Bishop Hill Keith Hunter on climategate
Apr 7, 2010 Climate: CRU The Royal Society of New Zealand has issued an interesting statement on the shambles that is climate science. Prof Keith Hunter's position is nuanced and seems a long way from the political utterances of the Royal Society. Hunter's is not a sceptic position, but there is at least some common ground.
There is one rather interesting contradiction in his paper though. Hunter seems to recognise that the peer review process has been undermined:
The emails illegally hacked from the UEA Climate Research Unit mail server reveal the bitter frustration felt by some prominent climate researchers with the small but very vocal community of people who dispute their findings. However, this frustration does not justify appearing to conspire against other scientists who are genuinely sceptical and seek to publish their views in scientific journals.
But then he goes on to say:
At the same time, of course, it is only fair to expect the critics of the mainstream scientific views on climate change (and other contentious areas of science) to adopt an equally transparent approach with their own information, and with their own use and re-analysis of data entrusted to the public domain. They should also subject their findings to rigorous peer review.
The contradiction is clear. Sceptics, as we know, are largely excluded from the scientific literature, where peer review acts as a barrier to dissenting views.
My advice to Professor Hunter would be to concentrate on replication and the availability of data and code, which, as we know, is the norm among sceptics.
Reader Comments (21)
Amen.
I agree overall. He seems to be contradicting himself with the two quotes you posted. It's almost like he is trying to find a diplomatic balance without compromising much. He doesn't pull it off.
The fact the he says the emails were illegally hacked says something in itself about his stance.
As a New Zealand resident, I find the utterances of scientists and politicians in this country deeply hypocritical. We mine coal and export most of it; we have some of the worst insulated houses in the western world, and yet we are happy to destroy our beautiful natural treasures for the sake of a few Mw of hydro power (this as of today:
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/mixed-reaction-mokihinui-dam-decision-3449960
)
New Zealand climate scientists are pretty close to the IPCC, particularly David Wratt, chief scientist at NIWA.
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/key-contacts/all/david-wratt
It will be an interesting time here as NZ tries to push ahead with its ETS, including taxes on agricultural emissions, As far as I know, NZ is the only country in the world proposing taxes on agricultural emissions at this stage
However, news today indicates some push back on this, from the NZ Herald:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10636743
He goes along quite nicely until he falls slap into the classic warmists' circular argument
*The risks of doing nothing are too great.* Yes, but only if you already subscribe to the notion of catastrophic warming.
He then falls apart, suggesting we should act on climate change in the same way as doctors took up antiseptics.
"From a philosophical point of view, none of these lines of evidence “proves” the theory of AGW. However, by the same token, Joseph Lister did not “prove” that antiseptic surgery practices prevent sepsis."
Another thing that constantly hacks me off, statements like this:
"Faults on both sides of the ledger"
By presenting climate science as a two-sided "debate" immediately politicises the whole thing.
Anyone with any sense knows that humans affect the climate; even by scratching my nose I do so, Whether it is measurable or an an immediate problem to humanity is a different question.
Scientists with any sense of professional integrity need to stop presenting the case with this black and white picture. You are not lawyers.
Good points, Andy Scrase.
I take what I think is the same starting point: all actions and features within the climate system (I guess that extends at least to the galaxy!) influence it, and some influences are so large that we can discern them and speculate about causal relationships or networks.
As far as I can tell, we have not been able to discern an impact from, say, the growth of CO2 levels over the past 50 years. But our theories do support, with some conviction, that CO2 does contribute appreciably, if quite modestly, to for example surface temperatures, with the effect probably most pronounced as levels go from 0 to around 150ppm. At our current levels, even a doubling of CO2 seems to present verification challenges for its impact on the climate, although I understand that the impact on agricultural productivity would be easy to confirm.
Let's give the guy credit. He acknowledges the need for more open debate and cedes many of the trenchant positions of AGW alarmists are untenable. Sure, his interpretation of the findings is that AGW is more likely than not. But he sounds rational. Like he could change his position, if the evidence moves the other way (as it appears to be doing).
As a New Zealander, I am slightly encouraged by this. We seem to be heading in a modestly better direction than, say, the UK. Do join is for a holiday!
I have no fear with respect to the climate but i am frightened to death that we are entering the dark ages again. Real honest debate will get us nowhere against the climatists. I really do not know what the answer is.
Unless those scientists who know the truth, speak out , this waggon will keep rolling and we will have no personal freedom to do anything.
They will just tell us what to do and when to do it. ITS TERRIFYING!!!!!
A little bit OT but this email from Fred Singer to Ray Bradley put it puts the "argument" into some context. The sceptics aren't saying there's no global warming, some, maybe all of us believe some of it is probably caused by human activities. The problem lies in the IPCC reports and the SPM, where scientific scenarios are turned into predictions, and calls for massive disruption to our industrial society go out supported by the NGOs pushing environmentalism. Dr. Singer asks the two pertinent questions, who is going to invest in new technologies enough to develop them on an industrial scale over the next ten years?
The second puts the ball in Dr. Bradley's corner by asking him if he has any idea what effect the reduction of 60% to 80% of the 1990 level will have on the world's economies.
From: "S. Fred Singer" <singer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Raymond S. Bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re:Your msg about climate/energy policy
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 11:55:23 -0400
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pjm8x@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>Dear Ray
You sent me this op-ed (?) (Letter to editor?) about the need to convert
the US from a carbon-based economy to a hydrogen-based economy. I can't
guess why you wanted me to know your views, but it does help me to better
understand what motivates your scientific work and judgment. It also
throws some doubt about your impartiality in promoting the "hockey stick'
temperature curve that a number of us have been critical of.
In any case, I doubt if espousal of this energy policy will help BP and
ARCO discover a source of hydrogen somewhere.
You quote the "progressive" Business Council approvingly: "We accept the
views of most scientists that enough is known about the science and
environmental impacts of climate change for us to take actions to address
its consequences." And from BP chairman : "the time to consider the policy
dimensions of policy change is not when the link between greenhouse gases
and climate change is conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot
be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part."
I note that BP and ARCO are still out there exploring for oil; they don't
seem to be quite ready yet to put real money where their mouth is.
You call for the US to take leadership in stabilizing the
climate. Perhaps the government will turn to you to learn how to do
this. A far less ambitious goal would be to stabilize the atmospheric
concentration of CO2. According to the IPCC this would require an emission
reduction of 60 to 80 percent (with respect to 1990) --- WORLDWIDE.
Have you ever considered the consequences of such a policy -- assuming it
could really be adopted?
Best wishes ,
Fred
**********************************
"They should also subject their findings to rigorous peer review."
Is there such a thing as "rigorous peer review" in climate science for any papers?
It doesn't seem to happen before a paper is published. From what I understand, there is little funding for anyone to try to duplicate or falsify the stated results of any climate paper that has already been published. This is of course assuming that the data, scripts, and procedures have been documented such that duplication is even possible to attempt without going to extraordinary means.
Keith Hunter says: 'Philosophers (whose deliberations about the nature of the universe pre-date modern science by at least 2000 years) know clearly that a scientific theory cannot ever be proven (or disproven), even by scientific facts.'
I am horribly hungover, but is that right? I thought theories were subject to falsification, as in 'the sun goes round the earth'?, or medical science as in disease transference mechanisms.
We can quibble with Hunter, but how do you combat deep deliberate ignorance in NGOs like the United Nations Population Fund, which begins a report thus:
"The temperature of the earth's surface has risen 0.74 degrees Celsius in the past 100 years. This increase may not seem much, but this warming has been sufficient to disrupt many of the planet's ecosystems to pose significant risks to human well-being."
I agree that all sides should make their data and sources available to the public. But so far, only the CRU crowd and the IPCC have been reticent. The release of the emails from CRU only put some meat on the bones: we already knew that they were obstructing full disclosure.
I'm afraid I must disagree with your assessment of Professor Hunter's statement.
While there are a few conciliatory sentences on subjects for which there can be no defense - i.e. data availability and thesis verifiability - nonetheless Professor Hunter employs many of the standard AGW faithful attack methods:
1) That skeptics should do all that the scientist's do. Silly, since the skeptics aren't necessarily putting forward climatic theories as much as critiquing other's work. Secondly silly because the skeptics aren't the ones advocating radical society altering measures and therefore should not have the same burden of proof.
2) Professor Hunter conflates human activities pointing toward climate change with precautionary principle policies. This is wrong because the precautionary principle policies aren't focusing on the full range of human activities affecting climate - such as land use changes, dams/irrigation, wood burning, etc - but specifically fossil fuels.
His example of CO2 in the atmosphere vs. CO2 burned by fossil fuels is merely a back door way of justifying a specific policy.
3) His CO2 GHG effect statement also completely glosses over the feedback issue: to wit whether climate is a net positive or net negative feedback. To say CO2 increases energy on the earth's surface by 1.5 watts per square meter also assumes that CO2's effect is not logarithmic.
All in all, I think you are trying to hard to give him credit which is not due.
He is accurate. Facts can be proven or disproved. Theories, which are interpretation of facts, are not provable or disprovable. What science does with theories is to determine which are more useful or less useful.
Goes back to the whole falisification issue. Nothing is ever proven because it should only take one countering example to disprove a theory, no matter how strong. Most people know that part, but the reverse is also true. Facts may change where what was thought to be a false theory could become true.
Every generation has thought that they had true knowledge, it would be simple arrogance (and ignorance) to assume that we actually are the ones who hold that truth. Now this doesn't mean that we should treat all theories equally, however we should always maintain a tiny bit of doubt no matter how true a theory looks.
A hodgepodge of climatism - that is all this statement amounts to, with a healthy dose of precaution-mongering, CO2 vilification, ocean desalination and acidification.
You'd think he is trying to make sense when he says: -
"Only history will show whether the climate scientists are right or wrong"
and then he goes and says:
" If they are wrong, nobody will care much because the efforts made to mitigate the now-perceived problems will lead to a better world in any event"
Was it Liebnitz who propounded the idea that we live "in the best of all possible worlds"?
"However, vicious personal attacks on the integrity of experienced scientists, ..."
The so-called experienced scientists characterize attacks on their ideas as vicious and directed at their integrity.
The backstory to the Hunter piece can be found about how cruelly those evil climate change skeptics have started treating poor honest scientists who have worked on climate change after the climategate e-mails were released. Honest slimate* change investigators have been threatened in emails with having because of the climategate emails, threatened with for thier adherence to science, and some have even received what might be termed This sort of thuggish behavior has no place in science as Hunter rightly points out.
* an actual typo which I like so much I kept it in. please feel free to use it and any variations you can think of like 'the Slimategate e-mails"
argh, HTML error. not going to see how I messed it up and will just leave the links for cut and pasting.
The backstory to the Hunter piece can be found at the ABC
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm
about how cruelly those evil climate change skeptics have started treating poor honest scientists who have worked on climate change after the climategate e-mails were released. Honest slimate* change investigators have been threatened in emails by deniers with having their professional credentials revoked
http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_11392.html
because of the climategate emails, threatened with criminal trials
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5798
for their adherence to science, and some have even received what might be termed death threats
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031207.htm
This sort of thuggish behavior has no place in science as Hunter rightly points out.
Did he really write this: " If they are wrong, nobody will care much because the efforts made to mitigate the now-perceived problems will lead to a better world in any event" ?
That would disgrace an informed child of 10.
The harm caused by climate alarmism includes a great deal of severe hardship due to increased food prices thanks to bio-fuels, increased energy costs thanks to totally under-justified CO2 reduction schemes, psychological damage to children and other vulnerable groups through relentless and unwarranted fearmongering, reduced competitiveness in the advanced economies - the very place where technical and scientific solutions are still most likely to be found for many problems, delays to the buildings of power stations, the creation of hideous monuments to irrationality aka 'windfarms', and the poisoning of international relations through the creation of another grievance and associated set of demands (remember the Copenhagen fiasco? ).
Truly, many academics are childish. It is one of the hazards of their profession.
Writing from Dunedin, where I was formerly employed at Keith Hunter's institution, the University of Otago, I should like to advise that in my opinion this man is not to be trusted on this matter. He has been criticised by letter-writers to the local newspaper for trying to discourage the announcement of contrary views to the AGW position. And, if one uses its search engine, there remains not ONE reference in the Otago Daily Times for Climategate, and few in Auckland's New Zealand Herald. New Zealand remains very isolated from developments elsewhere in recent months, inspite of the efforts of sceptics to have the nation's media report on what has happened in Germany, France other countries, not to mention the USA and UK. The government-owned state television and radio stations continue to push 'the consensus'. Few Kiwis would have ANY idea that their own NIWA is backpedalling, let alone have read the easter articles in Der Spiegel.
I agree with Ralph - there has been less publicity for the climategate scandal in our newspapers than even in the US.
I think it would however, be nice to write to Professor Hunter and thank him for his generosity in offering up the significant budget assigned to science by the New Zealand Government as a means of paying for the changes which he states will benefit us whether AGW is true or not. Most generous.
Then see if he still thinks the cost is worth it ...
Hello Ralph: You know me personally. The suggestion that I have any influence on the ODT is frankly ridiculous and easily checked. I thought you were a better scholar than than that. If you dispute this then get in touch - you know how how. You are completely mistaken. I am very disappointed at your obvious lack of rigour - I thought you were better than that.