The point here is that Mann has a dictatorial streak that causes him to try to silence his critics. He is also evidently very thin skinned or perhaps at some level realizes that his work may have errors and inconsistencies. If he were really confident about the verdict of history, he would not be using libel law to try to adjudicate a science question. Whether its the same instinct that animates those who want to silence what they consider blasphemy is a side issue even though an interesting one.
Comment on JC’s conscience by dpy6629
↧
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by dpy6629
The problem here is that those like Willard and our public relations man for an astronomy department want at all costs to avoid discussing whether the preponderance of the evidence is that Mann’s work is flawed and will look bad 40 years from now when we have a lot better handle on paleocliimate. Willard’s fascination with McIntyre is also such a tactic to avoid discussing the real topic.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Michael
curryja | August 25, 2015 at 4:32 pm |
“Did I say anything about murderers in that statement? I referred to people defending the satirists at Charlie Hebdo (the defense beyond which says murder is wrong). My entire blog post was motivated by the murder, but the free speech issue stands by itself. Your logic is flawed in making the inference that you did from my statement.”
At best, at ATTP suggests, this was in extremely poor taste, to ride on the coat-tails of super-heated emotional issue, still fresh in our minds, to make a trivially silly and petty attack on your bete noir.
Even trying to make Mann’s civil case a ‘free speech’ issue is pretty weak tea.
But making an allusion to mass murdering terrorists…..
Clearly a lot more thinking still required on ethics and integrity.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by franktoo
Judith wrote: “The whole integrity/ethics thing, in all its complexity, is something that is of paramount importance to me and I think about it a lot.”
The consensus on CAGW is the result of a perverse combination of two mutually-incompatible systems for discovering “the truth”: science and law. Politics is similar to the law, except that the goal is to make good decisions rather than discover “the truth”.
Stephen Schneider has famously written: “as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.” Feynman expressed similar sentiments with more detail in “Cargo Cult Science”. The ability to trust the work of their peers means that scientists don’t need to waste time and effort checking all of the details in important papers. Sometimes we can get away with simply reading the abstract and perhaps glancing at key figures. (Auditors like Steve McIntyre are hated, because he has vulnerability in this system, especially when editors fail to force authors to share data.) A reporter investigating a scientific controversy normally would hear the same fundamentals of the controversy from any involved scientist, followed by differing opinions about what evidence they personally each found most persuasive.
Politics and law are adversarial systems that are very different from science. Even when we are lucky even to have politicians who don’t lie, we certainly don’t expect them to tell us the “whole truth”. Instead we get an agenda, perhaps supported by a cherry-picked collection of facts. In the courtroom, witnesses swear to tell the whole truth, but are often asked narrow, rehearsed questions that can be answered “yes” or “no”. In law and politics, the adversarial system works because both sides are guaranteed equal opportunity to present their case to the judge, jury or public. Ethical reporters traditionally are (or were) expected research and present both sides of any political or legal issue.
A perverse combination of these two systems has produced the worst of both: Instead of telling the whole truth to the public, we now have climate scientists who get loads of media attention by presenting scary scenarios and simplified, dramatic statements and who make little mention of doubts and uncertainty. We have a single forum for producing an artificial consensus controlled by a self-selected and self-perpetuating group of activist scientists, politicians and advocates. Consensus climate scientists refuse to publicly debate skeptics and prevent public access to comment from outside peer reviewers for years after their report has been published.
I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. – Thomas Jefferson
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst)
It’s all passive aggressive coward-speak, just like the careful wordsmithing the chickenhawk Steyn uses to dance around slander with his juxtaposition of Mann and Sandusky.
JC:
Did I say anything about murderers in that statement? I referred to people defending the satirists at Charlie Hebdo (the defense beyond which says murder is wrong). My entire blog post was motivated by the murder, but the free speech issue stands by itself. Your logic is flawed in making the inference that you did from my statement.
“Your Logic is Flawed” Bull. It’s a distinction without a difference. neener neener neener, I made you flinch, your logic is flawed… Grow TF Up.
↧
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Michael Cunningham
Mosher @ 6.55, good post subject to Gary M’s comments. To me, honesty and integrity are fundamental, along with working to understand the universe and yourself as part of it. To best serve humanity (and yourself), you must start with honesty and integrity, otherwise your efforts to help will go astray.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Willard
And then a new Denizen comes in to tell Denizens that the topic ain’t the title of this post.
INTEGRITY ™ – But The Real Issue Is
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by eadler2
@Bernie1815
” Even if you eliminate the el Nino of 1998 there is still no warming for almost two decades as I indicated and is visible in their plots.
The ball is still in your court.”
.You need to look at the link more carefully. Foster shows a series of extracted warming rates after the removal of the aforementioned natural variations extracted by regression are removed from the data. The results show that as of 2010, the trend of increase is positivie for every year begginning at or before 2005 whether it is the 3 surface temperature data sets or the 2 satellite data sets.
Beginning at 1998, the rates range from +0.11 to 0.20C per decade, and all the error bars are in positive territory, i.e. all the warming is significant after the removal of natural factors.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by blunderbunny
Extremely Well Said that blogger!!!
All we can do is strive to be of value, to inject new thought and to broaden the debate. Science is served by the frank and open discussion of contentious and complex subjects. Those that move to shut this process down and to quell dissenting opinion do themselves and science as a whole a great disservice.
Those that choose to weather the storms on both sides should be celebrated. Sadly, there are far, far to few of them.
↧
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by beththeserf
Plus won, blunderbunny! Say, hav’ yer met Eli Rabbitt?
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by anng
Even the error-bars are not to be trusted – they’re just output from a stats tool that is being used without any understanding of how to apply stats and what to avoid. Firstly, the time-dependence of climate temps make any stats unreliable.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Michael Cunningham
Some might think that that remark is a bit uppity from a serf. Hoppity, even. At least there is no sting in the fluffy tail.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by RiHo08
I am dense it seems. Your responsibility to the “micro” means you refer to your personal conscience. Then the universe expands to Georgia Tech and ultimately to the world as we know it. Does your responsibility to GT differ in anyway from your responsibility to your own conscience? Does scale matter?
↧
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by RiHo08
“…must make our own assessments and act within our own framework and knowledge”
On this we can agree.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Steven Mosher
Don
““What are you comparing your predictions to? Is it reliable data from the specific locations that you have predicted?”
I am guessing that works OK if you have data from some stations not very distant from the site you are predicting, and not so good if you are predicting based on data from distant sites. But I am not going to worry about it.”
WRONG.
you take data from all over the world
you build a model
T = a*Alt + b*Lat ( its actually more complex than this)
basically what that says is that the main things driving temperature is the latitude (read the sun) and the altitude (read the lapse rate)
everything else, UHI, land cover, etc.. is SECONDARY.
To test this.. you pick a location: say your backyard. you measure the height and latitude. you plug it into the formula and you will get a temperature out.
no matter where you pick you use the same formula.
That gives you the prediction: that prediction doesnt care if the actual sites the model was built from are 2000 miles away.
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by ulriclyons
“Your 3 points seem to be in conflict with all the scientific information I have seen on the earth’s climate.”
Or their view is in conflict with mine.
“Do you really have evidence for your claims,”
Of course, including my UK regional forecast for 2015, third comment down:
http://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2015/04/13/more-warm-weather-this-week-but-whats-in-store-for-the-summer/#comments
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by David L. Hagen
Thanks Judith for standing up for ethics and restoring scientific integrity.
<blockquote>The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.</blockquote>
<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=8wWMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA176&dq=The+only+thing+necessary+for+the+triumph+of+evil+is+for+good+men+to+do+nothing.&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC0Q6wEwAGoVChMItfvrw-HHxwIViTs-Ch0kNgpX#v=onepage&q=The%20only%20thing%20necessary%20for%20the%20triumph%20of%20evil%20is%20for%20good%20men%20to%20do%20nothing.&f=false" rel="nofollow">The Intellectual Life of Edmund Burke</a> p 176
<blockquote>Its a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty, a king of leaning over backwards.</blockquote> Richard Feynman, Cargo Cult Science, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=7papZR4oVssC&pg=PA341&dq=feynman+%22scientific+integrity%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAWoVChMItq6ShePHxwIVTDg-Ch3cNQGN#v=onepage&q=feynman%20%22scientific%20integrity%22&f=false" rel="nofollow">Surely your joking Mr. Feynman</a> p341
↧
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by mwgrant
GaryM, David, Steven
Gary: In a nutshell Kriging does attempt to take into account nearby values (observed) when estimating a value at a given location. I write ‘attempts’ because kriging is an estimation procedure. Steven has opined that it is better to spend the efforts on sensitivity—I would pay attention to that; there are limits as to what can be accomplished vis-a-vis climate change (my words). Kriging and other geostatistical extension are as good as data permit for predicting a temperature field at a single time. There are even extensions that look at spatial-temporal problems. Still the data are apparently a real constraint.
As an aside—separate from GW—estimating temperature fields is a very interesting and challenging problem in its on right. As mentioned there are data constraints, but even more interesting are the ‘terrain’ and ‘regional’ effects you bring up—I’m thinking of drainage winds, coastal boundary layers, etc. David also raises the point that for GW the quantities of interest are the much smaller differences in temperature fields), coverage is a problem, and biased sampling is a problem. This is reflected in Steve’s observations data and hence on sensitivity.
If I misrepresent anything David or Steven please call it out.
David, your points on interpolation are valid. I am comfortable with estimates, but my parochial interests are is the annual temperature fields, their spatial structure, and how they might be estimated. Pointing out application of kriging in determining oil reserves brings focus on questioning just what is the quantity of interest. Differences between two estimated temperature fields can be quite sensitive to ‘small errors’ in each of the two estimated (fields). To me it also naturally leads to the idea of using stochastic simulation instead of kriging—a natural way to get a handle on uncertainties. (Of course I am just playing with a the lower 48 states and physiographic regions. The world…intensive to say the least.)
Steven, I’m just saying things to mess you up :O). Hope not.
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Michael Cunningham
Joshua, we both seek with humility to help others see the light. All at no charge.
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by eadler2
@Berenyi Peter:
“For example, opinion of Freeman Dyson on climate science carries more weight than that of any number of “climate scientists”. See Global Warming Hysteria April, 2015. Not because he has “authority” as an intellectual giant or because he is a mathematical physicist with profound accomplishments behind him, not even because he has spent the last 37 years of his life more or less with “climate science”, but because he can explain his stance in clear, transparent and true propositions.”
Your endorsement led me to watch the interview. Dyson has written a lot of books on my subjects, and is a visionary futurist.
I wasn’t impressed. The arguments he espoused were the same meme’s that I hear from the so called “skeptics”. :
*CO2 is plant food.
*The models are no good.
*Cutting emissions hurts the poor.”
His big idea is that someday trees will be made to grow spectacularly by genetic engineering, on higher levels of CO2. A clever idea, but it doesn’t prove that damaging clmate change due to CO2 increases won’t happen.
He admitted that he basically enjoys being a non conformist heretic, and enjoys being in the minority.
. .
Dyson’s wife and son are not impressed either.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?pagewanted=all
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
