Wednesday
Jun232010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Spiked on the Hockey Stick
Jun 23, 2010 Books Climate: HSI Spiked has an article about yours truly and the Hockey Stick. There is also a photograph.
Jun 23, 2010 Books Climate: HSI
Reader Comments (28)
We shouldn't forget, of course, that AGW is just one of dozens of ridiculous scares that have been inflicted on us over recent years. See Booker & North's essential "Scared to Death":-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Scared-Death-Global-Warming-Costing/dp/0826476201/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277270557&sr=1-1
But AGW is the one which will destroy the economy of the developed world and dash the only hope for a better future for millions in grinding poverty in the third world - unless we can stop the preening egos of the climate "scientists", the lunacy of watermelon eco-fascists and the cynical ploys of politicians and wannabe carbon traders.
You have a face for radio.
Just like me. ;o)
Well done.
If the quote were true, then there would be much less “problematic” research in fields where there is little money. In fact, there is just as much problematic research in fields with little money—sometimes more. My web site gives several examples from archaeological science, for instance, which is a field with hardly any money at all.
Money cannot be the driving force. The driving force is the egos of the researchers. Researchers build up their status by publishing in prestigious journals, and it does not matter if what they publish is solid.
Excellent article.
You must have felt naked without your mitre and chasuble...
I think you're slightly wrong when you say
I'm pretty sure that the "trick" is that the other HS graphs rely on either Bristlecones or Briffa's first Yamal / Artcic Urals trees. As you surely recall, the whole Yamal thing was about getting those details released so we could see that just one tree influenced I forget how many others.
There appears to be some very perceptive articles in addition to yours on Spiked.
We seem to have the strange situation where the moral highground in objective scientific debate has been voluntarily reliquished by the traditional worthies in their institutions and journals. They have inexplicably embaced unseemly, vuvuzela-trumpeting, grant-chasing advocacy.
In contrast, the dispassionate Spock-the-Vulcan-like rational search for truth, has spontaneously filled that vacant niche by a self-funded intelligentsia, finding their own champions.
Interesting observation, Pharos. That's certainly how things look to me. I can remember when professors were figures you could turn to for reasoned opinions, and deep insights based on many years of study and reflection, seasoned with a love of independent thinking. Now advocacy and preaching, often ill-natured, seem more commonplace, along with an apparent desire to discourage thought itself (vide the Royal Society fellows declaring 'the science is settled, the debate is over' ). Their vuvuzela (thank you for that!) interface with the rest of us.
Douglas J. K.,
I'm not sure that it is just egos. It has been suggested elsewhere (Perhaps somewhat unkindly) that climate studies suffers a twofold problem. Firstly, the most able and intelligent science students are drawn to the 'cutting edge' areas of science rather than the 'also rans'; secondly, the students that are attracted to climate studies are of a markedly 'green' disposition - they are self selecting and drawn to the field because of their beliefs, not for scientific reasons.
This can encourage a situation where we 'know' what the results are going to be, because of our beliefs about peak oil, Malthusianism, pollution, endangered species - pick your list, and we therefore search no further than evidence which confirms this. It must self evidently be right. Similarly, anything which contradicts the 'correct' position is clearly wrong, all that remains is to find the trivial reason why.
I would say that the ongoing behaviour of many in the field, and particularly many of their camp followers, strongly supports this interpretation.
It slots neatly into the zeitgeist of cultural vertigo. For most of us in the developed world, disease, war, physical work, are all in the past. Instead of celebrating this achievement and working to extend it - the zeitgeist sees this as bad and our society as unworthy.
2 recent TV shows brought this home to me. A series about great scientists ended with Stephen Hawkins babbling about how man's inventiveness, curiosity, creativity were going to cause a sticky end. Does he really prefer ignorance and stagnation as options?
Then a C4 doco about great designers who have invented fabulous and lovely objects. They thought a fitting end to this was a chair that could somehow save the world. Not by curing back pain or bringing comfort and style to millions but by being easy to recycle.
So sad - 40 years after man stepped on the moon...
It's interesting that Spiked is airing this, since Fiona Fox and the Science Media Centre is an offshoot from them. I perceive SMC to entirely in the warmist camp, but they may be repositioning.
It would be interesting if your Grace could get an interview with Ms. Fox.
Chuckles... secondly, the students that are attracted to climate studies are of a markedly 'green' disposition - they are self selecting and drawn to the field because of their beliefs, not for scientific reasons.
I have a feeling that these are mostly students whose A-level subjects tend not to be in the pure maths/physics/chemistry range. For them, studying climate science is more a matter of rote-learning of qualitative statements, than of acquiring a proper understanding of its mathematical and physical fundamentals. They have little grasp of the notion that, in physical science, if a thing cannot be quantified, it is not properly understood. My observation is that people who have learned their "science" by rote do not realise that there is any other way to learn it.
If true that they have acquired their knowledge by rote-learning of qualitative "facts", this might explain their commonly stated view that someone who is not a trained climate scientist cannot have valid views on the subject. They know perfectly well that they could not, under any circumstances, make the transition to (say) semiconductor device designer - so they ask how can a semiconductor expert possibly make valid judgements on matters of climate science?
Again, if true, it also might explain arguments along the lines of "fossil fuel = CO2 = greenhouse gas = global warming = vanishing polar ice" without any apparent awareness that such arguments are meaningless without quantification.
I think it would make an interesting study to look at the syllabuses of the first degrees of, say, 100 climate scientists to see whether there is any basis to this idea.
"Money cannot be the driving force. The driving force is the egos of the researchers. Researchers build up their status by publishing in prestigious journals, and it does not matter if what they publish is solid."
June 23, 2010 | Douglas J. Keenan
I don't see why money can't be the driving force in either a well-funded climate discipline or a poorly finded archaeological discipline. In the first case researchers are completing a small slice but nevertheless large cash value of a large pie and in the second case for a modest slice of a small pie. In either case a university VC will look favourably on the researcher even if the climate researcher only obtains 1% of the big pie because 1% of huge is still a lot.
Am I correct in understanding that the hockey-stick reconstruction is based solely on tree-ring-width measurements, except for the last few years? If so, the reconstruction must be inherently untrustworthy, since tree growth is influenced by a number of factors other than temperature; particularly, precipitation, mass insect infestation, and carbon dioxide concentration. This is confirmed by the fact that in the construction of the hockey-stick instrumental data were substituted for tree-ring data after 1960 when the two diverge.
But since tree-ring-width data provide such an unreliable estimate of past temperature, I am curious to know what other temperature proxies have been used to estimate temperature over the last millennium and what those reconstructions look like. If anyone would direct me to alternative reconstructions over the period covered by the hockey-stick graph, I would appreciate it?
It would seem to me that direct comparison with alternative reconstructions would be a highly effective way of demonstrating the questionability of inferring temperature from the tree-ring-width data.
Alfred
You have asked a lot of questions there. You are right on some points and not on others. All these issues are discussed in my book - see right hand side of screen.
Chuckles said:
"...the students that are attracted to climate studies are of a markedly 'green' disposition - they are self selecting and drawn to the field because of their beliefs, not for scientific reasons."
Someone connected with climategate files and the code, wrote the below, I'll let the regulars work out exactly how:
Check the name of the church, spectacular (manbearpig - Al gore connection)
A sign that the universe has a sense of humour, perhaps
"Although I have yet to see any evidence that climate change is a sign of Christ's imminent return, human pollution is clearly another of the birth pangs of creation, as it eagerly awaits being delivered from the bondage of corruption (Romans. 19-22).
Tim Mitchell works at the Climactic Research Unit, UEA, Norwich, and is a member of South Park Evangelical Church."
He left in 2004, 2006-2009 some chap called Harry was wondering what he did with the code.
He is now a priest.
For Martin A:
The chap mentioned aboves his, first degree was Geography.
Geography students are famous for their computer code, ask Harry
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timm/personal/index.html
For Slojoe:
BBC Newswatch: (23/04/2010)
"to have a sceptic in every interview is misleading the public about 'climate science'" - Fiona Fox
BBC Newswatch: (23/04/2010)
Fight the good fight for accuracy, in fact on Climate change there has been a real change..
People like Richard Black and Roger Harrabin, fighting internally (at the BBC) to say we DON'T have to have a sceptic every time we have a climate story." - Fiona Fox
Roger Harrabin has been a bit more agnostic recently.
Sir John Houghton (co chair IPCC reports - inc Hockey stick ones)
"God, Science and Global Warming" 17th June 2010
Spot the hockey stick in the presentation.
http://www.wargravechurch.org.uk/climatechange.htm
I asked a question in the Q/A mainly about carbon trading/offsetting
Andrew, thanks for your excellent book “The Hockey Stick Illusion” which I am half-way through. It presents what could be considered as statistical shenanigans having the objective of producing evidence to support The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis rather than identify the true underlying characteristics of the proxy data.
I have been looking at that other important “hockey stick”, the reconstructed atmospheric CO2 levels during the past, presented on Pages 13 and 14 of the Obama administration’s report "Global Climate Change Impacts on the United States” (Note 1). This was published in June 2009 in the lead-in to the UN’s COP15 fiasco in Copehagen and Jonathan Overpeck, who you referred to as one of the “ .. core members of the Hockey Team .. ” is named as one of the “author team” along with another, Ben Santer.
In December there was an article “The Other Hockey Schtick {CO2 Levels}” (Note 2) with a follow-up in January (Note 3). Both of these make reference to Professor Jaworowski’s papers challenging the validity of the reconstruction of CO2 levels from air in ice cores, including his 2007 paper “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our Time”. I have been researching this issue for a while now, with particular interest in the preferential fractionation of CO2 within the firn and ice during its hundreds and thousands of years as the ice sheets build up. Supporters of The Hypothesis have frequently claimed that Jaworowski’s arguments have been refuted but all that I have seen is challenges and rejections, not convincing evidence that he is wrong. On the contrary I have found peer-reviewed evidence from supporters which suggests to me that Jaworowski has a valid argument due to the CO2 molecule being smaller than other gases such as O2, N2 and CH4. I also remain unconvinced about the manner in which measurements at Mauna Loa have been spliced onto the ice core re-constructions.
I have tried to discus this on blogs of various supporters of The Hypothesis such as Chris Colose’s, Joshua Halpern’s Rabett Run and most recently on Mike Kaulbars Greenery blog (Note 4) but get the expected response that Jaworowski is wrong and links to papers that appear to me not to substantiate such a claim. Are you aware of any attempt by any competent sceptical statistician to undertake a professional analysis (as McIntyre and McKittrick have done on Michael Mann’s MBH98) of the statistical manipulations that are undertaken to arrive at that CO2 hockey stick. My impression is that this is “Another Hockey Stick, Another Illusion”.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.climatecommunication.org/PDFs/climate-impacts-report.pdf
2) see http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2009/12/other-hockey-schtick.html
3) see http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/other-hockey-stick-co2-levels-part-2.html
4) see http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/a-glorious-defeat/#comment-8388
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete
No, I'm afraid not. I have vaguely heard people question what goes on at Mauna Loa but beyond that I've not seen any details.
Martin A
"They know perfectly well that they could not, under any circumstances, make the transition to (say) semiconductor device designer - so they ask how can a semiconductor expert possibly make valid judgements on matters of climate science?"
You see the a similar state of affairs on the BBC's 'University Challenge' - the hard science and maths students can usually engage with art and literature, but the arts students are nearly always stumped by the science questions.
@Martin A
I strongly agree that there is a problem with Earth scientists learning things by rote. Worse, those who have rote-learned the same things tend to see themselves as an “in” group. Their self images then come to be substantially dependent on being part of the in group. Hence attacks on things rote-learned are seen as attacks on the group—and thus on their self images.
@Chuckles, timheyes
I agree that it is not only egos, but believe that egos are much more important than money. As an example unrelated to global warming, several geophysicists claimed that some volcanic ash they had retrieved from a Greenlandic ice core was from the volcano Thera, Greece. They made an error in their statistics (very basic: how to compute the standard error), and in fact the data showed that the source volcano could not be Thera. I spent many hours trying to explain the error; I pleaded with them to discuss the matter with a statistician of their choice; finally I published a paper about this, in the leading journal for geochemistry. But they continue to hold to their claims, and ignore my work.
They “know” that they are right. They gain no money from this, and might even gain money by accepting the truth. Their self images will not allow them to accept that they do not know what they are doing—especially when the problem is pointed out to them by someone who is not part of their in group.
Nice article, thanks.
A bit OT, but readers might be entertained by the surreality of a discussion, ongoing at Wikipedia, of whether to mention the Bishop's book in the article on Michael Mann. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_E._Mann#See_also_to_HS_book (and the following section). I particularly like the comparison of the Bishop's opus to "the pro-birther book The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality" [!!]
Who knew?
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
Sort of off topic, but CO2 crosses lung alveolar membrane much more easily than O2 does.
================
Good article. You must have a better photo, somewhere. Surely.
Spiked are the same people who used to write Living Marxism (late LM). This was the in house journal for the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), a Trotskyist groupiscule competing with the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), Workers Revolutionary Party (WRP), the International Marxist Group (IMG) for a share of student union funds. [As wikipedia says Not to be confused with Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 1944) or Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist–Leninist).. Life of Brian comes to mind for some reason!]
LM closed down when they were sued by ITN over claims connected with the Bosnian war and in particular the massacre at Trnopolje camp in former Yugoslavia.
Detractors call them iconoclastic, or that they are closet libertarians, or they are a cult for Frank Furudi. George Monbiot thinks they are on the fanatical right. I guess that they have shifted so far from identikit leftism that many don't know what to think.
I think their site has a lot of highly thoughtful content but I'm too aware of that history to be too trustful.