Hansen Again
February 3rd, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Well if there is one thing certain about the climate blogosphere it is that any mention of James Hansen will evoke strong responses. In this case my look back at Hansen’s 2006 super El Niño forecast has some folks in a tizzy.
John Fleck, a reporter with the Albuquerque Journal, says that Hansen’s forecast never really existed since it did not survive the peer review process. John is probably right that I should have noted that Hansen’s forecast was found not to have a basis strong enough to appear in PNAS. However, Hansen reiterated the forecast in probabilistic terms in a follow up, so I won’t go so far as to say that the forecast was never made.
Coby Beck, a blogger, has these kind words to say about my looking back at Hansen’s forecasts:
I have made it pretty clear before that I am no fan of Roger Pielke Jr. Everytime I stick my nose in there the smell seems to get a little worse.
His latest effort at sabotaging productive discourse on climate science and policy is a really low blow, putting to rest any lingering hopes one might have had that he still had some integrity stashed away in there somewhere.
Since both John and Coby are clearly reading this blog they must have seen my post documenting how the CCSP has played fast and loose with the science of disasters and climate change. I eagerly await reading about their outrage and concern over how a formal government report is misleading the public and ignoring solid peer reviewed research. That is, if they can find time and interest after getting all worked up about someone saying that Jim Hansen once made a bad forecast in 2006.
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:06 am
Wow. I guess law school just never prepared me for the “logic” of science. Someone actually argues that a forecaster’s ability to forecast shouldn’t be evaluated if his use of “science” sucks so bad that no one will publish it?! Let me get this straight — if he did a reasonably good job, we can evaluate his work and declare it poor. But if he did a really, really lousy job, it isn’t appropriate to evaluate the quality of his work. ???!!!
Does anyone actually know how to navigate in this hall of mirrors? Curiouser and curiouser. I’m reminded of Humpty’s response to Alice. Today we learn that MBH have responded to M&M by citing themselves as stats experts. To quote Casey Stengel — Doesn’t anybody know how to play this game? Have logic and rationality been replaced completely with shenanigans?
I look forward to the day when scientists demonstrate as much logic and intellectual integrity as Washington politicians. One wouldn’t think that too high a bar, but apparently so.
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:12 am
Hansen has as self published newsletter precisely to permit him to disseminate ideas and make predictions that have no particular place in peer reviewed literature. So, how does the fact that these predictions are done outside the peer reviewed literature turn them into “non-predictions”? Did Jean Dixon make predictions in the peer-reviewed literature? Were they considered “non-predictions” for that reason?
Maybe someone has a point that Hansen accidentally posted a poorly worded document that did actually post a prediction. Then, after getting publich and private feedback on that document, he modified the wording to turn it into a non-prediction. We can’t know what the final, official, document would have said if he hadn’t accidentally posted the draft and gotten feedback. Maybe he would have still predicted the El Nino in the “final” document, maybe not.
As it stand: He made a prediction in a draft document released accidetnally on the web.
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:35 am
Roger -
Perhaps I’ve not been clear enough here in explaining myself.
My argument is not that Hansen himself never made such a “prediction”. It is that Hansen himself made it in a contingent fashion (in a draft sent ’round for comment) and then essentially withdrew it, within weeks of having made it (consistent with comments from both you and I, who were sharply critical of him at the time, but more importantly from folks like Mark Cane and the other real ENSO experts – I have little doubt that Hansen doesn’t much care what you say on this blog, or what I write in the newspaper).
To usefully review the success or failure of such a prediction, as you purported to do in your previous post, seems to call for a fuller discussion of that context. Such a discussion would clearly show that Hansen’s final version of he paper is still outside the mainstream on the relationship between ENSO and climate change. But it’s a very different issue than the simplistic question of whether his forecast validated.
There’s a bit of an irony here in the fact that I was beaten up by Hansen’s Homeboys for having the temerity to criticize him at the time. Now I’m being summarily lumped in with his defenders.
As for your analysis of damage assessment in the CCSP report, bravo. As you know, I have written supportively many times over the years regarding your line of argument on this issue, and have found it extremely helpful in shaping my views on the issue.
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:45 am
John-
As I stated above, you are correct. I should have noted that Hansen’s PNAS paper as published did not include the forecast that Hansen made in the draft, (as well as on his public email list, and to the media).
But where and when did Hansen “withdraw” the forecast? The fact that the forecast did not make it into PNAS is not the same as withdrawing it, it just means that it did not survive peer review.
Hansen says a lot of things outside PNAS papers and other peer reviewed outlets. I think it is perfectly fair to evaluate those statements. And you you are correct that many things Hansen says are outside the mainstream. His ENSO forecast was no different.
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:02 am
Roger -
I’d read the email you quoted in your April 12 followup post as a “withdrawal” of his “prediction”. That’s the moment I began to feel sheepish about having journalistically overplayed the “prediction”. But my Karma feels much improved, plus I get points now from the Hansen Homeboys for having criticized RPJr.! So I view this whole episode as a win now.
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:05 am
Glad to be of service
Of course the Hansen follow up was directly related to your story and the comments of Glantz, Cane et al. which he probably would not have otherwise had. So really Hansen should be thanking you . . .
February 4th, 2009 at 1:55 am
Roger,
I’d never read (or heard of) John Fleck before, but I enjoyed reading him just now, so thanks for bringing him to our attention . . .
. . . but: Isn’t Coby Beck the guy who wrote that wannabe-condescending “How to Talk to a Denier” screed a few years ago? It was laughable then, and in (very quickly) visiting his blog just now I found nothing which would upgrade my opinion; indeed, the tone of the place put me in mind of the old admonition about why you should never mud-wrestle with a pig.
I really think it’s unfair of you to lump a thoughtful journalist in with one of these junkosphere bloviators (I’m sure you didn’t intend it, but that’s how it reads (insert smiley-face emoticon here)).
Back on topic, I agree w/ you and Lucia that when prominent scientists goes on record, no matter what the forum, it is perfectly legit to hold them accountable.