Ben Pile: Lewandowsky, Institutional Science, and Politics

Ben Pile has posted a long and well written piece about l’affaire Lewandowsky at his blog. It will soon be published on Spiked, but I thought a preview to be in order. The paragraphs below are from the concluding section, since most here are familiar with the story so far. If not, you should read the whole thing.

Extract from: The Lewandowsky Papers
Posted by Ben Pile on May 21, 2013

Scientists such as Lewandowsky are better at self-justification than scientific research. Rather than being an investigation into the workings of the material world, Lewandosky’s ‘research’ — a poorly executed and error-prone online survey, seen through dodgy statistical methods and bogus categories — is a naked attempt to explain why people dare challenge scientific authority. But there are good reasons for challenging it. Science has turned its gaze on the public as politicians have sought to remedy their diminishing public support by recruiting the academy. It is not a coincidence that the scientific agenda increasingly reflects the prejudices and problems of elite politics.

Is the North Pole Going to Melt entirely? asks Newspaper in 1923

As the northern melt and polar bear worrying season gets underway, a timely reminder of the repetitive nature of ‘unprecedented’ climate happenings. H/T ‘IluvCO2′

NORTH POLE MELTING. CHANGE OF CLIMATE. MANY GLACIERS VANISHED.
Northern Star (Lismore, NSW : 1876 – 1954) Thursday 5 April 1923

Is the North Pole going to melt entirely? Are the Arctic regions warming up with prospect of a great climatic change in that part of the world? Science is asking these questions (says “Popular Science Siftings”). Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas around Spitsbergen and the Eastern Arctic all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, with hitherto unheard-of high temperatures on that part of the earth’s surface. Observations to that effect have covered the last five years during which the warmth has been steadily increasing. In August the Norwegian Department of Commerce sent an expedition to Spitsbergen and Bear Island under the leadership of Dr. Adolf Hoel, professor of geology in the University of Christiania, the object in view being to survey and chart areas productive of coal and other minerals.

Sinister irony: Amazon uses whisper network to silently delete Orwell’s 1984 from customers Kindle e-readers

Backup early, backup often, and firewall your backup from the internet. This from io9.com:

Thousands of people last week discovered that Amazon had quietly removed electronic copies of George Orwell’s 1984 from their Kindle e-book readers. In the process, Amazon revealed how easy censorship will be in the Kindle age.

In this case, the mass e-book removals were motivated by copyright . A company called MobileReference, who did not own the copyrights to the books 1984 and Animal Farm, uploaded both books to the Kindle store and started selling them. When the rights owner heard about this, they contacted Amazon and asked that the e-books be removed. And Amazon decided to erase them not just from the store, but from all the Kindles where they’d been downloaded.

Professor Roger Pielke Jr Snaps Marcott et al Hockeystick

Hats off to Prof. Roger Pileke Jr, who has followed Steve McIntyre’s lead in standing up for science in the face of continued lies and scientific fraud. Here are some highlights from the post linked above:

In 1991 the National Research Council proposed what has come to be a widely accepted definition of misconduct in science:
Misconduct in science is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, in proposing, performing, or reporting research. Misconduct in science does not include errors of judgment; errors in the recording, selection, or analysis of data; differences in opinions involving the interpretation of data; or misconduct unrelated to the research process.
Arguments over data and methods are the lifeblood of science, and are not instances of misconduct.

However, here I document the gross misrepresentation of the findings of a recent scientific paper via press release which appears to skirt awfully close to crossing the line into research misconduct, as defined by the NRC. I recommend steps to fix this mess, saving face for all involved, and a chance for this small part of the climate community to take a step back toward unambiguous scientific integrity.

Mainstream Print Media Turns on Government and MET Office Climate Alarmists

Over the last week, more articles critical of mainstream climate science alarmism, and the taxation and energy policies which  have been predicated on it have been published than have appeared in years. Undoubtedly this is partly because of the late snows and freezing temperatures endured by an increasingly climate-propaganda weary public. A couple of newspapers which have always been in the vanguard of alarmist doomsaying, such as the Guardian have attempted to reverse the spin, but it is looking increasingly as if the majority of the UK press has had enough, and is coming over the wall to the sceptics position.

However, this may have as much to do with the late UK snow and revenge for the fallout from the Leveson enquiry as any genuine realisation of the shortcomings of the IPCC and the half-baked-one-side-only science it relies on. The impetus in the German media from their even colder spring may keep the ball rolling. Time will tell.

BBC nags Met Office for horseracing form book

Over on Talkshop Suggestions Gray quotes nicely so here it is

By Roger Harrabin

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21967190

Last spring’s forecast has been obtained by BBC News under Freedom of Information.

The Met Office three-monthly outlook at the end of March stated: “The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drier than average conditions for April-May-June, and slightly favours April being the driest of the three months.”

A soul-searching Met Office analysis later confessed: “Given that April was the wettest since detailed records began in 1910 and the April-May-June quarter was also the wettest, this advice was not helpful.”

In a note to the government chief scientist, the Met Office chief scientist Prof Julia Slingo explains the difficulty of constructing long-distance forecasts, given the UK’s position at the far edge of dominant world weather systems.

She says last year’s calculations were not actually wrong because they were probabilistic.

The Met Office explained it this way: “The probabilistic forecast can be considered as somewhat like a form guide for a horse race.”

Something does not compute, the BBC using FOI with the end effect of mocking the Met Office?

Steven Hayward: Climate Change Endgame In Sight?

This is a repost from the Powerline Blog of an article summarising the implications of the piece published by ‘The Economist’ a couple of days ago, which recognises the serious problems the co2 driven climate theory faces:

Steven Hayward: Climate Change Endgame In Sight?

In my Weekly Standard cover story about the fallout from the “Climategate” email scandal three years ago, I offered the following question by way of prediction:

Eventually the climate modeling community is going to have to reconsider the central question: Have the models the IPCC uses for its predictions of catastrophic warming overestimated the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases?

The article then went on to survey emerging research (U.S. government funded!) casting doubt on high estimates of climate sensitivity, along with alternative explanations on some climate factors, such as “black carbon.” The question in my mind the time was how long this would take to begin to break out into the “mainstream” scientific and media world.

Germany Forced to Cancel Climate Programs — SPIEGEL ONLINE

This article on Spiegel Online is surprising for a German publisher.

Seems to be claiming German is in fiscal trouble and is dumping some holy cows.

“Berlin can’t afford many of its renewable energy programs.”

Then goes on “As prices for carbon emissions continue to languish, Berlin is planning to cancel some key subsidy programs aimed at increasing reliance on renewable energies. Germany and other European countries seem uninterested in fixing the problem.” (my bold)

h/t to Little Churchill at Roger Helmer’s blog

Ann Widdecombe: Climate orthodoxy enforced with all the rigour of communism or fascism

Recently retired MP and former minister under the Major government Ann Widdecombe comes right out and says it like it is. And gets it printed in a daily. Is the UK print media ‘coming over the wall’ in retaliation for Leveson?

Even scientists are cooling on climate change

Ann Widdecombe – Daily Express 22-3-2013

WHAT do Peter Lilley, Andrew Tyrie, Philip Davies, Christopher Chope and I have in common? We were the only MPs to vote against the 2008 Climate Change Bill, which is to say we had by then considered all the evidence and found it wanting.

For years we have endured insults. Behind the scenes Fiona Bruce, normally the most courteous of broadcasters, called me a “flat-earther” to my face. Others branded us “deniers” as if we were disputing the holocaust. The Al Gore film was accorded the status of Holy Writ. David Bellamy lost his job. Doubting scientists were scorned. Nigel Lawson found it difficult to get his book An Appeal To Reason published.

Open Rights Group: Monday Deadline for UK Bloggers to Avert Internet Crackdown

We need to act quickly. Please visit this website and sign up: http://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/leveson

UPDATE 22/3

By the end of today we’ll know if press regulation Charter will affect blogs or not bit.ly/13i11rw

— Sunny Hundal (@sunny_hundal) March 22, 2013

Don’t clobber bloggers with Leveson

Lord Leveson’s regulations are being applied to UK websites – in ways that could catch more or less anyone who publishes a blog. Ordinary bloggers could be threatened with exemplary damages and costs. If this happens, small website publishers will face terrible risks, or burdensome regulation – and many may simply stop publishing.

We have until Monday to stop this happening.

Lord Leveson said he wanted to regulate print media. He proposed that judges be allowed to award exemplary damages and full costs against unregulated publishers. These are stringent and controversial measures, but he only envisaged them applying to large and powerful publishers. Not websites, unless they belonged to print publishers.

Last weekend, the proposals were agreed in a rush, without public consultation, and with no attention to the detail.

Outrageously, they have given the Lords until Monday to fix their mistakes.