There’s a nickname for Missouri, the “Show Me State”. It is a label attributed to Representative Willard Van Diver. It connotes a certain self-deprecating stubbornness and devotion to simple common sense. A recent post highlighted by Andrew Montford at Bishop Hill illustrates how this is applicable to climate skepticism.
He writes:
The trust me crowd and the show me crowd
The Chemist in Langley has another post on type 1 and type 2 errors, which is just as good as his last one. I found this quote particularly perspicacious:
A colleague at work describes the difference as roughly the “trust me crowd” versus the “show me crowd”. The trust me crowd can show that some anthropogenic climate change has happened in the past and that models suggest that future conditions are going to get worse. They produce their documentation via the peer reviewed press and in doing so address all the touchstones of the scientific method. Having met the high bar of “good science” they anticipate that their word will be taken as good.
The show me crowd looks at the “good science” and points out that many historical predictions of doom and gloom (that previously met the test of good science) have been shown to be overheated or just plain wrong. They also point out that the best models have not done a very good job with respect to the “pause”. Given this they ask for a demonstration that the next prediction is going to be better than the last one. This does not mean that they deny the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Rather they are not comfortable with cataclysmic predictions and calls for immediate action prior to a demonstration that those predictions can be supported with something approaching real data.
Here is the first article from “A Chemist in Langley”:
…the vast majority of the warmist community have a worldview that stresses Type I [false positive] error avoidance while most skeptics work in a community that stresses Type II [false negative] error avoidance. Skeptics look at the global climate models and note that the models have a real difficulty in making accurate predictions. To explain, global climate models are complex computer programs filled with calculations based on science’s best understanding of climate processes (geochemistry, global circulation patterns etc) with best guesses used to address holes in the knowledge base.
Unusually deep cold about to impact Lebanon, Syria, Kurdish areas, Turkey. Situation dire for exposed refugees.
From Lebanon Daily Star
“Refugees primary victims of the storm – Jan. 08, 2015 | 12:14 AM”
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2015/Jan-08/283349-refugees-primary-victims-of-the-storm.ashx
Winter storm kills three – Lebanon NOW, Published: 7/01/2015 04:17 PM
https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/NewsReports/564631-winter-storm-kills-three
That’s all relatively mild, so far, but it’s just the beginning of a much worse cold pulse to come. Nullschool for tomorrow shows much worse conditions than those so far, with ‘feels-like’ temps plunging to -15 C (rather than the approx -2 C it’s been so far in this winter storm) with continuing high humidity, so some deep snow falls to come.
Conditions at time of posting:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-328.12,35.45,1454
Tomorrow morning at 3 AM local begins a 3 to 4 day plunge into much colder regional ME temps:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/01/09/0300Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-328.12,35.45,1454
Relative Humidity initially remains virtually saturated:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/01/09/0300Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=relative_humidity/orthographic=-328.12,35.45,1454
‘Feels Like’ about -13 C in central Lebanon tomorrow morning:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/01/09/0300Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=misery_index/orthographic=-328.12,35.45,1454
The following day gets e]significantly colder, with Saturday morning 3AM approx -17 C ambient (!) temps and humidity levels remains moderate to high:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/01/10/0300Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-328.12,35.45,1454
While ‘feels like’ drops down to -21 C … this is in Central Lebanon! … And there are millions of refuges in that region living in canvas tents and not dressed for such bitter exposure.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/01/10/0300Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=misery_index/orthographic=-328.12,35.45,1454
Needless to say this will be the next major emergency area, and it’s going to affect all of Syria and Northern Iraq just as badly, worse even within Damascus and far worse in northern Kurdish areas.
Sunday and Monday are barely any warmer:
Sunday 3 AM
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/01/11/0300Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-328.12,35.45,1454
Monday 3 AM
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/01/12/0300Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-328.12,35.45,1454
So it looks like it will be Tuesday before this bitter cold snap eases, then there will be a LOT of snow to complicate relief efforts.
I hope Governments and relief agencies are preparing, now, for the mess next week.
Here in Australia, the pro-cAGW MSM report only heat events and bush fires. The only news outlet that actually has reported these cold events, that you linked to, was Al Jazeera, usually late at night/early morning. David Socrates above links to an article which also links to another article claiming Perth, Australia, was “melting” in 44.4C afternoon temperatures (Y’know, the afternoon, the hottest part of the day). Well, sadly for those who fall for this sort of media tripe, 44+C days for Perth in SUMMER, is not unusual.
And did you notice how the ABC’s Apocalypse NOW style hyped excessive coverage (picked up and run with by BBC and AJ again) which claimed a large but unknown number of houses burned down, with an extreme ‘change’ in the weather later in the [week] (which was heavy rain and a cold front with high humidity … a real worry that!), was then downgraded to only 38 properties burned, then yesterday ABC dropped it again to only 32 properties burned. Then this morning they dropped it again to only 27 properties and houses burned.
Well, by tomorrow morning it should rate as one of the more minor bush fire outbreaks during the past 100 years of prosaic bushfire seasons.
But the global hyperbole was sent though, the message of cAGW doom speculation went around the globe again (Mission Accomplished) and AJ and BBC won’t correct the record and do a follow up story and ask the salient questions about why it is that this pattern exists of the ABC and State fire dept services, plus the ever unscientific BOM, keeps talking-up to a ridiculous degree common-place rural bushfire events of a fairly typical and predictable nature?
The little boy who cried wolf.
In another thread, someone posted a link to an article, in The Australian I think, that reported a 49 year old woman was arrested for starting 41 fires in Victoria. Not covered by ABC, SBS, channels 7, 9 and 10 newscasts. I tried to post that link in an SMH article that allowed comments, but that comment was rejected.
Which would be anthropogenic after all! lol
Good work Patrick. Do you have a link to that arrest info you can post in here?
Strangely, I found a link at The Age…
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victoria-braces-for-dangerous-fire-conditions-20150102-12h48i.html
‘Steven Mosher January 7, 2015 at 8:06 pm
Any model beats the skeptics whine of ” it’s too hard”
Or “I don’t know”’
Mr. Mosher-
I would first point out that you seem to be lumping a spectrum of skeptics together unfairly. I think you are particularly sensitive to this due to your work with instrumental temperature fields and the large amount of unfair criticism you have received for this. I think the skeptics of models are being much more fair.
From a scientific/academic standpoint there is merit to your statement (we certainly should be investigating/modeling to some degree). However, in the big picture these models are being taken so far beyond their simple use for science & understanding and are being applied directly to policy in a way that will cost society immensely, with highly uncertain benefit. We are being told to switch to costly low-carbon energy sources ASAP (with focus on costly renewables) based on future threat as projected by these models. With the tag line “The science is settled”. And if you don’t believe in the likelihood of model projections being accurate, you are a “denier”. From the mouths of prominent scientists, activists, and even our president.
There is value from these models, but perhaps they will ultimately cost us more in misapplication than the value they ever produce for us.
What skeptics see is models going up and temperatures flat-lining for a significant amount of time and then a moving of the goal-posts after the fact. We see weather staying relatively stable while being sold that it will all be worse. We see anything negative happening being attributed (at least partially) to global warming, and working in any/all directions. We do not see any statistic given by which models are disproven, or anyone prominent in the field exploring how bad they could be. We see the mainstream press give this entire field a free ride because alarmism sells. It is entirely appropriate for skeptics to point this out. Why would you call this whining?
You often prod skeptics for not coming up with their own models, but who is funding teams of them to do such? Do you really think there is a life-long career field for skeptical climate science, in comparison to the alarmist government and activist funded gravy train? It would be self-defeatist from the onset, which is perhaps part of the problem. I’m coming to the opinion that in a politicized/polarized/specialized science question such as this with such big potential risk, big gov ought to be sending funding to outsiders respected by both sides, to attempt to analyze potential problems and uncertainties. We shouldn’t rely on self-auditing in this case.
“Are you a skeptic-denier?”
“No, I am a ‘show-me’.
Nice. I’m going to use that one.
Ralph
Not sure how type 1, type 2 world views relate to practicing good science. False positives and false negatives are risks or factors in any kind of testing. The whole reason false positives and false negatives are a concern is because good science is inherently skeptical. Therefore good science is always skeptical and always includes “show me”.
The adage “Scientists by nature are skeptics” seems to have been turned on its head to, “Scientists are skeptics of everything except their own work”, which pretty much ruins the whole concept of good science.
Steven Mosher
January 7, 2015 at 8:06 pm
Any model beats the skeptics whine of ” it’s too hard”
Or “I don’t know”
LOL
C’mon man – a scientists’ admission that “I don’t know” trumps any model that makes up data to support a conclusion.
Honest science will beat dishonest, deceptive science all the time, given enough time.