The Fight for the Climate Narrative
So it’s not surprising that lots of people got peeved with the way the BEST story played out in the media. People who feel strongly about climate issues are invariably disappointed with climate media coverage.
Hence the perpetual effort to shape the climate narrative. It was perceived by some that Muller overplayed the BEST results and that a dominant narrative flowed from that. Roger Pielke Sr. and Judith Curry have sought to dent that storyline. My analysis of their efforts can be read over at the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media.
“..shoots down key sceptic argument”
Are you serious? Did you write that headline yourself? If you’d read any of the reaction to Muller’s interviews you’d find that the beef was with the fact that he hadn’t the faintest idea of what are the ‘key sceptic arguments’ He just appeared moronic, as did the newspapers that jumped on the bandwagon to assert that climate change scepticism somehow has something to do with temperature records.
Sure, Anthony Watts and two and a half other idiots made exaggerated claims about UHI etc but seriously?
There has basically been just bafflement, and Judy Curry’s (hyped) response mildly redressed the balance.
Perhaps now some genuine ‘key sceptic arguments’ will be given some airtime and some sort of debate might ensue, but I’m not holding my breath..
The reliability of surface temperature data has been downgraded from a ‘serious’ sceptic argument to ‘pffff’.
Anthony has been thrown under the bus.
There is actually something interesting going on here (beyond tribal point scoring)
I’d quite happily have Singer, Ball and Delingpole (metaphically) fall under a bus with Watts. But not If Hansen, Gore and McKibben followed them. The strange thing is that the greatest energy for scepticism has been provided by Al Gore – I’ve lost count of the number of serious, intelligent people that have said to me “I assumed the science was all pretty much settled…..until I saw An Inconvenient truth..” The path to doubt begins with someone else’s reckless overhype. But then that critical energy gets dissipated by maniac idealogues like Fred Singer. And when I hear Tim Ball open his mouth I want another word to describe myself rather than ‘sceptic’ which he uses himself.
I was going to lambast Watts some more but I think his surface station project was sincere and worthy – whatever the result.
I think we should be able to trade ’embarrassments’ although I suspect no-one would be able to afford James Hansen..
A concerted effort to push back on the dominant BEST narrative in the media (global warming is real and any continuing doubts about it are unwarranted) seemed under way.
KK: No. The concerted effort was to push back on the narrative that “The case against global-warming skepticism” was closed.
Surely you grasp this point. Why do you seem so obtuse in the article here and at the Yale site?
Anteros
I think we should be able to trade “˜embarrassments’ although I suspect no-one would be able to afford James Hansen..
You sound as though you have neither read Hansen’s work nor understood his public position.
Perhaps before denigrating either, you should invest some time in research.
huxley
KK: global warming is real and any continuing doubts about it are unwarranted
You: No. The concerted effort was to push back on the narrative that “The case against global-warming skepticism” was closed.
I cannot see any difference between what KK wrote and what you say.
Huxley, being “obtuse” is about the only thing they have left.
BEST confirmed that the warming has been less than the “no emissions” scenarios in Hansen’s projections and refuses to attribute the warming to man. California just proved that the climate concerned’s preferred “action” is basically a lie propping up a delusion: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/2011/10/28/the-gap-between-climate-energy-reality/
The “green jobs” pipe dream is collapsing into a series of entirely predictable cronyism scandals – if you’re ordered to hand out piles of money for useless crap, you might as well give it to your buddies! Obama has proven to be smart enough to ignore the “most important issue of our time” – mostly because he recognizes that his party and the “climate concerned” (I know, I know, that’s redundant) are politically incapable of accepting the only solutions that work.
There’s nothing left other than partisan politics (Rick Perry is an unbeliever! Burn him!) and sophomoric sniping at “enemies” (look at me! I call Judy Curry a “bozo!” My brilliance therefore endeth the discussion!)
jeffn
BEST confirmed that the warming has been less than the “no emissions” scenarios in Hansen’s projections
Are you sure about that? And do you have a primary source?
“Perhaps now some genuine “˜key sceptic arguments’ will be given some airtime ”
Care to give us a sneak preview? What are the ‘genuine’ skeptic arguments and how do we distinguish them from the disingenuous ones?
BBD- BEST “confirmed” the level of warming that the warms claim is true. Just so there’s no “your source is biased” – here is the comparison as done by RealClimate – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
Scenario C is the rapid reductions in GHG emissions scenario. Emissions are at or above Scenario A if I’m not mistaken- though someone doubtless will object.
jeffn
Hansen (1988) assumed a climate sensitivity of 4C per doubling of CO2 or equivalent increase in RF. Bring that in line with current estimates and things don’t look so bad for GCM projections from back in 1988:
From the RC article you link:
As before, it seems that the Hansen et al “˜B’ projection is likely running a little warm compared to the real world. Repeating the calculation from last year, assuming (again, a little recklessly) that the 27 yr trend scales linearly with the sensitivity and the forcing, we could use this mismatch to estimate a sensitivity for the real world. That would give us 4.2/(0.27*0.9) * 0.19=~ 3.3 ºC. And again, it’s interesting to note that the best estimate sensitivity deduced from this projection, is very close to what we think in any case. For reference, the trends in the AR4 models for the same period have a range 0.21+/-0.16 ºC/dec (95%).
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
I’d think carefully before trying to make a ‘sceptical’ argument out of this if I were you… 😉
“I’d think carefully before trying to make a “˜sceptical’ argument out of this if I were you”¦ ”
Interesting, I was just about to reply that I’d think carefully about making this a CAGW argument if I were you. Quick test- which choice best describes what you’ve been hearing THE MOST from the BBC, Guardian and various climate concerned blogs over the past 10 years?
A. James Hansen’s computation of sensitivity was wrong – the amount of warming is and will be much less than he predicted under business as usual, even his “scenario B is running a bit warm” and even his emissions reductions scenarios are too hot.
B. Research has only made the case stronger for the dire effects of man-made warming- it’s worse than we thought and we are much more certain of the need to take drastic action – immediately.
C. Not only is the case for disaster stronger- but we’re already seeing catastrophe from global climate change even earlier than we thought possible- from man-made heat waves in Russia, to man-made droughts in Somalia, global warming is worse than we thought and here now.
Bonus question- is the “missing heat” A. hiding in the deep ocean, B. not really there thanks to aerosols from China C. a slight, minor aberration from which we will “catch up” quickly via some unexplained process or D. there is no “missing heat” – if you examine a carefully selected and adjusted data set from studiously chosen date ranges and apply a special type of smoothing to it you can clearly see that it “worse than evah!TM”
Hm, my comment vanished…. Try again
Jeffn – well put.
This is essentially my argument for why Hansen is an embarrassment to the AGW movement. However you spin it his 1988 predictions were wild exaggerations – as were those of the 1990 FAR.
It would have been better to admit that there were two errors – ‘that climate sensitivity is lower than Hansen thought, and that emissions don’t equate to increased ppm as much as Hansen (or the IPPC) thought. Take the hit, keep quiet for a bit and then having made some new prognostications, begin the ‘it’s worse than we thought meme’m again. Hanging on to the embvarrassment suits the sceptic just fine.
Here’s a prediction based solely but firmly on psychology and sociology – with Milikan’s oil experiment as an exemplar. The consensus estimate of net climate sensitivity will fall over time. 3 degrees +/- 50% will soon enough be seen as an overestimate, leaving Hansen ever more stranded. Ten pounds of my fine English sterling says that by AR6 the estimate will be definitively lower. Don’t all jump at once!
“However you spin it his 1988 predictions were wild exaggerations ““ as were those of the 1990 FAR.”
Are you incapable of reading what BBD said @11 or does ‘wild exaggerations’ mean something different on your planet?
BBD @6: The Muller op-ed in the WSJ was titled and subbed:
The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism
There were good reasons for doubt, until now.
Which conveys the impression that the skeptics’ case against global warming is over. This has been followed by much triumphalism from the orthodox and claims such as the debunking of Climategate.
The reality is that BEST pre-release validates earlier data that the globe has indeed warmed, which most skeptics in the debate already agree with, but the rest of the debate continues.
KK writes:
A concerted effort to push back on the dominant BEST narrative in the media (global warming is real and any continuing doubts about it are unwarranted) seemed under way.
This strikes me as misleading since skeptics are not pushing back against the narrative that the globe has warmed, but against the narrative that the orthodox climate position has triumphed and skeptics have lost the debate.
This is the same obfuscation indulged in by SkS – that Hansen didn’t get it wrong ‘it just turned out that climate sensitivity was lower than expected’ That is absolutely hilarious. Hansen was predicting just two things – Co2 ppm from emissions scenarios and climate sensitivity. Given that he underestimated emissions increases (50% since 1990) he must have got a mixture of the two horribly wrong. He can cling to his 4.2 degrees sensitivity all he likes, but reality is painting a different picture.
Getting it wrong isn’t really a big deal – you make predictions, you make errors. What anybody who knows anything about Hansen, psychology and confirmation bias would know is in which direction he’d be wrong. The AGW idea isn’t lost because of an overestimate, but the cause is damaged by denying that overestimate. You’d be better off being objective about it and moving on.
I’d be much more willing to engage with someone saying look, sensitivity looks more like 2 or 2 and a half degrees but that is still going to cause problems. OK says me – lets look at your argument for that and forget Hansen.
I just think he’s a liability – ‘Storms of my Grandchildren’ confirms that to me.
jeffn @ 12
Anteros @ 13
The widely-supported median estimate for CS is 3C at equilibrium if CO2 is stabilised at 550ppmv. Hansen’s 1988 estimate was high. His current empirical estimate (Hansen & Sato 2011) is 3C.
There is a very interesting discussion by James Annan of his 2006 paper and its conclusions at his blog which I recommend. Very different methodology; result: 3C.
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html
You and Anteros make unsupported claims that CS will be lower than 3C. Almost everybody working in the field disagrees with you, so my guess is you are both incorrect.
If you believe that a 3C increase in global average temperatures will be just fine and dandy, then you will again be at odds with almost everyone else.
WRT ‘missing energy’: we don’t have enough sensors in the deep oceans to make authoritative pronouncements one way or the other. There is evidence of abyssal warming (Purkey & Johnson 2010) but a great deal more direct measurement needs to be done. Far too little is known about stratospheric aerosols – the role of mid-level Equatorial volcanism is in the process of being revised up in importance.
In neither case is anyone in a position to say: look, told you so; low climate sensitivity; stop worrying about CO2.
jeffn:
if you examine a carefully selected and adjusted data set from studiously chosen date ranges and apply a special type of smoothing to it you can clearly see that it “worse than evah!TM”
This is pure conspiracy theory. I reject it as such.
I think Anteros is quite wrong to characterise Hansen’s 1988 three-scenario projection as a ‘wild exaggeration’ and FAR was positively optimistic compared to AR4.
It seems to me that both of you are making unsupported but exceptionally controversial assertions on matters of grave importance.
Why so confident? And why do you expect to be taken seriously?
Anteros
I’ve just seen your comment @ 16. You don’t have a clue what Hansen has said or written over the last 30 years, do you?
“Wild exaggerations”…
Some are perhaps confusing Hansen with Lindzen.
http://skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-2-lindzen-vs-hansen-1980s.html
Or maybe I’m giving them too much credit.
Hansen’s projection has shown skill, over the null hypothesis, which incidentally coincides with the denier hypothesis. Projections based on denier material show nothing resembling skill.
But it’s nice to see them indirectly acknowledge that observations when compared to Hansen’s model support a climate sensitivity of a little more than 3 C (and an order of magnitude higher than a typical Lindzen estimate from the time), in line with the large body of corroborating evidence on the subject. That’s a step forward.
Some further assessment.
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/08/wiley-interdisciplinary-reviews-climate.html
Those that claim something along the lines of “wild exaggeration” regarding Hansen’s projection tend to be making wild exaggerations.
BBD @ 17
You misunderstand me. I accept that most people working in the field estimate CS as 3C. As I explained, there are good historical reasons for thinking that most people working in the field will in the future estimate it lower.
As I said – solely on the grounds of psychology and sociology.
And, as I also said – it was on the same grounds that a sensible person in 1988 could have said ” Mr Hansen’s estimates are too high”. Perhaps ‘wildly’ was provocative and uncalled for, but my point is that it was always and without a doubt going to be an overestimate. You don’t need to know the difference between a radiative transfer and a football transfer to see that.
Remember, I used Milikan’s oil as an exemplar – and it applies to the whole field of climate science.
It was never 50/50 that Hansen would estimate too high.
If Hansen is calling 3C today my point is made.
I don’t understand your point about median estimate of CS at 550ppm being 3C – the median estimate of CS will be 3C whether CO2 is stabilised at 550, 600 or 650.
I don’t doubt that thinking of a total temperature rise (from pre-industrial) of 3C, over another 100-150 years being unproblematic. You’re right – I don’t agree with the majority.
I also think it will be less than that.
Serious skepticism demands that we should seriously consider all meaningless adjectives in qualifying inevitable error.
Henry Cavendish in 1798 estimated the mean density of the Earth at 5.45 g / cm^3. Today until the next month, we know that the real value is closer to 5.52 g / cm^3. If we take the inverse of the estimates, we can still call Cavendish a wild exaggerator, as well an embarrassment to science… and possible even a banana-brain.
Yours seriously
L
According to anteros, climate sensitivity must therefore be quite high because Lindzen is consistently underestimating it.
Awesome.
So, you believe consensus estimates of climate sensitivity will remain at 3C +/- 50%? Fine – you have a different expectation of the future than do I.
Like I said – AR6 <3C.
Who is up for a wager?
Anteros
Remember, I used Milikan’s oil as an exemplar ““ and it applies to the whole field of climate science.
It is becoming increasingly clear that you are out of your depth.
I don’t understand your point about median estimate of CS at 550ppm being 3C ““ the median estimate of CS will be 3C whether CO2 is stabilised at 550, 600 or 650.
Sloppy writing on my part. Apologies. What I should have said was why do you assume that we will stabilise at 550ppmv? And that a 3C warming at equilibrium is as far as it will go?
If CO2 goes above 550 ppmv there will be a concomitant increase in forcing. The equilibrium response will be above 3C. And by then, the smarter people in the room know that CH4 will be the Next Big Thing.
Sorry if I don’t share your groundless optimism.
Oh, and this is silly:
Who is up for a wager?
If you believe that it is even an effective rhetorical device, you are mistaken.
Perhaps you guys @22 and @23 think my rationale doesn’t apply to the likes of Richard Lindzen. Of course it does! He is an outlier just like Hansen {think 5 metres of sea level rise}
In the UK we have a formula for estimating the number of people on a Greenpeace march. You don’t have to know anything about the march.
You take the Greenpeace estimate and divide it by 3.7, and you take the police estimate and multiply it by 1.4. By and large you get the same number – if not, split the difference.
What you’re forgetting is that we know more about people – especially large groups of people -than we do about climate.
That’s how we can be rational in predicting that the consensus estimate will fall. Milikan’s successors showed us how and why.
So, the sun may be circling earth after all!
BBD.
I’m not using a wager as a rhetorical device. Seriously!
I’m just saying that I believe the consensus estimate of climate sensitivity will fall. I’m happy to be reminded of it on the publication of AR6, and certainly happy to be proven wrong. Believe me, I’ll say ‘I was wrong’ if the consensus doesn’t change.
I’ve explained my reasoning.
And I think wagers are fun.
It just occurred to me.
What if it actually were to be established that in terms of our understanding of the physical world that the consensus became that the consensus was always wrong. I.e., Gravity must be wrong because most people believe it is right. Or, gravity must be right because most people believe it is wrong.
Lots to think about on this thread.
Awesome!
The climate narrative has changed.
Lawrence Berkley National Labs modeled China out to 2050. All sorts of nasties occur…like they run out of coal. Co2 emission peak in 2030 in the ‘BAU’ case.
http://china.lbl.gov/sites/china.lbl.gov/files/2050_Summary_Report_042811_FINAL.pdf
Anteros
At the height of the Eemian, global average temperature was between 1C – 2C higher than the present. Mean sea level was 5m higher than the present.
As I have attempted to point out above, Hansen’s estimate of CS is 3C. Bang in the middle of the middle. Not an outlier. That would be Lindzen.
I’m interested to know what makes you so certain that the widely-held estimate of 3C for 550ppmv is too high.
I very much doubt that estimating the actual vs claimed number of people on a Greenpeace march is at all relevant.
You are wittering.
harrywr2
Thanks for this. Something to brighten up my lunch break tomorrow.
BBD – you slightly misunderstand me again.
I have given my reasons why I think the consensus estimate of climate sensitivity will fall. By how much I don’t know. What can I add to my reasoning that you didn’t get before?
It is too high because there are profound and widespread reasons for the climate science community to overestimate it. That is all.
If your analysis of sea level rise was shared by the climate community it’ll be mentioned in AR5, but I seriously doubt it. Sure , you have the same reasoning as James Hansen, but his is not a widely held view (hence outlier).
Yes of course, Richard Lindzen is off the scale.
When do you estimate we will reach 550ppmv, because my reasons for thinking the consensus view overestimates CS apply to that too. I see compound overestimating, hence I am not alarmed by the future. Perhaps you think I should be.
It is too high because there are profound and widespread reasons for the climate science community to overestimate it. That is all.
Anteros @34: That’s my take too.
Environmental scientists have been overestimating threats in the direst terms for forty years and more. Given that such overestimates attract attention and funding while there is little or no penalty for mistakes, it only makes sense that this pattern will continue.
The current arrangement of science, academia, the media, and the Democratic Party incentivizes these overestimates.
Anteros,
When do you estimate we will reach 550ppmv?
Never..we run out of ‘economically extractable coal’ long before 550ppmv.
It is too high because there are profound and widespread reasons for the climate science community to overestimate it. That is all.
Ah…there it is. Brilliant scientific analysis. So the climate science community is engaging in widespread scientific misconduct, perhaps even to please the Democratic party. Yet there never seems to be any evidence put forth by the conspiracy nuts that this is the case. At least the 9/11 folks try.
I have no reason to suggest scientific misconduct – I never have.
You made that one up yourself.
The reasons for the overestimation are sociological and psychological. Milikan’s oil drop experiment was a pure physics experiment that objective researchers got wrong for the same reasons.
One of Richard Lindzen’s more insightful comments is that climate science is both primitive and immature. To reach an estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity requires a fistful of assumptions.
As I said upthread, we know more about communities of people than we do about the climate.
I’m merely saying that there are very good reasons to believe that the consensus estimate of climate sensitivity will fall over time. I have no idea how much.
I’m sorry you think it has something to do with politics – I’m neither politically minded nor American.
If you think at this stage of our studying the climate we have a firm grasp of equilibrium CS, you have more faith in the understanding of atmospheric physicists than I do.
NewYorkJ @37: Incentives are not hard to understand.
The government provides tax breaks for mortgages, people get mortgages. Rock stars get attention and fame for dressing and acting eccentrically, we get Alice Cooper and Lady Gaga.
The Democratic Party elects candidates in part based on the environmental concerns of voters, Democratic leaders provide more funding to environmental scientists, environmental scientists come up with more alarming scenarios, and voters vote for more Democratic candidates on account of those scenarios.
These are not mysteries and they are not conspiracies.
Climategate, on the other hand, contained conspiracies to destroy data and emails, to evade FOI requests, and to rig peer review.
Climategate reinforced my concern that climate science starting at the very top had become a dysfunctional community that produced skewed results and skewed behavior.
Anteros
I have given my reasons why I think the consensus estimate of climate sensitivity will fall. By how much I don’t know. What can I add to my reasoning that you didn’t get before?
What reasoning? To be blunt, I don’t care what you ‘think’. You have not backed it up with CS-specific argument or links to the primary literature.
You are just voicing empty dissent in the face of a very considerable body of work which indicates 3C.
Your views are scientifically weightless, yet you seem to think they should be taken seriously. I ask again: why?
Also, if MSL was 5m higher during the Eemian, and GAT was 1C – 2C higher than the present, why are you happy with your unsupported belief that CS will be in the 1C – 2C range?
One of Richard Lindzen’s more insightful comments is that climate science is both primitive and immature. To reach an estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity requires a fistful of assumptions.
This is an odd characterization, because Lindzen’s material makes presumptions on climate sensitivity along the lines of precise estimates with zero uncertainty.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=706
I have no reason to suggest scientific misconduct
You certainly have no valid reason or evidence for it, but you suggested it by claiming widespread personal bias to the point where everyone’s distorting the evidence.
hux,
You might want to ask alarmist Lindzen to return the $1 million + in government grant money and his MIT salary over the years.
BBD @ 40
I am sorry to point out that you have misunderstood, perhaps willfully, what I said. Again. In the same way.
Have I made the slightest suggestion that there isn’t a ‘very considerable body of work which suggests 3C’? No – that has been my point all along. I have said that the consensus estimate will fall. And as I said in particularly clear English, it is for reasons of psychology and sociology.
If you don’t want to understand that, don’t bother to try. Milikan’s oil drop experiment is the rationale for my contention.
And NewYorkJ – you are simply wrong, nothing more nor less; I have never suggested scientific misconduct or that everybody is distorting the evidence.
As I said, I have no reason (at all) to doubt climate scientists’ integrity and honesty. However -and I don’t doubt you think this is wishy-washy or unscientific – what we choose to see as evidence is not something we arrive at objectively. We cannot – it is always a function of our world view. Hence, as I have said before, Milikan’s oil drop experiment shows us how (and why) groups over (or under) estimate things – even when they are eminently quantifiable. Climate science is a mass of assumptions!
NewYorkJ – why would you think my characterisation of Lindzen odd? You didn’t perhaps assume that because I am a ‘sceptic’ and he is a ‘sceptic’ that I assign value to everything he says? You mistake me for a consensus groupie – he says something insightful, I’ll point it out. He talks bunk, bunk it is. He certainly is no hero of mine, but he understands that climatology can barely be called a science – even if he is too certain of his own pet theories.
You both think I’m saying something I’m not. E.g. why do you invent the idea that I think CS has to be between 1C and 2C. You’re just inventing things.
I said nothing more contentious (if you’d read a little more carefully) that there are reasons to believe that estimates of climate sensitivity will fall.
Your AGW certainties don’t need to be threatened by that.
BBD and NewYorkJ –
Perhaps I should have made more of the nature of the IPCC characterisation – 3C +/- 50%. The 50% is an indication of the mass of assumptions underlying the estimate.
My contention is that in the huge uncertainty lies the opportunity for subjective assumptions to skew. That I suppose is obvious. How can it be so threatening to suggest that there are profound and well understood reasons for the skewing to be in a particular direction?
And if you think a catastrophe is on it’s way, why not welcome the possibility that it is ‘not as bad as we thought’ ?`
Anteros
I am sorry to point out that you have misunderstood, perhaps willfully, what I said. Again. In the same way.
Have I made the slightest suggestion that there isn’t a “˜very considerable body of work which suggests 3C’? No ““ that has been my point all along. I have said that the consensus estimate will fall. And as I said in particularly clear English, it is for reasons of psychology and sociology.
I understood you perfectly. You are obviously unfamiliar with the subject matter or you would realise that the confidence in an equilibrium sensitivity of ~3C is increasing as investigation progresses over time.
It is revealing that you believe that an argument from ‘psychology and sociology’ is appropriate and relevant here when it obviously is not. A clearer understanding on your part of the state of knowledge on CS would be infinitely more valuable.
I also note that you are ignoring my comments about the Eemian MSL and GAT. Why?
You both think I’m saying something I’m not. E.g. why do you invent the idea that I think CS has to be between 1C and 2C. You’re just inventing things.
Well, what approximate value are you suggesting then? And why, given what we know about the Eemian, should we not be bothered by a CS slightly lower than 3C if this should eventually prove to be the case?
You keep pushing, so we have arrived at the point where I am going to say it straight: you don’t know what you are talking about. Please take the time to do some relevant reading or you run the risk of ridicule.
And if you think a catastrophe is on it’s way, why not welcome the possibility that it is “˜not as bad as we thought’?`
You are looking for a way to avoid contemplating a very uncomfortable situation. You are a fan of psychological analysis (as opposed to scientific analysis). What’s the word for adamant refusal to accept an unpleasant reality?
I don’t know if this may be productive.
What you say about the Eemian has some merit. I just wonder that you make such a point of it when the IPCC consensus does not. Hansen’s (and I guess your) view is an extreme outlier.
I think definitive views about sea level rise in 90 years smack of extraordinary hubris.
If you dismiss what psychology and sociology can bring to the climate debate, so be it. To me they are indeed relevant.
I merely have an expectation about the estimate of CS in AR6. You obviously know the future far better than I do.
Denial? Confirmation bias? BBD? I am flailing. What are you hinting at?
Anyway, those are my wild ass guesses but I await Anteros’ non-science insights on the matter. Nevertheless I assert my confirmation bias ahead of time. The sun will “rise” in the east tomorrow. Dubious, I know, because it’s consensus. But I await the denouement of my predictably wrongness.
@45
your pomo hand-waiving is entertaining, if a little predictable. However, I’m unclear why you think the Millikan oil experiment suggests that actual sensitivity is lower than the central estimate. Doesn’t it merely suggest that confirmation bias is something to watch out for?
“In a commencement address given at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in 1974 (and reprinted in Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!), physicist Richard Feynman noted:
Why didn’t they discover the new number was higher right away? It’s a thing that scientists are ashamed of – this history – because it’s apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan’s, they thought something must be wrong – and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan’s value they didn’t look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that…[6][7″]
Oh and btw, if you’re going to bother reading anything on CS, Annan and Hargreaves (see link @17) is as good a place as any to start….
You both think I’m saying something I’m not. E.g. why do you invent the idea that I think CS has to be between 1C and 2C. You’re just inventing things.
That was not my characterization of your argument. You’re inventing that.
but he understands that climatology can barely be called a science ““ even if he is too certain of his own pet theories.
And thus the hypocrisy of Lindzen. He’s a poor scientist. He shouldn’t project his shortcomings on the rest of the scientific community.
You also have it backwards on the existence of a range for climate sensitivity estimates. If one said the value was exactly 3 C, or that aerosol forcing was zero with no uncertainty, they would be making big assumptions. The range allows for the uncertainty in the evidence.
New video from Barry Bickmore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDNXuX6D60U