tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post3195083565325784810..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Getting them NoddingMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-14904465628626724042011-04-21T22:59:40.709-07:002011-04-21T22:59:40.709-07:00Grypo
"He's basing how much time have wit...Grypo<br />"He's basing how much time have without modeling out real cause or differentiating between low sensitivity to CO2 or just temperature masking by aerosols ..." <br /><br />And this boring all-been-done-before project gets Muller the attention he seems to think he deserves. While Hansen and co produce real, hard work on effects of aerosols.<br /><br />Deja vu all over again. Science versus 'auditing'.adeladyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02019930864931919369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-1296993101462005732011-04-19T16:27:50.608-07:002011-04-19T16:27:50.608-07:00Steve Bloom.
I doubt you know the entire history ...Steve Bloom.<br /><br />I doubt you know the entire history of anything much less this.stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06920897530071011399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-88543274322999532482011-04-18T13:52:50.792-07:002011-04-18T13:52:50.792-07:00Gee, Mosher, that would all be quite credible-soun...Gee, Mosher, that would all be quite credible-sounding if I didn't know the history of all of this.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-74357391055698076792011-04-18T11:09:04.248-07:002011-04-18T11:09:04.248-07:00In my discussion with Muller I raised the followin...In my discussion with Muller I raised the following issue. First off the land record is only 30% of the total record so it has very little leverage in the overall number. Second,existing research puts the number for UHI somewhere between .05C (Jones) and ~.3C McKittrick. I'd be surprised to see anything more than .1C-.15C out of BEST, which amounts to mousenuts. Still I think the work is worthwhile, primarily to put the record on the best statistical footing we know rather than continuing to accept the inferior methods of GISS and CRU. That engineering quality refinement does not change the answer so I can only speculate about the reasons people have for rejecting out of hand a superior method. Some people make this speculation easier than others.<br /><br />I do'nt think Muller is correct that a change in the surface record of the magnitude he suggests is correct, However, that is the kind of sensitivity analysis that an engineer would do. to wit: How accurate does our meausrement have to be to drive the policy. Can we be off by .1C?, .2C, .3C.. How robust are our findings with regard to the observational data. This is not something you guess at. This is something you test.<br /><br />Let me give you a very apt example. In the discussion of "hide the decline" I noted that one thing that had not been investigated was the accuracy of the temperature record for that region. I also noted that there were precedents in the peer reviewed literature ( Rob wilson's work) for this. That is, when Wilson found discrepencies between rings and temps he took the rational step of double checking the temps. And, he created his own temperature series for the region in question. This improved his study. Now, the same proceedure has been taken by Esper WRT the trees where briffa found a divergence and he notes that there is substantial uncertainty in the temperature record and large adjustments. <br /><br />So rather than accepting the observations as givens, these scientists understood that sometimes the data isnt as good as we thought. So they have a second look. From a global temperature record what one wants to do ( as an engineer) is to study the effect of changing the observation data, that is, how do our answers depend upon the accuracy of that data? That's an objective question. There are also other metrics that may be impacted by minor changes, namely metrics about climate extremes. I dont think Muller is correct, however, a properly done study of the sensitivity to observational data quality should settle the matter. Do we have such a study? not that I have seen.stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06920897530071011399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-23933014977490216042011-04-18T00:04:39.628-07:002011-04-18T00:04:39.628-07:00Sorry Dehog, but I'm on the record from my fir...Sorry Dehog, but I'm on the record from my first appearance on the web in 2007 at RC that the GCMs are the best tools we have for understanding future climate. I'm on the record at CA showing people how to download ModelE results and generally praising its fidelity. I'm on the record noting some of the improvements gavin has made in the documentation. I'm on the record extolling the virtues of MITs model and their approach of including software developers. Im on the record arguing that the IPCC should use the best of breed models. On the record saying that the models and the data as it stands gives us enough cause for action. NOW.<br /><br />None of those positions on the SCIENCE and on the Need for ACTION, is inconsistent with my views on open data and open source and on best practices. Global warming is true. we should act now. AND hiding data and code is a short sighted tactic. Hiding the decline and other silly chartsmanship games are bad tactics. And I want my tean to STOP employing bad tactics. We've got the science on our side, there is no need for us to compromise our dedication to transparency or our dedication to the highest quality science.stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06920897530071011399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-24212365060025223812011-04-16T15:00:52.114-07:002011-04-16T15:00:52.114-07:00Eli is rather fond of the Wikipedia definition of ...Eli is rather fond of the Wikipedia definition of naive:<br /><br />----------------<br />Naïve is a French loanword (adjective, form of naïf) indicating having or showing a lack of experience, understanding or sophistication; in early use, it meant natural or innocent, and did not connote ineptitude. . .<br /><br />In the sciences, and technical professions, it is used to refer to a lack of experience with a specific stimulus (e.g., an image, a drug, a method for solving math problems) and does not carry broader negative connotations about the individual. <br />--------------------<br /><br />Which kind of leaves you with the choice about Muller, that he is either naive or scum. Eli reports, you decide.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-16516700110698951762011-04-16T13:03:56.948-07:002011-04-16T13:03:56.948-07:00"But we have a fundamental disagreement wheth..."But we have a fundamental disagreement whether the BEST team and project is on the deny/delay side... I don't think it is..."<br /><br />Oh, it very much is. The *premise* of the BEST project is that climate scientists have done a sub-standard job using biased sources intentionally filtered to show a temperature trend which is either exaggerated or non-existent.<br /><br />Remember Muller stating that he was surprised that their work did not appear to support the premise?<br /><br />He hasn't argued that the premise was non-existent.<br /><br />That's the meme - climate scientists can't be trusted due to their being incompetent, dishonest, or both.<br /><br />This works in support of denialism/delayism.<br /><br />The intention here is to grab control of the science as it exists as part of the political process. Take it out of the hands of mainstream climate scientists.<br /><br />It may be a year before we see the work done, and papers submitted to publication. So for a year we'll be treated to at best statements that "well, it appears that maybe climate scientists working on this *one thing* aren't dishonest and incompetent - hey, we're surprised they aren't, really! - but you'll have to wait until we're done before you can judge whether or not they are or not".<br /><br />Thus far, Muller has served to foster doubt about one part of the science that *is* settled.<br /><br />I can see the next possible step ... "oh, we need to develop our own set of models because NASA GISS is full of politically-driven dishonest incompetent nincompoops ... we'll be back to you with our scratch-built model, in 10 years. Until then ... we'd be surprised if NASA GISS Model E has more skill than Houdini's widow with a ouiji board"<br /><br />This ain't hard. Mosher gets it, he's part of it.dhogazahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13589109126483161671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-44748228608351422302011-04-16T12:40:22.242-07:002011-04-16T12:40:22.242-07:00Grypo,
I have no disagreement with your comments....Grypo,<br /><br />I have no disagreement with your comments. I agree on the basis of your points made in the first comment, that Muller overstated the science and policy implications of BEST, and my d) floating around the ether largely echoes your d). Our divergence is in focus... you appear more concerned with the relation of the public to Muller's words... I'm more concerned with how our side respond to Muller and BEST. But we meet where you emphasize caution and not reaching in confidence beyond what the evidence will support. I am grateful for your calm and thoughtful response.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-29475718077618633392011-04-16T11:50:42.150-07:002011-04-16T11:50:42.150-07:00Lazar,
a)
Keith says it's the sweet spot of t...Lazar,<br /><br />a)<br />Keith says it's the sweet spot of the "debate". I really hope Keith doesn't think that the science is the middle of Romm and Watts. <br /><br />Keith also says that "Berkeley physicist Richard Muller is turning out to be one of the most interesting and controversial new players in the climate arena. It’s still early in the year, but it’s looking like he’ll be the Judith Curry of 2011."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2011/04/12/making-sense-and-making-enemies/" rel="nofollow">I forgot to link it.</a><br /><br />b)<br />Yes, the focus of the environmental is up for question; I'm saying that as a for instance, based on how Curry was given significant coverage last year.<br /><br />c)<br />We'll see. These manufactured controversies always seem to find their way into the public's because the media is convinced we badly want to know what scientists have to say about a policy debate in which he is not even an expert in the field. See Freeman Dyson.<br /><br /><br />d)<br />Muller's intension<br />I imagine your response was lost the 'blogspot' ether. But I'll just expound on it anyway. I'm not really interested in his intention. I doubt it is dubious. It's questionable, but I have no evidence, even if his words point to an odd direction. I'm more concerned about the results of his words and what effect that has on the public debate. That gets back to c) to which I can only point to recent history as a guide. I can't predict what the result of him repeating false information on the radio or at Congress or in you tube videos, but I'm sure it won't be helpful. But I don't want to hurt his reputation anyway, SkS et al. will deal with his falsehoods, but we should also acknowledge he has a good record within his field and is affiliated with a great university.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-35625937269897637542011-04-16T11:01:06.588-07:002011-04-16T11:01:06.588-07:001) Possibly Muller is playing the delay game.
2) ...1) Possibly Muller is playing the delay game.<br /><br />2) William Connolley <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/04/muller_is_rubbish.php#comment-3636368" rel="nofollow">seems to think</a>, Muller is "clueless" on some issues and puffing the importance of the research for the usual non-political reasons.<br /><br />I think both hypotheses are plausible.<br /><br />My position is that there is insufficient evidence to reject either one. My first concern is that some on my side are calling 1) a certainty. Second, that we are equating the BEST project, results, team members and all with select public statements made by Muller. Third, that a priori claims are made and expressed with certainty, that BEST will add no new knowledge of any value for future research.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-28855749172085076852011-04-16T10:59:55.090-07:002011-04-16T10:59:55.090-07:00In which Muller is nailed to the wall for claiming...In <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/28/koch-richard-muller-gore-cicerone-polar-bears-friedman/" rel="nofollow">which</a> Muller is nailed to the wall for claiming that Ralph Cicerone was critical of AIT, and that Gore admitted to (non-existent) errors. It's a truly amazing story. AFAIK Muller has yet to aplogize to either Gore or Cicerone.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-82718506244800539062011-04-16T10:55:37.676-07:002011-04-16T10:55:37.676-07:00d)
Muller's intention with regard to...
&quo...d)<br /><br />Muller's intention with regard to...<br /><br /><i>"he is setting up his study a new benchmark for policy decisions, when his study is just one measurement of one aspect human influence on the planetary systems. So if the public hears " But is it .4? Is it .3? If so, we have a lot more time" (which he has said now on at least 2 occasions, perhaps 3) and then his study says, "it's .4!", all he's done is create a new center, and filled it with false hope based on something his study in no way is set up to do."</i><br />[cont]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-75634365007950079632011-04-16T10:54:34.117-07:002011-04-16T10:54:34.117-07:00Grypo,
There are a number of issues there...
a) ...Grypo,<br /><br />There are a number of issues there...<br /><br />a) something Keith said about Muller<br />b) that a) represents a likely future focus of environmental media<br />c) that b) will have a large effect on public opinion, and<br />d) that c) is Muller's intention<br /><br />... I can only give my opinion...<br /><br />a)<br /><br />Keith said...<br /><br /><i>"Muller says enough stuff that is sure to make both Romm and Watts fume, and as you all know, that’s the sweet spot in this debate"</i><br /><br />"stuff"...<br /><br />Keith might be referring to a position on science.<br /><br />Or maybe Keith means that Muller winds up partisans on both sides.<br /><br />I don't know.<br /><br />b)<br /><br />I don't know.<br /><br />c)<br /><br />I think that is unlikely.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-33648976302800458712011-04-16T10:46:09.312-07:002011-04-16T10:46:09.312-07:00Nicely put, GS. Muller's prying at the Overto...Nicely put, GS. Muller's prying at the Overton Window.<br /><br />Just to note, and likely it's clear to you but what you wrote was ambiguous on this point, the current study can't address anything related to attribution, so when Muller refers to it he's talking about his hoped-for next grant. I wouldn't be surprised if he asked for the funds to develop his own model -- that could keep the ball in the air for years.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-30151943944416152982011-04-16T09:02:11.318-07:002011-04-16T09:02:11.318-07:00Steve,
"Why should the legal standard for gu...Steve,<br /><br /><i>"Why should the legal standard for guilt apply?"</i><br /><br />it is the terminology used to describe a level of evidence that is unique to law... not the level of evidence itself... we can describe it using p-values if you would prefer...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-56426647604306899062011-04-16T08:30:48.462-07:002011-04-16T08:30:48.462-07:00"go back and read the very first comment in t...<i>"go back and read the very first comment in this thread, then try to characterize the quoted statement as something other than uninformed bloviation"</i><br /><br />Why should I do that? I have argued on several occasions that Muller is sometimes misinformed or uninformed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-23376259429350565042011-04-16T08:29:55.657-07:002011-04-16T08:29:55.657-07:00"How about some proof that Muller's absur...<i>"How about some proof that Muller's absurd claims actually have some basis in scientific reality?"</i><br /><br />Irrelevant. I have made no statements regarding the alleged absurdity or not of unspecified claims made by Muller. I'm not going to find your pony.<br /><br /><i>"Why not Brillinger v. Hansen or Brillinger v. Peterson?"</i><br /><br />Why not indeed. They're smart guys.<br /><br /><i>"And what has Brillinger discovered that would even be a point of debate?"</i><br /><br />I don't think that question is meaningful. If you want to argue that Brillinger brings nothing to the table for a time series analysis problem... it's like arguing YL Yung wouldn't bring anything to a radiative transfer problem... I won't argue... just sit back somewhat amazed... [cont]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-25790125570336834292011-04-16T08:27:36.496-07:002011-04-16T08:27:36.496-07:00"Re Muller's veracity, he's been tell...<i>"Re Muller's veracity, he's been telling porkies for years"</i><br /><br />You're reiterating your claim... not substantiating it as I asked...<br /><br /><i>"note that you've been reduced to lawyering in his behalf"</i><br /><br />I represent myself only... I'm also more worried about my side than Muller's ability to defend himself...<br /><br /><i>"Why should the legal standard for guilt apply?"</i><br /><br />If you want to argue that you need a lower burden of evidence for 'proof'... you are free to do so... if you want to argue that there *is* reasonable doubt over Muller being a bad actor... you are free to do so... but you are not... and I will not accept a lower burden of proof... when it comes to questions of integrity... I like charity and erring on the side of innocence... [cont]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-55890330999911876102011-04-16T08:24:10.832-07:002011-04-16T08:24:10.832-07:00Steve,
"So the Koch funding isn't prima ...Steve,<br /><br /><i>"So the Koch funding isn't prima facie evidence of denialist propaganda? Seriously?"</i><br /><br />Seriously. Like Michael's receipt of oil money isn't. A comment I wrote at Eli's...<br /><br />"In addition to $150,000 from the Koch foundation, they received $188,587 from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and $100,000 from Bill Gates' "Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research". What do I make of that? Nothing, unless it can be shown or hinted that funding has influenced results... and the results ain't even out yet! Do the Koch brothers hope BEST will show substantially less global warming? Very probably. So what. Take their money and run. Use it to produce good science. That's what I'd want to do." [cont]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-85789051029461517552011-04-16T07:45:42.608-07:002011-04-16T07:45:42.608-07:00Lazar,
I think there are some issues here that we...Lazar,<br /><br />I think there are some issues here that we can all kind-of agree on. I don't think anyone really cares that someone is doing a new temperature record. We seem to agree that the resources are likely better someplace else, but there's a lot of waste in science, so this doesn't matter to me. But if you look at what Bloom is saying, especially his "spinning wheels" comment, there's something to think about there. And the same to what Eli is saying. Now go look at Keith Kloor's thread regarding Muller and how he says, "sweet spot" of the debate. If this is where the environmental media is going to focus it's attention, then, yes, we will be spinning our wheels, and going over the same ground, in the media and public eye, as real science takes place that really tells us the risk we face. If KK and the rest of the mainstream media only focus on this imaginary center (while the mainstream media ignores it) then the person being focused on is very important. In this instance, Muller is using Climategate to get the public interested in his study. Even further and worse, he is setting up his study a new benchmark for policy decisions, when his study is just one measurement of one aspect human influence on the planetary systems. So if the public hears " But is it .4? Is it .3? If so, we have a lot more time" (which he has said now on at least 2 occasions, perhaps 3) and then his study says, "it's .4!", all he's done is create a new center, and filled it with false hope based on something his study in no way is set up to do. I find this a dangerous thought process. I just don't know how he justifies it. It's lukewarm fantasy. Would you agree on my logic?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-81715115854349426372011-04-16T07:09:11.104-07:002011-04-16T07:09:11.104-07:00Oh yeah, go back and read the very first comment i...Oh yeah, go back and read the very first comment in this thread, then try to characterize the quoted statement as something other than uninformed bloviation.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-69646864388882798992011-04-16T07:06:38.853-07:002011-04-16T07:06:38.853-07:00So the Koch funding isn't prima facie evidence...So the Koch funding isn't prima facie evidence of denialist propaganda? Seriously?<br /><br />Re Muller's veracity, he's been telling porkies for years and admits that he's gotten flack for it. Flack in what form, do you suppose?<br /><br />Anyway, note that you've been reduced to lawyering in his behalf. Why should the legal standard for guilt apply? How about some proof that Muller's absurd claims actually have some basis in scientific reality? <br /><br />Brillinger v. Jones? Why not Brillinger v. Hansen or Brillinger v. Peterson? And what has Brillinger discovered that would even be a point of debate?Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-70915691552400290832011-04-16T05:33:34.504-07:002011-04-16T05:33:34.504-07:00... I'm not even sure that "naive" c...... I'm not even sure that "naive" can work as a criticism... scientists become established by moving beyond naive... they publish... the latest "naive" recruits read and build upon that work... PhD projects get funding... outsiders bring new toolkits... and when the problem is time series analysis... I wouldn't want to bet the house on Jones in a cage match with Brillinger... would you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-57122284231300322332011-04-16T05:03:45.919-07:002011-04-16T05:03:45.919-07:00Eli,
"as a scientific issue it is about reso...Eli,<br /><br /><i>"as a scientific issue it is about resources. Is this a high priority thing to do"</i><br /><br />Could the funding have been spent on a project which is more likely to produce greater utility for the scientific community?... sure...<br /><br />*Would* it have...?<br />I think, for some of the funding, it's not a zero sum game.<br /><br />As a general statement about resource allocation I can go along with it. As a reason to dismiss BEST, it's not, the resources are allocated and spent, it's crying over spilt milk.<br /><br /><i>"a group naive about the nature of the data"</i><br /><br />I'm not sure what "naive" means here... I don't know what your evidence for "naive" is... I wouldn't want to bet any carrots that "naive" applies to Rhode and Brillinger... no thanks :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-82935786238585600242011-04-16T04:39:27.893-07:002011-04-16T04:39:27.893-07:00"his comments about attribution and sensitivi...<i>"his comments about attribution and sensitivity are clearly made despite his knowing they're wrong"</i><br /><br />Proving beyond reasonable doubt that an individual has knowingly issued falsehoods is usually a tall order... can you quote Muller's exact words... *and* provide strong evidence that prior to issuing them he received information which unequivocally refutes their content... *and* that it is reasonable to assume he understood...?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com