Articles on this Page
- 12/13/18--10:07: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/13/18--10:09: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/13/18--10:31: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/13/18--10:49: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/13/18--11:59: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/13/18--12:18: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/13/18--12:25: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/13/18--12:35: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/13/18--12:49: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/13/18--13:20: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/13/18--15:44: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/13/18--16:20: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/13/18--16:35: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/13/18--16:35: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/13/18--16:36: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/13/18--17:04: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/13/18--17:24: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/13/18--17:29: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/13/18--17:43: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/13/18--17:56: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/13/18--16:20: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by andywest2012
- 12/13/18--16:35: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by andywest2012
- 12/13/18--17:04: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by andywest2012
- 12/13/18--17:24: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Ron Graf
[…] Reposted from Judith Curry’s Climate Etc. […]
Atomsk's Sanakan:<i>Seriously, people need to grow up. Someone harshly criticizing you is not a limit on your free speech. It is not “intimidation”. It is someone exercising their legal right to speech. People have a legal right to use their speech to try and skew what you do. </i>
Some of the "criticisms" of Mass were blatant falsehoods. Does Mass have a case for libel/defamation, along the lines of with Mann v. Steyn?
In general usage, 'models' refers to GCMs/AOGCMs, but not to a single-equation zero-dimensional energy balance model. I made very clear in the text you quote that I was referring to GCMs.
"But given how you do that translation, one could still object the model you used to get your ECS estimate, will result in you under-estimating ECS."
The 'model' I used to get from effective climate sensitivity to ECS is a statistical relationship derived from CMIP5 AOGCMs.
"People have repeatedly made this criticism in the literature, including Dessler."
Lewis & Curry (2018) refutes all the main criticisms of global energy budget sensitivity estimates, save for possible bias from incomplete coverage of global surface temperature, which it addresses by use of a globally-complete record.
"One can also justify the criticism by citing larger estimates of ECS from paleoclimate analyses."
By far the best understood and most studied paleoclimate analysis is of the LGM-preindustrial Holocene transition. Estimating ECS from that transition using an energy budget model is a well established approach. Lewis & Curry (2018) shows that, using modern estimates of the forcing and global temperature change, doing so gives and ECS estimate of 1.76 C, in line with the paper's main ECS estimate.
"The dissolution of sedimentary CaCO3 neutralizes excess CO2, thus preventing runaway acidification, and acts as a negative-feedback mechanism in regulating atmospheric CO2 levels over timescales of centuries to millennia." https://www.pnas.org/content/115/46/11700
There is a stoichiometric equilibrium between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and carbonic acid in oceans. Calcium carbonate is one of the most abundant substances on Earth – from hundreds of millions of years of biological deposition. It’s presence both in sediments and in open ocean organisms – in the presence of magnesium ions and other catalysts – maintains dissolved calcite and aragonite in a supersaturated state in the world’s ocean. It is this source of calcium that is utilized in shell and coral formation – and that complexes with carbonic acid in acid neutralization. The carbonic acid after a couple of deprotonation reactions will then be replaced as more carbon dioxide goes into solution. An ongoing process that it has been suggested will result in undersaturation of aragonite in surface waters of the Great Southern Ocean by the end of the century.
The study linked focuses on changes to the carbon compensation depth - but they do mention the 'theoretical' possibility of dissolution of calcium carbonate in surface waters in the presence of higher acidity - or less alkalinity if you prefer. Resulting in less 'precipitation' of CaCO3 to depth. Very likely given the efficiency of substance recycling in the photic zones of open ocean - and in shallow coastal zones.
There is a large daily and seasonal variation in pH due to respiration - and variability off the western margins of continents from upwelling. It is difficult to get a handle on changes in pH due to anthropogtenic CO2 for those reasons alone - but any change in pH from more CO2 going into solution is moderated by deprotonation reactions and the speed at which they proceed.
I do not agree that the skeptics are losing the debate and certainly not that 97% of liberals are alarmists. Polls indicate that about 80% of Democrats accept AGW (and 20% of Republicans). Overall about 50% of the people are skeptics.
We skeptics are playing for a draw and doing very well at that. In politics a draw is a loss for those advocating radical action, so they are losing nicely. Some things will always be done in favor of AGW because in a democracy every squeak gets some grease, but it will not be much. It is a permanent political standoff, like gun control.
Well the deletion of that comment makes it clear that the moderator is happy for unfounded accusations to go unchallenged. Ironic given the topic of the blog post. Shame we all can’t just stick to the science.
Which satellites do not show warming between 2007 and 2016 David?
Segalstad was already wrong in 1998, he forgot that adding fossil CO2 in the atmosphere.causes a dynamic disequilibrium with the ocean that needs a relaxation time.
I'm just taking a guess here, but I sure bet Dale Duran and the the other political "monitors" mentioned here would have profited handsomely from I-1631.
In general, it feels as if the progressive agenda is trying to mirror this...
"Climate science is not just playing out in the arena of pubic debate that gets rough and nasty sometimes. Something more than a debate that’s being lost by skeptics is happening".
Don, there is NO debate occurring. There is a global agenda in play with a small pocket of highly qualified scientists and skeptics responsibly offering alternative opinions based on real data and real world observations.
Folks can call it every type of "ism" known and unknown, Thousands of graduates are leaving Poland over the weekend, emboldened with a new hope and crowd hype and commitment to virtually every country in the world. The train rolls on.
This is above science.
Mass made the mistake of viewing minorities and unions as just special interest groups taking advantage of a situation for their own benefit (feeding at the trough) but in the world view of SJWs, these are victims and by virtue of their victim status are purified from human frailties like greed and corruption. The only possible motive for criticizing native americans must be racism. Thus the pigs meme, around for over 100 yrs, suddenly means something entirely different from before because this one woman said so.
The pressure on the faculty to sign the petition is part of the operating procedure of universities now that simply assume that they are 100% right and that all right-thinking people agree. They cannot see that what they are doing is political because they deny that there are valid other points of view based on values, different tolerances of risk, and different assessments of facts. They simply cannot imagine that not everyone in the world thinks women make 75% the wages of men, that every white person is a racist, that 1/4 women on campus are raped or that climate change means the immediate end of the world. In their world their actions are compelled by these "facts" and anyone differing is crazy and/or evil. They are literally saving the world, according to them. The politicalization of universities (holding anti-Trump rallies as official events, banning conservative speakers, having classes on Toxic Masculinity or The Problem of Whiteness) should really cause their tax-free status to be revoked and for state schools the legislatures to take a look.
“On what grounds…”
Are you confusing me with someone else, I don’t recognise this quote? Or maybe bold didn’t mean a quote. However, let’s say we’ll start by ruling out anything from the sceptical camp. So this means the place to focus is the last full synthesis of the orthodox position, i.e. AR5. So in this there are uncertainties and integration issues all over the place, to the extent that the main output has to be quantified by expert judgement accords rather than proofs. And indeed the central question of sensitivity has not been much better bounded in decades, yet contains tails stretching from the benign to the highly damaging (if indeed one also adds on the possible range of damage functions). So if we were robots from Zog who know nothing about humans (or indeed Earth and its climate), but do know completely about scientific methodology and its application in a range of domains, we would observe that this is not a sign of maturity. We would then note that there are two groups of minority scientists outside of the mainstream position, i.e. they largely disagree with the IPCC / AR5. One such group think them way too conservative regarding likely outcomes / damage, and the other think them too OTT regarding likely outcomes / damage. Now robots from Zog know that a co-ordination of expert judgement, aka a consensus, while it may or may not be correct, is a is a social process not a scientific one, used when science can’t yet clinch a particular result, but which is almost always subject to criticism from those scientists who (potentially in various ways) don’t subscribe to the majority consensus. In this case, at least two notable minority camps. And in probing further (still as robots from Zog), we note that for sure at least a significant number of the scientists in each of these camps do work in directly involved fields and occupy (or occupied) positions considered by humans to be proper and appropriate to scientific work at recognised institutions for same. Such a range of scientifically supported breadth is not typical of a mature area in the context of considering the AR5 output as ‘the’ result (or not). Further, we robots from Zog note a widespread message from whole rafts of human authorities and influencers propagated over many years (per this post and the companion post a couple of weeks before) including a range of the highest authorities that exist on this planet, which message also claims support by mainstream science, yet is actually in straight contradiction with its position (and happens to align closer to one of the minority camps above). This by no means tell us robots that AR5 is wrong. Enormous cultural support for scientifically unsupported concepts is common in some species, including humans. However, we note further that the mainstream scientific community doesn’t push back against this message, and that leadership figures in the oversight / organising body which owns the synthesis process of AR5, also participates in propagation of this unsupported narrative. Robots know that this doesn’t speak well to pressure from above, upon the social process via which the judgement expertise was crystallised in the first place. However, they note also that the camp thinking the mainstream is too conservative are also claiming exactly the same problem of pressure (but in the opposite direction), which we robots don’t know exists or not, but could do. So the conclusion of the robots from Zog is that maybe the mainstream position is right after all, certainly they see vast effort has gone into it, but ultimately they have to reserve judgement because all of this speaks to immaturity, and, maybe the real result is somewhere else on the spectrum of possible outcomes. I think it useful to get as near to the distancing sight of such robots as we can, albeit its not possible to be fully distanced.
“The paper lists characteristics of denialism. But the characteristics are more tactics that denialists use because of the predicament denialists are in.”
The rest of what you said was addressed in my response. However, the defensive biases / rhetoric devices listed are features of cultural entanglement, and there is almost always culture on both sides. I.e. these are not features *only* of denialism (as they frame it), and to work backwards by attempting to define denialism by these features, runs into at least two problems. 1) across multiple different conflicted domains (which vary in size and character and entanglements), it would be very hard to make the case that all cultural entanglement on the side that future history will declare the loser, is denialism. But it’s impossible to make the case that cultural entanglement (and therefore related behaviours) on the side that future history will declare the winner, is denialism. 2) you can’t work backwards from simplistic behaviours of this kind to determine cause, while they inform, you have to do more fundamental work to see root cause, and then work forward to see if that’s consistent with behaviours. No test that isn’t based on the underlying reasons for the behaviour, is likely to be reliable, and this one certainly isn’t. And regarding just one aspect of that, as I mentioned regarding ‘tactics’, this is only a valid term if the behaviours are (mostly) consciously executed. D&M are extremely thin regarding underlying motives, as my post notes there is just an arbitrary and completely unsupported list, yet it manages to include elements that have conscious and subconscious behaviours. (Also as noted they wisely ditched the main motivation provided by Hoofnagle, from whom all the rest of their material comes, as this is unsupportable [and very explicitly conscious, aka ‘lying’]). So even in their own terms, the proposed criteria would not always be ‘tactics’.
“And no, they don’t appear equally on both sides…”
I didn’t say (always) equally (quantitatively), characteristics will vary with domain and cultural entanglement. But all the test tick boxes will typically occur in a sizeable conflicted domain. The ‘conflict’ is a cultural conflict, and the behaviours are culturally driven.
“The fact that some non-denialists resort to these tactics is not pertinent, since these “characteristics of denialism” were not claimed to solely apply to denialists”
Not pertinent?? D&M offered this as a definitive tick list to identify ‘denialism’. They say ‘it is important to recognize denialism when confronted with it’, recommending different responses when such detection is the case (i.e. why they provided the test!) And you’re saying it doesn’t matter that other random ‘non-denialist’ folks exhibit the same behaviours too? Yet this completely invalidates the test. As the list is not a characterisation of only ‘denialism’, the ‘deniers’ within the larger set cannot separated out / identified for the different response to be delivered, or alternatively unlucky folks get an entirely inappropriate response. This fundamental inability to distinguish is explained in much more detail in the post. And given the “characteristics of denialism” are indeed expressed by other folks who aren’t actually ‘denialists’, then what in D&M’s view are these folks? Such confusion is to be expected from their approach, and stems from the fact that they didn’t start by trying to examine the social psychology of what is going on and what the underlying causes are, but just skipped all that hard work to put together a crude list of rhetoric and defensive biases. Result = complete confusion, plus legitimising anyone to call anyone else a denialist. Some folks in their home domain of ETS (on both sides), have come to pretty much the same conclusion years ago.
“You were already given the definition of “denialism” they were using, and shown a similar definition from the dictionary”
And the response above is why (along with all the rest of my post) their definition is deeply flawed. Per above it appears that you too don’t really know what it means when we try to apply it to reality. Your dictionary definition merely refers to disagreement with the majority of evidence, and refers neither to behaviour lists or tests for same. But per the backstop of D&M after Hoofnagle, for conflicted cases this is merely a proxy for an appeal to a majority consensus (which will ensure maximum evidence presentation). In non-conflicted cases we presumably don’t need a definition anyway, because no-one is contesting the evidence (and I guess such cases would be overwhelmingly the majority). For the conflicted cases it would be most often right too, but not always. This is in no way whatever an argument for perfection. A *particular* consensus is either right or wrong, and history has shown some can be wrong; this in no way lessens the scientific method either, only sometimes the capability of its executors. But your dictionary definition only matches D&Ms approach if their supposed test for psychological behaviour doesn’t work, as then they indeed have to fall back on the appeal to majority consensus.
“You’re simply resorting another sociological analysis of science, to get around the actual methods used in scientific reasoning”
Not at all. To disentangle cultural bias from conflicted science, is to allow its methods and proper reasoning that we both support, to proceed unburdened by the former’s inappropriate influence. You are perfectly happy that D&M provided a sociological concept / test in order to defend science from inappropriate intrusion, mis-representation and resistance. It turned out to be flawed, though it is not really a ‘sociological analysis of science’ that is needed to fix it, but an analysis of how culture can both resist and undermine the enterprise of science (and science communication). This should lead to tools that might actually do the job that D&M (and Hoofnagle) set out to do in the first place, and would therefore help you in the purposes for which you are trying to deploy the currently flawed concept / test of denialism that they created.
“I don’t need to reproduce all of human evolution, in order to know that humans evolved from non-human animals.”
Indeed that’s ridiculous, I’ve never known of anyone taking the replicable condition so literally. The principles of evolution are eminently replicable in all sorts of perfectly executable ways. I assume creationists (unless there’s some weird sub-culture) don’t assume evolution happens generally while only the specific expression leading to humans does not. It’s all or nothing (or god-guided evolution for many of the non-creationist religious).
“You simply avoid this point via epistemic relativism/subjectivism (and appeals to infallibilism)”
For clarification I’m not in any way appealing to any of these. Not only that but within the bounds of science as opposed to other areas, they’ve always seemed to me to be incompatible with the methods of science (or at least I’ve never come across an argument that can justify them in this context). What I’m doing is pointing out that culture (from writ-small group-think to full on global culture such as a major religion) can and does undermine science (because we are all human and highly tractable to cultural modes), which it has done throughout history. In general, science will eventually correct its way around such within any particular domain, but this could take years or decades or generations or millennia. Meanwhile, the more we know about the entanglements of science and culture, the more we can avoid them.
“Also, “high social impact and socially conflicted” is irrelevant to the evaluation of the scientific evidence and to the soundness of the scientific reasoning.”
It would only be irrelevant if we were (perfect) Vulcans, but we are not. I re-iterate Lewandowsky’s point: “Nonetheless, being human, scientists’ operate with the same cognitive apparatus and limitations as every other person”. Part of that apparatus is a powerful tendency (from right down at brain architecture level) to operate in cultural modes, which must always be (and indeed is) fought, and a limitation that we do not always win when the context is as you note in the above quote.
“Scientific reasoning is works and scientific evidence is what it is, regardless of whether it leads to conclusions/consequences some social groups find inconvenient.”
It works perfectly well when there is no bias in the reasoning and no bias in what evidence to collect. It works pretty well anyhow even when there is modest bias over a particular domain (especially as a distribution of biases may to some extent cancel). When the biases are subconsciously co-ordinated by culture, it may not work so well, and indeed it may not work hardly at all. This is no fault of the scientific method and for sure the real world being investigated (and therefore available evidence regarding same) is exactly the same. So no appeals to relativism / subjectivism / infallibilism or whatever. Merely an acknowledgement that in some circumstances (which allow culture to invade), the humans doing the job are collectively blinkered / led astray.
“And the epistemic relativism/subject strikes again, by making the enemy the perfect of the good.”
Not at all. The ‘likely’ referred to you betting on the odds of a mainstream consensus always being right, not to some fundamental idealism thing, I can’t grasp where you’re getting the relativism / subjectivism / infallibilism stuff from. Nothing to do with any of my arguments and in my view these concepts have no place in science.
“I might as well not think Earth is round then, because I’m not omniscient and infallible.”
Okay, infallible too far, bad word choice, maybe this is what mis-cued you. But did you not say you can personally adjudicate all socially conflicted science areas and be confident of the right answer? If I have misunderstood this, can you further explain what you actually did mean?
I think UW's (students and faculty) behavior is more akin to Stalinism, Maoism, Socialism, or Fascism. It's not about climate change at all; it's about using raw political power to force a permanent change in the powerful elites ability to achieve hegemeny over the rest of us. They think they are more enlightened and more intelligent than the rest of us. They only want people to robotically agree with them. They don't like independent thinkers and actively seek to destroy them. The powerful elite think the rest of us are just ants that must do their bidding.
It sounds trite or ridiculous or insane, but the US is in the way. The reduction of the US to a low power oligarchy or single party dictatorship is one of the ways to achieve complete hegemeny. Massive wealth transfer via carbon taxes is one of the key tools that the elite could deploy that would help facilitate their goal of total hegemeny. Ridiculous you say. Were Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and other dictators not serious threats to freedom? Preposterous you say, it can't happen today; we have elections and the peaceful transfer of power. We have checks and balances; we have the freedom of speech (Do we really have that freedom?). I remind you that Hitler was voted into power by the German population.
Sorry to be so blunt, but we must not be confused about the real hidden agenda. The real objectives are hidden because if it were openly advocated for, it would be soundly rejected by all. Independence of thought and expression is crucial to freedom and applies to scientific integrity as well.
The vitriol from the radical catastrophic climate change advocates comes from their fear of those who are independent thinkers that can expose their rouse, and ultimately help to support rational public policy instead of the radical shifts toward the hegemeny that they seek. Be assured that these advocates are simply tools that are being used by the elites to achieve their objectives. I am also sure that many of the tools are unaware of their tool status.
Be aware of who you are dealing with; know and understand their agenda. Advocacy is not a problem as long as its properly disclosed. Stealth advocacy is always a problem, and is inherently dishonest.
“The catastrophe narrative, in whatever form, is a narrative that raises emotions to an extent that makes inaction appear to be immoral.”
Agree. See ‘moral association’ variants particularly in the quote lists.
“However, neglect of probability, as implied by the precautionary principle, is no different in this respect… …it still represents a retreat from rationality, and an embracement of heightened emotion and moral outrage.”
Agreed, I have never said otherwise.
“Can we at least agree that this is what sceptics of all persuasions have in mind when they refer to CAGW?”
I agree its perceptions can include other aspects, and indeed often there is a sense of ‘impacts’ as it were in the deployment, which you refer to here, and indeed the end result regarding this is much the same for both cases. And if someone refers to ‘CAGW message’, or ‘CAGW advocate’ (say of a scientist who does disagree with the IPCC and supports some much more catastrophic vision), it may be academic whether the text of an actual message described, or an actual quote from that scientist, supported the ‘C’ via one route or the other. As noted above, stuff expressed in the vernacular (which may then be described later via the ‘CAGW’ label), can often fuzz different approaches together anyhow, albeit the typical end ‘feel’ is more certitude. So to the extent of when the difference doesn’t matter (there being differences and similarities and perhaps the former sometimes don’t), yes. But the domain has simply evolved an understanding of built in certitude, one reliable indicator of which is how much orthodox folks object to exactly this aspect. And notwithstanding a lack of an analysis, I think we have both agreed that the certitude thing does much outgun the precautionary thing in propagation, so there’s very likely to be some inappropriate eclipsing too. I see what you’re saying though, i.e. that the technical difference and the psychological impact are two different things, and essentially the former is not essentially different between the two, and the acronym does convey that impact. So yes… but I’d still recommend that outside of this limited aspect (where you’re essentially talking about the psychological impacts of both at once), if you deploy ‘CAGW’ but still want to speak to other aspects / detail of the precautionary fork, or even that there are forks, you’d have to carefully clarify this separate fork to folks first, because otherwise they will just travel down the de-facto one instead, causing misunderstandings.
“…and yet he stands accused of being a denier, or at least a friend of deniers…”
See my comment on the Cliff Mass thread. The current framing of denialism that academia helped birth, allows anyone to call anyone a denier with, essentially claiming that their opponent has a psychological condition, which state academia has backed.
Moral outrage in the climate domain has existed for a long time; certainly it feels to be growing but it’s a hard thing to measure. Cultures are polarizing, so I think it’s likely growing even as opposition grows in parallel. For sure as hype for catastrophe increases there’s bound to be a corresponding reaction from emotively convinced adherents who feel not only that little is happening, but that folks are preventing it happening (e.g. by ‘watering down’ scares), with Cliff Mass just one of many who has slipped into that frame. I don’t think his precise views actually matter; lots of folks end up in this predicament for practically anything that isn’t ultra-orthodox (or even beyond orthodox, Oreskes called Hansen a denier for promoting nuclear!) Yes indeed, zealotry is very much to be feared. Whether ACO2 turns out to be good, bad, or indifferent, the powerful culture of the catastrophic is something future history will grimace about.
AS says this:
“(ex: Jordan Peterson intentionally referring to trans people with pronouns they reject),”
Check your facts. Jordon Peterson has never intentionally referred to trans people with pronouns they reject. In fact he is on video record as saying he will call anyone whatever pronoun they prefer. Makes me suspect that most of what you write is not truthful.
“First, you’ve failed to show the relevant science here is not mature.”
D&M addresses multiple domains, and agreed no social test is needed on mature domains where there is replicability. But if you mean climate change, see above.
Re sat fats, it’s still a somewhat a conflicted domain so you can still find a range of positions, but indeed also changing, and for sure a different mix to a few years ago. It does not serve science to say that the changes (while indeed beneficial AND the result of science), where not necessary or didn’t have resistance to them for many years, which represented a suppression of good science previously. As JCH notes the food industry had a hand in this, though my knowledge isn’t enough to know what the level of help from group-think on the inside was.
(BTW, for clarity I’m neither a conservative or a US citizen).
“My method would have, since I read the scientific evidence, am aware of the evidence-based scientific consensus on the topic, know better than to accept… etc”
So are you indeed claiming that you can always determine the right side (i.e. the side that the ultimate arbiter, future history, reveals as correct) in any conflicted domain?
Yes scientists opposed the dogma on sat fats at the McGovern hearings. But consensuses are often challenged so I don’t have the knowledge to know who was in the majority, then or after (I presume there have never been headcounts at any date anyway). If science (because obviously over decades there have been many scientists involved in the relevant area) can be hi-jacked en-masse by money and dogma that only had some very minority support (clearly there was some) within the enterprise, at least originally, this is possibly worse than group-think centred more within than without (which at least has more justification in the sense of apparent internal support, even if it turned out to be biased). At any rate the result to the public was the same, and the underwriting of the message was in the name of science.
"Now we are here with observations of CO2 and decadal temperature having a .99 correlation over the past half century or so."
I didn't know about the 99% correlation. Now you convinced me. (sarc)
Good discussion though.
My "shred" of evidence you asked for below: google Geert Wilders
Yeah, LBJ did topple one president though. Unless you think the Oswald story adds up.
Andy: "Now academia suffers from the running flame it helped light..."
This is always the case with radicalism and revolution. Because emotional attachment and tribal affinity become the drivers taking over from reason. Invariably, the most extreme take reigns of leadership as they are the most motivated and ruthless. The only productive revolutions are the ones that produce individual liberty as a by-product. They are the tiny exceptions, one of a thousand.
The religiosity in the left is scaring the right into not trusting any message. The leftist press in the USA has lost half the country. There will be no progress on any issue until radicalism falls out of favor or succeeds in taking power. They know this and are doing anything imaginable to seize it. We are yet to see if over-reaching kills the movement before it succeeds.