BewaConsensus Science

--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
>
> > Biologists were able to do it with respect to
> > creationists because they could marshall the evidence rather than
> > invoking the tactics I've witnesses recently.
>
> No, actually, creationists are still around.

Cranks are always around. Look at the essay I included on consensus
and cranks in a previous post.

> Here's one link on the Climate Research case:
>
> http://www.stopesso.com/coverage/00000058.php
> "``They submitted a flawed paper,'' said Hans von Storch, editor-
> in-chief of the journal, Climate Research. He said that the
> journal's peer review procedure failed to identify methodological
> flaws in the study.

Where to start? You wrote "but out-and-out lying and
misrepresentation, which seems to be what happened in the Climate
Research article, is rather a bit worse." This piece from a StopEsso
website doesn't seem to support your assertion. First off, I'll read
the material fairly but I wonder why you have to pull this from a
anti-oil website. These types of sites are what Claudio objected to
earlier. We really should look for less biased sites.

I'm still looking for evidence of lying and misrepresentation and
all you've provided is a report of methodological flaws. If that's
the new standard for creating intellectual firestroms and editors
losing their jobs I'll expect many positions to be opening up soon.
You know, come to think of it, John Rennie is still Editor-in-Chief
of Scientific American after publishing the disgraceful attack on
Lomborg.

http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=masthead

Yet I hear no peep about lying and misrepresentation from the forces
of truth, justice and the American way. Hmhh. Yet, an article that
goes against orthodoxy creates this stir. Then the article is
expanded and more co-authors join in the submission. Why would they
do that? Why the fuss? Why not simply refute it? Point by meticulus
point.

Some scientists tried, to which this news release attests.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-07/agu-lcs070703.php

"A group of leading climate scientists has reaffirmed the "robust
consensus view" . . . In so doing, they refuted recent claims . ."

Interesting how a reaffirmation now is equivalent to a refutation.
OK, cheap shot I know, this afterall is the press release. I surely
hope that the standards within the article itself are more rigorous.

"Climate model simulations cannot explain the anomalous late 20th
century warmth without taking into account the contributions of
human activities, the authors say."

Hmm. Simulations don't explain the issue. Look to this heavy
reliance on computer models as accurate models of global climatic
systems for a possible source of error. Why aren't the obvious
sources of error eliminated before looking for other causal factors?
Such as modeling error. Because these errors can't be eliminated yet
and to wait for better models would be a career-killing tactic so
it's better to issue error-laden output and call it science.

"First, in using proxy records to draw inferences about past
climate, it is essential to assess their actual sensitivity to
temperature variability. In particular, the authors say, Soon and
Baliunas misuse proxy data reflective of changes in moisture or
drought, rather than temperature, in their analysis."

For this critique to be wholly valid, the critics need to
demonstrate that the error inherent in the proxy data is less than
the error to be expected from the causal relationship between
moisture/drought and temperature.

The second and third points look to me to be critical on the
methodological *differences* rather than *flaws*.

Overall this rebuttal seems to be covered with *cover your ass*
conditional statements (may, possibly, could, etc.) that I wouldn't
expect from a more firmly grounded discipline.

My issue isn't to defend Soon and Baliunas but to criticize this
whole circus and the intolerance I see.

> As to computer modeling - it's getting pretty good. Sufficiently
> so that the fastest computer in the world is devoted not to
> nuclear weapons studies, but to climate modeling - Japan's "Earth
> Simulator", when deployed faster than the 20 fastest US computers
> combined:
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/20/tech/main506797.shtml

You're conflating two concepts here. If I take my copy of Windows
VERSION 1.0 and run it on the same supercomputer referenced in this
link, that won't make the buggy piece of crap "pretty good."

Yes, the Japanese have done something newsworthy by creating this
supercomputer and dedicating it to climate modeling but all this
tells us is that they have speed on their side. What is crucial is
the elegance of the model.

This is the same thing as a farmer putting a jet engine on his
tractor. WOW. GEE WHIZ. How useful is that to him though?

> But climate models are routinely calibrated against tons of past
> data - here for example is one comparison:
>
http://www.geo.brown.edu/georesearch/esh/QE/Research/PaleoClm/DataMod
e/DataMode.htm

Yes they are. There is nothing *inherently* wrong with this approach
but the scientists must always be cognizant of the post hoc, ergo
propter hoc fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html

Did you actually read this link in detail?

"Global climate models are now being enlarged to earth-system
models . . " They're being enlarged, but then how did we come to
our understanding if the models are only now being enlarged?

I want statistical correlation coefficients not ". . . may have
affected regional and continental climate and environmental patterns"

Look at this graphic from the link you provided.
http://www.geo.brown.edu/georesearch/esh/QE/Research/PaleoClm/DataMod
e/climat2.gif

Look at the variation from the different models they tested. It's
all over the map.

Don't get me wrong, I think that they're doing something very
valuable, which is testing the models, and not running to publish
results from those models and claiming it to be science.

> Lots of good science is done this way.

Perhaps therein lies the problem. I don't consider publishing GIGO
results to be *good science* and it disturbs me that it passes for
such and that the vaunted peer review process considers it as adding
constructively to the dialogue.

> But I'm really no expert - I truly fail to see why there seems
> to be such mistrust of the real experts here.

If you truly fail to see what is going on I fear I can't make the
case any better than I've attempted to thus far. I've provided links
and support for all of my concerns. I've drawn parallels that the
treatments the environmental apostates are receiving may have
religious undertones and offered that up as a possible working
hypothesis. I simply don't know why this intolerance is taking place
but I see it.

Rather than refutation of the controversial material, I witness ad
hominem attacks such as those on Lomborg, double standards on
methodological constructs, and generally a very closed minded
approach.

I came across the same material you provided, and more, on the
Climate Research debacle in the process of forming my opinion. Soon
and Baliunas received 5% of their funding from a foundation
connected to an oil company. Knowing this, I will take a closer look
at the situation for bias, but I still believe that everyone has the
right to fund research and organizations, and recognize that there
is countervailing bias on the other side. Surprise. Yes there is an
orthodoxy that also likes to maintain its influence. This is the
same principle at work as smearing the author of a book critical to
the precautionary principle because it was published by the Cato
Institute, knowing full well that Greenpeace would never publish the
material.

> What direct evidence do you have, other than "attitude", and the
> various rumors you've traded on, that climate scientists have done
> anything at all dishonest?
>
> Arthur

Again you're trying to use fancy rhetorical tricks here. I've
provided plenty of evidence of intolerance and poor methodology. Go
back and follow the links I reference. I have no idea what you mean
by "attitude?" I've traded on no rumors for I've backed up every
statement I've made. You on the other hand have asserted that Soon
and Baliunas have lied and misrepresented their material and I still
await evidence of this claim. Unfortunately, a rumor you've heard
won't pass muster with me. Lastly, I've never claimed that climate
scientists have done anything at all that is dishonest. I've said
that they are not following good method and there is a level of
shrill intolerance to dissent that I find off-putting.

You're attempting the old political trick of defining your opponent
but I'll refute you, point by point, as you mischaracterise me, but
I'll not do the same to you in kind.

TangoMan