Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?

Uh-huh. As a parallel situation, note that prize-winning astronomer and all-around smart guy Fred Hoyle never believed in the Big Bang. One day Lindzen also will pass from the scene.

 

I think Lindzen is a smart guy. People with a serious interest in earth system science would do well to read his papers. But don't stop there - also read the papers that have disputed (some would say overturned) his conclusions.

IMHO the conference presentation linked firstly here did not get off to a strong start, because it suggested that "simulation and observational programs" are not an effective way to do science. Reading that, it was hard to ignore that Lindzen's research includes both of those things. My main point remains, though, that the scientific literature is a good place to go flex one's mental muscles.

 

Lindzen's arguments have been well answered and refuted elsewhere. See for example
http://www.realclimate.org/

 

This is one of more ingenious facets of denialist tactics. The link above, offered by someone who in another thread insisted on every bit of evidence down to the raw data and computer code in order to justify not rejecting out of hand research results that have stood up to repeated independent scrutiny, is simply an opinionated paragraph accusing RealClimate of exactly the tactics found on many skeptic blogs.

It's enough to make your jaw drop.

A similar example is Sen. Inhofe, who on one hand cites a long list of "scientist' skeptics - a list that I could have signed, and I'm no scientist, yet on the other demands probes into the credentials of well established, respected, bona fide peer reviewed climate scientists.

Essentially it seems to boil down to "if we can't rationally defend our own theories, deflect attention by aggressively attacking the other side. If we can at least sow a bit of confusion, we'll buy a bit more time."

 

Climate Catastrophe Canceled - 9 Translation(s) | dotSUB

@ 16 minute mark This movie shows how realclimate used a sediment graph upside down to prove warming.

 

There was a recent water vapor study which seems to validate Lindzens "iris effect"
The atmosphere is self regulating and there will be no runaway warming from CO2.

Water vapour caused one-third of global warming in 1990s, study reveals | Environment | The Guardian
"If the latter is true, then more warming could see greater decreases in water vapour, acting as a negative feedback to apply the brakes on future temperature rise."

BTW Linzen says when he published he was inundated with criticisms.Too many for a timely response.
Extra - WSJ.com
"Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves."

 

Like the many ad hom attacks by the warmists on Lindzen?

 

No I don't. Please don't presume to speak for me.

Likewise, I don't presume to be a better scientist than those who actually do climate research. So rather than examine data and code personally that I am not at all qualified to analyze, I peruse the responses from other climate scientists, the statements of science organizations, and the papers responding to challenges to the initial work, such as Mann's.

In fact, if another researcher who does NOT have access to Mann's raw data and code still produces a comparable result with their own data and code, that carries more weight for me, not less.

I read with great interest the interplay between those who are scientists here and elsewhere.

You and I clearly differ on what constitutes legitimate independent scrutiny.

 

In many cases it is a personal choice what we take on faith. For media reports and internet discussions, if they refer to publications we can read those. If they don't we can search for ideological or economic motivations for ideas that have been expressed, but there is no guarantee that this will lead us closer to truth.

In the world of science and the data on which it is based, it can be difficult because the former is generally written for specialists and can strike a general reader as opaque. But I see a favorable trend of more and more primary data and model structures being placed in the public domain in this field. To be sure, it would not be the simplest task to repeat a complicated analysis. But why climate sceptics (to use the popular term) have generally not taken that next step is likely to surprise neutral observers.

On a more basic level, one can read published responses to published papers. There are many of those and (at least as far as reading the abstracts) it need not be beyond the grasp of people with some scientific literacy. I am aware of the claims that some research is censured, but this does not strike me as a good reason to ignore what is published.

The secondary scientific literature includes review papers and assessments (yes, even including those by IPCC). These are 'easier on the eyes' than the primary literature. As interest in such topics continues to grow, we can expect to see more of them.

As always, it is up to the individual whether to stop at internet discussions, or to pursue the matter further. Characterizing anyone's approach as 'faith' or 'narrow' or as 'wonderful' does not help a whole lot.

 

From my bag of quotes: "All models are wrong, some are useful."

Not sure who might have said this but my engineer-husband nodded when I read it to him.

Anyone study logic and can explain the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning, and the dangers involved in extrapolating (predicting the future) from large sets of data?

Climate science is a huge, complex bit of work. And like all research sciences it has huge, complex egos and reputations on the line, lots of grant money up for grabs, politically motivated asses with axes to grind, and meddling journalists jonesing for a scoop. In other words, lots of non-science poo to go along with the real science.

The trick is to choose smart people with some scruples to make the big decisions for us, and then get on with our lives.

 

Climategate proves they chose the wrong guys.

Investigations into these things need to be handled externally.

Wth do you think a university that benefits from grant money is going to do. Find their people guilty of fraud. That school would loose a large sum of free money every year

 

What climategate mostly proves is that the skeptic faction is far more adept at the PR game than the climate science community is. I dare say if you each gave me the past couple of thousand emails you've written I could pick a few that would give me enough fodder to make you look bad given the right spin.

And since there is no formal organization of climate skeptics, that also creates a huge imbalance when it comes to honestly assessing the various perspectives.

Skeptics can latch on to one or two mistakes by the IPCC or the major climate science centers and leverage a lot of publicity out of them. But they've also proven adept at shrugging aside the countless errors in their own reasoning and methods and focusing attention on the one or two arguments that seem the most credible.

That's not to say there isn't room for improvement in how climate science is done. Some valuable lessons have been learned in recent months and aggressive steps are being taken to elevate professionalism, openness, and most importantly, the immense challenge of effectively communicating very complex science to policy makers and a general public with a very short attention span.

If this were simply an academic exercise to determine whether there is adequate science to assert with confidence that humans play a significant role in a warming planet, I'm confident any objective jury familiar with the scientific method would answer "yes".

But it's much more than that, because responding to that conclusion means some major shifts in how we manage ourselves as a species, and fear of the unknown combined with our innate resistance to change creates significant barriers to translating defensible science into effective action.

Even though managed properly the economic and social benefits OUTSIDE of climate impacts should far outweigh negative impacts, one thing we can all probably agree on is that managing any new policies well is not something we can consistently count on our governments to do.

It's frustrating to me that we have not yet moved beyond the basic question of whether to act into how best to act, but I do understand the dynamics slowing us down.

I don't know how it will all shake out, and won't live to see the most critical years of results from whatever we do or don't do in the next decade or two. All I can do is play whatever minor role I can in helping folks understand the soundness of the science and the urgency of action.

It ain't much, but I hope it helps.

 

ems1 -- Sorry, I was trying to add some value to the discussion. Guess I need to clarify.

When I mentioned choosing the right people I meant as individuals, while we're in the voting booth. You and I don't get to decide who staffs the major climate centers. We have a say in who represents us in DC, and that's it.

Climate researchers don't have a say in public policy unless given credence by those (hopefully) wise and wonderful officials we elect.

It's saddening to watch the general public allow journalists and political commentators to have more impact on their views than those scientists, who are, after all, the experts on the topic.

 

Dave – You were expecting scientists to be good at playing the PR and media game? If one of my "hot" researchers remembered to pay the rent, ate so they didn't faint at the bench, and maintained a reasonable level of personal hygiene, I -- the lab manager -- was content. Communicate with the outside world? What outside world?

I did try to teach the grad students and post docs some things. One was to never, ever, send an e-mail they wouldn't be happy to see immediately circulated across the entire Web. To be read by their principal investigators, department heads, lab-mates, and their mothers.

I suspect tackling climate change will be humanity's greatest challenge. It's an insidious problem because it's slow developing, not easily evident and can reach a point of no return before it appears critical, and any response of consequence will require the marshalling of the resources of most of the world's governments. Herding cats or managing a pandemic looks easy by comparison.

I wonder if some blend of democracy and autocracy, a strict meritocracy with a tiny governing class, might not yield the best management approach to climate change. Maybe like a Chinese government of the future, or the US after a very painful reduction of government. Though to be honest, I don't see us as having the courage or foresight, to reduce our government until it’s a streamlined force rather than the blundering but-we-mean-well of today. At present the Chinese seem admirably able to take quick, decisive action. Whether that action is just or wise is another question.

But it certainly is interesting to watch. Will we rise to the challenge, or simply suffer the consequences of our inaction?

 

Yup, that's the crux of it. Perhaps the greatest social experiment in our species' short stay on this planet. Are we capable of taking effective action on an issue without in-your-face immediate crises for stimulus?