Guest post by Indur M. Goklany
Over at the Wall Street Journal a group of pedigreed individuals headed by Dr. Kevin Trenberth argue:
Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.
Wrong answer!!
If you need surgery you DON’T want “a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.” What you want is “a highly experienced expert in the field who has CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT HIS OR HER OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL!”
And if before I go to a dentist, I would like evidence that the dentist does not pull the wrong teeth (even on occasion).
Unfortunately, there is no convincing evidence that climate models can successfully predict future climate — and I mean “climate” not just “temperature.” [The latter is just one aspect of the climate and for many impacts it may not even be the most relevant.]
Climate models, which are the source of the apocalyptic vision of global warming, have not been validated using data that were not used in their development. Even the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) and the IPCC acknowledge as much. Specifically, the IPCC does not say that “all” features of current climate or past climate changes can be reproduced, as a reliable model of climate change ought to be able to do endogenously. In fact, it notes:
“… models still show significant errors. Although these are generally greater at smaller scales, important large scale problems also remain. For example, deficiencies remain in the simulation of tropical precipitation, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and the Madden-Julian Oscillation (an observed variation in tropical winds and rainfall with a time scale of 30 to 90 days).” (AR4WG1, p. 601).
And the CCSP has this to say in its 2008 publication, Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research:
“Climate model simulation of precipitation has improved over time but is still problematic. Correlation between models and observations is 50 to 60% for seasonal means on scales of a few hundred kilometers.” (CCSP 2008:3).
“In summary, modern AOGCMs generally simulate continental and larger-scale mean surface temperature and precipitation with considerable accuracy, but the models often are not reliable for smaller regions, particularly for precipitation.” (CCSP 2008: 52).
So before one pulls society’s economic teeth, validate the models or else you could end up pulling society’s economic teeth in error.
In the medical profession this would be known as “evidence-based medicine.” Exactly the same principle should apply to climate change remedies. We should insist on nothing less.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Trenberth does raise a good point actually. Specialisation within a scientific field leads to a level of unearned trust. The scientific method is supposed to ensure that standards are adhered to which guarantee that published works are of a quality and rigour which is trustworthy. This is why so many scietific bodies support the AGW and cAGW scenarios without independently checking the science for themselves. They trust in the scientific method and naturally defer to the specialists of the field. This is how Mann, Trenberth et al get away with the whole cAGW scare without strict adherence to the scientific method.
As the text of this article posits, one would not blindly trust a person claiming to be a heart specialist, one would want a heart specialist with a good record of success.
This is why, when I want to learn about the climate and the climate change scare, I listen to those who specialise in climatology AND who have a proven record of accuracy, sticking to the scientific method and who base their findings on actual empirical evidence, and not just invalidated computer models.
Given a choice, would you have heart surgery by someone who has spent 30 years research in the field, and bases his technique on a computer model of the heart, but who has never performed a successful surgery? Or would you choose the surgeon who has performed hundreds of operations with a 90% success rate?
Climate scientist = amateur surgeon
pat says:
January 31, 2012 at 10:53 pm
these are Australians’ retirement funds! and Aussies need to contact their Funds and object in the strongest manner possible:
1 Feb: Ninemsn: AAP: Super funds push for sustainability [ … ]
====================
My instructions to my superannuation fund is that I do not want any exposure to ‘renewable energy resource’ stocks … the investment managers have lost enough of my retirement funds already!
I feel sorry for the Victoria State public employees in the VicSuper fund … ah! hang on, they probably have guaranteed growth subsidised by the taxpayer in that State. I feel sorry for the State of Victoria’s taxpayers>
I can’t account for the lack of warming and it’s a travesty. Now trust me as I am the authority.
@RobertL says:
January 31, 2012 at 9:37 pm
Interestingly, I just read of a link between oral hygiene and heart disease today. It stated that poor oral hygiene can lead to chronic, low-grade bacterial infection of the heart – which is not good for it.
So – yes – you could go to the dentist for your heart condition!
————————————————————————————————————————–
While I was in hospital a few years ago in the bed next to me was a 30 soemthing that had just had major heart surgury to save his life and the reason he had heart problems was because he was a drug addict for years and this had rotted his teeth and the bacteria had travelled down his circulation to his heart.
So our beloved Trenberth has gone from “Scientist” to “Senior Scientist”, now on to “Distinguished Senior Scientist”. He even talks about himself in the third person in a letter he has himself signed. I think his delusions of grandeur are rather getting out of control. Perhaps he was miffed that he was not invited onto the NEW AGE ARK heading for the South Pole with the beloved leader and the Archangel Branson, he could have stood at Lord Gores left hand with the apostle Hansen. Yeah verily I say unto you, the 97% shall ascend unto the kingdom of Gore and ye doubters shall burn in the hellfire of Arizona…or Florida if you can afford the real estate.
My father, who was a retired surgeon, would sometimes mutter this grim, surgeon’s joke while watching the news on T.V:
“The operation was a success, however the patient died.”
Climate Scientists don’t get the joke.
@Lew Skannen says:
“No one here (other than the odd heart surgeon) would presume to tell a heart surgeon how to do his job….”
Umm.. I might go to a heart surgeon if I thought I had a problem with my heart. I would expect him to listen to my symptoms, then decide what he thought was wrong with me, and EXPLAIN that to me in words I could understand. And if I agreed with him, then I might go forward for an operation. After all, it’s MY body.
If I went to him and he told me that my problem was because of a hitherto minor and insubstantial issue like a stubbed toe, and was unwilling to explain precisely how this toe could cause my heart problem, preferring to say things like ‘that medical connection is settled’, I would be rather suspicious. And if he then proposed taking my heart out (which I depend upon to power a lot of the processes in me, and replacing it with a lot of chicken’s hearts spread all over my body, because they were ‘greener and more sustainable’, I would be out of there sharpish!
That seems to be a better analogy to what the climate scientists are doing to our society at the moment….
According to the CCSP, above, climate models are accurate with temperature.
No they are not. Models predict rising temperature with rising atmospheric CO2 but the truth is that currently temperatures are falling with rising CO2 levels.
Most other well established disciplines have a professional body that provides accreditation.
What single body accredits someone as a “Climate Scientist”?
It *looks* largely like a synthesis of other disciplines which have a longer track record and more stringent requirements for membership. Nothing wrong with that of course, every discipline has to start somewhere.
But it’s surely an important fact to consider that when a “Climate Scientist” discusses statistical matters, he’s standing on the shoulders of, say, research done by members of the ASA, and that if a “Climate Scientist” is criticised for misapplication of a technique in a field where they are by necessity a relative dilettante, they should STFU and listen.
The medical analogy is totally inappropriate. An ethical doctor will practice according to the principle of “first do no harm”. That means, in many situations, that an ethical physician will not prescribe any treatment but rather observe the patient and see what happens. Iatrogenic medical conditions are a significant risk and the art of medicine is to know where one simply uses reassurance in treating a patient or where one actively intervenes. The adherents of CAGW are using the appeal to authority to push an agenda which causes significant economic harm.
An interesting discussion I had with a number of colleagues was on the subject of “what is the evidence for evidence based medicine”? The consensus was that “evidence based medicine”, at least in the context that the socialized medical system of Canada presents it, totally ignores individual physiologic variability and denigrates clinical experience. The mass media message of “avoid salt”, when followed by individuals who have a genetic requirement for a higher salt intake than average results in iatrogenic hypotension and physician visits where the primary treatment is to increase salt intake. I agree with those individuals who propose that the current CAGW recommendations are the equivalent of a physician having experience only with computer simulations of patients then attempting to transfer skills thus obtained to live patients. A significant minority of patients have physiology which refuses to fit into textbook models. Thus, I would give greater credence to those weather forecasters whose income depended on them being right significantly more often than wrong than to those weather forecasters whose conclusions were based on numeric models.
If I had proof that my dentist or cardiologist had been as scientifically pusillanimous as these crooked climatologist clowns, they would be toast.
Trenberth blows his own trumpet.
Well he had better, because no one else is blowing it
Any medic will say that to put all your faith in just one speciality is hardly a good idea!
What these agenda driven climate alarmists are doing is to advocate a “tourniquet round the neck for a nosebleed”
Not my words – but a fantastic description of the mindset of the Alarmists.
The Iconoclast says:
January 31, 2012 at 10:30 pm
I couldn’t agree more. I refuse to consult anyone but my phrenologist when contemplating my head bumps.
I`ve often been tempted to explore the possibilties of applied retrophrenology in regard to the treatment of extremely gullible environuts :o)
( I fear that the cost of replacement wooden mallets would make it an uneconomic proposition )
.
Just a thought has anyone ever created a model that uses evidence from the past millions of years to spectulate on what might happen in the future and would that be any better, I think not but I think it would be an interesting experiment. Personally I think all of this navel gazing is gibberish we have no ability to control what happens to this planet the only things we do have control over is population growth and how fast we deplete our natural resources and greed and hand wringing liberals together with resolve those issues, live whilst you can before politicians make the present so unbearable that we will al want to commit mass suicide!
I used to drive to work every morning past a farm, and every morning a sheep dog would race out and attack my wheels til I was 50 yards up the road, then stand staring after me as I drove on.
One day, I stopped…I got out… looked at the dog and said, “There. you’ve caught it! Now what are you going to do with It?” The dog gave me a downcast look, turned and sloped off back into the farmyard gate.
The Point?
Activists, including “scientists” like Trenberth and Hansen need the car to keep going. Without it they have nothing. They will have to practice what they preach. Stop driving SUV’s, stop flying to conferences on “Climate/change/disruption/warming/whatever”, stop living in big houses, stop collecting the Government buck, sell the beachfront property and live like Jesus for the good of mankind.
The Problem?
The Chinese won’t change. The Indians won’t change, The Philipinos won’t change. etc. So a win for the Warmista would change NOTHING in this world.
The Conclusion?
The Warmista need us more than we need them. Without an opposition the paucity of the activist cause would be exposed by the ability and hence the obligation to act on their own agenda. From that point on they have no purpose in life as they become the “New Establishment”.
Our Actions?
Stop pointing out the fallacies in their argument and retire to The Med, (I hear there is cheap Real Estate in Greece) But…where would the fun be in doing that?
I believe the “97%” of scientists said humans were “a significant contributing factor” NOT the CAUSE. 75 doesn’t even come close to the over 1000 that have identified with the skeptic side at the GWPF.
I would add that even when I go to a cardiologist, I would expect him to explain to me the scientific basis for his diagnosis and proposed course of treatment in a way that I could understand. If I found his explanations unconvincing I would seek out other opinions. I would ultimately choose the cardiologist who provided the diagnosis and proposed course of treatment that was, in my opinion, aligned with the best evidence. I would give the majority view some weight, but it would not determine my decision.
I would further note that in the field of medicine, many of the proposed treatments are supported by double-blind clinical trials. If my cardiologist presented me with positive results from such clinical trials, I would have little reason to question his opinion. On the other hand, if he proposed an experimental course of treatment that was supported merely by clinical report or untested computer models, I would scrutinize his proposal much more carefully.
The analogy is completely wrong. Neither dentists nor surgeons create theories.
Both are experimentalists, using their own experience and intuition, with plenty of feedback.
When you correctly apply the dentist/surgeon metaphor to climate, you don’t get climatologist vs skeptic; you get something like geologist vs meteorologist. Both understand the world in an experiential way. One is experienced in measuring rocks and soils, the other is experienced in measuring atmospheric qualities. Would I trust EITHER ONE to tell me something about climate? Hell yes. Based on actual output, both geologists and meteorologists do a pretty good job of estimating future climate.
I wouldn’t trust any sort of theorist to predict anything at all, because all theorists in all fields are wrong. A total waste of human brainpower.
Trenberth implies that you should consult experts in their field and that’s true. He fails to point out that there are quacks in every field as well. It’s also common to get a second opinion when one doctor gives you serious news.
Unlike climatologist, neither cardiologist nor dentist are self-appointed designations.
As a surgeon and expert in my field, I have never used an appeal to authority to convince my patients that they need or don’t need surgery (you’d be surprised by how many people come in thinking they need an operation but they actually don’t). Nor am I ever threatened by a patient who has a bit of knowledge who asks questions or questions my rational and decision making. If I was afraid of defending my positions against someone who had done a few google searches, well, I might as well retire. I suppose Trenberth would expect me just to tell my patients, “Look, I’m the expert here. Just shut up and sign this consent form”. I’m sure he would really appreciate an appeal to authority from his surgeon if he ever needed surgery.
If we want to know whether the Earth faces a Eugenics crisis, should we ask a 1920s expert Eugenicist?
I educate my patients. I tell them about success rates. The only guarantee is there are *NO GUARANTEES* and that I provide a treatment; not a cure. In medicine, one must do the procedure and then follow up to determine if the treatment was successful or if further treatment is required. In other words, the evidence is observed and then compared to the model. Very simple, actually.