Below is an article from TheStatsBlog that I found interesting. Here is what they say about the organization behind it.
Since its founding in 1994, the non-profit, non-partisan Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) has become a much-valued resource on the use and abuse of science and statistics in the media. Our goals are to correct scientific misinformation in the media and in public policy resulting from bad science, politics, or a simple lack of information or knowledge; and to act as a resource for journalists and policy makers on major scientific issues and controversies.
This is exactly what is needed. An arbiter of the validity of statistically presented information. The article they wrote below provides some insight into their mindset.:
In a series of interviews with New York Times science writer Gary Taubes on scientificblogging, psychology professor Seth Roberts turns to the question of how do you go about making the judgment as to whether a scientist is trustworthy, especially when the topic is controversial. Taubes responds:
I’m a stickler about the use of words like “evidence” and “proof”. So if someone tells you there’s no evidence for some controversial belief, you can be fairly confident that they’re a bad scientist. There’s always evidence, or there wouldn’t be a controversy. If somebody says that “we proved that this was true” or “we set out to prove that this was true” that’s another bad sign. The point here, as [Karl] Popper noted, among others, is that you can never prove anything is true; you can only refute it. So researchers who talk about proving a hypothesis is true rather than testing it make me worried.
SETH: Yeah, I see what you’re saying. They overstate; they twist things around to make it come out the way they want. They are way too sure of what they…
TAUBES: Yes, and the really good scientists are the ones, almost by definition, who are most skeptical of evidence that seems to support their beliefs. They’re most aware of how they could have been fooled, how they could have screwed up, or how they might have missed artifacts in their experiment that could have explained what they observed. They’re very careful about what they say. If you ask them to do play devil’s advocate, and tell you how they could have screwed up, then at the very least, they’ll say “Well, if I knew how I could have done it, I would have checked it before I made the claim”. So when I’m talking about discerning the difference between a good scientist and a bad scientist, I’m talking about how they speak about their research, the evidence itself, it’s presence or absence.
Worth bearing in mind when you hear something which appears to overturn consensus expressed in strident terms: Where all the other possible explanations for the phenomenon considered? How did the researchers test their theory and data against the best possible countervailing research? Why do their conclusions offer better explanatory power?
I would add that telling them apart would also extend to graciously being able to admit to mistakes. Recently in this blog, one chemist who goes by a lagomorphic pseudonym made a simple mistake citing pH trends.
Decreasing pH is more acidic, increasing more basic. A solution with pH 8 is more basic than a solution with pH 9.
I pointed it out, as did others, and yet he goes on if nothing has happened a few comments later. Some may argue “well, he didn’t see it” and I would argue “always recheck your work”. Granted its a small and simple mistake, but I can’t understand why not simply admit, apologize, and move on? We’ve seen examples in comments where it is obvious that ego and vanity get in the way of clear thinking. I don’t think anyone is totally immune from that in the scientific process. Sometimes the need to be “right” exceeds accurate representation of results. Thus, the need for a statistical arbiter like the Statistical Assessment Service. Since they haven’t done any climate science work that I know of, perhaps MBH98 (Mann et, al and the “hockey stick”) would be a good first start.
That being said, don’t be afraid to point out my mistakes.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
chriscolose said: (18:17:29) :
“sorry; before I take criticisms about Gore, I should make sure the source has its facts straight.”
So you’re saying that Gore had his facts straight before releasing the movie?
You’re presenting a loaded question. You’re saying his whole film is BS, in your opinion, and since he doesn’t ackowledge that, he’s dishonest. Why don’t you present some scientific evidence of the “BS” then we can go forward.
On the other hand, let’s see Al Gore answer similar questions about his crockumentary. He refuses. Durkin has 10 times the balls Gore does, and 10 times the ethics.
chriscolose, I am familiar with the carbon cycle. The statement is still very funny.
Otherwise, you seem to concede my point that no one is presenting the scientific case for GHG driven AGW rather than the politicized case.
Your posts illustrate how the arguments of AGW proponents seem never to rise above accusations that sceptics are liars and frauds, and if you say the magic incantation “peer reviewed science” enough times that constitutes a scientific argument.
It doesn’t.
And concerning the surface temperature record, we know that observer and experimenter bias is a pervausive problem in science irrespective of the good (or otherwise) intentions of scientists.
We know from Anthony’s Surface Stations project that there are many site problems with the network.
Your and others reflexive dismissal of these and other documented problems in the best climate network in the world, make me and others wonder who are the frauds in this debate.
regards,
Hi,
Anthony, Sorry about the miss post, my fault for not carefully considering that. I guess I caused a little firestorm over at Tamino but I honestly thought it would never post.
REPLY: No worries, it doesn’t take much to set off Tamino these days.
Stan, accusations of stupidity and dismissal is one thing…but when the counterarguments presented carry the same intellectual weight as creationists saying that evolution violates thermodynamics, I’m not sure how you’d like me to respond.
Chris, I assume you must have read that somewhere — but not here. Nice strawman, though.
Treating venues such as this as being serious, by engaging in intelligent conversation, and discussing the relevant academic papers, probably does an equal injustice to the science by creating a false impression that 1) there is a large debate 2) that such counterarguments are worth addressing and need paying attention to 3) that lies and manipulation of evidence should be tolerated. This confuses laymen, but not scientists
I’ve read some pretty elitist, condescending post from those on the GW Alarmist side, and this rates right up near the top. If your goal is to enlighten us or change our minds, you’re using the wrong approach. So I’m curious; just exactly what is your purpose for posting here?
Hi,
On CO2 trends I have seen lately that CO2 is trending downward, this could be due to the strong La Nina. The cooler waters seem to be allowing more CO2 to be dissolved. I agree that even if man made CO2 stopped today it would have little or no impact. I do think market forces will have a greater impact on man made CO2 in the near future with oil at $100.00 a barrel. Higher prices will force more efficient energy production.
I stopped wondering a long time ago when stories of 30 meter sea level rise within 100 years, 40,000 species going extinct every year, Food, water and oil about to run out (for the past 40 years) are bandied about as fact.
wattsupwiththat,
CO2 is actually rising in rate, and decline in natural sinks only makes for more concern. CO2 accumulates, and lasts a considerably long time in the atmosphere, with a good amount removed in decades, still more removed in centuries, but at least a fifth of it staying around for tens of thousands of years. There is no plausible way of reconciling the magnitude, rate, and isotopic signatures of the CO2 rise with natural variability, and this has been known for decades. See Suess (1965) paper for instance.
Philip, there are many good references on natural and anthropogenic variabiltiy, and today’s attribution of climate change, and how it relates to today…some good ones include
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10139
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~nathan/pdf/hegerletal_jclimate_clivar.pdf
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/315840.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5732/284
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_additivity.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/104/10/3713.pdf
Declaring jihad on the surface stations is not going to change infrared radiative physics, ice loss, sea level rises, satellites, etc. It is hard to do justice to the vast literature on this, which has evolved over decades, with foundations set back in the time of Fourier and then Arrhenius and others. If the science is substantially flopped on its head, it is going to come from honest scientists, with expertise and real data, not people like Roy Spencer and Tim Ball, who are known for everything but that. Sorry, if calling such people out, as well as the lies they throw out in the laymen community doesn’t make me friends, then so be it.
Stan,
????? It was an analogy, I never said anyone here said that specifically. As for my approach, I’m sufficiently convinced that a handful of people, generally ones without expertise in their field, are confusing a lot of people. They know people do not read documents like those presented above, but rather youtube and the vast blogosphere. It is very easy to write bad arguments, and get away with it, when people are not required to properly document their claims, with scientifically sound information (like solar and PDO), and when you can twist facts around like the points about water vapor, CO2 lag, (solar and PDO), etc.
Have to go now, Glenn Beck is on, can’t wait…
MODERATORS REPLY: “declaring jihad”? I find that statement insulting. I surmise then you don’t care about accuracy in temperature measurement. Let it be known henceforth that Chris Colose has no interest in finding out the true value of the surface temperature record, but would rather utter political statements as a substitute for such knowledge.
Mr. Colose, since you starting posting here, you’ve made some good scientific contributions to the discussion, but at the same time you have been rude and condescending to me and to others. I don’t much like your characterization that the work I and the volunteers are doing is in any way like “jihad”. Because I have expectations of respect for others in the exchange, and since you don’t seem to offer any level of respect for anyone’s opinion other than your own, thus, your welcome is worn out.
BTW, Rev, I’d like to point out that in your more recent post you put CRN3 violations at a 1C bIas.
But in your earlier post on the matter, it reads “=> 1C”. Since a Type 3 violation is heat source nearer than 30m but outside 10m, there would seem to be a wide range of variability, so for now I am going for now with the “=> 1C” interpretation.
Also, do you think a CRN violation might also include cooling bias? If so, how much?
And what is the NOAA version of the high range for the violations? I would really, really like to know that!
Alright. I went to the NOAA handbook and it said “1C”. It makes less sense, but that’s what it says. I will adjust my medium/high numbers to fit.
I do NOT understand why, if a Class 1 site requires a heat source to be 100m away, while a Class 2 site is defined as having a heat source (building, driveway, etc.) between 30m and 10m away, yet no bias is assigned. It does not say “OC bias”, it just says nothing on the subject one way or another. This seems illogical.
They make no comment whatever what they mean by =>. They never say how much >.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, treating CRN2 violations as 0 bias and CRN3 violations as 1C for low, med., and high estimates, here is a recalculation:
For 482 stations
Low: 1.99 Revs
Medium: 2.90 Revs
High: 3.81 Revs
(1 Rev = 1K warm bias)
Hi,
Anthony I was re-reading the Tamino posts and came across where Tamino says he doesn’t post links to denialist propaganda sites. Well I tried to post these “denialist propaganda” site links and he never post them. LOL look at the sites. Now those are a denialist propaganda sites.
http://ulysses.jpl.nasa.gov/education/Ulysses_Wallsheet.pdf
http://gammaray.nsstc.nasa.gov/colloquia/abstracts_summer06/presentations/Hathaway.pdf
http://lwsscience.gsfc.nasa.gov/TRT_SunClimate.pdf
chrisclose,
I know this is a one-sided response since the welcome mat has been pulled out from under you. However, so be it.
Why the animosity towards Anthony? On his own time he has been primarily investigating the accuracy of the American surface station record. Based on what I have seen from his photo records, in my field of engineering if I found the functional equivalent of significant UHI biases in the temperature records, problems with the types of thermometers employed, etc. just in the U.S., I would have no confidence making any policy proscriptions to my clients based on what is increasingly looking like poor scientific background documentation. And if, as a result of Anthony’s efforts, we can legitimately question the actual magnitude of the U.S. temperature rise since the Little Ice Age (pre- and post-1940), then many of the other issues such as radiative forcings, sea level records, etc. will have to re-evaluated to determine what, if any, temperature change is due to anthropogenic influences. And if human influence decreases as a proportion of the entire temperature change, then determining actual human influence becomes more difficult given the confidence intervals in the records. And the sketchy temperature record outside the U.S. (Russia, China, etc.) makes accurate global temperature projections even more difficult. Yet the costs for “doing something about CO2” don’t change. So the bang for the buck on the U.S. achieving any meaningful reduction in its contribution to GW may drop precipitously. A lot of money lost for little, if any, return.
But this whole discussion on the science ignores the socio-geopolitical issues that will make any significant anti-AGW campaign crash within a decade. China produces as much CO2 as the U.S., but only 1/4 per capita (ignoring the U.S. forest CO2 sink which will probably decrease with time). If the U.S. reduced our per capita CO2 emissions by half by 2050 at a horrific cost in economic growth, China will still increase its per capita CO2 emissions by 5-10% per year based on data from the last few decades, and by 11% per year based on the last decade. That means that per capita China CO2 emissions will probably double by 2020 and equal the U.S. per capita number. That number will double again by 2033, and double again by 2050. The Chinese alone will be producing 4 times the per capita CO2 the U.S. number by 2050. And the Chinese, Indians, Brazilians, and others have said they have no intent to cut back their economies until they have matched the U.S. level of economic wealth. Do you honestly think that the American electorate will allow the government to enact anti-GW policies that will put us at such an economic, military and geopolitical disadvantage vis a vis the Chinese? Won’t happen.
The entire point of Chriscolose (aka Eli Rabbett?)’s disjoint diatribe was to change the subject. Anthony’s insistence that arguments about climate return to rigorous testing, remains valid.
Forcing climate arguments and hypotheses to meet high standards will be a hardship for “realclimateorg” style thinkers, but it is necessary, if climatology is ever to “grow up” and become a real science.
Bravo, Jerry. And, this one sentence sums up the crux of the issue:
A lot of money lost for little, if any, return.
The one aspect of the AGW/Climate Change debate that baffles me the most (well, maybe baffles is not exactly the correct word) is that Chris and those who share his views rarely, if ever, present solutions, only “I’m right and you’re wrong”, I’m right, and I can’t believe how stupid you are”, etc. My guess is that Chris is young enough that he doesn’t remember predictions of world famine, depletion of resources, global economic collapse, “The Population Bomb”, new ice age, and on and on.
I’ve been in countless blog discussions about this issue. Inevitably the discussion drifts toward: “OK, if the situation is as bad as you claim, how do we fix it?” And invariably, aside from CFL’s, Hybrid vehicles, windmills, solar panels and carbon taxes, the AGW Alarmist side produces mostly “crickets”. The most interesting question (to me) that is NEVER answered by the Alarmists is, “if we would do EVERYTHING you suggest, how much would it reduce the average global temperature?”
Taubes’ book Good Calories, Bad Calories is pretty interesting, especially in the first section of the book. He describes how a small clique of vocal scientists became convinced that eating too much fat and cholesterol is the cause of early death from heart disease, even though clinical trials and epidemiological studies did not show a correlation. Those who disagreed with them were demonized as tools of the meat lobby. According to Taubes, they were able to scare the government (Senator McGovern and Congressman Waxman), media, and NGOs into recommending dietary guidelines, and now we have an epidemic of obesity and diabetes.
Does any of this seem familiar?
[sorry, comments deleted until apology issued on statements made regarding jihad]
On the subject of ‘Climate Science’ vis a vis accepted scientific practice:
Recalling Dr. Wegman’s assessment of MBH(1998), noting that this fledgling discipline has parted company with, e.g., professional statisticians many other similar indications of its insularity are evident.
A simple comparison might be made regarding a ‘top pedigree’. In mature fields, e.g., molecular microbiology, a top student gets their PhD. at a school other than that granting their undergraduate degree. Then, if they’re really good they get a post-doc at yet another institution, serving an apprenticeship with a top P.I., teaching, authoring, writing grants, learning the practice of science.
In ‘Climate Science’ we have icons, like Hansen, who got his degrees all at one school and jumped straight into government. While this example doesn’t detract from his work, the fact that it is reinforced by the abscence of accepted scientific practice in his work it’s an emblematic point of departure in an assessment of problems with ‘Climate Science’.
On the subject of ‘Climate Science’ vis a vis accepted scientific practice:
Recalling Dr. Wegman’s assessment of MBH(1998), noting that this fledgling discipline has parted company with, e.g., professional statisticians many other similar indications of its insularity are evident.
A simple comparison might be made regarding a ‘top pedigree’. In mature fields, e.g., molecular microbiology, a top student gets their PhD. at a school other than that granting their undergraduate degree. Then, if they’re really good they get a post-doc at yet another institution, serving an apprenticeship with a top P.I., teaching, authoring, writing grants, learning the practice of science.
In ‘Climate Science’ we have icons, like Hansen, who got his degrees all at one school and jumped straight into government. While this example doesn’t detract from his work, the fact that it is reinforced by the abscence of accepted scientific practice in his work it’s an emblematic point of departure in an assessment of problems with ‘Climate Science’.
Before we forget, one of the basic tenets of science is peer and independent review.
It is incomprehensible to me that anyone purporting to be a scientist would consider withholding data, methods, algorithms, code, or operating manuals from public scrutiny.
And what is this nonsense I read above about data being “withdrawn”? I think we are going to need to archive it in the future and make sure it remains available for the scrutiny of any interested/disinterested parties in perpetuity.
This is my first post so excuse me if I inadvertantly break any rules. I have been impressed with the level of scientific debate on this blog. It is very refreshing.
I am very interested in the CO2 lagging temperature claim that was made by various scientists in Martin Durkin’s Great Global Warming Swindle.
I have been searching the web for Ice Core data so I can check the claim myself. I managed to get some data that had a 250 year sample interval for CO2 but I had to use temperature data from a separate core.
When I processed the data there did appear to be a lag but it was far from conclusive. Can anybody point me to site where I can find high resolution CO2 and temperature data or alternatively a peer reviewed scientific paper that can shed some light on the issue.
REPLY: Welcome, no rules broken. Folks can we help Mr. Harper find what he is looking for?