jshore, in the process of not answering my questions above, you inserted this:
Of course I am tempted to be other than scrupulously fair. It is an egregious and scurrilous misrepresentation of what I said to pretend otherwise. I challenge you to point out where I said that I was not tempted, and when you don’t find it, I challenge you to have the balls to apologize for such a slimy attempt at character assassination. What I said was not that I have never been tempted, that’s your twisted fantasy about me and my motivations. What I said was that I have (AFAIK) resisted whatever temptations exist to exaggerate, hype, or otherwise abuse the results.
jshore, you spent the last couple of posts without touching the central point, without answering the questions I have asked over and over. To start with, you didn’t answer the question about honesty, the very question that I had asked you first. Instead of answering, you merely turned the question around and asked it of me.
I figured OK, fair enough, I’ll show him how this “answer the question” deal works, one asks, the other answers, so I answered it to the best of my ability (while pointing out that you had not answered it). Now you want to abuse me for some perceived flaw in my answer, and meanwhile you still haven’t answered the question yourself? That sucks bigtime.
More to the point, you haven’t answered the central question. WHY do scientists (or any of us) “have to” strike a balance between honesty and effectiveness as Schneider claims.
When someone refuses (or neglects, or omits when asked) to take a stand on whether they think honesty should be sacrificed on the altar of effectiveness, as you have done several times now … well, forgive me, but it does make one wonder.
And when I start to wonder, and I ask you directly about your own personal honesty, and you refuse to answer that question also … well, the wondering increases, doesn’t it.
And when, in lieu of answering either of those question, you launch an unprovoked attack on my honesty … well, jshore, you gotta admit, it doesn’t look so good. You are in a very ugly hole here. Seems like this might be a good time for you to apply the First Rule When Finding Ones Self Stuck In A Hole.
Which of course is …
Stop Digging.
I await your answer to the question of why we “have to” strike a balance between honesty and effectiveness.
Moving on to a less personal question, jshore, you say:
The central IPCC projection is a few degrees warming next century. I did not take the extreme ends of the climate sensitivity as what would happen if I am wrong and the majority is right, because neither of those represent the majority view. I answered the question that I believed that you had asked.
If you want an answer to some other question, like “have you considered what would happen if you were wrong and the IPCC were wrong and the majority of scientists were wrong and Al Gore were right and we were facing a twenty foot sea rise in the next century”, you should consider asking it. My understanding of your question was “what would happen if I was wrong and the IPCC were right, and we actually are facing a few degrees temperature rise this century”. If that wasn’t your question, well, ask away. I attempt to answer each and every one of your questions.
First of all, I want to apologize if you interpretted what I said to mean that I was saying that you are this way. I actually found your answer somewhat ambiguous on the question of temptation and thus I very carefully worded that paragraph ambiguously so as not to imply that I was talking about you. I.e., there is a reason why I didn’t directly accuse you of being that way and why I used Bob Carter as my example of someone that is that way. I think it is wise to read what I actually write and not read too much into it. I am usually rather careful in my choice of words (although I obviously make mistakes sometimes).
My larger point is that I take Schneider’s original statement, particularly in light of his later discussion of it, to be describing the temptations that exist…particularly when one is in a situation where the media wants a sound bite from you. If you have 50 words to say something, the question is what part of it do you use saying what you see, for example, as the most likely possibility and what part of it do you use adding all the caveats and footnotes and so forth? His point is that this is not a pleasant situation to be in at all when there is really insufficient space given for you to express yourself fully.
I’ve now answered the question twice. Do you want me to go and do it a third time? Instead, why don’t you go back and read what I wrote?
As Schneider said, “I hope that means being both.” Personally, I have not had to deal with media sound bites…I have been able to participate in forums like this where one can talk interminably (and hopefully people will actually read it).
But, by the way, if you are going to be on such a high horse about trying to be so scrupulously fair and honest, and I certainly think it is very good thing to strive for, I would recommend you going back and re-reading your own post on the Michael Mann incident. Do you really think that that was a scrupulously fair and unbiased presentation of what happened? It reads to me like the climateaudit side of the story with absolutely no attempt whatsoever at balance…Actually, it may well be worse than the climateaudit side since my impression was that Steve McIntyre was careful to avoid potentially libelous statements about Mann’s motives.
Perhaps the reason why our discussion has degenerated into some hard feelings here is that, while I appreciate the general politeness you express toward me in these discussions, I actually have a hard time with what I see as some very nasty statements directed at respectable people who are not here to defend themselves.
Here’s the quick summary of what I’ve gathered from lurking this thread:
There is no unbeatable proof of Global Warming, or more precisecly of AGW
Al Gore is a horrible place to get science fact from.
Time will tell how much of an effect man has had on it’s environment.
conclusion:
Don’t argue with your brother, neither of you can deffinitevly win. On this point I feel personaly involved. My mother and sister both beleive strongly that AGW is the fault of mostly adult white males, and me being in that category causes them to convince me of it. They have been unsuccessful largely because they’re information is mainly based on Al Gore and other notable (and easily dismissed) shock-value media.
Send your brother to these forums and have him look them over. It’s done more for me in the past few days to turn my thoughts around (although not entirely around) than years of pestering from family has done. The discussion here is of higher quality and more representative of all sides of the issue than I have seen anywhere else, and I’ve been looking for several years now. If he doesn’t want to take the time to look over these forums, then the issue just isn’t that important to him, so let it go.
I read Schneider’s statement as warning of the dangers of the sound bite. Then he got sound bit. Then he responded that he was a victim of exactly what he was warning against. The end.
This being said, perhaps the real issue with AGW is that the vast majority of people, including those deciding what to do with the worlds resources, only pay attention to the sound bite version of things. I see no solution to this, as the time to review the issue for myself has taken enough time that if I was the lead of a government or corp I’d have lost focus on the business more immediately at hand and I still don’t have a solid way to go. Much easier to bet on the strong and swift many are backing rather than go with the small and slow that some people say will win the race. Doesn’t make it right, but it makes sense in terms of time economics.
Well, I think “horrible” is a too strong. But, let’s face it, Al is a politician, not a scientist…And, he will tend to emphasize the more severe predictions. That being said, many scientists think that Gore has done a pretty good job as politicians go on getting the science right…and, in fact, Al Gore was invited to give the keynote address at the meeting of the American Geophysical Union and, according to this account was given a standing ovation by the scientists attending.
So, yeah, it is better to get your science from scientists than from Al Gore, but you could certainly do worse than Al Gore (and, in fact, even by listening to some scientists…like that Bob Carter whose video I linked to)
And, here for the record is Wikipedia’s more balanced account of the “hockey stick controversy”. And, here is a link to the full National Academy of Sciences report on the temperature reconstructions.
Note that there are several statements there that seem to be, if not in direct contradiction, at least difficult to reconcile with intention’s account. For example, while intention says that
Mind you, nobody is claiming that the original Mann methodology is not without it problems and limitations (not the least being Mann himself in that followup paper that I mentioned that extended the original 600 year reconstruction back to 1000 years)…and the NAS agreed there were some faults in his analysis too. This is usually found to be true in science when a new technique is introduced in a field in attempt to make significant progress beyond what was previously possible. In fact, a similar thing happened to Roy Spencer and John Christy, who were the first to try to analyze the data from satellites to look at the temperature in the troposphere and initially found it to be cooling, in contradiction to what was happening at the surface. After other scientists pointed out several errors in their analysis (and also their data set grew longer over the years)…and some scientists even re-did the whole data analysis independently, that cooling gradually turned into warming that is, at least on a global scale, compatible within error bars to what is seen on the surface. Whether the fact that Spencer and Christy are climate skeptics influenced their original results, who knows. Yet, there were never vilified or hauled before Congressional committees, as Mann and colleagues were.
Well, I suppose that is fair…although it is worth pointing out that the majority view would be that the more extreme scenarios are still possible even if they are not the most likely.
But, the bigger question that I had is your cavalier attitude about what a few degrees warming might mean. Here, I think the majority of the scientific community would not just shrug it off as you have. It is worth noting that the best estimates for the global temperature difference between now and the depths of the last ice age was only about 5 or 6 C and that was enough to create a considerably different world.
That’s fair since you have a background in climate science - if you think so-and-so is unreliable, so be it. But for the vast majority of Americans, and that would probably include me at this level, can you think of a reason why you should be trusted more than them?
I’m pretty sure that PNAS doesn’t play into this debate. The Climate Change Report is not a peer-reviewed original research article, it is a review article.
Is there precedence for action? Were they asked to take a stand and actively refused, or are you taking their non-action as active refusal?
Schneider wasn’t even elected to the NAS until 2002.
I fail to see the relevance here. If only 21 members are climatologists, then we use 21 as the denominator rather than 2100. Does this grossly alter any relevant statistic?
Have you ever brought this up when asked to review his papers?
So does Lindzen. (more later)
Do you have any criticisms of her science, or just her personality?
Paul Ehrlich is not a climatologist, nor is it likely he chose climatology as one of his areas. Are you pointing him out as a general criticism of the NAS?
It’s quite interesting to me that, despite your earlier criticism of the NAS having few climatologists and PNAS not being truly peer-reviewed, that you are now citing an op-ed piece in which an economist and a mathematician are writing a non-reviewed article.
But even if you accept the face value of that piece, it still doesn’t support your point. The authors are not arguing that the NAS is wrong, but that the NAS is right!
This type of quotation then leaves you in a quandry - if McIntyre and McKitrick are correct, and the NAS did come to that conclusion despite its weird caveats, then the NAS isreliable to the trained observer. If the NAS is unreliable (as you claim), then its fundamental conclusion that the “current data and methods do not tell us if the present climate is unusually warm” is unreliable as well.
This is not specific to the NAS argument, so I’m not sure why you throw it in, but if climate scientists can’t be trusted as a class, then it’s hard to see how you’d hold any opinion at all. After all, if climatologists are wrong on climate, why would you trust economists on climate?
Okay, so who are some of these “great scientists” that you speak of? Do you consider Richard Lindzen - NOT part of the “old boy” network, NOT a darling of the liberal media, NOT an environmentalist - to be a “great scientist”?
Even the most anti-IPCC, anti-consensus, anti-AGW climatologist of the NAS has this to say:
Re-reading the thread, I found this question which I had overlooked.
As I mentioned, I try to answer all of your questions, not just some of them. I had said that Stott’s model results diverged badly from reality this century. You had replied:
Perhaps I misunderstand you, but you seem to be arguing is that we should consider every wiggle and wobble in the model output in our attempt to understand the model forecast.
Most modelers would say you can’t do that, and I would agree, because the model is not designed to forecast the year-by-year evolution of the climate. Instead of trying to match up each annual twist and turn, we need to look at the overall trend of the model results.
The model results show a large constant upwards trend since about 1980. During the nineties, this matched the observations quite well. And in fact, over the entire first part of the record up to 2000, the match was good.
But since 2000, the model results (a modeled trend of about 0.3°C/decade) have diverged significantly from the reality (the real observed trend is not different statistically from 0°/decade, but is statistically different from 0.2°/decade, and is way significantly different from 0.3°C/decade).
I see no comparable statistically significant divergence in the entire rest of the Stott record. If there is such a divergence, perhaps you could tell me when it happened, and we can discuss it.
Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The blackbody temperature of the Earth should be -25[sup]o[/sup]C.
Well, I’d argue that we do understand the natural influences, or at least enough to rule out any major changes.
But the question could also be answered by simply noting that calculation of CO[sub]2[/sub]-based radiative forcing is independent of any measure of natural forcing. So even if we don’t know how big natural factors are or what they are, we know how large CO[sub]2[/sub] is as a factor. And because the magnitude of CO[sub]2[/sub]-based forcing (+1.6 W/m[sup]2[/sup]) is equivalent to roughly +0.4[sup]o[/sup]C (I’m not entirely sure whether it’s appropriate to include albedo or not), it’s a fair bet to say regardless of all the other factors - negative anthropogenic, negative natural, positive natural - that CO[sub]2[/sub] plays a large role.
Thought I had read it, but let me do it again. The first time you said:
The advice Schneider gave above was:
OK, so you are going to warn people that “what to do” is a value choice, and to work hard to distinguish between objective and subjective probabilities (I note in passing that almost all the IPCC probabilities are of the latter class).
But are you also going to balance honesty and effectiveness or not? Regarding that, up to this point in my re-reading, you have said absolutely nothing.
So, back to re-reading … OK, the second time you just reiterated your statement about warning people about subjective and objective, etc., nothing new was added.
So no, you have not answered the question of whether or not you balance honesty and effectiveness. You have not answered the question of why you seem to agree with Schneider that we “have to” balance honesty and effectiveness. And finally, you have not answered the question about whether or not an “ethical dual bind” exists between honesty and effectiveness.
Sorry, but if you answered the question in there somewhere, I didn’t catch it even upon re-reading.
Can I get a cite for that? I don’t recall intention ever claiming to be a scientist by profession, nor having a background in climate science. In fact, I seem to recall that neither of those is the case.
I’m not calling for a cite as a challenge. I simply wasn’t aware that such a claim has been put forth by intention, and would like to see how it was stated, if it was stated.
aptronym, many thanks for taking the time to comment on my list of a dozen reasons why I don’t always believe what the NAS has to say. My comments follow
Whoa, bro’, back way up there. You asked why people should trust the NAS, not why they should trust me. That was the question I answered. I made no claim that I am more trustworthy than they are, I just listed the reasons I don’t trust them.
In fact, I would urge people to be much more skeptical of all types of claims, whether from scientists, politicians, or the guy running for mayor. Scientists are often wrong, as are all of us. Uncritical belief is definitely not indicated. In particular, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
For example, suppose I came to you and said “I have created a computer model which will forecast the general trend of the stock market for the next century, my friends and I have tested it, would you like to invest a hundred billion dollars on the strength of my model”, you would be justified in asking that the model be tested, verified, examined, quality assured, every line of code examined and totally debugged, and extensive tests run to prove its worth before putting in the hundred billion.
But when a scientist says “I have a computer model which will forecast the general trend of the temperature for the next century, my friends and I have tested it, would you like to invest a hundred billion dollars on the strength of my model”, all too often people say “Ooooh, he’s a scientist, he has a computer, the model must be right.” jshore goes so far as to argue that V&V and SQA of the models are totally unnecessary and a waste of time and money … and why? Why, because he says he trusts the scientists to test the models as much as is needed, nothing further is required.
Me, I’d prefer that a climate model on which we are asked to bet billions be tested a whole lot more thoroughly than the software that runs the elevator in my office building, not less as jshore recommends … but perhaps that’s just my eccentricity. Call me crazy, I still say “trust … but verify”.
Same objection. You asked why I don’t trust the NAS. That’s one of the reasons, because they pervert the scientific method by letting members have their own chosen friends review their papers in the official NAS journal.
No precedence for action, no one requested that they take a stand. I just prefer people who keep their own house clean.
Sorry, I’m not following you. What does the year of his election have to do with anything?
If I went to a law firm with 2100 lawyers that advertised its excellence in climate law, I’d want to know how many of their lawyers were climate lawyers. If they said “21”, I’d question their advertisement.
Heck, no. He invites his friends to review his PNAS submissions, and his other papers seem to have been reviewed by his admirers as well, as they have let egregious claims and errors sail right through the review process. I’m sure he’s aware of my views on his work, and I suspect that he would prefer that I never read his studies at all.
OK
I said nothing about her personality. I talked about her actions regarding the IPCC AR4. I know nothing of her personality, she may be totally charming.
Well … since that’s exactly what you asked me to do … yes.
Nope. They are arguing that the NAS is schizophrenic.
You asked me if I trusted the NAS. I said no, in part because they are schizophrenic, right some times and totally unscientific at other times. You are presenting this as “either they are reliable or unreliable”, which is the fallacy of the excluded middle.
Umm … because the economists who have weighed in on the question haven’t lied and hidden evidence and refused to show their work and concealed their adverse results and suppressed opposing views and not archived their data like altogether too many climate scientists have done? To take one of far, far too many examples, much of the Hockeystick is based on proxy data which despite the late date, and the requirements of the funding agencies, has never been archived in any form. Without archived data, that’s not science, that’s anecdote, because there is no way to replicate or verify the study.
I’m not sure what your point is here. It seems like you are saying he is exaggerating, but if so, where is the exaggeration? Are you claiming that there is agreement on a whole lot more about the climate than Lindzen lists? If so, I’d be interested in what you think there is agreement on. There’s no agreement on how much the changing CO2 will change the temperature, which is the central point. The error bars on this question are very wide, and have scarcely narrowed since the first estimates a quarter of a century ago. There’s no agreement on how much, and in exactly what ways, man is affecting the climate. Where are you seeing widespread agreement where Lindzen does not?
My best to you, and thanks again for your detailed response.
w.
PS - Upon re-reading this, I see that my position could be misunderstood, so let me add a bit of clarification.
If I were President, and if I knew nothing of some particular field of science, when a scientific question in that field came up, I’d ask the NAS for its scientific advice. That’s their job, that’s what they were created to do, and have done to the best of their ability for a century and a half. I might take their advice or not, that’s the President’s job, to make the decision after taking advice, but I would certainly ask for their advice and weigh it heavily. In that situation, it would be foolish not to.
However, that’s not the case, none of us are the President, and we do know a few things, so …
Perhaps that might be because Spencer and Christy shared their data freely, were totally open about their methods and their code, and welcomed and acknowledged the corrections.
Mann, on the other hand, hid his data, concealed his methods, rejected questions and corrections, refused to disclose his code, insisted that to ask him for data that he collected using Federal funds while on the University payroll was “intimidation”, and lied about how robust his work was.
D’ya reckon that might have had something to do with it?
Eben, thanks for your contribution and compliment. You say:
In this regard, I would like to commend jshore, who has often been gracious even when I have not been, who has persevered through some long (and interesting) discussions, and who has been most articulate and measured in expressing his views. My hat is off to him.
I was not being cavalier, I was being accurate. The world has warmed since 1700 or so as much as the lower end of the forecast warming, 1.5°, with no ill effects that I know of. If you have different info, let me know, but until then, I’ll go with the facts.
Regarding the Ice Ages, surely you are not suggesting that the cold was the cause of the ice ages? That’s the way your sentence reads. In any case, extra cold is provably harder on humans than extra heat, so I’m not sure the two are directly comparable.
However, if you really are asking “what would happen if I’m wrong and the world is set to warm by 6° this century”, I’d say no one knows, we’ve never seen that world. It might be really bad, it might just be bad, but it would certainly be different. However, as you point out, even the IPCC says that possiblity is very unlikely, or whatever term they are using for their (subjective, as I pointed out) probability estimate.
(Speaking of which, you said you were following Schneiders advice to clearly distinguish for your audience between objective and subjective probabilities … so why am I having to make this distinction for you?)
DMC, your question is a good one, but not easy to answer. Am I a climate scientist? I am, by avocation rather than profession, as I am a self-taught amateur scientist. However, please do not mistake my amateur status for lack of background and knowledge of the subject, as I have spent thousands and thousands of hours studying and researching the climate, and communicating and collaborating with climate scientists.
I am also one of the very, very few people without any type of science degree who has ever managed to have a published peer-reviewed submission to Nature magazine (a “Communications Arising”). I have also published two other studies in Energy and Environment, one peer reviewed and one not. And although some people denigrate the status of E&E as a lower tier publication, my own experience was that their peer review was tougher than that of Nature magazine … go figure.
