Nice posting! I guess it's not enough to just believe that humans are warming the planet. Believers have to also shut up anybody who contradicts them.
I was reading another blog where the author was declaring his unlimited hatred(!) for people who express skepticism about the climate end of the world.
So many of these folks just need to obliterate anyone who disagrees with them.
Once again there's a failure to distinguish between a mote and a beam, or perhaps a deliberate omission of just how little this changes warming predictions. The "1-2%" figure is what's going around, but I'm waiting for a more comprehensive statement from the pros before I say more.
The predictions are based on models which are very fallible. When they are created by people who are sure of the outcome they tend not to look for things which might turn the other way. This case illustrates how for 7 years they neglected a problem in another model they created. I have no doubt the predictions won't change. They know the outcome and they just have to find the right model to fit it and try to get it to correspond with what has happened.
But I have to wonder, if people can't get the actual temperatures right in the past why their models for the future will be any better?
Unfortunately, people are scared and confused. As this is a population-wide phenomenon, herd mentality is kicking in, which most always overrides logic and common sense.
As we all know "the most violent element of society is ignorance." Well I think it is pretty clear that 99% of the population is pretty ignorant about what is really happening. Heck, it is totally possible that no one really knows whats going on.
As people are scared (as they should be), and people don't know who to trust (too many special interest groups - politicians, businesses, non-profit groups), no one knows who to believe.
Half of the people are trying to save the world, and the other half think there is nothing to worry about and are more worried about making money or taking advantage of the situation.
Either way we are in a horrible situation. I understand the intention of your post, to call out people who seem to be hiding the truth, but it is always more complex than your post insinuates.
Your post basically says that the people who should be paying attention are either too lazy to do their work, or are fooled by their own biases. I don't really think I agree on this.
Of course the media sensationalizes everything, that's what they do and we all know it. But when there is a revision in scientific data, & government employees are slow to respond, you are surprised?? Scientific data is ALWAYS being revised. This is the nature of science. And government employees... well lets just say they are not always the most motivated working class.
You should be more happy that someone discovered the error, as opposed to complaining that they didn't find it sooner.
Next year they will probably discover a new way to look at it where they will have to change it back.
Tim McCormack
http://www.iRent2u.com - The Online Rental Marketplace
Tim: Everything is always more complicated that one post can ever handle.
Remember you have two sides here (actually more but for arguments sake break it down to two). The one side, such as Hansen, releases predictions based on data they figure out. But in this case Hansen has, and still does, refuse to explain the formula. This means it is not open to investigation in the scientific process. Someone discovered the error only because they were able to work backwards. The officials at GISS refused to release the actual methodology. My point is that the refusal to be open hampers science.
The error existed for 7 years, given the public some false perceptions, because the scientific process was not allowed to operate. You seem to think that the guys who wrote the formula were the ones who discovered their own error. They didn’t and did everything they could to stop others from discovering it. Why? Because they know the answer so why mess with data that supports the “truth”.
Climate models are public knowledge, one need only go to the original refernce. What sort of "explanation" are you looking for?
A little perspective on this brouhaha, from the pros:
http://www.realclimate.org/index...4-and-all-that/
Pwnage, in other words, as the impact was not to discredit AGW!
As for "public knowledge" when McIntyre asked for the formula he was told it would not be given to him. If a statistician is told he can't have the formula then it is not "public'.
http://www.realclimate.org/index...4-and-all-that/
-Click on that to read opinions from people who actually know what they're talking about.
Just to add some insight as to why environmental activists attempt to shut down this kind of debate at any opportunity, the theory of man-made climate change has been around for over a century, and we're still dragging our feet over this very serious issue. People trying to enact change are sick of people like yourself who are willfully ignorant of the science. Arguing doesn't seem to work. Playing the propaganda game, acting in a condescending manner, and generally being a pain in the butt seems to have advanced the cause a lot more than the pleasant sounding scientists who tried to make people listen for the hundred years since it was first theorised. It's a fine line to walk, playing the game between what we know, and what the public needs to hear to actually vote for changes which are wholly necessary.
A far more intelligent use of your time would be to ask the question, "as a libertarian, what would I do to prevent the indiscriminate destruction of property rights industry is committing"
This issue doesn't have to be about left vs right. It is at the moment, because a lot of those on the right still have their heads in the sand. I hope when (Ever the optimist I am) you get over this phase of denial you start debating the real issue.
What to do about it.
What a coincidence...
But seriously, David S asks an important question: without knowing what policy you'd advocate if climatologists just happened to be right about this one, there's an "emperor has no clothes" air to the denial.
The "people who know what they're talking about", "the pros" are the folks who are raking in billions a year in grants---based on the idea that humans are wrecking the planet. Can't wreck the gravy train, boys! Heck, these guys are the pros! They can't have any vested interest, why shucks no.
Only Hansen knew about the error and waited until somebody else reverse engineered his algorithm, the skunk. And they call these freaks scientists!
My retriever is more a scientist than these jackals.
You know that Hansen knew about the bug and kept it to himself...how?
The bit about grants is a common and fallacious bullshit tactic and deserves but one response: Argue, scientifically, why they're wrong--and publish it in a professional journal. If you have no argument, you should shut up. It's that simple, Mr. Kamin. Put up or shut up.
The effect of these changes is minor, actually. See http://www.realclimate.org/
For instance, before the change 1998 had a 'mean anomaly' of 1.24 C and 1934 had 1.23 C. After the change, 1934 went up to 1.25 C and 1998 went to 1.23 C. Hence any effect on the underlying theory appears negligible. 1934 and 1998 were almost the same both before and after this change.
Battle of the Bens: Some comments. First, we don’t have evidence that Hansen knew about the error. We do have evidence he didn’t allow others to see his algorithm which no doubt extended the life of the error. He should have been open.
Ben K., says the argument about grants is bullshit and only the science matters. Yes, and no. Economic incentives can matter depending on how the system works. I am not sure it changes the actual conclusions but it might encourage one to emphasize some points over others instead. If there is funding for a “problem” then emphasize the potential problems. All the report may reflect the views of the author but he may choose to maximize some sections and minimize others. However, I think most people still say what they actually believe. So I assume that Ben K. will also send a nasty letter to Newsweek for smearing scientists who reject the “consensus” as being paid pawns of big oil. That argument seems to be the main one issued against the skeptics.
Ignatius: You are right about those two years but there were ten years in the batch and some had a much more dramatic change than that. I didn’t publish the change of each year but since you want to imply they were just little difference by cherry picking two years where the difference was just .01 degree I will need to point out others. 2006 had a change 10 times the one you mention: .10 not .01. And 2001 dropped off the list because the change was .26 not .01. Most of the differences changed the rankings but there were some substantial errors in some years. Not all years had the same error rate. Now if I had only mentioned 2001 and 2006, which had the two biggest error rates it would have distorted the picture. But by not mentioning them in your reply it is also a distortion. I don’t know how it changed the numbers for the years that were not on the top ten list.
I do so like the way that Ben K wants to shut up anyone who disagrees with him. How like "the pros" who rake in the grant money for their orthodox pronouncements. Shut up, heretics!
So sorry, little Ben. The heretics are the only ones who are actually thinking out of the box here. Lock-step consensual science is not science at all. Whatever do they teach in these schools?
Benjamin: Ben gets heated about heat -- he always does. But I'm not sure your characterization is really that accurate. We disagree, he knows that, but I think he's a good guy. I think he's sincere even if we do disagree.
"So I assume that Ben K. will also send a nasty letter to Newsweek for smearing scientists who reject the “consensus” as being paid pawns of big oil. That argument seems to be the main one issued against the skeptics."
I think it goes beyond both science and money in some cases. One thing the blogosphere illustrates pretty clearly is that it is ideologically driven by both sides. On the right it's viewed as an attack on economic freedoms, and on the left it's viewed as another pitfall of unchecked expansionism.
The thing is, although I'm quite obviously not libertarian, I always thought it odd that libertarians generally have the same view of this issue as you. One of the concepts I like about libertarianism is the view that the protection of the environment is best served through protecting property rights. Well, if industry is damaging the climate indiscriminately I don't see how any libertarian could support it, it's clearly a breach of property rights. Emission trading would be the obvious market solution I guess.
As for this specific issue, it's minor. It does nothing to tip the scale of evidence away from the consensus of the wider scientific community.
Ben Kamin: If you actually have an objection to AGW that can pass scientific muster--most, on further research, get resolved as "gee, those scientists thought of that, after all..."--my advice is to write it up and submit it to a mainstream geophysics or atmospheric science journal, and join the ongoing scientific conversation.
CLS: Thanks for the good word. And, now that you mention it, a letter to Newsweek will be put out today (from my dept. of physics account, which always seems to work a little better...). I think they crossed a fine line in their portrayal of the pseudo-scientific noise machine. People like Fred Singer (not mentioned in their article) get funded by outfits like the Independent institute because they are, for whatever reason, contrarians; it's sloppy to say they're contrarians because they get paid.
David S: you open a big can of worms. Yes libertarians take the position you describe on the environment. But there is also the requirement of proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. Second, it is not “industry” but everyone. If everyone is engaged in actions which make everyone “worse off” then does it become necessary to punish everyone? I don’t think that is immediately apparent.
Finally there is the question about solutions? Assuming all the premises are correct we start out with a problem that will impose X amount of harm. But the solutions also impose some amount of harm. And how much would the solutions mitigate the harm done? Would the solutions, in the end, impose more harm than they would mitigate? Those are valid questions that, for a the most part, are not discussed by the warming activists.
Ben: I’m glad you will use your student acccount to chastise Newsweek. That alone may get you branded a skeptic. And plenty of people I can think of, who are skeptics don’t get funding. And by skeptic remember it is the anthropogenic aspect that is the main issue. Finally some of the so called skeptics actually accept that, they just question the solutions offered. The “skeptic” brush is a very broad one covering many different positions which the anti-skeptics do a poor job of explaining.
CLS:
I wouldn't call mainstream climatologists or even folks like myself who try to keep up with the literature non-skeptics, let alone anti-skeptics.
I'm a little baffled by the assertion that the climatologists aren't doing a good job of explaining themselves. It seems to me that folks simply don't want to look for an explanation, certainly not in the pages of a scientific journal, and very often not even at any of the blogs maintained by patient climatologists. There's a tendency to simply repeat, without noticeable skepticism, whatever new objection (or old one) that came to mind. The would-be skeptics need to take a deep breath when something like the other day's bug comes to light, and either wait for an analysis to come from the pros or to do at least a back-of-the-envelope assessment themselves.
I'd be fed up if journalists and pundits invented an opposing side when covering my research, fortunately, whatever controversies exist regarding the ribosome or DNA-protein interaction will never become popular. The journalistic false balance coupled with the insistent putting up of non-quantitatively-vetted flim-flam against science is a discourtesy to those who've made this their lives' work.
I'd like to (and on occasion, when exasperated, I do) tell the would-be skeptics to write up their objection as a "letter" (short article) to one of the mainstream atmospheric science or geophysics journals and thus enter the scientific discussion. That's expecting a little much, but the least that can be expected is for them to take a deep breath and approach the subject in a measured, truly skeptical fashion.
"But there is also the requirement of proof beyond a shadow of a doubt."
This is science, not religion. The weight of evidence does not support your skepticism. It will never be, "beyond a shadow of a doubt". What you ask for us completely unreasonable.
"Those are valid questions that, for a the most part, are not discussed by the warming activists."
What an absurd thing to say, of course they're discussed, it's just gotten to the point where doing anything is preferable to the display of apathy currently being exhibited by the population at large. Do you think the idea of emission trading just sprang out of thin air? In my opinion, it's just the next logical stage in the development of currency. The market will adjust to the new value of carbon sinks and the cost of industry.
Ben: I am baffled at what mainstream media is guilty of presenting any sort of balance (false if you prefer to call it that) on this issue? None I know do that. At best you might get a 50 to one ratio. I can’t remember off the top of my head, but in the years I’ve been following this debate I have frequently read complaints from skeptics of various degreeds saying that their letters won’t get published. Even in cases where they are misquoted they have trouble getting a correction printed. I haven’t kept those any place where I could easily find them however. But it is a major complaint by the many skeptics. The debate is shut. So don’t blame them for not trying. It is your side that has publicly said they must be ignored and not debated.
David S. I actually don’t know why you think “beyond a shadow of a doubt “ is somehow connected to religion. It’s actually a legal principle not a religious one. If you accuse someone of a crime you must present firm evidence that proves, beyond a shadow of a a doubt, that they are guilty. It has nothing to do with religion and, in my opinion, is the opposite. It requires evidence not faith.
Actually the term is "reasonable doubt". With our subjective viewpoints there are no absolutes, which is what I thought, "beyond a shadow of a doubt" implied. Absolutes are what religion tries to apply to reality.
This issue makes fair comparison to the usual sort of nonsense argument skeptics usually make. There is no debate here, no point made, no opinion worth noting. About the only argument that is almost newsworthy is the fact that the IPCC uses computer modeling to make predictions. The alternative to that however is... guess... or hope for the best.
The debate gets shut down because it has no substance, and only succeeds in confusing the public at large into believing there is one. It actually reminds me of that I.D. vs Evolution "debate" that's been going around. "Teach the controversy" is what I.D. advocates say, only there is no controversy, there are people who know and, "yapping terriers of ignorance" as Richard Dawkins so eloquently says in the documentary, "War on Science".
I realise all this is terribly insulting. The thing is, I really do like this blog. It's changed my outlook on quite a few things. My views on gun control have certainly mellowed some-what. Which is why I'm so disappointed every time you jump on the latest skeptic bandwagon.
This is a dead post now probably, but I just read this:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/
...rted_that_n.php
and was curious if someone would comment.
David S: I find the argument present dangerous. If there is just subjective viewpoints then anyone arrested can be convicted without actual evidence -- it is subjective after all. David, I didn’t jump on the bandwagon, I was there before the band and before the wagon. And I can’t separate this from one fake hysteria after another. In some cases, where there were real problems, they were intentionally exaggerated by special interest groups. As long as they can panic people enough they will get blind acceptance for any measure they push through.
This process happens in case after case. In the end, I might be wrong, I don’t think so. You do. But without the lunatics like me shouting “stop, think about it” the ability of bad politicians (I repeate myself) to stampede the herd will go unfettered. So, ridicule away if you want. I want you to stop and think about it. Nothing more.
David S brings up an important distinction. There is a push to shut down the false debate, of bogus and often mal fide pseudoarguments ("Mars is warming!") vs science.
The real debate is largely on disagreement at the margins, not categorical disagreement pro or contra AGW, and it's far more interesting than rebutting the latest projector of personal incredulity who happens to write for a newspaper or produce documentaries. There is a slim chance that the real debate will once again be over the categorical issue depending on what scientific advances are made. Currently there is no scientific basis for the categorical debate.
In light of the absence of scientific debate over the categorical issue, the media presenting the matter as though the categorical issue is in question is false balance.
It's as though PBS, instead of presenting a special every now and then attempting (ham-handedly) to explain quantum mechanics to everyone, instead did "quantum mechanics, for and against!" and allowed the people who objected to QM for ideological reasons equal time.
Commenting by HaloScan
