It won’t have escaped many of our readers’ notice that there has been what can only be described as a media frenzy (mostly in the UK) with regards to climate change in recent weeks. The coverage has contained more bad reporting, misrepresentation and confusion on the subject than we have seen in such a short time anywhere. While the UK newspaper scene is uniquely competitive (especially compared to the US with over half a dozen national dailies selling in the same market), and historically there have been equally frenzied bouts of mis-reporting in the past on topics as diverse as pit bulls, vaccines and child abductions, there is something new in this mess that is worth discussing. And that has been a huge shift in the Overton window for climate change.
In any public discussion there are bounds which people who want to be thought of as having respectable ideas tend to stay between. This is most easily seen in health care debates. In the US, promotion of a National Health Service as in the UK or a single-payer system as in Canada is so far outside the bounds of normal health care politics, that these options are only ever brought up by ‘cranks’ (sigh). Meanwhile in the UK, discussions of health care delivery solutions outside of the NHS framework are never heard in the mainstream media. This limit on scope of the public debate has been called the Overton window.
The window does not have to remain static. Pressure groups and politicians can try and shift the bounds deliberately, or sometimes they are shifted by events. That seems to have been the case in the climate discussion. Prior to the email hack at CRU there had long been a pretty widespread avoidance of ‘global warming is a hoax’ proponents in serious discussions on the subject. The sceptics that were interviewed tended to be the slightly more sensible kind – people who did actually realise that CO2 was a greenhouse gas for instance. But the GW hoaxers were generally derided, or used as punchlines for jokes. This is not because they didn’t exist and weren’t continually making baseless accusations against scientists (they did and they were), but rather that their claims were self-evidently ridiculous and therefore not worth airing.
However, since the emails were released, and despite the fact that there is no evidence within them to support any of these claims of fraud and fabrication, the UK media has opened itself so wide to the spectrum of thought on climate that the GW hoaxers have now suddenly find themselves well within the mainstream. Nothing has changed the self-evidently ridiculousness of their arguments, but their presence at the media table has meant that the more reasonable critics seem far more centrist than they did a few months ago.
A few examples: Monckton being quoted as a ‘prominent climate sceptic’ on the front page of the New York Times this week (Wow!); The Guardian digging up baseless fraud accusations against a scientist at SUNY that had already been investigated and dismissed; The Sunday Times ignoring experts telling them the IPCC was right in favor of the anti-IPCC meme of the day; The Daily Mail making up quotes that fit their GW hoaxer narrative; The Daily Express breathlessly proclaiming the whole thing a ‘climate con’; The Sunday Times (again) dredging up unfounded accusations of corruption in the surface temperature data sets. All of these stories are based on the worst kind of oft-rebunked nonsense and they serve to make the more subtle kind of scepticism pushed by Lomborg et al seem almost erudite.
Perhaps this is driven by editors demanding that reporters come up with something new (to them) that fits into an anti-climate science theme that they are attempting to stoke. Or perhaps it is driven by the journalists desperate to maintain their scoop by pretending to their editors that this nonsense hasn’t been debunked a hundred times already? Who knows? All of these bad decisions are made easier when all of the actually sensible people, or people who know anything about the subject at all, are being assailed on all sides, and aren’t necessarily keen to find the time to explain, once again, that yes, the world is warming.
So far, so stupid. But even more concerning is the reaction from outside the UK media bubble. Two relatively prominent and respected US commentators – Curtis Brainard at CJR and Tom Yulsman in Colorado – have both bemoaned the fact that the US media (unusually perhaps) has not followed pell-mell into the fact-free abyss of their UK counterparts. Their point apparently seems to be that since much news print is being devoted to a story somewhere, then that story must be worth following. Indeed, since the substance to any particularly story is apparently proportional to the coverage, by not following the UK bandwagon, US journalists are missing a big story. Yulsman blames the lack of environmental beat reporters for lack of coverage in the US, but since most of the damage and bad reporting on this is from clueless and partisan news desk reporters in the UK, I actually expect that it is the environmental beat reporters’ prior experience with the forces of disinformation that prevents the contagion crossing the pond. To be sure, reporters should be able and willing (and encouraged) to write stories about anything to do with climate science and its institutions – but that kind of reporting is something very different from regurgitating disinformation, or repeating baseless accusations as fact.
So what is likely to happen now? As the various panels and reports on the CRU affair conclude, it is highly likely (almost certain in fact) that no-one will conclude that there has been any fraud, fabrication or scientific misconduct (since there hasn’t been). Eventually, people will realise (again) that the GW hoaxers are indeed cranks, and the mainstream window on their rants will close. In the meantime, huge amounts of misinformation, sprinkled liberally with plenty of disinformation, will be spread and public understanding on the issue will likely decline. As the history of the topic has shown, public attention to climate change comes and goes and this is likely to be seen as the latest bump on that ride.
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/towards_rebuilding_trust.html
It begins:
I am trying something new, a blogospheric experiment, if you
will. I have been a fairly active participant in the blogosphere
since 2006, and recently posted two essays on climategate, one at climateaudit.org
and the other at climateprogress.org.
Both essays were subsequently picked up by other blogs, and the
diversity of opinions expressed at the different blogs was quite
interesting. Hence I am distributing this essay to a number of
different blogs simultaneously with the hope of demonstrating the
collective power of the blogosphere to generate ideas and debate
them. I look forward to a stimulating discussion on this
important topic.
Gavin (861)
Blame me, policy based science is a term I invented to describe science that was performed to support some predetermined political agenda, i.e., science based on policy. Think Jim Hanson’s plea to glaciologists a few years back to go with what they knew was right, even if they did not have scientific facts.
I was reacting to a claim that IPCC’s objective was to build environmental policy based on science, which they labeled science based policy.
I know that science requires funding, sometimes a lot. I don’t know just where it starts, but if there seems to be a lot of cherry-picking for what sponsors want to hear – I call that policy based science. Warmers accuse deniers of it all the time.
I’m still in high school, but I would love to study physical climatology (especially radiative balance and attribution) after I graduate. So what I want to know is…..how do you stay sane as a climatologist?! I can handle terrifying predictions (I’ve gotten good at turning off the emotional part of my brain when necessary) but the smearing of scientists, scientific organizations, and science itself, as well as the abandonment of facts in the media that has fallen prey to repeating these smears, makes me really worry about what kind of career I’m getting myself in for.
[Response: Actually most scientists don’t have to deal with this at all. The smear campaigns ‘work’ precisely because they only pick on a few individuals who are supposed to represent the entire community. Obviously it is no fun being one of these people. But most of what gets said has very little to do with who you are, what you really think or what you really do. And so you find that there has been a doppelgänger created online – someone who might look like you, with your name and place of work, but who holds opinions you would find abhorrent, has no ethical standards and is probably overweight. The way to cope is to realise that this is not you. People who have no idea what you are like find themselves compelled to dwell on your online doppelgänger’s imagined faults, but again they are not really talking about you. Imagine you are at school and someone comes up to you and calls you a baldy when in fact you have a full head of hair. Is the right reaction to be upset? Or simply realise that the person doesn’t actually have a clue, and should rather be pitied than contradicted? Same thing online. People do manage to continue to be productive and to do good science, and that is ultimately the best revenge. – gavin]
Kate,
Look for research that interests you and don’t listen to ignorant food tubes. After all, there is something to be said for having the right enemies as well as the right friends.
I have already read tamino’s web pages.
> John Peter
> cherry-picking for what sponsors want to hear
That’s cherrypicking, and it’s explicitly NOT science
> – I call that policy based science.
Nope. If you do, you confuse cherrypicking with science, throwing out the meaning of “science” by asserting that it can still be “science” while dishonestly done intentionally to advocate a predetermined point of view.
The term you’re probably trying for is “advocacy science” — this is well documented, studied quite a bit. It’s usually referring to “science” designed to serve the interests of “advocates” (lawyers). Look up the “Daubert” decision.
E.g.: “Evidence shows that research funded by the tobacco industry was designed as advocacy science.” http://www.defendingscience.org/upload/The-Funding-Effect-in-Science-and-its-Implications-for-the-Judiciary.pdf
or
http://www.ssrc.org/workspace/images/crm/new_publication_3/%7Beee91c8f-ac35-de11-afac-001cc477ec70%7D.pdf
“THE SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL JULY 2008
The Rise of the Dedicated Natural
Science Think Tank — By Philip Mirowski
“While most of work on think tanks takes if for granted that their mandate would encompass the social sciences as part of their political orientation, it has been much less common to focus on the growth of think tanks dedicated to the natural sciences. This has been unfortunate, because it is one thing to generate policy-relevant knowledge to bolster your side in the political arena, it is quite another to have the ambition to change the very nature of knowledge production about both the natural and social worlds….”
Gavin, impressive response to Kate in #903
Kate (#903) “…makes me really worry about what kind of career I’m getting myself in for.”
Don’t for a minute let this stuff deter you from your interests. Believe me, the rewards of doing scientific research – the deep appreciation of the magnificence of the physical world, the joy of discovery, the opportunity to contribute to beneficial knowledge, and the support and respect of colleagues who value honesty and integrity – far outweigh the burdens imposed by those who might feel threatened by your work.
Take heart from those who shine in the midst of the fray. While Gavin et al. are here dealing with dirt bombs, check out Jane Lubchenco (head of NOAA) dealing with congressional dinosaurs:
http://http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0014
She is a class act, a great role model.
And if, by any chance, you are the Kate of ClimateSight.org, you are ‘way ahead of the game already. If you’re not, well, you have good company over there.
Hank Roberts (906)
Thanks for listening.
I found your first reference interesting and helpful – though perhaps not in the manner you intended. The author is a professor of medicine, all his examples and processes are from the health and drug sciences, and he very clearly outlines the similarities and differences between scientists and lawyers which is where I suspect he drew his term advocacy.
I did not understand why tobacco companies seemed to be the example of corporate malfeasance used to project problems for climate scientists. Having read the link which you so kindly provided I now think I understand – almost all Krimshi’s examples dealt with tobacco companies (and alluded to drug testing).
While the second reference uses term advocacy science, as a synonym for contrarian, it only does so once and in a transient and negative. However it doesn’t really matter much because social science is way beyond me and I’ve had too much difficulty with programmer scheduling to warm up to a term like computer science.
Climate science differs from most physical science in that experiments can not repeated to examine a hypothesis. The heavy requirements for proxies and models in good climate science – whatever that may be – put it in a class by itself. Needless to say double-blind testing, so important to advocacy science, is also quite out of the question.
I hope that I’m not just being stubborn but I’d like to continue with my use of the term policy based science, at least until until IPCC drops its science based policy terminology.
BTW, I continue to believe that science and policy don’t mix well. Good science depends on skepticism, while good policy depends on consensus. The two are incompatible – at least that’s what I believe.
Maybe it’s as simple as Andreas has a hammer labelled “Sociological sciences” and everything is a nail that responds only to that hammer.
“889
stevenc says:
24 February 2010 at 2:48 PM
Andreas Bjurstrom, I’m sorry but I see no pacticality behind what you recommend.”
And Andreas will now consign you to “whatever”-bin. He’s unwilling to accept that science isn’t sociology, however much his single paper wants to make it.
As declared previously on other threads, I am a non-scientific, Joe Soap “sceptic”.
The question most often asked of me on sites like RealClimate is why, given the overwhelming evidence and the scientific consensus, do I choose to ignore the science produced by 1000s of learned and dedicated scientists – in favour of my own uneducated “feel” or personal opinion? – which, frankly, is not a bad question.
To start with, I am probably anti-authoritarian in general attitude and am instinctively mistrustful of people in positions of power telling me something is beyond debate. Secondly, I instinctively react by entrenching if I am then insulted (denier, flat earther, loony, big oil, etc) for holding my views.
More importantly though, as someone that has been in sales for 30 years (big ticket IT sales at a senior level – but absolutely no qualifications) I think know when I am being sold to, or at the very least, when I am being oversold.
My personal epiphany was a 2 or 3 years ago when ITN News in the UK broadcast the evening news each night for a week from the Antarctic (during the summer down there). There were lots of stories about various aspect of change in the Antarctic and many of them included some thing along the lines of “this could disappear”, “this may lead to”, “if that happens then it might result in”.
In one particular piece, the Anchor Man, Mark Austin, was in a rib (or small boat) showing us hugely impressive close-to images of enormous ice bergs. Without warning, a huge wall of ice slipped from a close iceberg causing the driver of the little boat to power away to avoid getting hit or swamped. Once Mr Austin had gathered himself, he solemnly reported something along the lines of “evidence, if ever more evidence were needed, of the impact of global warming”. What?!? He’s in the Antarctic, in the summer, and as far as he is concerned, the break up of an ice berg is evidence of a forthcoming global catastrophe?
I know that you guys on RealClimate would not support what he said and therefore you might ask “so what”? The issue is that this story is symptomatic of what the general public has been subjected to for years now. It isn’t your fault and most of you didn’t do it. However, rightly or wrongly, you are now suffering the consequences of all of the ridiculous scare stories (not agreed by you) where seemingly everything that happens is presented as evidence of global warming.
When my Prime Minister tells me I am a flat earther, or denialist, because the science is settled and the scientific consensus is clear, he is, in effect, quoting you. He is saying that you (i.e. all you learned scientists) say that there is no debate and there is no doubt.
There are lots of other issues but then, most recently, we get the Q & A between Phil Jones and Roger Harrabin of the BBC.
I have no doubt that Phil Jones is a very nice, dedicated and learned man and is obviously an expert in these matters. He is one of the people that are at the very centre of the debate and is one of the very people, that I have been led to believe by the press, the IPCC and my government, that “knows” what is happening with our climate – to the extent that the science is “settled” and there is no debate left to be had.
However, when given “sceptic based” questions to answer, he supplies the following messages to me and the MSM. Remember, he did not give these answers under time pressure or under the spotlight. He had all the time he needed to carefully craft responses that said exactly what he wanted them to say. I assume (or at least I hope), that every word in his responses was poured over and triple checked with others before he gave them. The result of his efforts was to transmit the following messages to the layman:
Message 1.
Phil Jones confirms that there hasn’t been any statistically significant increase in global temperatures since 1995 (i.e. the message is that there hasn’t been any warming for 15 years).
Message 2.
Phil Jones says “So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other” (i.e. the message is that the increasing temperatures of the type being experienced are not unprecedented)
Message 3.
Phil Jones says “It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view.(i.e.. the message is that I, (Phil Jones) don’t think that the science is settled and most scientists don’t think it is either.
Please don’t expend effort picking apart, justifying or questioning the paraphrased quotes/statements. That is not my point. The point that I am trying to make is that these are now the headlines that the public, including me, is seeing. You may not think that they are right or even fair – but they are the headlines.
If one is a Joe Soap voter (and I am), and the TV news presents you with these headlines and one compares them with the statements being made (still) by Gordon Brown (our Prime mnister), Ed Miliband (our Climate Change Minister), Dr Pachauri and Al Gore (all non-experts) – then there is clearly a gap – a yawning gap!
If GB, EM, RP and AG have “misunderstood” Phil Jones’ position in the past then who else, and what else, have they also “misunderstood”?
Throw in the CRU emails and the other various “gates” as well as the stories about the “alleged” billion dollars of carbon credits to be received by Tata for closing the UK’s last major steel works and the story of the British Civil Service “buying” £60m of carbon credits from India so that they can continue to heat and light their offices at current levels, and Joe Soap would need to have a pretty thick skin to conclude that “there is nothing here”.
So, because I am instinctively cynical and mistrustful of politicians and authority – I have no alternative but to come to the conclusion that I am being “sold” to – and I am being sold to, big time, by some very important and powerful people.
The frustration of the many contributors to RealClimate is palpable and I can only imagine what it feels like to believe or “know” something as a result of years of study – and to have your work increasingly dismissed or mistrusted by Joe Soap. This is clearly totally unfair and unjustified.
But how do I square the circle? I have concluded, logically in my view, for reasons that I can only guess at, that Gordon Brown et al have been lying to me (or, at the very least, they are guilty of gross overselling of the scientific “consensus”). My instinctive feelings that a consensus didn’t exist as previously portrayed is proven by the words of Phil Jones.
On the other hand, why on earth would GB, EM, RP and AG lie to me? Take the easy ones first. Al Gore might lie to me because he is a politician and he has another agenda and sees a way of keeping himself in the public eye and making money from writing, speaking and carbon trading. It’s hard to believe – but possible. Dr Pachauri might be the same or he might just “believe”. Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband are more difficult. Most “global warming policies” result in the voters loosing something, paying more or paying more taxes – none of which are obvious vote winners. Maybe it’s the “emperor’s clothes” thing. Maybe they have so much personal credibility invested in the government policies of the last 12 years that they just can’t take a single backward step for fear of the consequences.
If nothing else, I hope that this diatribe gives you an insight into the slow and cumbersome workings of the “lay” mind.
911Completely Fed Up,
Sociology is a scientific discipline, didn´t you know that? Actually, there are quite many different sciences, hundreds of disciplines, and thousands of specialities….
By the way, I am not an sociologist :-)
and almost all my suggestions was historical, history is not sociology :-)
CC “do I choose to ignore the science produced by 1000s of learned and dedicated scientists – in favour of my own uneducated “feel” or personal opinion? – which, frankly, is not a bad question.”
Yes it is a bad question.
It’s like the question “Should I have thought about the consequences of stealing this car before I lost control and slammed into that busload of people?”.
It is not a good question because you shouldn’t have been in the position of asking it.
“More importantly though, as someone that has been in sales for 30 years (big ticket IT sales at a senior level – but absolutely no qualifications) I think know when I am being sold to, or at the very least, when I am being oversold.”
Projection.
And when someone is selling you life insurance you go “I’m NEVER going to die!!!”?
“The frustration of the many contributors to RealClimate is palpable and I can only imagine what it feels like to believe or “know” something as a result of years of study”
Other way round (you’re projecting again!):
“… what it feels like to “believe” or know something …”
“If nothing else, I hope that this diatribe gives you an insight into the slow and cumbersome workings of the “lay” mind.”
No, it’s given us all too great an insight into yours.
It was not a good journey.
t_p_hamilton (891), How is it that someone can run an experiment that indicates doubling CO2 increases temp 2 degrees and come up with a 90% confidence in his result? Why not 100%? Did he only do 90% of one step in his experiment so assumed he is probably only 90% correct in his results? Or did part of his experiment require something that he wasn’t sure exactly how much to add but had a good idea — maybe 90% close? Or does some Bayesian genie pop up from one of his lab test tubes and pronounce, “n_i_n_e_t_y … p_e_r … c_e_n_t”?
ps this was inadverntantly first put in a wrong thread.
914 CFU: “you shouldn’t have been in the position of asking it.”
This is not your first strongly anti-democratic statement. I guess your are just politically naive, but it does not hurt to ask: Do you believe that democracy should be abandoned fully or just for environmental issues? Are you arguing for technocracy (that experts rule and write policy without political involvement?). Som sort of communism or fascism? An elite rule society like classic Greece? Please clarify the basis of your anti-democratic attitude.
914: CFU blathered “…”
CC’s post (912) was perfectly reasonable and your response totally unwarranted. I seem to recall Gavin raising the question that CC was answered w/ post 912, namely why would anyone think they knew the science was wrong when they hadn’t actually read it? There are a large number of people out there who fit that bill. If it’s important that they be convinced in order for changes to happen (and I’m not sure it is) then it is better to understand where they’re coming from than to insult them.
Charlie, #912,
Issuing disclaimers such as that you are “non-scientific,” “anti-authoritarian,” “instinctively cynical and mistrustful of people in positions of power,” shows excellent self-awareness, but is entirely unhelpful if your goal is actually to make a rational decision or come to a reasonable conclusion when the topic is science-related. For some reason, you have no problem evaulating the motives of Al Gore, Climate Scientists, etc., but leave out Coporate England, America, Gas and Coal, companies, they are certainly not in positions of power and surely do not have any $ at stake? You have decided to ignore the evidence precedented by the experts b/c you don’t believe other people (Gordon Brown) who happen to believe the experts. I recommend that you do the same thing with all professions. No reason to believe the medical expert who tells you that you have cancer, since Gordon Brown believes in cancer and listening to doctor’s advice (and doctors obviously make money when you have cancer).
You could save yourself the trouble of typing 10000 words and instead say, “I don’t understand the science of the issue. I don’t believe what certain people say to me, especially those that are in-line with the experts. This allows me to believe or not believe whatever I want and there is no way to convince myself otherwise.”
It appears that all you need is an anti-Gordon Brown person off the street to tell you that the Lochness Monster exists and you will believe in it (I am assuming Brown does not believe in the Monster, my apologies if he does). I would recommend not using the word “logically” again when describing your thought process. It does not appear that there is any scientific reason for you to change your mind, so it appears your goal is to waste other people’s time and/or answer rhetorical questions.
CFU @914 – that post was uncalled for and impolite.
Charlie Chutney may be mistaken (as I believe he is), but he has taken the time to compose a lengthy post outlining how he came to his current position that is entirely devoid of the sort of invective and namecalling which is the typical approach of those ‘sceptics’ who usually drive-by from the various deniospher outposts.
If you can’t muster the energy or wit to engage CC with a similar level of consideration then at least have the grace and good sense to say nothing.
Several other people have commented recently on how your aggressive posting style can be counterproductive and I have to say that in this example at least, I would have to agree with them.
Regards
Luke
“and almost all my suggestions was historical, history is not sociology”
So what does population have to do with history that it doesn’t have to do with sociology?
I think your posts have been more histrionic than history ;-)
Completely Fed Up: What do you think of Dr. Judith Curry’s essay about rebuilding trust?
Charlie Chutney, OK, you’re gonna have to help me out with the logic here, ’cause I’m just not following it.
Some ignorant food tube TV journalist whose sole credentials are probably good hair and better than average British dental work broadcasts some BS from Antartica and so you give up on the science without ever reading it?
I’m sorry, Charlie, but I don’t think that sort of argument is covered in any logic text I’ve seen.
And for the record, Jones did not say there had been no statistically significant warming in 15 years. Rather, he said the trend was not statistically different from zero–meaning that the mean slope was within 2 standard deviations of zero. That is not unexpected for a 15 year trend given a noisy system like climate. See:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/
Likewise your point 2.
Your point 3–the whole “science is settled” issue is a canard. Some science is settled. We know with certainty that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know with 95% confidence that doubling CO2 gives you at least 2.1 degrees of warming. We don’t know in detail every little feedback that contributes to that. We don’t know the source of all the short-term variability in the system. What we know is sufficient to establish that we’re warming the climate with very high confidence.
Charlie, I think you need to re-examine that step where you say A lies, therefore I won’t believe B. Might be a weak link in the logical argument.
Hey CFU
I pour my heart out to you and that’s all I get?
I thought I was being self effacing, empathetic (don’t shorten it – that would be beneath you), and fully recognising some of the obvious flaws and illogicality in how we have arrived at this intercourse.
On point of pedantry, if I say “I can’t imagine…. ” then I don’t think that can be a projection can it?
Your journey may not have been good – but it was long wasn’t it!
Charlie Chutney followed by CFU followed by John E. Pearson
What’s missing from the Chutney is the ingredient found in the mirror, a salesman who only evaluates the sales pitch without reference to his own evaluation of the “product”. Why does Charlie focus on the belief that he’s being “sold”? What are his feelings about “the price” and “value”? I note Charlie concludes “Most “global warming policies” result in the voters loosing something, paying more or paying more taxes”. Do you really think that Al would choose such a bizarre way to enhance his wealth rather than just continuing to aggrandize it by the usual entrepreneural/investment strategies? Will he gain by paying a carbon tax on his “profiligate ways”? Do you disagree that humanity has been passing on the cost of past energy BAU to the future environment and generations? Do you want more assurance that beginning to pay for past debts soon is desireable/necessary? Why focus your analysis on motivations of the “salesmen” with no explicit examination of your own stake in the “transaction”?
“Maybe they have so much personal credibility invested in the government policies of the last 12 years that they just can’t take a single backward step for fear of the consequences.” Maybe you can’t consider re-evaluating your lifestyle for fear of the consequences to yourself, irrespective of the consequences to the future of the planet? Would it really cost you? Would it really be a wasted investment? Are you concerned that as a salesman your livilihood will be adversely affected by shifts in the econmy?
“I pour my heart out to you and that’s all I get?”
That didn’t seem to be coming from the *heart*.
PS “if I say “I can’t imagine…. ” then I don’t think that can be a projection can it? ”
Depends. But you didn’t say just that.
Luke: “CFU @914 – that post was uncalled for and impolite.”
Not uncalled for. Charlies forays into “I’m just an ordin’ry guy, guv’nor” is self aggrandizement.
His statements include nothing of any consistent intelligent discourse.
And your comment was uncalled for.
#780:
“Finally we agree on something.
Comment by stevenc”
What? We agree you’re very unlikely to be right???
“This is not your first strongly anti-democratic statement.
.
Comment by Andreas Bjurström”
1) Democracy is said by its supporters to be the worst way of organising a society.
2) McCarthy died a long time ago.
3) Please explain how that statement is anti-democratic
J E Pearson: Wrong.
Ray: “We know with 95% confidence that doubling CO2 gives you at least 2.1 degrees of warming.”
Isn’t it 97.5%, since half of that 5% not within the limit is higher than 4.5 which is still at least 2.1.
two moons, ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tkau6m3Eb1U
No, when there’s no way they will ever work with you, what is there to fix or burn?
881, Ray Ladbury: Matthew, many, many cycles in nature are not truly periodic. That includes pole flips for the geomagnetic field–although this is quasi-periodic, the “solar cycle”, and on and on. There are many different physical systems that exhibit quasiperiodic behavior. Really, Matthew, I very strongly suggest that you look at Tamino’s analysis.
My point is not that an alternative theory to AGW has been convincingly established. My point is that the alternatives have not been ruled out, that the holes in the theory are non-ignorable. For an interesting read, let me recommend: S. Wiggins, “Introduction to Applied Nonlinear Dynamical Systems and Chaos”; Crauel and Gundlach (eds.) “Stochastic Dynamics”; and Izhikevich, “Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience”. I mean, if we are going to accuse people of being ignorant, let’s go all the way.
To me, tamino always seem to be very naive.
Charlie Chutney and everyone else here,
CFU is an internet troll, please don´t feed the trolls ….
flxible (924), you are making a normal response to CC, but it seems you don’t understand the realities of his sales analogy and therefore might no get his central point. Simply: a salesman makes a call trying to sell and deliver a big ticket product/system that in reality is very good and would probably provide a big enhancement to the client’s business. But the salesman starts off with a fancy song and dance and a line of bs that he probably learned at some sales correspondence school. The chance a sale will be made is virtually nil. (In big ticket sales credibility is the number one requisite.) CC is saying that the salesman shares the blame ( and probably most if not all of it) for the sales loss. You’re saying it’s the client’s fault; he should have dug it out himself. Either way the sale was not made. The client was not convinced. Mainly because the salesman started with a load of bs like the iceberg shedding a pile and blew any chance of being believed. Happens that way almost every time. If one is trying to convince someone else of something, success depends a lot on understanding this.
It’s not worth asking Andy a question. He either ignores it or changes the accusation.
You’d’ve thought someone who tried so hard to write a paper would be a better thinker…
“My point is that the alternatives have not been ruled out,”
Yes they have by virtue of being unable to explain reality.
When you’ve managed to make one that explains reality, let us know.
More to the point is the edited volume by P. Lahiri called “Model Selection”, volume 38 in the Institute of Mathematical Statistics Lecture Notes-Monograph Series, 2001. For a historical perspective on duelling models, I recommend “Inward Bound” by Abraham Pais, a history of particle physics after Roentgen and Becquerel. Pais is more famous for his biographies of Einstein and Bohr.
CC (858): I find it shocking that there doesn’t seem to be any definitive research into the effects of UHI.
BPL: I find it shocking that you assume your ignorance is shared by the scientific community. Read and learn:
Hansen, J., Ruedy, R., Sato, M., Imhoff, M., Lawrence, W., Easterling, D., Peterson, T., and Karl, T. 2001. “A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change.” J. Geophys. Res. 106, 23947–23963.
Jones, P.D., et al. 1990. “Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land.” Nature, 347, 169–172.
Karl, T.R., H.F. Diaz, and G. Kukla 1988. “Urbanization: Its detection and effect in the United States climate record.” J. Clim. 1, 1099–1123.
Parker, DE. 2004. “Large-scale warming is not urban.” Nature 432, 290.
Parker, DE. 2006. “A Demonstration That Large-Scale Warming Is Not Urban.” Journal of Climate 19, 2882-2895.
Peterson, Thomas C. 2003. “Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found.” J. Clim. 16(18), 2941-2959.
Peterson T., Gallo K., Lawrimore J., Owen T., Huang A., McKittrick D. 1999. “Global rural temperature trends.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 26(3), 329.
Pa04: “Controversy has persisted over the influence of urban warming on reported large-scale surface-air temperature trends. Urban heat islands occur mainly at night and are reduced in windy conditions3. Here we show that, globally, temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development.”
Lets just get something straight. If the CRU is funded by the UK Government (public money) there should be absolutely no discussion behind closed doors. Period. Defending the privacy of the leaked emails is as ridiculous as you are implying the global warming deniers are.
GW science and discussion regarding it belongs to the human race, not to a select few as it affects every single human being on the planet.
[Response: I suggest webcams in every bathroom in every govt. facility around the world because you just can’t have enough transparency you know…. – gavin]
SM (877),
What’s the physical mechanism behind your 60-year cycle?
I’m suspicious of simply Fourier-analyzing a noisy data set. That was essentially how Aristotle and then Ptolemy developed their epicycle schemes.
AB (888): I rest my case, since I know it is futile to discuss such issues with you guys.
BPL: No, you can discuss them with us. You just can’t expect us to validate your post-modernist, anti-science point of view. There’s a difference between not listening and disagreeing. We’ve listened to your crackpot notions at great length. We just think you’re hopelessly wrong.
“a history of particle physics after Roentgen and Becquerel.”
Particle physics
a) is not climate modelling
b) is younger than climate science
please try again.
Septic Matthew wrote: “My point is that the alternatives have not been ruled out, that the holes in the theory are non-ignorable.”
Your point is just plain wrong, on both counts, period.
What else have you got? Anything other than more ignorance?
938 Gavin’s response: I’m new here but I think that you’re being unfair. Dan made a reasonable point about the expectation of transparency in activities funded by public money. You responded with bathroom humor. Not your best.
[Response: The argument that everything done by government funded people must be instantly accessible to the wider world is ridiculous. They do not forfeit their right to privacy, nor their rights to have open, frank and constructive discussions with whomever they please, simply because the government has funded them to do something. These absolutist claims that somehow a civil servant is public property – and whatever they say, do, breathe, as well – has no basis in law or in morality. I thought the reductio ad absurdum argument would make that point succinctly. – gavin ]
Charlie Chutney wrote: “As declared previously on other threads, I am a non-scientific, Joe Soap ‘sceptic’.”
Yes, you keep “declaring” that you are a skeptic.
And then you follow up with one example after another which clearly demonstrate that you are NOT a skeptic at all, but instead a gullible “true believer” of whatever you are told by those who appeal to your acknowledged ideological biases.
Someone who unquestioningly believes anything and everything they are told by the so-called “right wing” media, and obstinately rejects and reviles any information that contradicts that, is NOT a skeptic.
two moon, do you pay Soviet State Taxes?
If not, why should the Soviet taxpayer put good money into work done by their government on climate research and then let you have it merely for the asking?
Does your government know you’re paying taxes in Soviet Russia?
And, since two moon thinks there’s a real need to open up anything under the taxpayer dollar, maybe he’d like to get us the plans for the Apache Helicopter.
And, since there’s a $7bn a year tax subsidy to nuclear, we should have all the nuclear industry emails.
Oh, don’t forget: Bank Bailouts.
All those emails are open now.
Goodie.
Not to mention, all those tax breaks to religious places, businesses and so forth: payment in kind has been used as payment (else P2P sharing becomes impossible to persue: no money changes hands), so all those emails are out in the open.
Since two moon is already here and thinks that government money = give us your emails, maybe he’d like to upload all the emails of the company he works for.
I hope he isn’t expecting any privacy.
943: Sorry, but I’ve been a civil servant for 33 years and you are wrong in principle. Everything done by a civil servant in pursuit of his/her public endeavor is public property. Civil servants obviously have a right to privacy in their private lives, but that’s not what was under discussion here.
[Response: Not everything a civil servant does is ‘agency business’ (at least in the US). Not every email is an agency record. Not every conversation, note, diary entry, scrap of paper, are either. Incidental and de minimis use of government resources for non-agency business is permitted as long as it does not affect agency functioning. All of this has extensive case law behind it associated with the FOIA. And if something isn’t releasable under FOIA, it is by definition not able to be public domain. You do not forfeit your rights as a private citizen because you work for a govt. entity, and even less so if all you do is receive a contract from the government for specific services or research. Thus the idea that continual public monitoring of everything civil servants or grantees do is somehow ok, is anathema. – gavin]
BPL caused me to consider global temperautes via decadal averages. I wrote a short program which uses the average CO2 concentrations from one decade to estimate the average GISTEMP global temperature anomalies of the following decade, via the Arrhenius formula. In the following, GTA is the decadl average GISTEMP global temperature anomaly, AE is the Arrhenius Estimation and the residuals are the differences.
decade GTA AE residual
1880s -0.28 -0.28 +0.00
1890s -0.25 -0.23 -0.02
1900s -0.26 -0.20 -0.05
1910s -0.28 -0.17 -0.10
1920s -0.18 -0.13 -0.04
1930s -0.04 -0.09 +0.05
1940s +0.03 -0.05 +0.08
1950s -0.02 -0.03 +0.01
1960s -0.01 -0.00 -0.01
1970s -0.00 +0.07 -0.07
1980s +0.18 +0.18 -0.01
1990s +0.31 +0.33 -0.02
2000s +0.51 +0.47 +0.04
2010s ??.?? +0.64
Note the prediction of continued increased warming.
The maximum likelihood estimate, stated for 2xCO2, is the Observed GISTEMP Response, OGTR= 2.33 which agrees best with a equilibrium climate response between 3.3 K and 3.7 K. That just helps indicate that this simple decadal delay formulation is not badly wrong.
For those seeing cycles in the temperature data, the autocorrelation of the residuals shows there are none:
autocorrelations
1 +0.41
2 -0.21
3 -0.69
4 -0.46
5 +0.01
6 +0.32
7 +0.17
8 +0.08
9 -0.05
10 +0.01
11 -0.01
12 +0.00
with the lefthand column being the lag in decades.
Dan says:
25 February 2010 at 4:41 PM
“Lets just get something straight. If the CRU is funded by the UK Government (public money) there should be absolutely no discussion behind closed doors.”
Strange that I’ve never heard a clamour for all of the emails written or received by members of the police, the fire service, road builders, elected representatives and any other publicly funded body.
I wonder why this call for transparency only seems to apply to climate scientists? If this were a principled call for transparency in public office, the call would surely have been going loud and strong for many a year. But it hasn’t, so maybe principles don’t have anything to do with it.
947: Nope. In the US federal service every e-mail (and every other written communication for that matter) is discoverable. That’s what makes the telephone popular. I have first hand knowledge of this. Depending on the nature of their work (classified or not, etc.) different agencies may have different procedures, but there is no expectation of privacy.
[Response: There is difference between an ‘expectation of privacy’ with respect to the management, and something being in the public domain. I too have a fair bit of experience with this. – gavin]