The other headline I could have used: Jo Nova and Watts Up graphs used in UEA lectures!
It doesn’t get much better than this. Imagine finding out your work helped to support a university course in a place right at the center of the dogma and unscientific reasoning you are working to expose? Well I’m chuffed. š
Allan Kendall is a lecturer at the University of East Anglia (UEA) with principles and an open mind, who gave his students the whole story. I applaud his brave approach, he would have known he risked castigation and exile in his workplace, and that there would be little reward.
Curiously a small storm eruptedĀ on Bishop Hill. Alan Kendall is defending UEA, saying that not everyone or every branch of research at UEA ought to be tarnished with the poor behaviour of the Climate Research Unit. And his behaviour rather proves his point, but many commenters at UEA are bagging him for expecting anyone to take UEA seriously, and in a sense they are right too. Therein lies the rub.
People of Kendall’s quality are either rare or silent at UEA. As long as the Chancellor of UEA continues to deny that it was wrong for the Climate Research Unit to hide and lose data and methods, or wrong to destroy emails subject to FOI’s, or wrong to hide declines, or wrong to manipulate the peer review process, then UEA deserves a shellacking in my opinion, even as Allan Kendall deserves high praise. It’s been a lonely battle for him. The world needs to see more of the UEA workers and students protesting that one small group is dragging their reputation down. Those other good workers like Kendall did not do anything wrong, and did not ask for this reputational disaster to be imposed on them, but the test has come. Will the workers ofĀ UEA stand up for the tenets of science? Will they allow their university to be called the “University of Easy Access”, and the name UEA to be synonymous with corruption?
Sadly it’s not just UEA where scientific standards are haphazard. Can anyone name a university anywhere in the world where the Science Department maintains good practices and speaks out against? My alma mater, the University of Western Australia, allows Stephen Lewandowsky to utter anti-science, bizarre, “psychological” comments on how anyone who dissents from the government-approved-opinion has a mental condition and a faulty brain. The Soviets would have given Lewandowsky a job in a flash. Yet UWA Science stands silently by as if breaking laws of reason is a fair thing. (See The death of reason at UWAĀ The hypocrisy of the annointed,Ā Picasso Brain Syndrome and other of my posts about Lewandowsky)
Kendall was the lone voice of reason working with UEA to do the right thing
The ClimateGate emails show that Kendall was the one who let UEA management know in 2007 that Climate Audit was writing about the UEA in “unfortunate ways” that they ought respond too. Alan Kendall read both Real Climate and Climate Audit, thought that solar physicists had been ignored and hard done by, in 2008 he wanted to take a Ā£100 bet with Phil Jones that the world would cool. Phil replied “It would be unfair to get involved in a bit (sic) with you, as I know a couple of things you don’t”.Ā (Such arrogance). Kendall probably would have won that bet.
There was clearly a permitted view at UEA and Kendall was facing opposition. The emails show that it was unquestioned among professors and others at UEA that students ought to be taught what to think, not how to think: Tim Osborne was concerned about Kendall’s module full of “climate skeptic nonsense”; Professor Neil Adger was worried that Kendall’s slides could “confuse” students; Mick Kelly responded “amazed” suggesting they ought to sic Greenpeace onto Kendall to silence him.
That’s amazing re Alan Kendall (always thought he was rather a loose
cannon). And, no, he didn’t contribute to 1A01 in my day – sure I’d have
spotted had he done so! Who’s convening 1A01 nowadays? I’d call his bluff
and constructively suggest that he might ensure consistency between what you
say (assuming you give the lectures I used to cover?) and his account – for
the students’ sake at least! Alternatively, could always threaten to have
Greenpeace invade his lecture š Good luck!
Phil Jones was not happy:
Ā This annoys me too. I’d read up and talk to people if I were to ever attempt moving to
another field! It is just common sense. Neil Adger has taken over the running of First
Year course here in ENV. He asked Alan Kendall for the ppt for 2 lectures he gives. He sent
them and 40 slides are taken from Climate Audit! A student asked Neil why Alan was saying
things opposite to what Neil and Tim Osborn were saying!!!Alan is retiring at the end of this year….thankfully.
Allan KendallĀ posted at Bishop HillĀ
that theĀ slides didn’t come from Climate Audit but from Watts Up and JoNova’s, and that he was astounded by the attacks on himself at Bishop Hills site:
“First a needed correction. It is alleged that I used Climate Audit material in my teaching materials. Upon reviewing this material I find not a single instance of illustrations from that estimable site (sorry Steve). Instead most came from Watts up with That or from JoNova’s excellent site.” This relates to email 2639, where Phil Jones (incorrectly apparently) said that Kendall used CA.
My, my, how quickly it becomes evident to me that hitherto I was wise to refrain from blogging. By trying to defend UEA as an institution I only gave opportunities for further attack .
1) I choose not to add to the criticism heaped upon some of my colleagues; in my judgement this would add little – I’m sure that they are fully aware of my opinion of them. To refrain from adding to their woes is my right and those of you who choose to question my motives here only shine a light on their own predjuces.
2) I have criticised from within, but mine was almost alone voice and easily ignored. I have always been concerned about the fallout from Climategate, for the university’s good name (which in many respects it fully deserves) but advice I offered was ignored – as is its right to do so.
3) I still teach part-time at UEA, and still ask students to question the evidence about AGW for themselves – but not to first years students anymore. I never preached an anti AGW message (how could I, I don’t have a grounding in climate science) instead I showed students evidence and argument they were not hearing and asked them to draw their own conclusions – FROM ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.I am truly astounded by the attacks on myself and from people I would previously have considered to on the same side of the fence.
I am also appalled by the rightious indignation expressed by some respondents. As if they have a god-given right to criticize and further to suggest/ insist upon the wholesale destruction of an institution on the basis that some of its actions offend.
Lesson learned
Apologies from my typos and spelling. Latter never my strong suite and always believed the old saying that poor spelling a sign of intelligence. Perhaps too much reliance upon “spellchecker” in recent years.
Dec 2, 2011 at 11:02 AM | ‘@lanK
The comments changed tune
People were impressed with Allan Kendall, even if they were still not enthused about UEA.
—–
In my opinion what you have done in 24 hours on a blog will do more to redress the reputation of the University than the management along with their expensive āspin doctorsā have achieved in their 2 years of obfuscation.
Thank you
——————
If CRU represents 10% of UEA the other 90% should be up in arms. The fact that they are not does not speak well for academe.
Sorry but I would not let any of my children anywhere near UEA.
DolphinHead
—–
I wonder how long it will be before those happy BSc Climate Science graduates from CRU realise that they have accumulated all that student debt in exchange for what must be about to become one of the most valueless degrees of all time.
Thinking scientist
——————————-
The bullying here of Alan Kendall, a single voice in a department of trolls, is shamefull. Utterly shamefull!
Alan Kendall lectured on what he thought appropriate, and caught heat for that. Instead of being supported here as a lone voice in the wilderness, he’s being bagged by Russell Group boosters.
When Russell Group universities and alumni grow the balls to take on the CRU, future criticism of UEA will be valid. As it stands, Alan Kendall was hung out to dry by ENV and is still being hung out to dry by gutless Russell Group institutions and individuals here.
Shamefull.
———————-
Alan Kendall was described by his colleagues as a “loose cannon” whose opinions were considered to be not that of the School of Environment.
So it is very noble of Alan Kendall to stand for UEA when it is clear UEA people thought very little of him.
Mac
——
H/t Paul who let me know almost straight away. Fascinating. Thanks!
—————————————————–
K. Short, knows UEA and writes in the comments
(thanks K. Short (my bolding) :
Dear Jo,
Re your 4 December 2011 article āOne lone East Anglia man stands up against poor practice. Where are the rest?ā regarding UEA lecturer Allan Kendall (link below).
UEA is my old alma mater and I can tell you that Allan Kendall may be even more of a hero than you realise. Norwich, the City in which the University is situated, is a relatively small tight-knit community and I believe has the greatest per-capita concentration of warmist āgreensā in the UK. From bitter experience, at least some of these warmists were far from averse to employing āclimate denierā labels and other denigrating fascistic epithets to those who thoughtfully questioned AGW. I know that all scientists are supposed to have scientific-integrity and courage of conviction but, frankly, for Allan Kendall to stand up for balanced climate-science in such adverse local circumstances is likely to have cost him socially and he deserves high praise indeed. Iām sure other UEA staff members think likewise and I suspect that more of them will begin to openly dissent from AGW theories and Climatic Research Unit practice in the coming months.
Kendall has certainly lived up to the university motto ā ādo differentā ā but then, in his own perverse way, so has the CRUās Professor Phil Jonesā¦ I think that a reputation/standards restoring UEA purge of the CRU is long overdue and must be on the cards now given ongoing exposure of scientific failings and skewing politics. Under current direction, the CRU is certainly not worthy of funding from British taxpayers and has done incalculable harm to them.
Greens so often cite the āprecautionary principleā in support of their calls for draconian AGW-mitigation policies which, in the case of Surrey Universityās Professor Tim Jackson and his CRU-citing āsustainable developmentā colleagues for example, is positively anti economic growth. Given the repeated exposure of questionable practices of the UEA Climatic Research Unit, and demonstrable failure of so many CRU/IPCC alarmist predictions to materialise or stand up to scrutiny, the general public has a much more tenable right to demand the precautionary principle be applied in defence of economic growth: particularly given current austerity measures. Economy-damaging AGW-mitigation policies should therefore be abandoned pending scientific proof of catastrophic AGW. As a priority, the UK climate change act should be repealed without delay. For more information see: http://www.repealtheact.org.uk/
Thank you for your own commitment to honest climate science. The Jo Nova website is a beacon of fairness, good sense and, very importantly, good humour in an inhospitable sea of collective madness.
K. Short.
[permission to repost].
Anthony Watts puts his spin on it too. Cheers Anthony, and well done š
——————————————-
Alan Kendall comments at #26
I not only used Joanneās illustrations but also the same approach as she used ā namely provide evidence, then consider the counter-arguments, then reach a conclusion. I have, in the past, asked students to do their own research on an aspect of climate change science using this approach from both the pro- and anti-AGW stances. Results are impressive, all students leave with the idea that science is never settled and many become really worried that what they had previously accepted without question (because authority tells them this) is not supported rigourously. Many students retain their AGW beliefs but are the stronger for it. I liked this method because students reach their own conclusions and I always feel uncomfortable about pushing my own biasses. So thank you Joanne for your material and approach.
@IanK
The man deserves a medal.
Bloggers of the world, raise your mouse for a toast. To Alan Kendall for preserving a modicum of scientific integrity in encouraging students to investigate all hypotheses, and to Jo Nova for making it easier for the conflicted to do the right thing.
<Click!>
20
Here! Here!
20
YOU MEAN “PROFESSOR” PHIL JONES CAN’T EVEN GET HIS SOURCES RIGHT? LET ALONE HIS DATA AND MODELS.
Par for the course!
Bravo to Alan Kendall!
And Congratulation to Joanne and Alan Watts for at last becoming an accredited reference – albeit tiny – in the world of academe. But don’t forget, BIG oaks from tiny acorns grow!
20
I wonder what those “couple of things” were.
Could it be that: whatever the raw temperature data show, we boys in the ‘group’ will do our darnedest to ‘massage’ them upwards?
And, likewise, if we can get our hands on historical data – they’ll be gently pushed downwards!
10
Look, I’m lazy. Where can you bet that 2011- 2020 will be warmer than 2001 – 2010? And what odds are they currently offering?
10
What kind of odds are you offering and how many digits are you game for? Are you serious?
10
John B.
This all you can contribute in the thread?
For the thousandths time.99% of the skeptics KNOWS it has been warming since the mid 1850’s.But how many realize that ALL THREE warming periods since 1850 are very similar.Including the much talked about 1975-1998 or even 1975-2009 time frame.
Here is a LINK.It goes to my forum.But Jo Nova made up the chart.It is a part of my charts forum section.
But the recent warming from the late 1970’s is nothing unusual.It is still running on a slow warming trendline of the last 150 years.
LINK Yeah it from my charts forum area.From the link.You can go to the original source of the chart.
The point is John.The recent modern warming trend of the last 4 decades is a weak one.It is also weak in the last 150+ years as well.
10
Seems pretty likely that Annan will rake in the Gs.
10
2 x solar physicists vs 1 x British “climate scientist”.
My tip is on the physicists … we already know which direction temperatures are headed and it’s not up.
No doubt Piers Corbyn will hop onto the bandwagon here … easy money.
10
Street cred,
What can a climate scientist bring to an astro physicists convention…………………………………………………………………………………………..the coffee.
10
Tommy
Let’s look at how the slope from the first half of the 1850-2012 time period compares to the second half.
Oh dear
10
Gosh Tristan,
You have a hard time being rational with your deliberate selective reading of my words.
This is what I wrote to John B.
Your reply in NO way contradicts what I stated to John.YOU are the one who made a cherrypicking use of the data that is so gobsmacking stupid.Stupid because I have already stated it has been warming for a 150 years +.And have shown three identifiable and similar warming periods in it.
There are THREE obvious warming periods.They last around 25-30 years each time.The chart link I posted shows it vividly.
That is what I am talking about are,drum roll………….THREE WARMING PERIODS since 1850.
I also stated that it has been warming since the mid 1800’s.
I also made a case that the most recent warming period is not unusual at all.I gave a link to show it.
Your reply indicates that you failed to understand what I am pointing out.Not once did you disagree with me.
LOLOLOLOL……………
10
Ah John; if that’s a photo of you, you’re just a big, friendly dope, aren’t you? It’s an interesting bet, in the light of what happened between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010:
10
I’ll give you big and dope.
After that I think he spends a lot of time on Lewandowskis couch. (spelling is correct as to avoid slander charges)
10
Not sure I’d take that bet because it is betting against the overall trend – which, as has been pointed out many times – means nothing w/regard to whether or not increased co2 is driving that trend.
However, I’ll take some other bets if you’re game:
– I’ll bet you any amount you like there will be no climate refugees, let alone 50 million. The only climate refugees will be the continual trend of people retiring to warm climates from cold ones.
– I’ll bet you any amount you like the only deaths from climate change will be increasing deaths in winter caused by fuel poverty from excessive energy taxes
– I’ll bet you any amount you like Polar Bears won’t go extinct unless hunting is opened up again
– I’ll bet you any amount that malaria, dengue fever, cholera and all the rest will continue to reduce in range. Assuming the greens anti-human policies don’t get any more traction, of course.
– I’ll bet you any amount you like Australia will not become a permanent desert as widely predicted a couple of short years ago
– I’ll bet you any amount you like humans in 2050 will be richer, living longer lives and with more abundance than they are now. Of course, this is the biggest gamble for me – because there is always the possibility that the idea of socialism will gain ground again, and that’s the fastest way for death and misery for millions and stagnation of technical progress.
I’ve already bet against climate change by situating myself within the range of predicted sea level rises. If Flannery is right, I (or my heirs) won’t be able to sit here in 50 years time because I’ll have wet feet. Strangely enough, there seems to be thousands of people around me who took the same bet with their hard-earned money. But Flannery himself agrees by taking the bet as well, as has Greg Combet, Kevin Rudd, Cate Blanchett and probably a whole pile of others. So why talk about pretend bets when you can look at the real ones with 5 and 6 zero figures being made?
As always, John, I’ll believe there is a problem when the people who say there is a problem start acting like there is a problem.
10
DougS asks
That’s easy to find out. Jones explains it himself. It’s all quite legitimate and seems Jones was playing fair with Kendall knowing he had “inside” information.
10
Emeritus syndrome anyone?
But seriously, what gives in peoples brains when they get old? Old and wise my foot. Mostly old, scared and bigoted – even if they remain very nice people. And why is this growing gap between reality and perception in the old tolerated, or even celebrated? When I’m out to pasture, will the young tolerate me, saying, “you know, he grew up before the internet, you have to make allowances”?
Actually, I have no problem with someone giving a “skeptical” perspective on climate change at a university. I survived Sunday School without catching religion. Being taught rubbish should hone their critical faculties.
We at UWA had a seminar from a lovely old bloke about climate change. He was well and truly emeritus, and you could see that he’d been infected with “skepticism”. It wasn’t going to be long before he would be drooling and trying to eat peoples brains. Sadly for him, there were a couple of young climate firebrands in the audience who insisted on telling him every time he said anything silly. Lovely old bloke though.
Doubts are wonderful things. Everyone should have some. It would, quite frankly, be a breath of fresh air if the CAGW true believers would come out with all their doubts. But of course they can only do this privately, or else you guys will be all over them.
The “skeptics” don’t have to tell us their doubts, of course, they have only one big doubt – that its getting warmer, its our fault, and its a problem (actually that is three). Oh and maybe they worry about the true status of his lordship in the British peerage.
11
John, your unbridled ageism is shameless, matched only by your ability to ad hom as a reflex.
Your youthful uninformed arrogance might be excuseable if only you were a youth.
There is an old scared and bigoted man in your conversation, but it is not Kendall.
It’s ok though, we make allowances for nice blokes who can’t help but obey their masters.
20
Cue “cracking whip” sound š
10
Jo, well stated. The Ageism of that individual is really quite disgusting.
10
I remember Gavin Schmidt at RC taking an ageist swipe at a retired professor he disagreed with. Standard tactic with the CAGW crowd unfortunately… attack the man, whether it be some personal trait or characteristic, or something they once said. All fair game in their book. Never mind what they said – at all costs distract from the message, especially if it is true.
10
Ageism? Crap. There are people who *** ****** ******** *** ******** ******. Its just sad that so many can’t seem to *void **.
Nice Jo, lets *u** at**** ** ****. **** ******.
[I’ll delete a letter from this post for every thumbs down] ED
12
You really do have your head inserted into your posterior don’t you John? You don’t see any problem with your attacking others or your own lack of “class” but once you get a dose of your own medicine and behavior want to complain about it. Apparently you don’t like being on the receiving end things.
Just remember John telling it like it is in your own mind and telling it like it is in the real world are two different things. The way things are in the real world matter far more than the way things are in your mind.
10
You attack age (it is inevitable) and then you have the narcissistic gall to question the class of your host? WTF are you taking for depression?
10
To put this in milder terms than previous commentators, basically you have contradicted yourself.
Previously you made the ageist comment:
Infilling the letter decay, presumably you now say:
Yes, and presumably a combination of genetic gift and daily mental exercise is what keeps this fortunate minority’s mental machine running smoothly into old age, regardless of where they went to school or what they believe about the climate. Much of the ensuing drubbing could have been avoided if you had reached this conclusion before posting your original comment.
Let’s take it as a speed bump in the debate and get back to climate science.
10
Note to self:
Do not make Joanne mad š
10
You may have not “caught religion” in a belief in Christ/God sense, but it appears from your writing you have caught a religion of the climate kind.
And of note most skeptics like myself doubt 2 out of 3 of your list. It is not our fault and it is not a problem. It is and has gotten warmer since the bottom of the LIA or the last glaciation and of that I am glad.
By the by Mr. Brookes it is colder now than at the height of the Holocene 6000 years ago so we have been in a down trend for a long time. Accept it.
10
So right, mkelly, I’ve got religion. The “tell it like it is” religion.
And yes, mkelly, I’m sure we’re cooler now than 6000 years ago. But what is your point?
10
JB if someone came up to you with a billion dollar cheque and said “start a climate scam that’ll fool the whole world” ..Youd be in boots and all wouldnt you!!!
10
It means that the current warming is not unprecedented and is merely part of a natural cycle.
10
Well john, you may not have caught religion in the classical sense but you sure caught religion nevertheless. It’s characterized by the same things that characterize many of the religious that you eschew ā unthinking adherence to dogma.
You have it bad, John, very bad. It controls you. It has you so well in it’s grip that you haven’t the ability to do critical thinking anymore. What a waste.
10
Yes, these CAGW skeptics have all the classic signs of being zombies:
* able to withstand intense heat and pressure,
* able to endure pain for years on end,
* seeks out and appreciates a decent brain,
* often content to amble along without any haste,
* generally are either ex-employees or have never been on the company payroll,
* infection is communicable by mouth,
* infection seems to be irreversible in all converts to date,
* can’t be silenced without total political decapitation,
* and has never _been heard_ saying anything intelligible on the mainstream media.
Indeed a formidable foe.
Well I can see you and Lewandowski are birds of a feather on the amateur psychology explanation for radiosonde data, ARGO data, CERES data, and concurrent global warming seen on other planets over the same period.
As for the “old” people being the ones who are “scared”, “bigoted”, holding a perception disjoint from reality, and untrustworthy on climate science predictions, I guess that makes James Hansen at age 70 a veritable spring chicken?
Ten years after being proved wrong, young Jimmy Hansen is still ringing the alarm bell; clearly a supple mental gymnast.
Oh, but he’s a Lovely old bloke though, not being condescending at all. A Puritan, even. “But while skepticism is the lifeblood of science, it can confuse the public”, he said. Doubts in the privacy of your own email server are fine, but please, no lifeblood of science in public places thanks, it might frighten the horses.
10
The arrogance of this post is appalling. The only thing it shows is how unfit you are to (probably ever) call yourself a scientist. Closed minded arrogance like this has no place in any educational institution, either as staff or as student.
The degenerate exhibition of ageism is beyond belief.
You seem to be a very unpleasant and uneducated individual.
10
John that is truly the worst comment you have posted here at Novas.
I don’t know whether to laugh at you, mock and belittle you with a reply or intellectually buggerise you.
In the end I decided it wasn’t worth raising my heart rate.
I feel so sorry for the youth within an earshot of you, supposedly being educated at your university.
Maybe you should ask the mods to “disappear” that tripe.
10
Yes! And I could do without John altogether!
10
I think most of us could do without John altogether. However he does serve a purpose. I don’t know whether in Jo’s view it is the same purpose that I see but he is an excellent example of the ignorant, narrow minded, and hypocritical thinking of those supporting the various “man is responsible” memes.
As Baa Humbug pointed out John’s little rant glosses over the age of Hansen, Jones, et. al. Apparently one is only effected by his problem with his elders if they disagree with him.
An attitude most people outgrow, but I’m not convinced John has grown up yet. Nor do I suspect he ever will.
10
Exactly right Robert, John is an example waiting to be made. Here is a question; how far is John from being convinced (or of convincing others) that people over a certain age should be muted, maybe exiled, maybe just put to “rest”. One needs to keep a sharp eye out for the likes of John.
Hold your friends close and hold your enemies closer……
P.S. I’ll bet a significant sum that JB will not apologize.
10
I suspect he is mirroring what he himself is told or fears from the younger members of society around him.
10
BH, you must be getting old. Was a time when this would not have raised your heart rate. š
10
Ah well, Baa, you are so smart you’d make mince meat out of me.
I’ll let you in on something. I wrote my ageist comment last night, after watching the 2nd installment of “The Promise”. That is one damn good show, but it brings out the misanthrope in me – watching the sad violence of the middle east. Realising that each group, in their turn, are prepared to do “whatever it takes” to achieve their goals. And that their goals aren’t so bad, but the results are awful. And while their methods might be despicable, they could not/cannot achieve their goals by being nice. And their methods are despicable.
So then I read about a “hero” at UEA, and I don’t see a hero, just some old bloke about to retire spreading his little bit of mischief before he goes.
10
John,
You’re self-obsessed. Most of your comments don’t deserve counter-argument. Derision is more appropriate if it survives scrutiny of the moderators.
Focus on something substantial, rational and not derived from your prejudice about those who you feel have a differing point of view; and you may deserve the necessary intellectual engagement of counter-argument.
10
I believe that what John and the CAGW crowd are invested with is the belief in the great idea. One of the rules of this is too protect “The Narrative” from the intrusion of reality. This is what is happenning with the attack on any deviation from the correct dogma. The fact that John slips into the typical collectivist/statist/progressive/socialist/leftist, take your pick from among the various self appointed central planning doctrines of the world improvers, tactics of smear and insult shows that his mind is closed to discussions of reality. Although not specifically about Climate Science and Environmentalism, this article explains how we ended up in this position is both the scientific and economic fields.
10
Cyril,
I totally agree. It was nicely put too. It may not be a religion to John and his ilk, but it is a belief system none the less. If you read both sides of the political arguments around the Spanish Civil War, they both used the same sort of language that John employs.
10
I hate to break it to you, but one day you’ll be old, and I hope some arrogant young twit challenges your life experience just because, well, they’re young and you’re not.
The old saying : if you’re not a socialist in your 20’s, you’ve got no heart. If you’re not a conservative in your 40’s, you’ve got no brain.
Your ‘young climate firebrands’ are exactly the sort of useful idiots that any type of brainwashing movement relies upon. Indoctrination and youthful exuberance makes for arrogant fools who think they know better. But all they know how to do is yell, stamp their feet and repeat their talking points fed to them by the old and wise within their religion. No different to young legionaires in ancient rome, modern day jihadists, hitler youth – promise the young a way to circumvent the hard way to the top by wiping away the current leaders, provide them with some justification for their actions, and tell them that a big prize awaits them in the end.
10
brc
Excellent reply, well put.
10
We at UWA had a seminar from a lovely old bloke…….
I would have assumed the janitors were not allowed into the auditorium to vacuum up all the pop corn until the important people had left looks like i was misstaken.
10
We at UWA had a seminar from a lovely old blokeā¦ā¦.
I would have assumed the janitors were not allowed into the auditorium to vacuum up all the pop corn until the important people had left looks like i was misstaken.
——————————————————————————–
HaHa No, not a janitor! They do a good job. He was probably a perpetual/proffessional student! LOL
10
JB. The fact that many older scientists are announcing their scepticism on retirement is that they are freed from the constraints imposed by the necessity to spout the Government line required by the lavish grants which have so politicised, distorted and debased real Science.
With regard to beliefs, Professor emeritus of biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London best explained the crux of the entire global warming debate when he rebutted the notion that CO2 is the main climate driver.
“the fundamental point has always been this: Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor (CO2), is as misguided as it gets.” (No trouble to Google for the link)
Tell us John. Do you really believe we (Man) can control the climate and/or rises (or falls) in temperatures?
If you do, then I guess one of your inane comments deserves a similar response, so here goes:- if we drooling “oldies” were relying on the brains of CAGW believers such as you for sustenance, we’d rapidly die of starvation!
10
During a rant comprising of astonishingly smug and pointless ad hominem, John Brooks assumed the following:
John,
Not wanting to speak on their behalf – like you do – I suspect a lot of sceptics have issues with the following:
1. That our 3% output (versus 97% natural), will be responsible for a doubling (plus) of atmospheric CO2.
2. That CO2 is mostly responsible the recent (but not unprecedented) warming.
3. That the warming will reach fatal levels if we do nothing, causing along the way everything that is exclusively bad (pimples, volcanoes, too little snow, too much snow, drought, rain etc.).
4. That our carbon tax will fix the above and save the planet.
A sceptic of the above really only needs to win one of the points, not so the Carbon Tax believer.
I presume that, in the above quote, you are saying that we need to worry about the status of Lord Monckton. No, that is the warmists’ red herring or artificial ‘worry’.
John, my birthday would almost certainly put me in the age group at which you so enthusiastically sneer. It’s interesting how the Left are exempt their own sanctimonious demands for political correctness. They are spared their own inquisitions. You might have noticed my grammatical flags in your statement. You are by no means the only one here who confuses “it’s” and “its”, but you make correcting such a pleasure. So before you become too old to learn, “it’s” is an abbreviation for “it is”, while “its” denotes something belonging to it. The possessive apostrophe is suspended in the latter to avoid ambiguity.
John, have you yet apologised to WUWT for falsely alleging that they were disappearing your comments?
10
John B. wrote this disturbing trash,
Are you out of your cotton picking mind!?
What in the hell caused you to write those stupid words?
A grovelling apology is only the beginning of your personal rehabilitation.
Then you write this dishonest drivel:
You must know this is a lie.
99% of the skeptics agree that it has been warming for a 150+ years.ONE
Minimal increase of the CO2 effect is mathematically possible.But irrelevant since barely any warming can be found from it anyway.TWO
Since there is no evidence of it being a problem.And that it is probable that no warming in the next 20 years or so will happen.THREE
When will you AGW believers ever stop panting over a feeble IR absorber.That has no demonstrative ability to drive the climate?
10
Having lurked here for sometime prior to “getting involved” I have seen a lot of John’s posts. With that in mind I can say when you ask him this:
It is a redundant question.
However this:
Is a bit harder to deal with in John’s case. He may in fact realize he is lying and not care as long as it promotes his view. That would not be a big surprise, we’ve seen numerous instances of it coming from the “believers” all while they get all frothy claiming it is everyone else who is lying.
But there is the possibility that he just doesn’t know any better. If that is the case I will leave it to you to determine the proper term for his lacking…
10
It sounds a lot like ‘proctocraniosis.’
10
John Brookes says:
“We at UWA had a seminar from a lovely old bloke about climate change. He was well and truly emeritus, and you could see that heād been infected with āskepticismā. It wasnāt going to be long before he would be drooling and trying to eat peoples brains. Sadly for him, there were a couple of young climate firebrands in the audience who insisted on telling him every time he said anything silly. Lovely old bloke though.
Doubts are wonderful things. Everyone should have some. It would, quite frankly, be a breath of fresh air if the CAGW true believers would come out with all their doubts. But of course they can only do this privately, or else you guys will be all over them.”
Thanks, John, but your rather Freudian analogy above between the genuine elderly sceptic and the Climate Science ‘true believer’…er…”sceptics”, and thus your effective and correct description of Climate Scientists as “drooling and trying to eat peoples brains” in private [Climategates] “or else you [‘firebrand’] guys will be all over them” for saying “silly” things in public, is really no different from the sum of Climate Science’s publicly conducted “science” to date.
No wonder the Climate Scientists can’t get any relevant prediction right, eh, John?
10
Do you mean old and senile like James Hansen (70), David Suzuki (75) and David Attenborough (85)?
10
This is for you John, from an oldie, probably older than your wildest nightmares, but as sharp as a razor in science because I was taught to think, not to follow like you, at Imperial not the third rate UEA.
Here’s an interesting proof, using IPCC data, that CO2 climate sensitivity can’t be more than 1.2K: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/05/monckton-on-sensitivity-training-at-durban/
‘Multiply that key parameter by 3.7 and the warming we can expect from a
doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration is just 0.75-1.5 Celsius.
Those estimates neatly bracket the equilibrium system sensitivity of 1.2
CĀ° that we calculated earlier by well-established theory.’
But there’s a rider to this; Monckton assumes the IPCC’s 33K total present GHG warming estimate is correct. It’s not. A comment on this thread [Juraj V,] agrees with my estimation:
‘That 33K is non-physical nonsense, calculating Earth without āgreenhouse
gasesā but still considering albedo of 0.3, which is made mostly by
clouds (=condensed greenhouse gas). With realistic albedo this number
would shrink to half. DO NOT continue to calculate anything based on
that ā33Kā.’
I have seen the results of the proper modelling including aerosols: the real answer is ~9K.
So, the maximum mean CO2 climate sensitivity is 1.2.9/33 = 0.35K This is reality suckers/trolls. It’s why I estimate that the IPCC’s median CO2 climate sensitivity is a factor of ~9 too high.
The consensus is turning fast. My ow work shows that the end of an ice age is actually via a bistability in the atmosphere, hitherto unknown cloud physics. Most of the heating takes place without any GHG-GW.
If you have a pipe, stick this in and smoke well.
10
One thing being that he would probably lose, and the other being that he couldn’t possibly admit that ( not until after 15 years without warming anyway).
10
FOI info proves most of the CRU team rely on climate research grants to pay their salaries. Can we really expect Jones and co to admit there is nothing really to worry about?
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/71-of-cru-salaries-paid-by-grants/
10
Tristan
Try the period 1900-1930 and 1931-2011. The rate of increase is identical.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:2012/every:6/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:1931/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1931/to:2012/trend
10
See Paul, the difference is, I didn’t cherry pick. I split it right down the middle in response to the claim that there has been a steady gradual warming since 1850.
For some reason you think it’s interesting to compare the first 31 years of 1900 to 2012 with the following 81 years. Well I guess I can play that game as well, but I’ll flip which side the 31 goes.
10
Boring! Don’t you have something new that we’ve never seen before?
10
Don’t be ridiculous, Tritan. The warming did not start till around 1900, so to claim the rate of warming from 1850 – 1930 was lower is a meaningless statement.
Have you been taking lessons from Katharine Hayhoe?
10
Bravo to Alan Kendall for speaking out and for remaining honest. But once the thing is done it can’t be undone.
Unfortunately the University of East Anglia has given its seal of approval to CRU and its activities. I don’t know British law but some of the things done by CRU look like criminal offenses ā withholding and/or destroying material subject to FOIA. If so, UEA would be an accessory to the crime and subject those with a supervisory responsibility to possible arrest and prosecution. This probably will never happen and probably shouldn’t happen, all things considered. But those who lead have an affirmative responsibility to actually control what their job description says they control. There should never be a way for anyone to wiggle out of that responsibility. Academic freedom does not include the freedom to lie and cheat as we see only too much of.
That all of UEA is tarred by only a few is tragic. But it’s also life in the world of reality.
10
Roy,
I’m not as forgiving as you appear to be: if it turns out that the big cheeses at UEA closed their eyes to/covered up malpractice within the CRU, then they should face charges of criminal negligence (just as I would if one of my buildings collapsed because the contractor was cheating).
This will not be a victimless crime; countless millions may already have had their lives adversely affected by mis-allocation of funds, in part due to the clowns at CRU.
The following is part of the current ‘mission statement’ of the Tyndall Centre (UEA of course):-
“To be an internationally recognised source of high quality and integrated climate-change research, and to exert a seminal influence on the design and achievability of the long-term strategic objectives of national and international climate policy.”
But I agree with you in principle. 8-:)
10
mikemUK,
It’s not that I’m so forgiving but that I try to keep a grip on what can actually be accomplished and if it is accomplished, will it do more good than harm? And I just called this one the way it looks. I could be wrong.
Many times punishment born of anger turns into revenge ā if you’ll forgive that word ā and revenge doesn’t always work out well. And it seems like punishment would be motivated by anger (mine included without a doubt).
In any case I’d love to see some real punishment if that’s possible. So perhaps we’re just looking at this from different perspectives.
Roy
10
The UEA Chancellor, Brandon Gough, is one of the controllers of the AGW fraud.
Click my user name to see the details.
10
Very interesting.
10
Jo asks:
Well, I’m sure it’s not official University Policy, but climatologist Richard Keen at the University of Colorado uses reason and data in his courses. Here is a quiz he presents in class that has caused some stir among the Climate Cops.
Of course, they had a hard time refuting him on the facts, so they resorted to inventive means.
It’s amusing to read some of the criticisms, such as this one by AGW propagandist Greenfyre. I was especially struck by this argument Greenfyre used to “refute” Keen’s demonstration that the IPCC’s predictions were wrong:
Well, of course! You can’t expect old IPCC “predictions” to be correct now — only the current IPCC predictions can be expected to be currently correct. In the future, the IPCC will have new “predictions” that will be, of course, currently (then) correct. How could anyone expect a prediction of the future to be correct in the future?
I mean, really!
(Just when I thought that Greenfyre couldn’t get any dumber, he goes and surprises me.)
10
[…] One lone East Anglia man stands up against poor practice. Where are the rest? Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]
10
Jo,
It doesn’t suprise me that people of that calibre are more often silent publicly than not. After all, I think we’re all aware that the Mainstream Media aroudn the world has been overwhelmingly Openly hostile to the sceptic position.
How many times has a sceptic said something publicly just to have their words twisted and skewed by those impotent excuses for journalists we see today?
One of the best examples is the lie that is often repeated by JuLiar Guilleard and her fan club at the ABC and other media outlets that “According to Tony Abbot, Climate Change is absolute Crap”. It’s become their mantra, and everyone who says it is speaking an blatant Lie every time they say it.
Just some basic digging shows that what he said was that “the argument is absolute crap”. Which, of course, it is. Some of Dr Jones’ colleagues even think so.
So really, if you were a sceptic in the UEA, why on earth would you go public just to have your message twisted, skewed and bastardised by some reporter who believes we should be fighting the weather until it does as we want?
10
Dear Jo,
Re your 4 December 2011 article “One lone East Anglia man stands up against poor practice. Where are the rest?” regarding UEA lecturer Allan Kendall (link below).
UEA is my old alma mater and I can tell you that Allan Kendall may be even more of a hero than you realise. Norwich, the City in which the University is situated, is a relatively small tight-knit community and I believe has the greatest per-capita concentration of warmist ‘greens’ in the UK. From bitter experience, at least some of these warmists were far from averse to employing ‘climate denier’ labels and other denigrating fascistic epithets to those who thoughtfully questioned AGW. I know that all scientists are supposed to have scientific-integrity and courage of conviction but, frankly, for Allan Kendall to stand up for balanced climate-science in such adverse local circumstances is likely to have cost him socially and he deserves high praise indeed. I’m sure other UEA staff members think likewise and I suspect that more of them will begin to openly dissent from AGW theories and Climatic Research Unit practice in the coming months.
Kendall has certainly lived up to the university motto – “do different” – but then, in his own perverse way, so has the CRU’s Professor Phil Jones… I think that a reputation/standards restoring UEA purge of the CRU is long overdue and must be on the cards now given ongoing exposure of scientific failings and skewing politics. Under current direction, the CRU is certainly not worthy of funding from British taxpayers and has done incalculable harm to them.
Greens so often cite the ‘precautionary principle’ in support of their calls for draconian AGW-mitigation policies which, in the case of Surrey University’s Professor Tim Jackson and his CRU-citing ‘sustainable development’ colleagues for example, is positively anti economic growth. Given the repeated exposure of questionable practices of the UEA Climatic Research Unit, and demonstrable failure of so many CRU/IPCC alarmist predictions to materialise or stand up to scrutiny, the general public has a much more tenable right to demand the precautionary principle be applied in defence of economic growth: particularly given current austerity measures. Economy-damaging AGW-mitigation policies should therefore be abandoned pending scientific proof of catastrophic AGW. As a priority, the UK climate change act should be repealed without delay. For more information see:
http://www.repealtheact.org.uk/
Thank you for your own commitment to honest climate science. The Jo Nova website is a beacon of fairness, good sense and, very importantly, good humour in an inhospitable sea of collective madness.
K. Short.
[permission to repost].
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/one-lone-east-anglia-man-stands-up-against-poor-practice-where-are-the-rest/
10
K. Short, thank you for your comment. I, for one, very much appreciate hearing from someone with your perspective.
10
Thanks, posted above in the article. It’s good to get first hand information. Thank you. Jo
10
UEA’s motto is “Do Different”? What more can I say about a university with a motto that is a grammatical disaster?
10
Kendall’s integrity seems heroic in comparison to the behavior of some of his UEA colleagues, but to me this is actually normal.
10
I would like to congratulate Allan Kendall. Great to see some moral fibre in a scientist, paticularly one involved in the climate caper [as Garth Paltridge would say].
I’m also interested in a number of the comments on global warming since 1850’s. Seems that the Mann ‘hockey stick’ nonsense is still part of the belief mechanism of many pushing the cataclysmic warming line. Yes, the world is warming – it is recovering from a little Ice Age that had badly affected our forebears for a few hundred years.
10
The Hockey Stick has been snapped, broken, and discarded. It won’t even make an appearance in the IPCC AR5, I’m going to confidently predict.
But it doesn’t matter how many times you debunk an icon to a religious movement. The truth was never that important to them anyway. You will still find faithful foot-soldiers pretending that further studies justified the original conclusions – despite them just being re-hashes of the same thing.
It doesn’t matter to them that their own emails damn the hockey stick as broken. It doesn’t matter that Steve McIntyre has been totally vindicated and that, eventually, Mann will be discredited by his own actions not only in bad choices of method (people make mistakes) but by his activism to defend it long after the flaws were pointed out.
Until someone comes out with a proper study re-establishing the MWP and the LIA – and getting it through the censors working for ‘the cause’ – the hockey stick will continue to haunt the world.
Not that it really matters anymore because the money is fast drying up – and once that happens it will be game over.
10
Playing with a broken stick will earn you a penalty in ice hockey.
10
Surely it cannot be true that a senior official in the UEA would welcome the retirement of an employee critical of the conventional view ? Instead, regardless of his/her views, treasure that employee as essential to the preservation of science.
10
O/T, but Coke has dumped its white polar bear can campaign with WWF. Sorry, lost the link.
10
Coke link here
10
Ahh Jo… your mention of alma mater made me click on your ‘about’ link. At least I see now your devotion to ‘the science’ even if science has nothing to do with government meddling in monetary affairs.
Molecular Biology!? At least that makes you smarter than most!
10
AGELESS WISDOM
Not sure of author, but am very fond of the quote under bust of “I KNOW THAT I KNOW NOTHING” Socrates outside UWA’s Winthrop Hall.
THIS UNDERCROFT IS DEDICATED TO SOCRATES WHO SOUGHT TRUTH ALWAYS BY THE PATH OF OPEN DISCUSSION AND FREE ENQUIRY. MAY HIS SPIRIT PRESIDE HERE AT ALL TIMES.
He looks annoyed these days, as if he has just read the Climategate 2 emails or the government’s “clean energy future” legislation and noticed the offshore emissions trading that forms its rotten core.
Perhaps UWA staff should be required to take this as an Oath of Admission to the university; or in the case of some activist-researchers already there, be required to write it out a thousand times?
Alice
10
Jo. You ask where are the others? I don’t know where he stands now or whether he’s been well and truly pulled back into line, but UEA’s Mike Hulme wrote a very thoughtful letter calling for CRU and IPCC reform after CG1. From its tone, I even thought at one stage that he may have been the whistle-blower. It was first posted at the following site.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/a-climate-scientist-on-climate-sceptics/
The post-CG1 letter by Judith Curry is also on that site and there are many interesting and diverse comments, some from shocked young scientists, that are worth wading through.
10
Jo,
Every time I think of UWA’s official response to the CAGW meme, I feel like taking my Bachelor of Engineering certificate off the wall and burning it in the Vice Chancellor’s office. Despite it taking me 6 years to earn it, the certificate has no value.
How dare they devalue the reputation of a university; bringing into question the verity of degrees awarded to alumni.
IIRC, there’s a Professor of Geology who is openly anti-AGW. His name escapes me at the moment because this disgraceful behaviour by UWA in general makes me too angry.
10
I got a better idea Bernd, roll it up with some of your favourite ‘tobacco’ & smoke it! Thanks to government meddling, the act of rolling creates value, my B.Sc (biology) was once worth 100 shares of AT&T! (with thanks to the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers).
10
Have a cuppa and a nice lie down Bernd.
10
Sorry to be taking the discussion OT but another CSIRO/Government funded project is making headlines at the ABC
Global Emissions on the rise
10
I particularly liked Raupach’s comment:
“The reality that we are not succeeding in producing any downturn in global emissions adds to the urgency of undertaking that task,”
Translation: OMG we what we are doing to lower green house gasses is not working, so we must do it harder …
You couldn’t make this stuff up!
10
Allan’s background:
The oil industry. Why am I not surprised?
10
There’s an email amongst the latest release where the UEA cronies boast to have taken funding off the fossil fuel industry.
What’s your background JB? ALP/Socialist rep on the SRC? Figures š
10
The oil industry, why would that be significant?
10
It is interesting isn’t it? They simply cannot grasp the concept that the scientists they believe might be lying, or pursuing an agenda but immediately assume any scientist who doesn’t support their beliefs is lying or pursuing some agenda.
But as we have seen so many times, when they cannot refute evidence that doesn’t support their views, claim whoever provided it is doing so due to some affiliation with the oil industry.
Yet when affiliations between their “approved” scientists and Greenpeace, WWF, Sierra Club, and other such organizations are shown, even to the extent of the instances where the “science” was actually derived from those groups literature rather than actual experimentation and observation, well…
How they, with such a serious breakdown in their logical functioning, can claim we don’t understand or respect science is incredible.
They seem more than willing to have us “taken out” so they can continue into their utopia. But, since their understanding of history is as poor as their understanding of science, they haven’t realized that their “leaders” will be just as happy to line them up against the wall once their goals are achieved as they would be to line us up. The difference between us in that regard is they would go willingly we would not.
10
You are right Robert, I don’t believe the scientists are lying. They may be wrong, or misguided, but I don’t think they are lying. As opposed to a faux peer, who makes stuff up when it suits him.
And Streetcred, of course I’m a socialist. We all are. We only differ in the extent to which we believe that capitalism needs to be constrained.
10
Hmmm… That “faux peer” you refer to, would that be Trenberth? You know, the “scientist” who keeps making up places for his missing heat to be hiding, places conveniently that cannot be measured? You know the same person who wants to reverse the null hypothesis so he doesn’t have to provide evidence to support his claims but expects everyone else to provide evidence to the contrary?
You say “misguided” I say “liar.” Fortunately for us John we have thousands of emails from those “misguided scientists” you believe in that establish that they have indeed been lying (and not only about their “science”). You on the other hand only have your opinion.
Tough break.
10
Haven’t you noticed Rereke, that if you are looking for people of a science background to support your side of the argument, geologists, and ones who’ve worked in the fossil fuel area in particular, fit the bill?
10
Thanks, JB, you have taught me everything I need to know about you in this thread. And Tristan has given up valuable info about himself as well. You’re both true CAGW believers, no evidence required. Which is admirable in a misguided kind of way, as it tells me your eyes and ears (not to mention your brain) are playing no role in your beliefs. I’ll wait until Jo draws up the bet; for a part-time pauper, I’ll have $1000 AUD cash that the thermometer will fall over the next 10 years. But the condition is that it’s the lower troposphere satellite measurement, not a doctored or “smoothed” or “averaged” surface temperature. That’s right, it has to be the John Christy-Roy Spencer UAH satellite gauge – the only way I know that cheats aren’t allowed to corrupt the process. (Don’t tell me: Christy and Spencer are working for Big Oil, right?) Are socialists allowed to bet?
10
JB: Geologists are used to taking the long view, over many aeons of Earth’s geohistory. Thus they can easily see claims of a mere 20 years of “unprecedented” warming as balderdash.
For your vision problem: http://www.johnernst.com/sight_windows_p50.html
10
John
Have you considered;
that the oil industry is vital to economics and security;
and for that reason it (the industry) engages the best of the best in their field?
10
Well done Alan Kendall.
What a pity the system frightens individual to remain quiet but I guess when you are in your final year of employment there is little the hyenas can do but whinge and whine.
10
Well done Alan Kendall.
It’s sad that the system frightens individual contribution to balanced debate but I guess once you have reach your final year of employment there is little the hyenas can do. The more they whinge and whine the more they draw attention to the farce.
Jo and Anthony must feel great after such an event and even Steve at CA scored some free kudos. The CRU must hate you. Go Blogsphere !
10
I not only used Joanne’s illustrations but also the same approach as she used – namely provide evidence, then consider the counter-arguments, then reach a conclusion. I have, in the past, asked students to do their own research on an aspect of climate change science using this approach from both the pro- and anti-AGW stances. Results are impressive, all students leave with the idea that science is never settled and many become really worried that what they had previously accepted without question (because authority tells them this) is not supported rigourously. Many students retain their AGW beliefs but are the stronger for it. I liked this method because students reach their own conclusions and I always feel uncomfortable about pushing my own biasses. So thank you Joanne for your material and approach.
To John 1) age does not convey wisdom but (sometimes) tolerance.
2) Yes I did work for oil companies (and in North America) but further inquiry would have revealed this occurred between 1978 and 1986, i.e. well before climate change was seriously being debated. What is your background, so that I can (privately) sneer at that?
—–
Thank you Alan. I’ve added a note in the post and sent an email. Merci. Jo
10
Oh dear! I’ve been caught out being rude. Sorry Alan. I was just venting my spleen a bit, and the denizens of this blog need something to get angry about – so this seemed like a good place. Lately I’ve been lazy and amotivated, with many of my comments barely earning a thumbs down. Maybe I’m picking up again.
Anyway, I’m a self confessed failure, but not being dead yet there is still hope for me. None the less, sneer if you want to š
But, I do maintain that “skeptics” generally are not skeptical and evidence based. Sure they like evidence, like 10 year cooling trends, because having chosen their side of the argument, they like stuff which seems to support them. Even if it is meaningless.
In fact, people on both sides of the debate are too ready to believe any rubbish that supports their side. By “people” I don’t mean the scientists though. I mean those barracking on the sidelines (like me).
There are things that would raise my opinion of “skeptics”. If they abandoned discredited arguments, that would be a start. If they didn’t jump on every new piece of hopeful news as “the final nail in the coffin of AGW”, that would help. If the objection to climate science was not based on distaste for its consequences, that objection might be more compelling.
Your method of teaching, Alan, sounds interesting. In physics, we have enough trouble getting students to understand the fundamentals without getting them to question the validity of these fundamentals.
We have started to introduce “extended” laboratory sessions where we make an experiment open ended. Its a chance for them to explore further the intricacies that are usually hidden from them in the normal “cookbook” labs. I don’t think it helps their understanding of the underlying theories, but hopefully it does improve their appreciation of what is involved in a good experiment.
10
Nobody likes a suck up.
10
John, bravo for a genuine comment.
This is good. So which discredited argument do you mean specifically?
Jo
Ps: You say – “In physics, we have enough trouble getting students to understand the fundamentals without getting them to question the validity of these fundamentals.”
FWIW, I’ve found that it’s only when people can question the fundamentals, that they come to truly understand them.
10
Ok for now, but stop trying to bother John when he’s at work. Don’t you know that he’s an “academic”? Next thing, you’ll probably be serving him up with an FOIA request or something!
10
Jo, that is so true. The trouble with questioning fundamentals in physics is that they got to be fundamentals through the painstaking work of a lot of extremely bright people. Your chance of finding any error is tiny. Which is not to say it doesn’t happen. Feynman had an idea which he thought was pretty good, but it was contradicted by experiment. So Feynman looked at the original paper on the experiment, and found an error. But this was Feynman, and the experiment was (at the time) a recent one in one of the frontiers of physics. That a typical student could come close to sensibly questioning the fundamentals of the physics they learn in 1st year uni is vanishingly small. Still, we can always hope…
Discredited arguments. Just off the top of my head:
That somehow scientists only consider CO2, and ignore the sun.
That some or other law of thermodynamics means there is no greenhouse effect.
That a ten year period of observations is meaningful.
That cycles of various lengths actually explain what is happening.
That the urban heat island effect has not been adequately taken into account.
That arctic sea ice is “recovering”.
That positive feedback means runaway warming.
That a 2 degree rise in global temperatures is a good thing.
10
WHY?
A little word you seem to keep forgetting. Though it does seem when you do remember to ask why it is only when someone disagrees with you in which case you ask why so that you may find some way to claim they are wrong, misguided, funded by big oil, whatever excuse you can manage. Do you ever consider that you are wrong? Do you ever consider that the “science” regarding the climate that you accept is wrong? Why?
You say:
Oblivious to the fact that the purpose does not have to be finding an error.
When one begins with the question “Why?” and does not simply accept the answer that “a lot of extremely bright people did the work therefore it is so” then one goes back and looks at said work.
The purpose does not need to be to find error but to understand. Those who question, beginning with that simple word “why” will understand far more than those who simply accept it because “a lot of extremely bright people…”
We the skeptics ask why, you apparently believe we should just accept the answers given us. That you choose to do so is your own problem, but the fact that you think questioning the fundamentals is troublesome is very telling.
10
John, my point is that most teachers and communicators think about ways to hammer “the message” in to brains. Instead I often focus on the negative, or the inverse – what isn’t real, what isn’t possible, and what doesn’t work. If you can hammer out the boundaries of reality (by knocking out the non-real) people get a sharper image of what matters and what it means.
It’s a different way to think about communicating. It’s more memorable, and more informative.
10
FWIW ?
Jo, that goes straight into my “Brilliant Quotes” file.
Attributed to Joanne Nova, December 6, 2011.
Thank you.
10
OMFG are you serious JB? Is the melding of young minds really left up to you?
Are you charged with the responsiblity of educating people?
Please can you confirm from which Uni you blog from as i have a 17 year old that will enter the university world in a year or two and i dont want to send him anywhere near you.
Thanks in advance.
10
You are a nut case Crakar. Do you think that there is any “personal” input into the teaching of physics? That maybe there exist “soft” or “socialist” versions of physics? Physics is physics. Anyone who teaches it is just passing on the accumulated and condensed knowledge of the last 400 years.
10
Do you think that there is any āpersonalā input into the teaching of physics.
Having missed the point once again, John, your own “emeritus” status seems unchallenged. Congratulations! Your “emeritus” bib is in the mail.
10
“It’s only when people question the fundamentals,that they come to truly understand them.” J.N.
One persons understanding of the physics of climate may be interpreted as a misunderstanding by another,and there are any number of interpretations of the dynamics,mechanics etc that make the Earths climate what it is, as demonstrated by this blog.
So if physics is physics it is only in thought or mind.
So Crakar24 does have valid point.
So
10
John Brookes submitted:
Shame that there is socialist climate science and that it is so representative.
10
John Brookes offered:
Einstein questioned the validity of the newtonian fundamentals.
10
Yes, and Galileo questioned the geocentric universe. Every breakthrough needs someone to question the existing theory. It just isn’t the run-of-the-mill 1st year uni student.
10
There is mountain of evidence to show that the “settled” science of Global Warming/Climate Change is a theory arrived at by conspiracy and is therefore open to question, or is the Church of Climatology infallible.
10
Thank you Alan for posting here.
I was an undergraduate in ENV 1982-1984. I thought it a great teaching school, far ahead of Reading where I did my PhD, and Curtin where I spent time as a post-Doc.
I am very happy to see you perpetuating the great lecturing standards of Fred Vine, Neil Chroston, Nick McCave and Chris Baldwin (amongst others).
Best wishes.
MK
10
Welcome Alan.
As I accummulated experience over many years (I’m a slow burner) I recognized that a sign of wisdom is the ability to learn from fools. Running counter to that is a growing intolerance of fools. Seems that the necessary tolerance is a high price to pay for wisdom.
I spent some time with an emeritus professor in Germany this year. We spoke about lots of things … including the tide of Fachidioten and others who’d studied themselves stupid. Those tend to be the ones that rise to the top in administration and roles where they have others to do thinking for them. (Please don’t feel compelled to agree in writing.)
That’s one factor to the mess that has been heaped on scientific research. Academia that measures its performance by how much it can obtain in targeted research grants sullies the research that could be being done simply because it may fill a gaping void in our understanding.
Instead of research building on the work of others, research funding promotes wading through a quagmire of effluent from previous research. Because that is what is now understood to be research: to do as others have done before; produce the results expected of the research or risk an absence of funding. When the objective is to meet a predetermined research result, one can easily be blind to discovery. Anti-science.
Sorry; just noticed that I’m ranting. Again.
10
Alan, do you seriously believe that
You come across as being the typical self deprecating Brit.
My father was similar in his engineering profession. Not once did I hear him brag about bridges, aeroplanes, windmills or nuclear reactors which he had key design roles in.
Mate, you might have to get used to the fact that for a large number of people you’ve never even met, you’re something of a hero.
10
Green groups are the largest recipients of fossil fuel funding and the amount of tax-payer funding they receive is grotesque.
When you stop and think about how much money has been thrown at AGW, money which could have been used for real infrastructure and research, you realise why the AGW scam is going to die a slow death; there simply is too much vested financial interest in it.
John’s aspersion about Kendall’s former employment with the oil industry is both typical and symptomatic for these reasons.
10
Welcome Alan @ #26
Your courage is an inspiration, thank you.
May I ask, you state…
Why is that?
10
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15809.htm
“Global Dimming”, BBC Video, runtime 49 minutes
Rate of Climate Change has been underestimated – they reckon.
10
I have no doubt that the WHOLE of the UEA isnt involved with the AGW scam. The CRU was (without an evidentual link) probably funded by the banksters through the known Govt channels by shadow big govt entities and green eco-facsists to get their evil ways and propagate this SCAM!
10
“I do hope all these emails are just staying within UEA because it really
>makes us (UEA as a whole) look like a bunch of amateurs…”
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=4153.txt&search=ICER
10
Hi John, nice to meet the more pleasant (and frankly more interesting) you.
I am interested in your views on teaching, but I am almost sure you don’t practice what you were preaching. I’m sure teaching climate science (and geology) in a stimulating way is easier than physics simply because in physics you can experiment. In the subjects I teach it is possible to inform students by discussing controversies and debates much earlier because even some of the data is itself debateable. On the other hand, controversial physics still exists – reality of Higgs boson, neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light, gamma ray flux controlling clouds, &c &c. Surely you use this material to stimulate students? Not to do so would be to falsely admit that physics is a fully-known science and thus moribund.
I am also interested that recently several “classical” physicists have engaged in the climate-change debate, often with severe attacks on basic climate-change theory. I would much welcome your informed take on such matters, rather than baiting “skeptics” for their failings. I do, however, have to admire your skill at seizing a debate and turning it away from the main issue.
Also interested in your favourable mention of Feynman (in reply to Jo), given his well known opposition to CAGW
10
[…] against home-grown climate fraud and corruption 07/12/2011Activism , FeaturedNo comments JoanneNova.com.au December 4th, 2011 One lone East Anglia man stands up against poor practice. Where are the […]
10