An Essay Concerning Our Weather

I've been temporarily distracted from my Steele's Climate Horror Stories project by Science of Doom's naive excursion into social/political commentary.  While working on my next post which looks at some of the comments over at SoD I was reminded of an article I wrote for the 1995 November/December issue of the Humanist Magazine which was followed by a slightly edited version Nov/Dec 2005 which I'm reprinting here since I've been wanting to do so for a long time and I'll be referring to it in my next post.

 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

“Katrina and Rita in Context”


Printed in The Humanist,  Nov-Dec, 2005 issue 






There has been something missing from the recent news coverage in the aftermath of 
Hurricanes Katrina's and Rita. No one seems to be reporting on the real story ~ namely the 
weather.

 

These most recent storms should encourage U.S. citizens to recognize that we are facing a 
powerful entity that has only begun to barge into our American way. Look up into that 
beautiful sky overhead and consider its substance, dynamics and might. Our atmosphere is 
the product of more than four billion years of ongoing evolution ~ geological as well as 
biological. It's a tenuous veil of gases that lays upon the surface of our earth, thin as 
the finest silk upon your skin. This veil has a most interesting structure, one that's 
worth thinking about.



Dear Ms.LaFramboise, re: Greenpeace | environmentalists

Dear Ms. LaFramboise, 

As I've been reading and thinking about how you frame the arguments in your "Delinquent" book - it's becoming clear that you have a passionate distain for "environmentalists" and particularly any organization that's proactive in defending the natural world* we depend on. . . *you know our society's life support system.  

Why is that?  Why do you believe that "environmental activist" groups must be considered liars and excluded from any deliberations concerning understanding man-made global warming and the state of our biosphere in general?

Donna: How does that logic work?  

You keep repeating it like some self-evident truth, 

but it's not self-evident at all.  

I wonder if you could explain your justificant?

You do stuff like rhetorically tarring and feathering a guy who's got decades worth of excellent work under his belt... and why... because during early college years he spent three months as an "office-based intern" at Greenpeace.  Over two decades later and you still try to paint him as a drooling fanatic and liar to boot.

  

You brag about being an investigative journalist, yet your pages are dripping with paranoia and conspiracy theories.

Perhaps I'm calling you on it because I myself have experienced how rapidly "skeptics" devolve into insults and distractions that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.  It's all about diverting attention from what we NEED to be thinking about and acting on.  

It seems all you advocate for, is doing nothing while our life-support system spirals into ever more extreme realms.  

It seems like your biggest demon is the thought of taking responsibility for our planet, and moving forward in a more thoughtful manner. But, does that give you the right to slander, misrepresent and demonize?

It's one thing to shoot a barb here and there, we're all human, but to make personal attacks the backbone of one's defense and argument... now that's what I'd call dishonest.  

What we need is serious learning.

With that grand introduction here's a copy of the Greenpeace webpage "Science: influencing policy" it's worth reading and considering.

As an aside please notice the wording, it is rational and balanced, something that is decidedly missing from what I've been reading in "The Delinquent".

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/about/science-influencing-policy

Science: influencing policy

Greenpeace Research Laboratory: Dr Janet Cotter at work

As the scientific reputation of Greenpeace has grown, our work has expanded into the realm of policy. We now participate regularly in international treaties and conventions on chemical regulation and environmental protection - at both technical and policy levels.

In recent years these have included: the OSPAR Convention, which aims to prevent and eliminate pollution of the marine environment in the Northeast Atlantic; the Barcelona Convention, which has similar aims for the Mediterranean; and the periodic North Sea Ministers' Conference. Even when they are regional in focus, these conventions and agreements have influence beyond their boundaries, providing a basis for progressive policy-making in other areas. Indeed, work now continues to use the ground-breaking precautionary policies agreed in these forums to achieve similar progress in other conventions and, of course, in real terms in the form of measures for improved environmental protection.

We have also worked within conventions, such as the Basel Convention, which controls the international waste trade, and the Stockholm Convention, which prohibits the manufacture and use of chemicals identified as Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Work continues within the London Convention, which regulates and largely prohibits the dumping of wastes at sea and which is currently at the centre of the global debate on carbon dioxide disposal beneath the seabed (Carbon Capture and Storage).

We are also currently working within technical committees of the Convention of Biological Diversity (CDB) and the World Bank's ongoing Agricultural Assessment, participating in the UK government's Chemical Stakeholder Forum and advising on research programmes on Green Chemistry, and providing scientific expertise to public bodies set up to evaluate the state of radioactive contamination 20 years after the disastrous accident at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in Ukraine.

Once persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals have been released, they cannot be controlled. And their destructive affects upon the environment and human health can never be fully understood. This is why we advise policy makers to: 

• Follow the Precautionary Principle - which, in simple terms, means "if in doubt don't";
• Consider the full life-cycle of products - because chemical releases occur during production, use, and disposal in landfill and incinerators;
• Work towards the cessation of chemical discharges - not just attempt to manage them;
• Build a more sustainable future - where man-made chemicals do not build up in the environment and our bodies, where we place greater reliance on renewable resources and where we are not systematically depleting the basis of life itself.

Over the years, our work has been influential. The Precautionary Principle, for example, has become increasingly widely accepted as a sound and scientifically-justified basis for national and international environmental laws.

The commitments to eliminate discharges of hazardous and radioactive pollutants to the sea by 2020 agreed by most European governments under the OSPAR Commission in 1998, as well as the more recent global Stockholm Convention on elimination of POPs, have the precautionary principle at their core.

And now increasingly the focus is on the broader issues of sustainability, especially on the need to move on from the tired and often corrupted notion of sustainable development towards a future in which societies all around the world can truly protect, and live within the finite renewable limits of, our natural world.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

 If you want to learn more about Greenpeace:

Frequently Asked Questions about Greenpeace

Greenpeace Organization

Greenpeace Science Unit

 Greenpeace Newsletter

      ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A parting thought from another interesting read by James Onen, 

who has an interesting blog:  

Freethought Kampala

Promoting Reason in a Highly Superstitious Society

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Can Science Be Trusted?

I have noticed that in many online debates I’ve participated in, particularly with believers, there is a general lack of understanding of, and hostility towards, the scientific method. Whenever I advance a scientific argument for a point I’m trying to make, I am told things like:

• Scientists always contradict each other

• Scientists always disagree with one other

• There is a conspiracy within the scientific establishment to ‘hide the truth’

• Science is just another religion

…and from this they conclude that Science can’t be relied upon to support my case, and my argument gets rejected. (This is usually the case when I am debating the subject of evolution by natural selection with believers.) 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  

POLITICIZATION OF SCIENCE
Unfortunately, in the recent decades, science has been highly politicised, with people in support of fringe views opting to go straight to the media rather than do better research in order to prove their ideas to their scientific colleagues through the tried and tested peer review process. They, after all, are after winning the hearts and minds of the general public (for ideological/political reasons), and not that concerned with actually doing good science. Of course, the media is equally guilty for playing into their hands and intentionally creating confusion, by always looking for fringe views so that they can generate controversy – hoping to attract more readers/listeners/viewers by doing so.

 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I like his parting thought:

No other method of enquiry possesses anywhere near the same degree of thoroughness, reliability, and efficiency in helping us better understand this universe that we live in, as science does.Let’s make the most of it!      

http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/can-science-be-trusted/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

{#9} D.LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - Immense Edifice

This is chapter nine from Donna LaFramboise's book 

The Delinquent Teenager: "The Immense Edifice That Wasn't"

For an introduction explaining why I'm reviewing this piece of work, please click here.

{Courier font identifies LaFramboise's words

Laframboise, (2011-10-09). T D T W W M W T C E (Kindle Locations 195-201). Ivy Avenue Press. Kindle Edition. }

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

9 - The Immense Edifice That Wasn't   Many people believe the IPCC goes to the trouble of verifying the research on which it bases its conclusions. An oft-repeated quote from President Barack Obama's science advisor, John Holdren, is a marvelous example of this. Holdren says the IPCC is the source of "the most important conclusions" about climate change, and that these conclusions rest on:

...an immense edifice of painstaking studies published in the world's leading peer-reviewed scientific journals. They have been vetted and documented in excruciating detail by the largest, longest, costliest, most international, most interdisciplinary, and most thorough formal review of a scientific topic ever conducted.

~ ~ ~ 

Donna, you fancy yourself an investigative journalist, yet your always condemning and insinuating incompetence along with dishonesty.  What's up with that?

This chapter again you make slanderous charges, you drape your words with insinuations right and left.  To try to create a cartoon and ignore all of this:

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) Authors and Review Editors As of 31 January 2013      http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml#.URhIk6V8vww 

This document captures the writing teams for the IPCC Working Groups I, II, and III contributions to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). Names, roles, and countries of residence are provided, as extracted from the AR5 nominations database, except in the case of experts that work for international organizations or institutes. For the most up to date list for each Working Group, please consult the individual Working Group Website.

Go ahead investigate this link of IPCC authors, review the names that goes on for dozens of pages.  It's easy enough to track down their academic/professional records.   Show us who is incompetent.  As for process, here's a link to the IPCC calendar:

http://www.ipcc.ch/scripts/_calendar_template.php?wg=8#.URhK26V8vww

Why does Donna disregard all of that?  I myself believe it's because to her the IPCC is a political enemy to defeat. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Here's a similar quote, from climate modeler Richard Rood: 

The scientists who write the IPCC reports use exquisite rigor...the result is a document which is based on the facts...which have been scrutinized to the highest level possible.

But as we have discovered, the IPCC takes research findings at face value. It doesn't double-check that the raw data actually shows what a researcher claims it does. It feels no need to look under the hood - and discourages its expert reviewers from doing so. 

~ ~ ~ 

"IPCC takes research findings at face value"  The IPCC is there to collect and inventory the scientific literature.  Donna is demanding that IPCC approach peer reviewed studies as untrustworthy.  Donna want every data point to be verified.

Come on can we think about that.  This is crazy-making.  

The notion is impossible. 

Donna would demand that the IPCC hires hundreds of reviewers and add whole new layers of bureaucracy to the process.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

... Holdren and Rood are therefore mistaken. The IPCC does not scrutinize the facts on which it relies. It performs no vetting whatsoever - never mind the sort that could be described as excruciatingly detailed. 

~ ~ ~ 

No organizing charter ever mandated the IPCC with auditing every study it processes!  

Donna has fabricated another straw-man.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

When IPCC insiders were asked for their thoughts about quality assurance, their questionnaire answers confirmed this. Here are some of their verbatim remarks: 

As far as I can tell, there is no data quality assurance associated with what the IPCC is doing… (p. 99) Since the IPCC is a review body, it does not do data assurance or quality control in a systematic fashion.(p. 52) Quality assurance and error identification is not existent… (p. 384) Data quality assurance, per se, is beyond the scope of the work of the IPCC… (p. 203)

- - - 

7. What is your view of how IPCC handles data quality assurance and quality control and identification and rectification of errors, including those discovered after publication? Data quality assurance, per se, is beyond the scope of the work of the IPCC since its job is to assess the science. 

That said, it does have the task of assessing the scientific methods that are used to develop a given data product so as to determine whether we should have confidence in a given estimate, of say, the global mean temperature anomaly. Thus it must inter-compare results that are obtained using different data sources and procedures, and must also assess the reliability of different data sources. But it cannot undertake data quality assurance itself.

- - -

Many of these individuals said the IPCC should not be held responsible for the accuracy of statements that appear in research papers it cites since "that is an issue for the journals concerned." In the words of someone else, "it is expected that a paper published in an important journal" has already received a quality assurance check.

~ ~ ~

What a refreshing piece of journalism from Donna, acknowledging the other side.  And, it's a point worth keeping in mind.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  

Other IPCC insiders, however, recognize the shortcomings of this approach. There are thousands of journals out there, but no accreditation process to ensure their quality. 

~ ~ ~

"No accreditation process,"  Donna willfully ignores that scientific quality assurance is achieved by the community of engaged scientists looking at and discussing these studies. 

This is a public process (that is within the community of scientists who can follow the discussion) and when there are problems with studies they get weeded out by this process, which is how science has operated for hundreds of years.

What Donna's trying to do is shift the goal so that every paper is treated as false until re-proven accurate.

Also, let's keep in mind what she's demanding would require an phenomenal increase in cash, manpower and additional layer of cumbersome bureaucracy  - something that no one is willing to do.  Something that would create it's own problems.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

How smart is it, therefore, to blindly assume that a published paper is an accurate paper? As one person observed, some research merely makes an interesting contribution to the 'intellectual conversation' (p. 332). That standard is surely far too low to justify an IPCC conclusion. 

~ ~ ~ 

I think Donna is hoping we blindly buy into her paranoia.

Her interpretation of those words has more to do with the agenda she's peddling here than with what the respondent was actually saying.  There's much more nuance going on there, you can decide:

7. What is your view of how IPCC handles data quality assurance and quality control and identification and rectification of errors, including those discovered after publication?Through the processes of successive refinement and abstraction, certain themes or ideas gain prominence and greater importance. The higher level of influence of ideas taken as leitmotivs in the later stages should require a higher level of scrutiny. Was this done in previous reviews. The level of confidence of a normal scientific paper put into the journal literature as part of the ongoing intellectual conversation is not necessarily written to the same level of rigour required to justify the weight of an IPCC major conclusion. 

Reverse quality assurance to the level of the original articles should be carried out for major IPCC findings, by IPCC scientists other than those responsible for forward progression of the finding.

~ ~ ~

Here again, it seems like pie in the sky talk.  

Who is going to finance this huge new layer of professional reviewers for every important paper the IPCC references?  

How many more opportunities for mischief and crazy-making will those politicized positions open up?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Once we understand a few other relevant facts, Holdren's claimed edifice crumbles entirely. Academic journals make use of a quality-control mechanism called peer review. The general idea is that, when a paper is submitted to a journal in the hope that it will be published, it gets assigned to an employee of the journal called an editor. The editor sends copies of the paper to reviewers presumed to be knowledgeable about the topic under discussion.

Generally speaking, there are three reviewers whose identities remain anonymous even after the paper is published. Sometimes these reviewers are called referees. Although the reviewers look over the paper it is important to appreciate that, in many cases, only the most cursory of assessments takes place. In the words of one senior scientist:

A reviewer is normally not paid for his work. With the best will in the world, he is able to spend no more than a few hours examining any particular manuscript. He is able to do little more than see that the story being told is superficially coherent and makes no obvious errors of fact. 

~ ~ ~ 

Oh boy, now Donna is introducing the conspiracy of laziness.

  

Reviewers are superficial and can't be trusted to fulfill their duties.   Does she show us incidents, no.  

All we are given is Donna's paranoia supported by what-ifs" and "it-coulds."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

If the reviewers have concerns, they tell the editor about them - who then asks the paper's author for a response. Sometimes a paper will undergo a major re-write before the editor is satisfied it is fit for publication. But this does not mean its conclusions are correct. Far from it. Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet medical journal, argues this point forcefully: 

Peer review does not prove that a piece of research is true. The best it can do is say that, on the basis of a written account of what was done and some interrogation of the authors, the research seems on the face of it to be acceptable for publication…Experience shows, for example, that peer review is an extremely unreliable way to detect research misconduct. 

A recent commentary titled The Peer Review Fetish [http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2011/07/08/the-peer-review-fetish/] makes a similar point:

A couple reviewers, of course, are a poor substitute for mass scrutiny. Sometimes reviewers are chosen poorly; other times they're lazy. ...

~ ~ ~ 

This is where Donna forget's to tell us about the community of competitive professionals who read these reports and can balance them agains their own knowledge.  People who are ready to point out flaws, to correct and supersede others work.  That's how science functions and it's not perfect but it has served society quite well. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Conflating peer review with scientific soundness impoverishes our appreciation of the scientific process. Peer review should be one criterion that people use in assessing the strength of any given piece of research – nothing more, nothing less.

What this all adds up to is that the only time research findings can be considered valid is if someone else, working entirely independently, follows the same procedures as those described in the paper and arrives at the same result. 

~ ~ ~

This simply does not ring true!  

There are plenty of ways to cross-validate someone's work without necessarily copying their original experiment.

Donna's suggestion would be forcing scientific knowledge to reproduction via cloning.  Works great for what it's worth, but doesn't get you very far in the evolutionary race.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

There used to be perfect clarity in the scientific community that unless a piece of research had passed that kind of test, it should be viewed with caution. Based on McIntyre's experience with the two unpublished papers discussed above, it appears the IPCC now regards research as reliable long before it has even appeared in print. 

~ ~ ~

Dear Donna, 

what "perfect clarity?"  When was this golden era? 

You know, this sounds like something you said because it sounds poetic and fits your plot.  But, it doesn't have anything to do with the history of how science actually functions and moves forward.  

Or will you show us what you base your claim on, with more that "could-bes" and "what-ifs"? 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  

When one remembers that a great deal of climate research involves computer modeling (employing millions of lines of computer code), there's another reason for concern. As geophysics professor Jon Claerbout points out:

An article about computational science in a scientific publication isn't the scholarship itself, it's merely advertising...The actual scholarship is the complete software development environment and the complete set of instructions which generated the figures.

Peer-reviewers don't get within a mile of climate modeling supercomputers and their software. Which means they have no realistic way of evaluating entire categories of research papers that are central to the IPCC's analysis. All a peer-reviewer can do is assess the advertising - the portions of the story the climate modeler chooses to discuss in his or her paper. 

~ ~ ~ 

Here again Donna's logic only works if you are working from the premise that every scientist is to be distrusted and that nothing less than absolute perfection is acceptable.

As for her claim that scientists have no realistic ways to evaluate models... I don't buy that one either.  Scientific models have been used extensively and successfully throughout modern scientific times.  

Spend some time looking at some of the links I share below.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Phil Jones, one of the world's most prominent climatologists, has published in the most prestigious journals. When he testified before a UK parliamentary committee early in 2010, he was asked how often peer reviewers had sought to examine his raw data and computer codes. "They've never asked," he replied.

While we're on the subject of quality assurance, IPCC insiders who answered the questionnaire identified another weak link. A great deal of climate research involves huge collections of data - such as temperature records from thousands of locations stretching back scores of years. But the accuracy of these numbers has never been verified by independent personnel. As one IPCC insider observed, academic journals may consider unverified data good enough - but quality control mechanisms surely need to be in place before the IPCC relies on such data to make real-world decisions. 

~ ~ ~ 

Here we are back in the land of erecting impossible standards.  

Worse than that, Donna is suggesting our scientists are so unreliable that every measurement ever written down needs to be re-verified.  This is crazy-making.  Who's going to do the reverifying?  Hobbyists who don't want to believe anything regarding man-made global warming to begin with?

Has Donna presented any examples, or incidents, that demonstrate a need for such extreme measures?  I'm still waiting.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Let us return to that quote from presidential advisor John Holdren. He says the IPCC's conclusions are the result of the most thorough formal review of a scientific topic ever conducted. How can this be the case when the IPCC hasn't bothered to verify the temperature data on which so much of climate science rests?

Would an auditor approve a company's financial statements before confirming the accuracy of the underlying numbers?

~ ~ ~ 

Bring on the melodrama, assume the worst from scientists and demand new impossible standards.  That's not the stuff of a investigative journalist, that's propaganda.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Below are a number of links to sources that talk about climate models; how they work; their strengths; limitations; usefulness.  Some are quite basic and other's provide higher level details along with links to further investigation:

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/english/A2_Verification.pdf

ANNEX 2 VERIFICATION A2.1 INTRODUCTION

Verification processes are, in the present context, intended to help establish an inventory’s reliability. These processes may be applied at either national or global levels of aggregation and may provide alternative information on annual emissions and trends. The results of verification processes may:

1. (i)  Provide inputs to improve inventories; 
2. (ii)  Build confidence in emissions estimates and trends; 
3. (iii)  Help to improve scientific understanding related to emissions inventories. 

Verification processes may also enhance international cooperation in improving inventory estimates.

There are different approaches to verification. One approach is to evaluate emissions estimates and trends, for example, as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) review of emissions inventories. Another approach entails an evaluation of aggregate inventories on a global or regional basis, with the objective of providing further scientific insight.

A number of options or tools for verification are discussed in this Annex. Their application, as well as the types of information needed, will vary according to the role and intention of the verification process. . .

~ ~ ~ 

Science Briefs

The Physics of Climate Modeling

By Gavin A. Schmidt, January 2007

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_04/

~ ~ ~

National Academy of Sciences ~ Climate Modeling 101

http://nas-sites.org/climatemodeling/index.php

~ ~ ~ 

ABSTRACT:   "Testing Climate Models: An Approach"

Richard Goody, James Anderson, and Gerald North

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/88/testing_climate_models_approach_1998.pdf

The scientific merit of decadal climate projections can only be established by means of comparisons with observa- tions. Testing of models that are used to predict climate change is of such importance that no single approach will pro- vide the necessary basis to analyze systematic errors and to withstand critical analysis. 

Appropriate observing systems must be relevant, global, precise, and calibratable against absolute standards. This paper describes two systems that satisfy these criteria: spectrometers that can measure thermal brightness temperatures with an absolute accuracy of 0.1 K and a spectral resolution of 1 cm−1, and radio occultation measurements of refractiv- ity using satellites of the GPS positioning system, which give data of similar accuracy. 

Comparison between observations and model predictions requires an array of carefully posed tests. There are at least two ways in which either of these data systems can be used to provide strict, objective tests of climate models. The first looks for the emergence from the natural variability of a predicted climate “fingerprint” in data taken on different occasions. The second involves the use of high-order statistics to test those interactions that drive the climate system toward a steady state. A correct representation of these interactions is essential for a credible climate model. 

A set of climate model tests is presented based upon these observational and theoretical ideas. It is an approach that emphasizes accuracy, exposes systematic errors, and is focused and of low cost. It offers a realistic hope for resolving some of the contentious arguments about global change.

~ ~ ~

How reliable are climate models?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

~ ~ ~

Predicting changes: Testing climate model accuracy

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/ClimateChanging/ClimateScienceInfoZone/Exploringwhatmighthappen/2point4/2point4point4.aspx

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Here's an interesting video, it's a decade old, so please remember there have been many advances, but still for a general orientation and for the hearing out of a scientist's mouth - it's nice:

40/40 Vision: Richard Somerville - Can Climate Models Be Trusted?

UCTV - Date: 5/2/2001 - 59 minutes

http://www.uctv.tv/shows/40-40-Vision-Richard-Somerville-Can-Climate-Models-Be-Trusted-5378

As we enter a new millennium, we have committed our children and grandchildren to a world of rising sea level, melting ice caps, and disrupted weather patterns. Are the computer models that tell this story reliable? How strong is the evidence for the scenarios they produce? How should policy makers and the public react to climate model forecasts? Join renowned meteorologist Richard Somerville as he presents a comprehensive overview of the climate change issue, ranging from the newest research results to the ongoing diplomatic and political debates sparked by climate science. (#5378)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

LaFramboise "McIntyre" appendix Chapter 8 #1

LaFramboise "IPCC review" appendix Chapter 8 #1

Since LaFramboise relies on Steven McIntyre's claims and judgement 
I though he was worth a closer look.  Sadly, it turns out he has an incredible double standard and uses disreputable tactics.

Bart Verheggen's weblog on climate change issues has a number of articles reviewing McIntyre.  They are informative, well written and include links to further sources of information.  Since he has done the homework I'm going to share excerpts from his blog:
{Words are unchanged though I do take my liberties with formatting and highlights}

"My view on climate change"

McIntyre’s concerted efforts to derail the science and harass scientists

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/mcintyre-concerted-efforts-to-derail-the-science-and-harass-scientists/

"What would you do if you were confronted with a group who will go through great lengths to find something -no matter how small- that they can twist and use against you? It will naturally make you very careful, and defensive perhaps. I empathize with not wanting to cooperate with people like that.

Indeed, in some of the stolen emails, CRU scientists sounded extremely frustrated with the many ‘Freedom of Information’ (FoI) requests they were getting, from exactly the kind of people as described above. Self appointed “auditor” of climate science Steve McIntyre asked his blog readers to participate:

Steve McIntyre              Posted Jul 24, 2009 at 10:59 AMI suggest that interested readers can participate by choosing 5 countries and sending the following FOI request to (…)

Now someone’s view of this situation entirely depends from what angle they look at it. McIntyre and his fans take the view that their repeated requests to “free the data” were being stonewalled, so they presumably felt that it was ok to increase the pressure this way. Even when acknowledging that more openness in science is a laudable goal, the way he’s going about it is entirely counterproductive and low.

Scientists and their supporters however view McIntyre’s tactics as pure sabotage. 

He doesn’t seem interested in furthering the science, but rather in attempting to shoot holes in work that is supportive of the scientific consensus, and then blowing it up way out of proportion to the significance of his finding (if at all correct). 

He also frequently engages in character assassination, insinuating fraud, scientific misconduct and manipulation on the part of scientists. 

There’s no need to back up such accusations; a verbose writing style and an uncritical audience who love every word that slams climate scientists does the job very nicely. The echo chamber on the internet does the rest.

This has the all the marks of the FOI law being abused to harass scientists. From the Times Online:Over a matter of days, CRU received 40 similar FoI requests. Each applicant asked for data from five different countries, 200 in all, which would have been a daunting task even for someone with nothing else to do.

Jones admitted poor judgment in handling those FoI requests: In an angry private email he wrote that he would rather delete data than provide them to McIntyre. In the context of being the target of what amounts to a ‘denial of service’ attack, I empathize with his frustration. Of course, deleting data would be extremely stupid, and AFAIK, he nor anybody else has done so. But who has never said (or written in email) something in anger, that in hindsight was uncalled for?

Hunting season on scientists seems open, and it’s a disgrace."

See also Eli Rabett. DeepClimate provides a detailed look into McIntyre’s history.

Update: From the Canadian Globe and Mail, where McIntyre is described as a gifted pest whose scattershot criticisms indiscriminately mix a few valid points with a larger body of half-truths, a potent concoction that produces much confusion but little benefit.

(…)

The key objection to the work of bloggers such as Mr. McIntyre is that they are engaged in an epic game of nitpicking: zeroing in on minor technical issues while ignoring the massive and converging lines of evidence that are coming in from many disciplines. To read their online work is to enter a dank, claustrophobic universe where obsessive personalities talk endlessly about small building blocks – Yamal Peninsula trees, bristlecones, weather stations – the removal of which will somehow topple the entire edifice of climate science. Lost in the blogging world is any sense of proportion, or the idea that science is built on cumulative work in many fields, the scientists say.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

IPCC SRREN: Conflict of interest or just a bad press release?

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/ipcc-srren-conflict-of-interest-or-just-a-bad-press-release/

The blog discussion of the week seems to be about IPCC’s Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. 

"Question is, has a study headed by a Greenpeace employee been overly hyped? I think the short answer is that it has in the press release but it hasn’t in the underlying report.

One would think that that would be the end of it. It’s become the norm that press releases highlight an eye catching finding rather than trying to paint a full picture of the underlying report. The former draws media attention; the latter does not. Media need a news hook after all, as we’re frequently told by journalists. That’s not necessarily a good thing for science journalism and science literacy, but it’s the case nevertheless.

Then why does the bulk of the criticism go to the whole of the IPCC process? That’s a bit of a rhetorical question of course, as the answer is fairly obvious: There are legions of people looking for excuses to throw the IPCC under the bus. . ."

~ ~ ~

"The Carbon Brief has a good rundown of issues. One paragraph though struck me:

the use of word “could” in the IPCC’s press release (“Close to 80 percent of the world’s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century”) is likely to refer to future uncertainties, but may well have been perceived by journalists and the public as a straightforward statement about the technical potential of renewable energy.

I think it’s the opposite: I think the word “could” refers to “technical potential” rather than to future uncertainties. As in, if we really wanted to and put the effort (and money) in, this is what we could achieve. . ."

~ ~ ~ 

"It’s destructive because it hides the central moral choice: we could cut emissions if we want to, we could have started decades ago when the scientific warnings about climate change were first raised, but we decided not to. It was a choice, implicit or not. . ."

~ ~ ~

"McIntyre, in a comment at DotEarth, seems to agree that the central issue is the press release:

Andy, I don’t think that you adequately highlighted that the Greenpeace scenario was the one that was featured in the IPCC press release and covered by the world media. Had the problem been limited to the Chapter 10 discussion, it would be less of an issue.

Which leads Michael Tobis to remark:

It does appear that whoever wrote the press release did a disservice. This seems so common in press reports of science that I am starting to think of it as typical. If Mr. McIntyre had limited himself to such a claim, as he does here, I would have no quarrel with his behavior in this case. But he proceeds, on his blog, to use this incident to call for “Everyone in IPCC WG3 [to] be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch.”

Thus he continues to play to the “climate science as fraud” crowd that frequents his blog while adopting a more reasonable pose here. 

{Does this earn the label of 'two-faced' liar?} 

(…)

The persistent substitution of fake problems for real ones is a key to derailing serious conversations these days."

The important conversation that we should be having, 

connected with the issues in the SRREN, 

is about what kind of future we want.

“Those who want search for a way. 

Those who don’t want search for a reason.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
But wait, there's more. . .

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

McIntyre’s role in the latest teapot tempest

October 6, 2009

This whole tempest in a teapot about the Yamal tree rings made me curious about how this story, with an analysis by Steve McIntyre at the centerpoint, gained such traction. The not-so-critical part of the blogosphere ran away with his results, blowing it way out of proportion in their haste to claim that climate science is a big sham. How much credit or blame (dependent on your viewpoint) goes to McIntyre for how this story panned out in the public mind?

Jim Bouldin gives a thoughtful rundown of the major issues.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Did McIntyre have the data all along?

October 8, 2009

The bunny is right on top of it. He quotes an excellent comment from ClimateAudit about the fact that McIntyre was being told who to contact about the data. It is written in a very non-judgemental way, but in between the lines the message is clear. I.e. some of McIntyre’s writing tactics are being used to convey the message. Eli calls it a work of art.

Craig Allen over at Deepclimate brings the news that McIntyre was already provided with the data 5 years ago (!), but was unsure that they were the real deal, so he wasn’t ‘immediately’ satisfied. Deepclimate’s post itself details how the Russian scientists (and originators of the data) have an analysis based on a much bigger sample that basically confirms Briffa’s results.

If this wasn’t already a tempest in a teapot, then it most definitely is now.

Update: Tim Lambert (Deltoid) has a round-up as well, with some relevant quotes.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Organized defamation and anti-science

February 26, 2010

John Mashey explains how organized defamation of science has been structured and funded. Good (and long) reading, though bad for your blood pressure. Some excerpts:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

“Climategate”: The scandal that wasn’t and the scandal that was

November 17, 2010

It’s a year ago now that email correspondence of the British CRU was illegally released (*) on the internet. Over the course of heated discussions that followed, this became known as “climategate”, implying some sort of scandal.

The scandal that wasn’t

The emails were spun as if they uncovered some massive conspiracy to hide the truth. For example {...}

The scandal that wasn’t

{...}

Of course, some unwise and some not-so-nice things were said. Haven’t you over the course of 13 years of emailing? If you had worked in a field about which there is a heated public and political debate, would people who are very hostile to your views be able to find something that they could shame you with in all those emails?

The scandal that was

The real scandal was that some people, for whatever reason, are so hostile to the science that they took this illegal step of breaking into an institute’s computer system and released private email correspondence. This was a day that the attack on science (and on scientists) arrived at a new low. Such an attack has nothing to do with sincere skepticism. Those who did this –and those who celebrate it- follow the adage of the end justifying the means, where the end apparently is to bring science on its knees. Needless to say, I hold science to be an important part of a healthy, modern society, and ignoring its insights is not a good strategy. Attacking it in ways as was done in “climategate” is scandalous. . .

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

IPCC SRREN: Conflict of interest or just a bad press release?

June 19, 2011

The blog discussion of the week seems to be about IPCC’s Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Question is, has a study headed by a Greenpeace employee been overly hyped? I think the short answer is that it has in the press release but it hasn’t in the underlying report.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~