A Formal Response to Gavin Schmidt
February 6th, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
[Update: Gavin Schmidt has contacted the BAS and requested that they acknowledge Steve McIntyre for his contributions to identifying the BAS station data error(s). BAS has agreed and thanked all for the efforts. I assume that this matter is resolved, and I hope that Gavin will agree. Now everyone can get back to fighting over data, code, and temperatures over Antarctica.]
Gavin Schmidt has written a number of emails to me and my superiors here at the University of Colorado demanding that we take down my post in which I express the opinion that Gavin:
admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre . . . and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit for it.
Gavin objects to my characterization. He has turned down the offer to post a response here or his correspondence (my offer was made by email and copied here). Though I will point out that any email I get from a .gov address I consider to be in the public domain and fair game for public reproduction (Gavin, please take note in the future).
Gavin’s objections to my characterization, expressed via email to me and my superiors, are that:
1. Noting an error in a database is not ‘a scientific idea’
2. He did not steal the idea
3. Steve McIntyre is not his arch-nemesis
Gavin also observes that I am not privy to his correspondence with BAS (i.e., the organization that he notified of the error that he found based on the idea from Steve). He is correct about this, I am not privy to this correspondence; Rather, my opinions are expressed based on the public record. If Gavin thinks that this correspondence with BAS clarifies the record in some way different than suggested by the public record, then it would be in his interest to make it public. Should he wish to disclose his correspondence with BAS, we will be happy to publish it.
Gavin’s complaints are getting a visible airing here, and I have added an update to the original post, and I am sharing this posting via email with Gavin. Should he wish to elaborate on his views, he may do so here in the comments or in a top level post, the offer remains open.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:09 am
Of course, #1 and #2 are both wrong by inspection. #3 is subjective and I would not venture to comment on it.
I am upset by this exchange. Although I do not agree with Gavin’s public tone in general, I have tried to view him as a scientist who is earnestly trying to better the public understanding of an issue he feels is genuinely important.
Can this behavior be explained within that framework?
February 6th, 2009 at 6:48 am
Gavin continues to pursue this. Here is my latest response to him, just sent:
—————————————————
Gavin-
Thanks for sharing a detailed accounting of your views on this situation. Let me now explain my perspective.
1. You agree Steve M. placed the notion of an error at Harry “into play” (as you say),
2. You now confirm that that you used that information from Steve to then search for an error in the BAS data and you identified a major error with Harry,
3. You then claimed rather cagily on your website that someone found the error “independently” from Steve M., meaning that you ran your own calculations based on Steve M.’s pointing you to where the problem lay,
4. You then mocked McIntyre in public as not deserving any credit for the discovery of the error:
“If he hadn’t left it for others to work out, he might even have got some credit
.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/warm-reception-to-antarctic-warming-story/#comment-111331
So yes, I have concluded that you did the following, which I characterized as “stealing an idea”:
(a) You received an idea from reading a colleague’s website,
(b) you then, based on the idea, figured out a the details of a significant error in an online dataset used as input to a cover story in Nature,
(c) you alerted the holders of that dataset that there was an error, received credit for doing so, and then mocked the person from whom you received the original idea as not acting fast enough, so thus he was undeserving of receiving any credit,
(d) you now defend you action by saying that since you did some technical work on your own, the provenance of the idea then does not matter.
Frankly, I don’t care what happened after you received the idea of an error at Harry from McIntyre. As has been pointed out, that error has been sitting on the website of the BAS for an extended time unnoticed. You did not think to investigate it until the idea was planted in your head by McIntyre. From that point forward, academic integrity would (again, in my opinion) require that one identify the source of the idea and share in its credit.
Period.
You clearly have a different view on academic integrity, one that I do not share. I stand by my views.
Should you wish me to post up your side of the exchange I will do so. I will however, post up my response to your most recent email.
Now that we have both thoroughly aired our different views, I hope we can let this matter rest.
With best regards,
Roger
February 6th, 2009 at 8:53 am
[...] Roger posts a detailed response to the most recent letter Gavin is alleged to have here. [...]
February 6th, 2009 at 9:26 am
I’ve resisted piling on so far, but good grief, it’s hard to believe that this teapot tempest has gotten this intense! FWIW, I think the facts clearly show that Gavin is just plain wrong and that he should apologize to Steve Mc for jerking his chain (which may be all he meant to do in the first place!). He sure isn’t gonna get a “consensus” on this issue.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:38 am
“Now that we have both thoroughly aired our different views, I hope we can let this matter rest.
With best regards,”
me too.
February 6th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Looks like Gavin is taking steps to make things right:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5134#comment-325384
February 6th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
If ever you would have a real “scientific idea” you were not obliged to write such pointless comments, Roger.
Your great efforts to back the anti-science movement whereever you can makes you just to a “sceptic” who is lacking the balls to say that he actually is a “sceptic”.
February 6th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Oups just want to avoid the impression that the latter was an anonymous post
Georg Hoffmann
LSCE/IPSL
Gif sur Yvette
France
February 6th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Georg-
As a climate scientist focused on GCMs, do you really think that your comments here help to improve the image of climate scientists?
Are you guys on self-destruct mode this week?
February 6th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Hmmm, Gerog must be a good friend of gavin’s, eh? I find it odd that Georg evidently thinks that people that disagree with whatever he thinks are part of the “anti-science” movement. That is a real scientific attitude!
February 6th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
It is good to see that Gavin at least took the correct steps to rectify his error in judgment, even if he is hesitant to admit their was any wrongdoing. I cause if I thought very loosely about this, I could almost believe that this does not count as “stealing an idea.” But it’s clearly the case that Steve deserves credit (i.e. maybe there is a gray area between “ought to give credit” and “if credit isn’t given, you are stealing the idea”). I am with Roger on this one, but just playing devil’s advocate.
Roger, you are also correct in your assertions that this type of behavior is a real disservice to climate science. Although I had looked into some of the science behind climate science before, I only recently started looking at some of the various blogs on the subject in order to find more in depth discussion on more recent work (ranging from here and climatesci, to Watts, climateaudit, realclimate, etc.). Unfortunately, one cannot make an objective survey of these sites without concluding that some of the major figures in climate science are more interested with spewing out petty grievances (and subsequently patting themselves on the back) than with objective argument.
February 6th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Oh can those people for once grow up!
“I have it, but I’m not going to give it to you nanananana”
“Say please, pretty please, oh you didn’t ’say it nice enough!”
A publication isn’t published if material data has to be hunted for.
Imagine a mathematician leaving out a step in his proof.
Imagine a graduate student who doesn’t supply the code and data, together with the assignment report, (s)he gets a fail.
February 6th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
“Your great efforts to back the anti-science movement whereever you can makes you just to a “sceptic” who is lacking the balls to say that he actually is a ’sceptic’.”
“Oups just want to avoid the impression that the latter was an anonymous post”
Unnnnbelievable. I think you were better off leaving it anonymous.
February 6th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Hans: If we all were to grow up, it would get very boring, eh?
February 6th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Friday night . . . Gavin continues to email my superiors demanding some sort of action on their part. I do not know why Gavin thinks this is a productive course to take.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
“Friday night . . . Gavin continues to email my superiors demanding some sort of action on their part. I do not know why Gavin thinks this is a productive course to take.”
Now that he has been advise that you consider email sent from .gov as public domain, and yet continue to harass you from a different email, maybe you should post the .gov email.
Also, he seems to have sent quite a few email to your superior, to which your superior doesn’t seem to care much about. Unless he believe that your superior isn’t very smart, you would guess that he would have got a clue by now and just leave it be.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
So Georg Hoffmann believes that people who want to repeat a scientific experiment to determine its validity are anti-science. He believes that people who want to check the accuracy of scientific data, and the mathematical rigor of statistical conclusions are anti-science. He believes that people who are offended by those who steal ideas and claim them as their own should be intimidated and should be declared closet “anti-scientists”. If Hoffmann were older, I would assume that he was a devout follower of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy. Perhaps Hoffmann just read 1984, and instead of realizing that it was a brilliant dark novel, thought that it was a behavioral manual to follow.
February 7th, 2009 at 12:05 am
Dr. Hoffman
You need to step back a moment and think. If you have come to believe that empricism is “antiscientific” then you have no right to call yourself a scientist. You’ve joined a gnostic cult. If the instruments of measurement are flawed (a subject we tend to call “methodology” and is the object of the branch of philosophy called “epistomology”) then our theory is flawed. Attempting to improve the validity of the measurements we base our theory on is not “anti-scientific”, it is the boring, mundane essence of science.
My French is really not very good, but I have gathered from the LSCE website that it prides itself on an association with Al Gore, the arch charlatan of this century. Might I suggest that LSCE personnel be uniformed in sack-cloth and ashes and sent out barefoot with placards proclaiming that the end is near and mankind should repent.
February 7th, 2009 at 1:03 am
Roger,
Slightly OT, but I’d been wondering why traffic here seems to have fallen off in the last, oh, six months or so. It could be that getting logged on is too tedious for some (although I don’t find it so).
See posts ca. 54 & 55 on this thread at CA:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5134#comment-325647
February 7th, 2009 at 1:15 am
PaddikJ-
Thanks.
Last time we looked, a few months ago, traffic here was actually at an all time high. The number of comments did go down when we upgraded to the new site, but those who want to comment can with no problem, as you’ve found.
February 7th, 2009 at 2:26 am
You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to crack this case. Steve McIntyre left a hint on his blog that he’d found something wrong with the AWS Harry, the next day BAS changed it without attributing the change to anyone, and Gavin started a post on Realclimate saying that SM had been pre-empted by an independent investigation. Presumably BAS were unaware that Gavin had been given the clue that HARRY was acutally a splice of two AWSs and promptly decided not to get in the middle and attribute the source as Gavin. Laughter all around as Gavin’s pompous utterences about an independent source are revealed to be about Gavin himself.
Gavin v. embarrassed but unable to apologise as he’d been clearly trying to pull Steve’s chain. Now he’s lashing out at everyone instead of hunkering down and waiting for it to pass.
On another issue why isn’t it science to spot an egregious error in a peer-reviewed paper telling us the Antarctic is warming?
February 7th, 2009 at 2:47 am
What’s interesting about the episode is the light it sheds on the cultural positioning of AGW and Climate Science. It really merits an essay in itself, and its central to the subject Prometheus is about. Like it or not, a lot of the public policy debate is now going on in blogs. So you can’t ignore what goes on in blogs when considering the relation between the science and public policy and politics. If you look at the AGW blogs, you find, particularly in the comments:
– Heavy moderation, amounting almost to censorship. For instance, Steig cannot now be discussed on Tamino.
– Hypersensitivity to criticism. It seems that the smallest criticisms of any aspect of AGW theory provoke a reaction of an intensity out of all proportion to their significance.
– Personalization of the debate – the method of attacking the messenger is generally felt to be a valid method of argument.
– Attribution of motives by projection, as when a question is raised about some detail of some study, and it immediately provokes a chorus of replies refuting what the posters assume must be what the original question is ‘really’ about – which is usually thought to be some devious effort at undermining the theory as a whole.
– Class membership arguments, as when anger about some point is made in the form of an expression of disgust at ‘people like you’.
– The use of epithets like ‘denialist’ – that is, the assumption is made that no rational basis of dissent can exist, in which case the only explanation of a different point of view is bad faith or mental disorder.
– The view that to frequent skeptical sites is dangerous and potentially contaminating and to be avoided. That is, there is something about CA, or Watts, which will persuade people in defiance of reason and the facts. Quite how they came by this power is never explained.
– The view that there are people who are professionally trying to lead astray the innocent. They supposedly do this by spin and use of misleading statistical treatments of data. The suggestion is that the innocent will be misled by this, knowing no better. Perhaps they should be protected from being misled? Maybe so, you find remarks which come close to that sometimes.
– The defence of secretiveness about data. For instance, we find heated defences of any climate scientist who does not produce data on request. There seems to be a view, which is basically an appeal to authority, that to demand that these scientist produce their data and code so that their results can be verified is insulting and unfair. We need, the feeling is, to trust the experts.
AGW is a scientific hypothesis, no doubt of it, and it may well be true. However, the conduct of its adherents in all these respects has elements of the cult about it. If we take a real cult, Scientology, we see the same elements. If we take a more harmless and amusing cult, the cult of Apple and the Mac, we also see many of those elements. It gives a bad feeling about the theory, regardless of its objective merits, that so many of its adherents show these characteristics.
And it makes it hard for some of us to give it the objective and detached hearing it undoubtedly merits. Gavin’s antics this week have been a classic example of that. I and many others find it very hard to take Steig’s results seriously now, though we started out finding them interesting and thought provoking. Not because they are wrong. But because if these are their defenders, and this is how these defenders feel compelled to behave, the smell of fish in the air is so strong that it tends to overcome everything else. A great pity. Especially for Steig, who would perhaps do well to distance himself as far as possible from his supporters, before its too late.
Antarctica may not be far enough!
February 7th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Michel, if you are the same person who tried to post on Tamino, and got:
“Seems like the situation with the Steig paper is this:
[edit]
[Response: This has been hashed out ad infinitum on RealClimate. I'm not interested in hosting anybody's conspiracy theories, so if you want to harp on that, take it over to RC.]”
I would note that they also allowed your:
“For the record, I do not think (and did not either say or suggest) that there is any sort of conspiracy connected with either the assembly, supply or use of the data in the Steig paper. I should be very sorry for any impression to that effect to be given.”
That clarification for those curious, I will say that I share your observations about the blog treatment you receive when attempting to express skepticism, particularly at RC. At one point, in response to a post in which I explained that I had become increasingly skeptical over time about AGW theory and models, having been a believer to begin with, I was called a “liar” by one of the RC regulars, as though he could read my mind. The moderators allowed that name-calling to stand, and they defend, to this day, the use of the noxious term “denier” as if there were no offensive context for the word (there seems, thankfully, to be a recent shift to the marginally less tasteless “denialist”).
For curious non-climatologists such as me, the degree to which RC wishes to proselytize rather than educate can be stunning at times, though to be fair, if you walk on eggshells you can get a dispassionate response from time to time and actually learn something.
In the Steig case, though, the RC’s confirmation bias has hit new heights, witness the tortured logic being employed in defense of avoiding scientific transparency. It’s an issue that I imagine has been explored in depth elsewhere, but this business of peer review being the purview of sympathetic peers strikes me as inefficient to say the least. If I knew — knew — that I had the goods, I would send my results straight to whomever I perceived my scientific nemesis to be, not to a colleague or colleagues who share my point of view. My nemisis’ determination to find holes would be far more useful than my allies’ incentives to see me published.
February 7th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Dear Roger,
first of all thanks for this excellent blog. I really admire your work.
I was very amused reading Georg’s post and even more amused reading the comments here.
In Germany Georg Hoffmann has earned the reputation of the watchdog for AGW activists in several blogs. It is a simple reflex of barking and biting as soon as he feels that one of his masters is being offended.
Believe me, his statement here is a rather “moderate” one compared to his behavior in other Blogs.
“Are you guys on self-destruct mode this week?”
Not only this week. But the tone is getting more irritating the more the public realizes that the fairy-tale of accelerated global warming might not be standing on solid scientific legs…
Best regards from Germany,
Rainer
February 7th, 2009 at 8:41 am
michel: IMH, you are exactly on target. The antics of the AGW-extremist crowd, especially the censorship and refusal to share data, make most folks smell a rat. They can’t help losing their battle, because of this kind of behavior, regardless of how good their science is (of course, it isn’t very good, so they have to resort to the tactics you outline).
Here’s another recent example: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/02/06/tabloid-fossil-fuel-shill.aspx
February 7th, 2009 at 8:53 am
@
Two n please.
“empricism” is anti-scientific? I dont know. I even dont know what it is.
@Roger
I am not improving images, I just tell you what I think.
Improving images is rather something for experts such as experts in political sciences.
2009 is still young, but I would bet you will win my personal prize for the most pointless comment of the year. Each line really respires how much you dare about correct data and science. Also since “CGM Modeller” is for “guys” (as you put it) like you another word for the anti-christ here a nice picture
February 7th, 2009 at 8:54 am
http://www.planeterde.de/Members/Leonards/Fotos/Rekordbohrung_Kohnen/image_preview
with a GCM modeller after some months in Antarctica.
February 7th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Georg
You can read about the empirical method at wikipedia. The discussion is available in both English and French. I suspect it’s available in other languages, but remember enough Spanish to guess the correct terms to use in a Google search.
To some extent, preferences of theories that agree with data rather than those that are unconnected to data is considered one of the foundations of science. I think this applies in France too; so I’m sure you will recognize the concept even if you were unfamiliar with the word used in English.
I’m mystified by your allusions to the anti-christ. Do you think there is something wrong with Roger’s referring to GCM modelers as ‘guys’?
February 7th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Georg-
I’ve never been called the anti-christ before (not even by Joe Romm).
Or what was your point?
February 7th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Michel (#22),
Well said! Good summary.
I suspect you correct that Steig may well feel by now that his friends are doing him great harm. However, given that he chose to use Mann and his “statistics” for his study, he should have been aware that any errors in his study were very likely to come to light (even if those statistical techniques were not any more egregious than normal or even the initial source of the noted errors).
February 7th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Roger,
I don’t believe Georg was calling you the anti-christ. I think that he meant that for you “GCM modeler” are the same thing as anti-christ.
What bothers me the most, about what Georg says, is that for him it seems unscientific to question the science.
Isn’t that the rhetoric used by the catholic church during the inquisition (i.e. that it was heretic to question the religious belief).
Isn’t that one more proof that the AGW-science is a religion.
February 7th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Thanks Sylvain (makes more sense).
No I don’t think GCM modelers are the anti-christ, and like any group with a sorry reputation, it is the few that make the rest look bad (really bad in this case).
I don’t think that climate science has become a religion. It has just become very very political and very very public. Climate science has come to be used as a fulcrum in the political debate.
February 7th, 2009 at 10:17 am
The comment by Georg about empiricism, even if due to a linguistic misunderstanding was nevertheless rather appropriate. One of the problems that I percieve in much of current climate science is a lack of empiricism. It appears that instead of trying to understand the climate by utilising all the empirical data that exists, a number of people are trying to use available data to prove their particular theory.
As many scienties from other disciplines will know this leads to ‘cherry picking’ the data that supports your theory whilst ignoring any contray data. This need not even be deliberate, this scientific subjectivity affects even the best scientists. As Feynman said the first thing you have to do as a scientist is to ensure that you aren’t fooling yourself.
In my research team models were incredibly useful in advancing our scientific understanding but could easily seduce the unwary into thinking that they represented reality. A favourite saying within the team was “If the real world data is not predicted by the model then the model is wrong”
February 7th, 2009 at 10:30 am
@Arthur Dent
It appears that instead of trying to understand the climate by utilising all the empirical data that exists, a number of people are trying to use available data to prove their particular theory.
These datas are from the “Secular-Station” in Potsdam, Germany
http://saekular.pik-potsdam.de/klima/diagram/tmean/tmean_01mon.gif
That’s what the IPCC “chief-writer” Rahmstorf makes of it to demonstrate “his glogal warming”:
http://www.wissenslogs.de/wblogs/gallery/16/januar_potsdam.jpg
See the difference ?
http://www.wissenslogs.de/wblogs/blog/klimalounge/klimadaten/2009-02-05/im-januar-nichts-neues
Nothing new in january…….
Nothing new in Potsdam too
( Potsdam, where the PIK [german "IPCC" and climate church] is situated)
February 7th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Arthur:
“If the real world data is not predicted by the model then the model is wrong”
Yeah, that’s the way it is supposed to be, but it seems that some in the climate science community think it is the other way around. There is even a suspicion that some zealots are actually CHANGING (er, I guess the proper term is “adjusting”) the data to fit the models!
February 7th, 2009 at 11:03 am
There is a vitally critical issue that seems to continue to elude everyone in the Climate Crisis Community, as follows.
Public policy has never been set, in any aspect of our lives, by procedures that are not both transparent and, more importantly, independent of those that seek to obtain approval in the area of policy. Examples are almost unlimited.
When Science enters the Public Policy Arena, the rules change. Period. There are no exceptions. None. If I’m wrong, name one.
I have addressed some of the important aspects of these procedures here: http://danhughes.auditblogs.com/. My most recent attempt to provide a short summary is here: http://danhughes.auditblogs.com/2008/12/08/the-fundamental-issue/.
I have begun to realize the magnitude of the enormous disconnect between me (and many, many others) and the Climate Crisis Community by the remarks that have appeared in this thread at Real Climate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/02/antarctic-warming-is-robust/, in which it is clearly stated that checking arithmetic is considered to be at the very bottom of the To Do list of Climate Scientists. For over fours years now, the issues I have attempted to address have been dismissed, in the most derogatory manner possible, by both the leaders at Real Climate and uncountable numbers of the readers who provide comments there. And at several other blogs the same awful conditions obtain.
An analogy, for me, to the approach advocated by the Climate Crisis Community is as follows. Consider the case of designing an elevator. My interpretation of the lack of appreciation of the quality aspects of empirical data is that the material properties that are used in the design do not need to be of the highest quality. And the same goes for the equations and software used in the design procedure. Then it’s ok to publish papers in peer-reviewed archival journals about how to design elevators based on whatever information is available without Verification of the empirical data and software and Validation of the equations. It is ok, and actually even more than ok, it is the creed of Science, that Quality and Independent Verification and Validation are not a part of Science prior to publication. It’s ok if the data have errors and it’s ok if the software has bugs. The next peer-reviewed paper will fix up all these problems. What I can’t understand is that if errors in data and bugs in software are the accepted norm, how can subsequent papers, produced under the same type of conditions, Advance the Science?
If the elevator fails in use, that’s ok, too. The next peer-reviewed papers in only the proper journals will take that into account, and the design process will improve. Because, that’s just how Science works, of course. Peer-reviewed papers, which can be written only by Certified Scientists, and must appear in only the Proper Journals will eventually lead to elevator designs that will do no harm to the public. Because, … well just because. Real Scientists don’t check arithmetic, Real Scientists do Science. Checking arithmetic is left to the poor slobs who tried to use our elevators.
And if you disagree with The Scientific Method you’re simply not qualified to comment for any number of odd-ball, off-the-wall, presumptive rationalizations that have been made up out of thin air. Plus, here are a few of the many derogatory labels we have available for people just like you.
Let’s face it. No one at Real Climate, and several other blogs, would use a large number of products and services if the processes they insist are the only way to move forward were used in any aspect of public policy that affects their lives. Not a single one.
February 7th, 2009 at 11:34 am
@Arthur Dent
See a different better treatment of the manipulation here:
http://klimakatastrophe.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/trendanalyse-nach-stefan-rahmstorf/
February 7th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
@Arthur Dent
I suggst, my post 36 doesn’t help really, but a comment 34 is still waiting fpr moderation as there are three links included:
@Arthur Dent
It appears that instead of trying to understand the climate by utilising all the empirical data that exists, a number of people are trying to use available data to prove their particular theory.
These datas are from the “Secular-Station” in Potsdam, Germany
//saekular.pik-potsdam.de/klima/diagram/tmean/tmean_01mon.gif
That’s what the IPCC “chief-writer” Rahmstorf makes of it to demonstrate “his glogal warming”:
//www.wissenslogs.de/wblogs/gallery/16/januar_potsdam.jpg
See the difference ?
//www.wissenslogs.de/wblogs/blog/klimalounge/klimadaten/2009-02-05/im-januar-nichts-neues
Nothing new in january…….
Nothing new in Potsdam too
( Potsdam, where the PIK [german "IPCC" and climate church] is situated)
deleted the html-taggs, for better understanding my second post
February 7th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
[...] Gavin Schmidt The Best Thing Ever Happened To AGW Skeptics? 7 02 2009 One wonders. As one has been wondering. For quite some [...]
February 7th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
RC is getting a bit defensive. In response to:
“149… Nicholas, in an ideal world I would agree with total openness. But you may not realize the level of damage being done to public understanding and policy discussions by dishonest denialists. In the current environment, I would stick with advice I was given by a colleague in an entirely different context some years ago: Do not give arms to the enemy!”
I tried posting:
“#149. It takes an ideal world to employ more transparency? By that logic, there would never be any. To presuppose that the primary outcome of sharing code is to give arms to a political enemy rules out the possibility that there are any genuine skeptics out there, skeptics who would be well employed in checking the veracity of studies they question.
In this instance, if Steig et al are right, he is right, and he has nothing to fear from the McIntyres of this world. Do you imagine for even a moment that ‘Nature’ is going to pull the cover story or that the mainstream media is going to retract its enthusiasm about confirmed Antarctic warming? It’s the AVHRR data only, right, and that has not and presumably can not be impeached.”
I have posted far more contentious stuff in the past. Odd.
February 8th, 2009 at 1:09 am
I think Georgs’ sorry post really does caricature the worst extremes of the ‘commited’. For my part, I’m glad this sorry episode has been closed by Gavins’ belated but welcome actions not before, I might add, if I understand aright, contacting your bosses, Anthony, and threatening a peculiarly British libel action. Our courts would welcome the business, after all!
February 8th, 2009 at 1:20 am
Oops, I was thinking of WUWT. Wrong name. Sorry Roger.
February 8th, 2009 at 2:21 am
@Lucia
Thank you so much Lucia. After 9 years Latin and 6 years of ancient Greek at High school I somehow felt that empiricism sounds familiar to me. But what about “empricism”? Any wickipedia for that one?
@Roger
Somehow your 100% climate sceptical readership in general thinking that Al Gore is the “arch charletan of the century” is completely misunderstanding your position (which is so much in line with the IPCC).
In particular they are misunderstanding what this post is about. They seem to think that this post is about empiricism and the philosophy of science. I would have sworn it is the childish post on the question who gets the credit for finding
a spelling error in a british data base and why this important question has to be sorted ot by a third person, you, being an expert in political sciences. That is soooo interesting and again demonstrates your unpartial position on climate change. Seriously you seem to think this question is the lackmus test not just for Gavins moral integrity, no, just for the entire GCM bunch. I am sooo scared thinking what the final judgement will be? Will “we” (“Are you guys on self-destruct mode this week?”) which obviously you consider as one solid block of all the same people survive the Pielke tribunal of moral integrity? Harry will tell us, for sure.
February 8th, 2009 at 4:10 am
Well, Mann’s latest diatribe is another classic example of the problem. Various wild, emotional and apparently unfounded personal accusations. The trouble is, the Steig study may be excellent work, but Mann makes it harder rather than easier to examine objectively. And confounding it with a defence of the MBH98 stuff is another false step. And finally, the attempt to gloss over the criticisms in Wegman is counterproductive.
It could be that the HS is simply mistaken, but that Antarctic Warming was predicted, and that the Steig paper shows it has happened, and that GW is happening and is a threat and that this hypothesis has more confirmations than the HS, which is best regarded as a fruitful though mistaken paper. But defences like Mann’s decrease the credibility of the whole enterprise by making acceptance of the weakest links in the chain articles of faith.
We will not rescue Nixon’s reputation by denying Watergate ever happened. We’ll just destroy our own credibility. We would have far more chance of getting a positive evaluation of Nixon if we argued that it did happen, was worthy of impeachment, but did not outweigh the other good things he did.
February 8th, 2009 at 4:53 am
Georg,
While I’m sympathetic about getting names spelled right (mine ends in “mann” as well
)… it’s hardly becoming of you to continue to harp on spelling errors. After all, your own commentary includes such blunders as
“Each line really respires” — perhaps you meant “speaks” not “respires”?
“how much you dare about correct data and science” — perhaps you meant “care” not “dare”?
Perhaps you are not aware that your own mistakes made your attempt to communicate an air of superiority fall flat. Roger, Lucia, etc were honestly attempting to assist in cross-language communication.
February 8th, 2009 at 5:32 am
Georg-
Do you really think that people who insert themselves into the middle a very contested and public debate will not have their actions discussed by third parties? (And guess what? If those people are scientists, some of the third parties will include people who study scientists in political debates. Surprise!)
Is your argument to me now that Gavin’s (and your’s and . . .) behavior is so trivial as to not be worth commenting on? Or is it that you guys (no offense intended;-) are not representative of the broader group of climate modelers so the community-destructing behaviors should be ignored? Or that I am a skeptic? I am having a hard time following.
Anyway, I’ve tried to explain why this should matter in a subsequent post, do try to keep up:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/the-collapse-of-climate-policy-and-the-sustainability-of-climate-science-4939
These are my opinions, which your are free to argue with, find fault in, applaud, or ignore (this is what a weblog is for). Or you could set up your own blog and explain to people why I am of low character and not to be listened to
February 8th, 2009 at 5:42 am
@MrPëte
“Roger, Lucia, etc were honestly attempting to assist in cross-language communication.”
Sure the most honest brokers ever. Sure, I cant express my gratitude for this real effort to explain to a scientist the importance of an empirical basis for his science. Never thought about it.
But now lets concentrate on Rogers problem number 1: Who merits the biggest applause for finding this incredible error at Harry. I am sure you guys will still pass days over the question which decides by the by my moral integrity.
February 8th, 2009 at 5:49 am
Hello Mr Pielke,
I am a layman who likes to read about the scientific debate and to discuss about it. Expressing myself in English is rather difficult for me, I could easily be misunderstood and I often don’t understand exactly what is meant in the scientific debate.
But I think I do understand what happend to you, your father and the whole science community on the real climate weblog.
I must admit that I don’t like the way people fight against each other in climate science. Where are the good, where the bad? How could a layman find out?
Since WhattsUpWithThat won the weblog awards it seems to me that the sceptic weblogs are more convincing.
That’s why I was very happy when Stefan Rahmstorf opened a weblog to answer questions about climate science in German. But after some weeks in January his weblog (Klimalounge) has become heavily moderated (censored?).
Thats why I tried to find the answers for my questions at the weblog of Georg Hoffmann from Germany called “Primaklima”. Even if he is rather nice to me, his answers are sometimes rather misleading and agressive. But we like him the way he is
@Georg Wikipedia is not Wickipedia
@Roger Georg works in France, where the dictionary from Wikipedia is called Wiktionnaire, which reminds a very famous german movie called “Der Wichser”
This might be a little confusing for him!
Mais retournons à nos moutons!
Barking dogs don’t bite. Yes, Mr Hoffmann is a serious climate scientist who seems to like to insult people. Insulting seems to be a very important tool in climate science, just like calling people deniers and sceptics?!
More and more people become sceptic about climate science. Even in Germany, the champions of environmentalism, climate blogs don’t work the way it was expected. Mr Rahmstorf wanted to create a german realclimate, but it didn’t work. That’s the reason why it got “censored” imho.
But, what about Georg Hoffmann? What does his post mean? Are climate scientists on self destruct mode? Why do they get so angry so easily? Isn’t that a sign that they are wrong?
I don’t know.
On the german scienceblogs a meteorologist asks the same question to his readers:
http://www.scienceblogs.de/weatherlog/2009/02/klimawandeldiskussion-unbeabsichtigt-hochinteressant-und-interdisziplinar.php
Georg Hoffmann is part of our discussion group. What happens to climate science? Can we expect an answer from him? Was the answer to Gavin Schmit a mistake?
Having read so many answers from Mr Schmit to laymen and even scientists which are heavily misleading, I don’t really trust him. Is this our fault? Are we wrong? Are Georg and Gavin wrong?
I’m really very confused. We could all be friends! We have the same dreams about the future of our only planet!
Yes we can!
Best regards
Eddy
February 8th, 2009 at 5:49 am
@Roger
Thank you Roger. After empiricism and basic democratic rigths you will explain next to me how to breath. It’s good to have someone like you with such an incredible open eye on the burning issues in climate science. At the beginning I ve thought you were just a sceptic who in lack of any relevant arguments is desperately trying to get personal. But no, you just honestly helping out with cross language issues and merit distribution for data debugging.
February 8th, 2009 at 6:32 am
Georg
Why did it take you so long to finish high school? It takes most kids only 4 years.
If you post comments that tell us you don’t know what empiricism means, I’ll just take that at face value.
You seem to have a problem understanding the point being made in posts commenting about Gavin’s behavior. Few are concerned about who specifically got credit for the discovery of the error. The issue of concern is Gavin’s public display of– to put it mildly– highly disingenuous behavior.
To the extent that the more public climate scientists seem to resort to deception to get their messages across, people will lose confidence in those scientists. Yes, people will notice and comment.
That other climate scientists — like you– rush to insist that people must pretend to be blind to these sorts of deceptions only leads to more distrust of climate scientists.
Who ultimately got credit for finding the error may be trivial. That Gavin resorted to deception to minimize the role of those who he wishes to undermine is not trivial.
February 8th, 2009 at 6:50 am
@Goerg
Please take a deep breath
Oohhmmmmm
I think, that Gavin Schmit should change his behaviour, not Mr Pielke. Why are the honest brokers so dangerous to the AGW-ideology?
Why should climate science not be reviewed? Do the errors in “Harry” mean nothing for the antarctic paper? Do the statistics behind the paper not matter?
Why should we not remain honest?
“The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation by Matt Ridley”
@Lucia We Europeans have problems with the word “highschool”. We have 6 years “Grundschule” or “primaire” school, than 7 years “Lycée” (Hochschule???) and after that we call it “Universität” “Université”.
Even we Luxemburgers have problems with the german system because we use the french system
)
Best regards
Eddy
February 8th, 2009 at 7:10 am
@Edouard,
I know about the difficulties in translation.
I’m afraid Georg’s difficulties with English are showing. I still haven’t figured out if he is intentionally not getting the point of Roger’s post or just pretending not to get it. But his attempts at irony using a language he has not mastered are adding a comic element.
February 8th, 2009 at 7:27 am
@Lucia
He is just pretending!
His anger and agressiveness are not always funny. But that’s the way he is
Many people like Mr Pielkes objective way to speak about climate science. Georg doesn’t seem to like that?!
Best regards
Eddy
February 8th, 2009 at 7:32 am
@Georg
#Oups just want to avoid the impression that the latter was an anonymous postGeorg Hoffmann
LSCE/IPSL
Gif sur Yvette
France#
Nice speech.
http://eer2006.in2p3.fr/photos/Hoffmann.jpg
http://eer2006.in2p3.fr/cours/Hoffman_G.pdf
#Hmmm, Gerog must be a good friend of gavin’s, eh?#
He is.
# In Germany Georg Hoffmann has earned the reputation of the watchdog for AGW activists in several blogs.#
That’s correct.
February 8th, 2009 at 7:58 am
@Lucy
You ever considered that there is an enitire world outside of your little province?
The only thing I understand from this post is that a) Roger does not like Gavin b) He has the readership he definetely deserves 3) data debugging is your speciality, science isnt. But it would be great if at least your understood the difference. Try.
February 8th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Not surprisingly, Georg Hoffman is defending Gavin Schmidt … maybe because he’s co-authored some papers with him?
Modelling atmospheric stable water isotopes and thepotential for constraining cloud processes andstratospheric-tropospheric water exchange – Journal of Geophysical Research – Gavin Schmidt, Georg Hoffman, Yongyun Hu, Drew Shindell – http://wnww.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005…/2005JD005790.shtml
Water isotope expressions of intrinsic and forced variability in a coupled ocean-atmosphere model – Journal of Geophysical Research – Gavin Schmidt, Allegra Legrande, Georg Hoffmann – http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JD007781.shtml
February 8th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Georg-
The path from snide critic to internet troll is short indeed. I do respect that you are willing to put your real name on your comments. So let me extend to you an offer.
I invite you to prepare a top-level post for our site on the proper role of blogs run by scientists and professors in the debate over climate change. Since you do not like what we present here, and you apparently run your own blog, perhaps you can explain the criteria that you would apply in evaluating such efforts. This way you can clearly state your arguments and our readers can have a better understanding why you think that the efforts here do not meet your criteria.
What do you say?
February 8th, 2009 at 8:29 am
#37 add on
Translation of the blogpage from german to english
February 8th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Edouard–
I’d like your advice. Should I complain that Gorge misspelled my name? Or should I chalk that up to difficulties with language skills? Should I point out that the word “high school” has a specific meaning in English?
I’m mystified why Georg thinks data debugging is my specialty. I am equally mystified why his posts indicate he is entirely unaware of the actual facts surrounding this issue. Where did he develope the idea that Roger’s post has anything whatsoever to do with “who gets the credit for finding a spelling error in a british data base”?
Of course, his lack of understanding of the actual facts and events my, in part, explain why his understanding of Roger’s post is so impaired.
I see that you favor the theory that he is just pretending to misconstrue everything so badly.
I prefer to assume goodwill on his part and chalk up to deficiencies in English.
He has explained that his elementary and high-school education focused on archaic languages. With luck, a classic scholar blogging in Ancient Greek can explain the issues to him. With 6 years training, his grasp of that language must exceed his facility with English.
February 8th, 2009 at 9:49 am
@Roger
No interest to interact with you any further. Together with your friend SM and the lovely Lucia here you are running a webside notoriously interested in little insulting games. McIntyre should already have about a dozend posts with Gavins name in the title, you are lining up as Lucy is doing the same. Why? Because you are interested in data quality, science in general and since you care about the right policy concerning climate change of course. Of course.
A quality post un such an urging matter. Keep on your excellent work on hmmm, on what actually? Cheers Georg
February 8th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Georg-
Interesting reply. Thanks for dropping by anyway.
February 8th, 2009 at 10:00 am
@Lucia
Georg Hoffmann aka “planck” (!! in some German blogs) has difficulties to understand, that outside his world, in reality, things are seen in a different way.
Me for my part, I do declare me not as a sceptic, but as a realistic, and I see Roger Pielke jr. as a realistic climate observer too.
February 8th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
@Lucia
Having studied these “archaic languages” means very much in Ol’Europe
)) People love the old greeks and their mythology. And ifyou are also fluent in latin language you are the king.
French is really really difficult for Germans. Georg must be very educated to speak all these languages. I think that’s reason why he mentioned this.
But why is he so rude?
I can tell you that Georg knows exactly what Harry means! ?’m sure about that!
Is Steve McIntyre a scientist? Is he a climate scientist or just “data debugging is (his)your speciality”?
Maybe Georg is so angry because I linked the fight between Gavin and Mr Pielke on the discussion site : http://www.scienceblogs.de/weatherlog/2009/02/klimawandeldiskussion-unbeabsichtigt-hochinteressant-und-interdisziplinar.php
My opinion is, that Mr Pielke is less fanatic than Gavin Schmidt (sorry for the typo). I also like Mr Von Storch who believes in dangerous global warming like Georg does but who likes to talk objectively in public.
My own opinion is not so important here. I am a layman and have the human right to think what I like, and I’m sceptic about the IPCC AND the sceptics
))
Goerg doesn’t like my point of view very much. He is even more agressive to you than he has ever been to me. What’s going on in climate science?
Best regards
Eddy
February 9th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
The phrases in my previous post are unwarranted and inappropriate. I’ve asked the webmaster to remove them. My apologies to all.
R.E. Phelan
Apology Accepted. Comment removed
February 9th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
I doubt there are many people in good old Europe versed in both Greek and Latin, but we still have our pedants, our aristocrats and their titles. Now titles are gained in educational institutions, and the herr doktors doktors who have toiled to obtain them expect that society should bow down to them (and of course reward them). I think that explains the arrogance of the phd crowd.
But I expect intellectual honesty, and when AGW proponents´s recourse is to “pull rank” by claims of superiority (you´re not a “climate scientist”, whatever that means, or silly antics like criticizing spelling) then the emperor can´t have any clothes.
And what galls me the most: if rubes like Mcyintire regularly point out the errors in their analysis, what does this say about the competence of these self-proclaimed illuminati?
February 9th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
[...] A Formal Response to Gavin Schmidt. [...]
February 10th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Michel (22),
You make an interesting argument, and in it are contained some good points of advice on how (not) to communicate. But I think some important aspects are missing. I’ll raise my perspective on the points you make:
- Heavy moderation: I don’t know what is censored where, but there are many examples where a constructive discourse is aided by some filtering, e.g. the repeating of the same old and tired and debunked arguments is not constructive, namecalling isn’t, etc.
– “Hypersensitivity to criticism. It seems that the smallest criticisms of any aspect of AGW theory provoke a reaction of an intensity out of all proportion to their significance.”
That is an interesting perspective, though different than mine. What I see in reading different blogs is that so called criticism is often blown out of proportion as if it undermines the entire foundation of climate science. However, I agree that scientists would be wise not to react too defensive, because ‘innocent outsiders’ could indeed get the impression you state (which ultimately is a reaction on what I raise here).
– Personalization of the debate: Happens on both sides and should indeed be avoided. I find it sometimes hard to avoid though, eg in the few cases where a long history of disinformation is clear. Think thinktanks and long-term lobbyists with a history in the tobacco debate. But even in those cases, not he messenger should be attacked, but the message. Still true.
– “Attribution of motives by projection, as when a question is raised about some detail of some study, and it immediately provokes a chorus of replies refuting what the posters assume must be what the original question is ‘really’ about – which is usually thought to be some devious effort at undermining the theory as a whole.”
I think it very often is. Many of the so called critics are not interested in advancing out knowledge, but seem intent on poking holes and painting climate science in a bad light, because they don’t like the perceived policy implications of climate science. Maybe I’m wrong, but after years of following the debate and being a scientist myself, that is the impression I have. I’m willing to be proven wrong though. Of course, there will always be exceptions. The sincere critic will get the same negative reaction as the politically motivated crook. That indeed is a shame, and should be avoided.
– “Class membership arguments, as when anger about some point is made in the form of an expression of disgust at ‘people like you’.”
Indeed, should be avoided. It is a consequence of the polarization of the internet-based debate, and the divergence of this debate from the scientific debate at conferences and in the literature that makes scientists -understandably in my view- less patient than they should ideally be.
– “The use of epithets like ‘denialist’ – that is, the assumption is made that no rational basis of dissent can exist, in which case the only explanation of a different point of view is bad faith or mental disorder.”
That is not the assumption that I see being made. It is the denial of basic science that gives rise to the term denialist/denier. When someone claims that CO2 has no effect on climate (s) he is in denial of a well established scientific fact. The terms may however be too widely used now, to also include criticisms of points which are not as well established. The strong dislike people (understandably) have to those terms is for me reason to use the term ”skeptics” instead, even in cases where their attitude has nothing whatsoever to do with skepticism (see eg http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/climate-skeptics-out-of-touch-with-reality/)
– “The view that to frequent skeptical sites is dangerous and potentially contaminating and to be avoided.”
There are websites that have a clear political agenda, and bend science to serve that agenda (thinktanks come to mind again). People searching for scientific information are not equally well served at different places, and it’s difficult to weed out the good from the bad.
– “The view that there are people who are professionally trying to lead astray the innocent.”
There are, though perhaps not very many. The amplification power of the internet does the rest.
–“The defence of secretiveness about data. For instance, we find heated defences of any climate scientist who does not produce data on request. There seems to be a view, which is basically an appeal to authority, that to demand that these scientist produce their data and code so that their results can be verified is insulting and unfair. We need, the feeling is, to trust the experts. “
This is indeed not the ideal situation, though it is understandable nevertheless. For instance, we find heated attacks of any climate scientist who does not produce data on request. The request is often not born out of a sincere desire to further our understanding, but rather to undermine the science and paint it in a bad light. The scientist finds himself in a situation where he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. From a scientist’s point of view, what matters is that his colleagues could reproduce his results if they wish to do so. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to assist the general public in trying to reproduce their work, especially if it takes a lot of effort to provide enough help and if the sincerity of their attempts is questionable. As a commenter at RC put it: “A lot of this demand for code is driven by a desire to find reasons to ignore the implications of the work while putting in as little effort as possible.” See also the latest thread at RC on this issue: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/02/on-replication/langswitch_lang/sp
“However, the conduct of its adherents in all these respects has elements of the cult about it.“
Now you lost me.
From your comment I gained some understanding of how someone with a different point of view than mine looks at these discussions. Hopefully that goes both ways.
Thanks,
Bart
February 10th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
bverheggen:
I can understand and see some truth in most of your positions. But this one I strongly disagree with:
“For instance, we find heated attacks of any climate scientist who does not produce data on request. The request is often not born out of a sincere desire to further our understanding, but rather to undermine the science and paint it in a bad light. The scientist finds himself in a situation where he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. From a scientist’s point of view, what matters is that his colleagues could reproduce his results if they wish to do so. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to assist the general public in trying to reproduce their work, especially if it takes a lot of effort to provide enough help and if the sincerity of their attempts is questionable. As a commenter at RC put it: “A lot of this demand for code is driven by a desire to find reasons to ignore the implications of the work while putting in as little effort as possible.” See also the latest thread at RC on this issue:”
Please show us ONE example where someone has asked for data only in order to “undermine the science and paint it in a bad light.” If there is one thing that gives climate science a terrible black eye to an impartial observer (including lay-people), it is this refusal to come clean on data and code. And in every case that I know of so far, where there was such a refusal, the study has been shown to be seriously flawed, once the data were finally made available.
Also, the term “skeptic” is kind of silly, because only an absolute fool agrees with every study that shows one side or the other. If you are not skeptical, you are not a good scientist, IMHO. For example, do you accept all these things about AGW? http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
February 10th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
bverheggen:
Now that I think about it for awhile, even this statement grinds my axe:
“When someone claims that CO2 has no effect on climate (s) he is in denial of a well established scientific fact.”
I don’t know how you are the purveyor of what is “well-established scientific fact.” You seem to be going back to the “consensus” idea of science, which is totally anti-science. Give me some solid FACTS that support that statement (I mean empirical evidence, not other “scientists” claiming the same thing, or radiative equations which “show” this, by ignoring ALL other relevant variables). Perhaps you need to read about Galileo and Einstein!
Here’s another quote: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate
You can call these people stupid, sceptical, morons, etc. etc. etc., but they all have a right to speak out, without some sanctimonious, eruidte, elitist slob saying that they should NOT speak out. You, sir, may be a Luddite.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Jae (68 & 69),
There are many people who don’t accept the scientific evidence because they don’t like the perceived policy implications. Some even invent the craziest conspiracy theories you could imagine, in an attempt to make the rest of us distrust the scientists: “Many of them are positively SALIVATING over the prospect of seeing us shivering in the dark, with drastically curtailed travel privileges, severely rationed food and water consumption, draconian restrictions on electricity usage, etc.” (Michael Smith on WUWT; just one example.)
Most requests for data & code come from the same quarters, and I have a strong impression (though not proof; I cannot look inside their head) that their motives are similar: creating distrust of the science and of the scientists. It is however unfortunate that the few requests borne out of a serious desire to further our understanding of the issues are the victim of this polemical battle.
Michel Tobis (http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/) is a strong proponent of complete openness of the code (while also being a strong proponent of the scientific consensus) in order to avoid such battles altogether. But I’m skeptical if more code-sharing would avoid these battles, since it is easy to find something, no matter how small, to use as a stick against “AGW”: Scientists are damned if they do, and damned if they don’t share the code, I’m afraid. But again, perhaps I’m wrong on this point. I’m not very strongly against the sharing of code, but to do so for laypersons without the background knowledge to put things in perspective (and perhaps not even a willingness to put things in perspective), I see little point in doing so.
Regarding the warming effect of CO2 being “a well-established scientific fact.”: It has been known since 1859 (Tyndall) from laboratory studies that there are greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that trap heat. By now this is basic physics, and not accepting that indeed amounts to being in denial. It is physically impossible for more greenhouse gases not to cause warming.
I completely agree that “the term “skeptic” is kind of silly, because only an absolute fool agrees with every study that shows one side or the other.” That is why the term “skeptic” is not descriptive of the attitude of many so-called skeptics, and they would be better characterized as ‘absolute fools’ as you suggest. But I’d like to refrain from name-calling. Scientists are skeptical in the real sense of the word, so some strange word-twisting has been going on indeed. See e.g. this discussion http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/how-to-be-a-real-sceptic/langswitch_lang/sp
Bringing up Galileo and Einstein doesn’t help your argument, unless you want to claim to be similarly brilliant. Forgive me for being skeptical in that case. Galileo was up against people who opposed his ideas for ideological (religious) reasons, in a way similar as climate science is these days.
Sure everybody has a right to speak out (I haven’t claimed otherwise). I just hope that the rest of us can see their arguments for what they are: Endless repeating of ideologically driven nonsense. In the absence of time or background information, you’d have to take some shortcuts to gauge the credibility of an argument, see for a discussion of that e.g. here: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/who-to-believe/
Bart
February 11th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Re #67: bverheggen
Regarding the issue of replication.
Quote: –“The defence of secretiveness about data. For instance, we find heated defences of any climate scientist who does not produce data on request. There seems to be a view, which is basically an appeal to authority, that to demand that these scientist produce their data and code so that their results can be verified is insulting and unfair. We need, the feeling is, to trust the experts. “
This is indeed not the ideal situation, though it is understandable nevertheless. For instance, we find heated attacks of any climate scientist who does not produce data on request. The request is often not born out of a sincere desire to further our understanding, but rather to undermine the science and paint it in a bad light. The scientist finds himself in a situation where he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. From a scientist’s point of view, what matters is that his colleagues could reproduce his results if they wish to do so. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to assist the general public in trying to reproduce their work, especially if it takes a lot of effort to provide enough help and if the sincerity of their attempts is questionable. As a commenter at RC put it: “A lot of this demand for code is driven by a desire to find reasons to ignore the implications of the work while putting in as little effort as possible.” See also the latest thread at RC on this issue: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/02/on-replication/langswitch_lang/sp Endquote
I think that this whole issue of replication and request for disclosure of data, processes and methods has become bogged down in detail.
The real issue is that if climate scientists are concerned about CO2 emissions causing AGW, and want the world to take expensive and decisive action to deal with it, they had better be sure that there statements regarding the matter are true, and can be demonstrated to be true.
Rather than focus in what science means by replication, aren’t we here discussing the policy implications of the AGW thesis. Policy is decided not by scientists but by the politicians and their policy advisers. The politicians are very sensitive to the views held by the electorate. And unfortunately, it appears that Al Gore et al have been successful in alarming the electorate with material that, shall we say, is subject to challenge. It has been reported for example that something like 70% of the population of developed western nations consider AGW caused by CO2 to be one of the most serious problems facing mankind. At least that was the position before the development of the current Global Financial Crisis.
The main stream media also is sensitive to where the bulk of public opinion lies, since their revenues depend on accessing the largest markets. It would seem obvious that they will tend to give their customers what they think that they want.
Given that context, is it not reasonable for those sceptical of the claims being made by AGW proponents, that are receiving widespread media coverage, be asked to substantiate their claims.
A more useful analogy than scientific practice in this context might be to look at commercial practice relating to statements made to the public, and particularly to practice in the area of Prospectus disclosure for fund-raising purposes. There is stringent legislation in many countries requiring promoters to make sure that their disclosures and statements are “full, true and plain”. In some cases that is Corporations Law of some form. There are usually additional protections in Trade Practices Law. In any case, there are compelling legal reasons for promoters to make sure that their statements are true, and can be demonstrated as being true.
Given that there can be serious legal consequences if a promoter makes a statement, practice has developed to ensure that those preparing a Prospectus for example put together a verification file that provides detailed support for each statement made. The support would provide references to sources, copies of relevant contracts, etc. The support is designed to demonstrate that the promoter was responsible, and did what a “reasonable man” would do in ensuring that his statements are full, true and plain. When I say “Promoter”, I mean the management of the company, and particularly the directors who have serious legal responsibility for such matters.
The verification file is put together so that it can be produced in the event of legal action as evidence that the promoter/directors did what they should reasonably be expected to have done to ensure that statements made are full, plain and true. That is, the verification file is intended as a defence.
This approach is widely accepted in the commercial world, and provides a very effective means of ensuring that statements made to the public are true plain and fair.
For some reason, we find that those interested in climate science are not held to the same standards. In fact, leading AGW proponents such as Al Gore and Stephen Schneider have both argued that the problem of AGW is so serious that it is OK to exaggerate so that the public are aware of the issues, and can put pressure on the politicians. In their world, apparently, the end justifies the means.
The pertinent quotes for those who doubt this are:
Quote: Al Gore responded to a question in an interview with Grist 2006/05/09 (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/) as follows:
“Q. There’s a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What’s the right mix?
A. I think the answer to that depends on where your audience’s head is.
In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem.
Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there’s going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions.”
Stephen H Schneider made an interesting comment that has been widely circulated. The following from Wikipedia:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider) discusses the issue:
“Schneider once spoke of the difficulties scientists face communicating their work to the public:
‘On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well.
And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.
This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.’
(Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989; for the original, together with Schneider’s commentary on it misrepresentation see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996. [3]).
Various distorted versions of the Discover quote noted above have also been circulated on the Internet and in print publications, apparently beginning with a version by Julian Lincoln Simon which omitted crucial text and inserted new material. Schneider did not say “Scientists should consider stretching the truth”; see [3] above.” See Wikipedia for detailed cites.” End Quote
Sorry for the very long post.
February 11th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Re #70: bverheggen.
Quote: Regarding the warming effect of CO2 being “a well-established scientific fact.”: It has been known since 1859 (Tyndall) from laboratory studies that there are greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that trap heat. By now this is basic physics, and not accepting that indeed amounts to being in denial. It is physically impossible for more greenhouse gases not to cause warming.: End Quote
Here is an example where the discussion is oversimplified. As I understand the reality, the physics suggest that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in Global Mean Temperature of about 1 deg F, or about 0.6 deg C. I have never seen anybody contest that.
Where the controversy lies is that Hansen particularly goes on to state that the sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 in atmosphere is 3 deg C, which I am sure you agree a very different proposition to 0.6 deg C. The difference lies in the assumptions made about feedback loops. Rather than give you my own interpretation, I prefer to directly quote Roy Spencer (from http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/).
Quote: Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)
BUT…everything this else in the climate system probably WON’T stay the same! For instance, clouds, water vapor, and precipition systems can all be expected to respond to the warming tendency in some way, which could either amplify or reduce the manmade warming. These other changes are called “feedbacks,” and the sum of all the feedbacks in the climate system determines what is called ‘climate sensitivity’. Negative feedbacks (low climate sensitivity) would mean that manmade global warming might not even be measurable, lost in the noise of natural climate variability. But if feedbacks are sufficiently positive (high climate sensitivity), then manmade global warming could be catastrophic.
Obviously, knowing the strength of feedbacks in the climate system is critical; this is the subject of most of my research. Here you can read about my latest work on the subject, in which I show that feedbacks previously estimated from satellite observations of natural climate variability have potentially large errors. A confusion between forcing and feedback (loosely speaking, cause and effect) when observing cloud behavior has led to the illusion of a sensitive climate system, when in fact our best satellite observations (when carefully and properly interpreted) suggest an IN-sensitive climate system.
Finally, if the climate system is insensitive, this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years — some natural mechanism must be involved. Here you can read about my favorite candidate: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. End Quote.
In effect, Roy Spencer is saying that the feedback loops are about balanced or negative, thus warming from a doubling of CO2 levels would be around 0.6 deg C. In contrast Jim Hansen is saying that the feedbacks are strongly positive and will result in a 3 deg C warming from a doubling of CO2 levels.
Demonstrably there is not a consensus on this matter and perhaps we should be focussing our attention on determining who is right on this matter.
February 11th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
There are a lot of places to discuss the warming effect of CO2, this is not one of them.
Thanks!!!