Sunday
Dec052010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Dellers on Durkin on Cox
Dec 5, 2010 BBC Climate: other James Delingpole introduces Martin Durkin's reponse to Prof Brian Cox's RTS lecture.
Cox equates scientific truth with the consensus view of the scientific establishment. His justification for doing so is the revered practice known as ‘peer review’. Cox tells us, ‘a peer-reviewed consensus is by definition impartial’. Now this is an extraordinarily stupid thing for anyone to say, let alone someone like Cox who likes to pretend he’s clever.
Reader Comments (100)
sunderland steve
Of course TGGWS isn’t “factually bollocks” in the sense of “untrue”. Its main message is that there are peer-reviewed scientists who disagree with the consensus. How can that be untrue?
Since Cox’s message is that “peer-reviewed” and “consensus” mean the same thing, TGGWS cannot exist in Cox’s universe. So he slips out of his guise of professor-who-cites-Orwell-and-John-Stuart-Mill and into his nice-guy-who-talks-like-you persona and removes TGGWS from his universe with an off-hand remark and a cheeky grin. No wonder Durkin was ratty and made a poor job of replying. He’d just been erased from the photo like the victim of a Stalinist purge.
We’re not dealing with rational argument here, but with the creation of a new ideology, with popstars instead of commissars.
If the transcript at HarmlessSky is accurate, Durkin is playing rather fast and loose in his review of Cox's speech.
For example, on Cox's comments on television programmes Durkin has this to say: "This means television must ‘report and explain the peer-reviewed consensus accurately’ and (here it gets interesting) broadcasters must ‘avoid the maverick and eccentric at all costs.’
"He admits that his argument ‘does sound rather authoritarian’ and asks himself blithely towards the end, ‘Have I been led to an Orwellian conclusion? … I don’t know.’"
Durkin's reference to "his argument" is misleading. He elides a whole section of text which provides Cox's actual argument, ie a distinction between TV news reporting and features.
Cox: "So, for me, the challenge for the scientific reporter in television news is easily met: report the peer-reviewed consensus, and avoid the maverick eccentric at all costs."
Then: "So, the challenge for the documentery filmmaker is more complex, because documentaries serve a wider range of purposes."
This is a very valid and useful distinction. News is more beholden to the accepted facts as we know them, while documenaries are akin to features in the print media and are designed to enable greater differences of opinion.
On the subject of consensus, Durkin claims: "Cox equates scientific truth with the consensus view of the scientific establishment."
Not quite: What Cox says is: "It doesn’t necessarily mean that the current scientific consensus is, of course, correct, but it does, in general, mean that the consensus and the scientific literature is the best that can be done given the available data."
This is a defensible view, and until we gain omniscience is about as much as we can achieve at any point in time.
John Blake
I see that, like me, you view environmentalists as ideologues. However, calling them death-eating thanatists or luddite sociopaths is not going to aid understanding.
The cleverer among them have erected a system within which they can appear reasonable rational beings, and we are the loonies. Let’s not make their job easier.
James P, SfT, Atomic
Interesting piece on Arsenic associated bacteria here:
http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/
"I don't know whether the authors are just bad scientists or whether they're unscrupulously pushing NASA's 'There's life in outer space!' agenda. I hesitate to blame the reviewers, as their objections are likely to have been overruled by Science's editors in their eagerness to score such a high-impact publication."
Before going on to praise Prof Iain Stewart for getting the tone right in the BBC Climate Wars series(‘Iain Stewart delivered a message, and I think he walked a fine line with great skill.’), it's interesting that Brian Cox insists that TV science must ‘avoid the maverick and eccentric at all costs.'
Can he be discussing the same Iain Stewart who announced at the start of his new series, ‘I’m going to show you how this landscape was used by a bunch of brilliant, maverick, eccentric scientists to solve the greatest mysteries of the earth.’
Some BBC science policy disconnect shurely?
I nominate Latimer for the fine work he is doing (and having fun) at Judy Curry for a climate saint award
"It doesn’t necessarily mean that the current scientific consensus is, of course, correct, but it does, in general, mean that the consensus and the scientific literature is the best that can be done given the available data."
"The consensus is the best given the available data" - what does this mean?
Firstly it means, there are gaps in knowledge, which we must bridge over with the opinions of experts to hold things together to produce a unified picture - the 'consensus'. Secondly, a scientific consensus can only be formulated from within, piecing together theory and known fact. Such a consensus is beholden to external influence, as everything is - politics, social trend, scientific fad and the like, but is incapable of incorporating, responding or assimilating such influence.
A knowledgeable honest observer - be it another scientist, a climate scientist, a skeptic, or a journalist - would be however in a position to evaluate and judge these two factors.
That is why, Cox is wrong.
Yes, Durkin's reply was garbled. Shame, but I think Cox won the round, and we'll just have to accept that the BBC are going to get away with their Orwellian CAGW reportage scot-free. Essentially Cox has invoked the ghost of Feynman and twisted it (contemptibly) in support of his (and the BBC's) position), then conveniently extracted the ubiquitous Lindzen from any potential rebuttal from sceptics by attacking the very documentary that Lindzen had a complaint upheld about (nothing to do with the totally bollox science - but a legal technicality if I remember correctly). Sometimes you've just got to take it on the chin...
JamesP @ 12.39pm
I read the Telegraph article on the Mono Lake bacteria and what struck me was the breathless "Gee Whizz it's alien life" tone.
As far as I could see a highly arsenic tolerant bacterium had been discovered, but there was no particular reason to believe any more than that., e.g. that it had a fundamentally different biochemistry, with at least major components based on arsenic rather than phosphorus. Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't, but before drawing such a conclusion the work would have to be verified by others.
Which brings us back to the whole question of peer review and what its possible scope is. It always used to mean that the work presented was interesting, the experiments and observations appeared to have been properly done and the analysis appeared sound. But that was all. Peer reviewed papers were often shown defective by later related work or if anyone was sufficiently interested to attempt to reproduce the specific results. Presumably, the Mono Lake bacteria paper was peer reviewed.
@Shub
Thanks Dad!
Latimer
I prefer it when you go up against the "Deep Blue" programme (a.k.a C. Colose).
D64 is just the commodore 64 floppy disk version. ;-)
"it does, in general, mean that the consensus and the scientific literature is the best that can be done given the available data".
Balderdash. This is the defence of rogues. For a start 'the available data' is much broader than the 'published data' because the 'consensus' and the corruption of the peer review process in climatology have clearly restricted the dissemination of data. It is the 'consensus' and the 'scientific literature' that are determining, to a large extent, what are accepted as the 'available data', so this is a circular argument.
Moreover, this is a very blinkered view, not worthy of a scientist. You can only know whether it is the 'best that can be done' if you actually know what the answer should be. Cox is making an a priori value judgment. Lots of things have been 'discovered' centuries later, which the original observations supported but were not accepted or bothered with because they were considered heterodox or unimportant. We now know that Galileo first sighted Neptune (in 1612 and 1613) and documented its motion against the fixed stars. Had he or anyone else been interested in the possibility of planets beyond Saturn then he might have spent more time on this and announced the discovery to the world. On the basis of the 'available data', Galileo was actually the first man to observe Neptune, but we had to wait until 1846 for a 'proper' sighting after the 'problem' of Jupiter and Saturn had been solved by Uranus, and the 'problem' of Uranus needed to be solved by finding a new planet.
It's harder. D64 is just knockabout stuff - like sparring with John Prescott :-) , but Colose is actually quite bright and a lot cooler-headed. Its a lot more difficult to get a reaction from him. It needs more work. But I'll try to prick that enormous sense of entitlement and arrogance.
Strangely enough I used to work at IBM who produced Deep Blue. Poachers and gamekeepers?
Has anyone listened to 'The Infinite Monkey Cage' ( Science/comedy chat with Brian Cox, Robin Ince and guests)? Interesting concept ... doesn't work for me. In the Apocalypse episode there was an opportunity by the panel to comment on films with a apocalyptic story, pity that they did not discuss AIT .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/timc .
Scientist for Truth your description of Cox reminds me a story I heard of a canny old general describing officer selection:
You look out for the young man with obvious qualities of leadership, articulate, dashing and highly regarded by his peers, but with a tendency to make decisions without thinking things through....
and get rid of him, because if you don't, he will grow into a terrible liability.
Cox was reading all this off an autocue. His eyes were fixed on it all the way through (as much as that coy grin was fixed on his lips). My take is Cox isn't really the author of this piece at all - the BBC is (the subtext being, of course - 'ain't Channel 4 bollocks and ain't the BBC great?'). The Beeb have a reputation these days for sticking 30-something eye-candy in front of the camera no matter what the programme is. Looks like Cox was just the right pliable 'face' in the right place at the right time for the BBC to groom and put its own words in his mouth (and a promised continuing cash-flow in his pocket).
Yeah, but with Colose, the bloated GHG balloon gets in the way sometimes, that he cannot see what he is writing. Right now, with him and quite a few others too - it is the sciencexploitation theme: "climate scientists have been subjected to the most unimaginable asphyxiating rigorous standards of data honesty. Bwahhh!".
I totally love JC's blog - just turn around for half a day and complete mini battles have raged and everyone's gone home. :)
Shub: "Firstly it means, there are gaps in knowledge, which we must bridge over with the opinions of experts to hold things together to produce a unified picture - the 'consensus'."
In any complex subject there will always be gaps in knowledge, and whatever the state of knowledge, we will always rely on the judgements of experts.
The issue isn't so much the gaps in our knowledge as the degree to which the available evidence supports the theory in question. Clearly, there will be differences of judgement over that, and not just between supporters and sceptics, but also between supporters.
Experts are not infallible, but on balance they will know more, and have better judgement, about their area of expertise.
"Such a consensus is beholden to external influence, as everything is...A knowledgeable honest observer...would be however in a position to evaluate and judge these two factors."
There are two isues here. First, the key notion is "knowledgeable", which takes us back to my claim that, all else being, equal, experts are usually best placed to make judgements on their area of expertise.
Secondly, judgements about "external influences" are necessarily more subjective and opinionated than judgements about science, simply because the evidence is much wider ranging and less subject to the sort of scrutiny undertaken in science.
Brendan,
Experts are best placed to make judgements inside their area of expertise. The world requires, and will always require synthetic jugdement to take expert opinion and use it outside the experts' domain. The expert may not be able to provide this, many a time.
We all watch over others, and are in turn watched. If tomorrow, our politicians tell us porkies but expect us to believe them because they are expert at their politics, a good number of us are naturally disinclined to take them on their word. So it goes with policy makers, economists, physicians, engineers and other scientists. A natural safeguard operates here as well - expert opinion is crosschecked against reality (in healthy functioning societies). There is no reason to believe otherwise in the case of climate scientists.
Climate scientists want to occupy that special sweet niche - they want the high perch of the expert, and the perks of never having to answer to their pronouncements, given what the climate is. They are baby geologists - their timescales are defined fast enough to impact policy, but slow enough to escape consequence.
And I think you did not get my point about external influence. Consensus, or the requirement for consensus, thrives in a certain intellectual mileau - this is what I called external influence. The members participating in consensus usually have no control over intellectual, philosophical or historical factors that compel to participate - they become mere puppets of fate.
For example, consensus is a popular method of current medicine, especially in high stakes conditions. (It was not so before, it may become not so at some point in the future). Doctors want cutoffs, there are multiple decisions possible - they meet up, discuss, argue and reach a 'consensus'. Many a time it works out, many a time it doesn't too. 'Consensus' then becomes a way to talk and fill up time, the time being the period of fluidity in outcomes every process will apparently display. We impose our consensus on reality till then, and then reality imposes its consensus on us. 'Consensus', in other words, is an artifact of human ignorance, nothing more.
Of course consensus is useful, because it prevents paralysis. But you could toss a coin too. The odds are a bit better with the consensus but is there a way to be sure when that will be so? Probably not.
Shub: "Climate scientists want to occupy that special sweet niche - they want the high perch of the expert, and the perks of never having to answer to their pronouncements, given what the climate is."
I think comments like this support my contention as to the greater subjectivity of certain opinions. I don't think it's possible to claim to know with any certainty what climate scientists "want", any more than it is to know what women want.
"Of course consensus is useful, because it prevents paralysis. But you could toss a coin too. The odds are a bit better with the consensus but is there a way to be sure when that will be so?"
I agree that consensus is useful because it prevents paralysis, although I also think it has other, important uses too.
But we diverge on the claim that consensus -- properly formed -- is only a little better than a toss of the coin. The two methods are incommensurable. The coin toss is a binary yes/no, and nothing is discovered. I view the knowledge that underlies a consensus as not necessarily wholly mistaken, and importantly, some mistakes are productive.
As to whether we can know ahead of time that consensus will provide better "odds" than the coin toss, I think this boils down to how confident one is that the consensus has been properly formed, ie as much as possible in the light of the best evidence.
"than it is to know what women want."
That puzzled me for a number of years before a senior executive in the company I worked for told me the answer was transparent, without elaborating. They want money and power and to bestow these as best they can on their offspring, but generally settle for associating with money and power and having a chance to direct it. A comparison can be drawn with the CRU and pals.
Ok Brendan,
Let me reframe that para for you.
Climate scientists like the fact that they occupy such a special niche. It offers them the high perch and the perk of being unanswerable. Of course, they are not entirely to be blamed - it is in the very nature of the thing they study - the climate.
"I think this boils down to how confident one is that the consensus has been properly formed,..."
True. For instance, the IPCC's case rests on convincing the rest of us, that its consensus is a "properly formed one". But then again, in the IPCC's case, consensus is not a tool for discovery or knowledge building, but one for "uncertainty reduction".
Secondly, scientific consensus usually means something like this: "we as experts are pretty sure of these individual pathways and sub-components, and putting it all together, we cannot really think about any other way of how they would all work together. We do not have the experiments or instruments to currently test the unified system as a whole, but no matter...".
This is not how the IPCC operates at all. It is little wonder that the IPCC gets the most vocal support from WG1 scientists, who mistake their style of consensus to the IPCC's.
In this context, check out Spencer Weart, responding to questions as a rapid fire team member:
Let us examine the opinion of this expert, shall we?
First, this expert is mistaken that no senator will be able to point out errors in the "main conclusions of the IPCC report" - the nonsense about African crop yields was present in its horrid glory in the synthesis report.
Secondly, it is clearly evident that this expert is not well-informed. Any skeptical commenter who has followed these two issues - Glaciergate and Amazongate - will instantly recognize that the expert does not know what he is talking about (but yet seeks to defend the IPCC on these matters, propping it up with his expert status).
Thirdly, from the above, it is clear this expert will lay his own reputation on the line, jump in front of the bus so to speak, for the sake of the IPCC and the consensus.
Lastly of course, the expert offers no reasoning or explanation (even to obfuscate in classical fashion) - he just dictates.
It is quite surprising indeed. The non-expert senators' seem to have formulated a judgement more closer to reality than the experts in question. How did this happen?
Peter S - 8:41 PM
I think you've hit at least one nail straight.... In the meeja there is still the continuing deceit that the that the commentator is speaking just to you and that the words are his/her own and haven't been run through for political message rectitude etc. etc.
He's a busy boy... I'd be extremely surprised if he writes all his own stuff.
Why, oh why - do we get a procession of apparently well educated sane thinking folk flogging the hobbyhorse and tootling the message of AGW - when we know they should have the simple honesty to say "I don't know" - let's just remember the names for now eh?
There was a recent Durkin C4 programme about national debt. It was daft right wing nonsense and not credible. Cox is a (partially) photogenic bimbo with a phony accent and unconvincing enthusiasm. He dismissed 5,000 years of Indian history because he could predict eclipses and they couldn't.
PeterS
“30-something eye-candy reading off the auto-cue”
A normal person might consider that libellous, but I imagine Cox would just giggle and say “Yeah, right”.
Shub: "First, this expert is mistaken that no senator will be able to point out errors in the "main conclusions of the IPCC report"..."
Spencer Weart is referring to "serious deficiencies" in the "main conclusions" about climate impacts, not to a few errors and poor referencing. That said, scientists are not infallible, and nor can any one expert or commentator know everything there is to know about such a complex subject.
"The non-expert senators' seem to have formulated a judgement more closer to reality than the experts in question."
"Seem to" is the operative phrase. Whether or not the non-experts have made a better judgement than the scientists depends on your point of view. What's more, they could be mistaken. Further, they may be just repeating information they have picked up from other sources, which hardly amounts to "formulating" a judgement.
The fact that senators or any other non-experts have challenged the consensus says nothing about the quality of the consensus. What matters is the quality of the science that supports the consensus.
Here we have, a clear-cut example of the very thing we are discussing on this thread - the self-inflated pompous opinion of experts on the value of their own judgements. Here we also have the very example of why this can go wrong. What more do you need?
Spencer Weart is declaring the IPCC pristine, based on his imaginings and the dreams he's had probably while sleeping under a rock for the past one year. How else can you explain the ignorant "2035 was a misprint" joke and the eye-popping Orwellian "This is not an error if the statement is properly understood" ? His jugdement about the consensus is wrong and therefore the judgement about the quality of the consensus as well.
Another thing is seen here - that of external forces, skeptical bloggers to be precise, taking the IPCC reports apart to find example after example of pressure group literature injected, and masquerading as the findings of the consensus. Both demonstrate a few of the many ways in which 'consensus' can fail, and Weart's weird statements are nothing but an experts' extreme reluctance in admitting this.
"There was a recent Durkin C4 programme about national debt. It was daft right wing nonsense and not credible"
So I take it if he allowed Mr Darling/Broon to direct the program from a left slant it would have been credible to you ? but then it would have been on the BBC and cox would have loved it !
@ Brendan H
all else being, equal, experts are usually best placed to make judgements on their area of expertise.
Interesting point, but doesn't this amount to saying that only astrologers are well placed to comment on the validity of astrology? That's an argument ad absurdum, but there are lesser examples that I think make the point untenable.
The two that spring to mind are the solving of the problems of longitude and of the mass extinction of dinosaurs. Each was resolved by the input of people from an unexpected and unrelated discipline, who brought facts, analysis and technology to bear in completely unexpected ways, and who were doing largely incidentally to the main purpose of their science.
The point was that neither astronomers in the case of longitude, nor palaeontologists in the case of dinosaurs, were experts at all in what the relevant scientific disciples turned out to be - namely chronometry and astronomy.
To accept the views of Phil Jones on climate because he's an "expert" on it overlooks the fact that the drivers of climate remain unknown, and that an astrophysicist may be more expert in the discipline that is actually relevant.
e smith I suggest you take another look at the recent program about the National Debt and do some thinking about the numbers. I suggest everyone does.
It’s not our arguments about the science that’s killing AGW, albeit there is NO scientific case for AGW, and despite the stupefying ignorance of our politicians we continue to support, it’s the looming lack of money that will kill AGW. All the rest is for our entertainment although it will have a bearing on how we mould our country for the next 100 years. By the way right wing and left wing are terms you cannot apply to the arguments surrounding AGW whether they be scientific, political or economic.
I've said before on numerous blogs that I consider Peer Review to be little different from allowing GCSE candidates to mark their friends' exam papers... And everything that I've seen of "The Hockey Team" has done nothing to change my view. The worry is that "Pal Review" will infiltrate other branches of science to an even greater extent than it has already.
@Justice4Rinka,
Interesting tale of paleo, dinosaurs etc here -
http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-i-saw-at-revolution.html
@ Chuckles
Interesting link, thanks - so in my previous comment, for palaeontologists read geologists, and for astronomers, read - pace Michael Crichton - one particle physicist "who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world."
Alvarez had a nerve disagreeing with that geologists' consensus. Was he a shill for Big Oil?
Pogo,
Peer Review worked well enough within its limitations and provided those limitations were recognised, as generally, they were. Journals wanted to publish breakthroughs but not load after load of sensational bollocks which was shot down in flames. Getting slipshod research published would reflect on the researchers if it was eventually shown up. A few people made a career out of getting outrageous claims published, and as long as it was only a few, it didn't really damage the process.
What's happened here is that research in climate science, and publication of that research, has become part of a political game being played for enormous stakes. so we've seen the fixes put in to rig a rough and ready but good enough system, into the final arbiter of truth. It's become controlled by a dogma which has already consumed vast amounts of money and can't admit that it might be wrong. Huge forces have been harnessed disarm the checks and balances which would have stopped shoddy research getting this far.
O/T @ 'Justice4Rinka'
just curious? why your name tag.
ON/T Cox - can't stand the guy (gee whizz, me & my mates are really cool, yea, BBC pays for us zooming around the world (no carbon footprint envolved, thats died a death).
(yea i can endorse that no probs).
Shub: "Here we have, a clear-cut example of the very thing we are discussing on this thread - the self-inflated pompous opinion of experts on the value of their own judgements."
Some might interpret Weart's comments as arrogant, others as defensive or assertive, depending on their perspective. The way a scientist should respond to challenges is an interesting question, but in this case the issue is surely the accuracy of Weart's comments rather than their delivery.
Justice4rinka: "Interesting point, but doesn't this amount to saying that only astrologers are well placed to comment on the validity of astrology?"
An astrologer would be an expert in the details of astrological lore, but somebody with expertise in subjects relevant to astrology -- psychology, statistics, astronomy etc -- would be qualified to critique astrological claims.
"The two that spring to mind are the solving of the problems of longitude and of the mass extinction of dinosaurs. Each was resolved by the input of people from an unexpected and unrelated discipline..."
I'm sure the people you mention developed an expertise in the respective subjects. In effect, you are arguing over who constitutes an expert. Nowadays, when expertise has tended to become institutionalised, experts are often professionals in their field. But generally, an expert is someone who has gained an in-depth understanding of a subject and, importantly, is able to demonstrate that understanding.
So people can develop expertise in an unrelated field. The challenge in that case would be the same as for any practitioner, demonstrating that expertise, although an outsider would probably have a more difficult time breaking into the field.
Brendan
There is absolutely nothing to interpret here.
Weart is wrong. There is no reason why Weart as a climate historian should feel 'challenged' - the facts are clear for all to see. The IPCC reports contain numerous exaggerations from deriving its material from NPO and pressure group literature.
His continued defense of the quality of the IPCC's judgement on climate impacts, in the face of clear knowledge that major errors have been uncovered in this very area - makes him look arrogant.
The two are interrelated.
I think you have been clutching at straws for some time now. Weart's statements on what senators are qualified to perform comes across as arrogant, precisely because he falls back on the Cox formula - "just shut up and trust us - we are the experts". (All this after his vaunted vault of expertise, the IPCC AR4 WG2 is found to be riddled with nonsense).
I am looking at the AccessIPCC data. Do you know how bad it the whole thing looks?
Cosmic...
I was being a tad tongue-in-cheek... In my "previous life" I've been on both sides of the peer review process and found it both fair and generally effective - but, unlike climate "science", my "previous life" was in a field of study that was relatively unpoliticised. This could be the basis for Brian Cox's touching faith in the efficacy of peer review, he, like me, is a physicist and almost certainly won't have been on the receiving-end of venal and dishonest, agenda-based review.
Shub: "Weart is wrong."
As I said previously, Weart is contrasting the notion of "serious deficiencies" in the main conclusions about climate impacts against a few errors and poor referencing.
You will know all the arguments about the importance or otherwise of these errors, so I won't belabour them.
But while you accuse Weart of arrogance for taking a strong view of the senators' statement, you are happy to offer a strong view of your own.
If one party should be free to offer assertive views, so should all parties. A claim of accuracy and truth would merely beg the question, ie assume the righness of one's own cause.
Brendan
The matter is simple - anyone is entitled to 'arrogance' as long as they can back it up. Arrogance is not so abrasive in those who can back it up. In this instance, Weart is throwing his weight behind the IPCC despite his inability to back it up.
I consider exaggerated alarmist conclusions drawn directly from environmental pressure group literature and placed in IPCC reports a serious deficiency.
As far as "accusations" of "arrogance" are concerned, it would help if you would read the thread again. You used both those words.
I was referring to self-inflated pomposity of experts who cannot look beyond their own limited horizons to place the value of their own expertise in its context in the wider world. This is true, even if Weart had not so serendipitously, provided us with a clear illustration of this very concept.
This broader observation would hold, even if the expert opinion offered were to be true, which it happens to be not, in the present Weart case.
Shub: "The matter is simple - anyone is entitled to 'arrogance' as long as they can back it up."
Shub, to date your comments have been mainly content-free assertions unsupported by any solid evidence, so you're in no position to claim any entitlement to "arrogance".
Don't get me wrong. I am not demanding evidence for your assertions. The various 'gates have been done to death. And, unavoidably, much discourse has to be at the general level, otherwise we would be forever bogged down in details.
But it's a bit rich to offer unsupported assertions while accusing another of the same.
What are you talking about, man? Where did I say "I am entitled to my arrogance"?
It is Weart, who is not in a position to pontificate to senators about whether they are qualified enough to judge the IPCC, especially given that his grasp on missteps by the IPCC seems so tenuous.
What "evidence" do you want me to provide for Weart being wrong on Glaciergate and Amazongate? If you do not want to discuss the 'gates, which is quite understandable given how weak the case is, you should simply admit that Weart's contention about 'serious deficiencies' is wrong. It i really that simple.
You cannot claim that there are no serious deficiences in the IPCC reports but refuse to confront the details which make these deficiencies clear and then again claim that because the discussions about the details tend to become tedious, we might as well all accept therefore that 'serious deficiencies' do not exist in the IPCC reports. It doesn't work that way.
Given that this is not the exact forum for delving once more into any of the Gates, I offered a simple generalized statement characterizing the fundamental problem with the IPCC reports as well. Let me repeat:
"I consider exaggerated alarmist conclusions drawn directly from environmental pressure group literature and placed in IPCC reports a serious deficiency."
I am curious to know what you think about this generalized statement, since we can discuss Weart's defense without getting into any details by examining what you can say to support him in this regard. Neither the IPCC nor Weart can wriggle away from this two-fold problem - the fact that WWF reports were employed and the fact that the underlying claims were wrong. You can spin one, or the other, but not both. And to top it, the fact of the matter remains, in the present case, neither can be spun.
Going by your previous two-three comments, I don't think you read very carefully. You have continued to speak of "arrogance" etc, when it was you, who started that entire angle, used that word and framed your posts claiming I called Weart arrogant. Now you are claiming I called myself "arrogant". Both are wrong.
You conclude again with one your favorite phrases again, that of "accusing" Weart of offering "unsupported assertions". I do not. I do not "accuse". I am merely stating, and did so previously as well, that Weart is wrong.
These discussions are circular. I will not engage unless you can bring any support to your stand that Glaciergate and Amazongate - the two issues Weart spoke about - are not serious deficiencies. I will not simply walk away either. You can look at p.22 of the InterAcademy Council report on the IPCC for 'evidence' that supports my contention - that Weart is wrong. I presume this formed the basis for the senators' judgement on this matter too.
Shub: "Where did I say "I am entitled to my arrogance"?"
You said: "...anyone is entitled to 'arrogance' as long as they can back it up." If you were not referring to yourself, fine.
The issue here is the making of generalised statements without supporting evidence. One such statement is: "...the self-inflated pompous opinion of experts..."
I don't have any particular problem with this statement per se, only the implied claim that it's fine for you to offer a strong statement in support of your position, but not OK for others to offer a strong statement in support of their position.
You have offered a generalised statement for my opinion, as below:
"I consider exaggerated alarmist conclusions drawn directly from environmental pressure group literature and placed in IPCC reports a serious deficiency."
I view this statement as partisan and polemical. Contrast with the InterAcademy Council conclusion re the Himalayan glacier case: "This example also points to insufficient evaluation of non-peer-reviewed literature by the Lead Authors."
Whether or not you regard this example as a "serious deficiency" or a regrettable lapse will depend on your point of view, and from that flows one's view as to whether Weart is simply "wrong" or offering a judgement in line with the evidence.
Otherwise, my point about strongly worded statements remains. In matters of complex understanding especially, those who claim the priviledge of making strong statements are not in a position to deny the priviledge to others.
You think I object to Weart's statement to the rapid response thingy because it was 'strongly worded'?
That is not the reason.
Those who want to prop up the dying carcass of an activist intergovernmental organization at any cost - in their 'point of view', and those whose knees chatter and egos bristle at any possibility of a skeptic pointing out mistakes in any work of climate science - in their point of view as well - such mistakes by the IPCC will never be a serious deficiency.
On the other hand, those who want science to live and thrive will chop off the unhealthy dying bits, and nurse it back to life. I have no 'regrets', for example, that the lapses in the IPCC were discovered. They are valuable symptoms for the sickness and disease - of activism-by-proxy and agenda-queue jumping, and issue aggrandizement - that inflicts the 'body scientific' in climate science.
Weart would have to provide a detailed explanation for why Glaciergate is a mere typographical error. As long as he cannot do that, there is no reason for any observer to take him up on his expertise and nod his head to his pronouncements.
Thanks.
Shub: "You think I object to Weart's statement to the rapid response thingy because it was 'strongly worded'?"
Your comment about "the self-inflated pompous opinion of experts" gave that impression, although I accept that it was Weart's rejection of the senators' claims that you objected to.
"Weart would have to provide a detailed explanation for why Glaciergate is a mere typographical error."
I don't think he's arguing that the mistake was a mere typo. Otherwise, we've already been through this. By neccessity, people will often need to make general statements on any number of issues. In fact, a high proportion of discussion and debate takes place at a general level.
I'm satisfied that Weart has provided a sufficient answer, given that the error has been exhaustively examined. In fact, the InterAcademy Council devotes a specific section to this very issue. I don't see why Weart needs to make any additional explanation to what has already been explained.
"I am satisfied that Weart gave a sufficient answer..."
Why do you quote the IAC report, again, (which I quoted earlier) to support Weart? I have encountered these strange practices earlier too - it is quite intriguing. The existence of a long discussion in such a report proves the senators right, not Weart - that there were serious deficiencies enough to warrant an independent examination of the IPCC's processes. The very presence of such a report speaks to this.
And I am curious to know how you are satisfied.
Weart says the obvious error in the IPCC report was traced to a "misprint in a non-peer reviewed publication" which give a figure of "2350".
This is a highly inaccurate statement. The Down to Earth magazine stands by its 2035 printed figures quoting Hasnain, and the expert source disowns what he said. The Russian report says 2350, rightly as Weart points out, but that is not what the IPCC carried. This is because the IPCC copied verbatim its entire redacted passage from Down to Earth and attributed it to a WWF report which referred to a New Scientist article by Fred Pearce. Fred Pearce says he interviewed Hasnain who gave him the figure 2035, which Hasnain disowns. The source, Hasnain, referred to a complete disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers at an interview even in Dec 2009 at Copenhagen. He has repeated this claim several times in the past decade or so.
This expert remained apparently oblivious to many, many commoners who had by Dec 2009, pointed out that this 2035 figure was wrong.
The error is in the technical summary of the IPCC WGII report. Weart says it is not present in any summary.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/tssts-4-2.html
Glaciergate is a complete systematic breakdown in the IPCC process and this is an issue much, much bigger than even that anyway. Who needs to go into that though?
Please understand - this is part of the exact reason why one can view such statements from experts with great trepidation - this is nothing short of deliberation obfuscation. It is mind-boggling to see a senior figure in the climate science field attempt to absolve the IPCC of its errors by shifting the blame onto some magazines and reports which were copying and misprinting figures. What is done is done - these people should let it go.
Shub: "The existence of a long discussion in such a report proves the senators right, not Weart - that there were serious deficiencies enough to warrant an independent examination of the IPCC's processes."
What Weart said was: "...serious deficiencies in the actual main conclusions about impacts..." Whether or not the Himalayan error affects the main conclusions of the IPCC report is a matter of judgement. Weart doesn't think it does, and I think that's a reasonable view, and is in line with the IPCC:
"This conclusion [in the Synthesis Report] is robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment."
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf
Weart's comments are also consistent with reported comments by the World Glacier Monitoring Service on glacier melt:
"Glaciers across the globe are continuing to melt so fast that many will disappear by the middle of this century, the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) said today."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/25/world-glacier-monitoring-service-figures
"Weart says the obvious error in the IPCC report was traced to a "misprint in a non-peer reviewed publication" which give a figure of "2350". This is a highly inaccurate statement."
He says "ultimately" traced to a misprint of 2350. There are differeing views about how the 2035 figure was arrived at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report#cite_note-NS_13_January_2010-17
It may well be that several sources were used in the paragraph in question, and the 2035 figure was a conflation from these souces.
Whatever the case, the error is serious enough in the sense that it wasn't picked up in the reviewing process. But anyone involved in publication will know the awful feeling of making made an error that is forever and very publicly on display.
The remorse is compounded by the realisation that the eror could have been avoided by following the correct procedures.
"He says "ultimately" traced to a misprint of 2350."
Weart is wrong in saying this. Furthermore, Weart sets up his own limited examples to exonerate the synthesis report. What about the erroneous, exaggerated conclusion about African crop yields that is present in the synthesis report?
Weart should be thinking hard before making excuses for IPCC authors using WWF reports because a certain degree of comfort and a lack of any sense as to why such a thing could be wrong is what caused Amazongate and Glaciergate in the first place.
Secondly, the 2035 error was pointed out in the so-called review process. It was not corrected by the authors. The rules were followed. The IPCC allows authors to ride roughshod over reviewer comments, because authors have primacy, not reviewers, which is the exact opposite of traditional peer-review. This system therefore cannot trap errors.
Thirdly, there was no remorse. Murari Lal disowned responsibility. Hasnain disowned responsiblity. Pachauri disowned responsibility. The IPCC has not corrected the erroneous passage, in the main text or in the technical summary.
There is no sense of responsibility in the public face and sphere of climate science, the IPCC.
Thanks
Shub: "What about the erroneous, exaggerated conclusion about African crop yields that is present in the synthesis report?"
It's been agreed that these conclusions cannot be supported by the literature. But again, It's a matter of imterpretation whether these errors are "serious deficiencies" in the main conclusions about impacts or isolated mistakes.
"Secondly, the 2035 error was pointed out in the so-called review process."
Yes, but it's not clear why the error wasn't noted and action taken. At this remove, I doubt we will ever know for sure.
"Thirdly, there was no remorse."
My comment about remorse was a general one in relation to publication errors rather than this specific issue. I can't comment on the state of mind of the scientists involved in the Himalayan issue, but clearly, some scientists believe the specific issue has been blown out of proportion, although it certainly points to a need to tighten up the process.
In regard to corrections, the IPCC has appended a statement to the report about the Himalayan glacier issue. Presumably, it's too late now to reconvene the reviewers to reconsider the evidence for this and other errors.
Regarding the process, it may be that in hindsight the rules have lacked rigour or were unclear. The new guidelines have been created to address perceived problems with the process. It should also be noted that not all climate scientists who support AGW have been entirely happy with all aspects of the IPCC process.
What is important now is to ensure that the process is improved. I doubt that continuing relitigation of these issues will throw much more light on them.