Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 67 posts

Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

#11

Post by CWuestefeld »

gjm11 wrote: post #4
tjic wrote: post #3

Hopefully all of those who called anyone skeptical of AGW over the last few years "climate change denialists" (by extension from "Holocaust denialists") are now acknowledging that there WERE serious issues with the assertions all along, and are now apologizing for their rashness and intemperance. I wouldn't bet on it though.

If those people were claiming that there were no mistakes anywhere in the high-profile AGW literature, then they should certainly be apologizing. (But then, anyone claiming that should have been apologizing anyway; everything has mistakes, near enough.) If they were merely saying: there's a huge body of scientific work supporting AGW, and claims to the contrary are consistently found to be the result of error or dish…

Much of the trumpeting over AGW has been about "consensus among the scientific community", as if scientists get to vote to decide what's true.

We are now discovering that if there is, indeed, such a consensus, then it's partly due to derailing the literature (see Hadley) or selling to us media sources as if they were scientists doing real research.

I think they've got a lot to apologize for, and they now have a lot of work to try and prove their views to a world that has every reason to be critical.

Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

#12

Post by waterlesscloud »

chrisb wrote: post #5
CWuestefeld wrote: post #2

Taking this error, in which the peer-review process was circumvented, together with last year's revelations of Hadley scientists discussing the wholesale subversion of peer review, is very troubling. I'm not sure how to express this to show disgust with the putative "scientists" while only casting skepticism on their work (rather than outright rejection). But it would seem that they are so caught up in their agenda t…

Note that this claim was not in the "Summary for Policy Makers" nor the "Overall Synthesis Report", which is what the vast majority of people read (myself included, I haven't even tried to read the entire report). Therefore very few people will ever have seen the claim until now. I'm not trying to excuse the mistake, but its consequences may have been overstated.

That's simply not the case. The claim got widespread media coverage.

Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

#13

Post by ugh »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #10
lutorm wrote: post #6

The IPCC reports are thousands of pages, so it's not surprising that there are errors. You can find errors in a large fraction of scientific papers if you look hard enough. The relevant question is whether there are more errors in the papers that support the idea of global warming than those that don't. Just judging from what I've seen, the complete crackpot papers (like this one: http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161v4 ) a…

Perhaps. But the IPCC is sold (and mostly accepted) as a sort of bible of climate change science. The article you linked appears to me not to claim such broad authority, but to advocate skepticism. It seems to me like items in the first category need to be held to a higher standard. Indeed, the scientific method itself tells us that those putting forward a theory (such as AGW) bear the burden of proof.

>Perhaps. But the IPCC is sold (and mostly accepted) as a sort of bible of climate change science.

Oh, come on. Really? Sure, most people won't question the IPCC. But most people also won't question other similar institutions. The real question is whether scientists feel that the IPCC is their bible. And I don't think they do.

Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

#15

Post by Retric »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #10
lutorm wrote: post #6

The IPCC reports are thousands of pages, so it's not surprising that there are errors. You can find errors in a large fraction of scientific papers if you look hard enough. The relevant question is whether there are more errors in the papers that support the idea of global warming than those that don't. Just judging from what I've seen, the complete crackpot papers (like this one: http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161v4 ) a…

Perhaps. But the IPCC is sold (and mostly accepted) as a sort of bible of climate change science. The article you linked appears to me not to claim such broad authority, but to advocate skepticism. It seems to me like items in the first category need to be held to a higher standard. Indeed, the scientific method itself tells us that those putting forward a theory (such as AGW) bear the burden of proof.

In the scientific communality IPCC is mostly viewed as reasonably accurate if watered down for political reasons.

Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

#16

Post by lutorm »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #10
lutorm wrote: post #6

The IPCC reports are thousands of pages, so it's not surprising that there are errors. You can find errors in a large fraction of scientific papers if you look hard enough. The relevant question is whether there are more errors in the papers that support the idea of global warming than those that don't. Just judging from what I've seen, the complete crackpot papers (like this one: http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161v4 ) a…

Perhaps. But the IPCC is sold (and mostly accepted) as a sort of bible of climate change science. The article you linked appears to me not to claim such broad authority, but to advocate skepticism. It seems to me like items in the first category need to be held to a higher standard. Indeed, the scientific method itself tells us that those putting forward a theory (such as AGW) bear the burden of proof.

Anthropogenic global warming is not a theory being put forth, it's the logical consequence of physical principles that are well established. It's not at all like Einstein proposing General Relativity. What (serious) people are arguing over is details of the analysis and the magnitude of effects. Those uncertainties are real, but it is no different from any other scientific debate.

The article I linked, if you actually read it, does not advocate skepticism at all. It claims in no uncertain language that the greenhouse effect violates all kinds of established principles, but it's hogwash. I saw that article cited in The Nation, and it aggravated me enough that I wrote up a response (http://www.familjenjonsson.org/patrik/research/greenhouse, if you are interested).

Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

#17

Post by Retric »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #11
gjm11 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If those people were claiming that there were no mistakes anywhere in the high-profile AGW literature, then they should certainly be apologizing. (But then, anyone claiming that should have been apologizing anyway; everything has mistakes, near enough.) If they were merely saying: there's a huge body of scientific work supporting AGW, and claims to the contrary are consistently found to be the result of error or dish…

Much of the trumpeting over AGW has been about "consensus among the scientific community", as if scientists get to vote to decide what's true. We are now discovering that if there is, indeed, such a consensus, then it's partly due to derailing the literature (see Hadley) or selling to us media sources as if they were scientists doing real research. I think they've got a lot to apologize for, and they now have a lot o…

Why do you think that is the case?

Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

#18

Post by lutorm »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #12
chrisb wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that this claim was not in the "Summary for Policy Makers" nor the "Overall Synthesis Report", which is what the vast majority of people read (myself included, I haven't even tried to read the entire report). Therefore very few people will ever have seen the claim until now. I'm not trying to excuse the mistake, but its consequences may have been overstated.

That's simply not the case. The claim got widespread media coverage.

I think his point is that it was not significant to the bottom-line conclusions of the report.

Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

#19

Post by lutorm »

kevinholesh wrote: post #8

It seems like climate scientists are more occupied with manipulating the data to suit them rather than reporting the facts. Sample from some climate emails: "Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with." Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870477970457455...

Simple selection bias. It "seems" that way because there's no story to write about people just doing their work.

Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

#20

Post by lutorm »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #11
gjm11 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If those people were claiming that there were no mistakes anywhere in the high-profile AGW literature, then they should certainly be apologizing. (But then, anyone claiming that should have been apologizing anyway; everything has mistakes, near enough.) If they were merely saying: there's a huge body of scientific work supporting AGW, and claims to the contrary are consistently found to be the result of error or dish…

Much of the trumpeting over AGW has been about "consensus among the scientific community", as if scientists get to vote to decide what's true. We are now discovering that if there is, indeed, such a consensus, then it's partly due to derailing the literature (see Hadley) or selling to us media sources as if they were scientists doing real research. I think they've got a lot to apologize for, and they now have a lot o…

While it's true that you can't do science by consensus, it is legitimate to look at a range of studies and see where they agree. Those parts that most studies agree on can justifiably be called the "consensus among the scientific community".

Your last paragraph simply isn't justified. Do you think any action or conclusion lives up to that standard? In particular, why do you think those that argue that AGW is not happening should be given more of a benefit of the doubt?

AGW is the conclusion of applying simple physics to the problem. In my mind, if you are going to argue that it's not happening, you have much more justification to do.

Post reply on HN