All this talk of sueing the cyber bullies has led onto an interesting subject.
In the good old days when I ran a small business designing off-grid power systems and temperature control equipment, I set the business up as a company in order that my own personal liability was minimised to the assets of the company. That should have meant that if one of the temperature controllers went faulty and burnt down a University, then the University should not be able to take our family house. I also had insurance, but that did not cover my advice or consultancy for which I needed indemnity insurance.
For your average engineer, particularly those working in safety critical areas, it is a real and present threat that if we do not do our job properly, that we could end up in court.
So, when we talk about people being sued for bad advice it appears quite natural. so I was initially taken aback today when two commenters (Wottsupwiththat and Rachel) were highly indignant at any suggestion that climate academics might find themselves in court. Yes, the discussion was whether any of them could face the death penalty, but I had a strong feeling the indignation was as much the idea that any academic should face court as that they should face the death penalty.
Which got me thinking.
Crossing the line between academia and consultation
Have climate academics inadvertently crossed a line. That between the normally safe and secure world of academia where their views are extremely unlikely to face any form of penalty … and the world outside of consultants, engineers and investment advice where professionals (like sceptics) have to be very careful of the advice they give. Advice that can land them in hot water because there are real and serious implications for other people – and even their own livelihood and assets (like their house) if their advice proves wrong?
Are they liable and legally at risk of being sued?
As I’m not a lawyer, and have only ever done one term of Scottish commercial law as part of my MBA, I do not really know at what point someone crosses the line from being an academic into being a consultant. But I seem to remember that if advice is relied on by the person being advised, that the person giving that advice can be liable if that advice is wrong.
As the climate models increasingly look like they cannot predict the climate, at a time when the IPCC have increased their certainty and words like “unequivocal” are commonly stated, it does seem very possible that anyone who relied on that “unequivocal” advice could have a case against one or all of those climate academics who made those statements.
What is their riskThe average risk should be easy to calculate. It is the probability of a problem times the cost of that problem.
We do know that billions upon billions up to a total around $1 trillion has been invested as a result of the advice of what is perhaps no more than one hundred individuals. We know that this advice has been relied on to make massive investment decisions. And at an estimated cost of $1,000,000,000,000. If there is … well lets just pick a convenient value: a 400ppm chance of them being sued, the average risk to these climate academics is:
$4,000,000
Oh %$*^!
Wow! I had never thought of it that way. I’m glad I’m not a climate academic. If there were 100 companies in this market, and just one of these companies lost its share of the market ($10 million) and they then sued the 100 climate academics who were most responsible for this advice … that would cost them all $100,000 and most of them would loose their houses.
Forget indemnity insurance. This risk could bankrupt many countries, let alone an insurance company. Someone like Michael Mann who produced the Hockey stick, which was so key and has now proven to be so wrong, could be open to claims in the tens of billions of pounds. I’m not sure a major oil company could afford that kind of risk let alone an individual.
If someone who had relied on his advice sued, who would pay? Would it be Penn State University? It is a very intriguing question.
What if the UK were sued
Let us assume that the UK were sued because the UK Met Office had failed in its duty of care and the international climate crimes court finds the UK guilty of misleading the world. It could happen. So what would be my personal liability?
$1000,000,000,000 / 60,000,000 = $17,000
This is equivalent to the total sum of everyone’s wages in the whole UK for one year.
A fundamental difference between sceptics and academics
This is a a fundamental difference between sceptics and academics that had not crossed my mind. Sceptics like engineers work in an environment where it is known that legal action is a real possibility. People like Michael Mann may have thought they did not. But can their advice be construed as being responsible for any losses incurred? Probably! If so, they could be held legally liable for this advice. And the same may be true of many many others.
Could they have crossed a line and opened themselves up to massive claims of compensation without really realising what you have done?
I think they may well have done just that!
This may actually be the fundamental difference between sceptics and academics.
The sceptics, who are predominantly from “sueable” science in commerce & engineering, have a culture which through constant threat of litigation has become naturally cautious. In contrast academic don’t expect to get sued, and as such they appear to have a culture of being incautious with their statements. But if they have crossed a hidden line whereby they are now seen to be given advice, does this mean they have crossed over the line from researching academic knowledge into offering investment and policy advice?
And lest they forget, hindsight is a wonderful thing … and a court case is always done in hindsight when advice always looks much more reckless than it did when it was given.
At the moment the UK is most likely to be taken to court for making weather happen. People like Cameron and Obama are effectively admitting liability on our behalf. In their eagerness to embrace CAGW they’re owning up to something we haven’t done. Most climate scientists are not guilty of that. Not sure what would happen if we were taken to court. Lots of back tracking would ensue. Politicians would seek to blame scientists.
As for advice? Their work is so vague, most scenarios are covered until about 2050.
who would insure climate scientist, they are liable for trillions of dollars wasted
What worries me is the idea that with all the main players being from the UK and US … and with the US never signing Kyoto … that kind of leaves the UK open as the main country behind this. And the Met Office certainly have been very active.
If the world ganged up and demanded the $trillions this is costing from the UK, our scientist wouldn’t need to worry about global warming, because we wouldn’t be able to afford to have any Universities with climate science departments … because I doubt we’d be able to afford Universities.
“Politicians would seek to blame scientists.” … just like the baby p? case, the politicians and press went for the civil servant even though the industrial tribunal upheld their case.
Climate scientists have stepped into very dangerous waters like lambs to the slaughter and if it goes wrong they have set themselves up to be slated by every politicians and journalist in the land with their comments like “unequivocal”.
And they somehow think the excuse “we did our best” will wash with the public.
Fools tread ….etc.
Wow, I get a special mention. I’d better make a comment then because you’ve slightly misrepresented what I was saying.
I have no problem with a climate scientist who commits fraud and misconduct facing penalty though the court system for their actions and I’m thinking of Murry Salby here.
What I take issue with is a climate scientist facing legal action for simply communicating the science. This is what they’re supposed to do. I don’t even have a problem with them discussing possible solutions to the problem because they are members of our society as well and they will suffer the consequences of climate change just as much as everyone else. Why do they have less of a right to talk about solutions than say my hairdresser?
Let’s say there we’re sailing across the Pacific Ocean in a leaky boat. There’s a scientist on board and a politician as well as 10 random members of the public. The scientist has been monitoring the leak and has calculated that without attempting to patch it up, it is highly likely the boat will sink before it reaches its destination. The scientist communicates this problem to the politician who then tells everyone else that there’s nothing to worry about. What should the scientist do?
SS,
First of all, to answer the question you asked in the previous thread.
Andrew, if you bought a house and it turned out that the person selling it did not own it … would you be happy that the solicitor gave their “best advice” or that they gave “good advice”.
It’s difficult to envision circumstances where this could happen for any reason other than gross negligence by my solicitor, in which case yes of course he would be liable. But let’s say that it was due to say an error at the land registry or relying on a forged document which there was no obvious reason to question. Then no, I wouldn’t hold him responsible.
I actually work in an industry (banking) which has had its fair share of problems with bad advice, and the banks have rightly been forced to pay up to many people because of this. So there are guidelines in place when advising customers, for example we have to consider the expertise of our customer and ensure that products we offer are suitable for their needs. As long as we follow those rules then the customer does not have any redress if there are ultimately negative outcomes. Because in the end it is the customer’s decision what actions to actually take and he has to understand and consider the risks for himself.
I see no reason to think the same doesn’t apply in any other industry or profession where people give advice to others. People are only liable when they act negligently or dishonestly. If this is not the case then I would like to see some actual examples of cases where someone has either been prosecuted or sued for giving advice in good faith and which they could reasonably consider to be accurate at the time.
Here’s a question for you. Say “skeptical” organisations such as the GWPF or Heartland succeed in persuading politicians that no action on climate change is necessary and it turns out that the “alarmists” are correct and millions of peopel lose their lives or livelihoods as a result. Should those organisations be liable?
They’re not advocating ‘no action’, at least the GWPF isn’t. Don’t really know what Heartland does. GWPF seem to be pro action that makes a difference and would be beneficial even if CAGW wasn’t going to happen. They are asking for time for evidence to become clear before we act like headless chickens.
If someone tells you that there will be a volcano if you don’t sacrifice a virgin. Are you at fault if you save the girl and the volcano does erupt? Might GWPF be in deep water if AGW turns out to be imminent and huge? Probably, but going on current trends all key players will have died of old age before this is resolved. Bloggers are pretty safe because they’re just opinions. Your responsibility in any matter soars when you take money from those you advise.
Sceptcism isn’t a case of either, or, it’s how much and when and what can you genuinely do about it. If everyone was truly convinced about CO2 being deadly we could cut CO2 to 2 tonnes almost immediately. It wouldn’t be pretty but we could do it. We don’t do it or anything close because we’re not really convinced. There’s just a load of pointless angst and busywork. With better evidence GWPF would not stand in your way.
The consensus side needs sceptics to exist because without them they’d have to admit they were failing on their own merits.
What guidelines are there for climate science? Without a measuring stick they can never be in the wrong.
Shrug and say that having measured the problem, they have no actual idea how to plug the leak? The group take a vote and decide to stick some poor unfortunate head first into the hole. That person drowns and the hole still leaks, if slightly slower than before. After another hour they realise that the boat is not actually sinking but is an inflatable and doesn’t need the bottom to be watertight. They throw the poor drowned soul overboard and vow never to speak of it again. The politician reneges and sells his story to the papers and blames the scientist for misreading the situation. The other passengers agree that the scientist was to blame.
Ain’t fiction grand?
The flippant answer is ask if there’s an engineer on board who knows how to mend the leak.
The serious answer is ask if there’s an engineer on board who can understand both the climate scientist and the politician.
The real answer … is look behind … the engineer will have already worked that out and fixed the leak in the time it took the climate scientist to talk to the politician.
You forgot to add the bit where the engineer asks the economist on board how much it’s all going to cost before deciding whether to fix it or not.
oops, this was meant to be a reply to ScottishSceptic’s comment below.
It would be the economist that made the hole in the first place with their quantitative easing.
Or maybe they fiddled with the buttons and turned on the pump?
Yes, you’re probably right. 🙂
I believe every person and organization is liable to civil litigation and/or criminal charges. In the case of the climate issue I think it’s very interesting from the point of view of who will be the complainant and who will be the defendant and exactly what the complaint will be.
For example, is a government scientist paid to do science or give advice? I guess this is “the line” you are asking about. What about a scientist like Michael Oppenheimer who also works for a pro-AGW NGO and is basically a climate activist?
In the end, since I’m clearly aware of what it means to be accountable, I certainly pay very close attention to those who are trying to acquire power or achieve goals that may greatly affect me but they could not be held accountable.
As a side note, is the UN in general accountable for anything they do?
No, I’m probably half right – if only I knew which half I would be a genius.
The measuring stick is mother nature.
To be fair, it is not a job I would envy. They are constantly under pressure to come up with an “answer” … there is no real new data from year to year … and they will only really find out if they were right when they are too old in the tooth to go and do something else.
And all done in the goldfish bowl of public scrutiny.
And let’s be fair … if they are right … and as Rachel says unable to persuade people to react … millions die, but if they are wrong and commit the world to unnecessary and costly policy … millions die.
And will they get thanked either way? Probably not.
Would it be right for a lawyer to be prosecuted for defending a client who was found guilty by the jury?
In a democracy we need to have a free and fair debate based on the evidence. The fact that people put opposing views to the “official” position cannot possibly be wrong in a democracy. However if they presented evidence that was known to be false or lied or bribed, then there would be a case.
But the mere fact of presenting an alternative case not only would not cause them to be prosecuted … in many areas like the courts and in parliament, it is in the public interest to pay to have good quality opposition
And I would go as far as to say that one of the main reasons the public do not trust climate academics is because they have repressed opposition and that will always make those doing the repression untrustworthy.
TinyCO2,
Well obviously scientists aren’t subject to the same kind of regulatory regime as bankers and I wouldn’t suggest they should be, the two things are not comparable IMO. But if we take the most obvious case of scientists advising politicians, the IPCC reports, there are processes and procedures in place to try to ensure that the reports give a fair reflection of the current state of scientific understanding of climate.
SS
There is no public interest in people putting forward supposedly “scientific” arguments which are not actually supported by evidence. There is plenty to discuss in climate science without the need to have people putting forward bogus argument for the sake of having “opposition”.
Which is not to say they should be prevented from doing so, or that they should suffer any penalties if they are successful in influencing policy. If and when the climate change “sceptics” are conclusively proved wrong the ingnominy they will suffer will be enough for me.
The assumption that policies to take climate change will result in millions of deaths is somewhat speculative.
Andrew, by your argument there is no need for a defence barrister because the prosecution will just put forward the evidence and there is no point in having bogus argument for the sake of having “opposition”.
Likewise, there is no point have an official opposition in parliament, because – don’t you trust the civil service to put forward the evidence and as the government case will just be based on this evidence there is no point in having bogus argument for the sake of having opposition.
And what on earth is the point in giving opposition parties time on TV before elections. Because the election should just be based on the government’s record and there is no point in having bogus argument for the sake of having opposition.
And there is no point having auditors for companies checking the accounts. Because there is no point in having bogus argument for the sake of having opposition.
And why on earth do people get a survey when buying a house, why don’t they just accept what the seller tells them … because there is no point in having bogus argument for the sake of having opposition.
And what is the point in having all these silly universities around the country. It would be much more efficient to just have one big University with one department for each subject … Because there is no point in having bogus argument for the sake of having opposition.
TinyCO2,
It’s nice to see a sceptic who thinks cutting CO2 emissions is so easy, but unfortunately that’s not the case – there are big practical, economic and political difficulties. That doesn’t mean it is impossible or that it has to cost millions of lives as SS seems to think but there are still costs involved and the benefits are in the future which makes it unattractive for politicians. The difficulties are evident if you see what’s happening in Warsaw – everyone agrees there is a problem and action is needed but there are big obstacles to finding a collective solution.
23,000 extra people die in the winter each year in the UK. That is 1million over the last 50 years. If fuel prices go up and that increases by 10% that is an extra 100,000 early deaths. Extrapolate that worldwide and the cost of higher fuel bills could easily be in the millions.
The IPCC & academia is like a one party state claiming there is no opposition because only madmen (they lock up in their gulags) would possibly disagree with them.
If the IPCC really believed their arguments were sound, then they would not have any problem funding academics like Salby. The truth is that neither the IPCC nor many in academia have any faith in their case and they live in fear of funding anyone who might hold a different view because the only way they can force people to accept their views is to squash all opposition.
And what is more, this squashing all opposition is the antithesis of science. Science is like natural selection … all viable research should be funded and the best should rise above the rest by natural selection not the official slaughter of anything but the officially sanctioned view.
SS
Not at all. It’s necessary to distinguish between the scientific advice given to governments by scientists and the political arguments around action on climate change. Obviously in the latter case there are going to be people putting forward opposing arguments, even if they agree on the science, and politicians will sensibly listen to a range of views. That doesn’t mean we have to show respect to every crackpot argument under the sun but people are entitled to express their views.
But as the saying goes, they are not entitled to their own facts, and the science is what it is. Obviously there are disagreements in some areas, uncertainties in others, and some where things are pretty settled. All this should be reflected in the advice which scientists give to policymakers. But there is reason why politicians should take any notice of people making blatantly unscientific claims such as the GHE doesn’t exist or increased CO2 levels are not caused by human activity, nor is there any benefit to anyone in people spouting such stuff in public, although obviously you can’t stop them from doing so.
The IPCC doesn’t fund science, nor does it have any control over what science gets funded.
I wouldn’t say that “all viable science should be funded”, there is obviously not an infinite research budget and some people will always miss out. But I would say that all science which is funded should be viable, and Salby’s ideas aren’t. He is little better than a crank with a pet theory. Not funding this kind of stuff isn’t “squashing opposition”.
Actually it’s probably more than a million over the last 50 years because the trend has been downwards. And that is absolutely nothing to do with climate change policy. Price rises do not have to mean that this number increases – the effects on the poorest can be mitigated through other policies.
OK, how about I put it this way. Would you support funding say a dozen university climate academics – none of whom need be current sceptics – to go and look for evidence and arguments against the “official” position and for them to act like the defence in a trial and to put the very best case against the IPCC position so that the public can see the strength of this argument?
“everyone agrees there is a problem and action is needed but there are big obstacles to finding a collective solution.” The problem is everyone wants a modern energy rich life and nobody’s scared enough of CAGW to give it up. There are no magic renewables that can give us what we want for the CO2 footprint scientists say we should get to. Cutting CO2 is not rocket science. Developing countries manage it every day. It’s very unpleasant but it’s not difficult.
So all those conferences and displays of conspicious CO2 emissions are a complete waste of time and will be until those attending, and the bulk of their public, truly believe in themogeddon. They’re the CO2 equivalent of an eclesiastic conference set in a Las Vegas strip club and casino. Their motto should be ‘fac quod dico, non quod facio’ or ‘do as I say, not as I do’.
All that is bleedin’ obvious. I find it hard to listen sensibly to people who can’t grasp such a simple concept or indeed the simple steps it takes to cut CO2.
Good grief, don’t you think the fossil fuel industry has been doing this for 20 years or so, at least from the time of the infamous API memo? They have given lots of money to Soon, Baliunas, Michaels, Carter etc and they have come up with exactly nothing. How do I know? Because if they had it would have been plastered all over the Fox news network and the Murdoch fish wrap. The only place these fraudulent scientists get any platform for their rubbish is on denier blogs such as wattsuphisbutt, bishop shill, climatefraudit etc. and in the lies written by Rose, Delingpole et al.
Every important science I can think of has a funded opposition, often deliberately set up. It makes the science stronger and the lack of one in climate science is a huge red flag.
Andrew, I have listened careful to your side on Salby. By and large the arguments were ignorant of what he was saying. Those that weren’t could not provide evidence to support their views. And the worst anyone could say was “but he’s only saying what we’ve been saying for ages”.
I have looked carefully at Salby’s work. I have no particular bias with regard to this work because whether or not the CO2 is manmade, the models do not work and even if they did, there is no economic case.
It would suit me quite nicely not to have to change material to include the information from Salby.
So, I would actually be happier if Salby were wrong because it would be less work for me. But as a conscientious person I have I’ve checked through his work and althogh there are several areas where his work is weak, there is nothing in his logic, evidence or argument that is false, misleading or dishonest.
I am particularly impressed that he is very careful not to over state his case and all in all his work is the highest standard of science. So, I am appalled by your attitude.
I think the reasons you don’t like Salby has nothing to do with the quality of his work but is for one of the following:
1. You haven’t read it
2. You haven’t understood it
3. Or you just don’t like what he is saying.
In particular your attitude is insulting to me as a scientist. Because as a scientist, if the evidence shows that some CO2 must evolve naturally due to temperature, then no matter what your personal views are, you must accept what the evidence shows.
“scientists aren’t subject to the same kind of regulatory regime as bankers and I wouldn’t suggest they should be, the two things are not comparable IMO”. Why not? Surely the outcome is as important, if not more so?
The reason for regulation is not just to put restrictions on the scientists but to build confidence in their work. We don’t assume that pharma companies want to hurt people. They always intend to make drugs that are both safe and effective but we know that mistakes happen. Fraud happens. The outcomes are so important that we set rules up about how first the drug companies test their work and how authorities should double check. Even once a pill is on the market, we keep watching for side effects. OK it doesn’t always work, but those procedures help.
We’ve not even got to the stage where anyone thinks it might be a good idea to develop standards for climate science. let alone police them.
Have you ever thought to check how much money your side gets from fossil fuel before you write these lies about our side being funded by fossil fuel. can you even prove your allegation … I doubt it
The truth is that it is your side that gets all this money:
“Oxford’s new Shell-sponsored research institute has highlighted an ethical dilemma universities face when working with industry and has, for some, crossed a line of what is in the public good. This post is a reflection on such collaborations and their purpose.”http://attheinterface.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/taking-the-corporate-pound-why-universities-and-companies-collaborate/
Oil and gas companies pour money into research universities
In 2010, the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, identified over 50 “partnerships” between universities and energy companies, with contributions ranging from $1 million to $500 million. Government investment in energy research and development is just a fraction of what it was in the 1970s, so such collaborations have helped foster “critical advancements” in technology. But, the report warned, “Industry funding can have a powerful distorting influence on the quality, topics, and credibility of academic research when it is not properly managed.”
http://www.hcn.org/issues/45.1/oil-and-gas-companies-pour-money-into-research-universities/print_view
TinyCO2 “Every important science I can think of has a funded opposition, ”
What they don’t realise is that people are more inclined to believe someone when they have had their arguments tested. Having an opposition is quite critical.
Firstly, it creates controversy. That controversy means the media can make a story out of it. Those stories then put across the evidence for the mainstay view, and the public get convinced.
Second, people are a lot more confident of someone’s assertions, if those assertions have been attacked by someone credible and they have withstood the attack. In contrast, if you are not willing to have your arguments scrutinised by credible opposition, it tells the public that you do not believe your arguments could withstand scrutiny.
Third, if the public have doubts, unless someone is allowed to express those doubts in public – there will be no counter argument and so there is no way for the pubic doubt to be addressed.
So, e.g. it is obvious to most people that have looked that the models do not work. The official academics refuse to discuss this failing. Broadcasters like the BBC refuse to have sceptics present our views about this failing … so there will never be a debate about the failed models and the public who know the models failed will never hear any argument countering their doubt – so the doubt can’t disappear.
So, in this regime of repression of all sceptics, it is inevitable that the public doubt will grow and unless or until those doubts are expressed in public, and there is a credible public discussion there is no way for those doubts to go away.
[I have said using denier is a libel]
However valid your comment, you cannot use my blog to libel people.
You people have a complete ignorance on how science actually works. Every time a scientist writes a grant application or submits a paper it is reviewed by the opposition who are looking for faults with it. You obviously have never gone through a thesis defense or department seminar.
How does that relate to public trust?
That would be the equivalent of a trial behind closed doors compared to what I was suggesting which is one open to public scrutiny. If the public never see the cross examination, if their questions are never put to the test, how is a cross examination they don’t see and doesn’t address their questions going to sway them?
time is on our side; the public is getting sick of ”fear fatigue”
The average Joe Public, if he is anything like as ignorant of science, climate science in particular, as you are, would not be considered a “jury of peers”. You people have an exaggerated opinion of your knowledge and usefulness. You are a laughing stock.
“Scottish” “Sceptic” said:
Telling the truth about people is not libel. You will find that out if you ever take anyone to court for using the word you hate but is true.
“Every important science I can think of has a funded opposition, ”
So for example, Biology has Creationism. And climate science has you lot. That seems reasonable.
ScottishSceptic,
I find this comment absurd. The evidence for AGW has been accruing for more than half a century. There has been opposition to it during this time and no-one has sought to “squash all opposition” as you seem to think. But over the years more pieces of the puzzle have been discovered and the evidence has got stronger and stronger.
I would describe Henrik Svensmark as a true sceptic of AGW. He is a physicist who has put forward a theory involving cosmic rays as a cause of global warming. I seem to recall reading something this week however that might have put the final coffin in his theory but he is still an academic who has been free to advance is own ideas which are different to those of the IPCC.
There are also plenty of debates raging in this are of science over how much warming we can expect and what the consequences will be. You only need to look on twitter to see all the disagreements between academics.
The reason Salby is no longer funded by a University is because he lost his job. Prior to losing his job though, he was getting paid by a University. What is he living off now I wonder?
You hear laughter, I hear the World getting on with life and ignoring climate science. One of us seems to have a hearing problem.
I was interested to read that the origins of our modern universities were religious institutions whose functions were to create supportive arguments for the official church doctrine. Ian is really just carrying on this tradition: a modern version of the inquisition who will burn any heretic at the stake who dares questions the omnipotent church doctrine that the earth is the centre of the Universe.
We are just the humble watchmaker to the Royal Society’s newton. They have all the power, we have the watch that gave navigation accurate longitude, enabled sea navigation, made the British Navy supreme and created the modern world.
Watchmakers always win out in the end.
As part a part of medicine, biology falls under all the safeguards we try to build into that field. After all, Dawinism is not the last word on evolution. I’m sure there are a great number of scientists who have worked away in biology who never met much opposition, but then their work would be of no immediate value. Once that work has a use or will impact society it starts attracting serious scrutiny and no, that doesn’t mean creationists.
Take astronomy. Whenever they announce another planet that might have an Earth like planet, it gets reported and then forgotton. Whenever they announce a Near Earth Object it gets noticed and checked. If the observation is genuine and there is a risk, it gets more scrutiny. In scientific terms the Earth like planet is more interesting but the NEO is more important.
Climate scientists still treat climate science as if it was unimportant.
No, but I have gone through an inspection by a hostile government safety inspector who threatened to shut the company down in two weeks. Not because there was anything wrong with plant or procedures but because the paperwork wasn’t up to date after safer equipment was installed. He had the papers in his hand two days later.
In those circumstances you don’t get to mount a defence, you just do as you’re told.
Companies not only have to have an upfront plan to ensure health and safety, they get inspected and tested (often at their own expense depending upon their size). Their customers are continually looking for fault and are perfectly entitled to call foul if they find it. We think it’s perfectly reasonable to expect a customer to get their money back if the product doesn’t work or if it doesn’t arrive at all. Do scientists give their money back if their theories don’t pan out?
So no, I have never gone through a thesis defense or department seminar.
“The average Joe Public, if he is anything like as ignorant of science, climate science in particular, as you are, would not be considered a “jury of peers”.”
And I’m not asking to be on any jury, I just understand there has to be one. Joe Public does have the right to demand that climate science is vetted. That cannot come from the buddy system that is currently in place.
We have some fine examples recently where in house monitoring has failed (press) and even where external monitoring can become too friendly and fail to act (banking). The only reason climate science should avoid regulation is if the’re not as important as the media or kebab shops.
Ian at one time it was considered OK to be prejudiced against blacks, jews, gays, etc.
This was justified in the say way that they were inferior, or untrustworthy, etc.
Just as people had to change their views, so you will have to stop using derogatory language about us otherwise it will end in court.
You can argue we are wrong … what you can’t do is tell us what our views are. YOU ARE NOT AN EXPERT ON OUR VIEWS you might think you are an expert, but you are not. And as the expert on our views, we know that you are telling lies about our views when you call us “deniers”. That is a libel.
And the test that will be used in a court of law is not whether you genuinely thought we were deniers, but whether you can prove beyond doubt that we are deniers.
That will be extremely difficult to do as I am the only person I know who has gone out and asked sceptics what their views are and I have what is the authoritative document which will be presented to the court. As such the court will have little option but to accept this document and the onus will then be on you to prove that document is false – which will be all but impossible unless you can get sceptics to agree to produce a new document that says something different.
As I have said many times I’ve no particular reason to support Salby … as it just means more work and the key is that the models don’t work, so this CO2 is a distraction. However, unlike your side, I did him the courtesy of listening. And unlike your side, I’ve also worked through what he said and found where I consider it weak. I’ve then listened to what your side have to say, followed it up and e.g. read the papers linked to and found that if anything they support what he said (not what you think he said).
And after all this, without any bias on the subject I cannot find anything substantial that he has said that isn’t scientific (I would have phrased one thing with less certainty) and I would have no hesitation funding him – in the same way I would fund research into CO2 warming or sunspots. I don’t take sides, I just go where the evidence takes me and so I like having good evidence.
Science is like evolution … it works because there is diversity and selection of the fittest.
Your argument about creatonism is akin to putting a dodo on the African plain. Yes it disproves evolution as an explanation for the dodo (on the African plain). You cannot compare Salby to Creationism. Salby is entirely scientific and would suggest your dislike of him is akin to that of a dinosaur disliking the mammals at their feet and trying to stamp on them.
Climate science has a single dinosaur like theory of how the planet works. It will not tolerate alternative theories. But as the history of science shows, theories evolve and change. If climate science refuses to evolve and adapt to the changing environment of new data, … then eventually one of these rats beneath your feet will replace you with a new theory.
As for Svensmark …. why can’t you ever phrase something as simple as this in a scientific way. Svensmark is not proposing “cosmic rays as a cause of global warming”. What he is saying is that Cosmic rays are correlated with global temperatures, that there is a mechanism whereby this could explain global warming “AT LEAST IN PART
It is the same with Salby. He hasn’t said ground conditions are the only cause of CO2 emissions, but your side wilfully misconstrue his argument as being this. What he has said is that ground conditions are responsible for CO2 emissions AT LEAST IN PART.
That would be true if 99.99999% of emissions were manmade and 0.00001% were natural. And then your side says he must be wrong! In other words both Svensmark and Salby are saying that this must be considered as a possibility.
your response is to say it must not be considered at all
Your side approach everything with a religious dogma of certainty which is not appropriate in a scientific subject and which is why your side get so many things wrong and won’t listen to anyone else.
Scotty,
I think you’ve got too much nesting in your blog comments because some of them are getting very long and narrow.
If you don’t take sides then why do you keep referring to “my side” and “your side”? But to steal your use of these words, I don’t think “my side” does support Salby’s views. From what I understand, Salby finds the CO2 rise is natural. “My side” says it’s entirely man-made. “My side” has stopped listening to Salby, not for dogmatic reasons, but because he’s wrong.
Rachel:
Me: “My side” says it’s entirely man-made. “My side” has stopped listening to Salby, not for dogmatic reasons, but because he’s wrong.
It is easy to prove you wrong because you make a ridiculous assertion. You say Salby is wrong. He says at least in part CO2 has risen because of natural processes. He does not give a time period therefore for him to be wrong he must be wrong in any time period.
Each year atmospheric CO2 rises. It has done so irrespective of natural emissions. It is therefore extremely likely to be manmade – and no doubt your side will have already asserted this as an undeniable fact.
Therefore I have proved that the statement “Salby is wrong” is itself false because there are circumstances where your side says he is right. The same was also true for ENSO.
All this kind of assertion that: “Salby is wrong” does, is make your side look utterly ridiculous. One doesn’t need to know anything about climate science to know you are wrong At least in part. But you will not admit you are wrong At least in part, so the only conclusion any reasonable person can draw from that type of argument is that you are wrong …. to say you are not wrong at least in part.
Me: If you don’t take sides then why do you keep referring to “my side” and “your side”?
Why do I refer to them as “my side”, because we are but temporary travellers on the same road who happen to be going the same way. I am following the road which the evidence dictates I take. Many of them, but not all, are doing the same.
If however we started talking about a different subject, then I would make up my mind on that. E.g. if you were to ask me and Lord Lawson or Lord Monckton (who worked in their central unit) about the relative merits of the Thatcher government, the poll tax, their treatment of Scotland and the destruction of British industry under Thatcherism, I would have a different view to theirs.
But even on the climate there are very different views amongst sceptics. I for example can’t see why sceptics can’t understand the importance of natural variation. Some are convinced that sun spots are the next climate scare … I’m convinced that we definitely need more research … but the evidence of the effect of sunspots is difficult to interpret.
But that is no different from the actual researchers on climate. I was at the Royal society meeting on climate … and because sceptics only know each other as pseudonyms on the internet, whilst I knew sceptics were there, I did not know who was who.
And it proved very difficult to tell – because on the internet your side talk about it in such black and white terms – but at the Royal Society, the people attending were just discussing the evidence and looking at new ideas without immediately saying they are wrong (as I find you side always does on the internet).
Perhaps it is the same people who behave different in the anonymity of the web – but I suspect that those who are the strongest advocates and constitute “your side” actually constitute a small minority within the subject.
I’ll try this one more time or have you banned me?
Why do you distort everything anyone says?
We are not telling you what your views are, what we are doing is telling you that they are wrong and not backed up by science.
Please keep us informed on how your lawsuit against those of us who use the word that must not be spoken is going it will make interesting reading.
Thanks – I don’t think sceptics mind being criticised for views we hold – after all we want a debate – it’s good for everyone to have robust discussion. But we are sick to death of being attacked for views we do not hold.
“is the UN in general accountable for anything they do?” No. See UN, Haiti and cholera.
“We are not telling you what your views are, what we are doing is telling you that they are wrong and not backed up by science.” So CO2 doesn’t cause warming?
My views are mainly to do with how climate science conducts itself and how it is failing to convince people. I leave the science to the future where the truth will be obvious, whatever it is. You are yet to prove me wrong on public opinion.
TCO2 hasn’t a clue either:
Who said that on this blog? No one. The view which serious scientists are disagreeing with
is the “view” of Salby and supported by “Scottish” “Sceptic” and others on this blog that the increase in CO2 concentration in recent times (100 years or so) is not due to CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels.[Please don’t lie.
What I have said repeatedly is that some of the net emissions in recent time must be due to surface temperature AT LEAST IN PART.
Neither I nor Salby have ever said or even implied that it was all natural. Indeed I’ve said that some must be human.
I have said this so many times that either you are intentionally lying about our views or you lack the mental capacity to understand the subject and would best be quiet.]
Jeez you guys can’t get the simplest things straight, no wonder you have so many problems understanding the physics of AGW.
But all sceptics are different and I haven’t got views on Salby. I do have views on CO2 but you tell tell us we are, blanket fashion, wrong.
TCO2 your ability to understand simple English is amazingly lacking. I’m pretty sure you do understand what I said and are just playing games. However, anthropogenic global warming is too serious to be called a game. I must say that I do find you and your mates here very childish in a number of ways.
TinyCO2, biology is not a sub-discipline of medicine, rather like physics isn’t a sub-discipline of engineering. They may work together, and there may be overlap, but they are not the same. “Darwinism” is a label used by creationists to denigrate the work of biologists.
Maybe the “big picture” view of how Science works would clarify some of these relationships? This summary article is really good. I thought it was interesting and well-organized. You’ll find the sections on Philosophy of Science (Certainty…) and Scientific Practice particularly relevant.
Do let’s take Astronomy: NASA runs the Near Earth Object Program, which looks at various objects and tries to assess the likelihood and severity of future earth impacts. As you say, there are a range of risks and severities for different objects. Do you believe NASA when they tell you that an object is NOT going to impact the earth? Do you believe them when they say an object could hit the earth? Have they taken out enough liability insurance, in your opinion?
Do I need to mention that NASA has been roundly criticized by “Contrarians” as being “activist” and therefore not credible, because it tries to educate the public about climate change? “Oh well, it’s a government-funded organization and obviously biased.” Nevertheless, if NASA said an NEO was heading for your local pub, would you say, “Nah they don’t understand the physics. Monckton thinks it’s all a crock, so nothing to worry about.”, or would you take their advice, keeping in mind that they are actually rocket scientists? If so, why don’t you trust NASA’s assessment of the risks of climate change?
“Climate scientists still treat climate science as if it was unimportant.”
And yet you guys claim that they’re only doing it for the funding. If funding was their motivation, don’t you think they’d be beating down the doors for government handouts, instead of waiting for the wheels of scientific reasoning to slowly bring the world around to their view? Or is it because they’re activists? I admit this part of the “sceptic view” confuses me.
This is the “big-picture” article I was referring to.
On that I will mostly agree with you. I was playing with you and I too think AGW is serious but you deserved it for being agressive and narrow minded. You think AGW is too important to play games? I think it’s too important to act like everyone who disagrees with anything about the CAGW bandwagon is the enemy. It’s a fast track to being ignored by everyone but a small coterie of climate obsessives. If you want to save the planet you have to realise that the science and the policies will be questioned at every turn. The future might paint you as a climate hero, bravely trying to save everyone from their own folly but right now you come across as an arse. Have a cool talk with yourself and ask if ranting your way round the internet is supposed to make a positive difference or just make you feel less insignifiant.
TCO2 it is you people who are ranting round the internet. Why shouldn’t I get upset when blogs like this one spread misinformation and junk science around? “Scottish” “Sceptic” is doing exactly what the API said in their infamous memo “Spread doubt”, that way people will be unable to ascertain the true facts thus they will convince politicians to do nothing. That is exactly what is happening now. Fortunately, because of recent events the truth of what will happen as the climate warms is becoming more and more obvious. Unfortunately, we have wasted too much time already.
Ian, you shouldn’t get upset because it’s unproductive. It’s not sceptics who have wasted time, it’s those who say they acept CAGW that are frittering time, money and public enthusiasm away.
Climate science is unconvincing. I don’t need to be smart or learned to prove that. The global CO2 footprint and the general failure of governments to do anything significant is all the evidence needed. Now you can blame that on us if it makes you feel better but people who have never heard of Anthony Watts or Monkton or Heartland or GWPF are sceptical. The pattern of reasons why will be unique to each individual. It will be made up of personal experiences, knowledge, circumstances and personality. Many sceptics are aware of their resistance to climate science but most people are just acting like they’re a sceptic.
The person who buys more things than they need is sceptical because they haven’t made the connection between consumption and emissions. The person who flies on holiday thinks their holiday is more important than the emissions they will spawn. The crowd that chug off to climate conferences despite knowing that no progress will be made are sticking two fingers up to CO2. The TV editors don’t care about the atmosphere when they send film crews and presenters all round the planet when local reporters, stock images and studio discussion would do almost as well. We would be staggered how much CO2 could be saved if people just acted like they thought AGW was a problem. But they don’t. None of those energy saving actions need new technology or training or laws or even a supportive industry. They just need people to act.
If you really cared about CO2 and the future you would pack your ego away and try to get to the bottom of scepticism. You’d constantly be asking ‘what can we do to make climate science better?’ and listen seriously to the answers rather than hurling abuse and derision.
But you won’t do that because you’re a climate sceptic who thinks scoring points is more important than CO2.
Mike, you have asked: “are they [climate academics] liable and legally at risk of being sued?”.
This is a key question. In my “Refuting IPCC’s claims on climate change”:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2VHpYemRBV3FQRjA
I already asked this same question to two of the IPCC’s leading authors I contacted with. One of them did not reply to me, and the other told me that responsibilities inside the IPCC were diluted (check that point number 5).
I guess that (not all academics but) the following IPCC participants are in a small risk of being sued:
– Gumar Myhre (CICERO) & Drew Shindell (NASA), CLAs of the Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcings.
– Gregory Flato (Env. Can.) & Jochem Marotzke (MPI Met.), CLAs of the Chapter 9: Evaluation of climate models.
– Matthew Collins (U. Exeter) & Reto Knutti (ETH Zurich), CLAs of the Chapter 12: Long term climate change projections.
– All IPCC members that “supervise” the 6 cited above.
As only big corporations would be capable of held that suing, I do not think that these IPCC members will have to answer to a judge in a trial similar to these trials held in the UK (in October 2007) where the High Court ruled on the teaching of Al Gore’s documentary.
Nevertheless, I think that what it could happen is that an independent scientific council will challenge some IPCC members with questions like:
(1)- Is climate sensitivity value (used in the relation of N with T) an appropriately derived value?.
(2)- Is anthropogenic attribution scientifically consistent?.
(3)- Are climate modeIs based on observations or on scientificaly wrong answers to questions (1) and (2)?.
So let’s see what happens.
Regards, Antonio.
Thanks. This is quite a difficult subject. If someone or a group knowingly set out to deceive the public and fabricated all the evidence in order to profit from something this big, I think we would be talking about life in prison (or if some countries got hold of them, the death penalty).
If however, someone failed in their duty, e.g. denied money to those scientists who had reason to doubt the IPCC, then that would be like a prosecution barrister not telling the defence about an expert witness that supported the defence case.
If however, some climate academic did not disclose information that supported the sceptic case, that would be like a prosecution solicitor not disclosing to the defence evidence that showed the defendant innocent.
I suppose we already have rules for expert witnesses in trials. I think the rule is that an expert witness is there for the court and not one side and if they fail to disclose pertinent information then they are committing an offence. That is probably the standard by which climate scientists would be judged.
However, there is another class of crime. And that is obtaining public money by deception. This is fraud and would be tried that way. So, if someone knowingly misled a grant body about their work in order to obtain another grant, then we could certainly see criminal trials in these cases – although they would be technically difficult to prosecute. (Perhaps I can see a job opening?)
How is climate science unconvincing? I presume you mean here that the case for AGW is unconvincing. Given that almost all climate scientists are convinced that the planet is getting hotter and that humans are to blame I find it a little bit surprising that you think you know more than they do. Don’t you think this is a bit arrogant?
The reason nothing has been done so far to combat the problem is because it involves intergenerational ethics. It requires our generation to make sacrifices which will not benefit us but which will benefit future generations. So far, selfishness has prevailed.
Bald ‘facts’, no matter who they are delivered from, do not make them convincing. To make people act you have to get deeper and deal with those barriers people have, rather than the ones you want to assign them.
I put facts in inverted commas because what people have been deluged with is a mix of fact, fiction, spin and emotional blackmail. People react differently to each of those.
Even if people are acting selfishly (and it’s much more complicated than that) then the arguments they have been fed, leads them think they can act selfishly and not suffer the consequences.
Let’s be honest, even if CO2 is not the disaster we think, then there could well be something equally bad (and anti-biotic immunity is clear case) where the world needs to act as a community.
But as a result of what I’ve seen in climate research, I have no faith whatsoever any of these academics could convince most of the public that there own house was burning down if smoke were pouring out of it.
And the reason is because when you sound like you are just politicians dressed in white coats, people treat you with the same contempt they have for what politicians say they must do and what “is”.
I sincerely believe that the single biggest mistake made by those who thought CO2 was a problem, was to squash any and everyone who had an alternative view. The result was that the public knew there were views that were counter to the IPCC and they knew they were not being allowed to be heard. When that happens many people will not accept what they are being told whatever is being said, because they always suspect the views being repressed would not be repressed if they didn’t have some validity to them.
And let’s be frank the public are lazy. Most of the public can’t be bothered to go and look at the evidence themselves or look in obscure journals to try to understand the argument.
So they want to be able to sit back and hear the argument without them doing any work
AND YOUR SIDE NEVER LET THEM HEAR THE ARGUMENT … so most of them never became convinced.
As I know to my cost, it takes time and money to put together something that the media will publish. Therefore in order to have that public discussion you have to pay people like me to be able to put together an argument so that there is a public discussion
If you had really believed in your case, you would have done that, because you would have known that the sooner the public had a chance to see us put all the evidence & arguments we had, the sooner your lot could have (as you believe) demolished them and the public would have been convinced.
The fact your side did not believe you could win a fair debate where our side was given the money to put our case proves you didn’e believe you could win
I could spend all day listing the things that are acting as a barrier to action on CO2 and making scepticism grow but there’s no point if you don’t really want to know or would assume I’d be lying.
Oopse. That was directed at Ian and Rachel.
One of the red flags was consensus and the certainty. Like those trick questions in psychometric testing, people look for extreme positions and naturally doubt them.
As for playing the ‘trust me I’m a scentist’ card, sigh. Who automaticaly trusts anyone these days? Trust has to be earned. If it’s given without that, then it’s only on loan and can be withdrawn in an instant.
I would be interested to hear. I may not believe CO2 is the problem we are told it is, but that doesn’t mean something else may not come along. Next time we may need to convince people – so what are the lessons?
The first is obviously to avoid this group-think – and I’ve little confidence the academics will learn from their mistakes this time.
But assuming the “sceptic” community having treated it with due scepticism, are then convinced – and this time we have to convince the world that these group-think academics who lied to the world about their ability to predict the climate, really have to be believed this time.
… what do we have to do to convince the public in the face of this unconvincing lot who actively sow doubt by their religious certainty?
Start a new thread and we can chew it over. It’s a big subject and needs space to spread out. I know, cheeky, but if you don’t ask, you don’t get 😉
All what you are saying is interesting, but being realistic: no public organization is going to sue WGI AR5 (or AR4, or TAR, or SAR, …) members, and the risk of having a private organization in this suing is low.
What it clould happen is that some governments could join climate experts into a “scientific council”, where they would analyze the state of the art in climate knowledge (by challenging some of present WGI AR5 IPCC members) and then these countries will apply their own policies (without following UN advices). But the optimum thing is that this “council” should be set in some open-to-the-public sittings, (not, for example, inside a Beijin CPC office).
You know, I read through all this stuff, and what I hear is “It’s a conspiracy.”
This is fraud, and would be tried that way.
I can see a job opening.
No motivation there, is there??
Would I work for free if I were motivated by money?
And the real nut-case conspiracy theorists are those who think people like me are in the pay of big oil.
Even a brief glance down the membership list of Renewables UK will show that the oil companies profit from global warming. And it doesn’t take long to work out who benefits if energy prices rise!
So not only is this idea that people are sceptical because we are in the pay of oil companies a total lie … it is also utterly ridiculous.
“Scottish” “Sceptic” is showing his true colours now. And I was accused of ranting. It is the so-called “sceptics” who are putting out lies, misinformation, spinning the science and deluding the average citizen. The media are as guilty of this misinformation nonsensne as you lot. Of course the average citizen will not or cannot access the scientific literature. This is what is so bad about you “sceptics”, knowing that 97% of what is described about climate science shows major problems you spin the information by supporting the real nasty types such as Watts, McIntyre, Ball, Morano etc.
You are the ones who do not understand the scientific literature but put your own spin on it. Whether you get money from the Oil Industry is inconsequential since the leaders who I mentioned above do get it. Problems with increased temperatures are already apparent in one of the first areas where it was predicted to happen, food production. Yields of rice are being reduced in areas where night time temperatures have increased.
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/27/9971.full
That is only one aspect of problems with food production, I’m sure if you are really inclined to study this you will find a lot more. So stop your nonsense saying that there are no problems, they are already upon us.
Sigh, sceptics really aren’t the disease Ian. We’re a symptom. If you keep looking for the solution in all the wrong places, you’ll never make a difference. Like an addict, the first step to a cure is to admit you have a problem.
Climate science has a credibiity gap and it will never be solved by blaming everyone else for its failure.
Last time I looked at food there was plenty of evidence that yields were going up as you would expect from higher CO2.
And if you can find evidence whatsoever that Watts is funded by oil I will be astounded. Ball I don’t know. Morano – I would not be surprised but since Universities get something like £500million from oil companies and every major oil company has a wind division worth similar amounts. Even if you could show me that every major sceptic were paid by oil there would still be 10 to 100x more on your side paid by oil.
Well, the people who work for the oil industry are “experts” – people who have enough credibility on paper to be able to cast doubt on the actual science. I’d point to Dr. Salby, but I think his claimed expertise has been tarnished by his departure from two university positions amidst accusations of misconduct.
No, I was referring to the ease with which you imagined yourself as adviser to some kind of investigation into supposed fraud by climate scientists. Considering both your lack of credentials and your unwillingness to grant any kind of credence to at least two whole fields of science (climate and physics), that seems rather a singular hope.
If I’m following your outline above, what you’re proposing is to prosecute the current population of climate change scientists for “fraud” and “fabrication of evidence”. Additionally, you’re going to prosecute experts for not disclosing the evidence you claim exists. “I think we would be talking about life in prison (or if some countries got hold of them, the death penalty)”. You would be one of the inquisitors, or at least a technical advisor to the investigations. Is that a fair summary of what you propose?
There’s a good article in Nature this week about interpreting scientific claims. Note that one suggestion is to encourage more scientists to get involved in politics, a very good idea in my view.