Hans von Storch has a thoughtful essay on climate science and politics in today's WSJ Europe. Here is an excerpt:As a scientist, I strive for independence from vested interests. I am in the pocket of neither Exxon nor Greenpeace, and for this I come under fire from both sides—the skeptics and the alarmists—who have fiercely opposing views but are otherwise siblings in their methods and contempt.Hans has something to say to skeptics, alarmists and politicians who see science as instrumental to their goals. Read the whole thing.I am told that I should keep my mouth shut, that criticizing colleagues is not "tactful," and will damage the reputation of science—even when the CRU e-mails have already sunk that ship. I hear that the now-notorious "trick" is normal, that to "hide the decline" is just an unfortunate colloquialism. But we know by now that the activity described by these words was by no means innocent.
11 comments:
False equivalence. He needs to name the names of skeptical scientists who have refused to be transparent, undermined the peer review process, and counseled him not to criticize other scientists. Otherwise, he has slandered scientists who are skeptics. It's not appropiate for him to conflate the behavior of skeptical non-scientists with the behavior of alarmist scientists.
Oh, and just where is the proof that "Elevated greenhouse gas concentrations have led, and will continue to lead, to changing weather conditions (climate), in particular to warmer temperatures and changing precipitation." He doesn't have proof and, in fact, cannot have proof of what will happen in the future. And we have no valid method of forecasting.
Further, when did this happen? -- "Societies have decided they want to limit the stress so that temperatures rise no further than the politically produced number of two degrees Centigrade, relative to pre-industrial conditions." And what temperature is he using for "pre-industrial" temperature?
He's absolutely right that the alarmists scientists have been unethical. He's got no evidence to support such a claim against skeptical scientists. And his statements about the state of the science and a political consensus are garbage.
Although I agree with virtually all the points von Storch makes in his WSJ article, I believe it's important to remember that ALL scientific efforts are motivated by some set of values.
It's incorrect to imply that socially, politically or economically motivated scientific studies are somehow all 'tainted'. So long as a scientist OPENLY makes motivations explicit, readers should be able to judge how the results of the study may have been affected by any such bias.
Even attempts, like those revealed in some of the CRU emails, to interfere with publication of papers 'deemed' misleading, or in error, would be appropriate, if carried out transparently, in the open!
Indeed, von Storch tells us that his resignation, in 2003, as editor of Climate Research, was an open move to protest "insufficient quality control on a bad paper—a skeptic's paper, at that".
"And what of the alarmists' kin, the skeptics? They say these words show that everything was a hoax — not just the historical temperature results in question, but also the warming documented by different groups using thermometer data."
After Climategate the big unanswered question is - where does the bad science end and the good science begin?
We know it can't be all good, but is it all bad?
We have reached a point in the debate where climate science is now guilty of all charges until it can prove its own innocence in public.
From left wing Alexander Cockburn
http://www.counterpunch.com/cockburn12182009.html
"Radicals from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, putting forward proposals for upping the Third World’s income from its primary commodities, were displaced by climate shills in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the IPCC. The end consequence, as represented by Copenhagen’s money-grubbing power plays over “carbon mitigation” funding, has been a hideous travesty of that earlier vision of a global redistribution of resources."
Von Storch makes some good points, but isn't as 'thoughtful' as he might have been. The 'histroical' and 'instrumental' temperature data are questioned in the peer reviewed literature, so why von Storch takes exception to this needs more explanation. I find it easy to contest the claim that GHGs are altering the weather/climate/temperature/precipitation etc. beyond the bounds of natural variability during the Holocene. But my overriding 'unfunded' worry is that the dominance of climate alarmism in the media and in politics is driving dangerously misguided policies that lack feasibility or a sound scientific basis, and will cause more damage than climate change, whether it be mostly natural or man-made. Von Storch mentions 'democratic societies,'but here in the UK climate and energy policies are bypassing democracy - the voting public had no say on the Climate Change Act (2008), nor would we have any say on a global climate treaty. Consensus politics is a tool of dictatorhip. No referendum - we just have to pay the huge financial costs and accept the inevitable draconian restrictions in order to meet impossible CO2 emissions targets.
Yes, Von Storch gets the boiler-plate Science 101 right. He does, however, play a rhetorical trick. The "I'm in the middle of the two extremes, so I must be right" fallacy" is a common one. Criticize both pro and con "extremists" as intemperate and you can get away with ignoring important sins of one or the other. As Pielke Sr has pointed out, the instrumental record is not reliable, and CO2 only accounts for a fraction of what's left. Von Storch tells us to never mind the skeptics as if legitimate skepticism doesn't exist.
You may be able to find equivilance between some skeptics and some advocates - that doesn't allow you to pull a "pox on all houses" trick.
I didn't have a problem with the Von Storch article beyond him saying that human created Co2 is affecting the climate. But, hold on .....
As is usual round these parts, his analysis ridicules the interface between science and policy in such a way that it is impossible to determine what he actually said. No gun can be aimed at his head on account of it being in a deliberately constructed, indeterminate, quantum state.
In my view, the Oil Industry created global warming / carbon credits bonanza has been as big a disaster for climate science as the discovery of oil has been to the huge majority of citizens of the middle east.
It has attracted the attention of dangerous outsiders who are vastly more intelligent and sophisticated than local residents, with whom they have no choice but to to meekly co-operate.
Academics and politics don't mix.
There were a couple of Copenhagen related articles in the Guardian this week, by very well known British academics. One was entitled 'We're all eco-warriors now after world leaders failed us at Copenhagen', the other 'This marked a turning point in human nature'.
They were not generally well received. Silly and adolescent were two of the more respectful descriptions. Many comments were deleted by moderators.
This is typical
'A puzzling and misguided - if not wilfully irrational - interpretation of what actually happened.'
I re-read my own message !
I meant to say 'in such a way that it is impossible to determine exactly what he meant'. Although that could be me.
The disasters for climate science I was thinking of, are the appearance of James Hansen on the global political stage, making silly and exaggerated statements, and of course, climategate.
My sniping at academics comes from a lot of personal history in which I saw things differently from academic family members and ex girfriends. I also met a number of academics in green politics.
Von Storch writes:
"Societies have decided they want to limit the stress so that temperatures rise no further than the politically produced number of two degrees Centigrade, relative to pre-industrial conditions. Fine."
Doesn't this imply we know what the climate sensitivity is to much a greater extent than we do? A two degree temperature target is meaningless if we don't know what the corresponding emission target would have to be.
Luke Lea
He said
"Elevated greenhouse gas concentrations have led, and will continue to lead, to changing weather conditions (climate), in particular to warmer temperatures and changing precipitation. "
Even I agree with that. It's like saying "increased rainfall will make the planet wetter". I am not a water saturation denier and my colleagues are aware of that.
He seems to imply that the 2 degree rise is political and that there is no way to correlate that with potential effects like sea level rise or hurricane strength. In other words, it's (scientifically) arbitary.
I wonder, can there be found a person or body who/which is entirely neutral in order to check the raw data and homogenized temperature data bases thoroughly in order to obtainthe correct data after all?
I mean, after all the whole climate science when it concerns temperatures has to begin from scratch. Until that happens it'll be always a battle between various groups.
Post a Comment