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
All that Co2 emissions changing the composition of our atmosphere….doesn’t make the life of a Van Storch easy does it.
http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?article=0&partner=rss
The download does seem to require a “premium membership” for mucho dollars. Better to buy a hard copy?
The first 21 of 494 pages are available for free here: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/98017416.pdf.
A VERY interesting paper is here and is labeled “Misuses of Statistical Analysis in Climate Research” (note this doesn’t look like it’s chapter 2 from the book which is labeled “Probability Theory”): coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/misuses.pdf.
There is also an interesting presentation on stats in climate science including misuses here: http://tinyurl.com/yk9472v.
It doesn’t look like there is a free copy of the entire book which can be purchased at your favorite online or brick and mortar bookstore.
Layne Blanchard (12:44:36) :
… Why am I to believe that earth’s uptake is capable of adjusting in virtual lockstep with earths production of C02, such that only the presence of man’s contribution upsets the magical balance?
Because man is not natural except that implies a Creator who presumably is more concerned about our moral behavior than our burning carbon.
Excellent catch of the illogic of the enviro-hysterics.
CO2 is a positive good. No wonder then that it is being persecuted in today’s evil world.
Oops… http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/misuses.pdf
Von Storch:
Of course, if you ask von Storch for evidence of these claims, then it gets difficult.
Voyager Makes an Interstellar Discovery
Astronomers call the cloud we’re running into now the Local Interstellar Cloud or “Local Fluff” for short. It’s about 30 light years wide and contains a wispy mixture of hydrogen and helium atoms at a temperature of 6000 C.
The Fluff is strongly magnetized means that other clouds in the galactic neighborhood could be, too. Eventually, the solar system will run into some of them, and their strong magnetic fields could compress the heliosphere even more than it is compressed now. Additional compression could allow more cosmic rays to reach the inner solar system, possibly affecting terrestrial climate and the ability of astronauts to travel safely through space.
Did I hear Svensmark talk about this stuff?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/23dec_voyager.htm
@ur momisugly pwl (13:22:45) :
You (and others perhaps ) would be interested in E. T. Jaynes (deceased ) work in the statistics and probability field: “PROBABILITY THEORY: THE LOGIC OF SCIENCE ” http://omega.albany.edu:8008/JaynesBook.html
His complete book is available at Amazon.
I am always fascinated with AGWers reasoning. They provide endless evidence for facts that are not contested by skeptics. Yes, CO2 is greenhouse gas, yes, its concentration increased last century, yes, climate warmed on average as well. No evidence for this is asked for. Then they (AGWers) jump over all skeptics arguments and assume what they need to prove.
How the fact that “elevated greenhouse gas concentrations […] lead, to changing weather conditions (climate)” leads to conclusion that “[s]uch a change causes stress for societies and ecosystems” is beyond my comprehension.
The whole disagreement is about the scope of the problem, if there is one. We need to understand the scope of the problem before we commit significant resources to a solution for the (perceived) problem. Is it “we need to sacrifice our prosperity and our way of life in order to save the planet”? Or is it “The benign increase in temperatures and CO2 levels is wholly beneficial for (virtually) all species living on Earth”? Or is it somewhere in-between?
Ron the Haan… Publish my previous post.
CYA. The Bart Simpson defense: I didn’t do it.
They conclude I must have been forced out of my position as chief editor of the journal Climate Research back in 2003 for my allegiance to science over politics. In fact, I left this post on my own, with no outside pressure, because of insufficient quality control on a bad paper—a skeptic’s paper, at that. But in 2006 I urged a CRU scientist to make his data public for critics and, yes, skeptics—as documented in one of the stolen e-mails.
So he just quit on his own, because of an especially bad skeptic paper? Humph. But then 3 years later he showed his true mettle by “urging” a “scientist” to reveal his data. Hooray for that bold move!!! [/sarc]
The rats are scrambling for shore, but the ship is sinking way out to sea. Somebody please send Hans a lifeboat.
P Gosselin (09:44:35) & (09:52:54) “[…]”
No wool over your eyes today.
–
Jim (10:08:00) “[…]”
Unionized admins looking to further consolidate their power welcome such layers of red tape, which can be used to reduce transparency, control information streams, and build in delays to be used for leveraging concessions. In the attack on researchers, we shouldn’t forget that weakening them shifts the battle to one with far more formidable adversaries: administrators, who are very adept at using every trick in the book. (Keep in mind that admins run the carrot train.)
There may be an upside to upholding freedom to choose. Demanding more red tape might be like walking into another trap, opting for a worse poison, or inviting underhanded backlash (but I acknowledge that it might look like progress).
I would be interested in hearing what you think should be done about researchers who keep information (that is vital to civilization) secret, in part because of the nature of “the system” & its array of threatening requirements. For example, do you think it is appropriate to force researchers to publish against their will & better judgement? And to force them to tolerate intrusive & destructive editing that reframes & drastically alters the message, with priorities other than science & education in mind?
I appreciate the diplomacy you have shown. Thank you.
“in particular to warmer temperatures and changing precipitation”
In the form of a lot more SNOW everywhere!
Shame, I was really enjoying our inter-glacial here in Canada. Oh well I guess I’ll move to Mexico and learn Spanish.
“el cuarto de baño?”
Nasif Nahle (13:18:49) : Read Wallace Thornhill´s “The electric Universe”
**********
Paul Vaughan (15:24:01) :
I would be interested in hearing what you think should be done about researchers who keep information (that is vital to civilization) secret, in part because of the nature of “the system” & its array of threatening requirements. For example, do you think it is appropriate to force researchers to publish against their will & better judgement? And to force them to tolerate intrusive & destructive editing that reframes & drastically alters the message, with priorities other than science & education in mind?
*********
Well, if you were addressing that question to me … scientists work in diverse environments. So there isn’t really one answer. The closest thing I could come up with is that they should fulfill the expectations of their job description. Most academics are expected to publish. I think most non-defense, government-funded scientists should publish. Some scientists in the private sector publish depending on the IP policies of their employer. Some companies work under trade secrets and some under patents, some probably both. But IMO anyone who publishes in the name of science in publicly available journals should supply code along with raw data, rejected data, meta-data and any other techniques necessary to replicate. If they can’t do that for some reason, the journal should just say no.
Harrop has a lot to lose that’s why he’s slagging climategate on the WSJ.
http://www.copenhagenclimatecouncil.com/user-profile/1248-barrie-harrop.html
@Tim (16:17:02) :
“in particular to warmer temperatures and changing precipitation”
In the form of a lot more SNOW everywhere!
Shame, I was really enjoying our inter-glacial here in Canada. Oh well I guess I’ll move to Mexico and learn Spanish.
“el cuarto de baño?”
Heh! “Al fondo a la derecha” (translation: Last room on the right).
Kirls (12:03:00) :
“…first he blasts them and then he says he agrees with their “science” regardless. it makes no sense.
any chance this is just damage control? you know, yes, yes, they are BAD but their right.”
I think it is more than damage control, I think he is trying to save his reputation while not upsetting the Powers That Control Grants.
Reminds me of all the papers contradicting global warming that add “but this findings do not in any way mean CO2 is not the main driver of global warming…. so the authors can get the papers published.
He strikes me as a fence sitter… I’m not impressed with his likening of skeptics to AGW activists…. Skeptics have a real grievence when it comes to trying to present scientific findings that find fault with the AGW hypothesis. So calling skeptics and warmers, “siblings in method and contempt”, is not a fair assessment at all.
Secondly he presents the AGW hypothesis as a proven theory….
[“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. Thus, when society wants to limit this stress, it has to make sure that fewer greenhouse gases enter and remain in the atmosphere.” ]
He just undone everything he said above in some respects…. He quotes the Hypothesis as proven theory…. It is far from it.
Anyone wanting to download the Von Storch book from rapidshare needs to click on the “free user” link.
I wonder whether he would be happy about it being touted like this though, what with copyright, royalties and all that;)
nc (13:06:13) :
Now this is O/T but I just had to post it some where, read this
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/12/24/Idea4
Is it April 1st somewhere, as I am not sure if the article is serious or not.
Reply:
Actually that is the ultimate goal of those pushing Global Warming. So I am afraid they are very serious. It is called Agenda 21, Sustainable Development and the “Wildlands Project”
This is the “Wildlands” map http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/wilderness/wildlands_map.htm
The idea is 50% of America would be returned to complete wilderness (red areas) buffer zones for limited use are yellow and the tiny amount of green areas are for normal use. The bill putting this map into law almost passed congress.
Four conservatives (Sovereignty International) were able to find the UN documentation that proved the Wildlands Project concept was to provide the basis for the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. They used the map and the information to stop the ratification of the Biological Diversity treaty an hour before its scheduled ratification vote. (See Congressional Record S13790)
Boy was THAT a close call.
This has some of the information about what went on and is on going.
http://www.klamathbucketbrigade.org/YNTKwildlandsproject_table.htm
If you are not familiar with the UN’s Agenda 21 look at it because that is where all this crap on “global warming is headed. This gives an overview: http://www.rense.com/general63/ree.htm
This stuff is for real my little rural county already has a “land use” plan drawn up by these meglomaniacs. My farm and all the farms of my neighbors are all slated for “rewilding”
Regional Governance and Sustainable Development are the other plans that need to be researched throughly.
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/united_nations/news.php?q=1259955479
J.Hansford (18:21:45) :
He strikes me as a fence sitter
*********
I agree. He has his feets dangling over one side but will not fully commit, which is why his climategate friends say “Frankly, he’s an odd individual,” . Of course he interprets this to be virtuous. This fence sitter, however, is a better politician than a scientist. He’s already made up his mind about global warming despite opposing facts – but he dangles an offer to others a consideration of the data even though he’s made up his mind. This is a political piece. There is nothing original here but a regurgitation of the same old same old. It is full of buzz words and phrases such as “generating knowledge through a superior method, the scientific method”. Look up scientific method in wikipedia and see what vague nonsense he is spewing for the non-technical minded. So what is he trying to do here? Trying to assuage the anger of politicians stirred up by climategate or to shine in the limelight that he wasn’t incriminated by the emails, or both?
As I posted over on CA…
Von Storch: “Climate science is in an abnormal situation, hounded by manifest political and economic interests of different sorts, and the uncertainties in our work are large and unavoidable.”
Activist scientists made their own beds on this. And the ones who kept, and still keep, silent are just as much to blame. If your career means more than your ethics, then you deserve whatever you get.
“……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….”
That’s going further than the IPCC activists, whose best guess is that over 50% of warming since mid-twentieth century is over 90% likely due to human GHGs.
Whether human GHGs are 10%, 30%, or over 50% a causative factor in recent climate change, it’s clear from the “Hopenhagen” fiasco that China (and probably India and others) will not play ball, so for governments, it is irrelevant what has in the past, or may in the future, cause climate change.
The only rational course for governments to follow is, as Professor von Storch says, that of adaption.
Von Storch: “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.”
It’s pretty hard for me to argue with his principle, and pretty easy to argue that we have gotten a long way from it. Restoring faith in climate scientists is going to take some strong action on their part. The first thing that has to happen is that the climate science community has to realize that the public faith in it has collapsed, that this is not a minor blip which leaves everything intact. They are going to have to bend over backwards to let an awful lot of sunshine in. I’m pretty skeptical that many of them are going to do this.
“BernardP (12:58:00) :
Yes JDN, I also find the ads on this page annoying. And as a canadian resident, I’m also getting the self-serving “Quebec At Copenhagen” ad/link whose only purpose is to make our politicians look green in the eyes of the brain-washed voters. Feast you eyes;”
This website is a bunch of hypocritical crap! PQ exploited NFL to extort ownership of the Churchill River Hydro Project, they continue to screw them and are “green” as a result. They also extort $4.5 billion annually from every man-woman-child in Alberta, paid for in large part by the Oilsands while at the same time insulting their leaders and inflaming dissent in Poopenhagen! They do NOT speak for anyone outside of the ignorant intelligencia in PQ. McGuinty is of the same cloth but at least Ontario pays into equalization. Charest is a hypocrite.