Pushing Back on Climate Hype
A continuing concern of climate science is the subject of a new paper in Nature:
Thawing of Arctic permafrost could release significant amounts of carbon into the atmosphere in this century.
When this issue last gurgled up to the media’s attention in late 2011 in sensationalist fashion, science journalism watcher Charlie Petit wrote that Andy Revkin provided the most “diligent response.” Revkin’s string of posts remain an invaluable reference point today. It’s worth recalling that, at the time, Revkin tried to tamp down all the hype over “Arctic methane time bombs.”
In a similar vein, William Connolley takes issue with this press release accompanying the recent Nature paper. Connolley, in his typically pointed and colorful manner, writes (my emphasis):
There are various nutters pushing the “methane emergency” line. And although that in itself doesn’t discredit more serious people, the serious people need to talk sense and not just grab headlines, if they want to be taken seriously.
This sensationalist impulse is not exclusive to climate science, of course. In a recent post discussing media hype of research findings, Orac says it’s time that scientists look in the mirror. He specifically zeroes in on hyped press releases of studies, which more often than not contain (vetted) eye-popping quotes from lead investigators. Referencing a (must-read) 2012 BMJ study, Orac writes that, when it comes to exaggerated claims,
we as an academic community are at least as much to blame as reporters and the media companies for which they work.
With respect to climate science, because of the the ugly politicized nature of global warming, most climate scientists are loathe to call out the exaggerations of their colleagues or their vocal blog allies. I’m guessing they don’t want to be perceived as giving ammunition to the Anthony Watts and Marc Moranos of the world.
Fortunately, some science bloggers have an independent and irascible streak.
It’s by not calling out exaggerations that feeds scepticism. The greater the silence, the louder or more visibly active the ‘skeptosphere’. It’s all perfectly normal.
I guess certain scientists have discovered that there is no such thing as “bad publicity”. Aren’t Michael Mann & Peter Gleick green heroes and saints?
The system rewards hype, therefore it exists.
I think the reason most climate scientists are loathe to call out the exaggerations of their colleagues is because they can be punished for doing so. Warmists have enough power to harm the career of a scientist who opposes them. I think the existance of skeptical bloggers encourages climate scientists to call out exaggerations of their colleagues. Go back to the 1990’s when these skeptical blogs didn’t exist. At that time there was less willingness to call out exaggerating colleagues, not more willingness.
Here is Real Climate putting the dangers of methane emissions into perspective earlier this year.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/much-ado-about-methane/
The hype is in the nature of trolling for federal funds.
It’s not limited to climate academics or even academics for that matter.In order to expend public funds there needs to be a problem or a potential problem. Nobody is going to pay for a study of a non-problem.
Here we go…http://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/skin-cancer-facts/nonmelanoma-skin-cancer-incidence-jumps-by-approximately-300-percent
My 80+ year old mother was recently diagnosed with skin cancer…she thought it was just an old age spot.
Interesting aspect of the study Keith mentions – from the study (emphasis mine):
Hmmm. While the study does include a fairly good (not great, IMO) section on the limitations of the findings (how any scientific paper could not have a “limitations” section is beyond me – seems to me that if you don’t explicitly identify limitations you don’t have a scientific analysis) — it is just a touch ironic that the abstract for this study does not mention limitations in its abstract.
Along similar lines:
Keith – I see that you are tweeting about the articles on the recent Stanford study on the benefits of organic food. Do you think that those articles are also an example of the problems that you have with sensationalism in science journalism?
Keith – Off topic – maybe I should send this to you via email, but I thought that some folks might find some of these links interesting:
A while back you asked for examples when I spoke of collaborative stakeholder dialog as a political process with positive outcomes. When I responded with urban planning, you seemed to downplay the extent to which that is political in nature? I’m not sure I agree. Along those lines (don’t know if you’re already familiar with this):
http://www.princeton.edu/successfulsocieties/content/focusareas/CI/oralhistories/view.xml?id=267
A project involving a former academic (mathematician) who won the Curry Stone Design Prize as mayor of Medellin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergio_Fajardo
http://www.currystone.org/projects/project01.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgiUMimrGgU
http://currystonedesignprize.com/winners/2009/transformative_public_works
I guess I took a bit of a “poetic license” with the “that I’ve seen,” comment in the earlier thread. Of what I have seen at a directly personal level, I’m referring to the settlement of local zoning disputes and a couple of “design charettes” I’ve been involved with. None of those processes that I’ve been directly involved with were particularly formal or extensive, or
something I could really reference.
Other than that, I don’t have anything to offer that would be better than anything I’m sure that you could research far more effectively than I could. Although this Google hit refers to the kind of thing I’m discussing (click on the case studies tab).
http://pgexchange.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=156&Itemid=151
Although I don’t think scientists (or journalists) are entirely innocent of hyping studies, one of the issues that contributes to the problem is the increasing volume of studies and papers.
This does two things, neither good. It makes it harder for scientists to find out what’s out there (and hence compare their research to) and it makes them want to stick out from the crowd (and hence not work to put their findings in context).
People who complain that journalists are not domain masters and mistresses before writing need to realize that scientists are not either. We may end up in a world where each microdomain is the territory of a handful of experts and silos will prove to be impenetrable walls to cross-disciplinary work. That’s an exaggeration of course, but how much of one?
harrywr2,What is the “problem” that, for example, the Large Hadron Collider (cost $9bn) is meant to solve?
I’m not much of a Connolley fan but I have to admit he does a pretty good job of calling out hype.
There is not enough negative feedback in the system from over-hyping your findings. Chances are you are more likely to benefit from this hype than have it come back to bite you. And of course there is the argument that everyone is doing it, so I must do it too. Nice guys finish last.
And when everyone is doing it, eventually the stars of the show will be trapped by it and eventually persecuted. The net effect will be loss of public confidence.
Look at doping in cycling. it eventually took down Lance Armstrong. It is an assumption that a star cyclist is doping now, no evidence necessary. And that assumption is probably correct.
Likewise these sensationalist findings are routinely ignored now, or best case make their way to page A11. It is a black eye for all of academia and science. Press releases are a way to get around an already co-opted peer review system.
Collective trust in science is being lost, that is the real emergency here. At some point when the budget constraints really hit, people are going to begin seriously asking what all this research funding in academia is returning on the investment. That question is getting harder and harder to answer, and that is a shame.
Depends on how much scare you want to monger.
For example:
Evidence? We don’t need any evidence to scare-monger about scare mongering, do we? Collective loss of trust? Emergency?
“With respect to climate science, because of the the ugly politicized
nature of global warming, most climate scientists are loathe to call out
the exaggerations of their colleagues or their vocal blog allies.” So the evil deniers make them do it? If there’s one thing you can say about the entire field of climate science, it’s that they have never been willing to speak out with integrity when one of their own gets caught telling porkies. And that fact, more than anything else, has driven the increase in skeptic numbers. When you won’t show a modicum on integrity when it counts, you don’t deserve to be trusted.
Joshua,
Here’s a tip, type “trust in science” into Google.
Geeze, Tom. Just a link will do. When I use The Google, the polls I’ve seen show overall trust in science to be pretty constant.
Of course, People can cherry-pick data, argue from assertion, and scare-monger all they want. And you’re entitled to do so also. I would like to see some data if you have some – cause I don’t see the evidence for your claim.
Just pick from your vast list of links and show me the evidential basis you have for your assertion of a “collective loss of trust” that you use to justify declaring a state of “emergency.”
In the meantime, should we call in FEMA?
I am asserting that Joshua will not be happy with just one link from Tom as evidential basis. I have no evidence to base that on other than having read a lot of posts by Joshua on many different topics.
I’m touched by your concern about my happiness, Dean. It’s true that one link might not make me happy, but it would be a place to start. Do you happen to have a link? I’ve got FEMA on hold and I need to tell them what to do.
It’s interesting how the trust in science varies depending on what is under discussion. RealClimate, WMC and others are grudgingly trusted when they push back against the methane bombers. But what they say regarding the scientific consensus on CO2 is rejected. Could this be motivated reasoning?
Joshua,
I’m sure you have seen this before, thus my snark.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765564017/Conservatives-increasingly-distrust-science-study-finds.html?pg=all
I’m sure you will now be satisfied that my assertion is truth, right?
Academia and the social sciences are liberal by over a 5 to 1 margin, higher in many cases. When science gets increasingly politicized, this would be one expected result.
Even conservatives want environmental science they can trust. Liberals should be concerned about this if they actually want to make progress on climate change and other environmental issues (even though calling Republicans anti-science is so much fun). Some will dismiss this loss of trust with unidirectional motivated reasoning theory, but that won’t help pass carbon taxes anytime soon.
@ 18 BBD – it’s not so much an issue of “trust in science”, it is more seeing whether those who have staked out a position on an issue will countenance the crazies on their side.
For instance, I can tolerate an “intelligent design” believer, no matter how weak I believe their position is, because who the hell really knows how the universe came into being? However, if that same intelligent design proponent will not stand 100% in opposition to the 10,000 year old Earth whackos, then it’s clear that they will support scientific piffle & so all arguments they forward can be gleefully vetted & exposed; they have forfeited their “person of science” privileges.
In that regard WMC and Real Climate deservedly get a hat tip on the mathane emissions from the “skeptic” crowd
@ 18 BBD – it’s not so much an issue of “trust in science”, it is more seeing whether those who have staked out a position on an issue will countenance the crazies on their side.
For instance, I can tolerate an “intelligent design” believer, no matter how weak I believe their position is, because who the hell really knows how the universe came into being? However, if that same intelligent design proponent will not stand 100% in opposition to the 10,000 year old Earth whackos, then it’s clear that they will support scientific piffle & so all arguments they forward can be gleefully vetted & exposed; they have forfeited their “person of science” privileges.
In that regard WMC and Real Climate deservedly get a hat tip on the mathane emissions from the “skeptic” crowd
And for the record here are the two parties official line on climate change.
That solves everything, right?
So, Tom – You did find one study. Congrats. So let’s look at it a bit more, shall we?
Trust in scientists dropped in one group, defined strictly by political affiliation, that comprises 34% of the American population. Not across nations. Not moderates (or liberals). Conservatives only, only in this country, and only. 34% of the population. Over 41 years.
How much do you think that 25% drop among conservatives (only) affects the degree of trust when you consider the entire world population? How about the U.S. population? How much has the % of total population that trusts scientists dropped when the drop was by 1/3 among 1/3 of the American population? Enough to call a state of “emergency?”
Do you suppose that conservatives have stopped trusting in medical science, since that the problems with the research literature in that field is quite well identified? Hmmm. Maybe there’s something else other than a basic distrust in academic research and science journalism? So maybe it isn’t quite a “black eye for all of academia and all of science?”
Well, FEMA just got back to me. They don’t agree that it’s an emergency. They said something about “motivated reasoning.” Any idea what they were referring to?
Ironically – some interesting stuff if you read the actual study rather than the sensationalized account of it in the media. Gems like this:
Hmm. I wonder if the growth of the religious right might be a factor in the decreased trust in science among conservatives? Ya’ think?
and this:
So – this has been happening for a while and at a gradual rate? But I thought it was because of climate scientists and recent, poor reporting from science journalists?
And there’s this:
Hmmm. Is that what FEMA meant by “motivated reasoning?” I’m thinking I’m going to return those supplies I picked up for building my emergency bunker
http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/asr/Apr12ASRFeature.pdf
Joshua,
I stated trust was being lost. You asked for evidence, I provided it. As per your MO, you complain of getting only one link, and then dismiss it using the “clever” social science motivated reasoning defense. This universally works for you (and only you) in any debate your arguments are weak in.
And, as usual, your motivated reasoning is one direction exclusively. Contemplate whether the liberal support of the heavily liberal climate science and social sciences is possibly linked to those sciences supporting long held progressive policy goals. Coincidence? Just dispassionate science you say?
Anyway you slice it, the politicization of science is bad news for everyone.
Irregardless of why it is happening, science should be concerned. The concern is the backlash against climate science may be spilling over into other science areas. The question wasn’t trust in climate science, it was trust in science.
For further examples of hype over facts in academia see the most recent articles here:
http://e360.yale.edu/
Worthy of trust? The best and brightest?
Tom –
Dude, you said it was an “emergency.” And you said it was a “collective loss of trust.” And you said that it was a “black eye for all of academic and all of science.”
And in response, I pointed out that scare-mongering about scare-mongering doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Does the politicization of science concern me? Yes, it does. And so does scare-mongering about scare-mongering – particularly when it is part of the politicization of science.
And yes, Tom – I completely agree – motivated reasoning affects everyone.
Tom –
Did you read the study that you linked? Did you look at the evidence about trends? Did you see that it has been gradual, over a long period of time? Did you see that the trend was no less significant in the early part of the 40 year period of the study – years before concern about climate change became a highly discussed topic?
OK – so let’s just ignore the part in the study you linked where it noted no change among liberals and moderates.
And this is excellent, Tom:
Did you read the actual study that you linked to? Did you read the extensive discussion in the study about the influence of motivated reasoning in the findings? So actually talking about the study’s findings in some depth is me “using the ‘clever’ social science motivated reasoning defense?”
And speaking in some depth about the actual findings of the study is something that “universally works for [me] (and only [me]) as a sign of the weakness of my arguments?I guess, instead of actually talking about what the study says, I should have just focused on the sensationalized media article that you linked to, eh?
Classic, bro.
Whoops–Josh is using lots of bold and has added to his blog id. His argument must be getting weaker…
Yes Tom – my arguments are getting weaker…
BECAUSE I ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT WHAT’S IN THE STUDY WHEN I TALK ABOUT WHAT’S IN THE STUDY!!!!!!1!!!1!!!!!!
Joshua: Arguing about debate styles, defining the meaning of “is”, and whining he said she said is boring. I think the mistrust of science started with the medical claims made about diet and food health that have changed over and over again. Also, the Malthusian predictions of a starving world and scarcity of materials and resources made during the 1970’s pre-date distrust of climate. General distrust of government and began in earnest in the 1960’s and 70’s with the Viet Nam war, Watergate, FBI infiltration of citizen groups, etc. Sources, you ask? We don’t need no stinking sources. If you can tell which way the wind blows, I can’t help you. FYI, just got TFTS at the local bookstore. pedantic (comparative more pedantic, superlative most pedantic)
Like a pedant, overly concerned with formal rules and trivial points of learning.Being showy of one’s knowledge, often in a boring manner.Being finicky or fastidious, especially with language.
Joshua, too bad you can’t be as concentrated on the actual topic of a post…
Without getting into arguments about social sciences and motivated reasoning, it does seem to me that if a poll shows a drop in trust in science specific to one particular political grouping then there is at least a possibility that the problem might be with that political grouping rather than with science.
Malthus. Watergate. Much more interesting.
The truth is out there.
Joshua,
Please follow these simple steps:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/30931242065
(Via Sou from Bundangawoolarangeera.)
Howard will applaud, no doubt.
A second thought: if telling the truth ‘gives ammunition’ to your opponents, shouldn’t you start looking in the mirror? I understand this argument – I’ve never understood having the nerve to say it in public, as frequently happens.
Thanks willard – here, let me try:
Howard:.
I’m not entirely sure – but I tend to doubt that Malthusian predictions are terribly operative in how most Americans view science. I know that in this bubble of scare-mongering about scare-mongering, Malthus a big deal, but I don’t think that claims about the dangers of overpopulation have had a huge impact on Americans’ trust in science overall.
If general distrust of government (are we talking about trust in government or trust in
science? Yes, there is likely a crossover, but they aren’t the same thing. If you read the study Tom linked, you will see that there are some measures of trust in government that show different trends than does trust in science) began with the Vietnam War, Watergate, FBI infiltration, etc., how is that connected to data that show that among American conservatives, those expressing a “great deal of trust” in science dropped from 48% to 35%. Aside from your jump from trust in science to trust in government, those issues you mentioned would likely lower the trust that libruls have in government more than conservatives – don’t you think?
Do you think that maybe the growth in the religious right has some connection to the increase in distrust in science occurring in American
conservatives, but not moderates or liberals?
Do you think that a drop by what, some 5%, in the number of Americans who express a “great deal of trust” in science now, as opposed to 40 years ago, = an “emergency?”
How’d I do, willard?
willard @34:
+10000000
(mt, if you’re lurking: I am not now and never was a Pythoneer. sometimes hyperbole is called for.)
I think this about sums it up:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yCeFmn_e2c
(31) Tom Fuller –
I think I might have ADD.
But here’s a suggestion. Why don’t you post at the tops of threads which topics you think I should or shouldn’t be talking about so that I can follow your instructions?
That way you would have to (rather ironically, I’d say) write “off-topic” posts whining about my “off-topic” posts, whether I use bold, etc.
Joshua, in comment #7 you at least advertised that you were going off topic.
Joshua,
I believe the topic of Keith’s post is “the sensationalist impulse” of the media when promoting (perhaps in a technical sense [1]) climate science news.
In other words, Keith is talking about climate hype.
In what way could you say that what you’re not talking about climate hype?
Please inspect your own motivated reasoning. And if you have time, please do a more general public self-criticism.
The hype is out there.
The hype is inside us.
The hype is us.
[1] http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/1702909842
willard:
As for the topic of the post. Please read:
I guess that I have a more expansive view of the topic of Keith’s post. But even with that, I responded to related issues that were raised up by other commenters – because I think that they feed back into the discussion Keith started, and because I think that the topics are interesting unto themselves.
Those related issues would include hyping, in the media and in the conservative echo chamber, the notion that there is an “emergency” w/r/t trust in science (and specifically hype that the emergency has been caused by climate scientists). In my view, sensationalism about the “emergency” loss of trust in science fits Keith’s description of sensationalism.
I think it is worthy of note that in this very thread, Tom Fuller would hype the impact of hyping – to a certain extent – with his question about the plausibility of a far-fetched dystopian scenario.
But even more worthy of note is that Tom Scharf would clearly hype the impact of hype with a sensationalistic reference to loss of trust in science. Even more worthy of note is that as evidence to support his sensationalism, he would refer to a study that analyzes the variables that might lead to hyping of hype — and in that analysis talks about the impact of motivated reasoning and its connection to political identification.
I make the assumption that no one is holding a knife to anyone’s throat to make them read my “off-topic” posts. I will take no personal offense if Tom, or anyone else, skips over my posts. I take no offense if they want to write off-topic posts to criticize my off-topic posts. In fact, IMO, Tom’s subjective application of a subjective criterion only helps to support my arguments about how much motivated reasoning afflicts the climate debate.
And yes, I think that everyone is affected by motivated reasoning. That would include me!
And that’s the problem with the conversation as it stands today. For some reason willard thinks that the media writes press releases, as opposed to the institution or scientists announcing the results.
But as long as a shirt gets ripped it’s okay–all gist for the mills, all another head for the never-ending tumbler.
Some might notice Keith’s remarks about how Andrew Revkin, a member of the media, served as an effective counterbalance to the press releases overhyping research results and climate alarmism.
Some might notice his calling out Orac and Connelly in the same vein.
Willard–the hype is inside you. The hype is you. You are the poster child, you and your running mates here, about how attempts to counter the hype are resisted by fools who will go to any rhetorical length to change the subject.
The subject being hype by the climate establishment that needs countering and noting the instances where the countering actually occurs.
What Keith didn’t write, but I would like to note, is that countering climate hypesteria is apparently only effective when it comes from figures either associated with the consensus (Revkin, Connelly) or from figures generally outside the climate conversation (Orac).
Let the cloud of confusion continue! Onward with shirt ripping! Groundskeeping! Overton Windows! Dunning Kruger! On to Obscurity!
Can’t have a real discussion, can we now?
In a discussion, when people get called for the stupid tricks they use (like the tu quoque in the previous thread), they usually own it. They don’t go on to shirt rippin’ about how people stop discussing with them after people see they never own any spitball they throw.
I have said on more than one occasion that I think that Keith’s discussion about the climate hype is important and useful. In case you missed that, I’ll say it again.
I think that Keith’s discussion about the climate hype is important and useful.I also think that it is useful to note where his posts generate scare-mongering about scare-mongering and sensationalism about sensationalism.
If you would like to have a discussion about potential limitations and/or strengths of Keith’s approach those issues, I’m game.
Oh, and the actual spitball thrown in this thread by our very own noble Groundskeeper Willie, is that Joshua’s comments are OT.
#42 shows that this claim is false.
Instead of simply owning that stupid trick, we get more shirt rippin’.
Our very noble Groundskeeper Willie’s not very good at identifying topics. He’s even worse than Moshpit, who’s as bad as were bender bending rodriguez.
I’m starting to miss bender.
PS: For those who reads a thread at Keith’s for the first time, I promised never to mention our noble Groundskeeper Willie by his real name, since he has no honor. I chose this nickname because he constantly rips off his shirt. Ripping off his shirt is a metaphor for self-victimization.
#32
The problem with that theory is this quote from an article on the study http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112505071/study-finds-conservative-trust-in-science-declining/
Conservatives went from the most trustful of science to least trustful.
I guess we could somehow speculate that conservatives have changed dramatically in 38 years.
Dear old mom has been a news editor for 50+ years. She is clear about what has changed in the last 30 years. The Watergate debacle along with 24 hours news changed journalism towards a get it first focus. First reports are frequently wrong.
Science journals have always been filled with peer reviewed articles that were refuted by another peer reviewed article in the next few issues or within a few years.
What has changed is the ‘main stream media’ picks things up faster, before they have a chance to be fully vetted within the broader peer community. I.E. A study by Dr James Hansen published in PNAS is reported in the New York Times before Dr Lindzens copy of PNAS arrives in the mail.
As a conservative I can agree with Chris Mooney that conservatives tend to be slow to accept new ideas…I would say that is because most new ideas end up being bad ideas(not all, just most). The faster news cycle has exposed conservatives to more science that hasn’t stood the test of time within the peer reviewed community…this has resulted in conservatives putting science in the same mental box as ‘new ideas’. We like things that have stood the test of time.
Harry –
This is certainly the most relevant discussion, IMO. Also important is the relationship between the data results on trust in science and trust in government and other social institutions. Also important are factors such as the growth of the religious right, the impact of high profile debates about Intelligent Design, abortion, stem cell research, and other issues that cross over between political identification and views on science.
We know that how people feel about science is heavily influenced by social, cultural, personal, or political identification. To note one example that some folks here will find particularly palatable – I believe that Keith has written some about crossovers between libruls and views about the science of vaccines. Keith often writes about the crossover between environmentalists (to some extent proxy for libruls) and views on the science of GMOs.
The issues at play here are not simple nor unilateral. I would say that no doubt, the change in view among American conservatives w/r/t trust in science is a very complicated issue. To start with, I would say that assuming validity in the poll data is questionable: What does “trust in science” really mean? Does it mean that conservatives are less likely to take medicine that was developed through medical research? Wouldn’t that be an outcome of a real loss of trust in science? Or does it mean that when they were asked the question about trust in science, they were thinking about their concerns about governmental overreach and not really science?
In the end, I think it is reasonable to speculate that some degree of the change in perspective among conservatives w/r/t trust in science – as questionable as the validity of that measure might be in terms of measuring what it is intended to measure – is some combination of change in conservatives and changes in the nature of how science is conducted. That is an interesting topic, IMO. But it isn’t a discussion that is well served by sensationalizing poll data in order to confirm biases.
Joshua,
I was intentionally poking you with a stick because you have embraced motivated reasoning a little too much. We have all intuitively known about it since 5th grade. The fact that someone came up with a 7 syllable phrase for this phenomenon is *trivial*, not a discovery of merit.
What is interesting is the evidence, not why someone might prefer his cherry picked evidence more than your cherry picked evidence.
With that, I conclude my lifetime discussion on the motivated reasoning topic, it is not very interesting.
If you think it is interesting, well, you would think that wouldn’t you? ha ha.
You can now have the last 10,000 words on the subject.
Joshua, I assume you’ve sent your last sentence to a certain Professor Lewandowsky…
Joshua,
Please note the dots in #50, and the fact that it just throws another spitball.
And to prevent future shirt rippin’ about the word “spitball”, here’s the source:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/922148074
Harry –
Not to say that sensationalism in the “MSM” is irrelevant, but think about your reasoning a bit here: During that 40 year period, one notable change in the media is the growth of what you would, no doubt, consider to be information from sources other than the “MSM.” It may be too simplistic to: 1) assume a growth in “sensationalism” without evidence and, 2) assume that any growth in “sensationalism” is mere a product of the “MSM?” “Picking up things faster” does not necessarily = a growth in sensationalism, and it certainly doesn’t necessarily mean a growth in the amount of ill-considered beliefs that people have. Certainly, it would be arguable whether or not the current American public has a more or less informed view on validated science than it did 40 years ago, couldn’t it?
That is an interesting point, IMO. If you read the study, one of the issues it discusses changes in the educational profiles of conservatives as a group relative to moderates and liberals possible moderator in the trend it identifies. There is a discussion of how the data trend they identified relates to Mooney’s theory about how conservatives and liberals differ in their approach to science. Your point is interesting, but if you read the study I think that you will fond some complicating issues that you haven’t identified.
Yeah, Joshua, when being off topic is the name of the game, don’t get distracted by people pushing back on climate hype or anything like that…
And by all means stay current on the catch phrase of the day. Inside baseball expertise makes you look as hip as tweens texting random collections of letters. OMG! #50 uzd sptbl!
How often does willard coach you through the vagaries of trolling?
More debate on the semantics and tactics of the debate. If there was any testosterone involved, we could call it a circle jerk.
Tom –
Right.
I feel like such an idiot. I didn’t realize how easily you played me. You inaccurately characterized a trend in public opinion, and lamely used a study that specifically talks about the role of motivated reasoning as evidence for your sensationalistic characterization, because you wanted to make the point that I talk about motivated reasoning too much.
Why do I even bother? You’re like 20 steps ahead of me!
If only I had your self-awareness and understanding of the real world, I would save myself this kind of shame I’m feeling right now.
Professor Lewandowsky published an article reporting on the results of a poll. The gist of his article is that skeptics on climate change are suckers for conspiracy theories.
This is climate hype–reputational destruction of the opposition. Skeptics naturally are pushing back. So far, no news.
But over at Lewandowsky’s blog, some skeptics are bringing into the comment thread some critical comments that came from members of the climate consensus–Tamino, etc…
So pushing back against climate hype again requires validation from the climate consensus side.
Which is why message discipline (willard coaching Joshua) is a real issue to some members of the Climaterati. This is why there is a Climate Rapid Reaction Team. This is why members of the consensus are strongly advised never to debate skeptics in a public forum. This is why lukewarmers get more criticism from the Climaterati than skeptics.
When I ranted and raved about Anderegg, Prall et al, it wasn’t a big deal. (It’s just Fuller, after all.) When Spencer Weart dismissed it in three sentences, it was a big deal.
And this is part of the battle fought in blog comments.
Tom Fuller –
Last comment from me on the topic that you seem to think is so important to discuss – and which of all the things discussed in this thread, ironically, is obviously the one that is objectively most “off-topic.”
Heretofore, you should know that I never, ever, have any illusion that by posting on something, I can “distract” you from your important work of posting comments on blogs, saying more or less the same things you’ve no doubt said over and over in previous blog posts.
Of course, you won’t believe this – but I also have no intent of “distracting” you from what you apparently think is your important work. First, I can only imagine what kind of an idiot would be so easily “distracted,’ – and I don’t think you’re an idiot.
Second, I don’t, in the least, have any concern over whether, if you post comments on topic A as opposed to topic B, it has any meaningful importance in the real world in any sense. So I not only never think that writing a post will “distract” you (or anyone else), I also would have no reason to want to “distract” you. Stop smelling yourself, dude. You really aren’t that important!
I would like to discuss issues with you. Especially when you freaking bring them up:
And I promise you, if you choose to scroll past my comments, or if you choose to do your important work of noting whether or not I use bold when I write my comments – I won’t be offended either way.
Back on topic, the over hyping of science can certainly lead one down the road of a distrust in science. It has for me.
Examples in my life have been Y2K, the population bomb, nuclear holocaust, and the period of time in the 1970’s and 1980’s where everything (including water) was identified as a cause of cancer. If you want to specialize this distrust, it is particularly in the repeated failure of expert prediction.
Being a software/hardware engineer, I and my colleagues *knew* Y2K was BS, and we sat back and watched it be blown intentionally out of proportion for what I can only describe as entertainment purposes. CNN wasn’t interested in interviewing us.
The feedback loop of promoting ever scarier expert predictions, the media lovefest that occurs from marketing fear, and your success being enhanced by being the predictor of the scariest outcomes has moved the perception of science from astronomy to astrology. Hansen and McKibben are examples of this phenomenon.
After you have lived through several of these false alarms that were enthusiastically talked about in the media, important people having serious discussions, the scar tissue builds up. Looking back, the Cold War was real, the rest not so much.
So pardon me when extraordinary claims are made on flimsy evidence that I respond with “been there, done that”. Is this wisdom or ignorance? Time will tell.
Yet another spitball in #43:
For some reason, Groundskeeper Willie can read my mind.
For some reason, Groundskeeper Willie reads my mind on the very next sentence after he whines about communication.
For some reason, Groundskeeper Willie has succeeding is attacking me while whining about communication.
For some reason, Groundskeeper Willie still asks for a real conversation.
For some reason, Groundskeeper Willie could lead by example.
For some reason, Groundskeeper Willie instead chooses to plug in this week’s hurly burly.
That’s a lot of spitballs.
Hmmm. So we have this:
And then we have this:
Ok. Now I think I’m beginning to understand why Tom Scharf doesn’t think that there’s any reason to discuss motivated reasoning. I’m so glad he clarified.
Joshua,
Have you noticed how #42 was not directly addressed, and instead we get a reiteration of the claim that #42 refuted?
I know you spotted this one:
There is also this other rhetorical question:
Since one trolls by being OT, this begs that you are OT, something you rebutted in #42.
Now, when someone insists in claiming something that you rebutted, without owning up the obligation to address your rebuttal, do you feel you need to have a conversation with that person?
***
Here’s a prediction, Joshua: Groundskeeper Willie will try to poison the well, and then whine that the well is being poisoned. He already did elsewhere. He oftentimes does that.
Tom Scharf, the phenomenon you describe is not exactly new, with millenarian disasters being a millenium old. And you forgot quite a few, ranging from BSE to GMOs etc.
But there is another phenomenon–anti-science reaction and real conspiracy theories about the origin and treatment of HIV, vaccines and autism, etc. But notice that scientific reaction to anti-science has often been effective. Sadly, anti-science reaction to things like BSE and GMOs have also been effective.
I wish people would spend time looking at strategies and tactics that have worked and those that have failed. I don’t see enough of that.
Perhaps I can safely assert this:
Hyping premature conclusions that are later overturned certainly won’t help society’s trust in scientists and/or their conclusions.Beyond that, I’m still not convinced that “trust” in science is the problem. On the contrary, the last thing we need is public trust in scientists and their conclusions.
Science is about verification, not trust. It’s about subverting the limitations of humans’ senses and biases. If trust were the hallmark of science, then science as we know it would fail.
To some extent, that’s already happening. People (both scientists and the general public) throw around study conclusions without even the slightest consideration of the constraints of the study, let alone a simple critical assessment of its conclusions, as though the lone fact that the study was produced by a scientist ensures validity. The constant gnashing over “peer-reviewed” studies reflects a similar mentality.
Perhaps the real problem is not the lack of trust, but the growing emphasis placed on it.
Speaking of trust, here’s Noam Chomsky:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/30931143439
Chomsky’s name has been used as a spitball some time ago by Groundskeeper Willie, but so much to do, so little time.
I actually quoted Chomsky as saying that those in authority should not be trusted and should be challenged… As a fan of his work on the media (and linguistics) I’m surprised you would think he would be used as a spitball.
Really trying to get traction with your new toy word of the day… Anything to avoid talking about pushing back on climate hype. Noam would be shaking his head in sad disgust.
Actually, that Chomsky interview contains something about that climate hype.
And to pick up another spitball, this claim:
is untrue. Here’s what has been quoted:
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/dilemmas-in-science-communication/#comment-16443
This is a Wikipedia entry. Listening to the video above should make clear that this Wikipedia quote has been used as a spitball.
Trust is not being lost. It is safe to proceed with violating FOIA law. Full steam head. Trust is not being lost. It is safe to go after more heartland documents. Full steam ahead. Trust is not being lost. Please, hide more declines.
You know I have a certain affinity for the argument that those who want to pollute the atmosphere with C02 have a burden to prove that their actions are safe.
It’s clear to me that since the science wasnt hurt by climategate and that trust wasnt impacted a whit that certain behavior can now be deemed safe. It is safe, I would argue to continue with business as usual. Folks will have to prove the danger in violating FOIA law, prove the danger in stealing documents from dopes like heartland, prove the danger in refusing requests for data, prove the danger in producing dodgy graphs. The real lesson of climategate is that we can get away with this shit with no damage whatsoever. That’s the same lesson from the Gleick incident. Their is only one way your tribe will hold you to account. Post weiner pics on Twitter.
Let me put it a little bit stronger. What we’ve seen in climategate is this. There is no downside whatsoever for the cause, its all upside. Those who believe in the science will forgive, look the other way, attack the messenger, create apologia. They will still trust no matter what. Those who disbelieve already disbelieve. There is no practical point in avoiding the kind of behavior we saw in climategate, in fact, we should demand MORE of it. 3 years after, and look how far we’ve come!
Mann push the envelope but Gleick absolutely proved the point. Anything goes. except weiner pics, dont post those.
Oh, I get it, willard. Chomsky actually thinks that authority is inherently legitimate and that the burden of proof is on those opposing authority. Thanks for clearing that up.
Kinda like saying the null hypothesis has shifted to the other side.
You just don’t like thinking, do you? Your arsenal is limited to name calling and pseudo-philosophical rambling. But your arguments always are links. Those links rarely go to anything useful regarding the topic in question.
It must be fun reliving the Monty Python days…
jim (63) –
Agreed. It seems obvious that it couldn’t help, and likely it will “hurt” (not yet getting to your point about “trust”) to some degree. I will also note, however, that ever hyping (is it possible to under hype) the impact of premature conclusions that are later overturned will also not help.
Blind trust is not the same thing as trust. I think that you make a good point. Skepticism about the biases of scientific output are positive in balance. However, there can be potential downsides to a lack of trust. Use the example of vaccines or GMOs if you’d like. Perhaps blind trust is the last thing we need. Trust derived from resolved skepticism would be a good thing.
But perhaps along with evaluating the existence of trust, or lack thereof, it is important to look at all of the factors that influence why the public trusts or distrusts science.
Unless science is both conducted and evaluated by robots – trust will necessarily be a part of the process. That isn’t to diminish the importance of verification in the scientific process – but to point out that blind faith in the ability of any humans to conduct science without any influence from biases is wholly unrealistic, and in fact, unscientific (where is your verified data that show that science has ever been conducted w/o an element of trust in play?)
Of course science will fail, to one extent or another. That is a given, and it always has been. Is science failing more now in that regard than it ever has in the past? I tend to think not. I think the bigger problem may be twofold: (1) the expectation of some that science is infallible or, (2) overstatements, based on motivated reasoning, that some groups to the exclusion of others think that science is infallible. (3) using the criterion of absolute infallibility, as opposed to relative rates of failure, as a measure of science.
I agree that there should be more open examination of uncertainty and limitations of scientific studies. However, I think that your characterization there is overstated as a generalization (and as generalizations, such characterizations may have an unnecessarily detrimental impact). Again, also, while I acknowledge what you describe as a problem – how would you evaluate the weight of that problem against the previous alternative of having less science conducted by fewer people? Was society less well-off when, as you seem to think, there were fewer studies being thrown around without even the slightest consideration of the constraints or critical assessment of conclusions?
I’m not sure exactly what that means. I assume it is a reference to the expectation of “realists” that science be validated by peer review, but is your argument that an expectation of peer review, in balances, reduces the amount of valid science produced?
I think that is one problem. I think that another problem is elevating just one problem in importance to the exclusion of examining other, many of them related, problems.
Steve, how dare you? They’re winning the glorious battle! Science has never been in better repute. Any stains on their white coats are exclusively from tomatoes thrown by anti-science conspiracy theorists–never from their own behaviour.
They’re winning!
gt; Chomsky actually thinks that authority is inherently legitimate and that the burden of proof is on those opposing authority.
Not at all, that just means our Groundskeeper Willie has not quoted Chomsky, but a Wikipedia entry.
Just a small detail, not unlike when Stephen Lewandowsky says that Steve has testified to the “UK Parliament”, when he only sent one or two memoranda. Cf.
http://rabett.blogspot.ca/2012/09/here-there-really-be-tygers.html
In that Chomsky video, at around 4:00, we can see that Chomsky does not mind citing the work of his coworkers at MIT from climate science, whose models was “too optimistic” since they did not take into account stuff like methane.
Considering who Chomsky says he believes profit the most from climate hype, to use his name for own’s own climate science scapegoating is more than just a spitball. But we’ll stick to this euphemism for now.
steve –
The evidence shows that trust has been lost. The evidence we’re discussing (off-topic, BTW – did you know that you are not a troll in Tom Fuller’s eyes?) is how much it has been lost, and amongst whom. What we see from that one study is that over the last 40 years or so, about 4% fewer Americans say that they strongly trust science. What do you think that is attributable to?
Is that what it is attributable to? How many Americans are aware of that issue? Who are those who are aware of it, and which of those have lost trust because of it? How would that explain the rather constant trend in loss of trust (among a specific group of Americans) for decades prior to the events of which you speak?
That viewpoint is a roughly fair characterization of some folks engaged in the debate. We could easily find other folks at the other end of the extreme. It seems that you bring that up as a characterization of something, someone in this thread has said? If you can find such, please elaborate. Otherwise, it looks to be a straw man. If your point is that such an attitude is problematic, then I agree. As is the attitude of many on the other side that either are here in this thread or who aren’t here as those who would fit your characterization.
See comment above.
There are some on either side of the debate who might fairly fit that description. To the extent they exist on either side, I would agree, it is detrimental. Do you have a point to make that is more banal than those?
Not to defend what you are describing with Mommymommyism – but I think that to point to one side only in that regard is not particularly helpful. These attitudes exist on both sides, and what is important, IMO, is to focus why such attitudes are a fundamental attribute of how humans reason.
willard –
Let’s have a contest. We’ll see who can spot which of Tom’s posts have the highest % of spitballs (steven’s would require too much time to catalog them all) . I’ll go first:
OK. Let me add that up. That’s 4 for 4. Four sentences and four spitballs. 100%. That’s a pretty tough mark to better. The only chance for you is if he writes a longer post.
Man – got some basic math problems here!:
(# 69) – I think the bigger problem may be threefold:
(# 72) – That’s 5 for 4. Five sentences and five spitballs.
I should be more careful or I’ll reveal the real reason why I think that Algebra shouldn’t be mandatory!
Joshua,
You already found the reddest herring. I can’t top that. Here’s instead another Chomsky video:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/30942627318
In this video, we learn about the basic principle of anarchism according Chomsky.
This principle might be interesting to you, because it seems that we have people invoking this principle without thinking that their own work needs to satisfy the very same principle.
I’m sure that this kind of self-reflective quandary appeals to you.
“That’s 5 for 4.”
Oy.
willard:
Hmm. Interesting. To a certain extent, we may have on our hands people staking out positions that are effectively, although I doubt in intentionally, anarchist. (Not that the same probably don’t exist on the other side as well.)
It would be easy to be too strong with that characterization, however. I go back to the difference between positions and values. I highly doubt that anyone here has a true anarchist value system. People get locked into positions sometimes. You know, motivation and reasoning. And all that.
William Connelly: “the serious people need to talk sense.”
Orac: we as an academic community are at least as much to blame as reporters and the media companies for which they work.
Andrew Revkin: So the next time you see a “science stunner“ about Arctic methane time bombs, reach out to a couple of scientists working on this gas before you run to the ramparts.
Joshua: Let’s count spitballs.
Before or after we play games of moral equivalence and cry “Mommy, mommy, they do it toooouuuuuu/did it fiirrruuurrssttt?”
Joshua,
I point to the prediction in #61.
I point to #78.
That is all.
That’s the way to talk sense about hyping climate science. That’s the way to talk sense about pushing back against it.You go kiddos.
I believe that the claims in #65 about avoiding to talk about “pushing back on climate hype” (which conflates Keith’s thesis with his theme, but nevermind) and that “Noam would be shaking his head in sad disgust” are both unjustified.
During his never-ending career, Chomsky had to pick up many spitballs thrown at him. Witness how he does so in **Manufacturing Consent**, for instance.
I surmise that to describe these spitballs, to explain how they work and to show that they’re unjustified might be a good way to push back against climate hype.
I see a distinct difference in the kinds of trust one can have for science. Even in environmental science I pretty much trust they can count the number of mosquitoes and track the thermometers with reasonable accuracy.
Where environmental science goes off the rails:
What do these numbers mean (extrapolating a trend)?
When unclear data is statistically analyzed / filtered in order to produce a “clear” result.
Tread very carefully when papers go down this road. Here we have a litany of examples of poor science. Even high profile examples of poor science such as the HS are tolerated (usually by silence) to the detriment of the entire field. Professional courtesy.
So when you look at the sausage making up close, you tend to lose a little faith in the process. And when the response trotted out once this is exposed is that “this is the way it has always been done”, well it doesn’t inspire more confidence.
Joshua,
“To the extent they exist on either side, I would agree, it is detrimental. Do you have a point to make that is more banal than those?”
It is not detrimental. On the whole climategate was good for climate science.
1. Nothing was changed in the science. Not a single thing.
2. No trust was lost. None zero. Nada.
3. We now see clearly what our enemy is made of.
I say more climategate! It’s a net positive for chrissake. We suffered no losses and had some minor gains. The science didnt suffer. The public’s perception didnt change and we gained some insights into the opposition. Why not more climategate!
there is a anniversary coming up.
There is an anniversary coming up… and more emails to be revealed…
When, for example, Mann, Bradley & Hughes published a paper that was climate hype, a respected scientist like Tom Wigley pushed back: “I have just read the M&M stuff critcizing MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me. At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work — an opinion I have held for some time.”
Too bad he didn’t push back publicly–too bad it had to come out as a Climategate email…
#52,
Please Joshua, my mother has been dealing with ‘junior reporters’ since before either one of us was borne. Post Watergate they all want to ‘get the scoop’. She has to threaten them with being fired to get them to ‘slow the story down, let the facts unfold’.
If one focuses on ‘being first’ to report something then your biases are going to creep in because you are reporting with less then a full set of facts. There is an almost universal belief among the public on both sides of the political spectrum that the MSM is biased.
In late 2004 my #2 daughter was in beautiful downtown Samarra, Iraq busy getting shot at….Mt St Helens blew off a little steam, within an hour I was contacted by the American Red Cross on behalf of my daughter inquiring about my safety.
The story of a ‘massive explosion’ hit the other side of the world before the local geologists could manage to organize a press conference and put some context to what was happening.
I haven’t watched Television news since.
Here is an interesting survey
http://www.depauw.edu/news-media/latest-news/details/28808/
Wow. Just wow.
And these scoundrels have the nerve to talk about topicality.
why are trolls confused when they end up covered in spitballs?
there are two simple counter measures for trolls.
1. dont feed
2. over feed.
Counter measure 1 is preferred when the troll is disrupting a conversation that you actually want to have. Counter measure 2 is preferred when the food fight is more interesting than the original topic.
bottom line. we want more hype in climate science. Let’s not discuss it, let’s just get busy.
Tom there is an outstanding promise
#67
It is perfectly possible to consider that the actions of certain individuals were not justified and also believe that claims of widespread loss of trust in science are greatly exaggerated – they are different questions. Similarly it is possible to consider that the actions of certain individuals were not justified and also believe that many criticisms of those individuals have been inaccurate and/or unfair, or that those actions are being used to make unreasonable generalisations about an entire field of science. That is not the same as defending the unjustified actions or saying that “anything goes”. And sometimes people just disagree over the interpretation of others’ behaviour.
Of course there have been very strong criticisms made of Gleick in particular, but you seem to want to ignore these as it doesn’t suit your argument.
After re-reading Keith’s post I have to take issue with his point. Why are we so fortunate to have Revkin, Orac, and Connolley “pushing back” against climate hype? Why are Lindzen, Pielke Sr. and Christy not sufficient for the task? The former group is comprised of a journalist, anonymous blogger, and guy who once had a job in the antarctic. The latter group are all highly respected, highly credentialled, senior scientists. I would think the former group is largely irrelevant.
#47I don’t see any contradiction between my comment and the paragraph you cited. We know that Conservative opinion changed relative to that of other groups, the question is why?
@ 84 steven mosher
I say more climategate! It’s a net positive for chrissake.
I seem to recall mt differing with uncharacteristic vehemence on this point. 🙂
I’m *hopeless* with anniversaries, so I’ll sing it now, before I forget:
Happy Birthday Dear Climategate
Happy Birthday too yooooo
#92After re-reading Keith’s post I have to take issue with his point. Why are we so fortunate to have Revkin, Orac, and Connolley “pushing back” against climate hype? Why are Lindzen, Pielke Sr. and Christy not sufficient for the task? Indeed – perhaps they could start with overhyped claims of, say, low climate sensitivity or flaws in the surface temperature record.
#92
After re-reading Keith’s post I have to take issue with his point. Why are we so fortunate to have Revkin, Orac, and Connolley “pushing back” against climate hype? Why are Lindzen, Pielke Sr. and Christy not sufficient for the task?
Indeed ““ perhaps they could start with overhyped claims of, say, low climate sensitivity or flaws in the surface temperature record.
Full gallop poll on ‘trusting news’ here. Interestingly the conservative trend seems to ‘jump around’ the least. But as of June of this year, liberals and moderates are less trusting then conservatives.http://www.gallup.com/poll/155585/americans-confidence-television-news-drops-new-low.aspx
Harry –
Consider the possibility that while the news cycle is shorter, in fact, accuracy in reporting has not diminished, and may have possibly even increased. Consider the possibility that distrust in reporting is not exclusively because the reasons you attribute, but because of of two other possible reasons as well: (1) increased scare-mongering about inaccurate reporting that was there all along and, (2), increased exposure in the media about the type of inaccurate reporting that was there all along.
Do you really think that the media was more accurate 50 years ago than it is now? Less prone to bias? Perhaps the increased distrust is simply a function of greater media exposure, not a qualitative diminishment in accuracy – let alone a diminishment in accuracy simply as a function of a faster news cycle.
I am not justifying sensationalism. I am asking for evidence that connects cause with the effects you are describing. Where is your evidence, other than what your mother tells you, that on the whole reporting is less accurate than it was in the past, say during the time when William Randolph Hearst influenced media? It is true that in recent decades there has been a kind of proliferation of consolidation in the media – but that is certainly mitigated by the simple fact that people get their information from all sorts of sources these days. To the extent that people are getting their news from other sources, your attribution of the problem to the “MSM” makes less and less sense.
Are you saying that there should be tighter, centralized control about what does or doesn’t get reported? ‘Cause given my assumptions about your politics, that would be quite fascinating. Of course I would agree that more due diligence in reporting, as in science, is a good thing. But as AA succinctly describes in post #91 – folks are making huge logical leaps here.
We might not mind talking about YesButClimategate in a thread where we’re talking about climate hype.
YesButClimategate might very well be the summum of climate hype.
That people believe this helps their noble cause can only justified by some kind of intellectual anarchism, where anything goes.
Sorry willard. I hit Submit too soon 🙂
Andrew – Some credentialled scientists think that CS is high; some think that it is low. One group could be right, the other wrong, or both could be wrong. I am not able to do the calculations myself, so to the extent that I can have an opinion on the matter I have to look for proxy measures of honesty and competence. Lindzen, Pielke, and Christy present their case with composure and advance an interpretation of current weather happenings that comport with widely available data. On the other side, Mann still runs around saying “hurricanes are increasing in intensity” and Hansen is busy getting arrested and accusing his critics of being war criminals. It’s really a no-brainer who to trust.
# 102
It’s really a no-brainer who to trust.
Yup. We’ve got a simple choice:
In the red corner there’s scientific consensus that has emerged after decades of what everyone except contrarians, ‘sceptics’ and deniers accepts was the usual scientific dog-fight.
In the right corner there’s a few die-hards who haven’t managed to make a scientific case but bang on regardless.
Tom,My point was about hype rather than who you happen to trust.Papers claiming CS below 1C have been few and far between and have not generally stood up to serious scrutiny. One of those was Lindzen & Choi’s 2009 paper, and it was certainly much hyped when it was published. In the end even the authors conceded it was flawed.Christy’s name was on the Watts et al paper which has been much hyped to put it mildly. Pielke Sr. himself called it a “game changer”.
> Lindzen, Pielke, and Christy present their case with composure […]
How many examples would be enough to prove that this claim is a bit hyped?
Why take Mann?
Willard,
YesButClimategate might very well be the summum of climate hype.
Indeed. It is claimed that overhyped claims about, say, methane release or accelerating arctic sea ice melt, damage the understanding of the issues and the credibility of those who consider these things worthy of attention. Yet somehow when people claim about the overhyping of climategate it is they who are trying to prevent understanding and their credibility at stake.
Lindzen, Pielke, and Christy present their case with composure
I can present my claims with composure. Now I know that this is the winning formula I will stick to it.
Whoever has the most resume/CV points should not be declared the winner for their CS estimate.
That is ivory tower mentality / arrogance we are faced with for the last decade in spite of confounding decelerating temperatures and models that are woefully inadequate for this purpose.
My vote is that nobody has much of a clue where this is going, and actual observations support a lower CS than anticipated, which some people seem to think is important.
The trophies won’t be handed out for another 30 years. I’m willing to wait.
#94 indeed. I can’t even understand what Mosher is trying to say in #84 at all. Is he being sarcastic or what?
Little Big Man is talking to General Custer.
By chance mt comes along: our impredictible Groundskeeper Willie can ignore #106 and reenter the ball.
> Whoever has the most resume/CV points should not be declared the winner for their CS estimate.
Absolutely, its all about where the prepondeence of evidence lies. It is merely a coincidence that those with the best “CV points” are those working on, producing, analysing and publishing their intepretation of that evidence. So obviously, you’ll be wanting to focus on the evidence…?
> My vote is that nobody has much of a clue where this is going, and
actual observations support a lower CS than anticipated, which some
people seem to think is important.
Oh, ok. Show of hands based on gut it is then.
The trophies won’t be handed out for another 30 years.
Yes. They will either read “ha ha, you dumb-dumb scientists were all wrong” or “wow, we totally fucked ourselves.”
Six of one, half a dozen of the other, right?
More than likely it will be ‘we need another 30 years’. But you’ve won, PDA. Even Mitt Romney is calling for No Regrets and low-hanging fruit.
Why are you not overjoyed?
mt @ 109
I can’t even understand what Mosher is trying to say in #84 at all. Is he being sarcastic or what?
Damned if I know. TF has been saying odd things recently too. Perhaps they are distracted by party planning for the forthcoming anniversary. Mosher’s apparently cautionary #90 made me wonder.
#99 Joshua,
Joshua, my mother used to work for the Larsen’s, maybe you’ve heard of the Larsen’s. Roy Larsen was one of the mover and shakers behind Time-Life. She worked for Roy’s son in regional and local news. Todd Larsen, grandson of Roy was trained in the news business by my mother, at the request of his father.
Maybe you’ve heard of Todd Larsen,he was over at Dow Jones News Service(Wall Street Journal) for a while but he has a new job now running Time, Sports Illustrated, Fortune etc. A strange thing..the grandson of one the people most instrumental in the success of Time going to work there as the executive president.
2012 Credibility ratings survey of various news outlets…
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100020970&docId=l:1726695725&Em=7&start=1
You are of course free to dismiss anything anyone with a ‘view behind the curtain’ has to say about what has happened in the news business over the last 50 or 60 years and instead rely on academic studies by sociologists.
Just a few days ago, NBC reported that Astronaut Neil Young was dead. How does a major news organization get wrong the name of the first man to walk on the moon? Ohh…that’s right…they beat all the other news outlets in being first to report Astronaut Neil Armstrong’s death except they got his name wrong. So much for fact checking and proofreading.
“It is perfectly possible to consider that the actions of certain individuals were not justified and also believe that claims of widespread loss of trust in science are greatly exaggerated ““ they are different questions. ”
Name one individual who was not justified in their actions. One! they were all vindicated. If given the chance I am positive they would act the same. Their behavior is an example of how people should behave. Our trust in them has been enhanced if anything.
“Similarly it is possible to consider that the actions of certain individuals were not justified and also believe that many criticisms of those individuals have been inaccurate and/or unfair, or that those actions are being used to make unreasonable generalisations about an entire field of science. ”
what actions? by whom. Recall that they were all exnorated. The beauty is that the skeptics make stupid mistakes now of impugning the whole field.
Climategate is so winning! please take more mails!
“That is not the same as defending the unjustified actions or saying that “anything goes”. And sometimes people just disagree over the interpretation of others’ behaviour.”
But anything DOES GO. why, we could make bogus surveys and no one would care.
“Of course there have been very strong criticisms made of Gleick in particular, but you seem to want to ignore these as it doesn’t suit your argument.”
Gleick was also winning! look at where he is now. The result was all good. Heartland stepped on their dick. We need more Gleicks! look at the facts man.
mt,
I believe that #84 has share some traits with this previous argument:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/2012/02/27/avoiding-climate-derangement-syndrome/#comment-100898
The argument rests on the premiss that any end justifies any means. If we do accept that premiss, the argument can very well be valid. You do have the right to consider this premiss not quite plausible, more so when taking into account the righteous hindsight of the practitionners of the auditing sciences.
Speaking of G, do you think that that title “Lewandowsky Was Gleicked” would be a bit hyped?
(116) Harry –
I’m not doubting the importance of your mother’s experiences, or her expertise. It seems that you are rightly proud. I am saying that if you have some validated evidence that in balance, reporting is less accurate or biased, or more sensationalist than it was, say, during the Hearst News Empire, I’d love to see it. My impression of the news reporting during the Hearst News Empire is that it was quite biased, and quite sensationalistic. Certainly we know that despite the impression that TV news was more reliable, say, during the late ’60s, there were many, many claims that it was heavily biased then, and we can certainly both think of ways that the reporting it did on various issues was quite slanted.
I am saying that if you have some evidence that sensationalism of “The MSM” influences public trust in science more than, say, scare-mongering about the inaccuracy in reporting, I’d love to see it.
I am saying that if you have some evidence that shows some correlation between public trust in the news media and the accuracy of public understanding of science-related issues, I’d love to see it (it would be hard to measure, but my guess is that in general, the public has a more information on, and a more accurate understanding of science-related issues than it ever has in the past in spite of the fact that they have less trust in the reporting. And that would also be in spite of the efforts on the part of Creationists to cast doubt on the theory of evolution, and in spite of the efforts of folks like Akin to spread disinformation about women’s health, etc.).
There were other issues I raised in response to your posts also – questions about your reasoning. Maybe you might consider addressing some of them? Again, I can assure you that I believe that your mother’s career was quite notable and that her insights are valuable.
willard –
What is that called? Particularly when you consider that Tom was the one who linked to the study of public views on science, and that my response to Harry was focused on his comments about the study that Tom linked?
There must be a name for that gambit?
There’s certainly a name for your gambit, Joshua.
Who do you trust? “Revealing to the public the active, vicious, and well-funded campaign of denial that seeks to delay action against climate change likely constitutes a classic public good. It is a matter of personal moral judgment whether that public good justifies Gleick’s sting operation to obtain those revelations.”Stephan Lewandowsky
Stephan Lewandowsky is hyping his climate science. I am pushing back.
He did not commit a crime, as did Peter Gleick. It’s more… Mannian.
Let’s now recall with horror the recent accomplishments: Peter Gleick forging and stealing documents. Phil Jones advising colleagues to delete emails in advance of a FOIA request. Rajendra Pachauri suppressing details of an error in AR4 while bidding on a related study for his consultancy. Michael Mann lying to Congress about his use of R2 verification.
Welcome to the Pantheon, Stefan Lewandowsky
Who should we trust?
#119
Joshua, we have always had very specific publications that were obviously deliberately biased.The problem in the ‘modern era’ is that the norms of journalism don’t protect well against inadvertently introducing bias when no bias is intended.If the focus is on ‘getting it first’ rather then ‘getting it right’ then bias will be introduced. There isn’t a way for anyone to write a quick article on anything other then to rely on rely on preconceived biases. It’s mentally impossible to do otherwise.The time it takes to write a balanced article on something as complex and difficult as to whether there should be a stop sign on a residential side street takes at least a week. Anything less and what you get is a personal opinion about the usefulness of stop signs.
Joshua,
You are free to call harrywr2’s quote a strawman, since it rests on a caricature of your own position.
The theme of this caricature is Plain Folks. While Plain Folks is often seen as a propaganda technique, I’m not sure harrywr2’s using that in that way. I tend to believe that harrywr2’s mostly sincere with his arguments.
The logic of harrwr2’s argument is also a false dichotomy. There is no need to choose between his mother’s testimony and some sociologists’ studies.
Dialogically speaking, you and harrywr2 are getting to a fixed point, where you say A, he says B, you repeat A, he repeats B. If
***
In chess, when you reach that kind of state, the position is agreed to a draw, unless you can manÅ“uvre in the hope of making progress. In fact, to more space you have to move your pieces, sooner or later the position of your opponent will deteriorate. Sometimes, that’s enough to bring about a winning position. Most of the times, the defender slips, since it’s harder for him to come up with good moves,
I believe that the same applies to discussions. Take our Groundskeeper Willie. He never defend his pieces, so we take them. He keeps repeating the same moves, so we counter them, while making progress on another front. Sooner or later, all his pieces fall off the board. Then he rips off his shirt.
I never met a player who got better by ripping off his shirt after losing material.
Willard, trolls are famous for being inaccurate. You are setting the gold standard for trolling. Long may you reign.
Your name is your honor
You have no name
You have no honor
Proofs by assertion are cheap.
Why proofs by assertion are cheap, more so when they are repetitious:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/30970520551
Joshua,
So, we now have a perfect illustration of getting caught moving back and forth the same pieces.
Groundskeeper Willie keeps hammering that I have no name (I thought it was willard, but I might be biased) and that no one should trust me.
I believe that the best way to respond to an ad hominem is to tell that it’s an ad hominem while unraveling one’s planned moves. My next moves are aimed to show how Groundskeeper Willie loses momentum, while I gain some space: my #127 recalls that he does not justify his claims (he seldom does), and my #128 explains why he keeps repeating over and over again the same attacks: it’s a communication technique that has a proven track record of efficiency.
That it could be used in a rational discussion is another issue altogether.
So, while Groundskeeper Willie keeps hyping his bad hominem, I can unfold propaganda techniques to help everyone see where his comtemptuous hype comes from.
A nice exchange, if you ask me. But I might be biased.
You may notice that the non-emphasized part of the quote can now be used to respond to his naming and shaming of Stephan Lewandowsky.
An added bonus for this step-by-step progress is that Groundskeeper Willie can’t stall me in a food fight. As hard as he could try to poison the well, and whine about poisoning the well of course, we still are having a conversation that leads somewhere.
Where, you may ask? Good question. Elsewhere to have a better view while waiting for Godot, perhaps.
The ‘conversation’ you are having is leading somewhere, somewhere you desperately want for it to go. Away from the topic at hand. Hyping climate science, which you need for your political goals, and pushing back against it, which you must endeavor to stop.
Your admittedly modest efforts amount to trying to distract or confuse. You spend acres of electronic space attacking people you rename with catchphrases only you understand.
But it’s all to prevent a real discussion of what the author of this blog intended as its subject. Which is the repeated and regular phenomenon of those supporting the climate consensus hyping their claims and the efforts of those who think the consensus is wrong to prevent them from presenting hype as reality.
Harry – (#124)
Please understand that I agree with all of that. I don’t say that what you describe there isn’t a problem.
I am merely questioning whether there is a trend that affects overall balance, and which is then explanatory for public opinion about science, or about journalism. My guess is that in balance: (1) the public is exposed (in an absolute sense) to more valid reporting than it used to be (which doesn’t mean that the ratio of inaccurate to accurate reporting is more or less than it used to be, although I suspect that it may well be more now) or that, (2) the public is better informed than it used to be on science issues.
That is not, in any way, a statement of approval about “hyped” science or “hyped” reporting. The problem with peer review biasing science towards “significant” and “positive” findings is real, IMO. So is the problem with sensationalism in the media.
However, I go back to the same question of whether hyping about hype isn’t also a significant issue (particularly if my speculations about overall balance are correct). I also return to the questions about what other than inaccuracy in reporting, or problems with “The MSM” are fully explanatory for loss of trust in reporting or loss of trust in science. I have articulated other factors that I think need to be addressed. I have done so repeatedly. And I have noted, repeatedly, that the very article that Tom Scharf referenced (and that you later addressed in your comment) to support his hyping about loss of trust in science dealt directly with one of those issues – motivated reasoning.
What I am arguing here is that those issues shouldn’t get dismissed. Addressing those issues would be needed to validate any analysis. To not address those issues would fail a basic test for skepticism. I am not saying that hyping by the media and scientists is not a relevant issue!
willard –
I agree with this. This has been my experience also. I thought of noting that in my response. I was surprised to read his post because it seemed to me to be out of line with other posts of his I’ve seen. I will note his post # 124 as seeming to me as being very different in substance and tone from the previous post. Obviously, purely subjective assessments, one and all.
Joshua, you’ll need to define hyping about hype if you want to continue this game.Were reports of the imminent demise of polar bears hype? How about the geographic expansion of malaria? The attribution of glacial decline on Kilmanjaro to climate change? What about Hansen’s description of Manhattan in either 20 or 40 years? Was that hype? Was not the artificial heating of the Senate room where he gave testimony hype?How about the ABC television documentary depicting hell on earth due to climate change? Was that hype? How about scientific papers predicting smaller sheep, extinction of toads, etc.? And is mentioning this small fraction of the total hyping about hype, or do you want a longer list?
I had a nightmare last night. Here is how it went:
I put up a blog post.
Me: I think you are making it too complicated Joshua. It doesn’t help to try to find this or that study and attempt to parse exactly what groups changed their minds for what reasons. Look, if scientists continue to make extravagant predictions (while demonizing those who disagree) and those predictions fail to materialize, scientists as a whole, whether deserving or not, will suffer a loss of trust. That is just common sense.
Joshua then responded.
Joshua: Well, Tom C, I have not deigned to respond to you since your bullying on the previous thread. I petitioned Keith, and expounded at length I might add, on my quandary as to whether I should respond to your provocations. He understood, but indicated that he was powerless to protect me. So, it is with some trepidation that I respond, but I will. First, have you put forward a definition of “trust” that is operative for this discussion? I have read quite a bit of Amartya Sen recently and he discusses the importance of trust in community development. I think Keynes has discussed trust in meaningful ways also. Have you read any of this work? Have you worked out a Venn diagram that shows the overlap of trust-concepts in Sen’s and Keynes’ thought? I’m not sure we can have a meaningful dialogue in the absence of such a Venn diagram.
I would point out to you that there has been a virtual outbreak of motivated reasoning on this thread. I would further point out that I have repeatedly stated that I, yes even I, am subject to motivated reasoning. However, I’m sure I have seen a study (by Dinglewitz and Gorngraber I think) that those who accept this, who own it, Nay confess it! are actually less subject to motivated reasoning.
Look, I believe mt has discussed this issue of trust recently, and I seem to recall that I was much more favorably disposed to it than in the past. I’m not sure why that was. Maybe it was the wine; maybe it was my girlfriend, the night and the music; maybe it was the opening of the DNC. Whatever, what was once “bitter became honeyed to my ears”. I think there might be a term for it ““ maybe Willard can help me here. I seem to recall Opinionatus Reversus De Magnus Blowhardus, but I’m not sure.Anyway, what was I saying? Oh yes, I will repeat..I will assert..I will re-assert! That 7=4! Wait, no 2=5!, Agh. Furthermore, I will re-assert that mandatory algebra instruction is a tool of the devil! A tool of the climate skeptics!It has been introduced into our shcools in the dark of night by Lipo and Hunt. Mt ““ help me here.
There is also some alien terminology in your post, Tom C. In particular, I’d like some links that give some context and precise definition for the phrase “common sense”. I’m not much familiar with this phrase so please”¦
I have to say, willard, it is almost as if you’re writing Tom’s script, and he’s reciting it without being aware that you’ve written it.
Do you think this is another one of his that he isn’t telling us about? (How bizarre was that, anyway?)
Nice post, Tom C. Incredibly creepy, though. How often do you fantasize about me, anyway?
That was supposed to read “Do you think this is another one of his “experiments” that he isn’t telling us about?
Of course, that was in reference to his bizarre “experiment” that he was conducting at around post # 407 in the “This is what actual climate progress looks like” thread.
No probs, Tom. How ’bouts we start up towards the top of the thread to find some illustrative examples, and then and work our way down?
First, your question about the plausibility of a far-fetched dystopian scenario:
And next Tom’s declaration of a state of emergency:
Why don’t you start by discussing those examples, and then we can move on if you’d like?
Joshua,
Our Groundskeeper Willie’s on the verge of ripping off his shirt, so I don’t think that he has the luxury to experiment right now.
See his reply in #131. I am supposed to desperately want the conversation somewhere. How the hell can he justify saying that? He can’t, so he just asserts it. He can’t for I just told you that the main strategical mistake is for the discussion to be brought to a halt. The position is so overwhelmingly beyond hope for him that only a stalemate can save him.
So my sole objective is to make sure the conversation gets going. It can go anywhere, really. I don’t care much: I can follow him wherever he wants to go. We could talk about Orac, for instance: how the hell is he supposed to be a parangon of lack of hype? He’s a blogger with an attitude, sometimes as curmudgeon as Eli! We can talk about Stephan Landewosky. As if I care if we don’t talk about him. Or Climategate. Or Phil Jones. Or Pachauri. Are we supposed to be afraid?
There is also this repetition: I am OT. I don’t think I am that much. The topic is climate hype in the media. I’m writing on a blog about climate hype on blogs, in response to Groundskeeper Willie’s spectacular hype: repeated, abusive, shameless, unjustified, irrelevant, destructive, and oftentimes already proven false.
You want climate hype? Take most of his comments attacking me.
Ok. Perhaps Keith had not intended this discussion. I don’t believe I’m preventing anyone to have such a conversation. What I believe I’m preventing is Groundskeeper Willie poisoning the well. And, in that comment, yet again, he whines about the well being poisoned.
Finally, note how the shirt starts to rip:
Sure. As if I could ever succeed in stopping anyone to talk about Lewandowsky, Climategate, Pachauri, Jones, Mann, or Gleick. As if I was defending any of these individuals. As if “those who think the consensus is wrong” was not merely a self-serving abstract entity. As if the purpose of this very blog post was to make sure we have a conversation to prevent someone, somewhere on the Internet, to be wrong.
God, can our Groundskeeper Willie be melodramatic. We’re just waiting for Godot. I can appreciate all kinds of comments, including Tom C’s last. He put some effort in that comment. It has zest and gusto.
As long as we keep the conversation going, I don’t mind much. Groundskeeper Willie’s just hanged some more pieces with his #131. We just need to continue playing and they’ll fall off the board all by themselves.
I like Tom C’s version of you better.
In one of Tom’s tantrums of calling me a troll, Keith weighed in to note disagreement.
Of course, the fact that the blogger himself disagreed with Tom’s assessment doesn’t diminish Tom’s need to repeatedly make the accusation.
Bizarre. Must be an experiment. What other explanation would be possible? Pod people?
As for micro domains inhibiting cross disciplinary communication, I can refer you to “Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge” by Edward O. Wilson, or if you want to blame the internet, “Electronic Publication and the Narrowing of Science and Scholarship” by James Evans.
I mentioned it. They researched it. Nobody hyped it.
It’s been discussed as far back as Condorcet.
Keith may not think you’re a troll. He may not think it politic to label you a troll.
But troll you are.
Not surprising that you’d fully appreciate his elaborate fantasies about me. As the kids say, “Schwing!”
Anyway, have a nice evening, Tom.
The kids haven’t said Schwing for twenty years. Dana Carvey and Michael Myers are in their 50s, as is Kim Basinger.
Mosher I see. You are being facetious. Let me respond with plodding clarity just the same.
It’s clear that some of the emails were regrettable. Nobody has claimed otherwise. On the other hand, almost every regrettable incident was in an unprecedented context which was perceived by the scientists as frank harassment.
The point of the vindications by various panels is that no scientist or academic sitting in judgment of them was especially confident that they themselves, or their proteges, would have looked much better under comparable circumstances. Nobody claims that the hacking victims are saints. But you basically are taking candid shots of them all day and posting the ones where they look stupidest. Also, email is not considered formal communication in academia. These should be compared to business phone calls between close allies, not to business emails to customers or vendors.
There is blame for these events to go around on both sides but hardly enough to justify the endless picking at these trivial events. But the public reflection of these events keeps referring to them as a scandal. There is nothing scandalous at all, just scientists being ordinary flawed humans in extraordinarily stressful circumstances.
The events in the emails, then, are rather trivial and blame is rather symmetrical. It’s the refusing to drop the matter (interestingly, lead by the same group originally perceived as harassing) that verges on a crime against humanity.
Three sigma events are popping up like dandelions. The arctic is a slush puddle. There are droughts in food producing regions in every corner. Amid all this, the infamous hockey stick paper will soon be old enough to get a driver’s license. Give it a rest.
And still people want to talk scientists and scientific practice, not about science. That would be fine if there were anything resembling real corruption. You had no right to mess with these people’s lives based on the minor transgressions revealed, even if some of it rises to confirmation bias, of which I am unconvinced.
Meanwhile the larger political circus feeds off this, and acts as if something actually scandalous was revealed. It’s hard to overstate how much damage this might do before it finally fades away.
I stand by my F bomb.
You should be glad there is no hell.
At least have the decency to drop it now that the damage is done. The “fraud” calumny has legs now. Nothing remains to be gained from the episode. Do you want me, as a representative of mainstream climate science, to admit that Dr. X should not have said Y, for some value of X and Y? So be it. He should not have said that. Now kindly STFU about it and think about something useful for a change, please and thanks.
Hard to drop the subject when the consensus team keeps denying it happened, it meant anything, it was wrong, it was criminal. Hard to drop the subject when the consensus team keeps trumpeting the whitewash investigations as proof that there was no wrong-doing. Hard to drop the subject when analysis of it is enough to get damned to hell and receive the well-meaning advice to shut the fuck up about it.
You want the subject to go away? Admit what happened, apologize for it, admonish (not punish) those who acted wrongly and put procedures into place that will make it less likely to occur again.
Duh.
Mosher,<i>Name one individual who was not justified in their actions. One! they were all vindicated. If given the chance I am positive they would act the same. Their behavior is an example of how people should behave. Our trust in them has been enhanced if anything.</i>Phil Jones was not justified in telling people to delete emails and letting his personal gripes with other individuals cloud his judgement. UEA/CRU as a whole was culpable for not treating certain FOI requests properly and their general attitude towards FoI.<i>Gleick was also winning! look at where he is now. The result was all good. Heartland stepped on their dick. We need more Gleicks! look at the facts man.</i>As I pointed out, many people on my side have condemned Gleick’s actions, the authorities have evidently decided that there are no criminal charges to be answered – that’s a matter for them. If you are looking for people who take a relaxed view of the theft of informaton then maybe should should point your gaze elsewhere.
Mosher,
Name one individual who was not justified in their actions. One! they were all vindicated. If given the chance I am positive they would act the same. Their behavior is an example of how people should behave. Our trust in them has been enhanced if anything.
Phil Jones was not justified in telling people to delete emails and letting his personal gripes with other individuals cloud his judgement. UEA/CRU as a whole was culpable for not treating certain FOI requests properly and their general attitude towards FoI.
Gleick was also winning! look at where he is now. The result was all good. Heartland stepped on their dick. We need more Gleicks! look at the facts man.
As I pointed out, many people on my side have condemned Gleick’s actions, the authorities have evidently decided that there are no criminal charges to be answered – that’s a matter for them. If you are looking for people who take a relaxed view of the theft of informaton then maybe should should point your gaze elsewhere.
Andrew Adams,
Thank you for admitting that Phil Jones’ behavior was suboptimal.
You are not alone. Here are other people like you who believes that this kind of email you mentioned in #149 was inappropriate.
You are following the redemption path of Bart V, J Bowers, dhogaza, Mapleleaf, and now mt:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/22836534127
I recall that PDA did the same, but I can’t find it right now.
If you know any other testimony like that, you should send it to me via my tumblog. If we all come out and say it, it will get better.
It gets better already.
Not that it will prevent anyone to refuse your mortification and act as if you never said what you just said, not unlike #147.
Many thanks!
Andrew Adams,
I forgot to mention that the healing process started a year and a half ago.
Things takes time, or so it seems.
Just think about all the shirts we might save.
Tom Fuller –
Here’s a little test. First look at this:
And then look at this:
Now one of those is hype, and the other isn’t. Put your thinking cap on and concentrate real hard. See if you can figure out which on is hype. Then get back to me. We’ll talk.
In the meantime, consider this also. You are so incapable of a reasonable conversation, and so consumed with hate, that you are reduced to a state of repeating “troll,” over and over again as pathetic attempt at dialog.
Now that’s an exaggeration, of course, but how much of one?
We interrupt this fascinating program to mention Keith’s tweet:
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/09/american-thinker-jumps-shark-publishes-steve-milloy/
Please do not react to my comment. It has nothing to do with climate hype. The simpler proof is that it does not mention of Jones, Mann, Pachauri, Gleick or Landewosky.
Oh. Shoot. I just did.
OK. My comment was OT until I mentioned Jones, Mann, Pachauri, Gleick, or Landewosky.
Let’s make the comment a bit more on-topic:
Jones. Climategate.
Mann. Climategate.
Gleick. Twat.
Pachauri. Pulp fiction.
Landewosky. Got Gleicked.
When will we read that Landewosky got Gleicked?
Willard – you’re such a troll. You have been told over and over that the only topic that can be discussed is hype from the team. The reasons for hype are irrelevant. The cognitive and psychological evidence about hype are irrelevant. Hype from other combatants is irrelevant. Further, questioning anything about the impact of hype is irrelevant. The public has lost faith in science. An emergency state has been declared. Silos are being built as I type. Any hyping about hype is off topic.
Joshua,
Please stop being such a blowhard.
Most of the time, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Take your “team”: do you know where does it come for?
It comes from here:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/5874729706
If you knew what you were talking about, you would be talking about the Kyoto Flames.
But you’re not.
So it’s clear you don’t know what you’re talking about, most of the times.
You’re such a blowhard.
More trolling here –
Regarding the antecedents of hype, the roots of distrust in science, issues related to the reporting of science, hysteria about pesticides, partisanship associated with science, and other completely off-topic issues:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/silent_spring_turns_50_biographer_william_souder_clears_up_myths_about_rachel_carson_.html
Willard –
There is an “e” in team. There is an “e” in hype. Coincidence?
Yeah, well, you’re at troll, so obviously you’d think so.
Good morning Willard. I enjoyed your #128, and the link in 150. The bolded statement in #128 highlights what I have found to be the most common complaint of those who complain that others are whitewashing Climategate. A common complaint to the dogmatic assertation of investigations is to ask or point out what was investigated; some even critique the investigations. Another common complaint to the dogmatic assertion that the science was exonerated in the investigations is to point the emails that contained mehtodology were not investigated for releveance to the conclusions of the science. Do you think it likely that with both groups resorting and continuing dogmatic assertions will change except from exhaustion or boredom? I don’t. Though it is good to see those who realize that avoiding/breaking the law is usually unwise and should not be encouraged.
Andrew Adam @ 104 – I agree that the papers you cite were hyped beyond their significance (although the jury is certainly still out on Watts et. al.) But there is hype and there is Hype. Small h hype is when the conservative blogosphere is atwitter. Capital H Hype is when Al Gore wins an Oscar and Nobel prize for stringing together highly doubtful claims of impending doom in a movie. Hype is when every news outlet on every day carries some wild claim about “melting poles” or “more hurricanes” etc. despite easily obtained evidence to the contrary.
Joshua – In the first line of my post I said I had a nightmare, not a fantasy.
JFP – (158)
I don’t either. The climate debate is a proxy (mostly a political proxy) for long-standing grievances. But referring back to the other parts of your post, do you think that there might be something, theoretically, even if implausible in the real world, that might cause a movement away from dogmatism?
Suppose Mann et al. had been found guilty of scientific misconduct – with deliberate manipulation of data for the purpose of deception. Do you think that in any real sense, anything would have been different?
I think that this goes back to our discussion on the other thread. IMO, pointing to any one particular skirmish or incident or group of individuals or even scientific aspect of the debate, inevitably results in missing the forest for the trees. Even approaching any resolution in any of these discrete elements only causes spin-offs of further food fights. These are the same underlying dynamics that play out in many different lunchrooms involving many different issues. .
My belief is that focusing on anything other than the underlying dynamics amounts to tail-chasing. Not that focusing on the underlying dynamics hasn’t also played out as jell-o flinging. It most certainly has. But maybe at least there is some potential benefit with that focus? Certainly, IMV, failing to recognize how the climate debate is just one lunchroom in a palace of lunchrooms misses important context?
Tom C –
Here’s the thing, Tom. I don’t believe that you really had such a nightmare. I don’t believe that you really were dreaming about me. My belief is that you wanted to launch your attack with a cute frame, and so you invented a story about having dreamt about me.
Either way, however, it is yet another in a long list of posts showing that you have a hard-on for me (sorry if I offend with the “crude” sexual reference). Post after post focused exclusively on your obsessive interest in me an my posts. Even if you are, in reality, dreaming about me, it would only serve to further illustrate how obsessed you are.
The bottom line is that the extensive detail of your nightmare makes it obvious that you read my posts carefully and give them considerable thought. That’s enough for me. That’s what I want. It might be better if you weren’t quite so obsessed with me. It would be better if you’d respond with an intent of good faith dialog. That would be my preference. And as I said, it is a little creepy. But not a big deal, really.
Hi Andrew Adams,
If I can step in front of Steve, I did see quite a few from the consensus team lament Gleick’s actions. But not the morality of them. Most were like Stefan Lewandowsky, who wrote that it was a matter of personal judgement on whether Gleick should have gone so far in defense of the True and the Good.
Typical of the consensus reaction to Peter Gleick’s actions is Professor Tobis. His post titles or ledes at P3 are:
In Defense of Peter Gleick, MucrakerNew Lows: “Is tricking Heartland into sending some documents really any worse than hacking into a server at CRU and stealing a bunch of emails? I don’t think so.”
Double Standards: “Scientists are held to an impossibly high standard, while Heartland and others are able to get away with murder (figuratively speaking of course).”
The Morality of Unmasking HeartlandPeter Gleick is Still a Good ScientistEthical Considerations Regarding Heartland/Gleick: “History may well judge Gleick in a positive light, but that will only likely happen if the potential for good caused by his action is realized. That has yet to be determined.”
I think it is a contemptible ethical position put forth by Professor Tobis. I also think it is absolutely consistent with his approach to other climate-related controversies, including some started by Professor Tobis himself.
I also think it is a good representation of the overall reaction to the Gleick affair, and also a good representation of the consensus team’s reaction to other such controversies.
And I think it is this morally blind approach to values and performance–that anything goes because of the rightness of their cause–that has created much of the long-lived rancor that has made conversation more or less impossible.
Damning Steven Mosher to hell and telling him to Shut The Fuck Up because he and I wanted to put the Climategate controversy into context and give interested readers a chance to see the actual emails with a timeline of what was happening and what else was being said at the time? That’s the same lack of ethics that excuses Peter Gleick, that thinks destroying evidence of wrongdoing is an oops, that getting an editor fired is just roughhousing.
So I don’t think appeals to everybody’s better nature are really going to be effective. When I advanced the idea that we agree on sensitivity of 2.5C just so planning could begin, the skeptics didn’t trust the alarmists to honor it. The alarmists didn’t trust me to advance it. It quickly died.
There is a moral blindness on your side, Andrew. You seem to be one of the few reasonable voices in the blogosphere speaking for your position. Do you agree? If so, what do you think can or should be done to reclaim some level of ethical parity?
Dear Andrew,
1. Please go on http://planet3.org
2. Spot the search box at the top right of the home page.
3. Enter “Gleick”.
4. Read the titles, the ledes, and the author names.
5. Compare with #163.
6. Please do not count the spitballs – you’re not Joshua, after all.
Best of luck!
John F. Pittman,
Thank you for your comment.
I’ll be back later for a response.
Please take the time to go read John Nielsen-Gammon’s post mentioned in #153. It has something for everyone. For instance, he sounds a bit lukewarm about Milloy’s hype about water vapor.
Until later,
w
Joshua you ask: But referring back to the other parts of your post, do you think that there might be something, theoretically, even if implausible in the real world, that might cause a movement away from dogmatism? I think the most likely solution occurs when a movement ceases to exist; or its value becomes deemed worthless by such numbers that it ceases to exist as a force or veiw within the public, or some such, eye. Joshua you ask: ” Do you think that in any real sense, anything would have been different? ” Yes, I do; but have a hard time deciding whether it would help the dialogue. If MBH and others are shown not to be credible, it means that AR4 WG1 cannot claim to be as robust or the confidence as high. This should have the potential of delaying policy implementation. Though, that would mean that the policy activists on either side engage rationally. This I do not see on either an institutional basis, individual basis, nor “tribal” basis, using the past performance as a predictor of future performance. Whereas I agree with much about the food fight, I think that just as those who want to claim CO2 cannot be a GHG have been marginalized, though unquiet, I beleive the same could be accomplished for the catastrophists. Here I use the literaure in the peer reveiwed journals as a measure.
The Rabid Reaction Team arrives on schedule. But willard has a point. Tobis only wrote seven posts in defense of Gleick. He was joined in his parade of moral blindness by his co-authors. I didn’t note that in my comment.
Tom Fuller: “Hard to drop the subject when the consensus team keeps denying it happened, it meant anything, it was wrong, it was criminal.”
It happened. It meant that scientists are not always perfect, and that the enemies of science are ruthless, and vicious.
Wrong?
Jones was wrong to suggest deleting emails, but as with most egregiously wrong ideas proposed within science, he was for the most part politely ignored. WMO was wrong to use a misleading graph on the cover of a report without a caption.
The hacker was wrong to troll through ten years of emails to confirm McIntyre’s ravings, and publish them. The right wing was wrong in treating this as other than a theft of intellectual property. Montford, Mosher & Fuller, etc., were wrong to write books about it. Morano and Inhofe were wrong to spin this into a conspiracy. Cuccinelli and Horner were and are wrong to try to criminalize it. McIntyre was and is wrong in using it to continue harassing Mann, who if he did anything “wrong” just used marginally bad statistics, and that isn’t even clear.
And Tom Fuller is wrong when he suggests that any criminal act took place before the actual theft and publication of the emails.
> Tobis only wrote seven posts in defense of Gleick.
Citations needed.
Willard, I can’t remember where, but someone had already pointed out those first two errors. I think it was when I was reading Milloy’s and I think it was in the comments. It may have been John N-G. But after I checked the first comment and read the second, I never got around to reading the rest of Milloy. It may be incorrect thinking, but I decided Milloy’s was a waste of time after the first two errors were listed. I did not pay attention to the hype. Perhaps if Milloy could correct the errors and make a good argument, I could be induced to read that.
Joshua:”My belief is that focusing on anything other than the underlying
dynamics amounts to tail-chasing. Not that focusing on the underlying
dynamics hasn’t also played out as jell-o flinging. It most certainly
has. But maybe at least there is some potential benefit with that
focus? Certainly, IMV, failing to recognize how the climate debate is
just one lunchroom in a palace of lunchrooms misses important context?” Is this is your own dynamic speaking through your metaphorical mouth that you cannot possibly control? It sounds like classic female domestic argument: the real issue doesn’t matter, it’s the tone of your voice and your underlying emotional feelings that matter. That’s your point, right? We are controlled by our politics with masks our underlying gender leaning with right wing = male and left wing = female. Your solution is to be locked in an endless argument until the other side gives up when he can’t stand it anymore, has forgotten what the argument was about and just wants to get a piece of tail. The problem with this strategy is that you end up engaging with outlier female thinkers on the other side. Enjoy your endless loop.
Professor Tobis, I could only characterize your comment by violating Godwin’s Law.
Jones wasn’t wrong. He broke the law. Members of his team (not all) obeyed his instructions to break the law. Mann relayed his instructions without comment.
You haven’t read the emails. You haven’t read the book. You have no idea of what you’re talking about. The person who leaked these onto the internet (yes, leaked, not hacked) was wrong to do so.
But as far as what Mosh and I did, it was no different than what Gavin Schmidt and others did following their release–quote them, comment on them and give our best opinions on them.
Now you condemn Cuccinelli. Where were you when I published an open letter condemning his approach and asking him to quit?
You’re an ignorant idiot about what constitutes a crime with regards to the UK’s Freedom of Information Act. Deleting or causing to be deleted communications and written information to avoid disclosure under that act is a crime. That’s what Phil Jones did. The FCO said it was a clear violation and that only the too-short statute of limitations prevented legal action against Jones.
As for the WMO, it wasn’t just them, and you are trying to mislead others if you say it is. The IPCC used the chart 6 times in AR3 and it featured heavily in the SPM circulated separately to policy makers. It deliberately obfuscated levels of uncertainty about the Hockey Stick. Policy makers made decisions based in part on the assumed level of certainty accompanying it. Many of those policy decisions are being revisited today.
You equivocating language and attempts to defend the wrong actions of the Hockey Team just push all this out further. If you choose to remain ignorant about the issue. If you choose to say revealing a crime is the same as committing it. If you choose to stay on the sidelines while your enemies defend your friends. You deserve nothing but contempt.
John F. Pittman,
Thank you for your answer.
I believe that #170 shows quite splendidly what I wanted to conclude in my response to you. And I finally have some time – virus scans are such a bore. So here goes:
If contrarians had a whiff of an understanding of scientists, they would realize that all this hype hunting is just a waste of time. John Nielsen-Gammon attests having wasted time writing as much pages as the hype he had to review. You’re just telling me the same thing: why bother?
This interpretation is even generous: perhaps contrarians do exploit this trait, and are using it to create more hype about their righteous hindsight.
If contrarians could grasp a modicum of what Kuhn held in his **Structure**, they might understand that most revolutions happen by inertia. Simply put, scientists die. Wrong scientists are being ignored. (Think of them as being percieved as trolls.) The lack of citations kills their posterity.
People interested in science might very well consider that this is enough. But no. Not only we must endure perpetual shirt rippin’, everyone must rip off his own shirt. Or else he’s just a stooge for the contrarians’ scapegoats.
So that would be my conclusion. Later I’ll tell you how I reach it.
No willard, it will be sooner. You need to put lots of space between substantive comments.
I point at this from #173:
And I point to #172, which I had not the chance to read before writing #173.
That is all.
fuller how do you know the emails were leaked and not hacked? i suspect the norfolk constabulary might want to speak with you if you know something…you do realize that aiding and abetting a felon is against the law right?
Still drunk, Marlowe? Maybe some day you’ll be able to string two coherent sentences together. But not today. You’re not a moonlighting economist. You’re a moonshining economist.
🙄
JFP – (166)
I see this claim made quite often. It doesn’t seem accurate to me.
If I go to a non-climate blog site, I often read arguments from rightwingers that ACO2 cannot be a GHG – both in a sense of pure physics, but also as an issue of scale. Further, I see related arguments that even if it were a GHG, the effects would not (definitively) be harmful but beneficiary. Now despite claims made by “skeptics” in the blogosphere that these arguments have been marginalized, the real world I see – anecdotally – does not bear that out.
Further – even within the “skeptical” blogosphere, I often see arguments of both types I described made. I also see arguments such as that the Earth has intrinsic mechanisms that ensure homeostatsis within a certain range. They are made by seemingly intelligent people with what seems like a lot of technical expertise. This stands in stark contrast to claims by some “skeptics” that “skeptics” don’t doubt that ACO2 can, and in fact is, altering the climate – but the only arguments are about levels of certainty as to what extent. I can see a difference in the bottom line of the arguments, but I can’t see a difference w/r/t how the arguments are structured. In both cases, it is people claiming expertise and insight that enables them to see past the biases and hype of the “climate community.”
The last piece is the inherent contradiction of “skeptics” who claim that they don’t doubt that the Earth is warming (and further that ACO2 is influencing that trend to some degree), but who systematically doubt any metrics that show that type of warming. They say that there is no such thing as a global average temperature.
So – we are in agreement in some ways as to how progress will be forwarded (faster than physical evidence so completely unambiguous that the public will be fully convinced one way or the other — probably not likely for another 100 years?) by marginalization of those who are clearly motivated in their reasoning – I disagree with the asymmetry that you seem to see as to how much that has already happened. As far as my view of the debate is concerned, I don’t think that a full marginalization of the extremes can take place unless “skeptics” deal openly and explicitly with the obvious political linkages. That would go for both sides, of course – but my particular focus is on what I see as near complete intransigence on the “skeptical” side in that regard. Lip service is paid sometimes, by some “skeptics” – but true acceptance of the phenomenon is lacking.
Anyway – I’m going to be “out of the pocket” for a while. I have to attend to matters of real significance that have been building up. I will check back for your response, but will likely not get back to you for a while. As always, I appreciate the opportunity to exchange views with you.
Dear Andrew,
I know you still have to completed your spiritual cleansing, but here is another exercice:
1. Click on http://climateaudit.org/tag/gleick/
2. List the titles.
3. List the ledes.
4. Read back Keith’s post.
5. Rip off your shirt.
Many thanks!
Howard – (171) One more comment before I shut it down. I wanted to let you know that your #171 post is fascinating. Sometimes the mind of climate debate combatant is truly a thing to behold.
Also – I could not quite tell if you realize this or not – but my reference to tail-chasing was meant in the sense of how a do chases it’s tail – not in the sense of men chasing tail.
= Priceless.
“Also ““ I could not quite tell if you realize this or not ““ but my reference to tail-chasing was meant in the sense of how a do chases it’s tail ““ not in the sense of men chasing tail.”
I doubt that a doe chases tail the way a buck does.
Keith
do you think this article qualifies as ‘climate hype’?
when does a piece of journalism go from being ‘hype’ to…something else? Genuinely curious to hear your thoughts….
Wow, when there is a slow news cycle, the reporters start reporting on themselves. When not much is happening in climate science…
Joshua, if you don’t think over hype leading to a loss of trust in science constitutes an emergency (I agree the term emergency is a bit strong), consider what would happen now if climate science actually discovered a *real* threat. Hint: Likely nothing. The concept here is so basic they write children’s books about it. Have Mommy read you that one, and then discuss with her why the story makes no sense because of her motivated reasoning.
My theory on CS is that it is currently in the “not knowable” category. It does not rise to the level of actionable intelligence. Consider determining whether it will rain 57 days from now. Some quick initial estimates can be made on historical records and the most recent trends. However all the PhD’s and computer cycles on earth will not get you much closer than the initial quick estimate. Irreducible complexity. Chaos rules in certain problems.
This is why very little gain on CS has been made in the last decade and very little is expected in the next decade.
There may be some who would say their estimate is “very accurate” to get attention, but the only way to convince reasonable people is to be repeatedly correct on your estimates and have a reputable model. Trust in prediction of chaotic systems is earned by performance, not by your resume and how loud you scream.
Examine the output of climate models. How accurate are they even a single year into their runs? Not just temperature. ENSO. Rainfall. Floods. Major weather systems. Ice levels. Drought. They are very dependent on “initial conditions”, yet at one year out the initial conditions for the next 99 years of the 100 year run are already seriously flawed, so how much value is the next 99 years of the run?
So given this uncertainty, debating who is righter or wronger is fun but fruitless. And for those who think disagreement on this subject rises to the level of criminal punishment of the deniers, well that is extreme and only tarnishes you. Keep up the good work of making your own side look bad.
@ 184 Tom Scharf
My theory on CS is that it is currently in the “not knowable” category. It does not rise to the level of actionable intelligence. Consider determining whether it will rain 57 days from now. Some quick initial estimates can be made on historical records and the most recent trends. However all the PhD’s and computer cycles on earth will not get you much closer than the initial quick estimate. Irreducible complexity. Chaos rules in certain problems.
So how to go about reducing uncertainty? Why not use past climate change? Look at the last glacial maximum and the late Holocene, both periods of brief (several ka) relative stability when the climate systems was in quasi-equilibrium with its boundary forcings:
This provides the basis for an empirical estimate of climate sensitivity that:
Emphasis added. This approach provides an empirical estimate of ~3C. Perhaps the reason that ‘very little gain on CS has been made in the last decade and very little is expected in the next decade’ is that the most likely value is looking more likely than ever.
***
Hansen & Sato (2012) Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change
Oliver Manuel has met his match.
Why not comment on the substance instead of spitting?
i think frothing would be more accurate but that’s a minor quibble. the idea that we can’t reasonably constrain CS with paleo obs is a real head scratcher isn’t BBD?
Apparently for some, Marlowe.
Marlowe,
Some have been there, done that:
Emphasis on the emphasis added.
A nice bed-time story. Blog comments forming a diplomatic thriller. Too bad there are no citations to read it back.
I actually like Oliver…
willard, considering you made 6 comments on the post titled The League of 2.5 at Bart Verheggen’s weblog, I’m curious about your need for citations.
Or maybe you’re just completely without honor, trying once again to interrupt adult conversations.
Oh, yes, by all means–a citation!
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/moving-the-debate-forward-tom-fullers-league-of-2-5/
A link.
Wow. Just wow.
Words fail me.
Yup.
Hmmmm.
Let’s see.
Hi Tom,
Firstly, some points about the illegality (or otherwise) of certain people’s actions. IIRC the ICO said that Jones’s actions constituted a prima facie breach of the law, which seems fair to me. In the absence of an actual investigation we can’t assume that a prosecution have occurred but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that Jones’s request to delete emails was probably unlawful. Mann forwarding Jones’s email is neither here or there as Mann is not subject to UK FoI law.
Norfolk police have stated categorically that the “climategate” emails were obtained as a result of a computer hack, and this would undeniably be illegal regardless of who was responsible, so there is no reason not to consider it an unlawful act.
My instincive reaction on reading of Gleick’s actions was that they were probably unlawful, but we are six months on and there is no sign of charges being brought. I would still be inclined to describe them as legally dubious even if they were not outright illegal.
Secondly, here are some reactions from some well known names on the “consensus” side
“Gleik’s actions were completely irresponsible and while the information uncovered was interesting (if unsurprising), it in no way justified his actions. There is an integrity required to do science (and talk about it credibly), and he has unfortunately failed this test.” – Gavin Schmidt
“we should never condone the illegal obtaining of documents (or falsification of documents if this happened). The actions by Peter Gleick were immoral, irresponsible, and possibly illegal.” Chris Colose
“His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives.” – James Annan
I could find more examples, but I also accept that not everyone on the “consensus” side shared those sentiments and some did think Gleick’s actions justified. I will return to this point later on.
WRT MT’s views, as Willard has alluded to, the passages you quote above from P3 were written by Dan Moutal, not MT. In any case I don’t see team as constituting “moral blindness” and I find little in them to object to. In the piece “Ethical considerations regarding Heartland/Gleick” Dan concludes
I condemn both the CRU hack and Gleick’s actions. In my books both were wrong. It is as simple as that, though it is worth applauding Gleick for publicly admitting his mistake. But this means that I wont begrudge Heartland if they decide to file a suit against Gleick. After all I would be fully supportive of legal action against the CRU hacker.
That seems pretty clear to me. Some might object that Gleick’s actions should have been condemned on their own terms, there was no need to bring Heartland into it; I would disagree – it’s reasonable for Dan to make a comparison with another case where information was obtained by dubious means, and many of the people who have condemned supposed law breaking by Gleick have condoned probable law breaking by the climategate hacker. YesButClimategate can work both ways.
Not that I consider such condemnation to be the only morally defensible position. MT’s position does seem to be more equivocal, in any case he is here and can defend himself, although I would disagree with him on one point regarding Climategate, which is that once the information was out there I think people were entitled to draw conclusions based on it, and you were entitled to write your book.
Personally I have said before that Gleick was wrong to do what he did but I don’t accept the absolutist argument that actions such as his are always wrong and the only morally defensible argument is to condemn him unreservedly. I think that obtaining information by deception can sometimes be justified if there is a genuine public interest in it being revealed – if there were an absolute moral or legal embargo on doing so many journalists would not be able to do their job and many important stories would not see the light of day. Therefore one does have to make a judgement based on the specifics of the particular case, although with the proviso that whatever the morality of the person’s actions they have to accept the consequences, legal or otherwise. In Gleick’s case I do think Heartland was a legitimate target and I have no sympathy for them, and the information revealed was IMHO in the public interest, but I’m not sure it really justified the deception involved and given Gleick’s position it was in any case completely inappropriate for him to behave as he did. As I said above some people have disagreed, I can understand that they might take a different view of the balance between the means and the end involved and I don’t think it’s a fundamentally immoral position, but they should consider the impact which Gleick’s actions could have had on his colleagues and the institution he worked for. For that reason I also think it entirely right that other scientists such as Schmidt (where they have expressed a view) should not condone Gleick’s actions. One could make a comparison with a certain high profile “skeptical” scientist who has praised the CRU hacker. None of this means it is wrong to take pleasure from Heartland’s discomfort – organisations which willingly disseminate misinformation deserve to be discredited in the way they have been (not just as a result of Gleick’s actions).
First comment, from Dana, the guy who runs Skeptical Science, I presume:
Hmmm.
Another blogger, this time Jeff Id:
A very big hmmmm.
The diplomatic thriller gets more interesting.
Joshua saying CO2 or ACO2 cannot be a GHG ignores repeatable experiments. Your point of issue of scale relates to the fact our ability to measure ECS is indirect and there is a wide range of possible values. In other words, scale is a valid scientific controversy if stated correctly. The harm or benefit of CO2 or temperature is a matter of asumption, as it has not happened yet, and claims of either harm or benefit share a speculative foundation that can be and should be examined. I did not claim these were marginalized; I only claimed the first. That the earth has homeostatic tending mechanisms is not unscientific. The rate of heat rejection at the TOA from an increase in temperature or the increase in heat transport when humidity in a control volume increases are two such; it is the total effect that is argued, and we are just now getting measurements to start resolving some of these issues. I know some who argue with certainty on both sides of the issue. That does not mean several things. One is that they are right. That they are necessarily being scientific about it. It also may mean the opposite, that someone is correct and some one is being scientific. I see this on both sides. In cases I know about most of what I see on both sides are taking low probability scenarios and stating as though they are certain to happen on a speculative subject. The speculation may be a value such as ECS, or it may be assumptions such as harm or benefit. In either case it has not happened, or if claimed to have happened the data and conclusions are arguable in a scientific and correct manner. Often the argument is more along the lines of Bayesian or frequentist. On temperature, I hope you would realize that a mass and energy balance is necessary for the correct accounting of effects of water vapor rather than just temperature, and we are just now getting good information with respect to energy balances in the atmosphere on scale to resolve issues with GCM’s, at least according to some. There are other methodological issues with GCM’s that have yet to be resolved such as mesh size. Where you see near complete intransigence on the “skeptical” side about politics, I see the near complete intransigence on the “activists” side about policy based on a Bayesian confidence level that methodological errors in such as the temperature proxies calls to question that the climate community refuses to address that I find is due to the institutionalized bias. I find true acceptance of our limitations in prediction and measurement is so anathema to what I call the “catastrophicists” that they throw whole sections of the IPCC out without admitting to how that would effect the consistency or liklihood of their claims. I see a lot on both sides. Choosing either of these poor sides a bad choice. There are better choices in middle, typically close to where the IPCC is. Except of course where they let in individual or institutional bias. 😉
Ha: I think me, Dana Nuccitelli and mt may have been the only people to sign on to that League.
Even Paul Kelly demurred.
Tom
I like Bart’s distillation:
Any realistic change in our scientific understanding is not going to change the needed policy response, at least not in the short to medium term (~decades). As Herman Daly noted: “If you jump out of an airplane you need a crude parachute more than an accurate altimeter.”
Andrew – You are forgetting that Jones’ lawbreaking was uncovered by the leaker/hacker/whatever. Moreover, he/she was apparently familiar enough with the goings on at CRU that damning correspondence could be culled from a presumably much larger volume of un-related material. Thus, the idea of a whistleblower is in play here, whether you like to admit it or not.
#131 Joshua
The first thing that Capitol Cities/ABC News did when they bought the Larsen’s regional publishing business in the 1990’s was cut newsroom staff in half. Try covering two separate 25,000 person municipalities with a single reporter. That’s two sets of school board meetings, two sets of town council meetings, two sets of fire departments, two sets of police departments etc etc etc. It can’t be done and the papers quickly became worse then supermarket tabloids.The Seattle Times (my only daily newspaper) has one reporter covering the 18 municipalities with a total population of 330,000 East of Seattle collectively known as the East Side…which has a land area larger then Rhode Island. They got a 2012 Pulitzer prize for investigative journalism though. The Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook continues to be grim. Another 8% decline in employment in journalism over the next 10 years is expected.But employment in public relations is expected to increase 21 percent.Just looking at employment numbers I just don’t see how it’s possible to avoid ending up with ‘journalism by press release’.Regurgitating press releases is a cheap way to produce content. It only takes a few minutes.To the degree the public is being fed ‘news by press release’ they should rightly take it with a grain of salt and it appears they are taking it with a grain of salt.Reporters have families and children who need braces and college educations and all that costs money that the ‘media’ has been unsuccessful in finding for the last couple of decades.Even if I look at someone who is a reasonably well respected science reporter for the NY Times like Andrew Revkin…he has a day job at Pace University.We get what we pay for…
Tom C
Moreover, he/she was apparently familiar enough with the goings on at CRU that damning correspondence could be culled from a presumably much larger volume of un-related material.
So it’s impossible to search a great chunk of hacked emails by keyword?
Hi Andrew, I think you make the best of a bad case and I expected no less.
I don’t think it’s possible to play the moral equivalency game between different events, individuals or organizations. Who’s worse ends up being judged by prior opinions.
I believe however that it is possible to evaluate who should be held to firm standards and my view is that those with power must in fact be accountable for the power they wield.
As for the leak of Climategate, I would have been happy not to write my book. But not because the leak didn’t happen.
I would have been happy not to write the book because Jones didn’t ask others to delete emails, the Team didn’t get an editor fired, they didn’t violate submission requirements for AR4, Jones didn’t cover up the provenance of the climate stations used for his 1990 Nature paper, etc.
At the end of the day, policy makers made policy decisions that cost money and changed people’s lives based on data that was far more uncertain than they were led to believe.
This is something the consensus side has yet to confront.
Willard,Thank you for the pointer in #180. It was most illuminating, even if my shirt is still intact.
Tom, TomC,Will respond in the morning as it’s time for bed.
On the original topic, it’s my understanding that William is basically right about the methane, by the way.
while i realize this is OT, I’d still like to know how Fuller knows the CRU emails were the result of a leak rather than a successful hack. Am I the only one who thinks that the Norfolk police should be talking to him if we are to take his comment @172 at face value
BBD – Yes, keyword searches are possible. In this case, someone knew that searching on “FOIA” would yield interesting results.
> [T]he idea of a whistleblower is in play here, whether you like to admit it or not.
It was in play the second “a miracle happened”:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/21/uk-whistleblower-legislation/
Since the second release of emails, and now considering the promise of a next one, to claim that the case of the Miracle Worker falls under the UK whistleblower legislation might be made, but only after we “turn it to the lawyers” first. Incidentally, I asked twice RickA for his opinion. As far as I know, he never answered back.
Please note the parts of the law regarding “good faith”.
Gee Marlowe,Examine all the crap you’ve written to and about me over the past 3 years. Then imagine requesting information from me that I haven’t disclosed for the same period. Then imagine me laughing.
Then imagine an alternative universe where you had acted like a human being. Then imagine getting a response that doesn’t look a lot like FOAD. (That acronym is in honor of willard, who lives for that kind of stuff.)
Time for more spitballs:
[1] The thread cited barely bears any resemblance to any diplomatic thriller we were promised to read. My comments were all drive bys, the last one being this:
which might have bearing on reality than any advertized diplomacy
Let also note that the thriller also spans at Tony’s (via PDA) and here at Keith’s, the latter we have no link here yet.
[2] Even if I knew which thread was relevant, not citing it just looks fishy, more so considering all the due diligence rhetoric we’re being served. Other readers might need to know to what the diplomatic thriller refers, to make their own ideas of its importance.
[3] More bad hominems when simply providing a link was needed.
All in all, more spitballs to hide another misrepresentation by Groundskeeper Willie.
Talk about honor and adulthood.
Marlowe,
Our beloved Groundskeeper Willie has no tangible evidence. Just
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/13453269840
Since he has not much to show for his theory, and since he can’t to #209, all he can afford is some more spitballs.
All your comments are drive bys, willard. Why should that one be any different?
Anyhow, you asked for a cite as if you didn’t actually believe me. Even a drive by shooter has to stay on the road, so I thought you might have some trace memory of where you leave your willard droppings. Guess not.
Andrew Adams,
Good morning and thank you for your kind words.
I believe your answer in #195 contends to being a definitive response to yet another greenline test, this time about the maddening G affair. Not that it will prevent our beloved Groundskeeper Willie to ignore it and repeat his shirt ripping ritual in another thread at a later time.
The only escape you gave him was the moral stance. I believe we’re only into caricatures of ethical positions (Landewosky’s post at Planet3 included) to be worth a response. Players are still fishing in the dark between consequentialism and deontological ethics, whence everything interesting lies in between these two extremes.
Anyway, there’s a way to bypass all this. If:
there might no need for any exercise in righteous hindsight. All that would be needed would be to promote, in a technical sense, futurebetter practices. If what we want is to improve institutions, what Jones did or did not do is quite secondary.
If what we want is a personal vendetta, then of course what Jones did matter a lot.
Three more spitballs in #213
1. Groundskeeper Willie can’t read my mind.
2. Citations are the readers’ data. Providing citations is an essential courtesy. And to repeat what has been said in #211, I believe I’m not the only interested reader. That the diplomatic thriller was only a fantasy only justifies the best practice of providing citation even more.
3. That I make only drive-bys is provably false. Groundskeeper Willie has no answer to #173, #209, and #214, comments that I believe refute important variations of the lukewarm gambit.
No wonder that we have all these spitballs.
All your comments are drive bys, willard. That’s primarily because you have no honor.
Andrew, if you do make your way back here, I’m ready to talk about Peter Gleick.
First, let’s make sure we agree on what he did. He has admitted obtaining confidential documents under false pretenses. Although this is now fobbed off as pretexting, it is both unethical and illegal. His actions are made worse by publishing them.
Second, it is my belief that he forged the document that he passed off as their forward strategy. His explanation that he received it from someone else does not hold water for me. That is obviously criminal, and his culpability does not change if he in fact received a forgery and published it. If he wants to prove me wrong, he should name the forger if it is not himself.
For me the reaction from the climate consensus community is abhorrent. You cited the criticism he received from a handful within the climate community.
However, many others made exculpatory statements–this one from Greg Laden is typical (http://gregladen.com/blog/2012/02/peter-gleick-the-heartland-revelations-and-situational-journalism/): “By next week or next month, the realities of Heartland’s anti-science and anti-education strategies will be an enduring truth while the vilification of specific actors in this drama will have lost its impetus and unsavory luster. My respect for Peter Gleick is unmoved. He is a great scientist, an excellent communicator, a brave guy and a crappy journalist.”
Grist did a lot of the work collecting other comments: “Steve Zwick, the managing editor of Ecosystem Marketplace, called Gleick “a good man, frustrated by years of obfuscation and distortion” and said “he puts truth above self-interest.” At DeSmogBlog, which published the Heartland documents, Richard Littlemore called him a whistleblower (a term generally reserved for someone working within an organization who brings wrongdoing to light). And Scott Mandia, a climate scientist who co-founded the Climate Scientist Rapid Response Team, wrote that Gleick “is the hero and Heartland remains the villain.”
I’m glad you caught my error in attributing to Professor Tobis statements made by his co-author Dan Moutal. However, after initially condemning Gleick’s actions, Professor Tobis has walked it back to something like, “Was the spotlight on Heartland worth it, given how hard they will try to beam it back on Peter, and how much damage they have already inflicted in return? Time will tell…” He said he agreed with another blogger, posting his comments on P3, where he said, “As I read many of the stories on Peter Gleick’s pranking of the Heartland Institute (see this Guardian story for a pretty good summary), I find I mostly agree with Joe Romm who basically says that this is peanuts compared to what Heartland and their ilk are doing to our future planet with their obfuscation campaign.” Tobis commented that that was how he read it, too.Since the initial wave of news coverage has abated, Gleick has been reinstated to his position and has made several public speeches. He has suffered no consequences for his actions and has been welcomed back to the bosom of the consensus as a hero. Naomi Klein compared the Heartland email incident to Heartland’s favorite hobbyhorse, Climategate: “Still waiting 4 whoever stole thousands of emails from climate scientists 2 show an ounce of Peter Gleick’s honesty.”
Steve Mosher above parodied the situation quite deftly. If there are no consequences for criminal behavior, do you really think it will diminish?
The general public has not followed this, nor should they really be expected to, in my opinion. But in terms of reaching across the aisle, events like this diminish any chance of it happening. Heartland did not wither and blow away. Do you think what happened to them will cause them to moderate their tone or criticism of the consensus? Much like Marlowe asking me for information above, you could expect to see only more entrenchment and hostility.
Peter Gleick. Phil Jones. Rajendra Pachauri. Michael Mann. How many more before your team learns?
John F. Pittman,
Time to wait for the bread to finish and to answer you response in #158. Your comment covers dogmatic assertions, the closest example being #216. In any case, you ask:
Me neither. That’s why I recalled the threefold repetition rule in #125, and provided a strategy to break that standoff.
I believe the solution lies in the observation that we’re entertaining a conversation right now. As a propaganda technique, dogmatic assertions like #216 can have a framing effect. It is a good promotion technique, in a technical sense, e g.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/560928659
In a conversation, dogmatically reiterating is suboptimal. Consider the sequence
AbCbDbEbFbGb,…
where the letters in odd positions are from Abelard and even letters are from Héloïse. If the game is about whom will reach the letter Z (or z) first, chances are that Héloïse will lose.
Now, replace b with anything you like, from “YesButClimateGate” to “The inquiries said so” to “Whitewash!”. We can see that to repeat the same old same old gets fastidious and unsound.
It’s even worse when we’re not talking about judgements, but more complex speech acts:
[w] Please aknowledge P.
[g] You have no honor!
[w] Please aknowledge Q.
[g] You have no honor!
[w] Please aknowledge R.
[g] You have no honor!
Such repetitive behavior describes best trollhood, more so when it’s irrelevant, abusive, inflammatory, and almost tasteless.
While some may suggest we stop feeding a troll, or overfeed him, I believe both strategies have their limits. One can ignore a troll, but not an army of Goblins, i.e. this strategy only works for little niches. The second is perfect to create more trolls, and to co-create trolls. Since you have a background in biology, I believe you can appreciate the fact that researchers are now suggesting that trolls are the result of a complex and destructive interaction.
My hypothesis is that the best way to deal with
trollsis what I call Love and Light. More light instead of flames. More love instead of hate.Groundskeeper Willie is a very good test for that hypothesis.
I believe what you’re saying about the complaints makes sense. But all in all, I believe that this is quite secondary to the way science proceed. Hence my conclusion in #173.
What matters now is how to deal with suboptimal strategies like dogmatic assertions.
@ my esteemed logician
while you are no doubt wise in many things on this last point I must strenuously disagree. the best way to deal with an army of goblins is a well-timed and properly positioned AoE attack.
That is all.
Tom C,
The “whistleblower” meme is out there because people desperately want to believe it to be true, not because there is any evidence to support it. Yes there are certain aspects which might be consistent with the whistleblower theory, but there are others which are not and as I said Norfolk police have categorically stated that the data was obtained by a hack from outside and there is no evidence of anyone in UEA/CRU being involved. Even if an insider was involved and has managed to successfully cover their tracks they have still broken the law and could not be considered a whistleblower in the strict legal sense, even if one considered that the public interest in the release of the emails morally justified their actions.
Tom F,
There are certainly significant differences between Climategate and the Gleick affair, and people might legitimately conclude that based on weighing up the respective wider good from the information being released that the hacker’s actions were justified but Gleick’s were not. As I said in my previous post Gleick’s actions do have to be viewed in the context of the position he was in, not because he wields any “power” as such but because his actions could bring disrepute on his institution and fellow scientists. By that same token I think there are certain constraints in general which should apply to working scientists who are involved in the climate bunfight which would not apply, or at least not as strictly, to the rest of us, but that doesn’t just apply to those on the “consensus” side. But in the end dishonest behaviour, exaggeration or distortion of facts, “hype” or whatever deserves to be called out whoever is doing it. It’s not a defence to say it matters less than if the other side does it, although I also acknowledge the natural tendency to be more forgiving towards those whom we agree with than to those we don’t.
Much of the criticism of Gleick’s actions has been based on an absolutist moral stance that obtaining information through lies and deception is wrong, full stop. Again, I think that’s a perfectly respectable point of view but it is very difficult to reconcile with support for the actions of the hacker, which is why in that context it is valid to bring up climategate and also why people are so eager to pursue the “whistleblower” meme. As I said above if people want to defend the hacker’s actions that’s fair enough but they should at least be honest about exactly what they are defending.
Dear Marlowe,
Please try an AoE attack at Judy’s and report your results.
Willard,
Not being well versed in the study of ethics I can only say that I agree that the ethics of Gleick’s actions, and indeed the hacker’s, are somewhat murky and can’t sufficiently be addressed though either a strictly consequentialist or a deontological approach. And I say this the authority of someone who looked up those terms on Wiki ten minutes ago.
I agree with your point re improving institutions. I think that if some good is to come out of Climategate it will be in this area and it is an issue on which there should probably be much agreement between the different sides. There could also be interesting discussions to be had about issues such as openness in science and FoI. Unfortunately another effect of Climategate is that relations between participants in the climate debate have been poisoned even more than they were before and we have reached an impasse whereby battles are still being fought over behaviours in the past. One side feels that they cannot move on until certain wrongs are properly acknowleged and apologised for, the other side does feels they are not obliged accept certain interpretations of events and is angered by the refusal of the other to move on.
I do see evidence of personal vendettas against Jones, and (more so) Mann. In the latter’s case it is probably fair to say he has not gone out of his way to minimise the personal animosity.
Willard, I believe they are gremlins not goblins. You know, you don’t feed or water them after midnight or they start reproducing.
Andrew – I disagree. That fact that the leaker/hacker/whatever focused on the FOIA issue is clear indication of a whistleblower intent.
Via a gremlin at Judy’s:
http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/documents/AbileneParadoxJerryHarvey.pdf
Wonderful image, John!
willard i’m a pacifist at heart and frankly don’t want to risk getting an arrow in the knee taking on the evil horde. i’ll leave that to Joshua and Andrew who are much braver than I 🙂 .
Tom C
Even if the person responsible had “whistleblowing” intentions the fact remains that they obtained the emails via computer hacking and that is still a crime, and it falls outside the scope of UK whistleblower legislation. So morally they might be considered a whistleblower but legally not so.
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Marlowe!
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Marlowe,
Here’s where I stumbled upon the concept of goblinhood:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/14/on-e-salons-and-blogospheric-argumentation/#comment-99725
That Groundskeeper Willie and Mosphit introduce the concept of trollhood can only be self-defeating. But as auditors say, I’m perfectly willing to play the ball where it lands.
#214 Willard
It is customary in matters of great public import that when someone causes a black cloud to be formed under one sides good name/argument that we throw that someone under the bus. Jones,Mann et al are indeed a distraction which is why any sensible cause would throw them under a bus.
Andrew, I find your reply to my comments somewhat unsatisfying, even if I agree with you.
The moral equivalency game is destined to bring about the same groups staring at each other across a line in the sand.
I don’t think the CRU leaker is a whistleblower in the traditional sense of the word, nor do I think s/he should be protected by that statute.
And I do agree that there are times when it is not only defensible but appropriate to reveal information that the owners wish were kept private. However, I think generally that those revealing this information should step up and accept responsibility, including punishment if deemed appropriate by civil authority.
But there should be differences in how we regard both the revealers and what is revealed based on the positions of those whose information is revealed and the status and importance of what is revealed.
I don’t care that J. Edgar Hoover wore lingerie and if that type of information is leaked by his political opponents it is cheap and tawdry. I do care if Nixon authorized a burglary in the Watergate apartments to improve his chances for re-election and applaud the actions taken to reveal this.
The importance of the information to public decision making is I think the key. In that sense, what Gleick revealed through crime and deception seems more like gossip to me–I didn’t see any surprises in what came out. I don’t feel the same way about the Climategate emails, obviously. Equally obvious, your mileage may vary about these two instances.
But I think that should be how these cases are evaluated.
Andrew – Point well taken about technicalities of the hacking offence and whistleblowing. My point is that whoever did it thought that wrong-doing was going on and, indeed, it was. I’m waiting for someone to tell me what wrongdoing Heartland stands accused of.
harrywr2,
Indeed, that is the great enigma: why not just throw all the lot under the bus?
My only rationale so far is that our neverending audits creates some kind of St. Petersburg situation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_paradox
By making sure the contrarians spend their time scapegoating Mann, Jones, Pachauri, Gleick and soon Landewosky, other heads get saved.
In that sense, I’m not sure these characters are not thrown under the media bus, but over and over and over again.
We should bear in mind that when the names of Mann, Jones, Pachauri, Gleick and soon Landewosky will not gain as much traction, some other names will be used.
Contrarians might never be able to let go of scapegoating. We need stories. Stories have characters in them.
I can sympathize with a personal vendetta. Scapegoating is a bit tougher to swallow, if you ask me.
If you examine the status quo, you must ask the question of who benefits the most if things stay the same with respect to all the hype?
Climate change has become toxic in American politics. Even the Dems don’t want to touch it anymore. A zillion speeches at the DNC and the most it got was Obama saying it wasn’t a hoax. I guess I’m on Obama’s side. Action from the US is dead in the water for probably a decade minimum.
So who needs to change their behavior if they want change in the status quo? Certainly not the skeptics. They are *winning*. And it certainly isn’t because of their vast resources, excellent coordination, and brilliant strategy. Environmentalism is suffering from self inflicted wounds, and their response appears to be to use even bigger guns now.
My advice is to use this down time to work on this part of the equation:
Percentage saying news of global warming exaggerated 1997:
Rep: 34%
Ind: 35%
Dem: 23%
Percentage saying news of global warming exaggerated 2012:
Rep: 67%
Ind: 42%
Dem: 20%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/153608/Global-Warming-Views-Steady-Despite-Warm-Winter.aspx
When you examine the trends, they don’t change very quickly. Instituting a ten year plan for environmentalism would make sense. It’s a tough haul to convince the natives that banging the hype drums isn’t working.
Willard,
Do you really want to go with Landewosky as a victim? I think he stands out as a major crackpot from what I can tell with respect to how this survey was taken and its “results”. You’d be better served letting the bus run over him. Watching the bus take its toll is sometimes wise, take the Heartland billboard for example. Is environmentalism better served by further alienating conservatives at this point? Does this help the agenda in some meaningful way? Just wondering.
Daily dose of climate hype and attempt to push back:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/9/7/michael-mann-and-skepticalscience-well-orchestrated.html
Now why didn’t we think of that for our book? Get our friends to write reviews and edit them… instead, we had negative reviews from the Climaterati posted before the book was on sale.It’s the Chinese water torture effect–it seems like it never stops.
It’s Lewandowsky and I think his paper is probably in real trouble.
Tom Scharf,
Please explain how I “go with a victim”. The process naming and shaming the persons to which I alluded runs without my help, as far as I know.
Don’t forget that I’m just a gardener. Perhaps you’re mistaking me from someone who would write a blog post entitled **Lewandowsky Was Gleicked**?
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/30650978390
Some day, I’ll learn to write Lewandowsky properly.
why do climate denialists identify overwhelmingly with rightwing political ideologies? consider me curious.
And it certainly isn’t because of their vast resources, excellent coordination, and brilliant strategy.
And it certainly isn’t because “adding energy to the coupled atmosphere-ocean system is changing the climate in unpredictable ways, a process which will accelerate unless we make fundamental and wide-ranging changes to how we generate and use energy” is inherently a harder sell than “everything’s fine.”
Tom
1/ Shub is a paranoid loon. One of the worst, which is *really* saying something. That BH still uses him as a guest poster is, frankly, mystifying.
2/ Why shouldn’t SkS organise and fast-track reviews? So long as the reviews were candid, what’s the problem?
3/ The reason SkS did this was because of the anticipated white squall of spit from the pseudo-sceptics who have been heavily conditioned to froth and shriek at the mere mention of Mann, never mind his writing a book.
All that’s going on is that some proponents of science are starting to fight back against the ‘sceptic’ personalise-and-demonise tactic. About bloody time.
I was just getting used to ‘Landewosky’.
Marlowe @ 240
Dunno 😉
We shall have to ask Nullius.
Been busy all week with return-to-school madness and other obligations. Posting and other regularly scheduled programming to return on Monday. I’ll catch up with this thread over the weekend, too.
BBD -1) Shub’s post was very well organized and effective in a lawerly way. Hardly the work of paranoid loon. 2) Um, because it is deceitful. The big problems, though,are falsely assigning authorship and Mann’s circular confirmation strategy. 3) Keep up that tone – it works to our advantage.
Gee BBD, why do paranoid loons get to guest post while paragons of sanity get booted off the blog?
Tom, that was exactly my point, but thanks for the clarification.
The irony pills are in the cupboard.
Thx – found them behind the spittoon.
🙂
Some hype, some pushback:
http://planet3.org/2012/09/06/a-line-by-line-response-to-mitt-romneys-climate-response-to-science-debate-2012/
Or some pushback against pushback.
Or some hype against pushback.
Or some hyped pushback against hyping pushed back.
So many questions, so little time.
Willard, perhaps a longer roll call of targets is called for. Perhaps the names of all of those impugned and smeared and denigrated should be catalogued and repeated regularly. Perhaps with every name that is added, the credibility of the smears is diminished.
Some more pushback:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/climate_change_act_and_the_royal_2#outgoing-209134
The public servant might have an intuitive grasp of parsomatics, since he asks:
The clarification is provided by way of a more precise term:
Then it seems all this pushback will get settled by phone.
For the amateurs of water-drop torture and comedies of menace, that’s a great loss.
Dave H,
I hope your suggestion does not imply any collectivistic intentions.
Speaking of collectives, how would you deal with spitballs like “Dr. Tobis and his co-authors” like in #167 and #217?
A meaning of “co-author” that deserves due diligence, like your hopefully non-collectivistic suggestion, Dave H.
Dave H,
I believe your suggestion has merit, considering Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, courtesy of Ron Broberg:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/24472458681
Thanks for the Abilene link, willard.
Gee, did their shirts get ripped or are you doing it on their behalf?
#239 Scapegoat = victim.
Tom Scharf,
René Girard offers a perspective of scapegoating that might deserve due diligence,:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Girard#Violence_and_the_sacred
We could say that harrywr2’s intuition coincides with René Girard’s.
Victimization and self-victimization should not be conflated. Auditors might not wish to go there, and prefer to return to their pushback on SkS and Mann. But if they do insist, we might have to watch the best reruns of Groundskeeper Willie’s shirt ripping.
We might be rehearsing a comedy of menace that has been told time and time again, while waiting for Godot.
#240, #241,
Crickets.
Tom Scharf
#239 Scapegoat = victim.
I thought that was willard’s point. The personalise-and-demonise tactic victimises specific scientists.
I think for self-victimization we can turn comfortably to examination of the antic of the Climate Possessed.
Michael Mann declares himself to be a victim. And yet his shoddy statistics cried out to be audited. He lied to Congress about his use of R2 verification. Tiljander upside down. Bristlecone pines. Etc. Etc. He hid the decline.
He did all these things. When he is criticized for these things (not for who he is, not for attitude or personality, not for political affiliation–for the things that he did) he claims victimhood.
Now he coordinates phony reviews that he gets to edit for his book. I criticize him for what he did. He should not have done that. It is sleazy.
He did this thing. This thing was wrong. He deserves criticism.
Put another way, he overhyped his science. I’m pushing back.
willard, have you come across this?
#262 drops another waterdrop on another head, the tank running dry on Jones’ head around #232.
Pushing back with spitballs = hype.
PS: No, BBD. Have any relevant quote for the auditing sciences?
Tom
Who cares about Mann? If you want to argue the science, then argue it. Overturn the standard position. Reinvent atmospheric physics. Dare to be different.
Funny how that works. Sceptics are bz Vilifying und Viktimizing your pure heroes. Until they do something wrong and it’s time to just look at the science.Gleick! Let’s look at the science of water…Pachauri! Let’s focus on railway engineering.Mann! I guess it’s malaria at this pointLewandowsky! It’s Psychology time.Jones! Intermediate Excel…
It would be interesting to know the difference between Shub’s piece at Bishop’s and a political hit job.
Another hit for “political hit job” at Keith’s:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/2011/08/18/scrutinizing-outlandish-climate-claims/#comment-72137
Perry. Ah, the good ol’ days.
willard @ 264
PS: No, BBD. Have any relevant quote for the auditing sciences?
No, it was a just a conversational aside, not a matter for the auditors. The Girard quote reminded me of Carvalho’s little masterpiece of scapegoating fiction and I wondered if you had read it.
BBD,
Thanks for the pointer. I’ll try to fetch it when I have the round tuit. Having problems finishing **2666**. **The Road** is awaiting, restarted to read **Mindsight**.
Speaking of mindsight, would you characterize #262 as CA Karaoke?
BBD,
Thanks for the pointer. I’ll try to fetch it when I have the round tuit. Having problems finishing **2666**. **The Road** is awaiting, restarted to read **Mindsight**.
Speaking of mindsight, would you characterize #262 as a CA Karaoke?
Hmmm. Pressing escape does not seem to work.
@262Continous pearl-cluthing is the only option when the reality is that crticisms of Mann’s statistical technique amount to little more than a theoretical quibble. Use the alternative technique and what do you get – a hockeystick.The hockey-stick is in the data, as has been denonstrated with a range of other studies using different proxies and techniques.But as there is little real interest in the science, attacks will continue on Mann; his book , his reviews, his whatever……
Michael, that’s pretty much word for word what the Rabid Reaction Team has been pushing for three years. Most of us still don’t buy it.
The blade? Sure. The shaft? Not so much…
My point earlier is that “skeptics” have successfully personalised things to the point where Mann is shorthand for the hockey stick, and criticism of either affects both. But what about Bradley and Hughes? If Mann is a fraud so are they, and if you believe that you should have the guts to say so, and not lazily concentrate on Mann. Ultimately, avery prominent publication that runs afoul of “skeptics” has the author denigrated as a fraud or incompetent, and that’s easy if “skeptics” are allowed to target individuals. If every time a personal attack emerges an exhaustive list of all others that have been directly or indirectly dismissed as incompetent, doesn’t the “skeptic” position lose some of its power? Doesn’t the sheer number of scientists that must be “incompetent” for the “skeptic” to be right expose the conspiracy thinking they so dearly want to avoid association with?
“… emerges, – the response references – an exhaustive list…”
“a theoretical quibble”
Whose impacts were overblown in a study which conflated effects, skipped the analysis part of time-series analysis and fed an entire biological signal; deterministic, stochastic, trending and stationary components into an ARIMA function. But “shoddy statistics”, “crying out to be audited” and “hype” are reserved for Mann.
Since net forcings have not changed very much over the last millennium, those who argue for a global, synchronous MWP are also arguing for a climate system sensitive to even small changes in net forcing. It doesn’t matter if this is the result of external or internal forcing. It’s still radiative forcing, and the climate system is still very sensitive to it.
@274If that’s the case Tom, the Mann et al study should stand out like a sore thumb – it doesn’t; multiple subsequent studies have replicated the results of Mann et al.Get over it.
willard @ 271
Sorry – no intent to add to the book mountain; forget I mentioned it 😉
As for the play it again Sam karaoke, well yes, 262 has all the elements of a familiar tactic. I think you called it ‘word placement’ earlier. It’s the obligate tactic of contrarians with no actual scientific case.
The Mannean hockey stick is a feeble thing. Try these for size. Believers in a global, synchronous MWP will note the increase in radiative forcing.
#273,
The hockeystick is in the stripbark bristlecones from one small corner of the Western United States and the Gaspe cedars from Canada. Certainly in the case of the bristlecones we know that there was no 20th century rise in temperature at their location – a fact which was known before Mann used them. The Gaspe series (which was used twice in the reconstruction) is a bit more difficult to tell, since Jocoby refused to reveal exactly where the sample was taken from, later claiming the location had been lost, and when an update survey at the same location in 1991 showed completely different results with no hockeystick, Jacoby refused to publish or archive them on the grounds that the earlier data showed the temperature better. Other Canadian records from the same region show no hockeystick.
The Hockeystick is an artifact of corrupted data from a handful of damaged or disturbed trees, that get weighted more heavily by the biased algorithms used.
The first example demonstrating that fact was calculated by Mann himself, but not published – it was found by accident on his ftp site buried in a directory labelled ‘censored’. Excluding the bristlecones from the reconstruction, the warm MWP reappeared. There have been dozens of others done since. You need to get everything just right to get a hockeystick – you can do it by cherrypicking the handful of known corrupted data series with a small sample, or you can use a much bigger sample and rely on biased algorithms to pull out the corrupted series from the mass.
Because with these algorithms there’s a risk that what you end up reconstructing isn’t temperature, it’s usual to hold back some temperature data and test it against the reconstruction to make sure it’s working. The correlation between the reconstructed temperature and the actual temperature is checked. Mann did this, and reported the most favourable results, but neglected to mention that for most sections of the reconstruction it failed this test. In fact, for the section covering the time of the MWP, the r-squared correlation with real temperatures was about 0.02, (i.e. it was 2% temperature and 98% something else). Mann must have known this before publication, but ‘withheld adverse results’ as we say in the trade. The other reconstructions done since are said to fail validation, too.
The reconstruction was also criticised by several of his colleauges in the profession – one describing it as “crap” – but not publicly. We only found out about that after ClimateGate. (see 1024334440.txt)
So the science is wrong, Mann knew it was wrong, his colleagues knew it was wrong, and the IPCC knew it was wrong when they included it in their report. In normal science they’d have just written it off as a mistake and moved on. But for some reason everybody seems determined to defend it to the death.
We can only speculate as to the reasons for this, but it doesn’t require a conspiracy. All it requires for each individually to make the decision that the reputation of the science on which their own personal career and political influence depends is more important than following strict scientific method. They’re also reliant on the goodwill of their professional colleagues for doing their job. They gamble, thinking that it’s OK because they believe it is true anyway.
This idea that “the errors don’t matter” pervades climate science. Demonstrated mistakes in the method “don’t matter” if the conclusion turns out to be true, or unchanged by correcting that particular error. Nobody is bothered that they pass peer-review, or that the climate science community failed to detect it, or that the IPCC accepted it. All that matters is getting the right conclusion.
It’s classic Cargo Cult science – a well-known phenomenon. It happens because scientists are human.
Shorter nullius:
We libertarian pseudo-sceptics have to make a song and dance about the hockey stick because it’s all we’ve got. And in the context of the entire scientific understanding of CC, it is nothing much. Oh, and we need to bury BBD’s inconvenient observations under a great waffling screed, quick-sharp. Because we have no answer to those observations. Oh and word placement: we need to say ‘Cargo Cult science’ again. It’s been too long, and these repetition tactics only work with diligent application.
#275,
“Doesn’t the sheer number of scientists that must be “incompetent” for the “skeptic” to be right expose the conspiracy thinking they so dearly want to avoid association with?”
Doesn’t the sheer number of sceptics that must be “incompetent” for the “scientists” to be right expose the conspiracy thinking they so dearly want to avoid association with?
#278,
You’re still assuming there’s only one sort of radiative forcing, and only one sensitivity. The climate system is not one-dimensional.
#281,
But which caused which?
Nullius, you mean “Mann, Bradley and Hughes all knew it was wrong”.
BBD, One can have low sensitivity, autocorrelation, random walk, and the MWP. One can postulate that the actual forcings at the time were unknown and get MWP; one can postulate there exists an unknown or unrecognized forcing, or response and get the MWP. In order to avoid two problems with models, according to Chapter 9 of AR4, WG-1, proxy reconstructions were chosen to support confidence in the ECS, and the results of the models. Understand that without the models, stating whether temperature increases are a benefit or a harm is mostly speculative and arguments can be made for either. Additionally, the time that mitigation should start, or CO2 levels that are harmful cannt be determined. The two problems faced by models are 1.) With only one independent measurement of climate and not very long, nor with good extant with respect to the 30 year defintion, models themselves are a circualr argument until verified. The other problem is confidence that the models capture enough of the long cycles such that a comparison of forcings with and without CO2 can be made and considered valid i.e. no black swans. Note the autocorrelation/random walk argument, and models do not deal well with transitions of interglacials/glaciation without invoking attractors. There has been some work and progress on this since AR4; and perhaps there will be better agreement with different aspects of models and the geologic record in AR5.
#285,
It’s not clear whether Mann told his co-authors what was going on at the time.
Dava H,
You seem to forget Broccolli:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJQIUkjz9PU&feature=related
Let’s get choppin’ Broccoli.
There’s also Timothy Carter, whom we could chop into quarters.
Dave H,
You might be interested to know that there are at least eleven pages of archived posts for “Mann, Bradley and Hughes” at CA:
http://climateaudit.org/page/11/?s=Mann%2C+Bradley+and+Hughes
Lazar,
Note #284.
Seems that Groundskeeper Willie’s new guru prefers chicken and eggs questions to your #277.
Returning on MBH, a new research on MBH has been published. An open question by TCO, a commenter that got banned from CA:
http://climateaudit.org/2005/01/27/new-research-published-on-mbh98/
Two open questions.
Two possible answers to the first one.
Political hit job.
Karaoke.
#287 dissembling. Have the courage of your convictions.
BBD,
Here’s your first sentence of your #265:
I like your Dare to be different, btw.
Now, look at the very next comment:
Funny how that works indeed. We could barely recognize that quote as a response to the first one. Please tell us: was Mann your pure hero? I’m sure you still have your teen posters on a box somewhere. Please find it and report.
I want to see a goatee.
Please don’t wait until the rooster crows three times, or else you’ll never forgive yourself.
#291,
Those are fair questions.
“What’s the rationale for the 2 different publications? How do the journals compare?”
GRL is the more ‘prestigious’ journal, but they wanted to do Sonia (the editor of E&E) a favour in return for her support through all the previous trouble with their earlier paper.
“How did MBH amend the gaspe series and do you think it is better to use their version of Gaspe or the other (and why)?”
The Gaspe series started in 1404, which according to the rules excluded it from consideration for the 1400 step, since it didn’t have data for the entire period. So Michael extended it by making up some numbers for the four previous years, thus enabling it’s inclusion in the critical MWP period, thus strengthening the hockeystick shape.
Gaspe shouldn’t have been used anyway, since the spike was clearly unrelated to temperatures, and had been superceded by a update survey of the same area. But the special steps taken to get the series into the 1400 roster, when other similar near misses were excluded, is evidence of ‘cherrypicking’ manipulation. That it’s inclusion was critical to the final result lends weight to that.
Dave H,
There’s a simpler way than to wait for Nullius’ courage. All we need is to remind him of this:
As soon as we posit a cargo cult of nobly corrupted scientists, you can connect about any name you want in the network analysis you’re suggesting we should do.
Let’s call it the invisible hand of noble curruption. I’m sure libertarians will like it. Let’s hope our good Bishop is paying attention.
Have you read his political hit job, by the way? There are nice quotes in that pamphlet.
#294,
If course these are fair questions. It’s a pity we are still waiting for an answer. But I can understand that Steve prefers to finish up his **Lewandwosky Was Gleicked**. These questions are so2005.
Still, it would be interesting to have Steve’s answer to the first one. Unless you can provide quotes, I’m not sure how your mental attribution can help us.
Besides, your answer to the second question kind omits the fact that we’re talking about 100 years of data, not the whole reconstruction. As an hockey amateur, I would not call this a shaft.
Finally, you forgot to answer Lazar’s comment. Please own your new guru standing. Oh, and please don’t mind the word “guru”. I believe it’s a perfectly legitimate term in the auditing sciences:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/10/04/gavins-guru-and-rcs-standardization/
Do we know if Gavin is honest, yet?
#292,
I’ve no idea what you’re talking about.
We know that Mann was the one who held the data, and performed the calculations. We don’t know for sure whether the other two knew – although as senior authors they certainly should have done.
Journals (particularly the more ‘snooty’ ones like Nature) have a tendency to discount new and unknown authors, so it is a common practice for more experienced scientists to put their names on their papers to get them published, until they’ve built a reputation. Since Mann was only granted his PhD in 1998 (in somewhat odd circumstances), it’s quite possible that Bradley and Hughes only participated to get this newbie’s paper into Nature, where it would have more impact. From fresh-faced postgrad in 1998 to a lead author on chapter 2 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report published in 2001 (which included the famous graph in section 2.3.2.2), Mann floated to the top of his profession with remarkable speed.
It’s easy to assume now given Mann’s fame and stature that MBH worked as equals, but that’s not how it was at the time. I agree that Bradley and Hughes bear some responsibility. But we have no evidence that they checked Mann’s numbers before publication, any more than Nature’s peer-reviewers did. Presumably everyone was assuming that somebody else had done it – the senior authors assumimg the journal would check, and the journal assuming the senior authors would have made sure it was right. Professors are busy people, and surely have more important things to be doing…
And it’s Gaspé. Parc Forillon is a marvel:
http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/qc/forillon/index.aspx
nullius
You’re still assuming there’s only one sort of radiative forcing, and only one sensitivity. The climate system is not one-dimensional.
This is a weak misdirection. Are you going to make the same mistake as Dave H who doesn’t understand that internal variability and sensitivity to external forcing are flip sides of the same coin? Are we in for another bravura display of libertarian physics? Or are you going to admit that a global, synchronous MWP in response to very small changes in forcing (be they internal, external or a coincident mix of the two) *requires* a climate system sensitive to radiative forcing or it could not have happened at all?
Mann, Mann, Mann, Corruption, Mann, Mann, Deception, Mann, Mann, Goatee, Mann, Mann, Cargo Cult Science, Mann, Mann, Corruption, Mann, Mann.
Personalise and demonise!
It’s all you’ve got.
#296,
“Still, it would be interesting to have Steve’s answer to the first one. Unless you can provide quotes, I’m not sure how your mental attribution can help us.”
The reference is to the start of chapter 6 in Montford. The GRL paper was in reply to MBH99 published in GRL, which is a more prestigious journal. The E&E paper was a favour. Not that it matters – journal snobbery is just more ad verecundiam argument.
“Besides, your answer to the second question kind omits the fact that we’re talking about 100 years of data, not the whole reconstruction.”
I was talking about the particular 100 years that included the MWP, which is the issue at question.
But if you like, the r-squared cross-validation scores for the rest of the reconstruction were:
1400-1449 0.018
1450-1499 0.010
1500-1599 0.006
1600-1699 0.004
1700-1729 0.00003
1730-1749 0.013
1750-1759 0.156
1760-1779 0.050
1780-1799 0.122
1800-1819 0.154
1820-1980 0.189
Figures are from Wahl and Amman’s famous ‘Jesus paper’.
@ 299
Dave H – my apologies – I meant John F. Pittman of course.
Don’t let nullius direct this exchange. He can sit there with Montford’s book on his desk and keep you all talking about *nothing very much that matters* all afternoon. It is called misdirection and relies on false equivalence. MBH98/99 != climate science as a whole.
This is the obligate tactic of those who have no scientific case but are required by their political beliefs to reject Stern’s view that global warming is ‘the greatest market failure the world has ever seen’. In other words, libertarian ideologues.
Please notice that the sentences of Fuller – and the rest of the scare-mongerers about scare-mongering – all have some similar attributes:They contain a noun, a verb, and “Climategate!!!!!111!!!!!1!!!!”
BBD,
Bishop’s political hit job provides an interesting read.
Pushback against his hype is entertaining too. For instance:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/2010/08/04/gavins-perspective/comment-page-9/#comment-13759
You’d be interested to read Shub’s opinion of Bishop’s karaoke in that same thread:
DaveH’s question was quite good:
Shub giving his neutral appreciation of Bishop’s book.
Shub having a guest post at Bishop’s.
Hmmm.
Would you think that Steve primed our good Bishop, by any chance? In a karaoke kind of way, so to speak.
Too bad we don’t have anything from the backchannels.
#301,
Yes, Nullius, all this to falsify “unprecedented”.
Likewise, Climategate for “delete”.
The auditing sciences are glorified word placement disciplines.
Here’s the lede of Chapter 6 of Bishop’s:
We can suppose that the last sentence is an indirect report of a written communication. It could be interesting to have that document. Just to make sure: due diligence and all that.
Compare and contrast that answer with Nullius’ #301.
I’m sure DaveH must be asking himself: but what’s the title of that chapter, again?
Here it is:
Yup.
Rhymes with “pushing back”.
#303,
Your side can deal with the MBH quite easily – just stop supporting it. I was given this splendid opportunity by Michael at #273, (for which I am truly grateful,) and earlier with the implicit support for poor little Mikey being harassed by those nasty sceptics.
When we’re all agreed that MBH98/99 was rubbish, and that it got past all the vaunted layers of peer review at Nature and GRL and the IPCC without being checked, and that all the subsequent defences of it were scientifically unjustified, we can move on.
Until then, it’s a perpetual vulnerability, which I’ll prod and squeeze at every opportunity. I’m not attacking it because I have anything particular against Mann – he’s a human who made mistakes and got out of his depth – I’m attacking it because you guys keep defending it.
You keep on trying to defend the indefensible, which is just an irresistable temptation to me. You can avoid all this pain and save me the effort if you’ll just all go out and read Montford’s book. Then nobody will ever need to mention it again.
#308,
Your side.
Make me do it.
Please stop making me do it.
I just can’t resist.
It’s beyond my control:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjUmvHBgHr0
#307,
And would you like to quote the relevant bit from the bottom of that same page? To compare and contrast with?
#310
Doing a favor. Fighting back.
Venus and Mars.
Is playing stupid out of your control too?
***
Will quote later.
Harry (201)
Please understand – I share your concerns about changes in the media that have undermined comprehensive investigative journalism. It is a serious problem, IMO: a good press is key in our society. Your details and descriptions are interesting and useful.
Yes – in some ways there are fewer resources being devoted to journalism. Yes, in media, like any business, the profit motive drives an effort to satisfy consumers with as little cost as possible. Sensationalism in reporting is real – as are the underlying mechanisms that you describe.
On the other hand, I think that there is often a tendency for all of us to focus on some variables more than others – because of how our reasoning can be motivated. So, my questions are:
With all the problems you mentioned, is the public generally less well-informed about scientific issues? Can we say that there is a higher ratio of bad reporting to good reporting than there was during the Hurst era?
If the distrust of the media is greater but in fact people are better-informed on the whole, then what are the factors that drive that distrust – could scare-mongering about scare-mongering or other “motivated” attacks on the media be a factor that is driving the distrust? How do we measure the positive impact of vastly greater ability to research issues quickly through technological advances? How do you measure the positive impact of an exponential growth in medial outlets?
I’m sure that if we thought about it, we could find other, similar questions about mitigating factors that complicated a pared down equation of:
Lazar,
Before quoting relevant parts of Bishop’s political hit job, I’d like to remind you of these questions:
Have you got any answer yet? I believe this requests is two years old.
Would you consider Please tell us that MBH98 is rubbish as a valid answer to your question?
Why do you defend MBH98?
I don’t need to ask why you do beat your wife. That’s none of our concerns, right now.
Here’s the link of Lazar’s request:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/2010/08/04/gavins-perspective/comment-page-9/#comment-13908
As willard dribbled upthread, Climategate is an extremely apt example for Climate Hype and Push Back.
Offhand I cannot think of a study that was hyped more than that which resulted in the Hockey Stick chart. Its authors were so proud of it they called themselves the Hockey Team. It appeared six times in AR3 and was behind Watson (Houghton?) for the press conference announcing the report’s release. It accompanied seemingly every story on climate change for years and has been published hundreds of thousands of times.
It was wrong. Its authors knew it was wrong. When those of other opinions tried to show it was wrong, that’s when the real pushback began. And it was the Consensus Push Back against legitimate criticism of a study the Consensus knew was fatally flawed that led to Climategate.
Of course these fools want to claim that Mann doesn’t matter and that half the Hockey Stick is right. They screwed the pooch thoroughly and wasted incredible amounts of time defending the indefensible.
That’s why they can’t let it go. Once Mosher used the word in a parody comment it served as a taunt for some much time, energy, good will and support that was wasted in defense of bad science, bad politics and bad public relations.
So now they invent new vocabularies and push the argument into the realm of post modernism. BBD brings arguments over from a blog where he was banned. Willard champions Derrida as a new icon of climate science. Oh–sorry. He wants to minimize a crime that brought phony science to policy makers by putting the word ‘unprecedented’ in quotes. He wants to minimize a violation of the law committed to hide the fact that policy makers were misled by putting the word ‘delete’ in quotes.
As surely as a dog returns to its vomit, they circle back to the same feeble justifications. Those with more sense in the consensus (there is very little sense in the consensus…) at least shut up about it.
Instead, they have held on to the same strategies and tactics that insure their folly is repeated.
NiV, your explanations and arguments are clear. They are also unchallenged. These idiots cannot argue the facts. They are forced to turn elsewhere, to the realms of conspiracy, irrelevance and political disposition.
I hope you save your recent comments. You’ll have the opportunity to use them again and again, as these idiots have been stumbling through the same minefield for three years.
Willard–BBD–Joshua–wake up, Marlowe–on to victory, men of the Glorious Seventh!
> These idiots cannot argue the facts.
Facts never stand alone.
Facts are sometimes hyped.
In this case, they are hyped.
This is a fact.
For every hyped fact, we should expect some pushback.
We might posit this as the Fullerene Law of climate blogland.
***
Groundskeeper Willie’s new brave, brave, brave, brave guru won’t take Lazar’s gauntlet. Using Michael is just so out of his control.
That’s weak, willard. Even by your low standards. Weak.
Perhaps it is a good time to recall this bit from Steve’s About page:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/387264960
In the light of the St.Petersburg paradox underlined #234, we might consider games where there are unwinnable positions which are also unloseable.
And of course there are other games where there is nothing to win, except postponing the loss. Life. Comedies of menace. Et cetera.
Here we are, at the end of a miraculous evolution, waiting for Godot.
You have nothing against #316 except ripping your shirt.
Please go ahead. See if I care.
You simply can’t win that one.
#319 was meant for our honorable Groundskeeper Willie, of course.
> NiV, your explanations and arguments are clear
Absolutely. Lots of evidence-free speculation about Bradley and Hughes, and their possible rubber-stamping, general incompetence and/or outright intentional fraud in contributing to their own paper. Its great stuff. Anything to put the focus back on Mann, who is – as we know – convenient shorthand for Everything Wrong With Climate Science. Except when someone else is.
Nullius is very fair and even-handed too, in his offer to allow progress and productive discussion to continue if we’ll just be reasonable and Cede To His Demands 100%. One wonders why he wastes his time in this thread when he could be resolving geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East with balanced argumentation like that.
Perhaps our Groundskeeper Willie might be interested in this opinion from James Annan:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.ca/2012/06/costs-of-uncertainty.html?showComment=1339563907365#c6838369946817591595
I don’t think James Annan has the habit to speak like that without having a fairly good idea of what he’s talking about.
But please, don’t take my word for it. Nor James’. Nor Nullius’. Nullius in verba.
Let us go all ex nihilo.
You’re not making it any better, willard. Do your little song and dance to those living in energy poverty in Germany and the UK. See how they like it.Their leaders trusted Michael Mann and the Hockey Stick. They implemented expensive initiatives to change their entire energy infrastructure.
Now those decisions are being revisited. Germany is now building 23 new coal fired power plants. The UK just appointed a conservative Tory to slow down installations of wind.You idiots aren’t helping.
Unfortunately BBD, one can go to google scholar and insert long term persistence phenomena climate and get a multitude of peer reveiwed literature that examine this. Another point ignored by your reasoning of “Or are you going to admit that a global, synchronous MWP in response to very small changes in forcing (be they internal, external or a coincident mix of the two) *requires* a climate system sensitive to radiative forcing or it could not have happened at all?” is that very long scale forcings that are smaller than our measurement capability will not necessarily be detected, but can have a large effect. Think Bern model, or Milankovitch cycles for forcing wrt ECS, rather than CO2 or orbits. I pointed out that there are other possible answers. As to which, or if it even exists, that is what research is for. Nor does your point address that model’s mesh sizes do not have the resolution to make determinate answers without non-physical adjustments which requires that the models are somewhat constrained by the observational data that they are compared with and that represents a deferred circular argument as is indicated in Chs 9 and 10 of AR4. All this goes to the methodology of what AR4 used. I am agnostic. If it is shown that MWP was worldwide and synchronous, then it will have to be explained in a consistant manner. I do not know if this will provide ammo for skeptics. For why models are not physical models but contain non-physical parameters such as hyperviscosity or convective adjustment, seeComparison of Numerical Methods for theCalculation of Two-Dimensional Turbulence By G. L. Browning and H.-O. Kreiss
You mean, “… trusted Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, Malcolm Hughes and the Hockey Stick.”
“Bristlecones”…This paper separates factors which likely effect radial growth and is an example of clear analysis…
Salzer, M. W., M. K. Hughes, A. G. Bunn, and K. F. Kipfmueller (2009), Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone pine at the highest elevations and possible causes, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(48), 20348-20353, doi:10.1073/pnas.0903029106.
Results correlating ecological positions with climate responses are generally consistent with results for other species in other parts of the world…
Frank, D., and J. Esper (2005), Characterization and climate response patterns of a high-elevation, multi-species tree-ring network in the European Alps, Dendrochronologia, 22(2), 107″“121, doi:10.1016/j.dendro.2005.02.004.
Block, J., and U. Treter (2003), The limiting factors at the upper and lower forest limits in the mountain-woodland steppe of Northwest Mongolia, in Schleser G, Winiger M, Bräuning A, Gärtner H, Helle G, Jansma E, Neuwirth B, Treydte K (eds.) (2003) Proceedings of the Dendrosymposium 2002, vol. 1, p. 22″“26, April 11th – 13th 2002, Bonn / Jülich, Germany.
Jump, A. S., J. M. Hunt, and J. Peñuelas (2007), Climate relationships of growth and establishment across the altitudinal range of Fagus sylvatica in the Montseny Mountains, northeast Spain, Ecoscience, 14(4), 507-518, doi:10.2980/1195-6860(2007)14[507:CROGAE]2.0.CO;2.
Wang, T., H. Ren, and K. Ma (2005), Climatic signals in tree ring of Picea schrenkiana along an altitudinal gradient in the central Tianshan Mountains, northwestern China, Trees, 19(6), 736-742, doi:10.1007/s00468-005-0003-9.
But there are some counter-examples regarding the latter…
Dang, H., M. Jiang, Q. Zhang, and Y. Zhang (2007), Growth responses of subalpine fir (Abies fargesii) to climate variability in the Qinling Mountain, China, Forest ecology and management, 240(1-3), 143″“150, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.12.021.
Fang, K., X. Gou, D. F. Levia, J. Li, F. Zhang, X. Liu, M. He, Y. Zhang, and J. Peng (2009), Variation of radial growth patterns in trees along three altitudinal transects in north central China, IAWA Journal, 30(4), 443-457.pdfs of most can be found online.
Strong (hyped?) claims made in this thread regarding bristlecone pine ring width signal content and climate trends need due diligence and citations.
#321,
“Anything to put the focus back on Mann”
If you want to blame Bradley and Hughes as well, I have no objection. The problem is the paper, that it passed review undetected, and the continued defence of it. I’m not interested in playing personalities.
“Nullius is very fair and even-handed too, in his offer to allow progress and productive discussion to continue if we’ll just be reasonable and Cede To His Demands 100%.”
You misunderstand. I’m quite happy for you to carry on defending Mann’s mistakes. It gives me endless opportunities for polishing my points, which I find very enjoyable.
I only offer the advice in the sure and certain knowledge that you won’t take it.
They certainly do, Lazar.
#323 Tom Fuller
If you are going to make the numbers work for nuclear power then the nuclear power plants are going to have to own off peak. The problem with wind is that 1/2 the time it blows it is off peak.Absent a breakthrough on energy storage or a societal change in energy consumption patterns wind power and nuclear power can not economically co-exist.
Tom Fuller, the rise of households in the UK in fuel (not energy) poverty is more to do with recession, inflation, unemployment, stagnant wages and cuts in benefits and social programs, as well as rising gas prices, than any change in infrastructure. Lest we forget, the meaning here is spending 10% or more of your income on household fuel, electricity etc.
No Dave H, the rise in fuel poverty is due to repeated rate rises by utility companies authorized by the government to recapture capital costs of green energy installations and payment of feed-in tariffs. The economy sucks all over Europe. But only those countries with extensive expenditures on green energy (Spain, Italy, UK and Germany) are seeing huge rises in energy poverty and energy costs.
DaveH,
Groundskeeper Willie already played this DeathsAndTaxes line before. Please note that this line has not been officialized by the Auditor yet:
http://climateaudit.org/2012/01/31/geoffrey-boulton-and-ipcc-secrecy/#comment-323462
He’s just throwing the same spitballs over and over again which, as underlined in #128, creates a sense of guilt, relieves tension against a disliked group, etc. Repeating dogmatic assertions while ripping off his shirt is what Groundskeeper Willie does best.
The more repetitive his spitballs, the more time is saved to go spit somewhere else. The more you spend time answering his spitballs, the more it should depresses you.
And then his SEO advisors sing and dance.
DaveH,
Please also note how dropping water drops on Mann’s forefront was reaching an empty tank by #326, which we can predict won’t be addressed, Lazar being so less irresistible than Michael.
So we need another tank to leak our waterdrops.
Now it’s me.
Or people like me.
I’m the reason why people die.
So we must presume that he’s here to save these people.
I thought he was here to profit from the Fullerene Law of Climate Blogland and make his SEO advisors sing and dance.
No, he’s here because life’s at stake.
Reminds me of Carnivà le:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8shFecDr4Bc
Drip.
Drip.
Drip.
Yes, I did notice that I offered a nuanced and complex picture of the factors affecting household fuel expenditure as a proportion of income in the UK and got back a dogmatic, its-all-green-energy’s-fault response straight out of the hysterical end of the media. One might say this was an alarmist position. One might also say that it was over-hyped.
So, what’s coming next?
The Wegman Affair, perhaps.
Perhaps some Tiljander.
Why not some Antartica stuff.
Or the relationship between anonymity and honor, it’s been a while.
Models, perhaps: I’m starting to miss our Knight of Ni.
RC moderation, perhaps: is Gavin honest?
Surface stations? Hmmm. I doubt it: there is that Muller remark about statistical pedantry.
The existence of a surface temperature. Now, that would be an interesting one. I’m a sucker for ontological proofs.
Perhaps we could just return to the discussion about morality. Nullius is there. I like his view that it’s all esthetics and utility calculi. Should be fun to compare with #203, which we’re waiting to pay due diligence.
Perhaps some more G. When will we read **Lewandowsky Was Gleicked?**
Or Pachauri. We only mentioned him a few times.
Perhaps mt should jump in. His comments usually provide the appropriate exits for Groundskeeper Willie.
Speaking of which, there are still spitballs above we could pick up about that.
So much to do, so little time.
With some effort, we might be able to incorporate the whole Dutch book of gaming theory.
Nullius, you ask us to say that which is not true (that MBH98 is rubbish that should never have passed review, and that all attached to it are frauds, incompetents, slackers or some other pejorative) and in return you will stop asking. Doesn’t seem like a tempting offer to me. Perhaps instead you could select an equally totemic “skeptical” paper that hasn’t already reached total irrelevance and offer to make equally damning concessions about that.
As promised, here’s the Bishop’s quote:
This quote appears on p. 151-152 of our good Bishop’s political hit job, for which Nullius provided an incomplete karaoke.
The emphasized part of the quote and the title title of the chapter, viz. Fighting Back, should provide a more complete response to TCO’s question made in 2005.
But as it stands, the response is still incomplete. The main reason, at least if we read our Bishop’s karaoke, is that
Indeed. And let’s not forget that blogging can provide quasi-infinite space, in case more needs to be said for more pushback.
Let’s not forget the quote at the beginning of the chapter, titled Fighting Back:
Speaking of which, we should mention that the Auditor:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/922322528
The auditor is being modest here: he studied at Oxford, in the PPE program.
Anyone who read Oxonians should believe him.
I don’t know if Gavin is a dishonest moderator. I do know that I don’t like moderation, and RC’s in particular. Though it does have some good posts. But, then WUWT can make that claim. And that Gavin has at least one paper that I thought was exceptional. YMMV. Willard isn’t 336 Dave H some sort of logical error? Though I do know that several papers touted by skeptics did not even get published in a form that matched their hype. At least one did not make the stated publication date.
DaveH, your position on energy poverty may indeed be nuanced. However, it is wrong. The factors you describe were common to Europe. The factors I described are specific to areas where the incidence of fuel poverty is higher.
I guess nuance is more important than facts for some. You might use that as a basis to form an hypothesis of why we are where we are today.
John F. Pittman,
Dave H’s proposal is not a tu quoque, since it’s not an argument. It’s an offer, a speech act announcing a peaceful negotiation process. Something like: “I lay down my gun if you lay down yours.”
If this was only a logical process, we’d reach a famous Two Generals’ problem, which you can find on thy Wiki. But it’s more than that: it’s not unlike what we did, me and you, and the preceding thread. Showing openness and willingness to compromise is key. I believe the way we interacted changed our mutual behavior toward one another.
As far as I’m concerned, Nullius is the perfect gaming theorist, so I don’t expect much. Perhaps something like: being a skeptic, I don’t need to defend anyone else than my own Verba; you can’t say the same, since you, Dave H, belong to the tribe of the CONSENSUS (of which there is none, but nevermind that detail).
So to prevent that escape route (consensus, tribes, and teams are such a bore), I’ll try to argue against interest:
Please note that in doing so, I’m following this HowTo:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/13875409298
In fact, I can do a bit more than that. I can say that I bow to Eduardo Zorita’s opinion of him. If you can find what Z thinks of Mann, you deserve an Internet.
So, what do you say?
Wee willie, you might have acknowledged that after I discussed the value of argument against self interest on the thread you link to, Dave H responded with a counter factual example which I acknowledged as validating his point.
The fact of the matter is that I don’t care what you think of Mann, the Hockey Stick, me or anything else. You’re a toll and a fool. I do care about how the issue is faced and dealt with outside the world of blog commentary.
Two notes:
1. Arguing against self-interest is how Groundskeeper Willie introduced one type of shirt removal. I don’t suppose I acted against my interest in making this statement. Perhaps we should call this shirt stripping. Got to think about this.
2. The quote about universities was by Francis Bacon. The business maverick against the aristocratic bureaucrat is an important part of the auditing narrative. It’s certainly not absent from Bishop’s political hit job.
@ 324 John F. Pittman
Unfortunately BBD, one can go to google scholar and insert long term persistence phenomena climate and get a multitude of peer reveiwed literature that examine this.
Long term persistence phenomena such as what, exactly? You need to be *much* more specific or this is just saying stuff. And I’m not buying.
Tiny, very long term forcings ‘smaller than our measurement capability’?? You aren’t talking about *mystery forcings* by any chance? 🙂 What kind of forcings are ‘smaller than our measurement capability'(!)? We could easily measure changes in insolation at high NH latitude as under Milankovitch, so I don’t accept this either.
Think Bern model, or Milankovitch cycles for forcing wrt ECS, rather than CO2 or orbits.
Eh? Orbital forcing and Milankovitch forcing are used interchangeably where I come from. Admittedly the 83 – 123ka ‘Milankovitch cycle’ governing glacial terminations is obliquity (it’s 2x or 3x the 41ka obliquity cycle), but obliquity modulated by precession and orbital eccentricity. The high latitude NH summer insolation maxima generated by the interaction of all three are apparently sufficient to trigger a chain of feedbacks leading to deglaciation. These feedbacks include GHGs (mainly CO2, CH4 and water vapour).
Your strangely muddled comment does not address the original point: that all known climate behaviour demonstrates that the climate system is moderately sensitive to radiative forcing. This holds true from interannual wiggles caused by variations in internal forcing all the way up to deglaciation under orbital forcing.
I have read Zorita, but what I read was his paper about proxies, IIRC. I am not sure of his opinion of Mann. I just know of his work having read the one available on google years ago, and an opinion he had about this that he expressed on a blog. IIRC that was German or perhaps Dutch.
I point to this in #323:
And I point to this in #341:
Blinded by anger, or just as memoryless as a Markov chain?
In any case, let’s note the emphasized spitball. Michael Mann Made Germany Do It.
It’s very tough to believe that Groundskeeper Willie takes himself seriously. It’s almost incredible:
http://planet3.org/incredibilism/
Gee willard, if you took out all the links you put in to your own blog and your really poor guest post at Tobis’ deserted island, your posts would be a lot shorter. That would be a very good thing.
I don’t care what you think about Michael Mann (or anything else). I do care what world leaders think about climate change and energy policy. There is indeed a difference in those two statements. It is a difference that I flagged well in advance of your ball of confusion in #345.
But maybe you have that all explained on another part of your blog.
Indeed, by posing my offer it should be apparent that a) Nullius’ offer is empty, but dressed in the trappings of reasonableness to cast its refuser in a bad light, and b) there are no such totemic “skeptical” publications that anyone would care enough to concede on. The nearest equivalents all relate in some way to Mann (sole purveyor of fraudulent hockey sticks!) so making some kind of MBH trade-in for one of those would be pointless.
Gee Dave H, since it’s all of a sudden resurfacing in the news, what do you think of O’Donnell et al?
Dave H,
In fact, considering the number of studies in both sets, contrarians have no incentive for one-on-one trades.
Speaking of contrarians, here’s evidence that they form a us
Money quote:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/31140226298
This non-Feynmanian way of seeing the scientific process, advertized in a pow-wow sponsored and organized by the Heartland Institute.
This fact should point at the beginning of an answer to the moral question set up in #233.
willard @ 305
Regarding the inimitable shub’s opinion that THSI is a ‘neutral’ book, it’s instructive to read, on only p21:
Yes, very neutral.
BTW did mt give you his copy in the end? 🙂
BBD It does not matter that you are not buying, I was explaining my position. What I offered was free. What I stated was to unknown unknowns. The possibility of these small forcings are not only known, but as stated, it is like the assumptions of the Bern model. You state “we could”, please provide a link that “we have” and that it invalidates my statement, otherwise this is just an assertation and without that link a strawman or some such that I am reasonably certain Willard or Joshua could give a latin or such name to it. But I will answer your question about ” What kind of forcings are “˜smaller than our measurement capability'(!)?” There are plenty and the Bern model has some, but note they are stated as assumptions. If there is a small but constant forcing that occurs over geologic time spans, and if it is not recognized, it will not be accounted for. And if it reverses and is big enough, it can invalidate the concern that the Greenland or Antartic sheets will contribute more than a few meters of sea level rise after a thousand years of warming. This problem is known and an example of this is the Bern model where it is beleived that we have enough inforrmation to assert that CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for hundreds, if not thousands of years, because we do not have a depletion that negates it. Note that this is not a measurement, but an assumption of what is known. It is assumed that the relevant relations have been measured and quantified, but because it has not been directly measured, it is still an assumption and can be invalidated. My point is that within the confidence intervals all known climate behavior there is quite a broad spectrum due to proxies rather than direct measurements. There are extensive measurements for some quantities for 30+ years. However, for a mass and energy balance, only have about a decade for ocean. Once again, to do a mass and energy balance at present requires assumptions. Data can invalidate assumptions. This applies to the MWP and applies to the IPCC AR4 Ch 9 methodology. I note for our groundskeeper you keep throwing spitballs rather than discussing the basis of my argument, AR4.
BDD,
No, mt did not give me his copy. I bought mine. I think at 12$ from The Book Depository, before it got bought by Amazon.
If you have the ebook of that other neutral book, CRU Tape something, I’d be interested.
I asked mt, who owns a copy. But he won’t until he gets the approval of the authors. I asked about ten times to their authors, and they kidded in a most honorable way, to finally refuse.
An interesting episode, quite telling in terms of honor.
I would not mind receiving a paper copy too, if you have one.
Willard if you can get Keith to send me your adress I will send you my copy of crutape letters. I have already read it.
willard
I do have a paper copy of The CRUTape Letters. It is a pun on C. S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters, which I believe was Mosher’s idea. I try not to comment about books I haven’t read. This means that fromtime to time I am obliged to use it as a reference, so I’d like to hang on to it. I may also wish to show it to my son, when he is old enough to understand what it actually is.
JFP
In other words, you are just saying stuff. This is tedious, and I’m not buying.
I suspect I’m falling for a “hey, look over there”, but since you ask I think O’Donnell et al is fine – it adds to the sum of knowledge. Even if it turns out to be inaccurate in a decade, it doesn’t matter because science is a process of trial and error. It may just be another stepping stone on a journey of discovery, and at least it tries to do that. I certainly wouldn’t think it reasonable to demand you admit it was fraudulent rubbish that should never have been published. I also think it would be absurd to compare it to MBH98 in terms of importance. Do you see my point now about the asymmetry of Nullius’ offer? There are no equivalent papers I could ask you to disown in return. Indeed, what I would be forced to do would be to pick some equally controversial “consensus” paper and demand he accepts the truth and integrity of it as recompense. But I cannot make that offer and expect it to be accepted since that exposes the contrarian position to be based on rejectionism rather than an equivalent (but controversial) evidence base.
John F. Pittman,
You can find my email on my tumblog.
Thanks!
BBD, fine, but I like to point out this stuff is what is pointed out in AR4. Throw it away for all I care. You did not and have not addressed what is said in Ch 9, 10, 6 in AR4. I prefer to read AR4 WG1 Ch 9 if I want to talk about attribution.
@willard, yes there is certainly a numeric reason not to start playing go fish with publications. Plus, I can see myself eventually being asked to trade a Foster & Rahmstorf for G&T or something.
I would like F&R for a copy of G&T. Unfortunately, my G&T was pdf on the internet and after slugging through 30+ pages, I decided I would rather basket weave that read any more. Thank goodness I have a real job. If someone wants to say this is ad hom or some other fallacy, I will admit it. The first ten pages tried to invalidate what is known as Cp in thermal diffusivity and thermal conductivity. I have to admit my eyes glazed over. The next 10+ made no sense wrt the first 10, and the last 10 pages because I am stubborn. Who knows what lurks in the 60+ pages after. If you have done it, you are a far better or more stubborn peraon than I>
person*.
Dave H,
I believe Groundskeeper Willie has nothing against your response in #356.
But in case you’d like to revisit Antartica, you can follow this tag:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/antartica
Since Tumblr does not support hyphens, I needed to redo all my tagging system. So it’s not the complete collection. Besides, I still have lots of times and lines for that hurly burly.
There are two main concepts to place in that discussion.
The first is “suboptimal”, which is the most elegant way to characterize the O’Donnell affair. It’s his own epithet, by the way, but I believe it’s quite useful, as the HowTo referred above makes clear.
The second one is “justified disingeniousness”, which I now regret using against John F. Pittman the first time we met. I believe this characterizes very well the lukewarming gambit: go as low as you can go without being called by some hypothetical referee. But I should (this is my regret) keep it to the moral setting, a setting we might need to revisit considering where the G episode left us.
Please also note how the water drops on my head of “British elderly killer” stopped, out of a sudden. Which one will it be, next time? I doubt Groundskeeper Willie will continue doing Antartica, but who can predict a random memoryless process?
Oh, yeah, there’s “Troll!” that resurfaced. Damn. So much spitballs. So little time.
Willard please make sure it is a troll and not a gremlin, sometimes mistakingly identified as a goblin. I wonder if the creators of “Gremlins” missed a motiff moment by not having one of the kids hit a Mogwai with a spitball and a whole explosion of “American horror comedy” then ensues. “Enquiring” minds want to know (SM).
Willard I clicked your name and it is in moderation. If it fails it may be because all those ats in “your contact me” confuse me. Not to say you approach G&T, just saying. 😉
John F. Pittman,
I’m wondering that too. Not only GW has no honor, but he acts like a Markov chain.
Among these warriors, Groundskeeper Willie can remind me of Me Too
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/bigdogmetoo.htm
Too bad Nullius went silent, but I’m sure GW will find another guru to form another dynamic duo.
That GW is a little Me Too who throws too many spitballs for his own good can explain why I indulge playing Big Cat with him, while making sure he does not poison the well by dropping water drops one anyone’s head too long.
Please bear with me until I find the wisdom to become a Kung Fu Master, which I hope will be soon enough…
PS: My email is languageisasocialart at a popular G service.
Perhaps we should say a swarm of Goblins, or a swarm of watered Gremlins:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/swarm.htm
How to deal with a swarm is an open problem, it seems.
I do love the Flame warriors site. I hope Joshua understands that humor often requires a POV or “motivated reasoning.” I would try to beat up on him for not being here, but he said he had other things to do. I tried to send you email with a caution to others if it went astray. Perhaps if you get it, you will appreciate the caution. Perhaps if it went astray they will. LOL
Dave H.“Even if it turns out to be inaccurate in a decade, it doesn’t matter
because science is a process of trial and error. It may just be another
stepping stone on a journey of discovery, and at least it tries to do
that.”
I like that. Recalling Huybers…“First, in the O’Donnell et al paper, as well as in your blog, there
is discussion of ‘correcting’ the Steig et al results. Correction
implies that an error was made, but this is really about optimality of
approach.
Second, O’Donnell et al nicely call attention to the need for more work in their last paragraph.”
I was saddened to read O’Donnell state that they only wanted to ‘prove’ Steig wrong than create a better method (paraphrasing from memory, so a pinch of salt is advisable :-).
All models are wrong, so we can turn the sum of human knowledge into dust while we wait for Godot. ^willard
Yes, that’s a great site. I just noted this one:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm
He’s almost wearing a Markov chainmail.
If you want to mock me, please have a look at Archivist and Philosopher.
Lazar, as far as I can tell, you are incorrect. Go to tAV and read what the authors posted. They wanted to prove that the claims of temperature and robustness of Steig et al were incorrect. They did this. Further in terms of bias, that may well be institutionalized, Steig was a reveiwer and his review contained elements that I cannot conclude were other than motivated reasoning versus scientific reasoning. Their method is better than Steig’s in that it shows the problems thereof. But wanting to prove that Steig was wrong, does not mean that they did not both prove Steig wrong, and improve methods. I would tend to say it is the exception that meets your criteria, not what occurred with O’Donnell et al. One almost has to propose a better methodology, or the reveiwers would consider them similar and equal, and not necessarily worthy of publication. Considering what has been released for public veiw by both Steig and O’Donnel (and co-authors), I find your contention weak, as in it does not have much explanatory power for the reveiw. The review was “robust” and contentious, and resulted in a better paper. Though the reveiw may have been biased wrt O’Donnell et al, my personal opinion is that science progressed. YMMV.
wrt ferouscranus Willard, you do know “”Hey you beat OManual to the top! How’d that happen?Oliver K. Manuel | September “”??I hope you do; no climate blogger should not have read OManuael at least once. I note for net warriors that ferriccranus would probably be better because of solubility equalibria. If “Archivist and Philosopher” is an invitation to mock you, I decline. Mirrors, pots, houses, etc.
Luckily, or perhaps unluckily, the apparent cause of marine ice shelf thinning and retreat along the coastal WAIS is warm sub-surface water.
So, for the sake of argument, lets say that O’Donnell et al 2010 demonstrates that Steig et al 2009 is wrong. Do we now say that that earlier paper is “rubbish, that should not have passed peer review”? Or would that be hype?
It would, in a way, be hype. Though, it may be a rejoinder to what Steig asserted. It may also be a conclusion someone reaches after reading the often, as far as I can tell, self serving posting by both parties. After all the bluster, such considerations, should be looked at wrt to the last update here . Recalling Huybers“¦” There is a long and accepted methodology that suports O’Donnell et al. and in that respect O’Donnell et al advanced science wrt climate science. But as to all things contentious YMMV. Short version better explanatory power is better.
Lazar,
I believe the authors of O10 are still wondering whether they refute, rebut or repudiate S09:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/3216471894
John,
“They wanted to prove that the claims of temperature and robustness of Steig et al were incorrect.”
Sure.
“Their method is better than Steig’s in that it shows the problems thereof”I’m kinda dubious about that as a rule…
Why does showing problems make one method better than another? By what metric?
Assume method 1) for some purpose A).
method 2) shows problems in method 1).
method 2) does not need to attempt purpose A).
Assuming it doesn’t, I think it at least difficult to judge method 2) relative to method 1) since their purposes are tangential, and yet the results of 2) have no existence outside of 1).
Assuming method 2) shows problems in method 1) and also attempts purpose A), it does not follow that method 2) better satisfies purpose A).
And… I’m not even claiming Steig did not create a better method 🙂
To much of your comment I have neither beef nor relevant knowledge.
Dave H, no, it does not mean that Steig 2009 was rubbish. It means the hype surrounding it was. O’Donnell 2010 was partially motivated by showing the hype was wrong. That it provided useful input that would help Steig in the future is good for all of us.
Sometimes the sum of human knowledge increases because of personal gripes and grudges.
“¦ I’m not even claiming O’Donnell did not create a better method
“Sometimes the sum of human knowledge increases because of personal gripes and grudges.”That is a happy thought, perhaps some scientists would agree.
Sorry was basing my response on the last update in the linked article. O’Donnell et al used a methodology that tried to implement this spatial methodology. There is an argument that whether they were successful. I was ignoring this argument because as far as I know it has not finished playing out. You linked Huybers; I assumed you would understand. tAv had several posts where Jeff explored this, and Jeff and O’Donnell explained what they were trying to do on tAV wrt geospatial techniques. You say you are not claiming that O’Donnell did not create a better method, and to a point I agree. The point, and it may be a vanishing point is “Correction implies that an error was made, but this is really about optimality of approach.x This is true if the optmal approach does NOT contradict the claims of the less optimal case x. In the case of Steig et al, O’Donnell showed that the claim of Steig et al could not be supported. Their claim was that it was continental, not local. O’Donnell showed otherwise. Sorry if I was unclear.
JFP – (#197)
As it happens, I have a couple of minutes and looked at the last couple of posts – I’m not going to take the time to understand your reference about having a sense of humor – but ironically – I think that having a sense of humor about our own motivated reasoning is key to productive dialog.
As for your earlier post in response to me:
I read some “skeptics” try to say that other “skeptics” aren’t accepting proven physics – but when I look at their arguments in more depth, I mostly see the same basic “appeal to authority” that I see those very same “skeptics” complaining about with “realists.” It’s all a mess, IMO. “Skeptics” who say that they aren’t nutters also say that ACO2 as a GHG hasn’t been proven empirically even as they say that they don’t doubt that ACO2 is a GHG (they only doubt the the degree). It’s all a mess.
As for your technical explanations – none of it comes as anything new to me. Not to say that I don’t appreciate your knowledge or your explanation. But believe me, I have read essentially all of that before. It all has a certain degree of plausibility when properly qualified as far as I’m concerned (as someone without the background or intelligence to assess the science in-depth) but: (1) I see many “skeptics” state certainty where you are stating qualified conclusions. In that sense, you can’t claim that the nutters have been marginalized, because I see them all the time on threads in the “skeptosphere” where supposedly nutters are marginalized and. The distinctions that some “skeptics” try to draw between nutter “skeptics” and “rational skeptics” seems completely arbitrary, IMO> And I have been looking at those explanations for quite a while now; (2) as an ironic twist on #1, I see many of the nutter “skeptics” and the “rational skeptics” alike constantly misreporting the certainty of the “climate science community.” How many times do you read “the science is settled” as a derisive statement coming from “skeptics” when it is rare indeed that it was every stated by climate scientists who think it probably that ACO2 is most likely responsible for most recent warming?
I see this on both sides. In cases I know about most of what I see on both sides are taking low probability scenarios and stating as though they are certain to happen on a speculative subject.
Bingo. And this happens not only in this debate but any debate with the same kinds of social, cultural, and political ramifications, and there are easy to identify reasons why this happens. It most certainly does not happen only among the “marginalized” on either side of the debate. On both sides of the debate, combatants refuse accountability for (IMO) overly-certain statements by other combatants.
I think that most of it boils down to presumptions and assumptions and “priors” – and that those presumptions/assumptions/priors are largely influence by motivated reasoning.
I understand what you’re saying there and largely agree. My point is that the political influences exist on both sides – and in turn create confidence levels (Baesian or otherwise) that are either ill-considered or poorly expressed, or exaggerated by the other side. As a skeptic, I fully appreciate your point about the influence of institutional bias. Institutional bias always as to be dealt with when you’re examining the output of an institution; however, as with many of the arguments I see in virtually all of these threads, some people allow a “schtick” about institutional bias to have an outsized influence on their conclusions. I can’t really say with you because I still haven’t researched the documents as you said I should do to understand your argument. However, I do believe that I have seen occasions where you overestimate the influence of related variables without giving full consideration to mitigating of conflating variables; for example, the overconfidence about the influence of nutters on the “realist” side and overconfidence about the marginalization of nutters on the “skeptical” side.
Joshua, I cannot argue how nutty nutters are, even though I try in order to progress the conversation. Joshua you state:” However, I do believe that I have seen occasions where you overestimate the influence of related variables without giving full consideration to mitigating of conflating variables.”” I hope this is where I am engaging in a rhetorical argument rather than a formal argument. I try to do this, but sometimes I err in my impatience. And I assume that your “mitigating of” is actually “mitigating OR”. I have to ask, if you have not read what I have linked, how can you conclude that I am not giving full consideration if you have not read what considerations I am pointing to and arguing? FYI, I tend to read and accept, within constraints of assumptions, confidence intervals, and methodology that I understand, AR4 WG1. As to your statement “your reference about having a sense of humor ““ but ironically ““ I think that having a sense of humor about our own motivated reasoning…” I assumed this was true and that is what my post was trying to convey about your position…we would not disagree. Still it is good that you confirm something I also think is true.
Joshua, I like Oliver Manuel. I don’t read his comments. I don’t like Monckton. I don’t read his screeds. I like Morano. I don’t take his blog seriously and I don’t respect his role in Swiftboating John Kerry.
I’m not a skeptic, but I think most skeptics I correspond with and/or read share and could extend that list.
Tom
Lukewarmers deny the scientific consensus without providing a scientific case supporting their rejection of the mainstream position. This is ‘sceptical’ as opposed to sceptical.
BBD Lukewarmers like me hide behind the science in AR4, and like to point out how many “alarmists” either Swiftboat the IPCC, or throw it under the bus when someone like me points out just what the CI’s, assumptions, and methodology are in AR4. They shoot the messenger, me, for invoking AR4, yet claim to revere the messenger AR4. Bit contradictory. But then Joshua and I agree on a lot. Go figure.
BBD,
If your audience is lukewarm about “sceptic”, try contrarian.
A subspecie could be Betroffenheitstroll, which has a very lon tradition:
http://rabett.blogspot.ca/2010/02/betroffenheitstroll.html
Here’s the basic recipe:
1. Go to a contrarians’ inn like Tony’s and talk about physics.
2. Go to a non-contrarians’ inn (like Keith’s) and talk about hockey sticks.
3. When someone spots your schtick, cry “Troll!”.
4. Write a book about YesButClimategate.
The fourth step is facultative, but recommended.
Where’s the published, widely accepted body of work supporting a low ECS? That’s all you need to be taken seriously.
willard, we crossed.
BBD if that comment is for me, that value is a low probability in AR4. That it is low but in AR4 means there is a wide body of accepted work according to what I post and state.
Mr. Pittman, you’re not alone. They crucified Lomborg for quoting the IPCC too.
BBD, we don’t even know if sensitivity is a single value, let alone what that value might be. Atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 may be different on different days of the week–or different decades in a century, more likely.
One of the reasons we don’t know what atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 is that we do not understand the operation and capacities of the carbon sinks of the planet. There are other reasons.
When you rant and rave about Hansen and Sato and continually repeat your stock phrases you are worse than Oliver Manuel, who at least is curious and always prompt. You are rude, you tell lies and are a belligerent blusterer.
Plus, you’re incorrect.
> Go figure.
I believe there it has something to do with the fear of being forced of taking up a 106-mile trip across a godforsaken desert in a furnace-like temperature through a cloud-like dust storm to eat unpalatable food at a hole-in-the-wall cafeteria in Abilene, when none of us had really wanted to go.
LOL willard that was a good link!
The Fullerene Law of Climate Blogland continues to exert its inexorable march:
http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/08/lewandowsky-scam/
Contrarian Me Toos, open your water-dropping valves!
Too late to analyse for me, will look at tommorrow. I hope it makes people gnash their teeth.
It will certainly not please Professor Lewandowsky. Who should be hiding somewhere right about now.
“When we’re all agreed that MBH98/99 was rubbish…” – NiV @ 308Oh, I’ve missed all the fun!You get some indication of how weak the debater feels their argument is, when they need to try this kind of playground tactic – ‘everyone knows you are a [fill in the blank].’Keep it up Nullius, I love to watch the deniers ‘demented parrot’ routine.
Steve McIntyre has outdone himself. What a mass of pointless verbiage.
You’re referring to Lewandowsky”s paper, Michael? I agree. Poor Mac–he had to actually go through the whole thing.
Steve’s just repeating a familiar pattern – fail to understand a topic, and make accusations and insinuations based on that misunderstanding.He popped up at Stephans and did his usual ask-a-score-of-vague/pointless-questions.
willard – thanks for that link to Climate Audit.
I couldn’t bring myself to read past the initial section, tough, to where he talks about the problems with Lewandowky’s survey (which I assume makes some good points) because the initial section is so pitiful.
I can’t evaluate Steve’s statistical analysis, but the first part of that post is dreck.
So many completely unqualified statements about what most “skeptics” do or don’t believe (hasn’t anyone told him that “skeptics” are not monolithic?), so much drecky hand-wringing about the horrors of being called a “denier” (funny how he’s read all those comments from “skeptics” at blogs and missed the ubiquitous demeaning and demonizing of “warmists” in thread after thread, day after day). No “skepticism” from him about Anthony’s contradictory statements about the evidence that the Earth warming or that of so many “skeptics” in the “skeptosphere.” It’s fascinating to me how he, like Judith, is so willing to form conclusions on completely unvalidated evidence even as he pursues his role of “auditor” of conclusions based on poorly quantified evidence.
What a completely unserious and unscientific, poorly conducted analysis. It’s almost as if he is caricaturizing unreflective confirmation bias.
JFP (382)
Yes, “…mitigating or….”
What I can’t evaluate are your arguments about the degree of institutional bias that you speak of w/r/t the IPCC. As a skeptic, I consider it a baseline assumption that some degree of institutional bias must exist – and think that anyone who argues otherwise fails a basic skeptic test. As opposed to the vast majority of “skeptics” I’ve encountered in these online climate debate fora, you strike me as someone who has examined those biases with a serious intent and with a serious understanding of confirmation bias, and intent to control for your own biases. You stand in a solid contrast to folks like, say, the Tommy Trio we see here at CaS. As such, I’m not inclined to dismiss your arguments about the IPCC’s institutional bias without having done the necessary legwork.
What I was speaking to in my conclusions about what you don’t give full consideration to – was in light of our discussions about political bias, the impact of motivated reasoning more generally, the extent of marginalization of various viewpoints among “skeptics,” the determination of a meaningful origination in the partisan wrangling with the activities/work of the IPCC, etc.
I see those all to be mitigating factors to the institutional bias you speak of – so even while I can’t speak to your conclusions about the extent of the institutional bias with the IPCC (they may be overstated, but I can’t say), I have a strong impression that you haven’t balanced the overall impact of those biases fairly if you haven’t give proper due to mitigating factors.
Joshua,
Words fail me tonight. The first link from Steve’s post does not work and there’s no link to Tom Curtis’ comments. And I’ve just read this other instanciation of the Fullerene Law:
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/news.php?p=2&t=140&&n=159
So much rage. So much contempt. So much windmills in so many minds.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/28699887875
This version’s also good:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/31174011291
willard (#402)
Same ol’, same ol’.
I never realized that there were so many adolescents in the world. If I lived only in the climate blogosphere, I’d think that the entire universe was a junior high school cafeteria food fight.
The original version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12WaPH58lGg&feature=related
#405
Kirk Vonnegut Jr.
Dang. Kurt. OK. Good night.
Typical flurry of hand-waving. Looks like Mac scored again.
Me Too for the win!
Me three!!
Tom, McIntyre largely argues from incredulity, and as soon as he starts talking about what “real” skeptics believe he runs afoul of No True Scotsman. Plus, his assertion that you wouldn’t find extreme cranks with such a small sample is nonsense – anyone that’s been to, say, deltoid knows that some of the very worst cranks around like to come there for a good trolling session. Personally I can’t believe anyone actually filled it in, and the way it was structured was poor, but some of McIntyre’s arguments are bogus.
Steve’s caricature of Lewandowsky’s disagreeable essay…
“Little noticed at the time was Lewandowsky’s caricature of what
sceptics actually believe ““ a caricature clearly serving to dehumanize
his targets. Consider that, for example, Richard Lindzen, the leading
skeptic, unequivocally agrees that temperature had increased […] However, in his editorial, Lewandowsky characterized climate sceptics
in terms of an opinion that (in my reading) is not held by the
overwhelming majority of blog readers: a disbelief in even the warming
observed in the satellite record as follows, described by Lewandowsky as
follows:
Auditors may beware omitted context… Lewandowsky:
“Likewise, climate “sceptics” obsessively yelp at the alleged frailties
of the surface temperature record and accuse respectable scientific
agencies of “fudging” data, oblivious to the fact that multiple
independent analyses of the temperature record give rise to the exact
same conclusion. The further fact that the satellite data yield
precisely the same result without any surface-based
thermometers is of no relevance to climate “sceptics.” It is also of no
relevance to climate “sceptics” that their claims about the absence of
global warming are logically incoherent with their simultaneous claim
that humans didn’t cause the warming.”
Arguably the final sentence supports Steve’s caricature, but the reference to satellite data pertains also to the first sentence. Is the claim that skeptics hype “alleged frailties of the surface temperature record” a caricature? Jo Nova is the first skeptic mentioned in Steve’s post; here’s what she writes in page 7 of her publication, “The Skeptic’s Handbook”…
“The main “cause” for global warming is air conditioners”Oh dear.
Is the claim that skeptics falsely accuse scientists of fudging the surface temperature record a “caricature”?
Steve references “The opinions of the most prominent bloggers regarded by warmists as “sceptical” (Anthony”
Perhaps Anthony Watts no longer believes that NOAA scientists removed ‘cool’ high altitude stations to “deliberately” create a false warming trend. It is hard to tell since that claim was sent down the memory hole.
willard #291, #313
There are many games which can be played whilst we wait. So thank you
for providing useful information for those who are not waiting,
quietly. It’s a public service.
I reject the dichotomy between “rubbish” and “defend”, and ‘right’
versus “wrong” and “rubbish” for describing MBH98. Their certainty is
also kinda worrying. Auditors may wonder...
“I don’t see how this particular approach circumvents Wegman’s: “Method Wrong + Answer “˜Right’ = Incorrect Science””
[cont]
f* comment queue
willard, I really liked the essay
on “Good Science”
of which this thread reminds. The subject has changed but the tactics
are the same. Do you think the tactics are better suited to addressing
“Trust” and “Hype”?
There has been no answer from the Bishop, but then two years is so little time.
Kind regards
Keith, *loads of comments in the moderation queue, please delete them all.
“Before considering the Lewandowsky scam, let’s first review the Peter Gleick”I love Steve.Consider the GleickWho was once handsome and tall as you
Lazar,
Thank you for your kind words. I have at least two essays related to Good Science. The first [2] introduces de concept of scientific opposition research. I can recall it, since it’s hype and it triggers the Fullerene Law of Climate Blogland.
Good Science appears in Bishop’s book.
In pages 27-28 of his book, our neutral (h/t Shub) Bishop introduces Deming and his research using this description:
Here are some expressions in the following sentences:
My interest here is not in the Deming affair as such [1], but in the function of portraying Deming as doing “good, solid science”, immediately before the intriguing portray of consideration, expectation, storyline, industry, and other institutionalized thought processes and interests. Andrew Montford is not known to be knowledgeable in borehology. The statement of his opinion regarding Deming’s work deserves due diligence. As the Auditor might ask his readership to ponder: why?
Here’s my hypothesis. Montford is framing the Deming affair as the story between a noble scientist versus global warming industrialists. One (or two, if we count Richard Lindzen) against a powerful multitude. A sudden revelation of tainted intentions. Pure light among the murky shadows of climatology.
We can see that defining “good, solid science” is quite secondary. We’re not into the realms of scientific criticism, but more something like scientific opposition research.
The way scientific opposition research operates deserves due diligence.
[1] The Montford Dossier certainly deserves due diligence. For instance, it is claimed that “Lindzen of MIT has confirmed that the email was written by Jonathan Overpeck.” But note 12, which follows this claim, points to an Arxiv document authored by Lindzen. There is one mention to Overpeck in that document: a signature to an international conference invitation. The only mention of “getting rid” of MWP cites (Deming, 2005) as authority. Here is when the Auditor might revive yet another introduction to check-kiting.
[2] http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/15401067079
#336,
You missed it again. I’m not asking you to stop. I’m asking you to continue, so I can keep on shooting fish in a barrel. I’m just telling you that if you don’t want me to keep on talking about it, which was what BBD seemed to be saying, you would need to stop defending it.
#337,
Let’s not forget that if you point at things as if they were deeply significant, people will invest them with significance without you having to explain what you’re talking about. Neat technique. Very postmodern.
#343,
“This holds true from interannual wiggles caused by variations in internal forcing all the way up to…”
Why start at interannual? It was cool here yesterday, it was warm today. The temperature change was 3 C. So that would indicate massive sensitivity to CO2, since the change in CO2 over a single day was tiny and the change in temperature huge.
#369,
I was thinking more of ‘Bong’. But why would I want to mock you?
#373,
I hadn’t actually said it shouldn’t have passed peer review – I was pointing out that despite being outstandingly bad it had passed peer review, at both Nature and the IPCC. This is a problem for all those who would claim acceptance by either of those bodies is some stamp of quality assurance, truth, or authority.
Peer review doesn’t guarantee correctness – it is an editorial process to check that a paper is interesting to the journal’s scientific readership, provides sufficient detail to be replicable, provides sufficient reason for any extraordinary claims, doesn’t have any obvious errors, and explains any apparent conflicts with other work.
MBH probably should have been rejected because it wasn’t replicable, and if it had been made replicable it would have been rejected for obvious errors and conflicts with previous work on the temperature-sensitivity of stripbark bristlecones.
Steig wasn’t nearly as bad. It could have been rejected because it didn’t match previous results and didn’t sufficiently explore the reasons for the difference. But the problem was more subtle.
#376,
Suppose method 1 is ‘plotting a curve’ and method 2 is ‘adding error bars’. Is adding error bars better than simply plotting a curve because it only reveals that the curve is meaningless, it does not itself offer an alternative meaning? Would you therefore prefer the curve to have no error bars?
#417,
“There has been no answer from the Bishop, but then two years is so little time.”
I am told the standard in climate science is not to draw conclusions from intervals of less than 30 years. Although the rule is bent, sometimes.
Lazar,
Here’s the second essay about Good Science, which was in response to Me Too’s old guru:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/16433124640
By chance Big Dog Steve’s line jumps on the ice to save the week.
#422,
To express understanding and kindness. Sometimes, that’s all barrel fishers have.
Hmmm. Make that #420, not #422.
Nullius #420,“MBH probably should have been rejected because it wasn’t replicable”How ‘should’ reviewers have judged MBH98 to be not replicable?Why ‘should’ a lack of sufficient detail lead to recommendation for rejection over requests for revision?How does MBH98 rate for methodological detail relative to standards for Nature publications?“and if it had been made replicable it would have been rejected for obvious errors”Had MBH98 provided extra detail for the purposes of replication, what are the “errors” that then would appear “obvious” to reviewers, and how would it make obvious… “conflicts with previous work on the temperature-sensitivity of stripbark bristlecones”?“#376, Suppose method 1 is “˜plotting a curve’ and method 2 is “˜adding error
bars’. Is adding error bars better than simply plotting a curve”How do you judge one relative to another?“because it only reveals that the curve is meaningless”How does bounding a curve reveal it to be meaningless?“Would you therefore prefer the curve to have no error bars?”How does this follow? I do not prefer curves without error bars.“#417 […] I am told the standard in climate science is not to draw conclusions
from intervals of less than 30 years. Although the rule is bent,
sometimes.”I was unaware that the decision making of a Bishop follows the statistical properties of a coupled climate system! Maybe we should heed the warning…“Let’s not forget that if you point at things as if they were deeply
significant, people will invest them with significance without you
having to explain what you’re talking about. Neat technique. Very
postmodern.”
Nullius #420,
“MBH probably should have been rejected because it wasn’t replicable”
How ‘should’ reviewers have judged MBH98 to be not replicable?
Why ‘should’ a lack of sufficient detail lead to recommendation for rejection over requests for revision?
How does MBH98 rate for methodological detail relative to standards for Nature publications?
“and if it had been made replicable it would have been rejected for obvious errors”
Had MBH98 provided extra detail for the purposes of replication, what
are the “errors” that then would appear “obvious” to reviewers, and how
would it make obvious…
“conflicts with previous work on the temperature-sensitivity of stripbark bristlecones”
?
“#376, Suppose method 1 is “˜plotting a curve’ and method 2 is “˜adding error
bars’. Is adding error bars better than simply plotting a curve”
How do you judge one relative to another?
“because it only reveals that the curve is meaningless”
How does bounding a curve reveal it to be meaningless?
“Would you therefore prefer the curve to have no error bars?”
How does this follow? I do not prefer curves without error bars.
“#417 […] I am told the standard in climate science is not to draw conclusions
from intervals of less than 30 years. Although the rule is bent,
sometimes.”
I was unaware that the decision making of a Bishop follows the statistical properties of a coupled climate system! Maybe we should heed the warning…
“Let’s not forget that if you point at things as if they were deeply
significant, people will invest them with significance without you
having to explain what you’re talking about. Neat technique. Very
postmodern.”
Here is how Greg Laden expresses #422:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/05/15/the-evolution-of-asshatitude-o/
Nullius, whether or not you want or expect someone to satisfy your condition does not change that you have outlined it as a condition. Also, you say you never said that MBH should not have been published, but also that it shouldn’t. Round and round we go.
Courtesy of fat fingers and a phone keyboard comes a new word. A scientific paper that passed peer-review but subsequently turned out to be embarrassingly wrong: publushed.
> If you point at things as if they were deeply
significant, people will invest them with significance without you
having to explain what you’re talking about. Neat technique. Very
postmodern.
Sometimes, this technique is called dogwhistling
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/dogwhistling
One could almost call that technique the CA business model.
Other times, it could simply be a way to pull one’s punch to save another’s face.
Was there something that needs to be clarified in #337, Nullius? I can own everything I implied there.
Joshua, you stated: “the impact of motivated reasoning more generally, the extent of marginalization of various viewpoints among “skeptics,” the determination of a meaningful origination in the partisan wrangling with the activities/work of the IPCC, etc.” Did you mean organization? I do look and have researched origination of the partisan wrangling. It has a history prior to the IPCC. In general it is a political battle generally drawn on the lines of those who maximize the value of (self) freedom (Group A)versus those who maximize the value of the greater good (Group B). The attack point for more than 50 years has been the environment. Joshua you state: “I have a strong impression that you haven’t balanced the overall impact of those biases fairly if you haven’t give proper due to mitigating factors.” If you mean recognizing motivated reasoning as real and should be considered a mitigating factor, then my opinion is that such is not a mitigating factor, but something to be avoided. Perhaps this will help you understand. Prior to the IPCC, when the basis for the IPCC was formulated, it was reasoned that climate change was real and was harmful. This was determined before there was a concensus. Further, due to what was considered a failure of the commons in the above political hierarchy, risk management is rewritten to exclude one of the tools that Group A used, and declare the moral ascendancy of what Group B desired. The IPCC was formed and this approach/history has institutional bias. At this point, I see a lot of what the skeptics, even those who I think are marginalized, are doing is to attack through various means not so much the science but rather the assumed or pontificated moral ascendancy. In other words, a proxy battle where it appears to be the science. From my point of veiw both are engaged in motivated reasoning. From a pratical point, if AGW/CAGW/CCC is a problem, then I object to losing a useful tool so that Group B can claim ascendancy over Group A. This is why I see little need to bang on about a lot of scepticism. I understand the nature of the proxy battle. In terms of the failure of the commons, I understand both sides. However, I do not agree with, nor think it is wise to exclude by pontification a large fraction of humans and what they can bring to the table. But since this has been done, the IPCC and the concensus have raised the standard they must meet, rather than lower it. The standard was hard enough when it was simply “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Now they must meet the first standard and another, they must keep the moral high ground. In that respect. Climategate was worse in context. It is my opinion that skeptics have fought a successful moral battle by using science as a proxy, and are seriuosly challeging the IPCC as a moral figure in the debate of AGW. If they are not successful now, I beleive the sceptics will be later. The IPCC and such endevours as the investigations into Climategate that did not investigate what persons such as myself investigated, means that sceptics are being spoonfed ammo. To understand why I make this point, consider Copenhagen 2009. Though each deserves and has had long comments by others, here are the bullets: The NGO’s rioting, the Chavez speech, the failure of the US, China, and the EU to agree on the basics. The first two bullets highlight approaches that will make moral enemies of what may be the majority of the voting citizens of a country (USA) that the organizers indicated had to be part of the solution. The third bullet is that with all the planes, expense, whores, and all that went on, a basic agreement was not reached before everybody started running their mouths with such nonsense as we ahve 153 days to save the world. All I can say is with friends like these, the IPCC needs no enemies. Another aspect is that it made the activists look deserving of ridicule. Not a good position in a battle for moral acendancy.
#425,
“How “˜should’ reviewers have judged MBH98 to be not replicable?”
By considering the steps they would need to take to replicate it.
‘First, download your data…’
“Why “˜should’ a lack of sufficient detail lead to recommendation for rejection over requests for revision?”
Requests for revision would have been fine, too.
#427,
I didn’t outline it as a condition. I said that until you stop trying to defend the indefensible, I’m going to keep on having fun poking at it. It’s not any sort of offered deal or demand; just an observation. And a pretty obvious one at that.
#429,
Really? But if you just dance around and pull all your punches, people will eventually begin to wonder if you could have landed them.
Thanks for your consideration, but as I’ve said often the purpose of debating people who disagree with me is to test my beliefs and find out if I’m wrong. In the long run, it’s no kindness not to let me know.
If you’re doing it just to be irritating, that’s fine. I don’t mind that. But if you do actually have a point and was expecting me to spot it, you perhaps ought to know that I didn’t.
Nullius,“By considering the steps they would need to take to replicate it.
“˜First, download your data”¦'”Without wishing to appear obtuse… Stating that to replicate a study it is necessary to obtain data is far from satisfying “How “˜should’ reviewers have judged MBH98 to be not replicable?”
Input your comments here…
“I will do x until y”, and “I will stop doing x if y” are both conditions. You claim no condition was offered, then restate it as a condition. Round we go.
FWIW, it’s now becoming clear that Lewandosky is utter crap. If I worked at or attended the University, I’d be really pissed/embarrassed.
Dave H,
Please face the facts:
is not a condition. Here’s the proof:
I certainly hope you did not you defend the indefensible, or else Nullius… will certainly go fish in a barrel.
Did you?
@ 420 Nil by mouth:
Why start at interannual? It was cool here yesterday, it was warm today. The temperature change was 3 C. So that would indicate massive sensitivity to CO2, since the change in CO2 over a single day was tiny and the change in temperature huge.
I cannot believe you actually misunderstand this so badly so you must be playing silly-buggers. If you were half as clever as you imagine, you wouldn’t because you would understand that it makes you look, well, like a prat, really.
@ 390 Fuller:
You are rude, you tell lies and are a belligerent blusterer.
I want examples of me *telling lies* Tom. Because I’m not going to be called a liar by the likes of you. Not even in blog comments. So get to it: let’s have some quotes.
#430 Well said.
I understand throwing red meat out to rally the base, but at some point you have to accept that the other side gets a vote too, and you need some portion of that vote to get what you want if you don’t have a solid majority. Plan accordingly.
Demonizing of the other side seems to be 90% just lashing out from frustration as far as I can tell. Some of it is simply misplaced aggression due to their inability to accept their own failures, and the hesitance to perform true introspection. This is universal and can be applied to different political causes. Successful political causes overcome this.
Declaring yourself “holier than thou” is indeed a treacherous path to take to success. It makes for a target rich environment for the opposition. Your job is harder, theirs is easier, what is gained?
To make matters worse in the USA, the environmental movement has become a complete captive of the Democratic party. Although this has always been the case more or less, the polarization has increased as we all know. The downside for environmentalism is that the Democrats need to do almost nothing in order to maintain this vote. The threat of environmentalists voting Republican is nil.
Thus AGW (the greatest moral challenge of our time!) became politically toxic even to the Democrats. The platform drives away moderates arguably due to the hyperbole used and the confounding co-opters such as climate justice etc.
If it would help them get votes, they would be talking about it.
The most curious part of all is the seeming insistence to “stay the course” in spite of all the direct evidence that it isn’t working. This just screams for new leadership. My advice is to move in the direction where moderate environmentalist is not an oxymoron.
BBD, you said that I demonized and personalized attacks in the book I co-wrote titled Climategate: The CRUtape Letters. I did not and informed you that I did not. I challenged you to find one example. You did not. But you repeated the lie several times.
John F. Pittman @ 389
BBD if that comment is for me, that value is a low probability in AR4. That it is low but in AR4 means there is a wide body of accepted work according to what I post and state.
This is incomprehensible, but it doesn’t matter. Be specific. Reference five widely accepted studies in reputable journals supporting the case for low ECS.
I’ve noticed that although I have asked for specific references supporting several of your statements now, you have yet to provide a single one.
Tom, your whole book is an exercise in personalising and demonising. Pointing this out isn’t a lie. Claiming otherwise is a lie. We’ve been through this already.
Try again. I want clear examples of me lying. I have some of you lying. We can look at those if you wish.
I’ll make you a concession though: I should have said personalising and smearing. Smearing is a better word for what you engage in than demonising.
Smearing.
Name one instance.
Citation, please.
You’re a liar. Deliberate and malicious.
BBD,
Since you like books, I wonder if you know what “puritan legalism” means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter
Poor Hester.
Have you read the book, by any chance?
Tom, I am neither lying nor being malicious. You wrote a distorting account derived from a collection of stolen, private correspondence. Not me. I could easily use your hysterical language against you, with complete justification. But I won’t. I don’t need to, do I?
Only one distraction, willard? You’re slipping. Usually you would have three or four comments to pull attention away from the usual train wreck. Have you renewed your troll license recently? Attended refresher training?
448. Citation please.
willard
Thanks for the instructive quote. I have not read TSL or indeed anything by Hawthorne (I blush). The C19th American novel is not my forte. This is no excuse, but it is offered as one.
450 – ‘The CRUTape Letters’ by mosher & fuller.
Name one instance from the book where I personalized, demonized or smeared anyone. You have the book. You claim to have read it. You have made a damaging accusation. I say you are a deliberate, malicious liar.Find a quote from the book where we demonize, personalize or smear anyone.
I rest my case. You’re a liar.
I can’t wait for John’s copy to arrive. Seems that we can **See Inside** at Amazon.
An interesting title for Chapter Four:
Now, what’s the Purgatory, again? According to thy Wiki:
Reminds me of that song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNdMc6wGtU
Heaven is a a place where nothing, nothing ever happens.
Must be tough to write more than one song about such a place.
You’re slipping, willard. You used to post your snide shitstorms in battalions. Now they arrive singly or in pairs.
What’s the title of Chapter six, again?
I dunno, willard. Maybe it’s just because it’s a Sunday. You must be tired from a week at play in the fields of the Lord. Even climate fundamentalists must have their day of rest… Or maybe BBD’s lying is a bit much even for you…
And Chapter seven’s title is?
BBD,
Thy Wiki provides this definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonization
Chapter Three ought to be interesting:
Are we sure that they’re two different persons?
BBD,
Have you seen the back?
My heart is beating faster just by typing this:
The switch from past to future is panicking me. Not only the future, but the future of the world.
Oh my God, please have mercy on our poor soul! If we sacrifice bloody Phil, will you spare us Your wrath?
Feel free to tell us all, willard. Chapter 6 is ‘An Army of Davids.’ Chapter 7 is ‘Hell Week.’
Please feel free to use quotes. Such as,
“We are tough on the scientists we call The Team, and we think deservedly so. But we want to stress from the outset that we do not for one minute believe there is any evidence of a long-term conspiracy to defraud the public about global warming, by The Team or anyone else. What we find evidence of on a much smaller scale is a small group of scientists too close to each other, protecting themselves and their careers, and unintentionally having a dramatic, if unintended, effect on a global debate.”
Who personalized the debate: Hmm. Maybe Tom Wigley: “I have just read the M&M stuff critcizing MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me. At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work — an opinion I have held for some time.”
Just when we thought they were all one-man armies:
6. An Army of Davids.
And just when we were surmising that some were enjoying eternal bliss during that time:
7. Hell Week.
Must be charity.
There’s an interesting title for the section starting at p. 111. Which is it?
BBD,
Stating that the CRU Tape Letters is the work of propaganda or moral panic directed against an individual or a group sounds like a plausible belief.
Not that I share this opinion, of course.
Is it truly your belief?
I hope you don’t lie, for these comments threads are monitored by the UK and the German governments right now. They must decide how many elderly people they can sacrifice because of what you will respond.
Tom, see 448. Remember that we are discussing your partisan, distorting account of other people’s stolen private correspondence. The whole thing is a calculated smear of ‘The Team’. You really can’t go round calling me a liar for pointing this out. And you did call ‘The Team’ criminals – and extend that accusation to many other scientists. Did you not accuse the field of ‘malpractice’? Are these not smears? (Actually, they are probably libels, but let’s not worry about that).
I notice that in the final pages you make your usual nonsense claim that ECS is 1.5 – 2C. Please provide references to the established body of work supporting this.
As for tone, willard has helpfully provided some of the rather… motivated chapter titles. You set the general tone early; on p. 18 we find this:
As you will see in Climategate, untruths get recycled by both the great and the good – when they think no-one is watching them.
And you bookend your distorting presentation in the same tone. On p. 179, we find this:
The Real Crime in Climategate
[…]
The criminals are not limited to The Team, the climate scientists and paleoclimatologists whose emails and files were leaked to the public.
[…]
And the crime is malpractice. Deliberate and conscious malpractice. And since they arrogated the power unto themselves to diagnose the disease and prescribe a cure, they might also be charged with practicing medicine without a licence.
Which personalizes whom? Which demonizes whom? It is an accurate description of a phenomenon we are witnessing today.Liar.
I’m out for the rest of the day so have fun.
Please say hi to Stephan for me while you’re over there.
willard
P110 in the paper edition has a section entitled ‘Auditing the IPCC process’. Is that what you are referring to?
Which personalizes whom? Which demonizes whom?
You list The Team on p.19 in the section entitled ‘Meet The Team’:
You name Mann, Bradley, Hughes, Jones, Briffa, Jacoby, Schweingruber, Rutherford, Crowley, Osborn and ‘perhaps others who float in and out’.
You say:
The criminals are not limited to The Team, the climate scientists and paleoclimatologists whose emails and files were leaked to the public.
So you personalise as listed, and smear (I suspect actually libel) the named individuals who you characterise as ‘criminals’.
@ 466 willard
Is it truly your belief?
Yes, and may God have mercy on my soul 😉
yikes, is the entire book written with that awful turgid prose? money and time better spent elsewhere methinks.
Tom, when you get back, can you explain further:
The criminals are not limited to The Team
You say here:
It is an accurate description of a phenomenon we are witnessing today.Liar.
The ‘it’ being criminality. You are saying that climate scientists in general are criminals and that they are engaged in criminal behaviour today. You stress that this is an accurate description.
This is more than a smear. It is a serious accusation. I cannot see how pointing out that your book is a calculated attack on the integrity of an entire field of science is a lie. This is why I still want some examples of me *telling lies*. As yet, you haven’t provided any, but you have called me a liar several times again. This is not very helpful.
For BBD in Chapter 9 page 724 AR4 WG1:The relationship between forcing and response based on a long time horizon can be studied using palaeoclimatic reconstructions of temperature and radiative forcing, particularly volcanism and solar forcing, for the last millennium. However, both forcing and temperature reconstructions are subject to large uncertainties (Chapter 6). To account for the uncertainty in reconstructions, Hegerl et al. (2006a) use several proxy data reconstructions of NH extratropical temperature for the past millennium (Briffa et al., 2001; Esper et al., 2002; Mann and Jones, 2003; Hegerl et al., 2007) to constrain ECS estimates for the pre-industrial period up to 1850. This study used a large ensemble of simulations of the last millennium performed with an energy balance model forced with reconstructions of volcanic (Crowley, 2000, updated), solar (Lean et al., 2002) and greenhouse gas forcing (see Section 9.3.3 for results on the detection of these external infl uences). Their estimated PDFs for ECS incorporate an estimate of uncertainty in the overall amplitude (including an attempt to account for uncertainty in effi cacy), but not the time evolution, of volcanic and solar forcing. They also attempt to account for uncertainty in the amplitude of reconstructed temperatures in one reconstruction (Hegerl et al., 2007), and assess the sensitivity of their results to changes in amplitude for others. All reconstructions combined yield a median climate sensitivity of 3.4°C and a 5 to 95% rangeof 1.2°C to 8.6°C (Figure 9.20). Reconstructions with a higher amplitude of past climate variations (e.g., Esper et al., 2002 Hegerl et al., 2007) are found to support higher ECS estimates than reconstructions with lower amplitude (e.g., Mann and Jones, 2003). Note that the constraint on ECS originates mainly from low-frequency temperature variations associated with changes in the frequency and intensity of volcanism which lead to a highly significantdetection of volcanic response (Section 9.3.3) in all records used in the study.Despite these uncertainties, which are accounted for to differing degrees in the various studies, confi dence is increased by the similarities between individual ECS estimates (Figure 9.20). Most studies fi nd a lower 5% limit of between 1°C and 2.2°C
BBD,
No, I’m referring to the next one:
Thy Wiki saith:
Perhaps the crime is just a metaphor, like demonization and sacrificial lamb.
JFP
I’ve not been sure what you are arguing for a while now. Keeping to AR4, the relevant WG1 summary is at 6.9.4:
willard @ 477
You’ve unlocked the whole text for me 🙂
Although the Screwtape/CRUTape thing is a pretty big hint.
I have repeatedly stated what I am arguing BBD. I am using a low probablity, low ECS. That is what I stated. I have stated it is supported by AR4 WG1. Your quote does not invalidate what I have been saying. In my quote, the 5% for ALL reconstructions in AR4 Ch 9 is 1.2 C. This is what I have repeatedly pointed out. Your quote states: “”Results from studies of observed climate change and the consistency of estimates from different time periods indicate that ECS is very likely larger than 1.5°C”” So what is the difference between very likely and my quote of 1.2 C. I think you will find that “very likely” was defined and your quote does not invalidate mine. Go figure, same work, perhaps they were consistant. Nah, time to throw the IPCC under the bus like the obstructionists do. This is not an insult BTW, I consider myself on half the days as an obstructionist. If, for no other reason than I like the name. This is of course motivated reasoning but that is OK. People are rationalizing organisms, not rational (short version – all suffer from motivated reasoning.) The rational response of low probability of low ECS is 1.2C per AR4.
JFP
People are rationalizing organisms, not rational (short version – all suffer from motivated reasoning.) The rational response of low probability of low ECS is 1.2C per AR4.
I’m sorry, I’m still not clear what you are saying here. Yes, the probability that ECS is at the low end of the range is low. And…?
To be clear, what I was looking for was a widely accepted body of published studies supporting the ‘lukewarm’ argument that the probability of ECS being at the low end of the range is high.
willard
From Tom’s book (p. 8)
Odd. I meant page 8.
Well, I have made several points to this. But you demanded that I support my position. I did. So I consider that your opposition to me is baseless unless you reformulate it. The point of motivated reasoning is, and I may be mistaken, is that you took me to task for being incomprehensible and needed to be specific. Hey, Willard can I point that he challenged me, and after I support my position he claims a version of amnesia without tripping a logical fallacy? That I put in motivated reasoning for Joshua who has been part of this converation is what I have done several times. BBD stated in 441 after my post in 389 where I state “”BBD if that comment is for me, that value is a low probability in AR4. That it is low but in AR4 means there is a wide body of accepted work according to what I post and state.”” : BBD 441 “This is incomprehensible, but it doesn’t matter. Be specific. Reference five widely accepted studies in reputable journals supporting the case for low ECS. I’ve noticed that although I have asked for specific references supporting several of your statements now, you have yet to provide a single one.”” Even though I kept repeating in this and other threads my low probability ECS is from Chapter 9 AR4 WG1. BBD at 337 states “”Where’s the published, widely accepted body of work supporting a low ECS? That’s all you need to be taken seriously.”” I provided it; that it is a low probabilty does not mean it is unsupported.
Now BBD is saying that he meant in 482 “To be clear, what I was looking for was a widely accepted body of published studies supporting the “˜lukewarm’ argument that the probability of ECS being at the low end of the range is high.” Whereas I specifically stated in 389 “”””BBD if that comment is for me, that value is a low probability in AR4. That it is low but in AR4 means there is a wide body of accepted work according to what I post and state.”” Then he challenges me to support this and I do. Now the claim is that I have to show it has a high probability which is not what I claimed. Hey Willard is this somehow a deferred strawman on his part? I would like to know the name of this fallcy or rhetorical device since it is often used against me.
JFP
What I was asking for was a a widely accepted body of published studies supporting the “˜lukewarm’
argument. Specifically that the probability of ECS being at the low end of the range is high.
You are a lukewarmer, yes? So what is the scientific basis for your position? Please provide references.
BBD,
An 8 followed by a smiley is a smiley with sunglasses.
Interesting quote. Here’s thy Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Screwtape_Letters
Now, who plays the part of Screwtape, according to you?
Metaphorically speaking, of course.
BBD,
It would be interesting to find some kind of correspondance between the letters and virtual-world entities. Take for instance the last letter:
We now have the proof that if Al Gore invented the Internet, C. S. Lewis prophecized climate blogland.
willard
In the lowerarchy, I nominate SM as Screwtape and TF as Wormwood.
My reading of the book is that Mann is being demonised.
Now BBD is asking me to acquiesce to his unstated victimization by claiming that he was asking for something he did not state. Normally this would not be a problem because I think a little leeway in conversations is appropriate. But in this case I have to use BBD against BBD. In BBD 441 “This is incomprehensible, but it doesn’t matter. Be specific. Reference five widely accepted studies in reputable journals supporting the case for low ECS. I’ve noticed that although I have asked for specific references supporting several of your statements now, you have yet to provide a single one.”” d He accuses me of being incomprehensible when he expects me to read his mind, and though I have repeated it, my statement is based on Ch 9 AR4. He continues to deny what is said though I posted the exact passage. Now once again he is asking for references about my lukewarmism, not realizing I already have. But note, this is after I have supported my position as I support it. It may be necessary for BBD to think that the most probable has to occur, but it is not what CI’s mean. Perhaps the problem is that BBD’s motivated reasoning as to what constitues a lukewarmer is determining his statements and requirements that I be able to read his mind. I can’t. I responded to what he wrote. t
John,
I have not much time to read back your exchange with BBD. Usually, providing quotes is enough to settle such things. Unless, of course, you are being asked for explicitation, like I’m being asked in #431, a matter to which I now turn.
JFP
Steady on old chap. All I asked for were references to a widely accepted body of published studies supporting the “˜lukewarm’ argument. Specifically that the probability of ECS being at the low end of the range is high.
If you don’t have them, fine. At least we know where we stand.
BBD,
Please note that thy Wiki says that Focus on the Family published an audio version of the Letters and the its sequel.
Would you think that the book targets a related audience?
Willard, I just want to use the correct language. I have pointed out my position with quotes, and that I met his requests by posting what he asked. BBD is demanding that I respond in a manner I never argued. I keep responding according to what I claim and BBD ignores his own posts and takes me to task for things I did not claim. Did I mention he is asking me to defend something I have not claimed. Anyway, will get the book at to you tomorrow if all goes well. If not then Tuesday.
JFP
So you *aren’t* a lukewarmer? I’m confused. Could you clarify?
No BBD that is not what you asked. I have posted that this is not what you asked in your own wordsd. That “we know where we stand” is not the problem, nor what you have asked, nor what you have stated. You DID NOT ASK for ” references to a widely accepted body of published studies supporting the “˜lukewarm’ argument. Specifically that the probability of ECS being at the low end of the range is high. ” a You are editing reality. If you had asked, and some do, I would, and I have pointed to the intrinsic and extrinsic assumptions that any high probablility must have due to the copnstraints of what we know and what we have to assume. You most certainly did not use the word “specifically” wrt to a high probablity for low ECS. You are making stuff up.
John,
Thanks. No worries. You would not be the only commenter who has problem with our British Bull Dog…
From what I can understand, he’s asking you to justify why you constrain CS even more than the IPCC. In other words, why do you stick to the lower end of 2, whence a more prudent way to look at all this would not be to bet on some models and reject the rest, but to take all the models? What is your criteria to exclude scenario above 2-3? Is backed up by some authority?
Something along these lines. But as I said earlier, I’m a bit preoccupied right now by our neutral Bishop’s political hit job.
Oh, forgot to add: yes, strawman sounds about right. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
willard
FOTF did its own version? Even though the wiki says there’s a John Cleese narration available? I see that FOTF promotes socially conservative views on public policy, but that doesn’t explain the apparent snub to Cleese. Perhaps it’s a conspiracy.
Willard any one who wants to support 3 C is welcome to do it. That does not mean that I am making an incorrect argument. He did not ask me to justify what you say until after claiming that I did not have a reference. There are reasons I post about the 1.2 C range. Please consider, if it was not relevant, why would the IPCC with its mission to determine AGW/CC exists and as a prerequisite of Rio, be harmful, include it in their WG1? I am not constraining it even more than the IPCC. It is in WG1. I am not making a bet. I don’t need a criteria to exclude above the 2-3C range, it is included or excluded by what happens in the future. If ECS turns out to be 1.2C, the IPCC will be correct; and the 2 to 3C will be excluded by what really happens. The authority for my 1.2C is the same for the 3C, if one uses AR4. The IPCC takes all models. When lukewarmers point this out, I have noted, this is by memory, they get “It is not according to IPCC.” When others do the same, they are given Kudos. I am agnostic.
BBD I am a lukewarmer due to the politicalization. I deal with the physics every day that says G&T and the skydragons are full of it. I use this professionally. You could say I tend to be an obstructionist if you were to discuss engineering and capabilities wrt renewables. You could say I was a contrarian wrt to the “burn in hell” 12 C ECS that I call alarmists. What I do is read AR4 and look at sensitivity of the claims. I look at the methodology. I look at reputable science and risk management that Rio and the PP preclude. I look at assumptions. I look at models and constaints on mesh size and other issues. I am agnostic.
JFP
Lukewarmer ≠agnostic.
Depends on how you deal with politicalization, BBD. It is called avoidance of “insert your least appreciated web arrior here.”
If you want to know I do tend to think ECS has a good probability to be 2C or less. But If we discuss we discuss. No mindreading or unequal asumptions.
Well, John Pittman, now you know what you need to know about BBD.BBD, that’s what you got? You’re not only a liar, you’re a loser.
#431
Let’s not pull any punches, then.
TCO asked a set of questions in January 2005.
Nullius considers these question fair.
Steve has yet to answer these questions in the comment thread of that 2005 post.
We are in September 2012.
These are facts. I find them noteworthy.
First round.
The first question is: What’s the rationale for the 2 different publications?
My first hypothesis: political hit job, karaoke or both.
The expression “political hit job” has been used by Groundskeeper Willie in a similar context.
The expression “karaoke” has been used by Steve in a similar context.
Nullius’ hypothesis: M&M did E&E a favour.
Note the discreptancy between my hypothesis and Nullius’.
End of first round.
Second round.
I ask Nullius to provide evidence for his hypothesis.
He armwaves at the beginning of Chapter 6 of Bishop’s book.
I quote the first paragraph of that chapter, and underline the title: “Fighting Back.”
In that quote, we learn that Nature rejected the first version of what became two papers.
We also learn that Steve would have wanted to publish in Nature, but was long as it got somewhere, he was satisfied.
Note again the discreptancy between our mutual readings.
End of second round.
Third round.
Nullius rejects the relevance of this quote and armwaves a more specific cite.
I quote the part where the “favor” is being evoked.
In that very same passage, we underline “payback”, if only for rhyming effect.
We also quote the preceding paragraph, where it was said that the issues were complex.
In the text, this reason is being given priority over the “favor”.
End of third round.
So here’s a run down of the justifications. The rejection by Nature to publish M&M’s response initiates the process whereby two papers get written and published. The complexity of the issues justifies the publication of two separate papers, and the publication at E&E’s justified as a favor. There is also a third related publication.
This is the official storyline.
But look at the paragraph’s title.
And consider this:
TCO’s questions have been asked in the blog post just before the official launch of CA.
The title of the blog post is **New research published on MBH98**.
This blog post has been mentioned at the end of Chapter 6 of Bishop’s book.
This Chapter is called **Fighting Back**.
The relevant section is called **Announcement**.
The URL has not been mentioned in Bishop’s book.
These are facts. I find them noteworthy.
Here is the paragraph, p. 175:
They do not say why they published something in NWT.
Let’s return to our question.
What’s the rationale for the 2 different publications?
First, the big Nature blow could not be dealt.
Second, by publishing two papers, karaokeed here and there, M&M could amplify the “area of effect” (h/t Marlowe) by using more space and different channels.
Third, they could payback a debt they owed.
These tactical moves form what I would call a rationale for the publication of these articles.
The overall strategy was to **fight back**.
This points to a political hit job with some karaoke more than favoritism, favoritism which also points to a political hit job anyway.
This interpretation follows from the very material that Nullius cited.
I believe that it renders more justice to TCO’s question than Nullius’ minimal reading.
I believe it follows quite directly from reading the Bishop’s book.
A book which is more obviously an hit job, but for another political sphere.
M&M were in a scientific warfare, our good Bishop is into an economic warfare.
How our good Bishop hyped his economic warfare deserves due diligence.
The Fullerene Law of Climate Blogland requires some pushback.
Then go for it, willard. Preferably over at Bishop Hill’s. Or you can keep bedeviling the ghost of C.S. Lewis.
You’ve never needed anyone’s permission to attack before. You have lots of practice at insidious malice. See how it plays over at the Bishop’s. Tell ’em BBD sent you–they’ll like that.
Here’s the second post from CA, the first being an Hello World:
http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/03/national-post/
Gee, willie–what was your second post? We’re all dying to know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
#233,
Seems that Exxon Mobile was identifying some wrongdoing at the Heartland Institute a while ago, as Andy Revkin reported:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/380012926
Perhaps “wrongdoing” is not the proper word.
Maybe it’s just a vocabulary thing.
JFP (430)
I that is a bit of a superficial categorization. It serves as a workable construct for further discussion, but to really get to my arguments at a more meaningful level, it will be necessary for us to unpack that a bit.
Yes, it is something to be avoided. But it is also needs to be examined as a mitigating factor against arguments asserting IPCC institutional bias as a dominating force in the debate. Maybe to put that in a less argumentative framework – it needs to included in analyses that examine the influences that have brought the debate to the stage that it’s at.
I don’t seen how this is consistent with your next topic: I would argue that both sides declare moral ascendancy (as you later state). But that has been true forever. It goes back to the very principles of motivated reasoning. You can’t accept the principle of motivated reasoning and then argue that a perspective of moral superiority is applicable to one group and not the other. Reading these threads or those at Judith’s will easily demonstrated that the claims from many “rational skeptics” – and not just the supposedly marginalized nutter ‘skeptics”- are constantly filled with claims of moral ascendancy. You are a very unusual participant in that respect. The same forces that lead to such attributions now were in play at the very beginning of the debate. They were present in the antecedent arguments. Claims of moral ascendency are intrinsic to these kinds of debate, no matter which side
So we are in agreement. If so, then I don’t see why you earlier said that one group first claimed moral superiority. These dynamics are intrinsic not only to this debate, but in countless other, similar debates. People interpret science one way or the other based in a fundamental way on a sense of their moral superiority, and then reverse engineer back from their interpretation of the science to reinforce their sense of moral superiority. I is a viscous, self-reinforcing cycle.
Agree. And the reverse is also true.
I agree. But I believe that the same principle must be applied on both sides of the debate.
The battle involves far more than what lies on the surface of the debate – on both sides. The moral battle about the science of AGW is inextricable from the political context; for example, libertarian ideology about governments, environmentalist ideology about protecting nature, etc. Both sides use science as proxy, and both sides use many other weapons as well..
The “skeptics” can manufacture ammo: It matters little what the “realists” do in that regard. That isn’t offered as a defense of tribalism among “realists.” Tribalism is destructive on both sides – but the tribalism on one side cannot be viewed as merely a response to the tribalism on the other side, IMO. When someone does so, they are ignoring the fundamental roots of tribalism that lie in the phenomenon of motivated reasoning.
The enemies were not conceived by the actions of the IPCC, Copenhagen 2009, Chavez, etc. In point of fact, the amount of opposition weaponized by the phenomena you list is pretty small, IMO. For the most part, only climate warriors are focused at that level of the detail. IMV, many “skeptics” rather wildly inflate the impact of these issues. Consider the possibility that your “schtick” is the institutional bias of the IPCC. Assuming that your identifications of that bias is accurate – it is possible that the weight that you give to that one variable becomes outsized?
JFP
If you want to know I do tend to think ECS has a good probability to be 2C or less.
On what published, widely accepted body of work do you base this belief? Can you provide references to five or so specific studies? More would be preferable. I ask as I am unaware of any widely accepted scientific basis for a belief that ECS is below 2C and would be interested to learn more.
Tom
Instead of answering the questions I asked yesterday, you responded with a question (naughty) and ran away (cowardly and evasive). On eventually returning, you carry on with the abuse (naughty) but do not answer the questions (evasive and dishonest). Let’s remember that this arose because you – for no reason at all – started calling me a liar upthread. I object to shit like this from such as you, so we will now continue where we, or rather you, left off, at # 472. You claim that your distorting, partial book does not personalise and demonise certain scientists.
Which personalizes whom? Which demonizes whom?
You list The Team on p.19 in the section entitled “˜Meet The Team’:
You name Mann, Bradley, Hughes, Jones, Briffa, Jacoby, Schweingruber, Rutherford, Crowley, Osborn and “˜perhaps others who float in and out’.
You say:
The criminals are not limited to The Team, the climate scientists and paleoclimatologists whose emails and files were leaked to the public.
So you personalise as listed, and demonise (I suspect actually libel) the named individuals who you characterise as “˜criminals’.
Can you explain further:
The criminals are not limited to The Team
You say here:
It is an accurate description of a phenomenon we are witnessing today.Liar.
The “˜it’ being criminality. You are saying that climate scientists in general are criminals and that they are engaged in criminal behaviour today. You stress that this is an accurate description.
This is more than a smear. It is a serious accusation. I cannot see how pointing out that your book is a calculated attack on the integrity
of an entire field of science is a lie. This is why I still want some examples of me *telling lies*. As yet, you haven’t provided any,
but you have called me a liar several times again. Now it’s ‘loser’ as well. This is not very helpful.
Joshua,
Speaking of “marginalized nutter skeptics” might be dehumanizing.
You should speak of Sky Dragons.
Sky Dragon might be less dehumanizingthan nutter.
This humanizing taxonomy could be extended by putting a wedge between the sky dragon from the extreme ones.
Let’s turn it over to fairy tale anatomists, or better to non-natural naturalists like Peter John Hoggart:
http://animal.discovery.com/convergence/dragons/expert/expert.html
Maybe it’s just a vocabulary thing.
BBD, sorry if you think spending the day with my wife at Golden Gate Park is running away. Sorrier still that you continue to lie about what I wrote in the book.
I’m going to have to be more disciplined with you, willard and Marlowe. Much like I did with another commenter two years ago, this will be my last comment to either of you, no matter what matter of tripe you spew.
It’s really easy to see why you get banned from blogs, BBD. No matter how many smiley emoticons you use, you are Oliver Manuel without the charm. You are obsessed with Hansen’s guess at 3C sensitivity and believe it is the only metric that matters in climate discussions. You have shown yourself willing to bully, use abusive language and lie. I want nothing more to do with you.
Willard, your pretense is far more sophisticated but at the end of the day you are the same. You have shown yourself to be more malicious than BBD–just subtler in your approach. I want nothing more to do with you.
Marlowe, there was a time when you had something to contribute to the discussion. That time was long ago. You’re cruder and meaner than willard, but that’s because your trollery is tactical while his is strategic.
I hope I am sufficiently disciplined to hold to this–the only reason I’m posting this as a comment is to remind me of it when you three tempt me to respond to your asinine crap.
At the end of the day, none of what you three write is worth it.
The author of #517 is being caught time and time again hyping nonsensically, ripping off his shirt, sometimes about namecalling while namecalling, namecalling, throwing spit balls, and playing Me Too after his gurus doggedly bark and bite, or simply asserting without burdening himself with the need to provide any evidence whatsoever. [1]
That all these misdemeanours constitute pushing back under the Fullerene Law of Climate Blogland is still an open problem. But if they do, that would mean that this law is not sufficient to guarantee and honorable behavior.
Maybe it’s just a vocabulary thing.
[1] To contradict what will hopefully amount to one last spitball, it seems that Lazar’s #414 contradicts the parting shot of #516.
#514 BBD
Here we go published in science in November 2011 –
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6061/1385.abstract
And before you go off and quote Hansen’s latest study here is his 1984 study
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha07600n.html
There is nothing new about scientists defending their theories till death. There are plenty of studies suggesting a lower then 3C climate sensitivity, and plenty of counter studies defending a 3C climate sensitivity. It’s not ‘settled science’
Ni! Ni! Ni!
Tom
So, no answers eh? Looks like Tom has been exposed – yet again – as the one telling porkies. It’s really easy to see why you get banned from blogs, BBD.
Another childish misrepresentation. I’ve only ever been banned from the one, although I did get banned twice ;-), for the same reason: BH won’t tolerate me asking awkward questions about the GWPF. Auditors take note.
harry ‘lower than 3C’ is not the same as ‘lower than 2C’. the mittner study itself estimates a median of 2.3C. now maybe you’re not so good with numbers, but 2.3 is greater than 2 not lower.
oh and you may want to consider some words of caution from Nathan Urban:
harrywr2
This is old news. Schmittner et al. (2011) is flawed – it’s estimated LGM global average temperature is too high, hence the reduced sensitivity estimate. Even co-author Nathan Urban subsequently contributed to a study using observational data and a perturbed ensemble of the UVic model and got a best estimate of only slightly below 3C.
There is nothing new about scientists defending their theories till death.
So Hansen *improves* the best estimate of ECS by *lowering it* from 4C to about 3C (the emergent value from modelE is 2.9C IIRC) and he’s ‘defending his theories to the death’? FFS.
There are plenty of studies suggesting a lower then 3C climate sensitivity
There are none that I know of which are widely accepted that demonstrate a high probability that ECS is significantly below ~3C. As in below 2C. As in my request to JFP that you have taken upon yourself not to answer. Please don’t make this claim again unless you provide at least five references to back it up. I’m fed up with this endless saying of stuff. Put up or shut up.
So, maybe we just need to give Hansen another 25 years and he’ll reduce his ECS from 3C to 2C. He is trending downwards after all.
#522 Marlowe,
Being optimistic within a range filled with uncertainty is not being ‘wrong’. It’s just ‘being optimistic’.
The endless accusations of somebody being ‘wrong headed’ for ‘thinking’ that climate sensitivity is low get tiresome. If I say I ‘think something’ then that is offered as an opinion. It’s different then saying ‘I know something’.
Pure radiative physics says that the amount of warming that should have occured from CO2 alone given the emissions of C02 from 1880 to present all other things remaining equal should be about 0.8C. 0.8C is about what has been measured. To get above that 1.2C climate sensitivity number you need to find a lot of heat in the oceans. Unfortunately, our ocean heat content measurements aren’t exactly good because sailors avoided sailing below 40 degrees South. Argo has only been in place for less then 10 years.
Indeed, and Hansen’s grand-…-grandchildren should be at -6C in 250 years.
harrywr2
Comprehension issues or WTF?
I repeat: Please don’t make the nonsense low ECS claim again unless you provide at least five references to back it up. I’m fed up with this endless saying of stuff.
You want a scientific argument about a scientific matter you need *references*. Or you have *nothing*. The difficulty certain commenters here have getting this into their skulls is jaw-dropping.
It is a simple enough concept.
harry,
No. If you are talking about the ‘no-feedback’ climate sensitivity the value is about 1C not 0.8. When you add just the water vapour feedback you get to 2C. So for a sensitivity of less than 2C to be plausible you have to show that there are no other positive feedbacks or that they are cancelled out by negative ones (e.g. Lindzen’s iris hypothesis). Good luck with that.The warming that has been observed to date is consistent with a climate sensitivity of ~3C. I suspect you’re neglecting the impact of aerosols and the thermal lag from the oceans.
Marlowe
That’s not all harrywr2 is neglecting. I went through this exact misconception with him in painful detail several months back. Now he’s acting like the conversation never happened. Now, if I can remember it nearly perfectly, why TF can’t he? What’s going on? Is he losing his memory or being disingenuous? Perhaps harry can tell us why he is repeating the same old crap from months ago?
I’m all ears…
>1.2C CS require positive feedbacks.
Positive feedbacks generate an accelerating temperature increase with business as usual or linear CO2 increases.
We have BAU CO2 increases.
We do not have accelerating temperatures.
This supports lower CS. This is meaningful. Actual observations matter. The system is multi-dimensional. Untangling forcings is near impossible mathematically. “Fixing” models by adjusting the aerosol forcing by 40% to compensate for the last two decades lack of expected temperature increase should raise some red flags. Another way to “fix” the models would be to lower CS. That’s climate science’s third rail.
When temperatures rise, we are told this is due entirely to the CO2 forcing, when they stall, we are told this is due entirely to natural variations/aerosols opposing the CO2 forcing. Natural variations/decadal oscillations/aerosols can only *oppose* temperature increases, not be responsible for them. What twisted web we weave…
In some fields of science, observations trump models. Apparently this is not one of them.
willard –
Thanks. I should clarify. I don’t think they are nutters. I think they are smart and knowledgeable people. I am rejecting to the argument from some who assert that they themselves are, in comparison, “rational skeptics.” In particular, I reject those arguments when they rest on a charge that the Sky Dragons, or whomever, rely on ideas that lie outside the bounds of accepted mainstream science. I think the logic behind my objection there should be pretty obvious.
As someone w/o the knowledge and the brains, I look at all the scientific arguments and think that they all, at least to a large degree, display a certain kind of logical consistency, internally. I cannot judge the scientific arguments. But when those Sky Dragons, or whomever, then rely on facile or specious arguments in other realms, as I see so often in climate debate threads, I have to make assumptions that said folks are likely susceptible to motivated reasoning, and further, fully unable to control for the effects of such an easily found influence that corrupts scientific analysis.
#513 I think that the diagreement is that the IPCC and Rio are a formal institution such as the United Nations, and Intergovernmental. In this official capacity, two outcomes I consider deserve special note. One, they have elevated a point of view to moral acendecancy which I would contrast to the moral acendancy of making murder illegal. They have denied the use of a tool that has its purposes for helping solve the problem that is under consideration rather than set a specification as to outcome. Such institutionalizing may not be unique, but I consider it noteworthy. It may be a bit of a superficial categorization; but that is what they did. It was their criteria. I am discussing the effect of what they did in this case. The institutional bias as I point out above means that certain appraoches cannot be considered legitimate, not dominating, but excluded. So, I disagree with this approach. I thiink you underestimate the effect of this bias on the appearance of science in such aspects as “concensus”. It is not minor.
BBD,
Is there a complete bibliography somewhere on climate sensitivity?
If not, someone ought to do one.
There are many online services to maintain collective bibliographies.
Connotea is one:
http://www.connotea.org/
Might be useful against hype.
JFP
Where are those references? (See # 514).
This thread is classic.http://imgur.com/pjxqR
BBD you re-iterate your criteria; they are yours. I offered that mine included discussion of assumptions and biases. #528 has some of the problems that would be discussed. How well do we measure aerosols? The answer is that the range of the effect goes from positive to negative, most quantities and interactions are assumptions; thus, not well. The question is how well do we know the thermal lag in the ocean? We have just started to getting the data necessary to start the mapping of what data will be required in order to answer the question. Tebaldi and Knutti’s Royal Society B examines what we need to do to accept that models are correct. In other words, “all models are wrong” still is true. To give an example of why I think 2C is supportable is two fold. The sattelite data indicate that the models overestimate TCS by about 1/3; thus a good approximation for ECS is 2C. This agrees with the discussion in Ch 10 of AR4 about natural variability. By end 2011, either we have exceed the natural variability possible by 2030 or TCS is overestimated. Using a differencing method as indicated in this section we arrive at the 2C estimate as well. Not surprising, these are not independent. But that includes ECS/TCS as well. Note that such is part of the range in the vast majority of the peer reveiwed work as indicated in the last excepts I replyed to you with. It goes to the confidence one assigns the certainty. Remember this is an opinion. It is stated in the AR4 as such. As I stated, I look at assumptions, basis, and other aspects that I find interesting.
BBD I am not your lap dog. FYI I just had a procedure today that took a lot of my time last night and well into the afternoon. I have not recovered. As far as I can tell you are reverting to a dishonest conversation. I could be dead for all you know and you are making demands. I point this out that you include only refrences. I stated it would include other items such as assumptions, basis, and I have done so above. So now I demand with the same reasonableness, you MUST demonstrate Tebaldi and Knutti’s Royal “B” has been invalidated.
willard
There’s no comprehensive online resource I know of. Just the usual vast pile of articles and studies scattered here there and everywhere. Connotea looks handy, but of course muggins here gets lumbered with the job of creating the bibliography 😉
I might just though, when the hurly burly’s done, which it could be by the end of the year. Unless the eurozone implodes, in which case it will be stacking shelves at Tesco for ever and evermore.
JFP
It has been painfully obvious for a long while that you have nothing. I repeat what I was forced to say above:
You want a scientific argument about a scientific matter you need *references*. Or you have *nothing*. The difficulty certain commenters
here have getting this into their skulls is jaw-dropping.
It is a simple enough concept.
No references = no more bullshit claims.
PDA @ 535
You’d never catch me in a suit like that.
Speaking of “marginalized nutter skeptics” might be dehumanizing.? The dehumanizing complaint I may agree with. But I use this phrase as to their arguments, so that others know whom I mean. I don’t know these people and if I was at a game, I probably would share a beer and an afternoon of relaxation. But their arguments do not reflect what has been measured. If they were arguing that there were some bias in the measurement, some other explanation I could discuss.
#539 Once again you are making an incorrect argument. ECS is not known as you state it. An ECS of as low as 1.2C is supported in AR4. It is not the only estimate. You are continually re-iterating or ignoring this fact. I cannot help you. It is still in the AR4, and unless it is withdrawn, it remains there. You need to take it up with the authors. It is their work. It is your claim that is bull shit. My reference is AR4, Chapter 9. It specifically states 1.2C. I even quoted it for you. If you want to throw away AR4, I have told you, be my guest. Low probabilty does not mean NO probability, but it does mean it has been supported.
JFP
You have no references, no real idea what you are talking about and you cannot even spell ‘consensus’. You are wasting everyone’s time, including your own. For goodness sake go to bed and recuperate from whatever the doctors did to you.
I could be dead for all you know
On the internet, nobody knows you’re dead.
Perhaps a dead dog, PDA, perhaps a dead dog.
The song that springs to my mind when looking at your satirical montage:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/27981918010
So the Blackcap Barons toss a coin to settle the score.
Keep pitching, John. Reality wins in the end.
John, Joshua,
Just in case there is a glimpse of chance that I somehow am not making myself clear: My point was that a nutter was still a human, while a dragon does not even exist.
BBD The references are in AR4. Your misdirection of the argument towards my spelling gives evidence that it is you who do not what they are talking about. But I would assume that is a joke, because as I stated before, I allow such so the conversation can go forward. You continue wasting space responding that I did not give referecnes. This is demonstrably false. They are contained in the quote above and in the refrences listed in Ch 9 AR4 that I directed you to. The 1.2C is supported in Ch 9. Anybody who doubts me can simply go to Ch 9 read it, and understand that it is a low probability. One can go to Ch’s 6,9,10 and see that we do not measure ECS and it is an estimate. The assumptions and basis are part of the estimate. Persons can and do make other estimates or assumptions. You might want to realize that this was done as the referenced articles and authors indicated in their work and in the AR4. So I have to ask, since you seem unwilling to read, how do you think the IPCC came up with a low proability of 1.2C? If it is not real, why did they include it? You continue to deny what is stated in Ch 9. If you do not like the way IPCC AR4 authors did it, then as I stated you can take them to task; you can throw AR4 away for all I care. What you cannot do, is change what they stated.
Not a problem willard. I do use the term nutter in a specific case as a recognized generality regarding someone’s position. I do not regard them as sub human. I find their arguments as mythical as the dragon. YMMV.
purple suit with a pink shirt? please. only if my 6yr old daughter was in charge. and i’d be carrying one of these, not that puny excuse for a firearm. i ain’t got time to bleed…
Fortunately, some science bloggers have an independent and irascible streak.
JFP (532)
Sure – I think it is worthy of note, and I don’t think that the impact is minor I think that there are real problems with the IPCC – and they should be noted and discussed. In that way lies improvement. “Denial’ of institutional bias does not pass the test of true skepticism. Rejection of institutional bias does not allow for improvement, it doesn’t advance the science.
But that doesn’t diminish the problem that out of political expediency, an expediency that removes that institutional bias from the full context, people use that institutional bias as another cudgel to continue waging a longstanding battle. That, also, does not advance the science.
Reading Back Keith’s post, perhaps we should also mention the way hype can be “deemphasized”, so to speak, to borrow a brokering term.
Let’s recall the neutral Bishop’s description of Deming’s work in his political hit job:
For the sake of expediency, we’ll assume that Demind really did not say anything beyond what is purported by our neutral Bishop.
Searching a bit on the “Getting Rid of the MWP” theme, which seems to have a pivotal role in our neutral Bishop’s political hit job, and also seen in loci classici of the auditing sciences, I stumbled upong a 2006 written statement by Dr. David Deming to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. Here is the conclusion of this statement:
http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543
We can note that Dr. Deming has a little more to say beyond what our neutral Bishop
Considering the way adversaries of Dr. Deming have been portrayed in that political hit job (ut supra), we could very well surmise that our neutral Bishop might have deemphasized some hype, or to use a neologism inspired by Eli (personal correspondence), de-hyped.
Maybe it’s just a vocabulary thing.
JFP @ 548
What you cannot do, is change what they stated.
I think that’s rather more your problem than mine since WG1 Ch 9 *does not* support the lukewarm position. This isn’t surprising because AR4 is a review and mainstream climatology rejects the lukewarm position. It is a baseless claim arising from belief rather than a scientific argument.
Let’s see what ‘they stated’ in WG1 Ch 9. Again.
The relevant quote from the summary at 9.6.4 was provided at # 478 but obviously needs repeating. Again:
Nevertheless, constraints from observed climate change support the overall assessment that the ECS is likely to lie between 2°C and 4.5°C with a most likely value of approximately 3°C (Box 10.2).
Let me say that again: the scientific consensus as stated in WG1 Ch 9 is that ECS is ~3C. Nothing has changed since 2007 except that confidence in the best estimate has risen.
I repeat – there is no comfort in AR4 for lukewarmers. Further ‘discussion’ is pointless – it all comes back to this. Again:
ECS is likely to lie between 2°C and 4.5°C with a most likely value of approximately 3°C
Rejection of this very clear statement of scientific consensus is denial, not ‘lukewarmerism’.
willard
It’s interesting that Deming appears to be the originator of that most powerful denialist meme: that someone on ‘The Team’ actually said ‘We’ve got to get rid of the MWP’.
See THSI (p. 28):
The original source is an article by Deming on the SEPP website (a bastion of neutrality if there ever was).
Yet there is *no evidence* that this email ever existed. We have only Deming’s claim. And given who his mates are, his claims cannot be given any weight unless backed by evidence.
I don’t think anyone ever said ‘we have to get rid of the MWP’. I think this goes beyond hype and into the realm of saying stuff. Even fabulism. I could be convinced otherwise, but only by evidence.
BBD, you finally put information where we can discuss it. Let me repeat once again, it depends on the assumptions and basis that are chosen. At the time of writing AR4, your statement is for the most likely value. It contains assumptions and basis that not all, EVEN the authors of the AR4, agree in the same manner. That is why one can get 1.2C in the CI. That the lukewarm position for most probable ECS is not supported by the IPCC and those authors is not even a revelation. This is well known. You state there is no comfort in AR4 for lukewarmers and once again ignore what I wrote. SO here it is again, at present we have almost the 17 years that was stated to invalidate the reasoning and assumption of ECS by Santer, IIRC. At present, the longterm trend is about 0.14 C/decade and the natural variability is more than is stated should occur by 2030, if you think 3C is most likely. You can find this information in Ch 10. At the point this happens for 17 years, and at present it is happening, then TCS and ECS are overstated and the new range should be 1.33 to 3 with 2 as the most likely ECS. This assumes there does not occur an understanding that explains where the overestimation occurred and the correction still yeilds about 3 C for most likely. I am not in denial. As far as I can tell you are in denial, innumerate, or have not read or understood the relevant chapters in AR4. You have not given enough information to make a determination of these three groups you belong in, IMO.
BBD,
Since you are a fiction enthusiast, you will surely appreciate Deming’s taste:
http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/StateFear-Deming.htm
Associating Soon & Baliunas to YesButGalileo was refreshing.
We also see that Deming has a knack for other aspects of the medieval times. We find this quote from Paracelsus about the academia:
That does not inspire trust in ringology.
JFP
You are making the standard ‘sceptic’ mistake of trying to read too much into too little. The ~3C best estimate for ECS derives from paleoclimate behaviour as well as observational data. Claiming that a flat trend for a decade or even two demonstrates that ECS is over-estimated is mistaken and misleading.
More likely what we see is confirmation that the negative forcing from aerosols has been under-estimated. The ‘quiet sun’ of SC24 and predominance of La Niña conditions since 2000 may also be countering the effects of GHG forcing.
Looking back I see no references. You still need at least five references to widely accepted studies supporting a high probability that ECS is in the low end of the range. If you don’t have them, you have nothing. I doubt I will respond further on this topic as you apparently cannot understand # 539 so there’s no point.
Here’s a question for you to ponder: you assert, contrary to the scientific consensus and without any support whatsoever that ECS is <2C. Why then should I not assert that ECS is >4.5C? Please think about this as hard as you can.
willard
Associating Soon & Baliunas to YesButGalileo was refreshing.
I had to smile when I saw that this morning (I should chase up more such references for the sheer fun of it).
For the amusement of others, here’s Deming on S&B and Galileo:
Soon and Baliunas had committed the cardinal sin of violating the new consensus. They were not the first scientists to get in trouble for violating consensus. In the 17th century, an irascible Italian mathematician made people even angrier.
🙂
Deming is quite a character isn’t he?
Actually BBD, if my memory serves, one of the climategate E-mails actually contains the phrase “wage war on the MWP” or something to that effect. Maybe Fuller or Mosher can correct me if I am mistaken.
BBD,
Words fail me.
I believe I am having an epiphany.
Here’s what our neutral Bishop says of Deming:
Contrast this with thy Wiki’s page on Deming:
Contrasting these two quotes leads to these questions:
Q1. Is D95 a review or a reconstruction?
Q2. What is D95’s exact conclusion?
The second question is interesting, because of what our neutral Bishop’s transition:
This is what Deming basically says in his Chrichton essay, not for from when he says being interested in the truth, only but the truth. Or something like that.
But look at this other anecdote:
I believe there is a tension in that storyline.
The climate industry approaches Deming because of his study. A journalist approaches Deming to confirm that he does not believe in AGW. It seems that the climate industry is being schooled where a journalist is not, don’t you think?
***
So here comes the story of my conversion, to echo Keith’s new theme.
Until this last week, I thought Deming was exactly the guy portrayed by our good Bishop. But now, reading that tension in the storyline, I was not so sure. That’s why this morning I took a look at thy Wiki’s page for Deming:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deming
Here is a quote from an op-ed he wrote in 1994, a year before the climate industry tried to subdue him:
So Deming seems to have other scientific interests than Galileo and Paracelsus. In any case, his pursuit of the truth seems to lead him in a debate over gun control in The Oklahoma Daily, where he says:
This sounds like an anatomically correct claim. The correctness of that claim in other fields is left as an exercise to the reader.
There are many scientific contributions from Deming in his Wiki entry.
So here comes my epiphany. I really thought we had finally found a noble scientist solely interested in the truth. Our good Bishop’s storyline made me conclude that. But now, considering some missing evidence, I am not sure anymore. The correctness of our neutral Bishop storyline cannot be demonstrated unambiguously at the present time.
willard
Oh my oh my. Who knew?
I take back ‘quite a character’. He’s a cornucopian son of a gun :-). Thank you for drawing this to my attention.
BBD people do take the same information and advocate as much as 10C though that is outside the range I posted. I point out to these, just as I pointed it out to you, for “my” position that these are low probability events. I take exception to the claim or implication that these HAVE to occur. I do not state ‘mine” has to occur. That you do not understand the science of AR4, or read what I state is not my problem. You state your POV well. You state one of the POV that someone can get from AR4. This does not preclude other POV. Please note that it is not I that came up with these numbers. If you want to take the IPCC to task for formulating that range in the normally accepted standard of science and statistics, go do it. My points and reasoning still stand, becasue they are what is stated in AR4. Your “”The ~3C best estimate for ECS derives from paleoclimate behaviour as well as observational data.”” ignores what I posted and is stated in Ch 9. Paleoclimate and models are based on observational data and are not truly independent requiring both Paleo and models to be in agreeement lest there is a circular argument in order to have confidence. Such as confidence that the most likely range is 2C to 4.5C. The necessity of using recent observational data and TCS in order to have confidence in ECS is also in Chs 9, 10. Your “”. Claiming that a flat trend for a decade or even two demonstrates that ECS is over-estimated is mistaken and misleading. ” contradicts what Santer, IIRC, said about 17 years, and it contradicts what the IPCC said in Ch 10 of AR4 wrt natural variability.
BBD,
Please take a look at the storyline of this presentation:
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/422182-m-m-may11.html
Pay special attention to p. 10-11-12-13-14.
This is the same storyline as in Chapter 1 of our neutral Bishop’s hit job.
Let us note the quote introducing this chapter:
I hope you like as much Honoré de Balzac’s wit as I do.
Maybe it’s just a vocabulary thing.
willard
I will look at this after supper. I have (finally) realised why your leitmotif has recently been just a vocabulary thing. I tumblrd across it eventually. Call it overdue diligence.
BBD,
Here’s an historical tidbit to help your digestion:
http://climateaudit.org/2005/09/01/new-orleans-and-george-marshall/
willard @ 564
September 4 2012?? And still coming out with this stuff? I’m shocked.
– P. 10: Lamb’s sketch used in FAR ho-hum.
– P. 11: That’ll be Huang, Pollack & Shen (1997) being misrepresented in the usual way. See HPS (2008):
And specifically on the methodology of HPS97:
– P. 12: Deming, well, we’ve been there. I’ll get my gun.
As for SM’s odd conflation of Marshall the man and Marshall the Institute (Nierenber, Seitz, Jastrow, oh dear, oh dear), it is baffling.
You are the logician – is this a ‘category error’? Or do you think SM is under no such illusion?
BBD,
Note that the 2012 date is not the date of the presentation. The presentation might resemble the support material for this:
You can search any WordPress archives by year, month, or day. Just add or shorten to the year, the month, or the day.
Note that CA has officially opened in February 2005.
Since you like Lamb’s sketch, you can find it on p. 34 of the Wegman Report.
Here’s the caption that Wegman added:
It seems that the two sentences emphasized is de-hyping some kind of inference, inference we may read into our neutral Bishop’s political hit job, just a bit before his neutral coverage of the Deming affair.
http://climateaudit.org/2005/05/
willard – thank you for setting me straight about the date-stamping on the pages.
Cooler Heads Coalition *and* George C Marshall. Well, in for a penny, in for a pound… But of course there’s no such thing as organised confusion sponsored and disseminated by right-wing ‘think tanks’ and of course our heroes are neutral seekers after truth and penitence.
Glad to see the Wegmann Report continues to exemplify the highest standards of scholarship (actually I admit I knew that the Lamb sketch was to be found therein).
IIRC SM said that he set up CA in response to RC (itself launched Dec 2004). But wasn’t RC a response to contrarianism in general and MM in particular? (I may be wrong about this, but it is my impression).
BBD,
J Bowers believes Steve should have named his blog RealClimateAudit:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/31199168050
He certainly has a point, and adds this quote as evidence:
Interestingly, this comment is dated March 2006, more one year after the official beginnings of CA.
It would be interesting to note how many posts in 2005 were not directly related to realclimatology, but more about promotion (in a technical sense).
For instance, if you look at the May 2005 archives, you’d find two presentations made at Steve’s squash club. His geological perspective might share something with Deming’s boreology. Perhaps not.
It’s tough to pindown Steve’s position on climate. His posts where he’s following through his political hit job against Lewandowsky may be the first time he admits running a “skeptic-blog”.
Now that it’s over Keith and you have moved on to beating other environmentalists, mayhaps you might moderate Eli’s short, but inoffensive comments here.
Hi there Keith, care to clearly state your objections or are you just doing the dance?
willard – “…political hit job against Lewandowsky “. So you think that Lewandowsky’s paper is a good one?
Tom C,
What makes you think that the quality of L’s paper has anything to do with the fact that it’s a political job or not?
Why should I have an opinion on L’s paper to be able to see that Steve’s pieces are a political hit jobs?
Are you taking objection to the expression “political hit job”?
***
While waiting for your answers, I could comment on your last claim in #560:
You follow that claim with “correct me if I am mistaken”, or something to that effect.
First, please note that it’s your duty to provide evidence for what you claim. So your “correct me if I am mistaken” can be seen as a way to shift the burden of proof. If that trick works, I could simply reply, “correct me if I’m mistaken, but there is no such thing in the emails”. I won’t, because I’m waiting for a book to comment on the emails.
Second, for what I know, here’s the best you can say to hype, in the limits of justified disingeniousness, what I presume is your position:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/08/dealing-a-mortal-blow-to-the-mwp/
So maybe it’s just a vocabulary thing.
What I believe would be going a bridge too far in one’s hyping, and coincidentally corresponds to what you imply in your #560, would be to say something like this:
The last sentence is perhaps a bit too hasty, since having to deal “a Mortal Blow” to the MWP” might not take the same kind of effort as having to deal “a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.”
I don’t know who this “third party” is, but it’s certainly not Steve’s. Perhaps he should put an on-line survey following all the industry standards to decide over this matter, instead of armwaving from his armchair. He has all the resources needed around him to make sure that his survey will be scientifically valid.
In any case, it may be a lot of words for only be a vocabulary thing.
Perhaps this vocabulary thing can be read as a political hit job, a political hit job rendered a bit innocuous considering the update of Steve’s hit job.
Ah yes, it was “deal a mortal blow”. I agree with Steve. It’s really not hard to imagine someone who has been proven to want to “deal a mortal blow” to the MWP would also say to someone in conversation that he wanted to “get rid of” the MWP. So, my point to BBD – who in #555 wanted some evidence of Overpeck’s saying “get rid of” – was that I think Deming is telling the truth and that the circumstantial evidence is quite solidly on his side. So, thanks willard. I would have tracked that down myself, but I have a job, which I doubt can be said of you.
#572 Willard
It’s not tough to know Steve’s position on Climate, he’s an agnostic and will tell you so if you ask.That is consistent with his professional life. People who prepare documents for investors are supposed to be agnostic about the enterprise they are examining.I don’t know how anything he is doing in regard to Lewandowsy could be claimed to be a ‘political hit job’. Steve has stated previously that his politics is consistent within the community that he lives. Even a conservative Canadian is liberal by US standards.Sorry, but Lewandowsky made a ‘scientific study’ attempting to paint people who are ‘skeptical’ of the consensus view as full blown krazy conspiracy theorists. Sorry, but someone trying to dress up Saul Alinsky tactics as science deserves skewering.
Tom C,
Thank you for your kind words.
I doubt that your Knight of Ni strategy has anything to do with your having a job or not. I also have a job (though I was on vacation these last weeks), so I’d be glad not to have to find you the shruberry you keep asking for. And in exchange of finding that CA thread for you, I’d like you to answer the questions in my last comment.
***
Also, please note the complete sentence:
As a sceptic yourself, do you cite the MWP as a natural analog for current warming?
There certainly is something along these lines in our neutral Bishop’s political hit job.
And we could even hear that something along these lines are being whistled in Wegman’s caption of Lamb’s sketch in his report, a feat we can since we’re on the Internet and we’re all dogs, alive or dead, like John F. Pittman could be.
It would Overpeck trying to push back against what he believes is uninformed hype?
To that effect, let’s note this part of the quote in Steve’s update where the intention is laid down:
So it seems there are many valid ways to look at the MWP. But there are other ones that are not. Which ones are they?
Is it true that people keep hyping the MWP?
In any case, we do witness some commenters running away with the “deal a mortal blow”. I must admit that it does look like it’s what you are willing to do right now.
Not unlike that “whistleblower” thing, incidentally.
But maybe it’s just a vocabulary thing.
…and no, I don’t consider Steve’s piece a “political hit job”. I don’t see anything political about it at all. I do scan Lewandowsky’s blog and see politics written all over it. I do wonder why anyone would take the work of a guy seriously who thinks Gleick is a churchillian hero. I am disgusted that the Academy is infected with people like Lewandowsky.
willard – There is substantial evidence that the WMP was not confined to a portion of the nothern hemisphere. I also find it highly implausible that a local climate abberation would persist for some 200-300 years. The existence of the MWP does not argue against current warming being anthropogenic in origin. It does argue against alarm. Thus, if you are promoting alarm, it must be “gotten rid of”, “dealt a mortal blow” etc.
Tom C
You aren’t reading the words. A run of regional, asynchronous warming events primarily in the NH over about 4 centuries is, as Overpeck said, *not* ‘a natural analogue for current warming’.
Tom, before replying (if you do), please repeat to yourself ‘regional’ and ‘asynchronous’ a few times. You do grasp that this does not mean the same as global and synchronous, as in ‘global warming’, don’t you? I stress this as I have encountered many sceptics who don’t appreciate the distinction at all.
BBD – The topic is the credibility of Deming’s report of the “get rid of” comment.
Tom, you need to read the words. Deming is misrepresenting Overpeck. This is a *classic* pseudo-sceptic non-argument. And you know what? It’s boring.
And Tom, Deming has form for misrepresentation (and therefore no real credibility). Deming misrepresented Huang et al. (1997). We’ve been through all this above. You are doubtless familiar with Demings misrepresentation of Huang, but please see above for Huang and co-author’s published response to that misrepresentation. It speaks for itself.
Sorry – see # 567 above for the quotes from Huang et al. (2008).
Sorry – rushing in and out – see # 555 for Deming’s original misrepresentation of Huang et al. (1997). One that has echoed in echo chambers ever since.
Tom C,
Thank you for answering one of the three questions I asked.
Sadly, your answer only asserts what you believe. There is no justification, no evidence, only some kind of proof by assertion. It would be interesting to know why you think that Steve’s not doing a political hit job at CA.
There are lots of claims in #581. Susbtantiating these claims should take some time to do, more so for a guy that works as much as you do. Take your:
That must mean you did study that question. You read papers about that. Perhaps you collected data and ran some code too?
And there’s also this other claim:
Now, is that an argument? Sounds like one. If that’s an argument, you read it somewhere, perhaps. Where?
And then we get to this:
I’m not sure how the existence of the MWP (which I don’t think is being questioned by Overpeck, by the way, only the myths about it) argues against alarm. Would you expand on that line of reasoning?
But I sure am hearing you loud and clear why you think all this vocabulary business matters:
So that was the point of Deming’s quote, ain’t it?
Now, what I find interesting that what you’re claiming here is never stated on CA, and only dogwhistled. By chance Big Dog can rely on Me Toos like you.
In any case, maybe all this is a vocabulary thing. So let’s make make sure we do agree about the meaning of the term “political hit job”. Here’s an instance that some found a political hit job.
http://init.planet3.org/2010/10/judith-curry-born-beyond-shark.html
Do you think this is a political hit job? Why?
And since you do seem to believe that L’s study is a political job. Why? You have read it, I presume. And ran its code. And reached your conclusion independently from anything that was said.
Or perhaps not. Perhaps your work prevents you from paying any kind of due diligence. Perhaps you don’t have the time to justify any your claims in #581 and to answer my questions. Perhaps your job is only to play the Knight of Ni game while inserting the appropriate words and the appropriate memes, after all.
I don’t understand why word placement specialists waste time using ad hominems like that. Its motivational effect goes against their very line of business. I thought that Convervative mind framers were more disciplined.
Maybe that’s just a myth that must be destroyed too.
BBD, willard – Overpeck’s words are plain and no amount of tedious whitewashing can sanitize them. It was a mistake to engage you. I wish you both, and Joshua, many good times in replaying Monty Python episodes (maybe Mad magazine for Joshua since he is a Yank). I hope you all can someday be socially well-adjusted.
Tom C,
You never made the mistake you think you made. All you did is try to use my name to place your plain memes and your plain words. Better of luck in your populist word placement.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
harrywr2,
Thank you for your #578, which brings many issues that are worth paying due diligence.
Sometimes, Steve sounds like he’s agnostic. That’s what I like about him, for I share this attitude. I don’t believe I need to have an opinion about the climate, and if I had one, I know what its worth would be. The only related belief I’m willing to fight would be my believe in inference to scientific explanations.
Some other times, Steve sounds like he’s a contrarian. Incidentally, this contrarianism is also seen in his busniess endeavours. Take for instance how Trelawney promoted their venture:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/5676145404
I don’t know if that endeavour is still pursued, but I’m sure you’d agree with me that there exists an investment style that we dub “contrarian”.
You say you do not understand why his celebrity match (tm Eli Rabett) with Lewandowsy has some political intent. I believe it is political, at least in the sense that it helps Steve put a wedge between the skydragons and his position of the own from his own network. Steve’s posts do contain a fight about the meaning of the word “skeptic”.
Maybe it’s just a vocabulary thing. Maybe it’s more than that. There is something like branding going on in this debate which lies beyond pure brand management. I believe this is the first time that Steve sells CA as a skeptical outlet. The leading skeptic he mentions is Lindzen.
We already know that Steve likes Dick. We also already know that he’d like to have an engineer-level derivation that would take into account water vapor. We also know that CA is about institutions reformation. Perhaps this there is a way to sell that position that does compete against the established one. But to say that CA is a skeptical blog might not help maintain this appereance of neutrality.
In any case, what we know of CA points to some kind of political warfare. Like I said earlier in #507, there are different kinds of political hit jobs. Invoking Steve’s political affiliation seems to create an equivocation between these kinds of hit jobs. It’s quite obvious that our neutral Bishop’s political hit job has a more important economical dimension than CA’s. But CA does have many political dimensions. The two I mentioned so far, viz. institution reformation and branding.
Finally, I do agree with you:
I could not have said it myself.
harrwr2,
Here’s a revised version, with hopefully less nits:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/31461271666
Sorry about that.
I think for Steve Mc its about vanity. plain and simple. the fact that he serves as a very useful idiot for conservative pols around the globe probably doesn’t concern him much. he doesn’t seem like the introspective type. i’d go so far as to say that he’s in denial about the impact the his efforts over the years have had in aiding and abetting counterproductive discussions about climate policy.
willard #564, thanks for linking the presentation.
The section “PC computational glitch” is interesting, although as Ian Jolliffe reminds, one should be cautious in interpreting Powerpoint slides.
“Standard method: subtract mean, divide by standard deviation.
Yields series with mean=0, variance=1
PC algorithm then looks for dominant patterns.
Mann’s method: subtract 1902-1980 mean (rather than series mean), divide by standard error.”
On 21st May 2005, GRL received Steve and Ross’ reply to Huybers…
“Tree ring chronologies (both density and ring width) are already standardized to common dimensionless units with a mean of 1. Huybers’ [2005] two statistical authorities either do not recommend standardizing variance for PC analysis on series with common units [Preisendorfer, 1988] or recommend the opposite (i.e., a covariance PC calculation) [Rencher, 1995, p. 430; see also Overland and Preisendorfer, 1982; Rencher, 1992]. Only Rencher[1995] even mentions the possibility of standardizing variance of networks in common units in exceptional circumstancesthat do not apply here.”
McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick (2005), Reply to comment by Huybers on “˜”˜Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance,” Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L20713, doi:10.1029/2005GL023586.
It is very plausible that Steve was simplifying the first message for a less capable audience.
To me the striking thing about the reply to Huybers is a reliance upon appeal to authority whereas Huybers made an argument primarily on physical grounds…
“NOAMER records are standardized chronologies [Cook and Kairiukstis, 1990], reported as fractional changes from mean tree ring width or maximum ring density after correcting for the effects of increasing tree age. The variance of the chronology is a function of both environmental variability and the trees’ sensitivity to the environment. Sensitivity depends on factors such as species, soil, local topography, tree age, location within a forest, and what quantity is being measured [Fritts, 1976]. The most striking example of varying sensitivity is that the two NOAMER chronologies indicating changes in tree ring density (co509x and wy023x) have variances roughly thirty times smaller than the other chronologies indicating changes in tree ring width. To further check the controls on tree ring variance, the variance of each NOAMER chronology is compared with that of the nearest instrumental temperature record using the Jones and Moberg [2003] instrumental compilation between 1870 and 1980. Because no meaningful relationship is discernible (there is actually a weak anti-correlation between the tree ring chronology and instrumental variances), the best approach appears to be to normalize the variance of the NOAMER records prior to performing PCA. Thus, a third normalization is proposed where records are adjusted to zero-mean and unit variance over their full 1400 to 1980 duration, a standard practice in PCA [Preisendorfer, 1988 p22; Rencher, 2002 p393]”
P. Huybers (2005), Comment on “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” by S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick,” Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L20705, doi:10.1029/2005GL023395
I think Huybers’ argument is quite clear and correct. If a treemometer measures one temperature input as 1.4, and another treemometer measures *the same temperature input* as 2.1, they are clearly not measuring in common units. The ‘dimensionless’ claim is a bit of a red herring here.By 1997 tree-ring indices were not exclusively calculated by ratios; an option is to raise the raw series to a power to stabilize variance and then subtract a curve representing the growth trend…
Cook E. R., and K. Peters (1997), Calculating unbiased tree-ring indices for the study of climatic and environmental change, The HoloceneSeptember, 7, 3, 361-370 doi:10.1177/095968369700700314
Which presents further difficulties for the ‘dimensionless’ argument.
Lazar,
Yes, Huybers’ argument sounds like one, while M&M’s argument against Huybers could very be considered argumentative by MathOverFlow’s standards. TCO likes Huybers’ style and I trust TCO’s flair for that kind of thing.
Maybe it’s just a vocabulary thing.
To return to the Deming affair, look how he’s using the getting rid meme in 2006:
http://climateaudit.org/2007/02/13/ipcc-paleoclimate-lead-author-on-mm
From this comment, we can infer that the meme was already a meme by 2006.
Brave, brave, brave, brave Marlowe,
Please enjoy your drink while you’re calming down and calmly read back the last comment from the thread posted in my last comment:
http://climateaudit.org/2007/02/13/ipcc-paleoclimate-lead-author-on-mm/#comment-79076
It seems that the link [1] does not work anymore. It appears that the question that mattered was “is it Overpeck?” more than “did Deming overinterpreted a bit?” or “what does it have to do with the price of tea anyway?” I concede, though, inquiring minds would prefer the “who” question.
I get the feeling that the Deming Affair and the MWP mythology might be important from a geological perspective. In any case, we do see that the Deming affair in the neutral Bishop’s hit job might very well be a CA karaoke, or at the very least the karaoke of a meme of that time.
Lazar,
Perhaps you have not checked the CA series on Huybers. It starts there:
http://climateaudit.org/2005/09/16/369
Lots of interesting tidbits there
– The concept of outflanking deserves due diligence.
– The business proposal from M&M to Huybers is quite revealing to me.
– The sell and buy comment is also quite constructive (wink, wink).
– TCO’s on his best behavior in that thread. Even David Stockwell has to side with him on one issue.
– The overall discussion in the comment thread is quite interesting.
– This gem by Steve:
This is one of the thread that got me hooked, incidentally. I found characters showing competence and humanity. Too bad it’s not always like that.
Maybe it’s a vocabulary thing.
willard,Yes, taking the recollection of one guy and using it as a soundbite against another guy is PR b*. Steve expects too much and ends up shooting himself in the foot like this… I mean you can’t expect scientists to “read the blog” when it’s like putting your head through a f* vice every time.
Fritts, H. C., Blasing, T. J., Hayden, B. P., and J. F. Kutzbach (1971), Multivariate Techniques for Specifying Tree-Growth and Climate Relationships and for Reconstructing Anomalies in Paleoclimate, Journal of Applied Meteorology, 10, 5, 845-864.
V. C. Lamarche (1974), Paleoclimatic Inferences from Long Tree-Ring Records, Science, 183, 4129, 1043-1048.
Lazar,
Yes, perhaps Steve was just a bit too cynical in that thread. The next one was, in his opinion, his best, a post from which my favorite sentence is this one:
http://climateaudit.org/2005/09/17/huybers-2-re-scaling
This might be the first time Steve begins to “meander”, as TCO would put it. Speaking of which, I believe this comment wins the thread:
Just a bit below, TCO suggests to Steve that he publishes something more formal, and Steve expresses the wish for help. Just a bit after that, UC appears. Perhaps he appeared before that, but it’s the first time I noticed him. God forbid me to imagine where would be CA without UC.
Also, please note this acknowledgement from Ross McKitrick:
Besides that, nothing much get said. I could report more findings if you wish, Lazar, or drop me an email at languageisasocialart at G &tc.
Oh, and Lazar, Lamarche gets some ice time at about the same time:
http://climateaudit.org/2005/09/21/lamarche-1973-on-treelines-1/
willard
If the whole hockey stick ‘controversy’ is simply ‘look, a squirrel’ why engage? There are more relevant things to consider: area subject to extreme hot summer events, Arctic melt rate, Greenland albedo flip, thinning of WAIS marine ice shelves etc.
Nil by Mouth cries squirrel to good effect. Pointing out the irrelevance works well as a counter. Furthermore, if the nay-sayers claim natural variation is responsible for modern warming it is up to them to demonstrate the mechanism(s) in operation. If they cannot – and they can’t – we are left with GHG forcing and parsimonious reasoning.
BBD,I believe willard’s interest is communication logic.
My interest is science of dendroclimatology and I like to chatter whilst waiting for Godot.
I don’t think any of us are under an illusion over the relevance of millenial reconstructions to current policy nor the potential for engagement with certain stances.
Best
BBD,
You’re asking the question about the significance of the hockey stick. Back in March 2005, Steve tried to answer that question by writing a blog post with the title **The Significance of the Hochey Stick**.
Here’s what he says:
http://climateaudit.org/2005/03/16/the-significance-of-the-hockey-stick/
Steve then recalls the Deming Affair.
Our neutral Bishop’s political hit job is a simple karaoke of that blog post in march 2005. Except perhaps for the fall of Steve’s post:
The discussion that follows in the comment thread is relevant to your other question. Andrew Weaver reminds Forrest Gump to Murray Love. Steve agrees. The John Hunter takes objection to the significance of the hockey stick. John A tries to bully him about some technicality. John A insists. Murray Love shows some more contempt. Et cetera.
Witness how the trollification proceeds. How the most important questions gets unsettled. How the Deming Affair gets forgotten.
So let’s recall the evidence:
1. Bishop Hill wrote a political hit job.
2. Bishop Hill karaoked Steve in doing so.
What do you conclude? Somehow, saying
3. Steve is only interested in science stuff.
Does not ring true to me. The Deming Affair suffices to show that this is a myth about CA. This myth is as important as the myths surrounding the MWP.
But I’m willing to contemplate the possibility that this may only be a vocabulary thing.
willard
While contemplating on vocabulary, we could think about proxies. HPS(97) was a proxy for Deming’s non-scientific purpose. MBH(98 & 99) were proxies for McI’s non-scientific purpose. CA is a proxy for Montford’s non-scientific purpose. But proxy though good for an in-joke sounds misleadingly scientific. So I prefer your karaoke.
Illusion is another relevant word, at least as far as neutral Bishops are concerned.
BBD,/p>
Indeed, the debate about proxies is a proxy debate.
Please look at how our neutral Bishop carries his explanation of the relevance of the MWP in his sections **Climate Science** and **The Medieval Warm Period becomes less warm**, pp. 23-27 of his political hit job.
Provide the quotes you like best, then I’ll show you mine.
Lazar,
You’re right that I’m more interested in the studies in the way of word games people play, if you allow me to splice the two titles of the famous books by Paul Grice and Eric Berne.
Take for instance what our neutral Bishop says on p. 21 about the first World Climate Conference held in 1977:
Good question.
You should see that there is no need to peek into anybody’s emails to observe the way of the word games people play.
willard
Some quotes:
p. 26:
In other words, the understanding of world climate histor propagated to the public by the IPCC was based, not on any understanding of global climate, but on the records for just one part of England [the CET]: an odd situation to say the least.
So the ‘global MPW’ as misrepresented in FAR caption (see footnote p. 26) was *regional*. But then:
p. 26:
[Hughes & Diaz] conclusions were that temperatures *had* been higher in some parts of the world […] However they emphasised that these warm periods seemed to have happened at slightly different times in different places. This suggested that the warmings had probably had different causes. […] If they [H&D] were right, then it would only be possible to conclude that the Medieval Warm Period was, at most, a series of regional warmings.
So far, so confused. So what ‘MWP’ is all the fuss about? What was there to ‘get rid of’ as Deming claimed? But let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory:
p. 27:
However, behind the scenes climatologists were busy, and a short time after the Hughes and Diaz paper was released, the public got a brief glimpse of what was happening. It was not at all as it should have been.
And then we get Deming’s misrepresentation of HPS97 and his misrepresentation of Overpeck (?) or the paleoclimate position, at any rate.
All is not at all as it should have been.
willard
To save you the trouble, endnote (12) on p. 28, supposedly Lindzen’s ‘confirmation’ that Overpeck wrote that email (that one nobody has ever seen), leads only to this:
[Lindzen; p. 11:] Not surprisingly, efforts were made to get rid of the medieval warm period (According to Demming [sic], 2005, Jonathan Overpeck, in an email, remarked that one had to get rid of the medieval warm period. Overpeck is one of organizers in Appendix 1.).
BBD,
Cf. #419. Look for Check-Kiting.
This hermeneutical result has been independently reproduced by Frank O’Dwyer:
http://frankodwyer.com/blog/2012/02/23/review-of-the-hockey-stick-illusion-part-1/
willard
re cheque-kiting – my apologies – and I actually *thought* I’d read this thread.
Now tiresome work nonsense calls me away – I’ll be back to read FO’D’s review in a few hours. More later. But thank you for the various pointers, especially to paleo-CA. As I’ve said before, I appreciate the gazetteer you continuously provide to all the fun I’ve missed by joining the game only relatively recently. It is invaluable.
BBD,
I believe your #612 underlines an important tension in our neutral Bishop’s storyline. That’s the second one, the first being outlined in v. #561. Here is a first quote, p. 24:
Then the Vikings do Greenland, the Little Ice Age, then the Vikings’ return, Golden Horn, Breughel the Elder’s paintings, etc. Then this, on p. 25:
But here comes the tension, as you recall it. The origin of Lamb’s sketch was not given. It was more a cartoon than anything. It’s an antiquity. That work was based on Central England Temperature Record.
et’s skip Hugues & Diaz 1994 and go straight to the paragraph you quote, a paragraph, we should note, just before the section entitled **The Deming Affair**. Let’s add at the two sentences you omitted:
These two sentences are interesting for two reasons. The second one shows the tension: The MWP is common knowledge, more than that, it’s a paradigm. And yet is based on antique research, an antique research Hughes and Diaz reviewed, to find something that has the power to shatter that paradigm.
Something’s amiss. Maybe it’s just a vocabulary thing.
Please note that our neutral Bishop seems to know the distinction between a lichurchur review and innovative research. This distinction will be lost, or so it seems, when telling the tale of the Deming affair.
willard
It’s almost as if certain people are singing from the same lyric sheet. It’s… unsettling.
BBD,
Before returning to the paragraph about Hugues & Diaz 1994, here’s the opinion of a medievist:
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/121964.html
Perhaps it’s just a vocabulary thing.
BBD,
Here’s also the opinion of Vaughan Pratt:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/18448478803
If you follow through the links to the source of that excerpt, you’ll notice that Vaughan’s interlocutor stepped down from that conversation as fast as he could in a most dignified manner.
willard
Thank you for these links. With your unsettlingly panoptic perspective you will probably already know that I always argue (eg with Nil By Mouth) that the MWP is irrelevant to discussion of modern warming. Except in that it is an indication that the climate is sensitive to small changes in radiative forcing – be they external or internal.
BBD,
I believe you’ll be interested to read that comment by John Mashey about Steve’s post:
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/news.php?p=5&t=244&&n=167
Here’s the summary:
Can you confirm that Lamb’s sketch never appeared in the IPCC Second Assessment Report?
Many thanks!
willard
Mr Mashey rocks and rolls. I enjoyed his work on the Heartland Institute too. Very much.
As far as I am aware, Lamb’s sketch did not appear in the SAR ;-). This is most troubling. Checking back to the CA article, I discover that I did not read attentively. When was that [update 2012] made? Do you remember? Was it very recently…? I don’t remember noticing it last time I looked, but then my mind may be going.
Willard and BBD (thanks for kind words): See <a href=”http://climateaudit.org/2005/03/16/the-significance-of-the-hockey-stick/”>CA post</a>, with comments by Connolley 09/22/12, first since 2005. Fixes were done in last 1-2 days. Since this interacts strongly with the schematic, Interesting questions might be:a) How did McK+McI get the schematic graph? It was *not* in the SAR.(1995) nor in the Supplement (1992), and of course, anyone who actually read the FAR(1990) page that contained the graph could see the caveats. One might suspect the schematic was floating around, as in <a href=”http://web.archive.org/web/20010414035835/http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm”>John Daly’s original version</a>, which has the 1995 error, which he fixed in 2003.b) If McI didn’t recommend Deming, why did Deming quotes show up as a key theme in McK talk April 2005 and McI talk(s) May 2005, although in the latter, replacing the correct citation (JSE, 2005) with a false one (Science, 1995).Although Deming’s quote had zero evidence of existence beyond his essay (and suffered from contradictions to be seen later)), it was widely quoted as Truth, after which bloggers speculated on who it must have been and speculated that it was Jon Overpeck … and speculation grew into Truth, as well. Search for Deming in PDF at <a href=”http://www.desmogblog.com/weird-anti-science-donna-bethell-sepp-and-sandia-national-laboratories”>Weird Anti-Science…</a>. Heartland Environment and Climate News reprinted (with Deming permission) a 2003 article “Abundant Reserves Show Petroleum Age Is Just Beginning”. See <a href=”http://www.desmogblog.com/fake-science-fakexperts-funny-finances-free-tax”>Fake science, …</a> p.127, or go straight to <a href=”heartland.org/sites/default/files/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/12907.pdf”>E&CN</a> and peruse the whole issue.
Mash,
Just caught your comment.
While thinking about it, perhaps I should follow onto my story. We were getting to H&D94, which gets mentioned there:
I’m not sure where the claim that “H&D does not withstand scrutinity” gets evidenced, but nevermind. What we now know is that our good Bishop’s karaoke considered that H&D94 was a review.
It makes sense to cite a review as a reference to “recent studies”, if H&D94 was a review, of course. Was it? Too bad scrutinity has not been paid to H&D94 in that blog post.
I’ll quote our beloved Bishop’s karaoke later.
The source of the above quote:
http://climateaudit.org/2005/06/27/ipcc-1995-sar-an-extended-excerpt/
Mouth breathers please note: http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/30/more-on-the-iconography-of-ipcc-1990-figure-7/
Just before the section entitled **The Deming Affair**, our good Bishop’s political hit job contains this other section, entitled **The Medieval Warm Period becomes less warm**.
This section contains three paragraphs, too long ones and a short one. In the first one, we get to know that Hughes and Diaz that “struck a major blow at Lamb’s view of climate history. The readers have not properly been introduced to Lamb’s idea, but will have to take our Bishop’s karaoke for gospel. Even if two paragraphs later it is said that “it would take more than that to overturn an well-entrenched paradigm”, which sounds a bit odd considering the major blow foretold and the oxymoron “well-entrenched paradigm”.
The second paragraph is interesting enough to be quoted in full:
Instead of second-guessing why my comment is stuck, here’s a link to the original:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/32744205518
PS: You can delete the delayed comment, Keith. The quotes were off.
I point to this:
And I point to this:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/05/09/tggws-again-again/
Depends upon the context, I suppose.
But what if it’s Worse in Context?
I point to this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100306133755/http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/08/swindle-and-the-stick/
Seems like even EU climate commissioner thinks that there’s been too much gloom and doom and media overkill. So, change tack and push the agenda in a more positive spirit:
The EU has launched a campaign aimed at showing how low-carbon solutions can improve quality of life.
“It’s perhaps been a bit too much doom and gloom in the past on climate,” one
official told the BBC at the launch in London. “We are now emphasising the need
to inspire people.”
She said awareness of climate change varied widely throughout the EU. One of her
officials admitted that the UK was suffering from something of a media backlash against climate policies because previously there had been media “overkill” on climate. .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19868580