Good ol’ Stephan has attached himself to another propaganda piece masquerading as science.
Statistical Language Backs Conservatism in Climate-Change Assessments
Salvador Herrando-Pérez Corey J A Bradshaw Stephan Lewandowsky David R Vieites
BioScience, Volume 69, Issue 3, 1 March 2019, Pages 209–219, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz004
Published: 18 March 2019
Here is the Abstract.
The scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change is empirically settled, but communicating it to nonscientific audiences remains challenging. To be explicit about the state of knowledge on climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has adopted a vocabulary that ranks climate findings through certainty-calibrated qualifiers of confidence and likelihood. In this article, we quantified the occurrence of knowns and unknowns about “The Physical Science Basis” of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report by counting the frequency of calibrated qualifiers. We found that the tone of the IPCC’s probabilistic language is remarkably conservative (mean confidence is medium, and mean likelihood is 66%–100% or 0–33%), and emanates from the IPCC recommendations themselves, complexity of climate research, and exposure to politically motivated debates. Leveraging communication of uncertainty with overwhelming scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change should be one element of a wider reform, whereby the creation of an IPCC outreach working group could enhance the transmission of climate science to the panel’s audiences.
It’s….just….not…..scary….enough.
This calibrated language undoubtedly reaffirms the sophisticated discourse of IPCC reports, but it might ironically jeopardize the clarity with which they might resonate with nonscientific audiences.
We know it’s bad, Naomi, that cartoonist, and somebody else said so.
Overall, the predominance of qualifiers of low to intermediate certainty reported above reveals that the tone of the probabilistic language of the IPCC’s report on the physical science of climate is remarkably conservative, and contrasts with the overwhelming scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change (Oreskes 2004, Benestad et al. 2016, Cook et al. 2016) that the IPCC is endorsing (table 1).
And then there is the concept of “Seepage”
The reality is that contrarian views against anthropogenic climate disruption can lobby the scientific community, and the IPCC in particular, to be conservative and so reinforce contrarian views in a vicious, self-reinforcing circle—a phenomenon called seepage (Lewandowsky et al. 2015b). Why? Essentially, the IPCC must carefully gauge the costs and entailing loss of credibility of making a mistake given the heated and politicized debate about climate change, so the Panel has a tacit motivation for using a cautious language.
And then a litany of proposed propaganda strategies based on appeals to authority, how to pick, choose, and present evidence, use of font styles, and much more.
HT/Cam_S
The scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change is empirically settled, which way predictions in this area can be accurate as long as you stick to ‘in the summer it will be warmer than at other times of the year ‘ level.
Otherwise, it is about as ‘settled ‘ as an elephant balancing on an egg.
Still the good news is , there is always a need for more ‘Lew paper ‘
Dr. Salvador Herrando Pérez (Australian Research Associate) proudly brought to you courtesy of the Australian taxpayer.
I notice Lewandowsky has turned up again, like the proverbial bad penny, with the CSIRO in Hobart Tasmania.
Regarding BioScience, Volume 69, Issue 3, 1 March 2019, Pages 209–219:
G-I-G-O.
What heated debate?
There is no debate.
We deniers say…”We observe that there has been no significant warming in 20 years”.
The AGW/CC cadre screams: “YOU IGNORANT EVIL DENIERS DON’T UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITY”…”YOU CAN’T JUST GO BY THE THERMOMETERS. THERE ARE TEMPERATURE EFFECTS OF THE HIDDEN HEAT…THAT’S SOMEWHERE AROUND HERE…PROBABLY IN THE OCEAN WHERE WE CAN’T FIND IT LET ALONE MEASURE IT.”
We deniers follow up with: “Um…you said we’d see thermometers show the warming…like on the earth where some of us live.”
The AGW/CC cadre shouts back: “YOU DENIERS ARE JUST A BUNCH OF STALINISTS THAT ARE STANDING IN THE WAY OF A UTOPIAN FUTURE UNDER OUR DIRECTION AND YOU HATE CHILDREN.”
We deniers close the “discussion” saying…to ourselves mostly: “It might be time to convene a PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION ON CLIMATE SECURITY”.
He makes me embarrassed I have a degree in psychology. The mass stupidity now seen in the field. I’m not saying these people were normal—far from it. But it’s incredible how the inmates have taken over the assylum, gotten peer-reviewed publications and advanced degrees. Putting them together on a desert island seems the best solution to me. Let them attack and destroy each other….
Thankfully, I also majored in chemistry and avoided the complete insanity I saw in the single, soft science majors.
I took one intro psych course in college. Nickname was ‘Nuts and Sluts’. Sort of a lifetime vaccination against nonsense.
Rud, me too. We called it Wacked-Out Psych. The official title was Toward Self-Understanding. This was in 1970.
My wife didn’t have to take a course; she understands me too well.
My Psych 101 prof was Dr. Dee, a man I greatly respected…and argued with, much to the amusement of the class. Early on, a student asked if it were true that the field attracted nuts. “Yes,” he said, “but as soon as they find the healing they’re really looking for, they usually go do something else.”
Alas, though true 60 years ago, that’s no longer the case. To keep enrollments high, psych schools stopped screening out the major nutters. Many schools no longer require therapy as part of the graduation requirements; they merely “highly recommend it.” Senior projects are done in groups, letting C- students slide through. Those who once would abandon the field or get bounced, now stay in it. The nutters have taken over the institution, as study of DSM-5 shows.
‘He makes me embarrassed I have a degree in psychology.’
Imagine how I feel – I was a sociology major – have you seen what THOSE nuts are going around saying?
Even worse, I was journalism before I switched over to sociology.
We forgive you.
Now go and sin no more.
Might be my imagination, but the Weather Chanel, here in the States, had somewhat toned down their Climate Alarmism in the past few months (or I just missed it). Today, they are airing an Al Gore clip, citing a new survey by a Chicago Univ. claiming that “70% of people now believe in Climate Change” and other assorted Algoreisms.
My first thought….they are ramping up in the face of Trump’s PCCS formation….they are starting to sweat!!
They said what?
“Leveraging communication of uncertainty with overwhelming scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change should be one element of a wider reform, whereby the creation of an IPCC outreach working group could enhance the transmission of climate science to the panel’s audiences.”
If I had written a sentence like that I would have been thrown out of my High School English class.
From a high school English exercise many years ago, as best as I recall.
“In terms of human to animal communication, a slight inclination of the cranial structure is as equally beneficial in transmitting approbation, as is a momentary closure of the thin fold of skin that covers and protects the human eye, when directed to a visually impaired quadruped of the equine species.”
Translation.
“A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse.”
Why use 12 words of 5 letters or less, when you can use 50 or more and completely obscure the message.
Sounds like they are on the defensive, so lets leave them an easy out.
Any suggestions ?
Take their money away and give it to people who do real science. Then we might actually get something useful done; to discover more, and improve our understanding of climate change.
You will never win them over with reason and logic because their ideas are unreasonable and illogical.
With that sentence he lost all.
“The scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change is empirically settled”
The AGW only turns up in climate models, and is not at all empirically settled or proved beyond doubt.
The GW part is measured and is very modest, but the A part lacks a lot to be settled.
Lewandowsky voluminous use of pseudo-scientific vocabulary lends him an artistic air of verisimilitude.
The Geat Lakes are warming up…..
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/great-lakes-climate-warming-1.5065922
Great Lakes are rapidly warming, likely to trigger more flooding and extreme weather
“As the air warms, it will hold more moisture, which will likely mean heavier winter snowstorms and spring rains. There could also be more flooding in vulnerable areas.
Not only that, summers will be hotter and drier.”
All this contradiction in one paragraph… Thank you AP, CBC
Yes.
Lots of seepage from The Lew.
(Mine was doing that. I replaced it.)
Sheesh more Lew paper.
“…a phenomenon called seepage (Lewandowsky et al. 2015b).”
Wait! Is he citing himself?
I mean I have attempted to use my Mum as a character reference, but never actually quoted myself for personal gain.
“Read the whole pile here.” No thanks. I have to pierce my eyeballs with red hot needles.
“This calibrated language undoubtedly reaffirms the sophisticated discourse of IPCC reports…” ie reading from the same hymn book.
The second part of Winston Churchill’s comment about Clement Attlee fits Lewandownski to a “T”: “Dr. Lewandowski is a very modest man. Indeed he has a lot to be modest about.”
Prof Lewancowsky,
Your views on the following would be interesting.
The global, related social problem is the gullibility of the individual. Most people have been suckered into believing in many products that do not deserve a second look, even some that are criminally fraudulent.
Given a restart of my life, I think that I could make a credible advertising executive, honing psychology, polling, statistics and observations of human conduct into ways of selling increasing quantities of whatever product was selected. I did not do this, preferring a career of finding new wealth through mineral discoveries of a magnitude to affect national budgets and provide quite a few extra quid into the pockets of all.
That is, I provided actual physical goods whose value the market would assess. The Prof, on the other hand, is creating a nebulous product, not an item one can hold and not one that the market can assess with any accuracy. A block of gold versus a thought fart.
All around me, here in Melbourne, people have been led by thought farts to buy goods under false pretenses. We can quickly get into legal trouble by being too specific, but a list of products that do no good, possibly do harm, are unwanted, that deprive society of workers doing something valuable, might include products like
– fertilizers made from seaweed, one of the most barren starting materials one could imagine
– alternative therapies like hideously-priced multivitamin products, definitely harmful in excess, quite useless to all but a few people with uncommon medical conditions
– any product from homeopathy, one of the pioneering large frauds, with no scientific basis at all
– virtually all female face cosmetics, commonly made from not much more than refined mud
– the SUV automobile, purely a marketing product, heavier, less manoeuverable, fuel guzzling vanity product to keep up with other Moms dropping kids off at kindy
– likewise, all-electric vehicles need for a range of a hundred ot 200 km a trip. High weight, still needs fossil fuels for charging, etc. You know all this, but some continue to fall for the con
– the endless flow of special diets for ordinary people, little more than short-lived fashion statements
– and a few hundred more, but you get the drift.
I would guess that close to half of the average daily household expenditure goes to fraudulent items whose only interest is promoted by advertising campaigns. Take away the advertising input and they will flop. Society will be better off by one hell of a large amount.
Now, with people conditioned since birth to be conned by advertising, there were plenty of sitting ducks to be exposed to the finely-hones attacks of the advertisers when global warming raised its ugly head. Prof Lewandowsky was smart enough to see the potential for his private gain, so it was a natural. His work has been tuned to keeping the con going, of course, because it pays for breakfast, lunch and dinner. But, what wa dud when retirement comes and grandkids say, “Pops, what did you do to help other people?
Geoff.
Isn’t this an admission of the uncertainty monster that Dr. Curry reminds people of?
Isn’t this also an admission that people are trying to cover it up?
I’ve noticed lately that many initial replies on this site have nothing or very little to do with the subject.
Wouldn’t be surprised if this is some kind of leftist tactic.
On a similar note, when I read some of the posts on info wars or prisonplanet, they were hate filled vile racist garbage. My suspicions suggest many of those posts were by leftists trying to make right-wingers look bad. We just seen something like this with that actor in Chicago.