Bishop Hill Bradley interview
Aug 13, 2011 Books Climate: Mann Climate: Statistics Raymond Bradley is interviewed by Insider Higher Ed.
The story seems to be that the Hockey Team emphasised the doubts and caveats over their findings
Q: The debate around your study looking at past climate patterns seemed to explode after you extended it to include projections going all the way back to 1000. In hindsight, do you think this was overreaching? From a purely political standpoint, did this hurt the case for climate change?
A: Our reconstruction of temperatures over the last 1000 years was titled, "Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations" (Geophysical Research Letters 26, 759–762; 1999). In the abstract, we stated: "We focus not just on the reconstructions, but on the uncertainties therein, and important caveats" and noted that "expanded uncertainties prevent decisive conclusions for the period prior to AD 1400." We concluded by stating: "more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached."
This is true, but of course the earlier paper MBH98 was not similarly caveated. The other point to recognise is that any caveats and uncertainties were dropped long before Mann completed his work on the IPCC Third Assessment Report.
Bradley also steers into the realm of economics, claiming that controlling greenhouse gases will create new industries and jobs. True, but his erroneous conclusion that such controls are therefore good for the economy brings us back, once more, to the broken windows fallacy.
Reader Comments (15)
'True, but his erroneous conclusion that such controls are therefore good for the economy brings us back, once more, to the broken windows fallacy.'
Yes, indeed - or, to put things in another, more topical way:- the London riots must be a good thing, because of all the jobs that will be created clearing up the mess, not to mention all the police and justice system overtime created!
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
The further he strays from the science towards the green religion that underpins it the wider the fractures grow!
His palace is built upon sand.
If I didn't know the history, or done any due diligence (and, of course, if I hadn't read THSI), this insidious piece of "journalism" would definitely persuade me in the direction of thought that the evil skeptics were off their rockers.
Clearly Bradley has taken some rhetorical lessons from the pages of "revisionist scholars" such as David Irving. And how ironic is that, considering that those of us who dare to question are (in some quarters) labelled as "deniers"?!
"From a purely political standpoint"
Strange standpoint for a scientist being asked to take. Is the politicization not one of the points the sceptics have been complaining about for sometime? True, unbiased science and access to the data and methods would be much more relevant.
We all know the uncertainties were hidden by Mann etc. There seem to be quite a few back-peddling at the moment!
It may well be that Michael Mann's emails from the University of Virginia are going to be released upon the public shortly. I cannot imagine that there would be anything in them that will be that controversial despite the frenzied efforts of UV to resist their release. However, there is bound to be a bit of "readjustment" of positions just in case there is someting explosive.
I wonder if they will take the Palin option and release them in paper format?
I recall this description of Bradley from a Climategate email:
Damage limitation. It is saddening that people active in a scientific field have been reduced to this. But there is no doubt that they have sowed the wind, and so perhaps they are now starting to see the tornadoes forming all around them.
Speaking of ifs, buts and qualifications, this is from the Met Office website on the subject of Advanced climate modelling for policy makers:
"Our simulations show that a peak in greenhouse gas emissions in the first decades of the 21st century, followed by 50% cuts in emissions by 2050, are compatible with a 2 °C global warming limit (RCP 2.6). This backs up results from simpler models and considerably increases our confidence in this key conclusion.
Even so, it's important to bear in mind that these results come from just one model. Some additional processes still need to be included, and the results need to be compared with similar models as they are developed around the world."
...and on the subject of climate modelling it says:
"The latest climate models predict similar possible global average temperature changes to models used 10 to 15 years ago, ranging from 1.6-4.3C (2.9-7.7F) in the current best estimates using a mid-range emissions scenario.
However, we are much more confident about these ranges. Using Met Office models we have even been able to start to assign probabilities to more dangerous high temperature changes at the upper end of this range that could arise if climate turns out to be very sensitive to increased greenhouse gases."
So plenty of get out phraseology there for the Met Office if/when Professors Salby`s research hits the fan.
Very thin interview IMO which shows Bradley's fear and disdain of open scrutiny:
"Regrettably, politics intrudes on almost all aspects of our research nowadays. This has been driven by ideologues on the right and the left, and fueled by the easy access to data and records on the Internet."
If their work was of any quality this could read:
"Easy access to data and records on the Internet has enabled our work to be verifed by anybody who cares to look and as a result it has prevented the inescapable scientific conclusions from being hijacked by ideologues on the right and the left."
In the same vein, it's a shame he didn't provide the references for the "many studies (which) have shown that taking steps to control greenhouse gases can be very good for economic growth," so we could take a look and see if we agree.
And, Derek Quizon, if you are reading please can you provide the numbers to support your assertion ..."the vast majority of scientists) take climate change seriously".... Thanks.
Not exactly a probing interview. Bradley comes across as one who is eager to have has ball back and would the inconvenient and rude sceptics who are insisting on open access to data and scientific integrity please bugger off and leave him alone to play his game in his way.
Not surprisingly, in order to retain even a minimum of scientific credibility amongst those of us who understand the importance of error budgets in any result (and that is a community much larger than niche scientists, since engineers, medicine and many other mainstream endeavors require understanding how confident a conclusion is before you apply to a bridge, a drug or chemo treatment, an airplane wing, or a new rocket that launches satellites up over the Eastern Coast of America).
This has been, as I have said for years now, all about the uncertainty and how it expands enormously as you go back historical. Heck, local temperature readings (upon which the AGW house of cards stands) decay in regional accuracy over 50-100 km even today (unless you use satellites which enforce a common measurement regime on the surface of the Earth and its air column).
It's good to see these hyperventilating exaggerators come back down to reality and admit they never once had the data to make any claims comparing today to 1960 - let alone the Medieval or Roman periods.
Dear BH,
You hit the fundamental bull's eye with your reference to the concept of 'the broken windows fallacy'.
It is an economic concept that really hits home with the public. Elegant and concise.
We owe thanks to H. Hazlitt’s little book ‘Economics in One Lesson’ for documenting the concept so well.
John
Spin. Pure spin. I'm amazed that Bradley, Mann and the whole team aren't dizzy.
These guys are all politics, all the time. You just have to laugh when they complain about politics interfering with their science. Without politics, they have no 'science'.
"It is hard to imagine how much more explicit we could have been about the uncertainties in the reconstruction"
Just tell how the 'two standard error limits (shaded)' were calculated! :)
Jobs are a cost!