Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
The most recent aberration of climate science is the apparent cherry picking of ocean temperature data by government scientists, Richard Feely and Christopher Sabine. The objective is not to determine what is happening, but why it is happening, and then link it to a human cause. This, cart before the horse approach, was the raison d’etre of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from the start. In order to emphasize why it is happening, it helps to detail, for politicians, the damaging effects. In this case, it is the deleterious impact of human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere that is not only causing warming, but, they claim, also changing the acidity level of the oceans (ocean acidification). All this challenges the claim that humans are distinctive as the “moral ape” a concept explored over 2000 years ago in Aesop’s fable of, “The Apes and Two Travellers”.
Kudos goes to Marita Noon for bringing this story to our attention. Disturbing, beyond what they did, is that they see nothing wrong with their actions. Worse, they reject the explanation. This behavior in climate science appears to reflect the mentality developed in western society, and is summarized beautifully in the cartoon.
These aberrations are part of a wider trend, ironically identified by Osama Bin Laden when he said the west has lost its moral direction. The fact we don’t want his moral direction either, doesn’t make it any less true.
The problem is multiple in its forms, but simple in its trend and essentially summarized by two modern dictums.
· You only broke the law, or the rules, if you got caught. Even if you get caught, you brazen it out with the help of a lawyer and/or a public relations person.
· If you are not with me, you must be against me. Only listening to or associating with like-minded people reinforces this. A recent WUWT article underlined the degree to which this occurs, when the author opened by saying he did something unusual, he read the “alarmists” web site RealClimate.
As usual, the response by Sabine was more an attempted cover-up. It, and the original article, reveals another example of the climate scientist’s art of cherry picking and believing that the end justifies the means. Roseanne D’Arrigo was the first to put this on the public record as reported by Steve McIntyre.
“D’Arrigo put up a slide about “cherry picking” and then she explained to the panel that that’s what you have to do if you want to make cherry pie.”
D’Arrigo was preceded by the first major exposure of cherry picking in the IPCC climate science by Benjamin Santer in the 1995 Report. Only a few, including Fred Singer, Fredrick Seitz and John Daly, knew what was done. The cover-up was relatively easy, especially when the big guns of the New York Times and the Guardian were fired.
Santer’s changes were spotted early, but Nature, a journal that was freindly to the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) gang, didn’t publish the rebuttals until 5 months later (12 Dec 1996). One identified the cherry picking, the other a natural explanation for the pattern. By then the PR cover up was under way. On July 25, 1996 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) sent a letter of defense to Santer. The letter is evidence of CRU influence and a PR masterpiece. It narrowed the focus to two questions, the science, and society’s reaction. They said the only relevant science was in “peer-reviewed scientific publications – not the media. This challenged who controlled information. The Internet is the final stage of democracy, because it took information out of the hands of a few and into the hands of everybody. The AMS argued for their retention of control of information and thereby the debate.
“What is important scientific information and how it is interpreted in the policy debates is an important part of our jobs.” “That is, after all, the very reasons for the mix of science and policy in the IPCC.”
John Daly correctly called this “Scientism”.
Exposure of Santer’s cherry picking by Singer and Seitz, led to the public relations inspired use of the link with tobacco. Singer had published a well-documented analysis of an article on second-hand smoke. It was, as he identified, a terrible piece of scientific research; a fact since confirmed by others, but explained to me by a doctor, who specialized in lung cancer, when the article was first released. This paper was used to say the tobacco lobby paid Singer and then, by inference, that all “deniers” since are akin to those who deny the link between smoking and cancer. In fact, Singer has long and actively opposed smoking. He simply pointed out that bad research, when exposed, would likely give more credibility to the tobacco lobby.
I understand the dilemma that incorrect science creates, because for years I was charged with “comforting polluters”. I was not deterred, because I realized that the greater problem was in deceiving people with falsified science. When the deception is exposed, the polluters are more comforted, because they can say they lied to you. Aesop also identified this “cry wolf” problem. My greater concern over the last several years is the lost momentum and misdirection on environmental issues and declining scientific credibility.
A classic example of the climate science mentality at the CRU was exposed in a leaked email from February 2, 2005.
Mike (Mann), I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !
This is important because people at the CRU were effectively the IPCC, beginning with Tom Wigley, the Director who preceded Jones. They controlled critical chapters. All along, Wigley was the person they went to for direction as this email reveals. Wigley is revealed in the 1990 documentary, “The Greenhouse Conspiracy”, which is remarkably relevant today. The email appears to manifest a person who has lost a moral direction.
The other “go to person” from the start was the late Stephen Schneider. He set the tone and actively influenced the direction of the climate science and the IPCC with his 1989 infamous quote in Discovery magazine.
On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but& which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
Many people only quote the underlined portion, but the entire passage is revealing, especially the penultimate sentence. Schneider didn’t realize that there is no balance between being effective and being honest. Anything less is a deception. You can leave things out but you must explain why. Schneider is apparently trying to rationalize and thus justify immoral actions. It is a feeble attempt to say, the end justifies the means. When they were in trouble after the CRU email leak, they called on Schneider to help with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).
The active pursuit of data and use of methods to create the desired scientific, and thereby political outcome was morally and scientifically wrong. This was bolstered by what was left out, the cherry picking. It variously involved,
· Leaving out data, as in Sabine and Feely,
· Selecting start and stop points on graphs, to provide a desired trend, as in Santer,
· Omitting entire sectors of causes of climate change, such as omission of the Milankovitch Effect, or the Cosmic Theory.
· Omission began with the deliberately narrow definition of climate change that restricted the IPCC to only human causes.
· Omitting all the severe limitations of the science and computer models identified in the Working Group I Report, The Physical Science Basis from the SPM.
There are lies of commission and omission, and both fit the political and PR practices of IPCC climate science. Humans learn both types of lies as children. In fact, one of the classifications chosen by anthropologists to distinguish humans from all other animals is the ability to lie. The designation, Homo sapiens, supposedly separated us because we could think conceptually, that is we could take disparate information and link it. Then we discovered other animals making similar conceptual connections, so they decided that we were different because we could lie. This requires a double conceptual understanding. You have to know the truth and then figure out how to circumvent it, hence the current designation of humans as, Homo sapiens sapiens. How is that for a moral distinction to be proud of? Of course, the recent support of IPCC climate science by Pope Francis puts the cat amongst the moral pigeons.
Sins of omission are an important part of advertising and public relations. They justify the sin as emphasizing the positive, but it is really avoiding the negative. It is manifest in various forms in the environmental and global warming war. Identifying only benefits, instead of a balanced and realistic cost/benefit study, was used to promote alternate energy. Proponents of the human production of CO2 (AGW) hypothesis only examined what they claimed were the negative impacts. The IPCC did not look at the benefits of global warming. Equally effective in their deception was avoidance of positive benefits of CO2, not least the sustenance of all life through the production of oxygen. A measure of the inanity that results from the IPCC deceptions is the push, by activists like Al Gore and Bill McKibben, to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. This, despite the scientific research and empirical evidence, that plants function best between 1000 -1200 parts per million (ppm), so are malnourished at the current levels of 400 ppm. All this is a result of the aberrations created by the IPCC and manifest in Sabine and Feely’s latest example. It is time to establish power of attorney for the plants and vote on their behalf against any immoral measure to reduce CO2 levels.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Too, ye of the liberal, progressive, commie bent,,,, these frauds are taking your stuff too.
Just do an inventory ,a Profit and Loss statement, and then a net worth graph from 1960 to now.
Facts do count up,,,, well down in this case.
Zero net worth is where they want you.
Hear, hear.
This is very sharp insight in to the public discourse. It represents a fundamental failure of our children’s education. Few teachers understand scientific thought and think they are teaching science when they are just teaching how to use the techincal tools which science developed. Few students understand the relationship of “hypothsis”, “how to test the hypothesis”, “understanding the results of the test” and that when the results failed to prove the hyptheses, you have learned something important. Most students, and many teachers “believe” something to start with, then only want to use arguements which they believe proves what they believe to be true. Many have just missed the point, but the are also teachers determined to indoctrinate.
clanton says, “It represents a fundamental failure of our children’s education.”
What is very interesting to me is that in many science books for grade school curricula, and even in college text books, the scientific method is fairly accurately discussed. Any one who has a question can begin to use the scientific method to control variables in experiments and form a hypothesis.
This contributes to the trust that is placed in the words “science” and “scientists.”
However, the reality is quite different in practice. Only practitioners choose paradigms, and then subsequently control the questions that will be asked, the tools that will be used, and the interpretation of the data. NASA displays this attitude all of the time, and so do climate workers.
I am disturbed that in the common discourse of everyday life, it seems that most people have a starting opinion and like trial lawyers only use whatever supports this opinion. If I meet someone who does otherwise, they are usually a scientist or a physician. Even more maddening is that the physicians that where have in Congress must have let “the Art of medicine” to have crowded out their science.
Tim Ball writes:
“What is important scientific information and how it is interpreted in the policy debates is an important part of our jobs.”
& “The active pursuit of data and use of methods to create the desired scientific, and thereby political outcome was morally and scientifically wrong. This was bolstered by what was left out…”
This is so well said. The truth about science and scientists (and also the truth about historians) is that they love theories. They love them and are devoted to them. This is why Francis Bacon quaintly but it turns out accurately called theories “idols of the mind.” He proposed a new method of inquiry that laid aside Greek philosophers and relied instead on empirical observations guided by experiment.
The answer is not necessarily to expect individual scientists to show any regard for truth or disproof of his theory. Karl Popper explained that that is not realistic. The only way out of the abject devotion to theory and institutions by scientists and historians is rational criticism by completely differing scientists and historians.
(And rational criticism from anyone who can express himself reasonably well, Popper added.)
Typo – freindly
should be friendly
Great read!
first sentence should say ocean pH data rather than temperature data.
Sou at Hotwhopper has already put out an article that claims this mix-up of Temp and pH is one of the many “Lies” of WUWT. (Sigh)
This kind of Typo really does need to be corrected as soon as it’s pointed out. Preferably with an update note so they can’t come back with some conspiracy theory that we’re ‘covering up’ our ‘lies’.
It’s an obvious inadvertent error, and the story is on many websites; it’s all good. She’s very hostile and intentionally offensive, but does she have 3-digit IQ credibility?
Many areas of science particularly in the Earth and Environmental fraternities are open to subversion. They deal with very complex systems where simple models don’t work. As a result one can easily manufacture or contrive models that work best for the researchers and backers.
Existence exists , and that statement implies two colloraries, that something exists and that you exist having conscious and able to perceive that which exists but the law of identity stands between you and knowledge you must correctly identify, what you have perceived.
In law, the concept is known as “suppressio veri, suggestio falsi.”
From Black’s Law Dictionary online:
Ferdinand E., you wrote: January 2, 2015 at 3:35 pm
“The data were made available about during the time of the correspondence between Wallace and Sabine…”
In my communications with the PMEL authors Sabine and Feely, they never directed me to NOAA’s WOD. Nor was I directed there by the NOAA FOIA response that I later received. I only learned of the WOD after those communications. For that matter, I didn’t learn of the Congressional testimony role of their work, until after the PMEL communication was ended as well.
Mike, I haven’t seen your correspondence with Sabine, so I can’t know what is said from both sides. But I understand that Sabine should have lead you to the data and show that these were not accurate enough to show the real pH trend…
It is worth reflecting on an article by physicist, Dr Gordon Fulks, titled “Physicists View of ‘the Precautionary Principle'” (20 April 2012) in which he stated the following:
“In all of these arguments of a political nature, what is overwhelmingly lost is the real science and hence the real truth as best we know it. Science has NOTHING to do with how many supporters you can count amongst those you deem worthy in the scientific profession.
In 1905 Albert Einstein stood against the entire classical physics world with his new ideas on relativity. A few years later, a high school biology teacher from Seattle (Harlen Bretz) stood against the entire geological profession with his explanations of Pacific Northwest geology. And just a few years ago, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren stood against the entire medical profession to explain the real cause of peptic ulcers.
It is as Galileo said many centuries ago: “The authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”
Hence the fundamental issue for me is the survival of science as an objective profession. Continuous spin from highly political non-scientists does not help. And complicity among many scientists who want the government grants to continue is very destructive.”
I couldn’t put it any better!
Yeah sure. I’m sure there’s a similar website where a group also feels smug because they know the “secret” about who “really” assassinated JFK. For the supposed brilliance that Tim Ball has espoused he can’t awaken the masses and especially the media to the great conspiracy that’s going on. It’s because the Evil Big Media have brainwashed the masses as opposed to the fact Mr Ball has gone down the easy road of pseudoscience.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tim_Ball