Thursday
Sep022010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill WSJ on uncertainty
Sep 2, 2010 Climate: MWP Climate: WG2 The Wall Street Journal looks at the IAC report and considers one of its key findings, namely that the IPCC has downplayed uncertainties in the science of global warming. In the process they consider McShane and Wyner's paper on the reliability (or lack of it) of proxy-based temperature reconstructions and also a new paper on the sensitivity of the Amazon rainforest to drought. It looks as though this sensitivity is not really understood because nobody knows how the Amazon will respond to rising CO2 levels.
As the Journal puts it:
None of this proves or disproves anything, except that our understanding of how our climate works is still evolving. Is it too much to ask the climate establishment to acknowledge as much?
Reader Comments (71)
Peer review means nothing in climate science. If peer review meant anything, then the original hockey stick and its progenitors would never have seen the light of day. Then the good Bishop wouldn't have written HSI and he wouldn't have become a world famous author.
"Peer review means nothing in climate science. If peer review meant anything, then the original hockey stick and its progenitors would never have seen the light of day. Then the good Bishop wouldn't have written HSI and he wouldn't have become a world famous author."
Sep 2, 2010 at 3:07 PM | Phillip Bratby
What absolute rot. So peer review is good for every single other branch of science but suddenly falls down only in climate science? And what might this magical reason be that peer review doesn't work in this field, but does in all the others?
Much as democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried (sorry Winners), so peer review is to scientific quality. Not perfect, but we've never found anything better.
Guess what, paranoid people who believe that vaccines/illnesses etc. are cons by drugs companies to make money are also sceptical of peer review in the field of medicine. Just like many deniers, the evidence against their position is overwhelming, so they try and find a way to discount all evidence in one stroke.
@ ZDB
'If he were a Muslim and kept his beliefs distinct from his professional work? No. If he were a Muslim and started making scientific claims based on that religion that were so risible and easily refuted that they fatally damaged his credibility? Definitely.
Spencer has largely done the latter but with a different religion.'
I've got S&B 2010 up on the screen in front of me now. Could you provide the paragraph and line references where Spencer makes 'scientific claims based on that religion that were so risible and easily refuted that they fatally damaged his credibility'?
I can't seem to find them.
Thanks
Dominic
@ZDB
Oh, and while you're chasing up the religion references, do let me know what's so egregiously wrong with S&B's argument in this paper.
Dominic
@ ZDB
And when you've done that, I'm still waiting for an answer to the first question I asked you. Where do you stand on the subject of climate alarmism? Do please read the whole post carefully before responding.
'[...] anyone who claims that catastrophe is certain and that we are its sole authors is either scientifically illiterate or dishonest.
There is absolutely no middle ground.
So which is it to be, ZDB?'
Dominic
ZDB, I would need to see a satisfactory, operational definition of 'climate scientists' first. I would also like the same for AGW, since it seems to mean anything from 'speculative theory', through 'modest effect no one has yet found a signal for in the noise and longer-term trends/variability', to 'substantial effect', and 'dominant effect', and even 'the most serious and urgent crisis to face the planet, and so we must drop everything to reduce CO2 emissions, despite their being a very small fraction of natural ones.'
I would hazard a guess that most people with some knowledge of climate systems would concede AGW as a speculative theory. But since none have provided anything like convincing observational evidence of an effect (other than urban heat islands, poorly placed or ignored weather stations, etc) of people on 'warming'. Indeed I would like to know how many weather records around the world show little or no sustained warming in the last 100 years or so, so the very question about AGW still begs several about where and when and to what extent. The limitations of our temperature records, and indeed of our estimates of CO2 emissions have still, I suspect, to be adequately explored.
Another problem with the 'consensus of scientists' notion, apart from being a gross insult to the scientific method, is that the majority of IPCC participants, for example, may be concerned with the impact of climate variation rather than the causes of it. It would be interesting to try to identify those scientists with a specific interest and expertise in climate dynamics and cause-systems rather than effect-systems such as those polar bears once trumpeted as being in particular danger despite their thriving as never before in modern times.
There are many uncertainties involved which are poorly known and hence poorly modelled by the computer programmers who, I feel, have had a disproportionate influence in the climate 'arena' for the past 40 years or so. I go with Box's aphorism, 'all models are wrong, some models are useful'. I have yet to see anything to suggest usefulness of GCMs, unless one means their utility to political agitators and financial speculators such as Albert Gore.
The WSJ is wise to point out some of the uncertainties. And who is foolish enough to say that the more the uncertainties, the more we must trust computer models? The reverse is of course the case. And if you ignore these models, what is left of the case for alarm about CO2? The next wave of IPCC effort would do well to distinguish computer model outputs from real evidence.
"Could you provide the paragraph and line references where Spencer makes 'scientific claims based on that religion that were so risible and easily refuted that they fatally damaged his credibility'?
I can't seem to find them.
Thanks
Dominic
Sep 2, 2010 at 3:16 PM | BBD
Seriously? The guy is a creationist and you can't see how that might slightly undermine his science? You so no problem with a view that contradicts the entire body of Darwinism and all work done in that field since then, despite a vast body of scientific evidence?
I also don't think you've looked very hard for work by Spencer that damages his credibility. This took me all of 60 seconds and came from Wikipedia of all places:
"I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world... Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer"
Still waiting for a critique of S&B 2010 and for you to tell me if you are either scientifically illiterate or dishonest.
Get on with it.
Dominic
Ah Wikipedia - the truth and light of all things on climate, aka, one William Connolley.
Has he beem banned yet?
Zed, no offence but I think that what you got here is a "pool selection" problem :o) and you seem to have pretty much used the info from my comment to you in your answer to GrantB calling it doing the groundwork for him when already available info on this thread. Oh dear. This is not very good is it? I really do hope that you are not a scientist or a woman......:o)
Zed: "And what might this magical reason be that peer review doesn't work in this field, but does in all the others?"
As I mentioned before, you really haven't been keeping up on things, have you?
CASE A.
Conventional science peer reviewer: "Do you agree with me?"
Conventional scientist: "Er...no, Sir"
Conventional science peer reviewer: "Oh. Well, let's have a look at your work. Blow me down, you're right, I'm wrong. Congratulations, your paper is peer reviewed."
CASE B.
Climate peer reviewer: "Do you agree with me?"
Climate scientist: "er...yes, Sir"
Climate peer reviewer: "Congratulations, your paper has passed peer review"
ZuluDeltaBravo - "Just once, I'll do the groundwork you don't seem bothered to do. From the Andregg paper:
We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers based on
authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on
multisignatory statements about ACC (SI Materials and Methods)"
My apologies, this certainly is a "robust" (doncha luv that word) approach.
By a lead author who is a biology student at Stanford. No doubt an apprentice "Climate Scientist". And a co-author who famously said,
ZDB:
"so peer review is to scientific quality. Not perfect, but we've never found anything better."
Oh yes we have something better. It's been used in the real world for years. It's called verification and replication. It works and prevents BS.
Sep 2, 2010 at 3:29 PM ZedsDeadBed :
"Seriously? The guy is a creationist and you can't see how that might slightly undermine his science? "
ZDB,
That's a two-fer. A first-order ad hominem, and deflection, both in one sentence.
1) Spencer's advocacy of creationism has what exactly to do with climate? If the fields do not intersect, then bringing in creationism is ad hominem. To quote Wikipedia, "even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions."
2) The question on the table was "I've got S&B 2010 up on the screen in front of me now. Could you provide the paragraph and line references where Spencer makes 'scientific claims based on that religion that were so risible and easily refuted that they fatally damaged his credibility'?" You failed to cite anything from that article, instead making a generic statement.
ZDB, it was you who, upon hearing the mention of an article by Spencer, immediately brought in his creationist views. Look, I'm not going to disagree with you about creationism. [I make the not-too-dangerous leap that you don't believe it.] But please stick to the subject, which is his climatological statements. While you may believe that his views in another area [creationism] inherently make his climatological statements not worth considering, that isn't actually a valid argument.
So read the paper and refute the reasoning therein. Or state that you're not going to read the paper (because you don't think his ideas are worth paying attention to). But in the latter case, you're not allowed to claim that its statements are false.
And then can we actually get back to the topic of this thread, which is the WSJ's article discussing the IPCC's understatement of uncertainty of climatic knowledge and projections?
@ZDB
In 1989 Fleischmann and Pons released a paper with extraordinary claims about managing to create cold fusion with significantly more energy output than input. They also released their data and enough details so that others could replicate the experiment. Their claims were quickly discredited. Peer review at its finest.
In 1998 Mann released a paper with extraordinary claims about past temperature. He did not release his data. He did not explain how he obtained the results. He refused to answer inquiries about his work. Nobody could independently replicate his results. His paper stood as an icon for nearly a decade. Peer review at its worst.
Guys, Guys
What's with all the off-topic...
Anyway...
It is good to see that the WSJ is picking up on the New Phytologist special issue - several, weeks, even a month, after we briefly discussed it at EuRef Forum.
Hirota et al, in the same issue found that 6% of the Amazon was 'flip susceptible" - contrast with IPCC and Simon Lewis' alarmism
Cox et al, found very poor inter-model agreement on rainfall projections.
Anderson et al, - bending over backwards and falling off, trying to explain that Amazon green-up is due to leaves falling off (!!).
Good stuff
"Zed, no offence but I think that what you got here is a "pool selection" problem "
That got me thinking...
Imagine the scientific theories we could test with a survey of Bishop Hill readers. With such a selection bias, I'm sure we could get 97% consensus on lots of topics. Powerful evidence on lots of life's mysteries I would say!
James
I tried placing this off topic comment on realclimate last night and it clearly didn't get through, but it seems as apt in the company of sceptics as it does for AGW protagonists
The thread involved the criticism of Christopher Monckton and was incredibly long
Phew! I'm afraid to say that I could not read absolutely everything above.
What I have read though, as an outsider looking in, indicates extreme emotions on both sides of the camp.
It would seem that both extremes blame money as the root of the problem relating to actual scientific facts. I wonder if both sides are being played against the middle in order to deceive one from seeing the real issues.
It is interesting to note that both sides appear to the scientifically naive (such as myself) as having sound scientific arguments backed up by peer review. The fact that there are differentials only compounds my belief that no-one actually knows for sure. The primary reason for this is that the climate has too many variances both known and unknown. To add to the complication the climate has changed outside the expectations of both camps from time to time lending each the opportunity to claim "success" in its own predictions.
Were the possible outcomes of the worst case scenario not so severe, articles such as these would be highly humorous. In fact, as it would seem there is little we can do, I am laughing any way, we may as well die happy. (LOL)
One thing bothers me though and that is much of taxation legislation (at least in the West) has been borne of the concept that the models are real and to be feared and that a lot of politicians/corporate entities/corporate individuals are making a lot of money.
Thus I humbly suggest that all you scientific types ask yourselves, as you are doing your research the following.
1. Who is paying your wages and do they have a vested interest? ... And really investigate this.
2. When you do your research, are you doing this honestly and without artificial motive?
3. Where does your data come from and is the data completely trustworthy? (i.e. who paid the salaries of the data compilers?)
I'm sure there are a few more but you ... the scientists.. know where I am coming from. It is genuinely important that we (the naive public) can count on complete honesty and sincerity. Trust me when I say that your talents can always be utilised in sincere scientific endeavours and do not need to be used in false endeavours (if indeed you have satisfied yourself that your endeavours currently are false).
Many thanks for your co-operation
Steve
@zdb
As little as I share your opinions on CGW, I did enjoy your posts.
You remained respectful while steadfastedly arguing your corner.
You certainly shook a few cages and pretty much hijacked the thread.
Well done, Sir or Madam, you are a worthy opponent.
Salute!
agent ZDB
abort your mission, you have been assigned the wrong target.
this is an uncertainty thread & we are not certain if you can be uncertain without appearing certain.
these guys can talk the hind legs of a donkey (they may turn you), do not engage, repeat do not engage.
@Dougie, you say
"these guys can talk the hind legs of a donkey (they may turn you), do not engage, repeat do not engage"
As a very wise man once said: " better jaw than war"
Yes, I paraphrased, but feel I retained the intentioned meaning.
To not engage is to surrender the high ground without struggle. I'd rather fight the fight and lose to the truth than suffer under blind acceptance of, my possibly misplaced beliefs.
Denigration of the opposition, as comforting as it may seem, confers no advantage, other than the short-lived satisfaction that you can stoop to their levels,
A spoon, short of a picnic, I think.