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.
****”I rarely read Watts up with that, please don’t attribute my thoughts to someone else, even if they had the same thought, without knowing damn well that’s where it came from.”
I believe I said you probably read the commentary on rich yields on CS, which was cross-posted from Watts Up. So in essence, if your primary source was CS, you were reading Watts Up. Forgive me if I was incorrect.
Where did you read about rich yields?
“rich yields” should, of course, be “rice yields.” Don’t know that to make of that Freudian slip.
And don’t forget commentary such as this, Wally, in which Gavin Schmidt is being corrective and instructive:
“Why do you think that GCMs are like random low order differental equations? They are nothing like it. The vast majority of the code is tied very strongly to very well known physics (conservation of energy, radiative transfer, equations of motion etc.) which can’t be changed in any significant aspect at all. The number of variable parameters that can be used for the tuning exercises you seem to want to do are tiny (a handful or so), and even they can’t be changed radically because you’ll lose radiative balance, or reasonable climatology. I strongly suggest you actually look at some GCM code, and read a couple of papers on the subject – GCMs are far more ‘stiff’ than you imagine.”
When, by the way, did you become so sensitive?
Well put, Ted, and very reasonable. But I have to wonder —
****”As to contacting anybody re my misgivings, that is a waste of time. In the case of scientists/engineers, it will simply result in an argument (look at this blog, for example).”
So I take it you know these people personally well enough to predict how they will react? Perhaps one of these people is reasonable? Maybe if you just explained your reasoning to one of them — prove to them that you have figured out something they have not — they would reverse their theories. Or maybe not.
Okay, another rout is to peer-review your opinion and findings. They are wasting out tax dollars and embarrassing your alma mater, after all. Certainly you’d like to put an end to that if you could. And you realize your well-thought-out concerns will do absolutely no good if you leave them here on CS. These people will continue to waste your and my money.
****”Most people have a strong opinion, and refuse to discuss the subject with an open mind (also see this blog).”
Certainly you are not one of these people. And, since you are not one of these people, have you thoroughly read the work of the OSU professors? Have you read the dissertation on the process of using limestone to leach CO2 out of the air?
****”actually responding to their arguments”
Paul, the commentators at Real Climate did respond very specifically to Wally’s posts; Wally is simply pretending that everything was a personal affront, when in reality a good deal of the ripostes contained links, citations, arguments, etc. I’ve given you one small example above from Schmidt.
Did you actually read any of the thread? Or are you simply going to stick to the ridiculous plaint?
I can believe people doubt the science — although most of these people seem pretty ill-informed and seem to have some weird personal, emotional agenda involved — but I cannot believe how many smart people here react so simply and irrationally. Read the thread, Paul.
All due respect, Waldo, that quote from Gavin is typical condescending “you don’t know enough to argue with me” which throws big things without saying much. It is more useful than a simple “go study”, but only barely so.
The assertion that the number of variable parameters that can be tuned is tiny is only defensible because it is caveated with “for the tuninng exercises you seem to want to do”. Models have lots and lots of variable parameters. Yes, I looked into the source code. The caveat above, however, makes it nearly pointless to argue this point with Gavin, since the talk is easily curved around the specific exercises that someone allegedly wanted to do.
The “even they can’t be changed radically” and “GCMs are far more ‘stiff’ than you imagine” bits are the same kind of nonsense. Both operate with soft stuff like “radically” and “stiff” which are not defined quantitatively nor qualitatively, and the defense of both can readily bring the argument to the realm of what the opponent thought about them. How useful is it to argue against the point that GCMs are far more ‘stiff’ *than someone imagines*? How is this appropriate on the supposedly scientific blog?
And if you strip all that, what’s left? Not a lot. Actually, nothing.
And, yes, the topic on RC has seen some on-topic responses to Wally’s points, eg, someone brought up a list of links as evidence for some argument and all but one of these links turned out to be newspaper publications, and Wally did respond to most if not all of them. If you feel he skipped something, bring it up, and I am sure he will respond.
Before you ask why I am not in the RC thread: I queued a comment more than a day ago and it is yet to get through the filter. It might be too early to say if it got shot, but, frankly, even if it hasn’t, I don’t see much sense in talking through a filter which is that slow.
By the way, the “even they can’t be changed radically” line has another obvious problem in that you absolutely don’t need radical changes to model parameters in order to have radical changes to the result.
As another “by the way”, my comment still isn’t there.
Miriam: If Gavin is arguing that climate models are not “tuned” to historical data, I think he is being pretty misleading.
I have posted it before on this thread, but take a look at this article by a mainstream climate modeler that appears in the peer-reviewed literature: Jeffrey T. Kiehl, 2007. Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007 The article’s text can be found on google. It is discussed here: http://climateaudit.org/2007/12/01/tuning-gcms/
Kehl demonstrates that climate models with high CO2 sensitivities use historical estimates of aerosol emissions pulled from the high-range of the historical estimates. Since aerosols reduce global warming, they offset the high levels of global warming that would otherwise be predicted by the high sensitivity models and bring them in line with the historical temperature record. On the other hand, climate models with low CO2 climate sensitivites use estimates of aerosal emissions pulled from the low-range of historical estimates. In essence, the low-sensitivity models need fewer aerosals to bring them in line with historical temperatures.
This seems to me to be “fingerprint” evidence that the models are tuned to the historical record. Maybe some modeling process other than “tuning” can account for this remarkable coincidence. If so, I suspect that it is “tuning” by another name.
I did by the way once ask Gavin about this. Here is my question and his response:
Me: “The article makes the following statement:
“So how do models with high sensitivity manage to simulate the currently small response to a forcing that is almost as large as a doubling of CO2? Jeff Kiehl notes in a 2007 article from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the models use another quantity that the IPCC lists as poorly known (namely aerosols) to arbitrarily cancel as much greenhouse warming as needed to match the data, with each model choosing a different degree of cancellation according to the sensitivity of that model.”
I wonder if one of the modelers here could comment on this assertion?
[Response: There is uncertainty in both climate sensitivity and the degree of aerosol forcing (see figure 2.20). No model simulation can ‘prove’ that it has exactly the right sensitivity and aerosol forcing, but each of the simulations that match the 20th Century trends are plausible estimates of what might have happened. Projections going forward are obviously going to be a little different depending on that balance, but that is a real part of the uncertainty in those projections and shouldn’t be swept under the rug. – gavin]
Brilliant, PaulD. So, basically, you asked what is the logic behind models getting to mix and match wildly different estimates of unknown factors that nonetheless have huge impact on the results, and Gavin responded that, well, the combinations are still plausible. Based on that, it is also plausible to have models with low [climate] sensitivity, but with high estimates for effects attributed to aerosols, and have predictions of global cooling.
I wanted to add one additional comment to my post immediately above. Gavin states: “Projections going forward are obviously going to be a little different depending on that balance, but that is a real part of the uncertainty in those projections and shouldn’t be swept under the rug.”
It is nice that Gavin acknowledges this uncertainy in an obscure blog post and suggests that it should not be swept under the rug. However, in fact, this area of uncertainty is indeed “swept under the rug” in the IPCC. For a discussion of this read the section, “Obscuring Fundamental Disagreement Across Climate Models in both Explanations of Past Climate and Predictions of Future Climate” in the following article: http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf
Waldo: This conversation could go on and on. However my point is this: If R&D proposals were given the most rudimentary screening by engineers (that any young Ch.E. knows how to do), we would not waste piles of money and R&D resources. I am all for listening to ANY research proposal, no matter how kooky it may sound. You do not want to stifle innovation. The ideas should then be evaluated as described earlier before big bucks and lots of effort are devoted to it.
An example is the corn ethanol business. In a couple of hours, I was able to find out (Dept of Ag, etc) how much corn is grown in the US, how much ethanol this can produce, and how much energy is required to grow and convert the corn to ethanol. The result was that if all the corn was converted to ethanol, the NET energy produced was equivalent to 250,000 bbl/d gasoline. Thus, we use up all the corn to reduce gasoline production by a relatively tiny amount. As everyone is aware, the result of the existing corn/ethanol program is high corn prices, food shortages, etc. Meanwhile, the self inflicted increase in corn prices has driven many ethanol producers into bankruptcy, despite government subsidies, and driven up other ag commodity prices as well.
The Feds have sponsored all sorts of demonstration plants related to energy without doing feasibility studies first. I could go on and on about these programs, but you get the idea. My question is, why don’t we do things in a way that is well accepted and proven in industry and avoid huge waste? Politics is probably the answer. All the senators from corn growing states push ethanol subsidies.
I agree, Ted, the conversation can go on and on.
But have you read the materials relating to the use of lime to leach CO2 out of the air?
And, why post your reservations here? Why don’t you first approach the professors and scientists involved? And if this doesn’t work, why not either peer-review an article on why it will not work, allowing your ideas to be tested and reviewed, and allowing your ideas to gain access to a wider audience?
You seem very certain of yourself.
Paul, why don’t you post your commentary on Real Climate where Gavin could respond? Or perhaps you have and are waiting?
Miriam, with all due respect, what difference does it make if Gavin is “condescending” or not? Personally I think the particular comment I cross-posted above is simply concise and straightforward. Gavin disagrees with Wally and, in fact, means to correct a misconception on Wally’s part — how is that condescending.
But even if it is “condescending,” at issue is not Gavin’s online persona, but whether or not Wally had a valid critique of GCMs, which Gavin believes he does not.
Is this a personal issue for you?
And how to you judge Wally’s online persona on Real Climate or here, for that matter? Do you think Wally is a particularly polite and non-aggressive poster?
“Paul, why don’t you post your commentary on Real Climate where Gavin could respond? Or perhaps you have and are waiting?”
No, I am waiting for a response to Kiehl in the peer-reviewed literature:). But if any of the real climate folks want to come over here where comments are not moderated, I’ll be happy to engage in a discussion.
“… what difference does it make if Gavin is “condescending” or not?”
You aren’t listening. Please, re-read what I wrote. The issue is not that Gavin is condescending. The issue is that his reply is nothing, but hot air.
Another summary? Nah, no need… The thread at the scientific web forefront of the Pro camp is a trainwreck, as expected. The posting system there is an even larger trainwreck, as forewarned. Waldo… as I note, nah, no need to say anything.
Waldo:
On second thought, I think I’ll take up your challenge to post at Realclimate.
This just posted at Realclimate:
“Gavin, you write: “The number of variable parameters that can be used for the tuning exercises you seem to want to do are tiny (a handful or so), and even they can’t be changed radically because you’ll lose radiative balance, or reasonable climatology.”
I am interested to know your reaction to Jeffrey T. Kiehl, 2007. Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007
My reading of Kiehl is that there is a great deal of uncertainty in historical estimate of aerosol forcings and that these uncertainties are one of the primary sources of the uncertainty in the climate sensitivities generated by the climate models. Although I am not familiar with all the ins and outs of creating climate models, it seems to me that Kiehl’s observations at least create an appearance that climate models are “tuned” to historical data with choices of historical aerosol forcing from a plausible range of historical estimates.
*****”The issue is that his reply is nothing, but hot air.”
So why are you telling me? Tell him.
Waldo,
“I believe I said you probably read the commentary on rich yields on CS, which was cross-posted from Watts Up. So in essence, if your primary source was CS, you were reading Watts Up. Forgive me if I was incorrect.
Where did you read about rich yields?”
I actually didn’t even know of this post on this site. I don’t always have time to read these pages. I actually read about this paper first as some news brief then looked up the paper.
Sure, Waldo, sure. As I said before, my previous post on RC, now made two days ago, is still awaiting moderation. Isn’t life beautiful?
“Tell Gavin…” ROFL
Waldo: Yes, I have read everything I can find on alternative fuels, carbon sequestration, AGW, etc. for many years. The points I have made have nothing to do with my personal opinion. They are plain vanilla chemical engineering. I and every ch.e. I know are appalled at the way this is being handled by the government, and the fact that it brings out the worst from the academics and others seeking research grants or subsidies. If we ever end up with a sensible energy policy, I will believe in Divine intervention.
I have no qualifications re global warming, although I read all I can with interest. The work of Svensmark looks interesting. If it turns out to be valid, there will be a reasonable explanation of all the past and current climate phenomena. If he’s wrong, we will have to wait for many years until either we are sweating or, if the AGW thing is invalid, Al Gore gives back his Nobel prize.
So Ted, may I assume that you have read Vonder Haar’s, Iyer’s and Fan’s actual publications on the subject and know their work well enough from this to debunk them?
Where are the other chemical engineers? Certainly you are not the only ch.e. to notice this misuse of public funds? (I did not know that chemical engineers were that much smarter than the rest of the scientific community.)
And, if you are so appalled, why don’t you either contact the professors and let them know what you know, or why not let the world know through any of a number of routes? If you could debunk this with an afternoon’s work, what’s stopping you?
****”my previous post on RC, now made two days ago, is still awaiting moderation.”
Strange, Miriam, since RC has posted numerous posts from Russ R, Wally, Pauld, even yours truly — but you are singled out?
****”I actually didn’t even know of this post on this site. I don’t always have time to read these pages. I actually read about this paper first as some news brief then looked up the paper.”
Sorry Wally, my bad. What paper? I do find a very brief news release from the Heartland Institute, but I’m not sure I trust them. I did find this
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/33/14562
but it uses a model, so I guess we must disregard.
“Strange, Miriam, since RC has posted numerous posts from Russ R, Wally, Pauld, even yours truly — but you are singled out?”
Singled out? No, I don’t think so…
http://climateaudit.org/2009/08/15/rejected-by-rc/
http://climateaudit.org/2005/10/02/389/
http://climateaudit.org/2005/10/29/is-gavin-schmidt-honest/
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001180a_little_testy_at_re.html
http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/20/unthreaded-9/
“Strange, Miriam, since RC has posted numerous posts from Russ R, Wally, Pauld, even yours truly — but you are singled out?”
Singled out? No, I don’t think so…
http://climateaudit.org/2009/08/15/rejected-by-rc/
And…
http://climateaudit.org/2005/10/02/389/
http://climateaudit.org/2005/10/29/is-gavin-schmidt-honest/
And…
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001180a_little_testy_at_re.html
And…
http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/20/unthreaded-9/
And a lot of other links. Google is your friend.
And, I have just re-checked and my post still isn’t seen on RC. I am on a trip the next several days, so maybe it will appear after I return, but I am not holding my breath… and frankly, my interest in it appearing is at this point purely academic. Have fun, boys.
Waldo: Chemical engineers are no smarter than any other profession. They just know more chemical engineering. I And yes, I have read up on Dr. Fan’s work.
Ah yes, Climate Audit and a Pielke. A couple of unbiased, trustworthy sources for sure. It’s not that I don’t believe you, Miriam, but I do have to wonder why your post wasn’t posted, particularly when people as obnoxious as Wally and Pauld get through. A little testy yourself?
“It’s not that I don’t believe you, Miriam, but I do have to wonder why your post wasn’t posted, particularly when people as obnoxious as Wally and Pauld get through.”
Ask folks at RC?
Waldo says: “It’s not that I don’t believe you, Miriam, but I do have to wonder why your post wasn’t posted, particularly when people as obnoxious as Wally and Pauld get through.”
I guess when I play with a troll, I should expect this type of comment.
My follow up to Gavin’s reply is now stuck in moderation, but it is too early to determine whether it has been deleted.
I actually thought Gavin’s reply was quite revealing. Wally, if you are interested in topic of “tuning” and why hindcasts tell us little about model reliability, I would suggest the following articles:
1. Jeffrey T. Kiehl, 2007. Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007
2. Stephen E. Schwartz, Robert J. Charlson and Henning Rodhe, Quantifying Climate Change – Too
Rosy a Picture?, 2 Nature Reports: Climate Change 23 (2007)
3. Reto Knutti, Why are climate models reproducing the observed global surface warming so well?, 35 Geo. Res. Lett. L18704 (2008).
4. Johnson, “Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination” University of Pennsylvania Law School, ILE INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS, see section: “Obscuring Fundamental Disagreement Across Climate Models in both Explanations of Past Climate and Predictions of Future”
You can obtain the full text of each article by googling them. I would have provided you with the links, by Mr. Meyers seems to have a filter here that prevents too many links in one comment.
The first three articles are peer-reviewed articles by mainstream climatologists. The last is written by a law professor. I include it because it does a good job of reviewing and explaining implications of the peer-reviewed literature.
Thanks Paul, I’ll start looking through them.
Ted, does “read up on” Fan’s work mean you’ve read and evaluated the actual scientific data or simply the news reports and DOE website? If the latter is the case, then I am “read up on” Dr. Fan’s work too. And what about the others working on the team — have you “read up on” them also?
If it is the former, and you really have read the scientific papers, and you are convinced you know something the good professors do not, why not prove them wrong?
“Debunk” them, Ted, if you can.
************************************************
Paul, fair enough. You are a civil poster and I only lumped you with Wally, who is not always so civil, simply to make a point. My apologies. You are, however, typical of the denialists I’ve run into — you are obviously smart and articulate, but you have a smattering of knowledge, a good deal of it appears cherry picked (like the papers above) rather than broadly defined, and yet you would argue with the professional scientists who seem somewhat convinced you are not reading the scientific literature correctly. Likewise, you will cite an attorney over a climate scientist.
To suggest that a poster is not objective is generally tantamount to firing the proverbial flame-thrower and igniting a flame war — but do you consider yourself knowledgeable enough and objective enough to evaluate the issues at hand?
Pauld: Waldo seems to believe that only climate scientists should be heard, and everyone else is an incompetent or a nut case (himself excepted, of course). I earlier mentioned that a person with whom one can have a professional, civil, and productive discussion is a pearl beyond price. Waldo is clearly not calcium carbonate grown in an oyster.
I enjoyed our previous exchanges, which were civil and constructive. Thanks.
Why I can no longer trust climate scientists:
Phil Jones:
– “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?”
– “If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”
– “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 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”
– “I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails…”
– “Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. 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.”
– “I don’t think we should be taking much notice of what’s on blogs because they seem to be hijacking the peer-review process.”
– “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Michael Mann:
– “Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.”
– “As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.”
– “Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.”
Tom Wigley:
– “Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these).”
– “We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.”
– “Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work — must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc.”
Tim Osborne:
– “Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. The data are attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use.”
Kevin Trenberth:
– “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”
Stephen Schneider:
– “we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
Edward Cook:
– “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. … If published as is, this paper could really do some damage … It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically (…) I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review — Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”
Keith Briffa:
– “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming.”
David Frame:
– “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”
Chris Folland:
– “The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models”
Monika Kopacz:
– “It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty”
****”Waldo seems to believe that only climate scientists should be heard”
Never said that. But if you are going to challenge climate scientists, you should probably at least have done the requisite work to challenge the climate scientists and be willing to back up your work with those that can evaluate it – otherwise how do you know if you’re an incompetent or not?
I’m sure, Ted, if someone came on here challenging your expertise in chemical engineering, you would not respond with pearly complextion yourself. You see how you react when I simply ask you if you’ve actually done your homework.
I think Ted has just admitted he is not well-read in the subject he feels so strongly about and that he cannot, with any certainty, “debunk” the good professors in question with only an afternoon’s work.
Why is it that denialists become so defensive and angry when a) asked to prove themselves to the scientific community, b) asked if they actually know what they are talking about, and c) asked where they get their information from?
No one here knows what they are posting about, Ted, including you. That is now obvious. Don’t kid yourself that you are walking away, dignity in place, my friend. Your bluff was simply called.
Very true, Russ. And the answer from the CAGW camp? “EVERYBODY says things like that.” Ridiculous.
****”Why I can no longer trust climate scientists”
Because once they got ahold of my math they tore it to shreds and now I’m resorting to posting quotes out of context in typical denialist fashion?
Oh yeah, I’m objective too.
Waldo.
1. Math… Unlike certain climate scientists, I actually appreciate it when people poke holes in my work, and at every step of the way I have happily shown you my data and methods for exactly that purpose. You might not have noticed, but I made and posted corrections over a week ago (September 10, 3:21pm).
2. Quotes… I compiled a list of more than a few prominent scientists saying or writing more than a few questionable things that would, to any objective reader, call their honesty, integrity, motives and methods into question. You simply assert that all of them are being taken “out of context” and dismiss all 22 of them outright. If I’m in error, I’d be more than pleased to hear exactly what context I should be considering when interpreting their comments. (Yes, I’m aware that “hide the decline” refers not to temperatures, but to tree-ring proxy data. So you can skip that one.) Your burden of proof awaits you sir.
I should also note that I’m not saying “the scientists are wrong”. Rather, because of a few ‘bad apples’ who have revealed a willingness to fudge, exaggerate, obstruct, mislead, or deceive, I can no longer trust them without further verification. As I wrote earlier: “put your trust in facts, not people”.
You know what? Seeing climate change is a scam, Seeing the Oil Spill, huge swaths of rainforests disappearing, and the lack of good drinking water around the world and also the mercury that gets into everything including our fish no thanks to the coal power industry, it might be about time to realize that there are other environmental problems that need to be addressed so would anyone be willing to join the team in that? Also, want a lot simpler way to measure the world’s average climate? Take a look at the ice in the north pole and tell me whether the ice there has been getting thicker or thinner over the last 40 years. Also go to Greenland and tell me what’s going on over there as far as the ice is concerned. Ask any Greenlander and they will give you the answer to what’s happening to their climate very quickly that is whether it’s staying the same, getting cooler, or getting warmer. What’s causing it? good question.
Take a look at this link the Millennium Economic Assessment http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx
Okay, let’s start at the bottom and move up. The context of the last quote, from Monica Kopacz, a graduate student, is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/magazine/12letters-t-THECIVILHERE_LETTERS.html?ref=magazine
It’s a letter to the editor and nothing more substantial than that. And it is not an admission of guilt, but an opinion from a young woman (who has yet to prove herself as a scientist) commenting on Freeman Dyson’s “The Civil Heretic.”
Let me say that again, Russ, this is not an admission of guilt, simply an unsubstanciated opinion in a letter to the editor. It is not conclusive or revelatory of anything. This is where context becomes important, my droogy.
She agrees that the science is correct but, in her view, exaggerated. You neglected to quote the entirety of her very short letter and the other letters, also from scientists, who disagree with Dyson’s conclusions.
This will obviously take some time, but let’s go through them, shall we?
Waldo,
RE: Monica Kopacz quote
So you’re dismissing Ms. Kopacz’s opinion because she’s “yet to prove herself as a scientist” yet somehow her opinion carried enough weight to be printed in the New York Times. But to you she’s a nobody.
She has a PhD from Harvard in Applied Mathematics and Atmospheric Chemistry (which was granted in July 2009, 3 months after the quote was published) and she’s now post-doc research associate at Princeton. I guess those two institutions don’t meet your high academic standards.
Since her CV lists 11 published climate papers (3 as lead author), she therefore has some experience with what does and does not attract attention and grant money, which was clearly the substance of her statement: “The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty”.
My conclusion… some scientists feel pressure to exaggerate in order achieve their objectives. I’d be happy to entertain any evidence you have to the contrary.
Waldo,
Sorry, I neglected to answer your question. Yes, I’d be happy to go through all 22 quotes to better understand their context.
I will, in good faith, acknowledge any instance where you can show that being taken out of context has distorted the substance of the quote, and I hope you’ll acknowledge the occasions where the scientists’ words should be taken at face value.
I fully expect that you will have a valid case on some of them, but so far, you’re 0-for-1.