Climate Science in the Thunderdome
When issues becomes hotly politicized, such as GMO’s (“Frankenfood“), health care (“death panels“), and yes, climate science (“hoax“), the extremes dominate the public dialogue. When this happens, it is virtually impossible to have a grown-up conversation about these issues in the public sphere.
The press, following the scent of controversy and conflict, ends up in a funhouse, where it has to distinguish between various shades of distortion. Reporters on the climate change beat not only navigate this funhouse but also follow the science and translate its meaning. But that, too, is often turned into sensationalist gruel or something unrecognizable to scientists. Either way, the public is not served well. A 2009 Popular Mechanics article, examining media reaction to five climate studies, observed:
A leading climate scientist argues that overbroad claims by some researchers–coupled with overblown reporting in the media–can undermine the public’s understanding of climate issues. Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climate modeler, author and PM [Popular Mechanics] editorial advisor, concurs with the consensusview that the planet’s temperature is rising due largely to human activity. But, he says, many news stories prematurely attribute local or regional phenomena to climate change. This can lead to the dissemination of vague, out-of-context or flat-wrong information to the public.
“People think that if there’s a trend, it has to be connected to this bigger trend,” he says. “You often get this kind of jumping the gun.” Sometimes researchers are citing a potential connection to global warming to get noticed, he says, and sometimes journalists are focusing on that connection to make the story more compelling. “There’s a bit of a backlash amid people who have a brain,” says Schmidt. “It’s akin to [the media’s reporting on] medical studies. It adds to people’s confusion.”
In an ideal world, Real Climate (where Schmidt is a contributor) would have been a neutral arbiter of the science. Or at least be perceived as one by all sides. Of course, what website, magazine, or institution is perceived by all sides as unbiased?
The problem isn’t that we don’t live in an ideal world but that the civic space we inhabit has become so polluted with personal animosity, vitriol, and disrespect. The climate arena is merely an extension of this depraved landscape, where arguments are made by hyperbole and ad hominem. Opposing sides try to tear the other down, by casting aspersions on individual reputations and motives. In the climate debate, few can claim to be innocent, even those who would have liked nothing better than to stick to science or policy. Indeed, as I wrote here,
many prefer a smashmouth style of fighting. That means every provocation is taken up, every quote is potential fodder, every action is open to being exploited for partisan advantage.
This corrosive dynamic is by now well established.
So who should suddenly step into this lion’s den? A climate modeler–Tamsin Edwards— from the University of Bristol, who has just started a blog with a devilish name:
All Models Are Wrong
The title is pure genius, because just below it appears this subhead:
..but some are useful. A grown-up discussion about how to quantify uncertainties in modelling climate change and its impacts, past and future.
A grown-up discussion about climate science. What a quaint idea.
Before launching her blog, Edwards got some pushback on her chosen name, with one well-known scientist insistent that it would be deliberately misinterpreted and misused by opponents of climate science. She discusses this in her inaugral post:
I was surprised that a senior academic tried to persuade me, fairly forcefully, not to use the name.
Ah, innocence.
As Tina Turner in Mad Max 3 said, Welcome to the Thunderdome!
Their is a part 2 to this story… In the twitter debate about the name of her new blog, Dr Edwards wrote to Peter Glieck to questions him, about his tweet that I was incredibly offensive to him. I was very upset by this apparent allegation, easily confused as ‘personally abusive’.
Peter has now clarified I was not, nor ever personally abusive.
That he merely found my thoughts, the name of my blog and the fact that I ‘discuss’ ‘Hide the Decline’ and ‘climategate’ to be offensive.
Interestingly, the UK scientist loved the name of the blog, only Peter and Bob Ward dilsliked it, because of how ‘sceptics’ might ‘misuse’ it.
Tamsin is a bit of a star, IMO. And I did warn her more than once in comments at Bishop Hill that she would need a very thick skin.
I got the impression that she can dish out the freestyle with the best of them.
2# And it would appear that the ‘thick skin’ is required from opinions from some, on what many would percieve as her own ‘side’
#3 They are as nothing compared to some of the ‘sceptics’, Barry.
5# I know…
(I’ve chatted to Katie Hayhoe and Leo Hickman who have been on the recieving end)
But some would use that to dismiss those who are polite, civil and courteous.. It does seem to me to be mainly a USA thing, why I wonder (however your own side can influence careers)
# 5
(however your own side can influence careers)
I would imagine that it is is difficult to pursue a career in the Earth System sciences if you appear to be confused by the mainstream scientific understanding of AGW. This would be a self-inflicted handicap rather than the deliberate malice of others.
Well actually there was this comment, peopl would go after those in other fields that dare foi. BBD: Don Keiller, Jonathon Jones
At Bishop Hill: (Don Kellier)
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/1/27/sceptic-letter-in-wsj.html#comments
“Unfortunately this “shoot the messenger” mentality appears to be standard operating procedure amongst climate “scientists”.
Phil Jones (UEA) also tried this one with me when Professor Jonathan Jones (not to be confused with Phil Jones!) and I had the temerity to send a FOI request.
In the recently released email, 1625.txt, we find Jones discussing with senior University staff, the idea of giving Professor Jonathan Jones and I the same treatment as he gave another UK academic.
Phil Jones (1812.txt) asks the Head of Communications at UEA “The thought is whether we should follow the same course with these two?”
Fortunately wiser council prevailed with the Head of Communications replying on the same day
“Do you know the heads of department at (their universities)? Are you sure that they would dissociate themselves from their colleagues who have written? We want to avoid any accusation that you are trying to get people fired because they disagree with you. This (Keiller) chap appears to be deputy head of department and could, I think, cause a huge stir if he got wind of it.
——————-
Looks like Don and Jonathan have got wind of it now!
Keith – typo above, it’s Tamsin, not Tasmin. Thanks for posting this.
# 7
Like I say Barry, failing to grasp the basics of climate science is inevitably going to be a self-inflicted handicap in a career in the Earth System sciences.
If you combine this with antagonising the ‘establishment’ you will get push-back. Please understand that this would happen in any field of science or business enterprise. Piss off the top boys and they will step on you.
Light gray font on a white background? This blog has already induced a catastrophic runaway melting of my eyeballs!
Thanks for posting this, Keith.
It’s a shame that people like Peter Gleick are able to get academic positions and receive public funding. If the guy doesn’t even understand why all models are wrong he’s in the wrong profession, period.
“Of course, what website, magazine, or institution is perceived by all sides as unbiased?”
Well, you can’t make all hard-core advocates on both sides happy at the same time but it’s not impossible to set up a site that stands for science and is respected by 95% of interested audience. The recipe is fairly simple: get on board respected scientists who have no public record on climate policy and stay away from those who was involved from any sort of controversy. Step 2: focus on technical discussion between interested scientists and qualified members of the audience (roughly, Curry-style). Step 3: separate the fights between the extreme wings into separate threads, keep them away from the main threads, potentially ban them completely.
The key is to create a local community. I’ve been a member of a certain professional forum for many years. The reason it’s been successful is that the rules are well known and the offenders are quickly roughed up by old-timers. This usually gets the attention of the moderator and he is not shy to push the button. Repeat offenders are banned. Trolls are banned immediately without warning. As a result, we have a strong community of people who enjoy each other’s company, including meetings for drinks and dinners.
Why people use twitter escapes me.
Piss off the top boys and they will step on you.
Yes, BBD. It seems you have now come to much clearer understanding of the overwhelming consensus. Congratulations.
kdk33
Please read comment # 9 again. There is no special case for cli-sci. It’s how it goes in any field. I’ve noticed that the pretence of victimhood is a favoured ‘sceptic’ position. Doubtless because is is an easy way of making ‘the other side’ look bad.
It’s tiresome. You provoke – you get a slap. What did you expect? A tender, loving embrace?
Wake up.
BBD,
Nice try. At at minimum, you have confirmed that the overwhelming is not really so overwhelming, but more a function of the control exerted by a few of the “big boys”.
Thank You!
kdk33
What is wrong with your brain?
I’m not sure why Edwards wouldn’t agree “all models are imperfect” is a less ambiguous title. It seems Edwards just wants to be provocative, a cheap way to attract contrarian types. Gleick is correct in that “wrong” is more likely to be misinterpreted.
Keith
The problem isn’t that we don’t live in an ideal world but that the civic space we inhabit has become so polluted with personal animosity, vitriol, and disrespect. The climate arena is merely an extension of this depraved landscape, where arguments are made by hyperbole and ad hominem. Opposing sides try to tear the other down, by casting aspersions on individual reputations and motives. In the climate debate, few can claim to be innocent, even those who would have liked nothing better than to stick to science or policy.
Mea culpa (15). But sometimes the vexatious correspondents become intolerable. Do we have to put up with this nonsense?
NYJ @ 16
I do wonder what TE is hoping to achieve. I err towards PG’s and your interpretation. What interests me is why she wants to talk to the sceptics. She’s kept an eye on Bishop Hill for a while, so she must know that there isn’t much revelatory scientific insight in the offing. Just lots of jabberwocky. Still, let’s see where she goes.
Wanting to attract skeptics to her blog is ok. I just question using cheap tactics to do so. This is also very Curryesque:
Conclusion: if my blog causes this much debate before I’ve written anything, I think I’ve chosen the right name”¦
Recall…
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/05/no-dogma/#comment-9011
Of course, the difference is that what Curry says IS generally utter nonsense. “All models are wrong” might be scientifically correct, but is deliberately ambiguous, and can be easily interpreted in ways that are utter nonsense.
Of course, “All models are wrong but some are useful” is a well-known saying in the statistics and modeling worlds. Changing it to “all models are imperfect” might keep much of the same meaning, but weaker. I don’t see how “all models are wrong” is deliberately ambiguous; I think it makes the point well. The point, of course, is that it makes no sense to worry about, or argue about, which model is correct: they’re all wrong. The important questions are whether one model is more useful than another and whether any existing model is useful at all.
Fascinating, Twenty comments on a science communication blog article about the lack of civility in the climate debate, and already we have:
“What is wrong with your brain?”
-and-
“But sometimes the vexatious correspondents become intolerable. Do we have to put up with this nonsense?”
-and-
“what Curry says IS generally utter nonsense”
You can’t make this stuff up! If you are keeping score at home, that was three own-goals for the AGW side, so the skeptics are leading 3-0.
“A grown-up discussion about climate science. What a quaint idea.”
Indeed. A grown-up discussion about climate SCIENCE would be about an objective discussion about the VALID scientific evidence.
It would not involve blind appeals to ‘Consensus’ authority, name calling – ‘”deniers” – or soap opera victim acts, coordinated campaigns of enforced groupthink and fearmongering propaganda, nor would it begin with a discussion framed by predetermined but unsubstantiated conclusions.
It is particularly ironic that now that the AGW train is off the tracks, those who were driving that train are now calling for new tracks rather than accept why what happened has happened.
The only way to have a ‘grown-up discussion’ now is to start again from the ‘in the middle’ position that ‘we don’t know.’ The IPCC CO2 Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall and there is no repairing it, nor is there any ‘grown-up’ reason to repair it.
While it is undoubtedly true that SOME models can be useful, no model is evidence of anything and the IPCC et al models are obviously false, as indicated by their inability to predict anything.
But since none of this is really about science – it is a political project wrapped in faux science – I don’t expect much improvement in this conversation. I expect things to get more absurd and ridiculous and nasty as the AGW project dies.
Thus now we have a new UN report, as an appetizer to the Rio Revival Meeting, which tells us how doomed we are, as usual.
@ 21
These are trolls, Matt. They crave attention. Negative attention is just as good if not better. They “think” that by throwing insults they make someone else look bad.
The bottom line for models is the principle of, to put it in the worst case terms, garbage in, garbage out.
My experience with models is primarily with those employed by ‘Conservation Biology’ but all models have similar real and potential problems.
They ALL depend on the validity of their core assumptions, the accuracy of the input data, and the comprehensiveness and weighting of those inputs. It only takes a minor false assumption or problem with the inputs to send them off the rails, and any major errors in these factors can skew them completely.
For example, one particularly ridiculous Conservation Biology model I once examined was allegedly about the impact of park visitors on wildlife in national parks. Except that they used observed impacts from OUTSIDE of national parks. In other words, this model did not differentiate between hunters outside a park and park visitors in one. Thus, as planned by its bui, it grossly exaggerated the impacts of park visitors – and was obviously contradicted by the behavior of the wildlife in parks, which did not flee upon the sight or scent of park visitors. Even a caveman could see how absurd that model was, yet the Conservation Biology Team stuck with it to the bitter end.
I see much more baseless assumptions in AGW models, with predictable results.
Jim: I don’t see how “all models are wrong” is deliberately ambiguous;
The phrase doesn’t come with any explanation as to what “wrong” means, and is more likely to be misinterpreted than “all models are imperfect”.
However, Lazar presents a thoughtful defense:
I think the name is excellent. Oliver Browne makes a good point that “no model is perfect” is more logical. However, skeptic rhetorics focus on claiming models “˜are’ wrong”¦ “all models are wrong” directly confronts and undermines those rhetorics, which is why I like it”¦ “all models are wrong” is stronger, bolder, more of a shock to the system.
I think Edwards’ byline helps.
—
Matt’s scorecard seems a little dysfunctional and seems to support the notion that so-called “skeptics” are rather selective in their view of evidence.
“Unfortunately this “shoot the messenger” mentality appears to be standard operating procedure amongst climate “scientists”.Phil Jones (UEA) also tried this one…
It’s a shame that people like Peter Gleick are able to get academic positions and receive public funding.
These are trolls, Matt.
In Matt’s defense, Sashka’s “own goal” was after his post.
Hi all,
I’ve only just thought to check back here for comments (actually, think Barry tipped me off). It’s a bit late for long replies, but:
BBD – thanks for calling me a star! 🙂
BillC – thanks, people always get that wrong…
toto – were you referring to AMAW? if so it’s black on white now.
NewYorkJ – I hope to answer a bit more on my own blog too. As Jim points out, I was using a well-known phrase. My first idea was Uncertain Climate but that domain name was taken. allmodelsarewrongbutsomeareuseless.com would have been rather long…
I did want to be a bit provocative – a blog is there to be read – but largely in the sense of confounding expectations. One might find my blog from a climate science site and find me arguing with Peter Gleick 😉 or one might come from Bishop Hill and find me explaining IPCC science.
Also, I think Barry and Andrew Montford would confirm that enough people already know me at Bishop Hill to have a reasonable initial audience even if my blog was called yesitsdefinitelyus.com.
Jim also explains the model <-> usefulness point well, thank you.
And the “Conclusion” was (a) a bit tongue-in-cheek and (b) true, I think, in that I’ve had the wide cross-section of responses I hoped for and a number of responses I feel privileged to host. I don’t think this is the same as “write anything controversial on the internet so that people come” as your examples on my blog imply.
BBD again – why I want to talk to sceptics is probably a blog post to come. But a short answer is: people like Jeff and Mike.
EdG – “garbage in, garbage out” could have been another blog name contender, as is (suggested by a few) “the map is not the territory”.
Night night, and thanks again for the conversations here and elsewhere.
Tamsin
ad hominem: attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.
You are right, NewYorkJ, they all fit, plus your characterization of me as “selective in [my] view of evidence.” Sigh.
Tamsin @ 26
Thanks for the links to those comments: outreach to the ‘floating voters’. Of course.
If I can just say one thing. You’ve presumably seen me attempting to reason with the cognoscenti at BH over many (long) months and noticed how very few are truly open to persuasion. I wish you an honestly receptive audience, but fear you may not find one.
TE: I don’t think this is the same as “write anything controversial on the internet so that people come” as your examples on my blog imply.
My examples there were not at all meant to equate them with your blog title, but to show that your particular reasoning there for why you think it’s a good title was a little shaky, a slippery slope perhaps.
Thanks for your responses. I wish you well with your endeavor.
I got the impression that she can dish out the freestyle with the best of them.
Of course. She knits. 🙂