Dr. Judith Curry writes about the UCAR meeting she attended:
Some insight into the dynamics that resulted in a substantial change in emphasis in climate research is provided by a meeting that I attended earlier this week in Boulder: the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) Annual Members Meeting. An overview of UCAR is provided at Wikipedia
…
The nutshell of Crow’s presentation is this:
A + B = C
- A: scientific and disciplinary knowledge
- B: impacts of A, communication of A and impacts, and translation A for policy makers
- C: policy
Crow argued that the emphasis needs to be on B, which requires an entirely new structure for universities.
…
Whereas I had suffered silently through all this, after the panel discussion, I had to make a statement. Here is my general recollection of what I said:
A plus B most emphatically does NOT equal C. A+B=C represents the linear, “truth to power” model of decision making that has been known for decades NOT to work for complex environmental problems.
Decision making associated with the issues of climate and global change can be characterized as decision making under deep uncertainty. The deep uncertainty is associated with our reliance on projections from climate models, which are loaded with uncertainties and do not adequately treat natural climate variability. Further substantial areas of ignorance remain in our basic understanding of some of the relevant phyiscal, chemical and dynamical processes.
If we as scientists are not humble about the uncertainties and areas of ignorance, we have an enormous capacity to mislead decision makers and point them in the direction of poor policies. Uncertainty is essential information for decision makers.
Climate scientists have this very naive understanding of the policy process, which is aptly described by the A+B=C model in the context of the precautionary principle. This naive understanding is reflected in the palpable frustration of many climate scientists at the failure of the “truth” as they “know” it to influence global and national energy and climate policy. This frustration has degenerated into using to word “denier” to refer to anyone who disagrees with them on either the science or the policy solution.
The path that we seem to be on, whereby the science is settled and all we need is better communication and translation of the science to policy makers, not only has the potential to seriously mislead decision makers, but also to destroy atmospheric and climate science in the process.
There was applause. Not a standing ovation, but applause from a substantial segment of the 200+ audience.
There were several other interesting comments in the discussion. One person brought up the point that the U.S. land grant universities had a long tradition of working with decision makers in the context of agricultural extension, etc. Another person put up a new equation, something like this:
C = A + B + X(AB)**n + f(C)
which, to the extent an equation like this is useful, much better reflects the actual decision making process than A+B=C.
At the break, close to 20 people came up to me to thank me for what I said, “somebody had to say it,” and few others who liked what I said but seemed to be hearing this kind of an idea for the first time (I of course steered them to judithcurry.com)
More here h/t to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
Joe Romm – Telling Richard Betts – UK Met Office Hadley Centre- Head Of Impacts & IPCC lead author) where Richard is wrong 😉 !!
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/01/12/205331/sciencerichard-betts-andy-revkin-dramatic-decline-in-arctic-sea-ice-in-2007-was-not-reversed-in-2008-2009-recovery/
No wonder most scientists have kept their heads down, in the USA..
And Richard Betts saying sensible things post climategate/copenhagen:
BBC – Science must end the confusion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8451756.stm
“It’s easy to blame the media and I don’t intend to make generalisations here, but I have quite literally had journalists phone me up during an unusually warm spell of weather and ask “is this a result of global warming?”
When I say “no, not really, it is just weather”, they’ve thanked me very much and then phoned somebody else, and kept trying until they got someone to say yes it was.”
———–
The somebodyelse scientits have been getting all the media/lobbyist/political attention.
————
Another interesting extract – Richard Betts – BBC article
“Climate “sceptics” accuse climate scientists of exaggerating the evidence for human-caused climate change in order to secure their own funding; but actually I think that any vested interests in talking up the problem lie elsewhere.
Individual natural disasters are not evidence of climate change
The focus on climate change is now so huge that everybody seems to need to have some link to climate change if they are to attract attention and funding.
Hence the increasing tendency to link everything to climate change – whether scientifically proven or not. ”
——————–
Someone refer that statement to Al Gore please, and a few other US scientists..
Remember – Richard Betts is an IPCC lead author – and Head of Climate Impacts (includes NATURAL) at the UK Met Office Hadley Centre.
The question is: do climate scientists do enough to counter this? Or are we guilty of turning a blind eye to these things because we think they are on “our side” against the climate sceptics?
—————-
So please would some ( afew commentators) stop saying that it’s all a hoax and climate scientists are all part of it, etc,etc.
“A + B = C
■A: scientific and disciplinary knowledge
■B: impacts of A, communication of A and impacts, and translation A for policy makers
■C: policy”
I really like that. Will try to use something like that the next time I need to do a presentation. Wonder whether somebody notices I’m talking rubbish. My audience are usually engineers and programmers, so it’ll be a tough sell.
When I hear climate scientist say that they need to “improve how they communicate the science to the public”, I assume that they intend to: (1) further exaggerate claims of catastrophe (2) further hide the uncertainty and (3) more aggressively stifle dissenting voices. I suppose its unfair for me to jump to this conclusion; but there is a lot of evidence that this is exactly what they mean. The fact that Michael Mann is taking a sabbatical to work on this “communication” project only strengthen my view that we can expect ‘hide the decline’ to be a central tenant of this new communications strategy. The thinking goes: since the public dismissed claims that there will be 50 million climate refugees by 2010, we now should say that there will be *100 million* climate refugees by 2020!! — surely that should get someone’s attention.
How pathetically misguided.
What the climate scientists seem to miss is that the general public is a lot smarter and better informed than the climate scientist recognize. People aren’t stupid just because they don’t have a PhD. A 1960’s style, Saul Alinsky communications strategy simply doesn’t work in the internet age. Instead, scientists need to be more open and transparent and drop all this gibberish about the science being settled. If climate scientists want to regain credibility (and it might be too late), they might start by reading the cluetrain manifesto http://www.cluetrain.com/book/95-theses.html – and try applying those ideas to their world.
The fact that much money has been wasted on AGW solutions of little or no value may be the minor issue. The fact that the wasted money can not be used to help with minimizing the potential minimum which in the past have caused significant loss of human life. The current lack of sunspots indicates that the possibility of a new minimum is now more likely.
Here is another equation with almost universal utility-
N = R*f(p)*n(e)*f(l)*f(i)*f(c)*L
where
N= number of climate predictions that turn out to be ‘correct’
R= annual rate of creation of specific climate predictions
f(p) = fraction of climate predictions that are not catastrophic
n(e) = number of standard deviations allowed for each non-catastrophic prediction
f(l) = fraction of climate predictions that assume negative cloud feedback
f(i) = fraction of climate predictions that incorporate natural climate cycles
f(c) = fraction of climate predictions that are not included in any IPCC report
L = inverse of how far in the future the prediction applies, in years^-1
One big problem is: Governments and politicians firmly believe scientists can provide them with answers to their questions.
A much BIGGER problem arises when scientists believe they CAN provide those answers.
I must seriously ask:
Why would UCAR (as described) be involved in policy except in the most abstract and general way?
Rule #1 is to keep the scientists and engineers AWAY from policy! Isn’t it??
A + B = C looks like it is coming from a Dilbert powerpoint, made by the boss with pointed hair.
Yaaayyy, Judith! God bless you.
Apparently extremely common mistake among educated people: the word is ‘TENET’: “A principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy.”, not ‘TENANT’: “A person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.”
RobWansbeck wrote (October 8, 2011 at 1:39 pm):
”
A + B = C
Let A = 0
Then B = C
Hence policy can be determined entirely by ‘experts’ opinion without the need for any scientific knowledge at all.
Would I be cynical if I thought that this was the ultimate aim?
Why let facts get in the way of making the ‘right’ decision?
“
My main irritation with Dr. Curry has been her use of the term “uncertainty” where the term “ignorance” applies; however, take a look at her best blog article to date:
Can we make good decisions under ignorance?
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/22/can-we-make-good-decisions-under-ignorance/
Perhaps “uncertainty” is a collegially diplomatic euphemism for ignorance.
Brava!!
Quoting J. Curry: “…There was applause. Not a standing ovation, but applause from a substantial segment of the 200+ audience….”
Nonetheless, Vavilov would have been proud of you!
pokerguy says: “Curry for President.”
We could do worse, lots worse. Heck, have done lots worse! I like the idea!
Anthony says: …George Monbiot summed up the communications failure pretty well back in May…
Brilliant use of Monbiot’s input. Kudos to both of you.
RobWansbeck says: A + B = C Let A = 0 Then B = C
Good point. Properly done, the “equation” is A * B = C A does = 0 Thus C = 0.
The “equation,” of course, is sophomoric twaddle, similar to the infamous Drake equation, only worse.
I read this quote recently ,” The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance-it is the illusion of knowledge ” anybody know who made this quote ? …..peace
Unfortunately the CAGW out put is just the beginning of the fraud and waste
In the next even more expensive phase we have formulated an energy policy based on CAGW that seriously constrains the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels under the misguided (or intentially deceptive) energy policy that blatently deludes the public into believing that we can run our economy, our cars, and heat our homes with clean green renewable energy that will be abundant and affordable. Just look at the response of our leader to the gentlemen that discovered how to produce significant amount of energy from the Bakken oil fields
I felt that science was the last bastion of objective thought in the universities. What UCAR has done is a travesty.
“A + B = C
A: scientific and disciplinary knowledge
B: impacts of A, communication of A and impacts, and translation A for policy makers
C: policy”
I have no argument with Dr. Curry’s statement and I take my hat off to her for her statement at the meeting. However, she overlooks climate science’s real problem and, in doing so, is far too kind to climate science. The problem with climate science is that there is no A, except for the work of people like Pielke and and Spencer. Climate science is in its infancy. As soon as it comes up with some new, reasonably well-confirmed physical hypotheses then it will have moved into the arena of science. Then the childish computer models will be dropped like last year’s popular toys.
So, everyone, please note that the fundamental criticism of climate science applies to the linear thinking. You do not have to go elsewhere to find the problems. But the problems that Dr. Curry identifies are real problems too; however, they will not need addressing until there is a genuine climate science.
Thank you. Someone also needed to say this.
A + B = C
A: scientific and disciplinary knowledge
B: impacts of A, communication of A and impacts, and translation A for policy makers
C: policy
Crow argued that the emphasis needs to be on B, which requires an entirely new structure for universities.
Somebody help me here –
it this “post normal math”?
Looks like it was Daniel Boorstin.
If stratospheric bubbles should fall to the earth, could not their shells be described as rainbows?
http://homepages.woosh.co.nz/zanzibar/Bubbles.html
@Gary Young Pearse October 8, 2011 at 1:04 pm:
Gary, your list is a a really good one, and your point about CAGW NOT being the approximate mean of what might happen – that is right on.
I would point out one additional thing they do (which may or may not have been included in your list under “cooking the data”): All their adjustments are to the positive side of warming, which just can’t possibly be the case, not in a real world. So, in that vein, they seem to want to use CAGW as the mean in some cases, but when it comes to adjusting met station temps, they want to use raw data as the met stations’ minimums. (“minima” I believe is not quite correct here, as it normally applies in math to a horizontal slope after a downward curve – but please, everyone don’t get off on grammar here…)
My point here is that they can’t have it both ways – minimums when it serves their message and means when THAT serves their purpose. The hypocrisy and self-serving-ness is just too blatant.
@JohnWho October 8, 2011 at 3:59 pm:
What it really is is the simple-minded ones wanting to pretend that the world can be reduced to simple 3-term formulas. Evidently Einstein gave them the impression that E=mc^2 meant that the world is a Forrest Gump place, where even when you are wrong, events turn out in your favor, and the world is all hunky-dory.
All I’ve seen is that scientists seem to want to pretend that using fudge factors is kosher, instead of devoting the necessary decades to working out what are the complex interrelationships in complex systems. They are too impatient to wait that long, so they bodge it all together in a simplistic form.
That would be FINE, if all they were doing with it was using it as a temporary stepping stone to greater understanding, while letting everyone know that it is only the best they can do for now. But certainly not to push ultra-expensive governmental policies based on what they KNOW is only a stop-gap understanding.
Where we are now (in many sciences): Some undefined point along the continuum from total ignorance at one end and total knowledge at the other end. With most sciences being only 100-300 years along that continuum, it follows that we are much closer to the ignorant end than the total knowledge end. (…and that their models don’t even properly portray the state of the science as it stands…)
It would simply be nice if they would acknowledge where we are, if their egos could allow them to take such a step. Pretending (for the sake of grant moneys and momentary political pull) that they know things they don’t – what a crock of bull. They should be spending their time determining the real formulas that are now just fudge factors in their models.
They do the world a disservice (a truly monumental disservice) by pretending to have an overall knowledge they know they do not possess. They need to know – as Dr Curry states – that this can only turn out badly for their science.
That they keep on with the subterfuge can only be seen as a form of insanity. They have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and they are thinking that they can buffalo their way out of it by spinning a new PR campaign. What genuinely pompous asses they must be to think the world is that stupid.
If people in the top office who accepted the science can’t accept that it is now wrong, what hope is there for science? Who are they trying to protect, themselves, ‘the science’, or both? It seems to be both, which is misguided. Blame the scientists, enough of this protectionism. When you stuff up, you deserve to be fired. Why are scientists covered in bubble wrap? When the apple fell on Newton’s head, he didn’t go and invent some new type of helmet. The time has come for the scientists to feel the pain once more, accept this time it will be monetary pain. Taking away the money is the most effective way to rid science of fraudsters and merchants of fear.
People spend their whole lives trying to influence others, by moving up the bureaucratic ladder. And here lies the danger. The top priority in such a culture is survival, therefore science is used and abused. It’s understandable for politics and government to have such a culture so we need to cut some slack for the politicians, but what about the academic institutions?
People always claim it’s the politicians who are the problem, on the contrary, it’s the academics. The academics have the worst culture of all, and they can ‘do what they like’, which is fine, but they can do it without the hard working tax payers’ money….
In life the ultimate goal for many is to do something you enjoy which also pays well. As you can imagine it’s a very wide spectrum of self fulfilling prophecy. Taking away the money takes away the ‘meaning’ and ‘importance’, and the ‘expert opinion’.
And then you are left with the science
Dr. Curry is now at the very least apostate, probably now Heretic!
Welcome to the deniers Judith.
The problem comes in A + B = C when B is used to ‘sell’ A rather than just communicate it. That is when uncertainty is not mentioned only certainties that are claimed and exaggerated especially if they result in a C that is profitable to the generators of A and B. Once ‘success’ of a profitable C is achieved then A must be ‘settled’ or C is hazarded. And to ensure that remains the case B becomes far more strident to ensure that nobody raises any uncertainty on A.
This is precisely what we are seeing. B and C are being treated as the most important – don’t even look at A it is settled.