Josh scales the climate personas

Josh writes:

I have been musing for some time about a way to show the range of sceptic views compared to non-sceptic views and I think I have come up with something simple that could be useful and fun.

Below is an example of a two part scale showing Science in one band going from Certainty to Uncertainty and a corresponding Policy band below showing policies that cost more or cost less. I have added some possible examples of ranges of opinion and people from around the climate blogosphere.

Sceptic_scale_example

Click the images to get bigger versions.

As it is only an example, I may well have put people in the wrong place or got the ranges wrong – my apologies. Also let me know what improvements could be made and I will post new versions.

If you would like to print out your own version here is the scale on its own:Sceptic_scale_vs1

And here are some people:Sceptic_scale_people

Have fun and let me know what you think.

Josh
About these ads

88 thoughts on “Josh scales the climate personas

  1. While I disagree with many (but not all) of the sky dragon positions, I do not consider them to have no faith in science. They have a diverse set of views, some of which may turn out to have some validity. Lumping all in that group together as having a single position is as bad an error as lumping all skeptics of any degree as being deniers.

  2. No uniforms on the SKS boys? They toned down their stridency or militancy recently or something?

  3. In all seriousness, I don’t think “certainty”, and “skepticism” are necessarily on the same scale. This comes back to the old problem that climate sensitivity has never been measured. Should climate sensitivity ever be actually measured, we would be certain what the value was, and there would be no uncertainly as to whether CAGW made sense scientifically.

    Personally, I am certain that CAGW is NOT a problem. So I am certain and skeptical at the same time.

  4. My immediate though was it would be interesting if it was active. Puts some #s to the ratings, figure out how to objectively rate each individual’s scale position and see where the curve actually ended up. Nice normal curve? skewed left? Right ? Might allow an # be put to actual opinions out there and get rid of that stupid “97% of scientists believe . . . “

  5. Surely RET Ward should be purple with his normal rage? He looks more like The Mekon (qv) in your representation.

    You also need from UK (inter alia) Chris Monckton, Piers, Rog Tallbloke, Flimsin, Jonathan Jones, Omnlogos, David Bellamy, JS Beefburger (Lord Deben), Ed Davey, Chris Huhne, Paul Nurse etc etc

  6. Hi Josh
    Much appreciate your witty insightful cartoons and exploring the issues involved.
    May I encourage you to dig deeper. e.g., to separate “uncertainty” from “belief in science” from “belief in the accuracy of climate models”. I am a scientist/engineer with a strong understanding/-belief in the scientific method (aka “science”). Yet I find that the “uncertainty” in global climate models is very high based on comparison against the evidence – i.e. much higher uncertainty in the model predictions than what Mann or IPCC express. I see Judith Curry having a similar perspective.

    Suggest a ranking on the range of anthropogenic warming expected. i.e. from strong warming CAGW “catastrophic” warming +6 C on the “alarmist side” to eventual cooling on the Nature dominates side. e.g. -2C?
    “Uncertainty” is a foundational tool in science for quantitatively evaluating the magnitude of the “accuracy”. See NIST on Uncertainty Guidelines or TN1297. For the international standard see Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement JCGM 100:2008 by BIMP (Few climate scientists appear to have read either of these from the very rare mention of Type B errors.)
    On Policy, the two extremes are:
    Control nature versus care for the poor.
    Expensive mitigation versus wise stewardship with adaptation.
    See the Cornwall Alliance for scientists and others with a strong belief in the scientific method who see climate model predictions as having much higher uncertainties than IPCC, while focusing on wise stewardship of resources and caring for the poor.
    I recommend adding The Right Climate Stuff to your array. See TheRightClimateStuff.com. From their evaluation of the data they are expecting 1.2 C total global warming max.

  7. Perhaps this would work better as a graph with science on the x axis and policy on the y axis. I would also say that the science scale could be tweeked: is activism really the opposite end of the spectrum to no faith in science? I would simply leave the science scale labelled as science and rank people on the quality/rigour of the work they do. Thus the SKS and Skydragons would be somewhat closer together, for example.

  8. Well done, and fun.
    Sure a few tweaks are possible. However, the concept is multi-dimensional and taking it to even 3 would be cumbersome and require considerable work to create and interpret the result.
    On the “spend more” side Al Gore is well known. Joanne Nova is a believer in science and reason (adaptation).
    Remember the KISS rule.

  9. This is great Josh but what we also need are CAGW games that are fun for the whole family. How about “CAGW Bingo” or a “CAGW Crossword Puzzle” or “match the quote to the person game” printed on paper placemats for diners and restaurants?

    Along those lines, please add some political figures to the cast of cranially compromised climate characters such as John F’n Kerry, Henry Waxman, Rajendra Pachauri, Hank Johnson, etc.

    Keep up the good work, we’re all count’n on ya!

  10. You could embellish the SKS kids with matching forehead Tattoos “SKS” with the familiar Lightning Bolt S’s

  11. Josh an excellent job! I think adding James Hansen and Al Gore (maybe Holdren and Obama) might be appropriate. Another meaningful metric might be to show the relative number of the followers for each grouping. That ole bell shaped curve might apply

  12. In a sense, nobody is certain, because climate sensitivity is so uncertain. If I recall correctly, the fifth IPCC report had a very wide range of 1.5 to 4.5 deg. C, and with a possibility that sensitivity might be below or above this range. Some warn of sensitivity of 6 deg. C or more, Other models show a sensitivity below 1 deg. C. So, what is it that the “certain” group are certain of?

  13. The artistry is nice aesthetically, including with personable faces.

    However, does it “show the range of sceptic views” well? I’d quite say no, especially with the following 2 aspects:

    1) It actually depicts a meme the CAGW movement loves, putting them on the implied high “faith in science” end, as if believing in CAGW or not is a matter of whether someone trusts science or not.

    Little, if anything, has been more core to the successes of the CAGW movement in popular perception than that meme, putting on a superficial costume of science like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. But most activism has always been divorced from real science of the kind getting accurate results like correct and not absurd predictions.

    For example, whether or not having a college degree (hardly special today) or calling himself a scientist, an environmental activist claiming dozens of times more coming warming in the 21st century than how now compares to the late 1930s has practically no more honesty or mathematical literacy than an environmental activist implying vast harm thousands of years from now by long-lived isotopes in nuclear waste (buried in Earth’s crust which has literally trillions of tons of natural radioisotopes from thorium to potassium-40, with ppm levels adding up over 3 * 10^19 tons mass). Just, in the former case, activists were able to reach critical mass to portray themselves as a majority and representative of a field, unlike how they failed to do so in the latter (too tied to the most reality-tested science: engineering, with predominately different kinds of people flocking to the field).

    2) Another implicitly depicted meme in the image, also with issues, is treating being far on a continuum towards uncertainty or vagueness as intrinsic to skepticism. Of course, there is a partial truth in that; mainly just saying “I don’t know” is a very common skeptical position and can be honest.

    Yet the CAGW movement has effective vagueness on the topics they dislike having to address at all, from CO2 fertilization impacts to the cause of loads of climate history outside the 1980s-1990s rise. In fact, a wide range of estimates especially for the future has to be maintained, so the high end can be used for misleading the public but the low end used for covering rear ends (not going to be enough for them but buy some time).

    Meanwhile, in contrast, the more real science is developed and understood, the more of reality can be well explained, like http://img213.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=62356_expanded_overview3_122_1094lo.jpg doesn’t leave the LIA, the current “pause” in global warming, or the 1960s-1970s global cooling scare unexplained.

  14. The artistry is nice aesthetically, including with personable faces.

    However, does it “show the range of skeptic views” well? I’d quite say no, especially with the following 2 aspects:

    1) It actually depicts a meme the CAGW movement loves, putting them on the implied high “faith in science” end, as if believing in CAGW or not is a matter of whether someone trusts science or not.

    Little, if anything, has been more core to the successes of the CAGW movement in popular perception than that meme, putting on a superficial costume of science like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. But most activism has always been divorced from real science of the kind getting accurate results like correct and not absurd predictions.

    For example, whether or not having a college degree (hardly special today) or calling himself a scientist, an environmental activist claiming dozens of times more coming warming in the 21st century than how now compares to the late 1930s has practically no more honesty or mathematical literacy than an environmental activist implying vast harm thousands of years from now by long-lived isotopes in nuclear waste (buried in Earth’s crust which has literally trillions of tons of natural radioisotopes from thorium to potassium-40, with ppm levels adding up over 3 * 10^19 tons mass). Just, in the former case, activists were able to reach critical mass to portray themselves as a majority and representative of a field, unlike how they failed to do so in the latter (too tied to the most reality-tested science: engineering, with predominately different kinds of people flocking to the field).

    2) Another implicitly depicted meme in the image, also with issues, is treating being far on a continuum towards uncertainty or vagueness as intrinsic to skepticism. Of course, there is a partial truth in that; mainly just saying “I don’t know” is a very common skeptical position and can be honest.

    Yet the CAGW movement has effective vagueness on the topics they dislike having to address at all, from CO2 fertilization impacts to the cause of loads of climate history outside the 1980s-1990s rise. In fact, a wide range of estimates especially for the future has to be maintained, so the high end can be used for misleading the public but the low end used for covering rear ends (not going to be enough for them but buy some time).

    Meanwhile, in contrast, the more real science is developed and understood, the more of reality can be well explained, like http://img213.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=62356_expanded_overview3_122_1094lo.jpg doesn’t leave the LIA, the current “pause” in global warming, or the 1960s-1970s global cooling scare unexplained.

  15. Instead of the scale going from “certain” to “uncertain”, I would have it go from “belief” to “non-belief”. Belief meaning agreeing with the tenets of CAGW, however, even the idea that a doubling of CO2 will cause only 1C of warming is still just a belief. The cold hard fact remains that we can’t show that an effect from man’s CO2 exists. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t one, simply that we can’t pinpoint it. And that means that whatever the effect may be, it is very small – way too small to matter in the slightest. I guess “sky dragons” (whatever they are) would belong in the realm of the non-believers, despite whatever some think of their ideas.

  16. Leonard Weinstein says:
    March 15, 2014 at 7:52 am

    > While I disagree with many (but not all) of the sky dragon positions, I do not consider them to have no faith in science.

    The Sky Dragons need a scale of their own, but I don’t know what to call it or where to put them. Maybe “stubbornness”. If so, then they’d be off the scale. :-)

    Love their icon though, ditto McIntyre.

  17. We need a “Viscount Monckton of Brenchley” icon. Perhaps a mounted knight with a fountain pen lance.

  18. If you publish lots of scientific articles in high ranking journals you are an activist. If you run a blog or draw cartoons you’re into science. Yep, that makes sense…

  19. Other pictures needed – James Hansen, James Delingpole, Bill McKibben, Gavin Schmidt, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Kevin Trenberth, Revkin, John Christy, Christopher Monckton, Jo Nova

    …. And of Course the godfather of CAGW …. Al Gore

    Might need to stack some vertically to position correctly on the scale

  20. I agree with point 1 of Henry Clark’s comment. The top “faith in science” bar of should be labeled something like “faith in government-funded science” or maybe even “faith in bureaucratic leaders of government-funded science”. The two-bar diagram is a good idea, but the label for the top bar needs some word-smithing.

  21. A triangle pivot under the centre of the scale would be usful. Teeter Totter like, the triangle pivot could represent a specific issue (forcing) in the climate change debate, allowing for the protagonist characters to shift their weight so to speak.

  22. Great stuff Josh.

    Ridicule is far more damaging to these authoritarian buffoons than any amount of reasoned debate ever can be.

    May I suggest Jailbird Jim Hansen be added to your pantheon, incidentally?

  23. Excellent!
    I hope Josh will add the following familiar faces to the list:

    Jim Hansen
    Kevin Trenberth
    Peter Gleick
    Bjorn Lomborg
    Tim Ball
    Donna LaFramboise
    Ross McKitrick
    Patrick Moore
    Joanne Nova
    Tamino
    Mike Roddy
    Andy Revkin
    David Roberts

  24. I am with Neil DeGrasse Tyson on this as one of his points in “Cosmos”, I am skeptical. But skeptical and uncertain does not equal “no faith in science”.

  25. Josh,

    I think it is way to ‘stereotyped’ and way way way too oversimplified.

    But I think it is very important for you to have attempted it. It will stimulate less stereotyped and oversimplified portrayals. Thanks.

    Keep on trying!!

    More thoughts on your efforts shortly, still tied up on other threads . . .

    John

  26. I would love to see this distributed to teh “warmists” side as well. I am sure that their impression is quite different. I think they would modify the scales, removing “activism” completely.

  27. Josh, as one of the “sky dragons” I must inform you that my teeth are in fact nowhere near that “pointy”.

    Also, I doubt that you can accurately access my “faith in science” especially since we have never even met.

    For a living I “do” radiative physics as an optical engineer.
    This is applied science following on the learning’s/theories/laws of lots of scientists that have preceded me.

    Folks like; Snell, Fresnel, Born, Wolf, Euclid, Kepler, Huygens, Bacon, and lots more.

    I have lots of “faith” in their science, climate science not so much.

    I have done lots of modeling of very complex systems and have helped convince my customers to spend lots of money to build very expensive things based on the predictions from those models.

    Several of those “things” are orbiting over our heads right now, and in fact you can go to the Digital Globe TomNod website and help look for the missing jetliner with images from those things. Every pixel coming down from those birds is traceable to a NIST standard for optical radiation due to my work calibrating those focal planes.

    It is my considered opinion that “modeling” the climate is currently and always will be impossible.

    So you can in fact put me down for “STOP WASTING MONEY AND EVERYBODY’S TIME” on this farce known as “climate modeling”.

    Cheers, Kevin (now off to file down my teeth a wee bit).

  28. AGW was not, is not, “science”. It is a “belief-system”. That is what Climategate was all about. The temps did not fit the belief. That is what all the “adjustments” are about, the last 16-17 years do not fit the belief. That is why the climate models have failed. There is NO science in AGW.

  29. Only suggestion is to change the shape of the graph to resemble a hockey stick and of course Mann would be located at that end.

  30. “How could you omit Mosh-Man?”

    He does not deserve the time of day. His position on the scale will alter depending upon whose website he is performing the drive by on at the time.

    I would expect to see Hansen handcuffed to some railings a few inches to the far left of the scale.

  31. Thomas says: “If you publish lots of scientific articles in high ranking journals you are an activist. If you run a blog or draw cartoons you’re into science. Yep, that makes sense…”

    Some of those “high ranking” journals are, indeed, rank and are part of the pal review, activist establishment coterie.

  32. I am wowed Josh! Your analysis tool is brilliant, great persona icons! And the responses are fab and so creative. And to think this isn’t big oil funded or big government funded. Gee yall should be awarded fat grants! I myself have been ruminating on a research project involving popcorn futures coefficient extrapolated from CAGW climate models averaged against adjusted observed weather data sets. But this gem, Josh, I am humbled!
    P.S.
    I want a persona icon too

  33. Ric Werme wrote;

    “The Sky Dragons need a scale of their own, but I don’t know what to call it or where to put them. Maybe “stubbornness”. If so, then they’d be off the scale. :-)”

    Well, if I was still modeling a design after several DECADES and my model (and in fact all of the models) was this far away from reality I think I would be tempted to shoot myself out of frustration.

    I am in fact quite stubborn and have never given up on a design. But I have stopped many times to re-evaluate the theories and hypotheses I started with.

    The stubborn ones are those so filled with hubris that they actually believe they can model the climate.

    There will be a time in the future where just about everyone will be shaking their heads saying; “what were they thinking, modeling the climate, why everybody knows that’s impossible”.

    There is a long tail in history of failed ideas and hypotheses.

    Cheers, the one with the pointy teeth

  34. Jorgekafkazar says: “How could you omit Mosh-Man?”

    zootcadillac says: “He does not deserve the time of day. His position on the scale will alter depending upon whose website he is performing the drive by on at the time.”

    That’s my point, exactly, zoot. He’s hard to categorize. But maybe he just needs a wider card? Or several? He’s a lot of fun, in any case.

  35. Oh, just to reduce confusion “KevinK” and “nothothere” are one and the same person.

    WordPress confuses me when I re-login.

  36. Categorizing the “skydragons” as having “no faith in science” is applying the same label to this group of skeptics that the alarmists apply to all skeptics. The “dragon slayers” are further to one side of SOME scale, but it is not a scale of belief in science.

    They are more skeptical of THE SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS OF THE ALARMISTS, but the scientific claims of the alarmists do not define “science”! So how about re-labeling that scale as certainty vs. skepticism of the scientific claims of those who believe that CO2 caused most post-1950 warming (the official “consensus” position, as asserted by the IPCC)? Otherwise, very nicely done.

  37. Stop and think.

    Are you in the comfort zone on Josh’s scale?

    Think again. There is no scale, only a line. A line between wrong or right. Either the net effect of radiative gases is warming or cooling, you can be sure it’s not neutral. So you’re better than the CAGW doom-mongers? No, “less wrong” is still wrong.

    My claims about the science may be in error, but not my courage to stand by my results. “Less warming than projected” is just weak and fearful.

    Scales are not required. Spines are.

  38. “no faith in science” not a good idea as it’s not true first of all, and it plays into the ridiculous “anti-science” meme. Please reconsider,

  39. On the far left-hand side of the scale are what we refer to as the “Activist Materialists” who don’t particularly care what the Real Magicians! say, they just want to use it to grind their political axes. In the middle are a great number of people fighting over the various kinds of Magic!, and on the far right are those loonies who have no faith in Magic! at all.

  40. - Konrad says:
    March 15, 2014 at 11:12 am

    Stop and think.

    Are you in the comfort zone on Josh’s scale?-

    Not sure. Are we suppose to have faith in science.
    Or is the faith of pseudoscience of “greenhouse effect theory” this science it’s
    referring to?
    The fairy tale of Earth is like a greenhouse namesake, but not actually like, but kind
    of sort of.

    And it’s huge vagueness of the values of any particular greenhouse gas. Eg:
    “water vapor, 36–70%” of total warming of assumed very precise quantity of 33 C.
    So at the present level of water vapor theory “predicts” water vapor to cause
    11.88 C to 23.1 C in global warmth.
    Is this the faith of gospel one meant to adhere to?

    Or is suppose faith in the Al Gore’s “settled science”. Or the science in general
    which includes the pseudoscience which involves “health foods” or the latest diet to
    lose weight.
    [I happen to like the current wisdom that lots of coffee is good for you, as I drink
    a lot of coffee.]

  41. Another idea – how about do it as a Ternary diagram ? Corners : Pure science (top, of course), CAGW activism / mitigation (left corner , of course) & politically based anti-CAGW &/or adaptation (right corner, of course). I think everyone could be placed according to this & each category could be given a region on the plot. Might be a bit harder for a non-science type to understand but I think it would be an easier way to put everyone on the same plot. Anyway, something to chew on. (maybe this is a ” version 2 for scientists & engineers” ).

  42. D. Cohen says:
    March 15, 2014 at 9:35 am

    I agree with point 1 of Henry Clark’s comment. The top “faith in science” bar of should be labeled something like “faith in government-funded science” or maybe even “faith in bureaucratic leaders of government-funded science”

    How about “establishment science”? Or “wackademic science”?

  43. Policy: spend more to spend less.
    I don’t think matters how much what politician want to spend related to climate science.
    What important is the laws they pass and laws made by the “out of control bureaucracies”.
    What important is when government outlaws light bulbs.
    As example.
    It’s how crazy mad in terms of dictatorial power these politicians crave, which is the
    problem. That we give them trillions of dollars to spend is more important than specific
    billions they may or may choose to spend of their total budget.
    The government should have the power to dictate whether or not light bulbs are
    available, nor should require electrical companies to buy certain types of electrical
    power. Or what size soda one can buy.
    It’s the tyranny of government rather that what government decides it wants to buy
    with money we allow it to have, which is what is significant.

  44. denniswingo says:
    March 15, 2014 at 7:50 am
    Josh, we need some climate playing cards based on this!!
    ———

    A game of Old Mann, like Old Maid.

  45. I am having trouble understanding the “sky dragons” on the scale in this cartoon. I thought the sky dragons were those who believed in the magic molecule CO2 and its wondrous effects on the climate and the S-word people were all dragon killers. I get confused because the big dragon war at WUWT happened before I read as much here as I do now. I do know that the s-word people are not to be mentioned here as our host has said several times he did not want any of that sort of talk here.

    I would have thought the cartoon should have had dragon killers — maybe that saint that sla … ah, killed dragons in Ireland.

  46. This is great, but as a diehard consultant, this cries out for a “two by two” matrix to really plot where people stand. I’m calling this “The Great Climate Flap Map”, and I’m sending it to Anthony to see if he wants to post it (I can’t figure out how to insert a graphic in a reply). Josh, please know that you own this, I would not think to use your great (and funny) work in anything other than an attempt to make it even more meaningful. Basically, its the horizontal axis being Science, and the vertical being Policy. I fooled around with it in .PPT, and it’s a lot of fun and looks conceptually like this:

    “DoomSayers” + “True Deniers”
    Adapt +
    +
    P +
    o + “Realists”
    l +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    i +
    c +
    y +
    +
    Agiprop “warmists” + “Enviro-Luddites”
    Mitigate +
    +
    Activism Science (of GW) No Faith

    Sorry about that if the formatting is messed up – looks much better with Josh’s graphics. Anyway, if anybody wants to play with it, maybe Josh can post individual images and the matrix somewhere for people to get to.

    Have fun, believe it or not, some folks make money with these kinds of maps…

    Taylor

  47. Sorry about the post above. All the spaces are gone that would have created a vertical axis (the + signs). Hopefully you get the idea, and/or Anthony can fix it with the email I sent.

    Taylor

  48. Mark, I have been called everything from a lunatic to a denier at this site. All for simply trying to explain well know optical and thermal principles. But if I’m a dragon sl…. or a dragon makes no difference to me. The truth will still be the truth, regardless of how anybody attempts to “rank” people according to their “beliefs”.

    As an engineer my “belief” is that if I carefully apply known (and replicable) laws/theorems/hypotheses while design anything, AND if it performs as I expect, then the “science” is GO TO GO and I can use it again.

    On the other hand, my “belief” is that if somebody cannot make their “model”/design/idea match reality, THEN the “theory” is WRONG, period.

    Cheers, pointy tooth

  49. I assume the reference to Sky Dragons (referring to the authors and sympathizers of the book Slaying the Sky Dragon) is an intentional insult. I hope so, otherwise it represents sloppy, non-rigorous thinking.

  50. @KevinK

    I have taught math to many young people who went on to become engineers. I have the utmost respect for those who “make things work” in our society. I am still undecided on the the whole CO2 issue other than I don’t think that CO2 does much.

  51. I have been thinking about a cartoon and how to display the facts in a funny way …ok a hockey rink with the 2 teams with a score board displaying a very one sided game as far as the goals go .Something on the clock showing the final minutes in the game with the team scoring on them selves with the goalie pulled and on a power play with a 3 man advantage ….have fun ..:>) Our Mr. Mann would have to be wielding a broken hockey… stick with tears and boo-hoos

  52. Interesting. This was a terrific exercise that really got us thinking about the many dimensions involved in this debate. In addition to all those that have been mentioned, I would suggest a couple more.

    One that perhaps has not been mentioned is values. For example, extreme greenies really don’t care nearly as much about the impact on people as they care that “the planet is sick”. They will sacrifice the well being of people to provide habitat for polar bears and cure the earth’s “fever”. They sometimes say that they care about the earth because they care about people, but some of their rhetoric gives away their true values. For these people, climate sensitivity doesn’t really matter that much. One degree C per doubling of CO2 is still too much, because that one degree C is a disturbance of the earth, a deviation from what it “should” be, and is therefore “wrong”. So if people have to suffer to fix it, then so be it. Others emphasize material well being of the world’s poor. Others emphasize freedom. Others wise stewardship (with a true appreciation of the effect on people). Still others emphasize national security. There is also of course the selfish concern for one’s own economic well being. Of course most people value more than one of these (and other) things, in varying amounts.

    Another dimension concerns beliefs about economics. People who agree that the effects on the poor of aggressive anti-CO2 measures are important might differ in what they think those effects will be.

    I wouldn’t consider the policy preference itself to be a dimension. As I think has been mentioned, I would say that the policy preference of a person results from their position along all the dimensions.

  53. Josh and commenters,

    I think the scale should read:

    a) at the left is avoiding debate – asserting settled / consensus / certainty by small insider groups of scientists

    b) at the middle is highly active debating occurring – broad segments of science community actively discussing many skeptical evaluations and welcome admission of uncertainties

    c) at the right is not debated seriously – very radical views introduced trying to get PR exposure

    With that scale we can put the players in position.

    As for the Policy scale, we can do the same.

    John

  54. Cripwell
    Funny. You argue that sensitivity has never been measured.
    Then you say if it were measured there would be no uncertainty. Then you say you are certain it is no problem.

    1.all measurement has uncertainty.
    2. We can estimate sensitivity in many ways all uncertain.
    3. If you only know what you measure and you cant measure sensitivity then you cannot be certain that cagw is not a problem.

    However we know that estimates of sensitivity run from around 1.5 to 4.5. The lower end is no problem and may even be beneficial. The high end could be a problem.

  55. now, the santologists believe that there are 2 dimensions:
    the x axis goes from naughty to nice
    the y axis goes from spice to sugar
    the power quadrant is, of course, the sugar/nice sector
    the origin is the ‘coal corner’ of naughty/spice

    great fun, josh- interactive cartooning very engaging!

  56. I suggest grafting Bastardi’s physique under Anthony’s face. Oh wait, that doesn’t sound right…

  57. Leonard Weinstein says:
    March 15, 2014 at 7:52 am

    While I disagree with many (but not all) of the sky dragon positions, I do not consider them to have no faith in science. They have a diverse set of views, some of which may turn out to have some validity. Lumping all in that group together as having a single position is as bad an error as lumping all skeptics of any degree as being deniers.

    Not only that, but it’s a stupid misnomer. The “sky dragons” are the GHGs which we are supposed to fear. The group considers itself Slayers of the fear-mongers and hence of the Dragons.

    On the scales, I’m a tiny tick from the far right-hand limit on both scales, btw.

  58. Well, that made me chortle!

    I think I’m somewhere near Judith Curry on that scale
    – a weak & fearful, not as much warming as predicted position.

    Not sure why anyone thinks that the Climate inherently can’t be predicted
    – it just seems to me that the models are calibrated to run too hot, since factors such as the heat absorption in the Oceans have been ignored, and fudge-factors based on aerosols have been introduced in their place.

  59. With “No Faith In Science” at one end, the other end might be “Complete Faith in Science”.

    The problem is, if we are talking about proper science, then the Skeptic position is more aligned with the science while the Alarmist/Believer position is not.

    On the other hand, if the key word is “faith”, then the Skeptic position is more aligned with “No Faith” while the Alarmist/Believer position is more “Complete Faith”.

    I believe that the science isn’t settled and have complete faith that as we continue to apply proper science we will increase our knowledge.

  60. I have no faith in my fellow man, some of which so happen to practice science.. Why dont we model quantum physics to get an idea about the foundation that all this politics and greed are built upon..

    Then we can talk of the infinity of possibilities that consciousness brings.. Matter only matters because we want it to matter.. If reality is there for our amusement its also safe to say that this intelligence (yes) is also self regulating.. There is no reason to believe its not.. How could something so complex as energy to matter because Im taking the time to look, be feeble enough not to filter out the idiots..

    I think that would be the sky dragon you people speak of.. Relax its all a game :)

  61. Some of the slaying the sky dragon people are among those who recognize the atmosphere operates according to ideal gas law, which to this day is not admitted on any blog of import worldwide.

    There’s ideal gas law which the atmosphere operates by: the infrared cooling model of earth, where the infrared gases cool both the surface and, the nitrogen/oxygen bulk gases

    and there’s the entire face of the earth who got boon swoggled into claiming the infrared gases warm the earth, in the ”infrared cooling model” which describes the planet.

    People have told the entire world time and again, the infrared radiative gases are the ones that give the earth’s formal cooling model the name, ”infrared cooling model.”

    It is the people who endorsed the infrared warming model who are constantly chirping about how popular they are, and not how right they are. Indeed everyone knows: the mainstream of climate science is junk.

  62. Really interesting plot. It made me ponder a few things

    When one draws the world in this way, do most people tend to put themselves in the “clear thinking middle” with the less enlightened off to either side? I think Josh’s plot fits this pattern and i must confess if i was to draw my own world map i would calibrate it with me somewhere to the left of Judith but very much in the middle. I notice some of the people who objected to their placement wanted the map to be re-centred on them. And fair enough. Maybe we all do. Do these maps say more about us as ego-centric humans than as depictions of the world?

    I continue to wonder how the male/female dynamic, the young/old dynamic (and indeed the still in a position of power/retired dynamic) affect people’s world views and their response to all this. I don;t agree with everything Judith Curry says but i do wonder if her “female, c.60, still working” status is part of her “value” in the middle of things. So where would one put the average man or woman on this plot. And i note that if SKS are “boys”, is there an age thing here (i think Dana Nucetelli is 33). I am always interested in the theory that a human who is male, old, retired (and possibly an engineer!) will skew to the right on this chart.Anyone got any views?

    Putting “science” in the middle of your plot, Josh, is a bit cheeky. Language is power, of course, and so good for you in claiming a word that comes from the latin for knowledge. But it does rather suggest that you sit at the peak of knowledge and people’s ignorance increases as they slope off to either side of you. A good cartoonish flourish, quite cheeky but not the most objective bit of labelling i have ever seen.

    ( PS I just looked up a spectrum i sketched last autumn. Sure enough i put myself in the middle. Sheesh, ego! For the record it went –

    1. Guilty CAGW believers. Really fanatical. Often driven by anti-capitalist sentiment (and possible some sort of self-loathing thing as part of this?)
    2. CAGWers. Quite a “man on the street” position. Many politicians. Think we should act now. The IPCC? Tendency to over claim on certainty.
    3. AGWers. Its a big thing but not sure what should be done or how big a priority it is. A lot of politicians. Lots of scientists.
    4. Bit worrieds. Think something’s up but then again who knows given what one reads? Large chunk of the populace.
    5. Rational sceptics. Are trying to sort the wheat from the chaff. Do engage with the “other” side.
    6. Professional deniers. “Denying” often serves identity needs or professional needs more than anythinge else. Don;t engage with other side but still debate within their own community.
    7. Fundamental deniers. The mirror image of 1. above. Completely ossified beliefs with strong psychic needs to preserve these against all comers.)

  63. Perhaps some should be stacked one above the other? To put them side-by-side appears to move one more to one extreme or the other than they may really be.
    (I know, tough to communicate in a “cartoon” and it calls for a judgement but it is something to consider.)

Comments are closed.