Monday, December 7, 2015

part 4 Dave Smith takes on the sock puppet


Time to get back to dissecting the contrarian debate, my last post left off where things took a fascinating turn, when Dave Smith (a pseudonym that I'll continue using.) stepped up to engage AL.  Since I do possess a healthy dose of self-skepticism I'm not unaware of my rough edges.  What can I say I'm a working man and my CV comes from being a life long student in the University of Hard Knocks, while observing, experiencing and absorbing as much as possible.

Dave on the other hand comes across refined, well educated, even tempered and thoughtful.  It was a pleasure reading his parries to the same questions I tackled.  That's why I'm featuring his dialogue in this post.  If you are interested in engaging climate science contrarians you could learn a few things from Dave's approach.

A reminder - this comes from the comments thread begun by MarathonS Feb 22, 2014 on the dubious YouTube video The PseudoScience of CO2 Based Climate where yet another coddled "old white guy" who knows nothing of climate science, feeds his audience what they want to hear.

Note - Dave and AL's words are unchanged, though I have corrected minor typos and made formatting changes including some highlights and of course I've also interjected a few comments and more links to educational sources.

It's difficult keeping the participants in this virtual dialogue separate, please bear with me - Dave's words are in Arial font, AL's comments are in purple, my additions are light green highlighted.
__________________________________________________

Dave Smith on Nov 22, 2015 wrote to AL - It appears you disagree with the claim that IPCC produces reports that are largely in line with the viewpoint of the majority of people working in the field, otherwise known as a consensus. You have done a lot of quote mining to try and justify this position.


AL -Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis. "
The original publication does appear online currently, so it makes it difficult to know how this (AL's) assessment was made. The claim is made in regards AR4, so it would be good to see if the same results apply to AR5. Also without the context or detail of the original publication it is hard to know the relevance of the statement. Were the reviewers supposed to explicitly endorse the report? Did anyone disagree?
__________________________________________________
Notice AL's wording "UN scientists" - It's a right-wing dog-whistle, since Republican/libertarian types have come to hate all things United Nations.

For a reality check - regarding the IPCC - its contributors, structure and composition - visit the IPCC webpages with their detailed explanations.

For IPCC-AR4  2007:

IPCC-AR5  2013/2014
  • Contributors
  • What is the IPCC?
  • How does the IPCC select its authors?
  • What literature does the IPCC assess?
  • How does the IPCC review process work?
  • How does the IPCC approve reports?
  • How does the IPCC deal with alleged errors?
  • Timeline - highlights of IPCC history
__________________________________________________

- "One former UN IPCC scientist ... "
Dave writes: I am not surprised that this claim was made, but this criticism is directed at the Summary for Policymakers, not the bulk of the work where the science is discussed.

- "Paul Reiter, a malaria expert ..."
Paul Reiter has a strange view of things. 
He volunteered to contribute to AR3, found himself at loggerheads with some people on some particular issues, and resigned. 

He had already made substantial contributions to the report, but for some reason felt that the IPCC leaving his name on the report was dishonest. Now no report can possibly be written in the way that every scientist around the world or even every author contributing will agree with everything. 

If Reiter felt that there were things that he did not agree with he was perfectly within his right to publish that independently. His name being on the report is a non-issue.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
- "Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea ... "
It appears has criticisms may have some foundation for AR4. 
These appear to have been corrected in AR5.
___________________________________________________
Something worth noting about Dr. Landsea is that his focus seems to be on US landfall hurricanes, not the global picture.
___________________________________________________
- "McIntyre wrote ... "
Possibly baseless, or at least exaggerated. More details needed.
___________________________________________________
Regarding this McIntyre -

Why Curry, McIntyre, and Co. are Still Wrong about IPCC Climate Model Accuracy
Dana Nuccitelli | Oct 4, 2013
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
McIntyre's Mission: An Obsessive Quest to Disprove Michael Mann's Hockey Stick
By Kyla Mandel • Sunday, November 30, 2014
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction
Filed under: Paleoclimate — mike @ 4 December 2004 - RealClimate.org
________________
- from the webpage - "95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong" 
There is a known discrepancy between the models and observations for the tropical troposphere. Elsewhere the models are good.
___________________________________________________

IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
___________________________________________________
- from the webpage - "IPCC Lead Author Says Climate Models Are Failing"
Importantly Storch says " "This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year." 

AR5 is now released, and the hiatus is addressed in Box 9.2. 
___________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

Dave writes: AR5 puts the possible differences into 3 categories 
(a) internal climate variability (random fluctuations not captured by the models for small time periods), 
(b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing (change in the sun and volcanoes - which cannot be predicted) and 
(c) model response error (incorrect models). 

The AR5 report concludes that the differences are in equal parts to a) and b), and that the models are essentially fine. 

In other words 
a)the cooling affect from the change in ocean circulation is temporary and something that the models don't deal yet with these sort of temporary fluctuations. And that the overall trend is consistent. 

b) The sun and volcanic activity are both cooling the planet, neither of which can be predicted, but which can be modelled for.

- Webpage "category/failed-climate-models/"
is a huge bunch of random stuff that I'm not going to go through because you didn't select anything specific

- "The world is then told ... "
This makes two points  
(a) "Scientific truth is not determined in the dead of night by UN-level negotiations"
if the author believes that there is a better method of producing an international politically charged report I am sure that the UN would be glad to hear it

(b) "There’s actually a step in the IPCC process in which the original, lengthy report gets amended so that it conforms to the politically-negotiated "
which is similar to the McIntyre claim, but less inflammatory, and the author actually provides two references. Unfortunate (for the author) the one for AR4 claims that these are minor adjustments via a transparent process, and the one for AR5 demonstrates that it is transparent as that reference actually lists the changes that are made, and the changes were to the summary not to the full report.

AL to Dave Smith - you write  "It appears you disagree with the claim that IPCC produces reports that are largely in line with the viewpoint of the majority of people working in the field, otherwise known as a consensus."
Yes, and every one that bothers to simply look at observations and facts usually does the same. There is no consensus, and science shouldn't be done with some consensus free-card. You shouldn't try to use the consensus argument, it makes you look outdated. The real science has been catching up to this political nonsense for many years now, and the result is that alarmists has nothing to debate with anymore. So your forced to play the old "consensus" card, probably not even knowing how that makes you look.
___________________________________________
AL erects the "consensus" straw man in order to justify ignoring the substance of the collective expert understanding.  

What makes this such a childish argument is that in our complex modern society every human endeavor has developed by the striving of experts to reach a general consensus of understanding.  Of course, AL also seems oblivious to the fact that consensus does develop and change as the incoming evidence dictates.

fyi - Here a worth reading alternate perspective to AL's - IPCC AR5 WG1

_____________________________________________

"The original publication does appear online currently, so it makes it difficult to know how this (AL's) assessment was made."
Yeah, well the IPCC has apparently decided it's better to handle this discussion behind locked doors and just among themselves. From what I heard they doesn't even put their drafts online for the next political document that will be AR5. 

"I am not surprised that this claim was made, but this criticism is directed at the Summary for Policymakers, not the bulk of the work where the science is discussed."
And it's the Summary for Policymaker that everyone reads. It's extremely important that this document is correct in every way. As it has been in the past, they haven't even managed to summarize the conclusions from the few scientists that actually wrote the chapters in the main document. Hell, they even managed to reverse the conclusions in some cases. 

"Paul Reiter has a strange view of things"
If wanting to be excluded from the report because his facts was totally ignored and replaced with unscientific statements from politicians is considered "to have a strange view of things", then I don't know how your logic works. 

"there is a known discrepancy between the models and observation for the tropical troposphere. Elsewhere the models are good."
Haha..really? Then I guess they can't even handle the task of weighting their different models for different areas correctly either since the average they have come up with is painfully wrong. 
________________________________________

Four primary points of (Reiter's) presentation here were:
  1. Malaria is not an exclusively tropical disease
  2. The transmission dynamics of the disease are complex; the interplay of climate, ecology, mosquito biology, mosquito behavior and many other factors defies simplistic analysis.
  3. It is facile to attribute current resurgence of the disease to climate change, or to use models based on temperature to “predict” future prevalence.
  4. Environmental activists use the ‘big talk’ of science to create a simple but false paradigm. Malaria specialists who protest this are generally ignored, or labelled as ‘sceptics’.
The UK government has said that Reiter "does not accurately represent the current scientific debate on the potential impacts of climate change on health in general, or malaria in particular. He appears to have been quite selective in the references and reports that he has criticised, focusing on those that are neither very recent nor reflective of the current state of knowledge, now or when they were published"


IPCC Summary for Policy Makers

_________________________________________

"is a huge bunch of random stuff that I'm not going to go through because you didn't select anything specific"
You must have misunderstood. I didn't demand that you would read it. I just pointed it out for any one that wants to read it.
______________________________________________
Dave didn't imply you "demanded" anything!  He was just politely pointing out that you didn't share anything.  Linking to some cover page as evidence for whatever you're arguing is a joke.

In a serious constructive debate, you make your point and provide pieces of evidence - not wave at a book and say, trust me it's in there.
______________________________________________

" if the author believes that there is a better method of producing an international politically charged report I am sure that the UN would be glad to hear it"
How about having some....hmmmm.....idk....scientists do it? Since we are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year because of a theory not even proven once, and one that has been falsified the last 10-15 years by mere observations, you would maybe think that science and not religious emotions would be the basis for trillion-dollar decisions? Oh, yeah wait...I forgot - the science is settled :P

"Unfortunate the one for AR4 claims that these are minor adjustments via a transparent process.."
Haha...yeah, sure! If you can't see the idiocy and hypocritical in that very act, then we're literally not from the same planet.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dave Smith Nov 22, 2015
+Arne Lyra "every one that bothers to simply look at observations and facts usually does the same"
I've looked at the observations and facts and so have all the climatologists.
_____________________________________________________________
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Contrarian climate scientist Roy Spencer put forth the top 10 'skeptic' arguments - all are easily answeredhttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/06/top-ten-global-warming-skeptic-arguments-debunked
_____________________________________________________________

"There is no consensus, and science shouldn't be done with some consensus free-card"
There is always some consensus on a subject, no matter how basic that consensus is. And the science isn't done via consensus, it is the decision making based on the science that is and requires some report on what the consensus is.

"You shouldn't try to use the consensus argument,"
I'm not, I merely used the term in describing what you disagreed with.
_____________________________________________________________
"Lost in the shouting is the fact that consensus plays several key roles in the process of science. In light of all the consensus choruses, it's probably time to step back and examine its importance and why it's a central part of the scientific process. And only after that is it possible to take a look at consensus and climate change. ..."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"Earlier today David Robertson ... I will address a more specific claim that there is no consensus. Climate change denialists typically make one of two related arguments, either denying that there is a strong consensus among climate scientists or denying the entire concept of a scientific consensus.

David quoted a paper by science fiction writer Michael Crichton denying the concept of a scientific consensus. Crichton is not a climate scientist, but  is a well known denier of climate science. Both his view on the scientific consensus and his arguments against climate change have frequently been debunked. As a fellow physician, he should have known very well that the use of consensus statements is common in science. ..."
_____________________________________________________________

"the IPCC has apparently decided it's better to handle this discussion behind locked doors and just among themselves"
please reference this claim
_____________________________________________________________
"The IPCC's work is guided by a set of principles and clear procedures for all the main activities of the organization. This page serves as a repository for all official procedural documents guiding IPCC activities. 

The IPCC's processes and procedures are constantly being reviewed and updated to ensure that they remain strong, transparent and reliable. For recent changes to IPCC procedures and related information see the Review of Processes and Procedures page that covers all the recent changes to IPCC procedures approved by the Panel in the period 2010-2012." 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Statement on IPCC principles and procedures
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
_____________________________________________________________
"From what I heard they doesn't even put their drafts online for the next political document that will be AR5. "
AR5 came out last year. One of the references you previously supplied discusses the drafts that were put on line for AR5. Did you mean AR6?
_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________
"And it's the Summary for Policymaker that everyone reads"
I don't, and I suspect most of the policy decision makers don't either. I think it's mainly for the media and half-interested public.

"It's extremely important that this document is correct in every way."
It can't be by its very nature. 
It is briefer and thus less informative than the full document. Important scientific concepts and ambiguities need to be shortened into pithy declarations. 
Even the full report is too short, but at least it has publication references. No matter how a summary is derived people will always declare that something is distorted. 
_____________________________________________________________
A favorite contrarian tactic: erecting impossible expectations, missing the big picture.
_____________________________________________________________
"As it has been in the past, they haven't even managed to summarize the conclusions from the few scientists that actually wrote the chapters in the main document. Hell, they even managed to reverse the conclusions in some cases"
Please give examples and/or references

"because his facts was totally ignored and replaced with unscientific statements from politicians"
Please reference this claim. 

From what I see there was a difference on opinion on some subject, no more than that, and not from politicians. 

His contribution was not 'totally ignored', from what I understand the difference lay in merely a few points, but ones that Reiter considered important. It is not normal procedure for someone's name to be withdrawn from a scientific publication merely because that person disagrees with what is being written, the name signifies and acknowledges the work that the person has done whereas it is in political statements. The IPCC sees its reports as scientific documents, whereas Reiter sees them as political statements

"Then I guess they can't even handle the task of weighting their different models for different areas correctly either since the average they have come up with is painfully wrong."
What are you talking about with the 'weighting'? 
There is a discrepancy for the tropical troposphere, this is going to result in a discrepancy in the total troposphere?

"I just pointed it out for any one that wants to read it."
Why? what was the point? you didn't even suggest why someone would want to read it. I can point out random websites too.

"How about having some....hmmmm.....idk....scientists do it?"
How is that a method? Scientists are the ones who wrote the IPCC. 

Scientists publish all of the time but never otherwise formulate a consensus report. How do you pick the scientists? from which countries? what do you tell them to write about? who do they report to? 

"Since we are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year because of a theory not even proven once,"
Who is we? Society usually spends much more on things that have nothing to do with theories, merely fads, and even things that we know do harm. Are you into telling people in your country what they should and should not spend their money on?

"and one that has been falsified the last 10-15 years by mere observations" - which observations, and how has it been falsified?

"you would maybe think that science and not religious emotions would be the basis for trillion-dollar decisions?"
Usually not, that is why countries are run by politicians and scientists. 
Personally I think I would favour a technocracy, but most people would find that abhorrent, and I suspect that you are one of them given that if it were up to the scientists and economists CO2 emissions would have been much more reduced than they currently are, and would have started being pulled back in the 1950s when this issue became evident. In fact I think that for most countries in the world that there wouldn't have been a single coal-fired power station built since the mid 1950s, and that everything would have been nuclear.

"If you can't see the idiocy and hypocritical in that very act, then we're literally not from the same planet"
I'm merely pointing out that the references that the author used did not support his claim. The type of adjustments that might have been (and probably were) made would have been things like in the summary making a statement and then giving a reference to the main report where in fact it isn't clear how the summary statement was made.
______________________________________________
Interesting comment AL.  As it happens I've often wondered what enables Republican/libertarian types to so totally disconnect from the reality of our physical planet Earth and it's many weather driven processes, which are after all, something we are utterly dependent on.

Perhaps we do occupy different planets.  

I, (and I suspect Dave), occupy* a physical place who's awareness encompasses our entire planet along with its flow of creation/evolution that's brought us to this point in Earth's History. (*Via the experiences of thousands of explorers, chroniclers and scientists supported by my own experiences, innate curiosity and thirst for better understanding.)  Appreciating that this is my one and only short moment of existence on this fantastical planet that created me and all I love.

Now AL, what planet is it that you occupy?  Is it a static world within your mind, formed by limiting the information you allow yourself to process?  

Is it the psychic planet of faith-based religion, where fabricated absolute certainty is the baseline and nothing that doesn't live up to that imaginary faith-based standard is ridicule worthy?
______________________________________________

 LA -Nov 23, 2015
"Have you spent any effort actually learning about what the IPCC does?"
Yes, I have. And it's one of the biggest political scams and power grab in history. And sadly dragging science with them in process.
_________________________________________
Sounds a bit hysterical political propaganda intent on feeding paranoia.  Lacking the slightest curiosity to take a moment and consider the IPCC's perspective.

Always this baseline assumption that everyone out there is the enemy, trying to rob you of something.  

Underlying it all is a contemptuous attitude towards the notion of our physical planet as something to be taken seriously, protected and nurtured. 
_________________________________________

Dave Smith To AL - "it's one of the biggest political scams and power grab in history." - How is it a power grab?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
AL to Dave Smith "how is it a power grab?"
You're kidding, right?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
Dave Smith To AL - No I am not.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
AL to Dave Smith - Do you know anything about the EU and how this governance has transferred political power and trillions euro from nations to themselves? Do you know how the political decisions in the EU are made?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
Dave Smith to AL - h
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
AL to Dave Smith - I didn't ask about the history of EU, I asked if you know anything about it's governance and the process of how political decisions and laws are arrived upon.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
Dave Smith to AL - I was making the point that how the EU is governed is a relative irrelevance. But to answer your question literally - yes. Is there anything in particular that you find relevant to the discussion on the IPCC and power grabs that you care to mention?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Dave Smith to AL - Let me save CCYT the effort. Here is the list of questions put to you that you have yet to answer (includes mine also)

- AL do be specific. What do you believe was misrepresented after the fact. - you provided a quote that described the process of report preparation

- In what way do you believe they are failing?

- What are your expectations of climate models?

- Were the reviewers supposed to explicitly endorse the report? Did anyone disagree?

- AR5 came out last year. One of the references you previously supplied discusses the drafts that were put on line for AR5. Did you mean AR6?

- please give examples and/or references

- what are you talking about with the 'weighting'?

- why? what was the point? you didn't even suggest why someone would want to read it. I can point out random websites too.

- how is that a method? Scientists are the ones who wrote the IPCC. Scientists publish all of the time but never otherwise formulate a consensus report. How do you pick the scientists? from which countries? what do tell them to write about? who do they report to? 

- who is we? Society usually spends much more on things that have nothing to do with theories, merely fads, and even things that we know do harm. Are you into telling people in your country what they should and should not spend their money on?

- which observations, and how has it been falsified?

- Why shouldn't the governments pick the scientists - and what government in the world wants to hear that our world is warming and changes will be radical?? Why is such a thing even a complaint? Got an answer? 

- Is there anything in particular that you find relevant to the discussion on the IPCC and power grabs that you care to mention?
____________________________________________________________________

2 comments:

citizenschallenge said...

Arne Lyra
+citizenschallengeYT Haven't you noticed? The opinion has turned because of the scientific proof,
and all the data from real observations that has come in recent years. It has turned both in the scientific world,
and amongst the public. 

Nowadays it's you and your likes that are the contrarians.

Oh and btw... it's better you go read the original site http://wattsupwiththat.com than promoting
your own personal blog here every day. The choice of your domain name for your blog tells
every one what kind of person you really are. And no, it's not flattering.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

citizenschallengeYT
+Arne Lyra - What's up with THAT Arne? Can't take a little honest debate?
Neither could Anthony, that's why he banned me and I was forced to start: "What's up with that Watts?"
later expanded to include "et.al"  

I'm just looking for a little good honest, constructive debate.

Now, if you actually wanted to learn about Anthony's game, you need to visit http://blog.hotwhopper.com
she's the one keeping an eye on that guy and taking him to task with specific explanations,
solid information and more links to more of pesky scientific studies and first-hand sources
you folks seem to resent so much… and she's got a lot more education and a deeper understanding than I do,
meaning you can learn even more at HotWhopper than from WUWTW.

Me, I'm just trying to figure out what's going on inside those
science denying, Earth resenting, climate oblivious minds out there.

citizenschallenge said...

I brought that over from YT. AL's response to this post.

OK AL,
let's see this mysterious evidence that makes you think AGW isn't happening?
Show us your list
in a nice and straight-forward, constructive educational manner.
But you gotta give some specifics, arm-waving alone just don't get it.