Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2285 2286 2287 2288 2289 2290 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 Next
Comments 114601 to 114650:
-
chris1204 at 00:23 AM on 24 July 2010The nature of authority
tobyjoyce @ 39: Some of the best portrayals of the subjective element in science have been described by the late great Stephen Jay Gould. He gives numerous examples of figures we now ridicule explaining how their views made eminent good sense from the perspective of their times. My favourite is his discussion of Archbishop Ussher's 1650 dating of the creation at 4004 BCE - Gould showers praise on Ussher's empirical approach to a difficult question, which apparently involved far more than mere extrapolation of biblical generations but included also cross-referencing to other historical data. He decries modern ridicule of what was excellent science for its time. Your reference to Watson and Einstein set me thinking. Watson's initial failure to give but the most marginal credit to Rosalind Franklin's critical role in the seminal Nature publication on the structure of the DNA molecule is perhaps more worrying than his lack of humility. Interestingly, this does not detract from the integrity of the science. Likewise, Franklin's seemingly much smaller footprint detracts not one iota from the scientific integrity underlying her pioneering work on RNA, an equally important molecule. Fortunately, the science of DNA and RNA however did not take placed in a highly charged socio-political context with major economic implications. However, AWG science does. Once money, politics, inflated egos, and plain cussed stubbornness enter the field, the equivalent of a culture war ensues in which truth is often the first casualty (pardon the cliche). In this context, I think some players (eg, Mike Hulme of UEA), are trying hard to rewrite the rules of engagement and move us into a more civilised space. I think their efforts deserve some recognition. -
TruthSeeker at 00:20 AM on 24 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Reply to # 63, 64, & 65. thanks for all your thoughtful responses. I still have a visceral concern with the fact that the only true measurable component is the manmade portion (I don't dispute the results of these measures). That being said, you all have provided many good points that I need to digest. Thanks for that. -
Pete Ridley at 00:17 AM on 24 July 2010The nature of authority
Phil (Scadden) ref. comment #24, no, Climategate wasn’t spin, it was a scandal exposed by the leaked files and the enquiries held so far were simply whitewashes but they don’t lessen the scandal of the general public’s recognition of it. On th ematter of climatemodels, lets keep that to the debate on the “How reliable are climate models?” thread. Andrew (Adams), I don’t believe that I have ever claimed to have any authority with regards to global climate processes and drivers but if you think that I have then please show me where. I do have opinions on the subject after having read a lot about it and, like yourself, am at liberty to express them. Best regards, Pete Ridley -
NickD at 00:08 AM on 24 July 2010The nature of authority
Pete Ridley at 16:48 PM on 23 July, 2010 says, "Climategate and the subsequent IPCC-gates have started an avalanche of scepticism among lay people around the globe." That's a very strong statement. I'm skeptical, as you provide zero evidence to back up this extraordinary claim. Do you have extraordinary evidence which backs up your assertion that global skepticism amongst laypersons became an "avalanche" after the molehills you cited? @ Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:21 PM on 23 July, 2010 I am with Philipe on this one. I simply don't comprehend the conclusion you have alluded to based on the out of context quote you cite. Could you elaborate? -
Ken Lambert at 23:59 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
Tobyjoyce #39 I thought that Freeman Dyson was doing a pretty good job of: "stepping up to defy the conventional climate science wisdom from within". Interesting that the last 10-12 topics on this blog have strayed from discussions about the harder science and into all sorts of areas such as personalities like Monckton & Abraham , links to creationism, 97% of scientists in a room etc. I wonder what happened to the robust blockbuster arguments about the real effect of CO2, water vapour, aerosols, TSI, TOA, OHC, SLR, energy balance etc?? Maybe it is because the deeper these technical discussions go, the more the lack of knowledge and robust measurement in vital areas of climate science are exposed. Several of these threads have petered out with a stalemate ending in something like: "we need better measurement and more years to find out what is really happening". When met with this situation, the fall back position of this blog and the 'AGW consensus' is to say we don't have all the answers, but need to take radical action just in case what we claim is right. The difficulty with this line is that public confidence has been damaged by Climategate, and the exaggerated claims by advocates like Al Gore are not being believed by the great unwashed who will have to pay for the radical changes to their energy sources. -
KR at 23:34 PM on 23 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
RSVP - The physics of CO2 and the greenhouse gas effect is logarithmic; for each doubling of CO2 levels an additional forcing of ~1 oC is expected. This is because of the Gaussian/Lorentzian bandpass of CO2; the center of the bandpass may be entirely saturated, but with each doubling the width of the absorbed band expands. Positive feedback (primarily H2O, also CO2 cycle) will likely amplify that to ~3-3.5 oC. So a 40% increase only leads to about half a degree in CO2 forcing, ~1.5 oC with all feedbacks (many of which are slow, still in progress). Your calculation is therefore incorrect. Radiation vs. heat flow: There is a constant confusion in terms that comes into play here. Heat (total energy) flows (at some rate) from hot objects to cold ones. However, energy flows in both directions, from hot to cold and (in smaller amounts) from cold to hot via radiation and conduction. "Heat flow" is the net energy exchange. The presence of a cold object makes a warm one lose energy slower then it would be if it were instead facing 3 oK empty space. What I was trying earlier to point out is that it's important not to confuse the parts (radiative and other transfer elements) with the whole (heat flow). The science is extremely well established for radiative equilibrium, also here for thermal radiation and heat flow, dating back to the late 1700's - part of the discussion where caloric theory was dropped as a concept. This confusion in terms, however, seems to be a matter of eternal recurrence... -
batsvensson at 23:28 PM on 23 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
What is the definition of a 'climate scientists'? -
tobyjoyce at 23:06 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
chriscanaris, @35, I take your point, but the great scientists I mentioned (Feynmann, Watson, Einstein) would have been downright losers in a "most humble" competition. Einstein refused ever again to submit a paper to "Physics Review Letters" because it dared to send one of his 1930s papers for peer review. If you are talking about Newton's "standing on the shoulders of giants" type of modesty, then I think all great scientists partake of that. Every scientist needs to know that their theories are contingent and not final, and that type of modesty is a necessity. ALL of out judgments are subjective. Philospohers of science speak about observations being "theory-laden", something even Darwin admitted. Science makes effort to shrug off the subjectivity by statistical tests, by insisting on replication of experimental or model results, by peer-review, and by discussion. Science, like you (and me, a bit!), does learn from its mistakes. The fact is no Watson, Einstein or Feynmann has stepped up to defy the conventional climate science wisdom from within. That speaks volumes to me. Imagine the glittering prizes that would await the scientist who did that successfully - not to mention the sheer intellectual satisfaction. -
Philippe Chantreau at 22:55 PM on 23 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
"If we're wrong - is the money will be lost ... " Well, that was the modus operandi for a while with the world's banking industry and Wall Street. Funny enough, it still is to a large extent, even though they were wrong. We might as well try it with the energy industry, at least there would be a bunch of good reasons to do so. -
Daved Green at 22:49 PM on 23 July 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Hi ok ive realised from google searching that someone is posting this in just about any blog they can and by the body of the post it seems to be the same person . thanks Dave -
Philippe Chantreau at 22:47 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
Arkadiusz, on this post #32 http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-nature-of-authority.html#19183. What logic you may use there escapes me. -
Daved Green at 22:17 PM on 23 July 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Hi How can these guys be right “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner , Ive beeen looking for rebuttals to there paper but now luck so far can anyone help ? thanks Dave -
chris1204 at 22:13 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
Arkadiusz, I'm happy to see you posting particularly since we're talking about the nature of authority. A few weeks ago, you referred to Polish scientists/ scientific bodies who did not endorse the AGW consensus. Another poster put up a link to the December 2007 statement of the Polska Akademia Nauk (Polish Academy of Sciences) which they believed supported the consensus. I happen to be reasonably fluent in Polish despite my Greek surname, Ghanaian childhood, and Australian nationality (a long story - 1939 and all that). I naturally looked up the document - the document strongly endorsed the 'consensus.' I asked if you knew of any more recent statements or statements from other bodies supportive of your stance. I was disappointed by your non-response. -
John Brookes at 22:09 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
adelady at 19:50 PM on 23 July, 2010 I think you hit the nail on the head. How dare we tell the opposition that it would take them years of work to be qualified to understand this stuff well! It is very anti-democratic - isn't it? -
chris1204 at 22:06 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
tobyjoyce at 19:46 PM on 23 July, 2010 Massimo Piglucci's five useful steps are eminently sensible. However, no matter how much we try, a subjective element enters into our evaluations of all situations. For example, one often speaks in science of an elegant experiment. RSVP's call for humility is thus timely indeed. Looking back over my career, I can think of all too many errors of judgment. I don't make quite so many now (I hope!!!!!). -
magaret.wang at 22:03 PM on 23 July 2010It's Urban Heat Island effect
well, i may not as professional and presice as all of you commented on the issue above, and i don't really know the jargon you are talking, but i would like to ask several important questions based on logics, becasue i also interested in the matter, but due to the lack of basic tools and information i could not present a whole image to all of you. my points as as follow : 1. do you think that the sun is the major energy resoure of the surface of the earth (no matter in which form it store,like coal, oil, living creatures, organic matters,carbohydrate...and so on)beside the nuclear reaction the core of the earther is under going and before we discovered and stareted to use nuclear energy? 2.If you do belive that the sun is the major energy supplier to the earther surface, then where those engergy the surface of the earth from the sun got go? It dissapeared by it's self or they just stored in other form rather the heat? 3.Yes i do believe the urben area is much hotter than the rural area, but does that mean UHL is the major contributor to global warming? becuae we all know that about 71% of the earth surface is cover by water, and the propotion of rurual area must be more than times to urban area(according to an estimation rurual area only account for 3% of the earth surface, even if the average tempreture of the urban area is 10 times than the other part of the world , the average tempreture rise it can cause if is only 0.27 centidegree. 4.Look at the the energy we realised from the engery store in other form the near 100 yeas, i think it's not a big quesiton to understand glob warming Got to go, to be continue next time if i were bump into this forum agian next time. -
andrew adams at 21:43 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
MattJ, How did he miss his own error here? His own example of his father making dogmatic statements to him shows there is no such division. After all, when a parent tells their kid to go to bed by such and such time or take a bath, that decision too is based on experience: kids need to go to bed earlier than they want, or they don't get enough sleep, and end up cranky the next day; they need hygiene, which need they generally never appreciate, not even after its neglect leads them to serious skin diseases. We would certainly hope that a parent would give instructions to their children based on such considerations, but not everyone is a good parent and sometimes people either don't have such a good understanding of, or simply neglect, their children's best interests. Ultimately a parent's authority is arbitrary because they posses it merely by virtue of being a parent and no one has to prove their fitness or suitability for parenthood beforehand (unless they are adopting I suppose) so I think it is fair for Graham to make the distinction. -
andrew adams at 21:33 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
Pete Ridley This has not been achieved by scientists trying to predict future climates because the processes and drivers of global climates are horrendously complex (verging on the chaotic) and are presently very poorly understood. Reliable analysis and prediction of global climates is impossible due to the significant scientific uncertainties. So what authority do you have for your claim regarding our very poor understanding of the drivers of global climate? -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:21 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
Gavin Schmidt once said: “if we are talking about global warming, I am probably the most criticized man in the world (...), why I stopped reading articles about me ...” Is this the reason (may be) that the theory of AGW is false? -
RSVP at 20:11 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
Human imagination conceived of the myth Atlas, a human- like figure holding the entire world on his shoulders. With full knowledge of this impossibility, mankind now attempts to treat the entire planet as just one more device under test. The problem is not a lack of authority as much a lack of modesty, which when found will do more for this cause. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:00 PM on 23 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
@Chris „Natural internal variations (e.g. ocean currents like the PDO/AMO) can pretty much only redistributed heat.” “But one would have to conjure up some rather extraordinary thermodynamic arguments to satisfy a notion of persistent accumulation of heat into the climate system by internal variations!” This is not the whole truth. AMO affects the accumulation of energy in the oceans, water vapor content in the atmosphere (the main greenhouse gas), albedo (the desert - and the increasing amount of dust in the atmosphere - such as the Sahara - in the negative phase of the AMO - the vast ash cloud reaching up to America; positive AMO - a significant drop in the number and extent of dust and surface area of the Sahara and the duration of the retention period of snow, keeping the leaves on the plants, the growing season, etc.), ENSO - including water vapor and the quantity of sea (plankton) sulfurous cloud condensation nuclei - the clouds ... - I probably not omitted anything important ... Subsequent cycles of AMO, PDO are different in time (duration: 50 - 90 years) and the range of the temperature anomalies. We are talking about the so-called: cyclical occurrence of extreme El Nino .... Even the IPCC report, in assessing these factors, it is said has a huge range of uncertainty ... -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:57 PM on 23 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
I agree to the consensus - for convenience - if it does not slow down (necessary in the scientific process) the process of falsification - skeptical "treatment" theory of AGW. “Also, even if AGW was disproved tomorrow, I'd still argue for a reduced reliance on fossil fuels on the basis of *general* pollution & resource sustainability!” The current problem is in how fast warming will proceed (called "second floor"). If very fast (here, I believe that will not be collected up to 50 "white" scientists in the room - so minded), the major resources should be allocated to the CCS (there is no other way to the rapid reduction of CO2). If we're wrong - is the money will be lost ... If the warming will be slower (and it is much more than he wants IPCC), we should (mostly) spend money on alternative energy sources - it's never hurt us. As noted by Marcus, fossil fuels have many other serious defects. So I agree - I am the "white" in the room. I'll have less problems with getting money for research. And the truth, and so once ... But if I am to be fair to the arguments of those who say: "for the current warming corresponds to the natural cycle of warming, much more than the IPCC says - convincing me. These are often carried out very precisely, logical processes of evidence. -
adelady at 19:50 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
"I think part of the resistance to authority is the feeling that nobody's better than me." But I think that links up with the anti-intellectualism, people really want to believe that they can read a magazine or a blog and *know* stuff as well as someone who's put in years. The intellectual stuff is the hardest because it's not like other activities. We all know how likely it is that we'll be seeded at Wimbledon or invited to perform at Carnegie Hall or produce a better chocolate cake than someone who's won every cake competition she's ever entered or all those other obvious external things. We can't kid ourselves so we yield to others' judgments about these people's expertise. When it comes to knowing things a lot of people seem to resent the fact that knowledge and skill (in something like maths) is difficult to acquire at higher levels. The perennial scorn for "ivory tower" academics seems to have exploded into a need, in some people, to show that they're just as capable as someone who's "wasted their lives with their head in a book". As for comparisons, many of these denier people are pretty clever. I think it's hard for some who've usually been among the cleverest people in their own circle to acknowledge that others are much, much cleverer and have done a lot of work to use and enhance their capacity. It's a bit like Monday morning quarter-backing. But it gets nasty when people really believe that the team should be following their instructions rather than the coach's. -
tobyjoyce at 19:46 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
I am not fully at ease with this, and I hope I can explain why. Yes, it is true that the scientific consensus is the place to start always when researching a topic. I am sure a large proportion of contrarians read McIntyre and Watts because they find them politically congenial. However, they are then unwilling to engage with the science. We are probably unduly influenced by the first person to explain something to us. However, science contains enough of the subversive and the rebellious to make us cautious about "scientific authority". I am thinking of the young Feynmann, James Watson or Einstein who were not afraid to challenge the establishment of their day. So we should never hesitate to question authority. However, at some point we must decide and put scepticism aside. As I once said in a response on WUWT (to which no one responded) "Even Doubting Thomas had a bottom line". Massimo Piglucci Nonsense on Stilts gives 5 very useful steps to check out expertise in fields where we ourselves have little or none: (1) Examine the arguments of the experts. Piglucci points out that we may not have the expertise to critique the fine points. (2) Look for internal consistency and agreement among the experts. (3) Seek independent advice that the expert is an expert! (4) Ask questions about possible biases. (5) Look at the track record of the expert. We could apply these to (say) a doctor who is recommending a particular course of treatment to a loved one or to ourselves. I think climate scientists measure up very well to Piglucci's criteria, while the contrarian "experts" do not do well at all. -
chris1204 at 19:40 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
scaddenp at 13:55 PM on 23 July, 2010 As best as I can tell, the Deep Climate post deals with statistical issues as they relate to the Climategate emails and McIntyre's citation of these. A commentator writing in response to an earlier post indicated that discussion of these emails was off limits on this site. I don't know whether that is true or not. In any case the whole debate over who wrote what and why in response to what seems utterly Byzantine complexity and somewhat beyond the limited capacity of my prefrontal cortex :-). I hope I'm not violating rules by going over these issues but McIntyre's principal beef all along seems to have been with the validity of statistical methodology (very much his field of expertise) and reluctance to share data and code. The various enquiries have exonerated the folks at UEA of misconduct and upheld the integrity of their scientific work. However, some criticism of lack of interaction with the statistical community and willingness to share information seems a consistent theme in the enquiries. As far as I'm concerned, that's exactly where I would want to leave the issues. Indeed, my recollections of the Guardian debate if they serve me well suggest a consensus that in reality there nothing sinister to hide and that openness from the outset would have avoided an awful lot of unpleasantness. Incidentally, you say: 'And as to media - well seeing the reporting about anything you have been involved in should give you a healthy dose of skepticism.' Incidentally, I've been involved in a number of matters which attracted substantial media attention (not much in recent years, thank God). The issues being reported on were not politically charged but related to some complex criminal matters. I was surprised at the time by the accuracy and fairness of some (obviously not all) of the media reporting. -
Sheila at 19:17 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
I think part of the resistance to authority is the feeling that nobody's better than me. This strikes me as muddled. Better in what sense? I consider myself a better person than drug barons and paedophiles, so obviously I believe that some people are better than others. Since there's 6,700,000,000 people on this plant (give or take) I have to admit it's unlikely that I'm the best of the lot. I'm not likely to be the smartest, either. Or the most knowledgeable on any given subject. I think the point is that nobody has more rights than I do. That doesn't mean everybody is equally qualified to judge the science behind climate change. And 97% of the active climate scientists say climate change is real, serious, and caused by human activity. -
RSVP at 19:09 PM on 23 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
"KR Please - if you want to promote (as you apparently do) the idea of waste industrial heat causing global warming, then look at the numbers. It just doesn't add up." I am not sure why you say this. From what I have read here, GHG's have brought temperatures up on Earth some 30 Kelvin from where they would be otherwise. An increase of 100ppm CO2 due to humans with respect to an original 250ppm (or thereabout) represents a 40% increase. Based on the most simplistic notions of proprotionaly, the "numbers" dictate something closer to a (0.4 x 30 = 12) twelve degree increase which is obviously not being detected. Aside from the "numbers", in earlier discussions there have been those defending AGW while at the same time asserting that radiation and heat transfer have nothing to do with each other. There seems to be general misconceptions on quantum electrodynamics that are affecting biases in a big way. Furthermore, if the science is so well established, what exactly needs to be discussed? -
skywatcher at 19:06 PM on 23 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
#74 - shawnhet, your last sentence does not make any sense. There's a huge difference between distribution of heat and addition of heat. One can cause a long-term change in a system, the other can't. -
Marcus at 18:51 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
"Climategate and the subsequent IPCC-gates"? Oh that's just too funny for words. In spite of the attempts by the Right-Wing Media to get mileage out of the e-mails (obtained via a CRIMINAL ACT, I might add), the reality is that it turned out to be a massive storm-in-a-teacup. Even the most Right-Wing media outlets have since dropped the story-leaving just the Right-Wing conspiracy Websites to go on about it (which is essential for them given the lack of any contrary evidence to AGW). Similarly, all of the alleged errors of the IPCC-again highlighted by the Right-Wing press-have likewise proven to have precious little substance. The so-called "avalanche of skepticism" that you claim has actually ceased to materialize-all that happened was that the Denialists become even more convinced of the existence of this non-existent conspiracy. I'm just waiting to hear about when the hackers will be arrested & charged. I've almost no doubt that they have close links to the same organizations that give Oxygen to the likes of Watts, Plimer & Monckton. -
gpwayne at 18:37 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
1. adeladyIt's a shame it has to be intellectual, where people have to acknowledge others' superior expertise.
That acknowledgement requires humility. A striking characteristic of Climate change denialism is the certainty invested in opinions, for all denialism is driven by beliefs rather than evidence. Belief systems rarely engender humility because, by their nature, they require followers to 'know' they are right. The Dunning-Kruger effect is another manifestation of this problem. 4. MattJ...most conspicuous in the failure of his thinking is the false dichotomy between the authority with which he now speaks about music and musicianship, and the parental authority kids hate when their parents tell them to go to bed.
It is because they are children that they confuse the nature of the authority, believing it to be arbitrary. It is the argument used by climate change deniers to debunk the science: that scientists have an ideological or economic agenda which shapes the results they give us, in order to exercise authority over what we do and how we live. My point is that this authority isn't like a parent, who gains it merely by copulating. It is earned, and the price is high to those who do the work we hear about, for they are the best in their fields. The sub-text, by the way, is anti-intellectualism or inverse snobbery - the demeaning conflation by fundamental ideologues of intellectual achievement and socialism/liberalism/humanism.That is, rather than recognize that scientific authority is based on people doing their homework, so that their opinion really IS worthy of authority and respect, the skeptics turn up their noses and stamp their feet shouting 'no' just like the little kid who doesn't want to take a bath when his parent tells him he must.
Or go to bed. The weird thing about this remark is the deja vu quality, since it's exactly what I thought I said in my piece. 6. Joe Blog You refer to issues of trust. I would like to add that the deference I refer to (and that was queried by omnologos) is a trust in the scientific method, not scientists. In any socialogical group you will find a statistical distribution of saints and sinners. The scientific method is designed to weed out the sinners and it works well enough - given time. That's the tricky bit with climate change - people say 'let's wait until we've got better data, more evidence...' but if any of the putative tipping points are reached meanwhile, we're screwed. In lieu of blind faith, I'll accept what the consensus and logic tells me - because I do believe they speak with authority, and I don't believe they have any reason to lie, since the lie will be discovered all to quickly in this fevered scientific climate. 9. HumanityRulesWhen science collides with politics and social policy I think it's very much necessary to do plenty of questioning.
Sure, but principally one should question the politics and the social policy, not the science that catalysed the discussion. Remember too that denialists do not 'discuss' anything, they just tell us why we're wrong and have no authority to tell them what to do. -
Pete Ridley at 18:34 PM on 23 July 2010Models are unreliable
Hi folks, thanks to those of you who have responded with an attempt to debate in a reasonable manner the issue of evidence that is supposed to support the claim that climate model predictions/projections have been validated. I will respond to each of you in turn in subsequent comments. First, since for some reason my fist comment on this blog (on the “Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line” thread has been removed let me repeat it here. The IPCC and other supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis depend very much upon the “projections” of the computerised climate models. The validity of those projections has been challenged repeatedly by sceptics but they are still depended upon to support the notion that our use of fossil fuels will cause catastrophic global climate change. I have been debating this on several blogs with software developers with an interest in this subject, such as Steve Easterbrook, William Connolley (Note 2) and James Annan (Note 3) but it seemed that as soon as I mentioned Dr. Vincent Gray the debate stopped. Dr. Gray is author of “The Greenhouse Delusion”, a member of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (Note 4) and was responsible for having the IPCC admit that climate models had never been properly validated, despite the IPCC trying to suggest otherwise. (In response to his comment the word "validation" was replaced by "evaluation" no less than 50 times in the chapter on "Climate Models - Validation" in an early draft of the IPCC's "The Science of Climate Change".) Yesterday I sent the following comment to Steve Easterbrook’s blog (Note 5) but he refused to post it. Is Skeptical Science prepared to? ________ Climate models are inadequate because of our poor understanding of the fundamental global climate processes and drivers. Improving the quality of the software will not improve their performance. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Popular Tehnology has put together a list of respected scientists who recognise this fact. One of these, Freeman Dyson says "My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models." Have a read of what the rest have to say (http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/07/eminent-physicists-skeptical-of-agw.html). IPCC reviewer Dr. Vincent Gray is putting together an article on the subject of climate model validation. I’ll let you know when it’s available. -------------- There is no one-liner that will rebut this criticism by a true climate science sceptic. NOTES: 1) see http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rebut 2) see http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/06/engineering_the_software_for_u.php 3) see http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/07/penn-state-live-investigation-of.html 4) see http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1 5) see http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=1785&cpage=1#comment-3436 Best regards, Pete Ridley -
kdkd at 17:57 PM on 23 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
gallopingcamel #92 Please use the Skeptical Science List of Arguments to see how many of the points in the mensnewsdaily article you cited are clearly the result of credulity or dishonesty on the part of the author. I got two paragraphs in and already spotted two discredited arguments before I gave up. If after that, you find it's published something with any credibility whatsoever, please do come back and enlighten us. Repeating dishonesty however does not make them magically come true. -
scaddenp at 17:37 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
Peter Ridley - but climategate stuff was spin. Just much easier to read cherry-picked quotes and say tut tut than it is to go to the hard work of getting the whole context. As to authority, you are agree you have to have skill to have authority but I fail to see how climate models have not earned that. Whether climate is chaotic is an open question - weather is - but regardless, we manage to navigate the solar system despite it being a chaotic system in the formal sense. "Reliable analysis and prediction of global climates is impossible due to the significant scientific uncertainties." This is an assertion that you must back with evidence. Sure, you cannot predict next new year's day temperature but that is not what climate is. Predicting a 30 year average within known limits for a given set of forcings is the what predicting climate is about. -
ScaredAmoeba at 17:06 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
scaddenp at 13:55 PM on 23 July, 2010 "Some thoughts - I am extremely wary of books...." We should all be extremely wary!Leader ….This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs). Further, we analyse CTTs involved with environmental issues and find that 90 per cent of them espouse environmental scepticism. We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.....
Summary ….Environmental scepticism is an elite-driven reaction to global environmentalism, organised by core actors within the conservative movement. Promoting scepticism is a key tactic of the anti-environmental counter-movement coordinated by CTTs, designed specifically to undermine the environmental movement’s efforts to legitimise its claims via science. Thus, the notion that environmental sceptics are unbiased analysts exposing the myths and scare tactics employed by those they label as practitioners of ‘junk science’ lacks credibility. Similarly, the self-portrayal of sceptics as marginalised ‘Davids’ battling the powerful ‘Goliath’ of environmentalists and environmental scientists is a charade, as sceptics are supported by politically powerful CTTs funded by wealthy foundations and corporations.....
The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism Jacques, Dunlap and Freeman Environmental Politics Vol. 17, No. 3, June 2008, 349–385 http://tinyurl.com/Think-tanks-pseudoscepticism -
Pete Ridley at 16:48 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
John, we defer to experts in the complex sciences underpinning heart surgery or aerodynamics because they have a track record of successful analysis, prediction and application. This has not been achieved by scientists trying to predict future climates because the processes and drivers of global climates are horrendously complex (verging on the chaotic) and are presently very poorly understood. Reliable analysis and prediction of global climates is impossible due to the significant scientific uncertainties. All that is possible at present is speculation about what might happen using fictitious scenarios and unproven hypotheses. As you say, “Scientific authority should not be confused with the authority of parents, or teachers, bosses or politicians”. Unfortunately the authority of the scientists involved in researching those poorly understood processes and drivers of global climates has been thoroughly undermined by politics. That is why lay people are becoming increasingly suspicious of the claim that our use of fossil fuels is driving global climates towards catastrophe. Climategate and the subsequent IPCC-gates have started an avalanche of scepticism among lay people around the globe. Best regards, Pete Ridley -
chris1204 at 15:30 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
Marcus at 13:51 PM on 23 July, 2010 Given the multiplicity of discipline that go into climate science, I don't think a mining geologist would be automatically disqualified. Plimer disqualifies himself through lack of coherence and dishonesty. doug_bostrom at 14:19 PM on 23 July, 2010 I wasn't criticising Weart. I went and read this book because so many people on this site recommended him especially in response to posts by perceived 'sceptics' and 'deniers.' I regarded it as time and money well spent though I had hoped to find more of the nuts and bolts of the science. scaddenp at 13:55 PM on 23 July, 2010 I followed up your link to Deep Climate on McIntyre - yes, it's food for thought and I'll try to give it more than the passing glance I can afford right now because of lack of time. As regards data supposedly covered by confidentiality agreements, I have heard so many versions that I don't know quite whom to believe. -
scaddenp at 14:58 PM on 23 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
"While I believe that mankind does influence the global climate, via aerosols and CO2 emissions, the size of the effect is much smaller than the IPCC wants us to believe." And what is the evidential basis of this belief? -
gallopingcamel at 14:43 PM on 23 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
While I believe that mankind does influence the global climate, via aerosols and CO2 emissions, the size of the effect is much smaller than the IPCC wants us to believe. If John Cook had asked "What percentage of scientists do not believe in the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming?", the answer might have come out rather differently. The answer to this question would likely be 97% non-believers and only 3% believers. See the article below: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/07/18/97-of-scientists-do-not-believe-in-the-theory-of-catastrophic-man-made-global-warming/ -
Doug Bostrom at 14:19 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
Chris Canaris, I don't understand what your point was regarding Spencer Weart. Weart does not fashion himself as a practiced authority on climate science nor have I seen him described here as such. He is in fact a historian with a disciplinary background suitable for researching and narrating the history of topics involving physics, you can read his bio here if you're curious about his bona fides. As a competent and diligent historian Weart not only produces a remarkably coherent narrative of a very complicated topic but also offers his readers the Shovel of Authority in the form of extensive citations leading to authoritative sources. Choosing to exert the effort involved in using the Shovel of Authority is of course up to the reader; Weart has no means of injecting the material referenced in his citations directly into the heads of readers. For those scratching their heads and wondering, "Who is this Spencer Weart guy, anyway?" his history of climate science may be found here. -
scaddenp at 13:55 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
Some thoughts - I am extremely wary of books. I like them to have a good bibliography and footnotes so I can check anything that seems important. They certainly have their place in gentle introduction into an unknown field but I would check reviews before buying a book. Textbooks are slightly different. The publisher wants to make money, so they need to recommended to students by professors in the textbook field. For that reason, a textbook is generally strenuously reviewed. A well-used textbook in its 3rd plus revision I think is a good starting point. As to McIntyre - what about inappropriate use of ellipses ? Charges about withholding data that isn't a researcher's to give? And as to media - well seeing the reporting about anything you have been involved in should give you a healthy dose of skepticism. -
Marcus at 13:51 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
Chris Canaris. It's worth noting that Plimer is an authority in Mining Geology-& if I ever needed to know *anything* about how to find & obtain minerals in the ground, he'd probably be the person I'd listen to. What I wouldn't do is say "well Plimer says that this is the perfect place to find copper ore, but my friend-the Botanist-says thats rubbish. So I'll just trust the Botanist". That would be completely *illogical*. Yet I see many people out there trusting the word of a Mining Geologist-one found guilty of fudging data-over the word of many Climatologists! -
John Brookes at 13:50 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
Great post. I get a little tired of having points I make dismissed as "arguments by authority" by the notty community. They seem to take equality of man a bit far, thinking that not only are all men equal, but so are all opinions. We are in the fortunate position of having a nice overall picture of AGW painted for us. But the reality is, of course, full of nooks and crannies which real climate scientists know about, and which we can remain blissfully ignorant of. I find the effort the notties put into trying to understand stuff which they just don't have sufficient background to properly appreciate quite strange. On the music theme, my ex-wife is a muso. One time at Rotto a group of us were arguing, and one of them (a very good arguer) was making points about music. Her arguments seemed convincing (although a bottle of red probably helped). My ex kept quiet at the time, but afterwards told me that the arguers musical points were total rubbish. I did not ask why, but just deferred to authority..... -
Marcus at 13:42 PM on 23 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
Truth Seeker (what an ironic name), can you provide *proof* that any threats or coercion were used by Climate Scientists to prevent anti-AGW people from getting published? Sure they might have said what they *wanted* to do-in private e-mails to friends & colleagues-but that doesn't mean they *actually* do it. If I'm feeling angry about someone, I'll sometimes say "I'm going to kill that guy"! Doesn't mean I'm guilty of murder though. This is why so many of us treat the climate-gate fiasco as such a joke, because the real *crime* was that someone hacked into the computers of a research facility-not what people said, in e-mails, in the heat of the moment. Seeing Papers like those of MacLean get published suggests that, if anything, publications are being TOO SOFT on the anti-AGW crowd-by holding them to a much lower standard. Perhaps they do it so as to stop the Denialists from crying out that their voice isn't being heard, & that its all a conspiracy. Problem is that it HASN'T WORKED, & the denialists still cry CONSPIRACY! -
chris1204 at 13:28 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
I've shared my ambivalence about the 'authority' of science on this site before. Oddly enough, the first book I ever read on global warming was Plimer's 'Heaven and Earth - the Missing Science.' It all sounded pretty convincing though sometimes a tad repetitious and circular - but I was slightly perturbed by the fact that a couple of graphs seemed to be unsourced. I was initially inclined to be charitable and put it down to oversight. I understood that the book had attracted controversy. I later linked into a video of the ABC debate between Plimer and Monbiot. Monbiot seemed a very angry young man - rather intense and zealous (he presents as much more genial in the recent Guardian debate). Plimer was rather pompous and seemed not to answer questions giving the interview a very disconnected quality. Significantly, Monbiot accused Plimer of misquoting a reference. Plimer simply ignored the question. I thought I'd do a little bit of homework and checked the reference. Plimer had in fact blatantly misrepresented his sources. I learnt incidentally that Plimer had been accused of misrepresenting references in his debunk of Creation Science. I didn't follow up that particular issue - however, after seeing what I had found in 'Heaven & Earth,' I would not touch anything by Plimer. I would normally have regarded Plimer as an 'expert.' He has higher academic qualifications and his book, whole not peer reviewed, seemed to fall broadly within his field of expertise. However, he lost any claim to 'authority' in my eyes because the scale of misrepresentation of his source was difficult to explain in terms of anything other than dishonesty. In trying to make up my mind about an expert, I look for 'coherence' or consistency (both internal and external - ie, with other sources), honest presentation of data, and where possible, consistency with personal experience of an issue. Personally, I think McIntyre has been much demonised. Interestingly, Monbiot in the recent Guardian debate described him as 'an information libertarian' rather than as a 'sceptic.' McIntyre's principal remit has been a critique of the statistics underpinning the hockey stick (which in fact lies well in his area of expertise). He can come across as worrying a bone to death (though this could be seen as dogged perseverance - pun intended). Of course, if I found out that he had done a Plimer with his sources, I would change my views very rapidly. It bears pointing out that much of what we rely on to form judgments in day to day life never goes through peer review - consider your daily newspaper or other media reporting. In the sciences, we use textbooks which again haven't been peer reviewed (though they are subject to non-peer reviewed reviews in the journals and praised or panned as the case may be). On this site, Spencer Weart is all to often cited as highly authoritative despite not being peer reviewed. I enjoyed Weart's introduction though I have to confess I found it slightly lightweight which is understandable given the book is intended primarily as an introduction for the layman (however, he certainly writes with coherence). -
scaddenp at 12:48 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
Peer reviewed literature exists for very good reason and McIntyre doesnt prioritize publication for sure - but then if not, why take him seriously? Calling it a "fetish" is ridiculous - why do you think it exists? Look at all the rubbish on internet of all manner of subjects - the filter of review makes progress possible without having to wade through the cranks. And what do you think of practitioners that say one thing to their peers and another to unsophisticated audience (eg politicians) because they can? Publication also creates the chain the reference that is vital in science. So no, I dont take stuff seriously unless it published. If everyone else did same, then we wouldnt be wasting a lot of time blogs defending science from the charlatans practising on those without the expertise to make a good judgments. -
kdkd at 12:45 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
HR #12 "I'm pretty sure McIntyre et al do not prioritize publication" That's essentially because a lot this group's motivations appear political rather than scientific, which is why they end up in the mainstream (political) press rather than in the scientific press. When they do publish stuff (e.g. Carter's recent nonsense) it's always or at least very often rubbish in substandard journals like Energy and Environment. You can see this from McIntyre's point of view if you listen to the admittedly polite and softly spoken, but misinformation ridden statements at the Guardian's climategate debate. Plimer, Watts, Monkton et.al. are even worse. Another litmus test for this. Lindzen's recent writings have been misleading op-eds in the right wing press, not quality scientific reporting. -
KR at 12:43 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
HR - Speaking as someone who's both published and patented, pharmaceuticals and industrial applications are an interesting example. There patents and trade secrets are an important factor, with the production of information a secondary (if that) product. However, patents and trade secrets run up against the very important filter of "that which works". If it doesn't work, and provide a competitive advantage, the company won't bother with patents, and won't use it as a trade secret. And competitors won't try to copy it, beat it with another technique, etc.. In the production of information (the realm of science) the publication process is NOT a fetish. It's the product, the competitive arena! And if it's good science, if the publication provides useful, relevant information, it will get quoted, referred to, and used as the basis of additional work. That's the "that which works" test for science. Back to "What is an expert" - credentials are to a certain extent a license not to compete; if you have credentials you're assumed to have some familiarity with the subject, and people with credit you with some authority unless you prove otherwise. If you've contributed to the field, that adds to your authority. Even if you don't have credentials, if you contribute to the field using good technique (one of my issues with Monckton) then you can earn some authority. On the other hand, if you publish junk (Soon, Monckton, lots of others) - well, you've just discredited yourself. -
HumanityRules at 12:25 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
11.scaddenp I don't object to the "formal aademic process" I was just trying to ask what is an expert? You fetishise the publication process too much. It is a very important if not dominant means of disseminating scienctific ideas but it is not the only one. I'm pretty sure McIntyre et al do not prioritize publication. Saying their ideas aren't published so aren't valid is just a way of avoiding those ideas. Many strains of science do not develop ideas primarily through peer-review, pharmaceuticals for example. -
muoncounter at 12:23 PM on 23 July 20103 levels of cherry picking in a single argument
#29 "this variation gets larger closer to the poles, which fits well with that the differences between seasons is bigger there." The annual average CO2 concentrations are indeed comparable. However, Mauna Loa CO2 averages ~4ppm from spring (March-April-May) high to Sept-Oct-Nov low. In the arctic, that range expands to 15 ppm and is increasing. Annual arctic temperature range is about 30C; global average about 4C; Mauna Loa 9C. Sure is a nice fit. All a part of the polar amplification picture, no doubt. There was a recent thread on that subject here. -
scaddenp at 12:07 PM on 23 July 2010The nature of authority
HR - your first example would indeed appear to case of policy guided by bad science but note the science did correct itself. Your second example is more like climate - unfounded claims published, examined and found wanting by main stream but STILL being pushed by cranks. Science worked as it should. As for McIntyre et al, well unwarranted aspersions cast on researchers of integrity are what raise ire. If you have some science to push, then publish it. You object to this "formal academic process"? Well it has evolved for good reasons and we will stick it. As for experts, well I am happy for the definition of those who made worthy publications in the field as a good definition. I wouldnt hold much to opinion of a paleoclimatologist on vaccines for instance. Of course, if they used their analytical techniques to make meaningful and published contributions into vaccines, then well maybe, but probably only by in the area of methodology unless they had really gone deep into it.
Prev 2285 2286 2287 2288 2289 2290 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 Next
