Hard News: Climate science and the media
154 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
But most of all, solutions are necessary because the consequences of the theorised agw problem are so dramatic both in cost and impact, that we should be sure before we fail to move down that path. Climate change deniers have to prove their case comprehensively and completely, it is not up to climate scientists to prove the denial crowd is wrong. I don't have to do any homework doesn't cut it.
Edit: my vague attempt at an anti-James Bremner. Which doesn't really prove anything, except that such flat out statements are stupid (though I reckon mine is marginally less so).
-
As your link notes, the uncorrected data were thrown away -- more than 20 years ago, it seems worth noting, and before Phil Jones was even there -- because the university didn't give the CRU a big enough building to hold its stuff.
Again, the touching yet misguided devotion to the idea of linear time! As we would all instantly recognize had we not been EDUCATED STUPID, we are living four simultaneous days, every day. This explains how Al Gore and George Soros can flit back and forth and manipulate, sorry, "correct," the CRU data-set as the evolving needs of the inter-species conspiracy demand. As well as planting those oh so convenient "birth notices" in the Honolulu Advertiser that they liberal media refuse to critique! Resist the lizard oligarchy! Make me nice steaming cup of darjeeling!
-
@Rich, I agree. The "withholding belief" position means that people practically act as if they "believe the opposite", because that is what they were doing before. Being unaware of a problem has the same practical outcome as ignoring the problem.
But I do think even ascertaining a general public position on a question that the general public is not literate in is problematic. It's a bit like asking the public whether a gigabyte is more or less or equal to a billion bytes. If they don't know what a byte is, or they don't know anything about the history of binary based names, or for that matter they don't know how much a billion really is (some people, with some justification, think it's a million million), then their answers aren't so much wrong as simply pointing out that the question is an imprecise thing to ask of such an audience. Then there's issue of people always looking for agendas behind questions. When asked if they think AGW is happening, they might decide that the reason for asking is to push some policy change they disagree with, then they might see that denying it is the safest answer, even if it's not what they actually believe.
-
The more knowledge there is, the less of a proportion anyone can know of it. If you seek to broaden your knowledge, you also tend to make it shallower as well, and when the depth of the knowledge is increasing all the time, this means people are more and more out of their depth about anything outside of specializations.
Very well put, Ben. This is the reason I admire PAS and remain in awe of the knowledge displayed here. I try to keep up with debates and wonder, as many do, whether aberrant weather and natural disasters are indicators of a larger pattern of irreversible climate change. Nevertheless (and to be perfectly honest), much of my unwillingness to listen to counter-arguments from climate change deniers (Wishart et al) is more to do with a strong distaste for their general politics, rather any arguments (spurious or otherwise) which they might offer.
-
The "withholding belief" position means that people practically act as if they "believe the opposite", because that is what they were doing before. Being unaware of a problem has the same practical outcome as ignoring the problem.
Well, the gut feeling I get from various casual conversations with 'the man on the clapham omnibus' is that a lot of people are actively in denial, as opposed to 'withholding belief'.
But that's just a personal, unquantified gut feeling. And I am cynical enough to sometimes wonder if I'm cynical enough...
-
Scientists are only human, they are subject to vainty and corruption like anyone else, and there is more money on the AGW gravy train for scientists, politicians and business people than any gravy train around.
I love this scientific conspiracy theory. You only have to meet two scientists holding a PhD to discover that they couldn't run a global conspiracy between two of them on this scale, let alone thousands of scientists all over the world.
Half of them will have left their original data on the train one day and the other half will have accidentally emailed it to their mother rather than their co-author. Then the IT guy will have been called in to rescue it when they forgot where they saved it, and they'll have 20 copies each on their computer and CDs and memory sticks, each with sensible names like "weather data 2 john checked.xls copy 5". They'll wander around campus peering closely as data sheets because they've forgotten their glasses are on their head muttering about complex math modelling loud enough for 50 people to hear them.
Gravy train :P
-
Kyle: Hmmm. Is bewilderment also a characteristic of social scientists? I do remember the time I thought I would buck conventions in a large survey (of journalists, incidentally) and put the gender question as Female/Male, rather than the usual Male/Female. Only to to realise half-way through the data entry stage that I had coded all this information incorrectlly.
-
Ha. My theory is that it is part of the process of gaining your PhD. Probably something in the pin cushion hats that affects the brain and removes basic technical competencies.
-
Then there's issue of people always looking for agendas behind questions.
Always a problem if you are playing by the rules and the other guys are not.
The unthinking public respect for science mid last century seems a long way from today's attitudes. US politics have not helped, with decades of systematic attack on evidence-based policy by well-resourced and networked cronies and right-wing think-tanks - in favour of faith-based 'decisiveness'. Evolution, schmevolution..
-
when faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept the subject rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.
-
Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously.
Hmmm. I assumed that I just had trapped wind.
-
The lecture today by the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman was bracing.
He had some very interesting things to say about the changes heralded by the recent CRI review, but I'll just dump my notes on the climate change part of the speech here for the moment:
- His position on climate change reflects the position reached by the global science community.
- It is being reflected in physical measures and multiple biotic changes
- The most recent data analyses reinforce the conclusions of the IPCC
- Natural factors have an impact on the climate, but this is "insignificant" in comparison with human-induced factors.
- The heart of the IPCC's work is the development of a risk profile.
- We have only a 50-50 chance of limiting the average temperature increase to 2 deg C
- An increase of 4 deg is looking "increasingly likely" and is likely to be reached by 2070, when our children will still be alive.
- NZ has a "unique emissions profile" in that our emissions from agriculture are more significant than other sources.
- Although methane has a shorter half-life in the atmosphere, is 20x more potent a greenhouse gas than C02
- -The meeting on agricultural emissions two weeks ago in Wellington was "extraordinarily productive".
- Scientists in this field risk getting "attacked and harassed in a particularly ad hominem manner"
- It's not a debate about climate change per se
- The scientific consensus on climate change is "much more complete than has been presented to the public".
- The "attacks of so-called sceptics" endanger public confidence in science.
- In a work the size of the last IPCC report it was "inevitable that there would be a handful of errors". The errors that have been detected "are of no significance".
- Nonetheless, the UN recognises that the IPCC must have the confidence of the public and its process is being reviewed.
- He made a comparison with the way the tobacco industry has historically tried to influence perceptions of science.
- Lamented "The apparent need by the media to give moral equivalency to so-called sceptics."
- Why the vehemence of the attacks? Because it's not a scientific debate, but one over societal beliefs, that particularly excites those with "libertarian" ideals.
- Nobody wants to be the first to take action at a government level.
- The climate debate is like that over intelligent design in that "no observation will shift the positions" of those who do not accept the science.
- The CRU emails controversy showed "both the value and the cost" of making data openly available, but it is "a big challenge" that scientists will have to get used to.
- The University of East Anglia responded to a torrent of FOI requests by not making data available: "This was a mistake".
- Not everyone who offers criticism is the established scientific position does so with malign intent.
- The debate remains not really about science, "even though it is conducted with scientific jargon".
- There is no experiment or observation that will change strongly-held beliefs around evolution.
- He on the other hand, as an evolutionary biologist, could easily conceive of an experimental outcome that would force his to revise his position on evolution.
- The same applies to climate scientists, even though "the possibility if remote to non-existent".
- The conspiracy argument that scientists are making claims about global warming to get science funding is "bizarre". Rvety scientist and every government "would love to duck the issue."
- In speaking on climate change he has "invited and received ad hominen responses". He had received such emails in advance of the speech and expected to find many more when he checked his inbox later today.
- He also expected such a response on "certain talkback radio shows".
- Environmental security should be right at the top of the national to-do list.
- Instead, we see "Parliamentary questions week in, week out" challenging the reputations of scientists.
-
And after all that, Prof Gluckman's official speech notes.
-
The lecture today by the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman was bracing.
I've only seen him on TV a couple of times, and quoted in the media a few more, but he seems like a good appointment, saying the right things, and I hope he has the ear of the PM. It would be good to see his conclusions being backed up with more clout.
-
So there is no foreseeable new investment in RS&T. Certainly not this year anyway.
Instead we will get more productivity out of CRIs by changing their performance indicators.
It will be interesting to see if this is a successful approach.
Personally I think that unless the Government increases RS&T funding by about double then it is difficult to imagine any significant improvement. But that's just the jaded view of a bench scientist and I'd love to be proved wrong.
I think the key is going to be the external scientific advisory boards. If those boards have real power and are able to sidestep internal CRI politics then we could see real changes. During the last 20 years we have drifted further and further away from testing the quality of the science and that I think is one of the major problems we face. The advisory boards appear to be the only true test of CRI scientific quality in what is being proposed.
Certainly Professor Gluckman's comments suggested he was keen to see dramatic changes in the management of CRIs and also in the activities of the scientists themselves (although the latter was less clear). Personally I hope like hell it works.
-
Instead we will get more productivity out of CRIs by changing their performance indicators.
It will be interesting to see if this is a successful approach.
I'm not sure if interesting is the right word there....
-
--Instead we will get more productivity out of CRIs by changing their performance indicators.
It will be interesting to see if this is a successful approach.__I'm not sure if interesting is the right word there....
I don't doubt Bart's practical concerns, but the commissioning of the CRI review and the speedy adoption of its conclusions is something for which the current government deserves praise.
-
CRI review and the speedy adoption of its conclusions is something for which the current government deserves praise.
Cough.
Gluckman does seem to know what he's on about. As said earlier, would be nice if people were listening.
Hopefully people won't start thinking the ash cloud is going to solve all our global warming problems. On another note (thread merge) while Climate Change probably didn't cause 'that volcano' to erupt, there are some who think it will lead to others erupting in the future.
-
There are some politics between university-based researchers vs CRI-based ones, right?
Instead we will get more productivity out of CRIs by changing their performance indicators. It will be interesting to see if this is a successful approach.
Mentioned hereabouts recently that it's working a treat in Health with DHBs slashing home-based disability/aged support hours because they are not part of the Minister's performance targets.
-
double post
-
Mentioned hereabouts recently that it's working a treat in Health with DHBs slashing home-based disability/aged support hours because they are not part of the Minister's performance targets.
The CRI review is about backing out of the accursed contestible model and returning to long-term funding of science, and losing the idea that CRIs are somehow supposed to compete with each other as businesses. Their role will now be to support their sectors, rather than compete with them.
It's been evident for a long time that this was a deeply flawed model, and the current government deserves credit for commissioning the review and acting on it swiftly. As Bart says, no more money, but hopefully the money will be better spent.
And yes, the losers from the change are probably the universities.
-
The CRI review is about backing out of the accursed contestible model and returning to long-term funding of science, and losing the idea that CRIs are somehow supposed to compete with each other as businesses. Their role will now be to support their sectors, rather than compete with them.
It's been evident for a long time that this was a deeply flawed model, and the current government deserves credit for commissioning the review and acting on it swiftly. As Bart says, no more money, but hopefully the money will be better spent.
And yes, the losers from the change are probably the universities.
More specifically: those who are research-only staff at universities, whose livelihoods are dependent year-to-year on the grants they can get. Less money floating around, more people dropping out of research altogether - and there's a lot less money floating around right now, and maybe less, if more goes to the CRIs.
(And the thing is: it's *sensible* to give the CRIs more long-term funding. It just sucks for everyone else.)
-
(And the thing is: it's *sensible* to give the CRIs more long-term funding. It just sucks for everyone else.)
There's a difference between more long-term funding and more funding. They're not talking about giving more money to the CRIs, just giving them the same amount of money in bigger lumps with a bit more self-determination on how to spend it.
What would be nice is if the Govt would make the call on whether the CRIs are primarily working for the national good, or primarily making money to hand back to their shareholder (ie, the Govt).
Also getting their act together to make the money flow from the PGP fund - it was supposed to start appearing last financial year, hasn't turned up this financial year, and is looking like the second half of next financial year is the earliest any will be seen.
Don't know about the rest of the CRIs, but the one where I work had to shed 20 scientists at the end of last year, and there's about 50 folks down the road over the next wee while now. -
What would be nice is if the Govt would make the call on whether the CRIs are primarily working for the national good, or primarily making money to hand back to their shareholder (ie, the Govt).
From Gluckman's speech notes:
The major purpose of the reforms presaged in the CRI review and approved by Cabinet is to achieve alignment of mission and put the incentives in the right place. A key issue has been the nature of the funding arrangements. Because CRIs until now have acted essentially as research hotels, with their destiny controlled either by decisions of the Foundation or by contracts, CRI Boards have had almost no input into refining their mission and ensuring they can meet their potential. They have had little influence, let alone control, over their strategic direction.
This could not lead to good governance or sensible management. Because the only real performance measure was fiscal, the expectations and performance measures for CRI science were deficient. The Crown has now acknowledged that the purpose of CRIs is not to make money, although of course, like all Crown entities, they must manage their resources responsibly and follow basic principles of fiscal prudence – this is no different to any other Crown entity be it a hospital or the defence force. Rather, the Crown is making it very clear that the key expectation is that the CRIs make a real difference to the sectors they are there to support.
Seems unequivocal. And more than just giving it out in bigger lumps, really. Although it would be nice to hear it from the minister too ...
-
alignment of mission
Without reading his speech, the overall shift seems to be towards CRIs acting in the national interest rather than their own individual one. I guess we need to see the Budget next month to know if that's more than hot air.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.