I have often thought that political conservatives who promote climate change denial are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Sure, I can understand why conservatives may be opposed to collective action required to deal with the problem of global warming. Or at least some of the political and economic measures that have been discussed. But if they are serious about their political and ideological stance, and their desire to promote it, they should be in there debating the adaption and mitigation procedures that have been advanced. Or advancing some of their own.
Instead, they choose to leave themselves “outside the tent pissing in,” when they avoid the political process taking place and instead claim there is no need.
Political suicide
It’s a suicidal strategy because, after all, one can’t change reality by denying it. And when you get yourself into the position of attacking and denying the best science, and the best consensus on the dangers of global warming, you are denying reality.
Sensible politicians accept reality, even if it is unpleasant, and work to alleviate the problem by advancing and discussing policy measures. Not sticking their head in the sand.
I suspect many political conservatives are starting to wake up to this problem.They are starting to question the wisdom of deniers like Christopher Monckton who is currently carrying out a personal unwinnable vendetta against Professor John Abraham (see Support John Abraham against Monckton’s bullying). The “climategate” scandal has been exposed as a hoax and no longer has much use as a political mobiliser. And some conservative commentators are starting to publicly question the wisdom of the climate denial strategy.
Kay points out that the denial movement has reinvented a “2-3% sliver of fringe opinion ,. . as a perpetually ‘growing’ share of the scientific community.” And:
“Most climate-change deniers (or “skeptics,” or whatever term one prefers) tend to inhabit militantly right-wing blogs and other Internet echo chambers populated entirely by other deniers. In these electronic enclaves — where a smattering of citations to legitimate scientific authorities typically is larded up with heaps of add-on commentary from pundits, economists and YouTube jesters who haven’t any formal training in climate sciences — it becomes easy to swallow the fallacy that the whole world, including the respected scientific community, is jumping on the denier bandwagon.
“This is a phenomenon that should worry not only environmentalists, but also conservatives themselves: The conviction that global warming is some sort of giant intellectual fraud now has become a leading bullet point within mainstream North American conservatism; and so has come to bathe the whole movement in its increasingly crankish, conspiratorial glow.”
He laments that conservatives seem to have lost “their hard-headed approach to public policy” when it comes to climate change. Instead:
“many conservatives I know will assign credibility to any stray piece of junk science that lands in their inbox … so long as it happens to support their own desired conclusion. (One conservative columnist I know formed her skeptical views on global warming based on testimonials she heard from novelist Michael Crichton.) The result is farcical: Impressionable conservatives who lack the numeracy skills to perform long division or balance their checkbooks feel entitled to spew elaborate proofs purporting to demonstrate how global warming is in fact caused by sunspots or flatulent farm animals.”
Making conservatives irrelevant
He warns that this unthinking approach is making conservatives irrelevant in one of the most important debates of our times;
“The appropriate intellectual response to that challenge — finding a way to balance human consumption with responsible environmental stewardship — is complicated and difficult. It will require developing new technologies, balancing carbon-abatement programs against other (more cost-effective) life-saving projects such as disease-prevention, and — yes — possibly increasing the economic cost of carbon-fuel usage through some form of direct or indirect taxation. It is one of the most important debates of our time. Yet many conservatives have made themselves irrelevant in it by simply cupping their hands over their ears and screaming out imprecations against Al Gore.”
I wish our local political conservatives, the ACT Party, the Centre for Political Research and some very vocal bloggers would listen to this advice. Stop trying to deny reality by attacking the science and scientists. You can’t change reality. But you can influence the political debate and decisions.
Six weeks ago I posted a slideshow of a talk by John Abrahm’s (see Don’t trust Monckton!).
It was a calm and objective investigation into the claims made by Christopher Monckton in one of his lectures. If you didn’t watch it I highly recommend you do so.
Trouble is, Monckton is not used to such exchanges and has climbed out of his tree. His has written a 99 page “rejection” of Abraham’s talk and sent threatening letters to both Abraham and his employers (University of St Thomas, Minnesota). Asking for the presentation to be removed form the web site and demanding money – which has all the implication of possible legal action.
Now he is further organising his minions via climate change denier blogs to send similar letters to the University of St Thomas.
Monckton can’t be allowed to succeed in this campaign. I has all the earmarks of those campaigns by Stalinists against dissident Russian scientists, or the German Nazis against Jewish scientists.
It is important that supporters of science make the university aware that this sort of bullying is just not acceptable.
Gareth at Hot Topic is organising a way for you to make your support for Abraham known. Just leave your name on a comment at his post Support John Abraham. He will ensure these messages of support get to Abraham’s employers.
Effectively Gareth is asking us to support the statement:
We the undersigned offer unreserved support for John Abraham and St. Thomas University in the matter of complaints made to them by Christopher Monckton. Professor Abraham provided an important public service by showing in detail Monckton’s misrepresentation of the science of climate, and we applaud him for that effort, and St. Thomas University for making his presentation available to the world.
UPDATE 10:30 am, July 16:I am heartened at the huge support Abraham is getting – currently over 630 people have added teir names to Gareth’s post at Hot Topic (Support John Abraham). In contrast Mockton provides copies of three (3) letters sent to the University of St Thomas as a result of his campaign (seeLetters to Father Dease in support of Monckton). Some of Monckton’s supporters are starting to question his wisdon in this attack and threat of legal action.
I believe it important that everyone who is concerned with protecting science from this sort of censorship add their names to the list at Hot Topic. Unfortunately science employers can sometimes be influence by threats of legal action to employ self censorship. However if the University is aware that there is a groundswell of public support for both them and Abraham I am confident they will not give in.
Here is a podcast for those who want to follow the latest news and events involving climate science and the activity of those who wish to deny the scientific consensus. Irregular Climate is hosted by Dan Moutal* and Graham Wayne*. Currently it has reached six episodes and appears to aim for a weekly appearance. The web site includes show notes which appear quite useful with extra diagrams and videos.
I have listened to all six episodes and found it useful. I am happy to recommend it. So try it out.
*About Dan Moutal: He lives in Vancouver, ofdan.ca is his website. He has a blog, tweets, and occasionally takes some pretty pictures.
*About Graham Wayne: He is a writer and journalist, does a little IT work, drawing on his corporate background as CIO of a group of companies, and composes and records music. He blogs at gpwayne.wordpress.com
Blimey! This whole climate change issue is so political – you have to be very careful what you say.
Climate scientists, especially, are being quoted out of context, or even misquoted. Remember the distortion of Phil Jones’ comment on the increase in global temperature in the last decade not being statistically significant?
I guess that’s the nature of a political mind set which wishes to find evidence (or distort evidence) to support a preconceived position. Rather than derive a conclusions from the facts. (I might start calling that the “theological” method).
Mike Hulme
The Deep Climate blog discussed a recent distortion of a quote from Mike Hulme, professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA). This was just a warning that it was counterproductive to make excessive claims of consensus. The IPCC reviews of the literature on climate change draws conclusions about the overall picture but this does not mean that every single statement in these reports is signed off by every single author of the papers reviewed, or every single reviewer. (The quote is in his review paper Climate Change: what do we know about the IPCC?)
Seems a quite reasonable comment to me.
But climate deniers have latched on to his comments, taken out of context, to produce headlines like The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider. This from Lawrence Solomon - executive director of a right-wing, anti-science group Energy probe. He uses the out of context quote to argue that scientific claims of human caused global warming are supported by only a few dozen experts.
And the denier echo chamber took over. Twitter deniers rapidly reproduced ther claim with tweets like “The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider” Mike Hulme; U of East Anglia”; “That’s big! A prominent IPCC member says there is no general agreement on whether global warming exists”; and “The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider.” The bloggers got onto it. For example Gateway Pundits, another Conservative US blog, declared: Top UN Scientist: There Never Was Consensus on Global Warming – Only a Few Dozen Believed It.
“This is as stunning as the release of the CRU emails and I think it will prove just as disastrous to the case for dangerous AGW. We want this news spread quickly around the country, and I don’t think we can count on the MSM helping us!”
Of course, none of these twitterers or bloggers bothered to check out the article from which the quotes were taken. Bugger the context – they had their story.
Unfortunately for them Mike Hulme responded with a statement“correcting misleading newspaper and internet blog reports of the Hulme and Mahoney paper on the IPPC.” (see ). He says in this:
“I did not say the ‘IPCC misleads’ anyone – it is claims that are made by other commentators, such as the caricatured claim I offer in the paper, that have the potential to mislead.”
He also makes clear that his comments on consensus claims are relevant to situations like sea level rise where many think the IPCC reports are too conservative.
Mike has further clarified his comments with another statement. he makes clear his crticisms were not of the IPCC and states:
“for the record … I believe that the warming of the climate system is unequivocal and that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Paperback: 296 pages Price: US$16.93; NZ$29.90 Publisher: Howling At The Moon Publishing; first edition (May 4, 2009) Language: English SBN-10: 0958240140 SBN-13: 978-0958240147
LEGAL NOTICE: Criticisms of individuals in this review reflect the author’s honest opinion, for reasons outlined in the text or generally known at the time of writing.
You might think “alarmist” is a cheap shot. Aren’t I just mimicking this book’s constant use of such disparaging and emotional terms to discredit climate science and scientists? But I think I am justified. After all the author’s message is alarmist – but about the politics, not the science.
Just like Chicken Licken, who frantically told everyone who would listen the sky was falling in, Ian Wishart is raising a political “alarm.” He is frantically trying to convince everyone there is a plot to impose a “world government” on us. And the findings of climate science are just a con. An invention of a greenie, communist, capitalist cabal to foist this on an unwilling population.
This One World Government intends to redistribute wealth from the west to the developing countries and “bomb humanity back to the stone ages.” And he can prove it. He has multiple quotes (in some cases as with the “bombing back to the stone ages,” unattributed) and multiple authorities.
You have to do a bit of interpreting of the quotes. “Global issues demand global solutions” becomes a “push for a de-facto world government.” Statements in the 1994 UN Development Program’s “Human Development Report” are presented as “barely hidden references to a future world government run by the UN”
He quotes Yale University’s plans for its Climate and Energy Institute which “will provide seed grants, support graduate study, sponsor conferences and workshops, and foster interdisciplinary research spanning from basic atmosphere science to public policy.” Then he tells you what that “really means.”:
“Make no bones about it, they’re aiming to beat you down so much with terrifying bought and paid for “scientific” studies that the gray matter inside your own skull turns to mush and you simply surrender, pay the new taxes and sell your children to them for medical experiments.”
And you have to be a bit shameless to accept his authorities. Two of his chapters start with prominent, highlighted, quotes from William Jasper’s book “The United Nations Exposed” – published by the John Birch Society. This is an extreme right-wing US political group younger readers may not be aware of. Formed at the end of 1958 it accused President Dwight D. Eisenhower of being a possible “conscious, dedicated agent of the Communist Conspiracy.”In the 1960s it was in the forefront of opposition to desegregation and has always campaigned for US withdrawal from the United Nations. My generation saw it as an openly racist organisation akin to the Klan.
With friend like these ….?
A political agenda making use of science
So, that is Wishart’s agenda. And he gives the science of climate change, or at least his distortion of it, a prime role in this:
”In my view, anthropogenic global warming theory is nothing more than a propaganda stunt; manufacture the appearance of a crisis, then present the public with a solution. Climate change theory, driven by the UN IPCC, is the UN’s Trojan Horse gift to the citizens of the world.”
Oh well, I guess we have become used to people attacking science for political reasons. And perhaps we can understand those who concerned about possible economic results of legislation like New Zealand’s Emission Trading Scheme. Wishart has been happy to ally himself with political groups, such at the NZ ACT Party and the Centre for Political Research campaigning against such policies. But his particular political agenda is one of the most extreme.
So, he devotes the rest of the book to making climate science and climate scientists part of a political conspiracy fitting his agenda. He uses the “tried and true” methods of many other climate change deniers and contrarians. One could do a detailed analysis, show the mistake and distortions behind each claim. John Abraham usefully did this with one of Christopher Monckton’s speeches (see Don’t trust Monckton!). But here I will simply highlight some of the general methods Wishart uses to discredt the science and the scientists.
Weather – climate confusion
This is one we always get when a region goes through some cold weather. Wishart does admit at one point he is referring to “weather events” rather than climate trends but it doesn’t stop him quoting at length typical newspaper reports of “an unusually severe winter.” He does the old trick of claiming “the planet is cooling down” because “temperatures have dropped from their 1998 highs”. And of course “CO2 and methane emissions have surged upwards” ”proving” these have nothing to do with global temperatures!
The figure below (not from the book) shows how he tries to “hide the incline.”
At one stage he even says “Between January 2007 and Febhruary 2008, global temperatures plummeted – - wiping out on paper virtually an entire century’s gains due to ‘global warming’”
That’s an incredibly naïve confusion. Talk about ignoring the wood for the trees and comparing oranges and apples. He has confused variation at a monthly level with temperature trends measured over several decades! Again the figure shows his distortion.
Similarly when he discusses the extent of ice coverage in the Arctic ice cap he would rather stress short-term variation (especially increases in ice coverage) and ignore the long term trend (see figure below – again not from the book).
He also juggles oranges and apples with his claim that “of all the carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere every year, only about 3.4% is caused by humans.” He loves to quote IPCC sources for this figure but he is comparing the “orange” of new CO2 inputs into surface pools (atmosphere, oceans, biomass) from the earth (in this case fossil fuels) with the “apple” of total emissions from these surface pools to the atmosphere (which are balanced by uptake of atmospheric CO2 into these surface pools.
The correct comparison is the fossil fuel carbon contribution from human activity (6.4 GtC/y) with that from other sources within the earth such as weathering and volcanic activity (0.2 GtC/y) (see Figure 7.3 from the IPCC Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007).
When we compare oranges with oranges we can see why the IPCC attributes the current rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 “most probably” to anthropogenic activity.
Scientific support – or otherwise.
One of the most egregious bits of distortion in this book is the attempt to claim most scientists oppose the IPCC conclusions on global warming and humanity’s role. He claims: “the numbers of scientists prepared to publicly and visibly speak out against global warming hysteria seriously outnumber those who publicly list themselves as believers.” Ignore the purple prose and the fact that petitions don’t determine scientific truths. He is claiming the overwhelming scientific support for the IPCC conclusions is a lie!
We can see some of the manipulation he uses to get this conclusion from his quoting of two polls – the Oregon Petition and the Doran and Zimmerman survey.
Wishart uncritically quotes a reference to 31,000 scientists who signed the Oregon petition. Have a look at the video which describes the fraudulent nature of this petition which, anyway, contains names of only 39 climate scientists!
On the other hand he does dig deeper to dispose of the survey conducted by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman - Examining the scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Here he searches for the most favourable (to him) figure – “18%…. don’t believe that “human activity has been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures”. But he ignores completely that 97% of those active in climate science research did accept human activity as a significant factor! Instead, he wants to place more trust in the economic geologists only 47% of whom accepted human causes – for reasons which are probably obvious (see Global warming is real – climatologists).
Playing hockey with authorities
As one might expect, Air Con presents the party line on Michael Mann (“another of the global warming religion’s high priests”) and the “hockey stick” graph (“the infamous hockey stick, it was utterly wrong,” “fake” and “widely discredited”).
Mind you, the book’s biased use of authorities is really obvious by its preference for quotes from contrarians, non-scientific bloggers (even a commenter on a blog) and politicians as support for his scientific claims. People like Vincent Gray, Christopher Monckton, US Senator Inhofe and journalists Andrew Bolt and Christopher Brooker. Even Investigate Magazine. And well known climate change denial blogs like TBR.cc, Junk Science, Watts Up With That, and Climate Audit. And of course material from Fix News, The Heartland Institute and their climate conferences.
And the quotes! I am used to groups pushing an anti-science message such as creationists, quote mining and using excessive quotes. They will even go so far as quoting Darwin or Dawkins to disprove evolution! Have a listen to the Discovery Institute’s podcasts hosted by creationist apologist Casey Luskin. His constant use of “quote,” “close quote” is distracting. I keep wishing he would use Victor Borges “Phonetic Punctuation” method of pronouncing quote marks!
My first impression when I opened Air Con was the number of quotes. So I decided to analyse the proportion of space devoted to quotations. Seventy % of one chapter (“Unsettled Scientists”) are quotes! The book as a whole is about 43% quotes. I can understand why authors must use quotes – but why so many? To my mind excessive quoting undermines credibility.
A problem of style
I also found the book’s style tiresome. Partly because I reject the message. But I am used to books on scientific issues presenting objective information and basing conclusions on this. Here Wishart is using an approach I think of as “theological”. He starts with the conclusions and then selects, or distorts, the scientific “evidence” to support his own agenda.
Compare this with the style of the IPCC Reports, or Andy Resiinger’s book “Climate Change 101: An Educational Resource” which summarises information from the IPCC report. Even Hansen’s “Storms of My Grandchildren.” Besides being objective these later books do not resort to name-calling or slurs. Nothing like Wishart’s “lying like a flatfish,” “scientists make things up,” “numbnuts of the loony left,” “true believers,” “new anointed,” criticism of an individual as “agnostic bordering on atheist” or scientists who are “high priests” of the “global warming religion,”“the global warming gravy train,” accusing scientists of trying to “brainwash” people, describing New Scientist as a “bastion of global warming worship” which tells “outrageous fibs” which are “bogus,” and so on.
(By the way, I always find it strange how some of the theologically inclined (which includes Wishart) think that accusing their opponents of belonging to a religion is a put down. Interesting psychology there!)
I don’t expect such language and ad hominen attacks from scientific sources – and of course they do nothing to provide any credibility to the book. I found this constant derogatory tone tiresome.
A new edition
Finally, I have only seen the first edition of this book. Wishart launched a new edition in May containing extra material relating mainly to the “climategate” emails fiasco. Given the style and message of the first edition we can imagine what this extra material is like. I am not aware of any effort to correct the mistakes and distortions littering this first edition.
Conclusions
While this book won’t appeal to those genuinely interested in the science of climate change, or those familiar with the normal style of popular scientific writing, it will still have an audience. Unfortunately there are plenty of people who do search for material like this to support their preconceived biases. So I am sure climate change deniers and contrarians will lap it up.
If only those people would consider the moral lessons of the Chicken Little myth. Wikipedia suggests:
“it could well be a cautionary political tale: The Chicken jumps to a conclusion and whips the populace into mass hysteria, which the unscrupulous fox uses to manipulate them for his own benefit, sometimes as supper.
Another moral interpretation is that if one wishes to convince a populace of imminent doom, choose the dumbest individual and convince them that “the sky is falling”! In turn, this individual will convince others based upon the belief that more intelligent beings will be persuaded by the dumber being.”
I leave you to suggest who is the “fox” and who the “dumber being” in the Air Con fable.
But I can’t recommend the book to anyone else, except perhaps those interested in the connection between conspiracy theories, paranoia about a “one world government” and the denial of scientific issues like climate change, evolution, etc.
“Apparently Prof. Scott Denning of Colorado State has tricked the Heartland Institute into accepting a talk entitled “Debunking Common Myths About Global Warming” for their annual conference caucus this year.
The joke is on them. It turns out that the presentation is quite excellent! (Well, except that it’s a Microsoft PowerPoint (with heavy use of Comic Sans) but if you can put up with that, here you go.)”
It is worth watching his power point presentation (download as power point or pdf file). While The Heartland Institute has provided some of video of speakers this presentation isn’t included. However, there is a short video of some comments from Scott Denning in which he appeals to the audience to avoid confirmation bias and recognise that their tactics of attacking climate science is effectively ruling them out of the debate on solutions. The are actually disenfranchising the conservative, free market voice on this question. As a free marketer himself he believes capitalism is capable of developing innovative and profitable solutions to the problem.
Harrison Schmitt, Member of the Board, The Heartland Institute Former U.S. Senator, New Mexico
The Heartland Institute’s Fourth International Conference on Climate Change occured this week in Chicago, USA. It was basically a gathering of activists opposed to climate change science and/or political measures to deal with global warming.
It’s worth looking at the programme and the list of co-sponsors. These reveal the nature of the political and ideological links organisations involved in promoting climate change denial. It also provides some idea of how these organisations operate.
Sponsors include:
Conservative and free market organisations and think tanks like American Policy Center, Americans for Prosperity, Americans For Tax Reform, Atlas Economic Research Foundation Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, Competitive Enterprise Institute, George Marshall Institute, Institute for Free Enterprise – Berlin, National Center for Public Policy Research, Tennessee Center for Policy Research and many more.
The Right Wing Christian group Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.
Many of these groups and organisations have web sites and blogs dedicated wholly or partly to discrediting climate science and scientists.
Steve, McIntyre, from Climate Audit blog
And the programme included many of the well known outspoken critics of climate science and scientists. They include authors, contrarian scientists, journalists, politicians, etc. People like Stephen McIntyre, Bob Carter, Willie Soon, Marc Morano, Sen. James Inhofe, Richard Lindzen, James Delingpole, S. Fred Singer, Ross McKitrick, Anthony Watts, Roy W. Spencer, Ian Plimer, Christopher Monckton.
Some of these operate their own blogs and websites or write for conservative newspapers.
So this was definitely not a scientific conference – although science was discussed. Hardly in an objective manner, though. In general the science presented would have been to attack and discredit the current understanding of human induced climate change. Given the overwhelming ideological, political, and economic interests we can see that the science would have been used to support and promote a conservative free market agenda.
OK – that’s the international face of climate change denial. But it’s also reflected locally in New Zealand. There are strong links between local organisations opposing climate change. The Coalition for Climate science and the Climate Conversation Group are linked with the Act Party and the NZ Centre for Political research. These organisations coordinate campaigns, petitions and meetings. Even parliamentary questions are involved.
And of course all these organisations have their own international links with conservative free market organisations like the heartland Institute.
UPDATE: John Boscawen MP for the NZ ACT Party and their main activist attacking climate scientists was at the conference. I wonder who paid his expenses? (Thanks Gareth).
Importance of propaganda and media
The composition of this conference indicate how this campaign recognises the importance of media and propaganda. The “science” of climate change denial, and its contrarian spokespeople, are linked not only to conservative think tanks (handy for funding) and politicians but also to media. To conservative journalists (eg. James Delingpole of the London Daily Telegraph) and bloggers (eg. Marc Morano).
Another indication of the importance they place on propaganda. The Heartland Institute waived conference registration fees for politicians, journalists and bloggers. They also offered some travel subsidies to members of the media.
After all the talk about global cooling, or lack of global warming, here’s a nice little graph to illustrate the misuse of statistics. It also illustrates why climate change contrarians and deniers love to start their measurements from 1998.
“So, via Joe Romm, the NASA-GISS data show that the past 12 months were the hottest 12-month period on record. Here’s my plot of the temperature anomaly — the difference, in hundredths of a degree centigrade, from the average over 1951-80:”
“So much for the “global cooling” talking point. What I’m wondering is what excuse the deniers will come up with.
They could argue that temperatures fluctuate, that one shouldn’t make too much of a particular peak — which is actually true. But that would get them in trouble, since the whole global cooling thing has been about taking the 1998 peak — visible in the chart — plus a bit of bad data to claim, literally, that up is down. Any statistical fix, like looking at multi-year averages, would just confirm that the temperature trend is up.”
If you have watched any of the short videos from YouTube channel, Climate Denial Crock of the Week, you will appreciate how good they are. Always well produced they deal with specific arguments made by climate change deniers and contrarians.
A recent statment from the Royal Society of NZ has drawn out some comment. Entitled Science, Climate Change and Integrity it is by Professor Keith A Hunter.
Of course some of the local climate change deniers have been busy raking up pseudo-scientific arguments to discredit the article (see Errors in Royal Society of NZ climate change paper and Emanations from Royal Society less than lordly). We have come to expect this. But they have been so busy arrogantly trying to discredit the Royal Society they missed the most important content – the comments on disclosure of information and adopting a more transparent approach.
Keith deplores the:
“attacks on the integrity and professionalism of scientists themselves, usually in circumstances where they are unable to defend themselves, or unwilling to make themselves the target of personal abuse. Some prominent climate scientists have even received threats of violence against them or their families.”
But he does see the positive side of “climategate.” The lessons that can be learned:
“If the intensity of the personal attacks on climate scientists over recent months are to have any positive effect, it will be the adoption of a more transparent approach to the dissemination of information. In this regard, the Royal Society of New Zealand intends to play its part by developing a Code of Practice for Public Dissemination of Information that it hopes will assist the various New Zealand science organisations in improving their practices.
At the same time, of course, it is only fair to expect the critics of the mainstream scientific views on climate change (and other contentious areas of science) to adopt an equally transparent approach with their own information, and with their own use and re-analysis of data entrusted to the public domain. They should also subject their findings to rigorous peer review. Opinion, however forthrightly expressed, will not change the laws of basic science.”
This is heartening. I think most scientists will welcome such a “Code of Practice.” The public dissemination of scientific data has developed on a more or less ad hoc basis. There have been technological issues as well as problems with the whole free market ideology inherent in NZ science over the last 20 years which inhibit freedom of information. After all, our managers were desperately searching for ways to “capture” intellectual property and to make a profit.
I hope the Royal Society calls for input from NZ scientists during the development of this code. I also hope that the Society will be able to incorporate procedures related the use of public data by crtics. Ways of ensuring that they “adopt an equally transparent approach with their own information, and with their own use and re-analysis of data entrusted to the public domain. They should also subject their findings to rigorous peer review. Opinion, however forthrightly expressed, will not change the laws of basic science.”
Critics avoid transparency themselves
Talking about transparency and responsibility. Ever tried to get data and/or methodology from these critics? I tried to get information from Richard Treadgold, author of the discredited climate change denial report “Are we warmer yet?” Produced by The Climate Science Coalition, the Climate Conversation Group this misrepresented NIWA science, disgracefully attacked NZ scientists and made completely unwarranted scientific claims. My analysis indicates that the data they used was also problematic, either not being the same as the NIWA data or massaged in a strange way.
However, no luck. Despite their demands that NIWA reveal data and methodology they are just not prepared to do so themselves. have a look at the record of my attempts and their constant avoidance in the emails which can be downloaded (deniergate emails).
The views expressed on this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the owners of SciBlogs.co.nz, the Science Media Centre or the Royal Society of New Zealand
; 
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=4608f593-1682-4513-a699-d9764e6e9112)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=e010fdd6-fbad-47a8-a38f-5161f9d39c7d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=143afaa2-186e-452b-b070-0cc2f92328d5)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=e437f7c6-ae45-4294-b433-8c15d13f63da)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=674f40ce-7d35-4160-aa3f-06421450fe9a)
