Bishop Hill Wunsch on Nature
May 4, 2012 Journals This from a reader:
I saw a talk by Carl Wunsch at Wolfson College, Oxford this evening. He's probably best known outside of his field (oceanography) for disagreeing with how his views were represented in "The Great Global Swindle". He's somewhat equivocal on the certainty of AGW, maintaining that anyone who claims to be able to forecast the climate even a decade or two ahead doesn't know what they're talking about. Of course that cuts both ways so "deniers" (he included the quotation marks) can take no comfort in such ignorance and certainly not use it as the basis for inaction. He's broadly in favour of precautionary measures.
Anyway, that was fairly general ho-hum. The money-quotes came late on when he talked about "the Nature-Science problem". He seemed faintly disgusted by the lengths to which some climate scientists will go to get published in Nature or Science with the attendant publicity, media appearances and so on. He sometimes found it difficult to tell which of the Daily Mail and Nature was the peer-reviewed journal and which the tabloid. Nonetheless, he said, his colleagues reassure him that just because something appears in Nature doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.
Reader Comments (104)
Simon Anthony: I agree with you about the precautionary principle being about the detail but not necessarily that I was unfair on Wunsch. If Wunsch said "I am broadly in favour of precautionary measures but of course I must make clear that this does not include emission controls of any kind" then I have indeed been unfair on the good professor. But I doubt very much he did or you would have passed that on. It is in that little omission that the fault lies - and boy does it lie.
@ johanna
"the precautionary principle is based on the absurd notion that we should only ever do or allow anything if it is proved to be safe"
In some applications, yes you're right. But like all "principles" its use depends on the balance of forces involved in its interpretation. While extremists on one side may wish to forbid everything, on the other may allow everything. Those of more balanced mind will find ways of taking "reasonable" precautions. It's generally not true to think that the meaning of words is fixed or is the same to different people, or the same people at different times. Sometimes the meaning has to be fought over (or at any rate strongly argued).
On a related subject (I tried to post this earlier but it seems to have been put into hibernation...
@ messenger
Well, you think not building on floodplains is common sense, Prof Wunsch thinks it's an application of the PP. But, whatever you call it, the fact is that you agree that building on floodplains is a bad idea.
By all means disagree with extreme views and show them up for what they are. But it's counter-productive to respond with equally strong or ill-considered views in the opposite direction.
For example, I seem to remember the 1010 organisation came up with a spectacularly ill-judged ad campaign involving children's heads exploding, which was somehow supposed to persuade people to produce less CO2. Now, according to the Guardian, the Heartland Institute has matched that with its own foot-shooting exercise... http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder ... in which you are invited to think that because the Unabomber and Osama bin Laden were both apparently concerned about AGW, it's a dodgy proposition.
I sometimes wonder whether the more extreme people on either end of the spectrum have somehow taken control of each other's groups and are doing their very best to undermine any fragile credibility they have.
@ richard, johanna, frosty and others
I've responded to your various points but unfortunately the spam filter seems determined to keep my pearls of wisdom from you. Judging from the difficulty I have in deciphering its letters and the length of time for which it confines me to limbo, I can only conclude that I am in fact a spam-bot.
"his colleagues reassure him that just because something appears in Nature doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong."
This is what I tell me wife every time she tells me about how we are supposed to change our lives based on the latest scientific findings she hears about on the Today show which is on tv every morning here in America. ["they say ....."]
Just because she hears about it on Today doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong.
The precautionary principle implies a "burden of proof".
It could thus be said that, if it is proposed to dig up and burn all available fossil fuels, in the light of uncertain evidence that this might cause significant harm to the planet, the burden of proof is on those proposing this action to show that it is safe.
The precautionary principle is a nonsense at it does not rely on proper cost benefit analysis. The precautionary principle is based on the premise of something unknowable. The example of not building on floodplains is not based on the precautionary principle because, as was pointed out above, because there is a real and quantifiable risk associated with building on a flood plain. Knowing the risk allows a proper risk analysis of the cost and benefits and a rational financial decision is reached. Similar analysis is what underpins oil exploration, and very successfully as the existence and profitably of oil companies attests.
The precautionary principle is based on a presumption that there is a risk. Two facts distinguish it from the flood plain and other rational examples. In the precautionary principle approach:
(a) It is not known whether the risk is real or not
(b) The risk cannot be quantified
In the case of (a) we could also substitute the argument that the risk is vanishly small but real, the same argument still applies.
The problem with the precautionary principle is that it has no rational basis. It is an argument from vacuum to support a particular course of action for which there is no quantifiable evidence of the risk. Even the IPCC doesn't make the mistake of pretending it can quantify the risks which is why it talks in terms of scenarios not predictions. The Met Office is not so bright states chances and then looks stupid when the ignorance of its longer range forecasts is exposed (April rain, three cold winters in succession etc etc).
The precautionary principle is an absurd basis for planning. And if you accept the precautionary principle for climate change, why not for asteroid collision, alien invasion or the coming of the great white handkerchief? At least 2 out of those 3 have a finiie, if undefinable, risk. Climate change may have no risk of anyhting harmful happening (eg prolonging the onset of a new ice age would be good).
The further problem with the precautionary principle in the case of climate change is that it calls for the spending of very large sums of money with virtually no chance of success whatsoever. This was Bjorn Lomberg's objection to the Kyoto Treaty: he pointed out it didn't matter whether you believed climate change was real or not, the full implementation of the Kyoto Treaty was pointless because it only delayed the effect of climate change from 100 years to 106 years.
To describe not building houses on flood plains as an example of the precautionary principle, and therefore gracing that piece of fatuousness with an aura of common sense, is a piece of speciousness I find it hard to ignore.
Here is one partial definition of the 'principle' :
When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.
[source, quoted here: http://www.american.com/archive/2011/may/the-problems-with-precaution-a-principle-without-principle, where other definitions and some deployments, not least in the EU, are discussed. The essay ends While the advocates of the precautionary principle rely on the rhetoric of prudence and public health protection, they encourage the exclusive focus on one set of risks while ignoring others. Contrary to what your mother may have told you, “better safe than sorry” isn’t always safer. In fact, when it comes to policies to protect public health and the environment, this type of thinking could do us in.]
Thus if the effect is harm to the occupants of a house built on a flood plain, and the cause is rising water on a flood plain, we really do have a clear cause and effect relationship.
Digging a little further back in the causal chain, a 'flood plain' is presumably called a 'flood plain' because it is known to 'flood'. No mysteries here, no careful investigation required to show there is a problem. The precautionary principle is about acting when the possible causes of a possible problem are not well understood, and may not even be valid.
Rascals can deploy this 'principle' in order to campaign for interventions they want when they cannot make a convincing case for them. And 'solutions' more harmful than the putative 'problem' can all too readily follow.
Simon: I'm sorry that the realisation that you are a spam-bot had to come in such a abrupt way. I thought you were doing pretty well on the Turing Test myself. All the best for the future :)
@ Thinking Scientist, John Shade
I fear you are taking an extreme view. You're caricaturing a particular interpretation of the PP and suggesting that it strictly determines what actually happens. It doesn't. The application of the principle is, like all political matters, variable and debatable.
If I'm allowed to reference Wiki, the article on the PP outlines strong and weak versions, contrasts the principle and application, links to a study that identified 14 different formulations, describes two forms (strict and active), mentions the roles of cost-benefit analysis, opportunity costs and option values...
and all that before explaining that the risk of the LHC producing a black hole was so implausible that a lawsuit asking that CERN be stopped was dismissed and that the principle may be self-contradictory.
Most if not all principles are more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
@ Richard Drake
I've often thought the Turing Test is a bit tough. I know several people who'd struggle to pass it, as would I from time-to-time. Maybe best-of-three would be fairest.
With regards the PP I think people should realise that the buttons are that being pushed are quite emotional and ask if they really are talking about what is rational or just what is acceptable emotionally.
Apologies but I'm reading a couple of books that talk on this theme with a theory about post hoc rationalising emotive decisions and I hope some might think this excerpt from a book by Daniel Kahneman may prove interesting.
After he talks about some results of a survey that asked parents what discounts they would accept for a slightly less safe pesticide he found many "More than two-thirds of the parents in the survey responded that they would not purchase the new product at any price!"
He comes to this conclusion:
The Spotted One has hit the nail on the head with his example about child safety. The acceptance of the PP creates irrational decisions which paradoxically can increase other risks, such as misallocating limited resources available for safety measures, or creating Vitamin D deficiencies because of exaggerated concerns about sunlight and skin cancer. Parents are extremely vulnerable to scaremongering based on the PP, sometimes with negative consequences for their children (some anti-vaxxers use the PP as an excuse as well).
I think that making distinctions about weak and strong versions of it are a mistake. It should be opposed outright, because as has been said above, it is not in either form the same as rational risk assessment and management.
Oh, and Simon this is not directed at you personally! It's not often I get to chat with a spam-bot, let alone a nice one.
I've failed the Turing Test on numerous occasions - and that's by my own evaluation of what I've typed just minutes before. Best out of three with phone a friend?
When I was very young - 50 years ago - I used to read in newspapers about scientific theories that were reported in Nature. And I used to think that when I was older and able to understand a little more, I would be able to read this marvellous journal for myself. It was a thought I treasured as I grew up. And now, and now: "Just because something appears in Nature doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong..."
Sic transit gloria
I first read this at work, I had to get home and do a few chores before I could come on and comment. I haven't read the whole thread so forgive me if some-one has said this already. The original post says that those who are claiming to be able to predict the climate are fooling themselves, with this I am in agreement. He then goes on to claim that the "Deniers" are in the same boat. This ignores the fact that the burden of proof lies upon those making the claim. We do not have to disprove the claims of the doomsayers until they actually provide some credible evidence for their dire predictions. By saying that their evidence does not stack up, he has relieved us of any obligation to refute it.
@ haroldW
I really dislike such disparaging generalisations such as "climate scientists aren't the brightest." In the first place, it's a rather mean-spirited tone.
I couldn't disagree more, for two reasons. First, it is precisely the argument used by green activists to close down debate: climate psyentists are clever, you're not a climate psyentist, so you have no opinion.
No climate psyentist can credibly object to being told they don't measure up intellectually, because this argument is one they rely on themselves.
Secondly, it's not a rhetorical claim, but a demonstrable, factual truth. It is absolutely the case that the bar to read climate psyence (in the UK at least) is very low - a mere 300 UCAS points at UEA. The average Cambridge entrant, in comparison, has 580, which is AAAAC.
If intelligent people tell me they've studied something and here's their view, I'm easily persuaded. If a few hundred Russell Group climate scientists told me CAGW was real I'd tend to believe them. But I'm not being told this by the Russell Group. I'm being told it by people I remember from my schooldays as being stupid, suggestible and fourth-rate.
If the argument is that an authority says X, I am wholly entitled to investigate the credentials of the authority. I'm not just going automatically to accept that Phil Jones is an authority because Phil Jones says he is. If the argument rests on his credibility, or on that of his discipline, fine, let's investigate his credibility. He brought it up.
I'm all for a civil debate, but we should not, IMHO, refrain from stating unpalatable truths so ecofascists will like us. There is absolutely no need at all to be nice to any Lysenko.
you are invited to think that because the Unabomber and Osama bin Laden were both apparently concerned about AGW, it's a dodgy proposition.
This seems like a sound argument to me. If sociopaths, scrotes and criminals are in favour of something - and the CAGW consensus includes Enron, VAT fraudsters, phishing criminals, the Mafia, Enron, Ken Livingstone and David Cameron's father-in-law - and if the argument that CAGW is real is based on who believes it, why not call attention to everyone who believes it, including the riff-raff?
This is the flipside of the argument from authority. If authority strengthens the argument, crooks must weaken it. If crooks' support doesn't weaken it then neither does authorities' support strengthen it. And then we're back to Michael Crichton's view, which is fine by me.
Simon Anthony says:
"Despite its name, I'd say the debate about the precautionary principle is detail rather than principle."
I totally disagree. The PP itself is obviously an attempt to substitute propaganda tactics for reason and then call that process something like...o' say..."Post Normal Science".
@ leopard
Have you read "Freakonomics" (or "Superfreakonomics", I forget which)? The authors analyse the child car seat argument, first statistically which leads them to think that the "common sense" view (it's obvious that booster seats reduce death/serious injuries) doesn't have much evidence to back it up. Then, presumably a bit bored with their spreadsheets, they get a reluctant tester - reluctant because he thought the results were so obvious that checking wasn't needed - to try out rather small crash test dummies. They conclude that benefits are decidedly marginal.
But now of course legislation requires that booster seats be fitted and used. It would be a very brave (in the "Yes Prime Minister" sense) minister who took it upon him/herself to relax that legislation, knowing that if any child not sitting on a booster seat was subsequently ever to die or be seriously injured in a road accident, said minister would be pilloried as a child-killer.
Incidentally, the authors thought that the reason that booster seats appeared to be ineffectual was that virtually any booster seat was supposed to fit virtually any car. In practice (they thought) the mutual variations were too great to work.
Entirely BTW, I was wondering where your "nom de guerre" came from, so did the usual and found this story...http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-04-22/mumbai/31382334_1_leopard-forest-team-cage... which, as far as Google is concerned, you apart, is the only instance of "Leopard in the basement" on the entire web. It's a story about... a leopard... in a basement. The odd thing is that it's dated 22 April 2012, which is I think some time after you started that whole L-i-t-B thing.
@ Johanna
I don't think it's a good tactic to outright reject all forms of the PP because your opponents will vilify you for your callous disregard of human well-being ("will no one think of the children?"). A better approach is to redefine what the PP means in practice: perhaps it needs to be subordinated to a greater good principle (but without getting too utilitarian about it). In practice, if a nation becomes hobbled by a strong PP, it's likely to suffer by comparison with competitors with more pragmatic approaches. When that suffering becomes great enough, its people (assuming that the country is some kind of representative democracy) may find that maybe they'd like to take a chance now and then.
An interesting example of how this could go involves fracking and other non-conventional exploitation of oil and gas resources. While the US fracks, Europe builds wind turbines. The consequent relative success of the US economy will prove a stern test of European voters' assumed support of the PP. It's plausible that politicians and lawmakers will then find a more flexible version of the PP.
From the discussion, I gather that the opposite of the precautionary principle is preferred. Call it the 'permissive principle', it can be stated as:
Any action or policy may be adopted unless everyone can agree that it is harmful
Now that is guaranteed to work fine...
Odd how some continue to publish in Nature despite their banishment from journals taken over by Murdoch.
Russell
More scientists publish in Nature but the Murdochs may still be more honest overall about their product than editors of Nature are about their output. At least with the Murdochs you know what you are getting....
Richard and Simon
I'm confident I can pass a Turing Test..... so long as I am allowed a "best of seven" trial.
May 4, 2012 at 9:13 PM | Simon Anthony
Oh I wish I could point to a sensible (ish) origin like you suggested! But to maintain a minor level of crypticness I’ll just say the name came from a badly remembered Douglas Adams skit on council red tape ;) Later, to be consistent, I couldn’t be bothered to argue with the cookie remembering it – though I think it is silly and a bit cumbersome, it does help that I don’t want to be taken too seriously, though I’ll probably shorten it to “TLITB The piss artist formerly known as ;)”
Yes I remember that story in Superfreakonomics (I am a fan of all the popular social/economic/science books Gladwell, Surowiecki, Pinker, Montford etc.). That is a good example of how we get to a situation that is hard to unravel because of the investment that was put into something that turns out not to be that big a threat. Who’s going to be the bastard that can suggest trading a monetary saving against any measure of human risk?
I think there is some level of human society where we have to accept compromises when we overspend like this i.e. some level of elaboration that flatters people they are doing something useful even if they are just marginally pushing standards up a barely perceptible degree. The trick is to know when it is going too far, and the costs and effort could be better spent elsewhere with less fanfare. With the egos and posturing taking over the debate rationality really is getting lost in the mist – I think that is where the climate alarm annoys me (see - I’m just annoyed not wailing and gnashing, I’m not serious ;) ) all the idiots with their Indiana Jones hats getting arrested, or talking about ever increasing Black Swans (they forgot what Taleb means though!) and demanding and ever more elaborate societal filigree that seem mostly to suit their ego – or, even worse and more seriously, tinker around in supporting forced sterilizations in far off lands where no one can see.
To bloviate on; I think one of the problems of early twentieth first century developed societies is that all the low hanging fruit of political social, economic and scientific development seems to have now been plucked, and the noticeable improvements are mainly coming from trade, corporate and technical development. I think what we should be wary of now are the gains getting smaller and smaller yet the costs and infrastructure are getting ever more elaborate and showy to support the ever more increasing dilettantish egos we see populating the western liberal concerned set.
Even Wunsch thinks we should be interested in his exact figure of the ideal world population when, if you think about it, what his opinion counts against any other well educated westerner we know not, since how many centuries his ocean heat may hide? ;)
Still.
It is interesting to note that anyone taking out a subscription to Nature and/or Science (or popping into their local library to read them every week) would have a grandstand view of the major developments and themes in science as they happen (with amongst other things a regular early view of Nobel Prize winning work). I wouldn’t call that “pornography” so much as a rich feast!
I haven’t heard Dr. Wunsch speaking on these subjects personally and I take second hand stuff with a pinch of salt, especially on blogs. Wunsch has published quite a few papers in Nature and Science so he clearly considers that when he has something significant to say, that is of general interest, he should aim to get it into the “best” of the tabloid journals. And Nature and Science are tabloid scientific journals since they have as much comment, perspective, review as nitty-gritty scientific articles. But if you want to learn what’s happening at the scientific coalface and how this might impact on policy, history and our personal lives, one couldn’t do much better than read these journals.
I expect what Dr. Wunsch might be decrying are (i) the tendency nowadays for scientists to “have a go” at getting their stuff into Nature/Science, even when they pretty much expect that the work will end up in the perfectly good “house journal” where it probably should have been sent in the first place. In the UK that’s a consequence of the pressures to increase RAE/REF “scores” during research assessment exercises. ...and (ii) the unfortunate efforts at "corporatisation" of universities (UK also) where sometimes unseemly trumpeting of research outcomes is part of the "selling" process. Still, research chunders on apace, and one can choose to focus on what's important...
It doesn’t matter if you don’t get your paper into Nature. If it’s good enough it will be published somewhere good and if it is destined to have an impact it will have an impact wherever it ends up. As Nature itself “said” in an editorial some years ago [Nature 425, 645 (16 October 2003)], in response to some discussion/whining about perceived injustices in recognising what might be ground-breaking work:
It might be worth considering what Dr. Wunsch and his colleagues have to say about the creepy attempts to bully scientists whose work one decides isn’t to one’s taste. Here’s some excerpts from a letter Carl Wunsch published with NAS colleagues in Science a couple of years ago [7th May issue, 2010, p. 689]:
And …..following a description of “fundamental conclusions about climate change” including (and paraphrasing): (i) the planet is warming as a result of build up of greenhouse gases; (ii) these are largely a consequence of man made emissions and land use effects; (iii) natural contriibutions to climate variability are being overwhelmed by human ones; (iv) the warming planet will cause climate patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times and (v) these changes threaten our wellbeing.
@ chris
"I haven’t heard Dr. Wunsch speaking on these subjects personally and I take second hand stuff with a pinch of salt, especially on blogs."
Quite right - it's obviously sound not to go on hearsay; after all, people could just make up what others say or think.
"I expect what Dr. Wunsch might be decrying are..."
That's rather less sound, particularly when taken together with what you say just before. Nonetheless, having had the advantage of hearing Prof Wunsch discuss this topic, I agree that he likely would decry people "having a go" at being published in Nature and also the way that universities oversell such publication. However, you missed a third reason: that Nature tries to sell itself to the wider media through favouring sensational research results which, on quieter reflection, turn out to be rather less sensational or indeed unsound. The publishers of Nature are no more immune to the pleasure of being the centre of attention than scientists or university vice chancellors.
On your other post, concerning the intimidation apparently experienced by some scientists, I'd need more details of exactly what's supposed to have happened and what the evidence is before I could form a view. As I've recently read that claims by Australian climate scientists to have received email death threats turn out to have been rather exaggerated, if not worse, I think one might reasonably ask for stronger evidence than mere assertions.
As Prof Wunsch and his colleagues say in the letter from which you quote "[The scientific] process is inherently adversarial..." so they can't be altogether surprised at meeting opposition. I suspect that they have been shocked that their views have been opposed by political arguments rather than scientific ones. But if their views have political implications, this is inevitable.
When you make inherently political claims such as "Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively” with all the political and economic implications which may flow from such claims, you must be prepared to face political opposition. To then complain about being so opposed is, as someone once said about politicians bemoaning the press being unkind to them, rather like sailors complaining about the sea.
If scientists don't want to face political opposition, they should perhaps best confine what they say in public to science.
Simon says: (I've been wanting to say that on a blog forever, BTW!)
@ Johanna
I don't think it's a good tactic to outright reject all forms of the PP because your opponents will vilify you for your callous disregard of human well-being ("will no one think of the children?"). A better approach is to redefine what the PP means in practice: perhaps it needs to be subordinated to a greater good principle (but without getting too utilitarian about it). In practice, if a nation becomes hobbled by a strong PP, it's likely to suffer by comparison with competitors with more pragmatic approaches. When that suffering becomes great enough, its people (assuming that the country is some kind of representative democracy) may find that maybe they'd like to take a chance now and then.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
But Simon, you have just advocated sensible risk assessment and management, which is the opposite of the PP.
Just go on to any parents' interactive website and have a look at what is happening in the real world. Parents will almost invariably say that no cost is too high to ameliorate a miniscule risk to their child and that unless something can be 'proved to be safe' it should be banned. I'm afraid that appeals to international competitiveness would just mark you out as a heartless slave of Big Business. You would probably be accused of being a child murderer. I am not exaggerating, having done 15 rounds with a few of these irrational people and given it up as a lost cause.
Providing even a vestige of support for the PP is a mistake, IMO. It needs to be tackled head on.
"the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action"
How can such an august body as the NAS come out with such ludicrous convoluted statements like this?*
They want to be a victim so they can shame you into doing something? To cause something else to flow from their "victimhood"? This brings to mind the recent debunking of the death threats in Australia. I'm afraid that climate scientist have form when it comes to emotional blackmail. They are quite childish when they write these little whinny screeds that are really cynical attempts at political leverage.
*Rhetorical question really. I reminded myself that the letter's co-ordinator was Peter Gleick, and then the ludicrous tone of the screed became a lot clearer ;)
How proud the NAS must have been having Gleick be their spokesman ;)
@ johanna
"Simon says: (I've been wanting to say that on a blog forever, BTW!)"
From what I remember, players had to do exactly what Simon said. I think that's unlikely to happen round here (where "here" means either home or this blog).
"you have just advocated sensible risk assessment and management, which is the opposite of the PP."
I didn't mean to advocate anything; just suggest that what people see as an appropriate precaution depends on circumstances. It's true I don't spend much time on parents' websites (I have two young daughters, so don't have time enough in the day) but I'd be interested in knowing how the vaccination dilemma is resolved, or not, by the PP.
Is it suitably precautionary to have your child vaccinated even though you can never be absolutely sure that there won't be an adverse reaction or is it better not to take the jab but to risk the disease?
Chris
Even a distinguished scientist can have low points, and co-signing that letter with a bozo like Peter Gleick was definitely a low point for Dr. Wunsch.
The references to "climate change deniers" and "McCarthy-like threats" are particularly dishonest and contemptible.
Even if the letter project had not been led by a hyperventilating charlatan like Gleick the letter makes silly points and is merely an attempt to deflect critical public scrutiny of scientists seeking to influence public policy.
If the appropriate response to a situation is dependent on the variables involved, rather than any supposed principle, it is obvious that (at) the said principle is not a very fundamental entity after all, (b) we might as well pay more attention to the variables involved.
Of course, it is suitably precautionary to jab your child with a vaccine. The probability of an adverse event in a widely vaccinated population, when the incidence rate of disease is high - by any predetermined epidemiologic standard - is low, only in relative terms.
When the incidence rate of a disease falls - ironically from high public health standards and previous rounds of vaccination, and the disease burden becomes invisible in the community - given that the incidence rates of adverse effects remains immutable - the same relative risks suddenly seem high.
Wunsch is a very sensible fellow, but Bast's justification of the Billboardgate fiasco, and mythic belief in ecoterroism as an existential threat makes one wonder if Heartland's true believers have been driving spikes into their heads in an effort to deter chainsaw attacks by crazed Kaczinskiites?
May 5, 2012 at 2:59 PM | Simon Anthony
Simon, Wunsch was referring to the creepy attacks by the likes of Senator Inhofe in accusing a whole bunch of climate scientists of criminality. Inhofe’s threats, in particular, never came to anything but they are examples of the repellent bullying of climate scientist that occurs particularly in the US. Otherwise Wunsch and the other co-signers were referring to the huge proliferation of climate science misrepresentation that floods not only the internet, but even leaks into the scientific literature. I’m sure you and I could come up with numerous examples!
This is more of a political/advocacy blog than a science blog I think, so a second hand account of what someone says that Dr. Wunsch said in a lecture may be par for the course as a topic for discussion. However I’m rather more interested in what I know Dr. Wunsch says (i.e. his published papers/letters), rather than what sort of case in pursuit of point-scoring might be made based on what a blogger said about him! Interestingly another poster here a couple of weeks ago also attempted to use Dr. Wunsch to support a point of view (about glacial terminations) that inspection of Wunsch’s most recent published work on the subject (in Nature as it happens!) indicates also to be untrue.
Perhaps it’s a silly thread, and maybe it’s silly to be over pedantic about evidence over hearsay! However I applaud Dr. Wunsch’s outspoken statements in support of climate scientist’s being able to pursue their research without fear of bullying and I find that much more intersting that what someone says someone else said. Dr. Wunsch publishes solid science (some of it in Nature and Science!). The idea that much of what Nature published is not true is a bit of a running joke amongst scientists, but if you were to have read the contents of Nature during the last decade, two decades, or however long you've been interested in science, you’d have had a pretty good idea of the major themes and discoveries that have advanced science over the years.
May 5, 2012 at 3:56 PM | The Leopard In The Basement
No, LITB, I think you’ll find that the signatories of that letter, including Dr. Wunsch, stated explicitely that they were not speaking on behalf of the NAS; i.e. footnote 1 states:
The signatories are all members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences but are not speaking on its behalf.
May 5, 2012 at 8:23 PM | Skiphil
Not sure I agree with you. I would say it’s a “high point” to publicly speak out in support of scientific integrity, and in support of fellow scientists that are facing some pretty repellent attacks.
I do agree with you that Dr. Gleick’s actions were pathetic and counterproductive. LITB’s message rather illustrates the problem. Just as much of the effort to trash Dr. Mann seems aimed at diverting focus from the fact that all of the paleoreconstructions of the last decade rather support the essential conclusions of the early Mann work, and much of the effort to trash Phil Jones is aimed at diverting focus from the fact that the science is pretty uniform in relation to the temperature record of the last 100-odd years, so Gleick’s foolishness is catnip to those that wish to make further wholesale dismissals of people’s work/integrity by mis-association.
However that doesn’t work for me. Dr. Wunsch and the cosignatories (including Dr. Gleick no doubt) wrote and signed that letter in good faith because they consider that scientists should be free to pursue their work wherever it takes them, inconvenient truths notwithstanding. We can all bitch about publishing in Nature and Science. But there are far more important considerations in science...
Chris, as Tamsin said, Wunsch referred to S&N as being "scientific pornography" repeatedly in his talk in Bristol. For exactly the reason stated by Simon.
Nature is a commercial venture that wants to sell - a prime criterion for acceptance is eye-catching conclusions. Correctness is of lesser importance, and indeed many papers in both journals turn out to be wrong. Arsenic life is a famous recent example. There was a study showing that protein crystal structures published in S&N are significantly more likely to be wrong than those published elsewhere. In that case, there are many innocent reasons: e.g. because the targets are more high-profile and hence harder, and there's a tendency to rush to print.
In climate science, there are all sorts of other pressures that can distort what gets published there. Leaving MBH98 aside, Steigs red-hot Antarctic cover art piece and Myles's Fludd were both in Nature. There were serious problems with both.
May 5, 2012 at 10:05 PM | chris
Thanks for that; I see it was quite silly of me to go off tarring the NAS with the Gleick brush without checking all the footnotes first.
Frankly I would have preferred “May contain nuts” or was that in footnote 2? ;)
I find it interesting that you see helpless victims being unjustly persecuted whereas no matter how hard I try I just can't help but see they are ordinary people trying to leverage their skill in one field to use as authority in another realm where they should be open to be criticised by people in that realm.
Being “free to pursue their work wherever it takes them” doesn’t mean that if it takes them into politics that they should be free from any political response just because they are scientists.
May 5, 2012 at 10:19 PM | Jeremy Harvey
Jeremy, I don't agree with you that "correctness is of lesser importance" for publication in Nature and Science. Correctness of papers published in N/S is as important as for any journal, apart from anything else since each of N and S have standards and reputations to maintain. These journals are occasionally provocative in their publication approaches, and this might apply to the Arsenic paper in Science (and also the paper on homeopathy in Nature that caused a minore furore a couple of decades ago!) .
Not sure what you mean by "Myles' Fludd"?? If you're referring to the modelling paper on global warming contribution to UK flood risk in 2000, that seems likely a perfectly acceptable paper to me. There's no question that global warming is expected to be associated with increased water cycle intensity, there's evidence that this has occurred during the latter half of the 20th century (paper published in last week's Science for example!) and it would be foolish not to make serious attempts to assess real world consequences on global and local scales. I'm sure that the Nature paper isn't the last word on the subject by any means - however it's been cited 33 times already and a quick scan through the abstracts of the citing papers doesn't indicate any particular issues with the paper so far. No doubt other groups might have different approaches to this tricky problem, and the Nature paper (like the Steig paper) will be a good nucleus for crystallizing efforts to improve these analyses.
Same with the Steig paper. It's perfectly valid to attempt to assess the possibility of constructing a profile of Antarctic temperature rise from sparse data. Life's too short to hunt through the more than 100 papers published since but the essential conclusions of the Steig paper seem to be holding up even if the details may vary. For example, Schneider et al published a paper a couple of months ago in Climate Dynamics that reinforces evidence for significant warming in West Antarctica, and I suspect that taken in the round (i.e. addressing all the evidence), Steig's paper will be seen to be a significant contribution to understanding the Antarctic in a warming world, even if the paper might be a bit warty (I'm probably not competent to judge the details so I don't know the extent to which it is or isn't warty).
As for crystal structures, what you suggest may or may not be correct (I'm curious of the study you are thinking of about wrongness of N/S crystal structures). But Nature has recently published astonishing crystal structures of the sodium-potassium ATPase, the ribosome (Nobel Prizes for Ramakrishnan, Yonath and Steitz), the first crystal structures of voltage-gated potassium channels (Nobel prize for MacKinnon), and many, many more. Likewise with Science. Pretty much all of the astonishing advances in protein crystallography are published in Nature and Science. Occasionally mistakes are made. A whole bunch of membrane channel protein structures were retracted from Science (ABC and multidrug resistence proteins) due to a sorftware error. These things get sorted out even if they're mortifying for the researchers involved.
It's silly not to recognise that science isn't perfect and it is definitely jaggedy at its leading edges. So Nature and Science do take a bit of a punt occasionally. But if I was allowed to read only one (or two) journals to follow scientific advance, it (they) would certainly be Nature (and Science).
May 5, 2012 at 11:01 PM | The Leopard In The Basement
Not helpless victims I think, LITB! Climate scientists have the law, public considerations of what is and isn't ethical, and other scientists (as the Wunsch et al letter indicates), and so on, to support them in the case of dreary political bullying.
Perhaps this isn't a big issue right now. I just though that if we were going to be discussing Dr. Wunsch on a "Dr. Wunsch thread", that we might want to take into account his published science and the rather brave stand he took in support of scientists faced with political bullying....rather than some of the throw-away sorts of comments about publishing in Nature that many scientists (including me!) are prone to gossip and bitch about.
@ Shub
"If the appropriate response to a situation is dependent on the variables involved, rather than any supposed principle, it is obvious that (at) the said principle is not a very fundamental entity after all, (b) we might as well pay more attention to the variables involved."
Yes, that's just what I mean. All principles are adjustable although some are more readily adjusted than others. The PP has already been adjusted from its original formulation and will be adjusted again, depending on circumstances.
@ Chris
"Wunsch was referring to the creepy attacks by the likes of Senator Inhofe in accusing a whole bunch of climate scientists of criminality. Inhofe’s threats, in particular, never came to anything"
If people, scientists or otherwise, standing on their credentials in a particular field make strong statements with extraordinary social and political implications, it's more or less a law of nature they'll provoke political counter-attacks. People in politics often use unpleasant tactics. We may wish it was otherwise but these are surely not revelations. If Inhofe's threats came to nothing, that should surely encourage people to stand up to such apparent bullying rather than intimidate them further.
"a second hand account of what someone says that Dr. Wunsch said in a lecture may be par for the course as a topic for discussion. However I’m rather more interested in what I know Dr. Wunsch says (i.e. his published papers/letters), rather than what sort of case in pursuit of point-scoring might be made based on what a blogger said about him!"
I find that what people say when they're off-guard, speaking freely, is often a great deal more revealing than what they write when carefully preparing a text. Of course people make mistakes and say things that they later regret or indeed later change their minds but, in an earlier post Tamsin quoted Prof Wunsch as talking on an entirely separate occasion of Nature's "pornography". So, while you may not think his remarks significant, he seems quite clear and settled in his views. As you say, he's published extensively in Nature. If he now feels so consistently negative about the magazine, his views may be worth taking more seriously.
"The idea that much of what Nature published is not true is a bit of a running joke amongst scientists"
I think this is a "straw man". Who, that anyone else takes seriously, has said that "much" of what Nature published is not true? If "much" is replaced with "some", I think you (and those humorous scientists) would risk ridicule if you were to disagree. Assuming that you do agree that Nature has published some things which have turned out not to be true, we can discuss which they might be and what is the significance of their errors.
May 5, 2012 at 11:59 PM | Simon Anthony
I may have addressed your points in my post above Simon (timed at 11:50). But I have no problem with the truism that Nature has published "some things which have turned out not to be true". It would be ludicrous to think otherwise. Part of the point of scientific publishing is to get ideas, results and interpretations out there where they can be tested. One might expect that N/S would on average be more prone to publish work which subsequently turned out to be incorrect, since part of the point of these journals is to explore the boundaries of emerging science in all fields. But only time will tell whether any paper, published anywhere, stands up to subsequent analysis.
So it's OK to be wrong. It would be a pretty sorry scientific career that didn't get stuff wrong occasionally - otherwise one might be accused of being too conservative! The essential element in my opinion is to be self critical and to work and publish in good faith.
Otherwise we could discuss specific examples. I gave an example of the membrane transporter structures thst were wrong since the anomalous scattering data was reduced with a faulty programme that produced mirror-image structures. Another example would be Linus Pauling's hugely mistaken "structure" for DNA (though this might not have gone to Nature?? can't remember). These are examples of good faith error it seems to me, and no problem whatsoever for the lumpy progression of scientific knowledge. You're allowed to be wrong! And one shouldn't consider that any one published paper constitutes the entirety of a field...that might apply in rare cases (e.g. Watson and Crick structure of DNA!), but if we're truly interested in the science (as opposed to bashing stuff we don't like!) we address the evidence in its entirety.
@ chris
"I have no problem with the truism that Nature has published "some things which have turned out not to be true". "
Good. However, I didn't see an answer to my request for details of who, as you claimed, has seriously said that "most" of what Nature publishes is wrong.
You said earlier...
"Just as much of the effort to trash Dr. Mann seems aimed at diverting focus from the fact that all of the paleoreconstructions of the last decade rather support the essential conclusions of the early Mann work"
In an effort to build some common ground, and putting aside for the moment the later reconstructions, do you agree that Dr Mann's original papers on this subject were seriously flawed? If so, we can then discuss these flaws and see how they have been addressed in the later studies.
Also, it would be very helpful for continuing discussion to know what field of science you work in and the level at which you work, as I'd hate to embarrass myself by assuming that you know less than you do about some field, sounding patronising and then finding you're a leading expert. FWIW, my background is in theoretical particle physics, to post doc level, although it's been quite some time since I did any work in that field.
May 5, 2012 at 11:59 PM | chris
Well again you see brave where I see something else. Simon Anthony mentioned Superfreakonomics above and that reminded me of the Ken Caldeira/Joe Romm episode that arose out of that books publicity. Caldeira was quoted in the book as saying something quite accommodating to the idea of geo-engineering that was to be used in the book's chapter of possible answers to global warming, This had Romm contacting Caldeira to get him back on track with the program i.e. that solutions are a no, no, and alarm is the rule. Caldeira's "brave" response was to toe this line and claim misrepresentation and indeed it seems I have never seen him say anything like as positive again, although in an email thread to the authors they revealed Caldeira saying:
So when you say brave this leads me to speculate here about what is “brave”, because I remember the Wunsch episode in TGGWS had a similar feel to me.
Wunsch may have been dismayed with the program title and some aspects of the staging in hindsight, but he is a grown man who must have seen what the program was about. His presentation of the latency of ocean heat was there for all to see in the program untouched, quite dismissive of some of the current belief that we should see temp/CO2 effects in the short term. However the orchestrated "brave" response was to get him retracting his involvement with that program and by implication removing his whole branch of the science into the memory hole.
I accept that maybe Wunsch is getting hit from both sides and just wants a quiet life but I think signing these statements are more for quiet life and because they are the default position that are expected.
Just saying what I feel and speculating ;) I don't see bravery just compromise. I mean, consider what he is quoted as saying here at the top of this page: it may seem trivial to some but quite significant to me - he seems to have some real underlying feelings left unsaid in the wide open world for us laymen to hear about the quality of the main climate science publication in his own special field of science. However for public consumption he signs papers about political “bullying” when asked by people like Gleick who specialise in playing in the political world. What is the definition of bravery again? ;)
Talking about the prestige of both the two main science publications, Nature and Science, I have to recommend to anyone interested a very good book about a non-climate scandal that went on for a long while with many people escalating concern but with the reputation of the journals and a branch of business proving more important than speedy correction - Plastic Fantastic.
The idea of the PP interests me, as it seems to be a relatively new weapon in the armoury of the Witch-sniffers and the growing army of overbearingly joyless petty officials; from observations made here in New Zealand, where public playgrounds for children tend to remain in pristine condition due to under-use by the children they were designed and built for, as those children report that the equipment is 'boring' and not challenging. I am not a fan for children using dangerous equipment, but children have a need to test themselves with challenges of every type: what the PP is doing to our young in our risk-averse culture is becoming very obvious.
Simon Anthony, you are correct to ask about "chris's" qualifications. He is Chris Colose, a young American graduate student in ? environmental science who was in the habit of copiously posting on Climate Etc. (Judith Curry's blog] and is an uncritical admirer of people like Mann and Gavin Schmidt. Whether you want to engage with him is up to you. Sentences like this - "Another example would be Linus Pauling's hugely mistaken "structure" for DNA (though this might not have gone to Nature?? can't remember)" - could imply a long career in science, but Pauling's missteps on DNA were played out nearly 40 years before 'chris' was born! (In fact before I was born as well.) My (hopefully constructive) suggestion to Chris Colose is that his posting, including stylistically, should more accurately reflect the early stage of his scientific journey.
Alexander K: hear, hear.
A fruit farm near here used to have wonderful play areas for children in the summer, with solidly built stacks of rectangular trussed straw bales with tunnels underneath and gaps for leaping across at the top. We have a lovely photograph of Grandson No 2 at the age of 4 in mid-flight across a wide gap. There was also a two storey wooden fort, built round a tree, access by ladders, and the top layer had runways the children could gallop and chase round, with gaps with safety netting from child- waist height upwards, so they couldn't fall over, but could wave to parents waiting underneath.
It was a joy every summer, until two years ago, when the whole area was health and safety-fied. The straw bales are now tunnel-less, gapless, and only two bales high, with nowhere to jump or crawl or hide. The fort was complety rebuilt in a different place and is now more like a chicken house, 2 ft off the ground one storey high and nothing to do. The whole thing is suitable for someone about 18 months old and we don't go there any more. The reason give was health and safety. There was a rumour that a child might have broken an ankle, although whether it was true we never heard,
Chris, of course S/N are great journals. But recognizing that quite a few papers published there are problematic (Jan Hendrik Schoen?) Should be straightforward. I'll try to dig out the protein structure study.
Yes, the Allen paper. Here's a flaw: overall, there has not been an increase in heavy rainfall events in the UK. That seems like a problem. See the BH thread with the title I used.
Chris, I doubt you are Chris Colose. Rapley? Why are you pseudonymous here? Your case would almost certainly be more convincing with your full name.
@ chris
From what I've seen on this site, you seem a well-informed and reasonable person. I also have the impression that you feel the arguments for AGW are very strong and, if properly understood, lead one to accept that hypothesis as very likely true. I, on the other hand, while also, I believe, a fair-minded, rational person, have looked at the same evidence and arguments and am far less convinced.
I'd like to understand how two such very reasonable people, neither apparently with any vested interest, can arrive at such different views.
A lot of discussions on this site seem to lose focus and degenerate into "tribal" sniping rather than rational assessment of one another's views.
So I have a suggestion. Rather than have a wandering, scatter-gun discussion which eventually peters out with both sides more firmly entrenched that ever, let's take one aspect of AGW and try to see where we agree and where we differ. As we're on this particular web-site, the obvious topic is the hockey-stick.
Again, rather than ranging far and wide, we could frame the discussion with contrasting accounts of THS and, again fairly obviously, I suggest the accounts should be those found in Andrew Montford's "The Hockey Stick Illusion" and Michael Mann's "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars".
If you're agreeable to that (and have the necessary spare time) I'll ask Andrew if we could have a separate thread for the discussion. Of course the discussion should be open to others to contribute provided it doesn't lose focus or otherwise degenerate (no doubt Andrew could advise on moderation).
So what do you say?
Oh I now see The Leopard has mentioned the Schoen story also.
Simon Anthony's suggestion (May 6, 2012 at 9:37 AM) would surely be more worthwhile in the longer term than trench 'warfare' from positions believed to be secure by each side.
While he has gently flung down a civil gauntlet for the mysterious 'chris' to respond to, his suggestion would surely be of wider interest. One problem might be finding anyone owning a copy of Mann's book, and willing to work through it in detail here for this purpose. I think I could steel myself into buying a copy in these circumstances, but it might be a fairer test of his case if it were made by someone who, ab initio at least, takes Mann at something like his own apparently very high evaluation of himself.
Since the Hockey Stick plot is no longer seen as crucial for the case for acute alarm over CO2 by those promoting that - it seems it was merely a dramatic and well-deployed device that served the cause to great effect and should now be sidelined given that defence of its weaknesses is a distraction - the discussion would be more on the scientific rigour and historical verisimilitude of the two accounts in and around this iconic plot. It is perhaps the most politically influential statistical graphic to date.
May 6, 2012 at 12:55 AM | Simon Anthony
"....said that "most" of what Nature publishes is wrong". I was referring to the tendency amongst scientists to joke about the subject. e.g. if you say "we've sent our paper to Nature, 'though we expect it will end up in the Journal of Something-or-Other"...your likely to be met with "...well most of the stuff in Nature is wrong so that's good!" Something like that. It's a little like to tendency when talking about something in the Guardian to call it the "Grauniard"...
"...Dr Mann's original papers..." We're going back nearly 15 years, so I'm not sure anyone really cares apart from the “professional” naysayers! I expect the work could have been done better. It has been subsequently of course with an ever-increasing number of proxies by several different groups. As a scientist or policymaker who might be interested in the question of what historical data has to tell us on the relationships between current and historical temperatures I would be confident in the fact that the analysis of paleoproxy data is in broad agreement that were very likely to be already a good bit warmer than during any period in the last 1000 years in the Northern Hemisphere, and we can be more confident about that statement now than a decade or more ago. Moreover these analysis are broadly consistent with independent data on likely temperatures globally during the last millennium. One might expect that any serious reconsiderations of this work would have been published by now. I certainly haven’t found any, ‘though it’s hard not to come across what seem to be astonishingly misguided accusations about proxies being used “upside down” and such like, all over the blogosphere!
”…(my) field of science…” Chemistry/Physics/Biophysics (PhD)