Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Perceived Misbehavior


An editorial on climate science in today's New York Times presents an interesting counterpoint to yesterday's denialist manifesto in the WSJ. Since the NYT is a sober, moderate paper, it naturally affects a sober and moderate tone in order to deliver a sober and moderate version of the basic denialist message.

First off, we need to consider the significant errors the IPCC made, as evidenced by the only one that's really obvious.

The controversy over the 2007 report has been stoked by charges of poor sourcing and alarmist forecasts, prominently a prediction — in a 938-page working paper — that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. This was clearly an exaggeration, though it was not included in the final report.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that mistakes are mistakes and incorrect forecasts are incorrect. It doesn't matter whether an inaccurate forecast predicts melting Himalayan glaciers or a glorious new age of sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows; what's at issue is the validity of the science behind it, not the possibility that it represents a sin against the holy spirit of optimism.

Regardless, the NYT is careful to note that this was an alarmist forecast, according to "charges" made by unidentified but presumably serious-minded people. Never mind that the IPCC report comprises any number of alarming forecasts, including -- as I noted yesterday -- its corrected forecast for glacial melting. Never mind that anyone who's capable of being frightened by the near-term disappearance of Himalayan glaciers ought to be frightened by IPCC forecasts that have not been retracted, and may even be conservative. What's important here is that during the process of quantifying and describing a serious threat to modern civilization, the IPCC arguably fell prey in one semi-unequivocal instance to alarmism.

And not the good kind of alarmism, like claiming that Colin Powell's colorful drawings of mobile bioweapons labs oblige us to attack Iraq, or that capping carbon emissions will condemn us to living in some UN-administered troglodyte gulag, where we'll gnaw roots and fronds by the ghostly light of bioluminescent fungus. Nope, this is the bad kind of alarmism...the kind that posits serious problems that can't be solved by electing more centrists, deregulating more industries, beating up more hippies, or dropping bombs on more ragheads.

When an orchestrated ideological attack is launched on science -- on the basis of blinkered business interests, zero-sum competition for authority, and seething resentments that go all the way back to the goddamn Scopes trial -- what can it mean but that science needs to mend its ways?
[G]iven the complexity and urgency of climate change — and its vulnerability to political posturing — scientists engaged in the issue must avoid personal agendas and be intellectually vigilant and above reproach.
That's good for a start, but I could use a footrub while they're at it. If Rajendra K. Pachauri weren't so deeply embroiled in alleged (but still shocking!) conflicts of interest that have undermined the great eternal work of debating whether AGW is really a serious problem, he could be soothing my bunions right now with Ayurvedic massage.

I submit that it's not actually possible to be "above reproach" when ciphers like Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts can casually invalidate your life's work by waving the magic wand of blog science, and virtually any paranoiac halfwit with a Website and an axe to grind can have his or her "charges" about your "alarmism" stovepiped into the mass media. Worrying that scientists are "thin-skinned" because they object -- in private e-mails -- to being called incompetent socialistic genocidal frauds is not really fair. Especially since our nation's Titans of Industry routinely treat any scientific theory that challenges their worldview (i.e., their outdated business model) as a personal affront.

For some reason, the tantrums of these glibertarian dead-enders have a certain nobility and grandeur. But when scientists weary of being told by Dunning-Kruger casualties that OMG ITS TEH SUN STOOPID LOLOLOLOL, they need to be reminded that "perceived misbehavior...can diminish the credibility of science as a whole.”

That last quote is actually from Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences. As such, it's a pretty good example of how poorly scientists tend to function in the political field, and how easily their words can be used against them. If you want to talk about "perceived misbehavior," you need to talk about how scientific behavior is represented to the public, which means you need to talk about media and politics, which means you need to talk about money and power.

It's nice to imagine that as long as scientists "behave," misperceptions won't arise. But as this editorial shows, the official lesson of the recent denialist onslaught is not that powerful, coordinated interests are dedicated to putting every single thing "warmists" do and say in the worst possible light while avoiding close scrutiny themselves, but that scientists shouldn't scare people and must maintain a saintly patience when they're accused of being frauds and fools. Essentially, climate scientists get a defective dueling pistol and are expected to hit their target eleven times out of ten, while denialists get a flamethrower and are allowed to burn down entire neighborhoods so long as they claim afterwards that their target was destroyed. Or failing that, singed.

The "liberal" NYT may favor a different tone than the "conservative" WSJ, but they work together nicely: In effect, the NYT holds climatologists' arms behind their back while the WSJ punches them in the face. And as is traditional in American life, any "perceived misbehavior" tends to be on the part of the victim, who clearly asked for it.

11 comments:

Rmj said...

You're gonna get punched in the face for this.

And I don't want to hear any whining from you when it happens.

bo said...

Little Tommy Friedman has weighed in on this. He seems to have gotten it right for the first two paragraphs, but I dare go no farther for fear of the doofus conclusion the Mustache of Understanding will inevitably arrive at.

Phila said...

You're gonna get punched in the face for this.

At least people will notice me! What else matters?

Anonymous said...

What on earth has Steven McIntyre written to earn the nasty labels "cipher" "glibertarian dead ender" and a "Dunning Kruger casualty?" I rather doubt that you'd understand much of what he's written (or for that matter the rebuttals at realclimate) unless you're familiar with PCA *yourself* at a practitioner level. Are you? Or are you just flinging poo?

And if you could point to me to one of his famous "tantrums" that would also be cool, because in my experience his style is bone dry, and his website refreshingly tantrum-free (unlike this one, which not only flings the poo, but questions whether mankind actually deserves catastrophic global warming! And the answer isn't quite "no!")

Jazzbumpa said...

Well, what else would you expect from the NYT - that neo-commie bastion of radical leftist MSM Democrat liberalitude, and their blindly pro-Obama agenda?

{Sorry, I read something by Michael Steele today, and my brain still feels like it's in a vice.}

. . . condemn us to living in some UN-administered troglodyte gulag, where we'll gnaw roots and fronds by the ghostly light of bioluminescent fungus.

Brilliant, once again.

Bouphonia: Come for the content, stay for the snark, linger for the rhetoric. Poo-flinging at no extra charge.

I wonder if anon takes his quasi-rationalist, refreshingly tantrum-free concern trolling to AGW denialist web sites?

Cheers!
JzB the hey, dammit, it snowed in February trombonist

Phila said...

What on earth has Steven McIntyre written to earn the nasty labels "cipher" "glibertarian dead ender" and a "Dunning Kruger casualty?"

I actually only applied one of those labels to McIntyre. I'm not sure there's much point in arguing with someone who can't or won't read carefully enough to notice little details like that.

And if you could point to me to one of his famous "tantrums" that would also be cool,

I've never accused McIntyre of having "tantrums," here or anywhere else.

Again, learn to read, and maybe we'll talk.

Jazzbumpa said...

On the other hand, though - This is non-pejorative and refreshingly bone dry:

The tricky Boulton and hapless Muir Russell have issued a statement here defending Boulton’s participation in the Inquiry. It begins:

On Friday February 12, allegations were raised that Professor Geoffrey Bolton’s background and views affected his ability to be a member of the Review. These have been rejected by Sir Muir Russell and by Professor Bolton.

In typical climate science fashion, the statement does not quote allegations as actually made. The issues as actually raised pertained to apparent misrepresentations by Muir Russell. Instead of dealing with the misrepresentations – or even changing the website – the Team has blustered onward.


For some reason, I can't retrieve a permalink at CLIMATE AUDIT. the post is from 2/15, 11:03 a.m.

Cheers!
JzB

Anonymous said...

unless you're familiar with PCA *yourself* at a practitioner level. Are you?

So I guess that's a "no." I didn't think so.

Phila said...

unless you're familiar with PCA *yourself* at a practitioner level. Are you?

Nope, and never claimed to be.

Anonymous said...

...unless you're familiar with PCA *yourself* at a practitioner level. Are you?

Phila might not be, but I am. And McIntyre's criticisms of its use in climate reconstruction have been shown to be trivial, at best. He's published no original work with PCA as an integral part of the methodology.

So what's your point?

- Lars

Anonymous said...

On the other hand, though - This is non-pejorative and refreshingly bone dry:

Mr. Hornblower, i'll grant it's pejorative, and yet also dry and definitely not a tantrum. Nowhere does McI say that Boulton is an "amoral shill" or anything similar Simply that he has affiliations 1.) he denied having, and b.) Muir Russell claimed would compromise neutrality. Do you dispute either of these points?

I wonder if anon takes his quasi-rationalist, refreshingly tantrum-free concern trolling to AGW denialist web sites?

Why wonder when you can ask? No, but my definition of "AGW denialist" is probably different from yours. most rational people, including thousands of scientists you would call "denialist" believe human beings produce CO2 and that CO2 is a warming gas. They disagree as to the magnitude of AGW against natural variability, the severity of ecological impact, danger to mankind etc, not one of which can be established with a standard of certainty commensurate with the public policy you are asking us to adopt, or anything close.

Instead of certainty, a lot of people (generally non-scientists like you) are fond of invoking the 'precautionary principle' to tell us what we "should believe" to be safe against a laundry list of highly speculative harms. Some of us see this attitude as anathema to science and a recipe for bad policy (as Phila notes, wasn't a similar argument used to sell the Iraq war?) Also highly selective, as it glosses over its own tangible adverse externalities.

EG due to your irresponsible unscientific climate scaremongering , nuclear energy is growing more and more palatable to the US public. Not your problem, you're more concerned with the migratory water birds than Gaia's smiting the human race, which deserves it. Whereas I'm concerned that irresponsible scaremongers are degrading scientific debate, slandering innocent people, and torching a lot of public money that could be better spent clothing the naked and feeding the hungry or even at the blackjack table. But I'm not concerned that you're winning the argument for policy or public opinion, because you aren't.

And McIntyre's criticisms of its use in climate reconstruction have been shown to be trivial at best

Nice passive voice... by whom exactly? The guys over at realclimate whose work it critiques, or its amen corner? Of course they're going to say it's trivial... it's about them! Audits by definition aren't original. Critics aren't generally expected to replace flawed research, nor is the absence of "original published work" a rebuttal to any criticism they contain.

The Wegman report (independently peer reviewed by statisticians, not climate priests) said McIntyre's analysis was "valid and compelling." I know the amen corner had some nasty things to say about Wegman, but like your pal Phila's glib smears, none of it was scientific. As for "publishing original work" involving PCA, this is in fact most of his blog's content, including the paper reviewed by Wegman, the NAS and many others:

http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/

WARNING!!: the opinions cited here are those of professional statisticians, not professional alchemists, trombonists, or birdwatchers, whose journals also found it "trivial at best".
what's your point?
My point in bringing up McIntyre was that... wait, I didn't bring him up at all! That was Phila, who we agree is unqualified to judge McIntyre on anything he has written on PCA, original or otherwise; ie his blog, which Phila casually derided in a snide fake-knowing kind of a way. That, Lars, was my point. What's yours? Whose mind are you hoping to change hanging out on this blog? Isn't global climate change (cue hitchcock music) a bit too important for this kind of clubbish snark; is this entertainment for you? Or some kind of support group?