Judith Curry’s prepared testimony:
My written testimony summarizes the evidence for, and against, the hypothesis that humans are playing a dominant role in global warming. I’ll make no attempt to summarize this evidence in my brief comments this morning. I will state that there are major uncertainties in many of the key observational data sets, particularly before 1980. There are also major uncertainties in climate models, particularly with regards to the treatments of clouds and the multidecadal ocean oscillations.
The prospect of increased frequency or severity of extreme weather in a warmer climate is potentially the most serious near term impact of climate change. A recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found limited observational evidence for worsening of most types of extreme weather events. Attempts to determine the role of global warming in extreme weather events is complicated by the rarity of these events and also by their dependence on natural weather and climate regimes that are simulated poorly by climate models.
Given these uncertainties, there would seem to be plenty of scope for disagreement among scientists. Nevertheless, the consensus about dangerous anthropogenic climate change is portrayed as nearly total among climate scientists. Further, the consensus has been endorsed by all of the relevant national and international science academies and scientific societies.
I have been trying to understand how there can be such a strong consensus given these uncertainties. How to reason about uncertainties in the complex climate system is neither simple nor obvious. Scientific debates involve controversies over the value and importance of particular classes of evidence, failure to account for indeterminacy and ignorance, as well as disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for assessing the evidence.
For the past three years, I’ve been working towards understanding the dynamics of uncertainty at the climate science-policy interface. This research has led me to question whether these dynamics are operating in a manner that is healthy for either the science or the policy process.
No kidding. And emphasis mine. I’ve been trying to understand that, too. It increasingly appears to be driven by politics.
[Update a few minutes later]
This comment, from a post earlier today, seems apropos:
When I was young, I was taught history as a narrative of mistakes, errors of judgment, and closed minded attitudes which were subsequently found to be irrational. The motivations of those benighted souls who believed these things were effectively random ignorance and bias, with no logical basis or external impetus.
The implication to a naive, young mind was that, that was all in the past, and we had now monotonically converged upon an era of unprecedented enlightenment, and humans now were effectively immune from the foibles of the past. Adults knew everything that was needed to know, and only a small minority of troglodytes, who were invariably the butt of derision on evening sit-coms, had failed to keep up.
The “science” of the past was full of leeches, geocentricism, and arbitrary religious conviction. Today’s scientists were immune to bias, their conclusions based on objective, reproducible evidence, and infused with 20/20 foresight. Knowledge was the key. The more knowledge you had, the less vulnerable you were to irrationalism. But, knowledge and wisdom are not, in fact, synonymous.
Eventually, as I grew and gained knowledge, I realized that the people of the past were no different than those of today. That they made erroneous inferences based on pat answers which seemed “obvious” based on the knowledge base of the day, and that we were no more immune to mistakes of that sort than they were. But, today, a large portion of the average population remains in the arrested stage of my youth, in which “scientists” are authorities whose word is inviolable holy writ, and anyone who questions “science” is a troglodyte worthy of being made the butt of derision on evening TV.
It is not just bizarre and surreal, but utterly teeth gnashing to see these fools strut their faith and ignorance in smug certitude that they stand on unshifting, bedrock solid ground. They have no inkling that they are the believers in leechcraft and other folderal of today. And, they will carry us all into the abyss with unblinking faith that they are the righteous heirs of the enlightenment, whose ends justify whatever means necessary to rescue we troglodytes from ourselves.
Indeed. This isn’t about science — it is about the false faith of scientism.
Further, the consensus has been endorsed by all of the relevant national and international science academies and scientific societies.
I have been trying to understand how there can be such a strong consensus given these uncertainties.
That’s the really interesting question: if there really is that much uncertainty about the AGW hypothesis, how does it continue to have unanimous support from scientific societies? Either 1) Curry has overestimated the uncertainty, or 2) our entire system of science is incompetent and/or corrupt.
It’s not an indictment of “our entire system of science.” It’s clearly a problem with climate science, and the corruption arises from its political implications. It has become politicized science. It gets the support from the scientific societies because most members of them don’t have time to really dig into the issues, and are relying on the integrity of the overall climate science community. In that, as we saw in the leaked emails, they are making a mistake.
I think it is. If you are a policy maker, and there’s a public policy question that depends on scientific knowledge (call that question X), you go to the National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council, etc., and ask: is there a scientific consensus on X? If they say there is, you make policy on that basis. We don’t want ill-qualified politicians and voters to have to look into the science themselves, and adjudicate disputes between scientists — we depend on the institutions of science to do that.
This system of science seems to work fine where X is evolution, the role of HIV in AIDS, the effects of lead exposure on IQ, and countless other scientific questions with implications on public policy (all of which are politicized because of their policy implications). You and Curry are arguing that for some reason it does not work when X is “are human actions the main factor in climate change?” If you’re right, if we can’t trust scientific scientists to evaluate that X, policy makers and voters have good reason to wonder whether they should trust the scientific establishment about other Xs as well.
In that, as we saw in the leaked emails, they are making a mistake.
The scientific societies have had a number of years to examine those emails and re-evaluate their positions on climate change. I’m not aware of any that have done so. They do not seem to have interpreted those emails the same way you did.
It doesn’t work for the reason that those who got involved in climate science became convinced that they’re saving the world against a threat whose existence can’t be disproved in anything short of a half-century timescale.
This makes the field ripe for the worst cases of noble cause corruption and religious fervor (the problem is mankind’s sin, and the solution is to return to purity and abstention), influences that are the most likely to impede rational analysis.
Eugenics would probably be the best recent parallel, since in that case the scientists wholeheartedly believed that they were saving and purifying our species against clear medical threats carried in the genes. They were certain of it, and certain that the threat was both real, immediate, and overwhelming – even though they couldn’t point to an actual case of a society undone by bad genetics.
Eugenics is a good example, if not very recent. Did it ever have unanimous support from leading scientific societies?
I’ve long felt that the proposed solutions feel more like “put on a hairshirt and beat our breast so God/the Goddess/the gods can see that we’re Really, Really Sorry” than actual science-based responses to a problem.
Not to mention the fact that the solutions as proposed will be progressively less binding as one goes up the social feeding chain, which to me stinks of “sumptuary laws to keep the groundlings from aping their betters.” If anthropogenic global warming were the existential threat they’re claiming it is, we should be seeing calls for across-the-board austerity of the levels that all classes of society faced during WWII, not this business where the wealthy will give up a vacation in the Riviera and act like they’re getting mauled, the middle class will be reduced to penury and the poor will starve.
Jim, please name one field of science, other than climate, where the National Acadmey has blacklisted scientists who disagreed with the “consensus.”
Name one field, other than climate, where anyone who questions the evidence is demonized as a “right winger” and puppet of big oil? Including scientists such as Freeman Dyson, whose left-wing credentials on every other issue are as good as your own?
Scientists in other fields don’t act that way. They welcome dispute and disagreement. In astronomy, for example, most scientists thought Fred Hoyle was dead wrong about steady-state universe, but no one compared him to Nazis or Holocaust deniers. They *respectfully* disagreed with him. No one ever attempted to have him removed from academia, denied research grants, or prevented from publishing.
That’s the difference between science and political science. The latter is an oxymoron.
This is all pretty obvious but I’ll say it anyway:
Climate science has become politicized because the claimed effects of AGW have political consequences, obviously political consequences are important to those across the political spectrum.
So I think it’s naive to believe everyone with a political ideology has an opinion on AGW is untainted by their politics.
It’s all a bit like the evolution debate with politics taking the place of religion.
Andrew, replace the word “political” with “economic” and then your comment will make sense. Evolution has nothing to do with peoples’ economic well being. “Climate” does.
This is actually useful fodder for an opinion piece. Thanks.
Here’s a name: Kary Mullis. Nobel Prize winner, inventor of PCR…and scientific persona non grata for having the temerity to question the AIDS conventional wisdom. Whether right or wrong (and I’m not qualified to say), he was treated as evil, and that’s not compatible with scientific discourse. The parallel with AGW skeptics is that questioning the cause of AIDS also gored a favorite Democratic Party / left-wing ox.
Fred Hoyle was denied a deserved Nobel Prize in physics for his work in stellar nucleosynthesis because of his continued support for the Steady State theory of cosmology.
scientific persona non grata
There are lots of examples, in a variety of fields. Just try to get a paper advocating intelligent design published in a biology journal.
The persecution that AGW dissenters complain about is far from unique. If persecution implies unreliable science, there’s reason to doubt a long list of consensus scientific conclusions.
Evolution has nothing to do with peoples’ economic well being.
Religion and political world view can have as much influence over people’s minds as economics, as shown by the persistence of anti-evolution legislation in the U.S. And climate research is hardly the only controversial scientific field with economic implications; see research into the effects of tobacco use, lead exposure, sulphur and mercury emissions, vaccine safety, livestock antibiotic use, genetically modified organisms, etc. If policymakers can’t believe the National Academy of Sciences about climate, why should they believe them about any question that touches on big business interests?
“. Just try to get a paper advocating intelligent design published in a biology journal.”
Having a paper rejected for publication isn’t the equivalent of being made persona non grata; called a denier, a Nazi, or get you persecuted or blacklisted in any way. It happens to most scientists all the time.
Why would you bring up this non-example?
To second what Gregg said, there’s a difference between not winning a Nobel Prize and being blacklisted.
As for Kary Mullis, he has done many other things to cause colleagues to shy away from him, like reporting an encounter with a glowing, talking raccoon from outer space and his (unrelated?) experimentation with LSD.
There’s also a difference between the way individuals choose to interact (or not interact) with a colleague and aninstitution such as the National Academy publishing a blacklist of scientists.
It’s interesting to see Jim the flaming liberal defend the NAS blacklisting of scientists like Freeman Dyson, who probably agrees with Jim on every subject except global warming. (And despite Jim’s aspersion about “unreliable science,” Prof. Dyson undoubtedly knows far more about the science than Jim does. It would be amusing to see them debate, in a Godzilla vs. Bambi sort of way.)
Does Jim support the blacklisting of anyone who disagrees with him on any single issue? Or only on this particular issue?
And what if Jim should find himself on the other side, and the NAS disagrees with him on some issue? Would he then support the blacklisting of scientists who agree with him?
an institution such as the National Academy publishing a blacklist of scientists.
I didn’t know what you were talking about here, so I Googled “Freeman Dyson blacklist” and found the PNAS paper you’re referring to. It’s an analysis of 1,372 climate researchers and their publications, and a comparison of the “relative climate expertise and scientific prominence” of the 2-3% of said researchers who are unconvinced of anthropogenic climate change, versus the 97-98% who are convinced.
In other words, you are claiming that when the Proceedings of the NAS publishes a paper that examines the work of climate scientists, and identifies scientists who are unconvinced of AGW, that the NAS has thereby published a blacklist. By that standard, any effort to survey and categorize the views of scientists, based on their publications, creates a blacklist. I think you’ve defined “blacklist” way, way down.
Prof. Dyson undoubtedly knows far more about the science than Jim does
No doubt. I’m a huge fan of Dyson’s writing, and his scientific work (to the degree that I understand it). But he’s one man, albeit an uncommonly brilliant man, and there’s no reason to grant any individual veto power over the rest of the scientific world.
And what if Jim should find himself on the other side, and the NAS disagrees with him on some issue?
I’d be foolish to consider my layman’s opinion more valid than the collected wisdom of the National Academy.
In other words, you are claiming
Typical Jim. Change my words, so you can argue something I never said.
By that standard, any effort to survey and categorize the views of scientists, based on their publications, creates a blacklist. I think you’ve defined “blacklist” way, way down.
No, my untruthful friend. You defined it that way. I am not responsible for words you put into my mouth.
When an organization publishes a list of 496 scientists who are not to be believed or cited, that is a blacklist, by most people’s definition.
In fact, I’m sure you would call it a blacklist, in other contexts. I can imagine your reaction if a quasi-government agency (or even a private organization) published a list of actors, for example, who are not to be employed. In fact, I don’t have to imagine.
there’s no reason to grant any individual veto power over the rest of the scientific world.
It seems the only way you can argue is by misquoting people. No one said that one person should be granted individual veto power over the rest of the scientific community. You made that up.
There’s a difference between granting a scientist veto power over the entire scientific community and allowing him to speak and publish. If you can’t see any middle ground between “granting an individual veto power” and muzzling him, that’s your problem.
I’d be foolish to consider my layman’s opinion more valid than the collected wisdom of the National Academy.
You’re equally foolish to be believe science is based on “collected wisdom” and suppression of dissent rather than open discussion and free exchange of information.
Again that is the difference between science and political “science.”
The “collective wisdom” of the National Academy said that human missions to asteroid missions were not worthwhile.
Yet, NASA is planning just such a mission. How does Jim believe the Academy should respond? Should one man like General Bolden be given an individual veto over the collective wisdom of the National Academy? Should the National Academy publish a list of NASA officials who are not to be quoted in the press or professional literature?
I’m sure Jim wouldn’t support that, and neither would the National Academy. Even among political science, climate is treated differently.
When an organization publishes a list of 496 scientists who are not to be believed or cited, that is a blacklist, by most people’s definition.
The list in question is here. Where exactly does it say that the listed scientists are not to be believed or cited? How exactly does referencing this list in a PNAS paper control what anyone cites or believes?
It’s my observation that the people on the list continue to be cited and believed — including in this very thread. Not every list is a blacklist.
There’s a difference between granting a scientist veto power over the entire scientific community and allowing him to speak and publish.
Indeed. Who, exactly, has forbidden Dyson from speaking and publishing, and how on earth do they enforce that prohibition?
Should the National Academy publish a list of NASA officials who are not to be quoted in the press or professional literature?
Since when does the National Academy control who gets quoted in the press or professional literature?
Yet, NASA is planning just such a mission.
Presumably science is only one of the motivations for the mission.
You’re equally foolish to be believe science is based on “collected wisdom” and suppression of dissent rather than open discussion and free exchange of information.
I would be foolish to believe those things. I don’t.
So, that’s your new argument, Jim? Blacklisting scientists was not completely effective, so that makes it okay?
Well, blacklisting Communists was not completely effectively. Yet, you wouldn’t support that.
That argument is lame even by your standards.
Jim, the uncertainty is stated** quite candidly by the IPCC in their Working Group 1 (WG1) report from 2007. The ‘certainty’ arises from those who then interpreted/synthesised that report within the higher working groups, which turned out to be a relatively small number or selected ‘experts’.
In addition, it’s also clearly stated** that the models poorely represent the underlying physics and even ignore some mechanisms that could be highly significant.
[** Rand: I tried adding references but your software blocked me. However, I can provide an extensive list, if necessary]
I’ve never thought it was any more complicated than, “Capitalism is destroying the Earth, and the only course of action is to adopt socialism on a global scale. It must be done immediately, and no dissent can be tolerated.”
And yet when you travel to former or current communist countries, you’ll find them heavily polluted.
I don’t think the list of scientific bodies that accept catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming as proven and inevitable is “unanimous”.
And yet people that accept CO2 as a contributor, and humans as a producer of it are still filthy oily anti-science deniers if they hold that one caveat.
“I think it’s partly Ice Age Rebound” -> denier.
“The paleo temperature reconstructions are particularly inept” -> denier.
“What do you mean the majority of the current models don’t actually include the heat transfer effect of thunderstorms?!?” -> denier.
Over thirty scientific societies have endorsed the IPCC conclusion that humans are the largest driver of recent climate change, and that action should be taken to reduce emissions. There’s no major scientific organization that rejects those findings.
As for “catastrophic”: if the above conclusions are correct, and no action is taken to reduce emissions, then the climate will get warmer indefinitely. If there is such a thing as a climate that is catastrophically too warm, we will be moving steadily towards that catastrophe. Hence the recommendation that we reduce emissions.
How many of them have any expertise in climate science?
Some do (the American Geophysical Union, the Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences of the European Geosciences Union, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, etc.). Others (e.g. the National Academy of Science, the Royal Society, etc.) are umbrella groups of all sorts of scientists, and they base their statements on climate science (and on anything else) on the work done by specialists in that field. As I wrote above, we rely on this procedure whenever policymakers have a scientific question in any discipline. The burden is on those who argue we should make an exception for climate science.
Because much of climate “science” is turning out to be junk science, as Professor Curry and others have been documenting for years. If this turns out to be the case in other disciplines, then we should be careful with them as well.
much of climate “science” is turning out to be junk science
Junk science should be spotted and shot down by other scientists. You are alleging that this isn’t happening, not just in one case or another, but again and again in every prominent scientific body on Earth.
Alternatively, it’s possible you are mistaken.
Junk science should be spotted and shot down by other scientists. You are alleging that this isn’t happening, not just in one case or another, but again and again in every prominent scientific body on Earth.
I am alleging nothing of the kind. It has been happening for years, going back to the debunking of Mann’s hockey stick a decade ago.
It has been happening for years, going back to the debunking of Mann’s hockey stick a decade ago.
And years after that “debunking” the National Research Council came out and said that:
So in the view of the NRC, either Mann’s work wasn’t really debunked, or the debunking of Mann’s work doesn’t undermine the case for AGW.
You look at information such as the alleged Mann debunking and conclude “Aha! The AGW theory is based on junk science and can be dismissed!” The NRC looks at the very same information and issues report after report endorsing the AGW theory.
You’re asking me to believe that you are better at spotting junk science, and evaluating its implications, than the NRC (and dozens of other scientific societies).
“And years after that “debunking” the National Research Council came out and said that:”
The old switcheroo. The NRC did not exonerate the “hockey stick”, it just made a not-necessarily-related but sympathetic conclusion.
Even Mann’s colleagues dismissed his hockey stick in private e-mails which came to light. It is junk science.
This reminds me of a DUI case I was a juror on, many years ago. The defense attorney used his voir dire privileges to weed out working scientists from the jury pool, apparently assuming us laypeople wouldn’t spot the flaw in his defense, which was that because ONE study supported his claim that his client did not have an illegal BAC while driving, despite a test’s finding of an illegal BAC, and because NO study had refuted the study he was using, therefore the ONE study was SCIENTIFIC FACT.
We convicted his client.
Jim, go read Chapter 2.9.2 and Chapter 8.6 of the IPCC’s Working Group 1 report…
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
…then read the Synthesis Report (Summary for Policy Makers)…
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
Now ask yourself why the statements about ‘uncertainty’ never made from the former to the latter and maybe you’ll begin to understand Dr Curry’s concern.
I think it’s pretty clear at this point that Jim will never understand our or Professor Curry’s concern. He’s too politically and emotionally invested in an inability to do so.
I think it’s pretty clear that Rand resorts to ad hominem when he has nothing interesting to say. But his problem isn’t with me, it’s with the National Academy of Science, and dozens of other scientific bodies. His charge, essentially, is that none of them understand Curry’s concern, or can see the corruption of climate science that he sees so clearly. I’m not a climate scientist, so I’ll side with the academies.
His charge, essentially, is that none of them understand Curry’s concern, or can see the corruption of climate science that he sees so clearly.
What makes you think they’re even looking?
Ok, so your contention is that the global scientific establishment does not even bother to listen to concerns about its controversial findings. If true, that’s an indictment of our entire system of science, which is exactly what I wrote in my first comment, above.
Ok, so your contention is that the global scientific establishment does not even bother to listen to concerns about its controversial findings.
No, my contention is that it doesn’t have the time or resources to try to resolve them, particularly when they are politically controversial, and when the criticized results are politically, if not scientifically correct.
If true, that’s an indictment of our entire system of science, which is exactly what I wrote in my first comment, above.
There is no such thing as “our system of science.” Science is an epistemological method. You’re talking about institutions, riven with politics and run by people hewn from the crooked timber of humanity. But I can see why that notion would be disturbing to a technocrat.
it doesn’t have the time or resources to try to resolve them
No, your claim is stronger than that. If it was a lack of time or resources they could refrain from making a statement on the subject. Instead, they have re-affirmed past statements. Rendering judgements on questions like this is what the NAS et al were established for — it’s their job, it’s exactly what they have time and resources to do.
Your claim is that the NAS is not only not doing its job, but that it’s doing the opposite: that it is putting its stamp of approval on junk science.
Science is an epistemological method.
Yes, but when laypeople in Congress need to know whether to regulate carbon/mercury/lead/sulphur emissions, or put labels on packs of cigarettes, or fund asteroid defense, or mandate vaccination, they don’t need an epistemological method. They need trustworthy institutions of scientists, however “riven with politics and run by people hewn from the crooked timber of humanity,” to tell them what the science says, as best as those institutions can determine. You are saying that we can do without those institutions, that Congressmen and the people who elected them would be just as well off listening to a handful of individual scientists (chosen how?) and trusting their own instincts and ill-remembered high school science classes as to those scientists’ credibility.
Your claim is that the NAS is not only not doing its job, but that it’s doing the opposite: that it is putting its stamp of approval on junk science.
Can you cite such a recent “stamp of approval”?
In 2011 the NRC issued America’s Climate Choices:
OK, so looking at that, it appears not to be an investigation, or validation of climate change, but simply a compilation of research in the field, similar to what the IPCC did (but hopefully more competently). For example, Figure 1 is based on a model. How do we know that model is valid? They don’t say. They simply accept it as so. That’s what I mean about them not having the resources or interest in actually validating the science. What Judith Curry is pointing out is that there are in fact problems with the science, and the modeling, and the NAS or NRC never address those issues, or her questions. Because no one has asked or funded them to do so.
simply a compilation of research in the field
Right — and the research in the field overwhelmingly supports the AGW theory.
actually validating the science
They looked at the original research, and relying on their expertise in the field, they deemed it to accurately reflect the current state of scientific knowledge. If they thought the research was junk science, they’d have issued a very different report.
What Judith Curry is pointing out is that there are in fact problems with the science
She alleges this. If other scientists agreed you’d see them making this argument as well, and their views would find their way into compilations like the NRC report. That’s how it works — individual research findings fight it out and the persuasive ones bubble up to the top. But evidently Curry’s peers do not find her arguments to be as persuasive as you do.
They looked at the original research, and relying on their expertise in the field, they deemed it to accurately reflect the current state of scientific knowledge.
Who are “they”? What is their expertise in the field? Do they actually have any, or are they relying on the competence and integrity of the researchers?
A model does not “reflect the current state of scientific knowledge.” A model isn’t “scientific knowledge” at all.
If other scientists agreed you’d see them making this argument as well, and their views would find their way into compilations like the NRC report.
Many do. The concern is that their views don’t in fact find their way into politicized reports. That’s one of the reasons for this week’s hearing.
Who are “they”?
The report authors are listed at the end of the report summary.
The concern is that their views don’t in fact find their way into politicized reports. That’s one of the reasons for this week’s hearing.
In other words, scientific institutions can’t be trusted to accurately summarize the work of their members, because they’re too politicized, so we need to substitute the superior and apolitical scientific judgement of members of Congress. I hope you’re joking.
In other words, scientific institutions can’t be trusted to accurately summarize the work of their members, because they’re too politicized, so we need to substitute the superior and apolitical scientific judgement of members of Congress.
If’s funny how sometimes people use the phrase “in other words” and then write something that is words so “other” that they bear no relationship to what was originally said.
Are you saying that Congress should have no oversight on taxpayer-funded organizations?
Let’s repeat:
Now either what she is saying is accurate, or it is not. If it is, then climate science is apparently broken, and it should be addressed by the NRC and NAS and the other vaunted “institutions.” If it is not, then it should be explained why it is not. It certainly appears to be the case to me.
In other words, scientific institutions can’t be trusted to accurately summarize the work of their members
I didn’t say they couldn’t be trusted to accurately summarize the work of their members. I’m quite confident that they did so. The question at hand is whether that work is scientifically valid. I doubt that it was within their charter, expertise or time to make such a determination. They simply operated on the premise that it was. Others, such as Curry, are looking at it and saying that there are problems. Having looked it over myself, I agree with them.
If you’re interesting in understanding what’s going on here, I’d suggest this relatively even-handed article about Curry at SciAm from a couple years ago.
Oops, I forgot to include Chapter 2.9.1 as well. This lists all possible sources of radiative forcings and, when compared to the graph in 2.9.2, shows that those listed as ‘Very Low’ Level of Scientific Understanding (LOSU) are not included in any of the models.
Let’s imagine that I go read the IPCC reports, and come to a conclusion that differs from that of the National Academy of Science, the National Research Council, the Royal Society, and every other scientific society of note. What should I do then? I’m not a scientist. Should I conclude that I’m right, and they’re all wrong? Or is it possible that they might have a better handle on this question?
Given that the IPCC reports have been repeatedly shown to be wrong, and had to retract many of their findings, and were put together by a political hack at the UN whose apparent qualifying experience with climatology was railroad engineering, you should conclude, “Yup, they screwed up again,” just as those of us (like Professor Curry) who have actually been reading them, and actually understand math and science and statistics, have been doing.
just as those of us (like Professor Curry) who have actually been reading them, and actually understand math and science and statistics, have been doing.
No major scientific society disputes the central IPCC findings. So again, you are alleging that the members of the National Academy of Science and every other prominent scientific body for some reason lack either your interest, or your expertise. That is an audacious claim, which indicts our foremost institutions of science. Where’s your evidence?
No major scientific society disputes the central IPCC findings.
Did someone fund them to investigate?
Jim, the fact that you are unwilling to even try and weigh the evidence for yourself is rather telling… maybe you’re exhibiting the exact same attitude as all those learned bodies (i.e. it’s so complicated that only climate scientists are allowed to make judgements on the issue)?
No major scientific society disputes the central IPCC findings. So again, you are alleging that the members of the National Academy of Science and every other prominent scientific body for some reason lack either your interest, or your expertise.
It’s mostly lack of interest. As I said, they manage to find better uses for their resources than engaging in political incorrectness that might put grants at risk, finding it more convenient to defer to the climate “scientists.” They go along to get along. I continue to find it amusing, but not surprising, that you invest so much authority and omniscience in “prominent scientific bodies.”
It’s mostly lack of interest.
The National Resource Council issued multiple reports on climate change in 2010, 2011 and 2012. It’s an area of intense interest.
you invest so much authority and omniscience in “prominent scientific bodies.”
No doubt they’re fallible. But they’re in a much better position to evaluate the state of climate science than you or I. The question isn’t whether they’re perfect, but whether they’re across the board so corrupt and/or inept that policymakers would be better off listening to a layperson instead.
“But they’re in a much better position to evaluate the state of climate science than you or I.”
That is an assumption on your part. But, climate science is a relatively young discipline, and practitioners are drawn from a variety of fields, many of which have nothing to do with identification and modeling of stochastic time series. Am I better qualified to analyze such series than they? Yes, I am. You and Rand may be, too.
These people aren’t Gods. They are ordinary people with particular specialities. There is no basis to assume that they are uber-competent in the ones that matter. In fact, having read a selection of widely cited papers underlying the “science”, I find I am generally appalled by the lack of scientific rigor, the clear-cut confirmation bias, and the overall neglect of the scientific method.
policymakers would be better off listening to a layperson instead.
Professor Curry is not a layperson.
Nor is James Hansen. If Congress listened to Hansen they’d get one view, if they listened to Curry they’d get another, and if they heard from both they’d have no informed way to tell which to believe (or neither). Laypeople need a way to find out if there’s a scientific consensus on a question, something more reliable than picking a random handful of individual scientists, and that’s what the institutions of science are meant to provide.
Nor is James Hansen.
No, but unlike Judith Curry, he is a well-established political hack.
Maybe Hansen is a poor example. There are thousands of climate scientists who have no particular political baggage. How should voters and policymakers decide which ones to listen to?
How should voters and policymakers decide which ones to listen to?
Which scientists are looking to impose policies that reduce personal liberty through the imposition of higher taxes or outright nationalization of private property?
Which scientists are looking to impose policies that reduce personal liberty through the imposition of higher taxes or outright nationalization of private property?
Now that’s an honest answer! But in that case there’s no reason to go through the charade of pretending to care about science at all.
there’s no reason to go through the charade of pretending to care about science at all.
Jim, you haven’t mentioned anything that’s scientific at all. All your arguments in this thread is based on some absurd democracy that you assert exists or appeal to authority that utilizes terminology reminiscent of the Catholic Church’s suppression of science.
If I’m wrong, please show us where you previously argued in this thread that AGW was supported empirically?
Maybe Hansen is a poor example.
No, Hansen is a great example. He demonstrates that politicians listen to who supports their agenda and give them power and money in turn. Why do you think Hansen has gotten so much attention over the decades? Because he says what certain power blocs want to hear.
It’s worth remembering here that the same politicians and bureaucrats who benefit from AGW-oriented spending, currently to the tune of tens of billions worldwide, are also the ones controlling the purse strings for most climate research worldwide. I think this large conflict of interest has corrupted modern climate research.
Professor Curry is not a layperson.
In what way do you mean, Rand? Jim appears to being using arguments and appeals to authority some centuries old.
Maybe Hansen is a poor example.
Ya think?
There are thousands of climate scientists who have no particular political baggage.
I doubt that there are that many climate scientists. In any event, Curry has no political baggage whatsoever, as far as I know, which is one of the reasons she was called to testify. Do you not understand her concerns, or do you find them invalid? Don’t you think that she deserves an answer to her questions from your vaunted scientific institutions?
Do you not understand her concerns, or do you find them invalid?
Why does it matter? Her ability to persuade a layperson like me or you or a member of Congress is neither here nor there. What should matter is her ability to persuade her peer scientists.
What she says either makes sense, or it doesn’t, regardless of whom the audience is. So I guess you’re saying you don’t understand it. If you did, you’d be concerned.
What she says either makes sense, or it doesn’t, regardless of whom the audience is.
That’s an odd thing to say. If Sen. Shelby says “We need a bigger rocket than the Saturn V to take people to Mars, because Mars is further away than the Moon”, that’s a statement that makes perfect sense to someone who doesn’t have any particular interest or knowledge of space transportation (i.e. most people). But others with more knowledge would find it highly questionable. Curry’s testimony doesn’t exist on a plane of pure reason — its validity and importance depend on detailed expert knowledge of the work of climate scientists.
Her ability to persuade a layperson like me or you or a member of Congress is neither here nor there. What should matter is her ability to persuade her peer scientists.
Jim, you are confusing science as politics. Many famous scientist with various laws of physics named after them failed to persuade either the laypersons of their time or fellow scientists. Some were derided as out right heretics. Science isn’t about persuasion, it’s about developing theories and putting the theories to test in the real world.
IPCC has theories, it made models, and it has overpredicted global warming for the last two decades. It had to admit that it was wrong to suggest the Himalayan glaciers would disappear in 3 decades. It had to come up with a counter argument for why its prediction of less Antarctic sea ice was wrong, but the theory was still right because somehow warming causes ice. Perhaps IPCC has managed to persuade you, much like the Roman Catholic Church convinced scientists in the 17th century that Copernicus and Galileo were wrong about heliocentrism. Persuasion not withstanding, man revolves around the sun, and the sun’s influence on our climate vastly exceeds the capability of man.
Science isn’t about persuasion
Right. But we aren’t talking about pure science (see the comments on epistemology, above). We’re talking about policymakers who have to make decisions based on the current state of scientific knowledge. That knowledge will always be imperfect, and hopefully will get closer to the truth over time, but in the meantime there are decisions that have to be made.
If you have to make a decision today, and there isn’t scientific unanimity (and there never is), how do you decide which scientist or scientists to listen to? Do you listen to the ones with the arguments that are most successful at persuading laypeople, or the ones with the arguments that are most successful at persuading fellow scientists?
And that’s the key to someone devoted to the “Argument from Authority.” It carries through -everything- you do, and is fundamentally based on the concept that one is too farking clueless to have or arrive at an actual view. Ever. The only decision one ever makes is then “Which authorities?”
Having chosen the authorities, you aren’t evaluating -anything- else. When the authorities say “The Emperor is wearing awesome pants that are invisible to idiots.” Well.
You don’t have to be a scientist to recognize problematic points (which, when pressed on, are -widely- admitted by the specific scientists involved -and- the larger scientific community), and to recognize that the core remaining piece is basically unadulterated Precautionary Principle. (False precautionary principle if you back up and think “Overdue glacial period” or actually evaluate “Warmer is better anyway”).
We’ve reached a point where there are a fair number of scientists making their analysis based on the same insanity. A lot of them are “going along with it”. That is, writing papers and grants and press releases mentioning plausible connections to the current buzzwords. “My research is relevant because … potential global warming impact.” How do I know? Because I’ve personally done it. When your contact at NSF (or agency-of-choice) flat-out says “We’re reducing funding for XYZ because we’re trying to focus our funding efforts on investigating global warming.” Then suddenly everything has to do with global warming. Investigating high-temperature reaction kinetics of boron and aluminum compounds isn’t what you’d call directly attached to global warming – nobody gives a damn about the miniscule quantities of odd chemical byproducts released from missile and rocket exhausts. But, theoretically, it clearly does have “potential global warming impact.” I rationalized it at the time without actually figuring out tons-per-year, etc. It seems rather pathetic in hindsight.
I could personally walk you through the problematic pieces step-by-step, but (a) I’m not your chosen authority, (b) you’ve relinquished critical thought to authority, (c), even after long discussions we’ll arrive at this point: CO2 can cause some warming. Warming can have consequences. Conservation is frequently useful.
… And, that will be deemed “Identical to the IPCC position”. Which … it is admittedly mighty close to. And yet there remains the fundamental difference between -catastrophic- anthropomorphic global warming and AGW. Combined with the inability to recognize who is even claiming which.
the fundamental difference between -catastrophic- anthropomorphic global warming and AGW
Just out of curiousity, what in your view is that fundamental difference? Can it be expressed quantitatively?
Yes, go measure the ice in the glaciers of the Himalayas, and then tell your politicians buddies to quit trying to change global climate and try spending time looking at controlling their budgets. If you can’t manage a budget, then you can’t manage the global climate, whether you know what you are doing of not. And Jim, you don’t know what the hell you are doing, so get out of the damn way.
The extreme version of the “Catastrophic” view is: We’re enroute to Venus. No liquid ocean, mean temperature everywhere exceeding boiling, etc.
A less extreme version is the ‘high end’ of the models. Increasing CO2 leads to strongly increasing clouds, and the vastly increased cloud layer traps a lot more heat leading to 3 meters sea level rise by 2100.
If you want it as a number, I’ll say a “Climate Sensitivity” of 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2 (near Earth’s current average temperature & CO2, it’s non-linear, don’t be extrapolating to zero).
And “the difference” between this and AGW relies on parsing the details.
If the Earth honestly is “open-loop unstable”, that is – it has a large positive feedback with no countervailing -larger- negative feedbacks, then it’s inherently unstable and -will- go boom. And (if that’s true) then humans are just giving it that little nudge needed to make it happen that much faster.
I have a laundry list of disagreements, but I’ll stick with one. The models prior to around 2005 (as a whole) didn’t include the non-radiative energy and mass transport phenomena of clouds. (Why? Because it’s a freaking hairy set of math that’s generally ‘engineering track’ not ‘science track’.) And the few (and newer) cloud modellers that have attempted slices of this have come out with a net-cloud feedback of near-zero-to-strongly-negative.
How can “more clouds” lead to “less heat trapped”?!?
I will write up a continuation if you like.
Just out of curiousity, what in your view is that fundamental difference?
The latter can’t be used to attempt to justify economically insane policies that pauperize us and the rest of the world and rob us of our liberty.
Right. But we aren’t talking about pure science (see the comments on epistemology, above). We’re talking about policymakers who have to make decisions based on the current state of scientific knowledge. That knowledge will always be imperfect, and hopefully will get closer to the truth over time, but in the meantime there are decisions that have to be made.
Jim, one such choice is “GET MORE DATA”. It is extremely foolish to make costly choices on incomplete data when you can easily get more. We need to remember that we have about three decades of solid global climate data from satellites. Everything before that is extrapolated from progressively worse proxy data. Waiting another three decades, for example, would double that stretch of good data. And according to the actual scientific projections made, we have time for that.
Further, if we look at the actual attempts to mitigate AGW, they have been remarkably unproductive. For example, the Kyoto treaty advocated substantial reductions of developed world economic activity without generating a corresponding benefit in AGW mitigation (nor did they have a clue what costs would occur at the time the treaty was made).
Similar observations can be made about alternate energy and non-oil transportation subsidies, mass transit, and carbon markets. These all have had considerable sums invested in them without corresponding benefits. Now, the politicians want to create a fund for AGW reparations, which is just another vehicle for transferring wealth from the developed world to rent seekers of the rest of the world. What is the point of harming our future for these games?
And once again, if you’re arguing from authority, then what you argue depends on which authority you happen to pick. The various scientific societies haven’t demonstrated a particular expertise in climatology, but they do exhibit a keen awareness of which side their bread is buttered on.
And finally, my interpretation of the difference between catastrophic AGW and “normal” AGW, is that the former requires costly action now.
Al
April 27, 2013, 12:39 pm
“If the Earth honestly is “open-loop unstable”, that is – it has a large positive feedback with no countervailing -larger- negative feedbacks, then it’s inherently unstable and -will- go boom. And (if that’s true) then humans are just giving it that little nudge needed to make it happen that much faster.”
The comeback is that the ultimate countervailing negative feedback is the T^4 radiation, which is very difficult to overcome, and effectively rules out ultimate instability. However, Climate Science is a relatively young discipline, and the practitioners are not familiar enough with feedback systems to understand how positive feedback affects overall performance of the system.
Even if the system is overall stable, a positive feedback significantly crimps the phase margin, and leads to highly variable oscillatory behavior driven by random events which likely would have led to frequent, if not catastrophic, extinction events over the course of history. That such events have been rare argues against the existence of powerful positive feedbacks.
Exactly. They have enough knowledge to say “feedback” and try to guestimate scales, but they quite obviously have not had a couple of courses in actual control theory. That is: The use, manipulation, measurement and testing of systems of feedbacks.
I’m with you – it’s just not open-loop unstable. The thunderstorm feedbacks are (IMNSHO) very strong and completely unaccounted for. By their own admissions.
Glad to hear from a fellow practitioner. That is the problem with all the ad verecundiam consensus appeals – the soi-disant authorities are not authorities in the skill set that really matters, so their opinions are no more useful than the average lay-person’s.