Steve Milloy has let fly with the results of his twisted survey of climate scientists, pretty much as we expected. It’s not worth analyzing in any great depth, I’m sure we all have better ways to spend our time, but one tidbit jumped out at me.
The first question of the survey was
Which best describes the reason(s) for climate change?.
The survey offered a choice between human activity or natural variation, or some combination of the two. How to answer this? Before a few decades ago, natural variability was the right answer, but since about 1970, human activity has taken over.
I emailed Milloy with my concern about the indeterminate time scope of the question, and he replied
Hi David,
Present tense verbs imply ongoing climate change.
but now from the press release,
Another notable result is that an astounding 20% of those surveyed said that human activity is the principal driver of climate change.
“So was there no climate change before mankind?” Milloy asked.
The rest is more of the same. Garbage in, trash talk out. OK, back to work, enough time wasted on this.
Re 198: There is no debate. That you believe otherwise (if you really do) is rather comical. You have nothing to go through but industry created talking points.
The only thing rehashed is that most amusing tobacco denialism argumentation, of which you’re not even an original author. They should have copyright for this stuff, it would prevent it from being so widely used. The copyright should extend to the application of similar arguments to other fields, that would save RC a lot of time addressing pathetic nonsense.
Here is another one of the countless examples, which you will probably discount with the usual, well, stuff:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-04/uoc–sps032603.php
Now I will drop that subject since I doubt that the patience of the RC folks will extend beyond posting this (if it even goes that far). However, I do recommend all to take a look at the link. Boy am I glad I quit some years ago…
Rod, What scientist has lied in trying to sound the alarm about climate change? What scientist has politicized the process? Yes, there have been some who have emphasized that the potential impact goes beyond where we currently have consensus–but they did not go AGAINST the evidence. They did not distort the science. They did not bypass peer-reviewed journals and go directly to newspapers and the public. Now perhaps some have implied that particular events, such as Katrina, could be harbingers of what is to come, but most in the science community distanced themselves from such sentiments.
On the other hand, from the denialists, we have distortion of the science, doing science by press and outright lies. Really, Rod, I don’t see how you can compare the two camps–all the evidence is on one side. That means they don’t have to lie.
Philippe (201): “…The only thing rehashed is that most amusing tobacco denialism argumentation, of which you’re not even an original author.”
It probably matters not, but I have no idea of which you speak…
“…Boy am I glad I quit some years ago…”
So am I.
Hank Roberts (#200) wrote:
Hank, I believe that what you are responding to was actually written by Ray Ladbury:
However, as I understand it, this is something that I agree with, so I will respond.
We of course do not view the scientific community as some sort of monolithic organization like the Catholic Church. We do not regard scientists as taking a formal oath upon becoming scientists.
Our focus begins as a recognition of the fact that there is a certain normativity involved in being a scientist. However, this is primarily a matter of personal ethics — one of personal integrity — although it goes deeper. It isn’t simply a matter of honesty but of objectivity — although it involves both in roughly equal measure.
Secondarily, it is up to each individual within the scientific community to judge other scientists in accordance with these two standards. However, such judgment is once again principally an individual matter. The scientific community is afterall decentralized and loosely defined. And being decentralized, different individuals make come to different conclusions as to whether or not other scientists uphold such standards in their personal work.
Now more broadly, there is also the matter of a consensus. However, this is largely tacit — except of course to the extent that various organizations may wish to make formalized statements as to what positions they acknowledge as being part of that consensus. But once again, this is decentralized as different organizations may take different positions.
However, I would also state that when they take such positions they should do so with great care that what they take those positions to be should be should consist of points for which they regard there as being overwhelming evidence — and they should do so only the the face of a concerted attack upon the scientific enterprise itself, one which is motivate by ideological, political or financial gain.
I suspect that you are in agreement with all of these points. You seem to acknowledge much the same sort of thing when you state:
… at least assuming you mean that the consequences will include other scientists judging the work of those scientists who are clearly not living up to the standards.
However, even then, the scientific enterprise is not itself dependent so much upon the personal ethics of each and every individual within the scientific community. A tacit consensus is usually enough to work around individuals who do not live up to those standards.
Incidentally, although the consequences may not be as great, I also believe that the same standards follow simply from the fact that we are human.
Come on, Ray (202). I suspect you are over reacting to your inference that anyone who is politic is bad and certainly then can’t include any of the AGW proponents. Being politic is not (always/usually) bad. It is just something that is a fact of life and as certain as the sunrise for many fields and scenarios. AGW happens to be one. But you assert that the politicking (e.g. Hanson’s Congressional testimony as one teeny example in an ocean) done by the proponents is not really politicking because they are correct. Well that’s just wrong, defining politicking to suit your needs, and contrary to any standard. (Like the government redefined “addiction” to suit its needs. ….. (Oh! Damn! Sorry! Uncontrollable.)) What you did was bring my original contention full circle (again) and (I really hate to repeat ’cause I know you’re getting tired of it), bottom line, say the antagonists cannot play because they disagree with (the generic) me and all I know to be true and holy. (Forget “holy; just a figure of speech…) I know you don’t see it that way; but that’s because “you are correct” and they are not. Same, Same!
Your point that I may be including too many outliers in the science community might have merit. I’ll have to contemplate that for a bit.
Do you think Lindzen, e.g., is consciously and deliberately presenting analyses and stuff that he knows to be false? Or is his publishing non-peer reviewed articles so far off the scientific chart that it has no redeeming or scientific value at all? If so, would the same be true of protagonists?
Rob B (194) wrote:
As I understand “no longer a scientist,” Ray is speaking primarily with regard to personal ethics as judged by the individual scientist. Secondly, he is speaking of personal ethics in terms of how other scientists judge the behavior of scientists who appear behave with lack of integrity with regard to his work. For a fuller statement of what I believe, please see 200.
Rob B (194) wrote:
If by “to date,” you mean as judged by the scientific community as a whole acting as some sort of monolithic organization (which would appear to be what you are suggesting: see 190), then I do not believe that this is what Ray is stating (189) and I do not see how you could interpret this as being implicit in what he stated. If by “to date” you mean as judged by individual scientists — with the understanding that there will be honest matters of disagreement, then I do not understand how you could honestly take any other view.
However, you still did not answer my final question in 191:
Rod, are you up to date on what the Contributors at RC have written specifically about Lindzen’s work? That would be a good place to start (the Search box will find the threads with his name in them.)
Correction to 206
Where I state, “For a fuller statement of what I believe, please see 200,” the post that I should have referenced was 204.
Rod, It is rather astounding to me that you equate science and politics. Yes, science is political–politics is just the activity by which groups of people (polis) accomplish things. However, as with all communities, the scientific community has norms that are expected of its members. For scientists, the most important of those norms have to do with evidence–what constitutes evidence, where and how it is presented, how to interpret it, etc. If you violate these norms, your reputation within the community suffers–other scientists question your judgement, your scruples or your “objectivity” (more on this later). If your violations are sufficiently serious–e.g. falsifying data, or repeatedly distorting data, publishing by press, etc., then you cease to be a scientist. What that means is that other scientists cease to take you as serious and credible. You may be dismissed as a paid shill (e.g. Milloy), a self-promoter, a flake or a crank. Interestingly, this exile may be partial–Einstein’s opinions on physics were still taken seriously up to his death, as long as they didn’t have to do with the indeterminacy of quantum theory.
Rod, in my posts, you will notice that I keep coming back to the importance of evidence. It is central to science. A scientist is judged by his skill at gathering it, at interpreting it, and–perhaps most important–at putting aside his or her personal agenda when the evidence conflicts with it. And it is very important to realize that in science, evidence has to be interpreted by the experts–the ones who have experience trying to understand evidence in that field. You write a paper. It is given to experts who decide whether it is of sufficient evidence to be considered by the community as a whole (peer review). If so, then the entire interested community judges whether the paper is correct and important. So, the community decides in your favor. Do you stop there? No. Even if the evidence favors you, you keep doing more tests and looking for more evidence even though the new test/evidence may overturn your opinion/hypothesis/model. At some point, however, some aspects of a particular model have so much evidence behind them, that one is confident that even as the model changes, the new model will look the more or less the same in terms of those aspects. That’s where we are in terms of CO2 forcing for climate models.
So, yes, science is political as is any other human activity. What separates it from other human activities is that it works extremely well–and the reason it works extremely well is because of the norms it imposes with regard to evidence, etc. Your ability to function as a science depends on your ability to abide by those norms. More important, the continued success of science depends on scientists following them. So, when a “scientist” violates them, the community is bound to judge him or her harshly.
Timothy, et al: “…is one ever justified in concluding that someone is being dishonest?”
Naturally and of course. My concern is the ease and low bar that some have to make that conclusion. Ray said that a scientist who [joins the club] who is fully aware of the evidence [to date — I’m still don’t grasp your concern with this phrase…] and, as Ray also said, “…agreed to abide by the evidence…” and now is espousing something not in sync with the evidence is no longer eligible for membership in the fraternity of scientists — clearly implying dishonest. In fact worse than contemptible if he also has a job that pays him for his endeavors. I think this is the crux of our discussion, is way over the line and essentially defines dishonesty as disagreement.
So, again, yes, people and scientists can be declared dishonest and, further, be treated accordingly. But to be declared dishonest, he must be in fact dishonest with a high standard of determination or proof. BTW, without this, one could easily be charged with libel (though likely not convicted because of the public nature of the debate and people.)
Hank (207), I’m generally aware of many/some of the Lindzen comments, but have not done a recent detailed review of such. I’m not getting your implication.
Rod posts:
[[Do you think Lindzen, e.g., is consciously and deliberately presenting analyses and stuff that he knows to be false?]]
Is Lindzen one of those repeating the “global warming stopped in 1998” line? If so, then, yes, he is deliberately presenting analyses and stuff that he knows to be false.
You can read Lindzen’s latest thinking here: http://www.volny.cz/lumidek/iris-effect.pdf I don’t think that you will find any claim that global warming stopped 1998 there.
However, he is arguing that the tropics will not warm due to the increase in CO2, which may be true. But it is not the tropics where I live, and the main warming seems to be most apparent in the Arctic!
Rod B (#210) wrote:
Thank you for responding to that question.
With regard to your phrase “membership in the fraternity of scientists,” I believe you are still misrepresenting Ray’s argument as what he is primarily refering to is primarily episteomological and ethical, not membership in some fraternity. And I believe he is right. “Scientist” is derived from the latin “scientia” meaning “knowledge.” A scientist is someone who knows, and in their capacity as a scientist places no political, ideological or fanancial concern above their quest form knowledge. A scientist who places politics above science is no longer acting as a scientist.
Regarding Lindzen
You state, “My concern is the ease and low bar that some have to make that conclusion,” then bring up the example of Lindzen — who you admit that you haven’t researched that thoroughly. So let’s turn to him.
I would like to call your attention to an essay by Lindzen from 2007 and an analysis of it by Gavin Schimdt and Mike Mann — as this is something which you yourself could look up at this website if you are genuinely interested in Lindzen’s honesty. However, before getting to the RealClimate analysis, I will begin with two sentences from Lindzen’s piece and analyze them for myself – so as to show you that Gavin and Mike aren’t simply picking apart the worst parts.
Lindzen states:
When he states, “The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise,” this is clearly a strawman argument. We know that the current Holocene era of the past 10,000 years has been particularly stable compared to past eras, that this is the time during which humans developed agriculture and that human civilization arose. We know that this is what current populations, species and ecological systems are adapted to. And we know that it was during this time that all of our cities and current infrastructure was built. If the climate system changes a great deal, and particularly if it changes rapidly it will be a disaster the likes of which we have never seen.
When he states, “The current alarm rests… [also on the belief that] that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman’s forecast for next week,” he is equivocating between weather prediction (which is concerned with what is happening on a particular day in a particular place) and climate prediction (which is concerned with the statistical behavior of the climate over broad periods of time and over wide regions). He is deliberately omitting the fact that climatology can be more accurate given the law of large numbers. He omits the fact that it has been shown to be fairly accurate with projections two decades into the future (e.g., Hansen 1988). He ignores the fact that it has done quite well at modeling earlier periods of climate change which we know by means of the paleoclimate record.
*
Lindzen states:
Gavin and Mike state:
Given my analysis of the earlier text, perhaps not that remarkable. He seems quite skilled.
They continue:
They also point out that this is generally accepted within the climate community and part of the IPCC assessment.
Lindzen included the following disclaimer:
They state:
They conclude:
I believe the conclusion is quite fair.
Ray, good point that I was not clear on. I was talking of scientists having to participate in the politic business in certain cases. You’re absolutely correct, though, that the processes and norms in politics are entirely different from science’s. In politics perception is reality; in science reality is (hopefully) reality. Which may be why some scientists don’t do politics very well.
Your post 209 is very good and I agree with it in general, but disagree in degree. As I said in post 210 I think the criteria for classifying scientists who take umbrage with some of the evidence as “dishonest” is far to light. It’s strange that Einstein was given a much higher threshold (not withstanding the very low, though greater than zero, probability that he might yet be proven right…) That’s why I conclude that many “scientists” are declared dishonest seemingly because they have a difference of opinion and go against the grain. I think the threshold has to be much greater.
Timothy (213), don’t change my quote without denoting it somehow — even in jest.
214 Rod B:
It should be noted that Einstein’s difference with the majority of physicists on quantum theory was on a matter of interpretation, not on matters of experimental fact.
It should also be pointed out that even fairly late in the game, he was posing questions that forced the other great quantum physicists to think very hard about the meaning of what they were doing and what it meant. This is a great example of what skilled criticism, in good faith, can do to advance scientific inquiry.
On the other hand, can you tell me what advance or clarification has been brought about through the agency of Lindzen’s skepticism?
I wonder what people will think of him in 10 years.
Timothy (213): “…If the climate system changes a great deal, and particularly if it changes rapidly it will be a disaster the likes of which we have never seen.”
You might have solid expectations for this but you have no (that’s none) unassailable evidence and proof (though you make it a little slippery with terms like “a great deal” and “rapidly”). Lindzen’s claim that it might not be a disaster (implied within limits) and might even be helpful to some degree no more makes him dishonest than me being a kitty cat. He may prove to be wrong; but that’s my point, repeated ad nauseam here, that, often, dishonesty is declared not because there is dishonesty but because there is disagreement with our well thought out and analyzed conclusions. (Or that they hang around with folks from the wrong side of the tracks.) I think this is wrong.
You say climate models are near infallible, certainly above any significant reproach. Lindzen says maybe not. Wrong? Maybe. Dishonest? IMHO not.
Gavin and Mike refute the “Medieval Climate Anomaly” issue with a loophole dodge. Though their statement “[Lindzen’s] in error” could prove absolutely right. Dishonest? IMHO not — at least not evident.
Etc., etc.
The conclusions are primarily picking faux flyspecks out of the pepper. Fairness is a non sequitur. (BTW, I am not being critical of Gavin or Mike for their contentions or arguments in any way. Certainly by my criteria I couldn’t get within a million miles of dishonesty. They’re espousing their learned and well-thought out opinions/beliefs.)
Rod, the example of Einstein is a good one. Einstein stayed within the fold because he continued to play by the rules. First, his disagreements with indeterminism were more of metaphysics than epistemology. More important, he kept his dissent within the physics community rather than doing science by press. You never heard him say, “That Niels Bohr is such an alarmist–giving up on determinism…” When he said “God does not play dice with the Universe,” he was at a scientific conference. This allowed Bohr to reply, “Stop telling God what to do.” Dissent is not the problem. I am quite open in my dissent from the linear-no threshold extrapolation of tissue damage for low radiation levels. However, I don’t go to the Wall Street Urinal and say there’s a massive fraud by the scientific community. How one dissents and where are much more important. Finally, look at who is dissenting. Other than Lindzen, Christy and a few other deadenders, none of them are climate scientists–that is also a no-no: butting into a field where you are not an expert, have never published and have limited understanding and saying the experts are all frauds or idiots. There are good reasons for the norms of science–they are the result of a long process of trying to limit subjectivity in human knowledge.
Rod B (215) wrote:
Actually I got a wire crossed in my own brain, misinterpretted my own text and then wanted to properly convey your meaning. Honestly not sure how though… “(n)ever”? Now that I think of it, I may have been remembering my sentence as, “is anyone ever justified in being dishonest?” rather than, “is anyone ever justified in concluding that someone is being dishonest?” Not sure why.
In any case, my apologies.
Rod B (#217) wrote:
As I stated:
Our world of the past 10,000 years has been built upon a stable climate system — something quite unusual in the paleoclimate record, and perhaps something fragile such that once it has been lost — pushed to far — we might not see the likes of it for a very long time.
Rod B (#217) wrote:
Not just me. The IPCC, which represents over 2000 scientists from 70 countries, seems to be of the same view:
Things are progressing more quickly than they expected — and they know it. And what would happen by the end of the century if as Lindzen would apparently council, we were to do nothing to change course?
But no, not a Euclidean proof. I can’t logically prove according to your apparent Cartesian standards of certainty that a near permanent change of three or four degrees Celsius will surpass anything disaster seen in the history of mankind. Empirical science simply doesn’t work that way — even in the most exacting fields of physics.
But it seems quite likely. Climate change is already proceeding at roughly a hundred times the background level of the past 10,000 years. We are already seeing an increase in extreme weather, of floods, droughts and storms, and consequently a frequency of disasters which is proving much more difficult for the United Nations to address than in the past. Then IPCC has noted as much. But for how long and how bad will it get? Will we push it far enough to cause the ocean currents to shift from one mode to another?
We are already seeing positive feedback from the carbon cycle, the melting of Greenland doubling its rate and icequakes tripling in just one decade. And remember: roughly half of humanity lives within 60 miles of coastline, and sea level rises of five meters within a century’s time do exist in the paleoclimate record.
Rod B (#217) wrote:
It is a great deal worse than that. He is going against virtually all of evidence which is to the contrary. What little is left is merely ambiguous.
However, even if his expressed views regarding what the climate might do or implication that it won’t be a such a bad thing were somehow a reasonable interpretation, he is gravely misrepresenting the views of the vast majority of scientists who think otherwise. This is why I spoke of a strawman. He states, “The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise…,” and this is dishonest. And this is my central point.
Rod B (#217) wrote:
He is a climatologist. He is familiar with the evidence, the literature and the paleoclimate record — particularly after having argued against it for so long.
Rod B (#217) wrote:
I did not say that — but they do seem to have a fairly good track record.
And when he states, “… but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman’s forecast for next week,” he knows better. I have every reason to believe that he is aware of the law of large numbers. He is undoubtedly well aware of the fact that while in all likelihood, no climatologist would make a forecast specifically for the year 2040, we seem to have done quite well in modeling various periods of climate change in the paleoclimate record, that Hansen did quite well in his projections over a twenty-year period back in 1988.
He knows that climatologists do not generally claim a great deal of confidence with respect to any given year, but they tend to do well with their claims about decades. Likewise, I suspect that as a climatologist, he is aware of the fact that climatologists do not claim a great deal of accuracy in any regional projections as of yet. Once again he is knowingly misrepresenting the views of those he disagrees with. Moreover, he knows that the weather is chaotic, but climate has been fairly predictable for the past 10,000 years. His comparison of weather and climate virtually equates the two. That’s dishonest.
Rod B (#217) wrote:
According to them, he is misrepresenting the history of the literature surrounding the issue of the Medieval Climate and he is misrepresenting the current state of the literature. Moreover, he is strongly suggesting that there was a fair amount of dishonesty on the part of his colleagues. And likewise, he is misleading readers as to his actual financial ties to Exxon.
Rod B (#217) wrote:
Perhaps you are not questioning their honesty with respect to their scientific opinions, but the phrase “loophole dodge” does not exactly suggest that they are being entirely honest with respect to their response to him.
*
Finally, one note.
In 215, you stated:
I apologized earlier for having changed the text, attempting to correct it so as to express your thought, but having actually changed it to the opposite of what I intended. However, I didn’t point out the fact that I had actually denoted the change with brackets around the word “[not]”. That is the standard way of indicating a word into text so as to preserve its meaning.
Neal (216): “…On the other hand, can you tell me what advance or clarification has been brought about through the agency of Lindzen’s skepticism? ”
A fair question, but not the point. (Or maybe it is…) The point is declaring scientists dishonest. My contention is whether one is wrong, unsuccessful, or just disagreeable is not sufficient grounds for doing so. Many here, when you get under the intellectualizing, think it is.
BTW, Lindzen at the minimum was indisputably eminent in his early days. I think he is advancing the science today, but others have a different opinion.
Look, it’s silly after a while for the nonscientists here to spend space and time arguing over how and when they think scientists will declare other scientist to be anything whatsoever. We should listen more and declare less. I so declare.
Ray (216), your point is a valid one. But the debate over indeterminism and quantum mechanics was inherently and naturally not in the public domain nor political. It had no discernable nor immediate effect on anybody. (Until it got to actual E=mc2 and atom bombs and then Einstein and others did politicize it, at least to a small degree, because that was inherently political.) AGW is inherently political. You can’t hold the skeptics responsible for that; nor can you blame the protagonists.
Per your later point, there is some merit in criticizing the method that some skeptics (and if I may say so, a few protagonists) have used in the political arena. There is something to be said for keeping it civil and all. Blasting op-ed pieces in the Journal might be untoward and not playing by the rules even in the political arena (at least in-so-far as science in politics is concerned — the rules of politics in a campaign, e.g., are totally different and pretty much uncivil) and ought to be frowned upon, even chastised. But it does not pass the (my) “dishonest” bar.
Rod, Actually Neal is right on point. For a scientist, it should ALL be about advancing or clarifying the state of knowledge. Lindzen has ceased making points in his zeal to score points. The best example I know of in recent memory is his implication in the public debate with Gavin et al. that warming on Earth is coincident with warming on Mars, Jupiter and Neptune–implying that the cause of warming on Earth must be extraterrestrial. This is so patently and transparently false that a scientist of Lindzen’s intelligence could not possible believe it. Now keep in mind that he was thus misrepresenting the science in a public forum in front of a lay audience Quite honestly, it was at this point I realized Lindzen had lost interest in the truth.
There is a point I believe this conversation has been dancing around a bit without ever actually touching on them — although Ray Ladbury’s post 224 gets rather close. Why is it important to acknowledge the fact that someone like Lindzen is being dishonest?
*
There are a variety of reasons.
Obviously there are the existential consequences — if he distorts the science and our response to climate change, the stakes are quite high. However, there is also the point that he confers a false respectability upon arguments which carry no weight in the scientific community.
The recycled arguments which might have been worthy of some consideration several decades ago — but which are now properly dismissed. The arguments which should never have been made in the first place. As long as you do not question his honesty, the less informed will often come to view that, “Perhaps those arguments aren’t as bad as everyone says — afterall, look at this fellow Lindzen — whose opinion should clearly carry some weight.”
*
There are those who are actually trying to understand yet will buy into his arguments. They may want to do what is best — given what they take to our best estimates of the processes that are involved. To the extent that he distorts the science, he robs them of that opportunity — until such time that they are able to see through his deception.
Likewise, when one grants someone like Lindzen exemption from such judgment, one is necessarily doing to disservice to the scientists who are making every honest effort in the field of climatology. One is denying that their work carries with it the justification which it in fact has. To the extent that people who are uninformed accept the public conclusions of individuals like Lindzen, one is leaving the uninformed with reasons to question the motives of those who are in fact living up to the standards of their profession, those who are conducting their work with integrity, objectivity and honesty. The fact that Lindzen and others have at times actually encouraged this doesn’t help.
Finally, one leaves uninformed open to a process in whereby they will come to view the controversies principally in terms of politics, developing an “us vs. them” attitude in which they will come to view arguments not as a means of identifying reality, but as tools in a political battle and science as merely one of the theaters in which this battle is to be waged. And as they come to view things in those terms and become active in the debate, their own honesty will become one of the first victims by degrees in the “battles” that they participate in — as they find it necessary to distort the process of identification in order to “win.”
*
Now as I understand it, identification always takes precedence over evaluation. One should always begin with the evidence. However, once one has carried this process to its logical conclusion, one can identify what is wrong with arguments which were demonstrated to be unsound. One can also identify patterns of argumentation on the part of various participants. One can identify the level of their understanding. And one can also ask whether a given a given bit of illogic was honest or deliberate.
Obviously we cannot know others in quite the same way that we know ourselves. However, we can judge their intent. We do so all the time. When you read my words you are identifying my intent, what it is that I wish to convey. Likewise, we identify intent when we form expectations regarding how someone will behave, for example, when I expect my boss to pay me for two weeks of work.
And one can identify the degree to which someone is being honest or dishonest. Typically one cannot do this without also engaging in a process by which one judges the level of their understanding. But together with an estimate of their level of understanding, a pattern of the misrepresentation of the evidence and of the conclusions one should properly draw from such evidence, one can and should make such judgments — as warranted by the evidence.
The evidence for such judgments is — as in the case of science — cummulative. The more evidence one acquires the greater the justification there will exist for one’s conclusions. Nevertheless, one should always be willing to revise one’s judgments in light of new evidence. It is a fallible process.
One can make mistakes — which one should not hesitate to correct. But the fact that mistakes are possible in no way negates the necessity of forming such judgments — even when they are left unexpressed. The process of judging the intent of others is part of the process of judging reality — and when one holds back from forming such judgments it will necessarily distort the rest of one’s perception of reality.
Timothy (225), a scholarly post. But in the end it simply comes full circle (again) to my argument: the underlying basis for declaring Lindzen (or anybody else) dishonest is that he is espousing things different from your all’s clearly thought out, validated (by the consensus), and, in effect, unassailable and infallible conclusions. As you are correct, he must be dishonest, since he clearly is in a position to comprehend your assertions and can’t claim honest but ignorant. You added another icing layer that, because the results and effects are potentially so profound and pronounced, Lindzen is ‘doubly dishonest’.
I think we will continue to have our own interpretation and disagreement, and we should, as Hank kinda implied, move on down the road.
Rod,
I am glad you liked my most recent post even if you disagree with the conclusions. And yes, that particular post does presuppose the fact that Lindzen is being dishonest in the first place.
*
However, as has been pointed out, there is the misrepresentation of the literature and the misrepresentation of others’ views (213 and 220), and points which are simply so blatant (Ray’s 224) that as I see it, there simply isn’t room left for any other interpretation. As such the case isn’t simply a matter of his making obvious mistakes, or even making the same mistakes repeatedly long after they have been shown to be unreasonable.
Likewise there is his choice of forums in which to present his science. Newsweek instead of Science or Nature. Presentations before an audience that lacks the critical background with which to properly evaluate those arguments rather than before his peers who do. This in itself strongly suggests that he has placed politics before science.
You have carefully avoided the issues of misrepresentation of the views of others and the point that Lindzen has repeatedly chosen the wrong forum in which to present his “views” — except where with regard to the latter, you dismiss it as carrying insufficient weight for you to personally conclude that by itself it demonstrates dishonestly.
*
You have instead chosen to focus almost exclusively on “the science.” However, while claiming that something might persuade you, there has been no mention of what that something might be, and your argument appears to revolve around the belief that whatever the differences, they are simply differences of scientific opinion.
Your approach would appear to entirely rest on the claim that there is no ultimate proof that one opinion or another is true. As such it pays no attention to the actual content of or logic underlying such scientific opinion or the cummulative nature of scientific evidence.
But by this token such approach would apply equally to the geocentrist or flat eather. In logic, there is nothing to limit it from being applied with respect to any “difference of opinion,” scientific or otherwise, and as such implies a radical skepticism of sorts. And it would seem to imply that in your view one is never justified in concluding that someone is being dishonest — except possibly in the case of blatant logical self-contradiction.
*
In the final analysis, each of us must render a verdict within the courtroom of our own individual minds. And likewise, the casual haste or careful deliberation with which we arrive at those judgments will reflect upon us, both within our own minds and within the minds of others.
Rod’s summary: there can be no such thing as dishonesty, only different opinions. Therefore, nobody could possibly be accountable under any circumstances.
In tobaccoland, where one could suspect Rod may have learned some rethoric, there is no such thing as dishonesty, only diverging opinions, all of equal merit. Hence, there is no such thing as accountability or liability…
Timothy, good summary (227) of your and (pretty close to) my position. Though as I claimed before, I have no problem calling dishonesty for what it is, despite what Philippe says (“tobaccoland rhetoric”?? What’s that? I was able to see the dishonesty in both the FDA and the EPA. e.g. (as did a Federal District Judge in the EPA’s case…)). I just seem to have a much higher threshold, though I admit that gets to be pretty subjective and subject to scrutiny. I, of course, think I’m correct, but do find myself on the “benefit of the doubt” side a lot: the State didn’t come close to proving O.J guilty; Martha Stewart got railroaded; Imanda (?) Marcus was over prosecuted; Helmsley got screwed; “Scooter” Libby’s prosecution is a sham — a lonely job it seems. I have not seen anything by Lindzen that I see as dishonest, but neither have I certainly read everything Lindzen said or wrote (and don’t expect to) and certainly might have missed something. And as I said and you seemed to agree, choosing the “wrong” forum or the “wrong” audience might be improper, but not honest.
That second comment is redundant, the first did not seem to initially post.
I believe you refer to the data on addiction. It is rather funny to think that this data was indeed somewhat shaky, but that internal memos and policies enacted by the industry reveal that they intended to take advantage of addictive properties that they believed to be real, like everybody else. When they were called on that, they started to lok more closely and figured, with relief, that they may have been wasting resources. Dishonesty can have layers.
If you refer to the the second hand effects, there is so much conclusive data on lung and cardiovascular disease for it as to make any “debate” a fraud, regardless of how EPA or FDA could have screwed up.
1) The gov’t unquestionably dumbed the definition of “addiction” way down.
2) Strange, your awareness of all the “rock solid” conclusive data that neither the EPA nor FDA knew about.
Rod, I am just curious. If a scientist were to make an argument in a public forum that was designed to sway uneducated lay people, and that scientist knew the argument was based on false pretenses, would that be dishonest?
There is nothing strange about it. The American Heart Association, American Lung Association and NIH have everything one needs to know. As a matter of fact, the simple compilation of what’s in the medical journals would require full time work of a sizeable team for a while. This issue was interesting: Lancet. Vol. 364 No. 9446, 2004. Enjoy your research.
Ray, yes, that would be dishonest if taken completely literally. But there is a degree of a subjective fudge factor in the term “false pretense” (“pretense”?) which can be the crux of the issue. If it is false because it is false, that’s dishonest; if it is “false” because it goes against the majority opinion (and even against a lot of evidence), all things being equal, it is not dishonest, even if presented to lay people.
Philippe, you find nothing peculiar with agencies responsible for initiating regulation, control and enforcement presumably knowing nothing (or little) of which they are responsible for? I guess you would support the EPA’s regulation of CO2 emissions (per the Court) whether they knew anything about AGW or not, as long as the did it “right”.
Rod, The contention that warming on Neptune (It’s summer where the warming is occurring), Mars (dust storms dominate climate) or Jupiter (dubious at best) has anything to do with warming on Earth is so obviously false, that I have a hard time believing that anyone of Lindzen’s intelligence could fall for it. I am left with the inescapable conclusion that Lindzen used that argument in a forum of nonexperts for the sole purpose of increasing doubt in their minds. THAT is dishonest, and surprisingly bold.
Ray, your example of Lindzen’s claim (I haven’t read it and take your description at face value) is not obviously dishonest. The temperatures found on Neptune, Mars, Jupiter, or any other planet must follow the same raw basic principles responsible for Earth’s temperature: simply, (1) the incoming insolation plus (2) the (maybe) internally generated heat, less (3) the Planck body surface radiation, but less again (4) the Planck radiation that gets “trapped” or re-absorbed determines the temperature. The details of how that happens may (and likely do) differ, especially (only?) in the 4th part, and differ greatly. But to say that “warming of planet X has no connection at all with Earth’s warming is obviously false” is simply incorrect. Now you may disagree violently over the lack of Lindzen’s differentiation of the details of that last part, and you might have a ton of evidence to back it up, but you would be hard-pressed to claim the knowledge of what happens on Jupiter, Mars, etc. is unassailable, which drops it back again to a difference of opinion — not dishonesty.
Yes, it is peculiar, IF it is really as you describe.
As I have said before, I am not fully aware of what happened in the cases you seem to refer to. You appear to be more attentive to courtroom games, and those last statements about what is or is not false, or what is or is not deceiving/dishonest, to me, sound awfully reminiscent of debates about the “meaning of is.”
I find this especially interesting: “it would be dishonest, if taken literally.” How does one know for sure if it is going to be taken literally or not? Who knows? The idea that the original intent of the emitter of a message depends on the thought process at the receiving end is the definition of deception, in a way. I’ll let Ray comment on that.
Nonetheless, there is no BS thrown around in courtrooms that changes the reality of tobacco’s physiological effects, for which the body of research is compelling, to say the least. How about that issue of the Lancet? How about that link I cited earlier? Is a 60% decrease in heart attacks enough for you? Many pharmaceutical labs dream of finding a drug that could show that kind of efficacy over placebo. In Montana, they did it with a smoking ban. You and other libertarians should love it: purely local, no big research progra, no feds involved, what’s not to like?
Rod, you really could benefit by looking this stuff up before posting your beliefs.
Just one example
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/langswitch_lang/en#comment-5324
Rod, I am rather surprised by your characterization. On Jupiter, internally generated heat dominates–as it does on Neptune. Mars is in turn dominated by dust storms, and has essentially no water vapor. Now Lindzen must know this. The energetics of these bodies bear little resemblance to Earth. Lindzen is no fool. So I can only conclude that Lindzen was trying to score points by deliberately trying to mislead nonexperts. This is not only dishonest, it demonstrates a contempt for the truth that I find highly incompatible with the profession of scientist. If you have some other interpretation, I would like to hear it.
Phillipe, not to be the bearer of bad news, but you may as well be typing to sign post. The chance that Rod would defend a claim or register a sourced argument you’ve made is a Plutarsky-esque 0.0. 9 years of college down the drain indeed.
Philippe (239): “…Yes, it is peculiar, IF it is really as you describe…. ”
But it is your own characterization that I’m referring to (‘EPA and FDA screwed it up’). I actually think the EPA does understand the science, which is why they can’t plead ignorance in defense of their fraudulent tactics.
Your high regard for the Helena study is astounding. It prima facie has no redeeming scientific value. Within six months of banning smoke in a population of around 70,000, AMIs dropped from 7 to 4 because of the decrease in SHS????? You have got to be kidding. Or woefully ignorant of basic epidemiological study protocol (you know — statistically significant, cause and effect, and other advanced concepts) and/or the physiological processes that even the half-way reasonable antagonists assert. Those guys can’t even calculate percentages!
O.K! Who woke up Majorajam?
Ray, and Hank and Philippe: With one possible exception, nothing you said altered my basic contention of the four factors that determine the temperature of any planetary body. I admit I am not aware of exactly what Lindzen is professing, but simply accepting your characterization of it, of which I do not see dishonesty (at least at the “perjury” level — a little courtroom analogy to keep Philippe happy [;-) ). The one exception is dust storms. I have to admit this is new news to me and I do not understand the physics. Assuming it is different from my 4th or 1st (which accounts for albedo) factor in 238 (otherwise it would be included in my description), how exactly do dust storms per se affect the temperature? This certainly might affect my position. I always assumed dust storms affected absorption and/or insolation (albedo), but never knew for sure.
Philippe, I’m not sure of your question over “taken literally”. Ray’s question explicitly included, “…knew the argument was based on false pretenses…” I meant did “knew” have a literal meaning, as opposed to ‘sounded like’, or ‘should’ve’ or some such. In my view the precise definition is critical to determining dishonesty as opposed to disagreement, which is the crux of this debate.
The argument from the denialists is that “Mars, Jupiter, Triton and Pluto are all warming, so it must be the sun that’s causing global warming, and not anthropogenic CO2.”
Mars is warmer because it is subject to massive dust storms, and where the dust settles determines how much light Mars reflects. Mars is darker than it used to be, therefore it’s warmer than it used to be.
Astronomers discovered “hot spots” on Jupiter. They did NOT discover that Jupiter is warming.
Triton is warming because of where its primary, Neptune, is in its orbit.
Pluto is also warming because of where it is in its orbit. It has the most eccentric orbit in the solar system (e =~ 0.25). It takes 248 years to orbit the sun and its perihelion was in 1999. It will still be warming for some time.
And Uranus, by the way, is cooling, and Venus may be as well. How does a brighter sun accomplish that?
The fact is, we have been measuring solar brightness directly, and it hasn’t gone up in 50 years. To assume that the direct measurements are wrong and that solar brightening is best figured from what’s happening to the planets is silly. And there’s no quantitative estimate made with this “the planets are warming” estimate. The reason why it isn’t being made is because it would blow the whole silly idea out of the water. As Phil Plait of the “Bad Astronomy” blog put it, if solar brightening has managed to warm Pluto from 37 K to 39 K, “it would blowtorch the Earth.” A little hyperbole, but he’s basically correct; by the same ratio, Earth’s mean global annual surface temperature would have gone from 288 K to 304 K — or from 59 F to 90 F. Trust me, we would have noticed.
I’ll add one comment to Barton’s on Pluto. The observation by Elliott’s team on Pluto’s atmosphere led to the flourish of denialist nonsense we’ve seen. If I recall correctly, that observation was made using KECK, and was the first of its kind with that quality of equipment. Furthermore, not only Pluto is in the seasonal position mentioned by BPL but it also has been darkening since the 50’s, most likely due to collection of space materials, with the corresponding albedo change. Finally, if we use the IPCC’s definition of the time period that determines climate, 30 revolutions around the Sun, we would need to wait for a little while in order to have only a baseline of Pluto’s “climate.”
Trying to suggest that the Sun could warm Pluto and still show no significant variation in measured TSI around the Earth is so grotesque that it deserves only to be quickly dismissed.
The idea, however, has a useful purpose: anyone claiming to be a scientist who presents such crackpot nonsense to the masses can have no other intention than to deceive. No “knew”, “sound like”, “should have” necessary here. It’s pure denialist BS, guaranteed genuine.
Seriously, Rod, look these things up. You bring in cookie-cutter ideas that are nothing new as though you’d just thought them up, and perhaps you have — but if you take each of these ideas as you come up with them, from wherever they spring, and just look them up, take just a little time — you won’t waste ours. Usually you’ll find they’ve already been brought up repeatedly right here at RC, let alone by searching with Scholar.
Think what RC would be like if folks like us asked _new_ questions, thoughtful ones based on actual ideas, that would lead the scientists to say “Good question!” and then all of us could learn something working out answers.
Rod B, Dust storms on Mars dominate climate there by influencing whether sunlight ever makes it to the ground to be absorbed. The past 10 years of so have been pretty quiet compared to, say, the Viking era. That’s why Mars is warmer today.
For the outer planets (Jupiter on out), sunlight plays a negligible role in their energetics. So there is no shortwave light to make it to the surface and be absorbed. The surfaces literally never see the light of day. Most of the energy is coming from within the planet. So the only possible connection between Earth’s climate and that of the outer planets–the Sun–plays a minimal role. Lindzen is too smart not to know this. So, since he cannot plead ignorance, I ask again, what possible motivation could he have for bringing up this false argument in a public (lay) forum other than to mislead the nontechnical audience? And don’t go trying to debate what the meaning of the word “is” is.
Et al, etc: Actually I thought Clinton’s question about “is” was not as hokey as everyone took it to be. I see nothing wrong with precisely defining one’s words, especially if the question is coming from a Special Prosecutor and a Grand Jury. Those who don’t do so at their grave peril. [Shows you what I know [;-) ]
More to the point I think precisely defining and scoping “dishonesty” is very important and considerably more worthy than rants and loose accusations.
I still do not see the dishonesty, though I understand the concern more – using the increasing temperatures of (some) planets to prove the general increase in insolation. I think there still could be some connection, though it seems pretty loose and tenuous. Planetary insolation seems to be selectively increasing by happenstance via the changing orbital positions, as Barton, et al point out. Our actual measurement of insolation (at ground and TOA) clearly is the most accurate, even maybe 50 years ago. (I have trouble accepting the accuracy of our measurements of Pluto’s temperature. Though clearly if Pluto’s temp is noticeably increasing through non-orbital insolation, the Sun’s output has to be increasing massively, as Philippe points out.)
I take it my 4 universal parts to planetary temperature stands. I included albedo factors in #1, insolation, though it might not have been obvious. And, as I get it the Martian dust storms simply (??) alter the albedo and insolation.
Hank, sorry to be wasting your time. The issue is the honesty of lack of by the likes of Lindzen as viewed by other people. I’m not sure how I research that in a closet without asking those other people.
OK, Rod, I ask it another way. You are in a room with two doors. One leads to freedom. The other to a tigers cage. You can ask Lindzen or Gavin which door to take. Based on their track record, which would you ask?