Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[TimG]

Actually, their reputation depends on them being truthful. If somebody was misrepresenting the data, then it would be very easy for someone else to dispute the data, and a discussion would ensue.

There is a very important point which I am not sure you misunderstand or deliberately ignore. The point is someone can say untrue things without lying or engaging in outright fraud. Data can be cherry picked or omitted. Hand waving explanations for discrepancies in the data can be used even if they have no merit.

Whenever someone stands to benefit financially or professionally from certain conclusions they will always seek to manipulate the evidence in any way they can to support those conclusions. In many cases, they will not even be aware of the manipulations or cognitive dissonance will convince them that the manipulations are completely justified. It is human nature. The only time people will forego the benefits gained by producing the desired conclusions is when the manipulations required cross the line into fraud.

Today most people understand that if a company pays for a report chances are it will favor the companies position. The problem is people don't understand that exact same mechanisms bias all government funded research because the people with the power to approve grants have biases and priorities and all research proposals must support those biases.

Edited February 2, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Data can be cherry picked or omitted. Hand waving explanations used to dismiss discrepancies in the data that sound good can be used even if they have no merit.

Of course. A fact is not just a fact. There are degrees of certainty around temperatures that were taken today, twenty years ago, one hundred or one thousand years ago.

You have challenged the use of proxies, and a paper that used another method to reconstruct temperatures. I don't agree but I think this stance is something other than denial.

Whenever someone stands to benefit financially or professionally from a certain conclusions they will always seek to manipulate the data in any way the can to support those conclusions. In many cases, they will not even be aware of the manipulations or cognitive dissonance will convince them that the manipulations are completely justified. It is human nature.

And financial or professional benefit exists to uncover truth - which is why disproving the data would happen if it were false; there would be a huge reputation to be made there. As for the proxies, although there is more controversy there, it's not enough to disprove recent warming - which is what concerns most people.

Today most people understand that if a company pays for a report chances are it will favor the companies position. The problem is people don't understand that exact same mechanisms bias all government funded research because the people with the power to approve grants have biases and priorities.

Perhaps, but for one thing those biases and priorities are a lot more opaque than for corporations. Maybe one can say, for example, that the Harper government tries to influence its scientists in some ways to discount the environmental effects of our resource industries or that the Green Party does the opposite. The fact that the same governmental organizations have to swing both ways, as it were, is one thorn in the side of any theory that the biases are equal. Profiteers, on the other hand, don't have to deal with multiple objectives, or changing organizations to that level of complexity.

[hitops]

Actually, their reputation depends on them being truthful. If somebody was misrepresenting the data, then it would be very easy for someone else to dispute the data, and a discussion would ensue.

Nonsense. It does not depend on them being truthful, it depends on them producing research which is favorable to the source of the funding and to the overall political climate. In this type of science, that means government.

This is the acid test for deniers vs skeptics IMO - if you think that the data is dead wrong then you have no trust in the basic institutions, so the entire world, by extension, is a big lie.

Wrong again. But you do have to understand basic human and incentives. Climate science funding has increased from world bodies many fold in the last few decades. The increase in money, reputation, financing and importance is a powerful incentive, functioning exactly how we would expect it to. If you think that scientists are somehow emotionless robots who don't respond like normal humans to those kinds of incentives, you are naïve.

And financial or professional benefit exists to uncover truth

Not when the financial benefits are contingent on a particular conclusion, it doesn't.

Says the guy who recognizes climate change but thinks we should do absolutely nothing about it. Who cares about the next generation, amiright?

You're assuming doing something about it is the best choice for the next generation. That assumption has no basis in reality, and there is nobody who has any way of proving that. It's far more likely that 'doing something' about climate change would hurt the next generation far more than help them.

Edited February 2, 2014 by hitops

[hitops]

setting aside your unsubstantiated opinion, you've made an effort to set up extreme weather as some determiner... of "something"; something that you somehow fail to convey in absolute terms, particularly in regards warming and your several references to AGW. Care to try again?

I'm not sure what you point is, or even what your question is. What I do know based on your response, is that you consider claims alluding to the current existence of the internet, media saturation, social media etc and thus increased awareness of events as 'unsubstantiated opinion'. This tells me where you want to position yourself in terms of objectivity in the discussion.

[Michael Hardner]

Nonsense. It does not depend on them being truthful, it depends on them producing research which is favorable to the source of the funding and to the overall political climate. In this type of science, that means government.

Through peer review, you would only need to have someone challenge the data - it's that simple.

Not when the financial benefits are contingent on a particular conclusion, it doesn't.

Governments aren't always looking for problems to spend money on.

[TimG]

You have challenged the use of proxies, and a paper that used another method to reconstruct temperatures. I don't agree but I think this stance is something other than denial.

Which goes to show you that there are many ways to present falsehoods without lying or engaging in conduct that would be subject to academic or legal sanctions.

And financial or professional benefit exists to uncover truth - which is why disproving the data would happen if it were false; there would be a huge reputation to be made there.

Professional is always a secondary concern - if producing results made you unemployable in your field because it undermined your colleagues it makes no difference if you were right. This is what happens in many fields including climate science. New scientists that don't toe the line can find themselves out of work before they can make any breakthroughs.

Perhaps, but for one thing those biases and priorities are a lot more opaque than for corporations. Maybe one can say, for example, that the Harper government tries to influence its scientists in some ways to discount the environmental effects of our resource industries

Harper has changed the incentives for Canadian scientists and this will change the research produced over time. New scientists simply will not choose climate science as a specialty they will focus on specialties that better fit the new objectives. But it does not happen over night. But Canada is a small fish compared to the US or even the UK so it won't change the incentives given to those scientists. Edited February 2, 2014 by TimG

[Keepitsimple]

When the raison d'etre of the IPCC is not Climate Change research in general - but only "human induced Climate Change" - the resulting studies can be nothing but biased - unintended perhaps - but that's what happens when scientists are funded to validate a particular point of view. It's human nature.

The principles that the IPCC operates under[12] are set out in the relevant WMO Executive Council and UNEP Governing Council resolutions and decisions, as well as on actions in support of the UNFCCC process.

The aims of the IPCC are to assess scientific information relevant to:[6]
1.Human-induced climate change,
2.The impacts of human-induced climate change,
3.Options for adaptation and mitigation.

[cybercoma]

You're assuming doing something about it is the best choice for the next generation. That assumption has no basis in reality, and there is nobody who has any way of proving that. It's far more likely that 'doing something' about climate change would hurt the next generation far more than help them.

There's no way of proving it, but you have all the answers. That's funny.

[jbg]

10 Worst Natural Disasters in the US:

http://www.livescience.com/11365-10-worst-natural-disasters.html

Sandy was a fluke - three storm fronts coming together at high-tide. Worst disaster since 1928. What's that, something like this has happened before? Sandy was really nothing more than a big, fat windy rainstorm that caused a lot of flooding. Take a look at the 3 or 4 wind-related disasters that have occurred in the US - where literally thousands of people lost their lives. It wasn't Global Warming back then - and it's not now.....but it sure attracts news viewers and readers!

Problem with Sandy wasn't really the rain; New York City got about 1 cm. (not 1") from the rain. The wind came from a diabolical direction, the southeast. That pushed the Hudson and East River literally onto NYC and the Atlantic onto the Jersey shore. The trees are built to ride with a strong northeasterly wind. The combination of the wind effect on the water and the trees' total inability to resist created the havoc experienced in the area.

Nothing to do with global warming.

[On Guard for Thee]

We all know about money affecting science. Harper is firing all the scientists so that tar sands money can flow.

[WestCoastRunner]

In the past 5 years the federal govt has dismissed more than 2,000 scientists and hundreds of programs and world-renowned research facilities have lost their funding. Programs that monitored things such as smoke stack emissions, food inspections, oil spills, water quality have been drastically cut or shut down. This week scientists went public with their concern that irreplaceable science could be lost.

The fifth estate recently televised a program on this very subject called 'Silence of the labs'. I missed it but I'm sure there is a video of it on cbc's website if anyone is interested.

[waldo]

When the raison d'etre of the IPCC is not Climate Change research in general - but only "human induced Climate Change" - the resulting studies can be nothing but biased - unintended perhaps - but that's what happens when scientists are funded to validate a particular point of view. It's human nature.

The principles that the IPCC operates under are set out in the relevant WMO Executive Council and UNEP Governing Council resolutions and decisions, as well as on actions in support of the UNFCCC process.

The aims of the IPCC are to assess scientific information relevant to:

1.Human-induced climate change,

2.The impacts of human-induced climate change,

3.Options for adaptation and mitigation.

no - no matter how many flavours of this Wikipedia entry you keep posting... and you have many like posts with your "Raison D'etre" declarative for the IPCC, the only bias on display/evident is yours!

this, your latest "rabbit raisin" has you shaking up your words slightly, ever slightly, from your last kick at this:

....there is no "conspiracy" but the IPCC/UN quickly fell into the "law of unintended consequences". By creating a mandate that focused solely on Human-induced warming, it soon became an ideology. Funding of scientists and projects flow towards that mandate. Why do you think their mandate was only for human-induced causes - when it's clear that we did not have a fundamental understanding of Natural Climate Change - and that was certainly less of an understanding back in to 80's? Simple - because there was a pre-existing "conclusion" that humans were causing Global Warming. With such a one-sided mandate, it serves as a Raison D'etre. Keep in mind that the IPCC does not conduct scientific research - they assess studies.......so if your study/paper is not related to Human-induced Climate Change, what priority does it get? Read their mandate and tell me if you think there might be just a smidgeon of bias.....

The principles that the IPCC operates under are set out in the relevant WMO Executive Council and UNEP Governing Council resolutions and decisions as well as on actions in support of the UNFCCC process.

The aims of the IPCC are to assess scientific information relevant to:

• Human-induced climate change,
• The impacts of human-induced climate change,
• Options for adaptation and mitigation.

Link: http://en.wikipedia...._Climate_Change

[waldo]

since post recycling seems to be the "Raison D'etre" of some around here:

The problem with the "bias and prejudice" that many associate with the IPCC is in their mandate - it's not to study Climate Change. It's to determine the influence that Humans have on Climate Change. In other words - way back at the IPCC inception - their mind was made up before they started their studies - their starting point was that Humans play a major role in Climate Change. This is their raison-d'etre. How can this NOT lead to severe bias and prejudice?

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

no sir your own most significant bias is offering a most incorrect assessment. That IPCC role statement you quote is one arrived at more than 10 years after the inception of the IPCC approved on Oct 2, 1998 at the Fourteenth Session of the IPCC

if you actually knew anything about the IPCC beyond your denier talking points, you would realize there has been a building iterative confidence level in mankinds contributory influence on global warming a confidence level that reflects upon the complete and equally building assessment of scientific works that associates with an increased focus and concerted effort by scientists. During that 10 year period youre clearly unaware of (or purposely ignoring), the IPCC released 2 major assessment reports and 2 physical science based supplemental reports.. those reports and the subsequent 2 other major IPCC iterative assessment reports over the following ~15 years, are the build-up to the upcoming release of the next IPCC major assessment report later this month the AR5 Report. Over that ~25 year period, across the iterative reports, the IPCC has shifted its growing confidence level in mankinds attribution contribution to global warming from a 50% probability likelihood, to 66%, to 90%... to a 95% level finding within the upcoming AR5 report. This is your "IPCC mind made up"??? 25 years... it took them long enough, hey?

your stated premise of an IPCC mind made up fits quite well with your past MLW denier rants against the IPCC that alternative sceptical science is conspired against, is denied/ignored. Your denier victimization act never rests! Of course, you and other deniers are quite free to skirt the IPCC and bring forward any/all sceptical findings you feel trump the prevailing science. Oh wait thats what peer review/response is all about, hey! Oh sorry, I forgot not only is the IPCC conspiring, so are all scientific journals! How does the poor downtrodden denier man ever stand a chance!!!

[waldo]

since post recycling seems to be the "Raison D'etre" of some around here:

The problem with the "bias and prejudice" that many associate with the IPCC is in their mandate - it's not to study Climate Change. It's to determine the influence that Humans have on Climate Change. In other words - way back at the IPCC inception - their mind was made up before they started their studies - their starting point was that Humans play a major role in Climate Change. This is their raison-d'etre. How can this NOT lead to severe bias and prejudice?

No - the actual, as you say, starting point of the IPCC your so-called mandate, is the following (per the 1988 UN General Assembly 70^th plenary meeting A/RES/43/53):

Protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind

The General Assembly,

Welcoming with appreciation the initiative taken by the Government of Malta in proposing for consideration by the Assembly the item entitled "Conservation of climate as part of the common heritage of mankind",

Concerned that certain human activities could change global climate patterns, threatening present and future generations with potentially severe economic and social consequences,

Noting with concern that the emerging evidence indicates that continued growth in atmospheric concentrations of "greenhouse" gases could produce global warming with an eventual rise in sea levels, the effects of which could be disastrous for mankind if timely steps are not taken at all levels,

Recognizing the need for additional research and scientific studies into all sources and causes of climate change,

Concerned also that emissions of certain substances are depleting the ozone layer and thereby exposing the earth's surface to increased ultra-violet radiation, which may pose a threat to, inter alia, human health, agricultural productivity and animal and marine life, and reaffirming in this context the appeal, contained in its resolution 42/182 of 11 December 1987, to all States that have not yet done so to consider becoming parties to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, adopted on 22 March 1985, and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, adopted on 16 September 1987, as soon as possible,

Recalling its resolutions 42/186 and 42/187 of 11 December 1987 on the Environmental Perspective to the Year 2000 and Beyond and on the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, respectively,

Convinced that changes in climate have an impact on development,

Aware that a considerable amount of valuable work, particularly at the scientific level and in the legal field, has already been initiated on climate change, in particular by the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Meteorological Organization and the International Council of Scientific Unions and under the auspices of individual States,

Welcoming the convening in 1990 of a second World Climate Conference,

Recalling also the conclusions of the meeting held at Villach, Austria, in 1985, which, inter alia, recommended a programme on climate change to be promoted by Governments and the scientific community with the collaboration of the World Meteorological Organization, the United Nations Environment Programme and the International Council of Scientific Unions,

Convinced that climate change affects humanity as a whole and should be confronted within a global framework so as to take into account the vital interests of all mankind,

1. Recognizes that climate change is a common concern of mankind, since climate is an essential condition which sustains life on earth;

2. Determines that necessary and timely action should be taken to deal with climate change within a global framework;

3. Reaffirms its resolution 42/184 of 11 December 1987, in which, inter alia, it agreed with the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme that the Programme should attach importance to the problem of global climate change and that the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme should ensure that the Programme co-operates closely with the World Meteorological Organization and the International Council of Scientific Unions and maintains an active, influential role in the World Climate Programme;

4. Considers that activities in support of the World Climate Programme, approved by the Congress and Executive Council of the World Meteorological Organization and elaborated in the system-wide medium-term environment programme for the period 1990-1995, which was approved by the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme,be accorded high priority by the relevant organs and programmes of the United Nations system;

5. Endorses the action of the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in jointly establishing an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to provide internationally co-ordinated scientific assessments of the magnitude, timing and potential environmental and socio-economic impact of climate change and realistic response strategies, and expresses appreciation for the work already initiated by the Panel;

6. Urges Governments, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and scientific institutions to treat climate change as a priority issue, to undertake and promote specific, co-operative action-oriented programmes and research so as to increase understanding on all sources and causes of climate change, including its regional aspects and specific time-frames as well as the cause and effect relationship of human activities and climate, and to contribute, as appropriate, with human and financial resources to efforts to protect the global climate;

7. Calls upon all relevant organizations and programmes of the United Nations system to support the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;

8. Encourages the convening of conferences on climate change, particularly on global warming, at the national, regional and global levels in order to make the international community better aware of the importance of dealing effectively and in a timely manner with all aspects of climate change resulting from certain human activities;

9. Calls upon Governments and intergovernmental organizations to collaborate in making every effort to prevent detrimental effects on climate and activities which affect the ecological balance, and also calls upon non-governmental organizations, industry and other productive sectors to play their due role;

10. Requests the Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization and the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, immediately to initiate action leading, as soon as possible, to a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to:

a - The state of knowledge of the science of climate and climatic change;

b - Programmes and studies on the social and economic impact of climate change, including global warming;

c - Possible response strategies to delay, limit or mitigate the impact of adverse climate change;

d - The identification and possible strengthening of relevant existing international legal instruments having a bearing on climate;

e - Elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate;

[Michael Hardner]

Professional is always a secondary concern - if producing results made you unemployable in your field because it undermined your colleagues it makes no difference if you were right. This is what happens in many fields including climate science. New scientists that don't toe the line can find themselves out of work before they can make any breakthroughs.

Cite please ? Producing results that question the data make you unemployable ? I have counter examples if you have examples. Sorry, but your last sentence speaks to a blacklist, aka a conspiracy.

I guess I can't prove it didn't happen right ?

[cybercoma]

Cite please ? Producing results that question the data make you unemployable ? I have counter examples if you have examples. Sorry, but your last sentence speaks to a blacklist, aka a conspiracy.

I guess I can't prove it didn't happen right ?

The exact opposite is true. He's spouted this ridiculousness before. As something becomes the consensus, there's a possibility that confirmation bias and not submitting negative results for publication can lead to a false consensus. However, when the overwhelming consensus is says one thing, any results that say the opposite then become VERY marketable and interesting. If some scientist found conclusive evidence that global warming is not happening or found a better explanation for it than the idea that people are contributing to it, they would be published in an instant and lauded as one of the key people in their field. Edited February 3, 2014 by cybercoma

[TimG]

Cite please ? Producing results that question the data make you unemployable ? I have counter examples if you have examples. Sorry, but your last sentence speaks to a blacklist, aka a conspiracy.

Skeptical scientists like Curry, Peilke Sr, Linzden have made numerous comments over the years on how scientists trying to build their careers have no choice but to follow the consensus if they want a career in climate science. The scientists in question have also actually been told that their skeptical stance will damage their careers or, in some cases, their careers were threatened by alarmist bullies.

Now these are anecdotes but they are consistent with the anti-science editorial stance taken by many influential publications like Scientific American or Nature.

It is also worth separating a field like medicine where scientific trials can prove critics wrong and a field like climate science where it is impossible to prove anyone wrong and the only determinate of "truth" is what the "experts" say the "truth" is. In the latter case it is impossible to advance one's career without paying obeisance to the views of the established players. That is why I think your 'counter examples' are largely irrelevant to my point.

Edited February 3, 2014 by TimG

[waldo]

Now these are anecdotes

yes, they are your self-serving anecdotes.. you were challenged by MLW member 'Michael Hardner' for cited examples of actual circumstance where, as stated, "Producing results that question the data make you unemployable". Citation, not your self-serving anecdotes.

.

[cybercoma]

yes, they are your self-serving anecdotes.. you were challenged by MLW member 'Michael Hardner' for cited examples of actual circumstance where, as stated, "Producing results that question the data make you unemployable". Citation, not your self-serving anecdotes.

For someone that likes to be so vigilant about "cherry-picking data," he's being awfully hypocritical here.

[Michael Hardner]

Skeptical scientists like Curry, Peilke Sr, Linzden have made numerous comments over the years on how scientists trying to build their careers have no choice but to follow the consensus if they want a career in climate science. ...

Now these are anecdotes but they are consistent with the anti-science editorial stance taken by many influential publications like Scientific American or Nature.

But... they have storied careers and yet they don't follow the consensus ?

It is also worth separating a field like medicine where scientific trials can prove critics wrong and a field like climate science where it is impossible to prove anyone wrong and the only determinate of "truth" is what the "experts" say the "truth" is.

How about the 'truth' of predicting things like: warming is happening, and an ice age is coming ?

[TimG]

How about the 'truth' of predicting things like: warming is happening, and an ice age is coming ?

Such facts are not interesting. Things like CO2 sensitivity or the value of different types of proxies are areas where debates are supposed to occur yet none of these claims can be proven one way or another. What is accepted as the "truth" is simply a popularity contest among experts. And that makes the "truth" extremely sensitive to non-scientific incentives.

FYI - I have come to separate science into those fields that where hypotheses can be falsified and those fields where falsification is impossible for practical or theoretical reasons. If a field does not allow for practically falsifiable hypotheses then it is pseudo-science and any claims must be treated with a great deal of skepticism.

Edited February 3, 2014 by TimG

[waldo]

It is also worth separating a field like medicine where scientific trials can prove critics wrong and a field like climate science where it is impossible to prove anyone wrong and the only determinate of "truth" is what the "experts" say the "truth" is. In the latter case it is impossible to advance one's career without paying obeisance to the views of the established players. That is why I think your 'counter examples' are largely irrelevant to my point.

"impossible to prove anyone wrong"!!! It seems to me, your favoured denialsphere is quite regularly "proving wrongs" with its latest and greatest silver-bullet AGW killers... almost daily it seems! It's most unfortunate (for you) that those denier/fake skeptic gems either can't find their way into actual publications... or if they do, they don't stand the test of legitimate peer-response - they simply don't hold up.

[waldo]

Things like CO2 sensitivity or the value of different types of proxies are areas where debates are supposed to occur yet none of these claims can be proven one way or another. What is accepted as the "truth" is simply a popularity contest among experts. And that makes the "truth" extremely sensitive to non-scientific incentives.

absolute nonsense! The lack of a definitive number for sensitivity does not suggest that number can't be refined inclusive of uncertainties... does not preclude a consensus range determination. A relative range of consensus sensitivity does not preclude policy attachments..... particularly when those relative ranges can be... and are... scientifically quantified. Don't hesitate to provide more of your "anecdotes" that you suggest are "sensitizing climate sensitivity"!

[Michael Hardner]

Such facts are not interesting.

What ? They're at the core of the disconnect between reality and spin - they're at the starting square of the board game that is the debate. We can't get an overwhelming majority of democratic participants to agree on a fact, which is a necessity for further discussion/act - I think that's more than interesting.

FYI - I have come to separate science into those fields that where hypotheses can be falsified and those fields where falsification is impossible for practical or theoretical reasons. If a field does not allow for practically falsifiable hypotheses then it is pseudo-science and any claims must be treated with a great deal of skepticism.

Except that predicting future temperature is boring ? That just makes no sense.

[Michael Hardner]

Does anybody even bother to prove the ice age scientists wrong ? It's probably not worth the time.