I think that this is a very good idea and I for one would regard it as a
great service if the crisis forum, or another body, were to do something
like this. This is the sort of issue that could come up when giving a talk
on climate change and I have welcomed the persistence of those who have
called this group to its purpose.
Climate change is such a huge and multidisciplinary issue that even the most
informed of us will find areas that we do not understand in enough depth to
be able to handle the detail. This will be true for atmospheric physicists
and population biologists as much as for economists and social scientists,
let alone the ordinary (perhaps engaged) person going about his or her daily
lives. But each of us also has vital partial knowing that can be of great
value if put in a wider context.
It is vital that a broad range of us feel able to contribute to the
discussions, whatever one did at A-Level and university. There is a need, I
think, for those of us with relevant but inevitably partial knowledge (mine
is not in this particular field) to make it widely available for others to
be able to use, with appropriate caution of course. That way the knowing is
available socially and not held inside separate skulls or in separate
communities dotted around the globe or in virtual communities held on the
Internet where they speak funny languages and don't tolerate neophytes.
And we should never be afraid of recognising truth in what a critic is
saying, if it has survived analysis. It doesn't sound as though that will be
the case here, or much so, but the work is bigger than our own positions.
David Ballard
Director, Alexander Ballard Ltd.
Strategy and Human Change for Environmental Sustainability
============================================
Swindon Innovation Centre, Oakfield Campus, Marlowe Avenue, SWINDON SN3 3JR
============================================
01793 329936 (direct); 07840 544226 (mobile)
01793 329912 (fax); 01672 520561 (home)
www.alexanderballard.co.uk; [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Professor Malcolm Levitt
Sent: 17 November 2006 22:21
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Monckton article
Hi David, etc.
I guess my intention was not to suggest feeding the telegraph with a
rebuttal article, but more to
provoke the compilation of a point-by-point response which could be placed
on a suitable website
(such as the crisis forum) and used as a reference point for those (like
myself) who are at least
intrigued by some of Monckton's arguments and would like to see them
addressed properly in a
single place - so that people like me dont have to go trawling the internet
to see what he's on
about.
The RealClimate website certainly fulfils this role in part but I would
like to see the entirety of
Monckton's pieces reproduced with commentary on each point, including links
to more detailed
discussions, dissenting views, etc. Maybe the RealClimate people are the
ones to do that - and
perhaps David has personal contacts there (?)
It seems that some of the climate experts on the forum find this all "old
stuff" and not worth
bothering about. But it does not seem that way to me. I am very surprised
about the sloppiness
(and weakness) of the responses to Monckton, to be honest.
malcolm
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:24:45 +0000, David Cromwell <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>Hi Mark (and everyone on the list),
Well the realclimate.org blog entry I sent round
last night, *does*, I think, demolish Monckton's
arguments. Someone *could* rejig it, with the
author's permission, for a newspaper article or
do their own from scratch. But as for feeding the
Telegraph beast by submitting a rebuttal - well,
I have my doubts. Even if the editor accepts a
piece, you'll have little control over the
editing and how it appears. Bear in mind too that
stoked-up "controversy" like this helps newspaper
to sell and thus attract/maintain their corporate
advertisers. Anyway, I'm unconvinced it's a
useful and effective route for the Crisis Forum,
especially given our limited resources. However,
others on the list may well feel differently!
On a somewhat related note, I include below an
interesting bit of correspondence from
cosmologist Ed Whitten in today's Nature.
best wishes,
David
Correspondence
Nature 444, 265 (16 November 2006) |
doi:10.1038/444265a; Published online 15 November
2006
Answering critics can add fuel to controversy
Edward Witten1
1. Institute for Advanced Study,
Einstein Drive, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, USA
Sir:
Your Editorial "To build bridges, or to burn
them" and News Feature "In the name of nature"
raise important points about criticism of science
and how scientists should best respond
(Nature 443, 481; 2006 and Nature 443, 498-501;
2006). The News Feature concerns radical
environmentalists and animal-rights activists,
but the problem covers a wider area, often
involving more enlightened criticism of science
from outside the scientific establishment and
even, sometimes, from within.
The critics feel passionately that they are
right, and that their viewpoints have been
unfairly neglected by the establishment. They
strike a populist note. They bring into the
public arena technical claims that few can
properly evaluate. They are sometimes able to
generate astonishing amounts of publicity. We all
know examples from our own fields or from the
media.
Responding to this kind of criticism can be very
difficult. It is hard to answer unfair charges of
élitism without sounding élitist to non-experts.
A direct response may just add fuel to
controversies. Critics, who are often prepared to
devote immense energies to their efforts, can
thrive on the resulting 'he said, she said'
situation.
Scientists in this type of situation would do
well to heed the advice in Nature's Editorial.
Keep doing what you are doing. And when you have
the chance, try to patiently explain why what you
are doing is interesting and exciting, and may
even be useful one day.
[My emphasis in bold]
>Malcolm et al. The idea of a proper article length but accessible
>response, offered to the Daily Telegraph, that is, is an excellent one.
>
>Are there Crisis Forum folk with the expertise who can offer this? Or if
>not us, who can. (Would have thought there are plenty of recognised
>'experts' at Southampton National Oceanography Centre who could provide
>the critique?
>David (Cromwell) good friend, have you any thoughts on this? (Or anybody
>else!)
>Mark
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Malcolm Levitt
>Sent: 15 November 2006 18:04
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Monckton article
>
>Is there anyone out there who is preparing a detailed analysis/criticism
>of the Monckton articles?
>
>I, for one, would like to see a decent climate scientist address his
>points one by one. He has done a thorough job and deserves a detailed
>response, based on scientifically proved and sourced facts.
>It may be a laborious piece of work, but it should be done.
>
>The criticisms I have seen so far rely too much on who he is (a rich
>aristocrat who used to advise Margaret Thatcher), where it is published
>(the Daily Telegraph instead of Nature), and a few obvious blunders he
>has made (1421, for example), which are not really of great importance.
>If his work is that flawed, it should not be difficult for someone who
>knows these things to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt.
>
>Personally, my mind is still open. I think it is unlikely that the
>scientific community and parts of the political world could be convinced
>of anthropogenic global warming out of some sort of mass hysteria, but I
>cannot exclude it either. I'm a scientist on the "hard" physical end,
>and I know that it can be quite easy to misinterpret even reproducible
>experimental data, never mind statistical analyses of past climate. It
>is not impossible that Monckton, as a climate outsider, has really made
>a valuable contribution, and so far I'm not convinced by the criticisms
>I've read. The George Monbiot one in the Guardian this week is
>disappointing, making much out of the fact that Monckton does not have a
>science degree (this is not so different from dismissing critics of the
>Iraq invasion on the grounds that they are not military or political
>professionals).
>
>Unfortunately I'm not sufficiently qualified in the field to judge most
>of Monckton's arguments myself. Is anyone aware of a good-quality
>science criticism, that concentrates on the facts? Like them or not,
>Monckton's articles are really bugging me.
>
>all the best
>malcolm
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.6/536 - Release Date: 16/11/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.6/536 - Release Date: 16/11/2006
|
