Hmmm, yasss!

None of them would make it to the top 10 Boob Tube slots. There are lots of us who don’t actually think of science as entertainment — at least not consciously. Would CA be more entertaining if it followed a WWF Smackdown format instead of resembling a Hissy Fit? I suppose for some it would.

CA wasn’t created to entertain. It’s serious business: an investigation into science results that are being used for political purposes. We there would like to know we aren’t being sold snake-oil. As it is, it’s one of the few places where someone can get firsthand involvement in an ongoing project of this type. Being entertaining would just be a distraction even if it didn’t also supply added reason for dismissal.

Yes, BA is entertaining but deep down I’m sure Phil is really hoping his readers would develop an interest in firsthand investigating and thinking for themselves which often means (OH! NO!) calculating stuff. Ya know: the bo-oring crap.

Take heart! Maybe next year Bo-oring But Doing and Exciting But Just Talking will be separate categories in the Science Blog division.

CA looks as dry as a stick to me, not nearly as entertaining or informative as Pharyngula or Bad Astronomy, both of which are well-written enough for me to think that I’m able to follow their arguments.

Today between 9:30 AM EST and 9:45 AM EST BadAstronomy had 9108 votes some 900 behind CA but your loyal readers rallied and by 11:20 AM EST they tallied up 1446 votes! The largest increase for the rest was: +885 for CA, +103 for JS and +96 for PZ, the others were less.

Did I mention you’ve got a great blog? I’ve been dropping in here periodically even before it became a more or less daily thing.

Congrats!
DAV

In paleoclimatology, it appears people often publish papers based on information they have collected but they keep the source data secret, refusing to make it available to other researchers or the general public even when journal policies and grant policies require this. Without access to the raw data, true independent verification of the statistical conclusions is impossible. When somebody says “I collected some ice cores/tree cores/sediment cores and here are the results of my analysis” but the raw data they analyzed remains secret for 20 years (not an unusual case), it’s likely to take 20 years before it’s possible to find errors in the analysis.

The ClimateAudit project is about getting the data and methods out in the open and actually trying to replicate and validate the results that have been claimed. Double-checking the work. Peer review doesn’t do this, nor does the IPCC process. It seems like a pretty valuable contribution to the science.

One more drop in the bucket!

Dave Mitsky

Which is why you should check things for yourself instead of relying on opinions and comments of others. Had you done that you would have known. Postulating is fun and is even useful at times but has an inherent GIGO danger.

To quote an advertising slogan, “Just Do It!”

Cheers,
DAV

I assure you, you do not know me from elsewhere.

The majority of the work (if not all of it) at CA is investigating how statistics are being used by “real climate scientists.”

The original claim made here (not by you, unless you’re using multiple names) was that CA is doing “real climate science.” You’re telling me they check statistics, which is a different claim altogether. Had that been the claim, I would not have made my statement.

Climate science is a huge, complex field, and requires a great deal of special knowledge in order to “do” it; I’m not necessarily claiming you need to be in the field, merely that you need a rigorous background. Your analogy is a straw-man version of my position.

In the field of climatology, and paleoclimatology in particular, it appears that rarely if ever happens.

I am extremely skeptical of this claim. Your broad dismissal of the entire field runs counter to my experience in academic disciplines.

(*Sigh*) I think I know you from somewhere else using the same old tired arguments.

The majority of the work (if not all of it) at CA is investigating how statistics are being used by “real climate scientists.” One doesn’t need to be a “real climate scientist” to know if the statistical calculations use bogus methods and invalid underlying mathematical assumptions. It’s only necessary to know statistics.

I agree that if you don’t understand the math and don’t understand what the math is about then you are less qualified to form opinions but it doesn’t hurt to fix that by asking for help. That’s how we learn.

Your argument essentially is no different than claiming that one needs to be an architect to understand the building construction part of architecture and that building engineers can’t know it because they aren’t architects.

The story of N-rays all about how easy it is to fool oneself when insufficient care isn’t taken. The speed at which science corrects itself depends solely upon how often it is examined under a critical eye and how often work is double-checked. In the field of climatology, and paleoclimatology in particular, it appears that rarely if ever happens.

GO PHIL!

If they’re “doing the real climate science,” then they should be publishing the real climate science papers. That’s an important part of science — communicating your results to other people in the field via peer-reviewed publications.

For that matter, why not review them yourself?

Because I’m not an expert in climate science. Are you?

If you ever get a chance, read the story of N-rays and ask yourself if any of it sounds familiar.

It’s helpful, in that the story illustrates that it generally doesn’t take long for science to correct itself — N-rays were debunked in fewer than two years. But you had some other point?

An interesting question. How many should they have before they are correct? For that matter, why not review them yourself? What they do is entirely in the open and the data, methods and results are freely available. Participation is encouraged. So why rely on someone else’s opinion? Go see for yourself.

As for peer review consider: MBH98, which has become highly politicized and the results of which appear in Al Gore’s film, contained and depended upon a serious statistical flaw. Did the Principle Investigator, who in his own words “is not a statistician,” consult a statistician? No. Does he now rely upon aid from statisticians? No. Were any of the reviewers of MBH98 statisticians? No. So that begs the question of what value-added service the peer reviewers supplied when reviewing a work based entirely upon statistics.

The problem with the AGW crowd lies in the fact that much of the work is of equally low quality. Are they ultimately right? How can we possibly know? Should we just take their word for it?

If you ever get a chance, read the story of N-rays and ask yourself if any of it sounds familiar.

How many peer-reviewed publications do they have on the subject?

They (McIntyre and others) debunked bad use of statistics in a ‘seminal’ paper (Mann et al), uncovered errors in GISS temperature reconstructions, have managed to get the climate community to acknowledge errors in how proxies have been handled. A lot of Climate Science from Hansen and from others has been tilted to get a result that fits the “dominant paradigm” and if the data, doesnt fit, they’ll tweak a few knobs until it does. Climate Audit is the good cop catching bad science.

I dont think Climate Audit deserves a weblog award, they should have gotten that Nobel Peace Prize that was given to the AGW fearmonger Al gore.

I agree: science is never settled. A theory should withstand all criticisms and any criticism should be met with reasonable response. Valid criticism, that is — I don’t mean the well-that’s-YOUR-theory kind.

I get highly suspicious when someone is unable or unwilling to produce the data used for his/her results and/or is evasive when asked exactly how the data were processed but who nonetheless still expects me to accept the results on faith and change my life accordingly regardless of cost. It also makes me wonder when a person, whose work is entirely statistical, stands before a NAS panel and proudly proclaims “I’m no statistician.” Whatever could have been intended by a remark like that?

What’s puzzling are the number of scientists who don’t seem to see anything wrong with the handwaving or, at the very least, tacitly support it by saying nothing.

My comment was meant to be taken with a grain of salt. Someone once told me to avoid irony and sarcasm in posts as both are easily misconstrued. I couldn’t turn down the opportunity though so I guess I should accept any resulting fallout.

Anyway, this is far off topic for this thread.

Cheers,
DAV

Although that I have posted several times on RC, with only a few deleted, the general attitude of RC is to suppress relevant scientific questions, where they don’t agree with. Just try to ask something about the validity of strip bark pines as historical temperature proxy, something that is openly discussed at CA. And relevant, if the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period, one need to know the origins of natural climate variability, before we can know anything about the influence of CO2…

Science is never settled, but agreed, in scientific matters, there may be a majority that forms a “consensus”, and a minority which disagrees. That doesn’t mean that the consensus is right and the minority is wrong. Science is not a popularity contest. What matters is if the facts support the majority or not.

I have a lot of experience with scientists who did make strong statements in the past (about different matters than climate). If they withhold data (or methods), you may be sure that they have something to hide which doesn’t support their statements.

That has nothing to do with right/left ideology, but with how science should work. If I was a US citizen, I probably would have voted Gore for president (but would have regretted that after I saw his “Inconvenient Truth”, because of a lot of unscientific exxageration).

But I agree, RC should have been on the list too…

Well, for only trying to have FUN there seem to be quite a lot here VERY interested in winning and sound as if they are willing to do ANYTHING to get there. IOW: There’s no FUN in LOSING!

The poster in favor of CA has a point but the point seems to be complaining that a “Science Blog” should only be defined as a blog where science is conducted and BA is a blog that talks ABOUT science instead. Frankly, I think both should be included.

RealClimate apparently didn’t receive enough votes to make it to the ballot. Elsewhere, someone conjectured that RC’s propensity for deleting critical posts might have driven their audience elsewhere due to the very apparent lack of balance.

Of course anybody asking “Where’s your data?” or “Why did you omit these data point?” and “Why won’t you disclose your exact methodology?” or “Aren’t you jumping to conclusion just a bit?” is obviously a contentious right-winger not worthy of consideration. The science is SETTLED dontchyaknow and no other conclusions can be reached.

But it’s irrelevant whether RC encourages or discourages dialog. It is still a science blog run by actual scientists and is one of the primary sources for learning their position and take on criticism. It should have been included on the ballot but I guess the people have spoken.

Climate Audit is gaining on you, Phil. They’re probably pumping up their vote in the hopes that a victory here would be good PR. Pharyngula appears to be dropping back.

It’s a popularity contest, not a fight to the death. I admire Phil, so lets keep things civil, OK?

My comment of 04 Nov. at 2:13 P.M. was somewhat glib, but my impression that a very high percentage of the papers mentioned on physorg.com, for instance, that in any way deal with or mention global warming indicate the belief of the authors that it is happening. Part of my impression of the opinions of the scientific community at large comes from these articles. Then there is the conclusion of latest IPCC report, produced by over 600 scientists from 40 countries that the probability that global warming is caused by human activity is over
90%.

Since when did 600 scientists or a million Frenchmen constitute the veracity of anything? Do we have to appeal to the beliefs of group of scientists regarding Relativity or Gravity or that the Earth orbits the Sun? What about evidence? Doesn’t matter any more?

Does it matter that more than 10,000 scientists from many countries signed a petition saying that the Kyoto Protocol was unnecessary and the scientific case for AGW not proven? Does it matter that the revealed review notes from the last AR4 strongly disputed claims made in it which were simply brushed by the authors aside without explanation?

Perhaps it doesn’t. Scientific consensuses in history have a disturbing habit of being wrong. Ask Alfred Wegener. Or Einstein.

That doesn’t mean that AGW doesn’t exist. It doesn’t mean that climate change is not happening (when has it never not changed?). It does mean that I remain completely unimpressed with arguments along the lines of “X scientists place a 90% certainty that AGW is happening”
as if in science, such a statement meant anything.

I found plenty of bad.
Where’s the science?

We all know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that those California fires cause a lot of CO2 to go into the atmosphere. We all agree that we should avoid putting greenhouse gases such as water vapor from fuel cell cars, nuclear power plants, agriculture, and ethanol engines into the atmosphere. We understand that every time we breathe we put harmful carbon into the atmosphere, and that every time we pass gas we put harmful methane into the atmosphere. We are aware that socialist countries like France have 15% unemployment and lots of water vapor emitting nuclear plants. We also are aware that fermentation from their wine making releases large amounts of CO2. That said, we also know that wealthier nations can be cleaner nations because they can develop the technology to make it happen using their superior Capitalist systems.

Even with all the above knowledge, it does not mean that the ends justifies the means and that you can just automatically accept the science that fits your world view and ignore the rest. We know that consensus science killed a lot of women by recommending hormone therapy for hot flashes, for instance.

The climate is very complex and has a lot of variables. Let the numbers speak for themselves.

Quiet Desperation,
We need you.