Here’s a quote related to the McShane and Wyner discussion brought to light thanks to Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann at RealClimate that I happen to agree with. Yes I know, that’s a shock to some. This quote is from L. Mark Berliner in discussion here (PDF) and speaks powerfully to the whole of climate science:
The problem of anthropogenic climate change cannot be settled by a purely statistical argument. We can have no controlled experiment with a series of exchangeable Earths randomly assigned to various forcing levels to enable traditional statistical studies of causation. (The use of large-scale climate system models can be viewed as a surrogate, though we need to better assess this.) Rather, the issue involves the combination of statistical analyses and, rather than versus, climate science.
That’s a keeper.
PhilinCalifornia says:
December 15, 2010 at 1:42 pm
“and while distracted, they’ve let in the ugly face of capitalism and allowed vast swaths of previously beautiful land to be ravaged by industrial pollution on a massive scale:”
That has nothing to do with capitalism. It is the result of the Renewables Obligation levy, which not only means that electricity customers are paying more than £1 billion a year to subsidise wind farms and other forms of renewable energy, but also,
the government subsidies did not even require that they be put up where the wind actually blows.
Not only that, taxpayers are on the hook to pay energy firms “thousands of pounds a day per wind farm to turn off their turbines because the National Grid cannot use the power they are producing.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/7840035/Firms-paid-to-shut-down-wind-farms-when-the-wind-is-blowing.html
Smokey and Zeke, I was being a little sarcastic there with the “capital” being provided by the taxpayer. Yes, I could’ve said “fake-socialism”.
One thing for sure is that the guys who are creaming off the wind turbine profits will have everyone convinced that they’re “lefties” at cocktail parties.
….. also, I’ll wait for Lord Monckton’s paper on the cost-benefit ratio of taxpayer dollars in to wind turbine-derived ppm CO2 out in, for example, the UK before commenting further, but we all know how it’s going to look.
Which is the worst pollution of those huge swaths of previously beautiful countryside – the sh*t that is the wind turbines, or that extra fraction of a ppm of CO2 coursing harmlessly through the atmosphere over it ?
I think we’re on the same page.
Anthony, I’m not sure why you like the quote so much. I’ve read it three times and gotten four different meanings from it.
Read one way, the quote seems to be an attack on statistics and statisticians. Read another way, it seems to be an attack on climate science and scientists. Read another way, it reminds me of Rodney King “Can’t climate science and statisticians just get along!” And in all three readings, he seems drunk and the words are a semi-literate plea for help.
I will try reading the quote in context to see if that helps.
Ooooops, sorry – yes I do know they use pounds in the UK, not dollars. Just a slip.
thegoodlocust says:
December 15, 2010 at 12:52 am
JamesS says [no, that was me, JPeden]:
“Yes, since when does the Scientific Method need a bunch of indentical Earths?”
Ever since the scientific method started using experiments – in other words, since its inception.
Sure, there are other experiments one can do, but they are grossly inadequate for something as vast, chaotic and poorly understood as the climate.
locust, all you are doing is rebegging the original question, which unfortuneately leaves you once again with the a priori postulate that it is impossible to do any real, Scientific Method, science with reference to the Climate. So that, according to you, there is and can be no such thing as actual Climate Science! Ever!
I, and JamesS, think you are manifestly wrong about the impossibility of using the Scientific Method to understand the Climate, and, likewise, about the necessity for anyone alleging to be a Climate Scientist to use the principles of the Scientific Method in order to make their statements have an objective meaning. I don’t think Climate Science statements can make any sense at all – or say anything more than “whatever happens, happens” – without any reference to the use of the Scientific Method to try to make its statements, including the predictions, objective and its hypotheses, therefore, falsifiable – that is, tied to the real world of physical principles, events, and data, of which there are and will continue to be plenty as the Earth, enc., goes about its own way in actually giving us a perpetual experiment to work with in order to try to understand it.
But since you apparently think Climate Science statements cannot be made in any meaningful way [scientifically] objective, then you are actually helping to make my claim about the actual nature of Climate Science as demonstrated by its m.o. so far, that it has nothing to do with real science, because its really only a classical Propaganda Operation!
I agree with James Sexton, Cal and P. Sola. Climate science is intrinsically and inevitably statistics. Most of the fundamental science is known and relatively simple. The problem is integrating it in such a complex system over space and time.
The quote is nonsense.
JPeden says:
December 15, 2010 at 7:01 pm
“locust, all you are doing is rebegging the original question, which unfortuneately leaves you once again with the a priori postulate that it is impossible to do any real, Scientific Method, science with reference to the Climate. So that, according to you, there is and can be no such thing as actual Climate Science! Ever!”
That is essentially correct, but I wouldn’t want to let my lack of imagination hard code the statement. If we ever create quantum computers that can completely replicate our solar system in a digital simulation then that may be one method of there being real “climate science.”
As it stands now it is simply statistical masturbation – fun to play around with, but not to watch.
A HUGE SHOUT OUT TO ALL!
Hey case in point folks this certainly isn’t all about me when I say look again to what’s happening in this blog. After a few entries after I had made mine what happened? Hasn’t it basically gone back to technical deciphering or to scientists and whether we trust them or their experientmental process. And again: what then???? In other words, And? So Mr. TomRude, buddy you chill on a glass of wine. I think after you become informed you’ll need the glass, until then watch some recent Ted Turner videos. What does he need a glass all also. Do you communicate with a lot of uncomprised experts and have shown the same (on a global scale) efforts to help the environment. I certainly am not someone who jumps on some celebrity bandwagon. There is no gain for Mr. Turner to give almost all of his wealth away, it has left him in a position where he cannot count on his weath anymore. This is where his urgency lies. Mr. PhilinCalfornia, if ONE letter: phytoplankton instead of photoplankton (my apologies?) is worth mentioning, you don’t deserve to be on this active, progressive site. Acidification of the ocean (one big body of water) is not all it’s cracked up to be? Define that for me. Give me some concrete numbers. There are barren places in the ocean, an aqueous world of the “Old West”. What there aren’t? What about the tour all the kids must experience. Adult issues have gone to far!!! The tour isn’t a pretty ride through some amusement park, lets save those days for the ideal time until then don’t be fooled. Even still how about we minus all those animals held in reproductive captivity. Here’s the tour Mr. Philin: On a good size boat, open-faced, we NEED them to see it all. Around the corner and to those big metal pipes. Wide they are and out comes no not flowers…. but our muck! Yes we do poo and we use things. And while with the more current water systems SOME is reused, but not so fast, tons upon tons are dumped into the ocean. Again I can’t implore more, stay on track. So the ocean isn’t acidic enough for you? Well now the phytoplankton is still dying. What it’s not? Asphyxiation? Save that word (again the all or nothing) for hands around the throat, malady of the body or high altitudes. How about…will add TREMENDOUSLY to the already existing problems with the air. Let’s not forget of the three: water, air and land, water is the most important go figure aren’t we terrestrial beings? In comparison to air and water, you could kick land right off the planet. Surely! So, where else is the oxygen coming from. Where? Can you dispute my particulars? Step by step now Sir: 8-10% trees (disprove that), 2-3% from bacteria (and again), nothing from outerspace or someone needs to call NASA. So what produces the rest? Do you have some machine we don’t know about, if so hand it over, people want their children to live. Nonconvertible, breath in, breath out. And sir if you come across some scientist who tells you that oxygen can be removed from the moondust, I want you both to go up there and hang out a while….might sort both of you out. Oh and wear a helmut, please! Having written all this, I must say I have not lost faith in you….you mentioned the iceage. A mini-one not the Huronian kind, understood. Did I say one shouldn’t worry about this? Are kidding me, big in my thoughts. Excelerated natural disaster… a mini-iceage if following suit will be in 400 years, part of the Western Hemisphere’s experience. You betcha!!! And one that could come within 200 years, why not?! Oh the flecks of diamonds on the ruff. Nothing to shine later for lots of cash. The flecks of diamonds?..permafrost. Nominal, the cold winters getting colder. The summers, now we’re talking. Won’t be hot enough to melt the cold ground and therefore permafrost and nothing will grow, forget about the ice that will build around highrise building that have not been infrastrutured for this type of pressure!!!! Some have been infractured in a manner that sturdies them against earthquakes and high winds and would stand to reason then could possibly be able to stand the test of tons of ice building around it but very few…. NO Raised beds, greenhouses, canned food….will last long enough. And then major mass exodus’ to the South. Wow, they with their fragile economic env. and proverty and natural disasters, what are they going to say, “Come on over, we got lots”. Iceage sir, we’re on the same page. This is more a generational issue having said that look at your child, have no doubt while your child won’t see this disaster ( I say disaster now… at one time when the logistics were possible, people like the Mayans, deeked their drought-ridden environment, they assimilated into other societies, too many of us, not at all possible.), one of your great grandchildren will without a doubt have the Southern border doors slammed in their faces. Of course, could you expect anymore? Kim, rock’n’roll stick around there’s more… Mr. thegoodlocust, while I’m with you all the way, I have absolutely NO misconceptions. Because the science doesn’t add up? Consider, isn’t most dialogue conjecture, scientist to layperson. What is conjecture? A proposition unproven. How often do scientist use the word “suggests” rather that “proven”, ‘coure if you’re real lucky you’ll hear “Strongly suggests”. And when “proven” hasn’t it often be disproven. My point: What do scientists really know that we don’t? What? Come on now, for the love of a good brain and some snazzy eyeballs. If those eyeballs aren’t in good working order, bless your heart, life would not be so grand without admiring a beautiful sunset, but just smell the air. Even most roses have lost some of their scent (broccolli tastes bad and roses don’t smell as good, they want to! he- he-he. Look at lawn activity, oh that’s right, there is none. What happened to the one frog on the lilypad. Sure you’ll once in a while see a frog or a lilypad but together? Call me a sap but… why not? If someone only 20 years ago were to say to you, “Hey you see that frog on that lilypad, have a good look, look really hard, soak it up, nature’s beautiful signature will never be part of your common experience near the “waters” again.” Would you have believed them? Jump back and forth between then and now. When I pray to the universe, I don’t say Amen, I say from the child who loves your tadpoles. We know what we need to do… the rest is a bunch of numbers and scientists who need jobs. (And I know some numbers, that’s why I’m writing this because at some point, it became: SELF-EVIDENT) What do we need to do… DOWNSIZE. No assimilation with so many people, too much disconnect and controlling powers to guarantee any smooth transition of technology. If an alarmist is someone who is concerned and feels the urgency yee-hah! I’m an alarmist other than that, read about the Jews. After 100,00o had been deported, they stayed. After the first 400,000 in the camps, the rest stayed. Now there was no chance of leaving. The next 400,000, they just sat and stayed…they didn’t have a choice. Cheers.
ME AGAIN: Correction “… part of th Northern Hemisphere’s experience”, not Western.
Okay, I read the paper and got the context. What Berliner writes in the same paragraph just before the quote is this:
“Second, even if we accept the “no-hockey” conclusion, is it critical to the climate
policy debate? I believe not, though I acknowledge that some policy makers and a
portion of the general public do not understand the issues.”
Here’s what he’s saying: “Okay suppose Mc&S are right, it is not the end of global warming theory. Statisticians shouldn’t be trying to refute the science anyway. Statisticians should be working WITH climate scientists to get the science right. That’s what I would do.”
Evidently, it pains him to admit Mc&S are right and Mann, Schmidt et al are wrong. But he doesn’t want to be thought of as a bad guy! It seems like a very understated plea for business. Hey guys, let me look your papers over before you submit them. I can save you some embarrassment.
Might not be a bad idea at that.
thegoodlocust says:
December 16, 2010 at 12:38 am
JPeden says:
December 15, 2010 at 7:01 pm
“locust, all you are doing is rebegging the original question, which unfortuneately leaves you once again with the a priori postulate that it is impossible to do any real, Scientific Method, science with reference to the Climate. So that, according to you, there is and can be no such thing as actual Climate Science! Ever!”
That is essentially correct, but I wouldn’t want to let my lack of imagination hard code the statement. If we ever create quantum computers that can completely replicate our solar system in a digital simulation then that may be one method of there being real “climate science.”
locust, as I’ve already said, I disagree. I’m pretty sure that if “we ever create quantum computers that can completely replicate our solar system in a digital simulation” we will have to have already known all there is to know about our solar system, including Earth’s climate, to begin with. And it is only by using the Scientific Method that we can currently/ever? come to know what we would need to know.
How would you ever know how to “completely replicate our solar system in a digital simulation” without using the Scientific Method? What else is there?
JPeden says:
December 16, 2010 at 5:11 pm
“How would you ever know how to “completely replicate our solar system in a digital simulation” without using the Scientific Method? What else is there?”
The point that I’ve been trying to drive home is that climate science, by and large, doesn’t use the scientific method. Experimentation is a key component of the scientific method and it is a rare oddity in the field.
Put more simply:
observation + statistics != science
If you are still determined to disagree then look up the scientific method and then tell me the top 10 experiments in the field of climate science that were conceived and carried out by climate scientists.
Not even quantum computers can be expected to replicate the solar system without a huge amount of input information, and either a perfect (excellent, at least) AI architecture or a very sophisticated set of rules representing our best-guess-generalities, AKA ‘natual laws’. And even then outside influences (galactic and beyond) might well interfere, requiring a replication of the cosmos.
The Scientific Method is following the data, as Feynmann said, and giving it authority to cancel theories. Data quality? The best of whatever’s available, however obtained.
Brian H says:
December 18, 2010 at 11:34 pm
“Not even quantum computers can be expected to replicate the solar system without a huge amount of input information”
True, and I had considered that, but any solution I could think of was too fanciful to be taken seriously.
“And even then outside influences (galactic and beyond) might well interfere, requiring a replication of the cosmos.”
I qualified my statement about such simulations with a “may” precisely due to that point.
That being said, it is my feeling that a wholesale replication of the cosmos would be both unnecessary and impractical. I would imagine that the input from the galaxy into our solar system would be relatively uniform (from our temporal perspective) due to the immense size of the surrounding “architecture” – the biggest variances occurring due to interactions between the sun (e.g. heliosphere, magnetosphere) and the interstellar medium.
In other words, such outside variables would only really change in effectiveness due to the quicker cycles found within the solar system itself, which means that such a solar simulation would only need to track the relatively constant input of energies.
Of course, I lack any real education in astronomy and so my thoughts on this may be completely wrong.
Trying to blame statisticians for not offering their help is a howler! Professional statisticians, programmers, systems analysts and designers, modelers, hydrologists, forecasters, physicists, and any others who might have interfered with the DIY TinkerToy model fun the CRU etc. were having were carefully and vigorously excluded and rebuffed, and continue to be so.