Bishop Hill Beta blockers
Apr 10, 2013 Climate: other If you suffer from a heart condition, you may want to take a dose of beta blockers before you watch this video of Paul Valdes, of the University of Bristol (who is, incidentally, Tamsin's boss). Or perhaps avoid it completely.
The bit on model assessment and the unknown unknowns is particularly amazing. One can't help feeling that someone should themselves get down to Bristol to explain the scientific method to the scientists down there. (One should note in Prof Valdes' defence his welcome admission that the models are tuned to achieve hindcast accuracy, although one can be equally appalled that he presents no other evidence to support the reliability of GCMs.)
The economics presented are rather extraordinary too.
Overall, I'm astonished that students would actually pay fees to listen to this stuff.
Reader Comments (63)
I notice that his graphs end at the year 2000.
It is hard to believe that only 2 or 3 of his students would admit to being sceptical and I wonder what kind of grades these poor sorry fools will get.
Quite extraordinary to find someone in what purports to be a science class referring to "Sceptical Science " as a source.
Mt eldest daughter studied economics at Bristol and it was at that time a commendable university. It also at that time had a strong geology faculty.
These days I think I'll advise the kids to give it a miss.
Hmmm in summary...
It cannot be anything "else", but we do not actually know what the "else" is...
Climate Science
Do people think that these type of people are compensating? The more confident, the more smug, the more harder the sell (and this is all these things), shows how poor are the actual foundations of the beliefs they are promoting?
He starts of off about "this is not about belief", but it certainly is... how can he mix the "economics and just a little bit of money" and science.
He is a salesman not a scientist.
As a Glaswegian might say of this chap, what a balloon!
This was more of a harangue than a lecture. The revivalist preacher with messages of doom and portentousness rather than the scientist in search of shared understanding.
I think it should be preserved for posterity as an example of what science education at university level has turned into in our time. It is a degradation, nothing less.
Perhaps Alex Cull will consider making a transcript of it to add to his most worthy archive, and perhaps someone might find time to Fisk it.
I took the advice and didn't watch the vid. I have a question about hindcasting. When they hindcast, do they fit by adjusting parameters or algorithms or both? When they assemble their ensemble, do all the various models and runs use the same parameters and initialization or whatever each team used to get a fit? If so, (and I am sure the latter is the case) doesn't that make the whole thing merely an exercise in fitting, because no result is comparable with any other? Why don't they chuck out the non-perfoming models?
One thing he did say that has the ring of truth is the intro where he stated "it will have an impact on your life". Sort of like cancer, imho, will have an impact on your life.
John, "The revivalist preacher " very good... I was looking for such words and came up with "salesman".
Perhaps Engineering lecturers were different in my day, but this is nothing to be with knowledge transfer, this is about indoctrination.
Careful what you say. Professor Lewandowsky of the University of Western Australia is visiting professor at the school of experimental psychology at the University of Bristol.
I am afraid the OU has gone down that same road, with BBC help. Total balderdash.
Geoff, it would have been amusing if when asking for a show of hands on "human induced", he would have stated "No pressure". Maybe the good Professor was looking from the wings for "rats" for his experiments. Let's start a good conspiracy.
Oh no this comment will be taken as evidence without the irony...
Didn't Julia Slingo OBE graduate from Bristol University and was given an honorary PhD from it (she does not appear to have a proper one)?
Explains a lot!
It is hard to take someone who seems to have chosen to say 'lickle' rather than 'little' seriously.
I notice he uses the Lewandowsky trick on 'unknown unknowns' to say that uncertainty is always worse than we thought.
This stuff is just so mediocre. The good news is that those students in the audience are going to have been so bored by the end of all this hectoring, that they're likely to be more amenable to a more refreshing perspective.
Perhaps we should refer this chap to the Bristol Stool Chart. As produced by Dr. Ken Heaton at the University of Bristol. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_stool_scale
Sorry Ben you are right... I have amended,
It cannot be anything "else", but we do not actually know what the "else" is. When we do know what the "else" is, it will be much worse than we thought because it often is.
So what else does this bloke teach.
Students pay nine grand a year to listen to him waffling on.
They can read it for free on the Guardian website.
Students getting value for money.
More academic cobblers - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh9kDCuPuU8 - similarly speaking about 'critical thinking' and the climate debate with an air of authority not warranted by his actual talent.
Oh dear - what drivel. How much a year do you have to pay to listen to guff like that?
What a really depressing video - I just cannot believe how much education has been dumbed down!!!
And this guy is a professor??
But interesting to note that after RB so frequently telling us that scientists don't do 'policies' we have this guy setting the assignment for his science students as to what policy changes there should be!
Totally agree that this is nothing to do with science education but much more to do with political indoctrination.
Perhaps we should send him this cartoon
" It is hard to believe that only 2 or 3 of his students
would admit to being sceptical and I wonder what
kind of grades these poor sorry fools will get."
Paul was my supervisor at Reading. I'm sceptical and failed my MFail.... I haven't seen the video yet but if isn't sounding very good so far. Paul mainly does Paleo stuff which I think GCMs can be very useful in trying to understand past climates. Also simple models are very useful in understanding the dynamics of the atmosphere. I disagree strongly in using them to try and predict climate in 2100. I don't think they have any use for this purpose.
Also Paul is a really decent and very smart Guy. I guess a lot of the political kind of stuff must come along with being head of department.
Well - a couple of things leapt out.
First, the known unknowns "it's always worse than we thought." The good prof showed Arctic Ice extent but did not mention that Antartic ice is not performing as required (excepting the recent claim that increasing warmth leads to increasing ice).
Second, he said that the UK will get off lightly; but Africa, oh Africa - it will be a disaster in Africa where water supplies are marginal. Moments earlier he said models are clueless w.r.t. rainfall.
He did caveat a lot of his comments to be fair to him - but at the end there in response to the final questioner he had the chance to pose the rhetorical question "if we could stop natural cycles and so prevent the next ice age, would that be a good thing?" Instead he merely said we might override natural cycles for 30-50 kyr.
(Does anyone know where models of future Antarctic Ice extent have been hidden? I can't find any. Although in my search I did find a lovely website for the "National Wildlife Federation" claiming that "sea ice decline places penguins in peril" and that I should donate immediately to "show the penguins that you're on their side.")
He's a real heavy breather. Takes in a lot of oxygen before he speaks and conversely exhales a lot of CO2. Is there a CO2 Index number for him?
'incidentally, Tamsin's boss' well now we know where they get it from.
But it tells us that over the last few years how 'important ' it was to toe the line when it came to career progress in this area and that it will take a long time indeed for for smell to clear out given how ingrained it is .
Valdes: "I'm going to review the evidence of what we know and what we don't know And What We Have To Do About It."
Activist.
Thanks Ben, at least my hearing is ok. He really does say "lickle", not once but many times. What is that all about?! And that question to the audience is straight from the 10/10 video. Good luck to the two students who put their hands up.
Well that video has not halted my draining respect for academics, hardly creme de la creme stuff is it.
You can just imagine the difficulty an inquisitive soul like Tamsin would have raising any doubts with this chap.
"I just cannot believe how much education has been dumbed down!!!"
Have to admit I thought the same - this is supposed to be degree level stuff, and to be honest I didn't see any data or concepts or anything else that ventured beyond GCSE level science.
In regards to the "dumbing down" this lecture is intended to be a brief summary of climate change for first year undergraduates for non specialists on the topic.
However I don't know why I'm bothering to try and reason with you fanatics, it seems like your closed-minds are already made up.
@SimonW -- "You can just imagine the difficulty an inquisitive soul like Tamsin would have raising any doubts with this chap."
Actually Paul is *incredibly* supportive of me, my science, and my blogging.
As evidence for this, I recently (because encouraged to) nominated myself for a Bristol uni public engagement award, which required a supporting statement from the Head of School. His statement was so supportive and kind, it nearly brought tears to my eyes. Here is an excerpt:
"I would just like to add my endorsement to the many who regard Tamsin’s blog as one of the best available. Few outside the discipline understand the difficulty and bravery required for working in this very high profile and very politically contentious area. It is phenomenally difficult to accurately convey the complicated science without oversimplifying and distorting....It is therefore remarkable that Tamsin should receive so many positive comments from sceptics....it is really important to remain calm and dispassionate and Tamsin has been fantastic in keeping to the facts and using clear, simple language."
I haven't listened to his lecture yet. I'm at the EGU conference, which has ~11 hour days followed by dinner/pub etc. But it's risen higher up my to-do list than it was before!
Tamsin
To be fair to the professor, "ickle" in this context appears to be dialectical... he probably doesn't even realise he's saying it.
He is, with all due respect, a terrible lecturer. This does not mean he's a bad person, just that he couldn't get an idea (right or wrong) across to an audience in an inspiring way if his life depended on it. The lecture suffers badly because of this, regardless of his stated intent, or of which "side" of the debate he actually is.
Cut him some slack in this regard, as he clearly has a "rabbit in the headlights" stare all the way through. As for the rest, yes, it needs transcribing and saving for future fisking.
Bruce Apr 10, 2013 at 5:10 PM: your first sentence makes sense; your second sentence is pointless and rude.
What is it about the word 'incredibly' that it has become so widely used to mean extraordinary?
In the video, it is deployed many times, often with great emphasis, and sometimes where, as I recall, the original meaning of the word would make a far better fit.
At least Tamsin surrounded it with asterisks. I see them there like traffic cones warning of something unusual coming up. And as you get there, you can see what the hazard is: overblown prose.
Elftone - agreed apologies for the rudeness, it is just frustrating sometimes. I think it must be difficult to get you point across though - in all other areas of science the general consensus becomes increasingly accepted with more and more evidence, however in climate science people just refute it without properly informing themselves. Who are you all to judge that this man isn't a good scientist?
Hi Bruce, many here started on your side of the fence, but having reviewed more and more evidence have used their our own powers of reason to reject the consensus. As far as I'm concerned real world observations, insight into the deceit of key IPCC 'scientists' and a swathe of new papers have destroyed the legitimacy of any claims for a CAGW consensus - all that remains is a wall of political intransigency. History shows that walls can disappear overnight.
You can fool all of the people some of the time... ...but when they find out, some can be very unforgiving.
Bruce, if he is a 'good scientist', doesn't that make the video even more appalling?
OK, I could have said "very" rather than "incredibly", but languages do change with time.
What's wrong with what he said? It is a high profile and very politically contentious area. And "positive comments from sceptics" for mainstream climate scientists *are* rare. Also, the statement was a kind of reference: supportive points tend to be stated emphatically, to avoid interpretation as faint praise etc.
Tamsin
- on the conference wine now so apologies for any increase in belligerence ;)
SayNoToFearmongers - What are these swathe of new papers you speak of?
John Shade - Good scientist does not equal good lecturer
Hi Tamsin,
I'm genuinely pleased that you have a supportive boss; in my experience this is one of the most important criteria for enjoying one's career (you may not fully appreciate it until you get a bad boss!) .
From what I've seen I would also endorse the gist of his reference for you (oh look, another positive sceptic comment). I'll pop along and have another look at your blog, ISTR it dried up after a promising start.
Of course, from what I've seen you're pretty much "on message" so I guess we haven't had a chance to see how supportive Mr Valdes would be if presented with for example a list of howlers from his presentation. Maybe ask one of the two brave students for a list and see how they get on. I'm happy to take your reverse endorsement at face value though so thankyou.
Bruce: fair point if this talk is for non-specialists. Of course your point about closed minds may be valid too, it is something we should all strive to guard against.
I like to think that when someone can provide me with a convincing track record of accurate climate predictions (that'll be future not past!) I'll review it with an open mind. You know, that scientific method thingy. Until then...
Bruce, whatever that lecture was, science it was not... closed minds? Shit I wish, it would make my life a lot easier going with consensus. My wife would pay for the lobotomy.
"What's wrong with what he said?"
Apr 10, 2013 at 5:59 PM | Tamsin Edwards
Brits are too polite to say.
Thanks SimonW. Yes, life got in the way, but another post is now up at PLOS / allmodelsarewrong.com.
If I get a chance to see the video and find things to defend or else howlers, I'll let you know!
Right, pub...
'Bravery' needed for working as a climatologist?
Not a type of 'bravery' I am familiar with.
But then academics all seem to have a very high regard for how important and wonderful and generally superior to everybody else they are. So one academic praising another to a third merely reinforces the self-image of all three.
Bruce, maybe you should keep up with the literature. It's my job to keep myself informed. I do. This is why I know that the consensus is dead. If you're happy with Nature publishing drivel about 'retrospective forecasting' then maybe your critical faculties need some reworking. Likewise Marcott's juvenile nightmare. Peer reviewed and accepted by Science, but flayed within hours, demonstrating not warming but complicity and/or bankruptcy and/or utter incompetence of his 'peers' in climate science. It's just not good enough.
...not sure that salesmen deserve the comparison with this fraud.
This is all part of a natural progression: Those that can't do, teach. Those that can't teach, climatologize*.
*The full rule is:
Those that can't teach, are pompous, do not understand logic, statistics or the scientific method, like to tell others how to behave, have thin skins, and like to litigate and holiday in Bali, climatologize.
Just a general observation about language and how it changes; my late father fought in both WWI and WWII as a front-line soldier and I regard him, after a long time to think about it, as a genuinely brave person who was well aware of the extreme dangers of war but was a passionate believer in democracy. To me, he was a genuine hero.
I was incredibly miffed some years ago when the Gay community here in Auckland, NZ, renamed their annual Gay Mardi Gras a 'Hero Parade'. I am not anti-gay, but felt that that renaming was a terrible misuse of language which actually reflects badly on the Gay community.
Latimer, I agree with you, but from my own experience that most of us, including academics, work in a bubble that isolates us and tends to reinforce our views of ourselves. Having to be 'brave' to be a climate scientist, however, is rather over-egging the pudding!
Gosh...
Am I missing something? Which bit of the job requires bravery?
Let me see now...
Dabbling in Fortran? No.
Going to conferences? No.
Writing academic papers? No.
Being cheered on by the BBC, the Pope, Prince Charles, all 3 big parties, Al Gore, Darryl Hannah, Blue Peter, David Attenborough? No.
The only brave thing is ... coming here
@alexander k
'Latimer, I agree with you, but from my own experience that most of us, including academics, work in a bubble that isolates us and tends to reinforce our views of ourselves'
You need to get out more if that is happening :-)
He said that in the past million years it has never been warmer than it is now. So how come we are finding evidence of farming under thick ice on Greenland ? Have they been there for over a million years?
I feel very sorry for those students. This was not a science lecture, it was a lecture on believing stuff that makes little sense.
It's not toooo bad, at least in the first half or two thirds. I don't think there should be any politics intruding on a science lecture, but at least he tries reasonably hard to make clear which parts are science and which are politics.
I was amused that one of the few definitive predictions he makes is that his students will probably be alive in 2100. If they're 18 now then they'll be 105 then. While the average lifespan is increasing the maximum has scarcely budged. There may well be some breakthrough, but I don't think you can go as far as "probably".
The claim that when models get it wrong (using September arctic sea ice as the example) they always fail on the conservative side is simply wrong. Antarctic ice was already mentioned, but the global temperature at the moment is another obvious example that is, for the last decade or so, trending at much less change than the predictions.
The description of how voluminous the equations in current climate models are is quite worrying. It would be interesting to know how many tunable parameters there are in total. It must surely be hundreds.
If I'm allowed 200 parameters I can give you a polynomial that fits every annual average temperature for the last 100 years *absolutely* perfectly. Zero error. It'll go totally nuts outside that range -— probably predict it's 1000 C in 2020 — but it'll hindcast with absolute accuracy. Any other reasonable model with a similar number of parameters (or even a lot fewer) should be able to be tuned to hindcast perfectly too. That's not even interesting if a model can do that. You'd be shocked if it couldn't. The *only* test of a model is if it can predict the future which, so far, has not happened, at least with a confidence interval significantly smaller than the total change since the 19th century.
Ummmmm … how does a country put a big mirror in space that protects only them, not other countries? The Earth is spinning. You can't make something in space hover over one country, unless that country is on the equator and you put the object in a geosynchronous orbit (40000 km up).
The logical place for a sunshade is at the Earth/Sun L1 point, about 1.5 million km from the Earth. At the very least it would shade everything between 23N and 23S equally over time (more if it's of a significant size).
"He said that in the past million years it has never been warmer than it is now. So how come we are finding evidence of farming under thick ice on Greenland ? Have they been there for over a million years?"
Did he really say that? Surely it isn't that contentious to say the Holocene Climatic Optimum was significantly warmer than now. I thought Milankovitch forcings significantly explained why too.
To be clear, "brave" in the context of the statement was not meant to refer to being a climate scientist, but to getting involved in the online fray. How many climate scientists blog, or comment on blogs? Not many, for various reasons. So those that do are more exposed. I know many or most of you will scoff at the idea that it's brave for a climate scientist to put their head above the parapet, because you feel under attack yourselves. I'm just saying, from experience, that it can be scary, and is certainly not something one chooses lightly. Particularly if you are a relatively early career scientist, publicly criticising your seniors, and research in other areas of climate science than your own, all under your real name, before you have got the security of a permanent job.
No violins ;) just trying to explain that Paul didn't mean it's brave being a climate scientist.
Tamsin (back from the pub)
Bruce - Who are you all to judge that this man isn't a good scientist?
I can only speak for myself. I have watched the video, and have studied the climate debate. And took a degree in the humanities/social sciences as a mature student. That I feel is enough to say that the lecture was poor, not just in its delivery, but in the understanding of the debate it conveyed.
To Tamsin -- back from the pub, too.
I know many or most of you will scoff at the idea that it's brave for a climate scientist to put their head above the parapet, because you feel under attack yourselves. I'm just saying, from experience, that it can be scary, and is certainly not something one chooses lightly.
The point of the lecture was, as far as I can tell, one which aimed to convince the students that their futures would be determined by the climate, caused in turn by previous generations' use of carbon. I would go further than saying that the professor chose his argument lightly; I would say it was glib in the extreme.
He may not have volunteered to put his head above the parapet... But he nonetheless wants to make statements about how the world works, and he wants people... young people... to see the world working in that way. Anyone with the scantiest grasp on the concept of 'sustainability' knows that you can't have your cake and eat it. Environmentalists and environmental scientists have got to get used to this idea that their ideas are going to be challenged. You can't start off from a model, or a data series, and say that this shows that the entire global material, productive economy needs to be reorganised and get excused from having to account for your claims. It wouldn't happen with Maoism, Stalinism, etc, or for that matter, capitalism. Why should it happen with environmentalism?