Thingsbreak has been documenting the way Levitt and Dubner keeping digging the hole deeper, and Dubner has kept on digging with this whopper:
we believe that anyone who reads our chapter without an agenda wouldn't even find it particularly controversial. They will see that we routinely address the concerns that critics accuse us of ignoring (the problem of ocean acidification, e.g., and the "excuse to pollute" that geoengineering solutions might afford), and that we neither "misrepresent" climate scientists nor flub the facts.
Here is everything they say in chapter 5 about ocean acidification.
[Caldeira] and a co-author coined the phrase 'ocean acidification.' the process by which the seas absorb so much carbon dioxide that corals and other shallow-water organisms are threatened.
Far from addressing it, they don't even mention that their proposed scheme will do nothing about it.
And while Dubner has studiously avoided linking to any of the "attacks" he links to defences. Trouble is, the only defenders he has are global warming deniers like Bret "It's a Mass Neurosis!" Stevens and Jonah "It's the sun!" Goldberg, or people like Jon Stewart who admit that they don't know anything about the subject.
- Log in to post comments
Back in engineering school, we used to call geology majors "rockheads". They either went into geology because they flunked out of freshman physics, or they couldn't take working at a desk. Yet now we think these same people with their "geoengineering solutions" can lead us out of this mess? And the guys who are the cheerleaders are economists, from the most dismal science of them all?
The hole they are digging is the most apt metaphor of them all. Tim, thanks for that one.
I love how the fact that the phrase was supposedly coined as if out of nothing, and not out of the basic meaning of the words suggests that the phrase itself could have no meaning. Nice one, chumpos.
That struck me when I read it. They mentioned ocean acidification, and then seem to have forgotten about it.
They really could have made a more useful contribution here, if they'd just spent a bit more time doing research. They could still have decided to advocate geoengineering for all I care, so long as they'd given a more thorough discussion of the practical difficulties involved.
Far from addressing it, they don't even mention that their proposed scheme will do nothing about it.
--
Arguably, ocean acidification is the most disastrous aspect of increased CO2. The Earth is mostly ocean. And the levels of SO2 Levitt & Dubner propose dumping into the atmosphere every year in perpetuity instead of abating CO2 will kill all the freshwater ecosystems and all the forests from acid precipitation. Didn't we have this discussion back in 1971 when the Clean Air Act was passed in the U.S.?
> didn't we have this discussion back in 1971 ...
Well, partly. The rule was made not to emit the sulfates into the air via the smokestack so they wouldn't fall out in the rain and increase the pH where they ended up in the water.
Nobody, er, said anything about instead collecting the sulfates and then disposing of them by, uyum, DUMPING the crap DIRECTLY into the water supply.
And the rule is, do what ye will, so long as ye don't violate the _letter_ of the rule carefully crafted with the help of your lobbyists, eh? Hey, nobody said the point was to keep the crap OUT of the water, they just said, hey, it's going into the air and ending up in the water and that's bad.
So we kept it from going up into the air and dumped it directly into the water. NOTHING wrong with that, eh?
We addressed _exactly_ what was complained of, the activity.
Consequences RNOT Us. Ask any lobbyist.
This is exactly what these guys are doing now. Again.
-----
Some Coal Plants Cleanse the Air at the Expense of Waterways ... Oct 13, 2009 Coal-Fired Power Plants ... are creating another problem: water pollution... scrubber wastewater ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/us/13water.html
Thanks, Hank.
And Mr. Hubbell, your disparagement of geologists is so weird and ill-informed that I hope I never have to use something you "engineered."
If you understood the meaning of the word "geo-engineering" you would know it has nothing to do with the science of geology. It is a term which combines the word "geos" (meaning the Earth) with the word engineering. Geologists have little or no involvement in climate change "geo-engineering" schemes because these schemes mostly involve atmospheric chemistry (creating acid rain aerosols to block sunlight) and/or biochemistry (dumping iron in the ocean to fuel phytoplankton).
Tim
Oh man does Jon Stewart know nothing about the subject! Possibly worse still he's not at all funny on it; that was emphatically not at all a good interview.
Jonah Goldberg thought the solution to polar bear extinction was to build plastic rafts for them to use in the Arctic Ocean. [No, I'm not making that up](http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTA2ZDIzOTIyZmVjY2JhNGZlMmViZW…)
I'm not surprised that he likes geoengineering. Problem solved.
Anyone else feel like the straight man in a Monty Python sketch?
Boris, acknowledging the problem is the first step to getting to the conclusion that anyone with similar or less intelligence to or than Jonah Goldberg is an anencephalic putz who doesn't know the first thing about how the Earth works .
Watts--Hitting too close too home eh? Can't help the fact that young people had a sense of rivalry in their college days. Like sports rivalries, it was all good clean fun. I especially like how geologists spearheaded the study of peak oil. :( AFAIAC, this field as taught is more about exploitation of resources than of stewardship. Unfortunate that we can't turn back the clock of time.
Er, Web Hub Tel, if you'd explore some of the blogs of the geologists on ScienceBlogs, you'd know that, at least as far as I know, is most definitely not the case when it comes to geology.
This very day the federal government has knocked back a development proposal (previously approved by the Queensland Government!) on the grounds that it may adversely affect the Great Barrier Reef. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/30/2729235.htm The irony that the entire reef is doomed by the CPRS targets is lost, it seems. I suppose the Great Limestone Shelf will be a good prospect for cement manufactures...
Then the conscientious geologists should back this guy up:
http://www.geostatscam.com/index.htm
He claims that the field of geostatistics is a fraud. I am studying what he is saying and he has at least one very good point.
Let us know when you hit Australia, boys!
I just spotted this lovely use of words from [Joshua Rosenau](http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/10/global_warming_science_denial.php):
> ...I see these sorts of books as attempts by minimally-informed dilettantes to insert themselves into complex topics by applying a canned methodology and pretending that the naive solutions resulting from this are somehow novel and important...
I repeated this point about ocean acidification and it actually made it as a comment on their blog. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/geoengineering-to-have…
Over the past several days, no comments of mine with links to criticism of the book were ever posted (and I tried several times!), but I see that people in comments to that post include links to criticism. Whether they'll swiftly get deleted is another question.
Yeah JW, they're pretty strictly moderating out dissent. "la la la la la, I'm not listening" and all that.
For example, try getting a comment past the censors noting that each of their sources disagrees with their conclusions, and each are experts unlike themselves, including the polymath's polymath, Nathan Myhrvold of, "Geoengineering is proposed only as a last resort... Should we fail at cutting enough and those [bad] things occur, geoengineering might offer a better option.", fame.
Good luck because I haven't been able to do it. Then again, judging from the comments you'll be much better off if you put in some ego smoothers like, "your first book was brilliant!", and "the work we've come to expect from you is tremendous!" before the "but".
The best part of course is the considerable irony, given this holier than thou blog post of Levitt's, that mocks Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood for doing exactly what these clowns are doing in spades, i.e. refusing to acknowledge the substance of the criticism. What a bunch of lousy hypocrites. Freakonomics should become an adjective for sensational pseudo-intellectual and deeply misleading tripe for which the authors take zero responsibility.
I'm depressed to report that Good finds Levitt "quite reasonable."
I don't have access to the comments...hopefully, someone's offered a counterargument.
We need to worry about both cooling down the Earth and stopping the rapid increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Here is a silver bullet clean energy technology that solves the second problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1iqa0dSJO0
Check out above link to a 2 and a half minute youtube video of a CNN report. What are the odds that the independent testimony below is fraudulent (not bloody likely unless you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist)? Here is a silver bullet technology: clean cheap and abundant energy.
In a joint statement, Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary, Rowan University Meritorious Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Dr. Amos Mugweru, Assistant Professor of Chemistry, and Dr. Peter Jansson P.E., Associate Professor of Engineering said, "In independent tests conducted over the past three months involving 10 solid fuels made by us from commercially-available chemicals, our team of engineering and chemistry professors, staff, and students at Rowan University has independently and consistently generated energy in excesses ranging from 1.2 times to 6.5 times the maximum theoretical heat available through known chemical reactions."
Also, check out this article: http://green.venturebeat.com/2008/05/30/blacklight-power-claims-nearly-…
Brad Arnold
St Louis Park, MN, USA
dobermanmacleod@gmail.com
www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod
When John Stoessel starts looking good in comparison to Freakonomics they will have clearly jumped the shark.
Freakonomics; how one trite adage demonstrates that Chicago School economists have all the answers
They had a nice little Ferrarri-like schtick going, and then they ran it smash into a cement column holding up the Santa Ana Freeway, didn't they?
Now I wonder if the first book was as sloppy as this one; has anybody gone back to check it lately?
Promising:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/geoengineering-to-have…
Ed Darrell, regarding their first book. A Review of Freakonomics by John DiNardo is too long for me to invest the time to finish, but a partial reading does suggest some sloppiness there as well.
Posted by: Webster Hubble Telescope
"Back in engineering school, we used to call geology majors "rockheads". They either went into geology because they flunked out of freshman physics, or they couldn't take working at a desk. Yet now we think these same people with their "geoengineering solutions" can lead us out of this mess? And the guys who are the cheerleaders are economists, from the most dismal science of them all? "
I think that we need a new internet rule - anytime an alleged engineer claims that another field is populated primarily by drop-outs from engineering, and disparages based on that idea (and furthermore, doesn't even know what the heck he's talking about), that claimant is forever more uncredible.
Ed Darrell:
"Now I wonder if the first book was as sloppy as this one; has anybody gone back to check it lately?"
Daniel Davies had an excellent four-part series.
The short form is that:
Much of what they say is not substantiated;
Most of what is substantiated is trivial.
Part 1:
http://d-squareddigest.blogspot.com/2005/11/long-awaited-freakonomics-p…
Part 2:
http://d-squareddigest.blogspot.com/2006/03/freakonomics-review-part-2-…
Part 3:
http://d-squareddigest.blogspot.com/2007/01/this-has-been-so-absurdly-t…
Part 4:
http://d-squareddigest.blogspot.com/2007/09/freakiology-yes-folks-its-p…
Here's a bit from part 4:
"Similarly when it turns out that estate agents' houses typically sell for about 10% more than comparable houses owned by non-estate agents, then this shows that those rascally agents are ripping you off!!1!. That's it! Personally, I don't think 10% is that much. If I went to Aubergine and got a meal 90% as good as Gordon Ramsay gets when he eats there, I'd be pretty damn pleased. Furthermore, estate agents selling their own houses don't have to deal with their horrible emotionally needy clients making all sorts of irrational decisions, and are more likely to be moved by financial considerations than by which buyer was nice to their dog and more likely to keep their gazebo. And so forth, and so on."
I've also heard that Levitt's big abortion-crime linkage paper was eventually proven wrong. However all of the links that I've found so far are to Steve Sailer's various blogs, which are one step above Stormfront (at best), so I'm reluctant to use them.
Updating with a quick Google Scholar search finds a few disagreers:
"Testing Economic Hypotheses with State-Level Data:
A Comment on Donohue and Levitt (2001)" http://econ.cudenver.edu/public/laura/Class/Boston-fed%20paper%20wp0515…
They claim a simple error in running the analyses led Levitt to this conclusion.
'Further Tests of Abortion and Crime' (http://zicklin.baruch.cuny.edu/faculty/profiles/papers/joyce_abor_crime…)
"In this paper, I replicate analyses of Donohue and Levitt (2001, 2004, 2006) in which they regress age-specific arrests and homicides on cohort-specific abortion rates. I find that the coefficient on the abortion rate in a regression of age-specific homicide or arrest rates has either the wrong sign or is small in magnitude and statistically insignificant when adjusted for serial correlation. Efforts to instrument for measurement error are flawed and attempts to identify cohort from selection
effects are mis-specified. Nor are their findings robust to alternative identification strategies."
Dear All
I know that you have had several posts about Ian Plimer. I was asked to write something about climate change on a Mineral Engineering blog. Ian Plimer responded and I've now responded to him at:
http://www.min-eng.blogspot.com/
"Secret English court seizes billions in assets from the mentally impaired"
http://joshfulton.blogspot.com/2009/10/secret-english-court-seizes-asse…
SH...'the overwhelming majority of informed scientists agree that there is a greenhouse effect'...
Could you show me a link to confirm that statement?
>SH...'the overwhelming majority of informed scientists agree that there is a greenhouse effect'...
>Could you show me a link to confirm that statement?
el gordo, give me the names of 3 scientists who do not agree there is a greenhouse effect.
Alternatively, ask any scientist you know if they agree there is a 'greenhouse effect' (however misnamed it it is).
Could you show me a link to confirm the notion that most informed scientists agree there is a strong nuclear force, a weak nuclear force or gravity?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! It's hard to believe a person with a brain put those two sentences together without it being purely for comedic effect.
El Gordo, the following Wikipedia article summarises and links to the official positions of each of the World's major scientific institutions with regard to climate change.
* Summary of scientific opinion on climate change
"Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion."
If you want to disagree then you must conclude that all these institutions and the scientists they represent are collectively deluded or conspiratorial.
Furthermore, you would have to conclude that all the World's media is either colluding with them in not revealing the conspiracy, or collectively utterly incompetent in not being able to find evidence of it.
Greenhouse effect?? What a red herring.It is the 'enhanced' greenhouse effect which is the subject inder consideration.
frank, I think you need to educate some of the denialists out there, some are still asking for evidence that the greenhouse effect exists.
So while the el gordo's of the world keep raising such red herrings, they continue gain a life of their own (similar to Plimer's red herrings).
Barry,
Well eventually the geologists did accept continental drift and plate tectonics theory, but it took them awhile. Perhaps they are just slow learners.
With all due respect Janet,I think that is also a bit of a red herring.I know of no sceptic that denies the greenhouse effect.The 'enhanced' greehouse effect due to co2 is what they dispute.
Craig Allen;The "official" positions of scientific bodies is utterly menaingless.Science is not about votes.The same could be said for the sceptics.IE 31000 signatures on the oregon petetion,700 for the manhatten declaration.The large numbers they make doesnt make their take on the science any more credible,so the reverse has to be true as well.Correct me if I am wrong but the russian scientific community is not on board with the "consensus".
El gordo,I dont see any evidence that we are heading for cooling[although we maybe,who knows].Temps droopped in 2008 but they are up again in 2009.I suppose we could say that globally temperatures have not risen since 2002.It will be interesting to see if the sunspot/climate correlation idea gains any traction over the next couple of years given the very quite cycle 24.If 24 continues to be less active than normal and we DONT get cooling then one of the cornerstones of the sceptic's case will be removed.
@frank: it depends a bit on how you define "greenhouse effect". On chriscolose.blogspot.com one commenter is arguing that the greenhouse effect is a mere 3 degrees (that is, even without water vapor or CO2 in the atmosphere the earth would only be 3 degrees cooler). And Abdusamatov, an astrophysicists the denialists love to cite, claims CO2 does not have *any* greenhouse effect.
Marco,on the face of what you are saying,both of those statements are obviously indefensible.Are you sure that you have quoted Abdusamatov accurately?If yes,could you please give me a link to where he made this claim.Thanks.
Frank
That is true, we don't accept that humans have created an enhanced greenhouse. Also, as a denaialist, I believe we are now heading into global cooling at a rapid rate.
This is my absolute favourite Plimer quote now:
> Scientists who push the view that humans create climate change are young, trying to forge a career in a narrow field by fear, seek government and research grant favour and base their opinions on computer projections about the future. There are no natural scientists I know who have spent more than 40 years of integrated inter-disciplinary science who argue that humans change climate.
Aside from the wanton inaccuracy, it is extremely telling. Denialists *love* to portray themselves as tortured Galileos, bravely standing up to the scientific orthodoxy. Plimer paints precisely the opposite scenario, with climate scientists as young upstarts who dare to question their elders and betters. Beautiful stuff.
frank #38:
Firstly, the Russian academy of sciences has is in fact a signatory to the G8+5 declaration on climate change
Secondly, you can't seriously expect us to equate the Oregon petition with the official statements of the World's leading scientific institutions. There was such minimal vetting of who could sign that petition that it is effectively worthless.
>With all due respect Janet,I think that is also a bit of a red herring.I know of no sceptic that denies the greenhouse effect.
With all due respect frank, I wasn't addressing a sceptic. And evidence suggest that AGW Sceptics are a tiny minority so your sample is irrelevant. In the real world most AGW disbelievers are simply ill informed lap up ill informed tripe and ask stupid questions (such as proof of the Greenhouse effect). Sorry your little repeated red herring call turn out to be a... red herring.
elgordo:
"That is true, we don't accept that humans have created an enhanced greenhouse."
Let's get back to basics: do you think there's a greenhouse effect, at all? Your language leaves it unclear.
"Also, as a denaialist, I believe we are now heading into global cooling at a rapid rate."
Due to what? How rapid? What do you expect to see, and if it doesn't happen, will you come back in 15 years and admit it?
el gordo, if you have even the SLIGHTEST scientific education, you'd know that the carbon cycle is more complex than you think.
CO2 indeed is produced by organisms and metabolized by others and is necessary for life on Earth, but there is simply TOO MUCH OF IT.
Either your head is in the ground or your head is in your ass.
James,
Conflating scientific consensus and political consensus is to fall prey to the fallacy of equivocation. Scientific consensus depends on expert multi-disciplinary agreement with respect to the consilience of multiple lines of orthogonally independent evidence. Political consensus, not so much.
I meant frank, not James.
Gah! I feel like Robert Ford.
Mr. Lambert,
Yesterday you commented on my article at http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examine…
comparing me to Senator Inhofe. Might I ask why you feel that way? In several dozen of my pieces I have said that:
1. Global warming is real and a serious problem
2. I completely support President Obama's energy program
Perhaps you could point me to similar statements from Senator Inhofe.
Here's what I wrote:
>If Fuller is in the middle ground, then so is Inhofe -- they both think that climate scientists are a bunch of frauds.
You are saying that you read that and couldn't figure out how I think you are like Inhofe?
Yes. I'm not sure where you picked up the impression that I think climate scientists are frauds. Did you read my interview with Stephen Schneider, or my complimentary comments about James Hansen? Or do you think that just because I criticise Joe Romm and the team at Real Climate that I extend that to the entire field?
I'm forced to assume that you haven't read much, if anything, of what I have written and are just making fairly wild accusations.
You might remember going forward, before painting everyone who disagrees with you as a vile blackguard, that Senator Inhofe joined with my representative in Congress, Nancy Pelosi, on a joint resolution to reduce energy expenditures in all Congressional offices. It's the only thing he's done since he was elected to office that I will ever agree with, and he only did it because there was no mention of climate change, but he proved to be more flexible than it seems you are capable of being.
From Tom Fuller's First Annual Global Warming Survey, featured at Wattsup:
8. Which, if any, of the following statements comes closest to capturing your attitudes and opinions about global warming?
(We'll give you a chance to amplify in your own words later--but I need to pigeonhole--umm, stereotype--umm, put you in a 'box' if at all possible. If necessary, just pick the least objectionable statement, or indicate that you prefer not to say.)
Which, if any, of the following statements comes closest to capturing your attitudes and opinions about global warming? (We'll give you a chance to amplify in your own words later--but I need to pigeonhole--umm, stereotype--umm, put you in a 'box' if at all possible. If necessary, just pick the least objectionable statement, or indicate that you prefer not to say.)
__I believe global warming is the crisis of this generation, and should be the highest priority for policy makers right now.
__I think global warming is undoubtedly real and a serious problem, but I think it has been 'overplayed' by the press, politicians and some organisations.
__It looks to me like global warming probably has a grain of truth in it, but it's almost certainly not as bad as it has been made out to be.
__I believe global warming is true, but not man-made.
__I don't believe global warming is true. I think natural forces account for the changes in climate and there's no need to look at human contributions--which in any event have not been proven.
__This issue is not even at the top of my radar screen. I don't pay much attention to global warming or climate change, it doesn't influence how I live, how I spend my money, who I vote for--I don't really pay too much attention to this.
__I don't know.
__I prefer not to say.
----
Yeah, that'll be revealing. Who came up with _this_ set of questions?
Fuller
"Dave, I think it's disingenuous at best to characterise Real Climate as middle of the road. Considering that their principal contributors include the scientists responsible for the flawed use of proxies and principal component analysis leading to the now-discredited Hockey Sticks, I can't see anybody really saying they are trying for a balance. "
"Yes. I'm not sure where you picked up the impression that I think climate scientists are frauds"
Is it Alzheimer's or is it that Fuller couldn't tell the truth if it was tattooed on the backs of his eyelids. How the hell do you forget your own words that quickly?
elspi, I am unclear on your point--perhaps it's that incipient Alzheimer's you mention. How on earth does criticising some scientists translate into a claim that climate scientists are all frauds? I certainly stand by my criticism of some of Real Climate's principal contributors and Joe Romm, as well. But you do know that there actually are other climate scientists out there, don't you?
Carrot eater
According to David Archibald the temperatures will drop around 2 degrees over the next decade. Similar to what Sydney experienced in October.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/sydney-gets-the-cold-shoulder-20091031-h…
We can adapt.
Tom, please substantiate this statement:
> now-discredited Hockey Sticks
With reference to current peer-reviewed literature. This is an oft-repeated statement that has reached the level of received wisdom in certain circles.
I'll let Dr. Wegman do that for me:
"The original Wegman Report is online here. Here are some excerpts from this report:
The debate over Dr. Mann's principal components methodology has been going on for nearly three years. When we got involved, there was no evidence that a single issue was resolved or even nearing resolution. Dr. Mann's RealClimate.org website said that all of the Mr. McIntyre and Dr. McKitrick claims had been 'discredited'. UCAR had issued a news release saying that all their claims were 'unfounded'. Mr. McIntyre replied on the ClimateAudit.org website. The climate science community seemed unable to either refute McIntyre's claims or accept them. The situation was ripe for a third-party review of the types that we and Dr. North's NRC panel have done.
While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid.
"Where we have commonality, I believe our report and the [NAS] panel essentially agree. We believe that our discussion together with the discussion from the NRC report should take the 'centering' issue off the table. [Mann's] decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics â¦. I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway.
Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.
The papers of Mann et al. in themselves are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions.
It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the [Mann] paper.
We found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling.
Overall, our committee believes that Mann's assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.
[The] fact that their paper fit some policy agendas has greatly enhanced their paper's visibility⦠The 'hockey stick' reconstruction of temperature graphic dramatically illustrated the global warming issue and was adopted by the IPCC and many governments as the poster graphic. The graphics' prominence together with the fact that it is based on incorrect use of [principal components analysis] puts Dr. Mann and his co-authors in a difficult face-saving position.
We have been to Michael Mann's University of Virginia website and downloaded the materials there. Unfortunately, we did not find adequate material to reproduce the MBH98 materials. We have been able to reproduce the results of McIntyre and McKitrick
Generally speaking, the paleoclimatology community has not recognized the validity of the [McIntyre and McKitrick] papers and has tended dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs. The paleoclimatology community seems to be tightly coupled as indicated by our social network analysis, has rallied around the [Mann] position, and has issued an extensive series of alternative assessments most of which appear to support the conclusions of MBH98/99⦠Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus 'independent studies' may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent.
Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on [Mann's work]. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.
It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications."
Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers."
Joe Romm has pretty well nailed the Tom Fuller's of the world
Looks to me like Romm hoisted himself by his own petard, being a veteran practitioner of each of the tactics he describes and condemns. But as he is irony deficient, he will never notice.
Tom,
Copying+pasting several paragraphs from the Wegman report in this forum is somewhat akin to teaching your grandmother to suck eggs. We've all seen it, we've all read the analyses and the report itself is not without its own flaws.
I repeat my request in somewhat more detail - perhaps you could expand upon what exactly you mean by discredited and what *precisely* in the current peer-reviewed literature leads you to the conclusion that any Hockey Stick*s* (your pluralisation) are "discredited". The layman might think from your casual dismissal of "hockey sticks" as "discredited" - very strong language - that you meant that any and all proxy reconstructions showing a hockey stick-like curve have been shown to be utterly without foundation, shoddily constructed and/or fabricated. That can't possibly be what you're saying, can it?
Tom,
What is the refereed record for either Wegman's review or his above remarks?
Contrary to what Wegman says, i.e., "The climate science community seemed unable to...refute McIntyre's claims..." a [point by point rebuttal](www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/.../refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf) of [McKitrick & McIntyre 2005](http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml) actually was peer reviewed with McIntyre as one of the reviewers.
Pfft!
www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/.../refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf
Umm, Wegman, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Theoretical and Applied Statistics, was the referee, folks. Hired by U.S. Congress, with fellow referee Gerald North, fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS), and the American Geophysical Union (AGU).
el gordo (56): meanwhile, in September 2009 some parts of the US West and North-West were shitloads(TM) hotter than the average according to NOAA, to the extent that "... Nevada experienced its warmest September of the 115-year record. California's average temperature tied with 1984 as the warmest on record."
What does this prove? That Sydney, like the US, experiences a phenomenon called weather. Do we really have to explain to you the difference between weather patterns and climate trends... again? Do you really think anyone bar the most obdurate denialobotomists will fall for this tired old circus act? Am I just wasting my time answering your posts (rhetorical)?
>Looks to me like Romm hoisted himself by his own petard, being a veteran practitioner of each of the tactics he describes and condemns. But as he is irony deficient, he will never notice.
Examples, please?
Wegman was his own referee?
Oh Yeah! That's the ticket!
And worked with North, and both debunked the hockey stock, wah-hoo!
Tom Fuller - I recommend you go back to cut and pasting. When you write your own posts, you just get too much wrong.
No, luminous beauty, Wegman was Mann's referee. And when you ask qui custodet ipsos custodiet, that would be North and Biondi.
Ahh, dhogaza, we meet again. Still working for the Dark Side? Mann has been so thoroughly debunked that it's not worth more than cut and paste.
Tom Fuller,
Please address [Dave's questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/dubner_falsely_claims_that_oce…) and his critique of your assertions.
Are you refering to all temperature hockey sticks? Please distinguish. If you are only refering to Mann, how do you reconcile the consistancy of the MBH hockey stick with the 'Spaghetti' of hockey sticks?
Tom Fuller:
So where is the debunking of anything more recent than the 10+ year old MBH98/99?
e.g. Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia.
Discredits of the hockeysticks in that paper are rarer than hens teeth.
Tom,
MBH98 was refereed by Nature Magazine. The Wegman committee report was not refereed. Not by North, not by anybody. You don't understand how this review thing works, do you?
Econometrics, Wegman's area of expertise, is not a natural science. Wegman has absolutely zero competence to comment on dendrology. Wegman did not do any analysis, but only commented that if some proxies displayed spurious correlations to climatic conditions, then, according to his understanding, the PCA method used in MBH98 might be in error. As he himself admits, he finds the technical discussion of MBH's methods incomprehensible.
You haven't mentioned Ammann & Wahl's technical refutation of M&M. If it's beyond your comprehension, let us know.
Here's something you might comprehend if you have the slightest grasp of the scientific issues pertaining to paleoclimate. If MWP temps were indeed warmer than 21st century temps, then it would suggest, paribus ceteris, climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing would very likely be much greater than consensus values and future warming at or above the higher estimates from model projections. Do you understand?
You're hilarious. More dense than a marble statue's head, but hilarious.
I think Tom Fuller is confusing "discredited" with not perfect.
And Tom, 'not perfect' does not mean 'not useful', 'not close', nor 'discredited'.
A temperature hockey stick has been reconfirmed by ten years of further reserach. So claims of "discredited" are misplaced, besides being over the top.
Amman and Wahl. Hmm, where have I seen those names in connection with Mann before? Hmm.
I mean come on, people. On reason Congress hired Wegman and North to review Mann's work was, as Wegman so rightly pointed out, that you don't expect your peer review team to be your fellow bloggers and co-authors. You keep bringing up these points as if they haven't been refuted a hundred times.
Tom Fuller.
As I [said recently](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/open_thread_34.php#comment-2032…) to another Denialatus who made pronouncements about the state of science, without providing any appropriate reference to scientific work which supported his own contrary view, you are certainly making free with pretty words.
The problem for you is, your bunting words are simply cheap dross hiding a flim-flam house of cards underneath. As others have already called on you to do, if you disagree with me - and said others - you will actually begin to provide some credible science to support your statements.
Most especially, I am extrememly curious to see the real science that you believe contradicts the work and the words of the of the real experts at RealClimate.
Ammann and Wahl's "refutation" was answered by MM,and they seem to present a strong case defending their criticism of MBH.The principal components analysis employed by Mann appears to be the sticking point.On its own MBH98 now has substantial doubts surrounding its central result.Has there been an independent[statistical analysis]verification of MBH98?
Steve
The cold snap hitting northern China and now Japan is two months early. It looks like weather, but it's really the beginning of a climate trend.
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=451514
Denver has also been unseasonably cold.
Tom Fuller:
If your best response is to Ctrl-C & Ctrl-V some text you don't understand, persist in claiming that the hockey stick is broken by people who have never seen or touched tree-rings (let alone attempt paleoclimatic reconstruction analysis) and subsequently avoid the real science issues by innuendo and name-calling, then you've lost the debate.
Why do you persist?
Here's North -- the video of his presentation given to Dessler's class -- explaining the Hockey Stick and Wegman hearing reports, first hand not second hand. Don't miss it.
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/NorthH264.mp4
Who are North and Dessler? Glad you asked:
http://atmo.tamu.edu/people/faculty
It has nothing to do with dubner's false claims.
The big problem with the 'weather is not climate' thing is that the media does not know it.I suggest that the media have a history of promoting stories/scientific results that help their circulation/coverage/viewership rather than informing the public in a balanced and accurate manner.A perfect example of this the ABC in 2007-8 making a big expensive special about the arctic ice disappearing,sending a crew to the arctic and all that.OK it is news worthy,fine.But then when the arctic ice recovers in 2008 and 2009,OR Antactic sea ice is at a record extent in 2009,we get nothing.Aren't those stories news worthy as well?
Tom, another two posts without addressing a substantive [critique of of your assersions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/dubner_falsely_claims_that_oce…). It is starting to look like a wider hole in your argument.
Are you dimissing all temperature hockey sticks?
Tom Fuller:
Can you point us to any temperature reconstructions based on the proxy data that are more to your liking than those of Mann et al. 1998 or Mann et al. 2008?
Why are you so keen on the Wegman report over the National Research Council report. It clearly has issues - such as the bizarre emphasis on an analysis of who in the climate science community knows and has worked with whom, and is very much at odds with the far more credible National Research Council report.
The Wikipedia article on the Hockey stick controvesy provides an good overview of the issue, along with many links to relevant information. It includes:
1) Details of the Wegman report (which was written at the request of Republican members of the US House of Representatives Joe Barton and Ed Whitfield).
2) Details of the National Research Council report (prepared on the request of the US Senate).
"The Committee National Research Council Report consisted of 12 scientists from different disciplines and was tasked with explaining the current scientific information on the temperature record for the past two millennia, and identifying the main areas of uncertainty, the principal methodologies used, any problems with these approaches, and how central the debate is to the state of scientific knowledge on global climate change."
The report found that Mann et al. findings were essentially robust, but that there were some minor shortcomings to their methodology.
So, in 2008 Mann and co-authors addresses the identified shortcomings by publishing a follow-up paper - Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia - in which they address the statistical issues raised in the National Research Council report. This paper includes many more proxy data sets, extends the timeline significantly further back, and demonstrates that the conclusions are not changed by adding or removing tree ring proxy series (of which Wegman et al. were so critical).
The other thing I find perplexing is that given Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick's criticisms of Mann et al., why haven't they produced a paper with their own analysis of the data?
...
Luminous Beauty, your link didn't work. Wahl & Ammann's paper of 2007 in which they independently reanalyse Mann et al.'s data and draw the same conclusions can be found here.
How could MBH98 have been "refereed" by Nature magazine if they did not have his data and they did not know his methodology?
No more discussion with Fuller on this thread, please. I've created a new post just for that.
I can't move comments to another thread, so I will just delete ones that appear after this comment in this thread.
El Gordo @79
The cold snap that is hitting us in Northern Japan is supposed to last a few days - that's the definition of a cold snap.
As for your climate trend - we actually had a much longer summer season than normal in Northern Japan, and thus a truncated autumn.
Craig @84
And from the Gerry North presentation posted by Hank in 81 we gert the revelation that the Wegmann Report didn't address the points raised by at least one of its referees.
Speaking of Mann[2008],does anyone have a view on MacIn tyre's criticism of Mann using the Tlijander proxies upsidedown?
Frank.
Re [#85](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/dubner_falsely_claims_that_oce…): do you actually understand how peer review works?!
Re [#82](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/dubner_falsely_claims_that_oce…): do you understand the difference between ice area and ice extent, and in what ways warming might alter the relative values of each; and especially, how these alterations themselves change over time?
Please demonstrate baseline competencies in the above two points if you seriously expect specific responses to your posts.
Hi Bernard J.
Re #85,In order for a result to pass peer-review,it has to be able to be verified/re-produced.Is that correct?As far as I know,Mann's result was not re-produced prior to publication.His data was not archived and his methodology not clearly given prior to publication.Is that the correct history of it?
Re #82 The NOAA website shows arctic ice extent.What information website should I be looking at for better data?
I'll be deleting those last few Fuller-related comments soon. Copy them to the Fuller thread if you want to save them.
Eamon
It also appears the snow in China was just a freak coincidence and not a portent of global cooling. Cloud seeding in search of rain, turned to snow when a cool change swept down from the north.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8337337.stm
Cherry-picking is a risky venture, but I remain sceptical about anything the Chinese government says and the same goes for the BBC.
> How could MBH98 have been "refereed" by Nature magazine if they did not have his data and they did not know his methodology?
> Posted by: frank
1) they definitely DID have his methodology: it was in the paper.
2) Referees had access but it wasn't made available to Nature for promotion with the paper because it needed to be collated and transformed into the correct format.
Now, frank, why do you think that Nature would have taken on this paper and refereed it if they didn't have the information to check it? Your paranoia??
Mark,it has nothing to do with paranoia.[And there is no need for the jibe,as I am interested in the facts about this controversy].You say that the referees had the information;so did they confirm the results of MBH98 before publication or not?
> And there is no need for the jibe,as I am interested in the facts about this controversy
You'd best start listening to them then.
> so did they confirm the results of MBH98 before publication or not?
You can read the entire story on RealClimate (Where Michal does some pro bono work).
Meanwhile, I note that you avoided answering the question:
> why do you think that Nature would have taken on this paper and refereed it if they didn't have the information to check it? Your paranoia??
Until you come up with an answer, "your paranoia" it will remain.
"The paleoclimatology community seems to be tightly coupled as indicated by our social network analysis..."
I'm not a Phd statistics professor like Wegman, so I won't presume to know whether social network analysis is a valid technique to falsify science. Perhaps experts like Dr. Wegman would like to apply their technique to the right wing political network of experts working for organizations funded to discredit global warming by Exxon/Mobil, Scaife foundations, and the coal industry?
Regarding peer review of the Wegman report, wikipedia says "Dr. Wegman indicated that the report had only been peer-reviewed by those he selected." Apparently that included Republican Rep Joe Barton of Texas, who "began consulting for Atlantic Richfield Oil and Gas Co. before being elected to Congress in 1984."
One thing I've learned after years of doing this, folks such as Frank don't often get access to decision-makers. And if they somehow do, discussions such as above don't get play, as decision-makers know better. There are the occasional ignoramus-Inhofes out there, sure, but the vast majority aren't gullible rubes.
Best,
D
Frank,
Mark has a simplistic view of "peer review". The reviewers do not check everything out, they often have limited time to do the review, especially if they are very eminent in their field, and if they are reviewing a paper by someone whom they believe to be 'sound' how much due diligence will they apply?
> Frank,
> Mark has a simplistic view of "peer review".
> Posted by: Dave Andrews
Ducky says this from personal experience?
I don't think so.
Dave Andrews,
How the hell would you know if they have limited time or don't apply due dilligence !!??
I'm not a scientist but I do find that, even in the field I work in, busy people invest a lot of time and effort in peer review. They feel they have a professional obligation to find and highlight issues which are incorrect, lacking in relevant detail, or don't support the argument presented.
Understandably they seem to think it reflects on THEM as reviewers if they let things slide. Maybe it's just my opinion, but I expect those same human feelings drive climate scientists.
The impression I get from you is you deeply believe they're perennially slovenly, slipshod, venal, can't be trusted, lack professional pride, and are prone to lying.
You're a depressing whiner mate.
> The impression I get from you is you deeply believe they're perennially slovenly, slipshod, venal, can't be trusted, lack professional pride, and are prone to lying.
> Posted by: Chris W
It's called projection, Chris.
He does that so he thinks everyone does that.
Just like you work conscientiously so you think everyone does.
Thing is, though this makes Ducky somewhat right, he has to be right for EVERY SINGLE REVIEWER.
Given out of two people we have one slacktard and one conscientious. we could figure 50:50 split.
5 reviewers means 1 in 2^5 chance of Ducky being right in this one specific particular case. Couple of percent.
Chance he's right generally: mathematically indistinguishable from zero.
Mind you, it DOES just as equally work with the unreviewed blog papers denialists post. Gerlich & Tscheisher (or whatever their names were) ignored the review comments and got their work in to a out-of-view journal anyway. And I don't think they had two reviewers.
50:50 chance (better if they ignored the reviewer comments) that this paper G&T wrote is bunk because the reviewer didn't bother.
Funny how he doesn't use this to debunk papers he parades as proof AGW is wrong, isn't it...
el gordo@93
And today we had a very nice day in Northern Japan - with Autumn temperatures returning to normal.
Your climatic trend start had been put back a wee bit.
@ChrisW "Understandably they seem to think it reflects on THEM as reviewers if they let things slide. Maybe it's just my opinion, but I expect those same human feelings drive climate scientists."
Well, that's where you're wrong. Climate scientists aren't human. They are walking robotic research-grant-magnets held together with bits of spare wire and the blood of poor African children. Controlled by giant hockey sticks coming out their arses.
At least, that's the impression I get from DA.
Which makes Mark's projection theory DEEPLY disturbing...
> Which makes Mark's projection theory DEEPLY disturbing...
> Posted by: Bud
Especially if you have to look after string...
NOTE: it's a standard psychological theory not one I made up or found.
Given that Freud often used the sex drive as the phyche's imperateur, and Ducky's possible string->arse theory makes it doubly disturbing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/s_1104200…
oh, fick ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/toles\_sketch.html
Fick? Hank, that's another typo. [Clearly, you meant "frak."](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7KcpgQKo2I)
Chris W,
When you are an eminent scientist in your field you might get several requests for peer review over a limited period of time. In the fevered atmpsphere of climate change this is especially likely.
Now take Mann. He has produced a number of papers over the years that have all used novel statistical methods to derive their results. A number of these papers have subsequently been dissected by real statisticians and found to be wanting. None of this was picked up or even commented upon by the peer reviewers. He also stonewalled on making his methods available to others and when they were eventuall teased from him they were often indecipherable. Yet still the peer reviewers had given their original consent.
So just what is your problem with my earlier post?
> Now take Mann. He has produced a number of papers over the years that have all used novel statistical methods to derive their results.
By this, read:
> ... used statistical methods to derive their results
> So just what is your problem with my earlier post?
> Posted by: Dave Andrews
The facts that
a) it's complete bollocks
b) it's unsubstatiated
c) it's an assumption on the scientists' personal lives you know nothing about
Ducky.
Mark,
Do you deny that Mann has used novel statistical methods in several of his papers?
If you do you just don't understand what he has done.
Actually, I meant:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/s\_11042009\_520.gif
[El fatso](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/dubner_falsely_claims_that_oce…).
I have a 10% stake in a nice littel family company which has generated [these after-tax profits](http://i33.tinypic.com/rgw31k.jpg) (adjusted for inflation, by the way) over the last 40 years.
If I were to offer to sell you all of my shares for $30k, and assuming that you had the loose change to be able to afford to do so, would you buy my stake?
Why?
Stuff. Tippy typo fingers...
I am selling myself short. I meant $300K.
So, would you buy if you had the loose change?
BJ No! It looks promising, but I would need to see an independent report.
Fatso.
Oh, I can certainly provide an independent report. Quite a number of them actually, and they would all say that the long-term profit forecast for my family's company is extremely secure. In fact, in economic terms, there isn't anything more secure than what these reports describe.
It's blue chip. Thousands of the world's best economists would agree. All the financial due-diligence and sundry business minutæ will say the same thing: all of the best advice is that the long-term profit growth of my company will follow - at the least! - the trend observed over the last 40 years.
Would you buy or not, and why?
What goes up will come down, as the financial crisis illustrated. How many economists predicted the crash? Very few.
It's like that with the climate change debate. According to Kevin this minority of sceptics and deniers should be ignored because the scientists (the men in white coats) have said the science is settled. All based of course, from the very beginning, on the 'precautionary principle'.
Global cooling appears more realistic, now that the odds are shortening.
So Fatso, what you're saying is that you don't trust data, but you're happy to let ideology and aphorisms guide your decisions?
el gordo, the economic debate has some similarities with the climate debate.
One side has the same players. Ask yourself who was screaming "DEREGULATE", "CUT TAXES"? Often the same players who are saying global warming is a hoax. The front groups funded by massive self interested corporations.
I'll give you three economist that picked the economic crash Steve Keen, Michael Hudson, and Dean Baker. I shifted my super becasue I paid attention. But the corporate media still give most air to those who were so wrong (and still are on the economy).
Now you can contact each of the three Economists and ask them about their views on the difficulty battling against the propaganda put out by the like of IPA, the Heritage Foundation and the Fraser Institute.
But while there are similarities there are major differences between climate science and economics. Climate models are bound by physical properties that are quantifiable, unlike much of the soft sciences.
el gordo:
Because after all, both climatology and economics are sciences. Sure.
I don't know what Kevin said but the only people I know who say the scientists say the science is settled are the people in denial about the science.
Sure if you say so. You're like the Pope. You only need to say something and it's true.
So the infamous "cooling since 1998" is in the process of disappearing and will likely disappear with October's data and you think this means the odds of cooling are shortening? Sure Pope.
I'm not infallible. Six weeks ago I predicted El Nino would be still born, but it's more like a virgin birth.
'The SOI has recently stabilised after a rapid fall in value through October'.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
Weather forecasting is tricky, although I'm still punting on eastern Europe being snowed in this winter.
Mark Byrne
"Climate models are bound by physical properties that are quantifiable, "
Superficially you are correct. But there are so many unknowns and parameratizations that have to be built into the models that ultimately you are probably TOTALLY INCORRECT>
Dave Andrews,
What does *"ultimately you are probably TOTALLY INCORRECT"* mean? It seem you are not sure about what you are "totally" sure about.
And on basis do you make this statement? Please provide references that contradict the statement that:
>*Climate models are bound by physical properties that are quantifiable, unlike much of the soft sciences.*
*- Where the soft science include social sciences like economics.
It seems Dave Andrews has prefered to make [other claims](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-…) rather than support the claims he makes here. So I've [invited him back here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-…).
el gordo:
So you expect them to have a wet winter which means a warm winter.
Freezing in the east, cool and wet in the west. It depends a lot on the placing of the jet stream.