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.
Without Josh, I wouldn’t know who half of these guys are.
Stop and think.
Are you in the comfort zone on Josh’s scale?
Think again. There is no scale, only a line. A line between wrong or right. Either the net effect of radiative gases is warming or cooling, you can be sure it’s not neutral. So you’re better than the CAGW doom-mongers? No, “less wrong” is still wrong.
My claims about the science may be in error, but not my courage to stand by my results. “Less warming than projected” is just weak and fearful.
Scales are not required. Spines are.
What you are doing can be called “ordination”: ” family of methods which attempts to reveal the relationships between … communities”. Here is an example of a information-source website on the topic that may help:
http://ordination.okstate.edu/
And some examples of graphics employed:
https://encrypted.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=ecological%20ordination%20graphic%20techniques&tbs=imgo:1
“no faith in science” not a good idea as it’s not true first of all, and it plays into the ridiculous “anti-science” meme. Please reconsider,
On the far left-hand side of the scale are what we refer to as the “Activist Materialists” who don’t particularly care what the Real Magicians! say, they just want to use it to grind their political axes. In the middle are a great number of people fighting over the various kinds of Magic!, and on the far right are those loonies who have no faith in Magic! at all.
– Konrad says:
March 15, 2014 at 11:12 am
Stop and think.
Are you in the comfort zone on Josh’s scale?-
Not sure. Are we suppose to have faith in science.
Or is the faith of pseudoscience of “greenhouse effect theory” this science it’s
referring to?
The fairy tale of Earth is like a greenhouse namesake, but not actually like, but kind
of sort of.
And it’s huge vagueness of the values of any particular greenhouse gas. Eg:
“water vapor, 36–70%” of total warming of assumed very precise quantity of 33 C.
So at the present level of water vapor theory “predicts” water vapor to cause
11.88 C to 23.1 C in global warmth.
Is this the faith of gospel one meant to adhere to?
Or is suppose faith in the Al Gore’s “settled science”. Or the science in general
which includes the pseudoscience which involves “health foods” or the latest diet to
lose weight.
[I happen to like the current wisdom that lots of coffee is good for you, as I drink
a lot of coffee.]
Another idea – how about do it as a Ternary diagram ? Corners : Pure science (top, of course), CAGW activism / mitigation (left corner , of course) & politically based anti-CAGW &/or adaptation (right corner, of course). I think everyone could be placed according to this & each category could be given a region on the plot. Might be a bit harder for a non-science type to understand but I think it would be an easier way to put everyone on the same plot. Anyway, something to chew on. (maybe this is a ” version 2 for scientists & engineers” ).
How about “establishment science”? Or “wackademic science”?
Policy: spend more to spend less.
I don’t think matters how much what politician want to spend related to climate science.
What important is the laws they pass and laws made by the “out of control bureaucracies”.
What important is when government outlaws light bulbs.
As example.
It’s how crazy mad in terms of dictatorial power these politicians crave, which is the
problem. That we give them trillions of dollars to spend is more important than specific
billions they may or may choose to spend of their total budget.
The government should have the power to dictate whether or not light bulbs are
available, nor should require electrical companies to buy certain types of electrical
power. Or what size soda one can buy.
It’s the tyranny of government rather that what government decides it wants to buy
with money we allow it to have, which is what is significant.
denniswingo says:
March 15, 2014 at 7:50 am
Josh, we need some climate playing cards based on this!!
———
A game of Old Mann, like Old Maid.
I am having trouble understanding the “sky dragons” on the scale in this cartoon. I thought the sky dragons were those who believed in the magic molecule CO2 and its wondrous effects on the climate and the S-word people were all dragon killers. I get confused because the big dragon war at WUWT happened before I read as much here as I do now. I do know that the s-word people are not to be mentioned here as our host has said several times he did not want any of that sort of talk here.
I would have thought the cartoon should have had dragon killers — maybe that saint that sla … ah, killed dragons in Ireland.
@KevinK
I swear I thought you guys were sky dragon killers and not sky dragons. Which is it?
This is great, but as a diehard consultant, this cries out for a “two by two” matrix to really plot where people stand. I’m calling this “The Great Climate Flap Map”, and I’m sending it to Anthony to see if he wants to post it (I can’t figure out how to insert a graphic in a reply). Josh, please know that you own this, I would not think to use your great (and funny) work in anything other than an attempt to make it even more meaningful. Basically, its the horizontal axis being Science, and the vertical being Policy. I fooled around with it in .PPT, and it’s a lot of fun and looks conceptually like this:
“DoomSayers” + “True Deniers”
Adapt +
+
P +
o + “Realists”
l +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
i +
c +
y +
+
Agiprop “warmists” + “Enviro-Luddites”
Mitigate +
+
Activism Science (of GW) No Faith
Sorry about that if the formatting is messed up – looks much better with Josh’s graphics. Anyway, if anybody wants to play with it, maybe Josh can post individual images and the matrix somewhere for people to get to.
Have fun, believe it or not, some folks make money with these kinds of maps…
Taylor
Sorry about the post above. All the spaces are gone that would have created a vertical axis (the + signs). Hopefully you get the idea, and/or Anthony can fix it with the email I sent.
Taylor
Mark, I have been called everything from a lunatic to a denier at this site. All for simply trying to explain well know optical and thermal principles. But if I’m a dragon sl…. or a dragon makes no difference to me. The truth will still be the truth, regardless of how anybody attempts to “rank” people according to their “beliefs”.
As an engineer my “belief” is that if I carefully apply known (and replicable) laws/theorems/hypotheses while design anything, AND if it performs as I expect, then the “science” is GO TO GO and I can use it again.
On the other hand, my “belief” is that if somebody cannot make their “model”/design/idea match reality, THEN the “theory” is WRONG, period.
Cheers, pointy tooth
I assume the reference to Sky Dragons (referring to the authors and sympathizers of the book Slaying the Sky Dragon) is an intentional insult. I hope so, otherwise it represents sloppy, non-rigorous thinking.
@KevinK
I have taught math to many young people who went on to become engineers. I have the utmost respect for those who “make things work” in our society. I am still undecided on the the whole CO2 issue other than I don’t think that CO2 does much.
I have been thinking about a cartoon and how to display the facts in a funny way …ok a hockey rink with the 2 teams with a score board displaying a very one sided game as far as the goals go .Something on the clock showing the final minutes in the game with the team scoring on them selves with the goalie pulled and on a power play with a 3 man advantage ….have fun ..:>) Our Mr. Mann would have to be wielding a broken hockey… stick with tears and boo-hoos
Interesting. This was a terrific exercise that really got us thinking about the many dimensions involved in this debate. In addition to all those that have been mentioned, I would suggest a couple more.
One that perhaps has not been mentioned is values. For example, extreme greenies really don’t care nearly as much about the impact on people as they care that “the planet is sick”. They will sacrifice the well being of people to provide habitat for polar bears and cure the earth’s “fever”. They sometimes say that they care about the earth because they care about people, but some of their rhetoric gives away their true values. For these people, climate sensitivity doesn’t really matter that much. One degree C per doubling of CO2 is still too much, because that one degree C is a disturbance of the earth, a deviation from what it “should” be, and is therefore “wrong”. So if people have to suffer to fix it, then so be it. Others emphasize material well being of the world’s poor. Others emphasize freedom. Others wise stewardship (with a true appreciation of the effect on people). Still others emphasize national security. There is also of course the selfish concern for one’s own economic well being. Of course most people value more than one of these (and other) things, in varying amounts.
Another dimension concerns beliefs about economics. People who agree that the effects on the poor of aggressive anti-CO2 measures are important might differ in what they think those effects will be.
I wouldn’t consider the policy preference itself to be a dimension. As I think has been mentioned, I would say that the policy preference of a person results from their position along all the dimensions.
Josh and commenters,
I think the scale should read:
a) at the left is avoiding debate – asserting settled / consensus / certainty by small insider groups of scientists
b) at the middle is highly active debating occurring – broad segments of science community actively discussing many skeptical evaluations and welcome admission of uncertainties
c) at the right is not debated seriously – very radical views introduced trying to get PR exposure
With that scale we can put the players in position.
As for the Policy scale, we can do the same.
John
That’s fun.
Science is part of the uncertain end, and slayers recognize this.
Having no faith in science is the correct position.
Cripwell
Funny. You argue that sensitivity has never been measured.
Then you say if it were measured there would be no uncertainty. Then you say you are certain it is no problem.
1.all measurement has uncertainty.
2. We can estimate sensitivity in many ways all uncertain.
3. If you only know what you measure and you cant measure sensitivity then you cannot be certain that cagw is not a problem.
However we know that estimates of sensitivity run from around 1.5 to 4.5. The lower end is no problem and may even be beneficial. The high end could be a problem.
now, the santologists believe that there are 2 dimensions:
the x axis goes from naughty to nice
the y axis goes from spice to sugar
the power quadrant is, of course, the sugar/nice sector
the origin is the ‘coal corner’ of naughty/spice
great fun, josh- interactive cartooning very engaging!
Shoulda put some solar panels on Anthony’s head 😉