{"id":27246,"date":"2011-12-21T08:58:19","date_gmt":"2011-12-21T13:58:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/planetsave.com\/?p=27246"},"modified":"2011-12-21T08:58:19","modified_gmt":"2011-12-21T13:58:19","slug":"climate-science-conference-with-contrarians-an-inside-look","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/planetsave.com\/articles\/climate-science-conference-with-contrarians-an-inside-look\/","title":{"rendered":"Climate Science Conference with Contrarians — An Inside Look"},"content":{"rendered":"

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Climate scientist Mark Boslough and non-scientist Monckton having a beer. Credit: Mike Thompson<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Most of you have probably never been to a climate science conference. While you can probably get an idea of what one looks like from other scientific conferences you’ve been to, the politics of climate change action and the MASSIVE disinformation campaign going on to attack the discipline make climate science a bit unique. Furthermore, it’s not too often that you get the few rogue scientists (and non-scientists pretending to be scientists) at the same conference as ‘mainstream’ climate scientists. There was such a conference recently in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and a mainstream climate scientist, Mark Boslough, not only attended but also wrote up a Very interesting summary<\/a> of the conference and his experiences with ‘contrarians’ (as he calls them, also known as skeptics, deniers, and many other things).<\/p>\n

I highly recommend checking out the full piece<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Knowing that some of you won’t head over there, here are a few pointed excerpts:<\/p>\n

I have long complained about the lack of willingness of most contrarians to attend and present their arguments at mainstream scientific conferences. After three years of convening climate-related sessions at AGU, I have yet to receive an abstract that argues against anthropogenic global warming. Such presentations can usually only be seen at conferences held by the Heartland Institute. There isn\u2019t much chance of a mainstream scientist attending a meeting organized by a political think tank known for its anti-science activism, so opportunities for interaction between the groups are rare….<\/p>\n

It quickly became apparent that the meeting would be run with a firm, no-nonsense approach to confrontation. In my original abstract, I used the term \u201ccontrarian,\u201d which I have always considered to be a polite, non-judgmental descriptive term. Petr Chylek, LANL Laboratory Fellow and chair of the conference program committee responded by telling me, \u201cI would like to ask you for some revision. The designations like \u2018contrarians, skeptics, deniers, etc.\u2019 may be offensive to some scientists present. Perhaps you can re-write your abstract and your presentation without using such words.\u201d Fair enough, given the potential for contentiousness. Later, a generalized request went to all speakers: \u201cPlease, do not use any demeaning labels like deniers, contrarians, warmers, alarmists, \u2026 Please, stick to science. Stay away from personal attacks on other scientists present or not.\u201d…<\/p>\n

The first day of the conference was buzzing with news of Richard Muller\u2019s announcement of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) results. Just a week earlier, he had published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, titled, \u201cThe Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (There were good reasons for doubt, until now)<\/a>\u201d. Then, only one day before the conference, David Rose of the Daily Mail broke a supposed \u201cscandal\u201d:\u00a0\u201cScientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague\u201d<\/a>. Muller\u2019s coauthor, Judith Curry, was quoted saying, \u201cThere is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn\u2019t stopped. To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.\u201d This story was picked up by Fox News and the narrative that spread throughout the blogosphere was that \u201cCurry has turned on Muller.\u201d<\/p>\n

Reading about climate change in the mainstream media \u2014 let alone on blogs \u2014 can be like looking at reality in a funhouse mirror. When Muller got up to discuss the BEST results on Tuesday morning, the first thing he did was point out that the title of the WSJ piece did not come from him<\/strong>. His original title was \u201cCooling the Global Warming Debate.\u201d But since his name was under the title he didn\u2019t write, it was automatically attributed to him, as a direct quote. In fact he said, he had been misquoted more times since this was published than he had in the rest of his life.<\/strong> The Daily Mail\/Fox News story seemed just as distorted. If Curry and Muller had a major scientific disagreement, wouldn\u2019t a scientific conference be the appropriate place for the debate? If they were at loggerheads over the fundamental question of whether \u201cglobal warming hasn\u2019t stopped\u201d wouldn\u2019t one of them have mentioned it? They each gave two presentations, and this never came up in public or in any conversation I was aware of….<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Note: I bolded the lines above because I think it’s highly ironic, and telling, that someone once adored by climate science deniers (BECAUSE he was so willing to misquote climate scientists and completely misrepresent what they had said) had been turned on by the denier crowd and was receiving the same treatment he used to dish out just because his findings lined up completely with those of climate scientists.<\/p>\n

But on with some of Mark’s key points:<\/p>\n

On Judith Curry (not the whole section on her, but most of it):<\/p>\n

The conference was remarkably well run. For the most part, participants were well behaved and adhered to Petr Chylek\u2019s strict rules\u2014avoiding inflammatory terms, and steering away from personal attacks and interruptions. The one exception was Judith Curry, who apparently did not get the memo. She gave a\u00a0banquet presentation<\/a>\u00a0entitled, \u201cThe Uncertainty Monster at the Climate Science-Policy Interface\u201d. My impression was that her presentation was intended to be more of a vehicle to criticize her adversaries than to talk about uncertainty.<\/p>\n

Her most personal attack was against Michael Mann, who she used to illustrate \u201cuncertainty hiding\u201d by showing a caricature of him standing next to the \u201cuncertainty monster\u201d holding a hockey stick and hidden by a sheet, with the cartoon-Mann saying \u201cwhat uncertainty?\u201d Next to the cartoon was and image of the cover of the book \u201cThe Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science\u201d illustrated with the multiproxy time series that Mann and his coauthors made famous. Ironically, Mann\u2019s carefully plotted uncertainty bands were not visible on the presentation graphic, just as they were not reproduced in Fred Singer\u2019s NIPCC report. \u201cWhat uncertainty?\u201d indeed!<\/p>\n

Curry described her transition from a scientist who felt that it was the responsible thing to do to support the IPCC conclusions to someone who is \u201cabout 50% a denier\u201d. She attributed this change to \u201cclimategate\u201d and the reaction she received due to her initial comments about it. She was the only speaker who ignored the policy against the word \u201cdenier.\u201d She used the banned \u201cd-word\u201d repeatedly for effect when setting up a straw-man argument against what she called \u201cIPCC\/UNFCCC ideology\u201d \u2014 a term she coined to label notions such as \u201canthropogenic climate change is real\u201d and \u201cdeniers are attacking climate science and scientists\u201d. She assured the audience that she didn\u2019t think there were any \u201cIPCC ideologues\u201d at the conference but she had heard rumors that some were invited and had declined. She called out Kevin Trenberth as a supposed example of such an ideologue (again rejecting the policy against personal attack).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Some apt comments on Curry are in the comments of the post (links above).<\/p>\n

I met most of the conference participants during the course of the week, and had cordial conversations with all those with whom I disagreed. One thing I have long suspected was strongly reinforced: there is no common scientific understanding amongst contrarians. Many of them are just as critical of one another\u2019s ideas as they are of conventional science. William Gray stood up after many of the presentations on solar influence to declare that solar variability is not important. It\u2019s even less important than CO2, he said. It\u2019s ocean variability that is the cause of most climate change. Petr Chylek stood up after Fred Singer\u2019s presentation (in which Singer presented old uncorrected UAH MSU data that suggested cooling) and said emphatically, \u201cDenying the warming makes no sense!\u201d.<\/p>\n

I spent a lot of time talking to Christopher Monckton, who may have been the only non-scientist to give a presentation. He has no understanding of science or the scientific method, and when I asked him about scientific prediction, he called it a \u201cfool\u2019s errand\u201d. He has a strong authoritarian approach to those with whom he disagrees, and his conspiracy theories run deep and dark. He names specific names and calls IPCC contributors \u201cmalevolent\u201d. I asked him to share the very worst hacked email he could remember. The only specific example he gave was the one in which someone referred to him as a \u201ccharlatan\u201d.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Monckton doesn’t understand science? Who would’ve guessed?<\/p>\n

Mark’s final summary\/conclusions:<\/p>\n

The main lesson I took away from the conference was this: there is no consistent contrarian science, and there is no defining contrarian ideology or motivation. Some are sincere. Others are angry at their lack of funding. Some appear to be envious of the IPCC scientists\u2019 success, and others have found a niche that gets them attention they would not otherwise get. Only a few appear to be motivated by politics. No single label applies to them, and I found myself referring to them as \u201ccontrarians\/skeptics\/deniers\/enablers\/provocateurs\/publicity-seekers\u201d.<\/p>\n

The one common thread I found among them was the fervent belief that \u201cClimategate\u201d was a conspiracy and that the IPCC is rigged. This faith-based belief seems to be unshakable, and is the antithesis of true skepticism. Those I met were uniformly cynical about the honesty and motivations of mainstream scientists. If I were forced to use a single label, I would be inclined to call them \u201cscience cynics\u201d.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Nice of him to give us all a taste of what that conference was like.<\/p>\n

Again, the full piece (and over 80 useful or interesting comments) is here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

  Most of you have probably never been to a climate science conference. While you can probably get an idea of what one looks like from other scientific conferences you’ve been to, the politics of climate change action and the MASSIVE disinformation campaign going on to attack the discipline make climate science a bit unique. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":166,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,21,38],"tags":[7402,7678,9916,15350,30920],"spectra_custom_meta":{"_video_thumbnail":["http:\/\/planetsave.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/climate-science-conference-with.jpg"],"_rpuplugin_enabled":["yes"],"dsq_thread_id":["511691149"],"_oembed_f14913bdfe741d3a3b7c287fcf68d7a8":["