Climate Quotes is keeping up a list of questionable or outright odd citations in the IPCC AR4 and AR3 Many are barely more than press releases from influence groups.
40 thoughts on “Dodgy Citations”
Comments are closed.
Climate Quotes is keeping up a list of questionable or outright odd citations in the IPCC AR4 and AR3 Many are barely more than press releases from influence groups.
Comments are closed.
I’ve a new post titled: “Yes Virginia, the climate bible relies on newspaper clippings”
So far, I’ve discovered three examples – from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and a paper in the Bahamas (the latter article makes no mention of the matter the IPCC uses it to support).
I also have a great soundbite of Dr. Pachauri declaring: “We don’t pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings.”
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/02/yes-virginia-climate-bible-relies-on.html
All the best!
Sir,
I watched your video that had been embedded in another site (“The AnarchAngel”). I teach science here in Hermiston and have long been a skeptic but have not seen as clear a presentation as you’ve presented. I have a student who is preparing a speech for FFA and I was asked to review it. I think she should watch your video and have at least one of your graphs in readiness in case the judges ask her to support her views. I wondered if you could send me the slide of the graph which shows that CO2 follows warming by some 800 years? Or, where could I find it?
Thanks,
Tim
While your request was directed directly towards Meyer, I believe I can help you a bit.
If you keep scrolling down, you can find the PDF and power point version of the movie. Or you can use the your web browser searching capabilities with the word “PDF”. It should immediatly bring you to the blog post where both the PDF and power point versions are.
Tim,
In the right-hand column of this blog see “Past Favorites”, or just go to http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/01/catastrophe-denied-the-science-of-the-skeptics-position.html .
Donna,
Dr. Pachauri may declare “We don’t pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings.” But it seems pretty clear they do “come up with findings” and then just hunt for any old thing,, no matter how unsubstantiated, circumstantial, anecdotal, “dodgy” or simply shoddy, that can be used as even remotely plausible support for them. In the IPCC’s case, it’s clearly a matter of trying by any means available to support the preconceived.
Yeeeahhh, there’s nothing dodgy about these citations, folks. They’re master’s theses, a doctoral dissertation, reports from WWF, the CRU, and some stuff from Greenpeace. You all may not like WWF, CRU, or Greenpeace, but that alone is not proof of anything…despite how objective and rational CS is. There’s one magazine article but there is no mention of how it is used.
Occasionally I read about “desperate” climate “alarmists” are…but this is pure desperation.
And oh Mr. McCreary from Hermiston (right in my old neck of the woods!) I sure hope you are smart enough as an educator to guide your students to more legitimate sources than Mr. Meyer. It is frightening what is happening to our public schools…
OT: Thought you might enjoy this – http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0204/1224263734237.html – according to this article, the BBC, the Irish state broadcasters, and other media are too impartial on climate science, and need to give less space to skeptics. The reason for this, is of course – and I’m quoting here – “Millionaire “journalists” have a profound yet undeclared personal vested interest in the consumption-driven economic status quo upon which their wealth is predicated.”
Waldo,
” You all may not like WWF, CRU, or Greenpeace, but that alone is not proof of anything…despite how objective and rational CS is.”
Thanks for showing the hypocrisy of your side. While the info coming from WWF… is not automatically crap, even a cursory reading of the presentations show they are crap.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Try this exercise, pick one of these non-peer reviewed presentations and we will discuss it to see the quality, or lack thereof!!
Oh, and please don’t forget to give us your excuses for how the IPCC decided this crap was equivalent to the quality of their peer reviewed literature so it could be included. Be careful, you might prove their typical peer reviewed paper is crap.
Okay: I found –
Coleman, T., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, D. Karoly, I. Lowe, T. McMichael, C.D. Mitchell, G.I. Pearman, P. Scaife and J. Reynolds, 2004: Climate Change: Solutions for Australia. Australian Climate Group, 35 pp. http://www.wwf.org.au/ publications/acg_solutions.pdf
Here (not at the address on the “Dodgy” blog above):
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/hennessykj_2005b.pdf
Go get’em killer.
Okay: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/hennessykj_2005b.pdf
Coleman, T., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, D. Karoly, I. Lowe, T. McMichael, C.D. Mitchell, G.I. Pearman, P. Scaife and J. Reynolds, 2004: Climate Change: Solutions for Australia. Australian Climate Group, 35
Not at the address on the “Dodgy” blog. Go get’em killer.
By the way, kuhnkitty (since we haven’t met surfing the boards before), I’ve had an ongoing debate with the happy CS tribe about the validity of the general “science” and commentary on this board. At issue is the simple question: why do the good people here think they are smarter than the scientists who man such organizations as IPCC, WFF, NOAA, etc.? So if you are going to insist that these people are “riding the gravy train” or some other boilerplate paranoia (CRU emails etc.) without really citing or backing your claims(yawn), I will probably simply refer you to the other threads where this has already been hashed out. Happy reading.
Waldo — “They’re master’s theses, a doctoral dissertation, reports from WWF, the CRU, and some stuff from Greenpeace.”
A doctoral thesis, sure. I don’t know enough about masters theses to judge what standard they’re held to, so I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.
But self published articles by Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Foundation? No. They don’t pass muster as “peer reviewed literature.” The IPCC set the bar for what they consider acceptable quality when they said they only use peer reviewed literature, they need to follow their own rules. (If Greenpeace had paid for a study that was subsequently published in a journal, that would be acceptable. But that’s not what happened here.)
This isn’t a question of whether or not the claims that these sources are making are correct or not. It’s a question of the objectivity and purpose of the IPCC reports. The IPCC claims to condense the scientific literature in order to help world leaders make more informed decisions. When they stray from using scientific sources, then, they stray from their stated purpose of informing only on the science into advocating for specific policies.
I want scientists to make positive statements about what they know of the world. I will then use that to form my own normative opinions on what I should do about it. When scientists make normative statements but claim they are positive statements, they are misleading me and hindering my ability to form my own normative conclusion.
Tim,
You can find a paper here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/283/5408/1712
which describes the CO2 lag with temperature changes. I find it’s much better to go back to original sources to avoid the “I don’t like your choice of website” type of ad hominem arguments.
One could argue that, as skeptics, we are making the same sort of argument against the IPCC by deriding their use of a WWF position paper. However, the IPCC themselves argue that they only use peer-reviewed results, which the “2035 melting glacier” statement clearly is not. This in itself would not be so bad, but the statement that Himalayan glaciers will all melt by 2035 has no basis in fact whatsoever, so it’s use in the IPCC report is quite damning. It appears the IPCC is quite willing to use any propoganda they find as long as it supports their point of view.
Hasdrubal, I see your point. I plan to take a closer look at a lot of these “Dodgy Citations” – as many as I can find at any event. I do think that, perhaps, it is a little disingenuous to assert that these are ‘non-peer-reviewed’ when several, like the one posted above, appear to be reports based on peer-review and do not have the pretense of peer-reviewed literature but are instead overviews of research. In other words, many of these may not be peer-reviewed in and of themselves but based on the work of scientists who are peer-reviewed.
This is the kind of deceptive argumentation that places like CS and Ms. Laframboise’s blog are engaged in. There is no actual debate here, or scientific inquiry, just rabid denialists circling for any possible reason to doubt, then following a practice of credulously accepting anything that fits their notions.
I should say, of course, that if it proves the IPCC et al are busy printing up their reports based on hearsay then they deserve whatever they get. I doubt that they are, however, at least as a regular practice.
It is entertaining to watch our true beleivers in action. their actions are well described as ‘moving the goal posts’.
Skeptics were berated for years for daring to question the IPCC and the great instiutions providing much of the IPCC content.
Skeptics were berated for providing links to skeptical studies that were not peer reviewed.
Now, when it is being proven daily, that the IPCC is in fact using non-peer reviewed support for its claims, and that the IPCC conclusions themselves are dubious at best, skeptics are berated for questioning the non-peer reviewed papers and failed claims of the IPCC.
And then, when the true believers run out of rebuttals (more and more quickly) they simply revert to form and rely on ‘deniers’ and ‘deceptive arguments’.
AGW defenders are looking more and more like they are channeling Baghdad Bob- praising the victory of the great Iraqi army over the infidel invaders, even as the invaders are, as it were, in the background waving at the camera.
Waldo,
their temp and precip data is bad. The model they use for their projections is unproven and fed bad data.
Can we say confirmation bias??
NEXT!!
Waldo,
“By the way, kuhnkitty (since we haven’t met surfing the boards before), I’ve had an ongoing debate with the happy CS tribe about the validity of the general “science” and commentary on this board. At issue is the simple question: why do the good people here think they are smarter than the scientists who man such organizations as IPCC, WFF, NOAA, etc.? ”
Wrong question. We do not believe we are smarter than real scientists. This is outside of the question of who has a higher IQ anyway.
We do believe we are smarter than a bunch of people with letters after their names manipulating the system for reasons of security, greed, or religion.
My question is why you are putting so much effort into covering up for these slime balls?
Waldo
February 3, 2010, 5:56 pm,
It always amuses me to hear the “what makes you think your smarter than the experts” argument.
Buried deep in this thread from Lucia’s blog is a comment from John Pittman to Michael Tobis, who was waxing eloquently (in between insulting mothers of small children) about the risks of climate change.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/how-not-to-respond-to-skeptics/
Pittman points out that he is an expert on risk management and climate scientists are way out of their league when they spout off about that subject.
If one is going to worship at the “expert” alter, then one also has to recognize that climate scientists and their fans don’t have a whole lot to offer when it comes to energy generation/procurement and transporatation policy either.
“their temp and precip data is bad. The model they use for their projections is unproven and fed bad data.
“Can we say confirmation bias??”
How do you know this? Did you do original research that challenges their findings?
“We do believe we are smarter than a bunch of people with letters after their names manipulating the system for reasons of security, greed, or religion.”
Yeah, I know. Pretty ironic. Can you even read the data posted on places like the IPCC site or the paper you are pretending to read above?
“My question is why you are putting so much effort into covering up for these slime balls?”
I’m fairly convinced that a) you do not know what you are talking about, b) you are motivated by political leanings rather than scientific know-how, and c) they are not the “slime balls” in the equation.
John, how does Pittman substantiate or prove anything in his rambling, incoherent posts on a blog in which amateurs argue vaguely with other amateurs?
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-happens-when-dike-shows-cracks.html – “[Dutch] Politicians angered by latest IPCC error”, “Reason for their ire is a flawed statement about sea-levels in the Netherlands” – Make sure you read the translation speech by Samson, which is even more interesting than the error, and the response to it.
kuhnkat,
There is an obvious answer to your question of ‘why?’ for our pal Waldo.
Note that his veneer of hale fellow, etc., is about one reply thick. Then the ‘deniosphere’ junk leaks out.
AGW promoters claim CO2 is why glaciers are melting.
Apparently not:
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2010/02/03/black-carbon-himalayan-glaciers/
Yet we are wicked for pointing this out, from the perspective of the true believers.
Waldo:
February 4, 2010, 10:34 pm
I guess the same way someone argues with someoneone who insists on ignoring data and information he finds inconvenient.
You ought to be able to comment on whether climate scientists and their supporters should be forging our energy and transportation policies, whether or not John Pitmann or anyone else posts his resume and W2 forms on the internet.
Yes John, I entirely agree – people who ignore data and information they find inconvenient are truly irritating, to say the least. (Hence the title of the Gore film.) In fact, I would say that this very practice is one of the most irritating things about the CS tribe. I’m sure you don’t do that.
I guess my question with Pittman is, Why did you post a link to that whole debacle?
As for “climate scientists and their supporters should be forging our energy and transportation policies” – well, if the experts (people with letters behind their names) are telling us there is a problem with the environment we all share (and I’m not necessarily advocating that this is happening, just saying “if”) then we should probably listen to them. And most of the scientists I read about talk about long-term weather change, not transportation or business practices. These latter seem to be the rational and paranoia of a certain subset of the population well represented here.
Waldo
Because it relates to the issue of “experts”. The content was that a climate scientist was blathering about “risks”, and how people ought to listen to the “experts”. A risk management expert weighed in and said he was the expert when it came to analyzing risks, and the climate scientist didn’t know what he was talking about.
Your response was to dismiss the whole thing because you didn’t like it. Now you pretend you don’t see the significance. Well, your world is your world, and you’re welcome to it.
Yes, scientists can tell us they think there is a “problem”, but they should stay out of policy making, and should stop inventing “insurance policies” that they want to foist onto the rest of us.
John – I can only say “huh?”
“Your response was to dismiss the whole thing because you didn’t like it.”
Well, I “didn’t like it” because I don’t think he writes anything of any merit. He babbles on with a lot of jargonistic crap about a matrix he claims he developed (but offers no proof of) and I cannot figure out why you would be at all enthralled by it. If the “scientist” doesn’t know what Pittman was talking about that may be because Pittman was rolling out a line of B.S. with a great many pseudo-technical phrases that I suspect actually mean nothing. If you would like to lay out his argument for us I would be interested. Plus I do not see why an “expert” at risk management has anything to do with determining the validity of AGW? You could also ask an “expert” rug cleaner what he thought – but why would you?
The best that Pittman can offer is that he has “education and experience.” You’d believe a strange blog poster over a climate scientist? Now, there is a Pittman who wrote a book on sports and risk management, and maybe this is our man – but then it’s still the same pickle – you’re following a sports risk manager over a host of well trained, well qualified climate scientists who spend their professional lives dealing with the issue of GW.
I guess this is another example of the denialist mentality: the CS tribe follow anyone, absolutely anyone, who claims to be an “expert” in something-or-the-other as long as they make certain claims about GW. I mean anyone – you are citing a sports risk manager on a rather strange blog, my friend. Huh.
“Now you pretend you don’t see the significance.”
Not pretending. Don’t see it. In fact, it seems patently insignificant.
And what “insurance policies” are scientists “foisting” on anyone? Is this something Pittman wrote? And you’re buying it?
Oh man…Houston, we have a problem.
Hey Waldo you seem to be gaining some traction on Pittman, so let’s get back to your original point: why do the good people here think they are smarter than the scientists who man such organizations as IPCC, WFF, NOAA, etc.?
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I can say this:
1) However smart they might be, Pachauri and Mann are both dishonest and operating outside their area of expertise. Mann’s data manipulation would never be accepted as serious statistical work, but call it “dendroclimatology”, which to me is complete woo, and he becomes an expert in climate change. Pachauri’s response to accurate criticism was so unscientific that many of his erstwhile supporters are calling for his head.
2) Jones has been so unethical in his treatment of data that it is only reasonable to assume he had something to hide.
3) All of us working in the financial sector have seen how unreliable it is to build a complicated model of a poorly understood system, and then place absolute belief in it.
I am sure lots of the scientists are very clever, for instance Connolley would appear to be a very bright man, but he is so obsessed by the theory that he took it upon himself to play Winston Smith on Wikipedia to stifle debate. I don’t need to think I am cleverer than “the scientists” to choose to make up my own mind, and to distrust those who have convicted themselves of dishonesty.
I’ll say! “Earth to Waldo, Earth to Waldo…you are way off course due to extreme and reckless extrapolation!”
First, your serious case of irony deficiency seems to have caused you to miss that Pittman was tweaking Tobis’ nose a little bit with this comment.
As I am a practitioner of risk management, with education and experience, I am sure that you will now agree that continued calls for action should be reconsidered; and you will join myself and others in stopping this incorrect application of risk management. Since, this has been your position concerning expertise.
Even if you misplaced your Dulcolax you should be able to see the joke there.
And your befuddlement with the terms “risk matrix” and “cost axis” only indicates that you know less about the practice of risk management than climate scientists do. While we’re at it, where did Pittman say he “developed” anything?
My original point was that climate scientists aren’t the sole source of “expertise” when it comes to what to “do” about AGW and I pointed to an exchange between Tobis and Pittman as an interestng example. You immediately jumped to ad hom mode to rip apart someone you admit you know nothing about.
The mere suggestion that the climate “problem” might be addressed by a number of different levels of expertise leads to you sputtering something about the denialist mentality and claiming such a suggestion represents a trashing of GW. Where do Pittman or I trash GW by simply pointing out that climate scientists are not necessarily fonts of wisdom with regard to risk management and policy?
Finally:
Surely, you don’t mean to imply that this is the first you’ve heard of “insurance policies” as metaphores for climate policy. Or are you so intent on your ad hom attack against Pittman that your judgment is clouded even more than usual?
“Earth to Waldo, you are spinning dangerously out of control!”
Pittman is pretty opaque. I needed someone else to explain to me what he was talking about.
My conclusion is that what he is talking about (the costs of making certain decisions too early) is a real (second order) issue, but since the system is (first order) out of control it’s not something we need to devote a lot of attention to at present.
On another point Risk Analyst makes,
We do not build a complicated model of a poorly understood system. We build a relatively simple model of a relatively well understood system. The fact that the system is well understood is directly supported by the fact that the models perform so well.
Despite its enormous number of moving parts it seems to behave reasonably well under most of the tests we put it to. (It’s to the point where critics have to scratch the data for obscure mismatches and make as much hay out of them as they can (A missing midtropospheric tropical “hot spot” that a particular view and a particular coloring scheme can make look very striking, but which really is small change and is quite possibly still lost in the data noise, gets a lot of play for instance.)
Now, the models are being asked to do a difficult task, extrapolation under very rapid forcing changes. The reliability of the predictions may or may not be bounded by the spread of model predictions. But to claim that the best bet is **well outside that spread**, which seems ot be what you believe, requires much fancier argument than shrugging and saying “well, my models suck so yours must too”.
mt, Scientists now also feel that over 83% of the people, lie 47% of the time, 12% of the year, therefore there is no reason why a person in their right mind; should in reality, expect anything other than the best guess estimate of what the truth model could have looked like, we need to just keep looping stuff until it has tensorized the data into a “glowing” graph…; so that our tenure remains intact and the grant money continues to give my department the money I need to further my work with the irritating but unimportant unwashed masses. An unknown but successful scientist…
To John M., M Tobis, and of course Waldo.
A couple of points: First to Waldo who said “Well, I “didn’t like it” because I don’t think he writes anything of any merit. He babbles on with a lot of jargonistic crap about a matrix he claims he developed (but offers no proof of) and I cannot figure out why you would be at all enthralled by it.” It was correctly pointed out I did not claim that I developed it. And if I did state that, it was definitely a mistake that should of been understood from the context. I figure this is a good explanation. Second to Waldo, those jargonistic crap words you complain about are words that have definitions. I am a professional in which defintions and meanings are not jargonistic; they are literally the difference of being considered as acceptable, or being considered for a possible jail sentence. That AGW have entered this world and do not understand it, I say “Tough s##t”, get over yourself. Waldo if you have a probem, I suggest you read two links that M Tobis posted at Lucia’s, and as Lucia says, and M Tobis is proclaiming “put on your big boy pants.”
To the gentle readers of this site, I was ad hommed and my position misrepresented without notice except for John M.. M Tobis, yes I am opaque. However, if you have read the link at Lucia, that Contrarian posted, your point of veiw was claimed by the author to be the first (in the sense he expressed it) to consider it in an article. Your conclusion that my point is second order is supported by the link. This is not what the IPCC have said, as the link has stated, and is not necessarily generally accepted, which is my position. Your position is just now starting to get support. I stated that my position was typical per IPCC.
To M. Tobis who said “”Now, the models are being asked to do a difficult task, extrapolation under very rapid forcing changes. The reliability of the predictions may or may not be bounded by the spread of model predictions. But to claim that the best bet is **well outside that spread**, which seems ot be what you believe, requires much fancier argument than shrugging and saying “well, my models suck so yours must too”.”” You have just restated one of the points I was making. Please remember, it is you vs the IPCC who is extrapolating the reliability of the predictions (projections per IPCC) past the bounded model’s MEAN (of the IPCC) when you claim the relevance of catastrophic climate change. In that you have belittled those who question experts, when outside their expertise, the burden of proof is on you to show why you are right and the IPCC is wrong. Yes, I admitted my expertise was cookbook. It does not mean I have no expertise, it means I understand my limits. You appear not to have the same understanding of your limits(I know you have not claimed to be a risk analyst.) You also say “Despite its enormous number of moving parts it seems to behave reasonably well under most of the tests we put it to.” I have a question how stiff, and how well defined are your equations? Need help MT, ask Dr. Browning. I did. Waldo want something to read for my POV? Look this up G. Browning and H.-O. Kreiss (1982) and later publications. If you can explain, please help me understand their work. I spent dozens of hours and still need help. Thank God the jargonistic risk analysis is easier.
For Waldo:
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9760
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_management so you understand why there are these jargonistic statements.
http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/rmp/
These ought to keep you busy, Waldo, for about 5 years 10hrs/7days like it did me, if you do for a living. Enjoy.
Of course there is more than just risk management. That is the nature of professional, that MT seems to keep coming abck to.
Ah, okay. I think there are 3 things that I missed from Mr. Pittman’s post on a completely separate blog which has now completely railroaded the original “dodgy quotes” post on this blog. Which is kind of funny. But anyway –
1) Risk Management points out that we can trust none of the data-manipulating scientists in the IPCC (somewhat cliche at this point, and largely unproven) and those people who work in the monetary field understand how difficult it is to model complex systems. Think we’ve heard these before.
2)Michael Tobis reads Mr. Pittman’s posting as a call to restrain cost until a better overall analysis is at hand – more or less (that’s kind of a poor paraphrase). Perhaps a good point which only time will tell.
3) And the estimable Mr. Pittman himself defends the use of “words that have definitions” that he as a “professional” utilizes to somehow keep himself out of “jail” (?????) – which means, I think, a professional argot or nomenclature for risk management professionals – in other words, jargon. I hope you will forgive me, Mr. Pittman, but it does sound to me like you were trying to bulldoze the population of the last blog by throwing a lot of jargon and management specific language at the screen. You do have an extraordinarily dense and largely incomprehensible style (No offense, an honest observation:I’m not sure your post above makes any sense at all).
In any event, everyone here seems to be concerned with the role of experts in their fields and, as Mr. Pittman writes, their “limits.” Which is exactly why it is so important that we, the lay people (even the risk management “experts” who presumably do not do climate physics or observation) step out of the way and let the scientists hash out what is happening with the world’s climate.
I’m fairly sure that will not happen, however…
Either way this little diversion is now completely pointless.
Waldo, if you tell me to spend money to stop climate change for a harm that has not occurred, that is risk management. One can save the money, buy an insurance policy, on can buy an engineered solution. Which one is best depends on the circumstances. Take one of the problems we as humans face if you assume climate change is real and dangerous. We are addicted to cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels. If you do not address the risk and the costs correctly, there will be a failure. “Doing nothing” is an option. It can have costs; it can have benefits. If you want to know, you develop your model and see what comes of it. The IPCC have whole discussions of mitigation versus adaptation (risk management) because they assume climate change is real. They use economists, and other experts. I do not see how they could be in the scientist’s way. The scientists are the ones who help set up the conditions of the economic models indirectly with papers, or directly with the analysis.
Waldo it was your claim it was jargonistic crap, not mine. I was not trying to bulldoze the reader. One item was a joke, though true. I have 17 years expierence in risk management. There is utility in doing nothing. It is supposed to be considered in risk management. The IPCC has presented to the world its risk assessment of climate change in their discussions of mitigation and adaptation. I think that makes it worth discussing, and many people agree. Several of us challenge what is claimed. But that does not mean we stand in their way. Scientists should be familar with the requirement that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. MT brings a lot to the table. That is probably why you find so many directing their comments to him. But it is also why I challenge him. I want his opinion, and I want to know why he has it. This does not mean I agree or disagree. I find such discussions interesting.
I do not belittle those who question experts in fields in which they are inexpert. I do it all the time with regard to economics, which I think is mostly misapplied to the climate question, and with regard to artificial intelligence, which is not relevant here.
The cost is that I have to accept such criticisms from others directed toward my field. It’s only reasonable.
What I belittle is shallow dismissal. I do not dismiss economists when I question economics. I try to be as tentative as possible. I say “it seems to me that you have not accounted for…” and “in systems with which I am familiar it happens that…”. I do not say “I don’t understand what you are saying therefore I don’t believe it”, or “I don’t believe what you are saying therefore you are lying”, and it is to this sort of rude dismissal that I object.
As for your question about “stiffness” that miscategorizes the problem. If the objective is to tell you the weather on February 6 2060, the system is hopelessly sensitive to initial conditions. But nobody is trying to do that; your question about stiffness amounts to a sophisticated version of the “they can’t predict next week’s weather, how can they say anything about fifty years hence”.
The argument attributed to Weitzman is actually a point of contention for me. I have been making exactly Weitzman’s point for almost twenty years; you can see it in the usenet archives. I thought it too simpleminded a point to be worthy of publication. Weitzman’s getting famous for it ticks me off a bit, though to be sure he went into more detail than I did and took the trouble to dress it up for peer review.
But the way I make it these days is ripe for another Weitzman to, um, purloin, and is a little bit elaborated. It says that the less you trust the maturity of climate science, the more vigorously you should be arguing for CO2 emissions restraints, not the other way around. If you do not think the error is biased, a sensitivity double the consensus value of 3 C is as likely as a sensitivity of half. The cost goes up very quickly, becoming infinite at 50C per doubling where business as usual boils the oceans and kills everything or near enough everything as not to matter.
So arguing for weak climate science does not argue for weak CO2 constraints. It drives me crazy that everybody on both sides gets this wrong.
To argue for weak (or small enough that zero becomes reasonable because of the utility of doing nothing) constraints, you have to argue that the climate science is both severely inept AND severely biased. Perhaps that is on the table from where you are sitting. I just want you to understand that either alone does not suffice.
Well, Michael, in that he, as you say purloined it, I guess it does agree with your position. Yes, I recognize that “stiff” is more sophisticated. But then my argument and position is more nuanced than “they can’t predict next week’s weather, how can they say anything about fifty years hence”. I am the type to take exception to say, if you use a version of Model E with a hyperviscous layer since this invalidates the use of the PDE’s that assume a continuum. If one states it as a necessity, fine. However, if one were to claim that they got the math and physics correct while violating one of the assumptions of the methodology, I would not accept that.
Similarly, I conclude differently from you. I see the costs as rising exponentially, and we cannot afford the solution, as the time for the effect of the catastrophy decreases. I see you agree with the cost increase. I think where we may differ is about adaptation, and the low probability of a mega catastrophy, and perhaps the time it would take for such an event. Thus I think that weak climate science does argue for weak CO2 constraints. I understand your point. I don’t subscribe to it. Perhaps by putting it out there as Weitzman has, will bring some discussion and work to determine whether more uncertainty should mean more CO2 constraints. In one sense it does seem to be a supportable position.
I think that climate science is not necessarily that inept or that severely biased. I think the range of temperatures that are listed as most probable means adaptation is a supportable alternative for the short term. How long that term may be, varies by a large margin. I did some analysis for myself using a simplistic approach, and the changeover date for when mankind should start spending on more mitigation than adaptation, and got around 2150 AD. Of course, this was a low probability scenario. I did it as a comparison to the opposite stance where we see 10C or so claimed.
Waldo,
“How do you know this? Did you do original research that challenges their findings?”
Nope, all I have to do is use the data that is avalable to everyone through the OFFICIAL sites!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Waldo,
“I’m fairly sure that will not happen, however…”
Based on your BELIEF in those same scientists who have been gaming the system!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“Nope, all I have to do is use the data that is avalable to everyone through the OFFICIAL sites!!”
Please, be specific. What data? What OFFICIAL site? Which charts, graphs, summaries, etc?
Micheal Tobis: “If you do not think the error is biased, a sensitivity double the consensus value of 3 C is as likely as a sensitivity of half.”
Any system with such high net positive feedback that an input of 1.6 is amplified to a response of 6 is a system with no inherent stability. It might duplicate the oscillations of the Ice Ages, but it cannot possible duplicate the last 8,000 years of relatively stable climate. Even 3 is pushing into the unstable region. Much higher than that is not just unlikely, but mathematically impossible. Any variation in the sun or a dozen other factors would have already pushed it into a runaway increase or decrease.
Lower than 3 is much more likely, and net negative instead of positive feedback fits the known record (such as it is) much better.
Nor would I consider 3 as an unbiased estimate in the first place, since I have seen the efforts of various AGW true believers to bias it.