Friday, May 29, 2015

"Seepage" - Mann's "Hockey Stick" and Santer's sentence

Not so random thoughts recalling seepage in action - gotta run today, so it's rough notes, 
I hope someone can do something with it..  (edited 3:15, May 29th}
(I've added a couple interviews with Dr Santer and Dr. Mann - from the UQxDenial101 MOOC May 30th)

Considering the process of learning.

Learning is a cumulative process.

For example in the late 1990s a team of scientists led by Michael Mann pioneered paleo-climate studies.

They produced a graph that told a story that Republican/libertarian interests did NOT want to hear.
… I don't need to repeat the history.

The take away point is that nowhere have R/l individuals been interested in learning from incoming evidence.  It's all about stonewalling with their God-given self-certitude and disinterest in evaluating any information that might threaten their perceived interests.

But learning is about taking in all the information you can, objectively evaluated all of it.
In the real world mistakes are teaching tools that we learn from and that constructively inform future actions.

But Republican/libertarian interests only seek bludgeons for battering down all they don't want to hear or think about.

So we have this scientific graph, "Mann's Hockey Stick" paleo-temperature record.
It's a pioneering effort, the "flaws" it has are all extremely minor and part of the learning process.  Similar exist in most studies, and any short comings were actively investigated to learn what happened and why.  That's the scientific process -  study and understand mistakes, and learn your lessons, then move on to doing more accurate work in succeeding studies.

Subsequent studies repeatedly have shown that the Mc/Mc alleged errors were small and when plotted out on a graph indiscernible to the unschooled eye.  They did nothing to change the factual integrity of the work.

But look at what we've allowed to happen.
Even today I can't count the times I read "broken hockey stick", etc.

Yet, in the real world one study after another repeats, the "hockey stick" shape.
The personal experience of our own lives over the past half century support the impression of sky-rocking changes like none our planet has experienced since deep time.


Another seepage incident, the Ben Santer diversion.

A carefully penned generally agreed to sentence: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."  IPCC, Madrid, November 1995  (see his video interview 20:50)

Then very crafty Republican/libertarian political word factories twisted the story and dictated the story,  making an enemy out of Ben Santer who was doing his duty as lead author
the last step, physically inserting said sentence into the final IPCC report.

And the public discourse runs right off the rails.

Republican/libertarian spin masters dictated the entire discuss.

I have to wonder, why was there never a huge scientific outcry -
loud enough to force the "talk of a nation" back on track.
"Well the human influence is discernible stupid"
let us count the ways . . .
and so on and so forth.

Or my latest favorite beer glass inspiration:
"It's atmospheric insulation stupid, it holds in heat" 
now can we get on with dealing with what we know we have done and continue doing to our life sustain planet Earth ….

UQx DENIAL101x Interview with Michael Mann

Published on Apr 27, 2015

UQx DENIAL101x Interview with Ben Santer

Published on Apr 27, 2015
UQx Denial101x Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate? Learn to make sense of the science and to respond to climate change denial in Denial101x, a MOOC from UQx and edX.

Denial101x isn’t just a climate MOOC; it’s a MOOC about how people think about climate change.

Join us in the edX discussion forum at


No comments: