Left Outside

The Devil’s in the Details

I am sure I’m not not the first to call Devil’s Kitchen a Fuckwit, and I am sure I’m not going to be the last.

However, I have developed a reputation for a “willingness to engage (politely!) with rightists“, and as DK has “politely” pointed out, I did not engage with the substantive topic of his last post on climate change.

First, a Fuckwit

To bring everyone up to date DK put together a post discussing the views of climate scientists, and the implications of a survey taken of their views on the actuality of climate change and the modelling of climate change.

I picked him up for utterly misunderstanding what the “airborne fraction” meant when referring to carbon in the atmosphere, but did not engage further. DK took the new report by Knorr to argue that, as the “airborne fraction” of carbon had been unchanged by 150 years, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere had not changed over the last 150 years, this is a massive misinterpretation.

A far better discussion of the airborne fraction is available here but briefly, it refers to the percentage of carbon emitted by humans which is absorbed by natural carbon sinks rather than staying in the atmosphere. The below graph illustrates this rather well. DK boobed and has retracted the claim.

Second, a Survey

The bulk of DK’s post however concerns something else entirely, and it is this I wish him to retract as well. He cites Bishop Hill and his reporting of the results of survey of climate scientists from 2008.

Most of the scientists responsible for creating the delusion still believe global warming is man-made and will be a crisis. We know this from an international survey conducted in 2008 by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch. They surveyed 373 scientists who work for climate research institutes and appear in the climate journals that are controlled by the now-notorious Climategate gang. [LO: Objective reportiong PJM's raison d'être]

Thirty-five percent responded “very much” when asked the following question: “How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?” On a scale from 1 to 7, with 1 being “not at all” and 7 being “very much,” 83 percent answered 5, 6, or 7. Only 1 percent said “not at all” and only 11 percent answered 1, 2, or 3. Answers to the question “How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?” were similar.

However, the Bray and von Storch survey also reveals that very few of these scientists trust climate models — which form the basis of claims that human activity could have a dangerous effect on the global climate. Fewer than 3 or 4 percent said they “strongly agree” that computer models produce reliable predictions of future temperatures, precipitation, or other weather events. More scientists rated climate models “very poor” than “very good” on a long list of important matters, including the ability to model temperatures, precipitation, sea level, and extreme weather events.

The quote above, refers to Question 21 “How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?” and Question 22 on “How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?” These questions clearly shows an overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in favour of the idea of  anthropogenic causes for climate change.

This is then contrasted with their views on the climate models from which their conclusions are drawn. There appears to be an inexplicable leap in the number of scientists who think modelling is adequate to the number who think that climate change is happening, is man made and is a threat to humanity.

This is something which has been described by Bishop Hill, PJM and Devil’s Kitchen as a “gotcha” moment. A proof, if you will, that the difference between the two figures is a palpable measure of the amount of “faith” used over science to reach their opinions.

In their own words, previous surveys conducted by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch have before been badly misrepresented by climate change deniers. [1] The misrepresentation of their previous survey has led them to be more careful with their latest survey [pdf available here], however we can see that it has still thrown up interesting results.

There are a number of reasons to not jump to conclusions quickly. First of all is that the above survey is comparing apples with oranges. The information on modelling actually refers to a vast array of questions which for ease of reading I have included in a footnote [2] below.

Good, now you’ve scrolled down you will have realised that the above may not be the fairest of comparisons.

An example may help further elaborate why I don’t think this comparison is fair. It is mentioned that “more scientists rated climate models “very poor” than “very good”” in the above “gotcha.”

However, this wrongly contrasts what could be a specific and widespread dissatisfaction with, say, the ability of global models to predict precipitation over the next 10 years with a general and widespread mild dissatisfaction with scientific modelling leading few to rate it “very good.”

As you can see the above comparison is vague and is full of holes, I wasn’t able to find the full results from the Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch but the lack of specifics in the above quote should start ringing alarm bells. If the results are so unflattering why report so selectively?

Third, a Theory which doesn’t hold water

There is a further reason to doubt the above interpretation as well.

Opposite is the logo of the Cochrane Collaboration. It may seem odd to include the logo of a an organization which is dedicated to conducting meta-analyses of clinical trials in a post about climate change but it is relevant. From Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science:

The logo of the Cochrane Collaboration features a simplified “blogogram”, a graph of the results from a landmark meta-analysis which looked at an intervention given to pregnant mothers. When people give birth prematurely, as you might expect, the babies are  more likely to suffer and die. Some doctors in New Zealand had the idea that giving a short, cheap course of steroid might help improve outcomes, and seven trials testing this idea were done between 1972 and 1981. Two of them showed some benefit from the steroids, but the remaining five failed to detect any benefit, and because of this, the idea didn’t catch on.

Eight years later, in 1989 a meta-analysis was done by pooling all this trial data. If you look at the blobbogram in the logo you can see what happened. Each horizontal line represents a single study: if the line is over the to the left, it means the steroids were better than placebo, and if it is over to the right, it means the steroids were worse. If the horizontal line touches the big vertical “nil effect” line going down the middle, then the trail showed no clear indication either way. One last thing: the longer the horizontal line is, the less certain the outcome of the study was….

The diamond at the bottom shows the pooled answer: that there is, in fact, very strong evidence indeed for steroid reducing the risk – by 30 to 50 per cent – of babies dying of complications of immaturity.

I hope the comparison and implication is clear. Asking the doctors to look at the various mentioned above would not have elicited a response that the treatment was “good” or “very good,” the responses would, in fact, be somewhat similar to the attitude to various climate models in our survey.

But the combination of these results – or our climate change models – is greater than the sum of their results. This is what DK, Bishop’s Hill and PJM have all missed. This is the fatal flaw in their logic.

The gap between climate scientist’s confidence in the various climate models and their professed belief in anthropogenic climate change does not mean they have a “faith” in climate change in excess of the evidence.

The multitude of climate models used by the IPCC all contain flaws, some are more flawed than others. But dissatisfaction with climate modelling – and with so many questions  on it in our survey, it seems little wonder some areas of disatisfaction were identified – does not mean that you cannot be convinced by a large number of complimentary studies.

Forth, a Fuckwit again

The above information and methods are not difficult to come by. A brief stint on Google gave me a copy of  the survey questions of Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, and a cursory glance showed me that the above comparison is not fair.

Those active in the blogosphere and blogging on science are surly aware of concept of meat-analyses. Although our climate models have not and cannot be subject to a meta-analysis, the concept should not be alien that a large number of small studies – or models – can produce a result greater than its components.

As Tamino has illustrated there really are divergences between models used by the IPCC which may lead to divergences of scientific opionion. But to use the above survey to pour scorn on the whole scientific community is dishonest.

After the leaking of the CRU, Devil’s Kitchen lamented the standards of investigation and quality control of the scientific community. In this posting on climate change he has shown none of the rigour he demands of others.

I try not to propagandise here. I believe there is a time to propagandise but blogging on science is not that time – especially not when you have swearily demanded higher standards from others.

So to conclude, it is you Devil’s Kitchen who is the “Disingenuous Fuckwit of the Day” and the last 1500 words explain exactly why. I make that two Fuckwit Awards for the same post – with 5,376 still to look through I’m sure you’ll have more than a few in the post.

[1] “Deniers” is the prefered term when outright misrepresentation rather than sceptical analysis is the method used, I think this distinction is fair.

[2]

  • 12 on atmospheric modelling
  • 13 on oceanic modelling
  • 14 on the combination of atmospheric and oceanic models
  • 15 on the current state of scientific knowledge of various mechanisms involved in climate modelling
  • 16 on the ability of global models to:
  1. reproduce temperature observations
  2. reproduce precipitation observations
  3. model temperature values for the next 10 years
  4. model temperature values for the next 50 years
  5. model precipitation values for the next 10 years
  6. model precipitation values for the next 50 years
  7. model sea level rise for the next 10 years
  8. model sea level rise for the next 50 years
  9. model extreme events for the next 10 years
  10. model extreme events for the next 50 years
  • 17 on the ability of regional models to:
  1. reproduce temperature observations
  2. reproduce precipitation observations
  3. model temperature values for the next 10 years
  4. model temperature values for the next 50 years
  5. model precipitation values for the next 10 years
  6. model precipitation values for the next 50 years
  7. model sea level rise for the next 10 years
  8. model sea level rise for the next 50 years
  9. model extreme events for the next 10 years
  10. model extreme events for the next 50 years
  • 18 on How relevant is the study of paleoclimatology to the understanding of both climate sensitivity and anthropogenic induced climate change.
  • 19 on How would you rate the ability of paleo models to reproduce proxy temperature observations or proxy precipitation observations.

Filed under: Science

Linky Love for the 13th January

Filed under: Blogging

Help Haiti

A huge 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck Haiti last night. This is one of the worst crises to crisis ridden Haiti.

The extent of the devastation is still unclear but it is likely thousands have died and many many more are trapped in the rubble. The early signs are not good, with communications down across the country Haiti’s large expatriate population are still unclear what has happened to their relatives and friends.

There is very little any of us can do but look on aghast but there are organisation which are helping.

  • Oxfam has long experience in Haiti, and they are rushing in teams from around the region to respond where they’re needed most. They already have a team in Port-au-Prince and their response will include providing clean water, shelter and sanitation. This is where my donation has been directed.
  • UNICEF have issued a statement that “Children are always the most vulnerable population in any natural disaster, and UNICEF is there for them.” UNICEF requests donations for relief for children in Haiti via their Haiti Earthquake Fund.
  • Medicins sand Frontieres are responding to the Earthquake in Haiti with their usual speed and efficiency and any donations would be of a great help.
  • Mercy Corps are also seeking donations so they can expand their aid efforts in Haiti.

More organisations seeking donations are available here. Please help in whatever way you can.

Picture courtest of the BBC, here.

Filed under: Politics

When NGDP is Depressed, Employment is Depressed

Subscribe to Left Outside

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 8,367 other followers

RSS Though Cowards Flinch

RSS Lenin’s Tomb

RSS D Squared Digest

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Stumbling and Mumbling

RSS Blood and Treasure

RSS Britmouse

RSS IOZ

RSS Phil Dickens

RSS Paul Sagar

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Owen

RSS Norm Geras

RSS Steven Baxter

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Jack of Kent

RSS Suggy’s Blog

RSS Adam Smith Institute

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Alex Massie

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Thomas Byrne

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Heresiarch’s Dungeon

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Paul Krugman

RSS David Beckworth

RSS Kantoos Economics

RSS Duncan Black

RSS Noahpinion

RSS Knowing and Making

RSS Ta-Nehisi Coates

RSS Marginal Revolution

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Will Wilkinson

  • Free Will Is Back
  • Are Conditional Transfers Paternalistic?

RSS Unlearning Econ

RSS Acemoglu and Robinson

RSS Mark Thoma

RSS Overcoming Bias

RSS Econbrowser

RSS Macroeconomic Advisors

Increase NGDP, Put These People Back to Work

Follow me on twitter

Archives

Politics Blogs

Testimonials

Paul Sagar

Left Outside is always worth a read for passionate, and frequently irreverent, analysis and comment.

Sunny Hundal

Oi! Enough of the cheek!

Chris Dillow

Left Outside is, I think, entirely wrong

John Band

This might be the least well informed piece I’ve read on LC, which is quite an accolade.

DEC Appeal

License

Creative Commons License
Left Outside by Left Outside is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Based on a work at leftoutside.wordpress.com.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://wp.me/PvyGQ-gt.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,367 other followers