Gavin’s email and observed him reading it carefully.

tallbloke

I got Fred to read it out loud to Steve and Ross. So he couldn’t make notes at the same time. And we had a couple of beers, which may be why he didn’t remember it very clearly later.

Compare with his earlier comment “to set the record straight”

when I was asked one evening in Lisbon why certain people weren’t there I gave a quick praisee, including a brief reference to Gavin’s response. This made it’s way to Fred, hence the reference in his blog piece reporting on the conference.

Deceitful, isn’t he?

Comments

  1. #1 ianash
    February 4, 2011

    I’d sue the prick…

  2. #2 Bernard J.
    February 4, 2011

    I was going to parody this week’s issue of NS, and went as far as [knocking up the logo](http://i53.tinypic.com/2eelx0n.jpg), when I discovered that Codling had already nicked the idea for her own internally-ironic purposes. I lost enthusiasm after that.

    At least I went as far as using the right font. Codling was too lazy to get even that correct.

  3. #3 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    February 4, 2011

    The idea that science can be done via ‘peace summits’ is patently ridiculous.

    Really, science by horse-trading instead of fact-finding — how will that even work? Will Michael Mann say to S. Fred Singer, ‘Dr. Singer, as a goodwill gesture, I’m willing to abandon the hockey stick if you’ll stop writing about the so-called 1,500-year climatic cycle’? Or what? This is all just totally wrong-headed.

    frank

  4. #4 JamesA
    February 4, 2011

    Would anyone organise a reconciliation conference for biologists and creationists? Historians and holocaust deniers? Medical researchers and the tobacco industry? The notion is nonsense.

    The point where I lost all respect for Pearce is when he constructed that notorious Climategate article around the false notion of peer-review being the “supposed gold standard”. It’s distressing that he is now resorting to fabricating quotes in order to maintain his position as a champion of the non-existent middle ground.

  5. #5 Michael
    February 4, 2011

    And why not JamesA??

    Afterall, Judith Curry seems to think that science will be done in the comments to her blog.

    I think it’s just as likely, and a fair analogy to Climate Etc, that you could leave a sheaf of A4 pages and a pencil on a bar in a pub and come back at closing time and collect a Pulitzer Prize winning novel.

  6. #6 Tim Lambert
    February 4, 2011

    **Update:** At Judith Curry’s blog tallbloke [writes](http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/lisbon-workshop-on-reconciliation-part-iv/#comment-37569)

    >To set the record straight:

    >Because I was an ad hoc member of the invite committee I got an email asking my advice on who to invite in lieu of Gavin Schmidt and some other prominent people who had declined. The organisers inadvertantly included Gavin’s response on that email, and when I was asked one evening in Lisbon why certain people weren’t there I gave a quick praisee, including a brief reference to Gavin’s response. This made it’s way to Fred, hence the reference in his blog piece reporting on the conference.

    >I would just stress at this point that what I said constitutes my opinion and not what Gavin said verbatim. However I would also like to say that Gavin’s complaint to the New Scientist does not include any praisee of the passage in his original response which gave rise to my brief summary. I therefore reject Gavin’s claim that I ‘made stuff up’, and respectfully suggest that we can lay this one to rest if in a spirit of openness Gavin simply reproduces his response so people can see for themselves what he said.

    >If I am assailed by accusations that I have wrongfully maligned Gavin with my brief summary comment I may feel obliged to defend myself with a closer paraphrase.

    Yes, they had [an ether crank](http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/confirmation-of-transmissive-medium-pervading-space/) on the invite committee.

  7. #7 https://me.yahoo.com/a/3m7DJ5IDuekRrDecB7fQFVvUILuLjxgy#f34f3
    February 4, 2011

    If the letter continues to go unpublished I’d recommend the Press Complaints Commission.

    .. then sue the fucker.

  8. #8 Eli Rabett
    February 4, 2011

    Showed up this morning postdated

  9. #9 guthrie
    February 4, 2011

    The article reads like a straightforwards hash up of what the conference organisers and attendees say and think. Which sort of thing has its place, but not if you are trying to report on science, since there appears to be none involved in the conference.
    I can imagine a similar sort of write up being done by someone attending the annual get together of, to make up a fictional example on a topic I am interesting in, ‘people who want to restore castles and live in them’. The reporter would write down a variety of bitching about the authorities who won’t let them do what they want, without any idea of whether the aims of the restorer are correct, useful, accurate, or downright destructive.
    So it is here. Pearce has reported the views of a bunch of people who are, scientifically speaking, cranks, as if it merits as much reporting and discussion of a conference on vaccination, or carbon or something, but not included any reference to the actual science and views of the majority of people involved in that area.

  10. #10 lord_sidcup
    February 4, 2011

    ..when I was asked one evening in Lisbon why certain people weren’t there I gave a quick praisee..

    I thought I had a reasonable vocabulary, but what wtf does “praisee” mean? Does he mean précis?

  11. #11 _Arthur
    February 4, 2011

    “what I said constitutes my opinion and not what Gavin said verbatim”
    so, it’s not anything like you making stuff up. Got it.

  12. #12 Wow
    February 4, 2011

    Just be grateful it wasn’t “pray see”…

    :-)

    Mind you, this bloke doesn’t seem to know what the words mean anyway:

    > I therefore reject Gavin’s claim that I ‘made stuff up’

    But that’s what he did:

    > I would just stress at this point that what I said constitutes my opinion and not what Gavin said verbatim.

    Therefor attribution of his opinion as what Gavin said IS “making stuff up”. Avoidance of that claim would be unnecessary if he’d said “my opinion of why Gavin didn’t turn up, based on what I read in his response is …”.

    You know, say it was an opinion.

  13. #13 John Mashey
    February 4, 2011

    1) Postnormal academics create a dumb conference.
    2) the ad hoc organizing committee includes Tallbloke, whose website should be consulted. Recall tshirt he gave Curry.
    2) Tallbloke is asked for advice on climate scientists to invite, a task fir which his qualifications seen unobvious. Ravetz/Oxford might be asked why.

    3) they accidentally give Gavin response to Tallbloke.

    4) he comments in it. (if were running an organizing committee, that would be the last time Tallbloke got asked to do anything, ever.

    5) but Tallbloke thinks it us ip to Gavin to respond….

  14. #14 MapleLeaf
    February 4, 2011

    Fred Pearce, another interpreter of interpretations….

    Does anyone else get the distinct impression that Roger Tattersall (Tall Bloke)– he outed himself on the NewScientist forum– is making a veiled threat against Schmidt in his post at Curry’s place? Honorable denialist he is.

    Now it might be that Schmidt did say something silly in his email to Tall Bloke, that does not change matters:

    1) Schmidt is on the record saying the science is not settled,
    2) I doesn’t absolve Pearce failing to contact Schmidt directly to confirm Tall Bloke’s claim and to get Schmidt’s side of the story which would have permitted him to use quotes.

    Pity Schmidt cannot sue both Pearce and Tall Bloke for defamation. Funny how these folks like to routinely defame, slander, libel people across the pond, or out of country…..

  15. #15 luminous beauty
    February 4, 2011

    Tim, you might want to correct the following:

    >Pearce states …

    >Equally contentious is the charge – the pet subject of several in Lisbon – that the IPCC is “in denial” about whether ocean oscillations, which can absorb and release heat from the atmosphere but are not well represented in climate models, could explain the global warming of the past 40 years. [How does a warming ocean cause nights to warm faster than days, the troposphere to warm while the upper layers are cooling, winters to warm faster than summers, measured increases in downwelling heat, and measured decreases in outgoing heat from the planet?]

    The bracketed part is Scott Mandias’ words. We wouldn’t want Pearce accusing you of mis-quoting him, would we? Even if doing so would cast him in a more reasonable light?

    *[Corrected. Thanks. Tim]*

  16. #16 Hank Roberts
    February 4, 2011

    Every so often I try to think how this will look to your grandchildren (and my grand-nephews-and-nieces). From their perspective, we’re all in this together, believe it or not.

    So I find this hopeful:

    > January 29, 2011 by Judith Curry:
    > I was hoping to put to rest any skeptical debate
    > about the basic physics of gaseous infrared
    > radiative transfer.

    and almost a thousand comments later:

    > curryja February 4, 2011 at 2:04 pm
    > I am preparing two new greenhouse posts for this eve
    > (one science, one etc). hoping this will help.

    Yeah, there’s notions in between that seem utterly impossible to put together in the same bottle.

    But step back in space and ahead in time and we are all in the same bottle, the big round blue one, here and now.

    We might as well get good at it.

  17. #17 MapleLeaf
    February 4, 2011

    Schmidt has called Tattersall’s bluff and….crickets. Zilch from TallBloke.

    Yes, Hank while we play these “games” the planet continues to accumulate energy and the the prognosis for future generations looks bleaker. But I do not know what the alternative is…to let the rabid denialists run amok?

    What an effing mess…TGIF.

  18. #18 Holly Stick
    February 4, 2011

    #10 lord sidcup, I’m sure ‘précis’ is correct. The moral being: if you’re going to use a fancy French word twice in a letter, find out how to spell it first.

  19. #19 Mike Pope
    February 4, 2011

    How stupid! Discussion with “contrarians” in an attempt to reconcile differences with conventional climate science is either impossible or aimed at compromising the truth. It has long been obvious that the position adopted by contrarians is only sustained by manipulating and misrepresenting science and empirical fact , as so ably demonstrated by McIntyre, Mosher and Monckton. I do so hate inherent intellectual dishonesty from either ‘side’.

  20. #20 MapleLeaf
    February 4, 2011

    Cross-posted from CP:

    “Now Pearce, Tattersall and the organizing committee of the workshop (including Curry) owe Schmidt a grovelling apology.

    Schmidt never said that the science is settled or that there was nothing to discuss. That was Tattersall’s tainted interpretation of Schmidt’s email (URL below) which Pearce then parroted without having the professionalism or integrity or decency to check with Schmidt first.

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/gavin-schmidt-response-to-lisbon-invitation/

  21. #21 chek
    February 4, 2011

    Well that grudging retraction was like pulling teeth.

    What is hilarious is that cranks such as Tallbloke et al who beaver away attaching themselves to Curry in the hope that her erstwhile professional standing will pull them out of the slime, is instead pulling her down into it.

    I guess Judy didn’t have the stones to rip up that ‘awarded’ T-shirt, or find it professionally offensive in case that would have spoiled the moment.

  22. #22 MapleLeaf
    February 4, 2011

    Chek @21,

    “Well that grudging retraction was like pulling teeth.”

    Could you elaborate please? I am aware of no retraction or apology from any of the guilty party’s.

  23. #23 Rog Tallbloke
    February 4, 2011

    Hi all,

    “Yes, they had an ether crank on the invite committee.”

    An ad hoc member of the invite committee. I know people from both sides of the debate, so they decided I could help out.

    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.”

    — 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

  24. #24 chek
    February 4, 2011

    Perhaps you’re more right than I am ML and I’ve read too much into [this sentence](http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/gavin-schmidt-response-to-lisbon-invitation/): “However, I felt that taking responsibility for publishing lay with me and so I have posted it here at the Talkshop. I hope that this will” blah blah blah

    On reflection, I don’t think it would have satisfied Andrew Weaver either.

  25. #25 MapleLeaf
    February 4, 2011

    Tallbloke @23,

    Are you going to do the right and honorable thing and apologize to Dr. Schmidt for misrepresenting what he said in his email?

  26. #26 Rog Tallbloke
    February 4, 2011

    MapleLeaf @25
    Are you going to do the right and honourable thing and apologize for broadcasting my job title and location on the open internet?

  27. #27 MapleLeaf
    February 4, 2011

    Stop obfuscating Roger….that information was made available at DeepClimate (and is available elsewhere as I recall), and you provided more information at NewScientist. And you apologizing to Dr. Schmidt is not contingent on me apologizing or not. That would be a lame excuse no?

    Now, I thought that you were interested in reconciliation? At least that is what you claim.

    So in that spirit and to set a good example, please apologize for misrepresenting and defaming Dr. Schmidt.

  28. #28 MapleLeaf
    February 4, 2011

    TallBloke,

    On second thought, if me posting your affiliation caused you concern or grief, then I sincerely apologize.

  29. #29 chek
    February 4, 2011

    It’s all up to you Tallbloke.

    You can decide to unequivocally do the right thing, or continue to vacillate and deflect and generally act like slime.

    But realise it doesn’t work in your favour, and it’s the place you’re dragging Curry down to.

  30. #30 J Bowers
    February 4, 2011

    @ 25 Tallbloke
    It was part funded by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. Is the JRC exempt from FOIA requests anyway? Get over it, it’s not like your name’s gonna be headline news. Even Tamino has to publish under his real name, and it’s not exactly a big secret.

  31. #31 Rog Tallbloke
    February 4, 2011

    ML thanks. It does cause me concern, because my rolling contract is at the whim of an employer running a big atmospheric science dept.

    Chek, Gavin said:
    “None of the seemingly important ‘conflicts’ that are *perceived* in the science are ‘conflicts’ in any real sense within the scientific community”

    This sounds a lot like “The science is settled” to me.

    You disagree, but consider that by saying such a thing, Gavin is effectively excluding many honest researchers from “the scientific community”

    I see this as a problem of balance and good judgement. We need a more reasonable dialogue within the *whole scientific community* not just that part of it which all agrees.

    A dialogue which includes anomalous data and conflicting interpretations. This is healthy for scientific advance.

    The raiative sums say the extra co2 has inflated the diameter of the troposphere by what, 200m?

    How much has the diminished solar activity shrunk it if the mesosphere is own by 30%

    No-one knows yet. The science is not settled.

    What we do know is that OLR has stayed high, and that indicates more energy is leaving the system, while less is coming in from a quiescent sun. How much is that counteracting any co2 effect?

    We don’t know yet, because the error band on measuring OLR is three times wider than the signals we calculate should be there.

    Embrace the uncertainty. It is possible that any one of three or more factors could predominate.

  32. #32 himThere
    February 4, 2011

    To extract:

    “The science is settled”

    from:

    “None of the seemingly important ‘conflicts’ that are perceived in the science are ‘conflicts’ in any real sense within the scientific community”

    requires a feat of mental acrobatics that is way beyond anything that I am capable of achieving. I am simply in awe of Tallblokes intellectual dexterity!

  33. #33 Lotharsson
    February 4, 2011

    This sounds a lot like “The science is settled” to me.

    If you can’t grok the distinction between the original statement and your “paraphrase”, then you aren’t equipped to reliably comment on the science.

    Of course, the other possibility is that you do grok the difference, which leads to a whole ‘nother conclusion.

  34. #34 Rog Tallbloke
    February 4, 2011

    Guys @32&33

    Easy now. I accept that people on opposite sides of the divide are going to perceive this differently. Can you?

    And just because I find Gavin’s effective exclusion of Lindzen, Spencer, Loehle and Soon from the ‘scientific community’ distasteful doesn’t mean we can’t debate the uncertainty around TOA energy balance measurement does it?

  35. #35 Dave R
    February 4, 2011

    [Tallcrank](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3216743):
    >The science is not settled.

    How many more times do you need to be told that [that is a straw man](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/)?

    >Embrace the uncertainty.

    Do you have any reason to conclude that the uncertainty is all in one direction, or do you mean to advocate strong measures to curtail CO2 emissions in case the risk has been underestimated?

  36. #36 J Bowers
    February 4, 2011

    Tallbloke — “This sounds a lot like “The science is settled” to me.”

    Not to me.

    Tallbloke — “You disagree, but consider that by saying such a thing, Gavin is effectively excluding many honest researchers from “the scientific community”…”

    That’s your opinion, but if you mean, say, Dr. Bas van Geel of the University of Amsterdam then you might have a point.

  37. #37 chek
    February 4, 2011

    [Tallbloke said:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3216743)”This sounds a lot like “The science is settled” to me. You disagree, but consider that by saying such a thing, Gavin is effectively excluding many honest researchers from “the scientific community”.

    Firstly TB, that isn’t what Pearce reported.

    If he’d reported instead that “some nonentity told me “This sounds a lot like “The science is settled” to me. You disagree, but consider that by saying such a thing, Gavin is effectively excluding many honest researchers from “the scientific community”. there wouldn’t be this topic.

    Secondly you say “excluding many honest researchers”.

    That’d be those inexperienced and unpublished but ever honest, blogresearchin’, self-selected, blogscience “experts” like you, I presume.

    It’s a tired routine that “Goddard”, Mosher and Fuller have already and ineffectively done to death.

  38. #38 Michael
    February 4, 2011

    Yeah sure Roger,

    Gavin explicitly saying in his response that the job of science is to “increase understanding” allows you “percieve” he was saying ‘the science is settled’.

    That’s a very large pile of steaming horse manure.

    Or a potentially terminal case of confirmation bias.

  39. #39 John Mashey
    February 4, 2011

    Rog Tallbloke:

    1) Were you authorized by the organizers to repeat (or really interpret publicly) Gavin’s email? If so, I assume you can say who did it.

    2) If not, can you state for sure that you believe that as an ad hoc committee member who accidentally got a copy, it is your right to do this?

  40. #40 Ian Forrester
    February 4, 2011

    tallbloke said:

    We need a more reasonable dialogue within the whole scientific community not just that part of it which all agrees.

    It seems to me that 97% is as close as you can get to the “whole scientific community”, the other 3% are cranks, non-scientists and just plain dishonest.

    You also admit that your involvement with climate science is a religious effort (from your blog):

    yes, that’s why I mostly pontificate about internal climate changes

    pon·tif·i·cate intr.v. (-kt) pon·tif·i·cat·ed, pon·tif·i·cat·ing, pon·tif·i·cates
    1. To express opinions or judgments in a dogmatic way.
    2. To administer the office of a pontiff.

    Do you not find it ironic that most deniers accuse supporters of AGW of following a religious bent? I don’t think you really understand what science is and how it is practiced. You are typical of people who get a first degree in a science related subject then think that they know all about science and how scientists conduct their research.

    You are a crank.

  41. #41 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    February 4, 2011

    > Please don’t characterize me as a ‘crank’, I’m a qualified engineer with a degree in the history and philosophy of science. […] Do you know the difference between quoting Einstein about doing experiments.

    Instead of actually doing experiments, you brandish your college degree and quote Einstein.

    So Tallbloke thinks that science can be done by “peace talks”, and now he seems to think that science can be done by uttering Einstein quotes.

    frank

  42. #42 John Mashey
    February 4, 2011

    Tallbloke had seen the email, accidentally.
    Others who had not seen it, and could not, asked.

    The right, honorable answer was:

    “I cannot comment.”

    I’m sure, given the mix of attendees, Tallbloke’s interpretation (of something that could not be checked) quickly became fact, at least good enough for Pearce.

  43. #43 jakerman
    February 5, 2011

    tallbloke writes:

    >*I accept that people on opposite sides of the divide are going to perceive this differently. Can you?*

    But your crime tallbloke (and that of Pearce as well) is that rather than give readers the option to “perceive this differently”, you both, instead gave your own biased version rather than letting people decide based on the actual factual statement.

  44. #44 MapleLeaf
    February 5, 2011

    It is so very unfortunate of the ‘skeptics’ and contrarians cannot being themselves to acknowledge that they erred and correct a wrong. They cannot even, to my knowledge, bring themselves to say “sorry” when they have knowingly damaged someone’s reputation and been the source of a myth that will be used by people with agendas to continue to smear Gavinn Schmidt.

    It is this dogmatic behaviour that will ensure that the ‘skeptics’ and contrarians will continue to have a serious credibility issue, will not be trusted and will be alienated. They have no-one else to blame but themselves.

    Today Roger had a chance to break that mould, he chose not to, at east not yet.

    PS: And if Tallbloke is so concerned about his employer’s take on this, then he should not have indicated his official affiliation as he did; instead he should have indicated that he was attending as a private citizen. It seems that he was not there in an official capacity on behalf of his employer– that is his error in judgement not that of others.

  45. #45 Militant Agnostic
    February 5, 2011

    praisee>

    Facepalm

    Please don’t characterize me as a ‘crank’, I’m a qualified engineer

    Double Facepalm

    Puts paper bag over head in anticipation of Roger reinforcing other negative engineer stereotypes.

  46. #46 jakerman
    February 5, 2011

    Hey Lotharsson, welcome back! You were missed.

  47. #47 Rog Tallbloke
    February 5, 2011

    ML @44 “if Tallbloke is so concerned about his employer’s take on this, then he should not have indicated his official affiliation as he did; instead he should have indicated that he was attending as a private citizen. It seems that he was not there in an official capacity on behalf of his employer– that is his error in judgement not that of others.”

    The organisers did that for E.U. procedural reasons. I didn’t know they were going to. I just flushed your previous apology @28 down the pan, where it merges with your true colours. I should have realised that jumping to conclusions on the basis of insufficient evidence is the distinguishing feature of alarmists like yourself.

    @43 “But your crime tallbloke (and that of Pearce as well) is that rather than give readers the option to “perceive this differently”, you both, instead gave your own biased version rather than letting people decide based on the actual factual statement.”

    And of course if I’d published Gavin’s response before he gave permission to do so you’d be accusing me of a different “crime”.

    @42 The right, honorable answer was:”I cannot comment.”

    We’re not as secretive as the people whose failure to disclose FOI’d information you defend. Attendees had a legitimate interest in the reasons for declining the invitation to dialogue IMO.

    @41 “Instead of actually doing experiments, you brandish your college degree and quote Einstein.”

    Where can I read about the experiments you do? Mine are published openly, honestly and without concern for those who will characterize it as ‘crank science’ because they don’t understand it or have an agenda which makes them attack it.

    @40 “It seems to me that 97% is as close as you can get to the “whole scientific community”

    I suspect your source is the survey which only selected two of the questions and answers for publication. It’s rubbish evidence, but hey there’s plenty of that about.

    @39 1) No
    2) Gavin gave me his permission. Something which has increased my respect for him if not for his scientific output.

    @38 Gavin said the community he had just defined as excluding dissenting scientists were furthering knowledge. In fact, by ensuring that only those in the consensus are included in this effort, they fall victim to their own confirmation bias. A much more worrying issue than my off the cuff summary of Gavin’s reasons for declining to attend at Lisbon.
    Get a sense of proportion

    @37 “That’d be those inexperienced and unpublished but ever honest, blogresearchin’, self-selected, blogscience “experts” like you, I presume.”

    No, I’m referring to distinguished scientists with research findings which don’t gel with the “97%”.

    @36 http://www2.glos.ac.uk/accrotelm/uniamst.html Thanks for the namedrop, there’s a nugget of gold in every pile of steaming horse manure.

    @35 “Do you have any reason to conclude that the uncertainty is all in one direction, or do you mean to advocate strong measures to curtail CO2 emissions in case the risk has been underestimated?”

    Well, I’m not as keen on implementing the precautionary principle as you may be. I think resilience and robustness with preparedness to deal with both warm and cold regimes is advisable, given the uncertainty, and the fact that local variation far exceeds the warming signal in magnitude.

    Thanks for entertaining my visit and especially to those who posted comments to which non-combative replies were possible. Please do not adjust your mindset – Normal programming will be resumed shortly.

  48. #48 J Bowers
    February 5, 2011

    47 Tallbloke — “Thanks for the namedrop,…”

    Here’s a quote from him

    Professor Begemann’s claim that on universities it is not possible to present a different opinion about climate change in any case isn’t true for the University of Amsterdam. In my professional environment so far there nobody has ever tried to correct me (a skeptic with an opinion based on strong arguments) In the past 10 years, neither did I ever have a problem with finding funding for research on the role of the sun on climate changes in the past. It is (also) because of this research I started having an alternative opinion on what’s going on with the present-day climate: I still believe that natural variability is much more important than changes caused by mankind.

    Tallbloke — “…there’s a nugget of gold in every pile of steaming horse manure.”

    That’s no way to talk about the Three Percenters.

  49. #49 Jeff Harvey
    February 5, 2011

    Tallbloke,

    Where the science isn’t settled is on the outcomes of climate change and not on our understanding of the main forcing agent of the current warming (i.e. Homo sapiens). This is where the denial community has been most dishonest – they have taken the uncertainty over the possible outcomes of warming and have applied it to try and muddy the waters over the main causes of warming.

    The fact that you know the names of a few ‘ qualified’ contrarians tells you how many there really are in the scientific community. The fact is that a memo leaked from the American Petroleum Institute in the late 1990s claimed to be concerned that the anti-warming lobby at that time had to rely on the same few scientists over and over to spread their gospel of doubt. Their aim was to ‘recruit’ – whatever that means – new scientists to their cause to downplay AGW. Here we are more than a decade later and the same crop of names – Lindzen, Michaels, Balling, Idso’s, Spencer, Baliunas, Soon, Singer etc – are still being wheeled out to present the ‘ alternate’ view from the scientists, joined by the likes of Monckton. Many of these people aren’t climate scientists at all. This should be clear evidence that the number of scientists who downplay AGW are indeed very small.

    Also, the fact that many of the so-called prominent skeptics have prostituted themselves out to libertarian think tanks or astroturf anti-environmental groups funded by polluting industries should tell you exactly where they are coming from.

  50. #50 Rog Tallbloke
    February 5, 2011

    @49 our understanding of the main forcing agent of the current warming (i.e. Homo sapiens).

    This is assertion. Ok, I don’t expect you to reprise all the arguments here, but if no-one here will address the uncertainty over TOA energy balance being several times the claimed co2 signal, we are still at impasse. I’m not really interested in the political accusations and rhetoric, because there isn’t a possibility of objectivity there. I want correct assessment on the science, including estimates of uncertainty. And open discussion of them at the policy level.

    Perhaps I can interest you in this post on my blog:
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/working-out-where-the-energy-goes-part-2-peter-berenyi/

  51. #51 John
    February 5, 2011

    Tallbloke read what he wanted to read out of it. Schmidt made the right decision. Problem with deniers is they can’t even read a simple email without using it to construct an entire fantasy.

  52. #52 ianash
    February 5, 2011

    Tallbloke, stop the dissembling, stop the excuses; you have been shown to be ethically bankrupt in this case.

    Grow a pair and apologise.

  53. #53 Michael
    February 5, 2011

    “Gavin gave me his permission. Something which has increased my respect for him if not for his scientific output.” – Tall Bloke

    Gavin Schmidt must have sleepless nights knowing that someone who has trouble understanding a simple email, doesn’t rate his scientific output.

  54. #54 chek
    February 5, 2011

    So to sum up, the ‘reconciliation conference’ actually achieved getting Curry to accept a t-shirt depicting climate science in the trashcan, and falsely attributing a fabricated denialist chum phrase to a respected senior NASA scientist.

    Mission accomplished, eh boys?
    One wonders what you might cook up when you’re not pretending to play nice.

  55. #55 dorlomin
    February 5, 2011

    47
    @39 1) No 2) Gavin gave me his permission. Something which has increased my respect for him if not for his scientific output.
    = = = = = = = = = =
    1) Were you authorized by the organizers to repeat (or really interpret publicly) Gavin’s email? If so, I assume you can say who did it.
    = = = = = = = = = =
    I believe the question pertains to the conference. Did you have permission to discuss the contents of emails during the conference? Did you discuss the content of emails during the confrence? Can you describe the rules of confidentiality you were operating under?

  56. #56 Michael
    February 5, 2011

    Any ‘misunderstanding’ on this is all Gavin Schmidt’s fault over at Curry’s blog;

    “It’s beyond me how Gavin could have been so naive as to imagine that statement could not possibly be misconstrued as suggesting that there’s nothing left to discuss in the science.” – Peter317

  57. #57 Jeff Harvey
    February 5, 2011

    Tallbloke,

    Please tell me what credentials you possess in any scientific field. No need to be modest here. Let’s see your prodigious output.

    As for Gavin, you ought to apologize immediately as others have said here. Gavin has tremendous integrity as a scientist and I would be livid if my views had been skewed in such as way.

    Lastly, IMHO most denialism is not aimed at the scientific community but at the lay public. Its a PR stunt, which has little, if anything to do with science, and it never has, any more than any other areas of science which are being distorted by a small coterie of people and organizations aimed at promoting a political agenda. That’s why the , reconciliation’ meeting in Lisbon was a massive farce. In my view its like those concerned about the loss of biodiversity meeting up with those intent on destroying wild nature for profit in order to reach a ‘ compromise’ of how much destruction is permissable.

  58. #58 Ian Forrester
    February 5, 2011

    So tallbloke denies being a crank:

    Please don’t characterize me as a ‘crank’, I’m a qualified engineer with a degree in the history and philosophy of science. […] Do you know the difference between quoting Einstein about doing experiments.

    Well I suggest that he reads up on what a crank is. If he follows up on this suggestion then he will find himself looking in a mirror:

    http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/crank_howto.php

    Here are a few choice quotes from that article:

    Step one: Develop a wacky idea.

    It is critical that your wacky idea must be something pretty extraordinary. A good crank shoots for the stars.

    The presentation of this idea is also important. Remember that really important people with really important ideas don’t have time for grammar or spelling.

    if you must cite anything, either cite your own name or work, or that of another crank. If you’re feeling bold cite some famous scientist, like Einstein

    It’s also important during your research of this new idea, never to be worried about preserving the original intent of other authors you quote or cite. If any words they say can be construed to mean something else, that’s ok too.

    I can go on and on but one would think that the author of this piece is using tallbloke as their model.

  59. #59 Blake Stacey
    February 5, 2011

    I’d ask whether New Scientist wants this kind of indefensible behavior associated with their brand

    I’d be surprised if they cared.

  60. #60 MapleLeaf
    February 5, 2011

    TallBloke,

    If you did not notice, I offered you a sincere, unequivocal, unambiguous apology @28. I did so in the interests of reconciliation, and because I decided that I was perhaps overzealous.

    You attended a workshop with the alleged goal of ‘reconciliation’ and trying to reach a peace deal, yet your actions to date (and those of your peers, including Curry) are wholly inconsistent with that stated objective.

    Again in the interests of reconciliation and decency, please offer an unequivocal public apology to Dr. Schmidt. It is really not that difficult and given the gravity of the situation (it is not a “storm in a tea cup” as you falsely claim– you maligned the character of a gentleman and reputable scientist) it is not much to ask.

  61. #61 MapleLeaf
    February 5, 2011

    Blake @59,

    That second link in particular was unbelievable. Something very odd is going on at NewScientist– pandering and catering to the creationists and those in denial about climate change. NewScientist– is that now become code for PostNormalScientist (PNS)?

    Maybe John Mashey and DC should start looking into the goings on at NewScientist……

  62. #62 luminous beauty
    February 5, 2011

    >Perhaps I can interest you in this post on my blog: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/working-out-where-the-energy-goes-part-2-peter-berenyi/

    >Posted by: Rog Tallbloke | February 5, 2011 7:32 AM

    Blog Science alert!

    Roger, don’t you think were there anything to Miller’s luminiferous aether bilge it would have long time shown up as a major glitch in satellite telemetry?

  63. #63 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    February 5, 2011

    Rog Tallbloke:

    > > Instead of actually doing experiments, you brandish your college degree and quote Einstein.

    > Where can I read about the experiments you do?

    Here’s one.

    > Mine are published openly, honestly and without concern for those who will characterize it as ‘crank science’ because they don’t understand it or have an agenda which makes them attack it.

    You didn’t do any experiments, and even when publicizing other people’s experiments, instead of outlining the experimental method and the experimental results, you blather on and on about conspiracies and misunderstood genius and Einstein.

    That’s precisely the behaviour of a crank.

  64. #64 Pierce R. Butler
    February 5, 2011

    Thanks to lord_sidcup @ # 10 & Holly Stick @ # 18 for clarifying that strange wordling. I was totally at a loss to decipher the raisin date for “praisee”…

  65. #65 J Bowers
    February 5, 2011

    Re 61 ML.
    NS is probably trying to get readership numbers up. Times have been hard and the whips are probably being cracked. I’m not making any judgement, or giving an excuse, just suggesting a reason. Wouldn’t be the first time, won’t be the last. A new editor will also bring their own style, and the current editor’s an ex-tabloid science editor, Roger Highfield, former science editor at The Daily Telegraph,……..Oh…

  66. #66 MapleLeaf
    February 5, 2011

    “Roger Highfield, former science editor at The Daily Telegraph,……..Oh…”

    OFFs! Explains the reluctance to correct errors……if times are hard I would counsel that it would be unwise of Highfield to solicit an expensive lawsuit…..

    Someone in the UK needs to please take this further

  67. #67 GSW
    February 5, 2011

    Isn’t Gavin a climate modeler? I don’t think that makes you a scientist any more than being a snake oil salesman makes you a doctor.

    For the more thoughtful among you, Chantal Valentine has quite a good article entitled [Torturing the statistics until they confess](http://www.fin24.com/Collective-Insight/Carousel/Torturing-the-statistics-until-they-confess-20090903)

    Mining a few quotes:

    “Despite the fact that the first thing drummed into any economics student is that “correlation does not mean causation” there are still too many instances where a correlation is presented as some kind of “proof”.

    “The bottom line is that it’s very easy to manipulate charts and numbers.”

    Worth a read, if you start to feel uncomfortable you can always pop back here to exchange comfort statements.

    Anyway, Tallblokes paraphrasing of Gavin’s reply seems about right from the email presented. I know it is lost on you, but the “Science is settled” bit says the same thing with a little added humour. ;)

  68. #68 Gaz
    February 5, 2011

    Maybe “raison date” is a reference to the [summary weather](http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/sydney-heatwave-breaks-150yearold-record-20110205-1ah7o.html) we’ve been having here in Sydney.

  69. #69 MapleLeaf
    February 5, 2011

    GSW, stop trolling. And before trying to slander Dr. Schmidt, at least make the effort to first determine his qualifications.

    Juvenile quips by you do not trump facts…

    Anyhow, there troll I fed you– now PFO.

  70. #70 Jeff Harvey
    February 5, 2011

    GSWs arguments are infantile nonsense. MapleLeaf sums his post up well.

    In ecology and evolutionary ecology, predictive models are important tools in our research. The claim by GSW that a climate modeler is not a scientist is pure and utter drivel. Anyone making such a vacuous point does not deserve to be taken seriously.

    As for linking correlation and causation, the denialists/skeptics/contrarians are past masters at the art, Lomborg doing this *ad nauseum* in TSE.

    I don’t know from under which rocks people like GSW crawl, but they ought to stay there.

  71. #71 sturat
    February 5, 2011

    Simple questions for tallbloke:

    1) What engineering degree do you hold?

    2) What technical/engineering work have you had during your employment?

    3) Why do you have comments closed on your blog regarding this “tempest in a teapot”?

    4) Are you willing to make a public statement (reply) concerning your understanding of the true value of pi?

    Stu

  72. #72 bill
    February 5, 2011

    Here’s an interesting nugget re Pearce –

    About a quarter of the way into a World Climate Conference 2009 session, Mojib Latif gives a presentation on the problem of decadal variability (about 15 minutes worth – well worth it). You can follow along with the original slides here.

    Then compare your own impression of what Latif is saying to one and then two Pearce reports from NS.

  73. #73 jakerman
    February 5, 2011

    Tallbloke complains that he’s not a crank, unfortunately he also makes crank posts [like this](http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/ozone-hole-hype/), with zero supporting data. Just someone’s anon opinion.

    BTW Tallblock, I notice you neglected the points raised in [my post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3217791) in your response.

  74. #74 pough
    February 5, 2011

    Please don’t characterize me as a ‘crank’, I’m a qualified engineer with a degree in the history and philosophy of science.

    Right. Because if you were a crank, you’d be the only engineer ever to be characterized as one. You engineers, you really crank out only the really crank-proof stuff. Yes, sir. No cranks have ever been engineers. Nope. Not a one. Engineering is a crank-free field.

    Oh, by the way. Have you gotten around to signing the “Dissent from Darwin”? That’s quite popular with the other “not a crank” engineers, I think. It’s a very good way to tell the world that you’re an engineer and therefore not a crank.

  75. #75 MapleLeaf
    February 5, 2011

    Cross-posted from Tamino’s:

    “So when was Tallbloke telling the truth First he claimed that he told Pearce about the email. Now it comes to light that Tallbloke gave Pearce the email and Pearce then (allegedly) read the email to McKitrick and McIntyre (and others?).

    This revelation, IMHO, makes tallkbloke a liar, and irresponsible to boot; and second reflects even more poorly on Pearce than before– he (allegedly) read the email and still completely misrepresented what he said and then made a generalization about the science being “settled” applying to mainstream climate scientists. Pearce has a lot to answer for and should be hauled before a press counsel or similar professional association.

    And Lucia (and Curry it seems) thinks this is normal behaviour? Well maybe in the land of denial and conspiracy and nuttiness and a land which is morally bankrupt, but not in the real world.

    How much did this farce cost the organizers?”

  76. #76 John
    February 5, 2011

    Always the engineers.

  77. #77 MapleLeaf
    February 5, 2011

    As painful as it is go over to JC’s place to read the sheer lunacy of the denialists that frequent her place.

    Don’t let Judith tap dance her way out of this one…..she is trying hard though.

  78. #78 GSW
    February 5, 2011

    @MapleLeaf #76

    “So when was Tallbloke telling the truth First he claimed that he told Pearce about the email. Now it comes to light that Tallbloke gave Pearce the email and Pearce then (allegedly) read the email to McKitrick and McIntyre (and others?)”

    So What?

    A stab in the dark – do you sometimes participate in blogs using the id ‘onthefence’ the pure clarity of the thought process is unmistakable.

    As for;

    “the land of denial and conspiracy and nuttiness”

    I think you made it there, all on your own..

    geez

  79. #79 pough
    February 5, 2011

    A stab in the dark – do you sometimes participate in blogs using the id ‘onthefence’ the pure clarity of the thought process is unmistakable.

    Is the incorrect punctuation in a run-on sentence a purposeful satire?

  80. #80 GSW
    February 5, 2011

    #80

    Don’t know.

  81. #81 MapleLeaf
    February 5, 2011

    Pough…DFTT. The troll is also wrong @79.

    Funny how contrarians and denialists and “skeptics” in the AGW “debate” are so unconcerned about facts and have propensity to give lies, distortion and misinformation free pass.

    Goping by events at Climate Etc. and Lisbon, Curry et al. could not organize a piss-up in a brewery. Sarc on.. Yes, please do let us trust you and your cohorts with our future…sarc off.

  82. #82 Dan L.
    February 5, 2011

    @ pough
    It’s a very good way to tell the world that you’re an engineer and therefore not a crank.

    Perhaps he’d prefer “crackpot”. He’s a fan of reviving the aether theory, you know, so maybe it suits him better.

  83. #83 J Bowers
    February 5, 2011

    GSW — “A stab in the dark – do you sometimes participate in blogs using the id ‘onthefence’…”

    Curious. Have we met at CiF, GSW?

  84. #84 John Mashey
    February 5, 2011

    re: #77
    “Always the engineers.”

    Please, that is not a useful comment, especially for those of us who are or have been engineers. Are there any studies that show engineers (in general) are more likely than others to have these issues?

    Tallbloke says:
    “I’m a qualified engineer with a degree in the history and philosophy of science.”

    That’s a slightly odd background for most types of engineers, but then engineer is a vague term, and these days he appears to be a Web Content Editor.

    There is, of course, nothing wrong with that role, and the website certainly looks fine. However, it is not instantly obvious why that alone makes someone especially relevant to this effort. Perhaps Tallbloke can explain more as to the type of engineer he was and how that is relevant.

    It’s been 15 years since I visited Leeds U to do a lecture, but it seems to have a substantial climate-relevant school:
    http://www.environment.leeds.ac.uk/see with numerous relevant public lectures:
    http://see.leeds.ac.uk/typo3/news/calendar

    Maybe he attends these often and interacts frequently with the faculty there, a method by which a person can actually gain useful knowledge without the specific training.

  85. #85 GSW
    February 5, 2011

    @JBowers

    Yes, never ventured this far before. Recognized your name – were not on the same side, but reassuring to see you here also ;)

  86. #86 John
    February 5, 2011

    John Mahesy, there haven’t been any studies to my knowledge, however this website has been plagued by sceptical engineers in the past, and the Oregon Petition is stuffed with them. Of course I’m not saying *all* engineers are deniers, however in my experience a large number of them lean that way often using their engineering credentials as some kind of proof they are scientifically adept.

  87. #87 John
    February 5, 2011

    >So What?

    And so GSW sums up his entire attitude towards science that doesn’t fit his political beliefs.

  88. #88 Lotharsson
    February 5, 2011

    Hey Lotharsson, welcome back! You were missed.

    Thanks jakerman! RL has been demanding for a while :-( I skimmed the threads here every now and then and it seemed like everything was going rather well without me ;-)

  89. #89 Lotharsson
    February 5, 2011

    Of course I’m not saying all engineers are deniers, however in my experience a large number of them lean that way often using their engineering credentials as some kind of proof they are scientifically adept.

    I’m an engineer (although I have a Ph.D. which puts me in a minority of engineers).

    And yes, in my experience it’s not entirely uncommon to see a ‘skeptic’ tout their engineering degree as if it were a scientific credential. I suspect this is because either (a) they are actually clueless enough to think this to be true, or (b) it works on the rubes who (generally through no fault of their own) don’t know the difference.

    And this degree touting is usually coupled with at least a hint of the fallacy that “my credentials mean I’m right”.

  90. #90 John Mashey
    February 5, 2011

    John:
    Please think hard about this.

    Of course there are engineers. I live in Silicon Valley and know lots of them.

    But I’ve also seen “I’m a research scientist XXX” and sometimes financial modeling types and sometimes high school math teachers.

    Now, you are anonymous so have no reputation to lose.
    But I am as unimpressed by anecdotal evidence about engineers as I am about “It was cold in these 3 places, so AGW can’t be true.”

    To make a meaningful statement, you need to look at the % of population and other attributes. Perhaps, go look up population numbers of various types of engineers versus other occupations and report back. Finally, we still have no evidence that Tallbloke is an engineer other than his comment, and in fact, many people claiming to be engineers on blog posts may well not be.

  91. #91 John
    February 5, 2011

    John, even if I wasn’t anonymous I wouldn’t have any reputation to lose. I see your point, but I’m not claiming any other evidence besides my own experiences here and on the many climate blogs I read. Whether they really are engineers or not, I certainly see that card being played a lot – including by our own denier creationist senator Steve “As An Engineer I’m Taught To Look At Both Sides Of The Story” Fielding.

    A quick Google of Watts Up With That using the search term “engineer” brings nearly 3,000 hits, many from people claiming to be engineers. Are there be that many claiming to be teachers or chefs? Not even close.

    Is there a higher proportion of engineers who deny global warming? Or do engineers use their profession to try and profess some expertise more than other professions? I don’t know, but I’d be interested in finding out. I know it’s something we’ve discussed here before. All I can do is use my instincts and unimpressive anecdotal research to say “possibly”.

  92. #92 Tim Lambert
    February 5, 2011

    **Update 3:**
    [Steve McIntyre](http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/lisbon-workshop-on-reconciliation-part-iv/#comment-38454):

    >I can confirm that Fred Pearce read Gavin’s email to the organizers declining the invitation to the conference, because I (by chance) happened to be sitting with Pearce when he was provided with a copy of Gavin’s email and observed him reading it carefully.

    [tallbloke](http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/lisbon-workshop-on-reconciliation-part-iv/#comment-38573)

    >I got Fred to read it out loud to Steve and Ross. So he couldn’t make notes at the same time. And we had a couple of beers, which may be why he didn’t remember it very clearly later.

    Compare with his earlier comment “to set the record straight”

    >when I was asked one evening in Lisbon why certain people weren’t there I gave a quick praisee, including a brief reference to Gavin’s response. This made it’s way to Fred, hence the reference in his blog piece reporting on the conference.

    Deceitful, isn’t he?

  93. #93 Shinsko
    February 6, 2011

    Guess who has taken up the story? Over at [Bolt-world](http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/warmist_scientist_dodges_debate_and_luckily_for_him/) he claims “warmist” scientists are dodging the debate and,

    >Schmidt is either blinded by hate … or scared of debate.

    A word of warning: Bolt’s post and the comments section are full of such complete and utter nonsense that it will seriously do your head in if you spend any length of time reading them.

  94. #94 dhogaza
    February 6, 2011

    Is there a higher proportion of engineers who deny global warming? Or do engineers use their profession to try and profess some expertise more than other professions

    Same is seen in creation science debates …

    Also, as a software engineer with a computer science background, I understand that I’m not *really* an engineer (nor scientist). The field (the trivial subset of discreet mathematics that leads to computer science and software engineering) isn’t easily pegged (and isn’t as trivial as the mathematician who so labeled it back in the late 1970s) …

    Mashey understands that, I’m sure. Before suggesting that engineers are no less likely to be science denialists than scientists themselves, it might be better to qualify who you mean by the word “engineer”.

    They come in many flavors …

  95. #95 dhogaza
    February 6, 2011

    Guess who has taken up the story? Over at Bolt-world he claims “warmist” scientists are dodging the debate

    Elsewhere (Curry’s, I think), I pointed out that the denialsphere seems to think that Gavin, once invited, was *obligated* to attend the conference, and in order to get out of that obligation he had to lie about climate denialism, or some such crap.

    There seems to be no appreciation that, in the normal world, an invitation is not an order …

  96. #96 MapleLeaf
    February 6, 2011

    Tim @93,

    Thanks for doing that– that is exactly what I suggested Eli do.

  97. #97 John
    February 6, 2011

    Some comments from the Bolt post:

    >Just as bad, is saying SCEPTICS have politicised this? WTF!!!!, AGW has been THE very vehicle the left has used to obtain money and political power, a platform to exert their influence and to engineer society to suit their agenda.

    WTF!!!! indeed.

    >These Alarmists are on the payroll of government agencies, all which have a lot more money than any big business skeptics are accused of being on the payroll of

    >LAD, I disagree that it is about money, at least for the scientists. What scientists really crave is recognition and influence. AGW has raised the warmists from small-to-middling researchers into the most important scientists in the world (some would say the most important people) . The money means something but it is not the central driver.

    >Well considering these morons have been wrong on everything and they are spraying the western world with chemicals its clear to see the con [link to chemtrails video removed for your sanity]

    >Imagine Bob Brown allowing a free debate on climate change (or nearly any other subject for that matter) or Julia Gillard allowing free debates on climate change and the NBN or Tony Windsor on climate change, the NBN and the Murray Darling. And the list goes on.

    Sometimes I forget Bob Brown is the true mastermind behind this ruse. Now he’s stifling debate!

    >As man-made CO2 emissions are about 3% of all CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere i.e. 11ppm and the rest (nitrogen, oxygen etc.)comprises 999,989ppm, can someone please explain how this insignificant amount of man-made CO2 emissions caused Cyclone Yasi?.
    These numbers indicate a probability of around 1 in 100,000, so how certain is the “settled” science?.

    what

    >This all started as a clumsy attempt by the United Nation to get us off fossil fuels. Trouble is the climate is not playing the game they hoped. More and more climate scientists are deserting the ship. It is only the unthinking unquestioning green politicians and their blind followers who think we just have to wave a magic wand and we can have the utopia they crave.

    what

    >I am a great supporter of Andrew and am worried that he has not confronted this article head on the way he does most other pieces that directly or indirectly attack him or his views.

    Yes Andrew tell us what to think and restore our world view.

  98. #98 Michael
    February 6, 2011

    Has Pearce stuck his head up yet?

  99. #99 Bernard J.
    February 6, 2011

    Crap.

    Just fell victim to the multiple tabs syndrome.

    [Insert post here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_australians_war_on_science_60.php#comment-3222956).

  100. #100 jakerman
    February 6, 2011

    Cross post [from Tamino’s](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/not-a-misquote-a-nonquote/#comment-48058),

    >Why did tallbloke have an email that GS presumably sent to the conference organizers?

1 2 3 5

Current ye@r *