Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
This is the very first paragraph of Monckton's response to Gavin Schmidt's demolition of Monckton's paper on climate sensitivity.
For the second time, the FalseClimate propaganda blog, founded by two co-authors of the now-discredited "hockey-stick" graph by which the UN's climate panel tried unsuccessfully to abolish the mediaeval warm period, has launched a malevolent, scientifically-illiterate, and unscientifically-ad-hominem attack on a publication by me.
Monckton goes on to make many more ad hominem attacks on Schmidt. And what are the ad hominem attacks that Monckton alleges that Schmidt makes?
I shall replace all comments by him that are purely ad hominem with "+++". I shall refrain from any ad-hominem remarks of my own, and shall answer what little science there is in his blog ad rem. Schmidt's text is in bold face: my response is in Roman face.
Schmidt: "+++ ... the most egregious error is a completely arbitrary reduction by 66% of the radiative forcing due to CO2. He +++ justifies this with reference to tropical troposphere temperatures ..."
M of B: Schmidt somehow fails to point out that my division of climate sensitivity by three to take account of the failure of observed tropical mid-troposphere temperatures to increase at thrice the surface rate as predicted by all of the models relied upon by the UN, far from being "completely arbitrary", was taken from a paper by Lindzen (2001), read together with the lecture-notes and drafts that preceded the paper. Here are two quotations from Professor Lindzen, ...
... we can reasonably bound the anthropogenic contributions to surface warming since 1979 to a third of the observed warming, leading to a climate sensitivity too small to offer any significant measure of alarm ...
Let's see what the "purely ad hominem" bits were:
As Deltoid quickly noticed the most egregious error is a completely arbitrary reduction (by 66%) of the radiative forcing due to CO2. He amusingly justifies this with reference to tropical troposphere temperatures
So it was "purely ad hominem" to link to my post where I wrote:
But Lindzen (2007) (which was published in Energy and Environment rather than in a proper journal) does not say that CO2 radiative forcing is too high by a factor of three. In fact, he specifically says that ΔF2x "is about 3.5 watts per square meter". As far as I can tell, Monckton has misunderstood this statement from Lindzen:
we can reasonably bound the anthropogenic contributions to surface warming since 1979 to a third of the observed warming, leading to a climate sensitivity too small to offer any significant measure of alarm
This is a statement about sensitivity not CO2 forcing.
So far from failing to point out that the alleged source of the 66% reduction in forcing was Lindzen (2007) (not Lindzen (2001) as Monckton now claims), Schmidt did so and Monckton deleted it from his quote of Schmidt on the grounds that it was "purely ad hominem". And note that Monckton seems to have conceded my point that Lindzen was arguing for a lower sensitivity, not for a lower forcing. Of course, he hasn't admitted that his paper was wrong to use Lindzen to justify dividing the forcing by three.
Monckton continues with more confused arguments:
The evaluation of final climate sensitivity is of course left entirely unaffected whether one chooses to divide the forcing, the feedbacks, or the no-feedbacks climate sensitivity by three, since climate sensitivity is the product of these three parameters.
But you can't just arbitrarily choose one of them to divided by three and then go on to reduce the others. From a premise that sensitivity is too high by a factor of three, Monckton manages to conclude that sensitivity is too high by a factor of six, thus contradicting his premise.
Anyway, Monckton goes on in this vein for a while, with lots of bluster and failing to prove Schmidt wrong.
So, Monckton felt that an argument that proved him wrong was an ad hominem, and says that he himself refrained from any ad hominem remarks. I can only conclude that Monckton thinks "ad hominem" means "an argument that proves your opponent wrong". He is mistaken. Ad hominem, from the Latin "to the man", refers to an argument that attacks the opponent personally rather than addressing that person's arguments. You'd think that someone who read classics at Cambridge would be a bit better with Latin.
There is more on Monckton's latest efforts from Daniel Rothenberg, Richard Littlemore, Atmoz and Eli Rabett.
And Arthur Smith is putting together a thorough list of all the mistakes in Monckton's paper.
Environment
Politics
Comments
Lord Monckton is +++add random insult here+++.
just trying to educate him on "ad hom" attacks..
Posted by: sod | July 31, 2008 4:52 PM
Is it just me or is the Eli Rabett link (to SPPI) is the victim of a 404?
Posted by: Notsniw | July 31, 2008 5:02 PM
404: that's a link to the Viscount's rebuttal to Arthur Smith, which SPPI took down, due to Arthur's strong complaint.
See Rabett on Lord Voldemort bleats for the history of the takedown.
Of course, I'm sure some people kept copies of the SPPI PDF, given that it seemed likely to disappear, and it seemed to be a useful item.
Posted by: John Mashey | July 31, 2008 5:26 PM
Much thanks for the plug!
-Daniel Rothenberg
Posted by: counters | July 31, 2008 5:45 PM
No, Mockton's got it right. "Ad Hominem" is latin for "nahnahnahnah I'm not listening!" (links to liberal facts at sites like wikipedia notwithstanding)
Posted by: coby | July 31, 2008 5:53 PM
Ad hom is sooooo 2006.
Dano's brief reminder of the meading of ad hom:
ad hom: You are wrong because you are an idiot.
NOT ad hom: You are wrong because of A, B, and C. And, BTW, you are an idiot.
Does the denialosphere - half of whom having this explained to them - now stop using ad hom? Gee, let's think...
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | July 31, 2008 7:45 PM
It sort of comes across more like, "you are wrong because my withering sarc beats yours any day" Do you think we should all re-read Robbie Burns? Or only some of us?
Posted by: spangled drongo | July 31, 2008 8:28 PM
Monckton is indicative of how absurd the whole debate on climate science has become.
He has no formal training in science and his stuff (drivel) has been debunked time and again by real scientists.
His antics are somewhat amusing (and quite frankly bizarre), but he has gotten far more attention than he deserves.
Posted by: JB | July 31, 2008 8:30 PM
Act two. Methinks it would be a very good thing to protect Arthurs back on this one, which means scouring the net and replying to all provocations from M.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | July 31, 2008 8:31 PM
I disagree.
Monckton is like a little kid who craves attention.
Give him attention and he will keep doing what he has been doing.
Ignore him and (like the little kid), he will eventually realize that the approach is not working.
The best approach is to debunk and then proceed to ignore all of his complaints about "ad hom attacks" and other nonsense.
These do not deserve a response.
Posted by: JB | July 31, 2008 8:57 PM
10 JB:
I don't think ignoring Monckton will work. Rather than acting like a small child, i.e. when realising he/she is wrong and will shown signs of contrition for his/her actions, Monckton has not displayed no such remorse. Rather, responses are more akin to delusion.
Posted by: Notsniw | July 31, 2008 9:13 PM
JB: I'm with Eli: help Arthur out. One never knows what silly things will happy, and sometimes it is well worth gathering details, from past experience. In particular, as occurred last year, useful pieces were scattered around, although there were more here than anywhere else.
Posted by: John Mashey | July 31, 2008 9:47 PM
Despite the errors in M's Latin, he makes some very good points in the 'causes of global warming' debate. I suggest you read his recent letter to Ms Wong which I hope she will consider very carefully.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/moncktonwarnswongyouresteeringlaborto_doom/
Posted by: Lank | July 31, 2008 11:08 PM
Monckton is an ass. That, however, does not obviate the need to explore the many holes in AGW theory, now beginning to rise to the surface even in the Chicken Little media. Stick to the science and the scientists, even if the ad hominems on both sides are more entertaining.
Posted by: wmanny | July 31, 2008 11:21 PM
Now let's give Monckton credit for trying and coming close. "Amusingly" is an adverb not an ad hominem. It's the closest he got to getting anything right.
Posted by: Mark C | August 1, 2008 12:00 AM
the thought of Vis-can't-count being sued for copyright violation and defamation is just too delicious (momentary blogasm).
Posted by: James Haughton | August 1, 2008 12:07 AM
Shorter wmanny: The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... Om... Om... Om...
Anyway, Monckton should follow the example of a certain mail order fraud known as Neo-Tech, and simply call everything he doesn't like as a non sequitur.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | August 1, 2008 12:15 AM
wmanny #14
"Stick to the science and scientists" is excellent advice.
What do you do to do that?
How about helping us out and posting your list of: - main sources for climate science - real scientists who you know personally and with whom you interact on this issue - top holes in AGW theory [which any classic skeptic would have]
I have a hobby of trying to understand where people get their information. Oddly, many people simply won't answer such simple questions...
Posted by: John Mashey | August 1, 2008 12:19 AM
Re:14
Yeah that is a real issue. Fortunately much more of science publishing is now in the pubic domain, although by no means all.
I'm a medic and so have access to certain academic databases: ISI for example. Google scholar is pretty good though, but of course still lets in the woo occasionally. I still don't get to see geophysical research letters though. Fortunately if a paper is controversial or important you'll usually find someone has a pdf of it up somewhere.
Posted by: jodyaberdein | August 1, 2008 12:59 AM
Help Arthur out?
Why does Arthur Smith need anyone's help?
He has threatened copyright infringement which should be enough to make even the "Lord" sit up and take note.
Tit for tat in the ad hom department will not accomplish anything except get Monckton more attention.
Unfortunately, Monckton is merely representative of a certain "class" of people who (for whatever reason) choose to "publish" their "science" on web sites, in magazines and forums for PUP (pure unadulterated opinion) like that of the APS instead of in peer reviewed journals.
It's sometimes entertaining, but it has little if anything to do with science.
In pre-internet days, these people would not have received the time of day from anyone -- least of all from the scientists.
Posted by: JB | August 1, 2008 1:56 AM
"the FalseClimate propaganda blog" -- Presumably he meant he isn't going to use any ad hominems /after/ the text stating he won't; so that one, five words in, doesn't count.
Posted by: Bunty | August 1, 2008 7:09 AM
18, long story short, I have settled these days for reading realclimate and climateaudit side-by-side between publications of the IPCC reports (the meat, not the policy "90%" stuff) whence my own skepticism was born. Granted those two sites preach to their choirs, in the main they offer a good quantity of links and allow readers to form their own opinions over the long haul. I am especially interested in McIntyre's efforts to get actual data into the public domain. I have interacted with a few of the players privately, which is surprisingly easy to do, and I am naturally loath to mention them here since I plan to keep doing so.
Posted by: wmanny | August 1, 2008 7:48 AM
I'm sure he'll claim it's an ad bloginem so it's cool :)
Wmanny:
I do hope you realize that he really has zero impact in this area, despite his hyperventilating pompous self-aggrandizing posts on the matter?
The internet and cheap connectivity has scientists, publishers, grant agencies, everyone thinking hard about how best to get data out there. Of course, they're focused on getting it out to scientists, since scientists are those doing science. McIntyre's a gnat on the elephant's ass, at best.
You've noticed, I'm sure, that McIntyre's attacks on the likes of Thompson have gotten him absolutely nowhere, despite his bold claims of having various journals, PNAS, etc dead to rights?
Posted by: dhogaza | August 1, 2008 9:59 AM
re: #14 #22 wmanny That you study the IPCC is good. The following is not being contentious: you made strong statements, I'm just trying to understand how people reach their opinions.
"That, however, does not obviate the need to explore the many holes in AGW theory, now beginning to rise to the surface even in the Chicken Little media."
0) When you say "AGW theory", what's your definition? Do you mean what the IPCC AR4 says, or something else?
1) "many holes" is a bit vague, so can you perhaps list the top (5-10?) holes you find in the AR4? I.e., which section #s / page #s do you find wrong or unconvincing? Since this is about science and scientists, the "Chicken Little press" is irrelevant.
2) Just to make sure, since you gave excellent advice "stick to the science and scientists", I didn't see some things listed, but I don't want to make assumptions about what you do/don't do, so I'll ask more specifically:
a) Do you attend lectures by real climate scientists? (I know this is not easy everywhere). If so, surely it can do no harm to name people whose talks you've heard? Maybe we've heard some in common, so can have a rational discussion about what they say.
If none, have you found useful videos on the Web by scientists?
b) Do you have (or have had) personal contact & discussion of this topic with real scientists? (I.e., like Nobel physicists, in US, members of National Academy of Scientists, in UK, Royal Society; Presidents, Deans of Science, Department heads, professors in relevant areas in strong research universities? Senior researchers at national research labs (in US, like NCAR, NOAA, GISS, GFDL, in UK Hadley, in Oz CSIRO, etc. Editors of peer-reviewed scientific journals?)
c) Are you a member of any relevant scientific societies?
d) Do you subscribe to any scientific journals?
e) Do you read any primary research literature in the field?
f) Have you read any books on this besides the IPCC AR4? [Certainly if one only reads one, that's the one.]
g) Do you (or have you) participated in peer-review as an author, reviewer, or editor?
h) Can you say anything about your background in physics and statistics?
3) Back to 1), is there some modest set of "worrisome issues about AGW", which if laid to rest, would convince you that AGW (as defined by the IPCC) is real and a problem? Can you list them?
Posted by: John Mashey | August 1, 2008 1:16 PM
Monckton and his ilk are victim bullies
Posted by: Eli Rabett | August 1, 2008 4:12 PM
The heat and drought haven't addled Eli's brain*. 'Victim bully' is better than 'have-nothing little man'.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | August 1, 2008 6:54 PM
24
John,
Don't worry about me and how I form my opinions -- I do it in my own opinion-forming way, and I don't need your disingenuous laundry list to help me know how we little people think. I'll leave the "Who You Know" game to your own self (and the word you are searching for is not "contentious" but "pompous") I am a small-fry BSEE high school teacher, but I have read and heard extensively enough about the various issues, from proxies to politics, to know that the debate is evidently not over, and I am not imbecile enough to believe that anyone who dissents is 'ipso facto' in cahoots with Big Oil, at least not moreso than we all are.
That there have been predictive problems in trying to model an almost infinitely chaotic climate system should not come as a surprise to anybody who reflects that we have been studying it for about three seconds in geological time. That is not to say we give up -- far from it, and improving the models is a good idea. Nor is it to impose draconian solutions because a group of scientists signed off on its superiors' policy-making report stating we are 90% certain, whatever the hell that means.
Climate science is in its infancy, and the history of science, for those of us who have read even a page or two, shows that scientific infants have no problem pronouncing their correctness before they reach adolescence. Heaven forbid a scientist dies before she has gotten the world to act on her theory.
In any event, my influence is very small and you have little to worry about unless I teach your children or grandchildren. I'll keep reading the blogs and journals and attending lectures, with or without your guidance.
Posted by: wmanny | August 1, 2008 11:59 PM
It's older than quantum mechanics and relativity, and about the same age as evolutionary biology.
Are those so young as to be useless as well?
Sheesh, it's about 2/3 as old as the Linnean system of taxonomy ...
And climate isn't "infinitely chaotic", it's a much easier problem than predicting the local weather. Which is why Hansen was able to do such a reasonable job of predicting future temperature trends back in 1988 with what is, by today's standards, a simple model.
Can you try to find some denialist talking points that are a bit more recent? Infinite repetition of the old ones is really boring. Clogs the intertubes unnecessarily and all that.
This is true of all of science. So by your standard, all of science is useless. Is this what you teach your high school students?
He's a libertarian. No bout adoubt it.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 2, 2008 2:08 AM
That there have been predictive problems in trying to model an almost infinitely chaotic climate system should not come as a surprise to anybody who reflects that we have been studying it for about three seconds in geological time.
all of this, of course, is false.
the 1988 predictions were pretty good. remember, denialists have been telling us that temperature would be going down for quite some time now. but temperature, at best, has stayed flat for a minor time period...
the climate system isn t very chaotic. i hereby predict, that there will be a summer again next year!
hm, dhogaza already took apart the "young" thingy..
Posted by: sod | August 2, 2008 2:55 AM
wmanny writes:
Jean-Joseph Fourier deduced the existence of the greenhouse effect in 1824. Louis Agassiz proved there had been ice ages in the 1850s. John Tyndal showed that the major greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere were water vapor and carbon dioxide in 1859. The first quantitative estimate of global warming under doubled carbon dioxide was made by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
Are you using "infancy" in relation to geological time, or something?
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | August 2, 2008 8:25 AM
Hopefully by now he realizes it best describes HIS state of knowledge.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 2, 2008 8:40 AM
For some odd reason your link to Rabett Run goes to SPPI. . .
Mortifying;).
Anyhow links for those who are not playing the bumps
Posted by: Eli Rabett | August 2, 2008 9:48 PM
Oops, sorry. It now points to your new post.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | August 3, 2008 1:41 AM
28 dhogaza
"He's a Libertarian. No doubt about it."
While it seems plausible, there is still some room for doubt, as Libertarians do not have an exclusive.
appeared there in May with firm ideas and and more.
It's too bad: I asked my usual questions to try to understand his experience, sources, and approach to learning ... and the response was insults and evasion of straightforward questions, and a very big chip on the shoulder, plus non sequitur comments about oil people.
Whether Libertarian or not, I would suggest a very strong case of Dunning_kurger Effect, which fortunately is curable, if so derired. Sadly, in my experience, most afflictees do not want to be cured because:
"I'm not an expert, but I know more than the people thought to be experts, like scientists who spend their lives studying it; I've gained this knowledge by following a few websites who have the truth not understood by most."
is much more comforting than:
"Some people know much lot more than I do on this topic, and it will take serious hard work to learn enough to have a useful opinion, especially since at least some of these people are smarter than I am."
Oil folks:
As best as I can tell, only a relatively small handful of anti-AGW folks are paid directly from oil companies, or indirectly via thinktanks or related family foundations. Far more people are anti-AGW for other extra-science reasons, which I could summarize as: "If you jump out of a skyscraper, the laws of physics could care less about your politics."
Posted by: John Mashey | August 3, 2008 3:45 PM
John, to:
"It's too bad: I asked my usual questions to try to understand his experience, sources, and approach to learning ... and the response was insults and evasion of straightforward questions, and a very big chip on the shoulder, plus non sequitur comments about oil people."
Your usual questions? You treat others in that sort of high-handed manner? That you react to my pointing out your pompous behavior by shifting it to a chip on my shoulder is not surprising. Pompous folks by definition are unable to see themsleves in that light.
I am (obviously) new to this crowd and (also obviously) will not be reading any further, so you all can have a high old waste of time labelling me -- sorry, "him" -- a Libertarian(!), pretending you don't understand what I mean by the infancy of climate science, imagining what sort of [poor] teacher I must be, and the like.
I don't doubt the sincerity of your beliefs, even as you so keenly doubt mine, but as I am primarilty interested in the conflict of ideas since I left the reservation -- I used to be a true believer -- there is clearly none of that encouraged here. And "denialist"? How grade-school is that? That you folks have yet to mature past the point of implying those who dissent are akin to Holocaust deniers is an insult to so many people it's hard to know where to begin.
Elsewhere for me. It has not been fun.
Posted by: wmanny | August 3, 2008 7:54 PM
"Elsewhere for me"
Do we have your word on that?
"It has not been fun."
indeed not
For any concerned trolls waiting in the wings to take up where George Michael left off, I'll give you a few pointers.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If you want to claim that 95+% of the people working in a hard science are wrong, that is EXTRAORDINARY. You are going to need some SHOCKING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
And by this, I don't mean shockingly bad, shockingly cherry picked or shockingly ignorant, I mean something along the lines of what the orbit of mercury was to the theory of general relativity. You need an alternate theory which explains reality vastly better than the one we have now.
Good luck with that by the way.
Posted by: elspi | August 3, 2008 8:23 PM
Hmmm, "true believer". That sheds potential light on this case.
In trying to understand why people believe what they believe, I've discussed this with several friends who are psychology professors. Specifically, I asked about the observed behavior when someone:
A) Has a very strong belief in one direction.
B) For one reason or another flips to the other extreme, without being in the middle.
They said, look up "ambiguity tolerance" and "all-or-none personality". People vary strongly in their tolerance for ambiguity.
Some people are perfectly happy with: .5 +/.2, or normal distribution around .6, with SD = .1. error bars statistical signifcance tests
Others need 0 or 1.
My friends say they've seen a few, rare cases where people oscillate between the two extreme views.
Someone new to a scientific topic outside their own expertise:
A. Can find out if there is a consensus among the relevant scientists, and just simply accept it, either out of faith in authority or simply by knowing that with modern science, whether it's right or wrong, it's usually our best approximation.
If accepted on faith, and that faith gets punctured, a person who leans towards all-or-none can easily switch to ardent anti-AGW. I've seen several like that.
B. Can recognize the consensus, but accept it only conditionally as very likely, and then spend a lot of time studying the topic, keeping a list of arguments and seeing how evidence arrives, and watching this over years to see whose arguments stand up or not.
For instance, after reading Fred Singer's books and watching his SEPP website over the years, and hearing Naomi Oreskes' discussions, I'd have no trouble labeling him a denialist. Likewise, anyone who keeps claiming that AGW isn't real because (Mars or Jupiter, or whatever) is getting warmer is a denialist.
I tend to only use the term "denialist" for:
I personally prefer the term "denier" for someone who uses such arguments but is not actively involved, or is anonymous anyway (IUOUI). As best as I can tell, many such do not really know the science very well.
C. Of course, someone may harbor a general disbelief of science and scientists, or may have other non-science reasons for distrusting the scientific consensus here, or not being willing to actually study the science enough or listen to people who have. For some reason I don't quite understand, some people can look at the Great Wall and think that if one brick at the top jiggles, the whole thing falls down.
Obviously, this discussion can't go to any rational place with wmanny (especially as it confirms his style from RC), but I since I actually do ask people the sort of questions I listed, and sometimes have productive discussions, I'll try to summarize those in a later post.
Posted by: John Mashey | August 3, 2008 9:12 PM
"I am (obviously) new to this crowd and (also obviously) will not be reading any further, "
this is, of course, the first step in finding the weak spots in the arguments of those with whom one disagrees.
Posted by: z | August 3, 2008 10:28 PM
As always, AGW proponents have "beliefs", AGW doubters have "opinions". Yeah.
This is worth pointing out every time some wag uses the word "belief" to describe AGW.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | August 4, 2008 12:07 AM
Wmanny.
I know that you'll continue reading for at least a little while, so...
John once asked a similar question of me, and I was happy to supply the background to the subject (why I bother engaging trolls at all). If his questions confront you perhaps it is an indication of the state of your internal equilibrium on the subject, rather than of any pomposity on John's part. I find that John has a great deal of both knowledge and wisdom to offer on both the science of AGW, and the motivations of those who deny it, and your posts are as validly inspected as any others on Deltoid.
And I too use the term 'Denialist', because that is what these people are. The fundamental science behind green-house gas physics is indisputable: the only 'out' is sensitivity, and that is being more securely nailed all the time. I think that if you bothered to seriously enquire you'd find the AGW proponents here would welcome true dissent if it were based upon defensible science, but the amount of such endeavour is miniscule compared to the bulk of Denialist tripe that is paraded. Just bring the scientific and the statistical evidence to the table. It doesn't have to rely on the sincerity of anyone's beliefs; just on the science. Just as you said yourself a while back.
It simple, really.
And this is why you are having (at least, in your perception of it) a rough time. Elspi said it well - if you're going to make extraordinary claims, you need to bring extraordinary counters to the consensus. In spite of repeated Denialist attempts, this has yet to be done, and believe me that if it were the consensus would rapidly change - real scientists know how to assess the evidence, and (paranoid Denialist conspiracies aside) no scientist worth his salt is going to continue riding a bus if the wheels are falling off. Thus far attempts at a refutation of the AGW science have all come to grief.
If climate science is in its infancy, then so are many disciplines of biology. Genetics has been around for roughly the same period of time, but it grows in leaps and bounds with improved understanding and technology. Climate science is no different, and it is mendacious to claim otherwise.
You're obviously critical of the AGW case, and you recognise Monckton for the prating knave that he is. If you apply this scrutiny to the Denialist case as well then you may actually find yourself behaving more like a real sceptic, and then perhaps the truth will become more easily apparent...
And finally, as someone who has teaching qualifications and has taught at secondary school, in addition to two and a half decades working in several scientific disciplines and teaching at a tertiary level, I would ask you to be careful in how you engage your students in the science of AGW. I have a number of relatives and friends who are career science teachers, and whilst some of them are very good, not a one is actually a 'scientist', in spite of several genuinely thinking that they are, and telling folk as much.
I myself am especially careful in how I teach material outside of my disciplines of expertise: I can only say that it must be that much more difficult for someone who has no professional (or at least good practicing amateur) experience in scientific endeavour outside of a school. It is not really a circumstance where personal feelings or intuitions have a valid place - if you want to share these with your students you should predicate them with the observation that you are not actually qualified (academically or experientially) to dispute the science.
Or better still, don't say anything at all.
I am not saying that science teachers do not understand the basis of the sciences that they teach, but rather that to challenge the body of understanding requires a deeper experience of the scientific process than can be easily acquired by working as a teacher.
It is for this reason that I believe that just about all science teachers would be much better for the experience of having worked as 'true' scientists for at least five years before they teach.
I know that it made an enormous difference to my capacity to do so.
Posted by: Bernard J. | August 4, 2008 12:35 AM
Straight out of the traditional science denialism playbook, used by creationists, HIV deniers, etc as well as our climate science ones.
And no matter what is being denied, when I see a statement such as this, one word immediately leaps to my mind:
"liar".
Oh, and we knew exactly what you were saying when you described climate science as being in its infancy, and we know exactly why it's a bullshit claim.
Just to set the record straight.
Posted by: dhogaza | August 4, 2008 1:58 AM
re: #40 Bernard J
Thanks for the kind words, and nice commentary on teaching.
1) Needless to say, the questions I asked didn't just originate with me. They come from:
a) Long history of having to calibrate audiences to use appropriate level of discussions of technical issues, going back ~30 years to university teaching.
b) Being asked similar questions myself by climate scientists.
c) Watching them respond to post-lecture questions, often of the form: "I hear you, but I'm still confused or have reservations. What should I do to learn more and be able to sort out the confusion?"
d) And of course, from personal experience in calibrating how much someone knows, someone jumped on a casual comment about Tahoe ski seasons & global warming with "There's no evidence whatsoever of global warming - it's all a hoax."
I asked how she knew, and got back A: "I've studied it thoroughly."
I asked her if she could name her sources? A: "I've studied it thoroughly."
I asked if she read science journals, talked to scientists, or attended lectures at Stanford [~30 minutes' drive]. A: "I've studied it thoroughly."
I asked if there were any particular pieces of evidence that would change her mind? A: "She'd know them when she saw them, but they weren't there, because she'd studied the topic thoroughly."
Posted by: John Mashey | August 4, 2008 6:10 PM
re: #40 Bernard J
You might want to review Walter Manny's comments (and replies from other people) over at Real Climate. Perhaps this can be called "Victim bully" behavior or maybe it's something else that deserves a new term. I've given a few excerpts for flavor, but of course, one should read the whole sequences for context.
Searching RC for wmanny yields 4 threads:
A: May 08, Global Cooling-Wanna Bet?
B: May 13, The Global Cooling Bet - Part 2.
C: May 18, Climate Change and Tropical Cyclones (Yet Again).
D: May 21, How to cook a graph in three easy lessons.
Posts from wmanny include:
A: May 9, #101, #109 May 10, #142, #144 May 11, #152, #177 May 12, #190, #193 May 13, #194, #208 Excerpts:
101
"On the off chance, then, an observation: why would an escape clause be needed in the event of a volcanic eruption? Aren't all natural and anthropogenic projections, in the aggregate, included in models that purport to be good predictors?"
109
"That's my point -- are the predictive models complete? And if not, what's the utility of any model that needs to be excused when natural events occur?"
142
"Until we understand how all the various and chaotic climate forcings work, I am afraid we are mere climate alchemists. That greenhouse gas emissions are predictable is not a good excuse for making those emissions the overriding factor in models."
144
"The Hansen piece, which predictions didn't pan out in any of the famous scenarios, demonstrates the difficulty of getting all the contributions right, though he would argue, and rightly so, that the science was in its infancy in '88. I would argue that it still is."
152
"...once AGW is shown to be a trivial factor in the geological swing of things, the backlash will be strong. Were I a cynic, then, I might pretend to be a believer, but I prefer to shoot straight with my students and try to educate them about the myriad other reasons to behave in more sustainable ways. Most of them have been indoctrinated in AGW, but a minority could use some other incentives."
177
"When Gore overstates the case in Myanmar, as another example, he does a huge disservice to the AGW cause, and those of us seeking cleaner energy for reasons aside from AGW can be heard gnashing our teeth in unison."
190
"Gavin, I can understand why you might not decide to publish this first paragraph -- it would be embarrassing for you -- but for you to accuse me of taking my cues from a BMI "hatchet job" (I don't know what BMI is, by the way) is so unfair I almost don't know how to respond. I'm not sure what you think is to be gained by laying the "nonsense" bit on me. If you don't print the next part, though, I will know you are not sincere in what you say, and move on. I am sure NPR has the audio transcript if you want to listen yourself."
193
"To Gore's statement, what can I say? You obviously did not listen to the audio transcript, and it appears you have no intention to do so and are relying on others to tell you what he said."
194
"Neutral listeners! Well, you have the religion, and you can't talk someone out of that."
208 THE PAYOFF
"Hmmm. I will say I am enjoying the process of letting my science colleagues in on this site's true colors regarding dissent! They have been telling me for years about RC's supposedly disinterested stance, and they have been surprised to learn otherwise."
B: May 13, #13 May 17, #89 May 18, #105
13
"I see the media in comfortable lockstep with AGW proponents"
105
"103. Careful. Paradigm shifting. Dichlorine peroxide break-down rates not as previously understood. Science consensus being called into question, as invariably happens throughout the history of science. TBD whether Montreal has proven to have changed much."
C: May 19, #37
37 (about Miskolczi article mentioned in comments)
"To those of you interested in seeing the actual 43-page, peer-reviewed article and its citations, over and above the curt dismissals of gavin, "raypierre", and Nick Stokes, here is the link to the work itself:"
D: May 22, #16, #59
16
"Pierrehumbert unwittingly makes the point, I believe, that disagreement about what goes into the models (e.g. arguably unrealistic radiative forcing in Spencer's) is precisely why there is no consensus on the subject of AGW, media repetition of that insistence notwithstanding."
59 THE PAYOFF REAFFIRMED
"Badly done, RayPierre, on the censorship, and once again I get to demonstrate to my AGW colleagues, who led me to your site to begin with, exactly how tolerant you are of dissent. You are evangelicals all, at this place, and I will miss some of it, but there are clearly more useful places to go to seek genuine disinterest, debate and actual conflict of ideas. I have learned what RC's true colors are, and it did not take as long as I thought it would."
====
If there's any doubt, one should go back and review these threads in context, including the (generally-patient) comments by RC editors.
Posted by: John Mashey | August 4, 2008 7:28 PM
Oops, note of course that Walter must have been listening to one of the BMI-hacked audios, as far as I can tell.
Google: bmi gore
would have quickly found the story.
Posted by: John Mashey | August 5, 2008 1:20 AM
Even if some think Monckton is wrong - or rather they think the scientists who support his views are wrong - the planet has been cooling for the last ten years. At last we are realising that anthropogenic CO2 is not the cause of recent global warming. That is a step in the right direction.
Posted by: Anthony Brookes | August 5, 2008 6:36 AM
Correction...
Even if
some thinkMonckton is wrong - or ratherthey thinkthe scientists who support his views are wrong - we think the planet has been cooling for the last ten years.At last we are realisingFor decades we have been thinking that anthropogenic CO2 is not the cause of recent global warming which of course does not exist since it's recently cooling. That we think is a step in what we think is the right direction.Posted by: bi -- IJI | August 5, 2008 6:50 AM
The person who added a "correction" to my comment refuses to identify himself but Lawrence Sterne had a profound response to him - "There is a worth in thy honest ignorance - t'were almost a pity to exchange it for knowledge"
Posted by: Anthony Brookes | August 5, 2008 7:27 AM
Anthony Brookes writes:
No, it hasn't:
Tim Ball's errors
Tilo Reber's errors
What you are realizing and what people familiar with the real world are realizing appear to be two different things.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | August 5, 2008 8:10 AM
If the trolls do not tire of telling their lies, then it behoves us to not tire in refuting them...
Seriously, Anthony Brookes, if you think that the planet has been "cooling for the last ten years", please show your calculations demonstrating this.
You see, all of the statistical analyses that any competent person might complete show no cooling. Unless you have some magical database that has escaped the notice of the world's climate scientists you are going to have your nose rubbed in any number of analyses that contradict your claim.
Oh, and just out of curiosity, when you do your calculations, ask yourself also what trends emerge if you interrogate the last eleven years, or the last nine years, or the last thirty years, or fifty.
And ask yourself why you chose to mention "the last ten years" in the first place.
Posted by: Bernard J. | August 5, 2008 10:20 AM
the planet has been cooling for the last ten years.
I call bullsh*t on this tired, long ago-refuted argument.
Let's put this to bed, please. Until the next recycling cycle.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | August 5, 2008 10:59 AM
Oops.
Better link. And a closed tag.
Posted by: Dano | August 5, 2008 11:02 AM
Since 1998 - That's ten years in my simple maths. I see other contributors are wanting to close this blog down which is usually the sign of having lost the argument. But there isn't much of an argument anymore. Most people are already downgrading from the expression 'global warming' to 'climate change' which gives them an honourable escape route. When politics takes hold of science it always leaves a nasty taste. Let's hope the changeover is gradual as no animosity is intended and there have been some quite eminent scientists on the pro-global warming track. The planet istself is now saying 'cool it'.
Posted by: Anthony Brookes | August 5, 2008 11:55 AM
'Simple' being the operative word.
An important word in this context would be 'valid', but unfortunately it is not applicable...
It was only in the last twenty-four hours that I visited this exercise in spin.
Anthony, do yourself a favour, go here, and then follow Hank's links in the #8 post that follows. Read, and learn about the nasty politics of semantics, and learn just who the team was that promulgated this tawdry effort.
And since you are hung up on the whole cooling thing and the refutation of AGW, perhaps you would be kind enough to visit three questions that Barton likes to ask of your team:
1) is CO2 a greenhouse gas?
2) is the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increasing?
3) are humans responsible for any increase in atmospheric CO2?
Let's answer these questions first and then we'll see where it takes us...
Posted by: Bernard J. | August 5, 2008 12:36 PM
Another correction...
Since 1998 - That's ten years in my simple maths. I
seethink other contributors are wanting to close this blog down which I think is usually the signof havingthat I think they have lost what I think is the argument. But I think there isn't much of what I think is an argument anymore. Most people, I think, are already downgrading from what I think is the expression 'global warming' to what I think is 'climate change' which I think gives them what I think is an honourable escape route. When I think politics takes hold of science I think it always leaves what I think is a nasty taste.Let'sI think we should hope that what I think will be the changeover is gradual as far as I think, as no animosity is intended and I think there have been some quite eminent scientists on thepro-global warmingclimate science track. The planet istself, the way I think about it, is now saying 'cool it'. Or so I think.Posted by: bi -- IJI | August 5, 2008 12:38 PM
Nobel prize in the mail!
Posted by: dhogaza | August 5, 2008 1:30 PM
Well there are certainly some alarmists on this site. Like many, I first thought the concept of global warming from anthropogenic CO2 was a tenable hypothesis, but after reviewing so, so many, papers - I'm almost punch drunk from the volume of documents I have read - I have come down on the side of the realists. Also I have checked the credentials as far as possible of the scientists who have persuaded me, and more importantly have found that the pro-global warming scientists are heavily, one could almost say, totally funded by vested interests. That sets alarm bells ringing even before investigating the facts. I found so many errors were highlighted by the 'experts' and such a frequency of hyperbole that many ostensibly sensible people became convinced that anthropogenic CO2 was not only a certainty but