I mean "Unfortunately" in a time-constraint sense, not because I'm on a hiding to nowhere. I've always enjoyed learning. It's better than sex. But enough about my problems... 
Unfortunately, I do
In truth, the vast majority of my issue with the whole global warming/climate change "thing" is specifically relating to post normalism.
Additionally, I'm naturally resistant to the precautionary principle (can provide more info if needed) and I'm resistant to CO2 mitigation. The principle reason I'm against CO2 mitigation is because it's simply not feasible, because in order for it to be effective requires literally a global policy of mitigation. It will always be impossible to enforce mitigation policy on developing nations like China or India, short of nuking them (which I concede remains an option) and so CO2 mitigation as a policy will never achieve real-world CO2 mitigation. But it would by design result in severe hardship through energy taxes in the West, with the poorest most severely affected.
On top of that, there are still the problems of understated uncertainties with the science and there are convincing arguments regarding natural variability, albedo effect, iris effect and much more.
None of my issues with climate science in any way can be described as conspiracy theories - except through the usual ad hominem abusive attacks by Shotglass - and my issues are all founded in scientific uncertainties, impossible-to-achieve policy and so on. Now, if you want to talk about what I AM in favour of exploring, the word is "Adaptation".
Okay, busted
Seriously, though, it's the appeal to authority that I think 5haz is rejecting. An education is a benefit, but education and intelligence are not linked causally. That they are is the circular argument from Shotglass, and is of course a logical fallacy. He's good at those.Ya welcome
I was about to ask the same. Ever noticed that they want you to look at the evidence.. but only CERTAIN evidence. Just the evidence that fits their assertions, not the equivalent evidence that undermines it. Even if it comes from a source no less esteemed. Funny innit?
I don't get the impression that that's true at all. Neither that this is why Shotglass visits this thread nor that it's necessary to go through years of training to understand the processes used to analyse data.
That's a hell of a leap, DWB. Nobody is suggesting that schooling is useless, neither do I think that schooling is just indoctrination into a club or cult.
Here's a snippet of background: What has developed recently (20-30 years) is what is termed "postnormal science". This is science which doesn't follow the traditional scientific method. For example, it uses consensus of opinion to drive conclusions instead of experimentation, it uses computer models and asserts that model runs are equal to experiments and their results can be treated as evidence, etc.
In postnormal science, a conclusion which under normal scientific process is unproven can still be asserted as scientifically established. Postnormal science is the dominant form of science in certain areas of climate science (NOT all). Post normal science is the vehicle on which some scientists, who traditionally pursued science solely for the sake of gaining greater knowledge and understanding, instead are able to be advocates of particular political or ideological viewpoints and advance those through post-normal science.
There is resistance from within climate science and the matter is very much in the air, but those are the nuts and bolts of it. If you want more info, I can provide. And no, not from any bloody conspiracy websites. All of it from climate scientists, MOST of them what we popularly call "warmists", but who object to the way the science is being conducted in certain areas.
If I can't understand something, I will try harder. If I still can't understand it, I will say so. Just because Shotglass proclaims loudly that I cannot possibly understand something because I haven't studied it to post-doctorate level does not actually mean that I CAN'T understand it. That would be just a little too post-normal for me.
Indeed, 5haz. The proverbial elephant in the room doesn't need a zoologist to identify it. A lot of the dogma in climate science - which I only blame on a small number of advocacy scientists, incidentally. There's clearly lots of GOOD, non-advocacy science going on in environmental sciences - is as easy to see for what it is as an emperor wearing fancy clothes.
I don't think Shotglass is remotely interested in the subject. He's only here to denigrate and abuse, as far as I can tell. I can't think of a single contribution that amounts to more, but if someone could find one, we could have a little play with it.
I don't think Shotglass is remotely interested in the subject. He's only here to denigrate and abuse, as far as I can tell. I can't think of a single contribution that amounts to more, but if someone could find one, we could have a little play with it.
Shotglass, name a "fact" that I've dismissed.
If you look back, you'll see that I was referring to Shotglass's appeal to authority, making no reference to any other part of the argument. The logical fallacy is age-old and it's tired, and reflects badly on the perpetrator, but argument from authority and ad hominem insults are Shotglass's way.
Argument from authority
Argumentum ad hominem, ad hominem circumstantial
Argumentum ad hominem, appeal to authority
Argument from authority, ad hominem tu quoque
Ad hominem circumstantial, ad hominem abusive
Argument from authority, ad hominem abusive, ad hominem circumstantial
And now, DWB, it's unnecessary for me to call Shotglass "idiot".
I chortled
And this is why the term "global warming" is quietly being dropped, too.
Unnecessary.
There are lots of problems with the GISS dataset, but perhaps greatest among them is the use of interpolation to build fabricated temperature readings over vast unmeasured areas to achieve results which are then asserted as authoritative.
There are grave concerns about whether this amounts to data fabrication, and when unjustifiable adjustments are made to station readings which are then used in the process of interpolation, this may even be regarded as data falsification. Nobody is making the charge of scientific malfeasance, but it's easy to see how this could be an eventuality.
The basic physics has never been in question. This is not what the consensus is supposed to be about. I thought you at least knew enough about the subject to know what the consensus is claiming to represent.
And this is why the consensus does not exist, because there IS NO consensus on the extent of anthropogenic influence. Opinion in the field varies from positive feedback right through negative feedback.
You're demonstrating a significant lack of understanding of where science and policy meet, and on whose terms. The hockey stick, which is the subject of the M&W paper, and which was the poster-child of the IPCC and a graphic very similar to the hockey stick, purporting to represent global temperatures in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, is under fresh scrutiny by statisticians.
On first take, the statisticians have concluded that proxy reconstructions have such broad error bands (you can draw a flat line straight through the proxy reconstruction for the last millennium and never step out of the error band) that the entire field of proxy reconstruction looks like it might in fact be useless.
If you want to challenge that conclusion, go ahead, but how about dropping the silly hyperbole and the ad hominem insult, yeah?
More worthless appeals to authority.
Worthless argument from authority.
It means the writing style is good, and it means that many of the results of this paper address issues that I'm already familiar with as being previously identified deficiencies in the work of Mann 98-08.
If, by AGW, you mean paleo reconstruction, then I would agree with you that most of the work is based on statistical analysis. And this is actually why the MW10 paper is so significant, because this is the first time that an in-depth analysis of the proxy data has been performed by professional statisticians. If you didn't know already, paleo scientists like Mann, Ammann etc. are not statisticians, and don't pretend to be.
Been out of action for a week or so. I had no idea this thread had re-ignited.
Yes, I read the paper in one night. It was pretty easy to do, which you'd see if you read it, and already being familiar with many of the papers cited made fairly light work of it. I get time on an evening to do things like this.
No, not really. I understand a great deal about the science behind proxy reconstruction, I know the basics of principle component analysis. I understand the use and purpose of red noise to test a methodology, I understand holdout blocks and most of the other tests that are applied to the proxy reconstruction data. I'm not a statistician, doesn't mean I'm stupid.
Yes, I read the paper in one night. It was pretty easy to do, which you'd see if you read it, and already being familiar with many of the papers cited made fairly light work of it. I get time on an evening to do things like this.
No, not really. I understand a great deal about the science behind proxy reconstruction, I know the basics of principle component analysis. I understand the use and purpose of red noise to test a methodology, I understand holdout blocks and most of the other tests that are applied to the proxy reconstruction data. I'm not a statistician, doesn't mean I'm stupid.
I think there's just you and me left in this thread, Electrik Kar!
I read that paper last night.. brilliant read. I'm not a capable statistician at all, but I've been able to follow all the points made in the paper. It's a proper smack-down of Mann, I'd say.
I've been pretty active in Keith Kloor's threads over the last few weeks. Gavin Schmidt even turned up to try to defend the hockey stick, but he just couldn't make his arguments stick. Each one of his wriggles was exposed and busted - mostly by Judy. We've not really got down to exploring this latest paper yet, but I'm pretty sure when we do it's going to be a rough ride for the warmists to try to defend the stick in the face of some new peer-reviewed statistical expertise.
For years Mann et al tried to make Steve McIntyre out to be a crackpot, but there's absolutely no mileage in that any more because he's no longer the only statistician looking at this, and his conclusions have now received lots of well-rounded independent statistical affirmation.
I bet Steve slept well last night
I read that paper last night.. brilliant read. I'm not a capable statistician at all, but I've been able to follow all the points made in the paper. It's a proper smack-down of Mann, I'd say.
I've been pretty active in Keith Kloor's threads over the last few weeks. Gavin Schmidt even turned up to try to defend the hockey stick, but he just couldn't make his arguments stick. Each one of his wriggles was exposed and busted - mostly by Judy. We've not really got down to exploring this latest paper yet, but I'm pretty sure when we do it's going to be a rough ride for the warmists to try to defend the stick in the face of some new peer-reviewed statistical expertise.
For years Mann et al tried to make Steve McIntyre out to be a crackpot, but there's absolutely no mileage in that any more because he's no longer the only statistician looking at this, and his conclusions have now received lots of well-rounded independent statistical affirmation.
I bet Steve slept well last night
I think you're exactly right on all counts. Anthony's surfacestations.org project was a good and honourable exploration of the integrity and accuracy of surface stations in the USHCN.
It should have been embraced by the climate science community, and even promoted by it. But the reaction that he DID get was far more telling. Initially they lambasted Anthony because they were introducing the CRN, but since Anthony switched to CRN ratings and still found 98% of USHCN network stations below CRN1 rating, all I've heard from them is greater and greater ad hominem attacks.
It's the long history of ad hominem attacks from scientists, against anyone that challenges the "consensus view" (that isn't even a consensus!) that really set alarm bells ringing in my head.
It should have been embraced by the climate science community, and even promoted by it. But the reaction that he DID get was far more telling. Initially they lambasted Anthony because they were introducing the CRN, but since Anthony switched to CRN ratings and still found 98% of USHCN network stations below CRN1 rating, all I've heard from them is greater and greater ad hominem attacks.
It's the long history of ad hominem attacks from scientists, against anyone that challenges the "consensus view" (that isn't even a consensus!) that really set alarm bells ringing in my head.
The more I listen to climate scientists talk among themselves, the more I realise how climatology is a belief system. There is far less science going on and far more political ideology being promoted. It's actually quite shocking to see, but it adds weight to the "reformer" term.
In the discussion I've been following, there have been quite a few "threats" made to Judith by ardent activist climate scientists, not even thinly veiled, that she is at risk of being ostracised and her standing being diminished in the community, simply because she's willing to engage with the sceptical community and consider their concerns. Where I come from, this is the activity of a religion and it's termed "ex-communication". Judith has also been broadly labelled "denier" by many prominent climatologists, and this has direct parallels with the cry of "heretic".
I think, since Climategate, Judith has come to realise that much of the data she's worked with historically may not have the solid foundation she'd believed it had. Many climatologists work in very focused and specific fields of expertise, and don't have much awareness of the bigger picture. It was definitely news to Judith Curry, when Climategate hit, that there might be any foundation to the accusations that the sceptics had been making.
She visited Climate Audit but, she says, was out-faced by the volume of information - Steve McIntyre is meticulous but verbose at times, and there is a hell of a lot to know. So she bought and read "The Hockey Stick Illusion" and, I think, became a sceptic convert. She's definitely only recently discovered the extent that post-normalism has infected climate sciences, and she's definitely a traditional "hard science" thinker. She values scientific integrity and she supports rigour in the scientific method. This is very specifically what separates her from the rest of the climatological community.
In the discussion I've been following, there have been quite a few "threats" made to Judith by ardent activist climate scientists, not even thinly veiled, that she is at risk of being ostracised and her standing being diminished in the community, simply because she's willing to engage with the sceptical community and consider their concerns. Where I come from, this is the activity of a religion and it's termed "ex-communication". Judith has also been broadly labelled "denier" by many prominent climatologists, and this has direct parallels with the cry of "heretic".
I think, since Climategate, Judith has come to realise that much of the data she's worked with historically may not have the solid foundation she'd believed it had. Many climatologists work in very focused and specific fields of expertise, and don't have much awareness of the bigger picture. It was definitely news to Judith Curry, when Climategate hit, that there might be any foundation to the accusations that the sceptics had been making.
She visited Climate Audit but, she says, was out-faced by the volume of information - Steve McIntyre is meticulous but verbose at times, and there is a hell of a lot to know. So she bought and read "The Hockey Stick Illusion" and, I think, became a sceptic convert. She's definitely only recently discovered the extent that post-normalism has infected climate sciences, and she's definitely a traditional "hard science" thinker. She values scientific integrity and she supports rigour in the scientific method. This is very specifically what separates her from the rest of the climatological community.
I've not been around much recently, so I've a bit of catching up to do.
I've been involved in a debate recently between sceptics and climate scientists, hosted by Keith Kloor, which explores naming conventions in the sceptical spectrum. The discussion is launched from David Brin's op-ed in Skeptic Magazine. I first saw the term "citizen scientist", there, used by Judith Curry. I don't know the original source of the term, but it may be Judith.
Another term, and one which probably better encapsulates the sceptic camp, is "climate science reformer". Reformers, in this context, are rejecting postnormal concepts (eg. computer model=experiment and observation, scientific consensus=mass of veracity, advocacy=scientific pursuit etc) which climate science depends on and assert instead that scientific method, which has been the foundation of science since the days of Copernicus and Galileo, should be restored and reasserted. The term "reformer" in the context of climate science has been coined in the thread I've been participating in but I think it's broadly accepted/acceptable to both sides and will probably enter the scientific papers and into history books. Curry is writing a paper on this now, so it will be interesting to see what transpires.
It's very quickly become apparent in the discussion that the distinction between "exploratory science" and "regulatory science" - that is essentially the distinction between academic science and science in industry - is one of the main dividers between pro-AGW and AGW-sceptic positions. Regulatory scientists (civil, mechanical, software etc. engineers) are broadly sceptical of climate science.
Briefly back on to the subject of "Amazongate", the source of the assertion in the IPCC is finally revealed - and has been conceded by WWF. It turns out to have been a small climate action advocacy group's website (now defunct):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/com ... -we-reach-the-source.html
I've been involved in a debate recently between sceptics and climate scientists, hosted by Keith Kloor, which explores naming conventions in the sceptical spectrum. The discussion is launched from David Brin's op-ed in Skeptic Magazine. I first saw the term "citizen scientist", there, used by Judith Curry. I don't know the original source of the term, but it may be Judith.
Another term, and one which probably better encapsulates the sceptic camp, is "climate science reformer". Reformers, in this context, are rejecting postnormal concepts (eg. computer model=experiment and observation, scientific consensus=mass of veracity, advocacy=scientific pursuit etc) which climate science depends on and assert instead that scientific method, which has been the foundation of science since the days of Copernicus and Galileo, should be restored and reasserted. The term "reformer" in the context of climate science has been coined in the thread I've been participating in but I think it's broadly accepted/acceptable to both sides and will probably enter the scientific papers and into history books. Curry is writing a paper on this now, so it will be interesting to see what transpires.
It's very quickly become apparent in the discussion that the distinction between "exploratory science" and "regulatory science" - that is essentially the distinction between academic science and science in industry - is one of the main dividers between pro-AGW and AGW-sceptic positions. Regulatory scientists (civil, mechanical, software etc. engineers) are broadly sceptical of climate science.
Briefly back on to the subject of "Amazongate", the source of the assertion in the IPCC is finally revealed - and has been conceded by WWF. It turns out to have been a small climate action advocacy group's website (now defunct):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/com ... -we-reach-the-source.html
hehe! Ross's chart is very telling!
Excellent comment!
I've been involved in a debate with Judith Curry over the last couple of weeks, where she's been copping quite a lot of stick from the likes of Michael Tobis and other activist climate researchers. It's amazing the playground-style stunts they pull, threatening to disenfranchise (facebook style "de-friend") her to destroy her credibility, all because she's willing to take on "citizen scientists" and listen to what their arguments are. She's pretty fearless, though, and she packs a mean punch. She's also tenured, so she's not so scared of having her funding removed for breaking ranks and being honest.
I think Climategate - and particularly, following that, reading the book The Hockey Stick Illusion - has made a sceptic out of Judith. Before Climategate, she did her thing in her field and she used the data from CRU and GISS all in good faith. Now she's looking at the data with fresh eyes and realising it's not the canonical thing of integrity she'd assumed it was. She's also not fond of postnormal science and I think she shares the values of hard sciences, that consensus is not the same as evidence and that the precautionary principle is an ideological doctrine rather than scientific process.
The old climate science is falling apart. It'll be interesting to see what rises out of the ashes.
Interesting you should quote that. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/com ... the-missing-evidence.html
[edit] For anyone wanting a quick summary, the Sunday Times did misquote a Dr Lewis and retracted the entire story as a result. The substance of the "Amazongate" scandal, however, turns out to be more substantive than even the Sunday Times thought. The victory that is being claimed by the AGW camp is that the Amazongate story was false, but that's a plain lie.
Last edited by SamH, .
Reason : ..
Yeah, I saw that. Atrocious! I can't believe these people have the audacity to cook the books like this, especially with people like Anthony Watts watching.
Were you able to get to see Anthony Watts on his speaking tour? I'm imagining not, or you'd have posted for sure!
The PSU enquiry has reported that Mann is not guilty of academic misconduct.. they're dismantling the report over at ClimateAudit. I think Steve McIntyre, if he isn't totally fed up at this point, will probably do a brutal deconstruction of the report's findings in the next few days. At first reading, I can already see Tom Sawyer's footprints across the lawn.
Were you able to get to see Anthony Watts on his speaking tour? I'm imagining not, or you'd have posted for sure!
The PSU enquiry has reported that Mann is not guilty of academic misconduct.. they're dismantling the report over at ClimateAudit. I think Steve McIntyre, if he isn't totally fed up at this point, will probably do a brutal deconstruction of the report's findings in the next few days. At first reading, I can already see Tom Sawyer's footprints across the lawn.
It's a long time since we had a post here, so I thought I'd necropost.
The rumour mill says Sir Muir's enquiry report is expected to be released on 7/7. Not that we're expecting any insights or revelations, given the conflicts of interest on the panel. Hopefully after all this time we'll have more to pick through than the 5 page book report from Oxburgh, though.
In the meantime, Mike Hulme, a scientist at the infamous CRU, has obliterated the illusion of the oft-quoted "scientific consensus" in his latest paper.
A few dozen scientists? Yowzer! Though the offence was really the very suggestion that science might ever operate on a premise of validation by consensus, but to learn that the consensus wasn't even a consensus as we'd normally understand it but simply a trend of opinion among a few scientists in climatology and related fields. It's a helluva thing. Tom Wigley, former head of the CRU, makes his position on this kind of "consensus" quite clear in an email that turned up in the Climategate letters. In many ways, his email is quite prophetic:
The rumour mill says Sir Muir's enquiry report is expected to be released on 7/7. Not that we're expecting any insights or revelations, given the conflicts of interest on the panel. Hopefully after all this time we'll have more to pick through than the 5 page book report from Oxburgh, though.
In the meantime, Mike Hulme, a scientist at the infamous CRU, has obliterated the illusion of the oft-quoted "scientific consensus" in his latest paper.
A few dozen scientists? Yowzer! Though the offence was really the very suggestion that science might ever operate on a premise of validation by consensus, but to learn that the consensus wasn't even a consensus as we'd normally understand it but simply a trend of opinion among a few scientists in climatology and related fields. It's a helluva thing. Tom Wigley, former head of the CRU, makes his position on this kind of "consensus" quite clear in an email that turned up in the Climategate letters. In many ways, his email is quite prophetic:
You're definitely right, I've absolutely no doubt. In fact it's absolutely fundamental to the teachings at RealClimate, SkepticalScience and other "warmist" sites that Steve Mc, Anthony Watts, Andrew Montford, Steve Goddard, Willis Eschenbach and so many others are just dismissed as financed by Big Oil. They're not. But there's a real irony to it.. the CRU IS funded by "Big Oil".
For a while, a lot of sceptics weren't able to comprehend how Shell etc could get into bed with the CRU and other schools of environmental sciences but the bigger picture is that they're not actually "big oil". They're just "big money". These companies always have been primarily prospectors. It doesn't matter if it's oil or a good opportunity.. and this time what they're pursuing is the alternative energy opportunities.
Steve's blog is very good for being apolitical. His scathing blitz on Cuccinelli's move against Mann was certain to upset some of those who follow him, but I suspect every now and again he deliberately has a bit of a shake-down and drops some of his more political, less scientific, followers. On BishopHill a few days earlier, I'd kinda got hammered a bit for being a "lefty" in the comments but that was my fault for calling the right-wingers "tea-baggers". Little did I know what that term actually meant!
I meant "tea-partiers". FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG