Friday
Sep092011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Make haste more slowly
Sep 9, 2011 Climate: Models What fun - readers point out that some revisions are to be made to the Dessler paper in the light of comments made by Roy Spencer. I wonder if Steve M's comments will have an effect too?
Reader Comments (289)
MM
That really is weak. We are talking about Spencer here.
Why don't you tell me how Spencer retains any claim to scientific objectivity after endorsing this:
Please explain why this is not indisputable evidence that for Spencer believes that climate science contradicts the Bible?
Please explain how, in the face of this fact Spencer need be taken at all seriously.
How anyone, any rational adult, can persist in denying that there is a real problem here is beyond me.
"I was responding to other comments"
You sure were, almost like you don't have anything better to do. ;)
Andrew
Nothing about all the other dodgy people Spencer seems to be tight with... see 5:52 pm. How... predictable.
The problem with Spencer isn't just the weird theology. It's the politics too. I repeat: the problem with Spencer is not something rational, honest people can just wave away with 72 hours of concerted piffle.
What is as troubling as Spencer's conflicts between scientific objectivity and religious and political affiliation, is the absolute refusal of you all to even admit that these facts exist.
BA
Banging out replies to the weakly argued nonsense on this thread doesn't take much time. Especially in your case.
"Banging out replies to the weakly argued nonsense on this thread"
BBD,
If it's weakly argued nonsense, why bother? Do you think people will be misled if you don't play hero?
Andrew
If anyone is still reading this thread, could you please do our favourite zealous crusader a big favour and translate my comment of:
Sep 12, 2011 at 6:23 PM | hro001
Into very simple words so that even s/he might understand.
It might spare her/him from any further excursions into a fantasyland in which her/his appeal to her/his own authority constitutes gospel truth - not to mention further escalation of her/his classic exercises in projection.
Then again, a review of our zealous crusader's past performances strongly suggests that it might not. Oh, well, never mind.
But, brace yourselves, folks, for yet another wall of text - that has absolutely nothing to do with the price of tea in China, or with the topic of this thread, for that matter. Methinks our zealous crusader is about due (if not overdue!) to recyle another one, and may well unilaterally declare her/himself "victorious" Because! S/He! Said! So! (for the umpteenth time!)
Hilary
Another evasion. Let's try again:
Why don't you tell me how Spencer retains any claim to scientific objectivity after endorsing this:
Please explain why this is not indisputable evidence that for Spencer believes that climate science contradicts the Bible?
Please explain how, in the face of this fact Spencer need be taken at all seriously.
How anyone, any rational adult, can persist in denying that there is a real problem here is beyond me.
And this very much means you. So stop wriggling and answer the question
We'll get onto the dodgy political affiliations later, when you've addressed the above.
Is anybody keeping track of how many points is BBD trying to cram into this thread? Especially, the repeats.
BBD - we have discussed at length the theological perspective. I have posted several links, explained that one can't blame the religious-minded to talk in religious terms to other religious-minded, and you have not been able to reply to any of that. And now you bring back the idea that about indisputable evidence that for [sic] Spencer believes that climate science contradicts the Bible? Re-read my comments above, show at least a decent modicum of understanding.
You're blaming the French for talking French to each other.
BBD,
Clearly your quote states it is in reference to:
"global warming alarmism"
Not "climate science" which seems to be your substitution.
Andrew
BBD, it seems to me that speculation regarding, or even very accurate reporting of, an individual's motivation isn't really useful for the sorts of things we puzzle over here - maybe that's why CA forbids it.
What makes groups do what they do does seem useful but maybe a topic for Climate Resistance.
BA
No. 'Global warming alarmism' is the CA substitution for 'current understanding of climate science', which I shorten to 'climate science' because it's, well, obvious.
MM
Spencer endorses the CA Declaration. Which says: climate science contradicts the bible.
Nobody forced Spencer to do this (he hasn't said, anyway). I wouldn't sign this unless you had a gun in my neck. So Spencer presumably agrees that climate science contradicts the bible, or as a properly objective scientist he would have refused to endorse this statement
So, his scientific objectivity is compromised? Yes or no?
I understand your comments, but they do not address this.
Your new 'repetition' tactic is deeply ironic. I would not be forced to repeat questions endlessly if you actually answered them. You don't, so I now assume that you cannot.
Prove me wrong.
j ferguson
I take your point, but Spencer is held in high regard by many here. He is widely perceived to have 'proved' that climate sensitivity is low, when in fact he has never done so. Nevertheless, he is a prolific writer and speaker of the message that the orthodoxy has it wrong, and there's nothing to worry our little heads about.
But - and I include SB11 here - he has not published any work which demonstrates that our current estimate of CS is wrong.
You can say that motive is not relevant, but it is. Really. Spencer is very popular - and friendly - with the Republicans and they're out there saying what he does: it's all nonsense.
I argue that Spencer's scientific objectivity is compromised, and the evidence is the disconnect between what his published work actually shows, and what he says in public. But he is taken seriously by Republicans, some of whom may be or become influential in policy making. That's why motive matters
'Global warming alarmism' is the CA substitution for 'current understanding of climate science', which I shorten to 'climate science'
Ah, you've substituted (and shortened) for the substitution. Very scientific.
Andrew
Seems the problem BBD has is common among atheists: having not a clue about the inner thoughts of believers, many atheists try to "teach Shoe Science to the cobbler" as I mentioned, and make very wrong assumptions about how believers interact with the rest of the world.
For example, when the text says that global warming alarmism rests on poor theology, with a worldview of the Earth and its climate system contrary to that taught in the Bible, it is obviously referring to global warming alarmism as it is today. If and when things will change, then global warming alarmism might as well not be "contrary to that taught in the Bible" any longer.
The history of organised religion is full of example of changes in the Doctrine. Believers are not mindless robots programmed by priests and theologians. But of course if one's an atheist, this is considered impossible, and believers all drinkers of some version or other of "Kool Aid".
And so we're back to a theological point written in theological terms alongside other points of view...but in BBD's atheist obsession, there is nothing else. Amen.
BBD: "I argue that Spencer's scientific objectivity is compromised, and the evidence is the disconnect between what his published work actually shows, and what he says in public."
Why isn't showing this sufficient?
j ferguson
I'm not clear what you are saying. Have I done so to your satisfaction?
BBD,
I was trying to suggest that making a case for the disconnect between his talk and his demonstration ought to be enough to discredit Spencer, if that is your intent. Getting into his religious views doesn't seem necessary even if he does so himself. There is a bit of a slippery slope here.
Some of us are frequently confronted by astonishing views on other subjects held by people we see eye to eye with on some issues. Matt Ridley just addressed a column to this topic on his blog. For my part, I would prefer to savor the areas where we share an interest and hopefully ignore/forget the others.
I don't have an informed view on Spencer's latest but it, and Dessler's response seem to have provoked a most interesting thread at CA referred to here on another thread, the gist of which is that the methods in current use in the climatology trade may not be the best for extracting signal from datasets.
make that some kinds of datasets, sorry.
MM
You did not answer the question:
Spencer made a voluntary public endorsement of a declaration that there is no danger from AGW because it contradicts scripture.No objective scientist can make such an endorsement.
So Spencer's scientific objectivity is compromised. Yes or no?
No. Spencer's a human being, and a scientist.
There is no such a thing as an "objective scientist". Or if there is, it's not human.
MM
I'm suggesting that Spencer, the human scientist, is biased. All you have to do admit that the direction of that bias is revealed by his endorsements and media profile.
Simple as that.
BBD plays with words to convince himself.
Spencer's Cornwall thing says that *global warming alarmism* doesn't play along well with scripture.
You say anthropogenic global warming goes against's Spencer's scripture.
Spencer has morphed into the Climate Satan, in your mind, BBD. An exorcism is due.
BBD - every human being is biased. So you're suggesting that Spencer is a human being who is a human being.
What a discovery!!
What a fascinating display of evasions.
j ferguson
I think Spencer is discrediting himself without help from me.
Otherwise, I agree. If you have a spare evening tonight [sic] you can go over the thread and see exactly how right you are about the slippery slope. But there's a problem here and it needs addressing. Others differ, but incoherently. Hence the waffle-o-thon.
This is the good part. But the scrap in the literature is being overplayed by the sceptics. As Curry said, it's not overturning any paradigms but it's catnip for sceptic bloggers. [Okay, she said crack. I have misrepresented her.]
Unfortunately but not coincidentally, Spencer's views are politically influential in the hands of some Republicans. This is where it gets serious. So we should be wary of misrepresentation when it's not a joke anymore.
Maurizio
To be sure, as Dan Dennett points out, religion may well be 'kool-aid' but so many human beings drink it, that you start wondering - 'what is it in that drink...' Or at least he started wondering. Religion is like a opioid-prion-flu virus chimera - it makes lots of copies of itself, is very soothing and adddicting, and it is very hard to destroy, and most important of all, it is probably derived from an unknown endogenous constituent.
Once again, BBD's comments prove that 'Fox News' sets the climate agenda. 'Fox News' being a catch-all proxy for Republicans, Oil Swilling Deniers ( (c) Barry Woods), religious right, etc etc.
"This is where it gets serious. So we should be wary of misrepresentation when it's not a joke anymore."
BBD, has hit on exactly why the Global Warming Hoax should be exposed. Well done sir.
Andrew
Nobody has answered the question:
Spencer made a voluntary public endorsement of a declaration that there is no danger from AGW because it contradicts scripture. No objective scientist can make such an endorsement.
So Spencer's scientific objectivity is compromised. Yes or no?
I'm suggesting that Spencer, the human scientist, is biased. All you have to do admit that the direction of that bias is revealed by his endorsements and media profile.
Simple as that.
BBD - You must've gone ga-ga by now. I cannot answer more clearly than in comment dated Sep 13, 2011 at 10:29 PM.
Spencer is biased, and you're biased too, and everybody else is. It's one of the reasons for peer review. Human beings write scientific stuff that strives for objectivity, yet they are not objective, and they will never be.
Please do join the real world.
Yes, has BBD ever heard of the scientific method? It's supposed to help take the bias out.
Maybe he doesn't know how to recognize it, as his mind has been filled with Global Warming Goblins.
Andrew
BBD
Why are you so blind?
The Cornwall Alliance says that a certain view - which they call global warming alarmism, is against Christian theology.
I don't know - they sound pretty reasonable to me.
OMG, our resident pseudonymous zealous crusader has finally made a sustainable claim:
Yes, no doubt like many other members of the Cornwall Alliance (and an increasing number of skeptics who are not members of the Cornwall Alliance), Prof. Spencer, a respected climate scientist, is biased against ideas that rest on:
.Come to think of it, the above represents a very rational, succinct and articulate summary of my own particular biases.
However, perhaps our resident pseudonymous zealous crusader has biases more along the lines of those expressed by the Moderator of the United Church of Canada, whose preachings to her flock, include:
Oh, well ... One can hardly wait to see the next molehill our zealous crusader will endeavour to make into an enormous mountain.
In the real world, Spencer is not seen as a 'respected climate scientist'. This is because his published work usually contains methodological errors and does not support his public claims of a low climate sensitivity. There's a harsh word for that, worse than bias, or even misrepresentation.
Note that I do not use it here.
Your flimsy but dogged 'defence' of Spencer only shows that your bias is aligned with his. But you have no evidence for your belief in a low climate sensitivity, any more than Spencer does. It all points the other way, to an equilibrium sensitivity of at least +3C if CO2 is held at 550 ppmv.
If anyone needs to join the real world, it is you three. You can begin by reviewing the science that you, and Spencer, insist is wrong. Start with Knutti & Hegerl's short review paper from 2008, and follow the references. Or just Google 'Earth climate sensitivity' and read the published literature and popular treatments thereof. Take care to avoid 'sceptical' pseudo-science though.
Real sceptics look at all the evidence. In the remote likelihood that you actually do this, you will learn many interesting things. But since you won't, you are doomed to remain benighted pseudo-sceptics locked out of the real world.
BBD - with today's resignation by yet another Big Physicist who only felt free to speak his mind and leave the APS after retirement, you should feel very well ashamed at being a collaborator in the constant war waged against working scientists who happen to just think differently. A war that forces many to become and remain minor, subjugated characters (see Wagner) as few can stomach the constant barrage of insults of whom your comments are just a minute example.
The scientific world is gripped by Terror. Shame on you and your praising of the guillotine.
MM
The scientific world is gripped by curiosity. Let's not get carried away here.
Above I suggested that reading might be useful in dispelling some misconceptions about climate sensitivity. This wasn't a taunt.
I was, for a long time, convinced that a scientific argument for a low climate sensitivity remained on the table (eg Lindzen; Spencer). Like any sane human being, I very much hoped that the consensus was in error with its +3C median estimate.
Let's be clear about this: nothing would give me greater pleasure than for this estimate to be proved to be too high. Preferably by at least 50%.
The problem is that the more you read, the less likely this seems to be.
As I see it now, at the end of this unedifying squabble, only one of us has actually looked at both sides of the scientific argument in a properly sceptical way.
This scepticism led me to examine Spencer's work, then (at first gingerly, because I thought it wrong) his affiliations. Then, when the bigger picture became undeniable, to wonder about his motivations.
You could say that I've lost my faith. If you think this makes me happier, you are mistaken.
All I can see is that only one of us debased himself in silly rhetorics in order to blame Spencer of this or that scientific sin. And you still have to apologise for having lent your name to the list of the character assassinators.
And s/he also needs to apologize for diverting the topic of this thread - which is Dessler's errors of omission and commission (along with those of the editor(s) and "peer reviewers" of Dessler's paper).
Not to mention that it is rather odd - in these days of instant blogerry where even someone with no skills whatsoever in html can post to his/her heart's content - that one who maintains a particular "thesis" regarding an element of "climate science" (or even her/his perceptions of any number of individuals involved in the field) would choose not to do so.
Having one's own blog gives one the opportunity to develop one's ideas - and to present them in a coherent fashion (well, at least to the extent that one is able to express oneself coherently; some are better at this than others!)
Our gracious host even provides a handy-dandy opportunity to "advertise" one's wares on a particular post via the "My response is on my own website" link - which is far more likely to be spotted (and appreciated for its full worth) than an approach that is alternatively scattergun and tediously repetitive via inordinate diversionary comments making for a long drawn-out thread, don't you think?!
Those who are interested in diversions are then free to follow the link. And those who prefer to stick to the topic will be spared from the charge of crusaders from the blight brigade.
Somehow or other I missed all the above back when it first appeared but happened upon it just now while searching for other stuff. I find the following from BBD on 9/11/2011 at 2:23 p.m. truly risible and am surprised that nobody through all the long discussions above ever bothered to point out its risibility. BBD begins by quoting from the Cornwall Alliance's "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming":
"We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming."
Then he asserts his summary of it: "There it is. Clear and indisputable. Man cannot cause dangerous alteration to the climate because the Earth is designed by God as 'admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.'"
Hello!? Didn't anyone notice the reference to "minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry"?
Let me put it this way: I deny that anyone can knock me over by lightly stroking me with a duck-down feather.
Does that amount to the claim that nobody can knock me over, no matter what he uses to do it?
Neither does the denial that Earth's climate system is "vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry" amount to the claim that "Man cannot cause dangerous alteration to the climate." So which was it? Was BBD just being careless here, or was he being dishonest? In either case, he built a straw man and attacked it. And what really amazes me is that nobody noticed it.
But then, that's the typical tactic of global warming alarmists: caricature the critics, attack the caricature, and declare victory.
Sorry, that won't wash.
Now, I'll happily admit that if somehow we managed to increase CO2 to, say, 80% of the atmosphere, CO2 being heavier than oxygen, I suppose probably all oxygen-breathing things on Earth's surface would suffocate for lack of oxygen, and that would indicate a very dangerous change in climate indeed. But what we're talking about for a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial times is an increase from 28 thousandths of 1 percent to 54 thousandths of 1 percent--and I daresay that qualifies as a "minuscule change in atmospheric chemistry." Even tripling it would only result in going from 28 to 84 thousandths of 1 percent--which I daresay still qualifies as a "minuscule change in atmospheric chemistry."
Seems to me that those who argue that small effects are the more likely result of small causes are arguing more rationally, more scientifically, than those who argue that large effects are the more likely result of small causes.