Climate uncertainties and the problems communicating them

The journal <em>Nature</em> has used a series of editorials to point out the areas of climatology that are the least understood, and considers why the public remains fixated on the basics instead.<BR><BR><a href='http://meincmagazine.com/science/news/2010/01/climate-uncertainties-and-the-problems-communicating-them.ars'>Read the whole story</a>

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Transparent:<BR>Anyone who hopes to undermine articles in Nature with postings on a website is fooling themselves. I give far more credence to the authors of NI than anyone attacking them personally, attacking a highly respected journal, or pointing me to some website doesn't have any real data, just strange criticisms of the climate change methodology, or a list of cities that have just experience unusually cold weather. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The problem with uncritical reading of reporters / scientists that you agree with is you just tend to re-inforce biases. This leads to sloppy science and reporting at all levels. Case in point courtesy of the IPCC and reported by the Times Online:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><I>The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.<BR><BR>But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.<BR><BR>The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated” in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.</I> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The way that the IPCC responds to this will tell me exactly how much faith I should have in the integrity of the larger climatology community.<BR><BR>Nature needs to work on enhancing credibility at the same time as communicating uncertainty accurately. No one is going to be convinced of any position you advocate if such rubber stamping of AGW claims is widespread or insufficiently exposed to scrutiny. <BR><BR>Personally, I'm sceptical because the science isn't "settled." I'm not convinced yet, and events like the above don't help.

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JPan:<BR>the problem is that lots of scientists are doing the natural thing. Fighting for the good cause by exaggerating and hyping up Climate change panic. I mean its natural with a sensational paper on how the seas will boil in 2050 or that all Himalaya glaciers will be gone by 2035 people pay you much more attention than with the truth: </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You should read the whole article if you get a chance. The glaciologist that was misquoted eviscerates the IPCC report on the second page.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><I>But Syed Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist erroneously quoted as making the 2035 prediction, said that responsibility had to lie with them. “It is the lead authors — blame goes to them,” he told The Times. “There are many mistakes in it. It is a very poorly made report.”<BR><BR>He and other leading glaciologists pointed out at least five glaring errors in the relevant section.<BR><BR>It says the total area of Himalyan glaciers “will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035”. There are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.<BR><BR>A table below says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840m — a rate of 135.2m a year. The actual rate is only 23.5m a year.<BR><BR>The section says Himalayan glaciers are “receding faster than in any other part of the world” when many glaciologists say they are melting at about the same rate.<BR><BR>An entire paragraph is also attributed to the World Wildlife Fund, when only one sentence came from it, and the IPCC is not supposed to use such advocacy groups as sources.</I> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The IPCC report is guilty of naked advocacy, fiction even with regard to the Himalayan glaciers. Who knows what liberties they took with claims that had slightly better scientific backing? They basically made stuff up with this section of the report after all. <BR><BR>When asked why he didn't come forward earlier when he noticed the errors in 2008 Hasnain said:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">“My job is not to point out mistakes. And you know the might of the IPCC. What about all the other glaciologists around the world who did not speak out?” </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>His boss at his current research facility had this to say:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dr Pachauri also said he did not learn about the mistakes until they were reported in the media about 10 days ago, at which time he contacted other IPCC members. He denied keeping quiet about the errors to avoid disrupting the UN summit on climate change in Copenhagen, or discouraging funding for TERI’s own glacier programme. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Pretty damning stuff.

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR>This is the stuff that the IPCC just admitted was wrong, and removed from their report, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>They had an alternative? Even the researcher referenced in the report says he was misrepresented.<BR><BR>There are qualitative and quantitative departures from the truth in that summary. The admission almost three years later when pressed earns them no points either.<BR><BR>Edit: for additional backstory, see this Guardian article from Nov 2009 as the story developed:<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A leading climate scientist today accused the Indian environment ministry of "arrogance" after the release of a government report claiming that there is no evidence climate change has caused "abnormal" shrinking of Himalayan glaciers.<BR>[...]<BR>The government report, entitled Himalayan glaciers (pdf), looks at 150 years' worth of data gathered from the Geological Survey of India from 25 glaciers. It claims to be the first comprehensive study on the region.<BR><BR>Vijay Kumar Raina, the geologist who authored the report, admitted that some "Himalayan glaciers are retreating. But it is nothing out of the ordinary. Nothing to suggest as some have said that they will disappear."<BR><BR>Pachauri dismissed the report saying it was not "peer reviewed" and had few "scientific citations".<BR><BR>"With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago." </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I'm a little hazy on how exactly it came out that the 2007 report had little basis in fact, but this Indian report precipitated it.

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR>I stopped keeping up-to-the-minute with climate science when it became clear that the science was mostly irrelevant to the situation. I'm perfectly willing to give people points for admitting they're wrong about something, and even better for doing so publicly. As it is, being wrong about this doesn't seem to be particularly significant to me (but then I'm not a climate scientist) in global terms. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not sure how much credit is due for admitting that the section and it's scientific justification were largely made up. <BR><BR>I don't think "glaciergate" has global significance either, except as an indication of some serious flaws around the political environment of the IPCC. When researchers are too cowed by the body to correct an erroneous report, something's wrong with that environment.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In short: you think the IPCC report is riddled with flaws. I say, show me the flaws, and we can discuss them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, I think the IPCC report is riddled with politics. Reduce that and we may get better science.

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR>So far as I can tell, the 'better science' you're looking for is the peer-reviewed papers which the IPCC AR4 (among other things) cite. We have, from time to time, discussed some portions of some of these papers here, but most of the time the invective and politics get in the way. It's a shame, of course, because the science is really, really cool. But then, as I said, the science seems largely irrelevant to most of the discussions going on on the internet and in various political circles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ars' reporting is part of the problem. I'm not opposed to the idea of AGW if the science and ideas can stand on their own. Resist making the tenuous links back to climate change on an algal bloom story, ignoring all other possibilities. Leave the advocacy out.<BR>I will mention that Ars has improved noticeably on this score recently and it was appreciated.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">While snarkily-worded, my question about the surfacestations.org folks was serious. Should I be viewing them in a positive light for asserting a problem, documenting it secretly, and ignoring scientific rebuttals? As bad as stuff touched by the IPCC might be, I don't see anyone else doing even that well. At least with the IPCC stuff you can check the citations and look at the real science. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You should view them in whatever light you wish. I have idea why you think I should be obligated to defend an idea I didn't advance, but I'm not. I feel no compulsion to march in ideological lockstep with all and sundry that express scepticism.<BR><BR>That seems like the same mentality that prevented anyone challenging the IPCC on the Himalayan glaciers story for almost 3 years, and if so, I don't think it's something to be encouraged.

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR>Yes, they have egg on their faces. As a political/social matter, it's quite significant. As far as the science goes, well as I wrote to Invid, I haven't kept up on this particular subject. So far as I can tell, melt-rates for the Himilayan glaciers are not significant WRT our understanding of climate and the causes of its changing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You do everyone a disservice when you paint this as a simple error. It was at best an embellishment, and at worst a fabrication, wholly unsupported by any actual research (save the WWF study). How on earth did they draw those conclusions?<BR><BR>Further, the issue isn't the effect on global climate understanding, but on the use of this report to panic and politically prod the several hundred million people that depend on the Himalayan meltwater in their watersheds. It's not just the poor science that rankles, it's the manipulation.

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BadAndy:<BR>Only a paranoid talks about "nefariously discredit those who disagreed." Explain to me how the f**K the people at CRU could "nefariously discredit" <I>any</I> of those who "disagreed." What are they gonna say ... "your mother wears army boots?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Such poor form. <BR><BR>How is the personal attack warranted when the emails actually showed a pattern of discrediting those who disagreed?<BR><BR>I don't see any reason why your view should be given any more weight than Patrick Michaels' or a reading of the emails themselves. You have read them, haven't you?

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BadAndy:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Invid:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BadAndy:<BR>Only a paranoid talks about "nefariously discredit those who disagreed." Explain to me how the f**K the people at CRU could "nefariously discredit" <I>any</I> of those who "disagreed." What are they gonna say ... "your mother wears army boots?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Such poor form. <BR><BR>How is the personal attack warranted when the emails actually showed a pattern of discrediting those who disagreed?<BR><BR>I don't see any reason why your view should be given any more weight than Patrick Michaels' or a reading of the emails themselves. You have read them, haven't you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Oh, who the hell is Patrick Michaels and why is he the tin god on these matters? Why <I>shouldn't</I> my view on these matters be equal to his? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Because he can offer a first person perspective as opposed to your third person vitriol.<BR><BR>Why didn't you mention you were a scientist before? Now I can safely substitute your reading for my own in confidence. Appeal to authority duly noted, and thanks!

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IdeaHamster:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Invid:<BR>Why didn't you mention you were a scientist before? Now I can safely substitute your reading for my own in confidence. Appeal to authority duly noted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm guessing you do all your own plumbing and painting and auto repair work and farming and electricity generation and well digging and medicating and...well, I think you get the point. Why do you trust anybody? Why don't you trust scientists? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>What scientific credentials are required to parse the attempts to marginalize dissenters? <BR><BR>Is a plumber suddenly an authority on interpersonal relations because of his expertise with pipefitting?

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IdeaHamster:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sailfish:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Mr. Michaels, formerly professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia (1980-2007), is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Sorry, but try as you might to devalue the article, his credentials give him more gravitas than you seem to be willing to admit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>ABC News Reporting Cited As Evidence In Congressional Hearing On Global Warming<BR>Especially, regarding Mr. Patrick Michaels:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> One Colorado electric cooperative has openly admitted that it has paid $100,000 to a university academic who prides himself on being a global warming skeptic.<BR>...<BR>The letter also says that in February of this year, IREA contributed $100,000 to Patrick Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your right! Those are indeed some gravitas inducing credentials. <img src="http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif" alt="Smile" width="15" height="15"> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">[IREA spent] $100,000 in 2006 to support the research of Patrick J. Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia who is an outspoken global-warming debunker. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>From The Colorado Independent.<BR><BR>I suppose the pro-AGW scientists fund their research out of pocket? Don't be disingenuous.

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IdeaHamster:<BR>Cool, I agree! Tell you what...we can play a bit of a game: I'll look up a peer-reviewed scientific article supporting the conclusion that human activity is significantly contributing to global warming, and you can come back to me with evidence that each of the paper's authors have, at some point in the past, attempted to marginalize dissenters. Deal? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Where have I said that they all do this? I am talking about this specific incident. The emails speak for themselves on this count, no matter how many strawmen you knock down.

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IdeaHamster:<BR>Ok, good...that set of e-mails is done. Horrible people, crappy scientists, we can all agree...<BR><BR>WTF does this have to do with global warming?!? If they were the only data set, or the only research group, or if everyone was in some way tied to them, then I'd agree that the e-mails are of concern. As I see it, some idiots were revealed for what they were: idiots, and everyone else went on doing the same science they have been doing.<BR><BR>You know, climate research isn't the only field with idiots. There have been outright frauds in the fields of physics and stem cell research, yet somehow those fields haven't collapsed completely. Why should we tear down all of climate research because of one research group? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Why do you insist on absolutes? I don't think these scientists are necessarily bad people. The only thing I suspect with any confidence is that they acted out of misplaced zeal, <I>and perhaps with malice. </I><BR><BR>The researcher that drafted the IPCC impact document acted out of misplaced zeal (or worse). The lack of other climatologists / glaciologists disputing that report indicates that the problem may be widespread.<BR><BR>This only demonstrates that <B>all conclusions</B> are subject to bias and should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny, not just the ones you happen to disagree with.

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IdeaHamster:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Invid:<BR>From The Colorado Independent.<BR><BR>I suppose the pro-AGW scientists fund their research out of pocket? Don't be disingenuous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I imagine most of them get their money from the National Science Foundation or NASA. Last time I checked, those groups don't stand to make a lot of money from evidence supporting global warming, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT CORPORATIONS! </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>And? If you want to impugn the man's integrity you need to provide proof, not your imaginings. As if the only thing that motivates people is money, and not professional recognition or pride in your research. <BR><BR>It would be nice if you indicated why his integrity should be questioned, but those on the opposite side's should be taken as read.

 

[Invid]

From the article:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night <I><B>admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.</B><BR>Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.</I> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">DeathPickle:<BR>What's really so pathetic is that people like this can grow up in modern society and still not appreciate the quite accurate nature of the scientific process which makes it possible for them to knuckle drag themselves out of the caves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">BadAndy:<BR>But what is even sadder is that the opponents then start yelling and screaming about how all the mainstream scientists are a "conspiracy" and in it for the money. The comparison is so delusional it's bizarre. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Either of you feel like moderating those opinions at all? Or would you prefer to argue that political advocacy is good science?<BR><BR>That was rough timing on those posts.<BR>/awkward <img src="https://cdn.arstechnica.net/forum/smilies/scared_classic.gif" alt="Scared" width="15" height="15">

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DeathPickle:<BR>Are you fucking retarded? Or just pretending to be?<BR><BR>Did you read any of the statements explaining how the himalayas crap relate to the "IPCC report"? (which by the way, is found on any number of actual climate <I>science</I> blogs available through an easy google search, not the idiot-based mass market journalism the deniers keep linking, as if linking to other retardation somehow justifies their own). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>So as long as it's not part of the report proper it's OK to lie? Cool.<BR><BR>Lie to shape policy, but the science is good, honest! (I think I'll need a mnemonic for that one, being retarded and all.)<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Having been forced to apologise over the 2035 claim, Dr Pachauri blamed Dr Lal, saying his team had failed to apply IPCC procedures.<BR>It was an accusation rebutted angrily by Dr Lal. ‘We as authors followed them to the letter,’ he said. ‘Had we received information that undermined the claim, we would have included it.’<BR>However, an analysis of those 500-plus formal review comments, to be published tomorrow by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the new body founded by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson, suggests that when <B>reviewers did raise issues that called the claim into question, Dr Lal and his colleagues simply ignored them.</B> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>This debacle leaves a sour taste in my mouth.<BR><BR>Edit: To be honest, I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater as regards AGW, but acting like the research is above reproach just makes you look as ridiculous as you are rude.

 

[Invid]

I'm amused that I got called a "winger" despite being a full on liberal.<BR><BR>FYI that "you're with us or you're agin' us," all-or-nothing ideological mindset is an American thing.<BR><BR>I guess you can be defined by a single viewpoint after all.

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wheels Of Confusion:<BR>What tripe. The reason the Baliunas/Soon paper caused such controversy is because it was a piece of crap that didn't disclose that a significant source of its funding came from fossil fuel interests and that the authors were paid by an anti-regulation think-tank, it used baloney metrics, and mis-cited earlier research, all while being allowed through peer review in a way that compromised the reviewing process. The editors didn't resign because Mann threatened a boycott, they resigned <I>for the same reason that Mann wanted a boycott</I>, because of how peer-review was bypassed to let the paper through. Was Mann or Jones the one who prompted the researchers of 13 papers cited in their paper to point out how badly their work was -mangled- by Soon/Baliunas? Patrick Michaels pretends the wrong side compromised the peer-review process! </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Now that's interesting. If that wiki link is accurate (not doubting, just haven't finished reading citations), it would appear that politics is ruining the climate for proper research on both sides of the debate.<BR><BR>Thanks.

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DeathPickle:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm amused that I got called a "winger" despite being a full on liberal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>And yet you parrot the <I>exact</I> same talking points initiated and repeated ad nauseum by same networks which are very readily and clearly explained by any number of actual science sources, and you can't even pretend you don't have internet access. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Perhaps I should start watching Fox *shudder* so I'm up on their arguments.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I mean, initially you can plead ignorance, but when it's been explained to you more than once and you keep dragging up the daily fox lines (scientist salaries, lol), you see how that's confusing? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I can see how it would be confusing if you're comingling who said what. Hint: that wasn't me. I was arguing against the idea that where they draw a paycheque automatically determines scientific integrity.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Finally, you see how it might be hard to take you at your word now that you've been repeating stuff that just isn't true AFTER it's been pointed out to you (with no appreciable rebuttal on your part)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You say it's not true, but have yet to show that they didn't just fabricate the 2035 Himalayan glacier melt-off. If it wasn't a lie, why offer an apology? <BR><BR>Are you mixing me up with someone else again?

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DeathPickle:<BR>There is only "proper research" in the singular since this is an objective activity, and thus far it's only supported one side of the "debate". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The "both side of the debate" was a reference to the negative political influences on both sides.<BR><BR>You seem to be of the mind that because it wasn't included in the "scientific" report that the lying about the 2035 glacier melt-off is excusable. It is not, and pretending that it doesn't carry any of the authority of the IPCC's sanction is dishonest too.

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BadAndy:<BR><BR>It's a matter of idle curiosity to me, but just FMI, on what issues do you consider yourself "full on liberal?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Socially very liberal - pro civil rights ("gay marriage" is a bullshit weasel term), pro choice (life begins at personhood), anti-death penalty, pro-euthanasia (self determination), health care is a fundamental role of gov't., think social programs are valuable, not particularly bothered by our tax rates provided they're well administered, "having a gun doesn't make you safer" (hunting rifles are cool though), etc.<BR><BR>Fiscally - One of the biggest dangers to liberty right now is encroaching corporatism, resents USA's attempt to export same to Canada, favour strong regulation of corporations to limit consumer abuses, corporations are not people - the very idea is antithetical to democracy, favour copyright reforms of 14-28 years max (cultural contributions are a product and property of the culture - offer incentives to creation, not perpetual cash cows), favour "green" initiatives (despite AGW scepticism) where they offer tangible benefits like energy independence and clean power, don't care about "big government" just bad government, etc. <BR><BR>Those are the biggies. What do I win?

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DeathPickle:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One of the biggest dangers to liberty right now is encroaching corporatism </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It's kind of ironic that this is the reason why you see so much anti-science PR in the media. It tends to occur when the science is not convenient to profits. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Barring corporations from influencing the political process through campaign donations goes a long way to mitigation.

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DeathPickle:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Barring corporations from influencing the political process through campaign donations goes a long way to mitigation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Yeah, but then you won't get source material to be a successful AGW denier. <img src="http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif" alt="Frown" width="15" height="15"> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not a sceptic because of business considerations. I don't believe the science is settled, or even particularly accurate at this point. People like yourself that insist it is are as damaging to the truth as the wingnuts you were railing against earlier.<BR><BR>I'm more contrarian than denier.

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BadAndy:<BR>It does suggest you are not religiously fundamental in terms of believing in Genesis etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No, that's an almost uniquely American affectation I'm afraid. In fact, if I do know anyone who believes such things, none have the balls to admit it.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I am having a very hard time trying to figure out what your "points" are here or where your 'scepticism' comes from....have you bothered to actually look at any of the better arguments/explanations for why <I>CO2 really must cause global warming?</I> Actually read the IPCC Physical basis report? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I have little faith in the climate models. I've got to hit the sack soon, so I'll give you one example that I have close to hand as a reason for my lack of faith. <BR><BR>From Science (PDF, Aug 2009) Here's a writeup lifted from a sceptic's blog, an admittedly biased source, but I want to lift their description of the paper <img src="http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif" alt="Wink" width="15" height="15"> :<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For decades, the supporters of CO2 driven global warming have discounted changes in solar irradiance as far too small to cause significant climate change. Though the Sun's output varies by less than a tenth of a percent in magnitude during its 11-year sunspot cycle, that small variation produces changes in sea surface temperatures two or three times as large as it should. A new study in Science demonstrates how two previously known mechanisms acting together amplify the Sun's impact in an unsuspected way. Not surprisingly, the new discovery is getting a cool reception from the CO2 climate change clique. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Putting aside for the moment the CO2 vs solar forcing "debate", what are the chances that this effect (if accurately described) is accurately modelled in current climate simulations? Practically nil. Yet we place so much faith in these models. Can you fudge them into agreement with observed data? Sure, but it remains just an approximation of a chaotic system. Now multiply that by the lack of data wrt the uncertainty in biomass response (2005) to increased atmospheric CO2, newly discovered ocean currents (2008), and more, and that's a lot of basic science that remains unanswered, but remains of critical importance to an accurate model.<BR><BR>My thought experiment: If I show you a data plot of some values that look like a parabolic curve, how do you know that your chaotic system simulation should extrapolate out to a parabola or a sine wave? They're two completely different systems, with different outcomes. And yet your observable data fits both closely.<BR><BR>You just can't trust models where a great deal of the basic science is an approximation coupled with severely limited data. This is of course a ridiculously simplistic example, but should hopefully illustrate my point:<BR><BR><IMG ALIGN="left" SRC="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2326127/image%20hosting/ars%20dataset.jpeg"> _____<IMG SRC="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2326127/image%20hosting/ars%20parbola.jpeg"> _____<IMG SRC="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2326127/image%20hosting/ars%20sinewave.jpeg"> <BR><BR>Now I'm not saying that our climate models are useless, just that they're not worthy of all the faith that many place in them. These are big policy decisions, and I'm not opposed to pursuing <B>some</B> mitigation strategies. But the semi-hysterical screaming is premature, imo. <BR><BR>I don't pretend to know where the inflection point where the models can be said to be "reliable" might be. My issue is mostly that I'm sceptical of the certainty, and less so the science.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You seem to have a really big hard on about the "Climate-gate" story .... as though this is some "proof" .. of what, ABOUT THE SCIENCE ITSELF? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Proof of political corruption of the scientific process (not "method" necessarily). Well meaning perhaps, but it illustrates to me that there is a need for seriously rigorous scrutiny of the science. Scrutiny that I don't think is happening with the degree of criticality required. When the most important research body starts fudging reports (however you wish to define them), doesn't that set off alarm bells in your mind that ideology is trumping objectivity? It does for me.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Barring corporations from influencing the political process through campaign donations goes a long way to mitigation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I presume you are aware of the most recent ruling of the US Supreme court, and can predict the likely consequences for American politics? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, and that's unfortunate. I think you should fix your laws, not step up your propaganda though. Where "propaganda" is your political message, not necessarily "lies."<BR><BR>Peace.

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DeathPickle:<BR>Why don't you use the fucking browser in front of you, do some really basic searches for that factual info so you get familiar with the process and it sticks. I mean, others can tell you like they have through this thread, but you'll just ignore it as has already happen. What you're saying has been answered so many times they make Frequently Asked Questions for this kind of thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The myopia returns. The point wasn't the argument about solar forcing (hence the "debate" quotes), but the larger point about climate model integration and newly described fundamental processes which is why I also included others to illustrate the point.<BR><BR>What a waste of time. I'm not your anger management counsellor, so I'll leave it to you to rage on your own.

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dr. Jay:<BR>Incidentally, a lot of the reporting on the Himalayan glaciers story that was discussed here was from the same person who completely fabricated material about Mojib Latif. Looks like he made stuff up about the IPCC member as well:<BR>http://climateprogress.org/201...litically-motivated/<BR><BR>I don't know enough about Climate Progress' credibility, but I do know that Rose (the Mail's reporter) has made stuff up in the past, so it's probably worth waiting for a second round of reporting comes out that looks into this incident in more detail. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>From your linked article:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lal’s phone number is easy to find online, and I called him myself, even though it was after midnight in India (I hoped he was on travel), but he answered it immediately.<BR><BR>He said these were “the most vilest allegations” and denied that he ever made such assertions. He said “I didn’t put it [the 2035 claim] in to impress policymakers…. We reported the facts about science as we knew them and as was available in the literature.” </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>His denial is duly noted Dr. Jay, as is the alleged misquoting by the Daily Mail. I will be less trusting of Daily Mail as I was unaware of their apparent slant, not being a regular reader.<BR><BR>That said, Dr Lal's protestations ring somewhat flat, as his 2035 claim remains completely unsupported by any <B>actual research</B>, and is in fact repudiated by India's MoE study**. The rest of the section was riddled with qualitative and quantitative errors that curiously point in only the one direction too, let's not forget. <BR><BR>They claim they based the 2035 glacier depletion on the WWF paper and the 1999 interview with Syed Hasnain. The WWF paper also cites the 1999 interview with Syed Hasnain. All of which leaves the 2035 claim a pile of bullshit with no actual backing. Hasnain said he was misquoted in that interview, so what scientific literature was that IPCC claim based on? In the end, while Lal may not have "admitted" to embellishment to advance a political agenda, what other plausible explanation is there? Either Lal or the Daily Mail are lying, and the evidence doesn't seem to support Mr. Lal.<BR><BR>My take is that confirmation bias is the cause of this sloppy, if not outright dishonest writing - we'll see when the formal review comments are available. That same bias also stifles dissenting voices, research and critical review to some extent imo. <BR><BR>**The Indian MoE study may still be lacking peer review at this time, but even preliminary results trump gossip.

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BadAndy:<BR>My vexation with Invid is that he accepts LYING CRAP like this blog and doesn't even actually go read that referenced paper, even read the abstract of the paper. Furthermore the whole point of the lying crapping blogosphere is to produce endless Invids who uncritically propagate this crap and give it the "astroturf gravitas" of lots of people mouthing it around. <BR>[...]<BR>Now, <I>read this,</I> and what does it say? <B><span class="ev_code_red">It says very plainly that "models" do in fact demonstrate the observed effects! </B></span> And I will get to which "models" do so shortly. Hoffman's <I>use</I> of the paper, to wit: "... amplify the Sun's impact in an <B>unsuspected way.</B> Not surprisingly, <B>the new discovery is getting a cool reception from the CO2 climate change clique.</B>" ... is total f**king bullshit LYING. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You know, I regret using that quote now. It seems that my point, my smilie, my quotation marks, and my joke were lost in the red mist that you saw after reading it. Perhaps it was too subtle, and I apologize.<BR><BR>Again, my point was not questioning whether or not the models reflected the observed effects, but whether the coupling was accurately represented in the current models, and how that might impact their accuracy in a chaotic simulation. I also allowed for the fact that you can used fudge-factor approximations to match the observed data, but my point, which you seem to have completely overlooked, is that the approximations will not necessarily hold when extrapolated out. Is there a problem with this line of reasoning, or are you bound and determined to pick apart an argument I'm not making?<BR><BR>You asked why I was a sceptic, and I told you it was because I have limited faith that just because the models reflect <B>now</B> accurately, doesn't mean they will predict <B>tomorrow</B> when so many significant mechanisms are approximations. How does one trust your model's predictive power when you don't understand the mechanics of significant basic elements like cloud cover coupling with temperature and solar forcing for example?<BR><BR>As you go on to say in your own post, the two parent models had to be synthesized before they reflected observations <B>as emergent behaviour</B>. The paper itself highlighted this new understanding.

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by klj1945:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR><BR>What way do we have of telling the difference between a model is reflecting the observed effects because of an 'accurately represented coupling' or something else? So long as you're avoiding the most obvious sorts of black-box engineering, it seems to me that your only real evidence that your model is 'accurately representing' some feature is just that it reflects the observed effects.<BR><BR>How else could we check this? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR> <B>That's the point!</B> You can't tell. Your reference to "obvious sorts of black-box engineering" is merely trying to give more credibility to current modeling efforts than is deserved, IMHO, but your conclusion is absolutely dead on. There is no other way to check this than to run the models in real time for long enough to have at least some confidence in them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Pretty much. There's a reason I stressed that it's a chaotic system. It's dominated by the interactions between the various systems' mechanics that gives rise to emergent behaviours - the results we're interested in. Any predictive confidence you might have is severely diminished when you omit or have insufficient data about significant factors like the cloud cover model that even the IPCC admits is a significant source of uncertainty. That's just an additional factor on top of the others I mentioned.<BR><BR>Approximations derived from observational data will only help you solve problems that you already know the answer to (the past) with a high degree of confidence. Now I recognize that as new understanding is incorporated into the models our <STRIKE>precision increases</STRIKE> uncertainty decreases and we can begin to set policy based on a projected range of outcomes, but the people stating unequivocally that we've reached that inflection point are mistaken imo.

 

[Invid]

I didn't want to respond until I had a chance to read your link.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wheels Of Confusion:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Invid:<BR>All of which leaves the 2035 claim a pile of bullshit with no actual backing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Of course it is, the date was a mistake, a copying error. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>And yet that's a pretty remarkable claim to make solely on the basis of a non-peer reviewed WWF paper, number transposition notwithstanding. Why do you suppose such a bold claim wasn't verified if not due to confirmation bias? This is no small glacier system, it's the origin of the water supply for literally hundreds of millions of people, and the political ramifications of such a statement should be clear to all.<BR><BR>What do you make of the attached statement that the Himalayan glacier system is retreating faster than any other? Where is that supporting research, particularly in light of the Indian MoE study that found them to be highly variable historically, and retreating within historical norms currently?<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think it's far more likely that "confirmation bias" is partly behind the tiny number of dissenting scientists and the much larger number of utter non-scientists who object to the general consensus. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Agreed, though I take issue with characterizing it as far more likely at least as regards the dissenting scientists.

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wheels Of Confusion:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Invid:<BR>This is no small glacier system, it's the origin of the water supply for literally hundreds of millions of people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>And? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry for the stealth edit. Please don't break up those two sentences either. The second supports the first.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Was this MoE study even available at the cut-off point where literature was being accepted for inclusion into the 2007 IPCC syntheses? You seem to indicate that it hasn't even come through peer-review yet, in 2010. <B>If more recent research contradicts earlier findings</B>, what does that mean except that the recommendations based on the earlier work need to be revised? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Where's the citation for the original research? Does it even exist, or was that a mistranslation too? Is this acceptable behaviour for an impact report where the impact potential is so enormous?<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Agreed, though I take issue with characterizing it as far more likely at least as regards the dissenting scientists. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>So you think it's equally likely that 97% of climate scientists are making the mistake as it is that 3% are? In a practice that uses critical thinking, expert scrutiny, and iconoclasm as its bread and butter? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm assuming by this statement you'd have placed Galileo under house arrest too?

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wheels Of Confusion:<BR>The second one seems to be a total non-sequitur, unless you mean to imply that the example was chosen specifically because it would affect millions of people. But as I keep pointing out, I don't see how this whole thing is justifiably interpreted as intentional deception or "confirmation bias." In case you can't tell, I don't think you have built a sufficient case for either one of those possibilities that you can go around accusing the IPCC's authors or whomever of that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It is an <B>impact</B> statement for which the impact has the potential to affect hundreds of millions of people. At what level of impact do you think a reputable body decides to cross their T's and dot their I's? The only way a case hasn't been made is if you ignore all of the other errors in that section of the report. When confronted, they claim they used the available science, but are unable to produce it. How unfortunate for their credibility that all of the errors conspire to amplify the hysteria too.<BR><BR>Even so, I can see it being caused by confirmation bias, rather than active malconduct. That's the least damning plausible explanation from my perspective. You are free to crane your neck as far as it will go to see things from their perspective.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now, how about answering my question? Is your MoE study of a suitable date to be relevant for the 2007 IPCC report? Yes? No? If no, what does that mean for your comparison of the two sources? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>It is an example that contradicts the IPCC claim. Exactly what research is on offer to support it, debunked or otherwise?<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm assuming by this statement you'd have placed Galileo under house arrest too? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You know what happens when you assume, right? <img src="http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif" alt="Wink" width="15" height="15"> <BR>Are you even familiar enough with the methods, history, and philosophy of science and the difference in culture to understand why comparing the consensus of modern climate research to medieval astronomy/astrology is illegitimate? Do you even understand that the struggles Galileo went through were <I>part of the transition</I> from medieval thought and culture to the Scientific revolution? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok. I'll slow this down for you. <BR><BR>The truth is entirely unconcerned with how many or what percentage of people believe it. It just is, and rises and falls on its own merits. Don't tell me that 97% of people support X, so it must be correct. It's a logical fallacy, and what's worse, it has nothing to do with either groups' propensity toward confirmation bias - which was my original point.