I've frequently argued that there are reasonable and rational people out there who are nonetheless skeptical about the AGW, IPCC, Policy nexus, and that it is worthwhile trying to engage in sensible to-and-fro on these matters. Many of my co-bloggers disagree, and think that giving air-time to trolls is counter productive.
So, in response to a thread on the Guardian today where my comments suddenly and inexplicably got moderated out (not the first time this have happened, though I don't know how I breached the community guidelines), and response to persons such as Fernando Leanme, who frequently pops up with things to say, some which are very nearly interesting, and who seems like a decent chap at the bottom, if I really have found his blog, please come and make your case here.
I have my own opinions and prejudices; show me why I am wrong. Explain what I seem to be missing. Give your own opinion and your reasoning.
I won't moderate comments unless they are truly offensive or illegal. I'll even tolerate obvious trolls for a short time, but since the aim is discussion, people who have nothing to contribute will probably get left behind, eventually.
So, please comment...
Fergus, my main interest is the nature of reality, how we can be deceived by propaganda, and the interesting way in which government and the media cooperate to drive the people to support irrational decisions.
ReplyDeleteI became aware of this problem by reading Orwell´s "1984" when I was 13 years old, so this has been a long mission, and at times I really got confused. But eventually I came to the realization that there´s no truth. It all depends on where one comes from, where one has been, and what one has experienced. And how one has been brainwashed.
I decided to switch and write in English because I felt it could reach more people, and also because the blogosphere is much more alive in English than in any other language. I also find people like to read about their own problems, and they read on if they agree with me.
For example, when I wrote "I want to be President of Azerbaijan" I saw a growing readership in that country, and in Russia (probably because I wrote I wanted to overthrow Putin).
But most people get extremely uncomfortable if I challenge their version of reality. Criticizing Israel is a real mine field, unless one does it for a Jewish readership. Writing about the nature of Jesus almost got me crucified by my friends here in Spain. Writing about climate change isn´t nearly as intense, but it sure seems to drive up emotions, doesn´t it?
Hi Fernando and thank you for accepting my invitation. I have looked at your blog and recognise the way you describe yourself. In particular, you place an emphasis on truth, a subject I care about too.
ReplyDeleteI studied pure Philosophy, during which I spent a couple of years considering problems related to truth. Later, as a schoolteacher, I specialised in English Literature and Media Studies. The focus of the latter was trying to get my students to understand how media operate, and how they use specific techniques and mechanisms to manipulate people's feelings and, through this, their opinions.
For some time, there was a code of journalism which some took more seriously than others, which emphasised the need to publish only what was factual, confirmable and relevant. Some writers still attend to such ideals, but in a world where we are increasingly aware of a multitude of perspectives on any event or situation, sometimes it is impossible to be certain what happened, with or without any explicit prejudice. But there are still, within the jumble, establishable facts: 'ten people were injured today in Oxford in a bus accident' is a 'fact' as understood in everyday use.
Is truth itself subjective and relativistic as you suggest? Without getting too deep into the mire, I would suggest that, in the 'everyday' sense that we understand an utterance to be 'true', truth is possible, but the relationship between Media and truth is rather complex.
Of course we interpret what we are told through the lens of personality, experience and belief, and none of us is completely free of the influence of the vast chaos which is 'information', but it is still possible for us to agree on the truth of an utterance which we share, so long as we share the same broad conventions.
I'm not a bit surprised that people get upset if you challenge their world-view, because it is often deeply embedded and partially culturally determined. It is even difficult to challenge a person's understanding of things, especially if this is not about facts, but more about the significance of facts or their context.
I like the joke about criticising Jesus :). Writing about Climate Change is in some ways different to these other subjects, because at its foundation, Climate Change is just Science.
Again, skipping through the minefields, Science has a particular relationship with facts and truth, certainly as we use these ideas in everyday life. But it also has rules, which can inform our understanding and allow us to interpret the reliability or value of a person's work. If we compare the way in which Science goes about attempting to establish facts and truth, compared to the media, we have two very different sets of standards and rules. In particular, looking at the underlying rationality of a (any) scientific study, if we believe that reason is a ground-base, we can get that science is more rational and its output more reliable than the media.
And this is where you and I diverge. It is my impression that you derive most of your understanding of climate change from the media, rather than the source material, in particular, from sources on the internet. I also believe that, because of this, you have allowed yourself to be deceived in certain important ways about the reliability of climate science. I also think this is a shame, because you are clearly an interesting person with a lot of interesting observations to make, but people's opinion of your honesty is blackened by their belief that your comments on climate science are dishonest.
The best I can suggest, just as a departure point for a reasonable, reasonably intelligent person such as yourself, is to go to the IPCC AR5 web page, download the Summaries for policymakers, and take two or three hours to actually go through them, just reading, not trying to judge each part, but get an impression of what is being said and how it is being said.
I'll go and address your other comment next, but I hope we can carry on with this a bit further.
Truth is a flexible changing opinion, you would be better advised to put your trust in numbers.
ReplyDeleteOh and by the way, since you claim you are not moderating here, Ferdinand, you are an innumerate crank.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'm not moderating, and I enjoy your sense of humour, but if it becomes a slanging match I'll boff you.
DeleteThomas, now it's up to you to be more specific. Did you believe that story about my work for the CIA, MI6 and KGB? That wasn't true.
DeleteFergus, I studied several oceanography courses in college, worked aboard a NOAA research vessel the summer before my senior year, and years later my work involved work in a committee which coordinated Arctic data acquisition and review.
ReplyDeleteThe current system, which places papers in the claws of Elsevier and other knowledge vultures makes it harder to allow me to access information. However, I don't consider myself to be "deceived". My truth is just different from your truth. The key difference is that I understand why truth is relative, flexible and quite changeable. Or maybe not, who knows?
Over at the Rabett Run, you claimed that Mann's hockey stick has serious weaknesses. Can you explain in your own words what those weaknesses are?
DeleteHe depressed temperatures from the past, to make today's warmer temperatures look worse than they are. The best critique of the hockey stick was a lecture by Dr Mueller at Berkeley Earth.
DeleteMy opinion about Dr Mann's style was sealed when I read False Hope in Scientific American. Since he likes to sue and is quite abusive using twitter, I'll limit myself to stating I thought the article didn't merit publication. This in turn convinced me the Nature publishing group has a fairly low quality editorial policy. Right now I have to say what they publish can't be trusted. Which is a real shame.
Here's my False Hope critique
Deletehttp://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/2014/07/false-hope-by-michael-mann.html
It is important to be careful about how you express yourself, Fernando. The way you have written it makes it into an accusation of improper practice. This accusation was tested and found to be false. The studies have been repeated and the results replicated, in addition to which, more than a dozen independent reanalyses of temperature produce comparable results.
DeleteYou overlook the history of abuse, aggression and slander which Mann has experienced for no good reason other than the one that some people don't like his work or results. You have also overlooked that the 'critiques' of Mueller, and McIntyre/McKittrick in 2005 have been demonstrably shown not to stand up scientifically - this is not a reflection of their opinions or position, but an analysis of the science and methods.
I don't know the Nature article but you are honest enough to say that your dislike of this article has swayed your own opinion negatively. On the basis that the editors of Nature know their business better than me (or you) I have no evidence that the article was in some way inadequate - perhaps you could help by explaining your objection to it.
How many times has Mann sued someone? That comment is simply an insult. You are also reaching a conclusion from a false premise; that Nature must have low standards if it publishes something you don't like. If you think the article does not meet the publisher's editorial policy or standards, then you must provide reasons why it has failed to meet these standards, not just an opinion.
Putting aside your personal and subjective opinion of a scientist who probably knows what he is talking about, and the evidence which supports the work you cast aspersions on, why do you think the Hockey Stick matters? What difference does it make to the conclusions, for example, in the AR5 about the temperature record?
Mueller stepped in it, big time. He repeated a claim that is trivially wrong.
DeleteMueller repeated the claim that the "short-centered" SVD implementation that Mann used created and/or exaggerated the hockey-stick signal in the data.
That is just plain wrong, and Mueller should be embarrassed. I am providing a numbered-step explanation below.
1) When Mann used his "short-centered" SVD to calculate singular-vectors aka principal components from his North American tree-ring data, he implemented a specific mathematical algorithm to tell him how many singular vectors to retain.
2) With "short centering" of the data, Mann's singular-vector selection algorithm told him to retain two singular vectors (SV's). These two (especially the first one) contained the hockey-stick signal he recovered.
3) Change the "short centering" to standard "full centering", and Mann's singular-vector selection algorithm tells you to retain at least 4 SV's. If you repeat the processing with full-centering and you retain the number of SV's that Mann's selection algorithm tells you to, you will get the exact same hockey-stick that you get in (1) above.
4) Here's where the authors (M&M) of the claim that Mueller repeated screwed up. When they changed their data normalization convention from "short centering" to "full centering", they failed to use Mann's selection algorithm to calculate the proper number of SV's to retain. Instead, continued to retain only two (per the short-centered data run).
5) Because M&M failed to retain the proper number of SV's, much of the signal they were trying to recover disappeared. Well, DUH!
6) Failing to recalculate the number of SV's to retain when you change your data-normalization procedure is the kind of rookie mistake that Dr. Mann would ding his students for.
All of the above was confirmed by Eugene Wahl and Caspar Ammann when they analyzed the criticisms of Mann's hockey-stick in a 2007 peer-reviewed journal article. They also published all of the data and code they used in their analysis.
I downloaded their package and found that I had to make a small change to their code to get it to run with the current version of R (r-project.org). When I made that small change, their code ran just fine for me (on a Mac and a Linux laptop). Their code proves that when you implement the SVD algorithm *correctly*, you will get virtually identical results (i.e. the very same hockey-stick) no matter what normalization convention you use (i.e. "short centering" vs. "full centering").
When I went through the code and figured out what it does, I saw that it was basically a demonstration of some fundamental linear algebra concepts (typically the stuff you'd see in an advanced upper-division linear-algebra course in college).
Basically, this whole case against Mann's hockey-stick is based on rookie screwups.
You can download the package (with my minor code fix) here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0pXYsr8qYS6VUstM05RSE9acTg&authuser=0
To run it, you will need to install R (including the R graphics package). I also highly recommend RStudio (rstudio.com).
(Having some issues previewing/publishing -- giving this another go (editing errors and all).
In addition, there is the rebuttal of M&M published here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/
DeleteI think you need to show where the evidence supports the conclusions you have reached so far.
OK, so I don't mean to get all boastful here (well, actually I do).
DeleteI tweeted a link to my above post, and Dr. Mann himself retweeted *and* favorited it (https://twitter.com/caerbannog666/status/503669406845530113).
So you can consider that post to have Dr. Mann's official blessing (well, at least as official as anything gets on twitter).
well, that's one way to up the blog traffic - good chap!
DeleteFernando, Yes, it can be difficult to source some of the papers, but there is plenty of open access (see my sidebar link to Copernicus.org, for example), and the AR5 is available online: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ where there is plenty of material.
ReplyDeleteI realise that you don't consider yourself to be deceived, but taking for example your criticism of Mann, your point of view does not appear to take into account the very large number of reports, papers and reviews of the work which conclude that there is nothing intrinsically 'wrong' about the temperature reconstruction or the methodology, but instead repeats the commonplace and misguided complaint that it is somehow flawed, or dishonest, or 'broken'. To be objective about a subject like this, it is necessary to review all the available evidence, not just opinions and prejudices which other people publish, and make a judgment based on the balance of this, as rationally as possible, in which case, it is important to take into consideration the quality of thee information and analysis. This subject has been covered endlessly on the internet and really shouldn't be in question any more. Besides which, from the point of view of the evidence for the extent and prospects of climate changes, it is a very small part of a huge, vast, body of evidence.
You say that your truth is different from my truth, but if we are talking about a particular subject, and one of us contradicts the statement of the other, in general, we cannot both be making a true statement.
The point of my description of myself was to try to show you why I feel I can claim an understanding of what 'truth' is, and about ways in which truth can be relative, as well as ways it can be used to make meaningful statements. I will now make a couple of simple statements which, if you like, we can discuss, though I would rather you chose one which you believe to be a truth, and we can discuss that. Here are a couple of ideas:
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased" - IPCC AR5, SPM, opening statement. True or False?
"Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years..." - same source. True or False?
I have tried to leave some 'wiggle room' here, so a proper exploration is possible.
I described my opinion about Dr Mann above. I realize some defend him. I also see others attack him. I decided his work wasn't worth even reading after I read False Hope.
DeleteDo you realize this topic is precisely what I like to write about? You are in denial of the low quality one can observe in Mann's work. But your truth is objective, ironclad, set in stone, you have that fake 97 % consensus to keep your faith strong.
I, on the other hand, have absolutely no faith, because truth is manufactured, sliced, garnished, perfumed, and served for us to feast. It takes a lot to convince me of anything anymore.
Let me ask you guys a question...do you think the USA bombed Kosovo in 1999 to stop an ongoing genocide? Did Bush invade Iraq because it had WMD? Tell me what you think about those two subjects and we will find out the nature of truth.
You don't have to read any of Mann's work to get sufficient information on AGW. Have you read the AR5 SPMs?
DeleteI have provided reasons why I have confidence that Mann's work is robust. The claims that any of his work is 'low quality' needs evidential support which has a sound scientific base - can you provide this, or counter the rebuttals of M&M with sound reasoning?
You accuse me of inflexibility of opinion rather than address my argument. As far as that 'fake consensus', back in 2006, when I was in contact with Roger Pielke Sr, he agreed to support me in finding out what scientists's opinions were, so I did the work for myself and we co-authored a paper (Brown, Annan, Pielke (2007). I don't have to believe other people's work, I asked them myself and made the results public. Strangely, one of the conclusions (no 4, IIRC) was that more than 97% of respondents agreed that AGW was happening - this was years before Cook et. al. did their work. Is this a coincidence, or did Roger Pielke Sr permit his name to go on a paper which misrepresented the data? Please explain.
Your examples from the world of politics and conflict are important, in that the presentation of information, PR and media coverage are overt examples of careful manipulation and 'reinterpretation' of fact. I am completely in agreement with you that the way in which these events were presented is highly suspect, and open to challenge. As I have said elsewhere, never assume that anything you read in the media is 'The Truth'. Though there are some common features, the nature of scientific publishing is fundamentally different. For example, in a paper it is required that the authors overtly state what their information base is, what their methods were, what the results were, and how the conclusions about the evidence were reached. If these elements are missing, the work doesn't get published. The demands of rigour are very low in the mass media, even lower in Political PR, and very, very high in most science publishing.
I would hate to think that you have been permanently convinced of the impossibility of honesty, truth or good faith. In some parts of our experience these do not exist; in others, they are still strong and healthy.
"I would hate to think that you have been permanently convinced of the impossibility of honesty, truth or good faith.".
DeleteFergus, I didn´t write anything about GOOD FAITH or HONESTY. I would bet 10 to 1 odds you are an honest person and act in good faith.
Let me suggest something: Pull back and consider that I am convinced you act in good faith and are honest, but you have been brainwashed.
I too have been brainwashed. The only difference is that I´m aware of the brainwashing and you seem to be oblivious (like 99 % of the population).
The brainwashing isn´t the result of an overarching conspiracy. Some of it is genetic, some of it is deeply ingrained culture, some is early education, and some of it is impressed on you by the media, your friends, and your enemies.
Being brainwashed seems to be a positive survival trait in homo sapiens. Although many brainwashed populations were defeated and driven to extinction, others which practiced brainwashing as a higher art form, or got a bit luckier seem to have survived more often thanks to this brainwashing, which aligned most of society with the leadership, and moved them to perform as requested.
Thus my position is that a lot of what we believe is real isn´t really there. As my grandchildren would say, it´s all bogus.
So how does this impact the way I absorb information about global warming? First, I know there are actors trying to manipulate me to behave in a certain way. Why? Because whenever an issue arises which involves government decisions, subsidies, taxes, putting a drilling rig on the public library grounds, and moves like that I have to be manipulated to accept such decisions.
Do you see why you really can´t change my mind? As far as you are concerned I´m a ghost. I live in a different universe. You are trying to debate global warming, and I debate the way "they" manipulate us.
And why do you think you avoided the subject when I tried to use Kosovo and Iraq as talkng points? Because your comfort zone is in global warming and the associated science. You want to feel comfortable surrounded by your friends, sitting in a tall stone tower from which you can fling arrows and stones at the enemy trying to scale your walls.
On the other hand, I see this behavior as normal, quite human, and also misguided.
Almost everybody is the same. And this is why in the 21st century we see children being slaughtered with laser guided bombs in Palestine, and we look the other way. We have been brainwashed to accept this, and we can´t even bring ourselves to discuss it. And the odds are this post may even be censored, isn´t it?
I had a quick look at your article and immediately noticed something which has confused me. You base your disapproval on the argument that the graph shows Northern Hemisphere temperatures/projections, but I see no evidence that this is what the graph shows. As far as I can tell, it is the Global Temperature. The first paragraph of the writing refers to NH temperature, but the graph is not marked as such.
ReplyDeleteCan you confirm that the graph is actually the NH temperature record and NOt the Global temperature record? This is fundamental to your 'problem' with the article, so I think we have to clear this up...
I stand corrected - apparently it's taken from the HadCrut4 NH record. But I still don't get your objection. Surface temps are increasing over the NH slightly faster than the SH, so the argument that NH temp could exceed 2C is strengthened if the expectation is that global temps will hit 2C in the timeframe mentioned.
DeleteIn sum, I am not sure why you find the representation reprehensible- the graph shows what it says it shows, and the text draws out the relevant detail. What do you think is dishonest about this process?
It's not enough to say that you think it's crap. The fact that I got a bit confused at first about what was being shows supports your idea that the content as a whole may be a bit confusing, so you win that point. But in what sense is the content of the text or the graphic incorrect?
Why is the presentation reprehensible? Because it confused everybody. Let me quote from my critique:
Delete"First I show you a graph using the Northern Hemisphere temperature trend. Then I clutter it with a bunch of lines taken from my computer model. I shade in the 2 degree C “catastrophic warming” line, wave my arms and “demonstrate” using this visual aid how the Northern Hemisphere will hit the fan in 22 years. Then I switch tracks and state the world will cross the 2 degree boundary (remember this boundary is set versus the temperature back in 1750, it´s about ONE degree C versus today´s average temperature). Hell, to put it bluntly, the article manages to scare you into thinking the world´s temperature will go up 1 degree C in 22 years! Neat, isn´t it?
Did I get it wrong? That´s an interesting question. Reading through that article one comes out with the impression the world temperature will increase at least 1 degree C in 22 years. Some readers may even think it´s 2 degrees C in 22 years. And most of them will be sure the prediction applies to the whole planet....Huh?"
I don´t think Mann´s behavior is unique, it´s what I have come to expect in the media when people write with clear POLITICAL aims.
By the way, did it pique your curiosity when I wrote about Kosovo? The bombing the USA did in 1999 was justified using a really interesting sequence of lies, distortions, and fabrications. And yet nobody seems to care.
Given my interest in the creation of false realities I have Mann and friends as study subjects, just like I dissected Kosovo and I try to dissect other distortions. And let´s be clear about something: I´m not stating global doesnt exist, I dont say the climate doesn´t change, and I insist we use the word anthropogenic to make sure it´s clear SOME of what´s going on is driven by us. The difference lies in my refusal to swallow the propaganda and the lies coming from all sides.
Well, let's ignore the leading language which you use in a way similar to the journalists who you distrust so much, words such as 'clutter', 'bunch of lines', 'Catastrophic' (the graphic says 'danger threshold'), 'scare', and so forth. These are not 'neutral' or 'balanced expressions.
DeleteLet's agree, for the sake of argument, that the message of the graphic is that the Global average increase of 2C, if we follow the 'best fit' model of ECS, will happen in as little as 22 years.
The reason the Northern hemisphere is mentioned in the first section is that, since this is where the most landmass and the most people are, the impact on human civilization will be more obvious and more harmful here than in the Southern hemisphere. If Global increase is 2C, then NH increase is reasonably assumed to be close to this- NH being a part of the global metric. I don't think the graphic is deceptive about this, it just assumes that a reader will realise the connection for him/herself.
Your reaction to this is that it is 'scary'. Your reaction is also that it is not correct - or perhaps unlikely, or questionable. I agree, with provisions. Yep, such a rapid warming should be scary - that is kind of the point of the article in the first place - that our present inaction as a whole is taking us in a direction where this scenario is more likely to become a reality than if we took action now.
The graphic is 'guiding' the reader towards a particular understanding. Whether this understanding is accurate or false, or misleading, is something to argue. If you wish to argue that the presentation is misleading, then it is important to point out that this is only one of a number of possible scenarios, and it is not irrational to propose that ECS is plausibly less than 2.5C, or that the rate of warming is not conclusively proven. But then you must provide some reason why these alternatives are credible.
You make a great deal of 'exposing' misrepresentation or decit as you see it, but also by connection wish to see a more honest, more balanced representation of facts. However, you show no evidence at all of addressing the question of whether the material presented at WUWT or Climate Etc. is reliable. Therefore, as things stand your own representation of the case is biased - do you recognise this? You say you refuse to swallow the propaganda coming from all sides, yet you seem to willingly embrace the propaganda which confirms your pre-existing opinions. If you wish me, and other people, to believe that you are really trying to represent climate issues from an honest point of view, you need to show how your views are rational and unbiased.
I respect your work on politics and international relations and think that the efforts you are making to expose media manipulation of facts in certain countries interesting and worthwhile. On the question of climate, I think you need to do some more open, questioning research before presenting yourself as an unbiased observer. What do you say?
FL
DeleteThe difference lies in my refusal to swallow the propaganda and the lies coming from all sides.
The propaganda and lies are emanating from the FF industry and have been for over two decades. When this was drawn to your attention, you denied it and accused a researcher of fuelling conspiracy theories. Another absolutely unfounded accusation of professional misconduct. The creation of and ongoing funding of an organised denial machine by the fossil fuel industry is a well-documented and indisputable matter of fact. Nobody informed as to the facts and acting in good faith could or would even attempt to deny this.
The key to partial wisdom is to understand your own bs. When you comprehend you are loaded with biases, and what you "know" is full of falsehoods and distortions, the you can see a glimmer of light.
DeleteFergus, you agreed Mann was "leading" when he wrote False Hope the way he did. And I don't have a problem if he wants to write material like that. However, when I identify material I know is intended to "lead" me, my level of distrust goes up ten fold.
Let me ask you guys a question...did you study American history? Did they tell you about the behavior of the USA marine corps in the Philippines in the early 20th century? Look it up. Why do I bring up Kosovo, Iraq, and now the Philippines? Because I want to point out a lot of what people "know" just ain't so. These climate wars are similar, a lot of it is propaganda. Intended to "lead" you. And some of it is craftily disguised as "science".
Fernando, I am as full of BS as the next person, and no less prejudiced in favour of my own opinion, but so what? You talk elsewhere about your 'smellometer' method, but it seems to be broken- are you holding it upside down?
DeleteYou seem to be suggesting that the reason you believe that Mann is dishonest is because he wrote a piece overtly intended to be persuasive. This is a very thin argument to reject another person and their work.
You keep returning to events from history to illustrate your point about suspicion and distrust, but I have tried to put a case below that you are judging different things by inappropriate standards.
At the moment, the basis of your rejection of climate science is that sometimes it isn't easy to understand, so some people make diagrams which show something you don't believe to be true. This is not a rational or persuasive case. You say you have read the AR5 - please explain why you think this is dishonest, false or inaccurate. If your argument is that several thousand people are conspiring to deceive us in a conspiracy to enforce taxes and laws, I will simply laugh. Tell us what is wrong with the science, or the evidence, or the summary.
The logic of your argument from history is - sometimes we have been systematically lied to about some things, especially by politicians and the media, so therefore we are always lied to about everything by everybody, and so-called reason and so-called fact are all lies. Please do better than this.
FL
DeleteThese climate wars are similar, a lot of it is propaganda. Intended to "lead" you. And some of it is craftily disguised as "science".
This is, of course, conspiracist ideation. But let's get to the specifics as specifics are necessary for clarity.
Who exactly is intentionally "leading" the electorate with propaganda "craftily disguised as "science" "? Who is behind this conspiracy to mislead?
What do you believe their motives to be?
I bypassed this before. It's an interesting theorem, that a cynical and manipulative 'someone' should disguise the message they wish people to accept in terms which they are unable to understand, thus convincing them not to be sceptical and to accept the idea. Think of all the work that must have gone into creating 9200 craftily disguised pieces of propaganda and conspiring to get several hundred top scientists to pretend that they really are science, purely and only for the purpose of deceiving people about a fairly simple idea. That's exactly how I would go about it.
DeleteOTOH, it really is a bit more difficult than that. Many theories have been put together and presented in public as scientifically proven. They do get found out eventually, but in their time, these theories have the backing of scientists and look convincing. Such phenomena often happen in political regimes which are keen to promote their ideology and prejudices. So we should not be surprised if someone who has experienced the evils of a despotic regime becomes cynical about science.
I looked at the Berkeley earth graphics but don't really get what point they made. Perhaps you will find this work of interest: http://bskiesresearch.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/can-we-trust-climate-models/
ReplyDeleteI trust this person's output.
Are you referring to the Berkeley Earth analysis of Climate Model Performance? If that´s the case it merely lists their comparison of model behavior to actual data, also looks at polar amplification, and other parameters. It´s a broad quality check.
DeleteI think it may be in order to explain that I had a senior position which required I provide assurance regarding the quality and honesty of work done in the organization. I didn´t have the time, nor the ability to check everything, but I did have methods I could use to have individuals and teams prepare their work so I could give it a smell test. The use of graphics was quite useful when I did this work.
And I found that using a proxy to measure the "honesty" of work being reported was quite useful. For example, I could request a map showing the mol changes of a minor component over time, and it served to cross check their diffusivities for all components.
I don´t want to get too technical, but the key point I want to make is that many of these climate papers, the IPCC work, and the articles I read don´t come close to passing a preliminary smell test.
Regarding the "can we trust climate models", my call is that we can´t trust models if they are improperly calibrated or they lack resolution. I´ve spent over 30 years looking over models, watching them fail, seeing them torn apart, rebuilt, etc. Lately we have shifted to using neural networks to help the tuning and I still see a huge amount of scatter, mostly due to the parameterization issues. I don´t think most climatologists even understand what those models do nor their weaknesses.
I don´t think most climatologists even understand what those models do nor their weaknesses.
DeleteConversely, you may be yet another engineer with zero relevant experience accusing climate scientists of professional incompetence.
"I don´t want to get too technical, but the key point I want to make is that many of these climate papers, the IPCC work, and the articles I read don´t come close to passing a preliminary smell test."
DeleteI'm going to call you on this. Pick any paper cited in any chapter and make a rebuttal of it. 'Smell tests' may be useful in practical situations but in the end these are simply 'impressions' - not invalid in themselves, but not really robust. Give us an example of a paper which failed your smell test.
"Regarding the "can we trust climate models", my call is that we can´t trust models if they are improperly calibrated or they lack resolution. I´ve spent over 30 years looking over models, watching them fail, seeing them torn apart, rebuilt, etc. Lately we have shifted to using neural networks to help the tuning and I still see a huge amount of scatter, mostly due to the parameterization issues. I don´t think most climatologists even understand what those models do nor their weaknesses."
Did you read the paper? The conclusions were that the GCMs exhibit skill at the big picture but not at the regional level (sorry for the paraphrase, JDA). Do you agree or disagree with this conclusion?
Why would you presume that a PhD in Physics doesn't understand modelling, its uses and limitations? Where does your expertise come from, that allows you to undertake a meta-analysis of their work and conclude that they don't understand their jobs? Can you point out a paper in the AR5 in which the authors have got their facts wrong about their modelling processes?
Much as I respect your intelligence and experience, you need to give me a reason to prefer your evaluation over that of a paleoclimatologist, statistician, or someone with more than 15 years experience working with GCMs...
I started running ·3D dynamic models in 1982. Around 2007-2008 I kicked off a project to have a large group of researchers model processes I felt could improve performance. Working with them I learned quite a bit about parameterization and their concerns with the lack of data to make the model parameters mimic nature. Anyway, at that point in time I was more worried about knowledge transfer between the older PhDs and the younger staff, and I tried to stay out of their hair as long as I saw the younger ones get involved, have the ability to ask questions, and so on.
DeleteMeanwhile we had had a parallel effort to develop neural networks to tune our models, and this seemed to be quite successful. However, I am concerned the neural network can´t tell us what it thinks. It just weighs parameters, calibrates, and moves forward to make projections.
Given the boundless faith I see many of these climatologists express over their models I got the sense they just don´t know how unreliable they are when it comes to make projections. EIther that, or they are just bsing because they got nothing else left to do. We are seeing a lot of simplistic propaganda about model capability, and it´s sheer baloney.
Why would I presume a PHD in physics doesn´t understand modeling? Because that´s a fact. I´ve worked with tons of PhDs and they don´t specialize in running models. And the ones who do tend to be highly specialized ("I got a PHD in Post Processing"). So many of them don´t get the big picture. And buddy, I bet most of them don´t know how the green house gas concentration data they use is forecasted.
Show me an example where a climate scientist expresses boundless faith over his model. Just one. Show me one example of simplistic propaganda about model capability from a scientist.
DeleteYour second paragraph is astonishing. You claim that specialists are incapable of seeing the big picture, but you principle justification for having any opinion or authority on this subject is that you are an engineer. Can you at least see the huge contradiction you are making?
Thanks for this, John. Nice to see you and others in this dark corner of the blogoverse...
ReplyDeleteBack to that graphic in Nature, it clearly shows the expected temp increases and timescale in the event that Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is less than 2.5C. If you can provide a sound reason for arguing that this is a more likely estimate of ECS than Mann's, then you can argue that his quoting of 22 - 30 years is an exaggeration. That you don't think a 1C rise in 22 years is likely is simply an opinion, unless you can support it with some reasoning, such as the point I made above.
ReplyDeleteYes -- it's a multidimensional fustercluck (you'd have to retain multiple principal components to capture all of the bad behavior ;) ).
ReplyDeleteI think that it's worth noting that the Wegman cherry-pick was even worse than 100:1. The Wegman report showed 12 of the 100 selected from the original 10,000 runs. So Wegman did something like an 833:1 cherry-pick.
Also worth pointing out -- in an ensemble of random selections of 12 "noise hockey-stick" results, the expected value of the number of hockey-sticks pointing up would be 6. The "Wegman 12" were all pointing up.
There's only a 1 in 4096 chance that Wegman could have gotten all 12 hockey-sticks pointing in the right direction (from an honest, representative selection of runs).
That's something that an average joe can definitely understand.
Anyway, the bit I was referring to was M&M's claim that there was no hockey-stick in the North American tree-ring data. That was a result of M&M's failure to implement a proper singular-vector selection procedure. Closely related to, but not identical to, the "noise hockey stick" monkey-business.
And another bit (this just keeps going and going...), the Wegman report specifically claimed that the noise hockey-sticks were generated from AR(1) noise. A professional statistician conversant in R should have been able to figure out in a matter of minutes that the McIntyre code did *not* use anything close to AR(1) noise for those "noise hockey-stick" runs.
There are definitely multiple levels of professional malfeasance here.
In a just world, the sheer magnitude of the bad behavior in the McIntyre/McKitrick/Wegman business would have seriously damaged the careers of all the major players involved with it.
Could Koch money be a contributing factor in the lack of real professional consequences for Wegman at George Mason University?
One reason that I've like to emphasize more than just the cherry-pick aspect is that I occasionally get into discussions about this stuff with "skeptical" engineering types who pride themselves on their technical prowess.
ReplyDeleteI find that the "piling on" approach (100:1 cherry pick *plus* SVD screwups *plus* botched noise-model) works fairly nicely into embarrassing the more self-aware of them into backing away from denialist stuff like this.
To be fair: teh 100:1 cheery-pick selected the highest positive hockey-sticks, but the 12 were a random selection from those, and of course, there were zero negatives in that group.
ReplyDeleteFernando - In case you missed the link John Mashey was pointing to, you really should read Deep Climate's review of the Wegman Report which uncritically rehashed McIntyre and McKittrick -- http://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/
ReplyDeleteThe specific lines of R-Code that were used by M&M and followed by Wegman to make the cherry-pick are shown. There is no factual dispute here. Also, did it never cause you pause that all of their hockey sticks pointed up? Shouldn't half of them have pointed down?
There was definitely intentional deceit taking place in the hockey-stick charade, but it was perpetrated by those who claimed Mann's methods created hockey-sticks where none existed. Read Deep Climate's analysis and you would be hard-pressed to disagree.
Good morning and thank you to all of you. Now I'm starting to feel that more of this on the Hockey Stick might stop Fernando (and other reasonable skeptics) from contributing, so maybe we can sit on it for a bit?
ReplyDeleteInstead, I'd like to ask a new question: Fernando, on your blog somewhere I noted that you acknowledge that the planet is warming, but you are uncertain about the amount of human contribution to the long-term trend. Is this something you would like to discuss? Is there another subject which is a matter of interest or concern for you?
If you guys want to argue about statistical techniques, feel condescending and tell me to read AR5 (which I read before it officially came out), then you are falling in a trap.
DeleteMann´s hockey stick was deceptive. Using "Mike´s trick" was unfathomably stupid. It made Mann lose credibility with people like me. This means you can massage, restudy, re compute, critique M&M, and you are still left with a self inflicted pie sitting right on Mann´s face.
I´m the atheist who is telling you what I think about the nature of your Jesus. And this means anything I write will be seen as pure heresy.
I don't understand how you can read the AR5 and still persist on 'smacking the hockey stick'. What did you learn from reading the AR5? What was the 'stand out message' for you?
DeleteI really don't see the point of arguing whether or not you approve or disapprove of Mann. I also don't see you address the rebuttals, except to say that presenting them is 'condescending'. Why would you feel this way? Someone is presenting you with alternative evidence to explain something which you have come to understand in a certain way, to which your answer is 'It cannot be'.
Don't bring religious comparisons into this - its childish and irrelevant. And try not to make yourself out as some kind of martyr - it is vain. The reason I believe what I believe is because I took the effort to study, for nearly ten years, a range of information and argument, then reached the conclusion that the argument and evidence and rational explanation exists and is available for the understanding of any reasonable, open-minded person. If you wish to argue that my beliefs are irrational or unfounded, you have to give me reasons, strong arguments, evidence, which demonstrate that my belief is unfounded.
You have to make more effort to make a case for your point of view, and stop fixating on a irrelevance.
"Mike's trick" was nothing more than overlaying the instrumental temperature record on the proxy reconstruction, with both clearly marked in the plot legend.
DeleteThat's perfectly sensible, given that the proxy reconstruction was calibrated to the instrumental record where they overlap. Nobody who read MBH98/99 for comprehension would confuse the instrumental and proxy temperature results.
If that's the main basis of your criticism of Mann (and note that you ignored my detailed rebuttal of other Mann criticisms, a rebuttal that includes a link to data&code that you can inspect and run yourself), then you are grasping at straws to a point that there's no reason to continue trying to reason with you.
FL, your refusal to follow links provided by others or to respond to caerbannog's detailed arguments as to Muller's errors leaves you with no credibility whatsoever.
DeleteYour claim that Mann's MBH paper was "deceptive", that appending the instrumental to the proxy record - clearly marked - was "unfathomably stupid", and that his editorial writing and opinions so offends you that you can't bother to read his papers (but know they're wrong anyway), coupled with your personally offensive claim that you're an "atheist" and we're "reglious fanatics" blinded by belief are not the kind of arguments that will sway anyone familiar with Mann's work, the subsequent dishonesty of M&M, etc.
dhogaza, I do read Mann´s papers when they are accessible, if I find the subject intelligible. Mann´s use of the instrumental record on his reconstruction to give a "hockey stick" visual to the graph was dumb. It exposed him to reasonable criticism, and created a firestorm.
DeleteMaybe you should re-read your comments suggesting I be censored to understand why I think many approach a nearly religious intolerance to politics.
Sometimes the repression of "heresy" leads to very strict censorship and even jail and execution. It´s a very slippery slope once you get started down that highway.
Caerbannog, you wrote
Delete"Nobody who read MBH98/99 for comprehension would confuse the instrumental and proxy temperature results."
On the other hand many who read the IPCC´s Summary for Policy Makers and skim over chapters don´t have the time to read "MBH98/99". I presume you do realize the Summary for Policy Makers is written because those Policy Makers need the material pre masticated and pre digested?
Do you know what I think may be a better solution? Get the IPCC out of that Summary for Policy Makers game.
I don´t think the IPCC is worth the effort, but if they want to have it they can generate their 2000 page report and each country (or group of countries) can generate their own summary for THEIR policy makers.
Fergus, the rebuttals about Mann´s hockey stick involve a convoluted set of requests to read papers, download software, and get into arguments about statistics. But that´s not my point at all. II consider the way the visuals were manipulated by splicing the instrumental record to be inappropriate in the context it was used (a political report and a movie by an ex presidential candidate). Maybe it escapes you I´m exercising my ethical and political judgement, and that´s not related to statistics or pine cones.
DeleteYou asked
"What did you learn from reading the AR5? What was the 'stand out message' for you?"
The report didn´t inspire confidence, In some instances it was pathetically weak. I found the approach used to feed the Climate Model Intercomparison Project to be quite amateurish, the integrated model end point was prescribed by hand picked target forcings. I think this is a huge blunder, and leads to non useable results. If you wish to debate the integrated model project remember I DONT LIKE THE USE OF PRESCRIBED END POINT FORCINGS TO DRIVE THE MODEL INPUTS. If this doesn´t sink in then you can´t really discuss the subject with me, because we´ll be talking past each other.
Fernando, you still persist with decrying Mann without providing substance. Several people have provided evidence which suggests that the criticism was NOT reasonable, but you have not addressed these, either.
DeleteThis is worrying. I think you need to forget about Mann, unless you have the mathematical skills required either to test the work or comment on the methodology, otherwise, your words are just bitching, without strength.
Dhogasa has his/her opinion, I have mine, and you have yours. I'm in charge and if you are worried about 'censorship' you complain about me, not other posters; they share the same liberties I have accorded to you, and have the same responsibilities.
And stop using religious language. Nobody here has called you a 'heretic'. Making the language of debate emotive rather than rational is another form of deception - it does not do your credit. If you insist on honesty and transparency, you are obliged to provide an example of the behavious you demand.
The reason the IPCC produces SPMs is so that busy people like you can get the main conclusions of the chapters without wading through (in the case of WG1) 2000 pages of evidence. If you have the desire, you can also read the 2000 pages, but the Policy Makers are the ones who asked for the SPMs, so that is what they get - it is a simple matter of utility.
On your last point, most countries do produce their own 'domestic' summaries, in this country, the number and quality of analysis is substantial (and publically available). Are you sure you properly understand what the IPCC is and what it does?
One last request - skip the rude comments about Mann, such as 'dumb'. They are starting to piss me off.
Fernando:
Delete"I consider the way the visuals were manipulated by splicing the instrumental record to be inappropriate in the context it was used (a political report and a movie by an ex presidential candidate)."
This argument is based on a common logical fallacy, which boils down to the argument that the validity of a statement depends on the use to which it is later put. Actually, more than one fallacy. You are 'shooting the messenger' because you distrust the people who publicised the message.
"I found the approach used to feed the Climate Model Intercomparison Project to be quite amateurish, the integrated model end point was prescribed by hand picked target forcings. I think this is a huge blunder, and leads to non useable results. If you wish to debate the integrated model project remember I DONT LIKE THE USE OF PRESCRIBED END POINT FORCINGS TO DRIVE THE MODEL INPUTS. "
This is a bit more promising at first glance. If the approach was 'amateurish', what do you think would have been a more 'professional' approach? Explain what makes this approach a blunder - why it produces 'unuseable results'.
You can skip the bit expressing whether you like it or not - concentrate on what is wrong with it and how it can be improved.
And, yet again, PLEASE stop including emotive language in your posts. Whether you think something is pathetic or not has nothing to do with whether it is correct or not. Apply your technical impartiality and deal with the facts.
"Maybe you should re-read your comments suggesting I be censored to understand why I think many approach a nearly religious intolerance to politics. "
DeleteI did not suggest censorship.
I suggested that your feet be held to the fire and that you be asked to stop the handwaving and to provide solid, empirical evidence to back up your claims.
That's a very different thing from censorship.
This stems in part from your stating, at the Rabbett's, that that forum was not the place to discuss paleoclimate, immediately followed by stating that Mann's work was deceitful and wrong.
In other words, you stated that you win and no discussion of the subject should be allowed. An argument from personal authority, pure and simple.
Back up your words. Let's see some math, some empirical evidence, something. Waving hands won't cut it.
Wait. So you suggested my feet be held to the fire? And if I refuse to get tied down so you can burn my feet what is your response going to be?
DeleteLet me remind you what I wrote in my first post to make sure you do understand my personal interests, which I expect to be respected
"Fergus, my main interest is the nature of reality, how we can be deceived by propaganda, and the interesting way in which government and the media cooperate to drive the people to support irrational decisions."
I'm going to deal with some of this in another post. I've had enough of this string, and plan to move the goalposts. Hope the interest is sustained.
Delete"Wait. So you suggested my feet be held to the fire? And if I refuse to get tied down so you can burn my feet what is your response going to be? "
DeleteIgnore every post you ever write again, whatever the venue, based on your refusal to answer specifics being absolute evidence that you have nothing to contribute to my understanding of climate science.
I´m not discussing things to contribute to your understanding of climate science. I´m writing to help you understand how governments and media cooperate to deceive the public. To me this is about politics. You chose to shift it to science because that´s your comfort zone. But that´s not an interesting subject. After all, I think we are in agreement over the basic facts.
DeleteNo. You offered a specific and as yet unjustified criticism of both a scientist and a specific piece of science. This is not talking about politics.
DeleteI'm glad we are in agreement about the basic facts, but the inconsistencies in your posts and arguments are becoming excessive. You don't seem to know what you want to talk about. Most of the commenters here have a lot of experience discussing such matters and are less patient than I about some things. But for your sake, I would suggest that you decide what you want to focus on, ie politics and deception, and avoid trying to make arguments about climate science which go away from this.
Well, Fergus. What are you going to do now? When your 'reasonable skeptics' choose to believe what they read in "skeptic" blogs about Climategate (not to mention everything they read at places like Climate Audit), you've got some pretty much intractable problems to solve in order to communicate with them.
ReplyDeleteHi Metzo and thanks for coming. I will persist in one peculiar act of faith - that real people are actually reasonable at bottom - and one particular act of faith - that Fernando is a person for whom truth and lies are very important, and he has strong feelings on the subject. I am trying my best to help him make a case, but am still waiting to hear it. I won't give up, nor will I characterise a person who disagrees with me as being 'one of them' - each person is themself and I try to accept this and respond to him or her as themself, without prejudice. I have made some observations above about my perception of Fernando's 'impartiality' and look forward to the replies.
DeleteI suggest you just delete anything FL says until he posts responses to the various questions raised in response to his claims about Mann's dishonesty, etc.
DeleteHe's flinging s*** around, hoping some will stick, without making any effort at all at the kind of analysis that would back up his position.
On the other hand, FL's comments have permitted several commenters to offer a strong, largely ordinary-language rebuttal of the smears in a robust manner, a process which will not be unnoticed by an 'undecided', or indeed (thanks to Caerbannog), Dr. Mann himself. I'm going to move on anyway, so am satisfied to keep a light hand at the tiller for now.
DeleteFergus, did you notice dhogaza´s repressive attitude? Suggeting that I be forced to answer questions as if I were in a KGB dungeon is quite human. And it´s also what we should oppose.
DeleteTo give you an idea of where I come from here´s a recent article by Yoani about censorship some of you may like reading
http://translatingcuba.com/official-press-triumphalism-blacklisting-and-censorship-14ymedio-yoani-sanchez/
However, if you don´t read it or ignore my suggestion I won´t suggest that you be censored....
FL:
Delete"Suggeting that I be forced to answer questions as if I were in a KGB dungeon is quite human. And it´s also what we should oppose. "
In other words, FL wants the freedom to accuse Mann of scientific fraud, a serious charge that could lead to the end of his career if it were to be shown true.
But he doesn't want the responsibility of backing up his claims of scientific fraud.
And characterizes requests that he be forced to back up such claims with evidence as being equivalent to being questioned in one of Stalin's torture chambers.
Nice. It makes me think that FL's vaunted "ethics" are somewhat different than mine.
Dhogaza:
DeleteOn the other hand, we have been laying it on pretty firmly, and the fact that Fernando has the courage to enter a hostile environment and expose himself to criticism IMO says something positive about character and sincerity.
This discussion is not just about the details - given what you and I understand, it was always likely to get one-sided - as with other open conversations I have had on blogs, what this is also about is the real, deep reasons why some people (lots of people) feel very strongly about this, and why they struggle to trust anyone when it comes to truth. This is not unimportant.
If you go to FL's blog, you will notice that he is very much a product of the very tough circumstances of his life. Authority itself is suspected, all messages are suspected, all motives suspected.
I believe we all need to try to understand better what makes people form their opinions and appreciate that there are many different ways to see the world. OTOH, I also believe that gentle reason and patience do produce results. This worked when I was a schoolteacher, so I'll keep working at it.
I didn't write Mann was guilty of scientific fraud. I think he's a political agent. Thus what he does has political aims. He can write whatever political graphs he wants, write confusing text and publish misleading articles such as False Hope, and that's his right. However, I also have the right to believe he is writing political documents. And I don't particularly care to be led by propaganda (whether it's subtle or not). Regarding whether I harm his career that sure sounds like a veiled threat.
DeleteSo let's see the record thus far, I have been threatened end, called a troll, insulted, told to go read AR5, and some have commented my feet should be put to the fire and if I refuse to answer your mathematical questions then I should be censored. Don't you realize how ineffective it can be to be intolerant, arrogant, and repressive towards people you disagree with?
My suggestion is to have you go take a cup of tea and decide if you have any interest in discussing politics as they relate to climate change. If you don't, then you can remain in your echo chamber and stay isolated. And next time the USA wants to invade or bomb you will likely be foaming at the mouth cheering for the troops and hating the enemy. I guess we are bound to repeat the same mistakes, aren't we?
Fernando, I don't want to play gotcha, so I'll try not to. A few questions for you, meant to clarify communication. First, you show a good deal of respect for Dr. Muller's opinion of climate scientists. What do you think of the work of the BEST team, for example in attribution of the causes of warming, and of the instrumental record of the last 250 years. How much does this support or contest the 'mainstream' viewpoints?
ReplyDeleteSecond, MBH 99 was 15 years ago, a long time in dog years and even longer in science years. If well done, it should have been superseded by extensions, and if poorly done, it should have been replaced by better studies. Is there a paleoclimate reconstruction for the past 800 or more years that you find better? Which one? What does it show in terms of temperature trends, MWP, current vs past temperature?
Sincerely,
stewart
Anonymous, it appears to be quality work. I have exchanged comments with people who participated in that work and they sound very professional. However, the only area where I have knowledge to really judge is in kriging, and I think the people I have worked with in the past could suggest improvements. The same applies to the Cowtan and Way work, I suggested they had a couple of weaknesses which could be remedied, but of course this involves a lot of work.
DeleteIf you want to see a professional and diplomatic critique of Mann´s work I suggest the following...
SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTIONS FOR THE LAST 2,000 YEARS ("the Norh Report").
I think we need to have something clear: I´m not here to debate climatology. I have an engineering degree, worked on a NOAA research vessel in the 1970´s, studied oceanography in those days, and thus the climate became sort of a hobby over the years. But I´m not here to wave CVs, nor am I disposed to download statistical software. If I want an opinon I have colleagues I can ask to tell me what they think.
So the issue isn´t really the paleoclimatology reconstruction. It´s a more personal issue....I don´t trust Mann because he has self appointed as a political guru.
Let me ask you a couple of questions in turn....do you think climate models can be improved? If so what are their weaknesses? and....do you think climate scientists are the sole authority when it comes to solutions? I ask because I see an enormous amount of arrogance and pathetic naiveté when it comes to this issue.
So? I gave you a reference to what I consider a professional and diplomatic critique. Let me quote North as you quoted him
ReplyDelete"They simply made choices in their analysis which were not precisely the ones we (in hindsight) might have made.".
Interestingly, I don´t focus on the choices they made as such. The problem is the visual tactics, which involved the use of the instrumental record (and the use of the graph in Gore´s movie).
North also falls in a trap when he states
"The minor technical objections serve as a weapon for those special interests who want to delay any action on GW."
The minor technical objections raise questions about the overall quality of that work, which in turn is used for POLITICAL objectives. The comment also smacks of the "conspiracy theory syndrome" one sees so often in comments about the "skeptic" opposition.
If I may add, large corporations are interested in the climate change issue to see if they can profit from it, or if it threatens their profits. As early as 1990 I was already involved in a group which studied the Arctic´s climate to understand which way it was headed.
If "big bad corporate giants" wanted to throw a wrench in the works they can easily crank up climate models, tune them to give them a 1.2 degree TCR, and set loose all sorts of PHDs writing papers about the subject. The fact that they don´t tells me the REALLY BIG guys are still sitting and observing, and in the end they will profit EITHER WAY.
If I read this carefully, it might get us to an interesting point which you can agree or disagree with. I would, though, appreciate an answer.
ReplyDeleteFrom this, and other comments, it seems to me that the objections you voice about Mann and the IPCC are not really about the science (though this is a bit contrary of you, given your previous posts). Your real objection is to the USE of the IPCC, or Mann's graph, AFTER THE FACT, by POLITICIANS. Is this, in essence, your feeling on the subject?
Corporations spend a lot of time futurecasting as part of normal business behaviour, to anticipate Risks and Opportunities. The ones which I have seen (such as the Lloyd's Climate report last month, or the Swiss Re report, are very clear about their opinion on whether the climate is changing or not. if you can't stomach the IPCC, I strongly recommend you read the Lloyd's report. I'll post a link later.
There are links to three reports here, pick your poison: http://www.lloyds.com/news-and-insight/risk-insight/reports/climate-change/climate-change-and-security
ReplyDeleteHere's the overview, for the lazy:
"...Climate change will undoubtedly have major economic and business implications worldwide, so Lloyd’s 360° Risk Insight and the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) have joined forces to explore the issues from a business perspective.Competition for resources and nations becoming more protective over assets are likely to be among the changes as climate change takes hold. But it’s not all bad news. Business opportunities are likely to emerge, ranging from energy efficiency and water conservation to security..."
"...The problem is the visual tactics..."
ReplyDeleteThis only means that I suspect you've never actually seen the original graph as published.
"North also falls in a trap when he states
"The minor technical objections serve as a weapon for those special interests who want to delay any action on GW.""
And you fall into a trap when you ignore...
"There is a long history of making an inference from data using pretty crude methods and coming up with the right answer. Most of the great discoveries have been made this way. The Mann et al., results were not 'wrong' and the science was not 'bad'. They simply made choices in their analysis which were not precisely the ones we (in hindsight) might have made. It turns out that their choices led them to essentially the right answer (at least as compared with later studies which used perhaps better choices)."
"If "big bad corporate giants" wanted to throw a wrench in the works they can easily crank up climate models, tune them to give them a 1.2 degree TCR, and set loose all sorts of PHDs writing papers about the subject. "
They can't because they'd be torn to shreds in the peer reviewed journals. Similar's been tried with Willie Soon.
On the other hand, we have been laying it on pretty firmly, and the fact that Fernando has the courage to enter a hostile environment and expose himself to criticism IMO says something positive about character and sincerity.
ReplyDeleteOh ... crap. He's a fucking troll. That's what they do. And you swallow his line of BS hook line and sinker. Grow a pair.
Says you. I reserve the right to be naive and try things my way. I don't expect much success, but I won't stop trying.
DeleteOf course the discourse is full of trolls, but it also contains people. The time will come when I take off my rose-tinted specs, admit defeat and scratch my huge, hairy cojones, but here, in my space, I play 'benefit of the doubt' and 'assume the best', whilst trying to avoid 'false hope' (sic.).
Besides which, one gain I have made is a new thought about why AGW discourse is so difficult. It's not especially original, but you can insult me more when I get round to writing a post on the subject.
Fergus, I could out troll Ferdinando in a second. I cut my chops in sci.*.* and alt.*.*. And I'm numerate, educated and informed. You would not have a chance. But I've got better things to do than engage innumerate cranks more than a few times. It's ... entertainment, nothing more. You need to cut him loose before you drown in your own shit. If you need some PhD problems to work on for you thesis, I can set you up with some good ones. But Fernando is a complete waste of time. He's a ... droner. He can do that stuff indefinitely and it will be so all over the map it will make you dizzy. These kinds of trolls set them selves up in residence and stay. Consider yourself lucky you have Judy and wattshizname to attract them like flies on shit where they only rarely wander into intelligent discussion.
DeleteCarry on.
Thomas,
DeleteI can assure you that my patience is neither infinite nor all-encompassing like some latter-day Buddha. You'll perhaps have noticed that my tone is getting progressively more demanding over time. I appreciate your concern on my behalf but I still reserve the right to make the same mistakes over and over and produce more shit to drown in.
You should explain Sci.*. and Alt.*.*. for the uninformed, like me.
PhD thesis? Yes, you're teasing, but what do you think my thesis might be? I'm curious...
I've done this kind of thing before, as have you. As have many others. We engage the ostensive audience here in varying ways as part of the round-the-fire process which makes up shared human experience. If you want, think of me as the one whose stories never seem to end and never quite get to the point.
I suspect Thomas is a very religious individual. He´s trying to convince you to isolate yourselves in an echo chamber. Regarding your tone getting more demanding over time, why would you have to explain yourself to one who is clearly incompetent to discuss politics with other adults? Becoming more demanding is usually unproductive.
DeleteFor the same reason that I choose to explain myself to you, Because I want to. AND NO MORE RELIGIOUS REFERENCES - UNDERSTAND?
DeleteI take it you think that when Thomas calls me an "innumerate crank", a "droner", I "rarely engage in intelligent discussion".... he's acting normal? Hell, I thought I would be polite and refer to his religiosity as a symbol of his dogmatic intolerance and lack of manners. But if you want to avoid the word religion then I'll just ignore the guy.
DeleteBy the way, what's your thesis about?
What thesis?
DeleteYou chaps can name call if you want, I won't indulge. But the religious stuff is a specific piece of rhetoric and sophistry which goes nowhere, and has a particular purpose which is to devalue another person's input by implying it is irrational. It's a cheap device, much abused. So don't do it.
Just to show my patience I will let him call me a "droner", and an "innumerate crank" and so on and so forth.
DeleteRef your thesis, you wrote
"PhD thesis? Yes, you're teasing, but what do you think my thesis might be? I'm curious..."
I have steered young people into some really interesting thesis work. But I would need a better idea of where you are aiming, and of course how much funding you may have, how much funding you need, things like that.
I am not sure who you think I am. I am probably older than you, I already have a degree and a post-grad qualification, and have thirty years background as a salesman, manager, educator and consultant. The last thing I need is another qualification.
Deletesorry, I thought you wrote you were studying. Besides what does age what to do with it? My job involved recruiting professionals, and I interacted with Univeristies and professors. One method I used was to get involved with top students and provide them the means to do their thesis work (some of them need help with data and mentoring). Over the years I mentored, hired, and steered the careers of dozens of top notch people. And I know some think the thesis can be tossed away once you finish school, but if the thesis work is practical and does contribute it´s a ticket to a good job in private practice.
DeleteJust jumping in to mention a few things about Michael Mann vs his critics.
ReplyDeleteRemember that Mann was a young postdoc fresh out of grad school when he was working on the MBH98 reconstruction. He had no inkling of what was to happen to him in the future. He wasn't a public figure; he had no political/activist "agenda".
He was just a young, obscure workerbee postdoc starting to make his way in the scientific world when MBH98 was published. A larger "agenda" was the very last thing on his mind. It's a real stretch to argue that the results Mann published as an obscure young postdoc were in any way "tainted" by ideology/activism.
Furthermore, all of the data, code, and documentation needed for mathematically-inclined folks to learn about Mann's methods have been freely available on the Internet for *years*.
Yet Mann's critics studiously avoid any technical discussions of Mann's work when they attack him. It's always personal-attacks/conspiracy-mongering -- never math/science. It's been that way for the last decade, and I suspect that it will be that way when the polar ice-sheets are gone.
Caerbannog, you are missing my point. I don´t attack Mann, I express my opinions about two particular pieces of work I didn´t like. One was the hockey stick, the other was False Hope, the article in Scientific American.
DeleteWhether the polar ice sheets disappear is an irrelevant point when we discuss this topic. I think we can all agree a paleoclimate record can help understand the nature of anthropogenic forcings. However False Hope isn´t about heavy duty science, it´s scientific communication with built in propaganda. Therefore that piece resolves nothing.
If you wish to discuss the technical issues I refer you to the North report.
"However False Hope isn´t about heavy duty science, it´s scientific communication with built in propaganda. "
DeleteApparently, if any kind of advocacy comes from the keyboard of a climate scientist, it'll just be propaganda to you. Except for Judy, of course ;)
And I refer you to eg. PAGES-2k (2013). Note the date:
DeletePast global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.
PAGES-2K Consortium is what it says on the tin: a multi-institutional collaboration with dozens of authors. We could reasonably argue who gives a f*** what Michael Mann says? Here is the state-of-the-science confirmation that MBH99 was not significantly flawed.
Or we could argue that these dozens of authors are all in on the conspiracy to misrepresent their research for some shared political goal.
This is implausible, which is why I keep asking you about who you think is producing propaganda and why, and who is doing science:
These climate wars are similar, a lot of it is propaganda. Intended to "lead" you. And some of it is craftily disguised as "science".
J Bowers, I think we can agree that written advocacy which takes an extreme position in a widely read publication can be classified as propaganda. Arent´some of you into science communication research? Take the article, erase the author´s and publication´s name. Give it to third year science students to read in less than 30 minutes, and then asnwer a questionnaire about it. They could have questions such as "The World temperature is likely to increase 1 degree c in a) 22 years, b) 44 years c) 66 years or d) 88 years. You know, questions intended to see if the article was as confusing as Fegus and I saw it. You could use combinations of degrees C increase, the Northern Hemisphere versus the World, and the amount of years it takes to get to a given temperature. Publish the results and give credit for the idea to the victims of human rights violations around the world.
Delete"I think we can agree that written advocacy which takes an extreme position in a widely read publication can be classified as propaganda."
DeleteProvide us with an example of an extreme position, so we can check if one man's 'extreme' is another man's 'sensible'.
"Arent´some of you into science communication research?"
Sure. Google Scholar's a good start. Then there are those pesky national and international scientific institutions which get ignored by politicians (which has nothing to do with porr communication on the part of those institutions, and more to do with plausible deniability on the part of politicians). But what would the Royal Society know.
I didn´t ignore the long paragraph, it´s a very weak point. Claiming a "big discovery" in Mann´s work is inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteWhether a 1.2 TCR essemble can be torn to shreds is a matter of judgement. The AR4 included four models with TCR ranging from 1.2 to 1.5 degrees C to doubling. Here´s CSIRO´s summary about AR5:
The AR5 assesses TCR as likely to be 1°C to 2.5°C and extremely unlikely to be greater than 3°C. In the Fourth Assessment Report, the assessed range of TCR was very unlikely to be less than 1.0°C and very unlikely to be greater than 3.0°C.
So, at the time the report was being prepared the figure I used just to make a point was clearly within the range of accepted TCRs. This means that a group working with a large budget can easily support models with 1.2 TCR.
Why did I pick the 1.2 TCR, which I happen to think is a possible result? Because it reduces urgency, it can be supported by models, and it fits a publicly listed oil company´s agenda. If you wish I can go in deeper regarding my thoughts about this topic. The fact that they haven´t weighed in means they are waiting for more Argo buoy data, to get a better figure on ocean energy uptake. They may also be taking their own measurements (they used buoy arrays for their own private reasons, and in the past they even financed Arctic expeditions intended to provide data used to design the oil tankers expected to bring oil from the Barents and through point Barrow. I´m afraid you just don´t understand what goes on behind the scenes.
Acknowledge that we tacitly agree to stop discussing Mann.
ReplyDeleteNow, out of curiosity, why have you decided to change the subject to that of Transient Climate Response?
Though your post is a bit clumsy in expression, let's draw out your actual point: if the TCR is low, you argue that there is less urgency for action (by which I presume you mean action to mitigate through emissions controls).
I don't get this at all. At the very best, your argument is that the shit might hit the fan a bit more slowly than if the TCR were higher. This ignores the enduring nature of atmospheric CO2. It argues that the harm that will occur in either case is less important because it is later. It also violates the precautionary principle.
again, whether you think a TCR of 1.2C is possible (I suppose it could be), is irrelevant. There is a range of possible values. Some experts think the evidence favours a higher TCR, some a lower one. (EG, see Otto et al, 2013).
What I think is more interesting is why you choose a certain value. I have an idea about this which i will deal with in my next blog post, but it is part of a complicated idea and I need to put several ideas together.
And telling me that I don't understand is patronising. You take advantage of my good will and support of your right to openly discuss your thoughts, in spite of the warnings of the peer group I respect, and then insult me. This is not respectful. As it is, I have to work quite hard to stay patient in the face of the evidence which suggest that some commenters are wiser than I on this matter.
A 1.2 deg C TCR has very interesting impacts. It means we could raise the bar and get to 2 degrees C at 800 ppm. This in turn makes the solution set different because we happen to be running out of oil. The focus would shift to avoiding the excessive use of coal, coupling wind to natural gas turbines, research to find a workable energy storage solutions.
ReplyDeleteThere are other issues to consider, for example carbon capture and sequestration would need to have the carbon sequestration policy modified to allow the CO2 to leak out slowly over time, and nations would have to change their policies to have a one atmosphere approach, which they don't at this time.
I suspect many of you don't realize large companies doing this type of research don't publish their results. They aren't Lloyd's, that's for sure. But when the time comes if they think they have to they will roll their army, and it won't be what Murdoch and the Kochs have in mind.
I think you are confusing TCR with ECS. Not the same. Please check.
ReplyDeleteFL
ReplyDeleteA 1.2 deg C TCR has very interesting impacts. It means we could raise the bar and get to 2 degrees C at 800 ppm.
1/ This is a lower-bound estimate. How do you justify it?
2/ Even if correct, it doesn't permit complacency about what happens as TCR/800ppm escalates to ECS/800ppm. And that is assuming that we stabilise CO2 at 800ppm. Carbon cycle feedbacks from the warming ocean's decreasing ability to dissolve CO2 to the melting tundra outgassing should be considered before we just write '800 ppm CO2' and sit back.
Not to mention the rapid alteration of ocean pH that would necessarily occur in an 800ppm CO2 (and counting) world.
This might help the understanding, but even if not, SciShow is always amusing and informative:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlUes_NPa6M
Fergus, I´m not confusing TCR with ECS.
ReplyDeleteBBD: Indeed 1.2 degrees C to doubling is a lower bound. However, we have climate models which already show that value. BUT remember the point I made was that "BIG FOSSIL" has tons of recourses, lots of money, and they do have climatologists aboard (I worked with them). IF "BIG FOSSIL" wants to throw sand in the IPCC´s face it can do it by having a community effort (what we call a JOINT INDUSTRY PROJECT) to investigate the TCR range. And I´m sure those shops can produce low TCR range models (hell, they already exist).
I´m aware of the physical processes involved. And so are they. The next step would be to have a more reasonable emissions scenario. You see, the IPCC´s RCP8.5 is baloney. So they would just run what they consider a more viable scenario, and this of course would show a soft landing at 800 ppm.
Are you concerned about ocean pH? We are too, let´s research geoengineering....
So you see where I´m headed? Given the resources those guys have they can take you apart in three years with SOLID science. And because big oil is big oil, they can make coal the big bad culprit. I don´t see them maneuvring this way, therefore I got to conclude most of your big oil conspiracy theories are just that, conspiracy theory talk.
I pointed out elsewhere that if there´s something going on it must be coming from OPEC nations, and from the Russians. They have their own aims and objectives, and these includes ensuring we don´t move in the "wrong directions". This is why I think the rumour about Gazprom financing greens to oppose fracking in Europe has some possibilities. The same applies to Venezuela opposing the Keystone XL pipeline, and similar specific targets.
It´s a bit basic. However, it´s a nice example of the way the internet allows individuals to create propaganda bandwagons.
ReplyDeleteI know most of you don´t get too much into politics, but I spend part of my time tracing how agitprop is used by governments and special interest groups. If you are curious about it, the techniques were first evolved by the Soviets, but they were refined in the USA. For example, a gentleman named Abe Shulsky wrote a PhD thesis in disinformation techniques, and was later heavily involved in the crafting of the lies used to justify the Iraq war.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Shulsky_Abram
My blog has a link on the right side to a page called "Karen´s....". If you want to read how this is done what she writes is an eye opener.
Returning to the video, it seems too focused on blaming climate changes for mass extinctions. This in particular sounds strident when the speaker deals with the KT boundary extinction.
I also found the way he left out the more recent Paleocene-Eocene event out of the list. I find the whole sequence of events in the Arctic in those days, including the Azolla event and the separation of the Lomonosov ridge from Siberia to be a really juicy area to study.
"It´s a bit basic. However, it´s a nice example of the way the internet allows individuals to create propaganda bandwagons."
DeleteWatts Up With That, for example.
"I know most of you don´t get too much into politics, but I spend part of my time tracing how agitprop is used by governments and special interest groups. "
So, about that $70k website Heartland were paying Watts to create, using publicly available data: has Anthony finished it yet? And how are those Heartland funded NIPCC reports getting on? Is Fred Singer still making $150k per issue? And how's the GWPF doing with promoting the Bishop Hill bloke?
FL
ReplyDeleteHowever, we have climate models which already show that value.
Reference, please.
Are you concerned about ocean pH? We are too, let´s research geoengineering....
My first instinct on reading this was to ask if you were fucking insane. I suppressed it.
So you see where I´m headed? Given the resources those guys have they can take you apart in three years with SOLID science. And because big oil is big oil, they can make coal the big bad culprit. I don´t see them maneuvring this way, therefore I got to conclude most of your big oil conspiracy theories are just that, conspiracy theory talk.
This is unsupported tripe. For research, see Brulle (2013).
BBD. No, you didn't quite manage to suppress it.
ReplyDeleteI am disappointed by the inconsistency and contradiction inherent in much of what FL is saying, for example, that climate science is a conspiracy, but other things more plausibly so are not. I am starting to lose the will to carry on with this.
Fergus, where would you get that I said "climate science is a conspiracy"? Show me a direct quote, please. What I like to write about is that SOME individuals (quite a few aren´t climate scientists, they are whatever) like to use anthropogenic climate change as a political issue, and in this process they distort information, and try to "lead" the public in the direction they wish. As you know, I´m not into being led by anybody. I have had too much trouble running away from a communist dictatorship and surviving in a corporate environment as a rebel to change now, put on my tiny cow bell and bleat along with a crowd.
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I´m not into being led by anybody.
ReplyDeleteRubbish FL. You have been hoodwinked by deniers like Watts and McIntyre who have fed you their entirely political distortion of the truth. And now you are projecting like a poisoned dog.
SOME individuals (quite a few aren´t climate scientists, they are whatever) like to use anthropogenic climate change as a political issue, and in this process they distort information, and try to "lead" the public in the direction they wish.
This applies to organised denial, not climate science. You have completely inverted reality. Bravo.
Susan, by the way here´s a very interesting write up about the Azolla event, which is said to have ended the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. I try to read as much as possible about the Arctic in general because I worked there in the 1990´s. From what I can tell there´s still an enormous amount of uncertainty about the PETM and the subsequent Azolla. What I find is that information from one spot contradicts information from a different spot. That puzzle is pretty difficult to put together.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.eriksjodin.net/projects/theazollacookingandcultivationproject/research/The%20Arctic%20Azolla%20Event.pdf
The Azolla event came millions of years after the PETM, Fernando. You are probably confusing the Eocene Optimum with the PETM, but either way, you are clearly well out of your comfort zone. So perhaps it might be a good idea to stop typing.
DeleteHell, I thought I had answered this a week ago. The Azolla event put an end to any PETM like possibilities when it sequestered a huge amount of carbon in the Arctic Ocean sea floor.
DeleteIn a sense you are right, the PETM was a simple spike, but the Eocene was war and cozy (and would probably have been warmer at times) until the Azolla event took place.
I happened to see a presentation about this topic in the early 1990´s when I was asked if I would be interested in leading an engineering team working in the Arctic trying to solve the riddle of how to produce oil in ice infested waters. The idea was to lure me by explaining there was a lot of carbon. Interestingly, the guy making the presentation was blowing hot air. The oil in the Arctic isn´t sourced from the carbon sequestered in the Azolla event.
Hoss, and if I were to replicate your style I would just say you got yerself hoodwinked by Brulle, Cook, et al.
ReplyDeleteSee? It´s very easy to write material like that to boost your self confidence.
Now you are just being silly. I make referenced, fact-based arguments. You argue from assertion, which is a formal logical fallacy.
ReplyDeleteSo you lose. It's really that simple.
Nah. If you want to behave like a teenager....I win.
ReplyDelete