Josh writes:
I have been musing for some time about a way to show the range of sceptic views compared to non-sceptic views and I think I have come up with something simple that could be useful and fun.
Below is an example of a two part scale showing Science in one band going from Certainty to Uncertainty and a corresponding Policy band below showing policies that cost more or cost less. I have added some possible examples of ranges of opinion and people from around the climate blogosphere.
Click the images to get bigger versions.
As it is only an example, I may well have put people in the wrong place or got the ranges wrong – my apologies. Also let me know what improvements could be made and I will post new versions.
If you would like to print out your own version here is the scale on its own:
And here are some people:
Have fun and let me know what you think.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
We need a “Viscount Monckton of Brenchley” icon. Perhaps a mounted knight with a fountain pen lance.
If you publish lots of scientific articles in high ranking journals you are an activist. If you run a blog or draw cartoons you’re into science. Yep, that makes sense…
McIntyre, Curry and Watts–delightful.
Other pictures needed – James Hansen, James Delingpole, Bill McKibben, Gavin Schmidt, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Kevin Trenberth, Revkin, John Christy, Christopher Monckton, Jo Nova
…. And of Course the godfather of CAGW …. Al Gore
Might need to stack some vertically to position correctly on the scale
I agree with point 1 of Henry Clark’s comment. The top “faith in science” bar of should be labeled something like “faith in government-funded science” or maybe even “faith in bureaucratic leaders of government-funded science”. The two-bar diagram is a good idea, but the label for the top bar needs some word-smithing.
A triangle pivot under the centre of the scale would be usful. Teeter Totter like, the triangle pivot could represent a specific issue (forcing) in the climate change debate, allowing for the protagonist characters to shift their weight so to speak.
Wow, I wish I had a Josh-drawn face too. ;->
Great stuff Josh.
Ridicule is far more damaging to these authoritarian buffoons than any amount of reasoned debate ever can be.
May I suggest Jailbird Jim Hansen be added to your pantheon, incidentally?
Hey Josh! I believe reality is about your left shoulder. 😉 pg
No faith in Science. Indeed, indeed, in deed.
Excellent!
I hope Josh will add the following familiar faces to the list:
Jim Hansen
Kevin Trenberth
Peter Gleick
Bjorn Lomborg
Tim Ball
Donna LaFramboise
Ross McKitrick
Patrick Moore
Joanne Nova
Tamino
Mike Roddy
Andy Revkin
David Roberts
I am with Neil DeGrasse Tyson on this as one of his points in “Cosmos”, I am skeptical. But skeptical and uncertain does not equal “no faith in science”.
Josh,
I think it is way to ‘stereotyped’ and way way way too oversimplified.
But I think it is very important for you to have attempted it. It will stimulate less stereotyped and oversimplified portrayals. Thanks.
Keep on trying!!
More thoughts on your efforts shortly, still tied up on other threads . . .
John
I would love to see this distributed to teh “warmists” side as well. I am sure that their impression is quite different. I think they would modify the scales, removing “activism” completely.
Josh, as one of the “sky dragons” I must inform you that my teeth are in fact nowhere near that “pointy”.
Also, I doubt that you can accurately access my “faith in science” especially since we have never even met.
For a living I “do” radiative physics as an optical engineer.
This is applied science following on the learning’s/theories/laws of lots of scientists that have preceded me.
Folks like; Snell, Fresnel, Born, Wolf, Euclid, Kepler, Huygens, Bacon, and lots more.
I have lots of “faith” in their science, climate science not so much.
I have done lots of modeling of very complex systems and have helped convince my customers to spend lots of money to build very expensive things based on the predictions from those models.
Several of those “things” are orbiting over our heads right now, and in fact you can go to the Digital Globe TomNod website and help look for the missing jetliner with images from those things. Every pixel coming down from those birds is traceable to a NIST standard for optical radiation due to my work calibrating those focal planes.
It is my considered opinion that “modeling” the climate is currently and always will be impossible.
So you can in fact put me down for “STOP WASTING MONEY AND EVERYBODY’S TIME” on this farce known as “climate modeling”.
Cheers, Kevin (now off to file down my teeth a wee bit).
How could you omit Mosh-Man? A dreadful oversight. Either that, or you didn’t know where to put him, either.
AGW was not, is not, “science”. It is a “belief-system”. That is what Climategate was all about. The temps did not fit the belief. That is what all the “adjustments” are about, the last 16-17 years do not fit the belief. That is why the climate models have failed. There is NO science in AGW.
Only suggestion is to change the shape of the graph to resemble a hockey stick and of course Mann would be located at that end.
“How could you omit Mosh-Man?”
He does not deserve the time of day. His position on the scale will alter depending upon whose website he is performing the drive by on at the time.
I would expect to see Hansen handcuffed to some railings a few inches to the far left of the scale.
Thomas says: “If you publish lots of scientific articles in high ranking journals you are an activist. If you run a blog or draw cartoons you’re into science. Yep, that makes sense…”
Some of those “high ranking” journals are, indeed, rank and are part of the pal review, activist establishment coterie.
I am wowed Josh! Your analysis tool is brilliant, great persona icons! And the responses are fab and so creative. And to think this isn’t big oil funded or big government funded. Gee yall should be awarded fat grants! I myself have been ruminating on a research project involving popcorn futures coefficient extrapolated from CAGW climate models averaged against adjusted observed weather data sets. But this gem, Josh, I am humbled!
P.S.
I want a persona icon too
Ric Werme wrote;
“The Sky Dragons need a scale of their own, but I don’t know what to call it or where to put them. Maybe “stubbornness”. If so, then they’d be off the scale. :-)”
Well, if I was still modeling a design after several DECADES and my model (and in fact all of the models) was this far away from reality I think I would be tempted to shoot myself out of frustration.
I am in fact quite stubborn and have never given up on a design. But I have stopped many times to re-evaluate the theories and hypotheses I started with.
The stubborn ones are those so filled with hubris that they actually believe they can model the climate.
There will be a time in the future where just about everyone will be shaking their heads saying; “what were they thinking, modeling the climate, why everybody knows that’s impossible”.
There is a long tail in history of failed ideas and hypotheses.
Cheers, the one with the pointy teeth
Jorgekafkazar says: “How could you omit Mosh-Man?”
zootcadillac says: “He does not deserve the time of day. His position on the scale will alter depending upon whose website he is performing the drive by on at the time.”
That’s my point, exactly, zoot. He’s hard to categorize. But maybe he just needs a wider card? Or several? He’s a lot of fun, in any case.
Oh, just to reduce confusion “KevinK” and “nothothere” are one and the same person.
Wordpress confuses me when I re-login.
Categorizing the “skydragons” as having “no faith in science” is applying the same label to this group of skeptics that the alarmists apply to all skeptics. The “dragon slayers” are further to one side of SOME scale, but it is not a scale of belief in science.
They are more skeptical of THE SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS OF THE ALARMISTS, but the scientific claims of the alarmists do not define “science”! So how about re-labeling that scale as certainty vs. skepticism of the scientific claims of those who believe that CO2 caused most post-1950 warming (the official “consensus” position, as asserted by the IPCC)? Otherwise, very nicely done.