Joshua,

Quite. To the extent that a “problem” exists the likes of Ben Pile, and indeed Andrew Montford, are as much a part of it as anyone else.

Keith -

OK, I acknowledge  mommymommyism there.

Pile’s post is stunningly ironic, however, and I think that AA’s point is what I would like to get across. The roots of the problem are deep and spread out in all directions. I think that efforts that focus recognizing balance – and I don’t mean a false balance -  will be more beneficial in the long run because they more clearly focus on the full range of the problem. While the links are useful for examining an important phenomenon, I’m not sure they are more useful than the object lesson we can get from looking at the lack if insight in Pile’s post. I think that the links are a surface example of a much larger problem, and efforts that focus on the surface problem do so at the expense of addressing what lies underneath.

As to whether Pile gets much right, that may be (I haven’t read much from him), … but my feeling is that waaaaaay to much media-blaming takes place on both sides. I see it as the victimization component that goes hand-in-hand with the motivated reasoning. Part of the identification element is the need to be part of a group being victimized. We can see this element far beyond the walls  of the climate debate lunchroom. Each side sees coverage that isn’t exactly how they’d want it, and shrieks “Bias!” I saw that, specifically, with the “skeptic”  reactions to the “unprecedented” melt. There is a valid point to be made by “skeptics” as represented by that case, but that validity gets buried beneath piling on (heh!) from the other side.

Of course life would be very nice if on any contentious issue we could all find common ground and get along nicely. But I don’t think that’s realistic, or even desirable. I don’t share the claim (made by Montford, but presumably Keith agrees) that because there are different groups with strongly opposed views there must be some kind of “reasonable middle”. That isn’t necessarily so, and I’m inclined to invoke “Okrent’s Law” here – “The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true”. I would also make the point that when people want to define the “middle ground” it very often seems to be, coincidentally, very close to their own views. 

Similarly, I’m not buying Ben Pile’s claim that a story which quotes a particular scientist’s view there should necessarily include an opposing view.

The quote from Dan Kahan mentions “the value of adding fluoride to water, or the harmlessness of mobile-phone radiation” as examples of issues on which there is wide agreement. Well that may be true up to a point – I doubt there would be much disagreement here for example, but there are still plenty of people out there who will argue that adding fluoride to water does pose a risk to health and that the safety of mobile-phone radiation is far from proven. Should we be seeking a “reasonable middle” on these issues? When journalists quote scientists who say that fluoridation is safe and there is no proven risk from mobil-phone radiation should they also present opposing views?

The ‘climate debate’ comes down to a debate as to how much the socialized costs are and who should bear those costs. By definition that makes the issue political.It’s no more contentious then any other issue involving ‘alleged’ socialized costs of similar magnitudes.The reporting on issues such as medicare isn’t much different then then the reporting on climate.

Keith,

Since you bring up the tribalism charge again, perhaps you’d care to let us know what tribe you belong to? It might help us identify instances where you

overlook/ignore the missteps of your own side.  

Andrew Adams doesn’t seem to have understood the thrust of my argument, spread across two blog posts and the article at Spiked. (I don’t blame him for not wanting to trawl through so many ramblings of someone he doubtlessly disagrees with, but Keith has given us an opportunity here).

I do not ‘blame the media’, or naively ask for some kind of ‘balance’. In my Spiked article, Mark Brandon does say that there is a problem with an editorial thirst for ‘easy’ headlines. Another of his points was that the lay reading of climate science — by journalists — often misses the meaning. My reply was that the deficit between scientists and journalists isn’t quite enough to account for the character of the debate and incautious/alarmist speculation, and that scientists can equally fall victim to an environmentally-deterministic, and thus alarmist perspective. MB and I disagree about quite a lot, but what we seemed to agree on is that expectations of science can cause problems in *both* the sceptic and other camp.

As for ‘balance’, the point here was that in lieu of peer-reviewed science published in a scientific journal, there could be no context given to Laxon’s study. So I wasn’t asking for someone else to be allowed to be given right of reply in every radio programme or newspaper article that covered the research. I was pointing out that nobody could possibly give such a view *at all*, given that the science was not in the public domain for us to see for ourselves. We had to take Claxon’s word for it. And this epitomises the problems of speculation and opinion being reported as science, and even good, robust science nonetheless speaking to existing narratives — expectations.

Naturally, people want science to be decisive, and to close the debate, either in the favour of ‘warmists’ or ‘sceptics’. But this is an unrealistic, and damaging misconception of ‘science’, and of real-world problems that are brought into the climate debate. 

Keith -

Your points are well-taken (especially the one about my intelligence). But what I keep trying to get at with you is a question similar to Marlowe’s. Do you have an agenda?

I am willing to accept that your focus is on different planes of discourse, and this blog is only one of them. Still, and this is the point that I keep stressing with you, I think that from what I see you are too willing to accept blaming of the media from one side as you tend towards dismissing blaming of the media on the other.

Assuming I am right there about your the balance in your portrayal (a big assumption given my tribalism as you rightly point out), then the question is whether that your portrayal is a valid reflection of the reality of the media. I don’t think it is. For example, when I looked at the “concern” about the “unprecedented” melt, I saw a legitimate point about uninterrogated evidence, but I also saw a paranoid/victimhood reaction (it’s all part of the left-wing media plot) as well as an exaggeration of the problem as it existed (outright dismissal of any legitimacy to the characterization of “unprecedented”). 

Using this case as an example, I think that merely stating that the media tends towards simplistic and/or sensationalistic gets us nowhere. That isn’t going to change, is it? And both sides will continue to envision demons in those attributes of the media. That isn’t to say that we don’t have a “media problem,” But for me, the point of focus is more on that demonizing, and what lies beneath that tendency on both sides than a (perhaps banal?)  focus on what we already know about the media.

Which tribe do I belong to? The answer, if you want to keep this strictly related to the climate debate, would be none.

No blinders here. Got it.

Keith, you don’t have to choose a tribe. They’ll do it for you. Fortunately, your alternating between the sins of Watts and Romm means they have to do it on a rotating basis. You’re a good guy! You’re a bad guy!

At some point they may wake up and realize that their need to categorize their interlocutor says more about them than they realize… but not soon, I would guess.

Tom Fuller Says: August 16th, 2012 at 12:33 pm

Case. Rested.

Keith, you miss the part where the extreme faction on either side contributes to the simplification of the battlefield, where for the alarmists McIntyre is the same as Morano and for the skeptics, Bart Verheggen is the same as Al Gore (where is Bart these days?). 

Nuance is the enemy of blind prejudice and must be stamped out before anybody starts to (God forbid) actually communicate.

I wonder if Keith has read anything by Jay Rosen at all. Sometimes it seems like everybody on the internet except journalists is aware of Rosen’s critique of journalism.

Keith’s explicit claim of not having a tribe quite clearly puts him in a very well-defined tribe. That is, the tribe of mainstream American journalism, which adopts a “view from nowhere” in the name of objectivity, a point of view which increasingly fails to serve the intended purposes of a free press. I highly recommend following Rosen to get an understanding of how this works.

John Nielsen-Gammon is a great guy and despite our disagreements he makes what is in general a very good point. I like the quote a lot. The question I would raise is where the silent middle actually is.

As I have often said, though, the purpose of the IPCC is and was to define the middle, not to stake out an extreme.

The fact that opposition to IPCC on one side seems far more visible than from the other is because the core of the so called “skeptic” camp is commercial in origin and political in orientation. It has the skills and motivation to play the Nowhere Man American press, and the ideologically confused public that they have created, like a fiddle. They understand the likes of Keith, and using their loyalty to the No-Tribe Tribe they manipulate them mercilessly.

This trick doesn’t work nearly as well (though not for want of trying) in most other countries where the press lacks this well-intentioned and superficially reasonable no-ideology-ideology. Consequently the IPCC position is regarded as centrist and uncontroversial there.

As a consequence, there is a debate in the English-speaking world and especially America about facts that are almost everywhere else considered established and important.

It’s fascinating to me that some of you just assume that I should belong to a tribe and have an agenda.

It’s fascinating to me that you seem literally unable to parse the numerous comments suggesting that there are tribes other than the two you acknowledge.

It is almost as if cognitive dissonance is causing you to experience the equivalent of an equine bridle that blocks your ability to perceive things contrary to your preconceptions.

PDA – they are not tribes, by the definition of the term you use.

This touches on the debate Keith and I had — ‘spitballs’, which was more of a twitterspat.

My argument is that environmentalism, although it is as a political doctrine, incoherent, and comprises many contradicting perspectives, is nonetheless a ‘thing’, in so far as it has been reproduced in the constitution of public institutions, and in policy.

Climate change scepticism does not have such an identity. There are few instances of organised scepticism. And those that there are given much more significance, and credit with much more agency than they are due. In the Western world, there are few — if any — mainstream political parties that will identify as sceptical. Scepticism is thus not ‘established’, so to speak, other than in the occasional think tank, a few publications, and in the blogsphere. By contrast, there are supranational organisations, international agreements, transnational bureaucracies, government departments, non statutory public bodies, NGOs, and much more besides, broadly established on the environmental perspective. In spite of which, there is no meaningful mass environmental movement. Environmentalism, if it is a movement at all, is a movement which occupies the minds of the establishment.
So it may be misleading to think of ‘tribes’, or or two equivalent phenomena, that developed in similar circumstances. That would be to relativise the debate into nothingness. The putative ‘tribe’ of environmentalism has its own history. The history of the sceptics, on the other hand, is much more opaque, its history less definitive. Hence, it remains the subject of so much mythology.
That isn’t special pleading on behalf of the sceptics. It’s just saying that it is a mistake to see scepticism in the same terms as environmentalism, or for that matter, ‘lukewarmism’.

At the risk of being even more overly-semantic:

And that if I did have some sort of leaning or allegiance, I should reveal it to you.

I don’t know if you have an allegiance. I think that you have leaning. As I interpret it, your leaning is to focus on tribalism, and in particular, tribalism amongst environmentalists. (And maybe secondarily, sloppy science reporting).

My guess is that leaning is a product of another leaning – concern about environmental issues and the potential of blowback from environmentalist extremism. (And your secondary leaning is the product of your years of experience in the field of science journalism).

I appreciate those leanings. I think they are good leanings! The question is whether those leanings are manifest in some way through the vehicle of motivated reasoning.

what did you say in 30 that allowed for the possibility of a No Tribe Tribe, let alone your membership in that tribe? I’m genuinely confused.

p.s. the ‘bullet list’ button doesn’t appear to work….

Keith -

Read post #42. Have you not read similar criticism of the media perhaps thousands of times? Is there anything new to be gleaned from such analysis? Is there anything new about saying that the sensationalism/simplistic analysis in media w/r/t the climate debate parallels what we see in media coverage of political fights?

Yes, the media is sensationalistic and simplistic. You asked if that can be curbed. I expect not. So then, what?

I would suggest to focus on how people seek to invalidly exploit (on both sides) those inherent tendencies in the media, and how motivated reasoning is leads to claims of victimization at the hands of the big, bad media. I see you doing that with Romm. Good!

Maybe I’ve missed it, but do you also focus on the similar weak claim of victimization from “skeptics?” That was the reason why I objected to your treatment of Pile’s post. It seemed to me that you tacitly accepted a unilateralism in his portrayal of the failings of science reporting.

It’s also a bit natural to consider the sins of one’s co-believers to be more venial than mortal and to feel the opposite about the sins of the opposition.

Joushua – do you also focus on the similar weak claim of victimization from “skeptics?” That was the reason why I objected to your treatment of Pile’s post. It seemed to me that you tacitly accepted a unilateralism in his portrayal of the failings of science reporting.

Where have I claimed victim status for sceptics? Moreover, you’re talking about a series of articles which emerged after an interview with a climate scientist — who described himself to me as a ‘warmist’ — about the problems *he* perceived with the media’s coverage of science and our subsequent discussion about it, in which we variously agreed and disagreed.

You obviously cannot have read anything I’ve written.

Mr. Pile, your co-discussant is not interested in communicating. Trust me.

#50 +1

# 54 – Ben

You obviously cannot have read anything I’ve written.

I am certainly quite capable of misreading something that you’ve written, but when I see something like this:

My reply was that the deficit between scientists and journalists isn’t quite enough to account for the character of the debate and
incautious/alarmist speculation, and that scientists can equally fall victim to an environmentally-deterministic, and thus alarmist perspective.

“Equally?” Equal do who?

When I read that, I see a logical implication that journalists (the missing who) fall into an environmentally-deterministic perspective. That implies that “skeptics” are at a disadvantage in media portrayal – and thus the victims of environmental-determinism at the hand of journalists as opposed to a more basic problem of sensationalism and being simplistic. There’s more. Let’s start with that.

But they are on the whole just that “” cartoons. And myths. My point was
that no matter how popular they are, they have almost zero institutional muscle, rather than being a political force as such.

I alternately read this argument and read the argument that “skeptics” have won the battle by exposing the fraud in  the work of climate scientists (in fact, the last nails and final stakes have been driven many times). This viewpoint is a non-starter, IMO. Limbaugh, Beck, Inhofe, Hannity, Republican presidential candiates, etc., have institutional muscle. Arguments about who has bigger guns seems like a reasonable debate. Claims that “skeptics” are 90 lb weaklings seem motivated to me, and is also completely contradictory to much of what I read from those who call themselves “rational skeptics.”

Joshua – When I read that, I see a logical implication that journalists (the missing who) fall into an environmentally-deterministic perspective. That implies that “skeptics” are at a disadvantage in media portrayal ““ and thus the victims of environmental-determinism at the hand of journalists as opposed to a more basic problem of sensationalism and being simplistic. There’s more. Let’s start with that.

Your powers of comprehension are overwhelmed by your desire to read what you want to see.

I was suggesting that scientists are as vulnerable to environmental determinism as journalists. I would claim that scientists have great difficulty overcoming determinism — something that has long been observed as the problem with positivism. I.e. it’s not just journalism and ‘the media’ which are prefigured towards alarmism. If you took more care to read the things you’re pronouncing on, it might be clearer to you.

(49) Willard -

I loved that post. I think I even understood some of it.

One question, though:

Let alone that it induces people to talk about all motivational stuff that does not pertain to rational discussion.

Why is the discussion of motivation irrelevant to rational discussion? Can’t it be incorporated into a rational discussion?

Joshua – <i>his viewpoint is a non-starter, IMO. Limbaugh, Beck, Inhofe, Hannity, Republican presidential candiates, etc.,</i>All individuals. No agencies. No organisations. No processes. No parties. No movements. Against huge supranational, supra-democratic agencies and organisations, governments, political parties, NGOs, Quangos… And so on… Perhaps there is a correlation between environmentalism and the failure of the sense of scale and perspective.  

Joshua, your comment at #69 is extremely good and pertinent.

KK:

…there’s been a big debate in science journalism circles about how to improve coverage of health and medicine and generally speaking, research published in journals. But environmentally-related topics, including climate change, aren’t much part of this debate. 

There has been an epidemic of medical research studies that make it into major journals that are later proven to be incorrect.   

If between a third and a half of the most acclaimed research in medicine was proving untrustworthy, the scope and impact of the problem were undeniable. That article was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. 

The entire article is worth reading.  

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/

People are starting to pay attention to the flaws of increasingly sloppy medical research, and the consequences will be the improvement of the science.  The same thing could be true for climate science if there was enough critical analysis.  

Ben, the difference between those skeptics singled out as having influence in the debate and those on the alarmist side is not in fact their influence. Limbaugh, Heartland, etc. do actually have influence.

But their interest in global warming is peripheral, not concentrated like the alarmists. Alarmists are one-note Johnnies, for good or ill. Limbaugh and Heartland go after a dozen topics at a time. This dilutes any effect they might have on climate policy or even discussion. I doubt if they’re stupid, but the casual nature of their interest in climate change is evident in the level of knowledge they show about it, which further lessens their impact.

The very few skeptics that focus on climate change (Morano, Monckton and Watts) have, for different reasons, been unable to make much of an impact.

The American exceptionalism rears its head with Morano and his sponsor James Inhofe. They have made climate skepticism a litmus test for Republican orthodoxy to a certain extent. As a Democrat, I applaud the damage this is certain to cause Republicans. As a lukewarmer, I’m saddened to see the effect on the debate.

A quick examination of Ben Pile’s article on the GL melt reveals much about the media’s examination post NASA headline, and reveals much about the media’s examination of the media’s examination of the GL melt. But it also reveals that the media had no real interest in getting the story right. They either wanted it to be that Greenland melts away or that the event is a cycle that happens every 150 years and was expected because of this. Neither of these is correct. From Ben Pile

In plain sight of the fact that the melting was neither unexpected nor unprecedented

He uses the NASA presser quote

“˜Ice cores from Summit [a central Greenland station] show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time’, said Lora Koenig, a NASA researcher involved in the analysis of the satellite data.

But what does that mean? Where does that come from? The number itself comes from Richard Alley paper in 1995. It is not used as a number to denote an expected cycle, but to denote a classification.

Melting is clearly scarce, averaging I event per 153 a over this time and supporting the classification of Benson (1962) that this site falls within the dry-firn zone

Further examination of that paper reveals that before 1889, the last time the melt occurred was about 700 years before that. It also reveals that that most melts occurred during the MWP and then again many more during the Holocene Optimum, both times when it was anomalously warm over the N Hemisphere. Ya know, like now. It’s only expected because of the conditions, not cycles.

This information wasn’t looked into. Perhaps the problem with the media is that it can’t decide which
tribe keeps getting things right and which isn’t. Who distorts (knowingly or not) simple quotes to avoid finding themselves in one of those tribes. Or perhaps the media is just too inept to handle a simple piece that details the reality of this particular or any other phenomenon.

Ben, I would say feel free to expound further, if for no other reason than you’re not a frequent commenter here. Electronic space is cheap.

Ben, I would agree while noting that it works both ways.

Tom – Ben, I would agree while noting that it works both ways.

I think it would be an injustice to Stewart to say that he didn’t make himself, notwithstanding his talent for parody and satire.

I don’t think it does work both ways. Sceptics don’t have the leverage. That’s not to say that things won’t change — for better or worse. But right now, and until now, sceptics have been less than a side show in the development of global environmental politics. The debate about whether ‘climate change is happening’ or not is immaterial to the construction of organisations like the UNEP and UNWCED etc, and all the agreements and things that followed — Rio, UNFCCC etc. These things seem like mere background to the debate about ‘is it happening’. But they began long before climate was emphasised in the environmental narrative.

Keith. there is an interesting experiment you can do to establish which tribe you belong to.
1. criticize Watts.
2. criticize Romm.

(opps youve done that )

neither side will accept you as one of theirs.
both sides will ask you to declare loyalties, and
then not trust any declaration you make, even a declaration of no affiliation.

That very question is the clue that they don’t know where to put you and are uncomfortable claiming you as one of their own. You need to learn to get with the program, even that won’t do.

I remember when I read the climategate mail where Mann(?) said that Revkin could not be trusted to carry the message. I felt deeply honored at that point to know Andrew because I had heard similar messages from the other side about him. I feel the same way towards you. Deeply honored Keith.

Dr. Tobis, I have been following this weblog since its inception. I have never once seen anything Keith Kloor has written that could possibly be taken in a reality-based universe as indicating he believes the truth is smack dab in the middle.

Norbert would be ashamed.

“But this time it will cost us.” So when you pronounced with equal certainty that Egyptian famines, Pakistani floods, Texan drought and Russian heatwaves were due to climate change, those times didn’t cost us?

Oh, yeah! That’s right! They didn’t cost us because they weren’t related to climate change. You only said they did.

Keep it up, Paul. You’re correct. It will take time. Use that time.

“The Truth Is Smack Dab In The Middle” and “I have never once seen anything Keith Kloor has written that could possibly be taken in a reality-based universe as indicating he believes the truth is smack dab in the middle” are both oversimplifications. 

I disagree that Keith Kloor has ever written, literally, that “the truth is smack dab in the middle.” 

I also disagree that he has never written anything that could possibly be taken as meaning that.

Dr. Tobis at #91, you already conceded that academic and peer-reviewed scientific publications showed you to be in error regarding your past claims. Now you’re taking it back.I’m not surprised.Wolf! Wolf!But remember, Dr. Tobis. There was a wolf.

BBD,It is both. Information is filtered according to each person’s values before it is even processed. Most everyone believes he or she speaks on good authority.

+1 TF #99?? TF #94 I don’t even understand what you are saying.

“I would have thought the compelling new Hansen analysis would budge people, but around these parts all it seems to have done is make them dislike Hansen all the more. ”

Tom. bookmark this.

The climate debate is, of course, dominated by whatever the press pays attention to. By paying attention to the extremes it makes it especially easy to look good by aiming for the middle, doesn’t it?

This dynamic is particularly not specific to climate.

And anyone with something to communicate to the public knows it.

“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but “” which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

- Steven Schneider, 1989

(emphasis added)

No, I wasn’t painting you as a reflexive middle-seeker. I disagreed with mt characterizing you as he did. I also disagreed with Tom characterizing mt as he did. How about that, I’m not agreeing with anybody. 

Saying”being in the middle is not such a bad place to be” is not the same thing as “the truth is smack dab in the middle,” absolutely. But could it “possibly be taken in a reality-based universe as indicating” something like that? Obviously it depends on the error bars around “possibly,” but I don’t think it requires an absolute break with reality to make that interpretation.

Anyway, you seem prickly and defensive as hell around any suggestion that you have your own tribal loyalties to a particular point of view, and I honesty don’t get it. I don’t think that’s some great moral failing, and in my first comment above I tried to make it clear that I’m not trying to invalidate your perspective. 

You asked what to do about the discourse. I’m just suggesting that a necessary (if not sufficient) step is to acknowledge our own biases. Each of us. Not just the people you think of as extreme.

Anyway, I yield the balance of my time to Joshua. He seems to be making similar points to mine, without being as antagonizing.

All individuals. No agencies. No organisations. No processes. No parties. No movements.

Dude!When I start reading that major Republican Party politicians, Fox News, and people who are among the most influential political figures in the country  have no agencies, organizations, parties, movements, methinks it may be time for me to step off the convo. (Let me just say that I’m not arguing that “skepticism” can be reduced to those entities, but to deny that those entities have any power in the “debate.”)And when I see an exchange like this:

Me: Do you think that environmental determinism is the most prevalent influence that affects scientific journalists?Ben: No, I think it afflicts a great many others besides.

It is clearly convo step off time. That, my friend, was a classic.

OK – reformat time:

All individuals. No agencies. No organisations. No processes. No parties. No movements.

Dude!

When I start reading that major Republican Party politicians, Fox News, and people who are among the most influential political figures in the country  have no agencies, organizations, parties, movements, methinks it may be time for me to step off the convo. (Let me just say that I’m not arguing that “skepticism” can be reduced to those entities, but to deny that those entities have any power in the “debate???”  Wow!)

And when I see an exchange like this:

Me: Do you think that environmental determinism is the most prevalent influence that affects scientific journalists?

Ben: No, I think it afflicts a great many others besides.

It is clearly convo step off time. That, my friend, was a classic.

Fuller: I do not feel compelled by Hansen’s analysis.I think he should have used a longer base period.

Hansen: We address questions raised about our study “The New Climate Dice” by using longer base periods that include the 1930s. 

PDA

Mosher drops a broad hint at # 102 that a reply is on its way. Let’s see how it pans out. It’s interesting that this study provoked a strong response by Tom and Mosher and others.

PDA, I read the paper before I commented on it.

Ben Pile,

Andrew Adams doesn’t seem to have understood the thrust of my argument, spread across two blog posts and the article at Spiked. (I don’t blame him for not wanting to trawl through so many ramblings of someone he doubtlessly disagrees with, but Keith has given us an opportunity here).

Fair enough, I confess I was just reacting to the quote which Keith cited. I did read the piece he linked to but didn’t read the whole trail of blog posts (lack of time more than anything else).

I guess I was arguing with Keith rather than with you, although I have to confess that I’m not normaly very sympathetic to anything that comes from Spiked.

There are a lot of hints, which is intriguing, but let’s see how it pans out. This is exciting. Science is fun!

Ben Pile,

My argument about which tribes have agency, put crudely, is that Monbiots make Moncktons.

Sorry but I think that’s nonsense. For a start there’s the implied slur on Monbiot, who is far more trustworthy source than Morano any day, but my main point is that it simply isn’t true that the skeptics exist only as a reaction to the “excesses” of the other side. The arguments for action on AGW would exist without the existent of Monbiot and others who you no doubt disapprove of and the skeptics would still be trying to thwart such action.

On the subject of influence, well it’s thankfully true that the skeptics do not have too much influence here in the UK, but it’s diffent in the US, as others here have pointed out. It’s absolutely toxic politically for anyone on the Republican side to admit to accepting the mainstream scientific arguments, and that’s not down to the actions of our side.

Over here, despite the best efforts of the likes of the Mail and the Spectator such views have not gained much traction outside the readerships of those publications. Mind you they keep trying and they are worth arguing against, not just because they are seeking influence but because they are wrong.

Right, bed time. Just one quick point on attribution.Surely “we cannot attribute event x to global warming” is not the same as
saying “event x was not caused by global warming”, as it’s incredibly difficult to specifically link
an particular event to climate change. So ISTM that until we start getting events
which are so exteme that they are way outside what could be termed “natural
variation” as we have experienced it (and we do seem to be getting close to
this) any link between extreme events and climate change is likely to be
statistical rather than a direct proof of cause/effect.

So there is not necessarily a contradiction between Hansen’s paper and others which have concluded that we cannot say a particular event was caused by climate change.

#116, yes.

Andrew Adams – Sorry but I think that’s nonsense. For a start there’s the implied slur on Monbiot, who is far more trustworthy source than Morano any day, but my main point is that it simply isn’t true that the skeptics exist only as a reaction to the “excesses” of the other side. The arguments for action on AGW would exist without the existent of Monbiot and others who you no doubt disapprove of and the skeptics would still be trying to thwart such action.

Sceptics are, by definition, a reaction to the ‘excesses of the other side’. Scepticism has an object, which is the claim(s) made by the ‘other side’. I think the only form of scepticism which didn’t have an object as such would be some kind of radical scepticism which claimed that ‘nothing is true’. If there were no claims that the earth was warming due to CO2 emissions, Morano’s (I think you meant to say Monckton) site would be even harder for you to understand.

Over here, despite the best efforts of the likes of the Mail and the Spectator such views have not gained much traction outside the readerships of those publications. Mind you they keep trying and they are worth arguing against, not just because they are seeking influence but because they are wrong.

Indeed, there is a political consensus, amongst the established parties, and civil society about climate change. But this isn’t yet a victory for environmentalism, but rather vindicates the sceptics’ cause, if not their arguments. That consensus was formed without democracy. And that democratic deficit is a real problem for the legitimacy for those organisations, institutions and processes. Those values, principles, ideas have not been tested at the ballot box. Even if Mel and the Spectator etc are wrong about the science (I make no judgement here) they are not wrong about the legitimacy of environmentalism’s ascendency in the UK and EU. It is through environmentalism as an ‘ideology’ that the science is seen through, and acted on.

Ben  -

First, the distinction you make is of relatively little significance. What makes the difference is political power and influence. Republican presidential candidates have significant political influence and power, as do sitting members of Congress who actively promote the “hoax” conspiracy. Those muscles are further flexed by major media influences as represented by Limbaugh – shown by polls to be the most influential citizen within the Republican constituency.

Second, sure, the Republican Party, Fox News, etc., are not  monolithic, and neither are environmentalists or international agencies (if they were, they’d be able to accomplish more). But while not being completely uniform, they play a very significant role in disseminating ideological opposition to goals of environmentalists.  There is enough of a balance tipping the scales that their efforts on one side of the debate are not anywhere close to being cancelled out – therefore the fact that they aren’t totally monolithic is a meaningless point. The idea that environmentalists have disproportionate power to the array of opposition staked against them is, quite simply, proven false by the fact of what does and does not get legislated and instituted.

Third:

Because there’s no other way, it would seem, to account for the failure of environmentalism.What environmentalists need to realise is that they were defeated, not by the other tribe, but by the incoherence of their own project, and their own excesses.

While I see this claim made, constantly, by “skeptics,” I have yet to see anything that makes it anything other than speculation. Where are your data that show cause-and-effect behind where public opinion stands on environmental issues, let alone climate change specifically? How have you controlled for or quantified, in determining that no other explanation would be valid, for the actual influence of other variables? Like political opposition that clearly does exist. Or the influence of economic conditions. Or the influence of weather (specific to climate change?) Or the difficulties presented by inherently complex problems with very difficult solutions? And in your determination of “failure” and “defeat,” how do you factor in that climate change is a major concern for large segments of the public? And while efforts have not manifest as some environmentalists may have liked, we have had significant changes in our societies that have taken place, directly, as the result of environmental advocacy? By what measure is some degree of significant change “failure?” Give me some data, Ben – something that has been “interrogated.” That is a highly respectable standard. It is one that should be applied by all involved in the debate. Give me any data to back up your arguments by assertion.

It was their political project to lose.

Sez who?

Very little has stood in its way.

Sez who?

You? Sure, you may be right, but you are also, clearly a zealot. Give me some data that quantify your assertions.Otherwise you are just someone else who is arguing by assertion. Maybe you’re right. And maybe you’re just confirming your biases.  Join the club.

I love it when people demand data on internet chat rooms. If you’re interested in the argument, Joshua, there are several hundred articles on my blog, which is searchable via Google. Meanwhile, it is sufficient here to point out that the institutional apparatus available to environmentalism is vastly greater than that which is available to scepticism.

Which leaves your idea that the weight of so many governments, NGOs, supranational organisations and agencies, etc, etc, is counterposed merely by the charisma of some presidential candidates, a few dozen news anchors, and so on. You say:

“What makes the difference is political power and influence. Republican presidential candidates have significant political influence and power, as do sitting members of Congress who actively promote the “hoax” conspiracy. ”

No presidential candidate ever has any political power. His position is that he is seeking an office with power. And he (or she) has influence, only by virtue of that which was given to him during the processes which got him to his candidacy. In short, you’re getting things upside down. No presidential candidate can move himself, by himself, to the position of either candidate or president.

I’m trying to understand what role ‘influence’ plays in your argument. Do you imagine that politicians are individuals who posses some kind of ability to make people think things, and to do things at whim? Do you think that by virtue of simply being a representative in a parliamentary debating chamber, he can simply will political institutions or changes into existence?

It seems to me that you have this idea of ‘influence’ which reduces to a belief that sceptics just utter scepticism, and people fall for it.

If this were true — and this is why I emphasise that institutions as a measure of political reality — we would see scepticism more coherently and more commonly manifested in institutions. Political influence and power is manifested as political institutions: organisations, agencies, policies and changes that reflect the aims of the political approach or perspective. If scepticism was a political force, we would be able to see a political movement of sceptics. We would see politicians and other individuals with influence making deliberate, concerned, material changes to policy. We don’t see that.

Instead, we see a few high profile blogs. A few troublesome politicians, but most sitting on the fence. A few journalists. All of which is supposed to have undermined the massive effort under the UN to establish environmental politics. It’s inconvievable that such a process — which has been going on since the late 1960s — has been troubled by sceptics. They haven’t had access to it. Even Bush Sr signed up to it in Rio. It is inconceiveable that scepticism, with the power and influence you credit it with, could have asserted itself invisibly, throughout America and the rest of the world.

Sez me. Take it or leave it.

Gonna leave it, Ben.

It is simply false that candidates have no power simply by virtue of not having yet been elected. They have the power to influence opinion, and as such influence political outcomes. The same with unelected media figures. 

Do you imagine that politicians are individuals who posses some kind of ability to make people think things, and to do things at whim?

No. I “imagine” that politicians influence public opinion, and that their candidacies help cohere and coordinate constituencies along political concepts. It is not a unilateral flow – candidates reflect public opinion just as they influence public opinion, but the fact that the influence moves from citizens to candidates does not mean that there is no flow in the other direction as well. The same goes for the media. I see this all the time when I go to non-climate specific blogs and see
commenter after commenter, who pay little more attention to climate
issues than to other issues, repeating over and over the same false information about
climate issues. That rhetoric serves as a proxy for political wrangling – and the informational loop runs back and forth between tribes and media outlets.  Citizens are not pawns of the media (not the least pawns of the supposedly pervasive “environmental determinism” of the media) – but they are influenced by the media (stories about heat waves and stories about climate science hoaxes alike) just as they influence the what and the how of media coverage.

You may have some quantified and/or validated data to show some cause-and-effect negative causation between environmental advocacy and policy development, but I’ve been asking for such data for a while now from “skeptics” and have yet to see any such evidence offered. If you’d like to offer a link or two, I’d love to look at them. I’m certainly not going to spend time rooting around on your blog simply because you say that they’re there somewhere. 

If this were true “” and this is why I emphasise that institutions as a measure of political reality “” we would see scepticism more coherently and more commonly manifested in institutions.

You first set the criteria, and then determine what they will measure. That is a very convenient system. To me, it looks a little too convenient. “Skepticism” is not perfectly coherent or overwhelmingly manifest in institutions, but it exists in its  imperfect and less than suffocating form. It doesn’t cease to exist simply because it isn’t the only thing in the universe. Neither is “environmental determinism” manifest in a perfectly coherent and overwhelming fashion, and yet you manage to see it everywhere you look. Imagine that!

We would see politicians and other individuals with influence making deliberate, concerned, material changes to policy. We don’t see that.

Sorry – but I have to Dude! you again. We don’t see ideological politicians and other individuals in opposition to environmental advocacy (one branch of which is climate “skepticism”) exerting real influence in policy implementation? Seriously? I give you credit for writing posts as long as mine, and for  dissuading me from my intent to step off the convo – but I’m really out now. The worlds we inhabit are so alien that I feel there is no real potential of speaking a common language. In my world I see lots of people on both sides of the debate hand-wringing endlessly about being victims, and the big bad media as being the worst of the victimizers. On both sides the good folks are waging war against Goliath – with but a pebble and a slingshot to hold off the beast. I don’t buy it from you just as I don’t buy it from Romm. I wish my  world were that simple or binary. My life would be less complicated.

Keith,
 
You’re on the money.  Keep at “˜er.

Joshua: – We don’t see ideological politicians and other individuals in opposition to environmental advocacy (one branch of which is climate “skepticism”) exerting real influence in policy implementation? Seriously?

Of course we do. But you’re just trying to see the entire debate, and the failure of environmentalism (or at least climate policy) in terms of just this one, woolly concept: ‘influence’. An entire country, ney, world, under the direct control of Fox News! And yet you criticise me for telling David and Goliath stories.

I would have reported equally on two standard deviations from the mean, and one. And I am at a loss to understand why, if I were looking at how
global climate affected U.S. temperatures, I would have failed to look at some place like Europe with equally good temperature records and investigated the same issues there.

Eh? HSR12 examined data for the full NH land surface. *Tamino* looked at the US lower 48.

Ben Pile

Sceptics are, by definition, a reaction to the “˜excesses of the other side’. Scepticism has an object, which is the claim(s) made by the “˜other side’. I think the only form of scepticism which didn’t have an object as such would be some kind of radical scepticism which claimed that “˜nothing is true’. If there were no claims that the earth was warming due to CO2 emissions, Morano’s (I think you meant to say Monckton) site would be even harder for you to understand.

Skeptics are certainly a reaction to the other side – it’s the word “excesses” I object to. Of course if no-one was claiming that the earth was warming due to CO2, or that such warming may well be dangerous, there would be no-one expressing skepticism about such claims, but that doesn’t mean they are necessarily “excessive”. 

Indeed, there is a political consensus, amongst the established parties, and civil society about climate change. But this isn’t yet a victory for environmentalism, but rather vindicates the sceptics’ cause, if not their arguments. That consensus was formed without democracy. And that democratic deficit is a real problem for the legitimacy for those organisations, institutions and processes. Those values, principles, ideas have not been tested at the ballot box. Even if Mel and the Spectator etc are wrong about the science (I make no judgement here) they are not wrong about the legitimacy of environmentalism’s ascendency in the UK and EU. It is through environmentalism as an “˜ideology’ that the science is seen through, and acted on.

Whether or not we need to take action on climate change is a question which politicians, and indeed civil society, are entitled to consider and come to conclusions on independently, based on their reading of the evidence. But in a democracy their views on the issue will be put to the voters at election time and any policies they enact will be judged at the ballot box next time round. There is no “democratic deficit” specific to climate change. Nor does the existence of the consensus you mention (which I don’t dispute) necessarily vindicate the skeptics – their arguments stand or fall on their own merits.

I guess you could object that all three parties had broadly similar polices on the subject at the last election (as was the case on other issues as well), but that’s partly because environmental issues are something which seems to be important to the British people nowadays. Personally I don’t consider myself an environmentalist as such but I do actually think it’s a good thing that such concerns have gained traction here.     

Andrew – Skeptics are certainly a reaction to the other side ““ it’s the word “excesses” I object to.

The excesses I refer to are in particular the democratic deficit, which you wave your hands at:

I guess you could object that all three parties had broadly similar polices on the subject at the last election (as was the case on other issues as well), but that’s partly because environmental issues are something which seems to be important to the British people nowadays.

Evidently not, or there would be no need for any climate policies, institutions, etc. Environmentalism would be a mass movement, capable of establishing its own institutions, rather than a categorically establishment/elite preoccupation. It is no coincidence that post democratic politics and environmentalism developed simultaneously. In other words, the greening of the UK/EU establishment doesn’t just happen in spite of public disengagement from politics, it happens because of it. The political consensus occurs because the old parties cannot find consensus with the public — their political projects need to be legitimised somehow. And ‘saving the planet’ is as good a reason as any other. You’re pleased, it seems, about the fact of powerful political institutions and far-reaching policies being put out of the reach of democratic control. These are the excesses of environmentalism I was referring to.

There is no “democratic deficit” specific to climate change. Nor does the existence of the consensus you mention (which I don’t dispute) necessarily vindicate the skeptics ““ their arguments stand or fall on their own merits.

There is a democratic deficit specific to climate change, but its context is a more comprehensive shift in the character of politics, away from democracy towards technocratic and supranational political institutions. You don’t have to be a climate sceptic to see it. I didn’t claim that the sceptics arguments can be vindicated, but that their cause can clearly serve as a vehicle by which concerns about the corrosion of democracies can be expressed. FWIW, I’ve often argued that scepticism which is preoccupied with the science is a clumsy expression of the grievances people have with contemporary politics. in other words, the ‘science’ is a a distraction: environmentalists (in the broadest sense) smuggle their politics under cover of ‘science’, and sceptics are complicit in this, by imagining the debate to be about science, and thinking that the political debate can be won by emphasis on the science.

Joshua – I think considering the relative strengths of the different influences is worthwhile, but that to gain your kind of absolute confidence you need quantified and validated evidence.

I don’t indulge in live comments very often. I think of them as largely a waste of time, going over so much old ground with so much baggage, moving so quickly across a range of subjects and being forgotten soon enough, are ultimately disposable. For that reason, I’m not going to compile evidence and footnotes for a few hundred words in a point-scoring contest.

You rightly point out that there are a multitude of influences. The point I have been trying to explain to you is that the measure of these influences is the extent to which they are made concrete — institutions, policies, changes, and so on. You can’t actually measure any ‘influence’ directly. You can, on the other hand, see that there exist many organisations established to deliver environmental messages, and even in the country where the sceptical perspective seems to thrive, the EPA (for instance) is still able to move to attempt to classify CO2 as a pollutant. The USA still sent a delegation to COP meetings. It still sought an agreement. In other words, I’m trying to get to a ‘sociological’ perspective, rather than to get preoccupied by this sort of thing:

those influences are a manifestation of the same underlying mechanism of human cognition and psychology: motivated reasoning.

Forget about ‘motivated reasoning’. It’s a dead end. It patronises everybody, because its premise denies individuals of their rational faculties. There are perfectly good, rational reasons why, to take one example, sceptic conservatives might be less concerned about changes in the natural world than people who hold with the view of a deterministic relationship between the natural world and society. To reduce that reasoning to a phenomenon of ‘motivated reasoning’ presupposes that you can understand the reasoning without dialogue with the reasoner, simply by looking at his motivations. If you’re interested, I have an article on Chris Mooney’s similar attempt to pathologise his opponents beleif systems at http://www.climate-resistance.org/2011/05/trust-me-i-speak-for-science.html .

#139,

Those are all good points.

While it’s true that it’s easier to tease out a trend in a longer data series, I think it’s worth emphasising again that not all data series have trends. You can generate an AR(1) series and much of the time over short periods the level will drift up and down. But the true mean of the distribution at every point in time is zero. There is no trend.

The way parameter estimation works is to assume that the data follows a particular statistical model – a restricted class of random behaviours characterised by unknown parameters – and then finding which member of the class is the most likely to have generated the observed data.

The example they use in the textbooks is a linear trend plus additive independent Gaussian noise, and OLS tells you which one of these was the most likely to have generated that data.

But if the actual physics doesn’t generate trend+iid Gaussian outputs, the OLS trend is meaningless. It’s just as easy to fit a polynomial, or a sine wave, or a step function, or a sum of decaying exponentials. The evidence connecting the data to a particular model has to be separately provided; you cannot derive it from the data, and the fit of the data to the model cannot be used as evidence in support of the model. (Although a non-fit does count as evidence against.)

The way I did it was to simply plot out all the distributions, for every month. I compared them against a 1900-1950 baseline (earlier the data is sparse, later is where it is claimed warming occurs) and showed where probabilities had increased or decreased. The variability is higher 1850-1900, drops in 1900-1950, drops even further 1950-1990, and then jumps up sharply at the end. There are distinctive step changes, particularly at 1998.

Summer temperatures are chosen because the spread in summer is much smaller than in winter. The far extremes in summer temperatures increased sharply in the 1970s, the middle of the distribution (what Hansen plotted) shifted around 1990 up to levels matching the 1940s, and then in 1998 jumped sharply again, now shifted up beyond that. The shift is smaller than the annual spread, but peeks above the noise in summer.

Reporting standard deviations is a bad idea because the distribution is heavy-tailed, not Gaussian; SD tends to be dominated by the outliers. Quantiles would be better (50%, 95%, 99%, etc.) but the distribution density itself has all the information these summary statistics miss.

Looking at the distributions of anomalies is an interesting study, but it doesn’t tell you much about heatwaves. I’ve got a strong suspicion most of the ‘heatwaves’ Hansen is detecting are in Siberia and northern Canada. The 20th century rise in mean temperatures is not easily to attributed to man, and far less so for the bounds of the distribution. The data points to a step change in 1998, which doesn’t indicate a primary relation to CO2.

I think my shtick is the ‘I-am-rubber-you-are-glue’ shtick. Because when I read polylogues like this, I see people (on all sides of the discourse) angrily fulminating at each other as they go on doing EXACTLY what it is they’re accusing others of. 

Today is random thought day for me.

I was thinking about something I found interesting – don’t know if anyone else might, but since I’ve got my bully pulpit/text window/soap box I’ll give it a shot.

I was thinking about that “Someone’s wrong on the Internet” cartoon and why I have such a hard time not responding to Ben’s comments – and that led me to  thinking about the question of why do I  argue on blogs with people who dismiss my arguments out of hand.

I can think of a number of reasons that. Some are not exactly pretty. But some are more palatable. One of the more palatable  reasons is that I think, in part, by throwing ideas at the wall to see if they stick. Bouncing ideas off of other people is a good way to gain some perspective. Even perspective given by people who have disdain for me or for my ideas can be useful in that regard. But the point is that I throw ideas out there even if they aren’t fully formed or completely thought through because that’s kind of how I often reason — through devil’s advocacy –  and so I can post ideas on blogs to enlist the input of other “devils.”

Now maybe it’s just me, but I think that maybe others use blogs in a similar fashion; but I’m led to wonder if that phenomenon may be, largely, a very Western phenomenon.

I work a lot with international clients and students, and in my experience, people from non-western cultures, and Asians in particular, think that the way that Westerners spout off about ideas without actually knowing the answers to questions is pretty bizarre.(And of course, there is also much variability here among westerners from different countries).

This difference in cultural orientation towards expressing ideas to explore ideas can be particularly striking in a classroom. Think of a classroom where Latinos are constantly interrupting the teacher for clarification, and responding to questions even if they aren’t 100% sure of the answer, and Asians thinking that (1) why is the teacher wasting my time asking for answers rather just explaining the answers to us? (2) why would anyone presume to take the teacher’s time and the time of the other students to speculate about questions when they don’t actually know the answers?But it isn’t limited to the classroom. I have had Asian clients (Japanese in particular) express complete wonderment at how Americans waste so much time in business meetings discussing questions for which no one has an answer. They have compared that to a Japanese context, where someone in authority would designate people to conduct research and then report back with their results so that the person charged with responsibility for making decisions could make informed decisions.

Of course, I’m making a lot of overly broad generalizations here (for the sake of argument).

So here’s where I’m going with this. First, it would be fascinating (well, to me at least) to see what differences there are in, say, a Japanese blog chat dynamic. My guess is that it would be very different.

Second, I’ve been thinking a lot about the universality of motivated reasoning, and I’m wondering about whether there actually needs to be some kind of cultural referencing for that concept. Motivated reasoning is a lot about personal identification with a group – but I also think that there’s some element of reinforcing and protecting the individual identity. But individualism is a much more prominent feature of Western societies – as apposed to more value being placed on consensus, agreement,  and community  in (at least some) non-Western cultures – particularly those with Confucian roots.

NiV: “The data points to a step change in 1998,”This is not surprising in the least. The really large scale weirdness seems to have commenced with the super El Nino of 1998. ”which doesn’t indicate a primary relation to CO2″That doesn’t remotely follow and is a version of the Hoerling fallacy. Nonlinear systems commonly have regime transitions rather than smooth responses to smooth changes in forcing. Cans don’t crumple as you squeeze them every harder, until then they do. That doesn’t mean that the crumpling can had nothing to do with squeezing it.

#154,

It’s not just you.

My argument is that because everyone has cognitive biases and blind spots, including me, none of us can determine on our own whether our beliefs are really true. But different people have different blindspots, so I can see what they cannot, and they can see what I cannot. By talking to them, I am forced to fill in the gaps in my own reasoning, check things I had formerly taken for granted, and sometimes realise a belief of mine is flawed and change my mind. (It’s not perfect, and my biases resist, but it does help.)

Talking only to people who agree with you, or who are polite about not contradicting your beliefs doesn’t help. They likely share the same blindspots. You need to talk to people who vehemently disagree, who are emotionally invested in debunking your ideas, and who have the intelligence and knowledge to be able to do so. You do not get to be fastest and strongest without competing.

As Milton said: “I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary but slinks out of the race, where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat.”

When the reasoning process is known to be flawed and biased, even ‘rational’ argument gives no guarantee of truth. But survival of our ideas in the arena of debate gives us our only real justification for belief. There is no ‘intelligent designer’ of scientific truth, either, but evolution by natural selection can give the illusion that there is.

See also Mill’s argument:
“I answer, that it is assuming very much more. There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation. Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right.”

http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/two.html

NiV: “The data points to a step change in 1998,”

This is not surprising in the least. The really large scale weirdness seems to have commenced with the super El Nino of 1998.

 ”which doesn’t indicate a primary relation to CO2″³

That doesn’t remotely follow and is a version of the Hoerling fallacy. Nonlinear systems commonly have regime transitions rather than smooth responses to smooth changes in forcing. 

Cans don’t crumple as you squeeze them ever harder, until they do. That doesn’t mean that the crumpling of the can had nothing to do with squeezing it.

NiV

By talking to them, I am forced to fill in the gaps in my own reasoning, check things I had formerly taken for granted, and sometimes realise a
belief of mine is flawed and change my mind.

Arctic ice? GIS?

> When the reasoning process is known to be flawed and biased, even “˜rational’ argument gives no guarantee of truth.

Even a flawless and unbiased argument does not offer such guarantee.

Nothing trumps reality.

#163,

It’s possible. I don’t think it’s clear yet what causes events such as the 1976 great Pacific climate shift and the 1998 super-El-Nino, so a role for greenhouse forcing can’t be ruled out. But from my perspective, I don’t take it as the default cause for everything unless proved otherwise. Maybe it’s oceanic oscillations superimposed additively on other influences, or maybe the timing and magnitude of the oscillations and step-shifts is affected by the other influences, or maybe they’re illusory and caused by staring too long at the data.

As I said in #150, this sort of curve-fitting interpretation of data generally assumes a particular model or class of models for the behaviour, and it is incredibly easy, by overlaying a few lines on the graph to guide the eye, to see evidence for a particular interpretation that originates not in the data but in the implicit assumptions. Human brains are over-powerful pattern-finders: we find pictures and patterns and stories in ink-blot randomness. We can so easily fool ourselves this way.

With different background assumptions, I see something different. It doesn’t mean that you’re wrong or that I’m wrong about what’s going on – it just means that the data here isn’t telling us.

NiVYes I take your point. Looking at the HadCRU data I would say that if a step change did occur it is more around 2000/2001 but that’s just a quibble.  

#167 NiV, that’s a really excellent visualization. Where does it come from and what are the details?

#169,

“…and has managed to provide an especially clear instance of a successful prediction that would be extremely unlikely under a null hypothesis.”

It depends on the null hypothesis. If the null hypothesis is that climate naturally would be perfectly static and the 1950-1980 period is representative of it, I’d agree. That hypothesis is falsified.

Against a null hypothesis that climate naturally varies considerably on decadal and centennial timescales, it’s not so unlikely. And there is a risk of ‘confirming the consequent’ here. A successful prediction is decisive only when the prediction distinguishes the hypothesis from all alternatives.

I predict that if you drink this snake oil now, in three days time your cold will have disappeared. In three days time it has. Should you change your mind? That does not imply that the snake oil wasn’t a factor – maybe it has vitamin C in it – but there has to be more to the argument in its support than that.

All Hansen is really saying is that the temperature has recently risen, just expressing it in a different way, which we already knew and which in itself wasn’t convincing. Maybe the same thing happened during the MWP, or Roman times? It’s the interpretation being put on it that is the problem. It doesn’t imply all of what people seem to want it to.

#170,

You can find it here.

Obviously the interpretation put on it there may not be to your taste. But you can run the code and draw your own conclusions. The full-size version of that graphic is definitely worth looking at.

I should note, an error was pointed out in the R script – the “download(…” function should be “download.file(…”. That might not be the only problem, of course.

Gypro: I didn’t realize this was the environmentalist emphasis! Can you cite what you mean?

Sure. Here’s one example.
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2011/08/against-development.html Further links in the post.

Ben Pile @148: I don’t indulge in live comments very often. I think of them as largely a waste of timeHmmm… judging by the frequency of “live” comments here and at your own blog, it seems we may have differing definitions of “very often.”

PDA: Ben Pile @148: I don’t indulge in live comments very often. I think of them as largely a waste of timeHmmm”¦ judging by the frequency of “live” comments here and at your own blog, it seems we may have differing definitions of “very often.”

That’s exactly the sort of low quality comment that makes live commenting so very, very pointless, and so very, very disposable. I’ve committed to a discussion here. So shoot me. And of course I comment on my own blog in response to questions and comments. What a stupid thing to say. What a completely pointless, vapid remark.

(15) NiV-

I liked that Milton quote the first time you excerpted it in the truncated form – even more so now that you’ve posted more of the quote. The Mils’ quotation is great also.

I think our shared perspective in that regard helps explain why I don’t skip past your comments. I find your comments useful as a guide for evaluating my own opinion.

What a stupid thing to say. 

It was an accurate thing to say. Claiming that you don’t do something “very often” when there’s documentary evidence that you do it “very often” might be described with the adjective you used.

Pearl-clutching about the quality of blog comments has been around since USENET days. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s evidence of monks scribing “OMG STFU LUSER” in the margins of medieval manuscripts, for that matter. so, yeah, no originality points there.

It’s a free world, so you get to post monologue after monologue, refuse suggestions that you substantiate your assertions with even vaguely objective sources, insult other commenters (and the medium itself), and bemoan how “low quality” and “pointless” everyone else’s contributions are.

And I get to laugh at your pompous ass.Cheers.

#183, and yes it is boneheaded to take a standard ad hominem shot at Fox without first checking the source of the article.  I suspect you know that, and would expect to be called on it around these parts. It clearly exposes your own bias.  

> Yes it is boneheaded to take a standard ad hominem shot.

What should we think of this badhominem, then?

#187

+1000

ha ha

Joshua,

Just caught your question above:

Why is the discussion of motivation irrelevant to rational discussion? Can’t it be incorporated into a rational discussion?

Discussing about motivations may be relevant to a rational discussion, but as soon as you incorporate in your discussion as an argument, it amounts as a badhominem.

In a rational discussion, I believe you can say why you think some argument seems bogus to you, but you can’t say it’s bogus because it’s motivated by such and such. It’s very tough not to read your explanation of why an argument is bogus as an argument against that very argument.

Another way to put it is that as soon as you are trying to talk about what lies behind an argument, the topic changes. Therefore, discussing motivations ignores the question at hand, thus leading to a bad hominem.

There are ad hominems that do not ignore the question. But many believe that all ad hominems are bad hominems, among who we find Nullius, unless he changed his mind on the question. So mileage can vary, I suppose.

***

We all have interests.

We all have motivations.

We all have intentions.

I’m not even sure I could tell you all my interests and my motivations.

I’m not even sure I could tell you why I’m here, although it’s quite clear that some flowers need some watering.

When the garden is dry, the flower dies.

Please make that what you will.

I get you point, Willard.

But it is possible ask people to examine for biases, to suggest biases that they might look for, w/o them assuming a hadhominem. It requires some trust, earning trust, and willingness and ability for self-examination. (Perhaps it requires a mediator)

I would argue (perhaps in vain), that identifying motivations and suggesting motivated reasoning are not one in the same. I have experienced that difference in dialog, with positive outcome, in real life. This goes hand-in-hand with differentiating interests from positions. One develops positions from motivating reasoning, which may in fact do disservice to their real motivations. I take it on faith that my interlocutors here have laudable motivations despite the possible interference of motivated reasoning. 

I don’t see a distinction of significance between saying to someone that “I don’t see how your argument makes sense, because I don’t understand [x] aspect of your logic,” (or as you suggested, “Your argument is bogus”), and saying “I suspect that your reasoning is motivated by a desire to achieve a goal of confirming your starting orientation.” There is a difference of language, by does that mean manifest as a difference in connotation?

It’s very tough not to read your explanation of why an argument is bogus as an argument against that very argument

As my father used to say: I never promised you a rose garden.

Life is tough. Now maybe it isn’t possible to say “Your argument is bogus,” and the most we can ever say is in some random moment when someone won’t take it as a personal affront, “Argument X is bogus” (when argument X is something that you know your interlocutor has advocated) – but can’t we hope for something more direct than that?

What is the alternative to sharing the process of uncovering how our reasoning is biased? The off chance that someone is just right despite their motivated reasoning?

Andrew – I’m happy to be corrected but it seems to me that you see environmentalism as some kind of malign force which has managed to “capture” our politicians and you see this as one of the areas of policy where governments have pursued an undemocratic agenda, with climate change being a particular manifestation of this.

I don’t credit environmentalism or environmentalists (in the broadest senses) with so much agency. I emphasise that environmentalism hasn’t been established on its own steam, and thus is not its own force. It captures the imaginations of politicians, certainly, but the interesting part of the story is not the power of environmentalism, but the conditions of its possibility. Many of those conditions are certainly not unique to environmentalism. Politicians, then, are not driven or captured by environmentalism as such, but by the moment, and the limitations of contemporary poltics.

And that’s the thing ““ there is a problem, or at the very least a very plausible case for there being one.

I get very bored of having to repeat the point. I’m critical of environmentalism, which is not the same as saying ‘there are no environmental problems’ or that ‘we don’t need to do anything about environmental problems’. A similar problem is pointing out the problems of the UNFCCC process’s legitimacy, or lack of it. To point it out is instantly seen as saying… shouting… “climate change is not happening”. I make no such claim. I don’t take a view on science very often, partly because I’m agnostic about it, but mostly because I beleive that ‘what science says’ cannot be understood in this atmosphere of… for want of a better word… tribalism. It coulours the view of science. It loads the question. Too much is presupposed.

Joshua,

What you’re asking for is not a rational discussion, but just a conversation.

I agree that it would be a great thing to have. But I also believe that what you are asking for is better made among friends, in a more collegial setting, and perhaps in a less virtual environment.

A walk is good for that. Perhaps some Marshmallow Experiment. Or perhaps a journey leading to a spiritual bonding. PDA is better placed to answer to that one.

Ron Broberg once proposed

> One imagines scotch in a refined and quiet atmosphere.

http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/2167895377

Such an atmostphere could even attract Jeff Id.

So perhaps there’s still hope.

I hope there’s still hope, otherwise how could I make that very speech act?

Best of luck in your search,

w

(189) TB -

I see a fairly big difference between Pielke Jr. and Keith. Maybe not so much w/r/t their view of the state of the science as in how they engage in the debate.

While I respect some of Pielke’s technical input, I think he is actually quite content to fan and exploit the tribalism as he pushes his agenda. He flings jello to elevate his status in the debate.

I don’t see Keith’s contributions in that way. I think that Keith is seeking to move beyond the food fight – not throw more jello mold.

Obviously, I don’t know what Pielke is like as person, but as I see him in his on line persona, he is an advocate, does not rise above the juvenile noise-making,  and he is not open to evaluating his positions.

Joshua,

Just caught your question.

A rational discussion is first and foremost an idealization. It represents an exchange where people stick to the point and keep their hits above the waist. It might not encompass a discussion as a whole.

I have no ready answer to your question. I’ll try to find an example and report back.

Windy, it doesn’t matter what Pielke’s agenda is. What matters is what it isn’t.

RPJ is a producer of science content, KK is a commentator on the communication of that content (or whatever he is, don’t want to get into this inane argument on the definition of KK’s tribe).  There’s a world of difference here.  No offense KK.  

It seems RPJ single handedly brought sanity to the recent SREX report, and calls people out when it is misrepresented for political gain, a target rich environment.

I first ran across RPJ when investigating why Florida’s home insurance rates soared after 2005 / 2006 hurricane seasons.  Turns out the insurance industry stopped using historical records for future hurricane estimates, they instead turned to the wisdom of climate models.

2011 Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism: Florida insurers rely on dubious storm model

Risk was no longer a measure of what had been, but what might be. And for Floridians living along the Atlantic, disaster was 45 percent more likely.

RMS defended its new model by suggesting it had brought scientists together for a formal, structured debate.

Elsner disputes that idea.

“We were just winging it,” he said.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20101114/article/11141026 

Global cyclone activity is at historic lows.  It has been an all time record 2000+ days and counting since a Cat3+ USA landfall has occurred.

Hurricane insurance rates in Florida have not fallen.  Taxpayer science at work.

#207 – PDA

I agree with much of what you wrote there. I will reiterate that everyone needs to evaluate whether they have a schtick, and if so bring it to the table to get past it. 

I’m not sure that Keith hears it from me, and rightfully so. It isn’t something that you can just hear. I have a schtick too – so it is appropriate that he filters what I say through my biases. My sense is that in general, he does a pretty good job of listening.

I think that the place to start is to offer the discussion if we think there’s reason to respect our interlocutor. To the extent that we offer conclusions (I am not absolving myself of responsibility here), we do ourselves a disservice. It is usually interpreted (and may in fact be) a sign of disrespect whether we intend it that way or not.

&tg; RPJ is a producer of science content [...]

Let’s not go a bridge too far

If you catch me claiming that I am focused only on the science, call me on it and I’ll buy you a beer

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2010/03/stealth-issue-advocacy.html?showComment=1268743615056#c8035892138076271443

#211, thanks for the link. An interesting article which I missed at the time. But while I agree that the conversation in comments with RPSr “looks like a good example of a rational discussion”, actually it isn’t. It IS a good example of how scientific mores prevent the sort of explosion of snark that is so distressing on other sites inkling this one (and not, so far, P3, I will point out.)  But it is an unsuccessful example of scientific discourse insofar as the participants did not emerge with a joint consensus position, nor even a jointly acceptable statement of the nature of their disagreement. 

Indeed, neither moved their position at all. Typically this is because one or both of the participants is defending a position for reasons other than scientific. A clear sign of this is frustration in one party – “we’re not getting anywhere, so I’ve had enough”.  Although one could imagine taking this stance as a political ploy, more typically the person giving up in frustration is the one who actually sought to make progress, treating their initial position as expendable, rather than to defend a position, treating the identification of common ground as expendable.

So it’s still NOT an excellent example to model ourselves upon. Ideally rational people can, if they cannot come to a common opinion, come to a shared statement of the points they hold in common and the causes of their disagreement. In the best case they can even agree on an objective test of the matters in dispute and collaborate on settling it.

But it’s a complex set of skills. A certain commendable politeness often masquerades for the sort of genuine inquiry that really is what well-intentioned folk want. That politeness is a good thing, but its presence is not enough to really rise to a paragon of discourse

All of this relates to what for me is the key theme of the past couple of weeks – what to engage in and what to ignore.

The reason nobody visits is your censor and edit comments. Which is why when you need intellectual or emotional stimulation you have to get your boots dirty and go slumming amongst the downtrodden. 

 RPJr censors (although to my knowledge doesn’t edit) comments. Does your logic apply universally, or is there some reason it only applies sometimes?

(211) willard -

Thanks. I took a brief look. Some of my quick reactions were similar to MT’s. I’ll go back and look in more detail later to see if I can follow the scientific content in some detail.

Agree about Moolton. He mostly, although not always, upheld principles of rational discussion..  Don’t know about Bart. Agree about AA.

I will note, however, that  of your examples (the link, Moolton, and maybe Bart?) three? are  limited to science debate (Moolton rarely ventured into that mess overtly). I’m a bit more interested in rational discussion in the social, cultural, and political elements of the debate.

As for AA – I have had very good interactions with him, sometimes involving some measure of disagreement. I agree, he is an “agent” of rational discussion – even when discussing politics.  His interaction with Ben in this thread is a good example.

Well, Josh, sometimes you seem to be and sometimes you don’t.

speaking of false positive — my corporate firewall has blocked your site Michael

Tom –

Well, Josh, sometimes you seem to be and sometimes you don’t.

No doubt. Like anyone, I would suppose. Perhaps less often with me (the seems to be as opposed to doesn’t seem to be) than with others – but this opinion you just stated is in contrast with your previous stated opinion. What changed your mind?

@19, 20Sorry guys, I can’t go down the rabbit hole with you today. 

The other day I asked you a question twice, in response to your complaints about journalism. It would have required you to  support some of your sweepings statements. You chose not to answer. Instead, you moved on..  

GAAHHH!!! The hypocrisy! It BURNS!!! IT BURNS!!! 

Me:

Keith,Can you elaborate on your criticism of Sach’s comments? It seems to me that he’s essentially correct.

Keith:Sorry guys, I can’t go down the rabbit hole with you today.  Do you just want to play games? If you’re not going to engage in good faith, I’m not going to bother with you.

I’ll leave it to your readers to judge who is engaging in good faith and who isn’t. 

Oops – wrong thread the first time. Let me try here.

“¦and often appear to be deliberate diversions.

Ah yes, the ol’ “appear to be.” Yes ““ I must divert you and others from your valuable work of exchanging insults in blog comments. You’ve found me out, Tom.

But truth told, I assume that you and others have a long enough attention span to be able to scroll past any of my comments (and  those of people interacting with me) without being distracted from your interest of focus. I know my comments are long, but I’m sure it would only take a second or two to scroll past them. Try that little down arrow on the right margin of your browser.

Now back to what changed you mind. What you said today is in direct contrast to what you said
earlier. Did you make a mistake then? Did you make a mistake today? Or has something changed your mind?

Ah. Sorry I missed that. So you were wrong when you first described me as someone not worth paying any attention to. And wrong again significantly later when affirmed that conclusion. And it is subsequent to that time that you saw characteristics in some of my posts that were completely different than what you had seen before. Different enough to convince you that your earlier, categorical statement was wrong.

Thanks. You explanation seems implausible to me. I don’t think that the quality of my posts has changed.  I think that you are actually finding a sneaky way to admit that you are capable of  realizing that you jump to incorrect conclusions after all. Like I said in the beginning.

Joshua,

It’s quite obvious that the exchange between NG and Senior did not end that well. At least the standstill (“the nature of their disagreement”) was got clarified. The fact that no decisive outcome does not preclude this exchange from following the unwritten book of head-baseball.

We should not take our idealizations too seriously. If we do, we’d always be asking for 20 millions engineerily derived reports of everything.

But if you want good examples of the opposite of what I have in mind, take a look at #215: just more mindframin’ and more shirt rippin’.

But yeah, please think whatever you want.

Hey willard -

I was goofing around with that link that you sent and I came across this:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/07/simple-math-and-logic-underpinning.htmlI was curious how you would characterize RPJrs participation in that discussion..

Seems like you’re bent on proving my initial conclusion correct, actually.

The fact that you feel it necessary to explain who Andrew W. Montford is strongly suggests unfamiliarity with his superb book The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science. I readily grant that the book is difficult reading and requires perseverance, it is a wonderful recitation of Steve McIntyre’s valiant effort to replicate the now-infamous “Hockey Stick” produced by Mann, Bradley and Hughes. Along the way, readers receive an eye-opening education in the methods and practices of climatology and paleoclimatology. It is well worth the time.