Bishop Hill has turned a most unepiscopal purple at the suggestion that his decade long obsession with sporting goods amounts to an obsession, denying that hockey sticks are really his stock in trade.And so begins a classic back and forth. The best was the first, in reply to somebunny noticing that Steve McIntyre was somewhat displeased with goings on at the AGU this year Russell pointed out that
The Bish and his acolytes seem positively snitful at the notion that McIntyre's discomfiture at AGU meetings stems from the high frequency with which non-oilpatch geophysicists fall down laughing when the mining statistician's mouth moves.
something or things at the conference seemed to have irked him.
Being gainsaid at every turn by climate scientists who know what they are talking about is bound to ruin any mining statistician's day.Eli quite agrees with both parties
Now some, not Eli to be sure, might be getting their pants in a twist about the technical differences between sock puppets, social engineering, pseudonyms and hacking, but there are more interesting things buried here under a complete lack of self awareness.
Someone, let us not say whom, conducting a smash and grab action to access the intellectual output of others, we will not speculate as to motive, at least not here, wonders why he is shunned by those he threatens and their colleagues.
Make no mistake about it, Steve is right when he sensed a hardening of opinion against the Climate Audit/Watts crowd at AGU clearly based on an increasing understanding that the climate system is entering dangerous areas driven by human forcings and disgust at the tactics of those trying to stop any actions to deal with the problem.but in his usual careful parse, Steve replied
Steve: I don’t understand your complaint against Climate Audit. If there’s anything inaccurate in this or any other post, I ask that people inform me of the inaccuracy. In addition, I seldom comment on policy and most of my rare comments on policy seem relatively uncontroversial to me (or even provoke criticism from “skeptics”). If you can point to any statement of mine about policy that provokes the sort of “disgust” that you allege, I’d appreciate it if you would provide me a link so that I can reflect on the point. It seems to me that people who are seriously concerned about the future should be the ones who take the lead in opposing bad ethics and poor statistical and scientific practices among their fellow travellers.
Nor did I comment that I “sensed a hardening of opinion against the Climate Audit/Watts crowd at AGU”. I primarily noted Gleick’s surprising return to AGU. I hadn’t associated AGU’s welcome to Gleick as being connected to AGU attitudes to Climate Audit and sincerely hope that this is not the case.and Steve, egged on by Willis thought this indeed was a winning hand
Sorry, the idiot tracker and Eli have that coveredSomeone, let us not say whom, conducting a smash and grab action to access the intellectual output of othersYes, I’m curious about this as well. As too often, Rabett is opaque to the point of incoherency. Is Rabett concerned about people accessing pdf’s of academic articles from online sources without purchasing the articles from the journals? Many authors regularly post such articles on their websites, but one can download them without having to “smash and grab”. I’m puzzled. Or is Rabett concerned about authors being asked to archive data?
C’mon Steve you’re an intellectual rent seeker. As the Idiot Tracker put it Steven McIntyreBut let us return to the hardening part
uses the coercive power of the state to force other people to give him, gratis, the fruits of their labor. He does not produce himself — he uses the data of others, repackaged and sensationalized, to fuel the hit count of his blog.and then, of course you wonder about the high regard you are held in by those you have cost time and effort complying for your rent demands.
Nor did I comment that I “sensed a hardening of opinion against the Climate Audit/Watts crowd at AGU”.Of course, "Nor did I comment"has to be followed by (I leave it to the rest of you to gather from the tone of my entire post which moans that Michael Mann, Naomi Oreskes and Peter Gleick played major roles at the conference and idle comments in the post such as
AGU used to be about physical sciences. Its erosion of standards was well exemplified by its inclusion of Stephan Lewandowsky, a social psychologist from western Australia, as co-convenor of two sessions.and
So for anyone wanting a break from Mannian statistics, Gleickian ethics, especially as synthesized by Lewandowsky, this year’s AGU conference was a bad one.Now some, not Eli to be sure, might have thunk that Steve had sensed a change in the AGU and its members attitude towards Steve and friends.
Still, Steve missed the most interesting talk about this point in one of those Lewandowsky convened symposia, Christene McEntee, the AGU CEO spoke. As CEO she speaks for the AGU
TITLE: Trusted Sources: The Role Scientific Societies Can Play in Improving Public Opinions on Climate Change (Invited)The Q&A after her talk was hard hitting, the As more than the very respectful Qs. Still, perhaps the most interesting point in that CA thread was a comment by Jim Lakely of the Heartland Institute
AUTHORS: Christine McEntee1, Ann Cairns1, Joan Buhrman1
INSTITUTIONS: 1. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, United States.
Public acceptance of the scientific consensus regarding climate change has eroded and misinformation designed to confuse the public is rapidly proliferating. Those issues, combined with an increase of politically motivated attacks on climate scientists and their research, have led to a place where ideology can trump scientific consensus as the foundation for developing policy solutions. The scientific community has been, thus far, unprepared to respond effectively to these developments. However, as a scientific society whose members engage in climate science research, and one whose organizational mission and vision are centered on the concepts of science for the benefit of humanity and ensuring a sustainable future, the American Geophysical Union can, and should, play an important role in reversing this trend.
To that end, in 2011, AGU convened a Leadership Summit on Climate Science Communication, in which presidents, executive directors, and senior public policy staff from 17 scientific organizations engaged with experts in the social sciences regarding effective communication of climate science and with practitioners from agriculture, energy, and the military. The discussions focused on three key issues: the environment of climate science communication; public understanding of climate change; and the perspectives of consumers of climate science–based information who work with specific audiences. Participants diagnosed previous challenges and failings, enumerated the key constituencies that need to be effectively engaged, and identified the critical role played by cultural cognition—the influence of group values, particularly around equality and authority, individualism, and community; and the perceptions of risk.
Since that meeting, AGU has consistently worked to identify and explore ways that it, and its members, and improve the effectiveness of their communication with the public about climate change. This presentation will focus on the insights AGU has gathered, as well as make the case for why this is an important role for scientific societies, such as AGU, to play.
I noticed that some previous comments ask why Heartland hasn’t “pressed charges” against Peter Gleick for his crimes. On behalf of The Heartland Institute, let me explain why.
Only the government can “press charges” in the U.S., and so far it has chosen not to bring criminal charges against Gleick. Heartland retained counsel experienced in federal criminal prosecutions and who have dealt often with prosecutors in the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Chicago. Heartland’s counsel thoroughly researched the case and met repeatedly with prosecutors, asking them to prosecute Gleick for the serious violations of federal law he committed.
Despite our efforts and despite Gleick having confessed to at least one crime, our appeal for prosecution was dismissed. We are told the government has no obligation to prosecute crimes even when the culprit confesses and the victim asks for prosecution. This is called “prosecutorial discretion.” We’re hoping the new US attorney in Chicago, along with prosecutors in Washington DC will take a new look at the case. We are holding off any civil suit until and in case a criminal prosecution is launched. In any event, we plan to release the presentation we compiled on Peter Gleick soon to let the general public decide if justice has been served.Sleep well