Friday
Sep092011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Make haste more slowly
Sep 9, 2011 Climate: Models What fun - readers point out that some revisions are to be made to the Dessler paper in the light of comments made by Roy Spencer. I wonder if Steve M's comments will have an effect too?
Reader Comments (289)
Dessler's 2010 Science paper should be withdrawn. That Dessler, ‘Google Science Communication Fellow’, should make much of correlation coefficients close to zero in 'Science' is laughable, that he should apparently do this with data selected to prove a point is, well, not science. I hope that the ‘Google Science Communication Fellow’ has a good video to explain everything.
I wonder what Wolfgang Wagner must be thinking and feeling now?
Remote Sensing have been exonerated and GRL have been embarrassed by the antics of the Team.
Should we feel sorry for Wolfgang after sacrificing his credibility unnecessarily so for the Team?
Next time their is a GEWEX meeting, workshop or conference will there be blood and snotters when Trenberth and Wagner meet.
It comes to something when Roy Spencer does a retrospective peer-review of Dessler's paper because the original peer-reviewers only did a pal-review.
Phillip Bratby Sep 9, 2011 at 3:34 PM
"It comes to something when Roy Spencer does a retrospective peer-review of Dessler's paper because the original peer-reviewers only did a pal-review."
Exactly and the real gain of the situation is that Dr Spencer is not crowing about it, he is just getting on with it and reporting the facts of his conversations with Dessler.
Lessons to be learnt here, I wonder if any will bear fruit?
I should have added that the main gain is the cooperation, because I am prepared to bet that at present both think that they are right!
With a bit of luck maybe both will gain from the cooperation and therefore we all will.
David Whitehouse damns Dessler 2010 showing it's nonsense.
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3813-resignations-and-cloud-confusion.html
What fun, oh yes!
Is Alex J Dessler (former editor of GRL) any relation to Andy Dessler?
Gun....foot........STOP!
Its like that Mother in Law joke from years ago! She is coming to visit and is compared to an Exocet missile..You know she is coming but here is B*gger all you can do about it!
Must do a deal on bulk popcorn and sit back!
I must disagree with Roy on one thing...."unless a few of you physicist-types out there get involved and provide some truly independent analysis of all this, the few of us out here who are revealing why the IPCC climate models being used to predict global warming are nowhere close to having been “validated”, are going to lose this battle."
Roy, whilst we have quality like yourself (and others) and the army of sceptical bloggers versus the "Team"... trust me, the underfunded sceptical side will just keep embarrassing them forever! Its a matter of the "physicist-types", you call on growing a pair and I am not sure how the team have such a hold over the honest scientists guys you call upon!
Imagine, Obama today announcing more money printing as the FBI hit one of his Solar Panel, grabbing companies, that have wasted the the tax payers money now announcing bankruptcy !
Mac, I think Casualty units at hospitals around the world may see a sudden rise in gunshot wounds, mainly self inflicted, and to the feet, with Wagner, limping badly, at the front of the queue.
The RC thread that saw Mosher take some flak has gone a bit quiet, so to has Skeptical Science
By the way Dr Spencer, we all realise that this is just puff stuff from them over AR5
David Holland nailed it over at your place with his comment....
"David Holland says:
September 5, 2011 at 3:18 PM
"For those who may not know the IPCC process, you should be aware that it begins with a “zero draft”. Those for AR5 WGI are now completed, but despite European law saying they should available to the public and despite the IPCC Principle of openness and transparency, British public authorities are planning to block requests for their disclosure. The Met Office has already refused even to name any authors or reviewers of these zero drafts. "
This is the way they treat taxpayers? Now, who was on here the other day begging to us to await AR5 Richard? Shame on you for being involved with this con! Maybe you should ask Dr Spencer first!
I am looking forward to Bob Ward's spin on this one
Sorry, meant to say google "bob ward dessler" for Bob's attack on Spenser in Aug Huff Post.
Is there a special sort of scraper for removing large amounts of egg from smug faces?
Ah... but are the refutations going to get into the MSM?
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/210434/20110908/roy-spencer-climate-change.htm
"A study published this week in Geophysical Research Letters disproves recent claims that clouds are the root cause of climate change.
"The bottom line is that clouds have not replaced humans as the cause of the recent warming the Earth is experiencing," Dessler said. "I hope my analysis puts an end to this claim that clouds are causing climate change," he added.
There are no heroes in this (neither side has taken into account the Standard Atmosphere, and its implications--except me with my clear and simple Venus/Earth comparison), and it is just one scene in a cavalcade of emerging nonsense in high places. Peer review itself is going to be indicted in the public mind, and very rightly so. The more that comes out, and not just between Spencer and Dessler, the more embarrassed will be not just the alarmist consensus, but the lukewarm believers in the greenhouse effect as well--and EVERY ACADEMIC physical scientist who has let that false science rise to the top, and even taught it to their students (much less, authoritatively defended it in public). Cognitive dissonance, or avoidance behavior, is rampant among interested academics now: Roger Pielke Sr., for example, in his blog article today, is telling everyone that harping about the size of the "climate sensitivity" is irrelevant to what really matters (so the science of the effect underpinning the whole consensus, doesn't matter). Such a fool. So many fools, so little time for them to enjoy the respect they take so much for granted.
I'll bet our Kev is obsessively reading 'denier' blogs.
Oh, the shame
Isn't this fun?
Roy's long-time critic Barry Bickmore responds to Spencer's latest on his blog.
Proper sceptics will of course check out both sides of the story, and then we can all wait with interest for the revised Dessler draft to appear formally in GRL.
I think BBD should resign from something (suspend his Scientism Card?) for allowing this to happen right under his uninfomed nose... or something. That is the only way he can retain his scientificish integrity.
Andrew
"Festina lente or σπεῦδε βραδέως (speude bradeos) is a classical adage and oxymoron meaning "make haste slowly" or "more haste, less speed". It has been used as the motto of many people including the emperors Augustus and Titus, the Medicis and the Onslows"
Hope it is ok to copy & paste from Wiki.
Always loved this phrase. So much wisdom in just two words..
I think Dessler is showing that at least some climate "scientists" can actually act like scientists. He has agreed to amend his draft after having errors pointed out to him. I don't think Dr Mann has ever conceded that any of his errors (e.g. The rain in Spain) were errors.
Sensitivity is their Achilles heel. Spencer knows it and can afford to be magnanimous.
Re BBD
Why doesn't Bickmore respond in a journal like a proper scientist would? I thought only peer review provided the true path to enlightenment.
Since Spencer pointed our errors in Dessler's paper in a blog, shouldn't the editor-in-chief of GRL resign?
And send an apology note to Trenberth?
This is a time for critics of climate science (aka sceptics) to celebrate. However, we must keep things in perspective. Spencer and Dessler should not be viewed as two angry brothers who have reconciled. Spencer has always been doing the right thing as scientist and professional. He has carried the torch against corruption in science at great personal expense to himself. By contrast, it just might be true that Dessler has placed the needs of The Team ahead of science and professionalism. Maybe what we are seeing is Spencer deprogramming a member of The Team.
Bad Andrew
Weak, even by your standards
Atomic ;-)
Sep 9, 2011 at 4:13 PM | Pete H
Is this part of what David Holland would be looking for?
https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/AR5/wg1authors.pdf
Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors and Review Editors
Does this mean that John Abrahams comments, reported in the Guardian and Daily Climate, about Dr. Spencer constantly having to correct errors and revise work, are in fact correct?
Just not in the way Abrahams originally intended?
Re BBD
It's Friday :)
One potentially good thing is it looks like Spencer and Dessler are collaborating and working on improving the science. Now if only the blog warriors could start doing the same, then the holy wars could be ended.
BBD
What was that about Spencer allowing his Christianity to influence his research and thereby commit errors?
Imagine that - you believe in God and therefore you do climate sensitivity research. Who would've thought of that?
BBD is one train of thought late in his link to BB... Lots of things have happened since the Bickmore post!
Arthur Dent
'The rain in Maine falls mainly in the Seine'.
I believe this is the original posting by Steve McIntyre of the awesome couplet.
http://climateaudit.org/2005/03/04/cubasch-2-and-replication-12/
TomRude
Let's see how it pans out, shall we?
Atomic I'm not sure how deep the collaboration runs, but yes, it's encouraging. Schmidt said something to the same effect at RC, although he was talking about the beneficial effects of critiques by reviewers on the ultimate quality of a paper.
Shub as is often the case, your comment falls short of making complete sense. But hi all the same.
Has any one of my comments made sense to you?
No.
Imagine a Creationist pointing out errors to a Warmist.
Ha Ha.
Shub
Actually, you don't accept evolution, do you? Or at least you didn't last time this came up on another blog.
Also, if you suspect that your comments are frequently baffling to me, why not:
- improve the syntax
- change the content so that it fits with a logical and rational approach to interpreting reality
BBD,
Weren't you the one who said that Spencer has published his SB11 paper to suit his Christian beliefs? I looked briefly for that post - cannot find it now.
Shub
Not sure. The nearest I can definitely remember was linking to Sourcewatch. I'm not being coy about it though - I do suspect that Spencer's religious convictions may at least in part inform his certainty about man's inability to significantly damage the Earth. Why shouldn't they? What matters here is whether he can muster up convincing proof of low climate sensitivity. Now that he has not done.
"muster up convincing proof"
I've been waiting for Warmers to do this for about 10 years now.
Andrew
You didn't read (with your third eye open etc) the Laughlin essay, did you?
You, as opposed to the Christian Roy Spencer, are worried about "about man's ability to significantly damage the Earth"?
"damage the Earth"?
Shub
As I said yesterday, I read the essay. And found it to be a decent enough synopsis of climate in the context of geological time.
Laughlin isn't wrong, but he isn't exactly frank about the probable negative effects on humanity and the ecosystem of a sustained increase in atmospheric CO2.
Certainly the Earth doesn't care. But we do, surely?
Can it be that Laughlin has constructed his exposition in a way that allows him to gloss over this?
But Bickmore a Mormon, right? /BBD logic
mark
'probable negative effects on humanity and the ecosystem of a sustained increase in atmospheric CO2.'
= 30-50% increased crop yield and growth vigour in all the main world grain crops.
= longer nighttime frost-free conditions and shorter growing seasons thus increased extent of latitudinal cultivable acreage.
mark t
As I said above, it doesn't matter what Spence or Bickmore believe. What matters is whether Spencer can make a scientific case. Bickmore doesn't think so and gives his reasoning.
The problem with what Spencer is doing is that he is promoting a belief in a low climate sensitivity (which may be informed by his faith, but it doesn't matter). Promoting. Not proving.
This causes a great deal of confusion, ably amplified by those who find it politically expedient to do so (principally in the US right-wing media, but elsewhere too).
It's hardly surprising that other scientists in the field take great exception to this. Of course they've been doing it to, but this is the real world. That's what happens when the stakes are high.
It's good to see a little to-ing and fro-ing between Spencer and Dessler, I hope they publish a joint comment or paper. No-one has a monopoly of being right, but they can all illuminate each others work. It seems to me that science actually moves better (certainly quicker) in blogs, particularly in the open discussion one's like Judy Currys, Lucia's etc
Pharos
I say:
You say:
Well, this is a relief. There's nothing to worry about after all. Do you have a link for the source of this good news?
It just doesn't matter what a scientist's politics, ethics, sexual preferences, religion and favor colors are.
Look at a scientist's work product and in course of analysis any bias can be seen. If bias is found, then a correction is made. That is the scientific process. That means through its process science just doesn't care what a scientist's politics, ethics, sexual preferences, religion or favor colors are.
I find the recurring fixation on Spencer's theology to be bigoted and prejudiced. I would think that it is quite common for scientists to have theological views. So what? What is going on, do I see the beginning of the formation of a new agenda for a Politically Correct climate science police enforcing atheistic scientists only? What is next, persecuting scientists for liking the color pink?
John
BBD
Its not controversial- CO2 and crop yield. There are hundreds of studies. I'm surprised you are unaware. But I am not about to embark on a Malvolio-Toby Belch ding dong on it on this thread
BBD, you said,
Before that, you said,
??
You think man is going to damage the earth? or not?
Festina lente indeed. We have seen it enough in climate change "science", so don't be surprised if Mr D throws the toys out of the pram and the newly-found co-operation becomes a stillbirth.
The story is encouraging as it sounds so far, but far from finished.
And by the way...any scientist going around proclaiming their atheism has obviously not understood enough of the world as yet.
The claim that scientific work by Christians is influenced by their Christian beliefs is simple bigotry. The claim that particular Christian beliefs of a scientist do appear in his work in a substantive way is not necessarily bigotry. It is not bigotry if the complaint is about the particular claims in question and their particular character rather than being about the fact that they are Christian.
Well Bickmore's riposte seemed to home in obsessively on the choice of models that Spencer used. Since that is the meme that has been used obsessively round the WWW by commentators such as Norwegian rat and Dhogaza, it hardly stands as compelling argumentation.
More compelling is Mosher's argument that climate scientists need to act like scientists. And I would flag the comments of McIntye and Motl that these papers are lacking in importance because they do not show anything very much.