|
Hypation posted:I'd say pissed off - he has a particular legitimate issue with some of the climate groups and went against them. This issue seems to be over the politicisation of science plus making tenuous / unsupportable secondary conclusions from the results of climate models. Sounds about right, but saying he's pissed off implies some kind of personal emotional reaction, which is a handy way of dismissing what he has to say. "Oh you can ignore him, he's just pissed off at such and such" I'd say the quote "It is frustrating that climate science is not able to validate their simulations correctly. Since the end of the 20th century, the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show." Shows he has some strong concerns about the climate models rather than just being concerned about alarmist newspaper headlines and polititians getting invloved in climate science.
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
Rip Testes posted:With news that West Antarctic Glacier Loss Appears Unstoppable the response from some quarters has been unfortunately predictable. Maybe he is just a radical leftist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
Who, exactly, is politicizing climate change? And what does that even mean? If you truly believe it's happening, doesn't something that inherently requires governmental intervention inevitably end up politicized?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Who, exactly, is politicizing climate change? And what does that even mean? If you truly believe it's happening, doesn't something that inherently requires governmental intervention inevitably end up politicized? If you truely believe one way or another that climate change is or isn't happening then pushing for government policy in view of that is, yes, politicising it. But that's just politicising the actions you take. I think the problem is with the actual science itself being politicised. ie scientists with a particular ideology effecting the science, or people twisting the science to make it fit a pre exisiting ideology. Rather than objectively analysing the data. edit: eg http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.nl/2014/05/lennart-bengtsson-leaves-advisory-board.html quote:"I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years. Since he's the flavour of the day, here's a bonus http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.de/2013/03/lennart-bengtsson-global-climate-change.html quote:For some parts of the industry as well as for different NGOs such as Greenpeace and WWF a threatening climate warming have become a necessity and a source of extra income as it provides continued subventions for wind and solar energy as well as contributions from worried parents and grandparents that are anxious to protect their children and grandchildren from an approaching climate catastrophe. Illuminti fucked around with this message at 16:38 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Greenpeace and WWF are so ridiculously ineffectual and poorly funded, it's hard for me to believe that their influence even approaches that of people who benefit from climate denialism. I wonder how much of this is "truth is in the middle"-ism.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:I think the problem is with the actual science itself being politicised. quote:Since he's the flavour of the day, here's a bonus
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
pillsburysoldier posted:Is Lennart Bengtsson important or something? Some 'skeptic' groups are touting this as a 'major win' http://www.dn.se/nyheter/vetenskap/vi-skapar-en-valdig-angslan-utan-att-det-ar-befogat/
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:In the denial camp, sure. For the camp with the 97% of actual climate scientists..? I think it's ironic just how well you illustrate the politics by making this statement.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Lewis-Crock Climate Sensitivity Optimism Ill-Foundedquote:The UK anti-climate policy advocacy group Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has published a report written by Nic Lewis and Marcel Crok claiming “the IPCC hid the good news” regarding climate sensitivity. Lewis is an amateur researcher and retired financier who has published a few papers estimating climate sensitivity, and Crok is a freelance science writer. quote:Climate models (general circulation models or GCMs) provide another method by which to estimate climate sensitivity. The physics of the climate system are input into very detailed climate models, which can then estimate how the global temperature will respond to various forcings. The results can give us projections of future global warming under a variety of scenarios, and also give us an estimate of the global climate sensitivity. Most GCM equilibrium climate sensitivities range between 2 and 4.5°C (average 3.2°C in GCMs used in IPCC AR5). This range is consistent with paleoclimate estimates. quote:However, according to climate modeler Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS, this is incorrect. quote:This point was also made by Schmidt et al. (2014), which additionally showed that incorporating the most recent estimates of aerosol, solar, and greenhouse gas forcings, as well as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and temperature measurement biases, the discrepancy between average GCM global surface warming projections and observations is significantly reduced. This approach also accounts for the previously underestimated volcanic aerosol forcing, demonstrated by Santer et al. (2014), but not included in the GWPF report. quote:Climate Policies are Insufficient in Any Case Damned groupthink Climate Scientists, forcing the noble Mr. Bengtsson from this well respected organization! 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
squeakygeek posted:I think it's ironic just how well you illustrate the politics by making this statement. I don't understand this post. What are you saying here?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
katlington posted:I don't understand this post. What are you saying here? Skeptics and deniers are unsurprisingly bemoaning the fact that people want to call a spade a spade when it comes to this issue. Branding it as politics (as a way to tap into everyone's disdain for "politics as usual") is pretty silly as academic arguments typically break up into camps like this. The big difference with climate change being the overwhelming lopsidedness of the "camps" involved, how tightly the denier camp correlates with conservative political philosophies, and the fact that its a bit more consequential than the other sorts of things the scientific community argues about. Being a climate skeptic is increasingly becoming enough all on its own to earn a person derision and scorn, so naturally a skeptic is unhappy about this. Its why you see Arkane backpeddle that no, hes not a denier. SURE, he'll admit to anthropogenic climate change, he'll just tell you (along with other "lukewarmists" like Illuminiti and squeakygeek) that its so slight and inconsequential to merit being ignored entirely and questioned indefinitely. As far as I'm concerned thats just denialism ashamed of its own brand.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
katlington posted:I don't understand this post. What are you saying here? Well look, if 97% of doctors you saw were saying that your current lifestyle of eating pure lard and chain smoking was seriously going to impact your future ability to be "alive", and the 3% of doctors you saw (who were actually just chiropractors that you paid) said that the other 97% were quacks and that you're just fine, well it stands to reason that agreeing with one or the other would mean you are politicizing this clearly very controversial issue!
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:Well look, if 97% of doctors you saw were saying that your current lifestyle of eating pure lard and chain smoking was seriously going to impact your future ability to be "alive", and the 3% of doctors you saw (who were actually just chiropractors that you paid) said that the other 97% were quacks and that you're just fine, well it stands to reason that agreeing with one or the other would mean you are politicizing this clearly very controversial issue! More irony. As a medical doctor, I can tell you there are plenty of things most doctors do that are not well supported by evidence... and we are definitely not immune to political pressures.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Heh, doctors are the worst example of consensus-driven science. Look at the history of ulcer treatment.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
"You have to organize yourself to counter our lies and propaganda. Politics as usual" 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Greenpeace and WWF are so ridiculously ineffectual and poorly funded, it's hard for me to believe that their influence even approaches that of people who benefit from climate denialism. I wonder how much of this is "truth is in the middle"-ism. Mmm, Greenpeace is funded to the tune of 200 million euros a year and the WWF around $800 million dollars. Yes they are not the Koch brothers but hardly meeting in a local scout hut. Besides the point though, he wasn't specifically calling out WWF and Greenpeace, but the NGOs and organisations that have started to rely on climate alarmism for their funds. Happy_Misanthrope posted:In the denial camp, sure. For the camp with the 97% of actual climate scientists..? A bonus meaning "here's something else the guy I'm talking about wrote that you might be interested in reading" sitchensis posted:Well look, if 97% of doctors you saw were saying that your current lifestyle of eating pure lard and chain smoking was seriously going to impact your future ability to be "alive", and the 3% of doctors you saw (who were actually just chiropractors that you paid) said that the other 97% were quacks and that you're just fine, well it stands to reason that agreeing with one or the other would mean you are politicizing this clearly very controversial issue! Perhaps a better analogy would be. 97% of doctors you saw were saying that your current lifestyle of eating pure lard and chain smoking had given you cancer and if you carried on it would get worse and worse and kill you", the only way to stop it would be to eat only fibre pills and spend all your income on Chemo, oxygen tents and daily colonics. But you carried on smoking and eating lard, you even upped it to 2 packs a day and an extra kilo of lard. Over the next 20 years nothing happened, and you're pretty much the same as before. You might think the doctors had been making cast iron predictions without a good understanding of the information, much like the 20,679 physicians who tell you Luckies are less irritating on the throat or that ulcers are caused by stomach acid. But that would be silly, because 97% of them agree. Anyway analogies are bollocks, and I'm annoyed I responded with one, but know I've typed it what the hell.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Mmm, Greenpeace is funded to the tune of 200 million euros a year and the WWF around $800 million dollars. Yes they are not the Koch brothers but hardly meeting in a local scout hut. Besides the point though, he wasn't specifically calling out WWF and Greenpeace, but the NGOs and organisations that have started to rely on climate alarmism for their funds. Not even close: http://worldwildlife.org/about/financials And the vast majority is not spent on anything remotely political. I wish I could live in your fantasy world, where overbearing environmental NGOs fought dollar for dollar with the Kochs and their political influence was comparable. Radbot fucked around with this message at 13:40 on May 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Not even close: That's completely beside the point. You don't need a billion dollars to harass and ostracize a scientist who comes to a different conclusion to you. I was merely illustrating that they are not "ridiculously ineffectual and poorly funded". Would you care to address the point of my original post, that a scientist who clearly isn't funded by the Koch brothers and a well respected expert in his field, which is climatology, joined a skeptical group and was immediately "put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety" Does that seem like objective behaviour to you? Or more like the kind of thing an ideological group would do. It seems his stance has not changed in terms of the science, so it must be the mere fact of his decision to become associated with the GWPF that has set of the witch hunt against him. No one can be allowed to question it, and no opposition will be tolerated. Of course their actions are necessary because we're all going to explode in 15 years. Either that or he's lying and it's all a stage managed act scripted by big oil. edit: oh and i got the number from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Fund_for_Nature#Criticism "WWF received €56 million (US$80 million) from corporations in 2010 (an 8% increase in support from corporations compared to 2009), accounting for 11% of total revenue for the year" which would imply a total of $725 million Illuminti fucked around with this message at 14:40 on May 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:That's completely beside the point. You don't need a billion dollars to harass and ostracize a scientist who comes to a different conclusion to you. I was merely illustrating that they are not "ridiculously ineffectual and poorly funded". 1) He actually was put under the type of pressure he alleges. What was actually done? Has he detailed any of this supposed reputation assassination by these shadowy climate "doomsday" conspirators that would justify his description? He's all but stopping short of insinuating implied threats. 2) The group is unlike every other climate denial group and in this case not completely misusing the term "skeptical". If this group has a reputation of cherry-picking and outright ignoring data and bypassing the peer-review process - which judging by it's last "report", it may have come across that reputation deservedly - why shouldn't he come under withering criticism for joining a group with such a poor scientific track record? So, what does this "harassment" entail? Has he provided any detail? Emails from other climate scientists asking "WTF are you doing?" Public denouncements of the organization and thereby questioning the motives of anyone associated with it? If their reputation is that poor, then why would you not expect that to be the case? Really, the argument presented thus far seems to be "This organization is skeptical (because it says so). This meteorologist is being viciously harassed (because he says so). Therefore, climate science is political". e: me no spell gud Happy_Misanthrope fucked around with this message at 16:03 on May 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
Bengtsson's field is meteorology, not climatology. It's a bit like confusing your family doctor for a medical researcher.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:That assumes: So with absolutely no evidence you are calling him an liar. More than that you are accusing him of lying with the goal of cynically smearing other climate scientist for the agenda of I guess Big Oil? The only information we have is from a well respected scientist saying he has been harassed and ostracized by his former colleagues and peers. I would assume the assumption for a person of his caliber would be that he's not a lying shill and should at least be afford a modicum of respect. But you are illustrating perfectly the mindset of the people who are harassing and cutting off ties with them. He's guilty by association, he's strayed from the true path, therefore he is wrong and the assumption should be has an evil agenda or is getting paid. Hello Sailor posted:Bengtsson's field is meteorology, not climatology. It's a bit like confusing your family doctor for a medical researcher. A brief look at his wiki page would show you he is very qualified to comment on climatology, not just tomorrows weather. quote:Lennart Bengtsson, born 1935, is a Swedish meteorologist. His research interests include climate sensitivity, extreme events, climate variability and climate predictability. He was Head of Research at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts from 1975 to 1981 and then Director until 1990; then director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. He is now a Senior Research Fellow at the Environmental Systems Science Centre in the University of Reading. It's interesting to see how the bands of who is deemed "qualified" move in and out of various fields of study and qualifications depending on what side of the argument they come down on. Oceanologist doesn't support climate alarmism is a guy who studies tides and poo poo, Oceanologist who does is highly qualified researcher into an important aspect of the climate
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:So is Lennart Bengtsson unqualified, being paid or senile?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
CSM posted:He's an idiot who apparently joined a global warming denier organization, so probably a bit of all those things. Classic
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:A brief look at his wiki page would show you he is very qualified to comment on climatology, not just tomorrows weather. Yes, I read his Wikipedia page and CV before I posted, but thanks. You'll note Wikipedia also specifically mentions his training is in meteorology. Yes, those are related fields. Yes, he also has interests in climatology and has attached his name to some climatology papers. However, his training is not in climatology. He is, in fact, not qualified to comment on climatology. Traditionally, climate denialists, creationists, and other peddlers of horseshit tend to overlook such things, even going so far as to tout the views of people in completely unrelated fields just because they've distinguished themselves in those fields, so I can see where you'd miss this important distinction.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Yes, I read his Wikipedia page and CV before I posted, but thanks. You'll note Wikipedia also specifically mentions his training is in meteorology. Yes, those are related fields. Yes, he also has interests in climatology and has attached his name to some climatology papers. However, his training is not in climatology. He is, in fact, not qualified to comment on climatology. Traditionally, climate denialists, creationists, and other peddlers of horseshit tend to overlook such things, even going so far as to tout the views of people in completely unrelated fields just because they've distinguished themselves in those fields, so I can see where you'd miss this important distinction.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:However, his training is not in climatology. He is, in fact, not qualified to comment on climatology. I don't actually know whether or not he's done such work, mind - the Descartes prize bit sounds like it would be climate-related, but who really knows.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
The proper response when a scientist throws their lot in with the denialist camp is not to pick nits about their exact field. Global warming is as multidisciplinary as it gets and there are tons of experts in many different areas who can contribute. Rather, the question to ask is whether their objections are based on a substantive analysis of the data that is, if not subject to peer review, at least open-sourced and detailed to a sufficient extent that other experts can evaluate its merit, or whether they are simply throwing their title behind the same old tropes. Freeman Dyson, for instance, is a very famous physicist but as far as I know he has not seriously laid out any criticisms of the models that are any more detailed than the ones made every day by non-physicist bloggers. He speaks in vague and general terms about "fudge factors" and does not go into any detail about any particular models, of which there are hundreds! In fact, he's said:quote:My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have. I think that’s what upsets me. As far as I know the only substantive attempt at challenging the projections has been Lindzen's cloud-iris theory, a blind alley that got a perfunctory white-knighting by fellow skeptic Spencer and a roasting from everyone else.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Yes, I read his Wikipedia page and CV before I posted, but thanks. You'll note Wikipedia also specifically mentions his training is in meteorology. Yes, those are related fields. Yes, he also has interests in climatology and has attached his name to some climatology papers. However, his training is not in climatology. He is, in fact, not qualified to comment on climatology. Traditionally, climate denialists, creationists, and other peddlers of horseshit tend to overlook such things, even going so far as to tout the views of people in completely unrelated fields just because they've distinguished themselves in those fields, so I can see where you'd miss this important distinction. This is stupid. You can scrap half the contributors to the IPCC report following your logic. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_AnnexV_FINAL.pdf
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:the Descartes prize bit sounds like it would be climate-related, but who really knows. It's a science prize. The paper Bengtsson contributed to which was one of the award winners that year was about climate. Lagotto posted:This is stupid. You can scrap half the contributors to the IPCC report following your logic. No, actually you can't. They worked with a large number of climatologists who agreed with their findings for the report.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Yes, I read his Wikipedia page and CV before I posted, but thanks. You'll note Wikipedia also specifically mentions his training is in meteorology. Yes, those are related fields. Yes, he also has interests in climatology and has attached his name to some climatology papers. However, his training is not in climatology. He is, in fact, not qualified to comment on climatology. Yeah, climate scientists will use data from meterologists, and if the met. guys collected/prepared the raw data then they'd get a citation credit even if they didn't have much involvement in the modelling/analysis. This is a normal part of scientific journal article writing.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:Well look, if 97% of doctors you saw were saying that your current lifestyle of eating pure lard and chain smoking was seriously going to impact your future ability to be "alive", and the 3% of doctors you saw (who were actually just chiropractors that you paid) said that the other 97% were quacks and that you're just fine, well it stands to reason that agreeing with one or the other would mean you are politicizing this clearly very controversial issue! Who cares, I'm going to die anyway, I might as well enjoy it, even if I will have less time to enjoy than if I did give up my horrible habits.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:So with absolutely no evidence you are calling him an liar. More than that you are accusing him of lying with the goal of cynically smearing other climate scientist for the agenda of I guess Big Oil? The only information we have is from a well respected scientist saying he has been harassed and ostracized by his former colleagues and peers. I would assume the assumption for a person of his caliber would be that he's not a lying shill and should at least be afford a modicum of respect. But you are illustrating perfectly the mindset of the people who are harassing and cutting off ties with them. He's guilty by association, he's strayed from the true path, therefore he is wrong and the assumption should be has an evil agenda or is getting paid.  I'm not accusing him of being an outright "lying shill", or having an "evil agenda", or whatever strawmen you've decided to to sharpen your argumentative scythe against today. Rather, I'm simply not automatically defaulting to believing his claim as a bona fide legal definition of harassment due to whatever potential negative interaction he may have had with some members of the climate science community. We have no evidence other than his claim of harassment to judge the validity of that claim. Harassment is not a binary term of course, there are many reasons why someone could claim to be harassed and not have it meet a reasonable standard of proof without invoking any conspiracy theories. You've assuming he was harassed, then assuming this harassment was widespread, then making the leap that this supposed harassment brings into question the evidence against his position - you do know you can be an obnoxious prick in your interactions with someone and still have the opinion you're forwarding be substantially more valid, right? However, you're going far beyond simply defending his right to have an opinion which may be an outlier compared to the majority of climate researchers. You're using his claim of harassment as prima facie evidence that not only did/does said harassment exist, but it's a key piece of evidence that the entire field of climate science is politically motivated to a substantial degree. It's almost hilarious you can't see the irony in claiming I'm insinuating he's "guilty by association", when in fact you're painting an entire field of climate scientists - a field that had its theories and models based on decades of research from thousands of contributors across continents and cultural backgrounds consistently verified - as therefore politically tainted solely as a result of his accusation that currently has no detail behind it to objectively judge its validity. I mean, holy living gently caress - you actually talk about "not affording him the respect he deserves" because I simply don't immediately grant Bengtsson's claim of harassment complete credence out of the gate...then proceed to suspect the entire field of climatology as engaged in a worldwide conspiracy to jettison evidence-based science in favor of blind politically-motivated group-think. So, automatically grant him respect - but basically poo poo on every other scientist involved in the majority opinion. There isn't a  big enough.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:So with absolutely no evidence you are calling him an liar. More than that you are accusing him of lying with the goal of cynically smearing other climate scientist for the agenda of I guess Big Oil? The only information we have is from a well respected scientist saying he has been harassed and ostracized by his former colleagues and peers. I would assume the assumption for a person of his caliber would be that he's not a lying shill and should at least be afford a modicum of respect. But you are illustrating perfectly the mindset of the people who are harassing and cutting off ties with them. He's guilty by association, he's strayed from the true path, therefore he is wrong and the assumption should be has an evil agenda or is getting paid. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/16/rejected-climate-science-paper-environmental-research-letters quote:"The decision not to publish had absolutely nothing to do with any 'activism' on the part of the reviewers or the journal, as suggested in The Times' article; the rejection was solely based on the content of the paper not meeting the journal's high editorial standards. The referees selected to review this paper were of the highest calibre and are respected members of the international science community. The comments taken from the referee reports were taken out of context and therefore, in the interests of transparency, we have worked with the reviewers to make the full reports available." Could it be that this row is actually more over one guy's bruised ego than climate science?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Deleuzionist posted:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/16/rejected-climate-science-paper-environmental-research-letters I only saw a bit of the front page Times article this morning but I recall it said something about it being just like the "infamous Climategate scandal". So basically a bunch of made-up bullshit, I guess?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
I confess I am confused by the Bengtsson conversation. Isn't the timeline of events something like this: - respected 79 year old meteorologist joins an explicitly political lobbyist group (which refuses to disclose its funders) - submits paper to a scientific journal in which he apparently supports the aims of the lobbyist group, by whom he is now presumably paid - paper is rejected because it does not say anything new or innovative - meteorologist gets upset - meteorologist makes unspecified claims of harassment (plausible and wholly unremarkable) - meteorologist resigns from lobbying group three weeks after joining, stating that he fears for his safety in this McCarthyist era of science. It is naive to assume that science is not politicized. That would assume that science is acting independently of the economy or any landscape of human interest, neither of which are possible. I first became aware of and interested in climate change in 1989. One of the things I did at that time was to interview a set of leading scientists and policy makers on the east coast of the US. I did this in partnership with Oxfam. I was not trying to do something statistically significant. I was just trying to learn and approaching the question ethnographically. I interviewed about 25 people ranging from Harvard/MIT, etc. physical and life scientists to policy makers from the World Bank, EPA, Kennedy School, etc. One of the questions I asked in what were hour long interviews was "do you feel science is effected by the political landscape?" Interestingly every single one of the scientists answered that of course it was and went on to say exactly how they felt that worked. Every single one of the policy makers said no. There was some confusion about scientific method on the one hand, and research as a process on the other. Chomsky, for instance, went with "science is a harsh mistress" and the notion that the scientific process itself couldn't be compromised. Of course he has an investment in that particular point of view and it is a useful distinction. The "hard" scientists all talked about the politicization of the research process distinct from the scientific method. Consensus and peer review aren't really the same thing. Bengtsson did not like his peer review. After having joined an explicitly political lobbying organization, he then cherry picked one remark from his peer review categorizing it as "political". He did not refer to the comments having to do with the lack of quality about the paper itself for some odd reason. There were apparently no new findings and it was therefore not considered to "forward" the thinking in the field. This is not at all uncommon as a type of comment in peer review. I cannot find the contested paper and would like to read it if anyone has a link. He has not published it open access or anything apparently, probably because he wants it to be peer reviewed. It was peer reviewed and rejected. There are problems with the peer review process and it is a fairly recent requirement. Nature was still publishing non-reviewed articles as late as 1973. The process is not meant to make it easier to publish. When it works it greatly improves the quality of the product, but can also be subject to all sorts of systemic issues. The process can function to suppress findings that challenge existing and emerging paradigms. It could even be considered to do that by design, functioning as a rightfully conservative dynamic in the system. This does not seem to be an example of that, though that is what is claimed by Bengtsson. The confusion between consensus and peer review can also lead to a "Star Chamber" sort of environment. Something like that may have really happened regarding his choice to join a lobbying group and then publish to forward their agenda. It is not likely to be the source of his paper getting rejected, which is probably what he is really upset about. It might be important to understand that Bengtsson's view is explicitly political. He is worried about economic impact and says so explicitly. I can well imagine that he has received a negative response from what he regards as his community because: - he joined what is by its own admission and definition a lobbying organization - he then submitted a paper supporting the views of that lobbying organization to a scientific journal - he responded very poorly to peer review, apparently ignoring, or at least failing to comment publicly on the scientific portion of the review altogether - after having taken a set of very explicitly political actions, he then claims that the rejection of his paper is based on the politicization of science His own point of view and actions are explicitly political. He is not attempting to address the science. He is concerned about the political and economic impact of the findings and explicitly says so. His actions demonstrate that. He is then confused by what he perceives as a political response to his position and actions. This has nothing to do with whether he is sincere or anything of the sort as an individual. The sincerity and vested interests of the lobbying group he chose to join is a different matter altogether. What is most confusing is why he thinks any of this is unusual in science or the history of science. An amusing example to consider is Lavoisier's response to Mesmer. Bengtsson is also one guy changing his mind, or developing his point of view, primarily based on this political stance. Bengtsson is not a Lavoisier or Galileo. It is probably more accurate to compare him to someone attempting to advocate keeping a legacy paradigm in place in the face of an emerging one. Hard to say though. Again, it would be really great to read the rejected paper. It is only newsworthy because of the politicization, in which he is a primary participant, not because of the science. The science itself is getting deleted in the process, in great part due to his own actions and what seems to be a fair amount of hyperbole. Sogol fucked around with this message at 19:34 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Sogol posted:I confess I am confused by the Bengtsson conversation. Isn't the timeline of events something like this: Elotana fucked around with this message at 20:45 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Move (1) between (4) and (5). The paper was submitted last year, before any of this and the review process was completed in February and apparently what prompted him to join GWPF. GWPF then CCed the review comment to the Times, which published a single sentence from the comment to make it seem like it was being rejected solely on the grounds that it would give ammunition to deniers, and not because it was making invalid comparisons and not stating anything beyond the obvious. I don't think Bengtsson's arguing in bad faith because of fossil money or whatever. He's been trending "we should be more modest" -> outright skeptic for a few years now. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Impossible to come to any concrete conclusions without reading the paper itself. The review comment that was made public is a little specific -- we know that the paper covers climate sensitivity, one of the great unknowns in climate science. It apparently synthesizes the methods of three papers Otto 2013 and two papers that I am not immediately familiar with by Gregory in 2004 & 2008. The Otto 2013 paper was incredibly important as it was coauthored by a large number of IPCC lead authors, and it dropped climate sensitivity estimates dramatically (this has been a constant refrain from me, known to the one or two people who actually read my posts). The Otto 2013 study is not in AR5 due to deadlines. Bengtsson then compared these three papers with AR4 and AR5 estimates of climate sensitivity, by the looks of the review. The fault found with the paper by the review comment that was made public is that (1) it is not new, (2) that they aren't comparing like versus like (observations vs models!), and (3) that the paper should have discussed the reasons behind the mismatch rather than focus on the mismatch itself (which shines a bad light on the field). One critique that certainly is invalid is citing Cowtan 2013 because that is limited in its corrections, both in geography and in terms of observational data (singularly corrected the land-based NCDC, satellites unaffected). Saying that comparing observational data versus models is apples versus pears seems like a view that is detached a bit from reality. The implication of "true global means" is that the observations are somehow a less than true reflection of the planet. The statement that it is not novel, but merely a re-tread of past studies could hold water and would be the best argument, if true. Doing simple data comparisons is better purposed for a blog, rather than a scientific journal. I would hope and expect that Otto was allowed to comment on his submission, and hopefully all of the reviews are made public as the publisher said she will try to do. If the comment we are reading is from Otto or from Gregory (or one of the coauthors of either of those two), this critique should hold much less water. The final critique is alarming, and indeed this whole sentence is chill-inducing: "I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place." The lynchpin of that sentence is the parenthetical "false." If the paper is either true or its accuracy is plausible/debatable, then this is a scandal, as this criqitue boils down to "this would get a lot of bad attention for us if published." His comments on consistency are also questionable, but its hard to be shocked by it without reading the paper. All that being said, the Times of London story seems to be very light on reporting. My question would be concerning the objectivity of the piece. It's behind a paywall, but it doesn't seem like the reporter was provided with review comments (which are confidential -- even the authors are confidential), nor does it seem like he contacted the publication. Kind of like a person who is getting a divorce just telling you their side of the story. A biased opinion about mistreatment isn't exactly front page news without doing background reporting to figure out if the claim is legitimate. And yes I realize my stridency for objectivity is ironic in relation to the fact that alarmists generally hold very little regard for it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Arkane posted:And yes I realize my stridency for objectivity is ironic in relation to the fact that alarmists generally hold very little regard for it. Right back at ya, cupcake.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Yes, I read his Wikipedia page and CV before I posted, but thanks. You'll note Wikipedia also specifically mentions his training is in meteorology. Yes, those are related fields. Yes, he also has interests in climatology and has attached his name to some climatology papers. However, his training is not in climatology. He is, in fact, not qualified to comment on climatology. Traditionally, climate denialists, creationists, and other peddlers of horseshit tend to overlook such things, even going so far as to tout the views of people in completely unrelated fields just because they've distinguished themselves in those fields, so I can see where you'd miss this important distinction. What you just typed could not possibly be further from the truth. To be absolutely, crystal clear: you have no clue what you are talking about. Many of the lead authors of the IPCC report are meteorologists. Don't trust me on that, check yourself. It is not a "related" field to the climate debate, it is one of the most vital fields. The Max Planck Institute is world-renowned. The idea that he cannot comment on climate sensitivity is laughable. He's been working in the field for decades. And guess what? The AR5 lead author on the climate model chapter works for the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Jochem Marotzke.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 23:26
|
|