by Judith Curry
“If you see something, say something.”
For background, recall these previous posts on scientists and advocacy.
Michael Mann’s op-ed
Michael Mann has an op-ed in the NYTimes If you see something, say something. Excerpts:
In my view, it is no longer acceptable for scientists to remain on the sidelines. I should know. I had no choice but to enter the fray. I was hounded by elected officials, threatened with violence and more — after a single study I co-wrote a decade and a half ago found that the Northern Hemisphere’s average warmth had no precedent in at least the past 1,000 years.
So what should scientists do? At one end of the spectrum, you have the distinguished former director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen, who has turned to civil disobedience to underscore the dangers he sees.
This activist approach has concerned some scientists, even those who have been outspoken on climate change. One of them, Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science, who has argued that “the only ethical path is to stop using the atmosphere as a waste dump for greenhouse gas pollution,” expressed concern about the “presentation of such a prescriptive and value-laden work” in a paper not labeled opinion.
It is not an uncommon view among scientists that we potentially compromise our objectivity if we choose to wade into policy matters or the societal implications of our work. And it would be problematic if our views on policy somehow influenced the way we went about doing our science. But there is nothing inappropriate at all about drawing on our scientific knowledge to speak out about the very real implications of our research.
If scientists choose not to engage in the public debate, we leave a vacuum that will be filled by those whose agenda is one of short-term self-interest. There is a great cost to society if scientists fail to participate in the larger conversation — if we do not do all we can to ensure that the policy debate is informed by an honest assessment of the risks. In fact, it would be an abrogation of our responsibility to society if we remained quiet in the face of such a grave threat.
This is hardly a radical position. Our Department of Homeland Security has urged citizens to report anything dangerous they witness: “If you see something, say something.” How will history judge us if we watch the threat unfold before our eyes, but fail to communicate the urgency of acting to avert potential disaster?
Mann’s latest tweet on the EPW hearing
- Attempts to discredit the scientists themselves.
- Attempts to use flawed arguments, such as argumentum ad populum to prove the position correct even if it has no scientific basis.
- Attempts to label scientific ideas as conspiracy theories.
Who is anti-science?
The Wegman Report said “Sharing of research materials, data, and results is haphazard and often grudgingly done. We were especially struck by Dr. Mann’s insistence that the code he developed was his intellectual property and that he could legally hold it personally without disclosing it to peers. When code and data are not shared and methodology is not fully disclosed, peers do not have the ability to replicate the work and thus independent verification is impossible.”
The Wegman Report said that there was no evidence that Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians. It alleged that the paleoclimate community was relatively isolated, relying heavily on statistical methods but not seeming to interact with “the statistical community”.
It’s amusing to read the Wegman report talking about intellectual property. Wasn’t this the report that was found to have contained plagiarism? Not to mention that awkward statistical flaw regarding not-so-random hockeysticks.
George Mason University provost Peter Stearns announced on 22 February 2012 that charges of scientific misconduct had been investigated by two separate faculty committees, and that the one investigating the 2006 Wegman Report gave a unanimous finding that “no misconduct was involved”. Stearns stated that “Extensive paraphrasing of another work did occur, in a background section, but the work was repeatedly referenced and the committee found that the paraphrasing did not constitute misconduct”.
Can we expect anything honorable from the government scientists? Or, will they continue to keep the fires burning in Plato’s prison cave?
Aristarchus of Samos, a Greek, is credited as the first to postulate what is known as the heliocentric model that puts the Sun at the center of the solar system. Mostly his ideas about reality were not accepted – not until 1800 years later with Copernicus.
We all know the trouble heaped upon Galileo and his telescope a hundred years later. And, nothing has changed: the government science authoritarians of the 21st Century are still as superstitious, ignorant and dishonorable as they were in the 15th Century.
Concerning anti-science, here is something I read on WUWT yesterday that Anthony Watts said to Nicola Scafetta:
Why exactly does Watts think that Scafetta’s research is junk? At one time I thought along similar lines but then realized that Scafetta is doing routine scientific analysis and so he is exposing different perspectives to the data. This is not necessarily bad.
So the question is, how well can we extract the orbital/tidal/solar factors that Scafetta thinks contributes the natural variability? The CSALT model started with the C2O,SOI,Aerosols,LOD,TSI which comprises the acronym, but I have since added the significant orbital factors that Scafetta and other skeptics have suggested.
Those other factors are small but they help flesh out the CSALT model at high resolution, with discrimination to tease out the important periodicities.
http://imageshack.com/a/img20/9572/sz4.gif
So why is Watts at war with Scafetta?
Is Scafetta getting too near the truth and thus taming the FUD monster?
You should ask Steven Mosher. Scarfetti was asked by McIntyre for code to no avail. Scarfetti and Mann should share their code.
The Wegman Report said “Sharing of research materials, data, and results is haphazard and often grudgingly done.”
___
Wegman got so carried away with sharing, he took shares of other’s work without giving them credit. He got into some hot water over it.
I vaguely recall something about Wegman being reluctant to share some of his own. I thought he wants a piece of your pie, but he doesn’t want to give you a piece of his pie.
Wegman never said Mann’s conclusions were wrong. He allowed Mann might be right, but right for the wrong reasons. If guess if you aren’t right for the right reasons, it doesn’t count unless you have money on it.
As I recall, the American Statistical Association never got involved in the Wegman / Mann controversy. I believe that showed good judgement.
“Wegman got so carried away with sharing..”
LOL
You boys forgot to mention that parking ticket Wegman got, back in 1982. Pathetic little scoundrels.
The pause is killing the cause.
lol you are the ones nitpicking over a 15 year old paleotemperature graph and you want to talk about parking tickets!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pages2k-confirms-hockey-stick.html
How are all those paleo-reconstructiuon parking tickets from 1999 doing?
Is that how All graphs turn into hockey sticks?:
http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/wegman-4-4-annotated.jpg
http://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/
Some comments are just dumfounding, like this one from Max_OK:
Let’s suppose it’s true Wegman never said Mann’s conclusions were wrong (it isn’t). Why would that be any sort of defense of Mann? Why would it matter if Mann screw up yet managed managed to, by pure chance, still get the right answer?
Are people supposed to care if someone blindly guessed an answer and happened to be right?
Yes lollie, we know all about the skepticalscience clowns and the plethora of hockeysticks. Yet, the pause is killing the cause. And you are a desperate little sucker.
We seem to be hovering around optimal climate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png
What a catastrophe … for Mann.
Brandon Shollenberger said January 18, 2014 at 11:47 am
“Let’s suppose it’s true Wegman never said Mann’s conclusions were wrong (it isn’t).”
______
Brandon, if you can quote Wegman saying Mann’s conclusions are wrong, I will stand corrected.
MBH concluded its temperature reconstruction was robust to the removal of dedroclimatic indicators (tree rings). The Wegman report said:
If the reconstruction is not robust at all, it cannot be robust to the removal of data. Similarly, MBH concluded its reconstruction showed temperatures were unprecedented in the last thousand years. The Wegman Report said:
Without being able to calculate uncertainties, it is impossible to compare two values. As such, the MBH reconstruction did not show what Mann concluded it showed.
There are other examples, but two should suffice for now.
Brandon, I’m surprised at you. I asked you if you could quote Wegman saying Mann’s conclusions were wrong.
Nowhere in the lines you quoted does Wegman say Mann’s conclusions are wrong. Wegman just said Mann’s statistics didn’t support his conclusions, he didn’t say the conclusions were therefore wrong. Give Wegman credit for knowing better than to make that kind of mistake.
In Mann’s case, his code contained an undisclosed, nonstandard, not to mention wrong method of centering data series for PCA.
All the vices of his paper, individually and collectively, would be forgivable—though an embarrassing start to one’s scientific career—if Mann hadn’t then spent seven years effortfully, knowingly and therefore guiltily preventing the discovery of his paper’s defects. His one-man war against the self-correcting nature of science retarded human knowledge for years and entails that science is anti-Mann. The sooner science crucifies him and scares away his disciples, the better for civilization.
Max_OK, Mann concluded many things about his temperature reconstruction. I showed Wegman pointing out two of those conclusions were wrong. How does that not fit your request?
I referenced conclusions he listed in the Conclusions section of his paper. How in the world are you defining “Mann’s conclusions”?
He wants you to show (QUOTE) where Wegman said: “Mann is wrong” … “quote Wegman saying Mann’s conclusions were wrong.”
Nothing less will do obviously.
One better,
The Cause of The Pause is explained by thermodynamic Laws.
http://contextearth.com/2014/01/11/the-cause-of-the-pause-is-due-to-thermodynamic-laws/
Seriously, slogans aren’t what wins in the end, but serious scientific analysis does.
Mann is not the only example. Not only are paleoclimatologists incapable of doing PCA properly they also have trouble with spectral analysis. They are still using (outmoded and incorrect) Blackman and Tukey (1956). It is about time the statisticians had the guts to “see something and say something”.
“the ability to make certain conclusions about the climate at the beginning of the millennium is not very robust”
odd then that skeptics are so sure the MWP not only existed, but was global – and some of them are even sure it was warmer than today.
I guess they must be using a particularly robust method audited by statisticians. Perhaps they could share it with everyone else!
You stand corrected Max–from wiki:
As Barton highlighted in his press release, the IPCC Third Assessment Report had assessed the 1990s as the hottest decade and 1998 the hottest year in 1,000 years.[36] The Wegman report concluded that assessment could not be supported by the MBH studies, and said that “The cycle of Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that was widely recognized in 1990 has disappeared from the MBH98/99 analyses, thus making possible the hottest decade/hottest year claim.” On the basis of their Figure 4.5 showing their “digitised” version of a schematic from the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR), they said “It is clear that at least in 1990, the Medieval Warm Period was thought to have temperatures considerably warmer than the present era.”[49]
Brandon Shollenberger said in his post on January 18, 2014 at 1:34 pm
“Max_OK, Mann concluded many things about his temperature reconstruction. I showed Wegman pointing out two of those conclusions were wrong. How does that not fit your request?
I referenced conclusions he listed in the Conclusions section of his paper. How in the world are you defining “Mann’s conclusions”?
________
Brandon, I mean the Mann conclusions stated by the National Research Council, quoted as follows:
“The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years.”
“The conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.”
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676
Brandon, if you believe Wegman said these conclusions by Mann are wrong, quote him.
Wagathon said on January 18, 2014 at 8:57 pm
You stand corrected Max–from wiki.
______
I don’t think so. See my 12:45 AM reply to Brandon.
I do climate science, but have also amassed a few air miles in what can be called criminal psychology. When people start saying ‘its a secret’ or can not provide adequate explination for odd happenings then the sirens begin to yell. I do not feel comfortable accusing Mann of being scrupulously honest. I do sincerely hope he will be given every oppertunity to explain his actions, though I surmise the appropriate forum for his evidence might be in a criminal court.
Mann’s true character was unmistakable with the peek behind the curtains we all got seeing the foi2009pdf CRUgate disclosures, courtesy of a whistleblower who obviously was pretty disgusted with the hockey stick fraud. And, to this day Leftists continue to refuse to admit the fraud.
Wagathon, your remarks are wise and muscular as usual, but you lose me with “leftists refuse…”
That’s just not true. Freeman Dyson. Patrick Moore. Stephen McIntyre.
And any leftist who’s scared of AGW because of honest scientific misunderstanding or misinformation, who might still be open to learning the truth, just left the room because you falsely stereotyped them as intellectually dishonest on the basis of how they vote—presumably an irrelevant matter in a scientific debate.
I think I can say how they might feel because I am one—not by American standards perhaps, but on my own country’s spectrum—yet I’m just as capable of apolitically discussing tree physiology as the next person.
Cultists. Pseudoscience groupies. Climate porn addicts. Gullibilists. True Believers.
Just brainstorming some terms that could express our justified hatred, but without alienating well-meaning passersby…
Wagathon,
the more I think about it, the less I can believe that you would’ve chosen your words thoughtlessly—since you never have before, to my knowledge—so I’m sure these “Leftists” you refer to do deserve your contempt; however, I’m not sure the word translates well outside whatever political region you’re using it in. (If the capitalisation had any significance, it was also lost on me.)
Max_OK, you said you want me to show Wegman said Mann’s conclusions were wrong. I referenced conclusions Mann drew in his paper that Wegman said were wrong. You scoffed at me for that, saying nothing I quoted says “Mann’s conclusions are wrong.”
Only after all that do you now say:
Meaning you never wanted me to show Wegman said Mann’s conclusions were wrong. What you wanted was for me to show he said a paraphrase of Mann’s conclusions was wrong, a paraphrase he was never asked to consider.
I did what you asked. It’s not my fault what you asked wasn’t what you wanted. It’s not my fault when I did what you asked me to do, you denied I had. I showed Wegman said Mann’s conclusions were wrong. That’s all that was ever asked for.
You are free to insist Wegman never said Mann’s unjustified, scientifically invalid results weren’t right. You are free to say, by some miracle, Mann may have stumbled into accurate results (even though his results weren’t remotely in line with any later work) while having no idea what he was doing.
But you’ll have to do it without me. As I’ve already pointed in this exchange, that argument is stupid. I don’t intend to waste my time discussing it, especially not after you demanded I do something then only after I did it told me you didn’t really mean what you said.
“You boys forgot to mention that parking ticket Wegman got, back in 1982. Pathetic little scoundrels.”
In Wegman’s defense, that’s not quite correct—it was one of his graduate student who got the parking ticket—but still, yes, this is damning stuff and makes it impossible for any intellectually-honest person to take Wegman’s supposed “statistical competence/qualifications/distinction/authority/expertise/good name” seriously.
Yes Lolly, he was accused of plagiarism by a man whose work he referenced 18 times in the text and 13 times in the acknowledgements. That same man said he would withdraw the accusation if Wegman withdrew his report from the Congress, seemingly not up enough with the US law to understand that the report belongs to Congress not Wegman. Nice guy, he’ll get his reward in history along with Mike Mann and the others.
“Wegman got so carried away with sharing, he took shares of other’s work without giving them credit. He got into some hot water over it.”
It wasn’t Wegman who did that, but his co-author Said. Wegman is blamable only for not catching what Said had done.
“If you see something, say something.”
Too easy. I see an angry little man who’s increasingly marginalized, and increasingly pathetic.
I saw it. And I said it.
Michael posted on his Op Ed at RealClimate:
If You See Something, Say Something
I posted in response:
“Michael E. Mann
You tweeted that Judith Curry’s sworn Senate testimony was “AntiScience”. Judith Curry responds:
We await your public scientific response to Judith Curry’s sworn testimony.
I recommend you apply Richard Feynman’s standard of scientific integrity as detailed in his 1974 Caltech address.
RealClimate deleted my post!
One more reason that their Alexa rank is 68,043 compared to 44,444 for Climate Etc. in the USA.
I reposted:
Benefits of CO2?
I see that Bjorn Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus prepared:
How Much Have Global Problems Cost the World? A Scorecard from 1900 – 2050. They
document how rising CO2 benefits agriculture by 0.8% of GDP and warming reduces heating costs more than cooling costs by 0.4% of GDP.
Realclimate just deleted that post too.
So much for upholding “If you see something, say something”!
Mann really means “Only if you agree with me can you say something”!
Posted at RealClimate:
Censored again at RealClimate. So much for scientific debate.
Now he wants M&M to check his work. Sheesh!
JC message to MM: “If you want to avoid yourself being labeled as ‘anti-science’, I suggest that you are obligated to respond to my challenge.”
+1
+1
+1
Unhappily, not a chance of this
To self-plagiarise a twitticism:
If Michael Mann wants to avoid being called ‘anti-science,’ he’ll need a time machine and a rifle.
Four things struck me in the Mann piece:
He misquotes the poorly done Cook study. Even if Cook’s number is credible (it isn’t), it is about the number of papers rather than the number of people.
Mann adheres to the deficit model: If only people knew what I know, they would agree with me.
Mann admits that, in 2003, he did not know enough about energy policy to comment in public. I’m not aware that he has learned anything since. He lost the inhibition to comment, though, and later in the piece (not copied here) he endorses the 2K target (which hinges on many things beyond Mann’s expertise).
Mann also argues (in the final paragraph copied here) that scientists are the sole guardians of the distant future.
Richard,
We’re still waiting for your peer reviewed response to Cook et al.
Richard Tol:
That is a curious pattern in science, when it overlaps with advocacy.
Another variation is “the part that overlaps with what I know seems exaggerated, but I find the rest very frightening.” >.<
Yeah. The Gell-Mann Effect is almost as prevalent in the alarmist clisci establishment as in its victims.
Buzz,
Why on Earth would Richard Tol waste his time on a response to Cook at al.
Leave it to the psychologists, psychiatrists and remedial therapist to look after Cook, Lewandowski and their disciples.
Buzz: Working on it. Journals don’t like criticism on what they published, not when it shows up their editor and referees. Journals don’t like to critique what was published in other journals, because that would invite an endless slagging match. So the paper is winding its way through a series of rejections. I’m now at the stage where I get letters from editors saying “this is splendid stuff but not for us” which is an improvement on the “how dare you” I got from ERL and like-minded journals.
Richard Tol,
Well I retract my statement which was based on my assumption you wouldn’t be wasting your time responding to Cook’s paper.
I’d like to add, I’d prefer you spend your valuable time on providing policy advice that has a high probability of being implemented and succeeding in delivering the claimed benefits. One thing I haven’t seen any of the economists do is analyse the probability of success of the mitigation policies they advocate. By ‘success’ I mean the policy can be implemented and sustained (in the real world of international politics, diplomacy, economics, trade, competition and conflict) until it meets the targets for reduced AGW-caused damages (however these are being defined).
I posted a question about this here http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/14/open-thread-5/#comment-436777 and much discussion ensued, but nothing enlightening at all. In fact no studies could be sited by the Dinizens to relevant studies suggests nothing substantial has been done to address this issue.
My question was:
The brightest scientist I ever knew was a fine fellow and staggeringly bright. But he used to put on his coat before removing the hanger. Of course, I’ve known scientific types who were quite good with coats.
There are no “sole guardians of the distant future” because a) it has not happened yet and b) it will not be an extrapolation of the notions or imaginings of people who have have great and valuable mental skills but whose thinking is literal and mechanistic in the extreme.
When Hansen managed to get himself chained to that fence next to Daryl Hannah it was pretty clear where all this geek activism was heading. Jim, you’re not meant to save the planet or get the girl.
Now someone beam me up.
I only read the first 2 sentences of Mann’s article, which disqualified him from scientific discussion with record succinctness, so you’ll have to excuse my ignorance of the subsequent gibberish—but are the rumors I’m hearing true? Did Mann truly recommend some kind of philosopher-kings dys/utopia, but with scientists as the alpha caste?
If so, credit where credit’s due. I never figured Mann for the kind of guy who’d willingly relegate himself to second-class citizen status. Maybe he’s not such a megalomaniac after all.
Mann states: “(a survey and a review of the scientific literature published say about 97 percent agree)”
I’d suggest that Mann is referring to both the Doran and Zimmerman blurb in Eos (which was based upon a survey for Zimmerman’s MSc thesis) and Cook’s “review”.
We shall see if Mann is too cowardly to document and rebut your testimony. Of course that presupposes that he is, indeed, a “responsible scientist.”
Chuck, Not in a million years.
This is nothing but Theatre. Climate Science is so removed from actual science that we are presented with soap opera material to keep us interested and distracted. There is nothing else to see here and there never was.
Andrew
“The point is about what would happen if real scientists step aside and let paid shill organizations fill that void will their quackery.”
I see no paid shill organizations filling any void with quackery in the climate change debate. So your point seems well, without point. Making this pointless point was simply a transparent attempt to draw a comparison between two situations that are entirely different in a way that denigrate a large group of sincere people to further your own POV.
Let’s just call it what it is. Scummy.
“I see no paid shill organizations filling any void with quackery in the climate change debate.”
____
This is exactly what your beloved Heartland has been. Perhaps you’d like to believe that Heartland is a high-quality hard-nosed science focused institution, but that’s just not the case.
“This is exactly what your beloved Heartland has been.”
I have no emotional investment in Heartland whatsoever. The more you try to defend your original comment the more absurd your arguments become. Heartland’s revenue for last year was 4.7 million dollars according to Wikipedia. Compare that to Greenpeace and the WWF. 100’s of millions of dollars, a good chunk of which goes into climate related activities. Of course, the government has been handing out hundred of millions more.
Skeptics have nothing like that kind of money. Again, your analogy between the tobacco situation and climate change, is misleading and deeply unfair
“Heartland’s revenue for last year was 4.7 million dollars according to Wikipedia. Compare that to Greenpeace and the WWF…”
____
I fail to see what Heartland’s budget has to do with their paid shill quackery, nor the comparison to the budgets of other advocacy groups.
Gates,
You fail to see it because you don’t want to see it. Your point seems to be that scientists have to advocate because if they don’t, the big bad, well funded skeptics will mislead the public in the way Big Tobacco tried doing back in the day. In fact, skeptics are not funded in any way that would invite legitimate comparisons to tobacco companies and their tobacco lobbies….The attempt to draw such a comparison is self-evidently laughable.
If the playing field is not level in the climate debate and it most certainly is not, the disadvantage is overwhelmingly born by the skeptics.
Your false analogy implies that skeptics are bought and paid for. That’s a lie, and you know it. It puts you in good company though as Dr. Mann is fond of this same slimy tactic.
If somebody is prepared to pay me for pointing out that the temperatures today are the same as 15 years ago and that 97% of all climate models run hot, I will gladly take their money. The more the merrier – I have my hugely ‘climate-inflated’ energy bill to pay soon. Contact me by twitter (same name) to arrange it.
But since I’ve never even had a sniff of a quid for my activities, I’ll just carry on doing it for the benefit of humanity. It’s our climate too…not the personal possession of the climatocracy.
Gates on Heartland sounds just like Mann! Argument by personal attack. Show us the quackery Gates.
“If scientists choose not to engage in the public debate, we leave a vacuum that will be filled by those whose agenda is one of short-term self-interest.”
_____
Indeed! Imagine if real scientists had stayed silent on the issue of the health effects of smoking and second hand smoke, and let that vacuum be completely filled by the skewed and motivated quackery that was coming from the Heartland Institute and other payed shill organizations.
Gates,
The implied equivalency between tobacco and climate change is disingenuous. Climate change skepticism is hardly bought and paid for by big oil or big anything else. The use of such flawed logic reflects poorly on you and undermines your credibility.
pokerguy,
The point is about what would happen if real scientists step aside and let paid shill organizations fill that void will their quackery.
Gates, Sorry, see my response to you at 11:47 above…
The smoking metaphor breaks down pretty quickly when applied to the current debate about Climate Change:
– How do we figure out smoking causes cancer? Take 1000 people who smoke, and 1000 who don’t and compare lung cancer rates. This is straightforward, as it is built off independent sampling and allows for control cohorts. One Earth, never the same conditions twice, no ability to do experiments, inability to collect data on a control case (the pre-industrial era).
Also helpful is that the effect is so pronounced: I believe lung cancer rates are 10x in smokers compared to other epidemiological studies like diet of wine,olive oil, trans-fat, etc, whose effects are less pronounced and whose results could very well be driven by confounding factors.
– Now as the analogy continues, we still don’t have models built from first principles that convincingly demonstrate the BioMolecular effects of smoking – umm exactly what skeptics have been saying w.r.t GCM’s. Applying complex models to a coupled/chaotic system (Metabolic or Climatic) is difficult to trust. Indeed! if all we had were the Bio models (which we’ve been working on for 50+ years now) we wouldn’t be able to link smoking to cancer. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
The analogy was made in the hearing by Dessler. It was known that tobacco causes cancer, with the exact mechanism and frequency unknown and exceptions to the rule, yet precautionary disincentives were implemented. Same with climate, it is known CO2 causes warming, but how it unfolds exactly is unknown, but precaution suggests slowing down emissions at the very least.
Never could make up my mind about you Gates. Thanks for helping with your blatantly motivated reasoning.
” Take 1000 people who smoke, and 1000 who don’t and compare lung cancer rates.”
____
Take 1000 Earth’s without the human carbon volcano erupting and 1000 Earth’s with and compare the effects. Oh wait…we don’t have 2000 different Earth, we just have one. Next best test…basic physics applied in complex ways through climate models. Overwhelmingly they tell us at 400 ppm Earth climate system will have more energy than a 280 ppm CO2 Earth. But they get the natural variability wrong…always.
R. Gates
Yep. Models (GIGO?) tell us that a world with 400 ppmv CO2 will be a few tenths of a degree warmer than a world with only 280 ppmv (a level no one alive has actually witnessed, since it is postulated to have occurred before George Washington’s time).
But no one knows whether these models are anywhere near to being correct.
It’s known as “uncertainty” (check our hostess for meaning – it’s something anyone calling himself a “skeptical warmist” should consider enthusiastically).
Max
Max,
You are so right to point out the uncertainty of the climate models. They are always wrong on specific details. But since that is not their primary purpose, the experts who use them don’t care too much. But it’s nice to know that every day they get better and better at the dynamics of climate– which IS their real purpose. Unfortunately, some will expect that to make them better at predicting specifics– but as Lorenz taught us only to well — chaotic systems won’t be nailed down on specifics and much uncertainty is inherent in such systems.
R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | January 19, 2014 at 7:14 pm |
Max,
You are so right to point out the uncertainty of the climate models. They are always wrong on specific details. But since that is not their primary purpose, the experts who use them don’t care too much. But it’s nice to know that every day they get better and better at the dynamics of climate– which IS their real purpose. Unfortunately, some will expect that to make them better at predicting specifics– but as Lorenz taught us only to well — chaotic systems won’t be nailed down on specifics and much uncertainty is inherent in such systems.
_______________
Every day they get better and better at the dynamics… so why aren’t they better and better at forecasting, well, anything?
GCMs can distinguish 30-degree ranges from equator to pole or summer to winter, so why do people have so much trouble believing they can distinguish what happens with a climate change which is one tenth of that?
Jim D | January 19, 2014 at 8:06 pm |
GCMs can distinguish 30-degree ranges from equator to pole or summer to winter, so why do people have so much trouble believing they can distinguish what happens with a climate change which is one tenth of that?
_______________
Please show us one GCM that has predicted the last ten years of surface temperature. Thanks.
ksd, I am talking about equilibrium climates. Double CO2, it is that much warmer from the same physics that determines seasons and geographical variations.
And you know this how JimD? In the lab, yes. In the real world, where all things are never equal, I’ve not seen any proof to your assertion.
ksd, proof to what assertion? That GCMs can simulate the current climate with its 30 C temperature ranges?
Proof of any skill in the models JimD. Show me they are validated by first *forecasting* climate! let’s say for the next year, 5 years, 10 years and then show me that the real world climate matches the forecasts over the same period.
ksd, do you know the difference between a forecast and an equilibrium projection? The equilibrium projection tells us where the climate ends up for a given forcing like doubled CO2, or warming the sun by 1%, etc. It doesn’t matter how quickly that happens, because you look at the equilibrium state when it has settled down.
JimD, so the GCMs are right, it’s just that the climate hasn’t equilibrated yer, is that you’re point?
How do you know they are right then? What proof of skill do,you have?
We recently witnessed a spate of anti-science on climate etc wrt to the Turney expedition to Antarctica. That would be one example.
It wasn’t ‘anti-science’ you witnessed.
It was us all having a jolly good laugh at the sanctimonious knowalls getting their comeuppance from Mother Gaia.
They weren’t doing ‘science’ and we weren’t ‘anti’ it.
“at the sanctimonious knowalls”
read: scientists
anti-scientist/ anti-science
lolwot | January 18, 2014 at 7:30 pm |
“at the sanctimonious knowalls”
read: scientists…
Ha ha … scientists, but on a vaguely planned, misdirected tourist cruise!
Thanks for the laugh, Lolwat, I do like your sense of humour.
lolwot, Anti-twitter-tourism-science?
@lolwot
You take exception to my phrase ‘sanctimonious knowalls’.
Perhaps my revision to ‘badly prepared, badly organised and badly executed sanctimonious knowalls’ will find your favour instead?
lolwot
sanctimonious knowalls?
Or just goofball scientists getting surprised by all-time record high Antarctic sea ice extent for that period (14% above the 1979-2000 baseline value for end-December).
And these goofball scientists were on a mission to “prove” that Antarctic ice is in danger.
Duh!
Goofballs, indeed.
Max
For what it’s worth. This makes my blood boil. If Michael were any kind of a Mann he would meet you publicly in debate. High Noon, OK Corral type showdown. It’s more than being labeled “anti-science.” Mann earns the label “coward” for his bushwhack.
Me too and obviously no gentlemann. However, When an individual cannot convince others that what he is saying is the truth and starts thrashing around in the courts, you see recognise desparation mann, know that the reputational death throes have started and the beast is not long for this world.
Those he has maligned have no need to take any action, other than simple rebuttal, request for proof and mockery, which will only make the mann more and more angry. Just watch the theatre as the hole being dug gets ever deeper and darkness descends ..
Judith,
Wikipedia and RationalWiki are NOT DICTIONARIES.
You cannot possibly decode Mann’s disgusting assault on your life’s work by means of such sites.
Unfortunately most single-volume dictionaries won’t have an entry for ‘anti-science.’
However, they all define ‘anti.’ And they all define ‘science.’
Mann isn’t calling you mistaken, eccentric, out-of-date, minoritarian or ignorant on some positive integer of scientific (i.e. physical) questions. If that were the meaning of ‘anti-science’ we’d all be guilty as charged. It’s the human condition.
He’s calling you an enemy of human knowledge.
An enemy of human knowledge.
You no longer owe him courtesy on any level—professional, human, vertebrate, eukaryote or any other.
Let alone mercy.
Michael Mann did make a presentation at Texas A&M which I did attend. Some of his former students were there. After the presentation, I did talk to Mann and Some of his former students. They had not even heard of the Climate Theory of Maurice Ewing and William Donn. They only know Consensus Theory and would not discuss anything else. They are Consensus People and not Skeptic Scientists.
Look at the temperature history of earth. Temperature became more tightly bounded as the polar ice cycles matured into the current state of the most recent ten thousand years.
When earth gets warm, polar sea ice melts and turns on the cooling system.
When earth gets cold, polar water freezes and turns off the cooling system.
Look at the DATA. Ewing and Donn had it figured correctly, 60 years ago.
I am skeptical, but found this 1958 article in Harpers by Betty Friedan (of Feminist Mystique fame) interesting.
http://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/
Howard – I started studying Ewing and Donn Theory in 2008 after a lecture by Tom Wysmuller.
http://www.colderside.com/Colderside/Home.html
The major warming and sea level rise caused massive snowfall that caused major ice ages.
That was the normal cycle for thousands of years.
The new normal cycle is smaller warming and smaller snowfall and then smaller Little Ice Ages.
For ten thousand years, this new cycle has repeated. We are in a little warming, similar to the Roman and Medieval Warm periods and this will be followed by another Little Ice Age. This is what the data from the past does forecast for our future.
Steven Mosher | January 18, 2014 at 9:14 pm |
A debate is not measuring.
A debate is not science
A debate is theatre.
———————————————————–
AGW has not been about measuring.
AGW is not science
AGW is theater.
Yet, AGW has driven costly policies around the world…
” I expect you to (publicly) document and rebut any statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide.”
____
Judith, there was one significant part of your testimony that was your opinion at best, and misleading in that regard, as you stated as though it was now “accepted” by the climate science community. You said:
“There is growing evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.”
_____
Now, had you said “there is some evidence”, or “some studies that suggest” or “some models that suggest”, or “some experts who believe”, etc. it would have been more accurate. The paleoclimate record, and (referring back to Sherwood 2014) those climate models that most accurately model what we actual observe in cloud dynamics all are putting climate sensitivity back around 3C, where’s it’s been for quite some time. The “growing evidence” statement would ignore the serious flaws in some of the work that has been pushing the climate sensitivity lower. You statement would seem to ignore the rapid explosion in paleoclimate data that has recently come from the most close analogue we have to the last time GH gas concentration were around the current levels. This mid-Pliocene data most closely confirms Sherwood’s findings– 3C is a pretty solid number.
“There is growing evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.”
There sure is. The Forecasts are based on climate sensitivity and they are getting more and more out of bounds with actual earth temperature.
What is deceptive about always referring back to “climate sensitivity” is that, though experts widely know the term refers to sensible heat in the troposphere, specifically at the surface, many in the general public might read into that the incorrect conclusion that “rising CO2 levels won’t affect the climate as much”. This is of course, absolutely an inaccurate but most likely conclusion that non-experts will make.
Sherwood…climate models…blah…blah…blah. That’s your evidence.
R. Gates, What you are neglecting to say about climate sensitivity, is that no numeric value has ever been measured. Most values are based on estimations from hypothetical considerations, and the output of non -validated models. As such, they are little more than guesses. Information from the paleo records cannot be used, as the time variable cannot be measured with sufficient accuracy. And in any event, the data indicates that first temperature rises, and then CO2 levels rise; not the other way around.
Just to clarify my position- it was absolutely wrong for Mann to call Judith anti-science, and certainly Judith’s approach to looking at the uncertainty is a valid and honest balance to the discussion, especially when talking to policymakers. But statements like “growing evidence of decreased climate sensitivity…” can be wrongly interpreted by policymakers, and moreover, misrepresent the actual situation in the climate community with regard to the sensitivity issue– there is much uncertainty as studies indicate a wide range. Judith gave more certainty her position of evidence for decreased sensitivity then was warranted. Where was her uncertainty monster in this regard?
It’s worse.
The public and I guess senators need the cliff notes. What they need to realize is that human emissions are causing a significant warming effect of the Earth.
Dessler communicated that basic fact. Dr Curry did not.
It’s all very well to argue details about the IPCC reports and whether climate sensitivity is lower than thought 5 years ago, and perhaps they do get it. but where was the mention that none of this alters the fact that AGW will be the driver of global temperature in the 21st century for ANY of the sensitivities under discussion?
“What you are neglecting to say about climate sensitivity, is that no numeric value has ever been measured.”
____
My point is about how much certainty Judith put in her own statement about evidence for decreased sensitivity. It seems her Uncertainty Monster only comes out on selective occassions.
Do you have any nitpicking criticisms of Dessler’s testimony, gatesy.?
R.Gates, saying there is “growing evidence” for a position does not mean mean you’re ignoring evidence for other positions. As such, to claim Judith Curry was wrong in that statement, you’d need to weigh the relative amounts of evidence for both positions and compare how they’re changing. You haven’t done anything to indicate you’ve done so. You certainly haven’t shown anything that should make anyone believe you.
If you’re going to claim Curry is wrong, you need to do more than wave your hands.
The closest Dr Curry got to communicating the influence of human activity was the part about attributing about half the decline in arctic sea ice to human activity. It would have been nice to see something to same effect about global temperature. Ie what % of warming since 1950 does Dr Curry think is caused by man.
I suspect you missed it:
Sensitivity, per Curry, Judith A. “IPCC AR5 Weakens the Case for AGW.” Scientific. Climate Etc., January 6, 2014. http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/
AR4:
“The equilibrium climate sensitivity. . . is likely to be in the range 2oC to 4.5oC with a best estimate of about 3oC and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5oC. Values higher than 4.5oC cannot be excluded..”
AR5
“The IPCC AR5 conclusion on climate sensitivity is stated as:
“‘Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)‘”
R. Gates, you write “My point is about how much certainty Judith put in her own statement about evidence for decreased sensitivity. It seems her Uncertainty Monster only comes out on selective occasions.”
The empirical data supports Judith’s conclusions. She does not need to rely on her uncertainty monster. That previous estimates of CS were too high, is a simple statement of fact.
Brandon,
I pointed out specifically why it was inaccurate for Judith to put so much certainty in her “growing evidence” statement. There is growing evidence that the 3C number is pretty solid– from paleoclimate studies and studies that filter out models that don’t have the observed clouds dynamics right (i.e. Shewood). If Judith wanted to say anything about climate sensitivity, if could be about ranges or probabilities, but her statement had too much certainty behind it– especially in light of the paleoclimate research converging on that 3C number similar to Sherwood’s findings.
“The empirical data supports Judith’s conclusions.”
___
Jim, you of all people can make this statement?! You’ve hammered the table for months about how climate sensitivity has never been measured and now you claim there is empirical evidence that supports Judith’s conclusions.
Please do provide links to that empirical data!
So the empirical data supports climate sensitivity being between 1.5C and 4.5C (high confidence)
Would have been useful for Dr Curry to state that in her own words in her testimony. So that the people listening realize that AGW is real and a very significant (driving) effect on global temperature.
1.5C, the lower value (high confidence), is more than two times the warming of the 20th century.
“But statements like “growing evidence of decreased climate sensitivity…” can be wrongly interpreted by policymakers …”
I doubt Dr Curry’s testimony changed any minds. The whole exercise is just a show.
R. Gates, you did nothing of the sort. You hand-wavingly claimed some evidence shows certain things while failing to discuss the majority of evidence which has been developed. Far more evidence has come into existence recently than you discussed.
You cannot claim someone’s weighing of evidence is wrong while ignoring most of the evidence. You referred to only two types of evidence. That is not remotely sufficient to judge the balance of evidence. You didn’t even discuss the “pause.”
You cannot seriously claim to have shown a weighing of the evidence while blatantly ignoring a key piece of evidence. You do not objective weigh evidence by cherry-picking which evidence to discuss.
“Don Monfort | January 18, 2014 at 11:53 am |
Do you have any nitpicking criticisms of Dessler’s testimony, gatesy.?”
_____
Yes, I wish he would have discussed the profound changes going on in the ocean– but that is outside his area of expertise, so I guess that is really being nitpicky.
“I doubt Dr Curry’s testimony changed any minds. The whole exercise is just a show.”
_______
Well, that’s probably true, but this thread is about the criticisms that Mann might level at Judith’s testimony. There’s was nothing really new revealed, but I did find Judith’s statement of “growing evidence for decreased sensitivity” to lack the usually kiss of her Uncertainty Monster.
“You do not objective weigh evidence by cherry-picking which evidence to discuss.”
____
That would in fact be exactly what Judith appears to have done in making her “growing evidence for decreased climate sensitivity…” statement. Did she ignore the paleoclimate and Sherwood study in order to make this claim?
“Don Monfort | January 18, 2014 at 11:42 am |
Sherwood…climate models…blah…blah…blah. That’s your evidence.”
_____
Sherwood…climate models…paleoclimate data…in short….it’s called science.
Judith expressed her opinion about “growing evidence for decreased climate sensitivity…” by apparently choosing to ignore the growing evidence that the 3C figure seems about right, if not a tad low. This was a choice she made, and she could have just as easily said, “there is a range of opinion as to what climate sensitivity is..” or something like that. That would have been more typical for the keeper of the Uncertainty Monster.
R. Gates, Judith Curry never claimed to be presenting an objective weighing of all evidence. She claimed to present the conclusions she reached upon doing one. Discussing conclusions does not necessitate discussing all the evidence one considered. As such, one wouldn’t expect her to discuss all the evidence she considered.
It’s true Curry didn’t “show her work.” You didn’t either. The difference is when I said you hadn’t, you claimed you had. You hadn’t. You still haven’t. If you want to convince people Curry is wrong, you’ll have to show the work which leads to that conclusion. Until then, people should either trust Curry to have given a fair analysis of the evidence or remain neutral.
Saying someone hasn’t made their case doesn’t incur a burden of proof. Saying someone is wrong does. You said Curry was wrong, but you haven’t even attempted to make the case for it.
On my conclusion re growing evidence for lower sensitivity, it comes straight from the AR5:
The bottom of the ‘likely’ range has been lowered from 2 to 1.5oC in the AR5, whereas the AR4 stated that ECS is very unlikely to be less than 1.5oC.
Regarding projections for the period 2012-2035, the CMIP5 5-95% trend range is 0.11°C–0.41°C per decade. The IPCC then cites ‘expert judgment’ as the rationale for lowering the projections (indicated by the red hatching):
“However, the implied rates of warming over the period from 1986–2005 to 2016–2035 are lower as a result of the hiatus: 0.10°C–0.23°C per decade, suggesting the AR4 assessment was near the upper end of current expectations for this specific time interval.” (AR5 Chapter 11)
This lowering of the projections (and decreasing the trend) relative to the results from the raw CMIP5 model simulations was done based on expert judgment that some models are too sensitive to anthropogenic forcing.
R.Gates, you write “Please do provide links to that empirical data!”
All the papers which show that global temperatures have not risen for X years up to the present; whatever X is. If CO2 is rising precipitously, and temperatures are not rising, the empirical data indicates that the numeric value of CS is far lower than the IPCC claim.
“All the papers which show that global temperatures have not risen for X years up to the present; whatever X is. If CO2 is rising precipitously, and temperatures are not rising, the empirical data indicates that the numeric value of CS is far lower than the IPCC claim.”
____
Nope. You are confusing short-term fluctuations in primarily ocean to atmosphere latent and sensible heat flux to a longer-term sensitivity of the sensible heat at the surface to the external forcing from rapidly increasing GH gases. You, and others, who display this misunderstanding, are in serious need of some further refinement in your understanding. In short– the “pause” of the rise in tropospheric temperatures really tells us very little about climate sensitivity, just as the so-called “recovery” in Arctic sea ice in 2013 says very little about the long-term decline in sea ice. Short term fluctuations tell us nothing about the sensitivity to long term forcings, and trying to read something into those short-term fluctuations will lead you to completely wrong conclusions.
R. Gates you write “Nope”
Then by the same token we need to neglect the rise in temperatures between 1970 and 1998, which are claimed to be the basis for CAGW.
Judith,
Thanks for that thorough response. I simply didn’t feel like your statement had your usual amount of uncertainty in it. Your explanation here, though of course far too detailed for a testimony, gives the appropriate ranges and rationale behind it, but still doesn’t capture the full uncertainty in the broader climate community regarding the issue of sensitivity. Sherwood’s recent paper and the flood of paleoclimate data represent valid counter-evidence to those studies suggesting climate sensitivity is lower. I would just suggest that your statement could have held more uncertainty about the issue of climate sensitivity.
But just to reinforce my point I made elsewhere– Mann certainly shouldn’t be calling you anti-science, as that is, IMO, about the worst thing that one scientist can say to another. For that reason alone, it would be the honorable thing to do to have a public debate with you, to give you a chance to defend yourself. At the very least, I hope a NY Times editorial is forthcoming from you, so you can rebut his comments about you.
“Then by the same token we need to neglect the rise in temperatures between 1970 and 1998, which are claimed to be the basis for CAGW.”
______
I would suggest that we can’t judge climate sensitivity based on the rise in temperatures between 1970 and 1998. It could be higher or lower or the same than that displayed during that period. Short-term periods are not good ways to judge the effects of long-term forcing. And BTW, the warming during that period is not the “basis” of AGW theory nor specifically the basis for CAGW.
Gates,
I don’t think statements themselves are about uncertainty, but just to play along, if the IPCC is expressing 95% confidence, and that’s quite a large group of scientists there, then why should Dr Curry express any less confidence in her statement? Is that not enough growing evidence?
R. Fates you write “And BTW, the warming during that period is not the “basis” of AGW theory nor specifically the basis for CAGW.”
Fair enough. What is the empirical data which supports CAGW? Or is the basis for CAGW merely the meaningless, hypothetical estimations, and the output of non-validated models?
Sorry there is growing evidence else why would one lower the figures from 2 to 1.5. Count the papers. Look at those which use the same methods as those cited in ar4 and come to a lower estimate. Look at the model results when you constrain the models by observation. All the new evidence points to lower.
Curry saw something and spoke. She followed manns dictate.
Dessler mentioned that only AR4 had the lower limit at 2. AR1-3 and AR5 all have 1.5 with an upper limit at 4.5.
Steven Mosher said:
“Sorry there is growing evidence else why would one lower the figures from 2 to 1.5”
—–
Is this evidence as strong as the paleoclimate data? Should we ignore what we are learning about the Pliocene? Should would discount Sherwood 2014? Give me links to what you feel are the strongest papers justifying me to move my “most likely” ECS from 3C and I’ll consider it. This is after all, exactly what honest skeptism is all about!
I think 1.5 and 4.5 are equally unlikely, being at the 2-sigma part of a Gaussian distribution, and the likely (> 60 percent) range is still within one sigma of 3, which is 2.5-3.5.
RGates, you seem to think you are retroclairvoyant.
================
Gates
“Is this evidence as strong as the paleoclimate data? Should we ignore what we are learning about the Pliocene?
Given what I’ve seen of the paleo data and given what Ive seen of the newer observation work, I would say the new evidence is better than the Paleo. But even here you get the new paleo wrong
“Koehler
et al. (2010) used an estimate of LGM cooling along with its uncertainties together with estimates of LGM
radiative forcing and its uncertainty to derive an overall estimate of climate sensitivity. This method accounts
for the effect of changes in feedbacks for this very different climatic state using published estimates of
changes in feedback factors (see Section 5.3.3.2; Hargreaves et al., 2007; Otto-Bliesner et al., 2009). The
authors find a best estimate of 2.4°C and a 5–95% range of ECS from 1.4°C–5.2°C, with sensitivities beyond
6°C difficult to reconcile with the data. In contrast, Chylek and Lohmann (2008b) estimate the ECS to be
1.3°C–2.3°C based on data for the transition from the LGM to the Holocene. However, the true uncertainties
are likely larger due to uncertainties in relating local proxies to large scale temperature change observed over
a limited time (Ganopolski and von Deimling, 2008; Hargreaves and Annan, 2009). The authors also use an
aerosol radiative forcing estimate that may be high (see response by Chylek and Lohmann, 2008a;
Ganopolski and von Deimling, 2008).
Recently, new data synthesis
products have become available for assessment with climate model simulations of the LGM which together
with further data cover much more of the LGM ocean and land areas, although there are still substantial gaps
and substantial data uncertainty (5.3.3). An analysis of the recent SST and land temperature reconstructions
for the LGM compared to simulations with an EMIC suggests a 90% range of 1.4°C–2.8°C for ECS, with
SST data providing a narrower range and lower values than land data only
#####################################################
Should would discount Sherwood 2014? Give me links to what you feel are the strongest papers justifying me to move my “most likely” ECS from 3C and I’ll consider it. This is after all, exactly what honest skeptism is all about!
Sherwood 2014? they used the worst observational dataset (re analysis ) imaginable. They did not study the sensitivity of their results to slection of observational data and they included models in collection of “best” that have severe problems matching other more well measured observations.
You left your skepticism at the door.
Steven Mosher,
Did you provide me with what you thought was the best evidence that sensitivity should be lower than 3C? Was your last post it? Are you discounting all the paleoclimate data from the Pliocene?
Though generally I find you a reasonable and polite person, I don’t take kindly to suggesting I left my skepticism at the door. I am willing to entertain any valid research that actually has a chance at getting sensitivity correct.
I think you too easily dismiss Sherwood, as some upcoming research will show.
Steven Mosher:
Not only is there growing evidence. People are reaching a consensus on why many of the older papers had exaggerated upper tails in their distributions.
Perhaps Gates should spend a bit of quality time in front of some of the more recent papers, until he catches up on the literature.
R. Gates:
“Upcoming research”? That’s always the catch isn’t it? Today we don’t have the result we desire, but wait until tomorrow. Papers that aren’t reviewed and in the public should have less weight not more to a true skeptic.
In any case, hopefully it’s a bit less of a dude than Cowtan and Way, which everybody was saying last fall was the “big fix” to the pause.
“Perhaps Gates should spend a bit of quality time in front of some of the more recent papers, until he catches up on the literature.”
_____
I spend 2 to 3 hours a day as it is, but if you have links to current research that you feel is valid and pertinent, by all means send them my way. As an honest skeptic, I look for data that might cause me to alter my position. Currently I see no reason to think that ECS isn’t going to be about 3C + or – about .5C, which is pretty much where it is has been for quite some time. But ECS is not really the issue in my mind, as ESS (Earth system sensitivity) is probably a better metric for what we’ll be leaving to future generations with a business as usual approach to our human carbon volcano.
R Gates said
“What is deceptive about always referring back to “climate sensitivity” is that, though experts widely know the term refers to sensible heat in the troposphere, specifically at the surface, many in the general public might read into that the incorrect conclusion that “rising CO2 levels won’t affect the climate as much”
As much as what, R Gates? Why, as much as THEY SAID IT WOULD!
WHERE did they say it would, R Gates? Why, AT THE SURFACE!
duh
Judith. I, and I suspect just about all climate skeptics, have been waiting for a debate between scientific heavy weights, on a level playing field, on the scientific merits of CAGW. In the past, Michael Mann has refused to debate people like Roy Spencer.
If only some respected organization could arrange for a debate between yourself and Michael, on a level playing field, publicly broadcast, etc. then I am sure there would be hundreds, if not thousands of people like myself, would pay a lot of good money to see what happens.
Is there any possible chance that this could be arranged? I suggest two hours would be an absolute minimum for such an occasion.
There is no chance that Mann would engage in a debate. He is a coward, preferring to snipe through tweets, editorials in sympathetic media and personal attacks while never debating the actual science.
Chuck, Unfortunately, I agree with you. But surely it would be highly desirable to see such a challenge heavily publicised, so that Mann’s refusal would be extremely obvious to everyone, and everyone would see that he was, indeed, a yellow-bellied coward.
Jim,
My father used to call flights of fancy like yours above “pipe dreams.”
I’m sure there’s be plenty of organizations willing to host such an event. But getting the cowardly Michael to show up would require nothing less than a kidnapping.
“But surely it would be highly desirable to see such a challenge heavily publicised, so that Mann’s refusal would be extremely obvious to everyone,”
This is the tactical brilliance of these otherwise very stupid people. It would be interpreted by the warmists as refusing to give the troglodyte flat earthers known as “climate deniers” the time of day. Which is to say, skeptical arguments are so ludicrously stupid that it would be disservice to sane and responsible people to give them a hearing.
pokerguy, see my comment to Chuck. Let us publicise this challenge to the absolute maximum, and force Mann to show just how much of a coward he is. We can get almost as much value from his refusing to debate, as we can from the actual debate itself.
pokerguy, you write “It would be interpreted by the warmists”
It is irrelevant how it is interpreted by the warmists. What would matter is how it is interpreted by the MSM.
Mann would likely debate if the right Senator was the Moderator.
A Moderator, a Senator, who would cut Dr Curry off anytime he did not like the response she was likely to make next. A Moderator who was there to preach and not to Moderate.
There is a huge problem with getting a scientist on the consensus side to debate.
A scientist is always skeptic and a consensus person is not really a scientist.
There are some skeptic scientists who do think man-made CO2 is responsible for some warming, but then, they are skeptic so they are not in the consensus camp. They will actually debate and discuss with us.
Herman, you write “Mann would likely debate if the right Senator was the Moderator.”
I said a level playing field.
The problem with public live debates is that the skeptics can just make things up that are not supported by any study and the public would be none the wiser. A better format is a long-term online discussion referring to evidence and checking each others evidence, something like what happened between Dessler and Spencer a couple of years ago.
It is incredible that no government agency has sponsored a prolonged comprehensive debate on climate science open and available to the public. Considering the financial impacts of the affected public policies, this neglect is breathtaking.
Jim D. you write “The problem with public live debates is that the skeptics can just make things up that are not supported by any study and the public would be none the wiser.”
We are not talking about any old skeptic. We are talking about Prof. Judith Curry. Are you suggesting that our hostess would deliberately “make things up”. If you are, then what you suggesting is even more insulting than that by Mann.
The degree to which any statements by Judith or Dessler are supported cannot be gauged by the public in real time. I am sure you would agree. They can give references for their statements that you can go away and look at for yourself, and then the other can give counter-references. That would be a proper debate where the weight of evidence is more truly conveyed to the public. Don’t you think that would be better?
I said a level playing field.
Mann will not play there.
Jim D. you write ” Don’t you think that would be better?”
No, I certainly don’t. For one thing, body language is completely absent in a written debate. For another, there have been written discussions, but a full and proper debate, live, between scientific heavyweights, would be an absolute first. Up until now, the warmists have adamantly refused to have such a debate. That is why no-one in their right mind believes that Mann would ever agree to such a thing.
The problem with public live debates is that the skeptics can just make things up that are not supported by any study and the public would be none the wiser.
The problem is that the Consensus People just make things up that are not supported by any honest study and the public is none the wiser.
Jim Cripwell, I suspect what you say is what most “skeptics” would because they don’t want a full verifiable debate on the topic. They just want bullet points and blogged factoids that support one side, and would prefer not to see the best evidence on both sides for themselves. This is understandable.
“It is irrelevant how it is interpreted by the warmists. What would matter is how it is interpreted by the MSM.”
Jim, the MSM *are* warmists.
Jim D said
“The problem with public live debates is that the skeptics can just make things up that are not supported by any study and the public would be none the wiser. ”
Just like IPCC reports?
thisnotgoo, the IPCC reports have hundreds of references you can go and check in principle. So, exactly not like the IPCC reports.
“the IPCC reports have hundreds of references you can go and check in principle. ”
Skeptics also have hundreds of references you can check.
But your point was not on correct references to scientific studies.
It was
”
That was not your point. Your point was
“skeptics can just make things up that are not supported by any study and the public would be none the wiser”
Which IPCC has done and still is doing.
The “skeptical” studies, whatever they are, tend not to support each other and sometimes contradict each other. Reading them as a whole probably won’t provide any insight into the “skeptical” view except that it is an anything-but-CO2 mindset. This would be very weak against the various independent lines of evidence for CO2 sensitivity.
“The “skeptical” studies”.
You are changing the subject, Jimmy.
Skeptics can reference mainstream studies just like IPCC can.
Your point was that skeptics can make stuff up that is not in scientific studies and the public would not be the wiser.
IPCC does not rely only on scientific studies, so in that way they are EXACTLY the same.
Jim D. You write “This would be very weak against the various independent lines of evidence for CO2 sensitivity.”
What independent “lines of evidence for CO2 sensitivity.”? There is no empirical data to support any numeric value for climate sensitivity. No-one has ever measured climate sensitivity, and it is simply impractical to envisage any such actual measurement.
All numeric values for climate sensitivity are nothing more than guesses. They are based on one of three things.
1. Paleo data, which is useless because one cannot measure time accurately enough.
1. Hypothetical, meaningless estimations, with lots of unsubstantiated assumptions in them.
3. The output of non-validated models.
The mind boggles.
Jim D said
“The “skeptical” studies, whatever they are, tend not to support each other and sometimes contradict each other.”
Jim, you seem to be saying that scientific studies should support each other and agree.
How you come to this conclusion is a mystery, but not an interesting mystery.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the “axing” of the Pattern Recognition in Physics journal which had an issue devoted to skeptical research in climate science. Anthony Watts said that ” some of the papers in that special journal edition really aren’t any better than curve fitting exercises. “
thisnotgood, this is about the merits of a debate. If you think Judith is going to go up there and debate the merits of Scafetta or Salby or Lewis versus the IPCC papers, you would be mistaken. A debate between individual scientists may be limited to one or two papers in a field that the debaters are familiar with, but that would not be conclusive for climate science as a whole. You should understand that few scientists are versed with enough details over a wide number of papers to be able to carry out a public debate with someone in a live forum, and probably couldn’t defend a paper live unless they wrote it. However, given time they could probably give a good go at defending or attacking any paper, as this is what reviewers have to do from the comfort of their own offices.
Jim D said
“thisnotgood, this is about the merits of a debate.”
No, Jim D. the discussion between you and me is about what you said.
That you refuse to examine the faults in what you said, is no mystery.
WHT said:
“Nowhere is this more apparent than in the “axing” of the Pattern Recognition in Physics journal. Anthony Watts said that ” some of the papers in that special journal edition really aren’t any better than curve fitting exercises. “
Thank you WHT!
Skeptic criticizing skeptic work. If only the alarmists would do anything like that, the situation might be healthier!
thisnot, go back up the thread. I joined in about the idea of a debate. You want to say there are “skeptical” papers to debate. Fine, find someone who can defend any of them who didn’t write them. Skeptics turn out to be even highly skeptical of each other. Who would have guessed? You don’t think the IPCC papers support each other. OK, perhaps you need to do more reading of WG1 that ties large numbers of them to each of its themes. Then look at the skeptic thinktank effort called NIPCC. Compare and contrast the level of “consensus” that goes into it. The papers read like individual opinion pieces.
Jim D said
“You want to say there are “skeptical” papers to debate.’
No, Jim D, you are changing the subject again. I did not mention skeptical papers to debate.
I challenged your statement, but you keep changing the subject
No mystery why that is.
thisno, which statement did you challenge? I said skeptics can just make things up in live debates, and you think not. What constrains them? If they are called out later, they just say “oops, I goofed, my bad” and move on. We’ve seen this with their papers. By then the debate is broadcast and no one gets to see the correction. It is not an ideal forum unless they are forced to answer for what they say, and the same audience are engaged in that part too.
Jim D said
“thisno, which statement did you challenge? I said skeptics can just make things up in live debates, and you think not. ”
Wrong. I said “same as IPCC reports”.
“What constrains them? If they are called out later, they just say “oops”.
Same as IPCC reports
What is happening with the papers at “Pattern Recognition in Physics” is that they are all papers about solar, tidal, and orbital contributions to variability in Earth temperatures.
The problem is that the papers are blowing these contributions out of proportion. Certainly the effects are contributing factors to natural variability but they are not the entire picture.
That is why the journal is getting the axe. The editors are irresponsibly allowing flights of fancy in those articles, especially in terms of a researcher claiming that one factor is responsible for our current conditions.
For example, here is an excerpt from one of the papers:
”
”
Come on, “soon be facing a new grand solar minimum with Little Ice Age climatic conditions” ????
What kind of garbage is that to place in a journal article?
That’s why it got the axe.
You seem to think he’s not clairvoyant.
==============
See it, say it, honey.
=============
thisisnotg, the reply to that was at 3:16pm. Do you want to go back and loop through again to catch up?
Jim D said:
at 3:16 you answered to :
Jim D said “I said skeptics can just make things up in live debates, and you think not. ”
I said:
“Wrong. I said “same as IPCC reports”.
and I said
“What constrains them? If they are called out later, they just say “oops”.
Same as IPCC reports”
with:
“thisisnotg, the reply to that was at 3:16pm. ”
but at 3:16 you said:
“the IPCC reports have hundreds of references you can go and check in principle. So, exactly not like the IPCC reports.”
Jim D, that is not responsive to the fact pointed out that IPCC can also say things that are not supported by scientific papers and the public would be no the wiser, nor is it a reply to the fact pointed out that nothing constrains IPCC from also doing it and also later saying “oops”.
thisisnogood, nothing in the basic science (WG1) has resulted in a retraction, and that is where the science is. Himalayan glaciers were an oops, but that was in AR4 WG2, and the few people involved in letting that through, I am sure, are suitable ashamed of themselves, because what was printed was not the consensus (far from it), and should not have got in for that reason alone.
Jim D said
“thisisnogood, nothing in the basic science (WG1) has resulted in a retraction, and that is where the science is. Himalayan glaciers were an oops, but that was in AR4 WG2, and the few people involved in letting that through, I am sure, are suitable ashamed of themselves, because what was printed was not the consensus (far from it), and should not have got in for that reason alone.”
So you shuold admit that it is false to say that IPCC cannot also say things not supported by scientific papers, and later say “oops”.
You should also understand that 3:16 was not a reply at all to either part.
Your latest is wrong, in that the IPCC AR5 draft figure 1.4 wrt models and observations has been altered from mistake to mistake, ending up with a final that is not from scientific papers and has no explanation for what they did. Later they can “oops then oops then oops again”
Another example of this is the confusion over the “Lamb’s graph”
When it came down to it, nobody even knew who inserted it or where it came from.
Jim D
Neither does lack of retraction mean that an item is supported by scientific paper.
thisisnogo, so do these graphs affect the consensus views presented on sensitivity or the science? Does a change in a draft count as a change in the final report, or is this the reason they have drafts, to catch these with more pairs of eyes looking at it? Yes, everything in the final IPCC report has to be accountable to the consensus with its uncertainty qualifiers, or it is not a good thing to have in there. This is the criterion it has to be judged by. If a statement disagrees with consensus, it should not make it, I think you would agree.
A debate is not measuring.
A debate is not science
A debate is theatre.
If mann beat judith in a debate that would prove that debates were not a good way of deciding science issues.
And if judith beat mann we wouldnt know anything that we dont already know
Unfortunately Mann et al have turned what used to be a science into a circus. Facts and refined data have been sidelined by sounded bites and chest beating. Not good.
“…is this the reason they have drafts, to catch these with more pairs of eyes looking at it?”
Thank God there were enough eyes looking at the draft AR5 to keep the final from accurately reflecting the diversion of reported temps from the hapless GCMs.
Jim D said:
“thisisnogo, so do these graphs affect the consensus views presented on sensitivity or the science? Does a change in a draft count as a change in the final report, or is this the reason they have drafts, to catch these with more pairs of eyes looking at it? Yes, everything in the final IPCC report has to be accountable to the consensus with its uncertainty qualifiers, or it is not a good thing to have in there. This is the criterion it has to be judged by. If a statement disagrees with consensus, it should not make it, I think you would agree.”
Jim D, I showed where you were wrong. Now you move the goalposts to “do these graphs affect the consensus views”.
Not changing what any certain group thinks, is what we were discussing: that IPCC can and does do the same thing as you blame skeptics for.
typo:
Not changing what any certain group thinks, is NOT what we were discussing
The models were OK for land warming rates of 0.3 C per decade for the last three decades, but I guess the ocean did its natural variability thing, which happens when you look short-term. The Arctic was underestimated too because that has a rate of 1 C per decade during the pause. The models did not catch that.
The equatorial Atlantic is not ‘doing its natural variability thing’ – warming due to increased insolation as a result of reduced ITCZ cloud mass is the predominant feature and is an ongoing event entirely consistent with published data for CC. This also affects the Azores High as well as produces a consistent temp increase trend in the equatorial east Pacific.
Jim D, If more eyes on it is a good thing, which catches these things, then why is secrecy of such concern?
Why is it that blog discussion of the secret drafts once leaked, is frowned upon?
Jim D, can’t you see your errors?
No, the skeptic blunders are much larger, and they have to be different from consensus to get noticed Spencer said it was not warming according to his satellites, it was. Some are saying CO2 can’t account for most of the warming since 1950 when a sensitivity of 1.5 C per doubling accounts for 75% of the warming since then. They know this, yet say it anyway, and some of the public will believe them when they say this in a debate. These are not just little things, like where to start your trend line.
Jim D,
For you to suggest that a skeptic’s error is a bigger thing than IPCC blunders, is plainly dancing a farcical fandango
Saying it is not warming when it is, is a major blunder that is ongoing with the pause and the OHC proving them wrong, as will the near future, because the surface-temperature pause is already ending. Some significant areas (like the land) never paused in the first place while even the La Ninas became successively warmer. Yet, some skeptics over the last few years have focused on this temporary state with the implication that they prove CO2 has less effect than expected, and therefore warming won’t be large a hundred years from now so we can continue to burn fossil fuels regardless. The pause will end, and they will just say oops.
Gary – you have made the common yet fatal leap of faith: global temperatures and human emissions. It remains unproven that human emissions are causing the warming – in fact successive explanations of how emissions are causing the problem have all been found to be wrong, including the latest travesty scribbled out by Hansen after Roy Spenser rained on the emissions parade. The current explanation, like its predecessors can not explain the ocean warming. So you are going to have to put your faith in an explanation that is yet to be invented to allow of the continuation of the emissions creed.
Jim D,
The main metric used to determine warming has been SURFACE TEMPS.
Maybe that may be the hugest blunder EVAH!!!
Thank you for pointing out that huge blunder.
Now, what goalpost move will you perform next ?
To be able to predict future climate change, in
principle, it is necessary to be able to evaluate the actual
current and future heating of the climate system
from anthropogenic and natural sources as well as to
evaluate where this heating is accumulating. For ex-
ample, heat could be stored in the ocean at depths
greater than 3 km (where observations were not reported
in the Levitus et al. studies), instead of lost to
space, through relatively small-scale areas of vertical
turbulent mixing and three-dimensional mesoscale
circulations. With coarse spatial resolution, GCMs
might not be able to adequately simulate these modes
of heat transfer. Moreover, the latest assessment of
tropospheric heat (November 2002) shows that the atmosphere
has returned to near its 1980 value, after the
warm 1997–1998 ENSO event. This rapid cooling of
the atmosphere, in terms of where the heat has gone,
provides an example of why precise observations of
the global heat content should be a scientific priority.
An assessment of the heat storage within the earth’s
climate system offers a unique perspective on global
change. If the heat actually remains within the earth
system in the deeper ocean, for example, while the
heat content of the remainder of the heat reservoirs
in the earth system remains unchanged, sudden transfers
of the heat between components of the system
(from the ocean into the atmosphere) could produce
rapid, unanticipated changes in global weather.
Similarly, relatively large warming and cooling radiative
forcings (e.g., well-mixed greenhouse gases and
the indirect effect of aerosols) could be in near balance
at present, suggesting that sudden climate
changes could occur if one of these forcings becomes
dominant. … – Pielke Sr
The heat might come back to haunt us. Boo!
thisnogo, I have posted several times that AGW predicts that a combination of the surface temperature and ocean heat content will rise. It doesn’t say which will rise at a particular time, and in fact one can fall while the other rises, but the net is positive for a positive forcing change such as CO2 provides, and so the current decadal trends are consistent.
Jim D said:
“thisnogo, I have posted several times that AGW predicts that a combination of the surface temperature and ocean heat content will rise. It doesn’t say which will rise at a particular time, and in fact one can fall while the other rises, but the net is positive for a positive forcing change such as CO2 provides, and so the current decadal trends are consistent.”
We weren’t talking about what you have posted several times, Jim D. That’s irrelevant.
We were talking about what you said here in this thread and I responded – showing your errors.
As I said, the use of surface global average temperatures alone is a very typical skeptics’ blunder these days. They are blind to other changes going on below the surface that undermine the increasingly delicate pause.
Jim D said
“As I said, the use of surface global average temperatures alone is a very typical skeptics’ blunder these days. They are blind to other changes going on below the surface that undermine the increasingly delicate pause.’
Not a blunder at all. If it’s what IPCC used all along and still does, to convince, then it’s only proper to use it.
The second point is related to a posting by Roger Pielke Sr last week, who claimed that the Meehl et al paper ‘torpedoed’ the use of the surface temperature anomaly as a useful metric of global warming. This is odd in a number of respects. First, the surface temperature records are the longest climate records we have from direct measurements and have been independently replicated by multiple independent groups. I’m not aware of anyone who has ever thought that surface temperatures tell us everything there is to know about climate change, but nonetheless in practical terms global warming has for years been defined as the rise in this metric. It is certainly useful to look at the total heat content anomaly (as best as it can be estimated), but the difficulties in assembling such a metric and extending it back in time more than a few decades preclude it from supplanting the surface temperatures in this respect. – See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/global-warming-and-ocean-heat-content/#sthash.iTX2C8Ml.dpuf
It’s not a blunder; it’s all they had.
Pielke Sr. wanted to add in the oceans deeper than the SST layer, whatever that is. He gives very good reasons. He’s even, in his own words, saying it’s a travesty the system was not already in place a long time ago.
They both give good reasons.
The notion this goalpost moving, or some recent invention because the SAT stopped cooperating, is idiotic nonsense.
Since the thread is about Mann, we should certainly say that everything he has ever done is therefore the hugest of blunders.
Thanks Jim.
Argo data only became available as a global measure since the AR4, so I guess the skeptics now have to start taking it into account like the IPCC already does. Keep up.
Jim D said:
“Argo data only became available as a global measure since the AR4, so I guess the skeptics now have to start taking it into account like the IPCC already does. Keep up.”
Irrelevant, since IPCC used surface temps as the main metric to convince of global warming. If they have not tossed it out as the main metric, you have nothing to say “keep up”, about, Jim D!
Not a blunder at all. Just a different thermodynamic view to what is happening with the overall energy budget.
This is the CSALT factorization of contributing temperature elements
http://imageshack.com/a/img28/5309/2sqg.gif
When aggregated they lead to this model fit to the GISS data
http://imageshack.com/a/img89/5736/1jg.gif
We have moved the goalposts so that it much easier for you to score OWN GOAL, Mr. thisisnotgoodtogo
Surface temperature is still the bottom line. Eventually regardless of the path the OHC takes, the surface warming has to reach an equilibrium with the forcing, so yes, it is, and remains, the long-term bottom line. OHC is just something to keep track of in a transient climate, otherwise you could get misled.
Dreaming WHT:
If I committed an error you could show it, eh, Blozo?
“Jim, you seem to be saying that scientific studies should support each other and agree.
How you come to this conclusion is a mystery, but not an interesting mystery.”
Projection.
To elaborate: from Jim D’s point of view, located within a consensualist religion, it is impossible to guess how science works—so it is only natural for him to assume that science works kinda like a cult. He’s not doing this to exasperate us—he can’t help it. He’s as much a victim of pseudoscience as anyone.
thisisnotgoodtogo,
I know you said that kind of question wasn’t “interesting” to you, but I think we need to know how alien the other side’s perspective is if we ever hope to get anywhere.
We don’t just disagree with them about what “the science” [ugh] “says”, we disagree about HOW SCIENCE WORKS. That’s why no amount of discussion of “the science” does anything to help us converge.
Many people in Jim D’s movement, and possibly Jim D himself, actually have trouble answering a 7th-grade question like: “what is the aim of science?” Seriously. (I’ve spent a lot of time asking them, so I say this is from depressing anecdotal experience.) The word “knowledge” will often occur in their answers, but only after several swirls around the “consensus” toilet-bowl. These poor people have been brainwashed by far cleverer and more evil ones into believing firmly that science is about getting everybody to believe the same things, or at least getting enough people on the same page to form a decisive voting bloc and vanquish once and for all the minority who refused to sign on.
It’s not necessarily that they can’t remember being taught truisms like, “science is not about consensus,” as we all learned in school. Almost universally they do remember such ideas, but either don’t take them seriously (and let’s face it, our teachers never really explained why we should do so), or they’ve rationalised them away with the aid of weaselisms and oreskeisms like “sure, science is not TECHNICALLY about consensus, but in a sense, when you think about it, that’s EXACTLY what science is about, because gravity.” So there’s a tension between their vestigial memories of the (very gross) outline of true science and their more recent indoctrination into Post Normal consensualist pseudoscience. This tension can lead grown men and women to significant and often comical difficulty answering questions that my teenage nephew would get right in a couple of seconds.
“into believing firmly that science is about getting everybody to believe the same things,”
Not my impression. Consensus is a side effect of science. It emerges naturally as evidence builds up, as more experts become convinced, and as such it is a valuable indicator for outside observers to gauge the scientific merit of an idea.
Detractors recognize this and have no choice but to attack the very concept of consensus. Usually by crying “galileo” or through misrepresenting consensus as a method rather an indicator.
Brad Keyes said:
“It’s not necessarily that they can’t remember being taught truisms like, “science is not about consensus,” …
…rationalised them away with the aid of weaselisms and oreskeisms like “sure, science is not TECHNICALLY about consensus, but in a sense, when you think about it, that’s EXACTLY what science is about, because gravity.”
.
Thank you Brad.
“because gravity”
So often they do as you wrote.
“It has too been warming lately – because physics”
I am substantiating consensus science with the CSALT model. I have no idea what you are doing, because all you are engaging in is wordy rhetoric.
The Cause of Pause is explained by thermodynamic Laws
http://contextearth.com/2014/01/11/the-cause-of-the-pause-is-due-to-thermodynamic-laws/
WHT said:
“I am substantiating consensus science with the CSALT model. I have no idea what you are doing, because all you are engaging in is wordy rhetoric.”
You don’t understand words? No wonder, then, that you thought you were causing own goals by changing the subject over and over.
lolwot,
It’s good that you know better than to think science aims for, or cares about, consensus.
Less good is that you then opine consensus is valuable evidence which outsiders can make use of. (Actually you called it an “indicator,” but if that doesn’t mean “evidence” then it doesn’t mean anything.)
Believing this would lead to infinite questions, but I’ll just ask you 3:
1. If consensus is useful evidence for outsiders, why did nobody in the history of modern science gather consensus statistics for a scientific field until 2004?
2. If consensus is useful evidence for outsiders, why is climate science the only field of science that has ever gathered consensus statistics?
3. If consensus is useful evidence for outsiders, it should be useful evidence for insiders too, shouldn’t it? Evidence is evidence, after all. But if it is useful evidence, then insiders should use it, shouldn’t they? Scientists think in terms of evidence, after all. But if insiders use consensus as evidence, then their conclusions will be based on what their colleagues think, which will be based on what their colleagues think, which will be based on what their colleagues think, ad infinitum, won’t it? And if the consensus resulting from this infinitely reentrant feedback loop is valuable evidence for us outsiders to use, then what you are asking us outsiders, us humble muggles, to do is to outsource our intellection of the world to an oracular system that is, in fact, no more than a spastic digital flipflop, is it not.
No thank you.
The reductio ad dystopiam outlined above, which has no doubt occurred to every scientist on the planet, is the reason they’ve cultivated and enforced an absolute contempt for consensus for 300 years. Things were going perfectly, too, until Naomi Oreskes decided to fix them.
What do you get when you let a nasty and maladroit orc tamper with the exquisitely-tuned epistemological machinery at the heart of humanity’s greatest invention, the scientific method?
The climate change movement.
Brad Keyes, normally you would need a consensus to translate science into policy. We see this for studies on the effects of drugs, pollutants, poisons, carcinogens, etc.
JimD: how did that consensus on the (bad) science around ulcers, or around vaccines and autism or around DDT work out for us?
What we need first is good science, then policy. The former is lacking in climate.
Jim D:
“normally you would need a consensus to translate science into policy. We see this for studies on the effects of drugs, pollutants, poisons, carcinogens…”
WHAT?
Um, no, Jim D. Not in any universe I’ve ever heard of, or would be caught dead living in.
Here’s an unanswerable question for you:
Name a drug and the percentages of pharmacologists broken down by opinion about the drug’s effects. Or simply point us to the paper in which opinion among the pharmacological community (about the drug in question) are quantified and majority view, i.e. consensus, triangulated.
Never gonna happen. Nothing like this exists anywhere in the annals of pharmacological research and it never will. Pharmacology is a proper science, and would never be stupid enough to determine the balance of evidence by a fucking vote.
Jim D, you say the damndest things. At what point do you poke your head out of the DK vortex of metaignorance long enough to figure out you CAN’T tell people how science works, because you know less about it than people? How many times do you need to immortalise your random misconceptions on the Internet before embarrassment becomes the tutor of naivete?
Brad Keyes, that is an interesting perspective you have. So, if someone finds that a chemical in your food may be a carcinogen, but they are not sure, others verify that, and it is pulled off the market, you don’t call that process of testing and verification consensus-forming. Is this just a definition thing?
Jim D,
Is that done by a vote of a few of the interested parties on their own research?
That is what we’d call corruption of the FDA, not science.
“but they are not sure, others verify that, and it is pulled off the market, you don’t call that process of testing and verification consensus-forming.”
Of course I don’t. I call it scientific replication. But the only reason I use different terminology than you is that I’m speaking English.
‘Is this just a definition thing?”
Interesting question. I suspect it’s more of a dictionary ownership thing, or maybe a passed middle school thing. Either way, some kind of class or culture barrier is involved.
Brad Keyes, OK, so it is just a definitional thing. Here’s a closer analogy. Take a drug, for example. This will have an effective level and a lethal level. These numbers would generally be ranges, not precise, but the official ranges would be a consensus of several studies, and you would never use just one study for something important like this. Now take adding CO2 to the atmosphere. How much is needed to add 1 degree, or how much does the temperature rise if you double it? There again, you get consensus values from different studies. No difference in these uses of the term. The idea carries across any quantitative science.
“Brad Keyes, OK, so it is just a definitional thing.”
Yes, it’s “just” semantics. It’s “just” that what you’re emitting is a series of lies in English, and you “just” haven’t told us yet the name of the language in which you’re not lying. That’s all. An esoteric squabble among online geeks over the one-word difference between “true” and “not true.”
“Here’s a closer analogy.”
Obviously. ANY analogy would be closer. But let’s hear it…
“Take a drug, for example.”
Oh, believe me, there’s nothing I’d love more. Unfortunately recent events in climate science have led to worldwide shelf shortage of Toleranz (or generic forbearin) so I’ll just have to suffer through your migrainous hebetude.
“but the official ranges”
Right, I’m with you, yes, the “official ranges,” with which all medical research is ultimately concerned, if not obsessed. And if the FDA has any mandate, it’s to legislate the material universe, and specifically human biology within the contiguous US. Go on.
“a consensus of several studies,”
This is cerebrally teratomatous, not-even-wrong word salad. Beyond rehabilitation.
Consensus means MAJORITY OPINION.
Scientific articles are made of PAPER.
They do not have NERVOUS SYSTEMS.
They are ANENCEPHALIC.
Move on, Jim D. Put your cringemaking foray into the climate debate behind you, thank whatever deity you tithe that there are thousands of Jim Ds in the phonebook and that your employment prospects haven’t been nixed by this, and move the f____ on with your life. I forgive and forget your existence. Complete amnesty. No hard feelings. Live the rest of your life as well as you can—which is all any of us is asked to do.
Your analogies are goofy, jimmy dee. You should stop now.
It took about a minute on the internet to find an example of what I was talking about. Was I just imagining this? No.
https://www.unimedizin-mainz.de/fileadmin/kliniken/ps/Dokumente/Neurochemisches_Labor/Consensus_2004.pdf
jimmy, jimmy
Try explaining in detail how the process of pharma science is analogous to climate science and maybe it will dawn on you how dumb this. But probably not. That’s all the help I am going to give you.
Or this from the world of toxins. Want more?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19197564
Bottom line. Consensus is used in all fields of science when a precise number does not exist, and in climate science that number is CO2 sensitivity.
Pharma development makes use of experiments called clinical trails that produce actual data from actual doses administered to actual patients. They don’t fart around with scores of alleged computer models and then derive the average out of the freaking spaghetti graph. You need to grow up, jimmy.
Brad Keyes said no one else uses consensuses. I show him they do. End of story. Don, you may want to tell him they do too. He may listen to you.
Both Brad and I have wasted our time with you, jimmy. You are just clowning around. Bye, bye.
Don,
Jim is dead to me now, but there’s so much I wish I’d told him In The Living Years.
I think that is the tragedy of the human condition. We only find the words when it’s too late.
Don, don’t make the same mistake I did. Cherish your own Jim. Be slow to anger, quick to empathize. Bear with his second-language struggles.
He’ll bugger off this mortal coil one day, and when he does, BELIEVE ME: you’ll regret all the things left unsaid, all the confusions left uncorrected, all the delusions left undispelled.
Let’s say, to pick a random example, that Jim gets profoundly mixed up in his head between the ordinary, dictionary, Oreskean meaning of “consensus” as majority opinion on one hand, and its much rarer use in certain systematic-review methodologies.
I implore you: don’t just roll your eyes and walk away every time Jim embarrasses you with his silly ideas in front of your mates.
You’ll never forgive yourself if Jim dies of climate change later that day. Trust me. It will haunt you.
Take the time to explain—reaching down to his verbal level—that there’s a grand canyon between Oreskean/Zimmermanian/Cookian consensus on one hand, which is the imbecilic holding of a scientific plebiscite—or, in an ever more intellectually-delayed variant, the necromantic canvassing of votes from ritually-arranged stacks of woodpulp and ink—and, on the other hand, the exotic (but googleable) use of the same word to refer to a perfectly legitimate protocol, observed by some systematic review panels in some science fields, whereby a small team of domain experts simply invigilates and double-checks the validity of one another’s interpretations and syntheses of the hard corpus of written evidence under consideration.
It may take some time for the grandness of that canyon to sink in, but you’ll never get these moments with Jim back. So no matter how obtuse he seems, bear with him.
Jim D,
You don’t get “consensus studies”. You get studies.
An opinion is formed, but not by a few of those researchers judging their own studies and keeping other research out of the picture. :)
The only way may be via provocation of some sort. Mockery and ridicule are powerful weapons against sensitive egos. Know your adversary, target primary weaknesses and all that sort of stuff…
re Cripwell and Herman Alexander Pope back and forth on debate moderation, Pope said “Mann would likely debate if the right Senator was the Moderator. A Moderator, a Senator, who would cut Dr Curry off anytime he did not like the response she was likely to make next. A Moderator who was there to preach and not to Moderate.”
Mann might like to try to have Candy Crowley be the moderator as she did for Obama in the second Romney – Obama presidential debate in 2012. She was great at running interference for Obama. (How deplorable – I assume at least hope that was her debate moderator role.)
The Wegman report speaks for itself. Mann’s hysterics say the rest. Give it a rest Mann, there’s no avoiding the inevitable conclusions and consequences your “work”.
Tom Austin | January 18, 2014 at 11:41 am |
Yes. What it says is “retracted for plagiarism.”
Bart R. – People can read it for themselves, here, rather than take the word of a sophist like Mann or one of his cult-like defenders. Character assassination, rather than rational discussion, is exactly the point of Judith’s post. I see you use the Micheal Mann method of character assassination, a tell-tale sign of a weak position.
Key conclusion: “Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 [the technical name of Mann’s original Hockey Stick paper]”
Conclusion 1. The politicization of academic scholarly work leads to confusing public debates. Scholarly papers published in peer reviewed journals are considered the archival record of research. There is usually no requirement to archive supplemental material such as code and data. Consequently, the supplementary material for academic work is often poorly documented and archived and is not sufficiently robust to withstand intense public debate. In the present example there was too much reliance on peer review, which seemed not to be sufficiently independent.
Conclusion 2. Sharing of research materials, data, and results is haphazard and often grudgingly done. We were especially struck by Dr. Mann’s insistence that the code he developed was his intellectual property and that he could legally hold it personally without disclosing it to peers. When code and data are not shared and methodology is not fully disclosed, peers do not have the ability to replicate the work and thus independent verification is impossible.
Conclusion 3. As statisticians, we were struck by the isolation of communities such as the paleoclimate community that rely heavily on statistical methods, yet do not seem to be interacting with the mainstream statistical community. The public policy implications of this debate are financially staggering and yet apparently no independent statistical expertise was sought or used.
Conclusion 4. While the paleoclimate reconstruction has gathered much publicity because it reinforces a policy agenda, it does not provide insight and understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change except to the extent that tree ring, ice cores and such give physical evidence such as the prevalence of green-house gases. What is needed is deeper understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change.
Tom Austin | January 19, 2014 at 12:28 pm |
And yet, Wegman’s conclusion flies in the face of every peer-reviewed study since. BEST set out to confirm Wegman, and instead confirmed MBH. Marcott et al. And on and on.
No one with even a passing familiarity with the subject matter has anything but scorn for Wegman, now. Except possibly Wegman and his pals.
Wegman’s “Conclusion 1.” has taken on the pouty profile of what is now called a “selfie”, but we used to call an own goal. Wegman’s “Conclusion 2.” is punctuated by how foot-draggingly Wegman resisted investigation into his own misconduct by his university administration, prolonging what ought have been a twelve week review into a fourteen month ordeal that could not find his thoroughly concealed smoking guns and had to give up.
Perhaps you don’t understand just how damning to a paper plagiarism is, academically outside of GMU’s pal structure. Retracted for plagiarism is a death-knell, and an academic career-ender, and ought be.
Bart R,
“And yet, Wegman’s conclusion flies in the face of every peer-reviewed study since. BEST set out to confirm Wegman, and instead confirmed MBH. Marcott et al.”
What kind of abortive gibberish have you chosen to share with us, and why?
Readers only need to know what Wegman’s report was ABOUT to know you imagined the above events.
That’s the best you can do? Simple sophistry? Ad hominem, appeal to authority, hand waving, etc.
Brad Keyes | January 19, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
Let’s nip this one in the bud before it becomes a Moon Landing Hoax meme.
So.. which event do you claim was imaginary: BEST, Marcott et al, every other peer reviewed study on the matter since Wegman, the retraction of Wegman for plagiarism, the protracted GMU inquest into Wegman’s academic dishonesty?
Because in addition to documents, including discussions on this very blog, there’s pictures and video of all of these things, and while photographs can be photoshopped, faking video is James Cameron-level fakery.
Tom Austin | January 19, 2014 at 4:46 pm |
..sophistry? Ad hominem, appeal to authority, hand waving, etc.
You may want to look up these words and phrases, because with the possible exception of “etc.”, you’re using them wrong.
If you mean more than a drive-by, be specific, Be exact. Cite the part of the passage you wish to criticize and present some reasonable pretext for slapping on any old label you think will perjure it.
The discourse doesn’t need more lowering. So stop lowering it.
Please, by all means, explain the usage and intricacies of hand waving to everyone? Your irrelevant mutterings are of no interest to me.
@Brad Keyes | January 19, 2014 at 2:29 pm and @Tom Austin | January 19, 2014 at 4:46 pm |
Gentlemen,
One of the things I’ve noticed during the course of lurking on many threads here over the years is that there are facts and there are Bartifacts™.
Your respective observations and responses in this particular thread would strongly suggest that you have encountered and are dealing with the latter.
Wow. It’s almost like Bart R is trying to be wrong with everything he says. I couldn’t write such gibberish if I tried. Read this:
And then realize Bart R claims the Wegman Report was retracted. That never happened. Bart R mockingly insists there is proof of something nobody with any sense would claim happened. Bart R dogmatically believes what exists only in his imagination.
And hey, he apparently believes Stephan Lewandowsky’s methodology gives valid results. I wonder if he believes the same with the methodology is shown to “prove” people on his side support genocide.
Come to think of it, Lewandowsky writes similarly insane things. Maybe he and Bart R are related.
http://retractionwatch.com/2012/02/24/climate-science-critic-wegman-reprimanded-by-one-university-committee-while-another-finds-no-misconduct/
The author of a controversial and now-retracted paper questioning the science of climate change has been reprimanded by his university for plagiarism.
Seriously, this is insane. Bart R just linked to a source which not only didn’t say what he claims, but makes it explicitly clear it doesn’t. Bart R quotes its first sentence referring to a “now-retracted paper.” The Wegman Report was not a paper. Had Bart R bothered to read more than one sentence of the piece, he’d have seen this a few lines later:
The source explicitly delineates between the Wegman Report and the paper which was retracted. Not only does Bart R’s source not claim the Wegman Report was retracted, it goes on to further state the Wegman Report contained no misconduct:
As I said, nobody with any sense would claim the Wegman Report was retracted. Bart R did it, but he did so while offering a source which explicitly contradicts him.
Again, Bart R dogmatically believes things which only exist in his imagination. And if one agrees with him that skeptics are conspiracy theorists, he probably supports genocide.
Brandon Shollenberger
Agree you’ve got this one right and Bart R is all screwed up.
The Wegman committee report (and the findings of Mc+Mc) were validated before a congressional committee under oath by a panel from the NAS.
In the process the findings of Mann’s study were totally discredited.
Bart R needs to read Andrew Montford’s book and the congressional record to get up to speed.
Max
manacker, sadly, Bart R will never correct the rampant misapprehensions he posted here. He’ll either double down on them or ignore them. Other people won’t care. The people who like him will ignore it, and the rest will, at most, just shake their heads. There will be no cost or harm to him for saying such ridiculously wrong things nor to him failing to correct them.
I swear, it seems right and wrong have no bearing on anything. Michael Mann can lie as much as he wants. Stephan Lewandowsky can post delusional ramblings and violate ethical principles. They won’t suffer. They’ll get rewarded. Why shouldn’t Bart R’s behavior be just as crazy?
He’s about the dozenth person I’ve seen act in an utterly inexcusable way this weekend. I don’t get it. I need to either scream or consume excessive amounts of booze.
Brandon
chuckr, excellent advice!
Brandon Shollenberger | January 19, 2014 at 6:31 pm |
Hairsplitting.
Bart R made a false claim over and over.
I was just watching him go.
“manacker, sadly, Bart R will never correct the rampant misapprehensions he posted here. He’ll either double down on them or ignore them. Other people won’t care.”
I lost respect for Bart R when he did this and now resists admitting it.
That wasn’t Wegman’s doing, but that of his co-author Said.
rogerknight, doesn’t matter, a small section of the report that many would consider boiler plate or common knowledge was copied without attribution. Therefore Wegman is a “questionable” source. That is how scientific politics is played.
The “skeptics” though aren’t up to speed on that part of the game. If they were, a number of the team would have been charged with copyright infringement and forced to retire.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/16/how-anthony-watts-handled-team-plagiarism/
Since Gavin Schmidt condones copyright infringement, he would not be in a government position, because of comments he made at realclimate. Anthony could have unleashed the hounds of copyright hell on the team. Instead, he showed some class which I doubt that the team and BartR would recognize.
captdallas 0.8 or less | January 20, 2014 at 7:40 am |
In testimony before Congress, you take an oath.
Violating that oath by introducing plagiarism into the Congressional Record is an act of perjury.
The lead author on any paper is responsible for its contents and ultimately responsible for preventing plagiarism.
You can wriggle all you want on Wegman’s behalf, but all you’re doing is making yourselves look soft on crime.
Now, I don’t ally myself with the likes of http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/09/29/206795/wegman-gate-alert-congress-and-the-media/ on any issue, but if you have a problem with what I’ve said, answer Mandia’s arguments in a rational manner, and if you can do that, maybe we’ll have something to discuss. Or oh wait, this is just rehashing a five-year-long online debate that if you’re still upholding Wegman means you went through it all the first time seeing nothing wrong with academic dishonesty or introducing lies to Congress, so it’s unlikely you’ll change now.
The urge to control environment is the same urge over history to control the progress of development and resources reserved only to the king and his royals followers, known in our time as the intellect elite, proven by anecdotal evidence as an oxymoron.
Unless the data meets verifiability by scientific review under the most objective review regimen its conclusions are not to be trusted nor accepted as reliable. Scientific method requires it no matter how many scientist decide to join the prevailing orthodoxy.
Did anyone notice this:
“In fact, there is broad agreement among climate scientists not only that climate change is real (a survey and a review of the scientific literature published say about 97 percent agree), but that we must respond to the dangers of a warming planet. ” = M Mann
where he carefully implies that 97% of scientists are in agreement of danger?
Yup. He implies it without directly stating it, presumably so he has deniability if anyone calls him out on it.
Mann could have probably let that part slide, it’s hard to imagine what kind of climate scientist would think we should ignore the dangers of a warming planet.
“… ignore the dangers of a warming planet.”
Better as: “… ignore the dangers and benefits of a warming planet.”
“Wegman got so carried away with sharing, he took shares of other’s work without giving them credit. He got into some hot water over it.”
Very clever and amusing diversion. Wegman’s plagiarism or otherwise has exactly nothing at all to do with the issue of sharing data.
Stevie Mac saw it. He said it. ‘Nuff said.
=============
There is tremendous irony in Mann’s See it/say it. Who in Climate Science saw the problems in it, and who has said it? Pitifully few.
====================
Lindzen, Curry, perhaps von Storch. There are others that I’m neglecting. It’s historically disgraceful.
=============
JeffID.
Michael Mann is a big fan of global warming hysteric James Hansen. Shocker! Hansen is now retiring… on the eve of what could be the next LIA. Timing is everything.
So Mann is Hansen’s heir-apparent? Lovely. At least Hansen had the courage, however inappropriate it may have been, to get arrested for his beliefs.
Al Gore got their Nobel… what a bummer.
I would not count on Hansen going away. Freed of being a government employee, he has embarked on a global tour advising foreign governments on fossil fuel dangers and advocating for nuclear power.
Mann is also a fan of uber-Malthusian Paul Ehrlich. In his book, he calls him a personal hero.
And, to make their fears come true the doomsday factories of Western academia are turning out dependent, anti-American climate alarmists to assume the role of prosperity’s burden.
Jim D
Nope. But at least he’s no longer on the “gumment” payroll.
Max
Spoken as a Swiss citizen who has zero influence on who we hire to work for us.
And Max was also glad when Einstein left the Swiss government payroll so he could perform more influential work.
He’s on the payroll for the rest of his life.
…like a festering carbuncle on the arse of humanity as the productive gets stuck with the bill.
In fact, there is broad agreement among climate scientists not only that climate change is real (a survey and a review of the scientific literature published say about 97 percent agree)
Of course we agree that climate change is real.
I will go with 97% on that.
I have been studying Climate since 2008 and I have talked to and listened to Hundreds of people, many of whom are scientists, and I have read a lot of scientific literature and I cannot find those 97 percent that think man caused the climate change with CO2.
They have 97 percent only by not counting any who disagree. The 97 percent clique is getting rapidly smaller.
To get 97 percent, they started with several thousand and finally counted 97 percent of less than a hundred that qualified in their clique.
HSPope. Point well taken. The 97% figure includes many who are not qualified to speak on whether climate is changing “primarily” and with 95% certainty by human activity. Survey is structured to provide the desired response. If you breakdown the respondees by qualified to make opinion or not the profile is totally changed. I study the mating behavior of the tit mouse in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. I believe climate change is occurring in the Canadian Rocky Mountains … the tit mouse reproductive behavior has changed and I believe it is due to climate change. So what. Linking tit mouse reproduction to climate change requires scientific data not opinion. Linking global mean temperature change to man made greenhouse gases requires scientific data that also accounts for the effects of all other causes including natural causes; such data must also enable strong inferences on the isolated effect of manmade GHGs apart from all other causes. That’s called “validation of attribution.” Opinion that is based on opinion but not facts is nothing more than propaganda. Someone taking positions based on opinions and beliefs should not be called scientists but something else, i.e., “politicians.” Talking points are disingenuous non- or half-truths. As in “if you like your healthplan/ doctor, you can keep your healthplan/ doctor. Facts always win over propaganda, and chickens eventually come home to roost.
Oxford historian Norman Davis’ five basic rules of propaganda in “Europe – a History,” Oxford Press, 1996, pp 500-501):
• Simplification – reducing all information to a simple confrontation between ‘Good and Bad’, ‘Friend and Foes’, ‘Virtue vs. Evil’
• Disfiguration – discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies
• Transfusion – manipulating consensus values of the audience for one’s own end and point of view, to achieve one’s own objective
• Unanimity – presenting one’s viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people; appealing to “star- performers,” use of social pressure and ‘psychological contagion’
• Orchestration- endlessly repeating the same message in different variations.
Universal principles refined by such as Joseph Stalin, Willi Münzenberg and Joseph Goebbles. The consensus use of ad hominem for “deniers” is reflective of Bertolt Brecht’s description of Stalin’s victims … “(t)he more innocent they are the more they deserve to be shot.”
Excellent post
So what did you think of the Nile problem? Trying to brush it all aside as coincidental is what i have come to expect from the true believers.
Good answer Ms Curry.
I’m waiting for Mann’s answers if he ave the bollocks.
On another subject where the consensus is skepticism, despite major evidences Charles Beaudette write a little description of what he calls skeptics (translate here in True Believers)…
In general, [pathological] skeptics (resp. true believer) display the following habits.
1. They do not express their criticism in those venues where it will be subject to peer review.
2. They do not go into the laboratory and practice the experiment along side the practitioner (as does the critic).
3. Assertions are offered as though they were scientifically based when they are merely guesses.
4. Questions are raised that concern matters outside of the boundaries of the claimed observation.
5. Satire, dismissal, and slander are freely employed.
6. When explanations are advanced for a possible source, ad hoc reasons are instantly presented for their rejection. These rejections often assert offhand that the explanation violates some physical conservation law.
7. Evidence raised in support of the claims is rejected outright if it does not answer every possible question. No intermediate steps to find a source are acceptable
note also that maybe they will burn you as a witch if they cannot silence you.
they already burns books
http://motls.blogspot.fr/2014/01/agw-inquisition-burns-journal-pattern.html
http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/
Bon courage.
I have continuously made every effort to have my climate research dealt with responsibly by your super fraudsters posing as scientists. With rare exception they manufacture a barrage of irrelevant or in many cases fictional arguments to avoid having to deal with facts that diverge from their career path. I have had no difficulty approaching the police and public prosecuted trying to have the matter dealt with in the appropriate environment: a criminal court.
Judith, I could be more sympathetic if you had never said unkind things about Michael Mann in the past, or didn’t host a blog where denizens regularly attack Mann with outrageous accusations. I know from personal experience how difficult it is to turn the other cheek, but that might have been the better road for you to take when he accused you of being anti-science.
Some time ago an article in the Scientific American asked whether Judith Curry is a PEACEMAKER, “someone who might be able to restore some civility to the debate and edge the public toward meaningful action, or a DUPE, “someone whose well-meaning efforts have only poured fuel on the fire.” The article concluded “In a sense, the two competing storylines about Judith Curry—peacemaker or dupe?—are both true.”
Judith, IMO, you are drifting away from being a peacemaker. Please turn back.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic
You’d be more sympathetic if she had never said unkind things about him? What, if she says anything remotely unkind about a person, you won’t have much sympathy when they call her anti-science? That’s weird.
More importantly, Michael Mann said unkind things about Curry time and time again. He was attacking her long before she was “mean” to him. He deserves no leniency because a person he attacked “fought back.”
“Judith, IMO, you are drifting away from being a peacemaker.”
____
That’s not why she was “tapped” to testify in D.C. Being a “contrarian” was more important than any potential “peacemaking”. The Republicans and Democrats are really interested in peacemaking at this point.
Of course that should have been;
“The Republicans and Democrats AREN’T really interesting in peacemaking at this point…”
I disagree. The policy decision are too important and could dramatically affect too many lives, so a responsible scientist shouldn’t just go along with the herd so they can have happy sing-alongs at academic conferences.
From my perspective as an engineer, you don’t trade away truth to reduce friction in the engineering office at the cost of real world deaths where your equipment is used. Professional responsibility demands that you speak up about what is known and what remains uncertain, and if it makes some people uncomfortable around the coffee machine, so be it.
Going the other way is just hiding serious doubts so the flock won’t question the infallibility of the one true church. As a citizen, I don’t care if climatologists all like each other, I care that they respect truth, data, the scientific method, and professional integrity
I’m afraid Dr. Mann falls far short of my perhaps unrealistic expectations.
Brandon Shollenberger said in his post on January 18, 2014 at 12:33 pm
“More importantly, Michael Mann said unkind things about Curry time and time again. He was attacking her long before she was “mean” to him.”
______
Brandon, I don’t know who started. I don’t know who escalated it. Do you have the chronology?
Max_OK, I could write one up if I wanted to go pull references. I don’t see it as being worthwhile though. Michael Mann has vehemently attacked plenty of people who haven’t treated him in kind. He has been unquestionably worse to our host than she has been to him. He actively encourages hostility in the global warming debate.
There is no reason to give him any leniency. The only notable thing about how people treat him is, by far and large, people treat him far more nicely than he deserves.
The Republicans and Democrats are not really interested in peacemaking at this point.
They should never be really interested in just peacemaking.
They disagree because we disagree and this government is based on compromises to disagreements.
That is as it should be.
I am not interested in peacemaking at this point.
I want get to the Truth about Climate and I want Congress to pass laws based on Truth.
We do not have truth about climate yet.
Max, two things:
1. Judith can’t be responsible for what some people say on the blog, unless she wants to have very few comments. Many commenters here — and this is one of the more polite blogs, by quite a margin, compare to WUWT for example — do say nasty things about people on one side or the other. Don’t blame Judith.
2. Don’t confuse criticism of what someone like Mann says scientifically, or what they say about how scientists should act, or about how someone like Mann acts, with saying unkind things about someone like Mann personally. The commenters certainly say unkind things, but unless I’ve missed something, Judith sticks to criticizing actions or statements or behavior, but doesn’t call people names.
FWIW, I’m still astounded that Mann still gets away with what he says. The hockey stick said there was no LIA, no Medieval Warming Period. Both have now been restored to the satisfaction of most observers, some of in papers by his co-authors on the hockey stick. If someone on the skeptic side had been disproven so dramatically, we wouldn’t hear the end of it, and quite legitimately.
But I don’t see anyone in the MSM or the environmental press saying, “Wait, this guy published a hockey stick that created a temperature history that was false; he hid his data, some of it in a file called “Censored” in which he placed model runs that showed that he know the hockey stick was dependent on just one or two sets of tree rings, out of many; he was head of the IPCC working group that kept tried to keep articles out of publication in a time frame so that they wouldn’t have to be considered by his working group (successfully, I think); so why is it that people still treat him as if he is on a pedestal, and don’t point out that his main scientific “achievement” has been disproven?”
Note that I’m trying not to say nasty things about Mann ad hominem, as in he’s a jerk — I’m disparaging his untrustworthy and anti-science actions, not the person. Different things.
A clarification. Michael Mann didn’t hide data in the CENSORED directory. The data in that directory also existed in the main directory for his data. Instead of having extra data in it, the CENSORED directory had less data in it. Specifically, 20 tree ring series were removed.
The reason this matters is when those 20 tree ring series were removed, Mann’s methodology did not produce a hockey stick. The CENSORED directory showed he tested the methodology without those tree ring series. That shows Mann knew his results stemmed entirely from those 20 series. Mann even admits this same point in the book he published a couple years ago.
That means it is undeniable the iconic hockey stick was dependent entirely upon a small amount of tree ring data* from one part of North America. There is no way a hemispheric temperature reconstruction should rely entirely upon data from one small region.
Even worse, MBH98 explicitly stated its temperature reconstruction was robust to the removal of tree ring data. We know that to be false. Michael Mann admits it is false. Mann admits he knew it was false 15 years ago. Despite that, he and his defenders have consistently argued against critics who said it. Mann has never made any effort to correct people’s impression of his work. In fact, he has actively sought to mislead people by claiming tree ring data wasn’t vital even though he knew that to be false.
*The types of trees these series were taken from are known to be bad proxies for temperature. The National Academy of Science panel convened to investigate temperature reconstructions explicitly said they should not be used as temperature proxies.
I didn’t follow the ClimateGate but the term “censored” has very precise meanings in statistics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censoring_%28statistics%29
We are always dealing with limited, i.e. censored, data. The censoring of tree-ring data I imagine had to do with recent years where the rings are still in the formative stage. A scientist censors that because it is not well characterized.
In my CSALT analysis of global temperature series, I was tempted to censor the data in the WWII years between the dates of 1941 and 1945 due to clearly biased temperature readings, but I was able to estimate an offset that allowed me to correct for that data instead of completely eliminating those values from the analysis.
You can see that in the following CSALT fit
http://imageshack.com/a/img20/9572/sz4.gif
Do you think Michael Mann reads Forbes–e.g.,
The German Herald reported on March 31, 2013,
“German meteorologists say that the start of 2013 is now the coldest in 208 years – and now German media has quoted Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov from the St. Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory [saying this] is proof as he said earlier that we are heading for a “Mini Ice Age.” Talking to German media the scientist who first made his prediction in 2005 said that after studying sunspots and their relationship with climate change on Earth, we are now on an ‘unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop.’”
Faith in Global Warming is collapsing in formerly staunch Europe following increasingly severe winters which have now started continuing into spring. Christopher Booker explained in The Sunday Telegraph on April 27, 2013,
“Here in Britain, where we had our fifth freezing winter in a row, the Central England Temperature record – according to an expert analysis on the US science blog Watts Up With That – shows that in this century, average winter temperatures have dropped by 1.45C, more than twice as much as their rise between 1850 and 1999, and twice as much as the entire net rise in global temperatures recorded in the 20th century.”
science vs anti-science
Consensus is anti-science
Science is ALWAYS skeptic
Be afraid – reduced arctic Ice can mean enlarged sea currents carrying cold water from the north come into the North Atlantic arena. Something like this happened in the early 1970s where a general warming trend produced a temporary cold spell. The deciding factor is equitotial Atlantic SST s. the general trend is upward and has been thus since mid 60s.
Much as I despise ad hominem comments, one of the 95% probability truths I have learned during my 5+ decades in both science, senior management & board-level consultancy is that short men, wearing facial hair, who stamp their feet (physically or metaphorically), and fake CVs/resumés (such as “Nobel prize winner”) and who resort to name calling/finger pointing/litigation, cannot be trusted to be reasonable or rational when challenged.
Dear MM: Seen it, said it.
You forgot to include “small feet” in the equation.
Ad homs. Warmist scientists surely have inservice training for it. They all do it and with such alacrity. Given their obsession of reaching and influencing the public, you would think they would know it is a complete turnoff.
Yeah, I can tell that you were just completely broken up by writing that, but somehow managed to persevere. It’s clear just how much you despise ad homs.
Judith –
Hmmmm..
Wouldn’t focusing on the uncertainties, in a comprehensive manner, require some discussion of OHC? Yet you didn’t speak to that.
Must have been an oversight, eh?
I agree and appreciate you hammering away at this because the uncertainty of delta OHC is a very important component required to figure out how to properly nail this very important metric of climate.
Thanks, Howard.
Of course it is an important component of the uncertainty. For Judith to omit any mention of it in a talk that focused on uncertainty and “the hiatus in warming,” seems to me to be advocacy, normative, and not consistent with her philosophy about the importance of foregrounding uncertainties so as to avoid misinterpretation.
Now some would justify the selectivity of her approach on the basis of “they did it first,” or something along those lines (heh). I fund such an explanation to perhaps be accurate in terms of why she did was she did, but lacking in terms of explaining why she didn’t do otherwise.
Joshua, are you Joshua as in Joshua?
I’d like to know what you think of the first 2 sentences of the article.
Do you agree that Mann is arguing from consensus?
Were you aware that in science, opinion (e.g. consensus) is not evidence?
Do you agree that in arguing from opinion, Mann is passing it off as if it were a form of evidence?
If so, then Mann is perpetrating disinformation; can you think of any reason why this attempt to delude you and the rest of the NYTimes readership shouldn’t cost Mann his job?
Hey Brad –
Yes, it be I.
I have no defense of Mann’s approach to these issues in general. For example, I think that the “anti-science” rhetoric is empty and tribal – of the sort that I typically see form “skeptics.”
That said, I think that some aspects of his editorial are fine – specifically the discussion about the part about scientists engage in public debate.
I think that you and I have discussed the question of “consensus” in the past, haven’t we? If we have, it may not be worthwhile to repeat the discussion as I doubt our perspectives have changed – but in short, my opinion is that the notion of “consensus” has been exploited, fallaciously, by both sides in the climate wars.
Hi Joshua,
Apologies, but I remember almost nothing about you (and certainly not your views on this question) except that you were nice and reasonable, and that we never got to a conclusion.
So perhaps I shouldn’t have administered a whole battery of questions to you. Let me try again.
I’d like to know what you think of the first 2 sentences of the article.
Do you agree that Mann is arguing from consensus?
I agree that reducing uncertainty in OHC is a primary goal to substantiating the surface temperature trends.
I can straightforwardly model the globally averaged surface temperature series because the epistemic errors are so small (except for an interval during WWII which can be compensated). However, the noise in the OHC completely obscures the details — if there are any. The ocean is so immense in terms of a heat sink that the thermal capacity should buffer many of the sudden changes in forcing, especially at depth. In other words, the effective thermal diffusion will create profiles that are more gradual than the surface temperature profiles. Yet one looks at the OHC plots and they need decadal averaging to draw out trends.
she did not focus on “that” in a comprehensive manner.
Duh! There was not a lot of time!
She does not talk as fast as Andrew.
And, Andrew was not comprehensive about anything.
Brad –
I think that those two sentences boil down to an argument I’ve read probably hundreds of times, so I’m not clear why in this case it should be of particular note.
At any rate, is he “arguing from consensus?” I don’t want to be evasive, but it’s a bit hard to say.
Certainly, it is a logical fallacy to argue that if a “consensus” agrees on something (assuming that there is), it must therefore be true.
I think that “skeptics” have a point that sometimes “realists” border on that fallacy when they speak of “consensus.”
But on the other hand, I have seen probably hundreds of times “skeptics” over-reach in arguing about that fallacy to exploit a fallacious argument of their own: An argument that fallaciously ignores that: (a) view that predominates among “experts” is relevant for evaluating probabilities, particularly for those who aren’t skilled or smart enough to evaluate the science on their own (the vast majority of the public, including myself) and, (b) sometimes when “realists” are speaking about consensus, they are referring to that perfectly valid meaning of consensus, and not the fallacious meaning attributed to them by “skeptics.”
I think that Mann, while he would not likely say that a predominant agreement among experts is dispositive, does border on a fallacious exploitation of the notion of “consensus” – as a rhetorical device. Of course, there are many examples of fallacious reasoning about “consensus” on the other side – and I have seen it here many times including coming from Judith. But I will be explicit – fallacious reasoning on one side in no way justifies fallacious reasoning on the other side. It makes no sense to say that Mann’s exploitative use of “consensus” is justified by “skeptics” (or Judith’s) fallacious exploitation of consensus. But my point there is that just as I don’t think that Judith should be fired for her fallacious reasoning, I don’t think that it is a fire-able offense on Mann’s part.
Joshua,
thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, in your effort to be helpful, reasonable, nuanced, thoughtful and philosophical, you’ve managed to ignore my question. In short, you are acting like a typical Humanities graduate, which is not necessarily a bad thing—in fact it’s usually a great thing—and I am one, so I’m allowed to make jokes about them—but I’m going to need to ask you to suppress this instinct if we’re to get anywhere. I dimly recall that you and I once spend a couple of days talking at cross purposes and would like to avoid a recurrence of that. But I don’t know how to do so, other than rephrasing my question in a way that avoids certain Philosophy-exam stimulus words:
Do you think that, in the first 2 sentences of the article, Michael Mann offers consensus as a reason why the reader ought to believe in some idea?
Note that I didn’t ask whether Mann is being fallacious (he isn’t, by the way), or whether someone else was fallacious, or whether two rights make a wrong, or anything like that. I also didn’t use the words “proof” or “dispositive.”
I implore you to read the question again and give your honest reaction to the question, not your thoughts on whatever topics you think the question raises.
I know this is taking a long time but I think it will be worth it if we put in the effort.
Again, what I’m curious about is:
Do you think that, in the first 2 sentences of the article, Michael Mann offers consensus as a reason why the reader ought to believe in some idea?
Thanks again,
Brad
Brad –
You changed the question. The first question (Do you agree that Mann is arguing from consensus?), IMO was ambiguous, and so my answer needed to be more wide-ranging. What does “arguing from consensus mean?”
Now you have asked me a different question: (“Do you think that, in the first 2 sentences of the article, Michael Mann offers consensus as a reason why the reader ought to believe in some idea?”)
The answer to that question is entirely straightforward and obvious – (as was, IMO, your 2nd question).
Yes, of course he offers consensus as a reason why the reader ought to accept his (i.e., “the consensus”) views on climate change.
Joshua,
“You changed the question.”
Well I rephrased it, evidently for the better, since you were able to answer it. Thanks and apologies for the suboptimal initial version of the question. Looking back, I accept that the confusion was just as likely my fault as yours. So it’s nice of you to keep cooperating. (I remembered that you were nice!)
Gotta go, but would like to ask you a follow-up next time.
Brad
Joshua, I agree with you on your past comments that you are not a scientist and wonder on the wisdom of your introducing OHC as a red herring since you do not even know the metrics to measure it in and who measures it and how often. Or am I mistaken?
On the other hand you are a good stirrer, you really got Dana real good (afcw) and I am still in awe at that .
angech –
The issue related to the metrics used to measure OHC are part of the uncertainty – an important aspect of the uncertainty that Judith selectively omitted in her testimony.
Do you not agree that OHC an important aspect of uncertainty, particularly as w/r/t the focus of much of Judith’s testimony: “The hiatus in warming?”
So, Josh, what shift occurred around 17 years ago which caused the tropospheric warming to slow down to a crawl, while allowing the oceans to continue to accumulate energy unimpeded?
phatboy –
Joshua –
We don’t know that any more than we know that the earlier warming, or much of it, wasn’t the result of a cyclical process which is now returning to its earlier state.
Talking about a hiatus is much more truthful than making all sorts of nebulous excuses about what might or might not be happening, when we simply don’t know.
As I’ve often said, being right for the wrong reasons is arguably worse for the standing of science than being wrong.
phatboy –
Talking about a “hiatus” w/o clearly stating a hiatus in what, (long-term trend of significant increase in surface air warming only, long-term trend of significant increase in energy imbalance?) is an insufficient treatment of uncertainty. It does not live up to the standards that Judith says that others should aspire to (as indeed, they should).
You notion of “excuses” seems tribal to me in that it assigns motives.
Not at all. People just don’t like to admit that they simply don’t know – especially in front of a congressional hearing.
Joshua, OHC important, not really because no one has or can measure it properly (as proven by It not being used by the IPCC , Trenberth et al. If it had been measurable and useful it would already have been used and Judith would have mentioned it as well.
It’s only use has been to have been missing when needed, like open water in the ANtarctic say or the hot spot or ……
You really need a different snark today.
*sigh*
Dr. Curry, please don’t become a Peter Lang caricature, making something out of what was said that wasn’t in it, refusing to see and understand what actually was said, throwing around hurt feelings when caught out, and becoming a spectacle.
Throwing down gauntlets? Seriously?
Either your work stands on its own merits, or it doesn’t.
I know if my work were criticized by any PhD in the field, I’d take the criticism as a learning opportunity. If it were propagandized by any propagandist in any field, I’d carefully make an effort to disentangle it from the propaganda, and leave the world to judge. You have to decide if Dr. Mann is wearing his world-renowned expert-in-his-field hat, or his propaganda hat, or both.
Then respond accordingly. Does your presentation and testimony require you to clarify the points Dr. Mann’s criticisms are pertinent to? Then clarify and let the clarification be the challenge to the charge, not some reckless stunt.
Gauntlets, bets, all these cheap carnival tricks and shticks just lower the discourse. Does this discourse really need more lowering?
Bart –
You forget that “bridge-building” and challenges to bets = same, same but different.
Bart R says:
“Dr. Curry, please don’t become a Peter Lang caricature, making something out of what was said that wasn’t in it, refusing to see and understand what actually was said, throwing around hurt feelings when caught out, and becoming a spectacle.”
*****
This is classic Bart R. He insinuates that Dr. Curry is “making something out of what was said that wasn’t in it, refusing to see and understand what actually was said, throwing around hurt feelings when caught out, and becoming a spectacle.”
She has done no such thing and disingenuous Bart R. knows that full well. He is a stumblebum propagandist – no more and no less.
jim2 | January 18, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
Insinuate? I flat out say it. Maybe you should look up more of the words you use.. as so few of them make any sense when you do use them.
Dirty pool like calling out JC using dirty pool propaganda tricks in senate testimonies but then chastising her for defending same testimonial against anti-science labeling from a dirty pool playing peer? Huh, seems like no matter what JC does, it’s the wrong approach Bart. One could start to form the opinion you advocate against JC.
Look Bart, there have been times when commenters here have misrepresented your ideas… Right? Have you never asked them for evidence to back up those assertions? How would you answer the criticism of being anti-science? Was her testimony really anti-science? What’s wrong with asking for the evidence to back up has statement, cause he has to play by the same rules too… Doesn’t he?
John Carpenter | January 18, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
I generally try to do correspondents the courtesy of a reply or explanation where in a goodwill reading I can find anything worth clarifying. However, there’s no goodwill reading for Dr. Mann’s comments that leads one to expect an explanation. Dr. Mann referred to #Science and #AntiScience, not “Science” and “Anti-science”. That’s all the definition a person needs to know, by following the link and reading the topical threads. Making out as if what Mann said has context outside of Twitter is just plain madness.
So if Dr. Mann comes out and publishes some criticism of Dr. Curry’s testimony in some other format, for example in a blog, then Dr. Curry’s demands for Dr. Mann’s attention are merited. Until then, a tweet for a tweet.
And when I know there is no goodwill left in any potential exchange, I generally just drop it. I’d think if Dr. Curry feels defamed, she’s aware of the remedies, and their cost. Whatever else, I see no win in this for Dr. Curry’s current course, and think she ought obtain advice if she chooses to proceed, considering the other party is known to be litigious.
Re litigation, i personally can’t be bothered, but I am happy if MM’s libelous statements about me can help Mark Steyn’s defense.
Bart R, Douanier of Speech.
=============
“Making out as if what Mann said has context outside of Twitter is just plain madness.”
Oh…so twitterland has its own rules. Ok, What’s said in the twitter sphere stays in the twitter sphere… Wink wink. Yeah… Don’t tell Willard.
Bart, that is a lame excuse ….don’t you think? What other context can we ascribe to the tweet when it was in direct reference to Judy’s recent testimony vs Dessler
A tweet for a tweet
Yes, I can see how JC tweeting back a similar #onewordinsult would be considered elevating the discourse.
curryja | January 18, 2014 at 5:54 pm |
See, for example, had Dr. Curry taken advice from someone qualified, they may have advised our host not make such a statement inviting her involvement in that other matter. Or not. I’m not a lawyer, and have no qualifications to discuss the implications of an expert testifying before Congress seeking to link that activity to the defense of a civil suit.
Fortunately, as an anonymous comment-writer making no specific claims of authority or special knowledge or privilege or status, I’m free from most such concerns, and guided only by common sense. After all, nothing I say can harm or save anyone’s reputation or bring their income or the fairness of their dealings into doubt.
John Carpenter | January 18, 2014 at 7:39 pm |
“What other context can we ascribe to the tweet when it was in direct reference to Judy’s recent testimony vs Dessler” ?
Other interpretations of Mann’s Science=Dessler/AntiScience=Curry?
How be that Dessler’s presentation followed the principles of #Science as Mann and Twitter understand it, and Curry’s had the opposite foundation, or #AntiScience as Twitter understands it?
What are the principles upon which Dr. Curry’s testimony is founded? That so long as some open-ended and constantly shifting “uncertainty” might apply, then no policy response ought be made?
How isn’t that #AntiScience?
“What are the principles upon which Dr. Curry’s testimony is founded? That so long as some open-ended and constantly shifting “uncertainty” might apply, then no policy response ought be made?”
Huh, so now the uncertainty JC highlights is really a ‘no policy response’. Funny, I have never seen JC advocate for a ‘no policy response’. I’ve seen her opine about ‘no regrets’ policies… But none at all? Some might view unsubstantiated assertions as dirty pool Bart.
#makingthingsup = #antiscience
John Carpenter | January 18, 2014 at 8:06 pm |
Are you saying Jim Inhofe would have no regrets about meaningful policy action while any uncertainty of any description remains?
That Dr. Curry’s testimony points the way to any plausible policy action whatsoever?
By all means, list the specific policy actions so endorsed.
PCAST
The six key components are:
*Focus on national preparedness for climate change, which can help decrease damage from extreme weather events now and speed recovery from future damage;
*Continue efforts to decarbonize the economy, with emphasis on the electricity sector;
*Level the playing field for clean-energy and energy-efficiency technologies by removing regulatory obstacles, addressing market failures, adjusting tax policies, and providing time-limited subsidies for clean energy when appropriate;
*Sustain research on next-generation clean-energy technologies and remove obstacles for their eventual deployment;
*Take additional steps to establish U.S. leadership on climate change internationally; and
*Conduct an initial Quadrennial Energy Review.
“Who knows how this will play out, but the PCAST effort seems to be a step in the right direction.” – Judith Curry
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/05/u-s-climate-policy-discussion-thread/
===================================
Simultaneously Mitigating Near-Term Climate Change and Improving Human Health and Food Security
First, this is a good example of a no-regrets policy, one that is relatively inexpensive with ancillary benefits for human health and development. I suspect that political opposition to this should be pretty small, at least relative to political opposition to stabilizing CO2.
Second, walking before you run is a good strategy. Lets see if we can actually influence the climate in the expected way by reducing the methane and black soot. Not to mention exercise and test the efficacy of international cooperation and actions to reduce greenhouse gases.
Third, this would provide a very interesting short-term climate experiment to test our models and understanding. – Judith Curry
http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/18/climate-fast-attack-plan/
==============================
Climate Pragmatism
“So what’s not to like about Climate Pragmatism? The no regrets aspect of this implies that nothing is lost and there are still benefits if the threat doesn’t materialize. If it becomes increasingly apparent with time that the threat is of a serious magnitude, then we have taken the first steps towards addressing the threat. David Roberts and Jim Hansen seems to get this (although his carbon fee approach is not no regrets but relatively low regrets , and whether it is feasible to implement and would actually work is debatable).” -Judith Curry
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/31/climate-pragmatism/
Yeah Bart, no response policies has been what JC is all about… if you consider the only policy response should be to focus solely on mitigating CO2.
There is more if you like…
Bart R,
Your comment suggests you must be feeling rather hurt by having your beliefs in carbon taxes in general and the BC carbon tax in particular discredited so convincingly by many well supported comments on this thread: http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/14/open-thread-5/#comment-436777
And then you made a complete ass of yourself with this comment which, when asked, you were unable to support:
When asked to state what were your specific criticisms all you could provide was an ad homs rant: http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/16/senate-epw-hearing-on-the-presidents-climate-action-plan/#comment-438094
Typical!
Bart: “Either your work stands on its own merits, or it doesn’t.”
Indeed. Hence, JC: ” … I expect you to (publicly) document and rebut any statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide.”
Sounds like “on it’s own merits” to me…
My previous comment was replying to this comment of Bart R’s:
John Carpenter | January 18, 2014 at 10:40 pm |
It sounds so much better coming from you than from me.
If only it came out more strongly in Dr. Curry’s testimony, say on pages 12 and 13.
BUT IT DID NOT. AT ALL. JUST THE OPPOSITE.
See, that’s why Dr. Curry’s testimony galls me: Dr. Curry’s own best judgment is better than what she produced, and what Congress has before it falls short of what Dr. Curry could have said, with the addition of only a few short lines, or the revision of only a few imprudent ones.
I can’t help admire, the way everyone in my country admires the Anzacs, Bart R’s Two Englishes theory bravely, suicidally attempting to mitigate Mann’s defamatory tweet. If only Rand Simberg had done his PhD in Linguistics too! Then he’d have known to write that “Michael Mann #isthe #JerrySandusky #OfClimateScience” and nobody would be cross at him right now.
Brad Keyes | January 19, 2014 at 10:11 pm |
http://cei.org/adjunct-scholar/rand-simberg
A native of Flint, Michigan, he has multiple engineering degrees from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and an MSE in technical management from West Coast University in Los Angeles.
Is he hiding his light under a basket? MSE is not the same as PhD. And as much as I revere the blue and gold, degrees in both auto body repair and oil change, or whatever his actual qualifications the vague phrase ‘multiple engineering degrees’ refers to, do not stack up to a PhD either. So perhaps you could clarify what you’re trying to claim on Mr. Simberg’s behalf, other than linguistic incompetency and a tendency to defame people?
Bart R,
I amend “his” —> “a” in light of your prolix, irrelevant excuse for a rebuttal.
“So perhaps you could clarify what you’re trying to claim on Mr. Simberg’s behalf, other than linguistic incompetency and a tendency to defame people?”
I could, but I won’t. If your present obtuseness is unfeigned, you shouldn’t be debating. Even the Internet has standards.
Bart R,
You’ve never told me what you do, but it sounds as though your work involves regular use of the genetic fallacy and credential calculus:
“I know if my work were criticized by any PhD in the field, I’d take the criticism as a learning opportunity.”
Whereas I’m sure you always do your best to avoid learning from criticisms originating beneath you or in the department down the hall.
Don’t worry, such a pompous cognitive style would get beaten out of you in no time if you had to live, hunt, feed and research among scientists.
But in the interim it might explain your apparent pride in, and satisfaction with, that inane gotcha regarding Simberg’s qualifications.
My faith demands of me one act of charity per day, which I force myself to do mainly so God will shut up.
Today I will [try to] clear up one of your erroneous beliefs about Wegman. Nobody else appears to have dealt with it except by laughing (along with me). There’s a meme to the effect that you’re a “propagandist” but I don’t really know you and would prefer to assume you’re sincerely confused.
“And yet, Wegman’s conclusion flies in the face of every peer-reviewed study since. BEST set out to confirm Wegman, and instead confirmed MBH. Marcott”
Wegman studied the internal validity of MBH—its statistical reasoning, prorgrammatic correctness, the honesty [or otherwise] of its disclosure, etc.
The other papers studied TREE RINGS. And swamp varves. And stalactites. And stalagmites. And cave guano.
So it’s incoherent to claim that Wegman’s conclusions “flew in the face of,” or that they were gloriously vindicated by, those of BEST, Marcott et al., and “every peer-reviewed study since.”
Do you comprehend this yet?
Brad Keyes | January 20, 2014 at 11:03 am |
You’ve never told me what you do,
We don’t have that kind of relationship. I suggest you try http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/12/the-denizens-of-climate-etc/ as a start.
but it sounds as though your work involves regular use of the genetic fallacy and credential calculus:
“I know if my work were criticized by any PhD in the field, I’d take the criticism as a learning opportunity.”
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
For a certain reading, you’d be right. Read harder. Sometimes, the learning opportunity is for me. Sometimes it’s for the PhD. Sometimes it’s for the people I hang the PhD out to dry in front of, for their edification. Or have you not noticed this yet? And oh, I don’t really let PhD status determine which, but content of the comment. Have you noticed, I don’t put any letters after my name at all, other than “R”?
Whereas I’m sure you always do your best to avoid learning from criticisms originating beneath you or in the department down the hall.
Wow. With such reading skills, how do you cross the street? When the sign says “Don’t Walk”, do you contemplate hopping, skipping and jumping into traffic?
Don’t worry, such a pompous cognitive style would get beaten out of you in no time if you had to live, hunt, feed and research among scientists.
Bzzt. I hunt bigger game, generally, but I’m comfortable among scientists, too. You’re on the wrong track, Intrepid.
But in the interim it might explain your apparent pride in, and satisfaction with, that inane gotcha regarding Simberg’s qualifications.
My faith demands of me one act of charity per day, which I force myself to do mainly so God will shut up.
So.. what does God’s voice sound like? Do you hear other voices in your head, too? And you call me pompous?
Today I will [try to] clear up one of your erroneous beliefs about Wegman. Nobody else appears to have dealt with it except by laughing (along with me). There’s a meme to the effect that you’re a “propagandist” but I don’t really know you and would prefer to assume you’re sincerely confused.
You may want to familiarize yourself with the word ‘meme’. You’re using it wrong. And not in the cute way.
“And yet, Wegman’s conclusion flies in the face of every peer-reviewed study since. BEST set out to confirm Wegman, and instead confirmed MBH. Marcott”
Wegman studied the internal validity of MBH—its statistical reasoning, prorgrammatic correctness, the honesty [or otherwise] of its disclosure, etc.
The other papers studied TREE RINGS. And swamp varves. And stalactites. And stalagmites. And cave guano.
So it’s incoherent to claim that Wegman’s conclusions “flew in the face of,” or that they were gloriously vindicated by, those of BEST, Marcott et al., and “every peer-reviewed study since.”
Do you comprehend this yet?
The conclusions of MBH have been resoundingly and convincingly independently verified over, and over, and over again, on the instrumental and dozens of proxy records distinct from the MBH proxy, most carefully avoiding any of the traps Wegman supposed MBH suffered. Far be it from me to suggest that getting the right answer for the wrong reason justifies the method, but we’re down to no more than Wegman’s word that MBH is methodologically flawed. And we now know Wegman to be a plagiarist who bent over backwards using every trick in the arsenal of a creative manipulator to achieve his results.
Wegman hypocritically claimed to study internal validity, on spurious and plagiarized grounds. Do you have the least grasp on how completely that very act invalidates his perjured testimony to Congress? If you have trouble with it, ask God. And maybe get an audio recording of the conversation.
The major anti-science I see taking place in the AGW debate is that consensus climate scientists like Dessler are actually believing the output of un-validated climate models to raise their own and the general public’s alarm. No other branch of engineering, science or finance, where critical decisions affecting public safety and well-being are made on the basis of computer model simulation output, would dare use un-validated model output as a basis for the decision. In most cases they are prevented by government regulation (eg. the FAA) or Professional Engineering and financial advisor Codes of Conduct.
How many of these climate scientists would board a commercial airliner, cross a large bridge or enter a skyscraper if they knew critical design decisions had been made using output of un-validated computer models that had never shown any skill in predicting actual strength of the design? Many recent peer-reviewed published papers on GHG climate sensitivity, where actual data observations are used to constrain the GHG climate sensitivity estimates, indicate climate sensitivity is near or below the lower range of IPCC estimates.
The IPCC mid-range to high estimates of GHG climate sensitivity result from un-validated computer model output that should be ignored. GHG climate sensitivity at the lower end of the IPCC uncertainty range is not alarming considering the recent 10,000 year, very stable temperature history of the earth (compared to previous history), when atmospheric CO2 variations were clearly not a factor. The global average earth surface temperature changes of as much as +/- 2 deg C due to natural causes in these 10,000 years are much larger than experienced since the dawn of the industrial age when the earth had been warming up from The Little Ice Age for more than 250 years, and likely still is in addition to any GHG effects.
The mid-range to high estimates of IPCC GHG climate sensitivity result from un-validated computer model output that should be ignored. If the predictions of these un-validated models are not ignored in favor of actual physical data analysis, then that is clearly anti-science, and a glaring disregard for the Scientific Method embraced in other branches of science. Why should climate scientists operate by a different set of rules, and then be trying to alarm everyone with their highly questionable “science”?
Excellent post
And many recent papers are based solely upon model output. Since it is pretty clear that the models are wrong, will those papers be withdrawn on the grounds that their basic premises are false?
Something tells me this is unlikely. The climate establishment has far too much personal capital invested (directly or indirectly) in the models to admit their manifest failings without a long fight.
But this graph says it all for me
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/cmip5-90-models-global-tsfc-vs-obs1.jpg
One does not need to be a trained climatologist to recognise that there is something very very wrong with all of them.
But if you are such a person, you will no doubt feel free to ignore it completely in accordance with Climatology101: ‘There will be no testing of theories against reality. People mentioning ‘Feynman’ will be exclimated and called ‘deniers”
The discrepancy between the models and observed data can easily be rectified by replacing the observed data with a model, such as a computer simulated tree that sometimes skips laying down a growth ring due to the cold. Oh wait. That already got published.
+1
Latimer Alder
Thanks for your link to the graph that shows what Harold Doiron said!
The Models are ALL WRONG!
They have based them on FLAWED CONSENSUS THEORY and Mother Earth is Showing them to be wrong, Year after Year after Year . . . . . . . . .
Who, besides a Consensus Person, would use model output, that has failed, to prove they are 97% right.
This is “Religion and not Science” that these consensus people practice.
” No other branch of engineering, science or finance, where critical decisions affecting public safety and well-being are made on the basis of computer model simulation output, would dare use un-validated model output as a basis for the decision.”
I dunno Harold, I would say the financial models had a few problems a few years back, you know that whole meltdown thing in 2008. Models were a big part of the problem.. No? So maybe leave that financial branch out of critical decisions affecting the well being of the public based on model output as being validated?
The risk models of rating agencies and others were, indeed, directly used in decision making that at the minimum contributed strongly to the finance crisis, and was possibly the main reason for that. Contrary to that I don’t know about any single decision that has been as directly affected by climate models.
Climate models are used as one important source of information in related decision making but we may have presently more policy decisions that are similarly affected by some models than decision that are not affected at all by them.
John Carpenter,
Perhaps I should have stuck to my engineering field where I have more personal knowledge. Some models are validated and some are not. I suspect Goldman Sachs had a lot of confidence in their own model that led them to short the same Dervative Securities they were marketing to others, whose financial advisors were perhaps using computer models that weren’t as good a Goldman Sach’s. Also, I strongly suspect that the political decisions and regulations passed by legislators that required banks to make mortgage loans to people who couldn’t afford them, were guided by un-validated computer models.
Wow! What a ‘defence’ of the non-validation of climate models…I paraphrase
‘Goldman Sachs didn’t validate theirs either, and and anyway we don’t use them for anything important’
The first doesn’t make me feel any better about their ‘quality’ and the second makes me wonder why we employ so many modellers in producing 100 of them…none of which are either useful or right. Is it a job creation scheme for unworldly nerds afflicted with severe cases of climatoarrogance?
+ 100
The Wikipedia definition of Antiscience starts with
“Antiscience is a position that rejects science and the scientific method.[1] People holding antiscientific views do not accept that science is an objective method, as it purports to be, or that it generates universal knowledge.”
and goes on to say
“Antiscience proponents also criticize what they perceive as the unquestioned privilege, power and influence science seems to wield in society, industry and politics; they object to what they regard as an arrogant or closed-minded attitude amongst scientists.”
In other words rejecting the science, questioning the scientific method and alleging closed-mindedness amongst scientists count as antiscience views.
Wikipedia *doesn’t* define antiscience. It can’t define it. It’s not a dictionary. It’s a palimpsest of opinion. There’s nothing to be learned from your comment.
Antiscience starts and ends with CONSENSUS!
@LolWot
I had a salesman once; he was very, very good. Now and again he wrote in his reports “WOT”. On a field trip, keen to see what his secret was, I asked him what “WOT” meant.
“Waste of time” – no chance – move on – next!
LOL WOT
As I recall, while at the University of Virginia, Mann (as aided by the U.Va. administration) stonewalled attempts by the State of Virginia to access material that was developed using money provided by the citizens of Virginia. In the old days, the school’s honor code (“Do not lie, cheat or steal”) would have required he (and the schools top administrators) be dismissed.
In my opinion, the guy is a leftist ideologue of questionable integrity. I’d ignore him as his mutterings simply cannot be believed.
And.. Since Dr. Mann is unlikely to engage in petty mud-slinging, to avoid being dragged down and sullied by mere diatribe, allow me to step in and do a bit of narrative decomposition of Dr. Curry’s testimony in question and the components which might be labelled “anti-science”, incorrect, propaganda, bluster, bluffery, exaggeration, unsupported by fact, argumentative or otherwise outside the ordinary definition of the principles of Science (simplification of assumptions, parsimony of exceptions, universality of applicability to produce increasingly accurate and more nearly true explanations by inference as more observations are made) as set out by Isaac Newton 300 years ago and universally agreed to and undiminished since, by all scientists.
“..the climate change problem and its solution have been
vastly oversimplified.”
Okay. The IPCC is up to AR5. FIVE. That is, the fifth report considering the problem, and attempting to simplify the assumptions, reduce the exceptions, more generally understand the physics and the social costs of global climate phenomena based on the widest reading of the available literature with a focus on peer-reviewed published papers. From FAR through AR5, each report has increased in size and thoroughness, decreased in rate of errors found post publication, and no one could rightly call this body of work “oversimplified” on page count alone, much less on content. No one who knows of the existence of the IPCC could pretend the problem has been purposely oversimplified. It would, if anything, be an oversimplification to use such a sweeping characterization of the dynamics of the discourse. Sure, some people making some statements make them simple, as the medium demands a short summary statement, but that is not oversimplification, that is the reality of the limits of communication media.
Its solution, however, can be largely simplified, and is if anything exposed to too much overcomplication. Price carbon is the majority of the solution. Price carbon fairly to the level of Market demand. Just start. If any action falls short or goes too far, so what? Improve on it. Take every step based on Science, and do it scientifically. What the sum of inference — which IPCC AR5 at the time represented, and which we now have more and better observations on which to proceed — tells us, we ought treat as accurate or very nearly true. Act on it. If policy overshoots or under-achieves, then amend that action, trim that course, until it is right.
Dr. Curry, there is nothing in your self-citation (always a mistake, by the way, when seeking support in discourse) that answers this. Can you comment on what is wrong with the solution, simplified as I have presented it?
“..growing gap between what science is currently providing in terms of information about climate variability and change, and the information needed to understand and manage associated risks..”
How do you see this growing gap, unless you are in full agreement with Dr. Mann’s op-ed, and an activist scientist who goes further to consider their knowledge and understanding of risk management the equal of any expert in government elected to that role?
Surely, if natural variability and change were coped with by ordinary policy in the span of prior centuries, then that ordinary policy suffices, and there can be no gap between what is and what is needed. Surely, the only reason for attacking our ignorance and blindness in the field of climate observation is to understand our own impacts, which says we must accord to our actions consequences, and it is irrational to research climate at all unless we equally put a price on those activities that create new risks. In pricing those activities, we mitigate the extra risk created. Your own argument provides all the case policy needs to act now.
“Evidence reported by the IPCC AR5 weakens the case for human factors dominating climate change in the 20th and early 21st centuries.”
What a contrived straw man restatement of the issue and framing of the context. Some of the evidence in AR5 shows that some of the top end estimates of some of AR4 may have been high or the confidence of some projections may have been high; conversely, the vast majority of AR5 shows that the bottom end estimates of all prior work were too low, and significantly too low, and confidence of that conclusion itself is robust. As such, no one is obliged to argue your straw man in your context. It is misleading, and clearly anti-science in its very nature.
I’ll give you a chance to fully reply, in case my reading of your testimony has somehow missed some nuance.
Consensus is clearly anti-science in its very nature.
In breaking away from the consensus clique, Dr Curry became more of a scientist.
That she was able to break away shows that she was always a scientist, even as she agreed with more of what they preached.
Consensus People are NOT any kind of scientist.
@ Bart
“Price carbon is the majority of the solution. ”
Solution to what problem? Varying ACO2 or controlling the ‘Temperature of the Earth (TOE)’? Is it your position that the TOE is a known function of ACO2 and that ACO2 actually IS the ‘knob on the earth’s thermostat’, which is ‘turned’ by adjusting the tax on fossil fuels?
So in the hearings on the critical need to tax and regulate all energy production and consumption–immediately–in order to stave off the looming catastrophe of a degree or two rise in the ‘Temperature of the Earth’ over the next 50-200 years, did anyone get around to asking how much of the 1-2 C (max) of said catastrophe would be staved by the taxing and regulating and what evidence was available that the staving would in fact occur? Or what evidence was available that a gradual rise of a couple degrees over a century, +/-, was actually undesirable and needed staving?
Nice try Bart R
“allow me to step in and do a bit of narrative decomposition of Dr. Curry’s testimony in question and the components which might be labelled “anti-science”, incorrect, propaganda, bluster, bluffery, exaggeration, unsupported by fact, argumentative or otherwise outside the ordinary definition of the principles of Science ”
Things to notice. Mann’s claim was a claim of anti science. Not incorrect, not propaganda, not bluster etc. So, what we see Bart R doing here is expanding the bill of particulars so that he can attack Curry while appearing to defend Mann.
In short Mann accuses Curry of Murder and Bart argues by saying “lets see if curry committed Murder, stole something, jaw walked or did anything else that might be labled a crime” Nice trick, but a slimey piece of work.
In any case, lets proceed
““..the climate change problem and its solution have been
vastly oversimplified.”
is this ? incorrect, propaganda, bluster, bluffery, exaggeration, unsupported by fact.
Well Bart doesnt make the case. To make the case he first has to explicate what Curry meant by oversimplified. Second, he needs to recoginze that there is no accepted metric of “simplification” We do have some complexity measures in computational science, but in physics I’m not aware of any canonical method for determining whether a topic is over simplified or not. It is a matter of opinion and opinions can vary. I can say that I have been in discussions with Dr. Curry and other physicists precisely on this matter. The discussion of what was simple and what was not simple, of what was over simplified and what was not, was meta scientific. That is, no one could propose a method for testing whether a statement was over simplfied or not. On reading Ar5 my impression is that the page count says nothing whatsover about the over simplifying of the problem.
Suggesting page count as a metric is beyond stupid. As someone who prefers simplicity, I would have to disagree with Dr. Curry but I fully recognize that my preference for simplicity is not a rule governed repeatable predictable behavior. And calling her statement incorrect, propaganda, anti science, is false on its face.
““..growing gap between what science is currently providing in terms of information about climate variability and change, and the information needed to understand and manage associated risks..”
Ar5 argues as much and Dessler argued as much.
As Dessler argued the climate of the next few decades is totally baked in.
But the science cannot tell us what will happen in the next 30 years, its time horizen is beyond this. Florida needs to know, how many more volcanos will we see in the next 30 years. California needs to know how many more droughts. England needs to know how many more floods.. not a 100 years from now, but in the next 3 decades. And what we are seeing, what I am seeing in regional climate models is a growing GAP between what we need to know and what the science can tell us. The science could not tell us about the pause. cannot tell us about polar vortexs in the next 30 years. We are discovering more uncertainity. Thats from Ar5 not Judith. In short as we improve models we are finding more uncertainty not less.
““Evidence reported by the IPCC AR5 weakens the case for human factors dominating climate change in the 20th and early 21st centuries.”
That’s what Ar5 argues. especially where extreme events are concerned and on the issue of attribution. Although they refused to follow their own logic on the second half.
Steven Mosher | January 18, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
Mann’s claim was a claim of anti science. Not incorrect, not propaganda, not bluster etc.
Mann said “antiscience”; Curry said, ” ..document and rebut any statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide..”
See, it’s hard to project a trend from only two data points, but we see how Dr. Curry liberally expanded Dr. Mann’s more conservative claims. Any further expansion was just trying to keep up with our host’s trend of restatement. Now, if I were to only stick to antiscience, using Dr. Curry’s definitions as cited.. nothing would change in what I said.
I’ll stop with the first error, to avoid antiscience.
Bob Ludwick | January 18, 2014 at 2:52 pm |
READ HARDER.
Who said tax?
You do know the difference between the price on a commodity and the tax on a commodity, right?
Well, the carbon recycling service of the atmosphere-ocean system is a resource, a commodity, and if you’re getting it for free it’s not because you’ve earned it, it’s because the government hasn’t enforced the Market on it in the same way as it enforces laws against stealing cars or artworks or cell phones.
This soft-on-crime attitude of yours, who raises their kids to think that way?
Bart
“Mann said “antiscience”; Curry said, ” ..document and rebut any statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide..”
And you expanded it further, and didnt even make your case there.
why am I not surprised that you quit responding.
Steven Mosher | January 18, 2014 at 7:17 pm |
I did what?
I stopped to give you a chance to catch up.
So I listed a shopping cart of euphemisms for “anti-science”; in measured commentary on how Dr. Curry reframed Dr. Mann’s #AntiScience. You’re making that out to be me creating a straw man argument. Which would require Dr. Curry’s to be to. If you don’t intend to say Dr. Curry’s built a straw man, then say so, and we can proceed from there. If you say Dr. Curry has built a straw man, then say so, or just let it go at that, and we’ll understand what you mean to imply.
Hashtags are specific artefacts of the Twitter community. Construing them to other meanings is a hoary undertaking, open to misunderstanding. Teapot. Tempest.
@ Bart
“Price carbon is the majority of the solution. ”
“You do know the difference between the price on a commodity and the tax on a commodity, right?”
Well, in the normal, non-climate science world, the price of a commodity is the price that the commodity owner and the commodity purchaser mutually agree on to complete the sale. Currently, for gasoline (for example) in my area that runs about $2.85/gal. That is what the gasoline owner asks for his gas and so far I am willing to pay his asking price. The same reasoning applies for mutually agreed on price that I pay for my propane, used to heat my house and hot water. Are you maintaining that someone other than the owners and the purchasers of the commodities should set the prices?
I don’t know the price of carbon because no one that I am aware of is selling it and at any rate, I am not in the market for carbon.
So, who owns the carbon that you are pricing and to whom do I pay the carbon price, should I decide to buy some?
The carbon tax is failing in Australia, it’s failing in BC, yep, what the US needs is a carbon tax. Right.
jim2 | January 18, 2014 at 11:01 pm |
It’s true.
Australia is a mess. All those extreme weather events, and the politicians running around like chickens with their heads cut off not knowing which way to turn, cashing in on a cozy relationship with their coal producers. Small wonder they achieve the failure they govern towards.
And BC even with its carbon pricing scheme, which resulted in BC becoming one of the lowest taxed jurisdictions in North America, if not the lowest by dropping personal and corporate income taxes with every carbon price rise, has fallen short of interim targeted reductions by about a third — largely it appears because BC, too, dithered and failed to strike when the iron was hot, since BC fell short of its target by exactly the amount it fell short of the rise in the level of the carbon tax it originally set out.
The higher the carbon price goes, the better off the people it serves, which is the general populace instead of that small special interest of carbon drillers and miners who exploit the unpriced externality where they can.
Stop implementing a successful policy halfway into the plan because you’ve lost your nerve? Of course you’ll fail. But that isn’t the policy’s fault. That’s all on the spinelessness of the people who can’t commit to what is most accurate or nearly true.
Keep up the diligent observation.
@ Bart
“The higher the carbon price goes, the better off the people it serves, which is the general populace instead of that small special interest of carbon drillers and miners who exploit the unpriced externality where they can.”
As the price approaches infinite, the general populace, except for the miners, drillers, those who sell their products, and those who buy them, will (I assume) rejoice in their good fortune in having the (forced) privilege of living in their new-found Shangri-la and shower their benefactors (masters) with rose petals and adoration. So making ourselves better off today by increasing the price of carbon exponentially means that our grandchildren will (possibly, according to the latest Global Climate Models) experience the joy of living on a planet that is a degree or so colder than it would have been if we had not stopped the special interest carbon drillers and miners from selling their product too cheaply? Talk about a win-win situation!
““Evidence reported by the IPCC AR5 weakens the case for human factors dominating climate change in the 20th and early 21st centuries.”
_____
Totally untrue. Natural short-term variability in the climate that rides along on top of a longer-term external forcing to climate are two different things. It is no more accurate to look at the period of 1976-1998 to prove a point than it is to look at 1998-2013 to prove a point related to climate change. Specifically if one takes a high point in the ENSO cycle, an El Niño such as 1998, when greater than normal amounts of latent and sensible heat are flowing from ocean to atmosphere and makes the point that the climate has been cooling since then, thus the anthropogenic case is weakened, then this is truly and un-scientific point of view. (note: not anti-science, but un-scientific). Conversely, if one takes the period of 1976 to 1998, (a warm phase of the PDO, with greater El Niño activity) and says this strengthens the anthropogenic case, then that also is un-scientific. A better approach is of course to look at the biggest picture of the climate system that you can, and try to filter out short-term “noise” such as ENSO, and look at total energy gains/losses in the system and match that against the known positive and negative forcings over the longest timeframe that you have reliable data. When doing this, the anthropogenic fingerprint clearly reveals itself to approximately a 95% probability, and this fingerprint is complex, involving multiple species of GH gases, land use changes, aerosols and black carbon.
“Bart R:”
Well-played, sir.
It took me a while, but this joke was the final tipoff:
“And.. Since Dr. Mann is unlikely to engage in petty mud-slinging,”
Do I get a prize for being the first person to realize your entire schtick is a parody?
For all those wondering what Sasha Baron Cohen would do to top Borat and Bruno, I give you Bart.
Climate science has become more like economics (a social science and politicised) than what we understand as a hard science. In fact it may well have moved into the realms of religion.
Mann: If you see uncertainty shut up.
When consensus hardens science, it ceases to be science and does become more like religion.
What is anti-science?
Stuff like hiding data & declines, and attempting to destroy evidence of having done so? Fabricating hockey sticks from red noise?.
All (c) M Mann & Team, the new-age ‘scientists’.
Typical. Mikey knows he is losing so he tries to make himself into the virgin victim.
Not going to work, we know anyone who can Hide the Decline can believe anything
lolwot (11:52 am)
You state “What they need to realize is that human emissions are causing significant wrming of the earth”
Specifically, what warming are you referring to?
global warming
There’s a very good, and very pertinent letter from Giovanni Gregori to Nils-Axel Morner available @ Tallbloke’s Talkshop early in the comments on the Pattern Recognition thread. You get to see William Connolley in full fledged persuasive communication mode, too.
====================
here.
Anthony Watts is happy because this decision marginalized his fellow skeptic Scafetta’s research papers.
“REPLY: I’ve read your papers in the past, and decided they were junk. I don’t expect these to be any better, but I’ll have a look. – Anthony”
Funny soap opera.
Tallbloke is upset because his own paper caused the journal to be discontinued.
Funny stuff:
Apparently, The Adjustment Bureau did not like the way Tallbloke’s research was heading.
@webby
Watts is a bit of a buffoon. I wonder how that abortion of a paper of his on urban heat islands is coming along? And who the heck is chucky_the_moderator other than some unlettered bonehead volunteering his time for the HBIC (head buffoon in charge)?
Watts is getting angry with Scafetta
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/17/the-planetary-tidal-influence-on-climate-fiasco-strong-armed-science-tactics-are-overkill-due-process-would-work-better/#comment-1540599
These “orbital” skeptics such as Scafetta, Ian Wilson, Tallbloke, Morner who all published in that journal are all getting the cold shoulder from Watts.
I read someone say years ago that wuwt is not friendly towards planetary/orbital/barycentric climate theories. Whether that’s true or not I didn’t care enough to find out, but I remember wondering what could possibly make the house of wuwt, so open to any old idea, reject those particular ideas.
I got to imagining that perhaps the idea of the planets influencing the earth’s climate is too suggestive of astrology, and who wants to be associated with that? You have to draw a line somewhere I guess. Although it’s a very strange line that excludes that stuff but promotes ENSO-causes-co2 and other madness.
To be fair, I think it was because Scafetta did not provide his data or codes to anyone.
The other mitigating factor is that Watt listens to the non-skeptic Leif Svalgaard quite often and he is an expert on solar, planetary, and tidal influences.
The issue in all this is that there are quite a few climate scientists that are interested in the orbital topic, Keeling from Scripps [1], R.Ray from NASA Goddard [2], Dickey from NASA JPL [3], etc. It goes back to Brier in 1968 [4].
I think there is a connection between this area of research and the Stadium Wave theory and of course in the possibility of getting deterministic predictions on the small amount of natural variability that these factors have in the decadal temperature profile.
[1]C. D. Keeling and T. P. Whorf, “The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 97, no. 8, pp. 3814–3819, 2000.
[2]R. D. Ray, “Decadal climate variability: Is there a tidal connection?,” Journal of climate, vol. 20, no. 14, pp. 3542–3560, 2007.
[3]J. O. Dickey, S. L. Marcus, and O. de Viron, “Closure in the Earth’s angular momentum budget observed from subseasonal periods down to four days: No core effects needed,” Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 37, no. 3, p. L03307, Feb. 2010.
[4]G. W. Brier, “Long‐range prediction of the zonal westerlies and some problems in data analysis,” Reviews of Geophysics, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 525–551, 1968.
I seem to have stumbled on a thread consisting of nothing but inane ad hominems. I will stumble off elsewhere in search of intelligent comment.
It seems that to Ian “Preparation” H, acknowledging and citing research articles as incentive for modeling is considered ad hominen.
!!! A Commendable Trend !!!
• Michael Mann’s influential NYT Op-Ed If You See Something, Say Something criticized no individual scientist by name.
• Gavin Schmidt’s influential Edge essay What Scientific Idea Is Ready For Retirement? Simple Answers criticized no individual scientist by name.
• James Hansen’s influential PLOS article (with sixteen coauthors) Assessing ‘Dangerous Climate Change’: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature criticized no individual scientist by name.
Conclusion Judith Curry’s scientific ideas might similarly gain in influence to Mann’s, Schmidt’s, and Hansen’s, if future Climate Etc posts focussed less upon issues relating to individual personalities and/or hurt-feelings.
Uh, the whole point of this thread is that Mann mentioned my name in a tweet and referred to my testimony as anti-science.
Fan, you wrote:
Hansen’s, if future Climate Etc posts focussed less upon issues relating to individual personalities and/or hurt-feelings.
I am sorry you focus on personalities and/or feelings and not about the issues. This is a new year, I hope you do better.
I do repeat “CONSENSUS IS ANTI-SCIENCE”
Dr Curry, FOMD is like a chartered bus, he only goes to one place, “Hansenville.”
How would Lincoln answered the committee chair’s question to Judith about her 2007 Washington Post article?
“As a young lawyer, Abraham Lincoln once had to plead two cases before the same judge on the same day. Both involved the same principle of law, but in one he appealed for the defendant and in the other for the plaintiff. His eloquence won the case in the morning. In the afternoon, he argued the opposite side with equal conviction. The judge, half smiling, asked him what caused his change of attitude.”
” Your Honor, ” said Lincoln, ” I may have been wrong this morning, but I know I’m right this afternoon. “
Who here believes the statistical method and data used by “Mann’s hockey stick graph” was both appropriate and accurate? Enough said.
Tom,
Nailed the cur. Thank you.
Now will Michael E. Mann rise to real science and answer Judith Curry’s challenge with the highest scientific integrity per Richard Feynman’s “Cargo Cult Science” Caltech 1974?
Or fall to the level of an accuser without substance?
Feynman wrote:
Will Mann further rise to objectively address McIntyre and McKittrick’s audits of his “hockey stick”?
Short answer – “No.”
I tweeted:
Mann follows a different, irreconcilable system of ethics (in which scientists BALANCE being honest with being effective), so your question is rhetorical. But I’m glad you’ve put it to him anyway. Tormenting our enemy for the sake of tormenting our enemy is felicific and therefore moral.
Brad
I was seeking to restore him to the scientific method, not torment him.
Your argument appears immoral.
Really, David? I view this differently (though it’s clear that I misread your purpose in asking the question).
I’d point to the perfectly ethical, defensible reasons why all human societies have clamored to see thieves and charlatans pilloried in the public square. It’s one of the justice instincts. I’ve never bought into the modern (Victorian, IIRC) attempt to turn vengeance into something shameful. Surely it’s as natural as thirst, love, hygiene or any other drive evolution has endowed us with? Counterarguments welcome :-)
Mann again tweets contra #JudithCurry as #AntiScience
and #AntiScience #Denial.
Dr Curry, what makes you think Dr Mann was referring to you? Guilty conscience perhaps?
Who is “me”
Dr Curry has no reason for a guilty conscinence but “me” likely does.
Mann used her name in his tweet.
I do repeat “CONSENSUS IS ANTI-SCIENCE”
I do want to hear from all who agree and all who disagree.
Consensus on evolution, gravity, quantum mechanics? Be more precise which consensuses you disagree with and which ones are actually science. Your statement makes no sense on its own.
Science attempts to move the consensus position by logical, reasoned argument and evidence. The consensus position only reflects the current understanding, it does not limit it,
Jim D. you write “Consensus on evolution, gravity, quantum mechanics? ”
You misinterpreting what is written. What Herman is obviously referring to is merely consensus, with no measured, empirical to support it. Just a consensus, based on nothing. There is ample empirical evidence to support evolution, gravity, and quantum mechanics.
Just a consensus, based on nothing.
Yep!
Consensus says we have ultimate knowledge about something.
We never do have ultimate knowledge about anything.
I will listen to exceptions. Please provide them.
All of science is just consensus. You can’t separate the state of knowledge from the consensus in thought. Perhaps this is too philosophical now.
“Jim D | January 18, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
Consensus on evolution, gravity, quantum mechanics?”
Human evolution was undergone a revolution over the past decade with contributions to the modern human genetic pool from Neanderthals and Denisovans. The Portuguese researcher, Dr. Joo Zilhao who proposed that Neanderthals and Cro Magnon interbred, and identified a skeleton of a boy that was such a hybrid, was treated as a bit of a crank. The were probably <5% of people in the field who believed that there were any genetic movements into the generally human genetic pool from other human populations. However, there was no black-balling and everyone accepted the evidence and started looking for selection advantages overnight.
DocMartyn, there might still be a few hold-outs that deny the evidence of this, or is the case too overwhelming with a big consensus?
There are no hold-outs on the general population level. People are are actively looking for other additions into modern humans. This will take a lot of samples and huge amounts of statistical analysis. The field came to the conclusion that most of the DNA data mining done naughties was wrong and gave false confidence levels.
DocMartyn, in most cases science goes from a state of “don’t know” sometimes slowly to a consensus. Rarely does it go from a state of one consensus to opposite consensus. In your example, where you say less than 5% thought it possible, did the other 95% think it impossible based on previous science, or did they just not know either way? I think your example is a case of evolving from don’t-know to consensus, somewhat how AGW evolved in the 20th century.
Wow, Doc! What about those HLA alleles?
=======
Jim, there is something called Haldane’s rule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_rule
generally the offspring of two species are infertile (like the mule). This is generally because genes on the ‘X’ chromosome are only present in one active copy per cell, and yet different important genes may be present or absent in different species; so a gene that is on the ‘X’ on one species may be on another chromosome in another, giving offspring three working copies or a very important gene may be on the ‘X’ in one species and so males offspring will have no gene at all.
Flips in evolutionary science have happened before, going from 99% in the case of horizontal gene transfer; genes going from one species to another.
“Closely related Mariner-type DNA transposon families, collectively named as Mariner-1_Tbel families, are present in the genomes of two ants and two mammalian genomes. Consensus sequences of the four families show pairwise identities greater than 95%. In addition, mammalian Mariner1_BT family shows a close evolutionary relationship with some insect Mariner families. Mammalian Mariner1_BT type sequences are present only in species from three groups including ruminants, tooth whales (Odontoceti), and New World leaf-nosed bats (Phyllostomidae).”
So we had a transfer of DNA from insects into early mammals;
“Mariner_Tbel family was introduced into hedgehog and tree shrew genomes approximately 100 to 69 million years ago (MYA). Most likely, these TE families were transferred from insects to mammals, but details of the transfer remain unknown”
http://www.mobilednajournal.com/content/3/1/14
30 years ago this suggestion would have been heresy. 15 years ago it would have been treated as very, very unlikely. Now, such reports have the, ‘Oh, another one’, response.
The evolutionary researchers know that everything evolved and are quite happy to be surprised by how species have evolved. They are used to things they know they know not being universal, so it is a case of ‘not another Earth shattering event’.
Were a probe from Mars or an Martian meteorite in Antarctica to show that very primitive RNA organisms may have been the original lie on Earth, the vast majority would go, ‘odd but reasonable’.
I guess in addition to a consensus replacing a don’t-know, it can also replace an “impossible”. That is, something goes from impossible under known science to possible under new science or discovery. This happens in particle physics (solar neutrino problem) or cosmology (accelerating expansion), and biology (non-traditional lifeforms). For example, before Arrhenius many would have thought a trace gas couldn’t do much to global climate, but it became not just possible, but now explains many things about the current atmosphere and paleoclimate that had no explanation before.
Jim D | January 18, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
Consensus on evolution, gravity, quantum mechanics? Be more precise which consensuses you disagree with and which ones are actually science. Your statement makes no sense on its own.
________________
A sampling of consensus I don’t agree with JimD:
1. That the liver was responsible for blood circulation.
2. That the Earth was the center of the universe.
3. That bleeding cured disease.
4. That it was unnecessary to wash one’s hands prior to surgery.
5. That DNA was not important.
6. That the atom was the smallest unit of matter.
7. That stress was the cause of ulcers.
8. That the climate was cooling.
9. That the “hockey stick” graph was real.
Shall I go on?
The theories you mention JimD as “scientific consensus” are those theories that have stood the tests of many, many skeptical scientists and much time. We can say neither about the theory of AGW at this point.
“1. That the liver was responsible for blood circulation.
2. That the Earth was the center of the universe.
3. That bleeding cured disease.
4. That it was unnecessary to wash one’s hands prior to surgery.
5. That DNA was not important.
6. That the atom was the smallest unit of matter.
7. That stress was the cause of ulcers”
How much research was done where any of the variables involved in these areas could be measured? There have been thousands of papers that support the theory. And science has come a long way since they thought bleeding cured disease.
ksd, that is an interesting list. I wonder how many papers with supporting observations and mechanisms they formed those consensuses with. The stronger consensus is not just an observable correlation, which must be the foundation of most of those, but a mechanistic explanation that goes with it, which I am pretty sure they lacked.
What Mann writes in his op-ed doesn’t appear particularly controversial (some details perhaps, but they are not essential for his message). When his ideas are put into practice controversies are to be expected, and he continues to behave in a way that guarantees that he’s part of those controversies.
When a scientist presents a testimony for congress she or he is not presenting science for scientists, she or he is advocating something for policy makers (or for the public that follows work of congress). What’s known and what’s uncertain must be considered from the perspective of decision making. From this perspective my view is that the uncertainties of climate science are not essential, because certainty is not required for reacting to risks. Where Dessler and Curry agree and where they disagree should not be essential for the policy decisions considered by the Committee. The points of disagreement have some significance but that disappears in the noise, when the other sources of uncertainty are included. The results of Tol and Hope on the social cost of CO2 disagree much, much more than the views of Dessler and Curry. Other people would probably dismiss both Tol and Hope as providers of advice for policy. Even if that’s not done very essential further uncertainties apply to the actual outcome from any specific decision.
The fight on uncertainties of science is just a false substitute for the real disagreements, but a substitute that both sides seem like to refer to in the spirit of the linear model.
Judith reported that many members of the committee didn’t stay for the second part. Perhaps that indicates that the the whole session was there for other reasons than for its potential to influence policy. The real background work had already been done, and the hearing was more a show for the public.
the hearing was more a show for the public.
They were not there to learn anything.
They were already 97% convinced.
I saw that! The closing remarks did show that.
Figuring out what is really going on is not something that they are really interested in.
if we do expensive stupid thing for the wrong stupid reasons, it does matter a lot.
Pekka,
“What’s known and what’s uncertain must be considered from the perspective of decision making.” The uncertainty in GHG climate sensitivity results from un-validated climate simulation models that have no place whatsoever in critical decision-making. The actual data by which a climate model might be validated provides low and relatively certain Upper Bound estimates for GHG climate sensitivity. Why should output of un-validated climate models even enter the discussion? They don’t in other fields of science and engineering where critical decisions must be made affecting public safety such as in design of dams, commercial airliners, large bridges and skyscrapers. Climate science has gone “off the rails” in this aspect of its evolution.
Harold Doiron
+many
Climate models are, indeed, not directly needed for decision making, because AGW is well enough known even without reference to them. There’s plentiful evidence that proves significant AGW very likely, and that’s what makes a strong enough case for policy.
That doesn’t tell, what specifically should be done, but nothing that climate science can produce can tell that as other considerations turn out to be more essential for the choice of actual actions or policies.
Pekka, there is plentiful evidence that AGW is likely, but precious little that it will be net damaging. So, wither policy?
=============
Kim,
I don’t fully agree, but to a point, yes, much less is known about the damage than the change itself.
Therefore neither Dessler nor Curry talked about issues the Committee should emphasize, and therefore the differences in their views have little significance for wise decision making.
To that point, Ritter’s testimony of the demonstrated economic benefits of green energy would help the policy-makers.
Jim D,
That’s an area where critical discussion is needed. Right now the views are equally polarized on green energy than they are on climate policies. Some people tell, how good the new technologies are economically, while others think that they provide only an opportunity to waste money for nothing.
Economics is even more polarizing than climate, but improving mutual understanding of both benefits and limitations should not be impossible. That’s the idea of my first sentence on the need of critical discussion.
You’ll find that any warming we can cause will be net beneficial, particularly if we are naturally cooling.
==================
Kim,
You seem to think that you are a clairvoyant.
Pekka, @ 6:11, more reason I find you always a rigourous, and usually a fair disputant. The countries that have pushed the economics of Green Energy are now running out of Other Peoples’ Money and are cutting back on the effort. I mention most prominently Germany, Spain, and Great Britain.
=============
Pekka, I’m a chatbot.
=====
Kim,
I think that I have made it clear enough that I don’t believe that anyone can provide readily available effective, well understood and acceptably cost-effective solutions. Those who have made decisions based on the opposite view have failed at least in one respect so badly that the claimed successes are not real successes.
I wrote very recently that this is a dilemma for me.
Quite often I tend to believe that.
My clear view is that your dilemma will resolve.
===========
“You’ll find that any warming we can cause will be net beneficial, particularly if we are naturally cooling.”
==================
This should be put into the new Skeptics Handbook, and perhaps taught to school kids. Contact Heartland…
“the hearing was more a show for the public.
They were not there to learn anything.
They were already 97% convinced.”
WHAT????
Harold wrote:
Why should output of un-validated climate models even enter the discussion?
Climate science has gone “off the rails” in this aspect of its evolution.
+++++++++++++++
There’s plentiful evidence that proves significant AGW very likely, and that’s what makes a strong enough case for policy.
Temperature is well inside the bounds of the past ten thousand years.
That is significant evidence that AGW may very well not exist.
Pekka,
If decision-makers would stick to actual physical data in justifying their decisions (read regulations) regarding CO2 climate sensitivity and their computation of the “Social Cost of Carbon”, I wouldn’t be so bothered by their decision process which I believe is based on output of un-validated models endorsed by the IPCC. Our Dept. of Energy (DoE) and EPA regulators are justifying their CO2 regulations on statistical models for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) that allow significant probability that ECS is greater than the IPCC’s Upper Range of sensitivity (4.5 deg C). They just assume that there is a such a significant probability (based on IPCC’s uncertainty range) that they project that the earth’s surface will warm enough to melt Greenland Ice Sheets, cause massive coastal flooding and thereby compute a statistically large “expected damage value” to offset the very real costs of higher energy costs and loss of jobs created by their new regulations. Do you think their rationale needs some scientific review and that their forecasts for global warming should only be based on physical data and not un-validated climate models?
Pekka Pirila,
Are you suggesting that everyone who presents testimony to congress is practicing advocacy? Isn’t it possible that many people who present to congress are presenting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (as far as they know and given the time limitations)?
More importantly, have you identified any significant errors of fact, or misrepresentations in Judith’s submission?
I’d like to know, because to me it seems excellent, well balanced, covers important aspects of WG1 that are relevant for WG2 -> WG3 -> policy analysis.
Pekka,
Excellent post +10
Pekka…
I don’t know whether the hopeless tone of your comment(s) represents your real opinion or an effort to spur constructive response. (Or even, perhaps, an artifact of my own attitudes reading it.) But I don’t feel hopeless about the problem, rather I agree with Dyson, Kamen, and, AFAIK, our hostess that “we can solve big problems with technology”.
The issues, as you point out, are political, economic, and social. In tracking down the above link, I found an article in the MIT technology worth reading and addressing, by Jason Pontin: Why we can’t solve big problems. Starting out with the Apollo Program, he soon segues (heh!) into the problem of fossil carbon:
Comparing the supposed “solution” to the Apollo program, the first two highlighted points demonstrate (IMO) the key political/economic/social problem: never did the Apollo Program undertake to universally raise the cost/price of energy, or industry in general with intrusive regulations. Rather, the expenditure of large amounts of tax-sourced money on high-tech R&D actually (AFAIK) stimulated the economy, as well as providing social and financial incentives for students to pursue careers in such fields.
In my view, the way to address the problem of fossil carbon is to redefine it in simple terms: how to achieve a transition to energy without burning fossil carbon without impacting the cost/price of energy in the mean-time. As a problem definition this highlights several issues:
1. Can technology solve this problem as redefined?
2. What is the requisite time-frame needed to achieve parity with proposed “solutions” that involve raising the price of energy?
3. What political/economic/social approaches would likely lead to the problem being solved within the requisite time-frame?
A package of solutions that convincingly answer the 3rd question would, IMO, be much more likely to be sold than one that involves making energy expensive.
AK,
Thanks for your post. The only reason I began to dig into the AGW science a few years ago was because it seemed to be blocking any progress on a well-thought-out national energy plan. As a young scientist/engineer working for NASA in the Apollo Program, I understood first hand the kind of detailed, rational planning it took, with realistic schedule commitments for government funding for necessary R&D, facilities construction, and technology development, bound by a united political will and commitment to success that allowed us to tackle the challenge of putting astronauts on the moon and bringing them back safely within the 1960’s decade.
We need to find alternatives to fossil fuels, not (IMO) due to alarming climate concerns, but because the planet will be running out of economically recoverable fossil fuels within 100-200 years when atmospheric CO2 levels will be begin to decline as fossil fuel resources are depleted. Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) based on a totally hypothetical and unrealistic CO2 forcing of our climate, and that takes on the order of a thousand years to be fully realized, is a totally impractical way to assess the climate situation compared to more realistic scenarios for the shorter term issue. Climate Science focus on ECS looks like propaganda to me and not a realistic scientific approach to assess the AGW issue. I would be embarrassed if I had been part of the team that spent the billions of research dollars in over 30 years of government funded research, and had not been able to reduce the uncertainty range for ECS, when ECS is not even a realistic metric to assess the AGW issue.
I would like to see a national effort patterned after the Apollo Program scientific achievement, that would carefully define our energy needs for the future and confidently define a realistic plan and schedule for an orderly market-driven transition to alternative energy sources. Such a plan would provide for identifying and selecting the best alternative energy ideas to pursue with government funded R&D considering performance, effectiveness, costs, environmental issues, and required schedule time to develop. I would support government R&D expenditures and facilities development within the framework of a well-thought out energy plan with a commitment to success like we had for the Apollo Program. However, the highly politically-charged, crony capitalistic, and totally unscientific way our government is meddling with regulations and subsidies to prop up uneconomical and technically inferior ethanol, wind and solar energy markets, as realistic alternatives to fossil fuels is embarrassing to me. This climate debate fueled by the forecasts of un-validated computer models, and with unprecedented political corruption of the science, is stalling real scientific planning and progress on a national energy plan.
Dr. Doiron…
I’ve responded to your comment below, out of this thread.
kim | January 18, 2014 at 5:39 pm |
Pekka, there is plentiful evidence that AGW is likely, but precious little that it will be net damaging. So, wither policy?
=============
My bold above.
My answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Consensus
Dr. Doiron
Cheap energy is coming by way of synthetic biology. It’s not even a science problem anymore it’s an engineering problem. More to the point it’s a reverse engineering problem. Once we understand how to cut & paste together custom microrganisms from the wide range of features and capabilities that nature already designed and tested in the wild over billions of years of microbial evolution we can cobble up bacteria that literally eat carbon dioxide and piss diesel needing only sunlight, non-potable water, and non-arable land to do it.
It’s almost here today and will almost certainly be done in the next few decades. See here: http://joulefuels.com/
But fuel is just the tip of the iceberg of things that can be constructed of carbon compounds by no-wage self-reproducing microbial slave labor. A pre-programmed workforce of microbes can, for instance, build a house out of carbon taken from the atmosphere. Think about the possibilities. At that point the problem won’t be too much carbon in the atmosphere it will be too little carbon and laws will be needed to restrict how much can be removed in order to create durable goods out of it.
I think that taking a position and presenting it is advocating in a mild sense, but not in the strong sense that “being an advocate” connotes. Blurring the distinction is close to equivocating.
curryja | January 18, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
“Uh, the whole point of this thread is that Mann mentioned my name in a tweet and referred to my testimony as anti-science.”
I have always found it the past the past that attacks of that nature are a sign of desperation – not strength. This episode is likely to support that view.
Without naming anybody .. is the following science or anti-science?
1. Publishing only results, not data or algorithms.
2. Hiding any data that don’t support one’s hypothesis.
3. Splicing data from different sources to achieve a dramatic graph (and acknowledging the fact in small print, without specifying that tree-rings-only data would actually show a dramatic decline)
Solution: The above three points clearly define a “science”, and anybody using a different methodology must be anti-science.
Shorter: Is the purpose and practice of science to reveal or to conceal?
“3. Splicing data from different sources to achieve a dramatic graph (and acknowledging the fact in small print, without specifying that tree-rings-only data would actually show a dramatic decline)”
They are doing this with OHC;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Total_Heat_Content_2011.jpg
They know that there is no good data prior to the full deployment of ARGO.
“They know that there is no good data prior to the full deployment of ARGO.”
____
This is wrong. With the introduction of Argo, the spread and consistency of the data has increased, and uncertainty in the data has decreased, but we still have “good” data prior, it is just a matter of knowing how much uncertainty there was in the data.
Does anyone care what this buffoon thinks about anything anymore. Mann is so paranoid now he lives on the fringes of credibility.
jbenton, you write “Mann is so paranoid now he lives on the fringes of credibility.”
I agree with you, but the MSM does not. What it would be nice to do, is to demonstrate to the MSM that Mann is as you describe.
Pingback: Curry vs Mann | And Then There's Physics
Mann’s actions in opposing data discovery at UVA, his Nature trick (Climategate) which set off BEST, and his conduct toward others in the twittersphere all suggest he is unworthy of serious adult consideration. Don’t waste your time on him Judith, since he won’t respond. His own science has been shown deeply flawed, so he is reduced to mere name calling about those who still do real climate science successfully. A very immature behavior.
Bringing smoking/lung cancer into the ‘climate wars’ is quite pointless. An homage to the Oreskes conspiracy theory? The relative risk for smokers versus non-smokers (from epidemiology, not clinical trials SUT) was always highly significant, even in the 1950’s and 60’s (>4 I think). Now it is up to the mid-20’s? By comparison, nowadays an RR of 1.2 or so can spark a media frenzy in some cases. An analogy for the smoking/ lung cancer RR might be if global temperatures were 3 degrees higher now than they were in 1975 (and rising steadily).
Sing along!
Makin’ up data the old hard way
Fudgin the numbers day by day
Hiding the snow and the cold and a downward line
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Michael Mann thinks he so smart
totally inventing the hockey stick chart
Hiding the snow and the cold and a downward line
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Oh Climategate I think you have sealed your fate
I hope you do a lot of time, cuz what you did was such a crime
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
The tree ring data was very thin
you shoulda chopped more trees instead of hugging them.
Hiding the snow and the cold and a downward line
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Oh Climategate I think you have sealed your fate
Well you know its a crime and hope you do a lot of time
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
David…Please credit the source…from my home state… for anyone new to the war,,,,Minnesotans for Global Warming.
The sanitized version
Is MM suing people for Defamation? Yes, it looks like he is: “Moving forward to the discovery stage of Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit against the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute was expedited when District of Columbia Superior Court judge Weisberg on September 12 denied yet another motion by the defendants that would have created a procedural delay” From http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/13/dc-judge-denies-another-effort-to-derail-michael-manns-defamation-lawsuit/.
It seems to me accusing a scientist of being “anti-science” is a pretty nasty claim, and one that well might damage the reputation of the one so called. I’ll leave it to the reader whether it falls under the definition of “Defamation.”
From Wikipedia:
Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, or traducement—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal action to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.
Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and have been made to someone other than the person defamed.[1] Some common law jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel.[2]
Well, previously Mann called me a ‘serial climate misinformer’ (in a previous op-ed, not too long ago)
Mann is crazy for filing suit. It must be costing him or his pals a load of money. He has to do it over again … what a waste of time and money.
From the article:
Michael Mann forced into a “do-over” in Mann -vs- CEI & Steyn
Posted on December 23, 2013 by Anthony Watts
Mann-Steyn-OrderWhat a great Christmas present for Mike. It is back to square one for him with his lawsuit over what he views as libel by Mark Steyn and CEI.
For background, see this WUWT story:
Mann has filed suit against NRO (now the laughing begins)
Since the previous ruling this summer that said the lawsuit could go ahead was nothing less than a bad legal joke:
Mann-Steyn lawsuit judge inverts the defendants actions, botches ruling
…that ruling has now been nullified by a higher appeals court ruling, Mann’s case will now have to start over.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/23/michael-mann-forced-into-a-do-over-in-mann-vs-cei-steyn/
Being somewhat on the immature side, the irony would be deliciously thick if Mann were to be sued for libel, and to lose, after having shown to have such a thin skin.
Meanwhile, I suppose you will stick to the high road. I don’t know how you are reacting to these attacks, but I know how I feel when I’m attacked in this way. It consumes a lot of energy, and slows down what I’m able to do. Not to mention all the introspection that has to go on.
You can donate to National Review here. I have.
https://www.nationalreview.com/donate
Back when the talk of a suit appeared, some commentators thought it was highly unlikely that Mann would go ahead with it. They argued that Mann would open himself up to discovery of things Mann has consistently kept hidden. Does anyone know whether this is true? Should we expect big fights in the suit about whether Mann’s UVa emails and other docs are relevant? And so on. Just curious–one for the lawyers among us to discuss.
“JC message to MM: If you want to avoid yourself being labeled as ‘anti-science’, I suggest that you are obligated to respond to my challenge.”
You do realize that no joy will come of this. At some point you have to appreciate that you are the one standing on science, and MM is a merchant selling hyperbole to his audience. He has no stake in doing otherwise.
This is good, mann just tweeted:
Michael E. Mann @MichaelEMann 7m
Some are asking for the identification of specific problems w/ #JudithCurry’s Senate testimony. A start: http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/curry-vs-mann/
He refers to a blog post that admits he hasn’t read my testimony.
Maybe he’ll graft your testimony on to other testimony.
curryja | January 18, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
Psst. Psst. The anonymous blogger admitted he hadn’t read your testimony thoroughly, but the anonymous blogger states he isn’t a climate scientist, so one doubts the anonymous blogger is Mann.
Where does Mann say it? I can’t imagine he _did_ read your testimony, but then I didn’t imagine from what he said that he thought he needed to.
Does Dr Curry know the difference between ‘not read’ and ‘not read thoroughly’?
Apparently not.
Mann never changes. What is a definition of “petrified”?
Mr. Me: You don’t have to be thorough to comment. In fact, you don’t even have to read. Why not waste your readers’ time?
Mann tweeted:
Read it thoroughly? He’s more likely to breaking out into “Feelings” (whoa whoa whoa Feelings) by Morris Albert.
You can’t really refute JC’s testimony about certainty except by showing that the missing certainty actually exists, but if the certainty existed then JC, more than familiar with her own area of expertise, would have been aware of it and wouldn’t have provided testimony as to its absence. So what they’ll need is a “certainty generator”, perhaps made by combining code from the Magic Eight Ball and the Noam Chomsky random text generator (aka the Chomskybot).
.
Judith, you might be interested in the exchange I had with Anders that led to him banning me from his blog (without actually saying I was banned or explaining why I was). I went over the discussion here, and the exchange can be found in the comments here. For the basic gist, here’s an extract:
Anders literally made things up about a figure existing in a five page paper then repeatedly refused to even look at the paper. Had he even glanced at the paper he was discussing, he would have immediately seen he was wrong. Instead, he banned me.
Michael Mann sure knows how to pick ’em.
I don’t know MM’s qualifications as a climatologist well enough to judge his assertions of what is “science” and what is “anti-science” in that realm. But I do know statistics, and from what I’ve seen from him in that realm he is not qualified to pass judgment on anyone’s scientific credentials.
George Turner | January 18, 2014 at 5:31 pm |
So what they’ll need is a “certainty generator”
I can just see it now – This “certainty generator” goes amok, producing a “Certainty Monster”… then goes head-to-head against Dr. Curry’s Uncertainly Monster. Throw in Godzilla and you have a great Japanese kaijuu flick…. :)
Andthentheresphysics isn’t a blog, rather a self-help community of sad losers who meet up to speak badly of the rest of humanity
If that’s what Mann’s got, we cannot assume malice given the complete idiocy of it all.
Yes, Anders or Wotts is not a good site for real discussions. The problem as usual is the unmoderated name callers and apologists, who Wotts gives free reign, imitating Real Climate. Wotts is polite usually, but not terribly interested in detailed research outside the field of “climate science.” I wouldn’t take his post terribly seriously.
Michael Mann is such a turd. What a joke.
“Me,” do you know the difference between trolling and posting? Apparently not.
Hey Judith, time to put on your big boy pants.
I would respond to that comment with positive enthusiasm, but not being a Brit, I will merely say that I agree. :-)
Judith seems to have a selective attitude about the need for and merits of big boy pants.
Um, ‘trousers’, or sue for breach of promise.
==========
Big boy pants are only for others.
“I was hounded by elected officials, threatened with violence and more — after a single study I co-wrote a decade and a half ago found that the Northern Hemisphere’s average warmth had no precedent in at least the past 1,000 years.”
A single study that used amateurishly bad statistics to come to a preconceived conclusion. No matter how many “climate scientists” were able to use their own “creative” statistics, and rings from magical trees (their precious) to create similar hockey sticks in later papers, Mann ’98 was an embarrassingly bad piece “work”.
let me rephrase that for him:
I was embarrassed by a real statistician after he showed that a single study I co-wrote a decade and a half ago found hockey sticks regardless of the data that was input, to create the false impression that the Northern Hemisphere’s average warmth had no precedent in at least the past 1,000 years.
There, that’s better…and more accurate.
Gates writes: “You, and others, who display this misunderstanding, are in serious need of some further refinement in your understanding.”
Re-education camps for all the skeptics…..
The velvet ravels, revealing fearsome ferrous.
===========
kim—poetry as always—was it a reference to the Catlin Stark–Roose Bolton slap?
Aha! Now I understand the Mann-ichean world view. Scientists: long term group-interest; others: short-term self-interest. Scientists: honest assessment; others: dishonest assessment. Scientists: good; others: evil. All scientists speak with the same voice. How to account for those with contrary assessments? Simple! Anti-science.
(No true scientist would disagree with the way I see things; no true Scotsman…)
Here’s another piece from Judith’s testimony that is questionable:
However, several key elements of the AR5 WGI report point to a weakening of the case for attributing most of the warming to human influences, relative to the previous assessment AR4 (2007):
• Lack of warming since 1998 and the growing discrepancies between observations and climate model projections. ”
—
As discussed at great length, here and virtually everywhere in the climate blogosphere, the so-called “pause” or lack of a continued rise in global tropospheric temperatures since 1998 is not a reason, nor a case for the weakening of the anthropogenic influence on climate. To suggest in congressional testimony that it does weaken the case, ignores the wealth of data that shows how strongly the climate system continues to accumulate energy, i.e. OHC increases, sea level rise, glacial ice mass loss, melting permafrost, etc. The most honest approach is too look at the largest perspective of energy in the climate system and the sum of all forcings that might nudge the energy balance one way or another. Additionally of course, a full consideration of the short-term influences on troposphere sensible heat (i.e. ENSO related variability) reveals what a poor metric or proxy sensible tropospheric heat is for anthropogenic influences over short periods, especially if one chooses to set the starting point for gauging that influence at the peak of a large El Niño when far higher than average amounts of energy are moving from ocean to atmosphere.
“Evidence against my position isn’t evidence against it because I can think of possible, unverified explanations for it!”
Incidentally, it’s mighty convenient how atmospheric warming was the go-to standard for measuring global warming up until it stopped giving answer people liked. People had no problem using it when it gave the answers they wanted.
If the ‘imbalanced energy’ is being sequestered anywhere other than the troposphere, it’ll stay there until the end of the Holocene. Bulk up, Mama Gaia.
========
Really Brandon. If the heat refuses to show up in perceptible ways, why the frack should we care about it at all? Like most people, I don’t plan to spend much time below 2,000 meters in the ocean, and if I did, I don’t think I’d care if it was 41.002 degrees or 41.053 degrees outside the hull.
RG said
Right, interesting how they do not understand how to add free energy components together to infer the capture of energy in the environment.
When we see an increasing trend in temperature with fluctuations resulting in a pause or hiatus, any trained physicist will immediately recognize the possibility of the thermal energy (temperature) trading places with kinetic energy (wind, pressure, etc) or compensating with other natural forcings that happen to make up the deficit in warming.
Showing a belief in uncertainty is not an excuse for not having a handle on the physics.
George Turner, don’t ask me. I don’t get the position. You don’t see people saying they were wrong to rely so heavily upon surface temperatures as their standard. You don’t see people criticizing past work which ignored things like OHC. You don’t see people saying Roger Pielke Sr. shouldn’t have been criticized for suggesting OHC was a better measure for global warming. You don’t see them doing anything they ought to do if they’ve had a genuine change of heart.
All you see is them trying to change the subject now that their preferred standard has stopped giving them the results they want. They may be right that we should changing standards, or they may be wrong. But if they won’t take a strong stance about their past position, how much faith should we have about their current one?
If in a decade surface temperatures have risen but OHC has remained constant, what will they do? Will they still say OHC is far more important, or will they hop back to surface temperatures?
OHC increases (that aren’t measured in the vast majority of the oceans, just inferred), sea level rise (which we pretentiously pretend to be able to measure on a global scale by changes of mms per year), glacial ice mass loss (for which we have even less precision than temperature), melting permafrost (talk about sparse measurements)….
Measurements? We don’t need no stinkin’ measurements!
Whatever happened to surface temps being the best proxy, the canary in the coal mine, the aspect of global warming about which we need to be most concerned?
Oh yeah, that damnable pause (in their own adjusted, krigged, teleconnected reported temp records) that the consensus denied for over a decade, and now seeks to pretend is irrelevant.
If the pause is so irrelevant, why did they have to pretend for so long that it wasn’t happening?
Brandon, if that happens, at least there is no uncertainty as to what they will do.
I have very little faith in OHC measurements because to measure the total heat in the ocean would require much, much finer sampling because the ocean consists of currents that are in a state of constant change. For example, two equal amounts of heat are lost from some Antarctic body of water in successive years, and the very dense, cold, saline water sinks and forms a current. To know how much heat is in the current, you have to measure both the temperature and the volume, because a colder current should be moving faster and for the same mass flow will be narrower. If you only measure the temperature and don’t account for the narrowing, your numbers will be quite inaccurate. But such measurements would have to be made by having the probes move across the current both vertically and horizontally to generate a profile of it.
I’d note that the accuracy of surface temperature measurements doesn’t extend beyond a tenth of a degree despite having thousands and thousands of measuring stations, and all we claim is that this measures the surface temperature, not the atmosphere’s entire heat content. Almost as if by magic, the OHC changes are taking place right below the depth of the Argo probes, so our spacial resolution is almost nonexistent, yet we claim to be measuring the ocean to a thousandth of a degree. In truth, by simply choosing where to measure, the deep ocean heat content is changing by however much we want to say it is.
“sea level rise (which we pretentiously pretend to be able to measure on a global scale by changes of mms per year)”
—–
Jason and Topix are pretty accurate. There is not much room for pretension when you have such precision.
“Jason and Topix are pretty accurate”
And her is me thinking that the annual $25 million cost, a third of a billion dollars so far, was justified on the grounds that Jason and Topix were too sparse and inaccurate to determine the OHC.
Incidentally, it’s mighty convenient how atmospheric warming was the go-to standard for measuring global warming up until it stopped giving answer people liked. People had no problem using it when it gave the answers they wanted.
Repeat this every time you see an alarmist statement.
As discussed at great length, here and virtually everywhere in the climate blogosphere, the so-called “pause” or lack of a continued rise in global tropospheric temperatures since 1998 is not a reason, nor a case for the weakening of the anthropogenic influence on climate.
YES IT IS! WHAT IS HAPPENING IS NOT WHAT WAS FORECAST TO HAPPEN. THE CONSENSUS THEORY AND THE CONSENSUS MODELS ARE JUST WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
Doc, I don’t think sea level can be used to measure the heat content of the deep ocean, because the deep ocean is close to the temperature where the water flips from expansion to contraction with temperature. If you observed a change, it could mean that the deep ocean is getting warmer, or getting colder. That’s part of the beauty of hiding the thermal imbalance where it’s almost impossible to measure and quantify. Hiding it in the upper ocean would just be too easy for someone to refute before the expiration date of the explanation.
George Turner | January 19, 2014 at 2:04 am |
That’s widely believed, but not correct, George. While that is true of fresh water, it’s not true of sea water at depth, which keeps contracting right up until it freezes …
However, you are right that you can’t just use sea level to measure heat content, because water is constantly being added to/subtracted from the ocean in the form of melting/freezing ice, groundwater, reservoirs, and the like.
w.
Something I’ve learned about the bulk of whistleblowers and activists: they are very great censors and suppressors. (Try leaking WikiLeaks, or try being “working class” in the employ of Michael Moore.)
“a single study I co-wrote a decade and a half ago found that the Northern Hemisphere’s average warmth had no precedent in at least the past 1,000 years”
.Michael Mann has chosen this unexceptional paper as a defence of his later activities, where it seems he uncritically accepts the ‘greenhouse gas’ theories.
How does he reconcile those theories with the measured values of the specific heat of CO2 – measured in laboratories around the world? The ‘greenhouse gas’ theory is just an analogy to fool a scientifically illiterate public and has largely succeeded in doing so.
• Judith Curry’s testimony in a nutshell “CO2 is not a control knob on climate variability on decadal time scales.”
• Andrew Dessler’s testimony in a nutshell “(1) the climate is warming; (2) human-emitted CO2 is causing it; (3) future warming could be large; and (4) the impacts of this are profound.”
Conclusion There is *NO* logical conflict between the conclusions of Curry’s scientific testimony and Dessler’s scientific testimony. Dessler’s testimony however is notably superior to Curry’s by the measure of “developing understanding in width, depth, and context“ … which are the criteria that historians apply in judging overall societal significance.
Judith Curry, perhaps broadening your scientific inquiries, along the lines indicated by Andrew Dessler’s testimony, would do more to enhance your scientific influence than any amount of complaining about “tweets”.
In a broader historical context, what Judith is saying is that we don’t really know how many Sioux warriors are over that hill, and we shouldn’t rely on population models to plan an attack.
Comanche on the Serengeti Plain.
====================
Null Hypothesis = Scenario C
Judith=honest
Dressler=tool
FOMD=sour grapes
Fan. Less colour less graphics equals better reasoning and less anger.
Comments are rubbish of course, Judith as a scientist had already considered Dressler’s points and realised they had little basis in fact.
As you do or you would be a lot more colorful.
kim—isn’t the Serengeti Excuse used by certain mannchildren really an admission that they’re the runts, gimps and weaklings of the herdminded? (Isn’t that how Africa works?)
Hi Judy – You wrote
“A comment on my testimony vs Dessler’s. Two very different perspectives. Dessler’s testimony represents the consensus view of science, focusing on what we know. My testimony focuses on the uncertainties and what what we don’t know, and why this is an important consideration for policy makers.”
Actually, your testimony and that of Dressler are in conflict in important areas. It would be useful for you to cross reference each major point in a new weblog post and identify issues of agreement and disagreement between the two of you. Than Mike Mann could, if he chooses, contribute with respect to each issue (as would I and others).
On his attack on you, I have been the recipient of such vitriolic attacks by others both up front and behind my back (as others have told me; with a few documented in e-mails).
The approach I have adopted to respond is to continue to provide my perspective (such as my minority statement on the AGU Climate Change Statement – http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/rpt-851.pdf) when asked and in the peer reviewed literature.
Recently I was asked to serve on another committee (this time for the AMS), and will again provide my input. That I am asked indicates there are others in our profession who share our perspective, but for one reason or another, do not want to be visible.
Please keep up your excellent and very much needed involvement in the climate science discussions!
Roger Sr.
Bart, one could learn a lesson with this comment on how one genuinely, sincerely points JC to more constructive options… If that was ones true intention.
John Carpenter | January 18, 2014 at 7:55 pm |
You expect me to be the only person with good ideas? I’m flattered, but I’m okay with Roger Sr. pitching in helpfully, too.
And hey, if you have something constructive, feel free to step up.
Roger Sr. Wrote:
Please keep up your excellent and very much needed involvement in the climate science discussions!
Roger Sr.
I Agree with Roger Sr. on this
Alex Pope
+1
Mann if you want to criticize JC, you cannot be that simple!, (i.e., by using that science-antiscience thing). For example, there is a logical argument based in statistics in your favor:
JC said in her testimony: “The stagnation in greenhouse warming observed over the past 15+ years demonstrates that CO2 is not a control knob on climate variability on decadal time scales”.
But there is no such “demonstration”. More info at the end of pg 6 in my:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2VHpYemRBV3FQRjA
When we talk about climate change, the appropriate timescales are not “decadal”. I have written a very easy to understand step-by-step essay that focuses in this timescale issue. It is tittled: “Appropriate timescales in climate change debate”. And, in a near future I would send it to JC’s email. If she decides to post it in this blog, we will be capable to start a scientifically productive discussion on this critical timescale issue.
Is anybody ever going to start dealing with the significant changes to the planets weather system, the ITCZ. Reduced Easterly Wave strata-cumulus cloud mass over the Equatorial Atlantic is providing every criteria for CC. BUT this somehow this earth changing event does’not come into the category of ‘if you see something, say something’. Even JC seems to be shy of this issue. The Met office somehow needs me to do their work for them i.e. once every scrap of the research is published then they will look at it – ignoring the fact that they are making sure that the necessary facilities for processing the data is being withheld to prevent this very publication. OK so lets not talk about significant changes to the planets largest weather system – lets all discuss high moral values and the role of scientists in fiddling data while Rome burns.
Conor,
Best to post links to data and research if you want anyone to pay attention.
Click on my name and the info should come up or go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScYH1_rWf7c
– 100
> 4.5 billion years of climate changes and counting Conor – chill…
The relevant factor of the equitotial Atlantic SST is that they are the
same the data for cc – not a generalised mean for global sites but exact in every criteria for causing cc. So why is this exact region being neglected in favour of data for global mean temp?
“If sceptics choose not to engage in the public debate, we leave a vacuum that will be filled by those whose agenda is one of short-term self-interest. There is a great cost to society if sceptics fail to participate in the larger conversation — if we do not do all we can to ensure that the policy debate is informed by an honest assessment of the risks. In fact, it would be an abrogation of our responsibility to society if we remained quiet in the face of such a grave threat.”
All I did was replace the word “scientists” with “sceptics” in Mann’s paragraph. The advice holds equally as well, or better considering the asymmetry of access that sceptics have to press coverage compared to activist scientists, yet Mann would muzzle those who disagree with him. If he had any self-awareness, the term hypocrite would apply.
Mann tries to tap into public advocacy tropes from several past campaigns, such as child abuse and terrorism. ‘If you see something, say something.’
That didn’t work out so well for the innocent people accused of Satanic Child Abuse back in the 80s, the last two of whom were finally released last month after spending 20 years in prison for crimes they didn’t commit.
The war against terrorism has sped up the militarization of not just the police but all organizations charged with keeping public order and has had a chilling effect throughout Western societies.
That a scientist would enlist such themes in declaring his advocacy is actually a bit scary. That he would label Curry as anti-science for calling attention to what he most certainly should have included in his op-ed piece is scarier still.
That Michael Mann would label Judith Curry as ‘anti-science’ is at first glance nothing more than absurd. But the fact that he did so in a social medium without accountability and which limits messages to 140 characters is almost Orwellian.
At every opportunity to promote scientific discussion, Mann has never failed to fail. He very clearly reveals that in addition to being a scientific mediocrity (note I am not accusing him of lying, falsifying or conspiring–I don’t believe any of those to be true) he is not a nice person.
You don’t need to be a nice person to do good science. We all know that. But if you’re not contributing to scientific advancement of human knowledge (and Mann is not–he is instead clouding the issue and derailing discussion) and still insist on trying to dominate public discourse, character counts.
“(note I am not accusing him of lying, falsifying or conspiring–I don’t believe any of those to be true)”
But what about the innocent people who were locked away for crimes they didn’t commit? Not to mention the militarization of the police. And just look at how Orwell’s fiction has become reality through Twitter.
Why lolwot, I don’t think the innocent victims of the Salem witch hunt went after Mann either. I’m not sure that’s any more relevant than your point.
When Cuccinelli went after Mann, the warmist community didn’t stand up for Mann. McIntyre did. When I circulated a letter asking Cuccinelli to leave Mann alone, no warmists signed it. Only skeptics and lukewarmers.
Character counts.
Tom—
For reals? The alarmists wouldn’t sign your petition against Cuccinelli’s activities? That’s too perfect. You’re being literal, right? LOL… Did they give reasons? (As that would involve emailing you, I’m guessing they didn’t.) So are we to draw the simplest conclusion: that the anathema of agreeing with a skeptic was more powerful than their solidarity with a fellow pseudoscientist? LOL. Like my momma taught me, and I’m sure yours did, there’s no honor among thieves.
For reals. I don’t believe an alarmist would drink ambrosia from the Holy Grail if it were poured by a skeptic or lukewarmer.
“When Cuccinelli went after Mann, the warmist community didn’t stand up for Mann. McIntyre did.”
Sounds very self-serving.
I don’t think Mann needs anyone to stand up for him.
I’m amazed how much time certain people devote to undermining the hostess. You’d think they view her as dangerous or something.
Well, they’re not upset because they don’t like the cute little cucumber finger sandwiches she serves us.
Maybe it makes them feel more important.
NW,
I agree.
““If you see something, say something.”
I suspect very few climate scientists ‘see’ AGW in the science that they do. Most would ‘see’ a new way to measure snow depth on arctic ice OR ;see; 12 months of aerosol emissions over the Arabian Peninsula OR ;see’ salinity variations in the Southern Ocean OR some other such feature of the climate system. Who could argue with climate scientists sticking to talking about what they actually see.
Rejoice, folks; you are all safe!
AP. “Bloggers Have First Amendment Protections, Federal Court Rules.” Text.Article. Associated Press, January 18, 2014. http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/01/18/bloggers-have-first-amendment-protections-federal-court-rules/
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved for the MSM.
Buzz,
keep waiting. In fact, hold your breath. Please—I insist.
But do it in the corner. The grownups are trying to talk about mummy and daddy things here.
How do you tell if a computer simulation adequately projected a trend or not?
There seems to be some confusion in applying the reasoning of what computer simulations are about to the graphs and trends floating about in climatology.
You DO NOT compare what actually happened to the flat and unmodified graph of the simulation as a metric of the skill of the projection. That would be silly. For one, we know the projections don’t handle volcanic eruptions at all, and can’t predict solar variability, either. Whatever cooking of these factors went into the simulation will not match the particulars of the actual events as they unfolded. However, a skilful model may have chosen a proxy pattern of solar and volcano activity as a stand-in, peppered throughout the whole range of the simulation run.
If that is the case, then we must compare not the flat and unmodified run with the actual, but determine what the largest segments of the run might be rearranged as blocks in each separate run to match most closely with what happened and see if the story which unfolded makes sense.
When you do this with the graphs of the simulations, you find that a full sixth of the sample population can be arranged to conform to the actual using only blocks at least seventeen years long, and all of the samples except three can do this with blocks of a decade or more.
This suggests the simulations may yet prove robust, in terms of their skill.
I doubt the simulations actually will turn out to be accurate; we’ve known for years that the Arctic simulation when run on a less coarse grid produces much faster Arctic melting than the general simulation, and this faster Arctic melt corresponds quite closely to the actual Arctic thaw of the past decade.
Still, the method used by Dr. Curry in her late testimony is simply invalid as applies to simulations.
@Bart R
So now they aren’t ‘models’, they have become ‘simulations’. Is this the fourth stage of their evolution ‘models’ into ‘predictions’ into ‘projections’ and now ‘simulations’?
And would I be over-cynical to suggest that such wording changes are just as meaningless as AGW–>climate change –> climate chaos–>climate weirding. All designed to put extra space between the theory and the observational results?
Because now it seems that accuracy – i.e agreeing with observation – has nothing at all to do with the ‘robustness’ or ‘skill’ of the models/predictions/projections/simulations. Which rather begs the question of what flaming use they are to anyone.
The simple fact is that 97% of the models are running hot. The ‘climate science’ community would do better to acknowledge that this is a major problem – both for the theory and for their tattered credibility – and get on with fixing them (along the way ditching 90% of them IMO) rather than attempt to use legerdemain and wording changes to hide this Very Inconvenient Truth
The world outside the academic bubble is a lot smarter than you seem to have persuaded yourselves it is…and – I say with all due respect – a lot smarter than many inside..
In UK we have a saying ‘pull the other one its got bells on’. I hope this crosses the pond well
Latimer Alder | January 19, 2014 at 4:37 am |
Some friendly suggestions and an observation:
A.) If you’re going to play the Sophist, learn what the phrase “begs the question” means. You’re doing it wrong.
B.) Don’t blame the models for their misuse by the world outside the academic bubble; and refer to http://www.cracked.com/article_20789_6-shocking-studies-that-prove-science-totally-broken.html for just how little different the situation is inside the academic bubble.
C.) If your parting jibe translated across the Atlantic as well as you say you hope, it’d be moderated off as a gross breach of blog rules, then, wouldn’t it?
If you’re really concerned with accuracy, you’d be scandalized far more by how cold the models of the social cost of carbon emission have run compared to the actual costs, which is a far larger gap than the temperature trend issue Dr. Curry’s presentation attempts to divert attention toward.
Bart R, in your eagerness to defend the moribund climate establishment by claiming that you “doubt the ‘simulations’ will turn out to be accurate” having conveniently called the model output “simulations” rather than predictions (see “climate change” rather than “global warming”) you failed to mention that far-ranging political, social, and economic decisions are being made by govenments based on the models which thus far, have shown no statistical skill and despite your protestations, are unlikely to gain that skill since they presuppose that CO2 is the main knob that controls climate and are unable to deal effectively with water vapor/clouds, ocean cycles, and solar cycles.
I knew I’d seen this reasoning somewhere before, but couldn’t quite put my finger on it until recently. It is, of course, “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”. That document prepared by the best minds of all times in a simultaneous time burst across the space of the Universe holds all the secrets. Interestingly, it has the words, “DON’T PANIC” on the front page and goes on to say:
“The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is an indispensable companion to all those who are keen to make sense of life in an infinitely complex universe, for although it cannot hope to be useful, or informative, on all matters, it does at least make the reassuring claim that where it is inaccurate it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it’s always reality that’s wrong.”
H/T The late and much missed Douglas Adams.
Who’d have thought that within a lifetime his great work would have shown such prescience?
Chuck L | January 19, 2014 at 6:48 pm |
Let’s decompose what you just said:
“Bart R, in your eagerness..
Eager?
I would have to be dragged here kicking and screaming against my will if not for the pathological need I have to extend courtesy and the ordinary good manners to see through a conversation. I’m not eager. I despise this correspondence. I don’t look forward to being constantly attacked and insulted and insinuations being made about my character by people who know nothing about me. I don’t look forward to explaining over and over in smaller and smaller words ordinary ideas to people who insist on misreading, or kneejerkingly see the first three words and lash out.
Who would be eager?
The truly interesting correspondents are largely driven away from participating with the thugs and goons and zealots here.
Eager?
..to defend the moribund climate establishment..
Defendwhowhatnow? What freaking climate establishment do you think is defended when I post a rebuke that applies to virtually every interpreter on both sides of the aisle about just how inept their handling and wrong their apparent understanding of what they’re looking at?
I’m in essence calling everyone who has looked at in Dr. Curry and the IPCC’s way, or allowed to be looked at in that way, some of the most fundamental pieces of the discourse, failures. Utter failures. Yeah, I do courtesy, but I don’t do tact and diplomacy. This is me seeing something wrong, and saying so. If you feel someone is defended by it, it’s those other people who have seen something wrong and said so, about this particularly inept interpretation in particular.
.. by claiming that you “doubt the ‘simulations’ will turn out to be accurate” having conveniently called the model output “simulations”
See, how does doubt simulations — WHICH IS THE TYPE OF MODEL IN PARTICULAR BEING DISCUSSED, HOW CAN YOU SPIN THAT INTO SOME SORT OF NUANCED WORDSMITHING AND EXPECT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY GROWN UPS? — will turn out to be accurate sound to you like defense of that ‘climate establishment’ that people are alleging rely on these simulation runs? You try to explain your reasoning for that twisty bit of logic, but on its face it’s utterly irrational as a claim, an argument against the interest of a case does not defend a case.
..rather than predictions..
Look up prediction in a dictionary. Then look up simulation. Compare the two entries side by side. Note how the properties of ‘prediction’ are not all present in the objective correlative, and the properties of ‘simulation’ all are. That is the rule for how to apply words meaningfully. Glad I could straighten that out for you. Now go forth and use words that way, as every child by the age of five year ought.
..(see “climate change” rather than “global warming”)..
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
Is that what you’re referring us to? The deliberate political campaign to create doubt and confusion in the public by the Republican Party going back to before 2003? HOW DOES THIS HELP YOUR CAUSE?
..you failed to mention..
You know what? I’m sick of being twitted with the “you failed to mention” attack. It’s a moronic thing to say. I don’t fail to mention what’s pertinent. If it mattered to my case, I’d have mentioned it. If I don’t mention it, it’s 99% likely to be irrelevant bafflegab, dross, error or fallacy. Let’s look at what you claim I fail to mention to find out which of those it turns out to be:
..that far-ranging political, social, and economic decisions are being made by govenments[sic] based on the models..
Oh look. All of them. You fear that governments are making decisions? Well, in the USA, governments have been so constipated in terms of action and inept at execution of the few decisions they do make that one could only regard your phobia as irrational.
More seriously, you might have a part of an argument to make if you said “..based on ONLY the models..” or, “..based on the erroneous ways of interpreting the models..”. But you don’t say the former, and the actual is the opposite end of the scale than a world where only the models go into decisions — many of which are made before members enter committee based on bible reading or political donations, and almost never on what is good for America; and you don’t say the latter, which if it were a concern you ought be applauding that finally people (and I’m not the only one, Victor Venema does a far better job than I do for example) are seeing it and speaking up about it.
..which thus far, have shown no statistical skill..
To channel Mosher in a non-blogrule-violating way, WRONG!
Used properly, the statistical skill of the models as seen in their simulations compared to real outcomes is extraordinarily good. For spans at least seventeen years long, we can find near exact matches in the simulations about a sixth of the time for the past seventeen years. That those matches don’t happen in the same calendar year spans is immaterial: the models cannot model real volcano prediction, and unlike the astrologers Scafetta and Landscheidt, do not pretend to predict zodiacal solar barycentric nanoactivity influences, either. Therefore, we know not to expect that particular type of skill in prediction, and would be irrational to pretend otherwise.
Other than what is known to be impossible, the simulations are remarkably robust at presenting the difference between a climate with AGW and a climate without AGW, and are an unexpectedly apt proxy for predicting the social cost of carbon. That cost correlation is largely only coincidental, of course, but interesting.
..and despite your protestations, are unlikely to gain that skill..
What protestations, bub? I flat out say they don’t have the skill, and that it’s an impossible skill to develop. READ HARDER.
..since they presuppose that CO2 is the main knob that controls climate
See, now that would have been a perfect place to say “BEGS THE QUESTION”. If models were build on a fallacious basis that assumes the conclusion in the premise, then they would be logically false.
But you fail to show that. And every attempt to show that I’ve so far seen has been simply wrong on fact. I’d invite you to try again to illustrate this point, but based on your track record in just this decomposition of your claims, it’s doubtful that would be interesting to read from you, so please don’t bore me by trying.
and are unable to deal effectively with water vapor/clouds, ocean cycles, and solar cycles.
An interesting use of the word “effectively”. The models — which are simplifications of the actual thing — deal with those factors using the same principle as they use to deal with volcanic and solar variations, by proxy SIMPLIFICATIONS. The validity of these proxy simplifications depends on how you try to use the models. If you try to use the models as Dr. Curry does, then you are just plain doing it wrong, and of course the proxy simplification methods are ineffective. If you use the model simulation runs competently — as many have, and as is done in the actual IPCC FAR thru AR5 texts, then they have proven quite effective for the purposes contemplated.
I don’t try to take a vacation on a model airplane. I don’t use a baseball teams stats to predict the name of a fan who will be hit by a foul ball a decade from now. And I don’t use climate models like Judith Curry did before congress.
I. Jolliffe: “It seems crazy that the hockey
stick has been given such prominence and that
a group of influential climate scientists have
doggedly defended a piece of dubious statistics.”
That was out for Mann.
Ray Bradley:
I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL (2003) paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.
another out
It pays the bills.
1. Without the hockey stick, the temperatures aren’t necessariy ‘unprecedented’.
2. If not ‘unprecedented’, then we know that ppl lived (and maybe even thrived) through previous warm periods.
3. If they already lived and thrived through similar, why do we need thousands of academics writing papers, creating models/predictions/projections/simulations about the dreadful future before us? The experiment has been done and we know the outcome.
4. McDonalds ain’t hiring.
QED
@John Bills
Serendipity brought this article to my attention just moments after finishing my McDonalds remarks. The parallels with the Hockey Stick/McIntyre saga are very interesting
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/19/mathematics-of-happiness-debunked-nick-brown
I particularly liked this
”I’m able to do what I’m doing here because I’m nobody. I don’t have to keep any academics happy. I don’t have to think about the possible consequences of my actions for people I might admire personally who may have based their work on this and they end up looking silly. There are 160,000 psychologists in America and they’ve got mortgages. I’ve got the necessary degree of total independence.”
Substitute ‘climatologists’ for ‘psychologists’ and he’s bang on the money.
‘
Here’s a good summary:
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick
“1. Without the hockey stick, the temperatures aren’t necessariy ‘unprecedented’.”
Even without the hockeystick we know current temperatures are are close to the warmest in the holocene. Even the lowest climate sensitivity would therefore result in unprecedented global temperatures – by far – under business as usual.
“2. If not ‘unprecedented’, then we know that ppl lived (and maybe even thrived) through previous warm periods.”
You could only know that if you had positive evidence. Which would require you to accept paleo-temperature reconstructions. Which is a bit of a catch-22 because of course those reconstructions show the changes today are unprecedented over the period.
“3. If they already lived and thrived through similar, why do we need thousands of academics writing papers, creating models/predictions/projections/simulations about the dreadful future before us? The experiment has been done and we know the outcome.”
That’s backwards. You need to do the research first to find out what conditions were in the past. You don’t assume it was warmer and use that to argue research is unnecessary.
Tell me, how are skeptics so sure the MWP existed as a global phenomenon, let alone that it was warmer than today? What is their evidence for that?
Paleo reconstructions have nowhere near the temporal and spatial resolutions required to ‘show’ anything of the sort.
What is your evidence that it wasn’t?
Do you not realise the damage this is doing to the reputation of science?
Even if it turns out that you’re right, you will be right for all the wrong reasons, and people are going to know it.
From above “Here’s a good summary:
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick“
Can’t believe you link to such tripe. An example:
“if a similar or greater warming phase has occurred in the very recent past, before human CO2 emissions had caused CO2 levels to rise, then clearly any such recent warming must have been natural and was not caused by CO2. If the current phase of warming could be natural then those arguing that it was primarily caused by human CO2 emissions would have to prove their hypothesis. And this is something they cannot do.”
Lets check the logic here. So if the last 150 years of warming WAS unique in the last 1000 then this would prove it was caused by human CO2 emissions?
Really? Do you subscribe to that logic? 150 years out of 1000. Roughly one out of six. And if that period was unique that would be proof as to the cause? Proof?
Well it’s not just hypothetical. It turns out that there is no other 150 year period (in the last 1000) in which temperature rises as much as 0.8C, except for the most recent 150 years.
TADA! we’ve proven that this unique 150 years of warming is due to man according to the author!
Cue wailings and excuse making.
“The only “proof” that CO2 is currently forcing up global temperatures is the claim that the current warming is somehow unusual, unique and unnatural.”
What a load of bull
This is not about paleo. It’s abot ethics.
Ethical dilemmas have a way of sneaking up on a person. If something smells funny, stay away from it. Or help get rid of it.
Price Pritchett
@lolwot
Fail. You’ve tried to invert the logic presented and got it wrong.
If the warming was shown to be unique, then that uniqueness could be used in support of other arguments to show proof of cause. If it is not unique, then uniqueness is clearly not a supportive argument. It happened before without CO2 is a powerful suggestion that CO2 is not the only possible cause.
But neither case provides ‘proof’ of anything at all. If you want to show that AGW caused the recent warming, you still have to do so…with or without uniqueness.
And while you’re there I’d appreciate your explanation of a couple of dendro/paleo points
1. What is the explanation for the observed ‘decline’ in tree ring growth that so worried Jones that he felt he had to hide it in his famous ‘Hide the Decline’ remark?
2. What physical mechanism (and observational demonstration thereof) are ‘teleconnections’ currently believed to work by?
I think that the irony of the models actually showing quite clearly that Mann was wrong rather than right has been missed by most people.
Hansen created 3 ‘runs’ of the models to show how temperatures and CO2 were likely to be intertwined. Scenario A was ‘massively’ increasing CO2. Scenario B was ‘reasonably’ increasing CO2 and Scenario C was ‘flat’ CO2.
Mann supports and believes that the above projections are correct and that they show that the rise in CO2 has a massive influence on global temperatures.
Observations (and the models) do not seem to support this conclusion however.
Scenario C can be re-phrased to be ‘any future change in CO2 levels will have no impact’ rather than ‘no change to CO2 levels’. This is like saying
0 * x = 0
The two are indistinguishable and logically equivalent.
Scenario C can be considered to be the ‘control run’ or the ‘null hypothesis’.
The longer that measured global temperatures track Scenario C, the more proof we have that indeed the models are totally correct. CO2 (and the other greenhouse gasses) are not the massive influence that has been claimed by Hansen and Mann.
Null Hypothesis = Scenario C
http://snag.gy/GdnJ0.jpg
The scenarios don’t just include CO2, they also included CFC and methane rises. Rises which did not happen.
Straws, clutching at…
lolwot | January 19, 2014 at 7:48 am |
“The scenarios don’t just include CO2, they also included CFC and methane rises. Rises which did not happen.”
I did not claim that the rise of CO2 and other gasses did not happen.
I did claim that the effect of any such rises that did occur can be considered to be zero instead.
Scenario C is the effect thats come from setting the ‘control knob’ of the models to zero. The control run, or the ‘null hypothesis’.
I mention that because scenario A wasn’t just massively increased CO2, it was also massively increased CH4 and CFC.
What happened is CO2 massively increased, but CH4 and CFCs didn’t. Therefore the path emissions followed was scenario B not A.
Lolwot: “Therefore the path emissions followed was scenario B not A.”
So what. The EFFECT of such changes on temperatures is what is under discussion, not the actual changes themselves.
The models are setup to represent behaviour as equation of the form
x * n = y
(I do understand it is a LOT more complicated than that – just go with the simple example for now).
Where x is the change in gasses in the atmosphere, n is the effect of those changes and y is the temperature.
Scenario C in effect held x constant and therefore y is only modified by all the other parameters such as natural factors and the outcomes drawn on a graph.
The various different models can be considered to be a range of different n’s.
However it is possible to reduce n to a very small number such that any change in x only produces a small change in y.
That is what the observed temperatures tracking Scenario C shows.
The models ARE right. CO2 is NOT the main driver of a warming climate!
actually it’s more like
x * n * c = y
where c is the climate sensitivity.
If CO2 causes even 1C of warming per doubling then how can it not be the driver of global temperature?
lolwot | January 19, 2014 at 9:02 am |
“actually it’s more like
x * n * c = y
where c is the climate sensitivity.
If CO2 causes even 1C of warming per doubling then how can it not be the driver of global temperature?”
Because Scenario C is the control run where n (or c or both I suppose) is tiny and therefore both the values of c , n and x are not relevant to the outcome!
This what the models are saying. It is they who come to that conclusion if temperatures track Scenario C.
Are you disputing that temperatures are tracking Scenario C?
No Richard the models are not correct. Scenario C is a model of a world where atmospheric CO2 stopped increasing. CO2 did not stop increasing so that is a not a model of the real world. CO2 continued increasing at the historic rate (or more). The model parameterized for business as usual CO2 emission is Scenario A.
The models are clearly (95% certainty, heh) either wrong or incomplete. They are either wrong about the magnitude of any CO2 greenhouse effect or they are missing something that masks or negates that effect either temporarily or permanently.
My non-expert opinion is that water vapor amplification is wrong. It is wrong because: the ocean is not sensibly heated by downwelling longwave infrared emitted by greenhouse gases. This energy, due to water’s complete opacity to longwave IR, is taken up as latent heat of vaporization. It drives water into the atmosphere faster raising its enthalpy rather than its temperature. The environmental lapse rate is reduced and the vapor must then convect to a higher altitude before condensing into a cloud thereby releasing latent energy and heating the atmosphere. The clouds, higher than they would be without anthropogenic CO2, have a less restricted radiative path to space and a more restricted radiative path back towards the ground.
This is not to say there is no greenhouse effect from anthropogenic CO2. It is saying the mechanism is most effective over dry land not over the ocean. It predicts we should see more warming in higher latitudes in the northern hemisphere where there is twice as much land as in the southern and where the high latitudes dry the land by freezing it during some portion of the year.
I believe all observations fit neatly within the paradigm above and further efforts by atmospheric scientists to measure changes in relative humidity, cloud heights, and lapse rates will confirm it. There is currently very little in the way of global data with regard to RH, cloud height, lapse rate, and enthalpy. The focus has largely been on sensible temperature because that’s the easiest and most familiar measure.
c is 4.5C per 2xCO2 in all the scenarios.
So if scenario C is a null hypothesis, it’s a null hypothesis for 4.5C per doubling of CO2, it’s not a null hypothesis for >0C warming from CO2.
“It is saying the mechanism is most effective over dry land not over the ocean.”
_____
This would not be considered an “anti” science statement, but certainly an “un” scientific one. The assumption here of course is that streamflows from rivers are warming up, and that in itself is enough to have put approximately 0.5 x 10^22 joules of energy per year into the global oceans down to 2000m. A simple extrapolation back to the streamflows of the major rivers of the world and the necessary temperature changes of the those streamflows would reveal rather quickly why this is un-scientific and even to the point of being absurd. The accumulation of GH gases in the atmosphere works to alter the flow of energy from the ocean to space by the alteration of the thermal gradient between the two. In doing such, the oceans (being the natural climate system energy reservoir of the planet) retain more energy than they lose, and thus gradually warm and sea levels rise.
River runoff is 44,000 cubic kilometers per year. That’s 44,000 * 10^15 grams or 4.4 * 10^18 grams. It requires 4.2 Joules to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree C. So a 1C rise in global river temperature requires roughly 2 * 10^19 Joules. Ostensible OHC rise is 5 * 10^21 Joules per year.
Good point Gates. Warmer river runoff alone is entirely insufficient to create that much OHC rise. However, let’s not forget that ARGO found the global ocean was cooling before it was “corrected” into a finding that it was warming. I do not trust OHC change numbers as far as I can throw them when a bit of pencil whipping can turn it from a negative to a positive number.
Interested parties see here to learn about how our best instrument network for measuring global ocean temperature first revealed the ocean was cooling and then with a few keystrokes to was transformed into ocean warming:
Correcting Ocean Cooling
I have just about zero confidence in an OHC figure whose polarity can be changed with a hypothetical “correction”.
Corrected (dropped a decimal point) in the original.
River runoff is 44,000 cubic kilometers per year. That’s 44,000 * 10^15 grams or
4.4 * 10^184.4 * 10^19 grams. It requires 4.2 Joules to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree C. So a 1C rise in global river temperature requires roughly2 * 10^192 * 10^20 Joules. Ostensible OHC rise is 5 * 10^21 Joules per year.Increased river runoff temperature appears insufficient to be more than 5-10% of the ostensible increase in OHC rise. However, let’s not forget that ARGO found the global ocean was cooling before it was “corrected” into a finding that it was warming. I do not trust OHC change numbers as far as I can throw them when a bit of pencil whipping can turn it from a negative to a positive number. No one else should trust such easily fungible numbers either.
Interested parties see here to learn about how our best instrument network for measuring global ocean temperature first revealed the ocean was cooling and then with a few keystrokes to was transformed into ocean warming:
Correcting Ocean Cooling
I have just about zero confidence in an OHC figure whose polarity can be changed with a hypothetical “correction”.
David Springer | January 19, 2014 at 10:14 am |
“No Richard the models are not correct. Scenario C is a model of a world where atmospheric CO2 stopped increasing. CO2 did not stop increasing so that is a not a model of the real world.”
Duh!
I know the gasses did not increase in line with Scenario C!
Do you dispute that temperatures are indeed tracking Scenario C (for whatever reason)?
Null Hypothesis = Scenario C
http://snag.gy/GdnJ0.jpg
lolwot | January 19, 2014 at 10:18 am |
Logic is not your strong point then.
Do you dispute that temperatures are, indeed tracking Scenario C or not?
Null Hypothesis = Scenario C
http://snag.gy/GdnJ0.jpg
Net flux change at top of atmosphere measured by CERES satellite. Graph provided by the head scientist in charge of the satellite.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CERES-Terra-global-2000-20101.gif
One can easily see that according to CERES, the best instrument we have, the earth spends about equal time (since 2000) losing and gaining energy. This happens to neatly match global average lower troposphere temperature anomalies measured by satellite-borne microwave sounding units under the same supervision as CERES (UAH).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2000/to:2010
This lends further credence to the notion that ARGO data has been pencil whipped to hide the decline. This ad hoc “correcting” of data to match preconceived notions of AGW is rampant.
RichardLH | January 19, 2014 at 11:38 am |
“Do you dispute that temperatures are indeed tracking Scenario C (for whatever reason)?”
No of course I don’t dispute that. But the reason is that the model is wrong. It is paramterized for no rise in CO2 (Scenario 3) and (in hindsight) that is not the correct parameterization. Scenario A was the correct parameterization and that produces the wrong output.
You said the models were correct. The models are NOT correct. An incorrectly parameterized model produced a correct result.
David Springer | January 19, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
“No of course I don’t dispute that. But the reason is that the model is wrong. ”
The conclusions drawn from the models is wrong more likely.
The point is that, making the assumption the models are correct if fed the right parameters, and the outcome is as observed then something has to change
We know that temperatures changed as observed. We know what the CO2 and other gasses changed as they did.
if, Gasses * Climate Sensitivity * Model factor = Temperature, then it is reasonable to say that either the Climate Sensitivity or the Model Factor should be very low (or zero) if temperatures continue to track Scenario C.
You can push the constant from one place in the equation (because we know the gasses changed) to somewhere else. Your choice where to put it.
Null Hypothesis = Scenario C
http://snag.gy/GdnJ0.jpg
Bob Ludwick | January 19, 2014 at 10:43 am |
“And almost invariably spot on in your postings.”
Blush.
Just simple logical thinking. No bias, just observation and logic.
Doesn’t lying belong under the anti-science rubric? Everytime Mann asserted there was nothing wrong with his stick study he was in fact lying as of course he knew better — in fact knows better, since he is still denying any wrong doing or knowledge thereof.
Self delusion, whilst it can be called ‘lying’ in a sense, can be a strong factor in a belief system.
I do not think he is lying. I do think that he has drawn the wrong conclusions from a set of facts.
What was that quote about incompetence and malice?
@ Richard
“What was that quote about incompetence and malice?”
The pointy end of the ‘Climate Science Pyramid’ and the politicians with which they exist in a symbiotic relationship are universally liberals/progressives/socialists/Marxists/communists/euphemism du jour.
Reflect on their success in implementing their agenda, world wide, over the last century and the fact that ACO2 as the cause of CAGW is taught to our children with a certainty that makes the THEORY of relativity idle speculation in comparison and you will realize that whatever else they are, they are NOT incompetent. In the science aspect of ‘climate science’ they may indeed be incompetent. See Dr. Mann and his famous Hockey Stick, which continues to be staunchly defended by ‘Real Climate Scientists’. In establishing the meme that ACO2 represents an existential threat that DEMANDS that the government take control of any activity that either produces or consumes energy the Climate_Science/Progressive_Politician complex represents the pinnacle of group competence.
That conclusion would be fine expect that I am a Liberal, engineer and amateur scientist.
And my fingers are dyslexic! Except rather than expect.
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” ~Phil Jones, Climategate emails
The usual suspects knew they did wrong and once the precedent was set were happy to repeat it. The tree ring data used to build a paleo-temperature record going back 1000 years didn’t agree with modern instrument data. The instrument data couldn’t be impeached so the disagreeable tree ring data was discarded and the instrument record patched into the time series in place of it.
This is scientific misconduct. Michael Mann and his cohorts in scientific crime were caught red handed. The whole gang of egotistical lying misfits should be pariahs in the scientific community and the fact that they are not speaks very badly of the community’s integrity.
@ Richard LH
“That conclusion would be fine expect that I am a Liberal, engineer and amateur scientist.”
That conclusion is fine in spite of the fact that you are a Liberal, engineer, and amateur scientist. With dyslexic fingers. And almost invariably spot on in your postings. In my reasoned, unbiased opinion.
The fact that all grass is green in no way implies that all that is green is grass, either.
Bob
Thank you Dr. Curry. May future historians treat you as one of the heroes in this dark hour of history.
Pingback: The failed marches of climate “cause” marketeers | The View From Here
Michael Mann swings his purse in a roundhouse fashion. Curry ducks it easily and kicks him in the groin. Mann’s lack of cajones saves him from grievous injury and he tweets his lawyer – “can we sue the beeatch?”
Stay tuned for more from the Penn State drama queen.
Concise, good imagery, easy to understand. Great appeal to the id.
You’ve done it again, DS. :)
“swings his purse in a roundhouse fashion”
BTW, a comment worthy of a Western New Yorker :O)
Winner !
That’s a defamatory aspersion on Mike’s furniture!
He has drawers aplenty; what he lacks are descended gonads (cojones).
Is someone suggesting that Mikey is a NoBall Laureate?
@lolwot
#1. Maybe so. That is an arguable point, but has nothing to do with the hockey stick
#2. Plenty of contemporary evidence (both from written weather accounts and indirect – economics etc) that the warm period existed and then declined. No paleo needed. Direct demonstration that the hockey stick is wrong.
And amazing that no climos knew enough recent history to question it at the time. Anybody who rides around our Cotswolds or reads about the Plantagenet times knows this. The Middle Ages were times of bountiful harvests, strong economies and warm weather. They are not undocumented imaginary times. Maybe in the US they seem a long time ago, but in Europe they’re relatively recent history.
#3. Hardly a persuasive case for an army of climatologists. Maybe keep a few to wheel out every now and then and make some meaningless remarks about warming or cooling or vortices. But not a need for more than a couple of dozen.
Every time Mann opens his mouth he sticks his foot in it. Would that the foot would remain there. What an oaf. What an ego. What a CHARLATAN
“Fuel poverty” became a problem for humans after the Second World War.
Textbooks of physics and chemistry continue to promote misinformation about nuclear energy that prevents mankind from safely harvesting and using this source of energy to meet future energy needs, as noted here:
http://orach24463.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/climate-change-is-not-the-problem-fuel-poverty-is/
I think Dr Currie should have said “Mikey are you looking for another Law Suit?
I seem to have missed where any of the the denizens have defended the rotting sac.
Did anyone?
““If you see something, say something.” How true !
Why did not Dr. Curry, or anybody else in the (academic) climate research community, speak up against the fishy and absurd hockey stick, when it was first published in 1998 ?
The scientific establishment helped create the propagandist that is Michael Mann by not killing him when he first raised his head. You now reap what you sowed.
Apparently nobody knew where to look to help along the decomposition, and did not suspect what a Mikey is composed of.
One should not minimize the power of the climate nomenklatura, even in 1998.
It’s all pretty obvious:
Michael Mann is a paid shill of Big Oil to discredit the warmist camp from within.
Why else would anyone have such an easy target?
Mann, if this isn’t an example of the rational vs. the irrational, I don’t know what is. I have always observed that the left (and Mann is a flaming leftist) always accuses others of being and doing exactly what they (the left) are and do when reality collides with their agenda. Agenda trumps science.
keep up the good, rational, coherent work, Dr. Curry!
Dennis Ludwig
Dr. Doiron…
Thank you for your response to my comment. After a brief look at your website as well, I have several comments:
There are other risks associated with digging up fossil carbon and dumbing its combustion products into the air, besides the best-known issue of “global warming”. Ocean acidification is often mentioned, but IMO a more important risk is directly stimulating a catastrophic (in the mathematical sense) “collapse” (i.e. reorganization) of eco-systems our current society depends on.
While there may be some incremental costs associate with rising sea level, and perhaps in changes to agricultural regime in selected areas, it seems to me the major potential impact involves catastrophic economic collapse, in the sense that if the economy continues to function well the results of burning fossil carbon aren’t really that bad. And, of course, there is serious risk of similar catastrophic economic collapse to be found with artificial increases to energy prices. Not to mention a host of other probable impacts.
It makes sense, then, that the risks of digging up fossil carbon and dumping it into the atmosphere, when we don’t even know where all of it goes, much less how much (if any) damage it does along the way, more than justify a collection of “no regrets”, more properly low regrets, responses. Separating such action from “solutions” that involve raising the price of energy is totally justified: they are different questions, with very different considerations involved in their answers.
WRT plans, and more detailed analogies to the Apollo Program, we should keep in mind Helmuth Carl Bernard von Moltke’s dictum that “No plan of battle survives first contact with the enemy”. The planning involved in the Apolla Program, or the Manhattan Project, was flexible enough to take account of the unexpected, but had very well defined objectives. A plan to “get the world’s energy system off fossil carbon” may have a narrow objective, but there’s so much unknown about what technology can be developed how that any “plan” of that sort would rule out all sorts of potentially helpful technology. It would also be highly vulnerable to having its basic assumptions invalidated by unexpected technological developments.
In considering a “plan” to move a country, culture, or polity away from fossil fuels, we must also keep in mind what Hayek said about central planning, e.g.:
A recent post here also discusses his later work, when he had becomed disillusioned with even the level of “economic planning” suggested in his early work.
I’m not saying we “don’t need no stinkin’ plan”, but we do need an approach that offers the greatest scope for human ingenuity and taking advantage of every technological development and synergy that becomes available. IMO we need approaches that reward developments that work towards providing energy without burning fossil carbon, and removing and using the extra (amounts of) carbon present in the atmosphere/ocean surface with minimal pre-selection of technology.
While the cost should come from more general funds rather than “carbon taxes” or equivalent, it should focus primarily on research and early industrial development, with private capital and assumption of risk involved in bringing technologies “on-line” past that point.
There are several reasons for avoiding direct transfers of money for this research: The program evaluation process would be highly subject to corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency, as well as the tendency to ignore less conventional approaches. And spending tax dollars would take money from other programs, engendering opposition.
More imaginative approaches (plural) are needed. One example I sort of like is to allow large tax-paying institutions to divert a fixed fraction of their total tax bill to the research programs of their choice (within broad limits), with some rights in the results, although not as many as if they had paid for it out of regular funds. While much of the money would be wasted, such institutions would have strong incentives to spend the money on actual research, since any success would be an effecctive windfall.
That’s just an example, of course. We need lots of imagination to be applied to the problem.
How about some form of nuclear?
I like your idea of incentivizing multiple funding sources to chose what research to fund. Hopefully, that would get more oomph behind Low Energy Nuclear Reactions investigations.
Pingback: Dr. Judith Curry, makes Mann, look like a Mouse!!! | Mothers Against Wind Turbines
Judith Curry
MM will not respond to your challenge because he knows he is unable to do so.
He and his study concluding “unprecedented 20thC warmth” have been thoroughly discredited and this has been amply documented, so it really doesn’t matter what silly things he writes about others, including you.
Max
AK was asking on my views about technology development.
We all know, how much technology development has produced, it really changes the world. It’s, however, common that it proceeds in unforeseeable directions. From that results a technology pull that brings into a path that nobody could imagine – think about all information technology.
The situation is not as good, when the problem to be solved is very specific. Technology does miracles somewhere, but not everywhere. I happened to come to U.S. as a young postdoc during the first oil crisis. I went to work at Argonne National Laboratory in theoretical elementary particle physics, but some other physicists working in the same building had just switched to renewable energy research. That was my first contact with that.
A few years later back in Finland I did also switch to energy research, at an institute working both in nuclear energy and in many areas of renewable energy. One of my first tasks was to write a report on hydrogen energy (the unfortunate thing is that the report written in 1980, is in many ways still almost up-to-date). I did also participate several times in wider assessments of various alternatives. Since that time I have been in close contact with people studying many specific technologies. I have seen gradual success, but I have also seen very many total failures, both from near and from reading about companies around the world, that made big promises but failed to deliver.
Energy is mostly a rather mature field of study, where progress is very gradual. There are also areas that are not mature, and that have a potential to faster changes, but moving from first small scale success to a level that really makes a difference for the energy economy is huge. In most cases that takes decades.
System analysts have built models that typically involve some endogenous technological change. That’s mostly modeled in a way that I consider highly unrealistic, and that supports therefore wrong optimism. I was happy to notice that William Nordhaus seem to share my views on that issue in a recent paper published in “The Energy Journal”.
Germany has wasted tens of billions of Euros in building wind and solar energy. Wind energy produce something significant, but solar very little, worth perhaps 10% of the cost. I don’t think that all that spending has accelerated technology development so much that this would justify those investments. There are still people who describe that as a success story, to me it’s really far from that, and many agree also in Germany. It’s just one more proof on the difficulty of getting results rapidly.
Pekka
Thanks for posting your views on energy technology development.
It appears that (barring a “black swan”) it will be difficult to get rapid results, despite all the human ingenuity..
But “black swans” have surprised us in the past.
Max
At the beginning of my post I emphasized the great influence of unexpected breakthroughs. Unfortunately energy does not seem to be a very likely field of those at a level that really makes a difference in a couple of decades.
Development has been fast enough to stall the growth in primary energy use in developed countries, but emerging economies are now growing their share. New forms of consumption require typically less energy than old, but the old forms don’t disappear.
Pekka
You are right. The growth in energy use is now coming from the developing world as they grow their economies and quality of life by building up a reliable source of low-cost energy, while the per capita use in the developed nations is decreasing steadily.
But, barring any major breakthroughs on the energy sector (which you consider unlikely, at least for the short term) we will have to reckon with a continued increase in the overall global per capita use of fossil fuels and CO2 emission as this development continues (they rose by about 15% from 1970 to today).
IMO that is the dilemma which IPCC is facing.
Max
Pekka…
Thank you for elaborating on your perspective. While I don’t have much direct experience with most of the technologies involved, I do have some with synergies across fields considered distinct by most observers and practitioners. I believe this gives me some ability to predict potential outcomes of R&D.
Personally, I’m convinced that there’s a tendency for advances in one field to enable advances in others, by solving problems and allowing processes that were previously not cost effective. I call this “Synergy”, which AFAIK is the proper word for it. For me, the preeminent example involves using bio-tech to convert hydrogen from electrolysis into methane. In principle, this could allow solar energy to be captured in a highly storable and transportable form. Granted, there would be some impact to energy efficiency, but if the cost of solar energy continues its >4 decade exponential decrease, the economic cost efficiency could well outstrip existing technology.
Of course, I’m not suggesting relying on this particular technology alone, rather I’m suggesting political/economic policy options that would substantially increase the potential rewards to anybody developing any technology that solves the problem.
When it comes to breakthroughs, it’s important (IMO) to distinguish between those that require new theoretical breakthroughs, and developments that can reasonably be foreseen using our existing understanding of the world. The latter have a much greater chance of growing to maturity, and can also be much easier to foresee.
The key to properly addressing the problem, IMO, is to not hold low-regrets options hostage to high-regrets options that require raising the price of energy. Granted, if the world pursues low-regrets options the political will to impose high-regrets options will be reduced, but OTOH you must consider the alternative that the whole issue will be abandoned. Right now, based on recent experience, it seems to me that the choice is low-regrets options (with a slightly higher risk that the problem won’t be solved), and nothing.
In a comment above, I linked to an article by Jason Pontin: “Why We Can’t Solve Big Problems”. This article, in turn, links to a “manifesto” called What Happened to the Future? published by the Founders Fund, a venture capital firm started by Peter Thiel, a cofounder of PayPal, whose motto is “We wanted flying cars—instead we got 140 characters.” This document contains an important quote:
This, IMO, points up one of the key problems with “alternative energy”: nobody’s really shooting at something much better.
AK,
Some more comments.
1) I’m all fore energy research, what I criticize are too high expectations for its capability to provide solutions that are on par with the extreme expectations implied by proposed energy policies, or by the trust that limited availability of fossil fuel will not lead to major economic problems.
2) Energy research has led to results worth of the money put into the research. My comments on Germany were on rapid implementation of immature technology based on excessive subsidies. High subsidies may be used for prototypes and limited test systems, but are wasteful when offered for large scale implementation.
3) The very large scale of energy system means that rapid progress is possible, and does happen, in limited subsystems, what takes much longer is to develop solutions that are cost-efficient over major parts of the whole system.
4) Development in other fields is essential for the development. The criticism on estimates endogenous learning tell only that accelerating that through subsidy based large scale deployment may be waste of money. Trust in such acceleration may also lead to wrong policy decisions other than excessive direct subsidies.
To summarize: Development in energy technologies may at the same time be great and too weak to solve the problems it’s expected to solve.
Failure in solving the problems of energy supply in time would lead to much more costly energy. That would affect societies in many times, but the present share of cost of energy in total consumption is not so high that managing with significantly higher unit costs and smaller amounts would be impossible. That cannot be the end of development, but that can hurt the human well-being significantly compared to a more benign development.
AK wrote: “This, IMO, points up one of the key problems with “alternative energy”: nobody’s really shooting at something much better.”
The LENR folks are doing so.
Pekka…
There appear to be effectively endless amounts of methane hydrate clathrate on the ocean floors. While sea-floor engineering is right now considered expensive, the environment is essentially much more friendly than the surface, and most of the expense is in keeping people alive at such pressures: AFAIK there are developments in robotics are already past the proof-of-concept stage that make on-site humans unnecessary.
Thus, the potential for bringing the price of methane from such sources down to match that from fracking and more traditional sources depends only on political/economic factors: money and expertise need to be invested in it. This swings the primary onus to the risk of digging up all that fossil carbon and burning it.
We appear to be in agreement regarding synergy among technological fields, information technology is developing at the necessary rate, and, AFAIK, so is solar PV and bio-tech. There only needs to be timely investment in solving the specific engineering problems. Problems that do not require any sort of theoretical breakthrough to solve. And, of course, in putting together the advances in disparate fields to produce cost-effective systems.
I certainly agree with you that “trust in such acceleration may also lead to wrong policy decisions other than excessive direct subsidies.” There should be no “trust” in the sense of resting on laurels, or “throwing a policy over the wall” and expecting it to simply work. But I also think we need to “think outside the box” WRT subsidies.
For example, in a very large free-market context, intellectual property could be considered a type of subsidy. The patent system (and, to a lesser extent the copyright system) is generally rationalized as rewarding certain types of research and development because they are in the general interest. They could probably be modified to incent much greater private investment.
This is a thorny political problem, since major IP holders have strong input into the details of such modifications, but it could be solved. And there may be similar “out of the box” ideas that could have an equal or greater multiplying effect.
What’s most important, IMO, is to properly define the problem. Raising the price of energy flies in the face of centuries of successful acceleration of industrial development through subsidies on energy prices. While it would undeniably provide economic incentives for developing alternatives, we need an ongoing effort to develop and implement policies that will incent the necessary investment without depending on raising the price of energy.
Tom There are hundreds of responses; however, we need more simple answers to explane HE/CC ? CO2 is the gas of life & is only 1 part of 2500 parts of our atmosphere & how can CO2 be a major greenhouse gas (VENUS atmosphere is 87 % CO2, so is a major greenhouse gas). We are a carbon. society – just check our breathing & CO2 levels have been 100 times higher over the past 1. MM years & without human activity. Jim Hansen has stated that if we reduce the CO2 levels back to the 1960s level of some 360 parts/MM; that he is positive that CC will be contained – in reality by removing only 1 part CO2 for each 25,000 parts of the atmosphere the HE/CC. he belives situation will be resolved! I think the best solution is an honest debate, under oath, were both sides present there cases – with cross exam by opposing side?
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
Someone, such as Michael Mann, needs to provide us with the experiment that shows that CO2 does what some maintain as far as being the driver of the earth’s climate. I do not need to be reminded of Tyndall’s 1859 lab experiments that do not prove that humanity’s CO2 emissions are warming the planet. In the real world, other factors can influence and outweigh those lab findings and that is why these experiment must deal with the real world and not computer models that do not have the ability to factor in all of the variables that effect the earth’s climate. If they can not provide a verifiable experiment regarding the present amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and how it effects the climate and creates their anthropogenic global warming, then believing that it does so is akin to believing that Santa Clause is real and you need to be good to get something left under the tree.
It is a fact that real scientist devise experiments to either prove or disprove their hypotheses and welcome people to try to disprove them so that they can move on. They sure do not say that the science is settled and the argument is over because there are REAL scientist out there, such as Judith Curry, doing REAL scientific work that are not blinded by some agenda that they support so that they can get more “research” money or money to fund a boondoggle renewable energy scheme that will never work.
“If you see something, say something…” ahemm …
but only if yer on the team.
Say how it incenses Michael Mann
that oppos-ing opinions, observat-shuns,
theories, analysis of evidence or critical review
of the methodology of his precious hockey stick
are not censored ter the hilt, vigorous protection
of the climate ‘scientists’ incestuo-us con-sensus
… incessantly.
If someone proves you are wrong then be man enough to admit it!
“I was hounded by elected officials, threatened with violence and more — ”
When where and by whom. What action did the police take? Or is this another of your fairy tales Mann?
It’s fascinating that Mann references Jeffrey Sachs , who also came up in Judith’s recent Econ audio interview.
It’s an excellent and illustrative example of excellent propaganda technique, that Jeffrey Sachs recently really unloaded wrt the malfeasance in the financial industry. He even questioned the suitability of “fractional reserve banking”.
By doing this he buys a lot of credibility!!
However at the same time he’s a strong advocate for the CAGW scam, which tends to give a lot of meaning to the following snippet:
Wall St. sets the stage for the next Big Heist
As in all schemes brought to life by Government office, the first question that begs to be asked is Qui Bono? When a Carbon Tax or a Carbon Cap and Share program is announced the one thing that can be assumed is that it will be designed to make money for those who usually make the money all along. To believe that Washington or London have developed a more altruistic nature and suddenly want to save the world, is to deny decades of Political and economic history. The road to discovering the real truth behind the plan is to follow the money, the players and the science.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/09/laframboises-new-book-on-the-ipcc/#comment-378248
It’s only by cultivating a deep mutual trusting respectful relationship with clients that you’ll get the chance to shaft them more than once!
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/business-commerce-finances-financing-advisor-ingratiating-untrustworthy-for0349l.jpg
———————————————————————————-
Some links Below.. enjoy!!
cheers
brent
Jeffrey Sachs: Banking Abuses ‘Can’t Get More in Your Face’
By Paul Vigna
When the Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs unloaded at a Philadelphia Fed conference in April, telling attendees that most of the daily business of Wall Street is “prima facie criminal behavior,” he set off a small storm, but not exactly in the way one might think.
MoneyBeat caught up with Professor Sachs, who talked about the reaction to his appearance, the lack of Wall Street prosecution, the effects of big money on the political system, and the shortfalls of Dodd-Frank and regulatory reform.
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/05/02/jeffrey-sachs-banking-abuses-cant-get-more-in-your-face/
Columbia Economist Dr. Jeffrey Sachs speaks candidly on monetary reform
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=hCCr-uiqtAY&NR=1
The Age of Entitlement
The new super-rich have no allegiance, obligation or connection to wider society. They live in a mirror-lined bubble – and a legally entitled one. Can anything beyond another crash change things?
“I live near Wall Street,” the economist Jeffrey Sachs said at an event. “The sense of entitlement is beyond quantification. They could not figure out why anyone might be mad at them for having nearly destroyed the world economy, taken home $30bn a year of bonuses, gotten bailed out to the tune of another trillion dollars and then lobbied for no regulation afterwards . . . I don’t think they were kidding anyone except themselves. I think they don’t get it.”
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2013/02/age-entitlement
Jeffrey Sachs
Explosive Video on Ending Fractional Reserve Lending and Bank Corruption at Philadelphia Fed Conference
At an economic conference at the Philadelphia Fed, academics gathered to discuss fixing the banking system, including ending fractional reserve lending. The video is quite entertaining to say the least.
Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University really lays into the banking system a few minutes into the recording. Play it!
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.ca/2013/04/explosive-video-on-fractional-reserve.html
SR 76 Wall Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7VOWnnEphjI
Jeffrey D. Sachs is a world-renowned professor of economics, leader in sustainable development, senior UN advisor, bestselling author, and syndicated columnist whose monthly newspaper columns appear in more than 80 countries
http://jeffsachs.org/category/topics/climate-change-environment/
Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain
We must not be distracted from science’s urgent message: we are fuelling dangerous changes in Earth’s climate
Jeffrey Sachs
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/19/climate-change-sceptics-science
A Better Way to Fight Climate Change
Yet changing the world’s energy system is a daunting challenge, because fossil fuels are so deeply embedded in the workings of the global economy. Oil provides the main fuel for transportation worldwide. Coal and gas are burned in huge and growing amounts to produce electricity and to provide energy for industry. How, then, can we sustain worldwide economic progress while cutting back sharply on carbon emissions?
There are essentially two solutions, but neither has been deployed on a large scale. The first is to shift massively from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, especially wind power and solar power. Some countries will also continue to use nuclear power. (Hydroelectric power generation emits no CO2, but there are only a few remaining places in the world where it can be expanded without major environmental or social costs.)
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/lessons-of-europe-s-emissions-trading-system-by-jeffrey-d–sachs
From 7 Billion People To 500 Million People – The Sick Population Control Agenda Of The Global Elite
Jeffrey D. Sachs, the director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, recently said the following in an article for CNN….
“The arrival of the 7 billionth person is cause for profound global concern. It carries a challenge: What will it take to maintain a planet in which each person has a chance for a full, productive and prosperous life, and in which the planet’s resources are sustained for future generations?
“How, in short, can we enjoy ‘sustainable development’ on a very crowded planet?”
For Sachs, one of the “keys” to sustainable development is the “stabilization” of the global population….
“The second key to sustainable development is the stabilization of the global population. This is already occurring in high-income and even some middle-income countries, as families choose to have one or two children on average. The reduction of fertility rates should be encouraged in the poorer countries as well.”
snip
This is the endgame for the radical green agenda. In order to save the earth, they feel as though they must dramatically reduce our numbers and very tightly control our activities.
http://tinyurl.com/3koyynn
Sachs’s recommendations for the XSSR in the 90s were disastrous. His recommendations for aid to Africa in the noughties were ineffective or counterproductive. Here’s a review of a recent book about him, The Idealist, at:
http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/04/william-easterly-on-jeffrey-sachs
When I was doing my M.S. in Earth Science, I subscribed to EOS, a publication of the American Geophysical Union. In EOS around 2003 or so, I read for the first time of McIntyre and McKitrick’s the critique of Mann’s “hockeystick”. The author who alerted me to the controversy was Dr Mann, asserting that the purpose of the critique was to intimidate scientists such as himself.
As a graduate student I had the time to explore the controversy and was shocked to discover that Dr Mann had used principal components analysis (PCA) in an obviously improper manner. His error was elementary.
I had used PCA in my own research at the London School of Economics (LSE) during the 1960s, At that time, to become competent in using PCA, I had read widely on the methodology. Although I am not a statistician, I was able to assist other PhD candidates to use PCA and other statistical methods in both social and physical science, including glaciology. Later in the graduate seminars I conducted at the LSE, I included PCA.
I was therefore well-placed to understand the issues raised by McIntyre and McKitrick and assessed by Wegman.
I fully concur with the assessment by Professor Wegman that Dr Mann used PCA in a non-conventional way. His paper should not have been accepted during peer review without reworking the calculations.
I further concur that the peer review process was flawed because the reviewers were not competent to judge the statistical merits of the methodology that Dr Mann had used.
MM: “If you see something, say something.”
JC: “I see no wolf.”
Pingback: The Invisible Judith Curry | Transterrestrial Musings
A good challenge. But as Mann has made himself a political animal, I doubt he will accept it.
…….It’s amusing to read the Wegman report talking about intellectual property. …………….
_____________________________________________
Dear ordvic
It is immaterial what plagiarism may or may not have occurred in the course of the production of the Wegman report. What is important is that a climate scientist (or any scientist for that matter), would claim that ANY PART of the methods, processes, or data used in the development of a scientific thesis of great importance to mankind is personal intellectual property and not part of the scientific corpus of his proof of his paper, when that code is used as part of that proof.
Yours is a semantic dodge designed to deflect from that fundamental scientific issue. This is ESPECIALLY the case, when that work was funded by a government agency, which makes that code public property under the “government purpose” clause written into every government contract.
Prof. Mann will respond to your challenge by suing you.
After looking at a handful of the blog posts on your
blog, I honestly appreciate your way of writing a blog. I saved it
to my bookmark webpage list and will be checking back in the near
future. Please visit my website as well and let me know what you think.
Pingback: Would our academic members like to comment - Page 162 - Router Forums
Surprised nobody has mentioned Mann’s similar recent tweet slander of Rob Wilson.
When Wilson called a recent paper of Mann’s ” a crock of sh*t” Mann immediate retort was:
“Closet #climatechange #denier Rob Wilson, comes out of the closet big time: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/10/21/wilson-on-millennial-temperature-reconstructions.html … #BadScience #DisingenuousBehavior”
This prompted most sane people to realise that Mann had slandered a fellow scientist in the worst way, while the sophist Mann fanboys mistook Wilson’s attack on Mann’s paper as an equivalent insult that deserved the retort.
After much puffed up huffing Mann realised his mistake and quietly deleted his tweet.
Has Mann deleted his tweet about Judith Curry? I can’t tell since Mann blocked me at the time when I pointed out to him that his ultimatum to Wilson to explain himself was redundant since Wilson had already written an explanatory comment on the BIshop Hill blog at about the same time of the #denier tweet. ;)
Pingback: S. FRED SINGER: THE INVENTOR OF THE GLOBAL WARMING HOCKEY STICK DOUBLES DOWN | RUTHFULLY YOURS
Bart R,
Since your statements here have consistently been both true and insightful, and your reasoning has been valid from the very first comment down—notwithstanding the occasional “hairsplitting” over details (nobody’s perfect)—I believe it would be a really powerful gesture if you revealed your full name. That would speak immediately to passersby of your assurance in the rock-solid factual and logical foundation of your arguments, making your domination of the debate unmistakeable.
Your modesty is awesome, but your anonymity almost does a disservice, in a way, to the people around you. Suppose your future potential employers can’t google your comments by name—then they’ll totally miss out on seeing this aspect of your mind at work. Not to mention your students—don’t you think the stronger ones deserve this extracurricular opportunity to learn more about climate change from you than they can get from textbooks and lectures? I think everyone in the thread, even (or especially) those of us you’ve made wiser by hanging us “out to dry” (yours truly included!!), would agree that the “brand” you’ve established here is that of an intimidating, yet absolutely credible, thinker on climate—but in order for us to stay up-to-date with your thinking and commentary as the climate debate evolves, we’d love to be able to find you! Alas, googling a popular masculine name will inevitably yield a low signal-to-noise ration. Your real identity would be the best key, by far, to filter out the nonsense!
If there’s anyone with less reason to be coy and more reason to own, stand by, and take pride in his writing on climate change, it’s you—so please introduce yourself!
Brad
Brad Keyes | January 21, 2014 at 8:55 am |
Dude.. if those are the reasons you plaster your name all over the interwebs.. ur doin’ it wrong.
Bart “R.,”
“Dude.. if those are the reasons”
No, I use my real name because it seemed like it’d take *more effort* to maintain an alias.
And since I’m pretty satisfied with my online comments—not that I write as well as you, of course, but I’ve certainly never written anything I’m embarrassed by—I had no incentive to go to that effort.
Why did *you* bother adopting a nom de guerre?
What was the point of AVOIDING meatworld credit for your respected online climate-related analysis?
Actually, I’ve got a pretty good guess: you’re a perfectionist. I know the type. Utterly oblivious to how brilliant others think you are. When you first turned your mind to the problem of the Earth’s climate, were you reluctant to put your name to your commentary until it was of a reliably excellent calibre, according to your own sky-high standards?
Well, it’s time. You can and should (and hopefully will!) unmask yourself. You’ve earned it.
Puttin’ on the fritz.
=====
Pingback: Inventor of the Global Warming Hockey Stick Doubles Down | OMSJ
Pingback: Study Prognosticates That “Climate Change” Could Cause More El Nino’s » Pirate's Cove
Pingback: The Inventor of the Global-Warming ‘Hockeystick’ Doubles Down | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Se vedi qualcosa, dì qualcosa…purché sia quello che vedo io | Climatemonitor
Pingback: Your Logic Escapes Me, by John Nielsen-Gammon
Pingback: The Inventor of the Global Warming Hockey Stick Doubles Down | Somewhat Reasonable
Pingback: Anonymous
Pingback: The Inventor of the Global Warming Hockey Stick Doubles Down. Do you foolishly do the same? | RESTORE LIBERTY
We all knew something was terribly wrong with American science 20 years ago when some ‘scientist’ tried to claim parts of the human genome as his private ‘intellectual property’ to get rich off.
This whole notion of private ‘intellectual property’ is what’s destroying science, which should be (as it was originally) collegial and subject to real OPEN peer and public review. Otherwise we have the right to judge it as we do any other secretive monopoly. How hard is that to understand?
I. Have a feeling that manns secretive action has more to do with the pretense that his methods and integrity were sound. But you are right about the genome patent, unfortunately the pharmaceutical industry lawyers are a breed apart like those that move the patent goal posts.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
Dr. Judith Curry has my full esteem. MEM, not so much.
Pingback: Mann versus Steyn | Climate Etc.
JimD, KScottDenison and others, re: climate forecasts vs. equilibrium anomaly projections. There is no such thing as an equilibrium climate projection. The atmosphere/environment is not/has never been in equilibrium. The climate models are not skillful in forecasting. The models are deterministic meaning they are built assuming (hypothesis) a cause (independent variable) – effect (dependent variables) …mechanism. The models are driven mainly by manmade GHGs especially CO2. The IPCC acknowledges that it does not understand natural forcings and feedbacks such as aerosols, clouds, etc. There are definite problems with the IPCC approach re what are meaning, truth, reality and knowledge. The IPCC acknowledges the presence and importance of natural forcings and feedbacks and acknowledges that they are important yet the models are not skillful in informing on future climate. AND YET, the IPCC has increased its level of certainty in our understanding of causes of climate change from 90% very certain to 95% extremely certain. How do you feel about that? My feeling is that by fixing the focus on manmade GHGs (which was dictated at the 1993 UNFCCC Rio convention which defined the manner in which this has been studied, addressed, spoken about, negotiated …) the IPCC has hindered progress on achieving real understanding of the true underlying causes of climate change. Stephen F. Barker said in his treatise / book PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICS, Prentice-Hall 1964 that “the person who cuts the Gordian knot instead of untangling it is pretty sure to become entangled in it before long.” We need to untangle the climate model mess and stop claiming it is something it is not. The consensus climate community treats this as if manmade GHGs is an a priori when it is only one of many factors that affect global warming positively or negatively. And some of the independent factors might easily have cross effects so it is also a highly non linear system. Mann got caught up in this mentality by projecting what he wanted to say rather than what he justifiably could say as a professional scientist.
Pingback: Michael Mann, the American Lysenko | The Ninth Law
Pingback: Desparate Climate Alarmism Mouth Pieces Resort To Ad Hominem Attacks | Power To The People
Hey I know this is off topic but I was wondering if you knew of any widgets I could add to my blog that automatically tweet my newest twitter updates.
I’ve been looking for a plug-in like this for quite some time and was
hoping maybe you would have some experience with something like this.
Please let me know if you run into anything. I truly enjoy reading
your blog and I look forward to your new updates.