A Lot of IPCC Authors Will Be Familiar With This Tactic

Claiming “scientific consensus” and “peer reveiw” for findings that have neither

The seven experts who advised President Obama on how to deal with offshore drilling safety after the Deepwater Horizon explosion are accusing his administration of misrepresenting their views to make it appear that they supported a six-month drilling moratorium — something they actually oppose.

The experts, recommended by the National Academy of Engineering, say Interior Secretary Ken Salazar modified their report last month, after they signed it, to include two paragraphs calling for the moratorium on existing drilling and new permits.

Salazar’s report to Obama said a panel of seven experts “peer reviewed” his recommendations, which included a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells being drilled using floating rigs and an immediate halt to drilling operations.

“None of us actually reviewed the memorandum as it is in the report,” oil expert Ken Arnold told Fox News. “What was in the report at the time it was reviewed was quite a bit different in its impact to what there is now. So we wanted to distance ourselves from that recommendation.”

Salazar apologized to those experts Thursday.

  • Waldfox

    Uh huh.

    And this has to do with global climate change how?

    Is Mr. Meyer’s blog really about politics?

    Wally, are you paying attention? Would you like to debate the “science” in the above post?

    Is the source fair and balanced? Or do we have, yet again, another inflammatory source which generally slants its material?

    Go ahead, folks, rationalize.

  • Can anyone else say “SAR”? For those unfamiliar with what I’m talking about, this is a good place to start:

    http://sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm

  • hunter (the real one)

    The true believers still think they can rationalize there is no social a dynamic underling the CAGW movement all they want, but they will still be wrong.
    Showing how government and science interact to create bad policy and misrepresent science is completely appropriate and completely applicable to the monster that CAGW has become.
    And Waldotroll, you know it, or you would not have had such an ignorant and transparent response.

  • Neo

    I wonder if Ken Salazar is familiar with 18 USC 1001 ?
    He probably broke the law.

  • Wally

    Waldo,

    I’ve said several times Meyer primarily deals with the political message surrounding climate science. On occasion he deals with the actual science, but its usually the political interpretation of the science.

    Now, I’ve been plenty critical of you not being willing to “deal with the science.” For example, where is that paper supporting DAGW I’ve been asking for?

  • Wally

    No kidding Neo,

    How shady is this administration? They try to buy off two candidates running for congress, and you throw this on top?

  • ADiff

    Catastrophic Global Warming (or the term I prefer: Dangerous Anthropomorphic Warming, DAGW) isn’t science. It is politics and psychology, completely without any firm evidence to support it. Sea level change rates aren’t accelerating, wildfires, droughts, malaria &etc aren’t spreading, the icecaps aren’t melting, glacial retreats mostly occurred well before increases in CO2 and isn’t increasing, violent weather isn’t increasing, atmospheric methane isn’t increasing, in conjunction with either Global Warming or with increasing CO2 levels… Climate science increasingly shows none of these ‘biblical plagues’ is happening or fluctuations simply aren’t related to either CO2 or global mean temperatures. DAGW however isn’t science. It’s not based on science. It’s based on fears, fanatasies, and unbridled speculation. DAGW is part Religion, part Politics and part social identity movement….but it’s neither science nor scientific.

  • Ben

    I will have to disagree with you ADiff, DAGW as you call it is not a combination of things, it is put simply a philosophy that all these people have in common.

    It goes back to Malthus, and of course what really started the philosophy running…

    “Population Bomb” is what really set things going. No matter how many times Paul R. Ehrlich is wrong, people still claim he is right.

    Just take the opening from the first additions of the book:

    “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate…”

    Or take his prediction on how India could never sustain 750 million people and how famine will sweep the land if it did reach that high of a population.

    The basic premise is that humans are viruses….they are the cure to paraphrase a qoute from “The Matrix”. It has nothing to do with loving nature, or loving humanity, its all about hating humanity. They believe we are a blight on this planet.

    So combine that with a little intellect, stir in a healthy dose of ego, and you have the perfect modern day environmentalist. The plight of modern man has nothing on them, they could care less if billions are taken to the edge of poverty, starved, brutalized, enslaved. Humanity is bad. However, they will take full advantage of modern society because they “are saving the Earth from man.” They will pollute more then any other people, live a life of frivolous luxury, and look down on anyone who is not as enlightened as they are on life (philosophy).

    To put it even simpler, they have fully become the perfect narcissists. Lying, cheating, stealing, scientific irregularity, nothing is more sacred then saving the Earth or their own position in the movement in so doing.

    So where does this leave CGW or whatever we want to call it this month? Basically just a rag-tag group of narcissists who care about nothing but themselves and a false belief that saving the Earth is needed. This egotistical belief is false and is based primarilly on malthus’s theories which have been reduced to laughing stocks among most people. To these people, nothing they do is more sacred then saving the Earth. Of course, philosophies can become religions and today we see it starting to come true in this regard.

    To put this all into perspective: the Earth survived for billions of years before man, it will survive for billions after us. No matter what we do to it, even the ecosystem wil bounce back from WHATEVER we throw at it. We are not Gods, we are not saviors of the planet, we are one organism among billions on this planet who are all fighting for survival. There is no managing the ecosystem, let alone the climate. That is just what the narcissists with egos too large for their own good believe. Come back when we can manage a national park and keep things the same in them for 100 years. We still have yet to keep things the same in Yellowstone and we have 100 years of experience at it now. 100 years of failure I might add.

  • Doug

    Very well put Ben.

    Agree 100%

  • Jim Turner

    As a Briton, I have taken very little interest in Obama since his election, as he seems focused on domestic policy that is not of any direct concern to me. However my impression of him from this BP crisis is that he is a cynical opportunist and not very good at it. Clearly he has bent over backwards to label BP as a foreign company (the name British Petroleum was de-registered ten years ago – 40% of shares are held in the US, plus has many US employees) so he can whip up support for ‘kicking ass’. He wants to get BP to pay for the clearup and containment, and compensation for fishing and tourism – all of which are agreed by BP, but also compensation for the drilling moratorium imposed by the US government. Now it looks like the moratorium was railroaded through, it makes it look like Obama is more interested in screwing BP for as much money as possible, rather than fixing the problem. Oh well, they do say that in politics there are no problems – just opportunities!
    PS. I must declare an interest – BP is the number 2 biggest shareholding of British pension companies, including mine. The British pension industry has already been very effectively ruined by our own wonderful government, we need no help there, thanks.

  • hunter

    Jim Turner
    You give Obama far too much credit. He has no idea of what to do irt BP’s leak and is flailing out.
    His choice, made so many times. of using inflammatory and prejudicial language in dealing with problems implies a lack of judgment and maturity that severely limits his ability to actually solve problems.
    I would urge British to not take Mr. Obama’s acting out seriously or personally. If you think of his life experiences, he really has no better coping skills than to lash out in anger and divisiveness.
    Most Americans deeply appreciate the British and look forward to the day when our President values that relationship.

  • Wally

    To be far hunter, I’m not sure anyone has a good idea of what to do. Clearly however, this is not all be BP’s fault, nor can they be expected to instantly pay up on all the damages. If BP goes out of business from what ever “kicking ass” actions Obama tries to impose on them, the tax payers get stuck with the bill and millions of people end up losing jobs and savings. The only thing that should be clear is that BP needs to be protected. If they are truly going to pay for all these damages, that may last years, they need to survive as a profitable company. Driving BP out of business and further halting all deepwater drilling and probably cutting back on a significant amount of all off shore oil in general, is probably the worst option. Yet, this is exactly what Obama seems to be on a path to doing. In a situation with myriad of options, yet no clear right answer, but some very clear wrong answers, Obama is stumbling into those wrong answers.

  • ADiff

    As far as the Gulf is concerned, any idea why wells so deep are being drilled when there are profitable deposits in shallower water….which could be produced more safely?

    Why this might be the case?

  • Tony K

    ADiff,

    You pondered:
    “As far as the Gulf is concerned, any idea why wells so deep are being drilled when there are profitable deposits in shallower water….which could be produced more safely?

    Why this might be the case?”

    Answer: The shallower water deposits are generally smaller and deeper underground. They also generally have a lower chance of geologic success. There are a few developing plays for deep natural gas, but the big potential is still in the deep water.

    There may be some shallow water prospects in western Florida for example, but that has been off-limits for years.

  • ADiff

    Tony, You hit the nail on the head by indicating only very rewarding deposits are economic to extract at great depth, whereas smaller and deeper deposits in shallower water are economic to drill. The reason they aren’t exploited while those at greater depth further offshore are, is that the more economically beneficial shallow water deposits are arbitrarily off-limits, primarily due to NIMBY and exaggerated fear of risk. We have, to some extent, these irrational prohibitions on drilling where deposits are most easily, cheaply and safely extracted, while extraction is forced into far riskier wells at greater depths by these restrictions. Now when we increase the restrictions the net result will be to increasingly move drilling to other countries which are not in the position to be as extravagant (and wasteful) as us.

  • hunter

    Our host is vindicated in his conclusion that the IPCC claim of 2500 or ore scientists backing the dire IPCC predictions is false:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/14/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/

    @ the offshore drilling question:
    Before we get to these obviously huge very deep deposits, we are going to have to develop effective means to safely operate at those depths. Between the apparent government complacency and the apparently bad practices of BP, we are not there yet.
    The EPA was mandated by law in 1994 to be prepared for massive spills. They clearly are not. BP was obviously unprepared for a serious spill, since they were using a boilerplate document for filing their safety and risk assessment with the government. Those responsible in the government for approving the safety plan, since they approved it and were giving BP safety awards.
    Why was the EPA unprepared? Perhaps part of the reason is their leadership is too focused on saving the world instead of carrying out the law.

  • Waldo

    Hmmmm…

  • Waldorah

    My man Wally says –

    ****”Meyer primarily deals with the political message surrounding climate science”

    And Mr. Meyer’s followers say –

    ****”combine that with a little intellect, stir in a healthy dose of ego, and you have the perfect modern day environmentalist”
    ****”my impression of [Obama] from this BP crisis is that he is a cynical opportunist”
    ****”You give Obama far too much credit. He has no idea of what to do irt BP’s leak and is flailing out.”
    ****”their leadership [Obama, of course]is too focused on saving the world instead of carrying out the law”

  • Waldoree

    My man Wally says –

    ****”Meyer primarily deals with the political message surrounding climate science”

    And Mr. Meyer’s followers say –

    ****”combine that with a little intellect, stir in a healthy dose of ego, and you have the perfect modern day environmentalist”
    ****”my impression of [Obama] from this BP crisis is that he is a cynical opportunist”
    ****”You give Obama far too much credit. He has no idea of what to do irt BP’s leak and is flailing out.”
    ****”their leadership [Obama, of course]is too focused on saving the world instead of carrying out the law”

    None of that, including the original FOX news excerpt, is even commentary, it’s just political trash-talk. You are rationalizing what goes on here, Wally.

  • Waldoroo

    And we’re back to the you-never-deal-with-the-science are we?
    Interesting that Mr. Meyer is suddenly a cultural commentator but you want me to deal with the science…why are we even worried about “the science” then, Waltser? Couldn’t I also be a cultural commentator on the “political message surrounding climate science”? But fine –

  • Waldoright

    See

    Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE
    study

    Received: 23 October 2006 – Published in Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss.: 5 December 2006
    Revised: 29 March 2007 – Accepted: 15 April 2007 – Published: 7 May 2007
    Abstract. We investigate the issue of “dangerous humanmade
    interference with climate” using simulations with GISS
    modelE driven by measured or estimated forcings for 1880–
    2003 and extended to 2100 for IPCC greenhouse gas scenarios
    as well as the “alternative” scenario of Hansen and Sato
    (2004). Identification of “dangerous” effects is partly subjective,
    but we find evidence that added global warming of
    more than 1C above the level in 2000 has effects that may be
    highly disruptive. The alternative scenario, with peak added
    forcing 1.5 W/m2 in 2100, keeps further global warming
    under 1C if climate sensitivity is 3C or less for doubled
    CO2. The alternative scenario keeps mean regional seasonal
    warming within 2 (standard deviations) of 20th century
    variability, but other scenarios yield regional changes of
    5–10, i.e. mean conditions outside the range of local experience.
    We conclude that a CO2 level exceeding about
    450 ppm is “dangerous”, but reduction of non-CO2 forcings
    can provide modest relief on the CO2 constraint. We discuss
    three specific sub-global topics: Arctic climate change,
    Correspondence to: J. Hansen
    (jhansen@giss.nasa.gov)
    tropical storm intensification, and ice sheet stability. We suggest
    that Arctic climate change has been driven as much by
    pollutants (O3, its precursor CH4, and soot) as by CO2, offering
    hope that dual efforts to reduce pollutants and slow
    CO2 growth could minimize Arctic change. Simulated recent
    ocean warming in the region of Atlantic hurricane formation
    is comparable to observations, suggesting that greenhouse
    gases (GHGs) may have contributed to a trend toward
    greater hurricane intensities. Increasing GHGs cause significant
    warming in our model in submarine regions of ice
    shelves and shallow methane hydrates, raising concern about
    the potential for accelerating sea level rise and future positive
    feedback from methane release. Growth of non-CO2
    forcings has slowed in recent years, but CO2 emissions are
    now surging well above the alternative scenario. Prompt actions
    to slow CO2 emissions and decrease non-CO2 forcings
    are required to achieve the low forcing of the alternative scenario

  • Waldooooooooo
  • Likening CAGW to medicine is ridiculous.

    1) In medicine you can run a “double blind” scientific test which eliminates observational bias. You cannot do that in climate science. It was found that even honest scientists wanted to please the person signing their paychecks. Like the scientist that is motivated to exaggerate CAGW because his source of funding wants him to.

    2) Medical processes complete in weeks or months and a huge database of results vs predictions can be acquired and studied. You cannot do that in climate science where 20 or 30 or 50 years are required for the completion of some cycles. A lifetime will not even allow 1 cycle of some phenomenon. The rate of learning must be far slower.

    3) Climate studies have almost all been done since 1988 [22 years ago] while medicine has been studied for thousands of years.

    4) In medicine we can use lab rats etc to observe the phenomenon while in climate we cannot. We do not have a spare earth to play with and so must resort to models which are far less valid than actual observations.

    5) Observational bias in climate science is a real problem while in medicine it can be almost eliminated.

    6) A climate scientist and his models can be wrong for 30 years and retire without getting caught. He says that so what if his model stinks in 30 years it will probably be “spot on” in 100 [which is nonsense] A medical doctor puts his knowledge to the test with each patient and they sometimes bury his mistakes. A lousy climate scientist can retire honorably after 30 years of being wrong, a doctor cannot.

    Likening the two shows poor thinking skills.

    We are thousands of times more certain about medicine than we are about CAGW.

    Climate science is to medical science as Astrology is to Astronomy. [Think about it.]

  • hunter

    The CAGW movement has as much or less to do with science than eugenics had to do with genetics and evolution.
    Quoting people whose careers are built on promoting the CAGW apoclaypse is not making the apocalypse any more credible.

  • Doc_Navy

    netdr,

    There are even more substantial differences between medicine and CAGW. (and I’ve seen the comparison drawn before)

    1. Diagnostic Medicine does not work on “consensus.” (That’s Psychology’s job.) Either the diagnosis is “blank” or “blank” or the doc say’s “I don’t know.”

    2. If you don’t like what your doctor tells you, you get a second opinion. If you do that in CAGW you are called a “denier.”

    3. In medicine the doctors are EXPECTED to explain **EXACTLY** what is wrong with you, how they have come to that determination, precisely what the proposed treatment plan is and what are the probable (and improbable) outcomes, both bad and good. There is no “go ahead” with ANYTHING until the patient as given “informed consent.”

    4. If physician’s were to use the same sloppy data collecting interpretation, and archiving procedures that Climate Scientists use, well… there’d be riots in the streets.

    Doc

  • Astrology has a lot in common with climate science.

    Astronomy is much more honest and unbiased..

    Medicine is dependent upon accurate and unbiased observations. Double blind studies are essential to it’s success.The rapid accumulation of experimental data which can be duplicated by even a skeptical scientist is it’s hallmark.

    Astrology like climate science is everything to everybody. Whatever happens is predicted just like your horoscope. [That is a major difference]

    A snowy cold winter is caused by global warming. A village in Peru is freezing to death blame global warming. If storms are more violent it’s global warming and if they are milder that is global warming too. There is no malady known to man which there isn’t a peer reviewed study which claims will be made worse by global warming.

    Astronomy is different. Tens of trillions of dollars don’ t ride upon dork matter being dark or in fact matter, so objective science is the rule not the exception.

    Actually dark matter is just a scientific way of saying “we don’t know” and I respect that. It is just a hole in the equations which must be accounted for. Galaxies should fly apart as fast as they rotate but they don’t. Dark matter is a place holder in the equations.

    The honesty of saying “we don’t know” is refreshing after the pompous climate scientists “the debate is over” nonsense.

    An astronomer will say “if “X” happens then I am not correct”. He then goes to the data and tries to prove himself wrong. He does this multiple times until he isn’t wrong.

    Climate scientists waterboard the data until it gives them the answer they want. Like Dr Mann and his hockey team.

  • Very great article. Really..

  • Wally

    Waldo,

    The issue with those GISS model prediction papers is that they don’t match reality going forward. Since you don’t have a modeling background, I don’t expect you to know this, but you can always create a model to fit previous data and give you something you want going forward. The trick is matching back data and having your model stand up to experimental tests or the passage of time in science in which experiments aren’t possible. So, thus far that paper has failed its primary test. Now climatologists would argue that the 5-10 years we’ve had so far to test these predictions is insufficient do to the high variance in year-to-year GMTs. I would say that, while that might be true, errors from model predictions will only get larger over time. So, you have two competing forces. Regardless, not matching recent observed data is not good. Also, even with high year-to-year variances, we’d surely see Hansen touting about how his model is working, even if, as he says, 5-10 years is not an adequate test of the model, and any match or deviation from predictions could just be randomness.

    So, all the predictions in the world are nice and pretty, but you’re going to have to prove to me that your predictions are reliable before I will believe you.

  • WahooWaldo
  • WaldoWahoo

    Now, some time ago Wally you challenged me to point out whenever you use circular logic. How about an argument that essentially runs thus: ‘I know that computer models do not work because computer models do not work.’

    Am I to understand that you did not and will not read the paper above? Are you sure that the predictions are inaccurate? I’d like to point out that every time your young pupil here (me) has tried to “deal with the science” you have a) gotten mad, b)gotten bored, c) declared that the science is corrupt because of peer review, or d)apparently are refusing to read the above paper because it involves modeling. Are YOU dealing with the science, Wally? Do YOU have an open mind when it comes to the issue of AGW? Are attempting to use your scientific training simply as a bully pulpit?

    I have to believe that you really do understand the material, but it is not readily apparent that you do.

    Hmmmmmm…

  • Jim Turner

    Well, as some here questioned if this subject should be discussed here, Obama rides to the rescue and makes a clear connection between the Gulf spill and oil/energy policy (and 9/11??). I think I will stand by my allegation of opportunism, I was genuinely ‘Obama neutral’ before this, but he does seem keen to use the situation for his own purposes. Maybe it’s a trans-Atlantic cultural difference, but his ‘tough guy’ posing just comes across as bluster. I think the worrying thing now is that BP have not tried anything new for a while, suggesting that they are out of ideas; and Obama has not made good his threat to take control away from BP, suggesting that he really doesn’t have any alternatives.
    A naive suggestion – what about explosives? Could a large explosion collapse the borehole?

  • Tony K

    Hi ADiff,

    I recognize the NIMBY issue and agree it’s a part of it.

    But there is a natural tradeoff between long-lived deeper water deposits and shorter lived shallow water ones. Much of the onshore and the shallow shelf are not off-limits. The deeper water makes more economic sense for the larger companies. They are very economic when they work.

    Hunter: I think most oil companies have strong safety cultures. There have been 14,000 wells drilled in deep water around the world with nothing like this ever. Check out the letter the congress sent to BP. It sounds like they were over-budget and took short cuts. What that tells you is that in their culture people are probably punished for being over-budget, to the extent that people will compromise on safety (a bunch of relatively small decisions that led to a chain of events).

    There does need to be some central organization to be able to respond to these types of emergencies. I think there’s a tragedy of the commons/prisoner’s dilemma angle to the fact that there isn’t. Government or an industry organization needs to take that role.

    Tony

  • hunter

    Tony K,
    There have been bad outcomes like this before.
    One in Mexico in the early 1980’s in the bay of Campeche.
    There was apparently a huge one near Saudi Arabia.
    I live in Houston, and BP’s culture was known on the street as more risky for years across different divisions, upstream and downstream.
    Schlumberger pulled their crew off of Deep Water hours before the catastrophe in protest and for crew safety.
    This is apparently one of the larger finds. what is tantalizing is it is one of the first in this tpe of formation. The Earth could have much much more oil than many thought.
    We will have to get it.
    The only way this will go forward in a sustainable fashion is to form an industry coalition that pools resources and sets strong standards for practices and procedures and risk management and mitigation.
    The EPA was mandated by law to be prepared for just this event. They had nothing.
    The MMS, I will bet, has far too few engineers and technically literate people.
    The US govt. response has been pathetic- no approvals of foreign flagged boats and ships that can skim oil. Slow to no approval of coastal defenses. Has Texas- which uses bacterial remediation to deal with oil slicks successfully- been contacted in a serious fashion?
    Instead we have, from the top down, posturing and trash talking and immature inflammatory talk.
    Has a summit of petroleum engineers, geophysical types, etc. been called yet to define the problem and come up with ways to approach this? No. Instead we get appointments of out of work politicians to do a money shake down and look for ass to kick.
    The greatest irony is that Obama promised, in one the most ridiculous speeches ever, that when he was elected the planet would cool, and the oceans would recede and peace would break out.
    Instead we are close to war, the climate is ignoring him and the Gulf of Mexico may not be receding, but it is surely dying. And President Obama does not really seem to be able to connect to the problem.

  • Wally

    Oh Waldo, you link to blog? I thought you only cared for peer reviewed journal articles?

    In the first graph they had a range of ~ +/-1 degree by 2010. Congratulations. Plus this model was created in 2007. You can always make a model fit back data. This is filed under disingenuous BS. Gavin attempts to explain that modelers didn’t regect models based on deviations from HadCRUT3, however, those aren’t the only measurements available. So if modelers created that model based on any number of data (as they would absolutely have to do in the model creation process), that data is likely highly correlated with HadCRUT3.

    Second graph, what happens after 2000? And no, a linear increase is not appropriate. Again, not compelling. Plus, there is no reference to when this model was created. It obviously wasn’t created in 1955. So much of this correlation could be just from fitting a model to past data.

    The third graph, scenario A is awful, scenario B is also bad, but not as bad, and scenario C is ok. Good job again guys, if you throw enough spaghetti against the wall something will stick, at least for a while, as C looks like it may be starting to diverge. Further isn’t scenario C assuming the weakest CO2 effect and also holding CO2 levels constant after 2000? And what are the new models using that predict CAGW? Are they using something like scenario A, B or C? So, if I recall correctly, this graph seems to suggest warmings on the low end of IPCC predictions are the most reasonable.

    And from an analytical stand point, it is not sufficient to stand back and just look at a graph to see if they overlap. There are statistical tools to establish just how well these two lines fit. Even if general trends seem to be met over a 20 year period, if there is too much variability in the data (mean 1 year differences are occasionally large), that can be a sign your model still sucks, even if they seem to meet up reasonably well at the end points. In short, it could be luck that you’ve met at an end point and further divergence is likely coming up soon.

    Anyway, got anything else Waldo? Cuz this doesn’t get off the ground.

  • Wally

    Waldo,

    “some time ago Wally you challenged me to point out whenever you use circular logic. How about an argument that essentially runs thus: ‘I know that computer models do not work because computer models do not work.’”

    Never said anything like that. If I did, how about you take a direct quote instead of putting words in my mouth with your little fake quotations?

    “I’d like to point out that every time your young pupil here (me) has tried to “deal with the science” you have a) gotten mad, b)gotten bored, c) declared that the science is corrupt because of peer review, or d)apparently are refusing to read the above paper because it involves modeling.”

    Ha, more baseless accusations. And what paper are you talking about, the link to real climate? I’ve never brushed off a paper because of corrupt peer review. I suggest that the peer review process may be corrupt based on several pieces of evidence, but I’ve never dismissed something with only that reason. Nor have I refused to read something because of modeling. I’m a modeler. That’s not a problem. What I have done is explained why testing models on back data, that was likely used to create the model in the first place, is not an adequate test of the model. Which is largely what that realclimate “article” above attempts to do, along with not even attempting a true statistical test of the model, but rather by “eyeballing it.”

  • Waldowackie

    ****”Never said anything like that. If I did, how about you take a direct quote instead of putting words in my mouth with your little fake quotations?”

    Well, okay – Remember?

    ****“Still waiting for you to point out where I used an appeal to authority, popularity, red herring, or circular reasoning…”

    “Knowledge Laundering”
    March 15, 2010, 5:45pm
    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/03/this-is-a-good-thing.html

    Maybe I took you too literally, but there you go.

    ****” what paper are you talking about, the link to real climate?”

    Look over your head at June 15, 2010, 5:28 am.

    ****” Cuz this doesn’t get off the ground.”

    Really? Okay, you’ve made the claim here. But the scientists at RC would seem to disagree. Actually, Gavin seems to think the matches are pretty good overall, so your grounding isn’t quite as definitive as you might think. After all, now we are back to the perennial question of who should one believe?

    I suppose you could prove your point by, oh I don’t know, peer reviewing your disagreement? I mean, it’s pretty easy to read through the post once then come here and post a response – but would your critique stand the test out in the scientific community? I know, I know, you are too busy yadda yadda. But that also sounds like an unwillingness to have the experts give you a once over…also sounds like a pretty safe excuse.

    And, by the way, I do distrust blogs as a general rule. I trust Climate Skeptic blog, however. Can you guess why? Should be pretty obvious by this time.

  • WalD’oh!

    D’oh. Sorry. Should be “do not trust blogs as a general rule.”

  • Wally

    Silly Waldo,

    “Well, okay – Remember?

    ****“Still waiting for you to point out where I used an appeal to authority, popularity, red herring, or circular reasoning…””

    I was talking about where I used circular reasoning. That should have been clear by my talking about you putting words in my mouth with the fake quotations, but oh well, I guess not.

    “Look over your head at June 15, 2010, 5:28 am. ”

    And did I ever ignore that paper because of the reasons 1-4 you site above? No. Please reread my post regarding that paper. I’ve read that paper thoroughly before, and skimmed it again when you posted it. So please, don’t make shit up either by putting words in my mouth or declaring I have or have not done something when you have inadequate information to make such a statement (if not information that works against your claims).

    “Actually, Gavin seems to think the matches are pretty good overall, so your grounding isn’t quite as definitive as you might think. After all, now we are back to the perennial question of who should one believe?”

    Waldo, it isn’t a matter of “belief”. Gavin has not adequately made his case. So the null hypothesis still stands. If Gavin want’s to prove those predictions are good, he needs to run statistical tests to quantify that. You can’t just “eye ball” it. If you’re ignorant of just how one sufficiently tests a model, I suppose you should educate yourself. And engineering courses are usually best when it comes to model verification.

    “I trust Climate Skeptic blog, however. Can you guess why?”

    Because they provide you information that confirms your personal bias? As is shown by Gavin’s “analysis” there isn’t good science there either waldo. Or at the very least its no better than some of the stuff Meyer presents.

  • Waldohmmmmm…

    ****”Gavin has not adequately made his case” “As is shown by Gavin’s “analysis” there isn’t good science there”

    Really? Prove it. Peer-review, Wally. You may be convinced, your tribal members may be convinced, but overall it’s pretty weak to make the charge here and nowhere else.

    How about this: tell Gavin and James Hansen that they’re doing bad science. Hansen has an email: James.E.Hansen@nasa.gov. Gavin Schmidt is at: gschmidt-at-giss.nasa.gov.

    Clearly you understand the science better then they do – and since “dealing with the science” is an issue for you on a cultural commentary blog, deal with it. They may not respond, but explain to them what they’re doing wrong and maybe you can help them correct it. Go ahead. Maybe they’ll even respond and you can post it here. (I fully expect you to rationalize why you won’t do this, by the way.)

    And am I to understand that the June 15, 3:42 post with generalities such as “they don’t match reality going forward” / “errors from model predictions will only get larger over time” is your response to the paper you demanded I provide?

    Well Wally, I have been credulous this entire time that you are who and what you say you are…but this blog does have a history of people attempting to pass themselves off as academics, scientists, researchers and the like. If you’ve fooled me thus far, you’re the best yet…

  • Wally

    Waldo,

    “Really? Prove it. Peer-review, Wally.”

    Haha, Waldo, I did. One doesn’t require peer review to prove something. Plus, it quite comicial that you want me to disprove someone’s half-brained blog post in a peer reviewed journal.

    I think we’re done here.

    “And am I to understand that the June 15, 3:42 post with generalities such as “they don’t match reality going forward” / “errors from model predictions will only get larger over time” is your response to the paper you demanded I provide?”

    Yes, at least in part there. Model predictions from models that have not be varified are not sufficient proof of CAGW. You can make a model do anything. Literially waldo. Even if you fit the parameters to previous data. So the model predictions going forward are at best a mental exercise, but without validation model predictions are worthless.

  • Waldohaha

    You just coped out, coped out, and coped out there again, Wally.

    I have made no bones about being an amateur layperson non-scientist. Are you who and what you claim to be, Wally?

  • Wally

    Nice to know that when you’re backed into a corner you scream cop out until you’re blue in the face and resort to ad hominems. Like always waldo, you’ve been entertaining.

  • Waldo Disappointed

    Why don’t you email James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt and explain to them how you’ve “proved” them wrong?

    Would you mind if I sent your critiques above to them? Again, it’s very possible they may not respond, but again they might…

  • Wally

    Waldo,

    Do what ever you like.

    And I don’t have to prove Gavin wrong, I just have to demonstrate how his analysis is lacking and not supportive of his conclusion. Two VERY different things. Though I don’t think you fully understand that, and possibly never will.

  • Pat Moffitt

    He who controls the conclusions and the summary for policy makers controls the science. Everything else is just filler. This is true across the entire environmental spectrum. If we could award trophies for the most shameless distortions my entry would be the 2006 Effects of low pH and high aluminum on Atlantic salmon smolts in Eastern Maine and liming project feasibility analysis by NMFS and the Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission. The scientsts concluded:
    • liming can improve water chemistry almost immediately. “
    liming has 21 years of success in Europe
    •A liming project would have multiple positive impacts on both salmon and other productivity indices
    • The committee believes that an in situ liming experiment would be the most effective tool for assessing the ecological benefits in Eastern Maine rivers.”

    And drum roll – the study conclusion conclusion said:

    “Based on existing data, the SalmonPVA, and our current understanding of how acidification effects salmon survival, acidification does not appear to be having a significant population effect on the DPS rivers. Until new information becomes available, it would be premature to assume that river liming on a large scale would contribute significantly to the recovery of the DPS.”

    The earlier Maine Atlantic salmon recovery study for Maine used a similar variation claiming they had already written the conclusions before the liming work was finished so it wasn’t included in the recommendations.

    These researchers kept forgetting the right answer was dam removal.

  • PeterB in Indianapolis

    I find it highly amusing that this Waldo character has absolutely no understanding whatsoever of science or the scientific method, and yet he thinks that he has somehow made some sort of a point in his posts.

    With the complete lack of understanding of the scientific method shown in Waldo’s posts, one might almost think he is Gavin posting under an assumed name!

    Models are not (and NEVER WILL BE) any kind of scientific reality. At BEST, they are a mathematical approximation of reality. They are only a GOOD approximation of reality if the modeler fully understands all of the variables participating in the system being modeled, and (even more importantly) HOW THOSE VARIABLES ALL INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER UNDER CONSTANTLY VARYING CONDITIONS!

    In “climate science” they don’t even know what all the variables are, and they CERTAINLY do not have a good idea of how all of the variables interact with each other under constantly varying conditions.

    They also have base-level input data that has been screwed around with so much that it is no longer even possible to consider it to be valid raw data to be input into a model in the first place.

    It is POSSIBLE for the following to happen:

    input output
    Bad Data ——-> Bad Model ——-> Reasonable Result

    However, the only way that can happen is by sheer accident. Sheer accident does not equal “good science”.

    Also, appeals to authority (saying that Gavin and Hansen are experts when they are merely “self-proclaimed” experts) and ad-hominem attacks to divert the argument are both prime examples of faulty logic.

    So with our buddy Waldo here, we have someone who doesn’t know much about science to begin with, clearly has NO understanding of the scientific method, and clearly does not understand the difference between logic and faulty logic.

    And yet he seems to find his own arguments somehow convincing, which also makes him delusional. Quite an interesting study. I hope he comes around again!

  • PeterB in Indianapolis

    Some examples of faulty logic: (I am paraphrasing a bit):

    Argument:

    “Gavin says so, and Gavin is an expert, so he must be right.”

    Appeal to Authority

    “You have to prove Gavin wrong!”

    Strawman (It is Gavin’s job to prove that his hypothesis is superior to the Null Hypothesis, it is not our job to prove that the Null Hypothesis is superior.)

    “You haven’t done anything in the peer reviewed journals to refute Gavin!”

    Appeal to Authority and Strawman simultaneously (Gavin and people who have the same beliefs as Gavin control the peer review process).

    “Cop-out! Cop-out! Cop-out!”

    Ad-hominem

    “Gavin looked at the data and says that the agreement with the model output is pretty good!”

    Appeal to Authority and Strawman simultaneously again

    “Clearly you understand the science better than they do…”

    Actually, clearly he DOES, but you are insinuating that he doesn’t when you say it, so this is Ad-Hominem again.

    “Well Wally, I have been credulous this entire time that you are who and what you say you are…but this blog does have a history of people attempting to pass themselves off as academics, scientists, researchers and the like. If you’ve fooled me thus far, you’re the best yet…”

    Attempting to mis-direct by calling into question the qualifications of the person you disagree with (the negative version of Appeal to Authority).

    Anyone care for more examples? This is fun!

  • Waldo not in Indy, thank God

    Well Peter, since you are having fun, and since you apparently how about this – instead of telling me, why don’t you explain to Gavin what he is doing wrong? Or are you, like the rest of the people here, happy to stay safely in the deniosphere? You might be able to prove, after all that rhetoric, that you actually know what you are talking about. And this has been my issue with CS all along – some pretty strong opinions out there and absolutely no indication that the people with these opinions have any notion what they are talking about. Like your post above. Why the hell should I listen to you about climate models? You seem to think you understand them…but do you?

    And Wally did cop-out. He threw down the gauntlet and then copped-out. Believe it or not, I was actually disappointed.