O O Ø O O O O
Tip of the Iceberg
The scientific establishment tells me this:
- Global warming is real.
- It is recent.
- Humans caused it.
- It is bad.
- We all agree.
You know what, scientific establishment? I don’t believe you.
Before you dismiss me as a quack, let me be clear: I am as scientisty as scientists get (and gramatically as grammarians be). This is why when I see behavior that violates the scientific method, I worry.
If you’ve forgotten, the scientific method is this:
- Observe something.
- Formulate a hypothesis to explain it
- Use your hypothesis to make a prediction about what you observed.
- Test these predictions, minimizing variables over which you have no control.
This is an ongoing process. A corollary to this is the following: “In science, theories can never be proved, only disproved.” The mathematicians in the crowd will hate this statememt, but remember: In mathematics, we make the rules. In reality, someone else has, and neglected to write them down.
In modeling reality, we must always deal with theories. We are always refining these theories. Most importantly, we are always testing these theories with new data. When things go bad, we change our theories and try again.
Now, back to the matter at hand: delta-climate. I have a few problems with the state of the science:
- We have not adequately identified the problem we are investigating
- We don’t have the data we need to support the conclusions we are making.
- We aren’t considering all the variables.
- We don’t distinguish between causation and corellation.
- We don’t seem to be testing any of this.
This is fairly well illustrated by the big Kahuna—the IPCC—co-winners of the Nobel Peace Prize for their work on climate change. In their now-infamous 2001 report, Figure 1 shows the “Hockey Stick” graph, which illustrates the global average surface temperature has suddenly risen in the past 50 years.
Now, let’s say we’re good little scientists and wish to see where this Nobel-prize-motivating figure comes from. We would probably write the authors of the study (Mann, Bradley, Hughes, 1999) and ask for a copy of the data set so we could analyze it ourselves.
If you did that, you might be a little surprised when the original authors refused to provide you with their data and/or source code so that you could reproduce their findings.
You might further be surprised that , when you did finally manage to reconstruct things, you found that the methodology they used “preferentially produces hockey sticks when there are none in the data.”
In fact, that might call into question your core beliefs on the issue (and in the Nobel Peace Prize committee).
For science to be believable (or more importantly, for science to be science), if has to be repeatable. It is not your job as a scientist to be right. It is your job to allow others to convince themselves that you are right.
And on the topic of global warming, problems with the “hockey stick” are just the tip of the iceberg.
But we’ll save that iceberg for another day.
Kjell Wooding
November 13, 2007
OOØOOOODCCCXLVII
November 14th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Seems to me we’ve gone through similar BS in regards to cell phone radiation and bio-fuels.
November 14th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
If they’re similar, they’re definitely not on the same scale. On one hand, we have a complete failure in the peer review process, (one that was totally ignored by the Nobel Peace Prize committee, among others) used as a linchpin in an issue that we expect to cost governments billions.
On the other, we have, well, cellphones and biofuels.
You’re right, however, that all of these have an intuitive aspect—”cellphones MUST cause cancer. You hold them to your head!” or “If we’re running out of fuel, why not use wheat? We have lots of that”—that doesn’t necessarily jibe with the science.
Me, I’m on the side of the science. The politics have to go.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Puhleese. This rant is so weak. Kjell, I can’t believe you are hauling out this dreck. Your argument has an uncanny resemblance to various anti-vaccination, anti-holocaust, anti-evolution, and anti-landing-on-the-moon arguments. You’re a smart cookie Kjell, but you are waaaay outside your field (as is, I would argue, Steve McIntyre who you cite — an expert in hard-rock mineral exploration apparently). Now perhaps both of you fully understand the complexities of the MBH98 climate model and the importance using the Priesnedofer’s Rule N in calculating step/tree ring network combinations, but I don’t. Like it or not, you are a complete lay-person arguing about the scientific validity of an issue of which you have almost no understanding. And I’m in the same boat. I don’t actually understand ice core sampling techniques, processes for calculating CO2 content, calculations of species extinction rates, who funds these scientists, where they publish etc.
So what is one to do? Well, you could defer to the whole weight of the scientific community and realize that perhaps we humans might be having a detrimental effect on our planet. Or … you could scrounge around and dig up counter-arguments from the web by hard-rock mineral explorationists with an interest in mathematics. If you go with the later (in the fine company of Ralph Klein, George Bush and John Stossel from ABC’s 20/20) you can continue to justify not having to make any changes in how we use our resources and environment. “Everything is fine. Move along. There is nothing to see here.”
If you accept that perhaps the entire established scientific community may be on to something (after years of analysis and significant internal debate) and you also consider the implications of what would happen if their wacky climate models (irrespective of Priesnedofer’s Rule N) were even close to accurate, you might have to think twice about valuing economic growth over all other considerations.
Call me crazy, but I think the stakes are way to high to dither on this issue. I am daily confronted with direct anecdotal evidence of climate change (just small little details like say the death of 35,000 people in Europe during the 2003 heat wave) AND I am told by almost all credible experts and groups in the field that climate change is caused by humans, then why would my first position be to argue that this is some sort of anti-scientific conspiracy. It just makes no sense. The better question is, given the stakes and the evidence, why not believe them? Perhaps, just in the interest of prudence, we should consider interests that are other than economic for a moment. Oh and it’s not like we are talking about the possibility that cell phones may cause cancer in a small sub-population. The scientific community is telling us that the future survival of our planet is at stake for cripes sake.
Anyway, I hated your rant. When are you going to come out to Vancouver to visit? We’ll be in Calgary this Christmas. I’ll buy you a beer when we get there.
November 20th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Chris, I feel this is one of the best rants on this site in quite some time.
Your complicated terms do not make a convincing argument, which amounts to, “because I am a layperson, I am not entitled to a critical opinion.” (As an architect, I suppose I only wish that were true.)
Chris, there are some things we know to be likely. Parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere appear are up, the pH of the oceans appears to shifting toward the acidic, and Antarctica appears to be calving icebergs at an alarming rate.
These things are concerning in themselves. We should be designing closed-loop systems as a matter of technical efficiency, as a matter of beauty, and as a matter of covering our asses.
The hockey stick is probably a pretty good marketing tool, which helps the cause, but much evidence points toward it not being science. Pointing this out makes Kjell neither a flat-earther, nor a holocaust-denier, no matter how shrill your rhetoric.
November 20th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Wow, you guys talk a lot of smack, and underneath the large words and strange references you seem to care about what is happening to the planet (regardless of the cause) but which of you recycle? Or buy things that aren’t tested on animals? Or purchase goods that aren’t overpackaged and don’t fill up landfills? Talk is cheap, and who you are and what you believe is shown by what you do.
Signed,
an interloper
November 20th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Personally, I like to take hard-line stances against corporate behemoths that put silly tags on things and impede my friends’ abilities to satisfy their consumer cravings.
Does that count as changing the world?
Seriously, Miranda—does it really seem that people who go to such ridiculous lengths to write their thoughts down (mailing them to ridiculous places when required), mark them up in lovingly-crafted, standards-compliant XHTML, and then archive them for increasingly ludicrous amounts of time would fail to act on their beliefs out in the Real World?
I, for one, have saved many an Apple II from permanent residence at the landfill—you know—”for our children.”
November 21st, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Never meant to discount the magnitude of the argument in the rant by saying that cell phone and bio fuel science is also bogus, but they share the same shortcomings.
Anyway I am a recycler, I don’t use excessive heat in my place, I use a blanket on the sofa instead. I don’t leave lights on unnecessarily. I’m not perfect and don’t look for not tested on animals type stuff. Of course if we follow every argument we should stop eating any farmed animal (all that methane has to be affecting global warming right) and only eat plants. The same argument says no dairy either. Ok so now I have no milk, no ice-cream, no cheese and no decent substitute. I will take farm animals over gas guzzling cars any day. Just hurry up and produce a decent replacement.
I walk to work and don’t use much gas so I’m doing my part, however small, but arguably more than the average person. I also don’t use plastic cutlery at lunch for the most part. As far as buying things that are overpackaged sometimes you don’t have a choice. I buy bulk where I can to reduce the packaging, particularly on items that are individually wrapped then re-wrapped in bulk.
The point of the rant is that we do care and that all the political BS and supposed research is pretty hard to believe considering all the counter claims that are made daily against any particular argument for or against something such as global warming.
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:22 am
Check this article out:
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/22/man-invents-microbes-eat-co2. One of the comments is priceless:
Maybe they roll themselves up into huge sticky balls and roll around crushing entire cities.
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
In answer to your question kj, yes, I really do think people fail to act on their beliefs, especially beliefs posted on internet sites. Hypocrites are the norm. Welcome to reality.
And as for the rant, truth is hard to distinguish, in any situation. Personally, I prefer to err on the side of “prudence”. Good rant, good thoughts.
signed,
an interloper
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:50 pm
That comment is awesome. That would be the Katamari microbe?
November 26th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
I believe Katamari is the reference. Hilarious!