by Judith Curry
The previous thread has gotten long, and has wandered off topic. Lets focus the discussion on this thread on some of the interesting ideas that are being discussed on the previous thread, including the following:
- how should the issues surrounding climate change (science and policy) be communicated to a public that for the most part cannot grasp the details of the scientific argument?
- given that most of this is about policy, is communication even the right word? Is engagement a better word?
- “The 16th Conference of the Parties on Climate Change (COP16) on Saturday reached its first consensus by approving a proposal on education, training and consciousness as part of efforts to mitigate climate change.” link Reactions? Suggestions?
- what should/could the roles of the mainstream media and blogs be in education/engagement?
- much of the education/communication on this topic seems targeted at “changing minds” in terms of behavior and policy support. If this is the case, then I would define this as indoctrination, thoughts?
- some very interesting ideas about broader educational issues were raised. Is there a deficit in our current educational system regarding reasoning and critical thinking? How important is this relative to the other “basics” that are taught?
- lets hear more from David Wojcik about his research on the U.S. educational system, sounds like I for one have a lot of preconceived notions that aren’t consistent with his findings.
- and finally, how can the blogosphere help this process of education and engagement? “you only start learning when you can teach”
In closing, an excerpt from Nullius in Verba, which reminds us of what has to be the foundation of education/communication/engagement:
Stand up for the principles of science; education, scepticism, openness, tolerance, integrity. Use Feynman-like honesty about the limits of our knowledge, even if it has bad consequences for funding or our political preferences. Teach by example. Let truth and falsehood grapple in free and open encounter. That’s surely what Science is all about.
Moderation: this thread will be moderated for relevance. Keep discussions about WUWT and the discussion with Derecho64 on the previous thread.
Being involved in politics, I always get worried when a group starts lobbying for public funds to “educate” or “inform” the public about their specialist subject. Almost always this means indoctrination of a specific point of view, with the education and information to be controlled strictly by those lobbying for the funds.
Whether it is art groups, music groups or science groups it almost always seems to end up with public funds being spent to convince people of a specific point of view that involves even more public funds being spent on the pet project of the initial group.
Steer clear, I say.
Rupert Matthews:
With respect, I think you have misunderstood the problem that now exists.
At present there is a large well-funded group of people and organisations that has attempted to indoctrinate the public into believing that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a real and present danger. Whether or not AGW is such a great and immediate problem, the attempt at indoctrination has back-fired: the public in North America and Europe has become very doubtful that AGW is a significant problem.
Inportantly, the public’s response to the propoganda has been a disenchantment with climate science that is reducing public confidence in all science. Therefore, if public trust in science is to be recovered then the public’s perception of the AGW issue as being overblown propoganda needs to be addressed.
This is important both to people who think AGW is a problem (e.g. the host of this blog) and to people who think AGW is not a problem (e.g. me).
Clearly, the only way this can be addressed is to raise public awareness of what the AGW issue is about, the certainties in the science of AGW, and the uncertainties in the science of AGW. Until that public education is successful then the legacy of the propogandist claims (e.g. “the science is settled”) will remain. And that legacy is harmful to science and to the public’s ability to trust all science including climate science.
Richard
For those who are interested in WHO we are all paying, via government and EU to browbeat us with AGW just go to this link below for the names and the amounts.
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/tfe.pdf
“Steer clear” is easier said than done, in fact it is impossible. Just as climate science has become caught up in a major policy debate, so has science education. The K-12 teachers are in a particularly tough spot, because science is taught as facts, not debates. One only becomes fully engaged in scientific debates in grad school. But everyone is in the blogosphere, including K-12 students, so debate it is.
I have no idea how the K-12 teachers are handling this but it can’t be easy. No matter how they present it they are likely to get parents screaming in. If they teach AGW the skeptics will complain. If they teach it as a debate the warmers will complain. There is no neutral position here. But they can’t duck it because the blogosphere will not let them, any more than it has let the press or politicians duck the issue.
The good news is that science is now a big issue. The bad news is that scientific certainty is taking a big hit, and certainty is what the public pays for in science. Anyway you look at it this is an historic time, science-wise and science education-wise.
Given that people like to refer to IPCC reports as dogma and climate scientists as high priests that gives carte Blanche for everyone to declare whatever it is they disagree with as “dogma”. In that sense anything positive to AGW will be considered “indoctrination”.
There are two primary difficulties to overcome:
1. Most people aren’t interested in learning about climate science or learning generally. Arguments requiring a complex understanding will generally fail in the face of seemingly intuitive falsehoods or half truths.
2. People are resistive to information that’s unpleasant or doesn’t conform to their prejudices.
So I’d actually say the need is to move past the need for education.
By this I mean people should be able to have confidence in a given set of conclusions without the need to actually investigate them themselves in much the same way people have confidence that chemotherapy is the treatment for cancer without needing to exhaustively research it.
If you believe that “Most people aren’t interested in learning…” then you are hanging out with the wrong people. As for the rest you seems to be saying that we would all like for this issue to be settled. I agree but that day is a long way off. At the rate we are going the science will not be settled anytime soon. We have a lot more questions now than we did 20 years ago. Where we are going is anyone’s guess.
“If you believe that “Most people aren’t interested in learning…” then you are hanging out with the wrong people.”
It’s not really a matter of who you or I hang out with but how the population acts generally. Most people are only interested in the issue of climate in so much as what is its relevance to them.
“As for the rest you seems to be saying that we would all like for this issue to be settled. “
Not settled but there needs to be at least some agreed upon facts somewhere. As far as the skeptic community is concerned everything from the basic physics upwards is up for grabs in this debate which means basically everything is liable to be painted as “indoctrination”.
If the expectation is that people will research the greenhouse effect and then determine which arguments concerning it are good or bad then that basically means the issue is dead because that won’t happen.
I was objecting to your broader claim that most people are not interested in learning anything. That is simply false. As for agreed on facts there are lots, but they do not support AGW, which is almost entirely a matter of speculation. (People know a lot about the air, the sun, the weather, etc.) Part of the problem is that every science is mostly speculation at the frontier, which is where AGW lies. Science is comfortable with this uncertainty but policy is not, hence the debate.
Perhaps more interesting is how the issues appear at different levels of ignorance. At the highest level no one is an expert on more than a tiny fraction of the science. At the lowest level there are the many folks who have just barely heard of the issue. In between there are many levels of knowledge (or ignorance). Both sides tend to believe that their side gains as knowledge increases (hence the push for education and communication) but I see no evidence for this.
Ignorance needs to be understood. For example when people who know very little of the issue say that they do not believe in warming, they are not denying the surface reconstructions, or the satellite data, because they know nothing about these things. They are denying AGW. This is a subtle point that is little understood. What people say about this issue has to be interpreted in terms of what they know, not what the science says.
David – “They are denying AGW”
I would say “they are sceptical of C AGW”
I think that your argument really comes down to the simple one that the general public have completely lost faith in climate scientists. Their credibility has dropped like a stone in the last three or four years.
There is little point in rehashing the reasons why – they have been long discussed. But regaining the public’s trust (if possible at all) will be a long and slow process.
The solution is not to dismiss their legitimate concerns as ‘dogma’ or ‘falsehoods’ or ‘half truths’. Or to assume that they are too stupid to understand complex issues. That attitude merely reinforces what the GP have already come to think, and is hugely symptomatic of one of the biggest problems – arrogance.
I think the first step should be for ‘climate science’ to take a long hard and objective look at itself and make a realistic assessment of which of their actions and attitudes contributed to the loss of trust. It will be a long list.
And that process of self-analysis cannot be avoided by replaying the old tired memes of name-calling and sidelining, arrogance and concealment, hectoring and lecturing.
You cannot blame all your faults on ‘the other side’. But more importantly, you cannot sensibly change their behaviour even if you would wish to. The only ‘lever’ you guys can pull to change things is in your own bailiwick.
I can’t tell you the answers…that is for your analysis to decide. But until that painful process of self-examination – the answer to the question ‘where did *we* go wrong?’ – has been undertaken, none of the other stuff can sensibly begin.
I think the first step should be for ‘climate science’ to take a long hard and objective look at itself and make a realistic assessment of which of their actions and attitudes contributed to the loss of trust. It will be a long list.
Latimer: I quite agree. I just posted much the same thing in a previous topic.
In this blog, aside from Dr. Curry herself, I have seen no willingness from the climate change side to consider their responsibility in these matters.
The sad truth for Believers is that the public has no real pressing need to be educated about the climate – except for the (temporary, I hope) purpose of defending their liberties from the insidious grasp of the New Pharisees. Given that nothing remotely worrying is happening to the climate, that many a predicted catastrophe is now well past the maturity, and given that anyone of my age (59) has seen “anthropogenic cooling” and a handful of other scientistic scares come and go like so many ENSOS, what pressing reason is there for the man on the upper deck of a Clapham omnibus to strive to be better informed about its workings than about, say, the workings of the economy, or of his pet budgerigar?
To the extent that the public has the time and inclination to learn more, there are surely more life-enhancing fields to study than something that isn’t really doing anything much. I mean no disrespect to genuine climate scientists – I can fully understand their passion for their work or hobby, as the case may be, even if I can’t share it. But it’s not everyone’s cup of tea, and they must realise that neither their passion, nor the catastrophe they are convinced is overtaking us, is sufficient of itself elevate their field to anything like the status it had attained by November last year. It will never regain that status, not because it remains distrusted – presumably at some stage there will be a cleaning of the Augean stables in the various parent fields from which climate “science” recruits its members, so it’s possible it may yet regain some credibility. But it will never regain its pre-Climategate status because it doesn’t deserve it – it simply isn’t that important.
But if climate scientists do want to interest the general public in the wonders of their field, and – who knows? – convince us of the need to ruin our lives to save them, they need to remember that the word “educate” derives from the Latin “lead out”, or perhaps “out-lead”. Climate “science” attained its unwarranted status by MIS-leading the public. Apart from being wrong in principle, it’s stopped working. So stop it.
After that, follow Nullius’ advice, as quoted by Judith, to the very letter.
That ought to do the trick.
I’d just add one other important point. Apart from self-examination, climate science will actually have to come to terms with the outside world as it is.
Not the world of their imagination – full of bogeymen with blogs and heresies and apostates and sceptics. And otherwise populated by knuckle-dragging deniers pumped up into a fury of brutal nihilism by Fox News and Limbough, surviving only on their Big Oil cheques as they drag down the good guys into their own self-generated hellfire.
It ain’t really like that – and the longer you continue to think it is, the less capable you will be of ever reforming yourselves.
Sorry – this was intended as a response to sharperoo but was posted way down below – feel free to delete the redundant earlier post :-).
Your chemotherapy example illustrates precisely the difficulties and complexities of a field such as climate science and the communication of the all too real uncertainties facing the public. I’ll go O/T if that’s OK.
Chemotherapy is by far the ‘worst’ treatment for cancer – the best are prevention followed by early detection and surgical intervention sometimes with chemotherapy for follow up. While chemotherapy is very successful in treating the leukaemias and lymphomas with good five year survival rates, its track record for most other cancers tends to be rather poor.
Chemotherapy moreover acts by killing rapid growing cells which includes cancer cells but invariably it interferes with other rapid growing cells hence leading to a host of unpleasant side effects. Ironically, one group of fast growing cells often knocked about by chemotherapy comprises our immune system which normally are integral in the prevention of cancer cells from proliferating.
On the other hand, once you miss the boat on prevention and early detection, chemotherapy is often the only option and certainly vastly superior to homeopathy, herbal medicine, and the like. However, for many cancers, the gains are relatively small with five year survival rates in the 20 -30% vicinity. Even then, however, so-called palliative chemotherapy can alleviate some of the pain and discomfort caused by cancer (but at the risk of other unpleasant side effects).
There is an enormous need to develop cancer therapies which do not compromise our immune systems. Current cutting edge therapies however seem to apply more to cancers detected early (eg, selectively blocking off the blood supply to tumours).
Still, if I received an advanced cancer diagnosis, I might well want to prolong my life somewhat via a chemotherapy. I would very likely trust my physician and follow his/her advice depending to some extent on what I wanted out of my possibly briefly extended lifespan.
So is chemotherapy really the treatment for cancer? Well, it’s a lot better than what we didn’t have sixty or seventy years ago. But as you can see, there’s numerous complexities which you actually need to explore at some level if you are unfortunate enough to have to embark on a course of chemotherapy. Some people are content to leave these decisions to their doctor – others want to be more informed. Governments need to be informed insofar as they have to budget for distribution of scarce resources.
So too with climate especially when one brings all the complexities of evaluating non-linear forcings and feedbacks in the context of uncertainties around actual climate sensitivity and lack of certainty whether some effects attributed to climate change may actually be the result of climate change or the result of other anthropogenic and/or non-anthropogenic causes.
The more you know about an area, the more you know how little you know. And yet, we still have to make decisions whether to decarbonise and how best to do it or to aim for mitigation. However, taking some of the emotion and mud slinging out of the equation might help us make ‘least worst’ decisions.
Sharperoo:
By this I mean people should be able to have confidence in a given set of conclusions without the need to actually investigate them themselves in much the same way people have confidence that chemotherapy is the treatment for cancer without needing to exhaustively research it.
Whatever. But if you think we’re going to let a group of climate scientists give the Earth a dose of chemo by chucking iron filings into the deeps or pumping crap into the sky on the back of a half baked theory relying on rubbish measurements without a fight, you’ve got another think coming.
I posted on the Cancun statement on the previous thread but I think this is a better opportunity to discuss the ramifications.
Firstly I’m extremely worried by the use of the word “mitigation”. IMO this is one of the terms that has led to much of the current public mistrust of climate science.
There is a grey area between the nuanced debates one sees here – and elsewhere – and the general response to environmental issues in the MSM, which always try to cite “scientists” as their source of legitimacy for all sorts of outlandish ideas, most of which come under the general heading of “mitigation”.
The whole “mitigation” idea is predicated upon the narrow uncertainty bandwidths of ARC4, which has been used – quite without any justification in my opinion – to advance catastrophies which range from…..well I think everyone knows all the various disasters that we’ve been told may happen.
Of course, mitigation is also used to justify – on moral grounds – a fund via the UN for developing countries, ostensibly to compensate them for the “CO2 currency” we have supposedly already spent.
I have no problem with a discussion – in another forum – with aid for developing countries……but the whole Climate Change debate has been hijacked by this proxy issue. No wonder the public have become disillusioned – the scientists are carrying the blame for all these crazy schemes simply because the IPCC was overzealous in its confidence parameters.
I’m currently wring an essay on the role of the “Environmental Correspondent” in the mainstream media. I might fling you a copy when it’s published .
From an admittedly unscientific standpoint (my own, somewhat dated experiences, along with what I see of my children’s school work), I’d say there is a clear deficit in basic reasoning, research, and critical thinking. I would definitely be interested in hearing more from David Wojcik regarding his findings and whether there is some third way between the current focus on core knowledge and the discovery methods he mentioned on the other thread.
I have no idea what you mean by “a clear deficit in basic reasoning, research, and critical thinking.” In whom and compared to what? Children are not adults.
In any case science has no special claim on basic reasoning, research or critical thinking, vis a vis the other disciplines. Engineering, philosophy, English lit, history, math, social studies or business are all just as good. Giving students some simple experience in doing science is probably a good idea, but it is not the way to learn scientific knowledge, which is the primary purpose of science education. It is all about understanding how the world works, which is very hard as it is.
David,
Sorry for the lack of clarity. I wasn’t limiting my statement to the teaching of science. I very much agree that reasoning, research and critical thinking are crucial to pretty much every subject, not just science.
As I noted, my opinion is based solely on my own observations, and it seems that the emphasis has shifted over the years to the learning of facts at the expense of skills. It’s the old “give a fish” vs “teach to fish” issue. It seems that less emphasis is put on research and written communication than there used to be.
Given my limited evidence, this is why I’m so interested in the work you’re doing – I’d love to find out that my concerns are baseless.
Gene, I am referring to K-12 education. It sounds like you may be talking about college.
No, I was talking about K-12, but mainly in non-science subjects. I realized last night that we seemed to have a disconnect, so I re-read the post on the last thread and realized that I hadn’t caught on to the fact that your work was specific to the teaching of science. Sorry for the confusion.
Re the first bulletpoint, there are several demands on those who want to communicate what’s known about climate change, which sometimes seem contradictory:
– Stay with the science (i.e. no pronouncements on what could or should be done. This risks becoming a very dire message which doesn’t help its acceptance)
– Combining a description of the science with a positive outlook (i.e. by also describing (not prescribing) ways to potentially deal with the issues).
A related conundrum is what kind of language to use: Scientific (with lots of emphasis on what we don’t know; on uncertainty; weasel words) or more attuned to the audience (i.e. daily language adapted to the way the audience usually communicates) (http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/catch-22/ )
The latter is clearly more effective in getting the message across, but science-purists and many critics/skeptics seem to argue for the former.
Re the fifth bulletpoint. You describe indoctrination as being targeted at “changing minds”. That would then include a communication campaign geared at making adolescents aware of the risks of excessive drinking? Its goal presumably is to limit such excessive drinking. It seems to me that the term “indoctrination” is implicitly connected to a value system, as we use the term when the merit of what’s being communicated is not shared. That makes the use of the term fairly useless, as it just obscures what’s below it: Disagreement about the merits of climate science and about the risks posed by unlimited global warming.
“The 16th Conference of the Parties on Climate Change (COP16) on Saturday reached its first consensus by approving a proposal on education, training and consciousness as part of efforts to mitigate climate change.” link Reactions? Suggestions?
My reaction is one of outrage.
However expanding on it will take the thread off topic, so, I’m just outraged.
Baa Humbug – you may be outraged, I am relieved. Relieved that measures to address the lack of understanding of the effects of AGW are being taken. Without this understanding, the necessary behavioural changes are unlikely.
And that’s what would outrage me.
Louise,
I can hardly wait for my very own COP16 mediated “behavioural change”. And I take it you mean, Louise, that my “behavior” will “change” so that I’ll be provided a tax-payer funded eco-toga-party annually in some exotic, warm locale while my neighbors freeze. That’s “behavioural change” I can get behind.
Again the fuzziness, which at this point the climate science is responsible for, which confuses the physics of CO2 with a global climmate catastrophe.
True beleiver extremsits like Louise are relieved, because thinking about this so much harder than simply believing, but those of us who are paying attention are justified in getting more than a bit annoyed.
The good news from Cancun is that it is a total failure.
All we need next is for more countries to reject outright the ratcheting incrementalism of the UN climate change bureaucracy from making these sorts of attempts to claim power they do not have and are not authorized to take.
Dr. Curry. We often hear that education isn’t up to par in this country. It seems you would have a front row seat given you profession. I’m curious what is your impression of the education level of current vs. students from the time you began teaching.
This is like asking someone if it was colder when they were young, when it is really a scientific question. Also, one wonders where “par” is in this case? One thing I do know is that teachers are getting a lot of unjustified bad press and it is hurting them. The first thing I noticed when I wandered into science education five years ago was that everyone wants “reform” and this has been the rhetoric for a long time. Reform what? Is there a corruption issue? No.
There is always room for improvement but the idea that the education system does not work is just nuts. It works just as well as the other major social systems. In fact it is very hard to see how to improve it, precisely because so many people have been after it for so long. The biggest problem I see is the rhetoric of reform.
Seems to me the biggest issue with education these days is the desire and willingness of pupils to learn about learning, and learn.
This seems to be more of an issue in the well developed economies. Some factors include:
“Politically correct” and “dumed down” curriculae and teaching methods imposed on teachers.
An over-emphasis on numerically measurable results.
The cult of showbiz personality.
Lack of interest in offspring’s educational progress by parents.
The example set by non-listening politicians and institutions.
The distraction of computer games.
Boredom with the status quo.
David – I probably wasn’t clear. I was wondering about he education level and skills of incoming freshmen now vs. many years ago. I didn’t bash any teachers, did I?
“The biggest problem I see is the rhetoric of reform. …” – David Wojick
You said a mouthful there.
One kid still in college. Both attended inner-city public schools K-12. Son is a 1st-year med student. They’ve both thrived academically.
I spent 24 child years in public schools – supposedly among the “worst” (Dallas Independent School District and Houston Independent School District.) Ain’t really so.
I’m also in interested in what Judith thinks of the critical faculties of her students – how well it appears to her they were cultivated at high school, compared to her own secondary education?
My own education in the 60s (A levels in Biology, Physics and Chemistry) left me with:
a/ An understanding of the Scientific Method which I find to be at odds with that of people educated more recently, some of them with claims to standing in climate science.
b/ An understanding of Tyndal gas Effect, but also of the non-linear, chaotic nature of climate, and hence of the extreme unlikelihood of humans modeling it with any degree of precognitive skill.
I do think there is a lot in what Gene says.
Left out one: “much of the education/communication on this topic seems targeted at “changing minds” in terms of behavior and policy support. If this is the case, then I would define this as indoctrination, thoughts?”.
Very much in agreement. There is a line between “to the best of our knowledge, this is” and “you should”, not to mention “the science demands”. When you cross that line, you have moved into advocacy and left education behind. Not to say that the teacher is barred from advocating, but the advocacy should be separate from the education (and clearly delineated as such).
Dr. Curry: Some time ago I asked you:
“What are the links or books that explain the climate change side more completely without reading like propaganda tracts for climate change?”
Your reply then was: “I wish I had a good book to recommend. In terms of radiative forcing issues, i recommend the blog scienceofdoom.”
I’m an ex-leftist turned center-right or, as I like to think of myself, classic liberal. If I try, I can explain conservative ideas to my liberal friends in terms they can understand and without debating them, insulting them, or upsetting them. What I say usually does not change their minds, but they do come away with a better understanding.
I wish there were a book like that from the climate change side. Your blog is the closest thing I have found that fills that need, which is why I continue to read you and wish you luck.
‘much of the education/communication on this topic seems targeted at “changing minds” in terms of behavior and policy support.’
Polling generally shows the public broadly accepts ‘AGW’ as a reality.
Polling also shows the public is only prepared to pay $10/month per household to do anything about it.
As regional impacts of AGW are far from scientifically certain, there isn’t a way to educate the public as to how AGW poses a ‘clear and present’ danger to them personally.
The public isn’t being asked to make a scientific decision, they are being asked to make a ‘value decision’. Current Sacrifice vs Future Suffering.
Like it or not, humanity is still tribal. Without regional impacts evaluating how much ‘my tribe’ will suffer isn’t possible.
I broadly accept AGW as a reality, but I have doubts that climate scientists can know the risks AGW poses decades into the future with the certainty needed for sensible policy decisions — especially the large-scale, expensive plans that have been offered, even demanded, now that “the science is settled.”
At this point I also distrust the process of climate scientists to reach conclusions that aren’t skewed to the catastrophic.
I suspect some proportion of the public is in the same boat as I am. I wouldn’t write off their resistance as merely tribal.
Stand up for the principles of science; education, scepticism, openness, tolerance, integrity. Use Feynman-like honesty about the limits of our knowledge, even if it has bad consequences for funding or our political preferences. Teach by example. Let truth and falsehood grapple in free and open encounter. That’s surely what Science is all about.
Well said!
• how should the issues surrounding climate change (science and policy) be communicated to a public that for the most part cannot grasp the details of the scientific argument? <– this statement is beyond foolish, the problem is the underestimation of the intelligence of the audience and the inability of Climate Science to properly communicate.
• given that most of this is about policy, is communication even the right word? Is engagement a better word? <– policy should never precede proof, where is the proof that justifies the policy?
• “The 16th Conference of the Parties on Climate Change (COP16) on Saturday reached its first consensus by approving a proposal on education, training and consciousness as part of efforts to mitigate climate change.” link Reactions? Suggestions?
<– "“The government of Mexico and the Pew Center on Global Climate Change commissioned a survey that gathered insights from COP16 attendees.." The survey indicates Cop 16 members prefer to trust UN and NGO consensus verse their own government and business leaders. The membership of COP16 is one of the problems that needs to be resolved.
• what should/could the roles of the mainstream media and blogs be in education/engagement? <– the blogs are the only source of honest information but sadly very few of the blogs are anything more than hype.
• much of the education/communication on this topic seems targeted at “changing minds” in terms of behavior and policy support. If this is the case, then I would define this as indoctrination, thoughts? <– I agree, scientific proof first then dialogue that leads to consensus. The problem of rushing to judgement with inappropriate solutions is rampant and wasteful.
• some very interesting ideas about broader educational issues were raised. Is there a deficit in our current educational system regarding reasoning and critical thinking? How important is this relative to the other “basics” that are taught? <– K-12 education does not publish hype and unproven theory as Science. They have to either reprint to correct it or lose a State adoption. When the Science is accepted and proven, it will be published or it can be marketed as Fiction.
• lets hear more from David Wojcik about his research on the U.S. educational system, sounds like I for one have a lot of preconceived notions that aren’t consistent with his findings. <– no idea who he is or why his ideas have any merit.
• and finally, how can the blogosphere help this process of education and engagement? “you only start learning when you can teach” <– see early response related to blogs
I should have spent a bit more time on the last bullet:
• and finally, how can the blogosphere help this process of education and engagement? “you only start learning when you can teach”
<– the use of a commonly held, structured, and open source set of elements for Climate Science dialogue would be a Global advantage in the debate. Unfortunately, math symbols, formula, equations, theory, postulates, proofs, etc. have yet to be organized, categorized, and structured for online delivery. The math related software tools and Science programming is proprietary. IMO, this is inexcusable given tax funding for Climate Science. I could write for hours on the topic of Climate Science flaws and programming mismanagement.
1) how should the issues surrounding climate change (science and policy) be communicated to a public that for the most part cannot grasp the details of the scientific argument?
It should be communicated in an honest and open way by government and its agencies. But it won’t be.
“Should” is a pretty much redundant word these days. That’s why private citizens have taken it upon themselves to devote their spare time to getting the truth as they see it out onto the internet.
The blogosphere has changed the way science communication will be done. Forever. It is early days, and just as the invention of the printing press made the printing of vernacular bibles possible, thus ending the monopoly of the clergy on matters spiritual, the open peer review of science under way on the net has ended the monopoly of journals and academic institutional press releases.
Of course, there were hiccups along the way to the scientific enlightenment of the C18th and C19th. Pamphleteers of the natural sciences outside the university precinct were hit by government repression and the breaking of printing presses along with the political output those actions were primarily aimed at.
These days there are more torches and more torch bearers, but we must be ever vigilant of the willingness of our spurious leaders to enforce agendas physically if all else fails. They would attempt legal restraint of internet service providers first. I would expect enterprising Chinese and Russian services would offer asylum and a platform for free speech to those determined not to be muzzled.
Let us all hope the powers that be draw back from the brink of indoctrination, lysenkoism and intellectual chaos we are being driven towards.
At the end of the day, policy makers need to determine what actions will be implemented as a result of the scientific investigations. I believe that everyone is skeptical when others are wishing them to give away their money for a purpose they had not originally planned.
There has been a great deal of discussion here regarding whether or not additional GHG’s (CO2) contribute to global warming? As I have written before, while some here clearly disagree, their explanations seem much weaker than those supporting the position that, yes; they do contribute to global warming. What I have not read is a consensus answer regarding to what degree (or percentage any warming is due to GHG’s vs. other factors)
In my reading, it also seems that there are also secondary “natural” effects beyond the human released GHG’s that have also contributed to the total increase in atmospheric GHG’s. Some of these may have been initiated by higher levels of human released CO2, but they are happening none the less, and we do not seem to understand the duration of the effect. Do increased human GHG’s cause 100% of the warming, almost certainly no, but it does appear be the cause of a portion of a warming planet.
Assuming that GHG’s do contribute to a warming planet, is this a bad thing? I do not believe there is any data to demonstrate that a warmer planet is necessarily worse for humanity overall. There are definitely negative consequences for certain regions and positive ones for others. Generally, it would seem a warmer planet would be better for humanity, but if data could be developed that would demonstrate a warmer planet is worse for humanity overall in the long term, then we should discuss potential mitigation plans. This comes back to the issue of climate models and that they are not yet mature enough to make policy decisions based upon their feedback. People read in Scientific American (a publication IMO that is very biased in their support of the position that the US take immediate action); that sea levels will rise dramatically due to CO2. When I look at the 500 M years of history of sea level, it seems like we are near to the all time historical lows, and that sea level will undoubtedly rise over time regardless of CO2.
Back to the issue of reliable climate models. Those who develop the models may care greatly about validation and verification, but the other 99.9% of the population only care that the models can be verified against the criteria that we see and feel. Did it rain as much as the model said, is it the temperature the model said it would be, has the model been accurate for 5, 10, 25 years? The public’s validation criteria can not be satisfied except over time, and I do not know of any models that meet the public’s validation criteria.
Assuming that higher percentages of atmospheric GHG’s do lead to warming, can the effect be accurately predicted today? Again, I have not been able to find any curve that depicts a reliable relationship between CO2 and temperature at say 500ppm, 600ppm, 700 ppm, 800 ppm. I have read that there will be a lessened impact as the percentage of GHG’s increases, but I have not reviewed any curve that seems trustworthy. This seems to me to be a very critical issue. I could support United States actions actions if the data said my expense would actually accomplish something meaningful. As an example, if there is really nothing that can or will be done to keep the world below 600 ppm, and CO2 above those levels have minimal additional impact, then why make the expenditures?
Currently, I simply do not currently see the expense as justified and believe the issue is how to adapt to a changing environment. I appreciate others thoughts/opinions as I am open to altering my position based on new data.
and finally, how can the blogosphere help this process of education and engagement? “you only start learning when you can teach”
We need more sites like this one. Perhaps a coalition of sorts?
To wit: whether skeptic or not, sites where a POV isn’t simply attacked, deleted, laughed at, etc. Responses starting with “you’re a [insert suitable pejorative]” because the poster liked an article at WUWT or RC or linked it to ask a question or make a point doesn’t do much other than cheese off the poster. Stop me if you’ve heard this before: “well I tried asking so and so over at such and such and they a) deleted my post b) called me names c) had a nasty or arrogant or dismissive tone d) all of the above.”
As I posted on the last thread, I think that many skeptics are created, and ones that start skeptical are getting negative reinforcement.
As such I’d like to see a blogosophere site coalition with some simple conduct rules. Go to any coalition site and at least you’re not going to be screamed at.
c) had a nasty or arrogant or dismissive tone
I have noticed that quite often, it starts with the questioner who adopts a barely-suppressed tone that assumes fraud and manipulation, or suspects fraud while also simultaneously displaying not very well-informed views. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, and therefore, it is perfectly understandable that those RC responders respond in such a manner. I don’t think there is a cure for that except expecting people to be saints.
I suggest that your response echos the typical response of those poor put-upon ‘scientists’ and PR flacks who operate the RC site. While there may have been posters who impute fraud, most do not. And anyone who even imputes a question about their certainty will either have the post deleted or experience nasty, ill-mannered personal attacks. As did our host and many others who comment here. Those folks may be well respected scientists and operate within the normal bounds of professional courtesy elsewhere, but they have richly and repeatedly earned scorn from the blogging community as a nest of ill-mannered dogmatic jerks.
Disagree. Like it or not it’s simply part of the territory.
A denier starting out with the assumption of fraud is the natural consequence of feeling that s/he’s being dictated to: AGW is real, the science is settled, therefore, we’re going to discuss (something that will impact negatively and most likely hurt. A lot.)
“See, AGW is a problem so we need to shut coal plants down. You’ll have to get used to living in the dark every other evening. Oh, and buy blankets.” That may not be what’s being said. So what. It’s what they HEAR. Some of the tea party politics web sites are echo chambers of stuff like this. Seriously, how do you expect people who hear things this way to engage? They feel that THEY are the ones being attacked.
When people you don’t know are telling you that your life needs to change (negatively!) for some invisible reason, as human your first instinct isn’t one of trust. And when this invisible reason seems debatable, it gets worse. That some people immediately assume climate science is a fraud should not be a surprise.
I think the RC guys (and others) simply don’t understand this part. This isn’t a failing or somehow represents poor charcacter on their part; they’re simply not aware that they’re viewed as the attacker.
I say deal with the negative tone with a simple FAQ. Suggesting that they read Spencer Weart and become indoctrinated properly is a bad answer, and one that I’ve seen repeatedly. To many listeners, what they’re hearing is akin to being told to report to the re-education camp. (And if anything this adds to the suspicion of fraud.)
In the radiation thread previous to this Steven Mosher was looking for easy every day ways explaining stuff like RTE, then graduate people to GHE, and so on. A reasonable FAQ (or newbie area?) can handle this much. I think Mosh has it right.
I think you are suggesting that some FAQs are more acceptable than others – it is not clear though how one might arrive at those, the specific example that you cited might work for your way of thinking. Scienceofdoom, I think, has a very good site that covers the basics. There are many establishment science related sites with simplified information about the basics. Its quite clear that if RC represents the attacker, they are unlikely to establish that credibility. That credibility for the target audience that you describe probably has to come from leaders within the culture wars.
That credibility for the target audience that you describe probably has to come from leaders within the culture wars.
If only it were that straightforward.
Denier (it’s all a hoax) types are certainly not restricted to the US tea party fringe, they’re mainstream people from all over the world. It has sod all to do with culture wars. (I should have never used that example since it gave you a wrong impression.)
What I’m suggesting here is simply that having SOME understanding of who that audience is (and their starting assumptions) would be a giant step forward. I replied to Hunter, below, re deniers vs skeptics.
randomengineer,
The issue is that, as another poster pointed out, while people may not understand advanced physics, they know hte smell of bs.
It is not that the people at RC don’t understand something. It is that with the portfolio of information they have to communicate about what they beleive, they inevitably come across as slick salesman and zealots.
It is not their lack of sales skills that is the problem. It is the lack of alternatives in what they are communicating.
To use a Wall St. example: Madoff sold himself really well, as long as he was in complete control of the facts his victims made their decisions on. However on multiple occasions outside reviewers found that what he was claiming did not hold up to scrutiny. They reported it to the SEC and were ignored, because how can Bernie not be a great guy? He is one of us. We know him.
This went on literally for many years.
I am not saying this to say that RC and gang are committing an overt scam. I am saying that the available facts and data for the climate catastrophe they are selling are so weak that they have to rely on arguments from authority, defensiveness, suppression of critical views, etc. to close the deal.
A lot of people who have ben burned, or witnessed a lot of burning, recognize these behaviors and conclude they represent an underlying weakness in the case they represent.
I started out as an AGW believer. It was the behavior of Hansen, Schmidt, Gore, Suzuki, Sagan, and others who taught to be as wary of scientific claims as I am of financial claims, especially when they intrude into politics.
And by the way, I think ‘denier’ is a term that has no place in this discussion.
Hunter, I certainly agree we need better terminology. There’s no offense intended. It wasn’t a pejorative. As used: a denier is the poster who assumes from the getgo AGW is a lie or a fraud; the skeptic assumes AGW is probably wrong or mistaken, but where? There’s a starting assumption of dishonesty (it doesn’t exist and you only want my money) vs one of mistake (maybe it exists but I doubt polar bears are expiring.) These are different things, and threads devoted to education probably ought to take this difference into account.
When a poster says AGW is a hoax… denier. When a poster says the greenhouse explanation seems wrong… skeptic.
You got better terms? My goal isn’t to cheese people off.
randomengineer,
Thank you. A pattern in the use of ‘denier’ by hard core advocates in this has been in place for a few years that I finally saw in light of my history of growing up in the South in a certain period of history.
The problem for me in skeptic vs. denier as you describe it is that I started as a believer. Then the behavior of the high profile promoters started reminding me of other situations where people who behaved that way were proven to be very different from what they claimed. Then I started thinking about the great ice age of the 1970’s, where the best scientists of the day (no matter how revisionists revise) were calling the warning of an ice age that had already started. Then of course there was Sagan and his pals trying to make a scientific rationale to control nuke weapons based on what turned out to transparently contrived claims of nuclear winter.
And as someone who likes to read history, I could not help but to notice that Hansen and his tipping points were a lot like former predictions of world doom. And those predictions have a batting average of .000.
So let us say that by 2005 my bogosity meter was moving pretty well to the ‘max’ side of the gauge irt cliamte science and talk of world doom caused by CO2.
Let us take one line of evidence, hurricanes:
Katrina and the calls that this was *proof* of CO2 causing changes. Well, since my family lives in the Gulf Coast region directly impacted by Katrina for many generations- there are multiple towns in the area founded by ancestors-, I have paid attention to storms and studied them since I was a wee lad.
Katrina was no unusual storm, seen historically. Flooding New Orleans was predicted by the engineer who designed the great screw pumps many years previously. NO had serious flooding in Betsy, in 1964 if I recall. Camille had delivered not only a similar surge to Mississippi, but had dropped in sustained winds of nearly 200 mph, much stronger than Katrina.
Going back farther, the small town of Pascagoula, Ms, had a predecessor town called Scranton that was, according to old locals, was replaced by the present day town after a strong storm surge in the 19th century.
But here we are in 2005 and the storms are allegedly stronger(not) and more frequent( not really) and caused by CO2? That was obvious bs to me.
I had to get a bogosity meter with a larger range for that one.
Then of course since 2005 has been the exposure of obvious bs gaming of data and methods by the Climate Audit guys, the failure of every other prediction by AGW advocates, the clinging at straws to claim ever weather event is proof of AGW, and finally climategate. The strategies exposed in climategate were no different than those used by scammers trying to hide declines in earnings, over state earnings, and to screw around with people asking unwelcome questions.
And the response? Typical con-artist/political hack behavior.
To make this less horribly long than it is, the bottom line is that I do not think many skeptics who see fraud as one reason to doubt AGW started off believing it was all fraud. it was just hard to ignore its being there.
There are many lines that lead to doubting the predicted climate catastrophes of the consensus. Fraud is just one.
The problem with the blogosphere or, more widely, the internet as a medium for education is its sheer unregulated anarchy. For the uneducated, it really can be a tricky business to pick your way along the path to enlightenment without going up a blind alley. On the plus side, I suspect that many people can tell the difference between those sites that promote education and those that attempt to indoctrinate. A quick read of the comments can often provide a good clue! Conversely, I suspect that there is also a sizeable group of people that will unknowingly stumble on credible, but nonetheless inaccurate, sites whose purpose is nefarious. These people may get lost permanently.
There is no way around this anarchy without some kind of benchmarking system but who would be the arbiter of good taste? It is the chief peril of the internet and a question of ‘buyer beware’ IMHO.
On the other hand,
sorry – please delete “on the other hand”
No no don’t delete “on the other hand”.
On the other hand, maybe we shouldn’t undersell our fellow citizens. Maybe they are capable of navigating their way through the anarchy. Evidence so far suggests they’ve done well.
Majority were happy to accept AGW. Then climategate happened and they raised an eyebrow and said to themselves mmmm maybe not every single man in a white coat running around measuring things is totally trustworthy.
Then they made some empirical observations of their own, “is it really getting that warm?” and raised a second eyebrow.
Then they made further observations that their pockets were getting lighter for no discernable returns, at which time they started to ask questions and speak out. Various polls show this time line has some merit.
“For the uneducated, it really can be a tricky business to pick your way along the path to enlightenment without going up a blind alley.”
Education is a relative term. Some of the “dumbest” people I’ve come across have Phds. Then there are those of the”self educated” variety, and the ones from the “school of hard knocks.”
Many blind people navigate lifes obstacles better than those who can see (or think they can see)
Various polls show this time line has some merit.
Nope. The fact is that the drop in concern about the climate preceded the release of the emails, and hasn’t changed since. In fact, it correlates better with the nose-diving economy: the drop mostly came between April 2008 and October 2009, a month before the emails were released.
The unemployment rate was 5% in April 2008. By October of 2009, it was twice that.
Amazing what ignoring climategate did to preserve the popular belief.
Well, not ignored quite so much as considered insignificant relative to other, more pressing events: Dad lost his job, we can’t afford the house, price of gas going through the roof etc.
Some people are outraged, sure… but I suspect most of them already were. Others may just be indifferent.
Having grown up during Watergate and the CIA deconstruction and 3 Mile Island, I can assure you that the press can spike a story to nearly nothing, or raise awareness of a story pretty much as it pleases.
The attention paid to wikileaks, and the reasons behind the choices, are completely ironic when compared to climategate coverage.
PDA – I think the La Nina that started in the fall of 2007 had a lot to do with the change.
Also, during your timeframe, Keenlyside and Latif got a lot of face time in the press, and of their message, all that got repeated was the prediction of “global cooling.” It was cold in North America. The prediction of “global cooling” got a lot of traction.
The Western public moves with the weather in the West. Look at this year. Hot in Russia. Who cares? Certainly not the Russian government, and nobody in the West gives a flip.
Who’s Keenlyside and Latif?
Two AGW scientists:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html
So far as I know, no one polls on the basis of the weather that people experience, but the ongoing climate debates and climategates aside and even the current economic crunch, I suspect a good many average citizens noticed that the weather stopped warming and was noticeably cooling during the last decade.
Yes, I know the figures about the last four or five hottest! years! in the current decade but that wasn’t where people lived and it was part of a plateau, not a further ramp-up.
If the temperatures start rising like in the 90s or the weather gets really disrupted, the citizens could get back on board with climate change, but that’s not what they are experiencing, so it’s a hard sell, and the climate change folks are really bad salesmen.
Baa Humbug, you say “Majority were happy to accept AGW. Then climategate happened and they raised an eyebrow and said to themselves mmmm maybe not every single man in a white coat running around measuring things is totally trustworthy.
Then they made some empirical observations of their own, “is it really getting that warm?” and raised a second eyebrow.
Then they made further observations that their pockets were getting lighter for no discernable returns, at which time they started to ask questions and speak out. Various polls show this time line has some merit.”
I don’t think polls of folks’ perceptions are all that useful* in determining whether AGW is occuring or not. They are useful in helping to determine what part of the debate is questioned though. This can then be a useful input to the development of education and information programmes.
*In Haiti, the cholera outbreaks occured where there were UN bases. Therefore, the locals thought the UN had brought Cholera. Just because they thought this doesn’t make it true, although the same type of logic is frequently used to show that AGW is not an issue [UN bases were deployed in areas of most deprivation – the same deprivation that contributed to the spread of cholera.]
Hi L, thnx for responding.
Louise maybe you’ve missed the point of my post #December 6, 2010 at 5:11 pm
“No no don’t delete “on the other hand”.
On the other hand, maybe we shouldn’t undersell our fellow citizens. Maybe they are capable of navigating their way through the anarchy. Evidence so far suggests they’ve done well.”
This isn’t about determining whether AGW is happening or not. This is about peoples ‘perceptions’.
I would have thought – with various indicators – including polls and changes in the political landscape in various countries, that my comment was reasonable.
but hey, that’s just my op.
I think there is essentially no chance at all that CO2 related information can or will be taught in K1-12 as other than indoctrination. Same chance that comparative religion could be taught by Christians without it being indoctrination. Same chance that prayers could be said at school based events without complaint from non-Christians.
I think indoctrination is also the likely result in College classes, but it is perhaps less likely to be successful there. The educational community tends to be populated by folks who believe and accept pronouncements by the EPA, President, NASA, etc., and the same folks are ever ready to ascribe the basest motives to anyone connected with private business, oil companies, Republicans, etc. Possibly this inherent belief in the evilness of capitalists explains why CAGW believers nearly always attack the integrity of the skeptic in their response and description of the skeptical community.
Since most of the CAGW believers cannot manage to describe anyone who doesn’t share their belief in the imminent destruction of life as we know it by CO2 as other than (fools, flat-earthers, creationists, oil company stooges, anti-science, liars, or some other similar derogatory personal adjective), it seems entirely unlikely that any such presentation to students is likely to admit that most educated skeptics simply don’t believe that science actually supports the imminent catastrophe predictions that are so intrinsic to CAGW believer dogma.
My own daughter experienced this type of indoctrination as a 7th grade science student two years ago. CAGW was taught as a fact and there was no discussion permitted of any doubts. She said it was clear that contesting any of the pronouncements would remove the student from being considered in a positive light at grade card time.
Since the true believers are already indoctrinating students in science classes, I am curious what difference this discussion can make. Maybe the UN COP16 resolution will lead educators to make CAGW part of the pledge of allegiance during the school opening ceremonies. Since anyone who disagrees with the dogma is likely to be described as anti-science, maybe children who express skepticism will be prevented from taking elective science classes?
“Since the true believers are already indoctrinating students in science classes, I am curious what difference this discussion can make.”
Parents complete the education triangle in K-12. The fact that parents allow a Science educator to get away with a slanted view is a big problem. The other aspect to this is that a majority of US citizens do not believe in AGW so fair balance should prevail in the classroom.
Do you have kids in public schools? You would have me go to the principal’s office and complain about dogmatic instruction to my 7th grader when nothing about CAGW is officially part of the instructional plan? Or to the teacher involved? And you expect that my daughter would somehow be better off? If the teacher were making comments about what (Christ, Allah, Odin, etc.) directs the student to do, it would be a slam dunk and I would be successful.
Since the principal probably supports CAGW also, I get myself and my daughter labeled as part of the anti-science, flat earther, creationist, oil company stooge, etc. community. Would she still have gotten the favorable recommendation to attend the high school of her choice from the administration? One has to pick one’s battles, and so far CAGW nonsense has not been made a formal part of the curriculum. It just comes in as imminent extinction, snow disappearing, and so on.
Good point, I thought you were implying that your daughter was exposed to formal climate instruction instead of a topic of the day.
My children are grown so they weren’t exposed to the climate discrimination.
With all due respect, that’s asking parents to push the proverbial up-hill with their nose whilst their hands are tied behind their back and feet shackled. You think I’m overblowing it right?
So how does one counter these types of things…..
In the space of two years, the British Council has spent more that £3.5 million of British taxpayers’ money on climate change propaganda – according to information released under the Freedom of Information Act. (It took a FOIA to obtain FFS)
http://www.britishcouncil.org/new/climatechange/
And this one too,
http://www.britishcouncil.org/slovenia-projects-and-initiatives-climate-challenge.htm
That’s the British Councils European arm. THEY GO INTO SCHOOLS IN OTHER COUNTRIES FFS.
These types of things are happening here in Oz as well. Our govt just recently announced new funding for “climate change education”
Education? not bruddy likely.
Even here, on this blog, owned and operated by a decent person in Ms Curry, who is “reaching out to sceptics” BUT, and this is a BIG BUT, she is approaching this whole issue of “sceptics” and “education” with the strategy of “taking the high ground” and “engaging on our terms”. (show me I’m wrong)
What that tells me, is that this isn’t about getting together with sceptics and improving the science. This isn’t about finding a more accurate “climate sensitivity” or similar climate science advances. This is about gaining lost ground since climategate. This is about regaining the lost credibility of climate scientists, and if a few sceptics are “convinced” along the way, well that’s great.
DO WE WANT OUR YOUNG PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES? Do we want people of opposing viewpoints to be able to debate and discuss and learn from each other, thereby helping each other and advance knowledge?
If the answer is yes, then explain to me how that can be accomplished when students are told to do it from the high ground and on his/her terms.
If the answer is no, then how about calling a spade a shovel so as we can take the gloves off and get on with it.
As a parent of two who went to ‘named schools’, I can tell you that indoctrination on climate is rampant. Peer pressure on the topic is brutal.
Professorial push is very much there.
The annoying thing is I spent a great deal of effort on critical thinking skills in my kids. In my observation, the fancier the school the more pressure to accept ideas based on autority and consensus.
Engagement/educatino is inevitable.
The question is what is going to be engaged/taught?
Is it going to be ‘the sky is falling due to CO2’?
Or is it going to be that “among the enviro concerns a growing population must address carbon emissions are on, but do not dominate, the list of concerns.”?
One is deomonstrated fear mongering. The other says weigh this among many priorities, knowing that we are not facing an apocalyptic CO2 future.
One permits no rational discussion. the other at least holds raional as possible.
So rational discussion is only possible where it is assumed a priori that your interpretation of the facts is correct?
Or is it only possible where my interpretation is dismissed out of hand and I am accused of being a denialist scum paid by the Koch brothers?
What is your take? Are we in/on the edge of a CO2 driven global claimte disruption or not?
I think that all is required for rational discussion is for someone to be willing to make a case and back it up with some actual evidence and/or sound reasoning and put personal stuff to one side, whatever one might think of the person one is debating with.
FWIW, I’m convinced by the arguments that AGW is real and that it is very likely to be a danger in the future. I don’t see severe climate disruption so far but we are committed to higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and more warming and things will get worse, so “on the edge” is a good description of where we are at the moment.
We are seeing signs of what to expect – events such as the heatwave in Moscow and the flooding in Pakistan are typical of what is predicted to result from increased warming, as are the drought conditions in parts of the US and Australia.
Of course some outcomes are uncertain, but uncertainty can work both ways and is not neccessarily comforting.
making statements like this does your cause no good. It’s not based on evidence, just propoganda to scare people.
Australia, ‘a land of droughts and flooding rains’ experienced worst droughts long before AGW. the drought of 1902-5 , known as the federation drought was far worse than anything in your lifetime. parts of the Murray river had totally dried up to the point where people used the dry river bed like a road and held fairs and picnics on the river bed.
We are experiencing floods in Eastern Oz now, but the floods of 1974 were far worse, occuring before AGW effects.
These are not “signs of what to expect’, these are signs of desperation.
Don;t forget the forest fires in Israel (a guy’s dope pipe fell over and he was too frightened to tell anyone..another obvious victim of AGW).
And they’ve never had flooding in Bangaldesh before global warming. Funny – I must be totally hallucinating when I remember buying George Harrison’s ‘Concert for Bangladesh’ album in 1971 or 1972. Those must have been just any old common or garden floods (boring), not global warming induced floods (the world is about to end!!!!!)
But anyway those are just short-term things. And short term things (like the cold snap in UK ) are weather not climate aren’t they?
Please explain how you reconcile your two statements
‘I think that all is required for rational discussion is for someone to be willing to make a case and back it up with some actual evidence and/or sound reasoning’
and
‘I don’t see severe climate disruption so far but we are committed to higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and more warming and things will get worse, so “on the edge” is a good description of where we are at the moment’
In particular I wonder where the ‘actual evidence’ or ‘sound reasoning’ disappeared to in your assessment that ‘on the edge is a good description’. To this observer I can see neither.
Please explain
My perspective may be a little out of date as I did my undergrad science degree 20 yrs ago.
But I didn’t see anything terribly wrong with the process. Though one obvious mprovment would be to include, as mandatory, some basic philosophy of science. Perahps this is the case in some places, but it wasn’t where I studied, at least way back when.
One problem, if you chose to see it as such, is that scientific training assumes that the field of battle, as it were, will be with facts and for the best approximation of the truth, where others will share the same basic understandings and communicate through a mutually understood technical jargon. This places them at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to discussing issue with lay-persons who may have little understanding of basics and no handle on the technical jargon. Public communication ins’t a common topic for study.
Though perhaps it should be. The vastly expanded scope of knowledge over the past 200 yrs is a challenge that has been ignored to some degree, but it’s general dissemination is more inportant than ever. Currently the task falls to those who have the inclination and time, which may or may not coincide with those who have the apptitude. That needs to change and there needs to be specifc post-grad training in that particular field. Additionally, school should cover science topics in every year till graduation – no exceptions.
Finally, others need to take some responsibility. It’s not all down to scientists. If people attack science and scientists, it’s a bit much then to complain that they are defensive and reluctant to enagage. The direct access to scientists is now at a level unparalelled in out history. You can now go online and ask questions directly, no matter where you live, or the time of the day. It’s an amazing opportunity and one that some don’t seem to realise just lucky we are to have it.
“much of the education/communication on this topic seems targeted at “changing minds” in terms of behavior and policy support. If this is the case, then I would define this as indoctrination, thoughts?”
Although I am highly sceptical of co2 forced global warming I lead by example with my behaviour as a human in a denuded and polluted natural landscape. Here are a few of the ways in which I choose to ‘do my bit’.
I grow vegetables for my table (and give surplus to friends).
I heat my home with fallen timber and cook on the log burner.
I commute to work on a motorcycle built in 1949 which gives 80mpg.
I have planted over 100,000 trees in the last 8 years.
I have installed a solar hot water panel.
I ride an electric bicycle charged up with solar power for local errands.
I walk a lot.
I sort and recycle my garbage, composting all food waste and paper waste.
I am a lot more ‘Green’ than most of the people who criticise me for my scepticism regarding co2 driven global warming.
As you may imagine, I have little respect for well fed, limo riding politicians and bureaucrats who wish to tax me for breathing out.
I am a retired electrical engineer with a modest understanding of physics, chemistry, and meteorology. Climate Science, unlike all others, is goverened by a flawed process of circular reasoning, conflicts of interest, severly limited accountability, and a rash desire to influence public policy before the facts are properly vetted. Here are a few suggestions for starters: 1.0 Form a non partisan commission of non-climate well published scientists to oversee the process and formally concur or non-concur with anything published by the IPCC. 2.0 Have quarterly C-span debates with equal numbers of scientists from both sides of the issue. 3.0 Restate the 1988 IPCC mission to encourage all natural and man-made climate phenomenon to be studied, not just those that point the finger at humankind. 4.0 Institute a comprehensive audit of all temperature databases and assess their lack of coverage and accuracy. 5.0 Audit all models used by the IPCC and articulate and quantify their efficacy, uncertanty and their predictability. These steps would be a good start.
Hank,
There is probably a difficulty with your model of placing two opposing groups of scientists in a debate format. In fact that would very likely be counterproductive. What Climate Etc. has demonstrated very well is that there is actually not two opposing camps but many experts with specific individual issues they are interested in. A scientist considered in the AGW camp could be in violent intellectual disagreement with an other also considered in the AGW camp about some detail of radiation physics or some such narrow area. Likewise, those identified with the skeptic group may actually disagree with AGW on only one technical detail and have no opinion on concern about other aspects of climate science. Choosing up sides for a debate would likely bring in only the most polarizing personalities.
I think Dr. Curry’s approach of encouraging civil dialog is what is needed, not another climate food fight.
I would like to debunk one myth and expand my comment. Adults can and do learn. I have taught adults for the past 25 years as part of my professional career, and have been trained to do so. With adults, it can be successful, but the first step is that it has to be relevant to them, not to the person teaching, or those wanting something to be taught. If the approach is either to dumb down or talk down with the idea that somehow the learners, or their opinions, POV, are deficient, it will fail. It has to be timely. This has several meanings. The real meaning is not to waste their time. One example is that you don’t treat them too stupid and go over elementary detail, in detail. Another example is that you address what is important to them. There are others. What they do have in common is that it takes a degree of skill, planning, knowledge, and feedback in order to be effective.
Though it is unlikely that the public for the most part will be interested in the details of the argument, that would not mean that they would not be interested in a blow by blow accounting. I would say that there are many at WUWT that will readily admit that certain arguments are beyond them, and yet express thanks to those that answer their questions, such that they can understand what the shouting is all about. So, I would say, it needs to be approached in the manner I have been taught to teach adults of mixed education, and ability. An excellent example of how to do this is to read WUWT. An excellent example of how not to do this is to review the threads where the regulars at RC bashed the simplistic questioners.
I would say to communicate properly, and effectively, engagement is a necessary requirement. Given that most of this is about policy, which is formulated, at least legally by politicians who are voted to power in many countries, good engagement for good communications will help the side or sides that engage in it. They are more than 2 sides of this debate. A humorous take on POV and communication is the scene from Alice’s Restaurant when the rapists , killers, etc, find out the crime was littering.
One of the biggest turnoffs for adults is what I think of as agitprop, which they mostly think of as BS. If you are going to bother (educate) an adult, don’t waste their time. If my google fu was good I would link this excellent paper that the UK government paid for about selling global warming/climate change. The persons hired were consultants to advertisers that had convinced a customer(s) to buy a failed advertising campaign. These consultants were advising the UK Government in how to sell AGW/CC with strategies to avoid, and warnings such as an idea’s shelf life. The amazing part is to read this after the breakdown of the concensus, or while it was failing as I did. The problem is that I think that even if the COP16 sets up a good program, it will not be implemented. The problem is that a successful selling of AGW/CC will be a continual expense and political albatross for decades. Too many of the parties want a quick fix, and then to dash off to the next problem, to stay the course. For NGO’s this is loss of monies, and political coin, for politicians, loss of monies in government and for re-election, that will go on for their respective lifetimes. Let’s be honest. If we try to stop the burning of fossil fuels before they are economically unattractive, the albatross will be around our specie’s neck until we are extinct or, burning economically unattractive.
Media is fulfilling its role, as are blogs. Being effective, is a different matter. See above.
I think you could classify much of the effort as indoctrination, or as I do, agitprop. The temptation with “changing minds” is to go a bridge too far, and convince the opposite of the stated goals. The opportunity and tactics for changing minds is usually quite limited as per that British study. One way to appreciate the problem, is to frame it as I have in the past: They expect us to give large sums of monies (read raise my taxes) in order to grow their economies (read take my job from me) while the economies adjust (read I fear for my job already, and I don’t know if my company can make it next year as it is) to a new reality (I really don’t want to vote for this).
The ancient Greeks said the same thing, and look what happened to them. ;) Some education issues will be real, some won’t. Address real problems when you find them and you will seldom be idle. The reason I use the ancient Greeks is that it is easy to decide the winners after the fact. This applies to education direction as well.
I have always liked, “those who have nothing to learn, have nothing to teach.” There have been studies that have examined what we believe versus what works, or even what is actually being done. I think most research that examines what I think of as education inertia will help us be successful. The best example of why we need to free ourselves of this inertia can be found in this saying of teachers that I know “Apples don’t fall too far from the trees.” Ok for apples, but a sad statement for a lot of human beings. I think more from David, and better engagement in the blogosphere should be similar.
With respect to Nullius in Verba, one thing they teach you when you go to teach adults, especially working adults. They have effective BS meters. You can say something that is true, but will not be well received because it has been framed or spun. One area that is a specific and well defined is hypocrisy. Adults, especially working adults, react very strongly and negatively to hypocrisy. Examples of this are well known in the climate world, I doubt I need to state them, or the guilty.
Thank you very much for this analysis
Great article. I had difficulty with math in high school, but in the Navy my commander encouraged me to take a Trig course. Since we were out at sea, my instructor completed the Trig and started teaching calculus without telling us. It seemed so easy, so logical. He didn’t appear to be teaching us, but showing us how solve trajectory gravitational problems related to work. No BS, no molly coddling. When I got out of the service, college math was a breeze.
And as I’ve said before, the spin, ala Al Gore immediately made me suspicious of the climate claims.
John F. Pittman says:
The snake oil specialist you reference is Futerra: (http://www.futerra.co.uk/)
If you look at the bottom of the linked page you will see a section entitled ‘Futerra Research’ containing further links to pdfs. My guess is you have in mind either ‘Sell the Sizzle’ or ‘Words that Sell’.
I’m having difficulty with this question:
“how should the issues surrounding climate change (science and policy) be communicated to a public that for the most part cannot grasp the details of the scientific argument? ”
I’m not convinced the public is unable to grasp the details; I suspect that the public is more concerned with the policy impications. IMO, the public does not think that the doomsday predictions about the future are reasonable. Furthermore, the reliance on GCM projections on the future is certainly questionable:
A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with
observed data
Here are some of the authors conclusions:
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
It is claimed that GCMs provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. Examining the local performance of the models at 55 points, we found that local projections do not correlate well with observed measurements. Furthermore, we found that the correlation at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is worse than at the local scale.
However, we think that the most important question is not whether GCMs can produce credible estimates of future climate, but whether climate is at all predictable in deterministic terms. Several publications, a typical example being Rial et al. (2004), point out the difficulties that the climate system complexity introduces when we attempt to make predictions. “Complexity” in this context usually refers to the fact that there are many parts comprising the system and many interactions among these parts
I’m not surprised!!
Your chemotherapy example illustrates precisely the difficulties and complexities of a field such as climate science and the communication of the all too real uncertainties facing the public. I’ll go O/T if that’s OK.
Chemotherapy is by far the ‘worst’ treatment for cancer – the best are prevention followed by early detection and surgical intervention sometimes with chemotherapy for follow up. While chemotherapy is very successful in treating the leukaemias and lymphomas with good five year survival rates, its track record for most other cancers tends to be rather poor.
Chemotherapy moreover acts by killing rapid growing cells which includes cancer cells but invariably it interferes with other rapid growing cells hence leading to a host of unpleasant side effects. Ironically, one group of fast growing cells often knocked about by chemotherapy comprises our immune system which normally are integral in the prevention of cancer cells from proliferating.
On the other hand, once you miss the boat on prevention and early detection, chemotherapy is often the only option and certainly vastly superior to homeopathy, herbal medicine, and the like. However, for many cancers, the gains are relatively small with five year survival rates in the 20 -30% vicinity. Even then, however, so-called palliative chemotherapy can alleviate some of the pain and discomfort caused by cancer (but at the risk of other unpleasant side effects).
There is an enormous need to develop cancer therapies which do not compromise our immune systems. Current cutting edge therapies however seem to apply more to cancers detected early (eg, selectively blocking off the blood supply to tumours).
Still, if I received an advanced cancer diagnosis, I might well want to prolong my life somewhat via a chemotherapy. I would very likely trust my physician and follow his/her advice depending to some extent on what I wanted out of my possibly briefly extended lifespan.
So is chemotherapy really the treatment for cancer? Well, it’s a lot better than what we didn’t have sixty or seventy years ago. But as you can see, there’s numerous complexities which you actually need to explore at some level if you are unfortunate enough to have to embark on a course of chemotherapy. Some people are content to leave these decisions to their doctor – others want to be more informed. Governments need to be informed insofar as they have to budget for distribution of scarce resources.
So too with climate especially when one brings all the complexities of evaluating non-linear forcings and feedbacks in the context of uncertainties around actual climate sensitivity and lack of certainty whether some effects attributed to climate change may actually be the result of climate change or the result of other anthropogenic and/or non-anthropogenic causes.
The more you know about an area, the more you know how little you know. And yet, we still have to make decisions whether to decarbonise and how best to do it or to aim for mitigation. However, taking some of the emotion and mud slinging out of the equation might help us make ‘least worst’ decisions.
The best way to teach open minded critical thinking in your children is to start when they are able to hold their head up on their own. At around age three months a child can hold its head up and look around, most people just set them in cribs or strollers and ignore them for the most part. Boredom is the reason for most of the outbursts and problems of putting infants down for a nap.
IF every time they are due for a nap you cradle them in the crook of your arm lying on your forearm, so they can face front and see where they are going as you walk around. IF you hold them so they can see things they find interesting they will be entertained first, and IF you learn to let their gaze focus as they turn their head around to watch things of interest in life and nature as you “Fly them around” guide your movements so you let them pilot as you fly them around watching ants on a sidewalk, bees in flowers, tulips emerge from the soil in the spring by showing them the flowers three times a day, all of the items on grocery shelves, peoples faces at family reunions, weddings, just whatever, lets them understand at a basic level that all things are connected and always changing.
This is a preemptive way of taking the nature walks that Richard Feynman’s dad did with him when he could already walk.
Showing them the truth as it appears in nature and growing things, and changes with time will instill creative, critical, thought processes along with increased ability to handle massive amounts of data with out over load problems later in life. I have been using this method for the past 30+ years in raising children, once they (from before they can walk or talk) can understand that what you are doing is giving them unprejudiced insight into the working of the world. Bugs eat flowers, ants eat dead bugs, birds eats seeds and bugs, they will see the interconnectedness of all things early on, and regard you as a guide through life instead of some kind of mostly inattentive policeman. Always talk to them as if they were another adult, use complete sentences, thought trains, and coherent ideas, as you would adults.
Rebellion is no longer an option, if you do not lie to them and allow them to see the truth for themselves, the lack of trust issues that powers rebellion, and misbehaving just to get attention fades, and a firm understanding between child and parent builds the concept that asking questions results in the interchange of additional information, that adds knowledge from which new more detailed questions can be asked to further define their understanding of life, nature, and the sciences by extension.
Following this method raises children that by the time they go to K-12, will not be susceptible to propaganda, and will be able to handle much more heavy stimulated interactions through out any stressful situations in life with out caving in to non-reason.
I have always tried to give answers with as much detail as possible when asked a question, and try to encourage them to ask themselves was the question they asked detailed enough to get a valid answer, for the uncertainty they had in the first place.
Most of the time if you detail the description of a logical or mechanical problem closely enough the answer seems plain, as it defines the changes needed to overcome the short comings of the design that led to the failure. Ie. lever too short, bearing needed instead of pin in hole pivot, excess weight causing lose of efficiency, harder or softer material works better, more of less flexibility/rigidity?
So where are the problems in the CAGW hypothesis, rather than defend blindly the weak points, maybe we need to look at alternative questions that give other answers, and find a wider viewpoint that works better than the myopic “CO2 does it all”. Some thing that shows the part that it does play among the other drivers of the natural climate variability, you cannot play good football with only a center and a quarterback on your team.
[This is a long piece (1500 words). I hesitated to post it all at once, but couldn’t easily find a way to split it up. So apologies in advance, and by all means skip over it if pressed for time.]
The dichotomy between “indoctrination” and “education” is easy to view as stark. But, having read the previous thread and thought a little, I’m gradually coming to a more nuanced view.
Consider things like:
1. What a person needs to understand
2. What a person wants to understand
3. What a person would like their understanding to show
4. What a person’s capacity to understand is
5. How much time a person has to devote to coming to understand
6. If one is in the business of educating, how to help people understand
There’s a distinction in education between “pedagogy”, which, strictly speaking, concerns the education of children; and “andragogy”, which concerns the education of adults. The key thing about andragogy is that adults learn best what they *want* to learn, because it is of direct relevance for them in their life and work.
Few adult non-scientists would worry much about climate science had it not been linked with the issue of global warming. They wouldn’t have wanted to learn about it; but as the issue became more and more prevalent and had more and more impact on people’s lives, a lot of adults wanted to learn more.
What is it adults want to learn? This varies. Some want to learn only that there are others who share their particular view, and especially, others who are deemed experts and/or authority figures. They themselves may not have the inclination, time, or capacity to understand, but psychologically, may identify with experts who act as proxy holders for the understanding they themselves don’t possess. I make no distinction between people on either side of the debate: I think this dynamic is ubiquitous in any contentious area that impinges on people’s everyday lives.
Utterances by preferred experts/authority figures can be put across at different levels of understanding. This doesn’t cast a priori aspersions on those experts/authority figures. They may be speaking as truthfully as they can to their understandings.
Those who start with a preferred internal narrative (and I think we all do to some extent or other), and who are principally concerned with confirmation of that narrative, may be content to learn by rote what are effectively simplified mantras, though there may be an appearance of logic and depth to those.
A lot of debate in the blogosphere is conducted at this level, and because at bottom people are proselytising or defending narratives that are essential to their image of self and society, such debate is passionate, rowdy, and full of invective. At this level, it isn’t a debate about science, but about the kind of reality one needs for there to be. Yes, I think it is a *need*. Take away the foundations of what human beings need for reality to be, and you take away their very essence; and that’s very frightening for anyone – for me, for you, simply anyone.
Now: we need to separate this kind of thing from scientific understanding – or, at least an idealised view of scientific understanding. In that idealised view, investigators are completely objective, completely able to divorce their investigations from the need to prop up internal narratives. It’s a tall order, and I’d be willing to bet that few if any scientific investigators ever completely and at all times manage to separate the two. I think they’re most successful when whatever they investigate doesn’t in any way link to their own raison d’etre.
I’ve talked about “scientific understanding” here, but the essence of that doesn’t just apply to scientists. People in all sorts of disciplines can strive for the same kind of objectivity. Moreover, some who aren’t highly trained in any discipline, but in fact are just ordinary folk going about their ordinary lives, strive for it too. Some of them may actually strive for it, and achieve success in doing so (limited by their capacity to understand), to a greater extent than experts do.
Okay: so I think we have a spectrum. At one end, there are those for whom internal narratives, not based on objective evidence (even, conceivably, where that evidence actually exists), usually take precedence over the objective search for truth. At the other end, there are those who most often place the latter above the former. We’re all on this spectrum somewhere, perhaps each of us in a number of different places depending on how a particular area of investigation relates to our need for reality to be a certain way.
So, at least as adults, we aren’t empty vessels into which information or understandings or skills or trainings can be poured. Something that comes at us may be consciously and carefully prepared indoctrination designed to make us believe certain things and act in certain ways, but it could nonetheless be welcome if it plays into existing internal narratives – in which case, we become complicit in the deceit.
If we detect the attempt to indoctrinate, and seek to resist it, we might well go out and search for something else more conducive to our own narratives, with which we can indoctrinate ourselves. Then again, there may not be a concerted effort to indoctrinate; it may be that the way something is taught precludes the development of critical thinking skills. And of course, no one is denying that there are such things as genuine and successful attempts to teach and learn that actually do develop critical thinking skills.
That which we are indoctrinated with may be intentionally designed as such, or it may not; it may have some substance in reality or not. No matter; the key thing is, our motive for seeking it out, or for actively promulgating it; that is what will determine our behaviour and method of approaching it.
Going back to the blogosphere, there are also those who are principally focussed on finding out the truth. Whatever side they are on, they can make intelligent and thought-provoking contributions, and can seek to learn or teach in a principled way. Some of them are actual climate scientists, others not, and so there are those within the full range of knowledge and understanding and capacities to improve who can interact in educative ways. It’s quite delightful when that happens, and it happens more often here than pretty much anywhere else I can think of. This isn’t to say such people are totally invulnerable to unsupported internal narratives. But they’re doing their best to strive for objectivity, and at the very least can maintain civilised behaviour.
But let’s not kid ourselves. I think a majority of people in the general population are invested in the support of internal narratives. The message that has been put out there, designedly or otherwise, has mostly managed to polarise through external or internal indoctrination. In a few cases, some have managed to rise above it and reject this indoctrination and become truth-seekers, regardless of what the truth may turn out to be.
Also, an increasing number of those who simply accepted the pro-AGW message, which has recently been exposed to unfavourable publicity, may now be relying on internal narratives that are telling them this has never been about the science; it is about politics, and in that, Joe Bloggs is as expert or more expert than many scientists. As always, there may be some truth behind this narrative, but it’s irrelevant how much for many people: the narrative IS reality.
In my view, the responsibility for this lies with those who chose a certain way of constructing and disseminating the message; and, those who knew better, but either didn’t grasp what was going on, or did, and chose to ignore it because the results were favourable to them.
The result is that the situation is now FUBAR. Frankly, on reflection, I don’t think it can be mended with specific reference to the disseminating of educational materials about the nuts and bolts of the actual science. Too many people have bought into too many narratives.
So is it all hopeless? Is there no way to educate everyone – experts and non-experts alike – so that we can move forward? If there is, I think it might lie in open investigation of the dynamics of the AGW saga, which is, in my own small way, something I have been attempting to do here. I have avoided demonising either side, not because I want to appear disinterested and use that as a rhetorical device, but because I actually believe no demonisation is necessary. People have just been behaving as people do, as they have always done. Presenting an analysis of the situation without favouring sides allows listeners to avoid plugging into narratives that tell them: “this is a disguised attempt to blame me for the mess.”
Once people understand the dynamics, and if they can resist the temptation to use that understanding merely to shape some other method of continuing to do the same thing (but this time hopefully more successfully), then we have a chance of deciding what needs to be done and how to achieve that.
My comment here could be considered as slanderous. Although I am happy to retract those statements, there is something appropriate, worthy and respectful in my emotional outburst attacking our host
I do not worry about being personal or subjective. I do not feel insecure to admit that I am foolish and imbecilic. I do know that my volatility in this way of subjective exaggeration is my strength.
In a similar manner Prof. Currey has a comparable subjective skill. She motivates strong personal opinions about her, propelling forward, learning from the subjective turmoil that swirls around her specialization
These essential purpose of this blog is to seek, recognize and understand the subjective contributions to the AGW debate. Beyond those subjective endpoints there is insufficient objective fragment to provide the gelling of a whole.
I know this because of my own strong subjective raves and distortions.
The inefficient turmoil centered on the AGW topic is caused by subjective limitation and the ineffectiveness of humanity to work with this item.
It goes without saying that this is merely my subjective opinion on the matter.
Good question given that the science community are unable to grasp the details either.
A game of subjective spin to sugarcoat intended policy.
Because a plausible believable case cannot not be made, we resort to dogmatic indoctrination
The new could wise up to being co-opted as tools by those who are intent on wagering a relentless and unyielding propaganda invasion.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” ~ Goebbels
The failures regarding reasoning and critical thinking reside with the academics themselves.
The world is hopeless and rudimentary in recognizing, respecting and appreciation individual subjective experience. This crucial topic has gone nowhere.
much of the education/communication on this topic seems targeted at “changing minds” in terms of behavior and policy support. If this is the case, then I would define this as indoctrination, thoughts?
Again, that’s way too simplistic – following this definition, what you are doing here is also indoctrination, though I’m sure you don’t agree, given the way you’ve been attempting to frame the issue.
Michael: Google [ “climate change” frame ] and note which side and which people are preoccupied with framing the issue.
Asking questions (which is what I am doing) on a blog whose main theme is “uncertainty” does not seem to be the way of indoctrination.
You’ve clearly taken a position, which is that the IPCC is corrupt etc, and have argued to that end, asking others to consider that view and perhaps act on it.
By way of your definition of indoctrination, that is indoctrination.
But of course it is completely silly to suggest such a thing. The issue is that the definition and the connatations attached to it (ie. indoctrination is bad, and indoctrination is what others do) are flawed and supremely unhelpful in a discussion puported to be about education.
In the definition of indoctrination: “It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.” I am questioning and critically examining the IPCC and its relation to policy; i.e. i am fighting against indoctrination whereby overconfidence in uncertain science is used to achieve political objectives. Your comment illustrates to me how pervasive the IPCC indoctrination actually is.
Spot on!
Michael seems to think you are the pied piper, and we are all gullible children. Clearly he thinks this should be th IPCC’s role, and that you have usurped it.
Michael, here’s a clue:
A lot of the people here we’re already saying these things about the IPCC and its climate science cadre long before Judith articulated it for herself. Stop trying to demonize someone who is honestly seeking her own truth, and assisting others in coming together to formulate a better way to address the issues.
Yes, sorry for asking questions and putting my point forward.
I’ll try to stick to the approved line.
What?
“You’ve clearly taken a position, which is that the IPCC is corrupt etc, and have argued to that end, asking others to consider that view and perhaps act on it.
By way of your definition of indoctrination, that is indoctrination.”
This looks more like an assertion than a question to me.Lets have a look at the rest of it:
But of course it is completely silly to suggest such a thing.
Sarcasm
The issue is that the definition and the connatations attached to it (ie. indoctrination is bad, and indoctrination is what others do) are flawed and supremely unhelpful in a discussion puported to be about education.
Opinion.
Where’s the question again?
I’kk try to be clearer – I don’t think you are doing indoctrination here at all. It’s just that with your very loose interpretation of indoctrination, we can put almost anything under that banner. Not really much of a help in teasing out the issues.
And now you say that “overconfidence” equals indoctrination. Really? Maybe it’s just overconfidence?
And because I question you on this, it’s an example of indoctrination?? Hey, what happened to the joy of asking questions? eg “Asking questions (which is what I am doing)….does not seem to be the way of indoctrination.”
Ascribing perjorative labels seems a strange thing for an educator to be doing while arguing for education.
Russell Crowe likes villains:
> I like villains because there’s something so attractive about a committed person – they have a plan, an ideology, no matter how twisted. They’re motivated.
Doctrinaire teachers don’t encourage people to ask questions, they encourage them to write down answers.
Judith is definitely in the encourage people to ask questions camp. Good for her. What I have experienced on blogs such as realclimate is that question askers are made to look silly and stupid if they try to question the orthodoxy on climate. They are talked down to, and when they respond with valid points, their posts vanish, apparently leaving the last word to the in house ‘experts’.
Michael and others have mentioned the fact that people tend to perceive indoctrination as something others do, especially when they themselves dispute what is being taught/indoctrinated and/or question the motives of those responsible. This is very true and the flip side of this is that people tend to assume that they are always independent thinkers whereas others are victims of indoctrination.
Thanks for demonstrating both fallacies in a single comment.
With all due respect to the thoughtful post and responses, I believe the wrong questions are being asked.
To me, the correct questions are these:
Why are policy makers involved at all in the science of climate change?
Where in the Constitution of the United States is this type of involvement contemplated or authorized as a role for our government?
Why are we spending billions of tax payer dollars to fund this science?
In the end, President Eisenhower was right.
Where in the Constitution of the United States is this type of involvement contemplated or authorized as a role for our government?
It’a a variant of “promote the general welfare” where the presumption is that there are valid cases where the government can do what what private citizens cannot (e.g. infrastructure.)
Your mileage may vary.
Why are we spending billions of tax payer dollars to fund this science?
Same as above; we taxpayers spend billions on NASA and fusion research with the hope that these efforts pay off. Generally, they do. Climate science isn’t much different here in that done correctly it can lead to improvements in land use, help with drought prediction, weather forecasting, and planning (ranging from policies driving practice intended to make coastal area home homes more survivable in tropical storms to possible earthwork type projects along coastlines that could see increased hurricanes, and that’s just an example for the coastal US.)
As a rule, science investment pays off. It’s not an accident that the US is the only superpower and still despite what critics say still owns the lion’s share of the worldwide patents that are worth owning. Google “Strategy Of Technology” by Possony / Pournelle.
Is climate science currently under fire? Yes. Should it be? YES. But because some folks reckon it’s abused should we scrap it? No.
If you want to scrap stuff and save guaranteed wasted bucks, let’s get rid of the EPA, TSA, DEA, and so on, i.e. all of those agencies that don’t actually bring anything to the party and were never intended to.
What an interesting subject, the difference between Education versus Indoctrination. I always though that easy to pick, after all one animal had a striped coat and the other was spotted, it was a matter of simple commonsense.
Now I grant you that when or if, the two animals mate and their progeny display spots and stripes or the animals themselves come cloaked in disguises, it takes a little more cognitive reasoning to decide.
My question is why is it so hard for those who profess to both understand and teach science to simply state that which is known, and that which is unknown, or that which might be known if it wasn’t known to be uncertain. ??
To my mind the great teaching experience is to give inquiring minds permission to think. To excite minds with the unknowns yet to be resolved raises a challenge, to think of solutions, new ideas and perhaps one day experience the excitement, and truth you found in the joy of pure scientific research and discovery.
Indoctrinators often only pass on personal bias. An Educator opens minds to new ideas and concepts.
OK, Judith, here’s my shot at the education question. Let me boil it down to the simplest terms. Here’s what we know about CO2 and climate.
1. CO2 functions as a “greenhouse gas”. If the concentration of CO2 doubles, the average downwelling radiation at the surface will increase by something like five or six watts per square metre.
2. Solar downwelling radiation (averaged 24/7 around the planet) is about 170 W/m2 at the surface. Downwelling longwave radiation is around 330 W/m2 at the surface. Thus a change of five or six watts per square metre at the surface is a change in radiation striking the surface of about one percent.
Here’s what we don’t know about CO2 and climate:
In a complex, chaotic, feedback-filled, driven, resonant, emergent system such as the climate, will a change in surface forcing of around one percent make a measurable difference, or will it be swallowed up and counteracted by internal changes of clouds and currents and flows of the system itself?
That’s my view of the current state of climate science. That’s what we know and don’t know about CO2 and climate.
I hold to the latter answer, that CO2 will be counterbalanced by internal changes. The constructal law (PDF) says that the climate is continually changing and shifting its flows so as to maximize work plus turbulence. This takes little account of CO2.
But that’s just my point of view, my answer to the question. The question, of whether the earth has an optimum temperature that is sustained by internal adaptive climate mechanisms, is far too rarely asked, much less answered.
So as far as my poor attempt at education goes, the short version would be “We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but we don’t know if increasing CO2 makes a significant difference to the global temperature.”
Regarding your larger question of educating the public, I don’t think that’s necessary. In the US, at least, the public already gets what far too many climate scientists seem to miss — that we don’t understand the climate well enough to say a whole lot about it, or to make fifty-year predictions about it, or spend billions of dollars on it.
As a result, I’d say that your focus in this post (educating the public) is backwards. What is needed is education of the scientists …
Which of course is why your focus on uncertainty in some of your other posts is so important. If the true uncertainties were spoken, we’d be down to not too much more than my simplified version above.
Willis, your very succinct summary of what we do not know about CO2 and climate goes to the very core of the topic. Years spent picking my way through innumerable papers to try and discover the true effect of CO2 continually added to the list of confounding variables and influences. I still do not know, but I am certainly not an AGW believer, for the very reasons you have summarized. Judy might note that this was all a matter of self education, a habit encouraged in me by some good teachers.
Which means I also agree with your last two paragraphs. Convincing anyone of a recommended course of action is not hard, and needs no detailed explanation, if there is certainty of its veracity and the outcome can be demonstrated, relatively simple education will suffice. If there is not certainty and demonstrability, you will otherwise you have to resort to some form of indoctrination. Trying to explain the science would be largely pointless.
“I’d say that your focus in this post (educating the public) is backwards. What is needed is education of the scientists …”
Having seen some of the positivist and niaeve realist positions taken here by scientists who should have been taught better in the first place, I agree. It’s no wonder they ended up convinced of their own correctness and have an inability to self criticise or tolerate, absorb and learn from the criticism of others.
Where is Feynman and his humility now? We need him!
Excellent post by Willis and it sums up what SHOULD be the real thrust of this thread well (as do the comments thereafter).
If this really was about education- the uncertanties as outlined succinctly by Willis would take centre stage- you’d then have a very VERY tough job convincing anyone that ‘action’ was needed (regardless of whether it IS needed or not).
So, i find it hard to believe that this attempt at ‘education’ is anything more than indoctrination in disguise- or rather an attempt to ‘think around’ the issue, rather than address it.
Willis:
Your views stated in your comment induce me to think you would be interested to read the dialogue between Randomengineer and myself on the thread titled, ‘Confidence in radiative transfer models’.
Richard
The educational process of those of us who have been working in climate science for a considerable length of time is not static. We have understood for several decades that increasing CO2 produces radiative forcing, and that water vapor is a feedback effect.
The results from several GCM experiments that we conducted have brought these basic forcing/feedback concepts into much sharper focus. The first such GCM climate experiment was to zero out all for the non-condensing greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. (These non-condensing gases are CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, and the various CFCs.) As might well have been expected, atmospheric water vapor condensed rapidly and precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the Earth into an ice ball state. This rather simple climate experiment showed that water vapor by itself, even though it contributes about 50% of the total greenhouse effect, cannot sustain itself in the atmosphere without the thermal support structure provided by the non-condensing greenhouse gases. These results were published in our recent Science paper (Lacis et al., Science, 330, 356-359, 15 Oct 2010).
The bottom line conclusion of this experiment was that atmospheric CO2 is the principal control knob that controls the temperature of Earth. Water vapor and clouds are only feedback effects that strongly magnify the radiative forcing provided by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, but by themselves, cannot provide Earth with a habitable greenhouse effect.
A couple of additional climate modeling experiments where we instantaneously double the atmospheric water vapor (+12 W/m2 forcing), and instantaneously zeroed out the atmospheric water vapor (-60 W/m2 forcing) further confirmed the fast feedback role of atmospheric water vapor. In both of these extreme experiments water vapor reacted swiftly. There was rapid rainout in the doubled water vapor experiment. And there was rapid evaporation into a bone dry atmosphere in the zeroed water vapor experiment. Most of the rapid reaction occurred in the first month of the experiment. Within two years, both experiments were indistinguishable from the control run.
Again, water vapor is a fast feedback process. Rapid evaporation and rapid condensation produce large short term radiative forcings that overshoot the climate equilibrium conditions. Interacting with similar overshooting by large heat capacity ocean circulation fluctuations results in the complex natural variability that the climate system exhibits with substantial regional, inter-annual, and decadal fluctuations about the long term climate equilibrium (which is maintained by the non-condensing greenhouse gases), even in the absence of external forcings.
With the current situation of ever increasing (non-condensing) greenhouse gases, we have a situation where the thermostat that controls the mean equilibrium temperature of Earth is being turned (far more rapidly than in previous geological epochs) to produce ever higher global temperatures because the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect is being increased. It is only the large heat capacity of the ocean that keeps the global mean temperature from rising precipitously – but it is only a matter of time.
That is the educational lesson that we have learned over the past several decades of studying the nature of the terrestrial climate system. The basic information supporting this conclusion is out there for everybody who may be interested to examine and verify.
It is probably too much to expect than an unprepared public will be able learn and comprehend this information anytime soon, especially when there is an organized anti-education effort being conducted by special interest groups who have their own special interests. We should have been conducting a science emphasis K-12 education effort a generation ago. Unfortunately, the educational boost from Sputnik was rather short lived.
Thank you for this splendid example of doctrinaire pedagogy. Not a hint of the uncertainties, not a trace of doubt. And at the end a wonderful vilification of those who dispute your logic and a breathtaking condescension towards the public’s ability to discriminate between the various certainties being peddled by the pretenders to the true knowledge.
Textbook stuff. Well done!
Thanks for a splendid example of what I wrote above:
Indoctrination is just an empty term in these discussions, as the word is used when the merit of what’s being communicated is not shared (even something as basic as the difference between a forcing and a feedback).
Most of us wouldn’t call a communication campaign geared at making adolescents aware of the risks of excessive drinking indoctrination. Some rebellious beer-loving teenagers though might.
Bart, whereas the dangers of drinking hard spirits are well known and well documented and well proven, the lack of water vapour feedback demonstrated by the 60 year drop in humidity and the non appearance of the predicted tropospheric hotspot touted by the models are ample disproof of Andy Lacis’ assertions. This is not the thread for this discussion so lets get real on the greenhouse threads now that Jeff Glassman and Miklos Zagoni have showed up eh?
And you picked a bad example because I’m an expert real ale brewer. It’s a nutritious and tasty beverage containing naturally produced co2 which can be enjoyed in copious quantity. ;)
hey, I’d love to try it!
I promised to bring a crate over for my petrolhead friends in Aalfen an der Rijn. Come and join the party!
Bart,
As the goal of that campaign would be compliance, then I think it would be categorized as indoctrination. Not all indoctrination is necessarily “bad”.
tallbloke,
I was merely describing what state-of-the-art climate models and observations of GHG increases show, and what the implications of these observations and model results are for global climate.
I am sure that you are also aware of the widespread efforts characterizing our analysis of global warming as an outright hoax.
All of this is difficult for a public without specific understanding of the basic atmospheric physics to sort out. If there was a stronger emphasis in teaching basic science more effectively in K-12, the public would be in a much better position to understand technical issues that are going to have an impact on everyday life in the near future.
What is the rationale that makes you think that you have a clearer understanding of what is happening with global climate?
“We have understood for several decades that increasing CO2 produces radiative forcing, and that water vapor is a feedback effect”
Evidence please (and you of course know that a model does not constitute evidence).
A Lacis,
“It is probably too much to expect than an unprepared public will be able learn and comprehend this information anytime soon, especially when there is an organized anti-education effort being conducted by special interest groups who have their own special interests. ”
You may recall I just had a cordial exhange with you on the “confidence in radiative transfer models” thread. I am not sceptical about basic GHG theory, but I am about CAGW.
I’m not organised by anyone, and nor are most sceptics. I was genuinely surprised to see you post something like this. Can’t you see that you are doing your cause great damage? That you are achieving the precise opposite of what you want to achieve?
I think it is very easy to see the loose organisation of anti-education and anti-science sentiment. There are very many blogs that contribute to this, including activities such as giving a platform to known anti-science bloggers to present guest pieces, encouraging their readership to block vote in on-line polls, reinforcing each others’ points of view with mutually supportive “well said” comments to what is utter garbage, etc.
This may not be a paid up membership club with rules, committees, etc but it is certainly organised. If one looks at the home page of WUWT, one can see numerous skeptic books advertised for sale – authored by other skeptical bloggers. A mutual back patting society is clearly visible.
All loose coalitions tend to organise this way, including the alarmist blogs which also indulge in:
“activities such as giving a platform to known anti-science bloggers to present guest pieces, encouraging their readership to block vote in on-line polls, reinforcing each others’ points of view with mutually supportive “well said” comments to what is utter garbage, etc.”
It just depends on your perspective as to whether you think it’s a fair characterisation of the content really.
Can you please give a few concrete examples of what you deem to be ‘anti-science’ and ‘anti-education’ (with their sources) and explain why you think that these are the right terms to describe them. Though they sound terribly right-on and all that, I don’t yet grasp their meaning.
Thanks LA (MSc Atmospheric Chemistry).
Nice signature. ;)
RT W.Yorks (BA(hons)Hist/Phil Sci – R. Eng)
Comparing signatures fellas?
Mine might be a little out of place.
O.T (High School Dropout, Small Bus Owner)
Gissa job mate! While ‘resting between assignments’ I work on the buses in London. I promise not to mention cricket…..
I’ve got a 7 seat Ford Aerostar I do Airport runs with for ageing american rock stars with from time to time. The burble of that 4L V8 puts ’em at their ease.
hehe he I forgot the full stop after Bus
Small BUSINESS owner lol
So I can mention the cricket then?
Sure, go ahead, mention the cricket.
I think it is very easy to see the loose organisation of anti-education and anti-science sentiment. There are very many blogs that contribute to this, including activities such as giving a platform to known anti-science bloggers…
Your notion of skeptics is counter to the facts and comes across as rude, disrespectful, arrogant, and just plain dumb.
Read the “Denizens” thread. An extremely large percentage of these claimed anti-education anti-science types are in fact educated, many (if not most) of them working engineers, and so on. Lots of the claimed anti-science types are amateur astronomers, science teachers — bah. I could go on but it runs the gamut.
The notion that massive numbers of working people with B.S. and higher degrees are anti-education is absurd. The notion that massive numbers of people knowingly using science in their daily jobs are anti-science is a couple of light years beyond absurd. Educated people who use science every day who don’t buy claims of catastrophe aren’t anti-science.
“Your notion of skeptics is counter to the facts and comes across as rude, disrespectful, arrogant, and just plain dumb.”
Nope – have you looked at huge swathes of the comments at places like WUWT (a popular skeptic blog)? There are plenty there who, in my book, count as knuckle draggers. I’ve clicked through to the blogs that many of the commenters there also have – they include Obama is a Muslim, Creationism, 9/11 conspiracies, etc.
I tend not to visit there often – it makes me feel ill (calls for greenies to be sterilised there today). The denizens of *this* blog tend not to be the same kettle of fish – that’s why I get involved here – but you can’t deny that sites like WUWT DO organise skeptics/deniers in the way that I’ve said above.
Hence, it can feel like there are highly organised skeptics – Anthony Watts whips them up to a frothing frenzy and points them in the direction of climate scientists.
Nope!? Goodness me, Louise!
How does your reference to “knuckle-draggers” at WUWT counter randomengineer’s point, that educated people are sceptical of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?
Anthony Watts whips them up to a frothing frenzy and points them in the direction of climate scientists.
Lol.
No. Anthony discourages people from calling climate scientists dishonest or fraudulent. What he always says it there is no need to ascribe malice where plain old incompetence will cover the situation just fine.
And he’s right too.
But I’m sure you find WUWT as distasteful as I find Romm’s blog is to me. Dogtoza or whatever his name is gives me the creeps.
So far, you haven’t been able to show me any examples of what you call ‘anti-science’ or ‘anti-education’, but have made instead some general remarks about a few comments by those you choose to call ‘knuckle draggers’. Perhaps now you can give a few concrete examples (actual references to real posted remarks, rather than just your vague opinion and ill feelings), of Anthony Watts ‘whipping them up into a frothing frenzy and points them in the direction of climate scientists’
To make your point that it is a general characteristic, I suggest that you provide, say, five actual examples of this behaviour from the last twenty five or fifty articles posted there.
As I’m sure you know from your study of climatology, evidence for your views and critical examination thereof is of vital importance in making a solid case.
Louise,
How deep are you going to dig your hole?
Michael,
There is indeed an well organized anti-education effort out there trying to undermine the public’s perception of climate science.
Why is it that a number of elected congressmen and senators have proclaimed global warming to be an outright hoax? Do they themselves really understand what is happening with global climate? Perhaps they have the short term financial interests of some of their better paying lobbyists at heart when they go and proclaim global warming to be a hoax.
“Why is it that a number of elected congressmen and senators have proclaimed global warming to be an outright hoax?”
I’m not sure when they say this that they are expressing their beliefs accurately. You will often see people declare AGW a hoax yet when pressed for specifics what they actually mean is CAGW. A difference perhaps of the language used by the public in general or those in climate science, or perhaps an example of laziness.
It strikes me (just an Engineer) that elected representatives have a responsibility to listen to their BS detectors. They also have a responsibility to assess draconian economic measures in light of detected BS. Having made the transition from ambivalence to skepticism myself, I applaud their pragmatism. Um, looks to me as though your house of cards, built on a beach about to encounter high tide, might need some substance, rather than more arm-waving. IMO.
Why is it declared a hoax?
Perhaps because people know the stench of bs when it hits their nostrils?
You guys got paid billions to prove that a climate catastrophe caused by CO2 is not only imminent, but happening.
You failed yet you keep claiming otherwise.
What should we call it?
Popular Cultural Delusion may explain it better.. ie tulip bubble, south sea bubble, etc
Yes, the historical parallels are amazing.
These remarks have a lot of resonance.
I was just musing to myself that the ‘climatologists’ in general don’t seem to have much of an understanding of the history of science or of history itself. (Though Mikey seems to believe in the Henry Ford theory of it and tries to eliminate it:-) ).
In particular they don’t seem ever to have grasped the relationship between theory and experiment and between science and faith. Things that were fought over and pretty much decided in Renaissance times.
And when I read their writings, compared with those of the leading sceptics, they seem to me to be lacking in a wider perspective and the capability to put today’s work into its historical context.
Maybe it is this apparent lack of knowledge that means they commit such cardinal errors as I perceive..over the need for proof, over data, over the use of computer models instead of experiment, over their inablity to distinguish between Laws, hypotheses and jolly good ideas after a few bevvies….
I hope these are not just the musings of a soon to be middle-aged curmudgeon..what do other people think?
Final suggestion for all. I have at last summoned up the courage to read Prof. Peter Atkins ‘Galileo’s Finger’..which covers the ‘ten great ideas of science’. The courage was needed since I still bear the intellectual scars from his attempts to teach me undergraduate level Physical Chemistry a long while ago. He specialised in mental workouts ‘sans merci’
Thankfully, for the general reader he is considerably gentler – but never tame. I commend it to everybody as essential understanding for the flow of science and of ideas. It will illuminate something for everybody and a lot for many.
And I have absolutely no idea whether he is warmist or sceptic, Marxist or Friedmanite, Catholic or Protestant, Shia or Sunni, atheist or agnostic. And nor does it matter. He can just write well and knowledgeably about Science. Read it and learn.
Barry I know I have sent you this before, but others will be interested to read Kesten Green’s structured analysis of (I paraphrase) Big Scary Predictions That Have Yet To Come True? http://kestencgreen.com/green%26armstrong-agw-analogies.pdf
He studies unfulfilled scares like Eugenics, Y2K, DDT (shown to be far less toxic than claimed, and certainly not such as to justify the immense loss of African life that its forced discontinuance brought about – by Al Gore among others – entailed) and a delightfully quaint mid 19th century alarm that the world was running out of shipping timbers. All were perverse extensions of “settled” science. All attracted more than a measure of support from fashionable “bien pensant” society – the Al Gores of their day (cf that fathomlessly stupid clever man, GB Shaw) All turn out, on examination, to rest on unfalsifiable argument, and other beaches of Scientific Method. When those breaches were repaired, the problem went away. All were attended by strident appeals to the Precautionary Principle.
More importantly for any scientist with ambitions to influence public policy, Green systematically charts the results of legislative efforts to forfend the calamity. It’s not encouraging. The result tends to be that worthless and costly legislation festers on the statute books, because “Success has a thousand fathers, but Failure is an orphan”.
A Lacis,
Well, were I to accept that some US politicians are organised against as specific issue, why would I not also accept that some of them were organised for it?
What is the IPCC or the EPA or the British Met office, or The Royal Society, or any number of other entities but an organisation? They greatly outnumber organisations that dispute CAGW, and in many cases, they are funded from the public purse. As are most climate scientists.
I don’t dispute that there are organisations and that they are disseminating information. But are they organising me? Or sceptics in general? Nah. But it’s true enough that some of the information they disseminate influences my judgement. There’s information disseminated by both sides that is clearly meant to indoctrinate rather than educate.
I call a pox on both their houses for this. On both sides, those will be indoctrinated who want to be indoctrinated – they’re neither fish nor fowl, and not qualified to pass a judgement based on critical thought.
Meanwhile, there are some on both sides who are just looking to find the truth. This doesn’t mean they may not lean one way or the other, but they are still open to the truth, whatever it might turn out to be. Being “sceptical” doesn’t mean that one rejects, only that one isn’t convinced.
I’m sorry, but I’m not persuaded by arguments based on computer models that “prove” CO2 is the control knob. This isn’t because I fully understand the models, or the physics, but because I haven’t seen any evidence in the real world that model predictions are accurate. I deduce backwards from that the models aren’t all they are claimed by some to be. I could be wrong, but I’m sceptical.
I don’t doubt you know your science, and I grant you the respect you deserve for that. But I detect something other than science is at work in you – something that is at work in all of us to greater or lesser extents: internal narratives that shape our interpretation of the world, a world we want and need to be a certain way. Apart from your particular expertise in one or two areas of one among many disciplines, there’s nothing special or different about you. You’re just as fallible in that respect as me or anyone else. The battle is against the internal narratives more than anything else.
A Lacis says…
Mr Lacis, I contend that what you have done is gathered information, and possibly and hopefully expanded your knowledge.
These things are NOT necessarily educating ones self.
Ergo, I can demonstrate to a child how to put a dismantled item back-together, and how to operate it. If necessary with A goes with A, B goes with B type diagrams.
This more resembles indoctrination than education. Possibly useful if one wants to be an assembly line worker.
However, if I can educate the child in critical thinking, clear thinking and problem solving, the child may one day design a better assembly line.
Much the same as “give a man fish, teach a man to fish”
Disapointingly, your post is lacking in this critical distinction, much like our current education system.
Unlike some other posters, I found this post interesting
>The first such GCM climate experiment was to zero out all for the non-condensing greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. (These non-condensing gases are CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, and the various CFCs.)<
HOW did you "zero out", please ?
Its the same thing they did with the lunar effects on the weather, they removed all of the weather , and then looked for a lunar tidal signal (which is the weather) of course they could find nothing left, so they said there is nothing to see here move along…..
Climate models are constructed to reproduce the atmospheric structure of the real world, including the vertical profiles of all greenhouse gases, water vapor, aerosols, and clouds. The GCM radiation model calculates the radiative effect (heating, cooling) that is contributed by each atmospheric constituent. In the GCM operating instructions, instead of passing on to the radiation model the normal distribution of all atmospheric gases, the operating instructions to the radiation model are amended to perform the radiative calculations for zero amounts of CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, and the various CFCs. The result is strong cooling of the environment which causes most of the atmospheric water vapor to condense and precipitate, causing even stronger cooling as a result,
Yet apparently there is a new negative feedback that you did not mention.
A Lacis says: “Climate models are constructed to reproduce the atmospheric structure of the real world…”
If only. This statement seems to be supported more by faith than by the ability of those models to predict (with acceptable degree of accuracy) the earth’s climate. It is because of the miserable ability of these models to provide accurate predictions (sorry, scenarios) that I have grave reluctance to accept that CO2 is the thermostat of the earth.
How can you call GCM scenarios “experiments”???
A Lacis, I can only quote Professor Michael Kellys notes from the Oxburgh enquiry.
“(i) I take real exception to having simulation runs described as experiments (without at least the qualification of ‘computer’ experiments). It does a disservice to centuries of real experimentation and allows simulations output to be considered as real data. This last is a very serious matter, as it can lead to the idea that real ‘real data’ might be wrong simply because it disagrees with the models! That is turning centuries of science on its head.”
I take it that you disagree with his position?
CO2 may be more analogous to an (old fashioned) pilot light for furnace or water heater than the thermostat (control knob).
A GCM experiment?
Confirmed by a REAL experiment? Or are your models now so accurate (as shown by our Greek colleagues in their recent paper:-) ) that you’ve been able to dispense with observations?
I hope that your paper starts with
‘we have investigated the properties of computer model X and observe that it demonstrates the following behaviour…..’
and finishes with
‘any resemblance to observable reality is unintended and accidental. No conclusions about the Earth’s climate can be drawn’
Latimer Alder:
Well said!
I thought this statement of A Lacis was especially telling:
“The bottom line conclusion of this experiment was that atmospheric CO2 is the principal control knob that controls the temperature of Earth. Water vapor and clouds are only feedback effects that strongly magnify the radiative forcing provided by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, but by themselves, cannot provide Earth with a habitable greenhouse effect.”
But the model does what it is programmed to do: nothing more and nothing less. And it is a construct of the understandings of climate behaviours possesed by the builders of the model.
So, the fact that the model indicates
“Water vapor and clouds are only feedback effects that strongly magnify the radiative forcing provided by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, but by themselves, cannot provide Earth with a habitable greenhouse effect.”
proves that the model’s constructors built that into the model.
A claim that running the model proves it to be true of the real world is circular reasoning in its purest form.
Richard
For my own edification, Richard, do we know for a fact that the models are loaded with these assumptions ie that clouds etc are merely feedbacks? If so, how is the magnitude of those feedbacks determined? A. Lacis said in a previous comment that they were grounded in physics although as a layman I didn’t quite follow his technical explanation. I found your comment to be compelling and I look forward to seeing if anyone else has something to say on the matter.
In a system full of feedbacks and interdependencies it always seems possible to identify a ‘driver’ or ‘forcing’ which can explain the behaviour of the rest of the system (provided you are prepared to overlook or rationalise away the occasional inconsistency in the law of cause and effect). This is what has happened in climate science. The sun has been relegated to (effectively) unvarying power source, and co2 is the control knob on the Earth’s climate according to A.Lacis.
Andy Lacis and Chris Colose have both stated on this blog that as far as they are concerned, nature behaves according to the laws of physics (rather than the laws of physics being our pale representation of nature, always subject to revision). In epistemological terms, this is the error of naieve realism, believing your conception of the object is identical with the object. It may seem like splitting hairs to some, but it is an important distinction, and the failure to recognise it often leads to a kind of megalomania in which the perceiver is convinced of their infallibility in correctly characterising reality.
When taken to the group level in science, it is positivism, which is the belief that everything is quantifiable and reducible to equations. There are sophisticated versions which admit of some level of chaos or other type of indeterminism (Heisenberg etc), but always within a framework of certitude. The positivist school of behavioural psychology has a hard time of it, but they try hard to stuff people into their conceptual boxes, aided by limited choice tick box questionnaires.
Physics, as applied to climate, runs into all the well known difficulties of the inability to conduct conclusive large scale experiments to help guide theory. Which is why, to a large extent, climate scientists of the climate modeling type have dispensed with actual physical experiments and claim that thy can conduct experiments with their models, which (they are self convinced) correctly replicate the actual physical world sufficiently well for them to be able to speak with certainty about what drives what.
thy tell us climate is complex. I say it is made unnecessarily more complex by the contortions required to get co2 to drive climate.
If co2 forcing was really powerful enough to have heated the oceans as much as they warmed during the 1993-2003 decade, we would have seen the heat signature in the tropical troposphere – the infamous non-appearing hotspot. That we didn’t should have been sufficient to put this failed theory to bed ten years ago.
Reduced cloud cover as empirically measured by the ISCCP cloud project, and the resulting increase in insolation *at the surface* is most likely what caused Earth to warm. We have the empirical evidence which supports the thesis, we have the physics theory to confirm there is sufficient power to do it. But it is ignored and sidelined.
Tallbloake – I googled a good deal in an attempt to find how much LWR contributes to ocean heating. Haven’t found anything that conveys the proportion of LWR ocean heating to SWR ocean heating.
Jim, this doesn’t surprise me. For all the bluster on the blogs of how the co2 increased downwelling longwave has heated the world, there is not a shred of solid evidence for it, so you don’t see the claim being repeated in peer reviewed papers except in vague sweeping terms.
The sun heats the oceans, the oceans heat the atmosphere, the atmosphere slows the rate of cooling of the ocean and radiates to space.
The big question is, has the extra co2 slowed the rate of cooling more, or has it been offset by something else like humidity decline, shifting hadley cell boundaries, shrinking of the ionosphere, increased evaporation, decreased plankton…..
Answers on a postcard to the usual address.
I’m absolutely sure that Colose and Lacis are correct that
‘as far as they are concerned, nature behaves according to the laws of physics’.
No dispute there. I’m pretty convinced that those same Laws are universal throughout the (known) universe as well.
But its a huge logical leap from there to imagine that they therefore understand enough about the climate system to be able to produce a complete and correct mathematical model that takes into account all the physical effects that can act within it.
Especially when the appear to have done almost no validation of those models by comparison with reality.
This is not ‘evidence- driven’ science. It is faith-based…faith in their own intellectual abilities to understand it all and program effectively. I’m sure I am not alone in having my scepticism reinforced, not diminished when I read posts that start
‘GCM experiments have shown……..’
The point was made, I forget by whom, that it is possible to create computer games in which interplanetary warfare takes place between spaceships manned by aliens – all “grounded in the laws of physics” – but that that should not be taken as proof of the existence of alien spaceships, let alone their alien crews. It seems to me that this is a pretty good analogy for the whole field of supposedly precognitive models.
Tom FP:
That was me. I first said it in the 1990s and have often repeated it.
Indeed, I provided it as an AR4 peer review comment which I quoted on a thread of this blog. I suggest that if cited the review comment is the appropriate citation.
Richard
So it was! Thank you for it – I use the analogy at every opportunity.
Now, can you remember who it was that said, but in much more elegant terms “if your theory is sound, you should be able to explain it to a well-educated layman”? It was someone of the stature of Einstein, Rutherford or Bohr, and of their era. When I read posts from you and NiV, it always comes to mind. I hope you’re duly flattered.
Tom FP:
Aha! We are getting back on topic! Good!
I do not know who said
“if your theory is sound, you should be able to explain it to a well-educated layman”
but I agree.
As I see it, if I cannot explain something to anybody with average intelligence then I have an inadequate understanding of what I want to explain. Indeed, I find that providing an explanation to others is a good test of my understanding.
Please note that an explanation does not require detail; e.g. an explanation of what a car is, does, and looks like does not require a mention of the material of its engine’s crankshaft. Detail can be added if someone requests it.
Also, one needs to be clear what one wants to explain; e.g. is the required explanation of a car or of an internal combustion engine?
Also, one needs to avoid extraneous information because that can detract from – or confuse – what one intends to say; e.g. if the required explanation is of an internal combustion engine then does one need to say it could be used in a car or not? As I said, detail can be added if someone requests it.
My views on these matters probably derive from my being one of “Mr Wesley’s Preachers”. John Wesley’s sermons are complex and they explore deep theological issues but before delivering one of them he would ‘try it out’ on his uneducated maid: if she could not understand it then he changed it.
Several comments in this thread demonstrate an arrogance that insults Mr Wesley’s maid.
Richard
Who is Feynman?
Let’s eagerly await that someone explain in laymen’s terms the proof of Fermat’s last theorem.
For now we only have this kind of stuff:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8269328330690408516&hl=en#
Willard:
Thank you for demonstrating my point that it is arrogance to assert that scientists are a repository of knowledge and understanding which cannot be comprehended by others. You assert:
“Let’s eagerly await that someone explain in laymen’s terms the proof of Fermat’s last theorem.
For now we only have this kind of stuff:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8269328330690408516&hl=en# “
OK. To prove the arrogance of assertions such as yours, I provide the following as an ending to your eager wait.
Fermat’s Last Theorem is a famous puzzle in mathematics. It was first conjectured by Pierre de Fermat in 1637 and many mathematicians attempted to solve it, but it remained unsolved until Andrew Wiles published a successful proof in 1995.
Interest in the puzzle was enhanced by Fermat having stated the puzzle in the margin of a copy of ‘Arithmetica’ where he claimed he had a solution to it that was too large to fit in the margin.
Mathematical problems rarely capture public interest but Wiles’ became famous by solving Fermat’s Last Theorem: his achievement was the subject of newspaper reports, books and TV programs.
The puzzle was as follows.
It was conjectured that no three positive integers (i.e. whole numbers) a, b, and c can satisfy the equation an + bn = cn for any integer value of n greater than two. Fermat said he had a proof that the conjecture is true, so the puzzle was to find a (or the) proof that it is true.
It cannot be known if Fermat really did find a proof that the conjecture is true, but if he did then it is unlikely to have been the proof provided by Wiles. Mathematics developed over the centuries after Fermat, and Wiles used the results of one of those developments known as Modularity Theorem.
Modularity Theorem deals with the mathematics of elliptical shapes. It says how any elliptic curve (i.e. part of the edge of an elipse) can be obtained.
An ellipse is similar to a circle but has two points (known as foci) from which it has radii but a circle has only one focus for its radius at its centre. The foci of the ellipse are two special points F1 and F2 on the ellipse’s major axis and are equidistant from its centre. The sum of the distances from any point P on the ellipse to those two foci is constant and is equal to the major diameter ( PF1 + PF2 = 2a ).
Several people conjectured that Fermat’s Last Theorem could be considered to be an example of the mathematics of elliptical shapes because the equation of Fermat’s Last Theorem (an + bn = cn) is similar to the basic equation of an ellipse (PF1 + PF2 = 2a). This conjecture was known as the Modularity Conjecture. And, several people used this Modularity Conjecture in attempt to prove Fermat’s Last Theorem.
Eventually, by building on work of Ken Ribet and helped by Richard Taylor, Andrew Wiles succeeded in proving enough of the Modularity Conjecture to prove Fermat’s Last Theorem. Simply, Wiles showed that Fermat’s Last Theorem is a problem in geometry, and it is true because it is a special case of the proven mathematics of ellipses.
I submit that the above is as detailed an explanation as most laymen would want. And it offers points for questions from people who want more detail.
Richard
RSC, that is not an “explanation” that is a journalistic report. There is no shortage of journalistic reports on climate science, some more fanciful than others, at various levels of accessibility.
It is not at all clear what you are looking for.
@willard
‘Who is Feynman?’
I suggest that you look him up in Wikipedia, then follow some of the links there to his lectures, talks, musings and writings. In short he was one of the C20 greatest scientists (Nobel Prize for Physics etc), and has a lot to tell us about the nature of research and of science today. He should be an inspiration to anyone who calls themself an ‘expert’.
If you are really musing on the more philosophical point, ‘Who Was Feynman?’ I think we will have to wait for a really good biography and think about it then.
The sentence:
> Who is Feynman?
was the Jeopardy-like answer to Courtney’s:
> I do not know who said “if your theory is sound, you should be able to explain it to a well-educated layman” […]
Speaking of Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy!
Ooops!
I several times typed “Willard” where I intended ‘Wiles’.
I think my errors are clear, and so do not require a corrected post. But I apologise to Willard.
Richard
Michael Tobis:
Several posters claimed climate science is so arcane that only scientists could understand it and, therefore, it is not possible to explain scientific issues to the public.
I responded that such claims are not true and are merely arrogance. It is an insult to the layman to claim the layman is too thick to understand. And it is that insult because a person who cannot explain a matter has inadequate understanding to formulate an explanation.
Willard refuted my response and cited Fermat’s Last Theorem as an example of a technical matter which could not be explained to laymen. Indeed, he said;
“Let’s eagerly await that someone explain in laymen’s terms the proof of Fermat’s last theorem.
For now we only have this kind of stuff:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8269328330690408516&hl=en# “
I said I could disprove his refutation by explaining Fermat’s Last Theorem in layman’s terms. And I did. My explanation included:
The origin of Fermat’s Last Theorem.
The importance of the matter to mathematicians.
The unusual fame it gave to a mathematician, Willard.
The mathematical puzzle that Fermat’s Last Theorem provided.
The history that led to a solution which involved several (some named) people.
The nature and development of the mathematics which led to a solution.
A succinct statement of the solution; viz.
“Wiles showed that Fermat’s Last Theorem is a problem in geometry, and it is true because it is a special case of the proven mathematics of ellipses.”
I concluded by saying;
“I submit that the above is as detailed an explanation as most laymen would want. And it offers points for questions from people who want more detail.”
To which you have responded:
“that is not an “explanation” that is a journalistic report. There is no shortage of journalistic reports on climate science, some more fanciful than others, at various levels of accessibility.
It is not at all clear what you are looking for.”
Say what!?
If “that is not an explanation” then nothing is. So, only original source documents such as Wiles’ paper are acceptable as “explanation”.
It is an explanation because it
(a) outlines the totality of the subject
and
(b) invites questions concerning each part of the subject.
It is not journalism. A journalist selects the parts of a subject that form a good story and presents it as a complete story. Indeed, in terms of the specific example, journalists’ reports of Willard’s solution to Fermat’s Last Theory present Willard as being the ‘hero’ who single-handed solved the inscrutable problem which had confounded countless others: and they present it that way because that is a good story. The link Willard provided does exactly that (watch it and see if you can understand the puzzle or its solution) but it is a good story.
So, I am not “looking for” anything. I want
1.
Scientists to explain their work to the lay public .
2.
Scientists to stop pretending it is more difficult to explain science than to explain car mechanics.
3.
Scientists to recognise that if they cannot explain what they do then it is their inadequacy: it is not that the public are thick.
4.
Scientists to admit the limitations of their knowledge and understanding, and to admit them to the public.
All those desires are possible of fulfilment.
Richard
Well said Richard.
All the obfuscation is simply a smokescreen for the uncertainty. Climate scientists need to get real, real quick.
‘as far as they are concerned, nature behaves according to the laws of physics’.
No dispute there. I’m pretty convinced that those same Laws are universal throughout the (known) universe as well.
Ok Latimer, riddle me this:
Which laws did nature behave in accordance with before man started counting and spilling water out of baths?
I’m not saying our laws of physics aren’t pretty good, or that they are not universal (as far as we know), but it’s a philosophical point with psychological ramifications, and real world consequences in terms of the certainty people feel entitled to.
Sorry guys…perhaps I wasn’t clear.
You make good points…but there is a philosophical minefield awaiting that, though fascinating to some for its own merit, is even less likely than many of our intellectual byways to lead us to any actual enlightenment on the problems we are discussing. So lets not travel too far in that direction.
But there is no riddle. Nature just carries on doing what she does. Whether we are here to try and interpret and codify what little glimpses of her that our experiments give us. Or not. Hence my remark that Nature acts according to the laws of physics. Sure does. Most likely everywhere. The universe is homogeneous and not capricious.
But do we as a species have a good enough understanding of those laws to be able to build a parallel reality of a complex system like the earth’s climate, explore that system with mathematics and computing and so draw useful lessons about the real universe from our model of it?
And that is where we differ. The climatologists breezily assert that they have such knowledge in abundance, that their models are great ..indeed that they are ispo facto so great that they don’t even need to be checked by looking out of the window, or taking any sort of experimental checkpoint that they are even on the right lines.
But that they have now advanced to a level of sophistication so perfect that it is possible, with a straight face, to write something that begins ‘computer models have shown…’ and expect the credulous public to believe that experimentation/observation is no longer a prereq for understanding anything.
H’mmm. I am not convinced. Because I see no evidence at all that this approach isn’t just a return to a faith based system . Here the Bible or the Koran are replaced by The Model and The Computer…(we might just as well call it Deep Thought a la H2G2). Faith that the programmers really understand all the intricacies of the laws of physics to write down a complete mathematical description of the climate. Faith that such a model is non-chaotic and only has a single solution. Faith that it is implemented with 100% fidelity in the programs and the hardware….and so on and so forth….
I really don’t do faith. Neither in my personal convictions, nor my professional life. I’d be happy to believe a little more if I saw some evidence that observed reality actually matched the models. But there is none, nor any effort to find such. The true believers are locked into their faith.
But after 30 years in the business – as programmer, tech support, salesman, architect, strategist and manager, I know far better than most that the words
‘I’m from IT, I’m here to help you’ are rarely 100% true.
‘I’m from IT, I’m here to help you’ are rarely 100% true.
Is this what you had in mind Lat?
I think this misunderstands models somewhat. They are, by definition, not meant to be perfect representations of reality. Models are simplified versions of that reality, with a certain utility.
In this they aren’t that different from science in general – we always have an imperfect state of knowledge which we are continually updating and improving.
The rather strange corollary of this is that our theories and explanations, are, in the long run, always shown to be wrong.
That’s science.
But if you never even try to measure how far away from reality the models are …by experiment and observation of reality, you have no means of knowing whether they are good to within half an inch over a million miles or are totally at right angles to where we want to be.
Self-assertion that ‘we’re pretty good programmers and we understand everything so there’s no point in testing them out against reality’ is self-delusion on the grandest scale.
That’s the point of hindcasting – so we know the models aren’t a million miles from reality.
For all the talk about accepting uncertainty here, it seems strange to hear the simulataneous suggestions that uncertainity is unacceptable – the models must be near perfect or they are useless.
Even the worst racing tipster can look like a genius if he is equipped with *tomorrow’s* copy of The Sporting Life.
The acid test comes in that short period between the gun going off and the chequered flag. The race itself.
And in the context of how well climate models do at this there has been a remarkably loud silence from climatologists, even when repeatedly challenged to demonstrate their abilities. Not a peep. One old graph from Hansen 25 years ago that shows that he expected temperature would rise over the last thirty years. He hardly needed anything more than graph paper and a ruler to do that based just on history, with no knowledge of climate needed at all.
And that m’lud is about it.
Perhaps your reading hasn’t yet taken you to this recent paper:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a928051726&fulltext=713240928
where the authors compare predcitions with observation for a number of leading climate models.
Their scientific conclusion is:
‘We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe. We also spatially aggregate model output and observations over the contiguous USA using data from 70 stations, and we perform comparison at several temporal scales, including a climatic (30-year) scale. Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor’
which I translate into Joe Sixpack speak as
‘Climate models are crap’
Unless you have some evidence to show otherwise?
Tallbloke,
Of all your postings to date, this has for me the highest educational content, vis a vis naive realism and positivism; I learnt something from it, and thank you for it.
I would just like to link this with the idea of an internal narrative. The internal narrative in this case is that the model IS the reality. If model predictions fail to materialise in the real world, then it’s more subtle than saying the real world must be wrong; it’s more usually that: of course, the real world is right and has precedence, but we haven’t as yet perfected methods to uncover its rightness.
At bottom, this is just another species of faith. Sure, something we haven’t yet found *might* exist, but the default position should probably be a sceptical one.
Michael, thank you too for your well considered posts.
In this case we have a $10M quote:
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on
2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our
observing system is inadequate.”
Kevin Trenberth’s famous ‘missing heat’.
Roger Bacon will have turned in his grave.
Clue for Kevin:
When your experimental data doesn’t agree with your theory, take a good look at the theory.
Rob B:
The short answer to your question about the modelled cloud behaviours being assumed is ‘yes’. Indeed, the modelled cloud behaviour has to include assumptions because detailed understanding of cloud mechanisms does not exist.
The magnitudes of modelled cloud effects are adjusted (in the jargon, ‘parametrized) to get the models to match observed behaviours.
A Lacis is correct when he says the models are “grounded in physics” but many assumptions are built onto that foundation to create each model. And there are several different models (similarly, knowing the design of the foundations of a house tells little about the house to be constructed on that foundation).
If the basic physics defined a climate model there would be only one climate model, but there are dozens.
Those are specific responses to the questions you put to me. I commend the response from Tallbloke as being more informative.
Richard
Thanks for taking the time to respond, Richard. I am no scientist merely an interested lurker, but I still can’t get my head around this. If you have a number of variable feedbacks that may themselves be interdependent then how can you parameterize them successfully….keep turning the knobs until the right answer comes out? And who’s to say that just because you can successfully parameterize for one particular set of circumstances that the same ‘settings’ will work for a different situation? Also, what is the basis for assuming a single forcing?
Rob B:
Our discussion is off-topic for this thread, but I will give brief (i.e. incomplete) answers to your questions: full answers would probably require a book.
You ask:
“If you have a number of variable feedbacks that may themselves be interdependent then how can you parameterize them successfully….keep turning the knobs until the right answer comes out?”
I answer:
Yes, and that is a major reason why there are several models. For example, different models use different values of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 concentration. These values differ by ~250% between models. And each model is then adjusted to match historic global temperatures (over the last century) by using different values of assumed aerosol cooling that also vary between models by ~250%. Clearly, the models will each indicate very different effects of changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration and/or aerosol concentration. But there is only one Earth so at most only one of the models can be right and they are probably all wrong because they model a climate system that does not exist in reality.
You ask:
“And who’s to say that just because you can successfully parameterize for one particular set of circumstances that the same ‘settings’ will work for a different situation?”
I answer:
The modellers seem to say that, but they should not. Since at most only one of the models is of the Earth’s climate system then at most only one can “work for a different situation” in emulation of the real world. There is no way to determine which – if any – model emulates the real climate system and there are good reasons to think none of them do; e.g. see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/05/new-peer-reviewed-paper-shows-just-how-bad-the-climate-models-are/
The link is to a ‘populist’ explanation of the recent paper by Anagnostopoulos et al. and includes a link to the actual paper.
You ask:
“Also, what is the basis for assuming a single forcing?”
I answer:
It is not clear to me what you mean by “a single forcing”. The models each assess the forcings of “CO2 equivalent forcing” which is a summation of the forcings of all GHGs because that reduces computation time and complexity. But they also assess effects of aerosol forcing, solar forcing, and cloud forcings together with a ‘feedback’ forcing from changed atmospheric moisture content.
I hope these answers are adequate. If not then perhaps you would suggest an appropriate thread to continue the discussion.
Richard
You are right, Richard, we are well and truly OT. Best to leave it there for the moment. Judith has promised a thread on feedbacks so we can keep our powder dry until then. Thanks again for your patience.
Richard – this issue of the climate models “agreeing” on the past but diverging in their predictions is a puzzler for many lay sceptics. However much they deprecate the models for their diversity of prediction, I think it their earlier agreement lends them a sort of provisional credibility – certainly, Believers set great store by it. Way back when I first got hooked on this wretched subject, I saw a fine explication of this phenomenon, that I find, like Alice’s Cheshire cat, grinning at me from within this post. I really, really hope you can reiterate it for us, in something like the form in which I found it. Here’s the best I can do.
The creators of the several models choose different variables to “paramaterise” their models. But they choose pairs of variables to “tweak”, not a single variable. they then find values for their pairs of variables that create a “skilful” hindcast. They can all do this, because neither is “stuck” with a “constant-to-all-the-models” value for any particular variable.
The impression of retrospective consilience is therefore spurious. Their failure to agree on the future in any case casts doubt on their skill – the explanation I have so ineptly attempted merely explains the otherwise puzzling “fact” of their hindcasting agreement.
I hope you can see the point I am getting at, and that you can rephrase it in your usual succinct way. Or correct me!
Tom FP:
That is not how I would phrase it, but I am not you, and if I understand your words then they are correct.
I would only add that there is an infinite number of ways to match the past but there is only one future.
Several models each match the past, but they do it in different ways and, therefore, their matches to the past tell nothing about the ability of any of them to match the future.
Richard
Thanks, Richard. I’m pleased I seem to have the right end of the stick. My further point, though, and this is the relevance to education, is that this is an important point in the battle for climate realism, but one that needs to be very skilfully phrased for the layman to get it.
Tom FP:
You say;
“My further point, though, and this is the relevance to education, is that this is an important point in the battle for climate realism, but one that needs to be very skilfully phrased for the layman to get it.”
OK, I get that. But I am not an educator. Indeed, I am a hopeless teacher (but I console myself with the knowledge that I am a good lecturer). So, I leave it to others to say how “education” should be conducted.
Hence, my only response is that there are many different people and many different ways to phrase anything. So, the phrasing that is most comprehensible to some people will seem obscure to others who would easilly understand a different phrasing.
Therefore, it seems to me that scientists should each try to explain their work in their own unique ways. Thus, I think the variety of explanations of any part of a science would maximise the number of people who are able to understand the science.
But in climate science there has been an attempt by AGW-supporters to present a unified assertion of the science. Perhaps the clearest example of this is the extreme censorship of ‘difficult’ questions on the RC blog: nothing is allowed to distract from the agreed narative.
It seems to me that such presentation of an agreed narative is doomed to failure because it minimises the number who will understand and/or accept the narative.
So, I argue that all scientists should offer their own explanations and allow their disagreements to be seen by the public. And I infer that those who wish to conceal such disagreements demonstrate their lack of confidence in their own explanations. Furthermore, the public tend to infer the same as I do with resulting lack of confidence in the science.
But it should be noted that – as I said – I am not an educator so my opinion on this is likely to be very wrong. And, therefore, I hope the educators contributing to this thread will point out flaws in the opinions I have presented in response to your “further point”.
Richard
RobB,
Brilliant question, and I’m so glad you asked it and that Richard Courtney answered it. It’s an instance of “vicarious learning” in technical educational jargon.
As such, I don’t think it’s too far off topic in a thread discussing education.
Just stumbled on that one. So I might be a bit late (?).
The video about Fermat’s last theorem is very informative. It is well made and it is entertaining. And yet, it does not provide an explanation of the theorem. It describes some part of its development, and does lots of things to help the audience have a grasp of what it’s about.
But it’s not an explanation.
If Richard Courtney does not know what a scientific explanation here, if that video is not one, I am confident he will read with pleasure this introduction:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-explanation/
Running experiments on a model using extreme hypothetical conditions which cannot exist in the real world is not likely to tell you anything about what does happen in the real world.
As an analogy, if I suggest that by (hypothetically) holding the current through a resistance constant whilst varying only the voltage across it, I find that the power dissipated in the resistance is proportional to the voltage, you’d be perfectly correct to point out that my experiment is invalid, as the conditions I describe cannot exist in the real world.
If you don’t want your experiments to give you a distorted picture of what happens in the real world, first ensure that the conditions you’re modelling can actually exist in the real world.
So your models, that you designed to prove what you believe ahve proven what you believe.
Your claim that we are experiencing record anything except possibly an increase in CO2 is simply false. the claim of temperature extremes does not hold whenever non-climate scientists looks at the data quality, methodology and conclusions.
the snark and condescension you deliver your sttements with might work on monkey slave grad or doctoral students hoping for a piece of your pie, but we are the bill payers who fund you and we are tired of the schtick.
You may know more physics, but we know the smell of bs.
And you are delivering a strong odor of bs.
By the way, since water vapor is constantly replenished I think your claims about its impact- and the impact of the ice and water suspended in the atmosphere, should be clarified a lot.
The results from several GCM experiments that we conducted have brought these basic forcing/feedback concepts into much sharper focus.
I see a problem in this. I don’t think you can talk about a need of education based on your experience with the output of models. It’s one thing to talk education based on observation, hard core measurement, or building something that works. (Note, for example, the lack of skepticism of electrical engineering related physics when you have computers, satellites, and TiVo. ) On the other hand I can see where discussing models might be a poor example in that models aren’t reality. It’s like claiming you can lead a SEAL team because you wrote a military videogame and had to figure out how to do the scenarios.
Something more concrete works better, IMHO.
Regards
The problem is that there is almost zero attempt at vulgarisation of climatology in the classic medias – not that it is surprising, this is what happen for virtually all policy-relevant matter: when there are scientific facts or theories relevant to the issue, there are mentioned as arguments for promoting the particular policy discussed, never as scientific discoveries/theories in themselves. This is so for medecine (drug legalisation/prohibition), psychology (gender/racial discrimination,…), and climatology.
The only places where you may find occasional attempts at educations are some website and universities, but my personal view is that even there, worldview promotion with science used as argument from authority is much more common. Real scientific education is very rare, except for fields without societal implication, very abstract (mathematics) or purely technical (physics/chemistry used in engineering). When climatology was abstract, education was probably prevalent in the field (like geology). Now that it is used heavily for policy making and under the spotlight of public attention, indoctrination will be the norm and education attempts very rare (think geology in the context of young earth creationism/ evolution debate).
I was asked whether man made global warming was real by my teenage nephew after the release of the CRU emails.
I asked him if the matter was ever discussed at school and what his teachers had to say. He told me that everyone just seemed to go along with the official line and didn’t question the authority of the mainstream science. He wanted to use the issue for a debate class but wasn’t sure which ‘side’ was right.
Rather than get technical about climate theory, I simply recommended that he made a project out of collecting some pro and anti news items from reputable papers and present them to his class without commenting on whether he thought they were right or wrong. he collected material not just about the science but about the vested interests on both sides, and the argument over education/indoctrination following the court case where a truck driver fought the government and won a high court ruling that Al Gore’s film had to have a read-out warning about its errors whenever it was shown at a school.
Credit to his teacher that he got top marks for raising the issue of the controversy, and for sparking the liveliest debate the class had all year.
Ah, Judith,
Teaching the gained knowledge is extremely hard with out visuals. The species of man and woman think differently as well. Most men are more visual to an outcome where most women cannot concieve of that until it is created.
The understanding of planetary rotation is through measurements of the diameter to the turn of a complete rotation of this planet to the sun. From the atmosphere, through the layering heights to the planets surface and down to the core. Mathematically, they would be different speeds. This is the same with the equator measurement to the poles to the speed at one rotation.
If I had the vast supply of wealth science and technology would be greatly enhanced!
Just to be able to have the time and resources of studying how a snowflake is created in the atmosphere with all the varibles of different gases and energy to create such a magnificient accomplishment of designs. On a piece of glass with water and cold temperatures are not nearly the same.
I think that some big learning arenas are being missed out.
The shopping/purchasing experience,
The workplace/corporate experience,
The extra-curicular school/college experience,
probably others.
I think that there is a lot going on here and its growing, everything from greenwash to hard-nosed economics.
Interestingly although there is a fair amount of environmentalist passion at the root, the leaves and branches are pretty non-contraversial, broad based, and soft sell.
The big word is sustainability and this is getting some traction in the marketting and corporate spheres. I think that there are definitely messages out there, that sustainability, is good for the corporation, good for the workers, and good for the customers.
Now I do not have much first-hand experience but some players are out there on the net making their case. Some are definitely of the new thinking green persuasion, including an ex-Merry Prankster and a leading light or two from or ex-, the Sierra Club. They seem to be an odd grouping but whereas they may disagree about much they seem to find some common cause which seems to be somewhere between the green-libertarian/individualist-anarchist and more conventional green positions.
Anyway whoever they are they are engaging with the corporate world in ways that might get them crossed-off a view hard greens’ christmas card lists.
From what I can gather they favour the sustainability is good business, hence saving the planet is a neat idea that is going to make us rich, approach.
I think that corporate and market messaging are powerful instruments of influence and I expect much more corporate money to be spent in this arena on the pro-sustainability message. A message that will not much worry about the science or the politics of it all. It is about making money and feeling good. Expect to hear more messages like; personal sustainability promotes health, weath, and happiness. Expect sustainability school projects not based on being green but saving money and paying for more books. Expect corporations to continue to identify and home-in on their sustainability market segment.
Perhaps these areas are where the action is going to be, for one thing they don’t lack funds, they are in the perception management game, and they are are not going to hitch wagons to business hostile green ideology.
Alex
Interesting post, these are the broader kinds of issues that Randy Olson is thinking about in terms of communication on this issue.
The big word is sustainability…
There be dragons here.
If any word summarizes the disdain of extreme environmentalists by the general public better than this, I don’t know of it. This is a political word.
At it’s core sustainability is *the* key concept of the malthusians who preach the notion that earth can only hold [pick a number, it varies depending on the malthusian] people. It’s used to pooh-pooh nuclear fission — “oh, there’s only so much uranium, so it’s not sustainable.” Sustainability is an implicit assumption of fixed resources, which is anti-growth, anti-progress, anti-technology, and anti-science. (It’s sometimes sadly humourous to note that greens perceive themselves as progressive and the embracers of science, whereas most folks seem to pervceive them as misanthropic luddites.)
Sustainability = Jimmy Carter in a sweater: “get used to being cold.”
randomengineer:
I thnk that you will find that “global” sustainability won’t be much in question as it leads to an argument that doesn’t go anywhere. Where it does play you will find arguments such as economic growth supports urbanisation, wealthy populations, growing middle class, better education, better health and “declining populations” after about 100 years. You should expect a getting rich is good for the planet message. The message that the environmental proplems due to China, then India, and finally Africa are growing pains will be given. The faster these regions develop the better. These seem to be marketting type people, they don’t do “doom and gloom”, it is not good for business.
Sustainability as in “Personal Sustainability Plans” seem to have saving the planet as a co-benefit of saving money, making money, and living healthier lives. If it has negative connotations that can be fixed. Unlike the connotations of “cap and trade”, “tax”, “banning goodies”, which would be very hard sells, as is proving to be the case.
The malthusian counter argument could be that population won’t stop growing because we run out of food or resourse, but because given enough food and resourses the population stabilises and then starts a gentle decline. The argument that it is poor diet, poor health, etc., that drives unsustainable population growth.
Now the arguments might or might not be valid, in a sense that might make very little diference. These are private enterprises initiatives, money making enterprises, and subject to getting the marketting message correct they should flourish. They will get a big boost if the concept gets savaged by environmentalists. Such action would paint the latter as “kill-joys” and anarcho-primativists, which could I am afraid stick because some of them possibly are and paint the porponents as progressives who are building a better future, richer and happier future. Anyway one might be able to do little to stop such thinking as it seems to be largely privately funded.
Alex
Interestingly, this new sustainability seems to be largely pro-nuclear, pro-innovation, and in the short term pro-coal, as without coal the greater goals cannot be obtained. Capture carbon when possible but they don’t seem to like rigged markets to pay for it. As I can recall carbon tax is not a no-no but only to pay for investment, and a national decision not a treaty issue.
Alex
“Education vs Indoctrination”
Lacis posted a comment upthread I found interesting [December 7, 2010 at 2:50 am], so I asked him a direct question on this [December 7, 2010 at 5:58 am ]. I regard this simple Q&A sequence as education, since I am not required to believe his answer … but I am curious to know what he says here
Unhappily, what followed was a chorus of comments from various posters purporting to answer for him. As yet, Lacis has not answered. Most of the comments actually avoided any precise detail (which is what I wanted) and transformed into a generalised arm-wave against GCM’s. My suspicion is that most of the commenters did not really want him to answer, essentially carpet bombing my question. I regard this sequence as indoctrination, since I am prevented by default from learning his response
This sequence works both ways, of course. AGW advocates use the same technique to drown out pointed questions that they fear the answer to
Most unedifying and underwhelming. But an example of the issue posed by Judith Curry as the theme of this thread.
ianl, I’m sorry it came across that way to you. My own response to Dr. Lacis was due to the constant use of the word “experiment”. It was a model simulation run, not an experiment. That reality and simulation appear to be getting rather confused is quite galling.
Personally I would love to be more educated on exactly how the models work and think your question was a good one. While we amateurs can read the relevent papers there is the simple problem that many of us lack the grounding needed to understand what is behind the words of the paper. I believe that this is one reason the BS detectors go off.
The amateur reads the paper and thinks “Hang on, that doesn’t seem quite right. Why did they do that?” Unfortunately in the current climate a question for clarification can be easily seen as an attack on the work. Those being questioned also have to tread carefully because any admission of the slightest error will be blown out of proportion by the more extreme sceptic sites. I must add that the condescending tone implying that I and others are too dumb to understand this arcane knowledge is highly offensive and doesn’t in any way help the situation.
Perhaps the “ideal” solution would be for Dr. Lacis to do a guest post explaining step by step what was done and why each stage was done in the manner it was. That way, questions could be asked and understanding increased. Counting against the idea is the simple fact that practicing scientists are presumably busy with their jobs and such an exercise would be very time consuming. But that is the case with education.
This thread is about indoctrination versus education. I would put forward the idea that the difference is simple. In education, objections and questions are allowed to be raised and they are then answered as completely as possible, whereas with indoctrination questioning is actively discouraged.
Joe Blogs is aware of this distinction and so when he/she ventures into the climate debate and reads the blogs it becomes quickly apparent which side allows questions and which side discourages them. A cursor reading of any of the sceptic blogs will show that many people became sceptics in response the indoctrinatory behaviour of the major “warmist” blogs.
ianl8888:
The only pertinent and truthful point in your comment says you asked a question of Lacis that “As yet, Lacis has not answered. ”
The remainder of your comment dissembles.
You assert,
“Unhappily, what followed was a chorus of comments from various posters purporting to answer for him.”
No. Richard Holle gave his understanding of the matter then (at December 7, 2010 at 9:55 pm) Lacis posted a response to your question that – as you say – did not answer your question.
But I see no examples of anybody attempting to answer for Lacis. Why should they when Lacis had responded to you?
Several people (including me) commented on what Lacis had said but such comments were not and are not answers to your question. They certainly are not attempts to answer your question on Lacis’ behalf.
But you also assert:
“My suspicion is that most of the commenters did not really want him to answer, essentially carpet bombing my question. I regard this sequence as indoctrination, since I am prevented by default from learning his response”.
Say what!?
The only thing preventing you “from learning his response” is that Lacis has not provided a response that answered your question although he did post a response.
If you have a complaint at Lacis’ failure to answer your question then make it to Lacis. You have no right to demand that others must not discuss what Lacis posted unless and until Lacis answers your question.
And it is a falsehood for you to pretend that others discussion of Lacis’ comments are “an example of the issue posed by Judith Curry as the theme of this thread” unless the discussion waits until Lacis does answer your question.
Richard
Dear Dr. Curry,
You raised some basic questions about “education versus indocrination” related to “climate change”. Here are my thoughts.
As to “how”, I think a first knee-jerk answer could be “unemotionally and impartially”. The issues probably need to be condensed to simplified “bullets” before communication (with references cited for details, including those, which may not agree with the IPCC “mainstream” view). For example: greenhouse theory, human emissions, fair degree of certainty that human emissions can cause some change to our climate, uncertainty about impact of natural variability or forcing, uncertainty about magnitude and impacts of human-caused change, possible “winners and losers”.
[N.B. These are all points you have already brought up at one time or another.]
“Engagement” or impartial dissemination of information both sound OK to me, but it should not slip into the category of “indoctrination” or “brainwashing”. And, above all, it should not be based on “scare mongering”.
Educating people to avoid waste and pollution and to save energy should be on-going “common sense” programs, which have nothing to do with the postulated climate “crisis”. However, I personally believe COP16 has gotten “the cart before the horse”. Here we are already talking about educating and encouraging people to embrace (or accept) mitigation solutions (such as direct or indirect carbon taxes) before we are even reasonably certain that these mitigation solutions are required or that they will achieve anything at all if implemented. Let’s get the “uncertainties” in the science settled before we charge off with costly “solutions” that may not have any positive impact whatsoever. Then, once we have done this, let’s come up with specific actionable proposals, which have a high probability of directly achieving the objectives we want to achieve. Then let’s educate people.
Blogs, such as yours and several others, are excellent venues for the exchange of information and, as you have recognized, they are changing the way people get informed on complicated issues. Being democratically open to all people has its advantages, but it also means there is some “chaff” along with the “wheat”. And, unfortunately, some in the “mainstream” scientific community on climate change have tried to denigrate some “skeptical” blogsites (and, to a lesser extent, the reverse is also true). The MSM should, above all, report impartially and non-emotionally, avoiding “imminent disaster” headlines (even though these sell copy or increase viewer ratings). [But maybe the latter is almost too much to ask; after all, we have “freedom of the press”.]
Yes. This is indoctrination, by definition. Whether it can be classified as “propaganda”, “brainwashing” or, even worse, “scaremongering” is a moot point (see COP16 comment above).
The “Harmless Skies” blogsite has a thread on this topic, started by an English parent, who is frustrated by some of the sillier aspects.
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=340
I live in Switzerland and my children are grown, so I cannot comment about the specific UK case, but I’d say that we have seen a general move away from the basics in public education (science, math, literature, language) to more emphasis on socio-political aspects and awareness. Emphasis on rational or even “skeptical” thinking for one’s self is often replaced by well-meant “standardized” indoctrination. In addition there has been a “leveling” in the name of “giving everyone the same chance”, which has not had a net positive impact on the overall academic standard of public education.
No comment, but sounds like good advice.
The blogosphere has opened up the world of communication on all sorts of topics to the general public. It can truly be called a “revolution” in how information is communicated worldwide. When blog sites are being managed and guided by knowledgeable and open-minded individuals, like yourself, we can all gain. Thanks (and “amen” to the “Nullius in Verba” paragraph).
These are, again, just my thoughts.
Max Anacker
Max, thanks for your thoughtful responses
I find that the majority of people who believe in the AGW theory show that dogmatic belief and political and scientific consensus is enough to prove the theory correct for them, but for me, I only consider scientific facts, evidence and observations using the scientific method, and because this produces at least three evidences that the theory is incorrect, then for me a scientific consensus is irrelevant. As someone with one of the highest IQ’s in the high IQ society Mensa, I am used to being the odd one out. The best way for the public to obtain information is by searching in Google Scholar for scientific papers with a phrase relevant to answering the question that you are asking, and being advised not to get information from Blogs or Media propaganda.
Paul Cottingham | February 2, 2011 at 12:06 pm
And since I am reading this information on the internet, wherein you advise me not to trust what I read on the internet … what do I do now?
w.
Alternatively, what do you do when two science papers disagree with each other?
Ah, logic. I wish they still taught it in schools.