Wednesday
Sep032014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Quote of the day, ditch the scientific method edition
Sep 3, 2014 Climate: Models You’re allowed to say, well I think we should do nothing. That’s a policy choice. But what you’re not allowed to do is to claim there’s a better estimate of the way that the climate will change, other than the one that comes out of the computer models. It’s nonsensical to say ‘we know better’, you can’t know better.
Professor Brian Cox appears averse to the idea that data trumps hypothesis.
Reader Comments (99)
If it is the "best we've got" does that assuredly mean that it's any good or useful?
Whenever I feel the urge to be scathing, withering, condescending, aggressive, etc. about an opinion like this, I read the comments that follow, especially in the Comment is Free, and think to myself, you don't want to make an arse of yourself like them, do you.
I doubt Professor Brian Cox has any clue about the scientitfic method. He does not do research he just presents fairly naff BBC "science" programmes
I feel a bit sorry for scientists like Professor Cox. He clearly thinks that climate science is solid science in the same say that the work done by the LHM team is solid science.
I have never seen anything from him that indicates that he has personally ever looked into the detail - he is naively assuming that climate science is performed in exactly the same manner as other 'hard' sciences, and so the results should automagically be trusted.
Oops - should have logged in so I could correct the errors above - "doen by the LHM team" should read "done by the LHC team"
[corrected BH]
My god! The man cannot be that much of an idiot!
First, he conflates the statistical 95% confidence interval with the completely subjective 95% "extremely likely" assessment of the IPCC grandees.
Then he implies that the scientists at CERN use the 95% (2 sigma) confidence interval, when in reality they demand a 6-sigma (99.99966%) confidence interval before they announce results.
He has a valid point that policy should be informed by science. He would appear less naive if so many climate scientivists hadn't so hopelessly commingled policy with their research activities.
It is quite standard fare for the politically-motivated to assume that anybody who questions any aspect of their ideology is also motivated politically. It never crosses their conscious that the questions maybe based on actual observational data.
Cox, BBC and the Guardian accusing their opponents of being politically-motivated? Nothing to see, move on.
Every sentence uttered by Cox in this article is utterly bonkers, nonsense on stilts. Try this:
or this: Will anyone with some reputation in scientific circles dare to come out and say that Cox is a dangerously ignorant person?'... other than the one that comes out of the computer models'
Which one? Why many if it's settled?
I don't think I ever posted this 'Coxian view' cartoon from 2010.
Well at least he is consistent ;-)
One of Blairs boys...
Geoff is right. The entire article is muddled, incoherent gibberish. It's hard to see what he is trying to say. At first it seems that he may be criticising climate scientists - presumably the IPCC - for making a 95% certainty claim. Then he seems to be criticising sceptics for 'manipulating' this - what his he on about? Who 'manipulated' the 95% figure?
Then he goes completely bonkers with
Why is it that these people feel that they can just barge in to the climate debate from a position of total ignorance?
Brian Cox has a fairly attractive denim clad bottom which is frequently displayed on his ''science'' travelogues but his voice grates on the ear and his opinions grate on the intelligence.
'Professor' Coherent Cox: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mJr-NXHUbE
After wading through that prose it is impossible to discern whether Brian Cox is scientifically illiterate, or just simply illiterate.
Pretty boy, but clueless. Yet another AGW shill favoured by the Guardian, and , of course, the BBC. On message, lefty, and a poster child. No hope, really, is there.
Geoffchambers
I was formulating my proposed comment whilst reading the comments of others
only to find that your very appropriate remarks reflected my reactions to this article,perfectly.
Biased, blinkered and mind boggling unscientific balderdash, in spades.
Cox needs to stop sucking up to the BBC and get back to his scientific principles.
'Qualification' ≠ 'intelligence'
Using the scientific method and a simply computer model, I am 99% certain that, according to Richard Betts, Brian Cox has no idea what he's talking about, climatically and scientifically.
No professional scientist or engineer taught standard physics accepts the crazy IPCC radiative and IR physics. Therefore Cox is either being unprofessional or has been taught incorrect physics.
A call to the competent scientists out there, when are you going to take back your profession?
What is the probability that a 95% "certainty" will be wrong for more that 15 years running?
Don't worry. Richard Betts won't let Cox get away with this patent nonsense. Just have a quiet word in his ear, Richard. No need to embarrass him in public.
I think his phrasing is very carefully (though very clumsily) constructed; perhaps he is trying to cover all bases, though few intelligent people will forget: “But what you’re not allowed to do is to claim there’s a better estimate of the way that the climate will change, other than the one that comes out of the computer models. It’s nonsensical to say ‘we know better’, you can’t know better.” as it is patently absurd, especially when he then goes on to defend knowledge.
However, the last two paragraphs could be open to considerable interpretation, and could be applied both ways:
Cleverly, [sic] he does not specify what knowledge is controversial. Mind you, didn’t Einstein once say that knowledge does not necessarily mean intelligence? Also, surely, as a scientist, he should not be arguing in defence of “knowledge” but in defence of facts – historically, there has been a lot of “knowledge” that has, in reality, been a misinterpretation of facts. Very clumsy wording; he is trying to do a verbal pas de bourée in oral wellington bootsWho could argue with any of that (other than them being such clumsy sentences)? Like Mike Fowle, I do not want to suffer guilt by association by commenting on that site, though “zorastes” is not such a chicken (sorry – the pun was just toooo tempting!).RR, the wording you quote is so clumsy that I wonder if he ever got to see it before it was published.
Perhaps this is just extracts from a telephone interview which the Professor would not have endorsed had he seen it first.
He is a broadcaster and used to be a musician and fizzisist.
His opinions are worth no more than Brian Cox, the excellent actor, even though he appears to have more hair
There's only one Brian - Cock! (What? There's two of 'em?)
I met one of Cox's colleagues from CERN in Glasgow recently. He ridiculed a 'mystical' statement about the double slits experiment, unaware it came from Richard Feynman, the least mystical of physicists. It is some kind of trade protection system. We are all decent, sensible chaps kind of thing.
Notwithstanding the fact the British higher education system is now a cheating factory.
Observations are denialist propaganda.
> What is the probability that a 95% "certainty" will be wrong for more that 15 years running?
0.0000000000000000030517578125%
Sounds like Mosher. In fact Mosher was on his soapbox about it again today at Judy Curry's. If you don't have your own computer model for climate, you have to accept the ones that exist. Except that skeptics have a perfectly good model. And the ones that exist that we are supposed to accept don't agree with each other.
So what he is saying is that AGW is now the null hypothesis and it cannot be falsified by data. ???
He also refers to "debate" - when and where did this happen?
Dark matter unicorn for sale, as ridden by Professor Cox. Must go. No reasonable offer refused.
I saw D:Ream play once. They were S:Hit. (Copyright Reeves and Mortimer.) But really, they were. I said so during the gig, and became very unpopular. The rest of the audience were 95% certain that D:Ream were brilliant and would have great careers in the music biz.
So Richard Betts says the models are not good for policy making and Prof. Cox says we have to use them becuase nothing else will do.
This raises the questino:
Western governments have spent billions over the last few decades to develop science based climate policy. Yet it turns out there is still no actual consensus even among those who believein a climate catastrophe that it is reliably measured. This means we are spending billions to pursue a policy that is based on something not actually measurable.
Where did our money go?
"......the ONE that comes out of the computer models." ??? How mystical.
If 95% certainty is "effectively total", then why is it the standard for evidence for a discovery in particle physics (y'know, like they do at LHC) is 5-sigma, or 99.99997% certainty?
So he is saying that "You can't know better" about a subject – to wit the future – about which precisely no one knows anything except him? The man is barking. He would not have been out of place as a priest in Egypt in c. 3,000 BC, where, slaves groaning, he could have had lots and lots of special hats to decorate his obviously special brain.
Is anyone in our supposedly rational world expected to take this lunatic seriously?
And he calls himself a scientist?
Another "established" scientist gone to seed.* Never mind, the establishment likes them that way. He'll die rich one day.
*No biologically inaccurate apple pun intended.
Brian Cox has a well funded and happy co-existance with the BBC. He knows very well what the scientific method is. He knows also that co² global warming is a scam. On several occasions he has let slip these facts. On one particular occasion a plonker presenter asked him if global warming was real. His reply was telling. (sic) The consensus says it is '. That is not an answer from convistion for me.
If he wasn't kinda cute and had previously been in a band, would anyone be publishing his thought bubbles?
He may have some ability in dealing with abstract problems, but when it comes to the real world, my postman or checkout person has a firmer grip.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-29050750
Just found this story Wind Turbine company having to pay East Anglia fisherman for loss of earnings
Your Grace
I have no doubt you will be somewhat upset to learn that Richard Betts has made a guest post somewhere that is not here!
but here - http://climaterevolution.co.uk/wp/2014/09/03/pooh-sticks-pauses-and-predictability/
I'll second Singleton: "A call to the competent scientists out there, when are you going to take back your profession?"
Go for it, ask your scientist friends why they are silent. Insist they are amoral in their silence.
If Cox was half the scientists he thinks he is, he would look objectively at the facts , use his scientific back ground and see that the 95% claim has no empirical valid basis . And if he had any common sense he realise that has your claims get more inaccurate compared to reality its dum to claim your more certain that your right , in the way the IPCC have .
The best thing we can hope for is that he does not take the same approach in his own area or if he does he is kept away from anything important or sharp objectives, for his and everyone else's good.
Not exactly Richard Feynman is he.
Yet another academic 'professional' whose real expertise is in cashing paychecks.
Not exactly Richard Feynman is he.
---------------------------------------------------------
(h/t Jake)
Says it all.
Idiot.