Monday
Jun282010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Falkenblog on the Hockey Stick Illusion
Jun 28, 2010 Books Climate: HSI A review of the Hockey Stick Illusion from economist Eric Falkenstein.
Jun 28, 2010 Books Climate: HSI
Reader Comments (15)
From the review, it is not clear to me that he even understood what the specific discussion of the hockey stick is all about.
I'm pretty sure some of the commenters don't.
"Do I believe 98% of the world's climate scientists on the issue? Or do I believe an economist and an accountant? Fortunately, that's a simple dilemma to resolve"
Missing that most of the illusion relies on stats rather than science.
Umm...what qualifications are required to qualify as a 'climate scientist'. Is there something special about 'climate science' that means it is not a synthesis of (among others) physics, statistics, maths, geology, chemistry etc etc.
If I sat a degree level examination in 'climate science' what topics would be unique ...and not covered in any of the above 'conventional sciences?
If I wished to study 'climate science' as an undergraduate degree, which A levels would I be expected to study?
I'm trying to discover the unique qualities and knowledge a 'climate scientist' must have that makes them different in some real sense from any other scientist (or not).
Facetious answers are welcome too, but I mean it as a serious question. Thanks.
Stirling:
I've said it many times before, that IMHO as a physicist, the main scientific subject that describes the climate behaviour is physics. Many of the so-called "climate scientists" are "environmental scientists", whatever branch of science that is. I don't know what you have to study to be an "environmental scientist".
@Stirling English: I found this link that shows the course list for an undergrad program from the Univ. of Nebraska under the name "Applied Climate Science Area of Emphasis in Environmental Studies".
http://snr.unl.edu/undergrad/programs/acs.asp#tab4
Looks to me like mostly an Ecology degree with some introductory courses for Meteorology, Economics, Statistics, Biology, Maths, Chemistry, and Physics. Most universities seem to handle it as a minor under their schools for either Earth Sciences or Atmospheric Sciences.
Sorry a bit O/T, but comments on the BBC blog following the Panorama climate programme earlier tonight are virtually unanimous, so far, in giving it the big thumbs down:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/panorama/2010/06/join_the_debate_on_whats_up_wi.html
Phillip Bratby
Many of the so-called "climate scientists" are "environmental scientists", whatever branch of science that is. I don't know what you have to study to be an "environmental scientist".
I will give you a hint, Phillip. Where I live presently, those happy chaps working in the sewers are "environmental engineers". Have any idea what they study? Once upon a time, we called them "sanitation engineers", and before that "sanitation workers."
However, you make an excellent point. Global warming or not is a physics problem. Calories in, calories out, wherever they come from. The big question is where? The sun, the core of the Earth, cattle farting, or whatever.
As a side issue, one of our posters from several weeks ago, Patrick Frank, who is a physical chemistry research fellow at Stanford wrote an interesting article which I found quite well done.
Here
But that is sorta a review article. I found it interesting, but not as good as his "lab report" version.
here
Of interest in the second paper is he admits that he knows little about statistics, so he found a real statistician to help him (bless him!) and guess what -- he found the Root Unit before VS did!
This is the same Patrick Frank I had an argument (as well as you, I believe) about the relative merits of engineers and "doctors". Still, although a still-wet-behind-the-ears Ph.D., he did do a creditable job. Unlike all the "real" environmental "scientists" we are plagued with.
It is heavy reading for most, but you should appreciate it.
Stirling English - Walking the streets of Brisbane one weekend day, I was approached by a young lady who felt the need to tell me about CO2, climate change and the ruination of civilisation as we know it. She had badges, pamphlets and all sorts of literature. It was before opening time so I had no problems engaging in conversation.
When it became apparent that I was less than convinced and that I was actually arguing with her on some scientific matters, she became a bit snarky and demanded to know what my qualifications were. "Doctorate in physics", I said. "So you're not a climate scientist then", she replied. "No", I said, "and what are your qualifications?"
Environmental lawyer.
I didn't, but I feel now that I should have apologised to her for my scepticism.
Thanks for all the replies. I think they have just confirmed my suspicion that the definition of 'climate scientist' is 'one who proclaims themself to be a climate scientist'. This is fine. I'm quite happy for it to be so....after all there is no formally recognised qualification in Astrology or UFOlogy either.
What is not so good is (as GrantB's post illustrates) is the general public's apparent belief that there is a field called 'climate science' that is qualiatively different from the other pantheon of science that many of us posting on this and other blogs are trained in...
And that a qualification in physics or statistics or chemistry is worthless in this field and/or is somehow trumped by claiming to be a 'climate scientist', even if this turns out to be a week or so course in basic physics built upon A levels in Biology, Politics and Geography (real example).
Any ideas as to how the 'hard scientists' can correct these misapprehensions which are in part allowing the 'climate scientists' to gain an authority that (IMHO) they rarely deserve? Thanks
SE, MSc (Chemistry)
I found this follow up post from Eric Falkenstein a very fine summary of what I have been struggling to express for a long time.
'Lastly, there's the issue of integrity. Mann et al have shown extremely tendentious reporting--withholding data in many cases, developing a calculated rhetorical strategy of 'not responding' and hoping criticism fade away, as opposed to actually addressing the issues. There is only one reason to withhold data, because you don't want to be embarrassed. No one lies like the indignant, and the Global Warming clique is filled with righteous indignation'
Bravo. When people indulge in underhand tactics, it often means that there are some skulls to be dug. In 'climate science' I suspect an entire graveyard is buried for the diligent scientific archaeologist to find.
I just made what I thought was a good post on Falkenblog and then I find that you did it all here first hehe.
I think that the right description of a climate scientist should simply be "a scientist in a field which has a contribution to make to the study of the climate". As has already been said, those fields include, Physics, Mathematics, Statistics, Biochemistry, Geology and many more I suspect.
I do not believe there is a "science of climatology" since no one man can be an expert in all these fields.
Worth reating... Cat amongst pidgeons?
“Michael Mann says ‘hockey stick’ should NOT have become the climate change ICON.”
ie ref 'The hockey Stick Illusion'
BBC panorama program - 26th June 2010 - (probaly not viewable on the internet outside of the UK
I wonder why Michael is saying this now! ;)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7849441/Michael-Mann-says-hockey-stick-should-not-have-become-climate-change-icon.html
Don Pablo, your two links are the same?
Stirling English said,
It's very difficult. With a PhD in chemical engineering, people I know usually assume I know what I'm talking about with regard to related technical fields. When it comes to the whole "climate science" thing, though, inevitably people go for the "but you're not a climate scientist" line, to which I reply that the actual issues are trivial to understand. At best, that leaves people confused. The reality is, most people are totally baffled and intimidated by anything related to science and they've accepted that they must trust others - just as they trust their car mechanics etc. It's a sort of helplessness, and the idea that supposed experts - to whom "everybody" listens - can be wrong just increases that sense of helplessness - so they prefer to just "trust the expert" - a point many people have made.
I don't think there's anything else that we can do. In the end, the whole house of cards will collapse due to the lack of any catastrophic warming people can actually relate to in their lives, and to increases in energy prices, fall in standard of living etc that will follow from CAGW-inspired policies.
Jonathan
Don Pablo, your two links are the same?
Not on my computer. The first one points to
https://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_climate_of_belief.html
The second to
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01resources/climate_of_belief.pdf
The second version has much more detail in it, including the statistical stuff. Worth a read, if you can read it. Dr. Frank does show some promise, even if he has problems with engineers. None of us are perfect, so what the heck.