tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post6036543161776371327..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Seeps and SCAMS Part III: Richard Betts misunderstands (and misrepresents) a paperSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger123125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-76257605887354421172015-05-20T15:24:05.244+10:002015-05-20T15:24:05.244+10:00PG,
The damage that the CRU crimes did to mitigat...PG,<br /><br /><i>The damage that the CRU crimes did to mitigation was significant and proved that words matter (BTW I’m not criticising the email’s authors).</i><br /><br />Clearly. However, I think it was more than just unfortunate words and phrasings which lent themselves to spin via quoting out of context.<br /><br /><i>The avoidance of the language of deniers in no way hinders or shackles scientists however the benefits of specificity, particularly in regard to rates of warming can greatly assist mitigation policy and legislation.</i><br /><br />That's well and good when one is in total control of the word choices. My main argument is not that it's a terrible idea to keep "pause" and "hiatus" out of primary literature. I am saying that it's a bad idea to insist that those words not be used in any context just becuase deniers use them. The denier <b>strategy</b> is to make global warming all about surface/lower troposphere temperatures.<br /><br />I don't cede the word "sceptic" to them; I call them contrarians when using a loaded term would be impolitic. I'm just as reticent to wriggle away from "pause" or "hiatus" when discussing surface temperature trends because they're adequately descriptive, and I don't want anyone getting the idea that I'm afraid of their branding.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75112599617511049092015-05-20T12:49:55.231+10:002015-05-20T12:49:55.231+10:00Brandon if mitigation policy was driven by science...Brandon if mitigation policy was driven by science then the language of variability could be a loose as <i>Mike's nature trick</i> and nobody would give a shit. <br />You could happily call a decrease in the rate of surface warming anything you damn well wanted because you know… science!<br /><br />Sadly, science seems incapable of driving mitigation so the species is reliant on politics. <br /><br />Too many scientists believe that the great unwashed don't have a clue (and that’s mostly true) and research scientists have no role to play in changing the public's perceptions of risk and mitigation. <br /><br />Too many scientists dismiss the very real damage caused by the CRU thefts as a nothing burger perpetrated by stupid crooks and liars. It wasn't a burger and the crooks and liars were clever.<br /><br />The damage that the CRU crimes did to mitigation was <br />significant and proved that words matter <br />(BTW I’m not criticising the email’s authors). <br /><br />The avoidance of the <i>language of deniers</i> in no way hinders or shackles scientists however the benefits of specificity, particularly in regard to <b>rates of warming</b> can greatly assist mitigation policy and legislation. Public climate institutions should have led the way. <br />PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22625713575826622342015-05-20T10:43:29.630+10:002015-05-20T10:43:29.630+10:00PG,
He and Rob Varley should have long ago contem...PG,<br /><br /><i>He and Rob Varley should have long ago contemplated that adopting denier terminology will affect public policy.</i><br /><br />If by "denier terminology" you mean pause/hiatus/slowdown in <b>surface</b> temperatures:<br /><br />https://archive.is/DrTlu#selection-1425.0-1655.61<br /><br /><i>D.J. Hawkins<br />May 18, 2015 at 3:16 pm<br />@Latitude<br />So when I throw a ball in the air and it “pauses”, that implies that it will continue upward at a later time??<br /><br />Latitude<br />May 18, 2015 at 4:22 pm<br />the “pause” in global warming implies that global warming will continue…”slowdown” implies the same…….and so does “hiatus”<br />It’s the context not the ball………<br /><br />JohnB<br />May 18, 2015 at 5:49 pm<br />Personally I’ve always preferred “plateau” as that doesn’t imply a direction at the end.<br /><br />JohnWho<br />May 18, 2015 at 6:00 pm<br />What’s wrong with “halt”?<br /><br />Ron Clutz<br />May 18, 2015 at 10:29 am<br />Plateau, people, Plateau. It could end in cooling or warming.</i><br /><br />This is not an atypical discussion at WUWT. Saying global warming has "halted" or "stopped" is not supported by all the data. Saying that <b>surface</b> temperature trend over the past 15 years is flatter than the upward trend of the prior 15 year period is suppored by the data. I have no problem calling the flatter trend <b>at the surface</b> a pause or hiatus for the very reason that those terms do indeed imply that <b>surface</b> warming is expected to continue.<br /><br />Words are not necessarily wrong in isolation. Context is important, thus it is the qualifiers surrounding words which is key.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-71662277369544052322015-05-20T03:46:07.117+10:002015-05-20T03:46:07.117+10:00Well, I expect the authors are dismayed to know th...Well, I expect the authors are dismayed to know that there are a number of people who didn't understand the paper and some who even took offense. Particularly when their intention was to describe a phenomenon that is not helping scientists or science communicators or science (or any of us for that matter), so as to minimise the risk of it in the future.<br /><br />I'm not sure what they could have done differently. Maybe picked another example for their case study? Though the one they picked was the obvious candidate.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-90552674379691796412015-05-20T03:26:55.803+10:002015-05-20T03:26:55.803+10:00Sou,
I did read the paper and somewhat around the...Sou,<br /><br />I did read the paper and somewhat around the paper before making the comment at the Guardian and I remain of the opinion that certain passages that were identified over there (amongst others) leave plenty to be desired. Maybe I misinterpreted but if so it is very far from wilful and I am far from alone in doing so if I have. Several folks have inferred the same as I did that it directly questioned the value of the work in this area. Which is clearly scientifically non-sensical because understanding climate variability and change is key if we want better projections and informed decision making.<br /><br />I am not about to go all lowest common denominator and call out folks who elsewhere have made comments. There are a number that scanning some twitter timelines will highlight. Unlike others I don't want to start calling out comments made somewhere on a third party site. I trust you'll understand that?<br /><br />The issue appears to be one of interpretation. I have interpreted the paper distinctly from many here. This may have something to do with my specialisation but it is most definitely not down to disdain for another specialisation. I embrace working across disciplines in a positive manner. I read it in a given and distinctly negative way and it is right and proper to point out that this was not from my perspective helpful. Assuming that I and my colleagues were the intended main audience the risk is that I am representative and therefore the whole thing is a distinct own-goal.Peter Thornehttp://www.surfacetemperatures.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-76367134144923618522015-05-20T02:00:58.254+10:002015-05-20T02:00:58.254+10:00"I've not seen any who have acknowledged ..."I've not seen any who have acknowledged that the authors specifically write that they are not arguing against doing scientific research on short term variability."<br /><br />This is the point. Peter could, for instance, decide to go back and reread the bits he finds offensive. Having been informed by the authors that they did not intend the meaning Peter's read into it, Peter could carefully determine whether or not the meaning the authors intended can be read into those words as originally written. And ask himself whether or not his initial reading might've been influenced by personal bias.<br /><br />Since SL runs a blog, and since the other authors have made themselves available for comment, Peter could've queried them directly as to their intent before shooting off in public.<br /><br />As to Peter's first paragraph in response to me, I suggest he google "concern troll". I'm sure he wouldn't want people to mistake him for one of those ...dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29619118449571292792015-05-20T01:46:24.971+10:002015-05-20T01:46:24.971+10:00Peter, this blog does get a bit rough sometimes no...Peter, this blog does get a bit rough sometimes not just Dhogaza or me - see some of the comments to and by Richard Betts'. I have a light touch when it comes to moderation. (Doghaza's comment was mild to saintly compared to what you'll get at WUWT :)). <br /><br />Thing is, I can understand that a climate scientist might get a bit prickly when reading the paper. That at first reading it could appear to them to be a criticism of their profession, even though a climate scientist was an author. <br /><br />Already climate scientists get unfairly blamed for all sorts of things, such as communication with the general public when it's not their job. (That's not to say some don't do that job and do it very well. But I see their job is to do science and communicate that to their peers. Then to science communicators - whose job it is to communicate it to the general public.)<br /><br />So I can understand an initial reaction like yours, particularly when the paper comes from a pro-science team.<br /><br />On the other hand, I see little evidence that there were "a lot" of people from climate science who would dismiss the study out of hand. There's you, and there's Doug McNeall and there's Richard Betts. Who else? Maybe one or two others who are in the camp that knocks other communication studies. I'd not be surprised if Myles Allen canned it - he has something against social sciences or communication studies. None of these people had an unexpected reaction, given their expressed opinions on similar research in the past. It's not uncommon for people to view another's discipline with disdain. (Or profession - teachers, doctors, public servants, management consultants - all cop flak from people who aren't teachers, doctors, public servants or management consultants :D)<br /><br />Nor have I seen any comments from those who don't "agree" with it, that indicate they understood the paper. I've not seen any who have acknowledged that the authors specifically write that they are not arguing against doing scientific research on short term variability. They did that in an attempt to explain what they do mean by seepage. <br /><br />None so far have addressed the specifics of the study. The only comments I've seen of complaint are like Richard's - and he not only missed the point, he misrepresented the paper in more than one important aspect.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35480428377317185382015-05-20T01:17:29.110+10:002015-05-20T01:17:29.110+10:00dhogaza,
thanks but I did read the paper. And I b...dhogaza,<br /><br />thanks but I did read the paper. And I believe I can read and comprehend words. It would have been hard to get where I am were this not the case. A little politeness would not go amiss if you wish to engage in a conversation. Or maybe you just wish to disparage and belittle those you don't agree with? That of course is your option but its not exactly a constructive way forwards is it? :-)<br /><br />That I came to a different conclusion to you and that I appear to be very far from alone within the community in doing so does suggest a substantial failure of communication on the part of the authors in this case. If they did not intend to cast doubt on the scientific value of these analyses then they should have written the thing in a different manner. <br /><br />The piece may well have been well intentioned and conceived but the language in several places if it was intended to positively influence the science community is incredibly poorly thought out and executed. As evidenced on the Guardian thread (and I am not about to repeat) there are several parts where the only logical implication I can come to for the words used is to denigrate the substantial work on the recent temperature trends. Work that I have no doubt will improve our understanding, modelling and thus projections.<br /><br />If I were alone in thinking this that would be one thing. But I am not. Thus perhaps trying to understand why at least a subset of the very target community have reacted negatively would be a useful way forwards here rather than a knee jerk disparage job that adds no value to anyone? There is a reason I haven't engaged at WUWT. I expect more of the denziens here.Peter Thornehttp://www.surfacetemperatures.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-748665429440096612015-05-20T01:12:48.099+10:002015-05-20T01:12:48.099+10:00This discussion has all but finished. I'll mak...This discussion has all but finished. I'll make one more observation. <br /><br />I noticed that Richard keeps using the term "objective". Public servants might strive to be "objective" but aren't any more objective than anyone else. They bring their own subjectivity to any problem in science, and even more so if they are involved in providing advice to government. <br /><br />They will, if they have any experience, make sure that they select language that is likely to be understood. They will select the information to be provided from the vast body of information available to them. All of this requires subjective and, hopefully, informed judgement. And a knowledge of the audience. (Eg does the Minister understand any science or not? What is her stance on climate change? What is the most appropriate way to couch the information so that the Minister can both understand it and "trust" it? As importantly, what about her advisers - who is the person who will be acting on this - the Minister? Her Chief of Staff? Cabinet? What is the context? What else is happening that this paper/discussion will be seen in the light of?)<br /><br />What a decent elected person would be looking for is advice that is independent of political allegiance. There is no such thing as purely objective advice, or purely objective research if it comes to that.<br /><br />The advice becomes less "objective" the closer it is to home. If the Minister or Cabinet is making a decision on whether to give more funds to scientific research or to education, then you can bet that the advice from both portfolios will not be objective. It will be a sales pitch loosely disguised as "independent advice" by dry facts and figures, and dire warnings of what will happen if funding is cut..<br /><br />I don't know too many senior bureaucrats who would talk about "objective" advice these days. They would normally talk of independent advice - in the case of advice to government by a public servant, independent from political influence or allegiance or vested interest of any particular stakeholder or constituency. (It might be different in the UK of course.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69972108101839510022015-05-20T00:54:32.589+10:002015-05-20T00:54:32.589+10:00Peter Thorne:
"I stand by my points made tha...Peter Thorne:<br /><br />"I stand by my points made that from my reading the paper was not helpful and missed the point from a research scientist's perspective."<br /><br />Someone else who claims to have read the paper, but has claimed that the paper says something other than what it actually says.<br /><br />Perhaps working scientists are not only poor at communication, but in reading comprehension.<br /><br />One just can't square Peter's statement:<br /><br />"To maintain that as scientists we should not investigate the pause..."<br /><br />With the actual text of the paper.<br /><br />Betts and Thorne might ask themselves why WUWT is so gloatingly happy to repost their statements which contradict what the paper itself, and the authors' comments regarding the paper, say. And why their reading is correct while the papers authors' reading of what they wrote is wrong.dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21054793032428717412015-05-20T00:46:48.108+10:002015-05-20T00:46:48.108+10:00If surface temps meander above trend for the next ...If surface temps meander above trend for the next few years, will the IPCC adopt or invent a term that's the flip side of "hiatus" in the next report? I don't think the denialsphere will be providing us with a nice sound-bite term emphasizing statistically insignificant short-term data that would seem to show accelerating warming ... the wording in the current report would seem to almost require discussion of such an extraordinary turn-about in the short term data next time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75030328091579356512015-05-19T22:24:14.545+10:002015-05-19T22:24:14.545+10:00"Take note: the virtually eponymous GetUp!, t...<i>"Take note: the virtually eponymous GetUp!, the highly 'activist' rejigged Climate Council, and some highly 'activist' UWA alumni squashed Pyne and Lomborg's little project recently precisely because they understand that if you don't want something bad to happen you have to act, swiftly and decisively, and without allowing your opponents to frame the debate"</i><br /><br />This!<br /><br />It's the same reason I remove weeds from the lawn before they have time to flower. It's always harder and more costly if you let them grow. It's never as cheap and easy to nip as in the bud.<br /><br /><i>"The public hears all this as 'see, they can't agree'. <b>That's all the contrarians need to achieve</b>."</i><br /><br />This ought to be drummed into every scientist who ever says or writes anything of import that might make an appearance in the public sphere (whether that appearance is courtesy of hostile spinners or otherwise).Lotharssonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-71830665349093265762015-05-19T22:16:35.987+10:002015-05-19T22:16:35.987+10:00"Also, at Lewandowsky et al point out, the IP...<i>"Also, at Lewandowsky et al point out, the IPCC use "hiatus"."</i><br /><br />Yes, and the IPCC were either foolish or quite ignorant to do so, especially since the IPCC is charged with not only assessing the state of the science but communicating it to non-scientists.<br /><br />And that is true regardless of where the term was first used. This is not about first use bragging rights, and you have to remember that <em>facts don't matter</em> to those playing dirty. They can make sufficient numbers of people believe the sky is green if they need to. For example, a full 10 years after 9/11, and after highly public and well publicised government commissions found that just before the war Iraq did not have WMDs, did not have a WMD program and was not substantially supporting Al Qaeda, 38% of respondents said the US had found clear evidence of that non-existent program and 46% said that Iraq was substantially supporting Al Qaeda or even directly involved in the 9/11 attacks (see <a href="http://www.sadat.umd.edu/911Anniversary_Sep11_rpt.pdf" rel="nofollow">this PDF report</a>.)<br /><br />And that ability to engender false belief means this in context this request about first usage of terms appears to be moot:<br /><br /><i>"More evidence and less supposition, please!"</i><br /><br />But it raises one more thought. What are the chances of climate scientists taking on board the evidence of the impact of communication strategies in politicised fields like yours sometime soon?Lotharssonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53393498238682133942015-05-19T22:11:32.434+10:002015-05-19T22:11:32.434+10:00"As for your claim that other scientist's...<i>"As for your claim that other scientist's funding is at risk because of what we say - well that the first I've heard of this."</i><br /><br />Firstly, please carefully re-read what I wrote which did not claim that <em>pure</em> a causal link - it's not <em>just</em> what you/The Met Office say, but whatever can be spun to low information voters as "proving" to them that we need less climate research. I'm not describing a phenomenon with single factor causation but a sliding scale of pressure etc. with contributions from multiple factors, one of which is how you in particular (or other climate scientists in general) choose to frame their communications and express their concepts.<br /><br />Secondly, note that it's entirely plausible that many scientists on the receiving end have their heads down in their work (or simply don't grok the political factors) and accordingly don't understand the political shenanigans and how they are perpetrated.<br /><br />So let me try laying out the influence chain in greater detail (in reverse):<br /><br /> - Climate scientists are having their funding pressured, possibly curtailed and are seeing attempts to restrict what they can research. (See the news in the last week(?) or two out of the US for an example. Or the news in Australia since the last election about 18 months ago. Or reports out of Canada over the last few years. A little bit of funding pressure here, a closing down of the odd institution or department there, a gagging order on inconvenient personnel or messages over there, a directive that makes it harder for new climate research projects to clear the bureacratic hurdles there...)<br /><br /> - This pressure by those applying it is "justified" by or motivated in part by reference to <em>sufficient levels of popularity of the opinion</em> that climate science is somewhere between unnecessary and outright bunkum. <br /><br />Other factors clearly matter too, including pressure arising from political donations. I'm only talking about the part that connects to scientific language choices.<br /><br /> - <b>Higher levels of</b> that class of opinion are manufactured <em>in part</em> by (typically deliberately) misinterpreting what scientists say to members of the public who have low levels of scientific understanding. <br /><br />Other misleading tactics are used too. I'm still only talking about the part that connects to scientific communication tactics.<br /><br /> - That manufacturing process is made a whole lot easier when scientists adopt the framing the manufacturers chose - and you can be sure that they spent a significant amount of effort and brain power and dollars figuring out which framing has the most power for their purpose, far more consideration than scientists tend to give to language. They're professionals and that's their highly marketable skill, after all. <br /><br />If you wanted to survive it then as a rank amateur you wouldn't be willing to allow the professional swordsman to dictate the weapons to be used in a duel. Alternatively, you can't stop the spinners spinning, but you can at least refuse to hand them a loaded gun with the safety off (to even more horribly mix my metaphors!)<br />Lotharssonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46134163050473494612015-05-19T22:03:01.960+10:002015-05-19T22:03:01.960+10:00"Nobody can seriously claim that the Met Offi...<i>"Nobody can seriously claim that the Met Office does not think anthropogenic climate change is real or poses risks."</i><br /><br />I hear that you very sincerely believe that, and you find it difficult to believe otherwise. But that claim is <b>very seriously mistaken</b> as I and others have attested above. <br /><br />The reason is that (however unfortunately so) in this matter "seriously claim" does not imply "seriously claim on a well grounded basis" due to the extensive political and commercial campaigns to confuse and deceive the aforementioned low information voters. You appear to be (perhaps) assuming that everyone involved in the wider political/media games plays by the rules like you do, hence drawing an inference that because your position is honestly stated it cannot be misinterpreted (honestly or otherwise). There is quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. Those who oppose taking your work seriously (by and large) play dirty, and they have involved you and your colleagues in their games no matter how much you would prefer otherwise.<br />Lotharssonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52750995320126579472015-05-19T22:01:44.800+10:002015-05-19T22:01:44.800+10:00"However, I think you're rather insulting...<i>"However, I think you're rather insulting the intelligence of the public - you're basically arguing for dumbing-down."</i><br /><br />No, I'm not doing either of those things.<br /><br />1) Firstly, it's hard to insult the functional scientific intelligence of a good 30+% of the public in many countries who get many of their "facts" from mass media outlets who have no compunctions about shading or outright manufacturing "the facts". There is a specific term for them - low information voters - that I'd like to adopt here to specifically refer to low science information voters.<br /><br />And there's no shame in being functionally scientifically unintelligent. We all, scientists included, have large areas of expertise where we have so little skill and knowledge that we have no significant functional intelligence. Scientists in particular would do well to avoid the Dunning-Kruger effect when self-assessing their public communications abilities, because a scientific mindset and the typical scientific communication idioms and priorities are easily misinterpreted by the rest of us who don't share the mindset.<br /><br />2) I'm not arguing for a dumbing down of the message or the information. I'm arguing for a <b>smartening up</b> of <i>communications tactics</i> in an unfortunately politicised field. (If this were the science of high temperature superconductors which has not been politicised in that way there wouldn't be any need to have this conversation and the language used within the field wouldn't take on wider import.)<br />Lotharssonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52273481003836605092015-05-19T21:48:38.910+10:002015-05-19T21:48:38.910+10:00I missed that jibe - thanks Lotharsson.
Saying i...I missed that jibe - thanks Lotharsson. <br /><br />Saying it over and over doesn't make it so. Once again Richard used rhetoric rather than evidence. He's been making a habit of that. It's what you might call behaving "politically as opposed to objectively" :(Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35648417726295969842015-05-19T21:08:05.752+10:002015-05-19T21:08:05.752+10:00"Your "they who hold the purse-strings&q...<i>"Your "they who hold the purse-strings" argument is exactly what they claim on WUWT. You can't both be right that we are paid to both talk-up and talk-down AGW."</i><br /><br />You would be correct except that <b>that's not my argument</b>.<br /><br />Your comment was in reply to a question of "thriving" under different political leadership. If you are truly immune to any possible nobbling of (say) your career through political interference (or of your ability to provide unvarnished advice to political leaders) than that's great to hear. However it would be an egregious fallacy to generalise that around the world because we have plenty of evidence of people suddenly "failing to thrive" because their unvarnished advice was sufficiently unwelcome to political leaders who had no qualms about using their power to ensure they and the public got less of it in the future. <br /><br />I don't know the UK well enough to make an assessment, but it might also be a terrible mistake to imagine that past immunity confers future immunity as times and/or leadership changes, as many people (scientists and others) throughout history who once felt they had immunity from political interference could tell you. You could probably find CSIRO staff who could relate a transition from immune to not immune if you asked around.<br /><br />And <b>that</b> was my pair of points - most especially the latter one.Lotharssonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72424396732652021352015-05-19T20:55:31.791+10:002015-05-19T20:55:31.791+10:00...your priority is to achieve a political aim, so...<i>...your priority is to achieve a political aim, so you behave politically, as opposed to objectively.</i><br /><br />This appears to potentially embody a false dichotomy fallacy, and that possibility suggests the author might carefully reconsider whether or not that's the case here.Lotharssonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-70611786905906661982015-05-19T19:26:39.227+10:002015-05-19T19:26:39.227+10:00@Peter Thorne,
Stephan Lewandowsky and Naomi Ores...@Peter Thorne, <br />Stephan Lewandowsky and Naomi Oreskes are outstanding communicators. They went to great lengths to make sure people like you and Richard did not misinterpret their paper. Apparently they failed.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20973149864880227012015-05-19T18:57:38.336+10:002015-05-19T18:57:38.336+10:00Sou I am not accusing Richard of giving coloured a...Sou I am not accusing Richard of giving coloured advice to ministers. But I do believe Richard is a politician. Thus my comment that he would thrive if by some hypothetical and bizarre electoral circumstance Farage took over the BIS portfolio two weeks ago.<br />My point is this. Richard understands policy and politics and is probably professionally required to do so. He should therefore be highly sensitive to Lewandowsky 15. He and Rob Varley should have long ago contemplated that adopting denier terminology will affect public policy. <br />Things are changing in Westminster , there are more Tory deniers in the House and in the Ministry than there were a fortnight ago.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82395498707197401932015-05-19T17:39:38.335+10:002015-05-19T17:39:38.335+10:00PG putting it that way implies there is nefarious ...PG putting it that way implies there is nefarious activity or intent. That's certainly not something I'd go along with. IMO Richard would be giving good independent factual advice to government.<br /><br />Government ministers depend on people working in their agencies to give them information that is independent, and not biased by party political affiliations. Public servants (or most of them) pride themselves on being able to give the same information based on facts, regardless of the party in power. In addition, in some circumstances, Ministers will ask public servants to advise on the pros and cons of different policy responses.<br /><br />Richard is correct when he implies he would give the same information and advice regardless of the party that governs. That's expected of all public servants here as well as in the UK (and the USA).<br /><br />The issue here is not the advice or information that Richard gives to government. It's about the messaging that the public hears. That's because it's the public who elects politicians. Richard believes that his treatment of disinformers goes to his credibility. I don't agree. Richard provides no evidence to support his belief. His absence of evidence is not evidence. And what he is claiming is not supported by research either.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2547117444797428862015-05-19T16:47:14.631+10:002015-05-19T16:47:14.631+10:00"...from my reading the paper was not helpful..."...from my reading the paper was not helpful and missed the point from a research scientist's perspective..."<br /><br />I think everyone here understands this. Nobody is criticising the research, and obviously research needs to be discussed to make headway.<br /><br />What some people have been trying to say is that for research scientists to go along with terms beloved of deniers is not helpful, and misses the point, from the perspective of public understanding of science.<br /><br />Or, to put it another way, you're up against spin doctors. It makes sense to consider that they will try to spin your every word to their own advantage, and to the detriment of what you really meant to say. The less leeway your words give them, the better.<br /><br />I think you could have an equally robust discussion without saying there had been a "pause" or "hiatus" in warming, which after all is not really the case anyway.<br />Contrail Chooknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45762739426347877732015-05-19T16:25:29.769+10:002015-05-19T16:25:29.769+10:00Sou, giving ministerial advice is all about influe...Sou, giving ministerial advice is all about influencing public policy. The Met Office, (Hadley included) ain't no dreaming spire.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52854285237519787972015-05-19T16:03:25.511+10:002015-05-19T16:03:25.511+10:00PG, I did read both the paper and the Guardian art...PG, I did read both the paper and the Guardian article before commenting at the Guardian, as would be expected as good practice. <br /><br />I also saw the very similar reactions of several respected colleagues who you would be hard pressed to classify as remotely outside the consensus. <br /><br />I stand by my points made that from my reading the paper was not helpful and missed the point from a research scientist's perspective. That is my interpretation of the words written. I cannot divine intent of the authors and 90% of communication is non-written. So, if they did not intend this then they clearly chose poor words.<br /><br />Now, I would rather it had not been reproduced w/o permission on third party sites (several) but its not against Guardian policy AIUI and there is no point whistling into the wind on that score. Life is short and the to-do-list is long.<br /><br />The science community is far from a bunch of sheep and we should celebrate the culture that allows disagreement and discussion of issues in public. So long as it is civil. <br /><br />PeterPeter Thornehttp://www.surfacetemperatures.orgnoreply@blogger.com