Bishop Hill Reliable sources
Jun 19, 2011 Climate: Sceptics Climate: Surface Scibloggers are all tweeting furiously about this article on the Skeptoid blog. It's a pretty interesting piece, which argues that sceptics should follow the data and warmists should be nicer. There's much to agree with, but the author Craig Good rather shoots himself in the foot by repeated recommending Skeptical Science as an unbiased source on the subject of global warming.
As I have pointed out in the past, Skeptical Science's reporting of some issues I am familiar with are deeply troubling. It is hard to credit the site's failure to even mention that the Hide the Decline dataset had been truncated or to cover the troubled Cook et al divergence problem paper from 2004, but not the more up to date D'Arrigo et al study.
But hey, perhaps this is a one-off oversight. Maybe things are more balanced elsewhere in the Skeptical Science oeuvre. With this in mind, I went to have a look at the temperature records - thinking to see how the the subject of statistical significance was handled. I didn't find anything on a brief search but got distracted by this bit about urban heat islands - the bit of the observed warming that is due to waste heat from human settlements rather than climatic change.
[NASA/GISS] found in most cases, urban warming was small and fell within uncertainty ranges. Surprisingly, 42% of city trends are cooler relative to their country surroundings as weather stations are often sited in cool islands (a park within the city).
Now again, this is something I am reasonably familiar with. The claim comes from a paper by Peterson et al 2003 - having found that many urban stations warmed less than rural ones, they rationalised this by hypothesising that urban stations were in cool parks:
But do the urban meteorological observing stations tend to be located in parks or gardens? The official National Weather Service guidelines for nonairport stations state that an observing shelter should be ‘‘no closer that four times the height of any obstruction (tree, fence, building, etc.)’’ and ‘‘it should be at least 100 feet from any paved or concrete surface’’ (Observing Systems Branch 1989). If a station meets these guidelines or even if any attempt to come close to these guidelines was made, it is clear that a station would be far more likely to be located in a park cool island than an industrial hot spot.
And that's it. But, as we know, Anthony Watts has surveyed US weather stations and found that they are not even close to being compliant with the guidelines, a finding which makes a mockery of the claims in the Peterson paper, even leaving aside some of the other problems with the paper.
Don't get me wrong here. I doubt very much whether a properly calculated UHI correction would make a significant difference to the warming trend observed in recent decades. My point is not that you can pin a large number of the size of the UHI effect, but that you can pin quite a small one on the reliability of Skeptical Science.
Reader Comments (86)
"scepticalscience" is single interest blog started and run by a cartoonist (!!). It may claim that it is the single repository of all the "facts" and will "set you straight", but that in itself should set you alarm bells ringing.
Anyone who claims it is some opinion neutral site has immediately tipped their own hand.
From my limited review of a few of the "scientific facts" at "scepticalscience", I would say it is as biased as the IPCC.
skepticalscience is atrocious! Their list of arguments, purportedly from sceptics, and the imaginary "what the science really says" responses should give you an idea. Take a look.
Craig Good has become skeptical of the politics, but not of the science. He'll learn.
================
How difficult would it be to construct an opposing list (perhaps using the same numbering system - although we would not want to precliude our adding topics to the list that have not been included on the skeptical science list)? I would have thought that a lot of the argguments have already been well-rehearsed.
He says
'The net effect of our increased CO2 output is accelerated warming of the planet'
What does he mean by accelerated?
First you have warming (getting hotter)
The you have increased warming ( first derivative= getting hotter quicker)
Then accelerated warming (second derivative = getting hoter quicker, quicker)
Which just ain't true. Its a stretch to even show the basic premise, no eidence on the first derivative and absolutley no way on the second.
He makes some other good points, but needs to brush up on his maths/physics stuff.
Jun 19, 2011 at 9:41 AM Phillip Bratby wrote
quote
From my limited review of a few of the "scientific facts" at "scepticalscience", I would say it is as biased as the IPCC.
unquote
It's making a point certainly, sticking to a party line, but that's hardly unknown in the climate argument. The title is a bit misleading, though -- sceptical it isn't, not according to any of my dictionaries.
My problem with it is that asking a question there was like dealing with a machine. I make point A, machine responds with response B. I amplify and explain, machine responds with response B. I broaden my point, point out errors in response B, ask for verification of response B. Machine responds with response B. I'm really interested in the attribution of rising CO2 levels, but in the end I gave up because I was unable to make sense of the answers. Perhaps it's just me -- my mind can't grasp their argument..
My question was this: in a system where there are many unknown fluxes, how can we attribute the rise in CO2 to anthropogenic emissions? And what is the mysterious mechanism which removes 55%? If huge fluxes plus and minus are occuring, why are we not like a little boy peeing into a reservoir during a cloudburst and worrying that we'll make the dam break?
It's on their point 65 'it's not us' thread if anyone would care to check that my admittedly biased account is an approximation to the truth.
JF
In the light of revelations this week, about the suns influence on climate, read Skepticalscience's dismissal of the sun as a contributing factor........
Skeptical Science is misnamed as it shows no skepticism at all when it comes to the 'Teams' work even if they make no sense . These 'prohibits' are treated as simply unchallengeable and certainly not subject to critical review which is supposed to be a corner stone of science .
The AGW faithful love it becasue it does nothing but bolster their faith, it certainly never challenges it in any meaningful way , and they can claim its 'independent' from the those working the science.
Its value can be judge in one simply way , by frequent use of it as a source of referral by 'Team' members and hard core supports of AGW.
Skepticalscience has always been nothing more than a crib sheet for the global warming faithful. Everything it puts out is designed to back up the consensus view. I have never, on any visit I have made there, found so much as a shred of uncertainty, balance or critical thinking.
Perhaps they have changed. Perhaps now they present a more even-handed appraisal of the issues, findings, data and hypotheses. Maybe I should go back. But if it's anything like the site I discovered in my early ramblings in the fields of climate science, it's a propaganda tool. Nothing more.
Skepticalscience is also relied upon as a source by ZDB, which explains why she cannot respond to questions, ignores them, and reverts to personal attacks.
Schmidt has given up trying to defend the Hockey Stick, Skepticalscience has not.
As a Brit, we are used to celebrating heroic failure. The americans are not, with one exception, The Alamo.
Skepticalscience may not be a US site, but it is becoming the "safe" refuge for AGW alarmists, if they want to have their Alamo moment, so be it, if they are convinced that the science of AGW is more robust than the defences of the Alamo
Lubos's opinion on the Skeptical Scence points is here:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html
ScepticalScience is one of those sites you visit a few times, have a laugh and add it to your propaganda infowar list. Worth keeping an occasional eye on just to work out what the latest propaganda initative is. It's rarely subtle.
It's an alarmist "playbook" site.
Pointman
[Snip]
The statements made in articles at SkepticalScience are all backed up by cited peer-reviewed articles by experts, published in the relevant scientific journals (you know, the ones that are actually about climate). Ultimately, if you don't like the conclusions in an SkS article, follow up with the references, which are linked whenever possible.
But if you just don't like scientists, then what is there to say?
I guess someone is trying to take the heat off the SS site by diverting the thread into a bit of ad hom. SS. Schutz Staffel, somehow quite apposite I fancy ...
Pointman
So Skeptical science = Climate scientists, depends on which climate scientists doesn't it.
I am not allowed to post over at Skeptical non-Sense. The owner apparently doesn't like my links to peer reviewed literature that refutes his non-Sense.
Ultimately, if you don't like the conclusions in an SkS article, follow up with the references, which are linked whenever possible.
The Pal reviewed one's don't count.
But if you just don't like scientists, then what is there to say?
Jun 19, 2011 at 12:02 PM | Neal J. King
The planet did warm during the 90's. Since then, not a lot has happened. Where is this explained by AGW scientists? What happened to the tipping points, and accelerated warming?
Why can't the scientists make their unadjusted data available?
Why do they have to adjust their data anyway?
Why haven't any of their predictions come true?
Why do AGW scientists always exaggerate, contrary to scientific principles?
Why are their reports riddled with uncertainties, if they are so confident?
I do not doubt that they believe it is true, but belief is not science
Where is the science, when simple common sense observations suggest nothing significant is happening, that has not happened within living memory, and recorded history?
Everything pointed to a Medieval Warm Period, I knew about it at school 30 years ago. Why was it necessary to try to eradicate it from the history books? It is still there, and will be long after Mann has been erased from the scientific record.
Please explain why the sun is not the major factor in influencing climate change, fell free to refer to Skepticalscience, alongside recent scientific reports about the sun, which may of course be wrong
How will you explain to your grandchildren that you were part of a movement that tried to wreck the economic development of the world and condemned millions to die from a lack of clean drinking water?
Jun 19, 2011 at 12:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterNeal J. King:
"But if you just don't like scientists, then what is there to say?"
What a strange comment to make. Many of us who comment here are hard scientists. I love hard scientists who produce real falsifiable science and use evidence. I love Feynman; I regularly go back and look at his lectures, my copy of the 3 volumes being well-thumbed since my university days.
"But if you just don't like scientists, then what is there to say?"
Speaking for myself, I love climate scientists.
They all remind me Thrasyllus, that scientist in I, Claudius.
What was it that he would say? "The charts never lie!"
GC
"I do not doubt that they believe it is true"
I'm not so sure. I think some (and many of their hangers-on) are simply opportunists, and having stated a position, are now stuck with defending it.
As John Cook inadvertently spilled the beans, Skeptical Science has a user registration feature (I think I am a 'member') and follows a moderation policy to keep out the 'deniers'. Due to this subtle chokehold at the entry point, and for whatever other reason, there are no skeptical commenters consistently posting there. So yes, it is a safe haven there - lots of 'science' all put into boxes, no deniers arguing and making noise. Little wonder that there is a concerted attempt to funnel newcomers to that website.
Somehow when I step into skepticalscience, I get a feeling I've entered nursery school - all the colorful benches are neatly arranged, all the kids are standing with their pressed uniforms smiling, and the teacher is off to one corner, with a cane in her hand and there is two naughty denier kids in the punishment corner.
hmmm.... I thought, by the authors tone, that he might be open to discussion. I have posted there, 5 hours ago, and I am still in moderation. Not a good sign...
Its the weekend, so I will give it the benefit of the doubt..
Bish
I strongly object to Phinnie posting under this alias:
Jun 19, 2011 at 11:53 AM | Unregistered Commenter OhNoNotAnotherBBDcomment
@Jun 19, 2011 at 12:53 PM | golf charley
A good check list of the fallacies in Neal J. King's position. (And Zed's, though thankfully we have been spared her thus far).
But it is also worth reminding ourselves that, even if some of these über-scientists have actually got Nobel prizes (Oh wait.......) and even if we are all country bumpkins, it only took one ignorant little boy in the story to point out that he could see the Emperor's naked hairy butt.
And it is the 'Emperor' and his entourage who are advocating spending Trillions on stuff that even a yokel can understand costs a fortune and just doesn't work.
It isn't our fault that the likes of Jim "Death Train" Hansen, Mikey "Meltdown" Mann and Keith "One Tree" have gone overboard to trash the standing of "Scientists" in the informed public's eyes. But trust takes a long time to build and only a few moments to destroy.
If you went into a very posh and highly reviewed restaurant and happened to see a couple of sub-chefs pissing in the soup, would you return the next week or would you be a little sceptical of what they were serving up? And would that scepticism be unwarranted just because you personally couldn't boil an egg?
Martin Brumby
Man learnt how to sail to windward long before he knew why he could do it. If it had been understood, early attempts at flight, might have resembled a hang glider, rather than a flapping wing.
This is an example of science belatedly catching up with real world observations.
On the other hand, AGW has failed to find the real world observations to back up the theory.
As someone who has done a bit of yottiegating, I am not aware that charts/tidal heights have been amended due to sea level rise
Good's article is excellent, except, as BH points out, in his rather uncritical endorsement of Skeptical Science (Science of Doom is much better).
This is at the heart of it:
Skeptoid.com is run by Brian Dunning. I encountered Dunning, among other personalities when I examined 'traditional' skeptics' attitudes towards anthropogenic global warming (pdf here).
Here is an article from Brian Dunning on AGW. It is quite long. If you precis it, it can be boiled down to just one sentence: carbon di-oxide is bad because it is pollution (as represented below)
I'm not phinnie
I'm "OhNoNotAnotherBBDcomment"
For duck's Sake
Shub
The linked article was written by Craig Good.
Aside from the endorsement of Skeptical Science, which we can ignore for the moment, why do you find it so objectionable that you are now trying to delegitimise Skeptiod and by extension, Good?
Phinnie
Stop being childish.
To quote the Byrds
And I opened my heart to the whole universe and I found it was loving
And I saw the great blunder my teachers had made
Scientific delirium madness
I think there's a lot of scientific delerium madness involved in so called climate science.
The statements made in articles at SkepticalScience are all backed up by cited peer-reviewed articles by experts,
Jun 19, 2011 at 12:02 PM | Neal J. King
We will see you and raise you 5 peer reviews not done by mates of mates!
Neal, when it comes to "Climate Science" you wonder why we are sceptical? Try reading the HSI written by the guy who runs this blog! Maybe, just maybe the lights will switch on!
Maybe, just maybe the lights will switch on!
Jun 19, 2011 at 5:08 PM | Pete H
Not necessarily, if he is relying on wind power for the electricity
"AGW has reached the status of scientific theory because of the converging lines of evidence, and because it not only fits the data but is able to make correct predictions."
Is AGW an actual theory or is it still at hypothesis stage? I read recently that it is a hypothesis rather than a theory (can't remember if it was this site or another). Or does this not really matter? He refers to "theory" as a status that has been reached, suggesting that somehow it gives AGW more credibility. Sorry if this is obvious to some of you but I'm trying to understand the issues and many on here seem extremely knowledgeable about this subject.
Serge, to be frank, most practising scientists will not spend a lot of time worrying about whether something is a theory or a hypothesis - in many respects, these are just synonyms. I would say that AGW as presented in reports by Working Group 1 of the IPCC is a large number of interconnected theories. One central theory is that rising concentrations of CO2 can cause an increase in mean global temperatures. Another theory is that this increase will be significant - let's say more than two degrees C per doubling of the concentration of CO2. From the point of view of the theory of knowledge, a more interesting question than whether these are theories or hypotheses is how much these theories are expected to be correct based on other things we know, how many correct predictions have been made based on these theories that cannot easily be explained in any other way, or so on. In these respects, the first theory I mention above has quite a lot of supprt - the second has some, but how much is disputed.
@Serge,
At best, it's what's called a conjecture. A theory has at least some backup from real world data. That's to say, it's falsifiable.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/the-death-of-the-agw-belief-system/
Pointman
BBD,
Think about it,....why would you even come to the conclusion that I wouldn't know that the article was by Craig Good?
And why would you conclude that I was trying to 'smear' Good by associating him with Brian Dunning?
About Good's article, Omnologos put it far better than I could. Good doesn't really say *why* he became convinced (sometimes that can be difficult, I agree, but Good doesn't try in his article). As a result, Good's position is of one who was "struck on the way to Damascus by Saint Peter Gleick, and found the Revelation in skepticalscience" (omnologos). This is the basic position Good is in: of someone convinced by Gleick. He has a lot of work to do ( and I am not sure it will all even help).
Where I will diverge from him however, is in my added evaluation of Good's article: there are a number of pieces where I see efforts to convince libertarians and thick-headed individualists of climate change. These are appearing more recently, and I have evidence as to why it is happening. I don't know whether Good's article is one in the same vein (my own feeling is that it is not), but it broadly falls in the same category.
I am completely unmoved by such propaganda pieces.
Moreover, if I precis Good article (down to two sentences), this is what I get: I am a libertarian. I listened to Peter Gleick, read skepticalscience and became convinced of anthropogenic global warming. Beyond that, there is really nothing there.
"AGW has reached the status of scientific theory because of the converging lines of evidence, and because it not only fits the data but is able to make correct predictions."
I am presuming the above line [in parentheses] is from that abominable site, Septic Science and I've deliberately deleted the K.
AGW, is a conjecture [beat me to it pointman!], it is not a: 'scientific theory'.
CAGW [catastrophic Anthropogenic, global warming], is a pompous postulation, made up, supported and exaggerated by men and women who have other aims and goals in mind but use AGW as a vehicle to further their preposterous political ambitions.
Browbeating and cowing ignorant mankind's existential perpetuation, with threats of pestilence, famine and death by all sorts of temporal, corporeal, spiritual and ethereal doom-saying - would be familiar to all humans throughout our short and very violent history from the time of Adam and up to the present day.
CAGW is just another of these "Armageddon" doomsday scenarios and as usual, a lot of people [initially] fell for it.
Shub
I didn't come to the conclusion etc - I simply wanted to remind others that you were now talking about who runs Skeptiod.
You may think that your earlier post was subtle, but really it wasn't. You were saying:
Skeptiod = Dunning = ye olde 'CO2 as pollutant' meme = bad
Skeptiod = Good (the man)
Therefore
Good = bad ;-)
Good does explain how he became convinced. He says that he took a long, hard look at the aggregate evidence and was persuaded. Because he is a proper, open-minded sceptic.
His article is bursting with common sense and had an equal amount of admonition for both sides which makes it highly unusual and unusually praiseworthy. Except for the uncritical treatment of Skeptical Science. Which is pretty much what BH said in the first place.
Good grief. 'Skeptoid'. Skeptoid. Skeptoid. Skeptoid!
BBD,
I did not post the comment on Dunning to insidiously brainwash readers (?!).
"took a good hard look and become convinced" is not an explanation. Especially when we know that the "good look" consists of reading SS.com articles.
Craig Good is a Pixar guy who 'networked' with Dunning. Dunning visited Pixar studios, it appears, and now Good writes a piece for Skeptoid. I think it is honestly written, well written etc, but, if you distill the article - you are really left with nothing. Most of the piece is only politics - all very sensible indeed, but evaporates if you attempt to boil down the article to its climate change essentials.
Look at Good's advice to the 'left': If they took all his (very sensible sounding) advice: the entire climate debate will be finished.
For eg., Good says "Look at the data". What "looking at the data" is going to convince me in to fold over
to AGW? Which data? The 'data' in SS.com?
Think, that you don't know anything about the climate and you started reading SS.com. What do you think would happen? That is exactly happened with Craig Good. That, and some post-conference brain-freshening.
Shub
We still end up with:
- believe none of it
- believe some of it
- believe all of it
The rigorous sceptic ends up in the middle.
BBD - what do you consider proven about the AGW conjecture? Thanks
BBD is the troyan horse from the warmists..
let her explain what she thinks of 10:10, Al Gore's inconvenient truths, and of UHI 's skewering of the data.
too many posts of BBD ..
looks a lot like the 2 pedantic posters @ delingpole's
I see no evidence to suppose that Craig Good was ever an informed sceptic. Quite the opposite, in fact.
- His 'many good reasons' are a rationale for a priori scepticism only, and mix up science and policy.
- He deals in sweeping generalisations, which is more characteristic of 'believers' than informed sceptics, who tend to focus on specifics.
- Mickey Mann's Hokey Schtick is not among his reasons for scepticism. It is evident that he has never read Climate Audit or the HSI. He didn't even mention Climategate or any of the many IPCC controversies specifically.
- His "friends on the Right" points are boringly predictable clichés, straight out of the warmist playbook.
So the story seems to be that an uninformed sceptic has become an equally uninformed 'believer', largely because the 'believers' got to him first.