The Policy Lass

Over at Climate etc., Judith Curry has gone off the deep end decided to boost her hit count smear climate science chum like crazy address “hide the decline”. In doing so, she smears climate scientists involved in producing the IPCC AR4 and the WMO 1999 report.

Bad science and/or dishonesty?

There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading.  I was misled.  Upon considering the material presented in these reports, it did not occur to me that recent paleo data was not consistent with the historical record.  The one statement in AR4 (put in after McIntyre’s insistence as a reviewer) that mentions the divergence problem is weak tea.

It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document.  Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one).  The authors defend themselves by stating that there has been no attempt to hide the divergence problem in the literature, and that the relevant paper was referenced.  I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors’ interpretation of the IPCC process  (i.e. don’t dilute the message) that corrupted the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams. [my emphasis in the body of the text]

Gavin Schmidt shows up to try to counter this blatant smear with logic:

One can have a difference of opinion in how to present a graph, and that depends entirely on what point you want to make. If you want to make a point about multi-decadal temperature changes in the past, it makes sense to include estimates of those temperatures and the uncertainties. It doesn’t make much sense to include annual estimates, or seasonal estimates, or parts of the curve that the originators think doesn’t reflect actual temperatures (for whatever reason). The only issue is to ensure that the graph is sufficiently documented so that these choices are clear (which in the WMO report they were not sufficiently so, but were fine in the IPCC graphs).

But to ascribe a difference of opinion to dishonesty is to remove yourself from any sensible discussion on the topic.

Curry responds:

curryja | February 22, 2011 at 7:41 pm | Reply

Gavin, the field does not need any more summary graphs of this nature. They have done an enormous disservice to climate science and its credibility. Continuing to defend these kinds of graphs is beyond anything I can understand. Leaving out that data and putting a “likely” confidence level on conclusions from that data is bad science, anyway you slice it. If you don’t like dishonest, try misguided and pseudoscience. There is no way this is defensible scientific practice. I really hope we don’t see any more of these kinds of graphs, in the AR5 or elsewhere. I’ve tiptoed around this one long enough, I’m calling it like I see it.

In recognition of her bravery for calling out the corrupted climate scientists in their misleading and dishonest behavior, the Curryites have proclaimed Judith Curry the “Jeanne d’Arc” of science for her brave willingness to take on the climate science establishment.

Here’s the comment that plucked my giggle string:

Hoi Polloi | February 23, 2011 at 10:16 am | Reply

Reading this thread one cannot deny that Dr.Schmidt personally hit the final nail in the AGW coffin, firmly assisted by the usual answer bots. I agree with Tomas Milanovic (always enjoying your comments btw) that this thread is a true pedagogic experience showing the continuous demasquee of the AGW incrowd.

Dr.Curry, much respect for your courage facing the AGW bloodhounds like a true Joan of Arc as you have a lot to lose.

Here’s Curry Jeanne:

“You  misuse science spoil the sacraments of the Church, you gave an enormous black eye for the credibility of the IPCC and climate science tear up the articles of the Faith, you have done an enormous disservice to climate science and its credibility destroy the churches, you produce bad science, anyway you slice it break and burn the statues which were set up as memorials, you don’t like dishonest, try misguided and pseudoscience massacre Christians because they preserve the true Faith. [my liberties]

Here’s Curry:

“…my bridge building was not particularly focused on connecting the consensus scientists and the skeptics. My main motive is protecting the integrity of the science. I am personally reaching out to a broad range of people and trying to get things back on a sensible track for climate science, and by now i know that this return to sensibility will not come from within the climate establishment.” [my emphasis]

Now if that isn’t chum for the denialist crowd, I don’t know what is.

Here’s her chorus:

Al Gored | February 23, 2011 at 4:21 pm | Reply

I think you are showing remarkable courage to stray from the herd! The reaction from them shows what this is really all about… and it ain’t science. That said, with luck and time, real science will prevail. So onward Climate Soldier!

wayne | February 23, 2011 at 6:48 pm | Reply

Judith:
Thank goodness we still have people with your fine character. I assure you there are many not commenting here that thank you as I do. And, I appreciate you providing that link to Dr. Matthews. Made some missing pieces very clear. Just had to say.

jeff Id | February 22, 2011 at 10:52 pm | Reply

Judith,

You write:

“Can anyone defend “hide the decline”? I would much prefer to be wrong in my interpretation, but I fear that I am not.”

Thank you for the bravery of the post, considering your pseudo-’peers’ have no stomach for truth in this instance.

DT UK | February 23, 2011 at 8:28 am | Reply

In Canada, high school students receive guidance counselling in their senior year in order to assist them as they decide what to do after graduation. I went to my guidance session and my counsellor asked me what I wanted to do after June. I was a good student — a few A+s, a few B+s, and a few Bs. Not great — I tended to do well in subjects I liked and less well in those I didn’t value. At the time, I was more interested in high school social life than achievement but youth, as they say, is wasted on the young. I told my guidance counsellor that I wanted to go to university and study science.

“Science is hard for girls,” he said. “You do so well in English. You should study English in University.” I won a regional poetry prize for high school seniors in a nation wide competition, so I can understand this advice, but I was determined. I loved my biology and chemistry classes and could not be convinced otherwise. Being the stubborn sort that I am, I went on to study science and graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree with a major in biology. My senior project was a genetic study of metabolic mutatations in Physcomitrella patens, a bryophyte better known as your ordinary moss.

Of course, here I am, a non-scientist writing about science instead of doing it. Guidance counsellors…

On to the subject of my post — fairy tales. They are cautionary tales told in order to both entertain and fill the reader full of moral learnings that will help them navigate the human world. Here are a few of my own personal high school fairy tales.

The Diamond Ring

It’s once upon a time and I’m 15.  I have trained as a lifeguard and in the summer, I get my very first job at the local municipal swimming pool. One day, a fellow lifeguard and school chum we’ll call Jane comes to work at the pool and as we girls stand around in the change room before our shift starts, she holds out her hand.  There on her ring finger is a diamond ring.

“It’s a promise ring,” she says, moving her finger and hand around so that the gem catches the light and glitters. We all ooh and ahh at this and listen as she tells us all about it.

Continue reading →…

“A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.”

Most of you will be familiar with the title of this post, and of the paragraph taken from Orwell’s 1984.

I’m struck, after reading around the denialosphere, at the vitriol levelled at Eric Steig and his 2009 paper. Dumbstruck.

Here’s a sampling from Steve McIntye’s latest Chumming Expedition. Six Ten posts so far on the Steig – O’Donnell dispute.

Note the highlighted words: Chum chum chum. Guaranteed.

Steve McIntyre (Feb 13, 2011, 3:18 pm)

Over the past few days, Eric Steig aka Reviewer A has made a series of increasingly puzzling and strident outbursts, as the inconsistency between his RC post of Feb 1 as Eric Steig and his conduct as Reviewer A has been exposed…

Steig’s post contained a trick (TM- climate science). It omitted any quotations from or consideration of his Second Review or the responses to the Second Review, which, after all, had been what provoked Ryan in the first place. Andrew Revkin noted up Steig’s response, but didn’t notice Steig’s trick…

In Steig’s First Review (as Reviewer A), Steig made one unsubstantiated statement after another, all of which were biased towards coercing our results towards higher trends in West Antarctica. Steig characterized our optimized values of k_gnd as “suspect” and alleged:

Yesterday, Steig placed his latest and wildest diatribe online at two blogs …

Going back now and parsing Steig’s recent statements, one sees one untrue statement after another. Consider first his Feb 8 email:…

Here’s the two minutes of hate in response in the comments:

don Posted Feb 13, 2011 at 4:17 PM | Permalink | Reply

In the purported words of T.E. Lawrence, “Take no prisoners! No prisoners!”

Craig Loehle Posted Feb 13, 2011 at 4:37 PM | Permalink | Reply

they say never bring a knife to a gunfight, but perhaps Steig should not have brought mere petulance to a contest with people with photographic memory and a WRITTEN RECORD of what happened. Unbelievable.

Continue reading →…

This blog is about the social and political dimensions of the climate wars. As a trained social scientist, that is my main interest and proper subject matter. I have no insight to offer on the quality of the science but I recognize that the science is what really matters.

Unfortunately, the science — truth, facts, evidence, and their interpretation — have been hijacked, at least in the blogosphere and some MSM, by the political battles. This most recent “gate” — O’Donnellgate –– is just another example to go along with the others – blog wars over the science in which innuendo replaces fact, accusation replaces truth.

As Hiram Johnson said in 1918 in response to the Sedition Act — and as we know from recent wars and WikiLeaks — “the first casualty of war is truth”.

Which brings me to the proper subject of my blog and this post.

In On War, Clausewitz, who inspired the title of this post, argues that “war is nothing but a continuation of political intercourse, with a mixture of other means.”

Continue reading →…

The comments on previous posts are getting quite unweildy although I think there are some fruitful avenues to continue exploring. I encourage people to still post where your comment is most appropriate, but there are a number of interesting developments on related issues that I want to point out and open for discussion if you are so inclined.

(Mr. Spock, using 1,102 spools of thread by Devora Sperber)

Around the Denialosphere for your delectation:

Gavingate — it’s going strong — I think it reveals the bankruptcy of Ravetz and crew’s approach to “reconciliation” in the climate sciences, at least as it applies to the Lisbon conference. I couldn’t believe that the organizers would parade his private email around for discussion. Highly unprofessional. But also, DC’s Post Normal Meltdown in Lisbon timeline is very illuminating, especially the comments by Ravetz over at WUWT on climate science and the CRU Hack and controversy.

Here’s a Ravetz tidbit from the DC article — go over and read more:

But it was totally implausible to me that the leading UK scientists were either gullible or complicit in a serious fraud at the core of the enterprise.  Even when I heard about M&M and the hockey stick scandal, I didn’t connect that dot with the others.  There’s a confession for you!  Jerry Ravetz, arch-critical-scientist, suckered by the A(C)GW con for years on end.  That really shows the power of plausibility.  Even now I’m not all the way with my critics; the distinction between incompetence and blundering self-protection on the one hand (plus agenda-driven hype) and self-conscious scientific conspiracy on the other, may still be dividing us.

Fred Pearce’s article has been updated:

Avowed non-sceptics included Hans von Storch, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and James Risbey of CSIRO. But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt. who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss. [Gavin Schmidt has asked us to clarify his reasons for not attending: see the bottom of this post.]

The Sky Dragon is still being discussed over at Climate etc. — it seems proof that we should keep some “extended peers” with their “extended data” out of the policy process!

WUWT has been nominated for Best Science Weblog of the Year and Judith Curry for Climate Scientist of the Year — I think this speaks to the end of the world as we know it nomination processes and how awards are given rather than any objective competence or merit, but that’s just MNSHO…

And of course, since this is an open thread, please discuss whatever your little heart desires relating to climate science, climate change, global warming and the climate wars — have at it!

I’ve been thinking about the Lisbon Postnormal Workshop on Reconciliation, which you can read about at Rabett, Climate Progress, Tamino and Deep Climate. What is the whole PNS project? It claims to be about providing a new “science” for post-normal times — one that includes an extended peer community and extended “facts”.

PNS claims that a new science is needed because, as opposed to a previous period of normal times when normal science “held sway”, we are now in post-normal times when “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high” (Ravetz 1990). What exactly makes this period post-normal? There has been some kind of rip in the old division between facts, values and politics such that they’ve leaked into each other. This means the old assumptions about scientific objectivity are no longer valid. Whereas once we [naively] believed that science was about fact and politics was about value, today there is no clear distinction.

Hence a need for a new science. A science where “extended peer communities” provide extended “facts”…

What would this new science look like?

In an article “Extended peer communities and the ascendance of post-normal politics”, Stephen Healy (1999) quotes Bruno Latour, professor of Science and Technology Studies:

“…we continue to believe in the sciences, but instead of taking in their objectivity, their truth, their coldness, their extraterritoriality … we retain what has always been most interesting about them: their daring, their experimentation, their uncertainty, their warmth, their incongruous blend of hybrids, their crazy ability to reconstitute the social bond. We take away from them only the mystery of their birth and the danger their clandestineness posed to democracy”

I can’t tell you how relieved I am to know that Latour and his crew “continue to believe in the sciences”!

Whew!

Continue reading →…