Guest essay by Ian McCandless
This article concerns not the science of Climate Change directly; but rather the issue of science-ethics and protocols, which have been severely breached from Square One regarding it.
AGW proponents have given various arguments for why the standard scientific method does not pertain to their alleged scientific claims: from falsely arguing that their Alternative Hypothesis has been scientifically proved, to the false claim that the Null Hypothesis does not apply to this type of argument.
In any event, the main problem has not been simply the unscientific propositions of AGW-proponents; but more importantly, but the manner in which the non-AGW scientific community has likewise unwisely strayed from the scientific method, instead indulging the AGW-theorists by directly countering their arguments, as if they were proved scientifically valid as theory– rather than simply proclaiming them purely hypothetical in failing to first properly establish the hypothesis, before discussion can continue.
Accordingly, these indulgent scientists have “given up their right to remain silent, and thus anything they said has been used against them; i.e. by responding to the unproved hypothesis as anything but unproved hypothesis, they have enabled the entry of unscientific arguments into the scientific mainstream as established theory, and thereby permitted politically-motivated agendas to claim scientific validity. This has derailed the scientific process entirely by failing to maintain the Null Hypothesis as the standard prerequisite for further scientific consideration and discussion; and has therefore taken the debate from science to forensics, where both sides are given equal credence in establishing preponderance.
This in turn opened the floodgates to further improper forensic discussions as well, breaching all protocols of rational discussion and order, and sinking the entire debate to the level of panic-mongering. Meanwhile the Null Hypothesis has now been reduced to “Proving a Negative” against unscientific arguments.
Therefore responsibility must be placed not only on those who failed to adhere to scientific protocols in initially presenting an alternative hypothesis of AGW; but more to those who likewise failed scientific protocols, by failing to stick to the Null Hypothesis as well in refuting it.
This is not a suppression of new or unpopular positions, but simply a preserving of the integrity of the scientific method in maintaining established scientific knowledge by responsible adherence to standard protocols and methodology– without exception, particularly for popular or politically-driven positions, against which scientific objectivity requires absolute indifference to source.
Further reading:
https://explorable.com/null-hypothesis
http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/sommerb/sommerdemo/stat_inf/null.htm
“This has derailed the scientific process entirely by failing to maintain the Null Hypothesis”
Generally when you see Null Hypothesis brandished in capitals, gobbledygook will follow.
The null hypothesis is a specific tool of statistical inference, popularized by Fisher less than a century ago. Science managed before that.
Kevin Trenberth was the main climate proponent for eliminating the null hypothesis as many have written about. Indeed the null hypothesis guides researchers to determine if recent changes lie outside the bounds of natural climate change before we can attribute a weather event to CO2. By eliminating that constraint, Trenberth and his ilk now hype in the media that every weather event has worsened by rising CO2, with no need to examine the bounds of natural variability. I condemned such a practice in:
The Kevin Trenberth Effect: Pulling Science Back to the Dark Ages – Part 1 Droughts and Heat waves
http://landscapesandcycles.net/trenberth-reverses-null-hypothesis-for-droughts.html
Another trick the Climate Liars use is to mis-state the null hypothesis, erecting a strawman in its place. They then claim that the null hypothesis has been disproven, and now it is their own hypothesis which is the new null.
On the topic of null hypothesis; it seems to relate to induction, which is to say, you have observations and you make guesses as to the causes of the things observed. No obvious limit exists to the number of possible causes.
So you start ruling out causes until only one is left. Is it proven? Not quite; you may have missed a cause in your list of causes. It merely strengthens the claim.
Induction will usually never be proof.
Ruling out causes can be difficult, maybe impossible in some cases, which will always leave a bit of uncertainty in one’s conclusion.
Here is a brief explanation of the null hypothesis and its role in science. Very brief, but excellent: https://skepticalscience.com/statisticalsignificance.html
I think the null hypothesis just means that something is presumed to be random (natural variability) until it is proven to be false via observable measurement. Climate scientist’s certainly haven’t done that, so the burden of proof is on them.
The null hypothesis has been a valued tool of scientific inquiry for nearly 100 years. Both the null hypothesis and science in general will continue to succeed without Nick Stokes null hyperbole.
Just to be an annoying nitpicker……it’s Occam, not Ockham. Please, continue your discussion.
My personal conception of the null hypothesis in respect of climate science is that all observed variation falls within the realm of natural variability until proven otherwise. It has not been proven otherwise. There is considerable evidence that all observed warming is not unusual over the observed time frame and that similar warming periods of the Medieval and Roman and Minoan Warm periods were comparable while lacking any significant CO2 signal as a trigger.
The majority of the climate science community has engaged in extremely dishonest and unscientific behaviour for several decades attempting to cover up and contradict any and all evidence against their hypothesis. These actions stand alone in condemning the garbage conclusions of what is a misinformation conspiracy of activists and self promoting liars, headed by Al Gore- the failed divinity student and Michael Mann the imitation scientist and fraudster.
Have a little courage, Nick. Tell us what you actually think of these individuals and those who collaborate with them.
WTF is up with “unproved”????
Climate change . A Hypothesis . Try explaining that to Radio and Television news rooms. I did a few years ago but they dismissed the explanation. My background being ,years ago, in Prehistoric Archaeology where hypotheses were set up and attacked with glee. Most news rooms have a basic view of the past which was current in the 1920s. coloured with political bias.
see Glyn Daniel “The Idea of Prehistory.”now available on line .
From the fog of catastropharianism to the Diffusionism. is an interesting period of the nineteenth century.
Marx being educated in the early nineteenth century was influenced in his thought by the current ideas of the Past in his younger years (my hypothesis) I assume most journalists are vaguely marxist with a small ‘m’ ( I assume)
Don’t say this on climate audit you’ll be snipped.
I would add that the whole theory also hinges on temperature being a measurement of energy, which it is not. Not even a linear correlation.
I cannot believe the amount of erroneous ideas on this very simple and basic scientific principle. Hypothesis, more co2 causes temperature to rise. Null hypothesis, it does not. Make observations. Based upon those observations, their number and quality, determine statistical significance. If it meets the predetermined significance level one requires, make your choice, hypothesis or null hypothesis. In the case of cagw one must also decide if and or what portion of the co2 one will attribute to man. I have no trouble accepting the null hypothesis in this case. This is not to say temperatures have not risen and declined (for thousands of years before the industrial revolution) nor that co2 has not risen (and declined) during some of that time. Simply that A has not been at all proven to cause B. Too many other variables are involved and no good data to prove what is the main cause of what, if there is indeed a Main cause.
Originally the null hypothesis would be “human produced CO2 is harmless to the climate.” The reasoning is that originally when the EPA required catalytic converters on cars it was to change bad emissions to “water and harmless CO2.” The alternative hypothesis is that human produced CO2 is not harmless and does cause global warming. So they set out to prove that human produced CO2 is not harmless to the climate. The results of that effort are…?
Since my impression has been that use of null hypothesis, while not new, developed along with the ease of computer modeling, I looked in a few older biology texts to see what they said. While not a very good sample, biology was often the only science many college graduates had, at least before “environmental science.”
The latest surviving text in my library was 2002. They only had 4+ pages of 1200+ on the scientific method, and I did not see the word ‘null.’ A section was “A hypothesis is a testable statement.” Also it did discuss a little about inductive/deductive logic.
While older books were variable, one (1985) had nothing much at least in the introduction, so it raises the question of how much history or basis of science has been taught. Since ‘scientific’ societies have been getting into politics it might be worth researching this. Old texts, which are not easy to come by, may not be the best source.
For example, just found this. Sigma Xi is on the precipice. Last issue of American Scientist was good, but in their recent student symposium on climate they had a town hall session and a screening of “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.” Also much talk going on about communication, important, but not the main problem. “Those who are able to communicate the value of their research to a broader audience are at an advantage in terms of building financial and social support for their work.”
To steal a phrase, Science is too important to be left to scientists.
https://www.sigmaxi.org/news/article/2018/01/09/top-research-associations-join-forces-to-support-science-and-engineering (Sigma Xi and AAAS)
The title of this article has…….“Indulging Unproved Hypotheses”
…
ALL of science indulges in unproven hypothesis. Every single hypothesis in science to this day remains UNPROVEN
…
Everyone here seems to forget that you can prove a hypothesis false, but you cannot prove one true. There is not one example of a scientific hypothesis EVERY being proven true.
Some people seem to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the ground will make the thermometer hotter.
This is supposedly the cause of the nonsensical and non-existent figment of the imagination known as “global warming”!
It’s not surprising that otherwise sane and reasonable people might support such a nonsensical proposition – phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, the indivisibility of the atom, or the rejection of quantum physics on the basis that “God does not play at dice!” – show the sway of ideas subsequently shown to be false.
Climatology is good for a laugh, but has shown precisely no actual benefit to anyone else apart from its practitioners! Just like astrology. At least astrology prompted the study of astronomy, whereas climatology will lead to the study of nothing at all in all likelihood.
Cheers.
Nick wrote: “But in fact the increase in GISS has been 0.141°C/decade since 1950. And by any measure that is out of the range of natural variation,”
You completely ignore the period from 1910 to 1940, which warmed at the same magnitude as the period from 1980 to the present. If 1910 to 1940 is natural variation, then why should we attribute the same amount of warmth from 1980 to the present to CO2? Just because there is more CO2 now than then? I don’t think so. There’s no proof the current warming isn’t natural. There’s your Null Hypothesis.
Yes, I know you will say that chart only represents to U.S. but the temperature profile of the 1999 Hansen chart resembles the profiles of just about all the available unmodified temperature charts around the world. They do not resemble the Hockey Stick charts you use to make all these claims.
If you disagree with using the U.S. temperature chart as the global chart, then please explain why CO2 and warming behaves differently in the U.S. as opposed to the rest of the world.
Good topic, Ian.
Except, that your statements appear to position climate dodgy science, by failing to seriously address the null hypothesis as principle to AGW hooligans playing fast and loose with climate hysteria.
Your key statement, “preserving of the integrity of the scientific method” is absolutely accurate, but is not reduced to or singularly focused on the null hypothesis.
Practically, every significant step of the scientific method gets abused in climate science by the alarmists.
For example”
A) Model data is not equivalent to, nor can it replace observations!
B) Independent replication is ignored.
C) Data, methods, code, etc. are hidden from reviewers.
D) Improper selection procedures are applied, and often central to claimed results.
E) Statistics and mathematics are used as methods to abuse data and results.
F) Data is “adjusted” until researchers attain results they desire.
G) Final results are decided before designing research.
H) etc, etc, etc.
Establishing the null hypothesis then thoroughly investigating the science that contributes to the null hypothesis is critical, but just one of many critical scientific procedures utterly ignored by alarmists and their groupies.
Right from the beginning, where alarmists claimed that there could not be any other component/process causing atmospheric warming, therefore it must be CO2; identified alarmists as thoroughly opposed to the honest use of scientific methods, procedures, principles, ethics, etc.
Climate science, indeed many fields of scientific study are being corrupted into depending upon secrecy, science by press release, publish or perish and getting in bed with advocacy pals and compliant publisher advocates.
Finding something climate alarmist activists actually perform correctly according to scientific rigor would be easier than listing how climate science abusers advance climate nonsense and set science back.
Why are so many of you ‘jumping’ to Nick’s tune?
He tells lies. He tries to justify his religion on the basis of invented numbers supporting anomalous anomalies instead of real temperatures.
He makes statements that we know CO2 as a greenhouse gas warms the earth. It doesn’t, there is no scientific analysis that supports this statement.
All that is happening is that the maximum temperatures are ever so slightly FALLING. The minimum temperatures are ever so slightly increasing a bit more, leading to slight increases in averages.
Get back to talking about real temperatures, not hypothetical ‘anomalies’ changing from arbitrary trends over an arbitrary 30 year period picked deliberately by the religious zealots.
I am old. I am not a physicist nor a meteorologist. I am an engineer. I like to break things down to pieces. Here are the pieces of warming as I see them.
1) Incoming energy from the sun
2) Outgoing energy intercepted by molecules like water vapor, CO2, methane, etc.
3) Some is reradiated back down to give extra warming (maybe)
Basically this would mean the share of reradiation would be dependent on the volume of the molecules in the atmosphere. CO2, being such a small part, would have a small part in warming.
How do you make CO2 more powerful? Positive feedback! Could someone show a paper that has found or proven experimentally (not modeling) proof of this occurring, the process, and to what level?
All the papers in the world about rising CO2 and AGW affecting things currently are worthless when it comes to proving that CO2 is causing the problem. Nor do they provide experimental proof of the feedback and how it works. Otherwise, cue the null hypothesis, anything could be causing the GW affecting those things.
I have argued this successfully with several folks. All the attention on Global Temperature, the hockey stick, polar bears, ice caps, and cold weather do nothing to prove this link from CO2 to CAGW. Don’t be misled by other arguments or the consensus. Go back to the fundamentals of the CAGW hypothesis and how it is supposed to work. I can’t prove it is not CO2 if it really isn’t CO2. This means the CAGW proponents need to be doing the proving that it is. Think of all the wasted money studying things other than how CO2 works to cause CAGW.
Author is absolutely correct. I also think we’re making a general error in that there is always THEORY and null hypothesis. As we denialists always mock Mr. Gore for saying “the science is settled”, there is just a theory that has stood up to all efforts to date to disprove it – which when a disproving set of data will reduce the previously thought incontrovertible theory into yet another null hypothesis. Think of it as a “pass fail” system.
Ian McCandless ==> You are fighting a losing battle with Nick Stokes. Mr. Stokes is a “Numbers Man” — a Statistician by religion — he knows no other language or even other intellectual approach — only Numbers and Classical Statistical Theory. He honestly believes that statistical trends predict the future….
You will not get him to accept the idea of Popperian Falsifiable Null Hypotheses — he won’t even talk about them — he can’t , they are not in his mental universe. Believe me — I have tried. His activity here can seem a lot like trolling….because, like trolls, he has a idée fixe — statistics — and simply keeps banging on, even though everyone else is discussing a different topic altogether.
Nice Guy though, on any other issue (other than stats, numbers, and CliSci).
A scientific theory is not tested merely by looking for confirmations but by conscientiously trying to “break” the theory, by trying to disprove it. The AGW theory is encapsulated in the IPCC assessment reports. The models discussed in these reports have not been tested in this way. These reports include sections on “Verification and Validation” but none on testing. “Verification” means that only data which support the theory are examined and data which do not support it are ignored. Indeed the authors of this section in the IPCC Third Assessment Report specifically dismiss the need for rigorous testing when they state: “our evaluation process is not as clear cut as a simple search for ‘falsification’” (Section 8.2.2 on page 474). Effectively what they are saying is: proper scientific testing is too hard and we are not going to bother doing it.
From: http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2009/10/climate-modelling-nonsense/
It was my understanding that the purpose of Null Hypothesis is to make a hypothesis which is inherently difficult if not impossible to falsify by experiment falsifiable. If you can falsify the NH, it supports the hypothesis; at that point, you establish another NH to continue testing the hypothesis.
Proper science doesn’t just stop testing a hypothesis because politically powerful forces tell everyone to “believe in” the hypothesis, and proper science does not follow the legal “burden of proof” concept of “preponderance of evidence.”
Proper science especially does not change the observed evidence to fit the hypothesis, and does not reject any evidence just because it doesn’t fit the hypothesis.
I have noticed that Nick and the other CAGW apologists posting their arguments against the scientific method and the use of Null Hypothesis have not clearly stated what exactly they think the CAGW hypothesis is. I suspect that definition would change based on whatever empirical evidence which clearly does not support the hypothesis might be, to keep the goalposts mobile… or perhaps that empirical evidence would be attacked by proxy, by attacking the messenger.
I have seen no evidence yet that the claims of CAGW have merit except as a cudgel for the anti-capitalist political movement to use against capitalism. It would seem that the radical environmentalists who believe in CAGW because SCIENCE are simply stooges being used as a weapon for those whose political goals are worldwide redistribution of wealth and power. The CAGW “climate science” has been an utter abomination, rejecting the centuries of advancement of the scientific method that came before it, in favor of false, political “consensus” claims and the promotion of junk science, so it can be used as that political cudgel.