Arguments
One-Sided 'Skepticism'
Posted on 16 September 2011 by dana1981
As the banner at the top of the Skeptical Science (SkS) webpage notes, the primary purpose of our site is to "get skeptical about global warming skepticism" by examining what the peer-reviewed scientific literature has to say about the climate myths promoted by self-declared "skeptics." We strive to examine the full body of scientific evidence, and see how the "skeptic" claims stack up.
In a recent post on his blog, Roger Pielke Sr. criticized our performance in meeting those goals. We at SkS are always open to constructive criticism. Unfortunately, Dr. Pielke has not actually offered any. In fact, it appears that Pielke has not even bothered to make the effort to read the series he is criticizing. He seems to think Christy Crocks and Spencer Slip Ups pertain to satellite temperature data analysis:
"As a result of the persistent, but incorrect (often derogatory) blog posts and media reports on the robustness of the University of Alabama MSU temperature data....The ad hominem presentations on this subject include those from the weblog Skeptical Science who have sections titled Christy Crocks and Spencer Slip Ups"
Unfortunately for this piercing critique, these two series of articles do not touch upon the topic of the satellite temperature data. Indeed, the only time SkS has mentioned this work was when we used it as an example of the self-correcting nature of the scientific process. What the series have bored in on are the wide range of topics relevant to global warming concerning which Spencer and Christy have propogated numerous myths and copious misinformation. This frequent myth propagation by Spencer and Christy is an unfortunate reality which it seems Pielke would like to sweep under the rug.
Pielke's One-Sided Criticisms
What we find strange is that, although Pielke often rushes to the defense of Spencer and Christy, he never criticizes them for blatant errors of logic and fact that they have made; even though he is happy to criticize more mainstream climate scientists. His critiques seem a tad one-sided.
For example, Christy's testimony before US Congress earlier this year was riddled with myths and misinformation. Pielke said not a word about it. Christy later went on Australian and Canadian radio talk shows and propagated many of the same myths. In fact, these interviews and testimony were the basis of the Christy Crocks.
Not only does Pielke refuse to criticize his fellow "skeptics" for misinforming the public and policymakers, but he then denounces SkS for doing just that. In the process, Pielke is effectively endorsing the myths and misinformation propagated by Spencer and Christy, documented in the very series that he criticizes.
The Scientific Basis of the Series
Let's put more effort into this question than Dr. Pielke and actually examine the content of the two series. Spencer Slip Ups currently consists of seven posts. Three of these are an analysis of one of Spencer's books by Dr. Barry Bickmore, in which Bickmore tested Spencer's results by replicating his simple climate model, and found that Spencer's conclusions were invalidated when physically realistic parameters were input into the model.
In another post, we responded to Spencer's challenge to produce peer-reviewed scientific research ruling out internal variability as the cause of the current global warming by doing exactly that. We also examined what the peer-reviewed literature has to say about Spencer's hypothesis that the PDO is causing global warming. And finally, in two recent posts we examined Andrew Dessler's peer-reviewed response to Spencer & Braswell (2011).
Christy Crocks are much of the same. For example, we examined what the peer-reviewed literature has to say about Christy's claims with regards to climate sensitivity, climate model accuracy, internal variability, global warming causation, and satellite temperature data vs. models.
In keeping with the purpose and standards established for SkS by John Cook, in every Spencer Slip-Up and Christy Crock we have either evaluated how their statements stack up to the body of scientific literature, or attempted to replicate their results. And we have found that Spencer and Christy consistently make statements which are inconsistent with the body of scientific literature, and often which are well outside their range of expertise.
Misinforming Policymakers
One of the most egregious examples of a Christy Crock was in his testimony before US Congress, when policymakers twice presented Christy with assertions that scientists were predicting impending global cooling in the 1970s, and twice Christy refused to dispel the myth, instead claiming:
"In this sense yes [1970s cooling predictions were similar to current warming predictions], our ignorance about the climate system is just enormous"
This statement, made to those who are determining what if any policies the United States will implement in response to climate change, is a crock. We examined the peer-reviewed scientific literature in the 1970s, and found that contrary to Christy's depiction, most climate scientists at the time were predicting global warming.
We wonder if Dr. Pielke approves of Christy's testimony here. When presented with a climate myth by a policymaker, is it appropriate to mislead the Congress with such statements, instead of reporting the situation as it was? We would very much like to know Dr. Pielke's answer to this question, and why he continues to turn a blind eye to the repeated transgressions of Spencer and Christy.
Reality Check
In reality, Pieilke was off-base in trying to implicate SkS in criticism of the UAH satellite record; we didn't do that. Even more to the point, Spencer and Christy have both made a number of statements to the public that contradict the body of scientific literature. These statements were the starting point of our critical series. By defending them but ignoring their errors, Pielke is providing cover for the misinformation propagated by Spencer and Christy. That's not being skeptical, that's excusing the blatant misinformation of the American public and policymakers. Pielke Sr. needs to decide what is more important, covering up misinformation or standing up for science and truth.
Note: this post represents the SkS contributors' consensus response to Roger Pielke Sr.'s recent criticism of our site
Update: Pielke has responded, if you can call it a response, since he didn't actually address anything we said here. A total shifting of the goalposts, once again trying to deny Spencer and Christy's constant propagation of misinformation. In fact, Pielke's response simply confirmed what we said in this post - he seems unwilling to read the content of our posts, and is totally unwilling to crtiicize his fellow "skeptics."
Dr. Pielke, we once again ask that you answer the question - do you or do you not approve of John Christy's misleading testimony to US Congress, including his assertion that predictions of global cooling in the 1970s were the same as predictions of global warming today?
As another example, do you agree with Roy Spencer when he said that as a result of addressing climate change, "Jogging will be outlawed. It is a little known fact that the extra carbon dioxide (and methane, an especially potent greenhouse gas) emitted by joggers accounts for close to 10% of the current Global Warming problem"?
And do you agree with Spencer's assertion that "warming in recent decades is mostly due to a natural cycle in the climate system — not to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning"?
Please stop changing the subject, stop pretending Spencer and Christy are faultless Saints, drop the charade, and answer our questions, Dr. Pielke.
[DB] Trenberth makes the case for the "missing heat" to be found in the deep ocean (paper in press). Hansen's "Delayed Effects" point is still being discussed in the literature, as is aersol forcing quantification.
In this regard, there is no disagreement from SkS.
[DB] Dikran, we are getting pretty off-topic here. Everyone, let's circle up & keep this thread tidy.
[Daniel Bailey] Dr. Pielke, this thread is about your selective and one-sided skepticism and misplaced accusations of ad hominems towards SkS. FYI.
[Daniel Bailey] You are more than welcome to comment on any thread at SkS, Dr. Pielke. However, this thread is about your selective and one-sided skepticism and misplaced accusations of ad hominems towards SkS. FYI.
[Daniel Bailey] Dikran, this thread is about Dr. Pielke's selective and one-sided skepticism and misplaced accusations of ad hominems towards SkS. Your points, while very valid, are off-topic here. From this point out moderation of this point will be exercised on all comments.
[Daniel Bailey] And I have (and will again) deleted many comments belonging to other SkS authors (apologies to all in advance).
[Daniel Bailey] KR, this thread is about Dr. Pielke's selective and one-sided skepticism and misplaced accusations of ad hominems towards SkS. Let us not enable his avoidance of responsibility in dealing with that.
Badgersouth - The six points are •climate change as market failure, •as technological risk, •as global injustice, •as over consumption, •as mostly natural, •as planetary “tipping points”. Except for the 5th one from the top, they are policy issues. My expertise is in the WG1 focus (climate science). Mike Hulme writes that these are "broadly consistent with the scientific knowledge assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" but the other 5 (and perhaps the last one although this requirements a quantitification of vulnerabilties) are not science issues, although people are using "science" claims to advocate for particular policies (e.g. see http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/09/somebody-send-paul-nurse-copy-of-honest.html). Let's focus on the science questions themselves in our discussions.[Daniel Bailey] Dr. Pielke, this thread is about your selective and one-sided skepticism and misplaced accusations of ad hominems towards SkS. Now please begin to address those.
Dikran Marsupial - In answer to your question 'With all due respect, you have not answered the question I asked. Can you present a statistical analysis that shows reasonable statistical power over decadal trends, yes or no? Pick any climate metric you like.' look at http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/gistemp-up-during-august/ and earlier posts.[Daniel Bailey] Dr. Pielke, this thread is about your selective and one-sided skepticism and misplaced accusations of ad hominems towards SkS. Now please begin to address those. Sir.
Off-topic struck out.
We seem to be stuck in developing a discussion. KR in #76 has a constructive science comment. KR, however, misses that both of these papers highlight the importance of ocean heat content changes as the metric to diagnose global warming. This eliminates the need to focus on the so-called "climate sensitivity". Nonetheless, this is a good start. However, the other commenters are mostly missing the central science issues I have rasied. I will repeat my questions here: 1.Of the two hypotheses below, which one do you conclude is correct? Hypothesis 2a: Although the natural causes of climate variations and changes are undoubtedly important, the human influences are significant and involve a diverse range of first-order climate forcings, including, but not limited to, the human input of carbon dioxide (CO2). Most, if not all, of these human influences on regional and global climate will continue to be of concern during the coming decades. Hypothesis 2b: Although the natural causes of climate variations and changes are undoubtedly important, the human influences are significant and are dominated by the emissions into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, the most important of which is CO2. The adverse impact of these gases on regional and global climate constitutes the primary climate issue for the coming decades. 2. Of the two perspectives below [from Mike Hulme], which one do you agree with? i) “The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes. Climate change is real, we are causing it, and it is happening right now.” ii) “The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions, land use changes and aerosol pollution are all contributing to regional and global climate changes, which exacerbate the changes and variability in climates brought about by natural causes. Because humans are contributing to climate change, it is happening now and in the future for a much more complex set of reasons than in previous human history.” As Mike Hulme writes ”….these two different provocations – two different framings of climate change – open up the possibility of very different forms of public and policy engagement with the issue. They shape the response. The latter framing, for example, emphasises that human influences on climate are not just about greenhouse gas emissions (and hence that climate change is not just about fossil energy use), but also result from land use changes (emissions and albedo effects) and from aerosols (dust, sulphates and soot). It emphasises that these human effects on climate are as much regional as they are global. And it emphasises that the interplay between human and natural effects on climate are complex and that this complexity is novel.” What are your comments on Mike Hulme’s two perspectives with respect to climate policy? 3. What is your preferred diagnostic to monitor global warming? The options include, for example, (i) the global annual average surface temperature anomaly in degrees Celsius; ii) the global annual average ocean heat anomaly in Joules; or iii) the global annual average radiative imbalance at the top-of-the atmosphere in Watts per meter squared. What is your best estimate of the observed trends in each of these metrics over the last 10 years and the last 20 years? 4. What do the models’ predict should be the current value of these metrics. 5. What are your preferred diagnostics to monitor climate change? 6. Is global warming (and cooling) a subset of climate change or does it dominate climate change?If Skeptical Science is serious regarding a constructive debate, lets start with these on your weblog.[Daniel Bailey] Actually, Dr. Pielke, it is you who continues to miss the point. This thread is about your selective and one-sided skepticism and misplaced accusations of ad hominems towards SkS. A continuation of your policy of avoiding the tough questions casts you in a very poor light.
[Dikran Marsupial] It relates to one of Prof. Pielkes questions latest post: he asks: "3. What is your preferred diagnostic to monitor global warming? ... What is your best estimate of the observed trends in each of these metrics over the last 10 years and the last 20 years?". If statistical tests on those trends have little power then it is a pretty pointless exercise.
[Dikran Marsupial] I agree. The proper place to discuss it would probably be on Prof. Pielke's blog, where the question was posed.
[Albatross] Dr. Pielke. Given the intimidation of and threats made against climate scientists, I ask that you please respect the choice by some here (and elsewhere) to not use their real names. But who I am is not relevant, what is relevant are the facts and science. As for moving the discussion forward, you answering people's questions which pertain to the subject of this thread would aid greatly in achieving that goal. Thank you in advance.
[Daniel Bailey] Dr. Pielke, I use my real name. Please cease in avoiding the central focus of this thread, which is about your selective and one-sided skepticism and misplaced accusations of ad hominems towards SkS. Now can you finally please begin to address those.
Your recalcitrance in dealing with the large pink elephant in the room becomes obvious.
[Daniel Bailey] I would request that, for the moment, all present give Dr. Pielke a chance to first retract his contentions and allegations of ad hominem towards Skeptical Science.
Or, failing that, for Dr. Pielke to continue in those assertions and then support them with concrete examples.