Guest post by Thomas Fuller
It should be clear to all who are following climate issues that the establishment is flailing a bit in regards to how they should be dealing with a pesky public.
Ever since Climategate, Copenhagen, and a cold winter in western media capitals, their old techniques have been increasingly ineffective. Whereas before it was enough to combine a ‘sexy’ symbol, such as a polar bear or a Himalayan glacier, with a press release of a new paper showing how models predict doom for whatever symbol they used, now people seem to want things like data, whatever that is.
But there really isn’t enough data to make a definitive case for the type of climate change the establishment needs to command immediate and decisive action. (And it is my personal opinion that that is precisely the way it works–deciding the appropriate action and then searching for supporting information, of whatever quality they can drum up.)
Since then, we have seen some rather dubious attempts to play the media game differently, starting with an attack on Andrew Montford’s book ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion, where a blog aptly named Scholars and Rogues tried to mathematically prove that nobody needed to read the book, and then the sad coda to a great career for the late Stephen Schneider, where they hammered out a libelous paper purporting to show that establishment scientists were far more qualified (and better looking as well) than skeptics, which they did by looking only in English language publications, getting names and jobs wrong, and miscounting published papers.
That didn’t work. So they began also to run advertisements, such as jet planes crashing into skyscrapers, and the more recent explosion of skeptical children and soccer stars.
None of it is working right now. They literally cannot admit uncertainty, and they have lost the aura of invincibility–or at least authority. Criticism of the major skeptical figures hasn’t worked in the past–Lindzen, Spencer, Christy and others do not appear to have been damaged by accusations of tobacco use and being religious, and the screaming about conservative rich people giving liberal amounts of money to conservative think tanks is too obviously hypocritical when balanced against the amounts of money available to the establishment position. And it certainly hasn’t worked against new critics, such as Steve McIntyre or our host here.
The 10:10 video ‘No Pressure’ is a new symbol–not one that the Establishment will cherish. It’s a symbol of failure to communicate. They sent a message all right, just as the WWF, Stephen Schneider and Scholars and Rogues sent messages.
But they’re not listening–and so in the end they cannot communicate.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
gryposaurus,
“Thomas Fuller
—a cold winter in western media capitals—
gryp – This is an irrelevant occurrence if the public understands the real symptoms of the increased energy imbalance on the planet.
======
Ridiculous. Of course they don’t understand.
TF – —new paper showing how models predict doom for whatever symbol they used, now people seem to want things like data, whatever that is. —
gryp – You seem to be insinuating that papers are released without data. Can you provide evidence for this?
=======================
I believe Tom is referring to the battles that Steve McIntyre and others have waged, using FOI laws to get to see data and algorithms. Surely you are not denying that any of this has occurred?
TF – —-So they began also to run advertisements, such as jet planes crashing into skyscrapers—-
gryp – It is a well established fact that this ad was rejected by the WWF and never released by them. If you have proof that WWF used this ad, please provide it.
==================
When did Tom write anything about WWF?
TF – —They literally cannot admit uncertainty—
gryp – Would you mind opening the IPCC pdf and doing a search on the word uncertainty? Or do that for any science paper? This statement is just factually incorrect, and without correction, is purposefully misleading.
=======================
In the Summary for policy makers, the assertion is made that human made greenhouse gases are ‘very likely’ responsible for the majority of 20th century warming. They define very likely to have a probability of at least 90% but less than 99% of being true. Now here’s the fun bit. Go into the IPCC pdf document and show me the statistical calculations from which th 90% probability was derived.
I’ll be waiting.
barbarausa :
—The WWF ad was entered in Cannes, and won an award, before being disappeared from YouTube and most other places, as documented with links on…this very blog.—
The ad was rejected by WWF. They never used it. Just because the ad company (after denying they did it) entered a film version of the ad into Cannes and won an award, it does not show that WWF used it. T Fuller attempted to say that this message came from proponents of AGW, which it did not. It came from Meio & Mensagem, an ad agency in Brazil. Please lets get some facts correct before making accusations.
Vince Causey:
—Ridiculous. Of course they don’t understand.—
So you think that a cold winter is relevant? And who doesn’t understand? The public? I wonder why.
—I believe Tom is referring to the battles that Steve McIntyre and others have waged, using FOI laws to get to see data and algorithms. Surely you are not denying that any of this has occurred?—
95 % of the data was available to the public. And climate scientists don’t control the dispersion of raw temperature data. And T Fuller clearly stated that scientists are releasing press reports about certain “symbols”. And then said “now people seem to want things like data, whatever that is”. This has nothing to do with the temperature data and code you are referring to.
—When did Tom write anything about WWF?—
The planes flying into buildings references the ad that WWF rejected.
—In the Summary for policy makers, the assertion is made that human made greenhouse gases are ‘very likely’ responsible for the majority of 20th century warming. —
This clearly shows the uncertainty that everyone says does not exist.
—They define very likely to have a probability of at least 90% but less than 99% of being true. Now here’s the fun bit. Go into the IPCC pdf document and show me the statistical calculations from which th 90% probability was derived. —
They are using all the evidence involved to come to that conclusion. Most experts think there is a higher degree of certainty, but the IPCC was, believe it not, a somewhat conservative document. But asking for a single calculation that leads the summary to include a ‘very likely’ (90-99%) causality is, of course, just a diversion. There is no such thing, not is it possible to do in any complicated science where variables cannot be laboratory controlled. The case is built upon basic physics, chemistry, observation, models, paleo-data, satellite temperature, proxies, etc. You could, if you’d like, ignore all that data, and focus on cover-ups, perceived conspiracies, and a small percentage of uncertainty, but, clearly the message is being distorted. It really should be one of intelligent caution, where uncertainty is measured against the risks to humanity and solutions based upon that, not non-solutions and dismissal based on distortions.
The ad agency is named DDB Brasil, not Meio & Mensagement. Meio & Mensagement is the ad industry trade publication company name that printed the story.
Tom Fuller,
Thank you for your article.
The ideal scenario of communication is as follows. The understanding of climate between two rational people is processed through a common language that is mutually agreed to and that is used consistently. What language is appropriate for the discussion of climate? For maximizing the possibility of objective understanding it must be a scientific language. The scientific language version of the understanding is distributed between “honest brokers” to the science community and to the open public. The vernacular language version is also made by the “honest brokers” in science. The “honest brokers” in the media (MSM or the independent blogosphere media) distribute both versions to all. In the case of the scientific version the communication by the “honest brokers” includes: all code, methodologies, data, metadata, and , FOI additional requests.
Of course that is the ideal. What we have seen in climate science of the last 2 (or more) decades was purposeful diversion from the ideal to advocate pre-determined policies and values.
We see it.
Now, the re-structuring back toward the pursuit of the ideal is the main task.
Looks like fun.
Viva the very first climate science renaissance.
John
gryposaurus,
“But asking for a single calculation that leads the summary to include a ‘very likely’ (90-99%) causality is, of course, just a diversion.”
Say what? Asking for the calculation for the 90% probability is a diversion?
But then you go on to say “There is no such thing, not is it possible to do in any complicated science where variables cannot be laboratory controlled.”
In other words, the figure was plucked from the air. Would that be to give a veneer of certainty to something that is inherently uncertain?
gryposaurus,
“—Ridiculous. Of course they don’t understand.—
So you think that a cold winter is relevant? And who doesn’t understand? The public? I wonder why.”
I assumed you were making the point that the public won’t be fooled by a cold winter if they understand radiative forcings. My response is they don’t, and they form opinions heuristically. So, I maintain that a few cold winters will cool their passion for AGW.
Real scientists have the intestinal fortitude to live with uncertainty. In my academic background, analytical chemistry, we attempt to be upfront about the uncertainty in whatever it is that we’re measuring. We have discussions about how we should define uncertainty, and how to directly and indirectly convey uncertainty to nonspecialists who read our articles. I even have a publication in the top journal in my field on that very topic. If anyone is interested, I’ll post a link.
Larry Fields says:
“Real scientists have the intestinal fortitude to live with uncertainty. In my academic background, analytical chemistry, we attempt to be upfront about the uncertainty in whatever it is that we’re measuring. We have discussions about how we should define uncertainty, and how to directly and indirectly convey uncertainty to nonspecialists who read our articles. I even have a publication in the top journal in my field on that very topic. If anyone is interested, I’ll post a link.”
I’d be interested in reading that. I do modelling as part of my job, and it is sometimes hard to explain to people that model results are not 100% certain.
Yup, I want things like data, whatever that is. But maybe here is a better explanation:
http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-09-29/news/white-america-has-lost-its-mind/5/
Bob Newhart said:
“Let me see Big Al in a Prius…it can even be bulletproof, I’m fine with that.”
Gonna need a lot of fossil fuel to move that extra weight.
—Say what? Asking for the calculation for the 90% probability is a diversion?—
Yes, it is a diversion because the IPCC doesn’t claim to have any such calculation. This was a statement that the experts (and others, see next paragraph) agreed on which would best show what the evidence suggests. And the I already listed some generalized areas that the evidence falls into.
—In other words, the figure was plucked from the air. Would that be to give a veneer of certainty to something that is inherently uncertain?—
These consensus opinions are generally done by many branches of science. Saying the figures are “plucked from the air” is not the reality. But in regards to the IPCC, the Summary for Policy makers is also approved by representatives of governments, not the IPCC board itself. This article may help you understand the way IPCC comes to its consensus.
————-
I apologize that I forgot to give credit the term “honest broker” from the source I got it from, Roger A. Pielke, Jr. Of course my use of the term does not imply it is his usage of the term.
John
…a few cold winters will cool their passion for AGW.
The recent cold winters plus ten years of basically flat temperatures are a big part of the problem the global warming advocates are having.
Ordinary folks are balking. Global warming hasn’t panned out the way they were told and now they aren’t going to be stampeded into the mammoth carbon tax and management schemes the global warming advocates demand.
Ordinary folks are now skeptics too.
True, the advocates can spin those facts in various ways as the global warming advocates do (weather vs climate, some number of the warmest years on record, decade-long lulls don’t violate the AGW models), but it won’t impress ordinary folks.
They know their weather, they know that the global warming advocates didn’t predict this lull, and, at least in the UK, the weather forecasts — no doubt influenced by the global warming models — were for warm winters, not cold ones.
Also many folks noticed the Orwellian shift from “global warming” to “climate change” and rightfully concluded that the advocates were pulling a bait-and-switch because maybe the science isn’t so settled after all.
I still think that labeling is a large part of the communication problem. The middle doesn’t hold, so the opposite ends are polarized.
I’m not complaining about name calling as being derogatory. I saying it limits your view of other people.
You can’t lump all people’s beliefs about ANYTHING together in nice packages. From what I’ve seen on these blogs, most skeptics are not anti-environment or anti-energy conservation, but honestly disagree with the science and conclusions reached by the IPCC et al. Most of those promoting the IPCC are not radicals pushing the 10-10 message, but are responsible people who believe the science is sound.
But instead of those that are able to discuss and debate, the conversation is dominated with more extreme positions. And unfortunately most of these are the least qualified to expound on science: actors, comedians and politicians.
gryposaurus: The 90% cited by the most recent IPCC report (it was 80% in previous reports) means 90% or “very likely.” It doesn’t mean “(90-99%) causality” as you claimed earlier.
Furthermore, the article you cite doesn’t explain how that percentage was obtained beyond a group of scientists who pooled their pluckings from the air, argued over them in some fashion and came to consensus. It’s not the same as a similar number presented in a medical drug trial study.
gryposaurus says:
October 4, 2010 at 5:51 am
“There is plenty enough work done of the last century on both observation, basic physics, and paleo-data to establish a highly probable risk of public danger for continuing to release heat trapping gases. ”
There is only one thing in the universe that can trap heat and that is a black hole. So please no more “heat trapping gases”.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34962513/Elsasser1942
As to your “work done of the last century on both observation, basic physics,” see above and quotes below.
Quote:”It maybe noted that since the flux in carbon dioxide band is equal at any level, to a difinite fraction of the black body radiation corresponding to the temperature of that level both upward and downward direction, the resultant flux of carbon dioxide readiation vanishes in th approximation chart.”
Quote:”…Arrhenius in connection with his well known suggestion that the ice ages might be due to a change in the radiative properties of the atmosphere caused by a change in its carbon dioxide content, an idea which has long since been abandoned as an untenable speculation.”
If you can demonstate Dr. Elsasser wrong please do so.
The panel defines “very likely,” “extremely likely,” and “virtually certain” as indicating probabilities greater than 90%, 95%, and 99%, respectively.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#cite_note-WG1-2007-AR4-0
Oops. My bad.
Djozar says:
October 4, 2010 at 10:39 am
“[…]From what I’ve seen on these blogs, most skeptics are anti-environment or anti-energy conservation, but honestly disagree with the science and conclusions reached by the IPCC et al. […]”
Djozar, there are frequent threads on WUWT that discuss the pros and cons of wind, solar, nuclear, fossil fuels conventional and unconventional. You will find proponents and opponents for each of these technologies on these threads and a level of technical detail that you find on no other blog i know of.
So i think you didn’t look hard.
Oh, and why do you find this level of technical detail here?
BECAUSE WE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO BUILD THIS STUFF.
Djozar says:
October 4, 2010 at 10:50 am
“Correction to my last post:
most skeptics are NOT anti-environment or anti-energy conservation, …”
Sorry – seen your correction too late… 😉
DirkH says:
Please see the correction above; fingers going faster than my mind.
I am a mechanical engineer, and yes I do read the blog.
“None of it is working right now. They literally cannot admit uncertainty, and they have lost the aura of invincibility”
============
I wish I could be so optimistic, Thomas. The global warming/climate change alarmism has always been mostly a media-driven (and therefore establishment-driven) issue. And I see no indication this is going to subside. Don’t be mislead by the fact that, on the scientific front, the cause for alarm has repeatedly been shown to be all holes and no basket. The overwhelming majority of the public lacks the time or the background (or both) to research the topic on their own, and must rely on what they hear in the daily news, which is nothing but a constant flow of alarmist propaganda. One might think that if something is clearly wrong with a scientific theory, the truth will eventually emerge. Maybe. But it can take a very very long time. The huge level of uncertainties and assumptions and vagueness that totally undermine the theory, also ensures that any aspect of it can be dragged into endless debate over increasingly minute levels of detail, which is wonderful to the extent it hides a view of the whole absurd picture, especially the extremely absurd notion that all the proposed measures would have any measurable effect on climate.
The objetc, from the point of view the establishment that generates and propagates the case for alarm, is simply to drive the case for alarm into people’s heads to a point sufficient for them to accept increasingly oppressive legislation to control and comercialize carbon. The scientific aspect, for the establishment, is just a side show they can keep confusing forever, if only because buyable scientists trying to make a living are a dime a dozen, and the exact nature of the relation between CO2 and climate allows endless room for quibbling. It also helps if you have control of the temperature sets.
But in the propaganda campaign, they have not only the control of the media, but also the enthusiastic participation (almost for free) of increasing numbers of “useful idiots” like the ones who produced the latest video. Once in a while their idiocy vastly overwhelms their usefulness, as happened in this instance, but in general they are very helpful.
Since skeptics have nearly zero influence over the media, the most effective means of fighting this nonsense is with good communicators who can see the whole forest, the whole picture of the scientific case for alarm, and produce with some regularity brief summaries of its general absurdity in a manner the general public can grasp. Extremely detailed discussions on narrow aspects of the whole picture, like the physics of radiation in the atmosphere and so on, are important for the scientific case, but do nothing against the extremely effective brain washing, the pre-packaged nonsense that the media keeps dropping on the public mind with such relentless regularity. Think about it. The reason these lunatics believed in the possible effectiveness of the blowup video, is that, in their minds, the impending catastrophe is beyond doubt and therefore beyond discussion. They probably feel the same as you would if, say, a big asteroid had been clearly identified on course to smash the earth in 4 years, and a group of sceptics kept saying we should not attempt to destroy it if we can. The fact that they feel this way is a tribute to the incredible effectiveness of the brain washing campaign.
So, no, I don’t see general perceptions changing radically any time soon. I hope I am wrong.
“What we have here is failure to obfuscate.”
Tannim111 says:
October 4, 2010 at 9:50 am
“I’d be interested in reading that. I do modelling as part of my job, and it is sometimes hard to explain to people that model results are not 100% certain.”
Part of the article is behind a paywall. Here’s a link to the first page.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac00298a079
Part of my M.S. thesis was a simplified example of an approach to data compression that used hybrid number systems. Eventually it dawned on me that I had precious little–beyond the Hackenbush Number System–to compare it with. Basically, the Anal. Chem. article is about a Brand X technique. However, there is some generic material about uncertainty included on that first page. Enjoy.
A mildly theological take on the ecomentality
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100056928/richard-curtis-and-the-ritual-slaughter-of-children-welcome-to-the-bloodlust-of-the-apocalyptic-imagination/
‘There’s nothing like the prospect of the ritual slaughter of children to excite prophecy believers, in my experience.’
Judith Curry has a blog post up at present on communicaton to the public by scientists. She has been mildly criticised by about half of the posters as many think scientists can only retain credibility by doing thier job i.e just doing the science. I suspect Judith still has not got past the view that scientists have a duty to advocate a particular viewpoint. I also suspect she underestimates the ability of the public to understand complex scientific issues.
One of the problems for those who wish to communicate science while advocating a political position is that there are many in the general public who eventually become curious. Curosity leads to investigation. The more “science cloaked advocacy” that is communicated to the public the more in-depth the eventual scrutiny by members of the public who by chance also do rather a lot of science. The actual level of scientfic uncertainty is gradually revealed and public confidence in the science diminishes towards the appropriate level.
Then the advocates begin to wonder why the message is not convincing the great unwashed masses. The problem for the advocates is now much greater because the public has been alerted and it will be much harder to convince them a second time. Most propaganda has a use-by date. Renewed efforts at “communication” of advocacy cloaked under a scientific veneer run up against the law of diminishing returns. This is where the debate is trending, potentially from both sides of the argument, i.e. towards a stalemate. Just now that would be a welcome position.