Tobis on Science Bias
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: Michael Tobis is among the most thoughtful climate bloggers out there. To really appreciate him, you have to see how his arguments unfold in the comment threads of his posts.
His latest post and related thread is a perfect example. I am certain some of his most loyal readers are utterly dismayed by it. Which is why I find Tobis so fascinating. So in this latest thread he gets into an eye-opening exchange on science bias with one regular reader, who seems to be trying to steer Michael back to a politically correct (climate advocate) position for political reasons:
But I do encourage you to clarify your thoughts as much as possible. You never know when someone will quote you to the effect that you think there is a strong case Mann and Jones suffered from “unconscious bias”, which is a possible, even plausible, interpretation of what you said. So please fix or clarify that, before Morano gets hold of it.
Tobis doesn’t oblige:
I think that walking on eggshells to avoid giving ammunition to the bad guys is a corrupting influence. In the end plays into their hands more than inadvertently giving them the juicy quotes to beat you up with.
In that very same comment, Tobis also offers this gem about the CRU hacker affair:
Scientific speech and political speech are very different beasts. The current situation tangles them up. I am trying to figure out how to disentangle them. I am not sure how.
That’s what I love about his blog. Sure, he’s got his convictions on climate change (especially what he regards as the moral imperative to act), which he is unafraid to convey. But he also struggles with the complexities of the science and the best way to communicate them, which he often articulates with refreshing candor.
Many of the people he admires are shrugging off “climategate” (yes, I don’t like the term either) as “a tempest in a teapot” or an “artificial” scandal. Not Tobis. He recognizes it’s much more than that, and to his credit, he’s trying to figure out how to engage it.
UPDATE 1: In an update to his own post, Tobis says I have misunderstood the meaning of his post.
UPDATE 2: In a comment below, Tom Yulsman takes up the gist of Michael’s post more thoroughly than I have, and is inclined to agree that I’m reading too much into Michael’s words.
I dunno, this all still seems like a tempest in a teapot to me. I think Simon Donner basically has it right in the post you link, especially about the hackers’ probable intentions. I haven’t been following this story very closely, but all the arguments I’ve seen for why this matters basically boil down to changes that are needed in the way climate science research is conducted and presented: better peer review, better engagement with the public, etc. Which is fine, and if this scandal is what it takes for climate scientists to get their act together on these issues then that’ll be a positive outcome. Those are all issues that need to be dealt with inside the climate science community, though, and they’re really only of crucial importance to climate scientists and possibly to science journalists.
What I haven’t seen is any explanation of why this matters on a policy level. What effect does this have on the choices facing policymakers and their relative merits? More specifically, do the revelations in the hacked e-mails make a difference to whether the bills currently pending in Congress are worth enacting? If so, what changes need to be made? If not, who cares?
I’d be careful about disregarding the importance of this controversy because of the perpetrator’s supposed motive. That’s a common error of many climate advocates and climate advocates, I think.
As for the the political and policy implications of it all, this interview with Roger Pielke Jr. might be helpful.
Right, right, intentional fallacy. But if both climate advocates and climate advocates are making it, to whom else can we turn?
That interview is indeed useful. At one point Pielke is asked point-blank if this changes anything policy-wise, and he says no. There are certainly political consequences of this (all negative, as far as I can tell), but I still see no policy implications.
Keith: I understand Michael to be saying what many people I respect have been saying “” that this is a big deal politically, but from a scientific standpoint it doesn’t seem to amount to much. (And I don’t really see walk-back here.) Except there’s the bias issue that Michael mentions, and that strikes me as deserving more explanation. If his very clear explanation of it is right, it is obviously a problem in all of science, not just climate science. But given the particular nature of environmental science, might it be more of an issue here than in other areas of science? And does the fact that scientists “kick the shit out of each” other over contested ideas, as Hank Roberts put it in one of his comments over at Michael’s site, really serve as enough of a corrective when everyone seems to be leaning in the same direction? In any case, what I found most interesting and useful in Michael’s post is the idea that people have been focusing way too much what the temperature was in the year 1100, as if the case for human-caused global warming really depends for its life on that. I’ve been arguing with a thoughtful friend who is skeptical of AGW that the case is built on a wide array of multi-layered evidence, and to argue, as he and others do, that the entire paradigm collapses because some tree rings may be undependable, is simply absurd.
But here’s the problem: The hockey stick was promoted by climate scientists as cinching the case. It became the AGW icon, the one thing they thought they could use in a more political context to sway people who would otherwise not understand the complexities of climate sensitivity and detection and attribution research. That’s why it is the center of the political hurricane right now.
If people can understand one thing amidst all the incredible complexities of climate science, they can understand this: It warmer 1,000 years than it is now, ergo, global warming can’t be caused by us. That’s why hocky-stickology has become the end all and be all of skeptics’ attention. Well, CO2 in the atmosphere was WAY higher 56 million years ago than it is now, and the bloody climate was WAY hotter then. But of course that doesn’t mean AGW is bunk.
But of course that doesn’t mean AGW is bunk.
True – at least in part. But it DOES mean that CO2 is not the sole driver of climate and that higher CO2 levels/temperatures will not drive the climate into a catastrophic tipping point as has been claimed. And that is just one of the many points of the questions about the validity of the hockey stick.
From my POV, the hockey stick was a lie from the beginning because it ignored/denied history (the MWP) entirely. And if one is willing to lie about that, why should I believe anything else they say?
Then there’s the “science” – the ice is melting – at both Poles?
Bull. Check the numbers. The Northwest Passage is open for the first time in recorded history? Bull. Check the history.
It goes on – and on – and on like that. Ignorance? Lies? I’m not sure where one ends and the other begins sometimes, but does it really matter? It still leads to bad science.
Now – AGW – is real. But not in the way that’s been touted by the climate agencies and the governments. It’s real because we (humans) release more and more energy into the atmosphere. And it has to go somewhere – that’s simple thermodynamics. And yet most of the climate community
(CRU and IPCC in particular) ignore/deny the effect. Yeah – UHI is REAL. Where did that get lost in the basic climatology? More people should pay a lot more attention to Roger Pielke, Sr. But instead, he’s labelled a skeptic/denier. Bull.
The hockey stick is NOT the end all and be all of the skeptics – the lies, ignorance, politicization of the science, lack of transparency, and utterly condescending attitude toward any disagreement or opposition to the “settled” science — ALL of that and more exude the stink of corruption and the stench of simply BAD science.
You wonder why “skeptics” are skeptical? Start here – and then pay attention to what they say and do – not to what you think they’re saying and doing. There’s a huge difference.
people have been focusing way too much what the temperature was in the year 1100, as if the case for human-caused global warming really depends for its life on that
This may be true, but even so the amount of attention being paid to this issue is potentially an enormous boon to people like me who care what the temperature was in the year 1100 for totally unrelated reasons. So, go misguided priorities! Woo!
“More people should pay a lot more attention to Roger Pielke, Sr.”
I agree with that; count me among those very interested in multiple climate forcings.
Tom,
I’d say another silver lining to this affair (and obviously I’m not the only person to recognize this) is that it represents a great opportunity for many more people to learn about climate science, specifically the multiple lines of evidence you allude to for AGW.
I agree with that; count me among those very interested in multiple climate forcings.
Keith –
That’s the reason I come back here once in a while. If you were a hard-core alarmist, you’d never see or hear from me again. I’ve got a life – and I don’t have the time or inclination to deal with those who lack even two brain cells to rub together.
Have a good day
Oso Loco,
I didn’t know I was an “alarmist,” much less a “hardcore” one. The climate advocates that come by here will get a kick out of that one.
oso loco is confused.
The direct heating due to civilization has been calculated many times: it’s really an elementary calculation that anyone can do with a good calculator and a little googling. It’s about 1 per cent of the forcing due to a CO2 doubling according to the consensus, or about 5 per cent according to Lindzen’s number if you would prefer to work with Skeptic-Approved literature.
In the scenario of us getting through the various crises we can see coming and continuing on a growth trajectory, it becomes a practical climate problem in a couple of centuries.
Oso loco’s preferences are not based in reason but in reationalization.
Anyway, I appreciate the kind words about my approach, both from Keith and from Tom.
I am not taking a position on the millenial reconstructions.
While many of the issues peripherally raised in the UEA incident are important and interesting, it does not make the event itself a big deal. The main big deal about the email incident itself is the increasing likelihood that a criminal act will be politically successful. This speaks very badly of the prospects for a sane democratic future, and I hope somehow that the very unfortunate implications of this outcome get some appreciation.
So what I am objecting to in Keith’s characterization of my position is this idea that I am scandalized by the contents of the UEA materials and unwilling to dismiss them as trivial. Except for the single item about “deleting” emails, for which context remains lacking, I do indeed find it all rather ordinary.
Many issues raised are interesting and I’m not minimizing them. I suppose I’m being opportunistic by raising them at this point.
But the chief scandal is not the contents of the emails or the files. It is the widespread celebration of the immoral and probably criminal distribution of this information.
I personally prefer openness to proprietary information, but society can’t function without a few secrets. Violation of the rules of privacy needs a hell of a lot more cause than is actually here.
Of course, if you spin it as the “death of the global warming hoax” you can convince yourself otherwise, but that requires not actually looking at the materials. Of course, if you think it is a “hoax”, you’ve already developed a talent for not looking at relevant information.
Mmmm – No, Michael, I’m not confused.
First – I didn’t say that UHI was the only factor – nor that CO2 had no role. But I have reason to believe that the first is larger than you think and the second is smaller. And that there are a number of other factors involved. I don’t believe that makes me confused. BTW – what’s the sensitivity?
Second – when you talk about the consensus I stop believing you. Consensus is incompatible with science.
Third – the real scandal isn’t the emails – they’re just the trail of crumbs that leads to the scandal. No, the real scandal is in the code that shows how they cooked the data. It’s the lack of integrity, the arrogance and the crimes that are in the emails.
Finally, there is some small hope that this might be the death of the global warming hoax – and the beginning of the real global warming story – and science. You might want to read this: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/12/skeptics-in-wonderland
Oh, BTW – I understand that you’re calling foul on the release of the emails. You’re certainly welcome to do so – but you should realize that the information did NOT come from a hacker. It was released from a single internal CRU file that was carefully staged – possibly in preparation for answering an FOI request. In fact, the only question is whether it was released deliberately or accidentally.
Keith – I did NOT say you were a hard-core alarmist. I said IF you were….
Have a good night –
oso loco-
I went to that link you provided for Quadrant online and saw this tagline (below) and was wondering if you agree with it?
“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”
Vaclav Klaus
Blue Planet in Green Shackles
oso loco
The fact that it has been warmer in the past than it is now(*) does indicate that CO2 is not the only driver of climate–but then no-one to my recollection has ever said it was–but tells us next to nothing about whether catastrophist predictions of temperature rise due to CO2 are true or not.
(*) most recently, I suspect, at the Holocene Climate Optimum approx 8000 years ago, or so I recall Jim Hansen saying.
It’s interesting that oso loco did not take up the elementary arithmetic challenge I presented but instead wheeled in the red herring about “consensus”, a word which I hadn’t used on this thread.
I will oblige oso loco’s desire for polarization by insisting that science indeed does operate by consensus. What is unusual about IPCC is the formalization of the consensus process. It’s normal and effective that consensus is a key mechanism of scientific progress. But I’d prefer not to argue about that since this is clearly beyond oso’s expertise.
I provided a challenge that requires a little arithmetic with large numbers and modest internet skills. If oso is not up to the task, I will conclude that oso is not up to the task of deciding whether or not climate science is on a sound footing.
Keith – you asked – I went to that link you provided for Quadrant online and saw this tagline (below) and was wondering if you agree with it?
LOL!!! A loaded question, Keith?
OK — so I’ll ask one in return. Why do you think he’s wrong? Keep in mind that Klaus has lived with/under a repressive regime, you haven’t. He has more reason to believe what he believes than you do. Or than I do.
Now, for your answer.
Let’s start with Jacques Chirac, who said of the Kyoto mess that it was the first step toward global governance. Do you understand what those words would mean in terms of a UN-run global government? Remember, this is the outfit that brought you the Oil for Food program. And child prostitution and rape in Africa. And how many other scandals and bad decisions. And how much corruption? How much hate? And the IPCC that’s up to its chairman in the promotion of bad science and massive fraud. Remember who provides the science/data for the IPCC reports ““ and acts as their gatekeeper — Phil Jones, CRU and the Hockey Team.
Chirac wanted – CONTROL
Let’s move on to the most recent EU President ““ but you can listen to him yourself- here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW_LVbhWeFY&feature=player_embedded
He wants – CONTROL
Then there’s UNEP which is feeling neglected because their budget isn’t big enough, their bureaucracy isn’t big enough and they don’t have enough political power to dictate how the rest of the world should live. What they want is ““ CONTROL
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577827,00.html
And Rajendra Pachauri, who’s trying to do the same thing via the IPCC. As someone said, he doesn’t care about climate ““ it’s just a way to push his real agenda on the world. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen
Another form of — CONTROL
And a little closer to home, there’s a Healthcare bill that, last I heard, would force all of us to support abortion ““ whether we support it or not. And would force us to have insurance whether we wanted it or not (or pay a penalty?)
Again ““ CONTROL
Or would you rather talk about Cap and Trade? Which would reach into your pocket as well as mine and transfer all that money — where? And would accomplish —- what? At what cost? And I’m not just talking about money. You might find this interesting: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/carbon/6527970/Everyone-in-Britain-could-be-given-a-personal-carbon-allowance.html
Again ““ another form of CONTROL
There’s more ““ much more. But that’s enough for now. I don’t want to raise my blood pressure too much.
I’ll ask again ““ why do you think Klaus is wrong? To use an overworked phrase ““ the preponderance of evidence says he’s right.
Have a good week
Michael –
1. You did indeed use the word “consensus”in the first paragraph of your previous comment. Otherwise I wouldn’t have gone there.
2. You said: science indeed does operate by consensus.
I would suggest that you cut the wrong classes in your Philosophy of Science course and that you slept through the History of Science class entirely. IW – Bull.
3. Arithmetic – I’d be interested in just how you calculate the energy output/usage of every human being on the planet – including the sheepherder in the Australian outback, the rice farmer in Vietnam and the metrosexual in NYC. They ALL – every erg – are part of the equation. And unless you canaccount for them individually, then you’re making “estimates” that are based on “assumptions”. I’d have to see your assumptions, methods and numbers to believe your conclusions.
BTW – I spent 40+ years working with scientists. Don’t try to BS me about who and what they are or how they operate.
I’ll leave you with this quote:
I am suspicious of any ontological system that claims to deliver unchallengeable truths. The extent to which scientists claim to have delivered such certainty is the extent to which they have perverted the real purpose of science, which is above all a rigorous but open-minded and dynamic system of inquiry.
From ““ “Hunting Down the Universe” by Michael Hawkins