65 Problem with Scientists Advocating

Contexts
- I started to deconstruct the Google hangout, by transcribing the audio and writing a summary, but it's taking too much time to finish soon.
- I started by Correcting the Auto Transcript of Google hangout : video Should climate scientists advocate for policy?

- Inspired by an Article by Prof Tamsin Edwards young British Climate Scientist of weather patterns
- (she later appeared on BBC Radio 4 show Science, Right or Left but refused to name offending scientists
- A Controversial Report 1.6 page by AGU : Human-induced climate change requires urgent action. has just come out Gavin worked on it (seems very hyping e.g. Arctic Ice is declining, when they sighed it 2013 was an exceptionally high year for ice)
- Note Robert Pielke Sr the only skeptic on the panel refused to sign off the report
- Note anyone can join the AGU - you don't have to be a degree holder or professional Geographer it's president is from another field, you just pay $50/year - James Annan (loser of the 2007-2012 Climate Bet) comments further on his blog

PANELISTS : RB Richard Betts, JC Judith Curry, GS Gavin Schmidt

Intro & context
- Despite Gavin S slyly trying to say "Nothing to see here, it's simple everyone should be free to say what they want. Move along now" It's a very complex issue and the particpants raise many points

- To understand properly you need to see words of a debate but the YouTube auto transcription was terrible ; so I spent a couple of days correcting it The Raw Corrected Transcript
- The Annotated Transcript - I went thru and stripped out the noise (I didn't finish this)

There are 3 levels of analysis here
1. I completely stripped out the extra words
2. SUMMARY I then made a summary of the paragraph
3. MAIN ISSUES I then extracted the main issues that the participant were making

- I should mention the normal activist trick of trying to own the science ; twisting it to fit their pre-existing dogma
- A case of Advocates making the science : instead of scientists making the advocacy

- That's similar to Policy based evidence, rather than evidence based policy.

MAIN ISSUES
Gav says "everyone should express their opinion", but strangely he has always said "Our opinions should not be challenged" ..by saying "we never debate skeptics"

GS : Deliberately misconstrues arg as one against free speech rather than Greenpeace advocacy *
- Slyly tries to Comes on as Mr Freespeech, yet we know he represses skeptics all the time.
- JC scientists should not be salesmen, & have damaged science
- RB : speaking outside your expertise
- GS : Doesn't agree with platonic objectivity
- GS - Argues if you don't tell. People make it up *
- notice how these are both contradicted by his action of repressing skeptics
- RB : quotes Tamsin : By advocating, instead of showing the info, and letting others decide they have damaged credibility of science
- JC problem : dishonesty by being over the top with hyperbole & emotion
- JC problem : dishonesty by fake authority issuing them thru professional socs
- JC 3. Better not advocate, encourage debate from different perspectives
- I do from my blog
- RB In advocacy you only promote your points not your opponents
- GS you can honestly advocate , not like a poli
- GS - opening up debate good, so scientists speaking helps, why police them ? (yes speaking NOT advocating)
- JC : to take a recent example the AGU'S statement from Gavin's committee of over the top advocacy
- GS protests : It mentions uncertainty (Yes, but only in the way that things could be WORSE)
- and JC never complained
- JC : mentions that the committee fundamentalists had complete control (if member Pielke couldn't influence the paper, then how could she ?) not finished
- NOT FINISHED analysis YET ..quick comments follow
- basically GS continues to filibuster
- RC tries to get her point across that activists have control and she is not free to speak
- GS & JC have 2 rows
- RB : continues toadying and avoid offering any of his own views
- -
Contradiction 5 - GS says this paragraph explains UNCERTAINTIES : will happen we don't know where exactly, impacts are sure to be big, surprise outcomes like loss or Arctic summer ice, may entail more dramatic changes than anticipated.

Interpretation so far
- Main thing is that GS reveals himself as very slippery. e.g. "yes we did mention uncertainties" : then mentions a paragraph that ONLY mentions things could be even worse
- He deliberately misconstrues the argument as one against free speech rather than Greenpeace advocacy * like Hansen describing coal trains as “death trains”, and getting himself repeatedly arrested. It didn’t quite fit with NASA’s cool, professional, understated image."
saying - "I'm Mr Free-Speech me" , when we know NORMALLY he tries to get skeptics talk repressed all the time and says "we never debate skeptics"
- He tries to cover it up as "Nothing to see here, it's simple everyone should be free to say what they want. Move along now"
Contradiction 2 - What he does isn't "just opinion" ..He is a raving advocate and there is a big difference between giving info and acting like a Greenpeace member : shouting , urgency and using emotion , like "Think of the children !" *
Contradiction 3 - It's a very complex issue and the particpants raise many points
Contradiction 4 - Gav is responsible for a recent big spin : A new Controversial 1.6 page Report by an AGU committee : Human-induced climate change requires urgent action. .. has just come out portraying itself as the official view of the largest professional body in the climate field
(Note Robert Pielke Sr. the only skeptic on the panel refused to sign off the report (his counter on WUWT on J Curry with her Op) ^^2
- Note anyone can join the AGU) -
Contradiction 5 - "yes we did mention uncertainties" : then mentions a paragraph that ONLY mentions things could be even worse
* But give him credit : GS has recently come out against hype of the $60 trillion Arctic report
^^2..for me the Pielke statement is nowhere near soft enough as if trying to appease the warmists. He even cites the decreasing Arctic ice as proof, seemingly unaware that this this year was already likely to increase.

Judith Curry comes across as a weak opponent, who feels she should say something : "scientists should not be salesmen, & have damaged science" ..then she brings up the AGU panic report : Full of imperative, Salesmanship, NOT a responsible statement.

- Richard Betts comes across as a member of the lower 6th toadying to the seniors. His MO is to say "I completely agree with you" , and then quote a completely argument different from someone else
- one tunnel he leads them down is saying scientists shouldn't comment on areas which are not their speciality (that is a different issue from that of advocacy and someone outside the forest can give very useful info. )

- Overall that is the main thing the scientists didn't understand .. that people inside of the forest are the least useful advocates, cos they can get tunnel vision instead of having an outsiders rounded view.
- In the forest (universe) that GS lives there is a clear linea relationship between the amount of CO2 in the air and temperature and since CO2 has gone up 30%, then temp has gone up. It's just that in our REAL WORLD temp hasn't gone up recently.

- It was n't a real debate that properly defined and analysed the issue Skeptic Hawks would have made a much better job . Rather It was Gav bluffing while Judy put some points she had been wanting to get out. Richard Betts was mostly a bystander (to make up numbers ?), I wonder if him and Gav discussed tactics beforehand.

THANKS If you find some useful info here then click to easily/safely send me a Paypal TIP

1 2834 5 6 7 9 10

a Stew Green opinion
Out of the box thinking
- from someone who was never in the box in the first place
moved from the USEFUL BLOG to the REALITY CHECK BLOG

<-- BACK HOME REALITY CHECK INDEX * USEFUL BLOG INDEX
note/comments
NEXT -->