Some excerpts:
We—society and climate researchers—need to discuss now what constitutes “good science.” Some think good science is a societal institution that produces results that serve an ideology. Take, for instance, the counsel that then-Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen gave to scientists at a climate change conference in March, as transcribed by Environmental Research Letters: “I would give you the piece of advice, not to provide us with too many moving targets, because it is already a very, very complicated process. And I need your assistance to push this process in the right direction, and in that respect, I need fixed targets and certain figures, and not too many considerations on uncertainty and risk and things like that.”
I do not share that view. For me, good science means generating knowledge through a superior method, the scientific method. The merits of a scientifically constructed result do not depend on its utility for any politician’s agenda. Indeed, the utility of my results is not my business, and the contextualization of my results should not depend on my personal preferences. It is up to democratic societies to decide how to use or not use my insights and explanations.
…
What we need to do is open the process. Data must be accessible to adversaries; joint efforts are needed to agree on test procedures to validate, once again, already broadly accepted insights. The authors of the damaging e-mails would be wise to stand back from positions as reviewers and participants in the IPCC process. The journals Nature and Science must review their quality-control measures and selection criteria for papers.
See the complete op-ed here
======================
For those interested in his work:
Statistical Analysis in Climate Research
Statistical Analysis in Climate Research
By Hans von Storch, Francis W. Zwiers
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Number Of Pages: 494
Publication Date: 2002-03-04
ISBN-10 / ASIN: 0521012309
ISBN-13 / EAN: 9780521012300
Binding: Paperback
The purpose of this book is to help the climatologist understand the basic precepts of the statistician’s art and to provide some of the background needed to apply statistical methodology correctly and usefully. The book is self contained: introductory material, standard advanced techniques, and the specialized techniques used specifically by climatologists are all contained within this one source. There are a wealth of real-world examples drawn from the climate literature to demonstrate the need, power and pitfalls ofstatistical analysis in climate research.
Download Description:
Climatology is, to a large degree, the study of the statistics of our climate. The powerful tools of mathematical statistics therefore find wide application in climatological research. The purpose of this book is to help the climatologist understand the basic precepts of the statistician’s art and to provide some of the background needed to apply statistical methodology correctly and usefully. The book is self contained: introductory material, standard advanced techniques, and the specialised techniques used specifically by climatologists are all contained within this one source. There are a wealth of real-world examples drawn from the climate literature to demonstrate the need, power and pitfalls ofstatistical analysis in climate research. Suitable for graduate courses on statistics for climatic, atmospheric and oceanic science, this book will also be valuable as a reference source for researchers in climatology, meteorology, atmospheric science, and oceanography.
Download:
http://rapidshare.com/files/75327389/vonSt0521012309.rar
If you don’t have a tool for decompressing RAR files may I recommend the free software: FROG
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The problem is the funding. Most climate science is funded by governments who damand certain results to justify their desired policy aims. Until that changes, the corruption will continue.
von Storch highlights the critical need for true science to explore, test, and validate hypotheses.
Climategate exposed the serious corruption of the scientific method by the “CRU cartel” for their own political and financial benefit. This caused consequent corruption of the political process where it depends on valid science. Major effort is needed to clean up and restore confidence in climate science.
Despite what warming advocates claim, science is established when independent scientists can validate models on reproduceable facts, not by political “consensus”. While CO2 is known to absorb and radiate energy, climate is much more complex.
Qing-Bin Lu recently documented how ozone depletion correlates strongly with galactic cosmic rays and CFCs, NOT sunlight. Furthermore, he finds that ozone depletion, stratospheric temperatures and global temperatures appear to correlate with CFCs (EECEs) and Cosmic Rays (CR), NOT with CO2.
See: “Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming”
Furthermore, we are currently in an exceptionally low and long solar sunspot cycle. The cold and precipitation could be related, as in the cause for the Little Ice Age when the Thames froze over etc.
Don Easterbrook reviewed and predicted global cooling/warming cycles based on the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. See: New geologic evidence of past periods of oscillating, abrupt warming, and cooling
Since 2001, global temperatures appear to be tracking predictions by Easterbrook and Lu, not those of the IPCC. See Lucia’s graphs
Despite the Copenhagen hype, climate science is still in flux. See Climate Change Reconsidered.
Energy efficiency is important and valuable. Cost effective renewable energy is helpful. The Copenhagen Consensus showed ALL other major humanitarian efforts are more cost effective then climate mitigation.
Most important will be methods to provide large quantities of inexpensive alternative fuels rather than pay oil tribute to the Saudis.
I affirm von Storch’s call to get back to true science with transparent validation. We need to focus political effort on where we can most cost effectively benefit humanity, not on fascist control with little benefit.
P Gosselin (09:44:35) :
Amen!
Healthy minds normally would welcome evidence that we’re not headed toward a climate catastrophe. But not our sick politicians of today. Rather than being relieved, and directing resources to other problems, they are doing all they can to keep this “climate problem” alive. They are using climate as a way of shirking their responsibilities to solve the real problems out there.
I noticed that Barrie Harrop is slagging comments on the WSJ page. Of note, he says interest in Climategate is waning in the MSM. It was never waxing in the MSM so his point seems to be wishful thinking. It also seems he is trying to ignore the growing sh**storm that’s brewing online and will soon be heading his way .
In the editorial the Doctor states: “Elevated greenhouse gas concentrations have led, and will continue to lead, to changing weather conditions (climate), in particular to warmer temperatures and changing precipitation. Such a change causes stress for societies and ecosystems. More emissions mean more stress, fewer emissions less.”
He judiciously refrains from stating “man-made” greenhouse gas concentrations. Yet leads the reader down the same old AGW path that is being disassembled daily. A tightrope walker?
I think he overstates his case:
“But the core of the knowledge about man-made climate change is simple and hard to contest. Elevated greenhouse gas concentrations have led, and will continue to lead, to changing weather conditions (climate), in particular to warmer temperatures and changing precipitation”
He needed to have said: ..core of the hypothesis….
We are a long way from understanding what effect humans have on climate. We may be warming it, or we may not. When the theories can be translated into models that consistently predict temperatures and climate, then I would call it knowledge.
“…They are using climate as a way of shirking their responsibilities to solve the real problems out there.”
Well no, I don’t think so. I think they are using fear and scare to create their imaginary utopia of world governance. They see this as stepping up to the plate, solving he world’s problems via income redistribution.
Has anyone seen the ads google is serving to this page?! Here’s what I got:
#
Polar Bear Support Fund
Help Coke in their effort to protect polar bears & their habitat
LivePositively.com/JoinUs
#
Climategate Hoax
Confused About What It Means? Don’t Be! Get the Climate Facts.
http://www.FightCleanEnergySmears.org
#
Video: Catastrophe Denied
The Science of the Climate Skeptic Position. Free 90-minute Movie.
http://www.Climate-Skeptic.com
#
Environmental portfolio
Siemens provides answers for a sustainable future
http://www.siemens.com/answers
Despite arguments to the contrary, code as well as data and any other analysis techniques must be handed off to the journal for publication. If those conditions are not met, then the journal should refuse to publish the research. I know Paul V. might be working on an analysis package. In that case, he could still sell the package to researchers who could use it their daily work. But when the time came to publish, those researchers would have to hire a temp physicist or mathematician to recreate the calculations either manually or with code that can be made publicly available.
Well spoken. Yes, we need to open the science process, publicly archive all data and codes, and rework the peer-review process to insure real scrutiny and avoid buddy-buddy wink-and-nod arrangements.
Eisenhower’s farewell address to the Nation (17 Jan 1961) is still relevant:
“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research”.
“Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers”.
“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite”.
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded”.
Almost 49 years ago – and spot-on.
From the op-ed:
This ‘pox on both your houses’ would seem to be a cop-out, but what it really means is that he’s embarrassed by the alarmists and Climategate, but basically agrees with them:
On the contrary, is that not the core of the dispute? As far as I can see it is by no means clear that climate change (from whatever cause) is ‘simple’, and it is by no means clear that human activity has anything to do with it. That’s the ‘skeptical’, i.e. rational view. For all Dr. Storch’s fine words about the need for open, apolitical, objective adherence to the scientific method, in point of fact he is just echoing the warmist litany, “The science is settled.”
The true scientist is always skeptical, even when he thinks something is ‘settled’. Because it never is, really.
/Mr Lynn
The climate gate keepers use peer review to interfere with contrary findings.
Another quote: “I am in the pocket of neither Exxon nor Greenpeace, and for this I come under fire from both sides—the skeptics and the alarmists—who have fiercely opposing views but are otherwise siblings in their methods and contempt.”
That seems to be a little disingenuous. He should have noticed by now that their are decent and indecent people on both sides of the argument.
P Gosselin
“Healthy minds normally would welcome evidence that we’re not headed toward a climate catastrophe. But not our sick politicians of today.”
Politics is all about posturing. Brown, Obama and Rudd are just three examples of leaders how have nailed their flags to the mast. The prize is enormous; to be feited as a “world leader”, one who has brokered a robust deal on CO2 mitigation, especially if snatched from the teeth of looming defeat – a deal reached when everyone is in agreement, when all the media are confident, wouldn’t be worth winning. So it matters not if the science is sound or not, nor if the truth is the opposite to the spin.
In poker parlance, they have gone “all in” and they have missed the flop.
“Climatology is,to a large degree,the study of the statistics of our climate.”
We only require statistics on any subject when we are not sure of something or when we require a measure to try and prove or disprove a subject.
Without statistics being thrust upon us who would be aware of AGW?
I can’t say I have seen any real difference in the climate of the UK in 40 years.
Statistics being pushed by the warmists say otherwise.
Look hard enough at something and you will see what you want.
I’d rather go with the self evident.
an honest man! Even though he buys into the greenhouse gas hypothesis, he’s willing to let the data take him wherever it will, which is the mark of a true scientist.
If his views were followed, we would be having an honest scientific discussion and not a political controversy.
and who’s “barrie harrop”?
I would be more impressed with his scientific acumen if he didn’t then swing into “reminding” us how strong the case is for AGW. In short he misses the main point, the case is far less strong than we have been told which is why the predictions of the warmists are junk science. It isn’t just the lack of clarity on how this particular item or that one was done. It is the continuing problem across the entire field where the closer you look at any sub issue the greater your uncertainty grows.
Every honest scientist seems to look at their own small piece of the issue and say “we aren’t very certain here”. Then somehow we aggregate this enormous pile of “we don’t know” and produce a theory we are certain of?
This is the same age old complaint and whining that has been a permanent fixture of humanity since the first “scientist” chipped a piece of rock into a sharp pointy thing just out of curiosity. From a political/leader pov, “Science” is no different than the proclamations issued from a cave in Delphi, or the meanderings of various religions and superstitions. It has been, and always will be, merely a tool that is used for whatever purposes the leader wants to use it for. Get used to it.
Just to add that in these modern times our reliance on statistics have grown.
It used to be, ” We have a problem,let’s get some statistics”.
Now it is ” There has to be a problem,let’s get some statistics”.
Seek and ye shall find problems in almost everything.
This is a stunningly simplistic argument.
1) “But the core of the knowledge about man-made climate change is simple and hard to contest.” I agree that the core of our knowledge is simple – but the climate is not simple. We’re just largely ignorant about how it all works. Hard to contest? Please. It’s certainly not hard to contest the integrity of the temperature record.
2) “Elevated greenhouse gas concentrations have led, and will continue to lead” – this is predicted by models but not proven.
3) “Such a change causes stress for societies and ecosystems”. I suppose all change can cause stress but this statement is completely unproven. It may well be that the change will reduce stress by making the planet a better place to live.
4) “More emissions mean more stress, fewer emissions less.” There is an implied argument that we can control the environment. While we can control man-made greenhouse gases, we cannot control greenhouse gases that nature makes nor any of the the other factors that affect climate nor do we understand them. What an absurd flight of fancy that we can control stress in society by controlling greenhouse gas emissions. While were at it, why not cure disease, pestilence, floods, war and world hunger. Oh, that’s right, we’ve tried but haven’t been very successful at that either. “More emissions mean more stress, fewer emissions less.” is just a way to try to deflect from the abhorent lack of science that’s been going on. And this from a man who claims to be scientific and not political.
Anthony, want to thank you for putting up great posts and links seems like every day. Yours is *the best blog I have come across on any topic.* Read your bio and am impressed with your own personal perseverence and energy efficiency initiatives.
Mahalo, Brad
Just to be clear, in order to download “Statistical Analysis in Climate Research” from the link at the end of the post, we have to sign up for a RapidShare premium account?
P Gosselin (09:44:35) :
The grant process is fatally flawed — governments can demand conclusions before they hand out money …
As a partial fix I recommend all science be open science when grants are involved.
A book to teach the other climatologists statistics. I think von Storch has found a market niche there (chuckle).