Forecasting

One of the defenses often used by climate modelers against charges that climate is simple to complex to model accurately is that “they do it all the time in finance and economics.”  This comes today from Megan McArdle on economic forecasting:

I find this pretty underwhelming, since private forecasters also unanimously think they can make forecasts, a belief which turns out to be not very well supported.  More than one analysis of these sorts of forecasts has found them not much better than random chance, and especially prone to miss major structural changes in the economy.   Just because toggling a given variable in their model means that you produce a given outcome, does not mean you can assume that these results will be replicated in the real world.  The poor history of forecasting definitionally means that these models are missing a lot of information, and poorly understood feedback effects.

Sounds familiar, huh?  I echoed these sentiments in a comparison of economic and climate forecasting here.

456 thoughts on “Forecasting”

  1. Actually Russ,

    Reading back through your posts, I have misinterpreted what you have said. I got the impression that you were writing off the dendroclim. field. But if you are merely saying that it raises some impeding obstacles then that’s fine. Sorry, my bad.

  2. “As that paper implied, the divergence problem is not throughout the entire sample, but some significant NH stuff. Before you were saying ‘This divergence calls the accuracy of the entire dendroclimatology record into question. The paper doesn’t support all that you were saying.”

    You know I am not an expert on the divergence issues. It is my understanding, however, that the “hide the decline” graph shows the composite of all the proxies over time, not just the “NH stuff.” So if the the divergence issue is limited to the “NH stuff”, their impact is nevertheless sufficient to cause the composite graph to diverge significantly from the current temperatures. Hence, the need to “hide the decline” (i.e. divergence)

    If the divergence issue is limited to just the NH, or to a small portion of the tree ring proxies, then why not eliminate those proxies which have the divergence problem? I suspect that this solution has not been pursued because there would not be many tree ring proxies left. I might be wrong on that. Maybe you could do some research on that Waldo.

    I am aware of one proxy study by Craig Loehle (?)that eliminates tree-ring proxies entirely and relies on other types of proxies. The “problem” with his study is that it does not create a “hockey stick”. It shows a pronounced Medieval Warming Period.

  3. Shills,

    No, I’m not writing-off dendro, nor am I writing-off climate modeling in general. I still view them as extremely valuable tools for analyzing climate beyond the limits of observations (i.e. distant past, near future, hypothetical scenarios, etc.).

    What I expect from good scientists is an honest acknowledgement of the inherent limitations of the tools they are using. (i.e. “convenient fictions which try to provide something useful” and not empirical evidence).

    In the case of dendro, the existence of a significant divergence of unknown cause raises doubts about the accuracy of the earlier proxy data. If, however, the cause could be reliably identified, and shown as being unique to the 20th century (e.g. fallout from nuclear tests, CFC concentrations, jet engine exhaust in the stratosphere, etc.), I would have much greater confidence in the earlier dendro record as a reliable proxy.

    Furthermore, because tree growth is a function of more factors than just temperature, most importantly water, sunlight, soil nutrients, CO2, and hungry animals (and possibly others I haven’t considered, not being a botanist) I have some doubts that tree-ring data can serve as a reliable proxy for temperature UNLESS actions are taken to control for the influence of these other growth factors.

    Right now, dendroclimatologists partially address this issue by focusing their research on trees where temperature is more likely to be the limiting factor, specifically northern conifers, growing at or near their range limits. But this is exactly why the “‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests” impacts a significant amount of the dendro proxy data.

    Anyway, I strongly believe the scientists have worked diligently toward getting the absolute best answers they can, given the limitations they face. I personally hope they are able to identify a cause for the divergence problem, and better resolve some of the present ambiguity it creates. But this requires being open and transparent about the problem, its possible causes, and its implications. “Hiding the decline” doesn’t help in any way, and severely damages their credibility.

  4. Waldo,

    I’ve noticed that you skipped over the quotes by Keith Briffa and Edward Cook and moved on to those by Schneider and Trenberth. Should I assume this to mean you don’t believe those two were taken out of context?

    Re: Schneider quote

    See my earlier reply to Shills here:
    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/08/forecasting.html/comment-page-8#comment-12932

    Re: Trenberth quote

    I also replied to Shills on this one (and commented on my admiration of Trenberth’s honesty):
    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/08/forecasting.html/comment-page-8#comment-12931

    “Did you look up anything, Russ? Where did you get your 22 quotes?”

    Yes, I have looked up many of the quotes to see if they were inappropriately taken out of context, and have gone on to read a fair amount of commentary defending the scientists (some of which I consider very reasonable.) That said, many of the defenses being offered are insufficient to restore my trust (the “hide the decline” example is a good one… I know it doesn’t mean anything like some folks would like to pretend it does. But even taken in the correct context, it still concerns me greatly.)

    Most of the 22 quotes came directly from the leaked CRU emails. The others are from a variety of internet sources. There are many more quotes out there that I have disregarded because I don’t consider them credible or relevant (e.g. I left Hansen’s many sensational quotes off the list entirely, since they generally relate to policy and not science).

  5. Waldo: Re “debunking”. Perhaps you can answer the question: How do you collect 90 billion eggshells per year? And, how is the calcium carbonate in eggsshells different from limestone?

    Also, in the case of the researchers at Los Alamos: Where does the lime used for CO2 removal in their million absorbers come from, and where does the CO2 from lime manufacture go? How much CO2 is generated servicing the million absorbers vs, the CO2 absorbed?

    Finally, the corn ethanol business can, as stated before, most certainly be “debunked” by any third year ch. e. student. Surely, no one now believes corn ethanol is a good idea on a large scale.

    If you have some rational explanations, I would be delighted to hear them. Merely stating that these are qualified scientists and therefore what they say must be right begs the issue, and is a good place to hide rather than offer a counter argument. Anyone with a sound argument would be glad to explain it rather that attacking everyone.

  6. The Trenberth quote and, more importantly, his article, raise issues with implications that are subject to greater controversy than Trenberth lets on. For an interesting discussion, between Trenberth, Pielke, Sr., Josh Willis and Roy Spencer regarding the issues, see http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/comments-on-nature-commentary-by-kevin-trenberth/
    I, by the way, like the way Dr. Pielke, Sr., when discussing Trenberth’s paper, invites Trenberth’s responses and posts them prominently on his blog. It would be nice if other climate scientists with blogs would provide the same courtesy.

  7. Pauld: Amen, brother!! Civil, professional, and factual discussion of AGW and related issues would be a blessing indeed!!

  8. Actually Russ, the CRU emails, the Cook one in particular, were the main subject of one of the first discussions I ever had on this board.

    Plus, as I believe Shills pointed out, the emails are old news and have been officially cleared — you even posted one (“hide the decline”) you know is widely misrepresented, even on this very thread. But you posted it anyway. Along with several over 20 years old. Including one divorced from its lengthy philosophical essay. Including one no more substantial than a letter to the editor.

    But fine, let’s at least look at Cook’s email in total:

    “Hi Keith,
    “Okay, today. Promise! Now something to ask from you. Actually somewhat important too. I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main whipping boy. I have a file that you gave me in 1993 that comes from your 1992 paper.Below is part of that file. Is this the right one? Also, is it possible to resurrect the column headings? I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their claims. If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense. So they do lots of monte carlo stuff that shows the superiority of their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but NEVER actually show how their method would change the Tornetrask reconstruction from what you produced. Your assistance here is greatly appreciated. Otherwise, I will let Tornetrask sink into the melting permafrost of northern Sweden (just kidding of course).
    “Cheers,
    “Ed”

    So what Cook is saying is that a paper has arrived, in his opinion unfairly targeting Briffa’s reconstruction, using some difficult math, but which does not prove its main point that Briffa’s reconstruction is incorrect. Context, context, context.

    I do not know if Cook’s evaluation was correct – in fact, I believe the paper in question was actually published – but there is nothing underhanded here which your earlier excerpt implies there was. This is just a scientist talking informally with another scientist asking for help with a paper he believes is poorly constructed.

    Why didn’t you post the complete text of the email, Russ?

  9. ****”Civil, professional, and factual discussion of AGW and related issues would be a blessing indeed!!”

    That is not what goes on here, Ted. This is the denosphere.

    The denialists are here simply to poke holes in climate science, find conspiracies, and excoriate scientists. Usually these discussions are based on deliberately limited internet information, such as Russ’ pile of nothing quotes or his Excel generated stats.

    As for your eggshell questions, why are you asking me? Why not ask the OSU professors? You clearly know something they do not; let them know!

  10. Waldo: I am asking you because you jumped all over my question re the eggshell thing, which suggested that you knew something that I did not. As to the OSU professor, I have no desire to embarass him or any other academic who is taking advantage of the DOE handouts. If they’re comfortable with what they are doing, that’s their business.

    As to the “denialists” on this blog, they are a welcome respite from the “Mother Earth is Crying” people who demonize anyone who wants to debate the WGA thing. I for one believe in a free and civil discussion of such questions, and do not believe anyone who disagrees with me is an evil person who wants to destroy the world, as do the Goristas.

    By the way, if the AGW thing is “settled science”, why do Gore and his followers refuse to debate the issue? If I thought I was absolutely right, I would be dying to debate my critics. A group of Canadian scientists asked the PM for a thorough debate of the issue before Canada commited to Kyoto. Nothing of the sort has happened, as far as I know.

    As far as being a denier, I have no strong position on AGW, other than a disinclination to screw up the world economy, as I have discussed previously.

  11. ****”As to the OSU professor, I have no desire to embarass him or any other academic who is taking advantage of the DOE handouts.”

    So why publish your criticisms at all? Your comments on this board are certainly disdainful. It was not very hard to figure out who you are talking about. If you truly do not wish to embarrass your alma mater, why say anything at all? And isn’t the issue that they are using public monies?

    I’m sorry, Ted, if I come off as aggressive or rude, but I believe you are now hedging and rationalizing. I highly suspect you know darn well that, despite your expertise in chemical engineering, the good professors actually know more. I also suspect that, in the United States with our organizational and transportation infrastructures, if we really wanted 90B eggshells, we could get 90B eggshells. Probably the least of their problems.

    And who cares what Gore says? I might suggest that a “debate” as such would go nowhere because so much denialist information is disingenuous or outright misinformation.

    Plus, as someone (who perhaps I’ll look up) smarter than I am pointed out, science is a matter of evidence and fact; it is not a matter for public debate. It is pretty clear that no one here (myself included) has the depth of knowledge to adequately judge the evidence; and Climate Skeptic is pretty typical. We are all amateurs and don’t really know enough to have an informed opinion — a reality that some really dislike and even find offensive. And, of course, a live public “debate” would not make a bit of difference in how people think. The good peeps here have their minds already made up and nothing will change them.

    I have often wondered how this “debate” would have shaped up if Reagan had declared global warming a communist plot or George W had radified the Kyoto Treaty. So much of this is politics.

  12. Waldo,

    1. “the emails are old news and have been officially cleared.” Do you honestly believe that the “official inquiries” were conducted in a thorough, unbiased, and transparent manner? Read this and get back to me: http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf (and try to respond without resorting to ad-hominems).

    2. you even posted one (“hide the decline”) you know is widely misrepresented, even on this very thread. But you posted it anyway. I’ve explained twice already that I included it because I consider it highly deceptive to conceal evidence of the “divergence problem” when showing proxy data reconstructions, especially for an audience of policymakers. (You’ve slagged me for overlooking something as trivial as the date that one of the scientists I quoted received her PhD, but you seem to have no problem with scientists willfully covering up evidence of something as significant as, well… y’know… a third of their proxy data not matching observations for reasons they can’t begin to explain. Waldo, only one of us is being objective here… I don’t think it’s hard to see which one.)

    3. Along with several over 20 years old. Several? You showed one (Chris Folland quote), which I acknowledged could now be considered outdated. But several? Really? Can you point out which ones? And if you can’t, will you call yourself a liar and spare us having to do it?

    4. Including one divorced from its lengthy philosophical essay. Including one no more substantial than a letter to the editor. I’ve already responded to you on both of these above, and neither quote was inappropriately taken out of context. You’re becoming repetitive Waldo. Some might call it grasping at straws.

    5. “So what Cook is saying is that a paper has arrived, in his opinion unfairly targeting Briffa’s reconstruction, using some difficult math, but which does not prove its main point that Briffa’s reconstruction is incorrect.”

    What I read is Cook acknowledging that the paper’s “math appears to be correct”, and he is enlisting help to find some other reason to dismiss it because he’s afraid of the damage it could do to the field of dendroclimatology.

    I have no problem with a reviewer picking apart a paper and looking for flaws… that’s exactly what they’re supposed to do. My issue, and the reason I included this quote, has to do with his motivation: “If published as is, this paper could really do some damage.” He’s looking for a reason to squash this paper, not on its merits, but due to its potential implications. That, my friend, is a hallmark of bad science.

    His only valid complaint is that while the paper shows problems with the earlier methods, it doesn’t demonstrate that the proposed approach is any better. But if that’s the only objection he has, then he should simply send the paper back demanding just such a demonstration.

    6. “Why didn’t you post the complete text of the email, Russ?” Brevity. Emphasis. And because it didn’t change the context one bit.

    7. “Russ’ pile of nothing quotes or his Excel generated stats.” Which you’re welcome to invalidate at any time.

    As far as quotes go, you (and Shills) are now 1-for-7. I conceded on the quote from Folland, but you’ve failed to show that the quotes from Kopacz, Frame, Cook, Schneider, Trenberth and Jones (“Hide the decline”) were taken inappropriately out of context. Even in the most charitable context possible, they still cast doubts on the trustworthiness of climate scientists and their models.

    Only 16 more to go.

  13. Russ says, ‘“Hiding the decline” doesn’t help in any way, and severely damages their credibility.’

    Sure, have your opinion. But a number of scientists who were making this WMO statement (that’s what the email was about) didn’t think it was worth including. And secondly, no one else in or outside of the field (including those indi. investigations) seemed to have issue with it…

    Why does your opinion differ from most others?

  14. Waldo,

    “I have often wondered how this “debate” would have shaped up if Reagan had declared global warming a communist plot or George W had radified the Kyoto Treaty. So much of this is politics.”

    It appears you need a history lesson.

    George W. Bush didn’t take office until 2001. You should know that the Kyoto Accord was negotiated and signed in 1997 during the Clinton/Gore administration. You can blame them for the US not ratifying it.

    Or, more correctly, you should blame the US Senate, who in 1997 voted 95-0 against ratifying the Kyoto Treaty if it would exempt developing nations or result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.
    Text: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c105:3:./temp/~c105xT4ymt::

    Supporting votes included Senators Biden, Boxer, Byrd, Daschle, Dodd, Kennedy, Kerry, and Lieberman… all of whom happen to be prominent Democrats.
    Full results: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00205

    Politics indeed.

  15. Those who oppose a debate of the AGW theories are the same ones who argue that a large majority of scientists believe it is correct. That is an interesting argument. I guess we should determine if water runs downhill by having a vote rather than doing experimental and theoretical studies.

    Interestingly, most of the scientists involved in these “votes” were not climate scientists. If one argues that only climate scientists whould vote, then the AGW people need to throw out the “votes” they are so proud of. Also, why not let the “voters” have a debate rather than a shouting and demonizing match.

    This whole business is so foreign to well established R&D and engineering practises that I am amazed that anybody believes anything that is said, let alone what is “voted” as settled science. Questioning and debating hypotheses is fundamental to scientific investigation.

  16. Hedging, Ted.

    Russ I could not disagree with you more. By my count I am now 7-for-7. Each one of your quotes is changed, sometimes significantly, when its context is examined, and sometimes the entire meaning is changed.

    Not to mention how weird it is you think this is a contest of some kind – still stinging from the RC math thing? (Yeah, I know, you are thrilled when people poke holes in your calculations – invalidation, you know)

    Cook’s email is a perfect example. You are making a pretty big inference about what Cook meant which is not really supported by the email. You are reading into it what you want to read into it. And no, brevity is not a good enough excuse – in fact, it is a very bad excuse. The meaning is much different when the communiqué is examined in total. Be thorough and exact, my friend, that is far more important.

    I apologize for saying “several” quotes over 20 years old – there are two so far. I made note of them in my posts.

    I have not seen any real evidence that the CRU investigation was anything but legitimate. Typical of a denialist, you have cross-posted a website (the Global Warming Policy Institute) that you should be extremely dubious about. How many climate scientists work for the GWPI, Russ? How many publications in “Energy and the Environment” does Dr. Benny Peiser (a “social scientist”) have? I think I will skip your homework for now – I don’t think I trust your source. Perhaps someday, when time allows.

    And certainly you realize that George Bush pulled out of the Kyoto agreement in 2001, saying it would hurt the U.S. economy? This was all I was referring to. It does not matter anyway – I was simply offering a hypothetical. So let me put it this way: “I wonder what would have happened if George W declared global warming a terrorist threat.” Better?

    Well, I’m on a jet plane tomorrow and will be gone for several days. I’ll be thinking of you all.

  17. Waldo says: ‘I apologize for saying “several” quotes over 20 years old – there are two so far.’

    Haha. According to Wally (I’m pretty sure) many moons ago, ‘several’ could mean 2. (Just an aside)

  18. “Sure, have your opinion. But a number of scientists who were making this WMO statement (that’s what the email was about) didn’t think it was worth including. And secondly, no one else in or outside of the field (including those indi. investigations) seemed to have issue with it…

    Why does your opinion differ from most others?”

    In may view, the “hide the decline” trick is such an obvious example of a deliberate attempt to mislead policy makers that I really don’t care what you or “others” think. The notion that “no one else in or outside the field” seemed to have an issue with it is just laughable.
    Shills, show me that you understand what they did, and then make an argument that what they did is acceptable. Your appeal to authorities is tiresome and in this case misplaced.

  19. Waldo,

    I don’t think this is a contest. I just enjoy debating with people who fancy themselves to be more intelligent or better-informed, and proving them wrong with facts. Like this (which you haven’t responded to):

    “Denialists would like to believe that they are being denied the right to examine the evidence while refusing to adequately read up or understand the evidence freely available to them”
    To which I [again] resubmit the now-famous words of Phil Jones:
    – “The two MMs [McIntyre and McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone”
    – “Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise… Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”
    – “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
    QED. Or am I somehow reading these quotes “out of context”?

    There’s no shame in acknowledging when you’re wrong Waldo. We’ll respect you more than if you pretend to always be right, even in the face of contradictory evidence. (Or are you really one of those ‘denialists’ you rant about?)

    “I apologize for saying “several” quotes over 20 years old – there are two so far. I made note of them in my posts.” Apology accepted. And you’re correct, there were two (Schneider and Folland), not one as I miscounted. My apologies for that.

    “By my count I am now 7-for-7. Each one of your quotes is changed, sometimes significantly, when its context is examined, and sometimes the entire meaning is changed.”
    Waldo, if you believe that you are somehow 7-for-7, then you are truly delusional. Here are the 6 where you failed to show the context changed the substance:

    1. Climate scientists feel pressure to exaggerate in order to attract attention and funding. (Kopacz)
    2. The media’s reporting of sound-bites places climate scientists in an ethical bind having to choose between being honest and being effective. (Schneider)
    3. Climate models are not literal truths, but convenient fictions which try to provide something useful. (Frame)
    4. By “hiding the decline” climate scientist concealed the divergence problem from the AR4 SPM, giving the false impression that the dendro proxy record matched recent warming. (Jones)
    5. Climate scientists acknowledge in private that they can’t balance the energy budget or account for the lack of warming, (Trenberth) but stick to the public message that “the science is settled”.
    6. When asked to review a paper in which he felt “the math appears correct”, a climate scientist (Cook) privately enlisted help to find reasons to reject it, stating that “If published as is, this paper could really do some damage.”

    You tried dismissing these on contextual grounds, but they still stand up as reasons to doubt to the trustworthiness of climate scientists and their models. Feel free to dispute any of them on factual grounds (citing evidence to the contrary of course), but I suspect you’ll fail there as well.

    “I have not seen any real evidence that the CRU investigation was anything but legitimate.”
    That’s because you didn’t bother to read the paper I sent you. (What was that word you had for people who willfully ignore contradictory evidence?) And sure enough, you immediately resorted to your old ad-hominem argument to dismiss it without even looking at the substance. When you’re done reading it, get back to me and let me know if you still believe the official inquiries were thorough, unbiased and transparent.

    And lastly, I still haven’t seen a response from you on my statistical results from two weeks ago (September 10, 3:21 pm) showing better than 90% confidence that Hansen’s A & B scenario projections differed from subsequent observations (And 99% confidence that his Scenario C was an accurate prediction). Does your silence mean you accept those numbers as valid?

  20. People who are afraid to debate invariably know they have a very good reason to avoid doing so.
    The AGW community knows in their hearts that if ‘global climate disruption’ is actually debated they will lose.
    That is why today’s so many AGW community meetings are about how to market their belief.
    That fear is what fuels the trolls here daily.

  21. The levelling off of global temp rise over the last dozen years pretty much guarantees that nothing serious (and catastrophic to the economy) will happen in the near future, i.e., no Cap & Trade. In the meantime, years will pass in which additional data will be gathered, either proving or disproving the AGW theories and models. If the global cooling that is predicted by some followers of the sun spot theories turns out to be true, the running for cover of AGW enthusiasts will be fun to watch. Maybe AGW is causing cooling?

    Thus, by accident, we will resolve the argument with minimal damage, except for a few hundred billion spent on kookoo research projects and prototype plants. I will be long gone by then, but it would be interesting to see the reactions of a whole army of people who will have made fools of themselves. Perhaps in the aftermath we will get back to sound science: Hypothesis, testing, verification, discussion, rejection or acceptance by the scientific community. All this done in a professional and civil manner. I can’t wait till this era of science by zealotry, screaming, and personal attacks is history.

  22. Ted Rado: I like you have been around long enough to have lived through many “civilization-ending” disaster predictions made by top experts, none of which have come to pass. The list is long and people argued for their disaster predictions with the same passion as those who believe in CAGW. I’ve become skeptical of such things and certainly need to see more evidence than just “all the experts agree”. With experience, Waldo will eventually learn not to believe everything the experts say.

  23. Paul says: ‘Shills, show me that you understand what they did, and then make an argument that what they did is acceptable.’

    How about you show us your argument for this ‘obvious’ attempt at deception. I do wonder why something so ‘obvious’ was overlooked by everyone else…

    Russ says: ‘By “hiding the decline” climate scientist concealed the divergence problem from the AR4 SPM, giving the false impression that the dendro proxy record matched recent warming. (Jones)’

    Umm. No. the email was regarding a diagram for a WMO statement. Not the IPCC, and considering the date of the email is 1999, it certainly wasn’t for the AR4 synthesis report, as you seem to think. The WMO statements are not scientific papers (it’s a ten page pamphlet) so you wouldn’t expect them to explain every detail. (Do you think the public/ politicians personally have time to look into verifying tree ring proxy data or anything else??) The point of the statements is to give the public the scientist’s best understanding on the information, not to show every little uncertainty or discrepency, as you would expect.

    Russ says: ‘You tried dismissing these on contextual grounds, but they still stand up as reasons to doubt to the trustworthiness of climate scientists and their models. Feel free to dispute any of them on factual grounds (citing evidence to the contrary of course), but I suspect you’ll fail there as well.’

    Russ, how does your interpretation of the quotes stand as more robust than Waldo’s? And Wally has provided evidence that his interpretation is better, the indi. investigations into the matter. What evidence do you have??

  24. Shills,

    “Umm. No. the email was regarding a diagram for a WMO statement. Not the IPCC, and considering the date of the email is 1999, it certainly wasn’t for the AR4 synthesis report, as you seem to think. “

    It looks like I was mistaken and referenced the wrong publication. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

    The logical next question becomes… did the IPCC reports show the divergence between tree-ring proxies and temperature observations, or did they also “hide the decline”? Here’s TAR: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig2-21.gif and here’s AR4: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-6-10.html It looks to me like they truncated the divergent series (which is slightly better than falsifying them by splicing in actual temperatures), but they still “hide the decline”.

    “Russ, how does your interpretation of the quotes stand as more robust than Waldo’s? And Wally has provided evidence that his interpretation is better, the indi. investigations into the matter. What evidence do you have??”

    I’ll let objective readers decide whose interpretation of the quotes is more robust, mine or Waldo’s. He’s provided his evidence, and I’ve given mine.

    As for the independent investigations into the CRU emails, here’s a link to a report that details why the inquiries weren’t very objective at all. http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf Along with Waldo, I invite you to read it and get back to me.

  25. Pauld: I couldn’t agree with you more. People tend to believe everything they see in print, and what comes out of a computer is holy writ.

    I spent the last several years before I retired developing computer simulation programs for chemical plants. These MUST be validated before being used for serious purposes. An engineer wrote a program, the output of which was used to justify spending $27 million to expand plant production by 20%. The changes actually REDUCED production by 10%. The program was later found to be flawed. This happens regularly with unvalidated programs.

    I am generally willing to spend a reasonable amount of money to test an idea rather than spend months arguing, as it is frequently cheaper and quicker. However, in the case of AGW, going ahead with the proposed program will cost tens of trillions and ruin the economy. Hence, we better get it right. Also, if AGW theory is correct, what are the alternatives? Maybe a boom in the far north and far south would result if many people moved there to avoid high temps. The Canadians, Scandanavians, and Siberians would love it.

    As to Waldo, perhaps one day he will discover the pleasure of having a cordial discussion of contraversial issues rather than indulge in putdowns and name calling. I have a friend with whom I meet regularly to discuss current issues. We frequently disagree, but the conversation is lively and informative, and most certainly civil.

  26. “As to Waldo, perhaps one day he will discover the pleasure of having a cordial discussion of contraversial issues rather than indulge in putdowns and name calling.”

    In Waldo’s defense, he has on occasion apologized when necessary, and he generally refrains from using inappropriate language. (Though I still take issue with his calling people “denialists”, without showing what specifically is being denied. Which is tantamount to calling someone a liar or thief without any evidence to support the accusation.)

    I feel that he generally makes an effort to be civil, otherwise, I wouldn’t waste my time with him.

    @Shills… I’ve already responded to your 5:17pm comment from yesterday, but it appears to be stalled in the moderation queue. I think I included one too many links.

  27. ‘it appears to be stalled in the moderation queue’

    Just fragment it. Otherwise there is no telling when it comes up.

  28. Hello Russ et al, please forgive me if I do not immediately respond to everything you post — you are sometimes verbose and I cannot always respond to everything, particularly as there are often multiple posters and often multiple issues. In fact, I am tired tonight and will return tomorrow. I have not actually looked at all your quotes above in depth — we shall see what their histories reveal.

    Just so you know, I do not consider myself smarter or better informed than anyone — but I do claim that the good people on this website, and ones like it, are very specific in the information and opinions they are willing to entertain, usually without properly investigating their information.

    By the way, I neither accept or reject your numbers — Gavin Schmidt was not impressed with your final stats, and I am more willing to believe his evaluation than yours.

  29. “By the way, I neither accept or reject your numbers — Gavin Schmidt was not impressed with your final stats, and I am more willing to believe his evaluation than yours.”

    Here we go again. “I don’t know whether your numbers are right or wrong, but I am going to smear them anyway.” And you have the gall to call *others* deniers?! Disgusting.

  30. Just a sampling of Waldo’s self-contradictions:

    “Just so you know, I do not consider myself smarter or better informed than anyone”
    – “The point, Ted, is do you know what the hell you are talking about? You do not. This is a typical plaint of denialists when their uninformed opinions are challenged.”
    – “No one here knows what they are posting about, Ted, including you.”

    “I do claim that the good people on this website, and ones like it, are very specific in the information and opinions they are willing to entertain, usually without properly investigating their information.”
    – “Ah yes, Climate Audit and a Pielke. A couple of unbiased, trustworthy sources for sure.”
    – ” I think I will skip your homework [reading Montford’s “The Climategate Inquiries”] for now – I don’t think I trust your source.”
    – “By the way, I neither accept or reject your numbers — Gavin Schmidt was not impressed with your final stats, and I am more willing to believe his evaluation than yours.”

    “To suggest that a poster is not objective is generally tantamount to firing the proverbial flame-thrower and igniting a flame war…
    – “At one point in time didn’t you get very agitated when I suggested you were not particularly objective. Do you still feel you are an objective observer of the climate science phenomenon?”

    I trust I haven’t taken any of these quotes out of context.

  31. Waldo,

    “By the way, I neither accept or reject your numbers — Gavin Schmidt was not impressed with your final stats, and I am more willing to believe his evaluation than yours.”

    So you’re telling me that Gavin Schmidt himself reviewed and evaluated my statistics? Or did he just look at the results and opine that accuracy isn’t a relevant measure (since “…forecasts are always ‘different’ from the actuality for all sorts of reasons…”), and we should instead assess the “skill” of the prediction?

    Unfortunately for you, we aren’t debating whether the predictions were “skillful” (vs. an arbitrary baseline). The question at hand is the models’ accuracy (vs. observed reality).

    So, since you’re the one who asserted “The models are accurate”, I suppose I should ask you… in your mind, what would constitute sufficient evidence that model predictions are NOT accurate?

  32. Russ, first off I fail to see how I’ve contradicted myself in any way in the above quotes. In fact, they all have a fairly consistent viewpoint.

    You really are taking this personally, aren’t you?

    Well, that’s neither here nor there. I believe we are simply rehashing what we have already posted, but just so we are clear–

    1. Climate scientists feel pressure to exaggerate in order to attract attention and funding. (Kopacz)

    What you present is a letter to the editor, that’s it. No evidence or proof of its claims, no vetting, only an opinion. So fine, this young scientist believes she is under pressure to produce. I feel bad for her, but there is no real indication that this is a problem for anyone but her. If this is 1/22nd of the best evidence you have, it is fairly weak.

    2. The media’s reporting of sound-bites places climate scientists in an ethical bind having to choose between being honest and being effective. (Schneider)

    Okay, I could agree with this to an extent.

    But: it is over 20 years old, spoken off-the-cuff, and what Schneider is saying (if one reads closely) is that he and other climate scientists see a very dangerous pattern in the future and must sometimes resort to alarming sound bites to get the public’s attention. Hopefully, Schneider says, scientists can be both honest and media-worthy. That’s a big difference from what you are suggesting.

    3. Climate models are not literal truths, but convenient fictions which try to provide something useful. (Frame)

    Did you read Frame’s essay? I am not really willing to paraphrase the entire thing – again, doing your homework for you – but Frame is talking about the limits of models as tools, the conflict between approaches to using models, their utility, and finally a discussion about how to resolve uncertainty in climate science. What Frame argues above is that models are useful but limited.

    And another thought occurred to me while rereading Frame: what makes you think you can “distrust” climate scientists from this essay anyway – it is a fairly straight forward and honest evaluation of model science, including a good deal that parallels skeptic opinion. There is nothing here that should make you “distrust” a climate scientist except, perhaps, if one takes the quote out of its context and posts it on its own.

    4. By “hiding the decline” climate scientist concealed the divergence problem from the AR4 SPM, giving the false impression that the dendro proxy record matched recent warming. (Jones)

    Yeah, this is wrong, at least according to the climate scientists. You not only misrepresented the email in question, you actually misunderstand it.

    From our friends over at Real Climate:

    “No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.”

    Argue with them.

    5. Climate scientists acknowledge in private that they can’t balance the energy budget or account for the lack of warming, (Trenberth) but stick to the public message that “the science is settled”.

    I assume you read his response above. I suppose you can simply disbelieve him, but that alone does not invalidate what he says. In fact, Russ, your “facts” are all opinion regarding the motivations of the scientists involved. A quote out of context: ““I consider it” – good for you. You have stated your opinions and seem quite convinced of them, but that alone does not prove anything except you have posted an opinion. I’m sorry, my brother, I know you are aching for some kind of victory, but it ain’t here yet.

    6. When asked to review a paper in which he felt “the math appears correct”, a climate scientist (Cook) privately enlisted help to find reasons to reject it, stating that “If published as is, this paper could really do some damage.”

    You left out this stuff “[the paper] suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense. So they do lots of monte carlo stuff that shows the superiority of their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but NEVER actually show how their method would change the Tornetrask reconstruction from what you produced” – which yeah, changes the meaning of the email.

    Now, we made need to agree to disagree here, but we’ve now been around this particular block already. Obviously, you may keep score if you like (although it’s a little weird) but I am not particularly convinced that there is any reason to “mistrust” climate scientists other than your rather emotional response to disingenuous financial analysts which, you might consider, you may be projecting onto climate scientists.

  33. Waldo,

    “first off I fail to see how I’ve contradicted myself in any way in the above quotes. In fact, they all have a fairly consistent viewpoint.”

    That’s true, but if and only if that viewpoint is the one peaking out your sphincter.

  34. Waldo,

    “You really are taking this personally, aren’t you?”

    Not really… I just enjoy pointing out inconsistencies, using facts or people’s own words whenever possible. You should note, I’ve come to your defense when I felt you were being unfairly mischaracterized… something I clearly would not have done if I was “taking this personally”. As I’ve said before… I try hard to be objective.

    Thank you for offering your rebuttals to the 6 quotes listed above. While I don’t agree with your assessments, I’m happy to let objective readers weigh both points of view and score things as they see fit.

    In the meantime, there are still 15 quotes you haven’t addressed. (I’m particularly looking forward to reading your explanation of how Jones’ instructions to delete emails are being misinterpreted or taken out of context.)

    As well, you’ve failed to respond to a number of issues I’ve put to you:

    1. You stated: “the models are accurate”. I did a fair bit of work to statistically test how accurate various predictions proved to be. You responded “I neither accept or reject your numbers”. Some might view that as a rather lazy way to avoid having to deal with results you don’t like. I’ve invited you to tell me what would constitute sufficient evidence that model predictions were not accurate… to which, no response.

    2. You stated: “Denialists would like to believe that they are being denied the right to examine the evidence while refusing to adequately read up or understand the evidence freely available to them”. I offered you 3 quotes from Phil Jones that directly contradict your assertion. You’ve now repeatedly ignored them.

    3. You stated: “I have not seen any real evidence that the CRU investigation was anything but legitimate.”. It’s very common to not see evidence when you choose not to look at it. I offered you a recent report by Andrew Montford (The Climategate Inquiries) which points out a number of issues raising doubts about validity of the official investigations. You responded, “I think I will skip your homework for now – I don’t think I trust your source. Here’s another assessment from a different source that you can also choose to ignore: http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/rmck_climategate.pdf (I expect you’ll claim McKitrick is also a biased source, given his longstanding opposition to a number of the scientists implicated by the CRU emails. I trust you’re capable of reading critically, filtering out any potentially biased opinions and focusing on any verifiable facts presented.)

    I look forward to your responses, either addressing the evidence I’ve offered you, or retracting your assertions.

    And lastly, you wrote: “I am not particularly convinced that there is any reason to “mistrust” climate scientists other than your rather emotional response to disingenuous financial analysts which, you might consider, you may be projecting onto climate scientists.”

    I’ve had a good amount of experience both conducting and evaluating various quantitative and qualitative analyses. I come to know what best practices are, and what poor practices are.

    Good analysts are transparent and objective. They present all the available data, rather than cherry-picking to include only those which support their view. They actively seek out contradictory evidence and opposing views. They show their methods and invite constructive criticism. They call attention to areas of uncertainty, rather than glossing over them.

    Poor analysts only seek out data supporting their point of view, falling prey to confirmation bias. If they stumble across contradictory evidence, they find ways to rationalize, minimize, ignore or conceal it. They restrict others from seeing their data or methods for fear of being challenged. They mistakenly believe that acknowledging uncertainties or weaknesses will compromise their credibility.

    If any of the analysts I’ve worked with pulled some of the ‘tricks’ I’ve seen from certain climate scientists (burying contradictory data, making recommendations while concealing personal doubts, intentionally deleting documents in contravention of a FOI notice) it would result in at least a reprimand, and possibly a dismissal, but most certainly a loss of trust.

  35. Now Russ, as I’ve said before you have presented me with a fair amount of information so you must give me a little time to respond, especially when I am taking the time to research histories, backgrounds, and contexts, and it is easy to miss something since you do tend to write a great deal and often repeat yourself, and I do have other things in life to tend to. I don’t deliberately ignore anything — I may simply have not gotten to it yet.

    And I did post that I’d give your documents a looksee (some 50+ pages) if time permits, but I will not simply take them at face value. What the deniosphere terms “ad hom” I would call making sure the people (who were not part of the CRU investigation) are unbiased, don’t have an agenda, and/or know what they are talking about. You don’t trust climate scientists; I don’t trust denialists.

    And yes, that was very fair minded of you to point out that I am basically civil, as are you.

    As for your numbers above, my brother, I’ll be impressed the minute you pass peer-review – it’s way too easy to post here and then beat your hairy chest. They failed the RC test but perhaps this was a stacked jury, no?

    Now, I am happy to admit that Phil Jones should be embarrassed and regretful (and probably is) by his responses to request for information (the 3 you posted above) – very childish of him and it did not do him any favors in the public eye. One can only hope this is not his professional demeanor all the time. Is there hard evidence he actually destroyed or withheld data? The rational, I believe, is that he had become defensive when he perceived that the two MMs were simply out to find something wrong with his work rather than, as you suggest, doing a legitimate critique. So sure, there is a context to the emails that denialists will frequently ignore – and it is a curious response considering the emotional reactions of many of the posters here. Wally is the perfect example, particularly if you look back through our various conversations. If we were suddenly public figures, how might he sound to the world posting something as juvenile (particularly from someone claiming to be a PhD candidate) as “that viewpoint is the one peaking out your sphincter”? This does not excuse Jones, of course, but his responses could be understandable if very unprofessional.

    Now, even if Jones asked for emails to be deleted and he drug his feet there is still the mass of information on IPCC webpages, Real Climate, etc. etc. that is free and a click away. Why do three emails out of 1,000, an extraordinarily small amount of evidence, counteract the mass of information that is undeniably out there? In other words, how do Jones’ emails, even if they condemning to him personally, “contradict” the “fact” that the IPCC et al make their information freely available? And here I will quote you to you: “Poor analysts only seek out data supporting their point of view, falling prey to confirmation bias.” I might suggest this is exactly what you do by attempting to condemn an entire scientific community through 22 emails across 20 some years of work despite easily obtained evidence to the contrary.

    In fact, Gavin Schmidt posted the following on the denialist mentality, and it is quite eloquent.

  36. Openness and transparency aid replication and are essential to the progress of science. As far as possible, data and code should be available to everyone. Note, however, that replication of results is much more usefully achieved using independent approaches and sources of data rather than checking other people’s arithmetic. Independent explorations of problems are far more fruitful in terms of learning about the details and seeing new ways of looking at things than simply running someone else’s code. Open debate about uncertainties and approaches are essential (and if you ever go to a conference you will see this happening in spades).

    Now that is out of the way, let’s examine what is actually happening in the public sphere. There are undeniably people who fervently do not wish for results of the science to be true. This can be motivated many things – vested interest, inclination, background etc. Regardless of why that exists, it undoubtedly does. However, among the scientific community no-one doubts that humans are causing CO2 (and other GHGs) to rise, no-one is confused about the fact that there is a greenhouse effect and that we are enhancing it, and no-one is in denial of the fact that the temperatures (as predicted) are in fact warming. This information, and the vast amount of ancillary data, theory and modelling that exists has led the science community to warn that continued emissions of GHGs risk changing the climate substantially. Given the first group of people’s inclination to not want this to be true, there have been (and continue to be) determined efforts to undermine the scientific conclusions. One of the most effective tactics is to continually claim that data is being hidden and that the process is not open and transparent. This is successful, not because anything is actually being hidden, but because regardless of what data is available you can always ask for more. Five years ago it was a demand than Mann make his code and data available – it was, and nothing changed. A couple of years ago the demand was for the GISTEMP data and code – that was made available… and nothing changed. The requests then moved to CRU, who because of their agreements with the Met Centers, can’t release everything in the public domain. This fact has been greatly exploited by people who conveniently ignore it when making ever more harassing demands for ‘the data’. Whether they get it or not, nothing will change. The target will simply be moved. Meanwhile, the real need for openness and transparency is set back because the vast majority of demands are very clearly partisan and insincere.
    As for the peer-reviewed literature, bad papers (such as are described in the emails) sometimes make it through the process due to various events. Note that the papers in question are just bad – they come to unjustified conclusions based on faulty reasoning, bad analysis, and (often) a desire to get the ‘right’ result. This is not unique to papers that go counter to the mainstream (there are many bad papers on the other side too), but these are the ones that get picked up by the denial-o-sphere and are loudly touted in Senate hearings as if they undermined a century of work. Improving the functioning of the peer-review system so that this happens less often is a good idea – because it will lessen the chance of bad papers of any stripe wasting everyone’s time. Note that peer-review is simply an (imperfect) filter that allows scientists to focus on work that has passed a least a basic screening (usually). When we have to respond to obviously flawed, but highly publicised, papers it takes us away from doing real research and focussing on issues about which there is genuine (as opposed to manufactured) uncertainty.

    If people want genuine public debate over issues that matter, the way is clear: Stop fuelling fake witchhunts looking for evidence that GW is a hoax, stop continually going back to long debunked talking points, and instead engage with scientists, here and elsewhere, on real questions. You will actually find scientists of all stripes remarkably keen to talk about their research and it’s implications once you get past the ‘when did you stop hiding your data’ type accusations. Not everyone has unlimited patience in dealing with constant attacks on their integrity that comes with being in the public eye on these issues, and so many choose not to be involved in that public debate at all. That is a shame, but it’s not a mystery. – gavin

  37. Waldo,

    Some quick responses:

    Re: Trust “You don’t trust climate scientists; I don’t trust denialists.” Actually, I don’t trust either side. I look at the evidence and decide for myself.

    Re: numbers “They failed the RC test but perhaps this was a stacked jury, no?” I don’t consider it a “stacked jury” at all, because I don’t consider it an “us against them” situation. Data and correct statistical methods are what they are, and as such, I happily took the feedback that some helpful commentators provided, and have made the necessary adjustments. I posted the new results, which you again submitted for ‘peer review’ at RealClimate. To date, I have seen no suggestions that were errors or miscalculations in my figures. So, until I hear of any objections, I’m going to have to conclude the following: With greater than 90% confidence, actual temperatures since 1988 have differed from Hansen’s predictions, implying his model was not accurate. What would you conclude?

    Re: Jones ” Is there hard evidence he actually destroyed or withheld data?” Not that I’m aware of, which is why I’m not calling him a criminal. This isn’t a court of law, however, in the court of public opinion, instructing colleagues to delete correspondence in the face of a FOI proceeding doesn’t inspire trust.

    Re: evidence “Why do three emails out of 1,000, an extraordinarily small amount of evidence, counteract the mass of information that is undeniably out there? In other words, how do Jones’ emails, even if they condemning to him personally, “contradict” the “fact” that the IPCC et al make their information freely available?” It’s still evidence of a climate scientist repeatedly denying data access to those who were looking to critique his findings. (And if the CRU data were available via the IPCC, then there would have been no need to request them from Jones).

    Re: confirmation bias “I might suggest this is exactly what you do by attempting to condemn an entire scientific community through 22 emails across 20 some years of work despite easily obtained evidence to the contrary.” Those 22 quotes are just a sampling of reasons that certain scientists and some of their models cannot be implicitly trusted without scrutiny. I never said the science was wrong. What’s wrong is the abandonment of the principles of science to advance personal and political objectives.

  38. Waldo: Awhile back you said that with our transportation skills, etc., if we wanted to collect 90B eggshells we could, and that would be the least of our worries. If you know how to collect 90B eggshells at less cost than mining a few thousand tons of limestone, God bless you. You should be DOT secretary.

    A friend and I had a good laugh that, as retirees looking for a second career, we could get a job collecting eggshells for the professor.

    Surely you weren’t serious about being able to collect 90B eggshells? Tell me it was a joke.

  39. Ted Rado,

    90 billion eggshells would be simple. You’re just not being imaginative enough. Once we’ve raised public awareness and built the political will, anything is possible!

    According to the USDA, in 2010 Americans annual egg consumption is 254.4 per capita, or 78.9 billion eggs per year. So Americans could collect the required number of eggshells in under 14 months, or even faster if you enlisted some help from Canadians and Mexicans. We just need to demonstrate leadership and other countries will follow.

    Of course, people would need an incentive to deliver their waste eggshells to local community collection centers. We could just pass a law imposing a cash deposit payable on the purchase of eggs, which would be refunded when each spent eggshell is returned. The program would essentially pay for itself!

    And think of all the jobs it would create that can’t be outsourced… this would be a huge boost for the economy!

    Any operating or administrative costs could be funded by a special “egg tax” on commercial food producers. McDonalds makes plenty of money, so they shouldn’t mind parting with a bit of their profits from all those Egg McMuffins. After all, it’s for the planet!

    And yes… that was a joke.

  40. Gavin,

    If that is actually you it is interesting to see you here. It was quite mature of you get in your last two-cents only to shut down discussion in the realclimate thread, BTW. Though to move on to what you want to discuss here:

    “There are undeniably people who fervently do not wish for results of the science to be true. This can be motivated many things – vested interest, inclination, background etc. Regardless of why that exists, it undoubtedly does.”

    It is also equally undoubtable that the same is true for some on the other side of the debate. The CAGW has turned into a money train and people just keep jumping on. This included scientists that want to publish supposed non-fiction books for personal profit. Or politicos and special interests that wish to use global warming as a tool to impose their prefered agenda. If you want to discuss what’s going on in the public arena regarding this debate, you need to see it from both sides. Do not simply cherry-pick those extremes on the side opposed to your view.

    “no-one is in denial of the fact that the temperatures (as predicted) are in fact warming.”

    Its interesting that you bring this up after white washing the statistical evidence presented that warming has been greatly over estimated.

    “One of the most effective tactics is to continually claim that data is being hidden and that the process is not open and transparent. This is successful, not because anything is actually being hidden, but because regardless of what data is available you can always ask for more. Five years ago it was a demand than Mann make his code and data available – it was, and nothing changed. …Whether they get it (more data) or not, nothing will change. The target will simply be moved.”

    This is a curious little diatrabe here. Firstly, who exactly are we speaking of? Or are you just generalizing from your interpritation of the perspective of fringe of a moving group of people? Because a many skeptics have been pleased with the release of more and more data/adjustments/codes/etc. And no, we don’t want this just to check arthmatic. We want it because the output from a black box is meaningless. In order to trust or believe the model results, you first need to understand what the model is and how it was created. A guy like Waldo might not care to do this, but skeptics and scientists in general will.

    Secondly, the fact that the code/data was hidden and needed to be demanded and fought for in the first place causes concern. Honest scientists don’t hide their methods or data, not publicly funded ones anyway.

    “Improving the functioning of the peer-review system so that this happens less often is a good idea – because it will lessen the chance of bad papers of any stripe wasting everyone’s time.”

    You could hardly say something more ironic considering what’s come to light with regarding peer review in climate journals. But peer review is just one level of review. Ultimately its up to the scientific community and society in general to ultimately review the work. Crap will still stink, even if it passes peer review. Its a much larger problem to have good work silenced by the peer review system, or to bias the granting system so stiffle alternative hypotheses and approaches to an issue before they even get off the ground. There is pretty clear evidence for both these things happening in climate science.

    “Stop fuelling fake witchhunts looking for evidence that GW is a hoax, stop continually going back to long debunked talking points, and instead engage with scientists, here and elsewhere, on real questions.”

    Hmm… I remember attempting to do this with you, but was little more than ridiculed and ignored. Unless you thought a little more on our simple little stat analysis done by Russ and what it means?

    “Not everyone has unlimited patience in dealing with constant attacks on their integrity that comes with being in the public eye on these issues, and so many choose not to be involved in that public debate at all. ”

    Gavin, you’ve choosen to run a very high profile blog dedicated to this public debate, yet you heavily moderate opposing views and have shown little ability to respond in a rational and convincing manner. Don’t cry to me about “patience.” If you want to convince me or those like me, you aren’t going to get very far by saying I’m confused and then side stepping my argument, or saying my argument is nonsense, creating a strawmen then running off into the other room and locking the door.

  41. I had a bet with myself that it was you doing that Waldo. I’m not going to bother to find where that came from, so if you like cross post my post as well if you desire.

  42. RussR: Thanks for your note. A sense of humor is a blessing these days.

    You forgot to mention another benefit from collecting 90B eggs: The government could then create an EGG czar. Many new federal jobs; an end to unemployment; an increase in egg consumption with attendent cholesterol. Thus, more work for cardiologists. The benefits are endless!!

  43. Russ, a quick reply in return.

    So Jones did not withhold or destroy data that we know of, and yet on the basis of three private emails he is convicted in the court of public opinion, that notoriously inept, malleable, scandal hungry, media frenzy realm of the easily manipulated. I would think you would disdain this idea, Russ, even as we acknowledge that the court of public opinion is formidable and a dangerous place to be.

    And once again, I cannot see how objectively we can distrust the climate science community based on a handful of emails when organizations such as our old friends the NOAA, NASA, and the IPCC makes so much freely available. Do you distrust the medical community when, say, doctors in Nevada reuse syringes or do you distrust the pharmaceutical community when Eli Lilly downplays the risks of Zyprexa? These are actually far more tangible, alarming, and damning than fairly tame private emails illegally posted on the internet. Do you still see doctors and take prescription drugs, or do you come to your own conclusions about your health?

    And certainly you must realize that CRU data is part of IPCC reports and has been since the beginning. Perhaps, then, the two MMs had reason to be suspicious that Jones was not giving the IPCC correct information? Has Jones been convicted of giving false information to the IPCC or any other body?

    And if you are looking at the “evidence,” why even post decontextualized quotes and disembodied excerpts on CS? How relevant are they really? A letter to the editor, a few leaked emails, a single line of an essay, even an Excel spreadsheet…why even worry about these when you have a mountain of actual evidence to wade through?

  44. Kreo-style…

    Russ: Here are the numbers that show such and such, nobody on RC has shown any errors or miscalculations, what would you make of the analysis, Waldo?
    Waldo: Let’s talk authorities, trust, etc, nobody can discuss science around here.
    Russ: OK, here are 22 quotes as regards trust.
    Waldo: Doh, why argue quotes when you have evidence of CAGW, real data, you know?!

  45. Waldo,

    “Do you distrust the medical community when, say, doctors in Nevada reuse syringes or do you distrust the pharmaceutical community when Eli Lilly downplays the risks of Zyprexa?”
    Yes, and yes. I routinely distrust people, especially when they demonstrate a lack of integrity. Yes, there are lots of great people in the medical and pharma communities (as with the climate science community). It just can’t be taken for granted that all of them are trustworthy.

    “Do you still see doctors and take prescription drugs, or do you come to your own conclusions about your health?
    I see doctors only when the need extends beyond what I can manage or treat by myself. I listen carefully to their advice, and but ultimately make my own decisions. When I do choose to take a pharmaceutical remedy, I’ll weigh its cost, expected effectiveness and side-effects, against the pharma and non-pharma alternatives, including the option of taking nothing and “toughing out” whatever ailment I’m facing. Most often, I find the latter option preferable.

    “And certainly you must realize that CRU data is part of IPCC reports and has been since the beginning.”
    Which “CRU data”? There’s a difference between the “value-added” data that’s made available, and raw station data which CRU has refused to release (first claiming confidentiality issues, and later announcing the raw data were “lost”).

    “Perhaps, then, the two MMs had reason to be suspicious that Jones was not giving the IPCC correct information?”
    Is this suspicious enough for you? One would normally expect that data adjustments should be neutral and unbiased. When it’s clear that adjustments have accumulated to increase reported temperatures by 0.6 deg F over the last century in the USHCN data (which feeds into HADCRUT) one has reason to be suspicious that the rest of the raw data (GHCN and SST) might be similarly adjusted.

    “Has Jones been convicted of giving false information to the IPCC or any other body?”
    I’m not saying he has been spreading false information. He’s been giving them “value-added” data, but without being able to see the raw data or adjustment methodology, there’s no way to know what is “true” or “false”. We’re being expected to simply trust him, and unfortunately, Jones has demonstrated behaviour that any reasonable person would judge quite untrustworthy.

    “And if you are looking at the “evidence,” why even post decontextualized quotes and disembodied excerpts on CS? How relevant are they really? A letter to the editor, a few leaked emails, a single line of an essay, even an Excel spreadsheet…why even worry about these when you have a mountain of actual evidence to wade through?”
    Evidence of what exactly? I’ve now seen plenty of evidence, often in their own words, that certain climate scientists have behaved poorly, so as to damage their credibility. That’s a completely separate issue from scientific evidence.

    I’d like to see scientific evidence supporting the modeling assumption that cloud feedback parameters should be positive and significant, when the IPCC AR4 admits “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates”, and TAR stated “The sign of the cloud cover feedback is still a matter of uncertainty and generally depends on other related cloud properties”.

    Until this issue is resolved, I doubt that scientists will be able to “balance the energy budget” and “account for the lack of warming”. Unfortunately, if climate models were to use a lower parameter for cloud feedback, while it would help to balance the energy budget, it would also reduce total climate sensitivity, and their resulting forecasts wouldn’t be as alarming. (And we can imagine what impact that would have on both media attention and funding.)

  46. Russ, says: ‘I routinely distrust people, especially when they demonstrate a lack of integrity.’

    Don’t we all. So I feel justified in distrusting your interpretation of quotes as evidence. Remember those quotes on ‘ “they do it all the time in finance and economics”’? Well, you gave two examples which were later shown to be wrong, and secondly, you think two little excerpts substantiated the claim of ‘One of the defenses OFTEN used…’. A lack of integrity indeed.

    So I’m gonna have to side against your interpretation of quotes and go with the reports that suggest the emails are not a serious issue.

    Thus, I find no reason to doubt the science and so, as a lay-person, trust the experts rather than the amateurs.

  47. Shills,

    “Well, you gave two examples which were later shown to be wrong…”
    And when the errors were pointed out, what were my responses? “Fair point.” and “I stand corrected.” Now go look up the definition of integrity. I’ll await your apology.

    “you think two little excerpts substantiated the claim of ‘One of the defenses OFTEN used…’.”
    So, in your view, just how many instances are sufficient to establish a theme? Is 22 enough? Obviously not.

    “So I’m gonna have to side against your interpretation of quotes and go with the reports that suggest the emails are not a serious issue. Thus, I find no reason to doubt the science and so, as a lay-person, trust the experts rather than the amateurs.”
    Then should I assume you’ve read the reports I provided which explain why the official investigations should not be taken seriously? Or did you choose to ignore them?

Comments are closed.