.

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Judith Curry adopts a pet ostrich, Kip Hansen, promoting the Dozen Bright Minds Climate Workshop

Sou | 4:19 PM Go to the first of 81 comments. Add a comment
After attacking scientists who push for open data, Judith Curry now wants to muzzle climate scientists. She promoted another article from a science-denying WUWT-er, who wants to restart climate science research (archived here).

Kip Hansen wants to ban monitoring of at least the following:
  • global mean surface temperature
  • ocean heat content
  • global sea level.
He doesn't say why, but I expect that he's tired of hearing about the "hottest year on record" and the rest, and thinks that if he doesn't know what's happening it can't hurt him.

In a meandering article with much long-winded detail about how he sometimes does a clean install of his computer, Kip Hansen proposes a four day conference, attended by "the right people". A " dozen or two bright, open minds" who would "get together" to decide how to investigate Earth's climate starting from scratch. Kip proposes they would:
...get together and develop an outline which could then be compared to what is currently being done. This might lead to some insight in how to break the current Climate Science deadlock. It might lead to some new ways of thinking about the subject. It might open up new research directions.   It might just help direct the next generation of climate scientists in new directions.

Notice the strawman - "break the current Climate Science deadlock". What deadlock is that? Kip doesn't say.


Kip admits he has no idea of where to start or what questions to ask. What seems clear also is that he has no idea of what research is being and has ever been done that forms the foundation of our current understanding of climate, weather and the Earth system.

Neither does his patron, Judith Curry. She lumps climate science and policy together and says they are in a "really big rut". She also built a straw man and falsely claimed:
Specifically with regards to climate scientists, there is a large number of scientists, including those in influential positions, that regard 100% of the warming to be anthropogenic, and the only scientific challenges are to refine our estimates of radiative forcing and refine climate model parameterizations.  Think Gavin Schmidt, among many others.
What a load of crap. (Gavin Schmidt called her on it.)

Judith went further, and wrote:
What might trigger pushing the reset button?  Well in the U.S., election of any of the Republican presidential candidates might do it.  Funding priorities for scientific research and energy policy would change. Many scientists would be relieved, I’m sure others would be horrified.   If the U.S. climate change funding were to be redirected to be predominantly for natural climate variability, would the rats desert the sinking funding ship and start focusing on natural variability? 
Judith doesn't read science any more, or she'd know that there is a lot of climate research on natural variability. (Perhaps her sole purpose in life these days is to create and promote myths for deniers.) Here are some journals she could open, if she wanted to:

I find it interesting, too, that she advocates that climate research priorities should be politicised and set by the President of the USA. I doubt that past US Presidents have interfered in the way Judith proposes.

I've no idea what was going on in her mind when she wrote:
What research findings, following the current trajectory, might trigger a rethink?  Apart from continuation of a slow rate of warming, I am thinking that failing to close the carbon cycle in a simplistic way might prove to be very illuminating, as well as the satellite observations of atmospheric CO2.
In that, Judith shows she knows nothing about climate. The rate of warming is not slow, it is faster than ever in civilisation and heading for ten times faster than in the past 65 million years. What she means by closing the carbon cycle in a simplistic way I have not the faintest clue. Perhaps she thinks it makes her sound "sciency" to her dim denier fans. Notice how she threw them a bone with her "satellite observations" reference. Deniers love satellites, but I can't see how OCO-2 is going to help their anti-science campaigns.

Then Judith wants to see how hot it can get in ten years by increasing carbon emissions, writing:
From the policy perspective, failure to implement meaningful reductions in carbon emission and to change/improve the climate in a material way could promote a rethinking of this whole thing, but it will be a decade at least before any meaningful evaluation can be made. 
Finally she launches into advocacy, touting her own lack of ethics, implying that being concerned for humanity is unethical, writing:
I think the only practical thing that can be done in the very near term is paying much more attention to research ethics, the traditional norms of science, and the problems generated by scientists that become activists, particularly the journal editors and professional societies.

In Judith's world, the only scientists and ex-scientists who are allowed to be activists are herself, of course, and maybe others who can't wait for the world to burn, such as Richard Lindzen and Willie Soon.

You'll have noticed that Judith was incapable of answering any of Kip's questions. She couldn't even come up with an agenda for his four day bright spark gabfest. So I'll make a suggestion. Here's a program for Kip and Judith and Judith's Republican "allies against science".

The "Dozen Bright Minds" Climate Research Workshop


Day One: Where we are
  • Agreeing workshop objectives and criteria by which to judge it's success
  • Mapping we are now - what we know, what we partly know, knowledge gaps

Day two: Where we want to be
  • Priorities for future research, filling knowledge gaps - looking ahead five years, ten years and twenty years and beyond
  • Priorities for ongoing research - what research is essential to maintain, what areas would suffer significant set-back if research were slowed or stopped (babies and bathwater)
  • Priorities for monitoring changes in climate - what existing metrics must be maintained and what data is needed that we aren't collecting at present
  • Rationale for the above

Day three: How we plan to get there

What is required to deliver the research priorities:
  • Resources - personnel, agencies, equipment, funding
  • Alliances with other disciplines, agencies, research teams and organisations around the world
  • Information - data and its collection, analysis, storage, retrieval, and dissemination

Day four: Tying it together

Consolidating the plan:
  • Finalising the plan framework, objectives, results to be achieved, who does what, criteria by which to judge success
  • Agreeing the next steps (see Post-Workshop)
Monitoring and reporting framework, agreeing:
  • how progress in the plan will be monitored and reported, 
  • by whom and to whom
  • timetable and mechanism for reviewing progress, and revising and amending the plan over time

Post Workshop

Getting buy-in and support:
  • disseminating the plan and getting feedback from the broad research community as well as all the various groups with an interest in the outcome (ultimately, all of humanity)
  • process for revising the plan based on feedback
Implementation pathway:
  • Agreeing the finalised plan (after incorporating feedback) and the implementation pathway

A lot of funding bodies would already be doing all the above, so I don't know that the wheel needs to be reinvented. At the international level, there is the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. However if Judith's Republican deniers do decide to disrupt climate science research, they might consider a workshop along the lines of the above, or something similar, before they burn all the books.

One concern I have is whether or not a "dozen bright minds" will be sufficient. I've no doubt that there are a dozen bright minds who could do the job, the problem I foresee is how to ensure ownership from and commitment to the resulting plan by all the other dozens of bright minds in the world. For example:
  • Which "dozen" disciplines and sub-disciplines would be represented at the expense of all the other research?
  • What about scientists and scientific research organisations in fields related to climate?
  • Should people who have a stake in climate research be invited to participate?
  • If stakeholders are not to be invited, how will the Dozen Bright Minds be informed about their concerns and priorities?
  • Even if stakeholders are to be invited, which ones, and what about all the other stakeholders who aren't. How will their interests be discovered and factored in?
There's more. It's one thing to plan and organise research within an institution, but is it wise or even possible to put strict boundaries around what research can and can't be done by anyone anywhere? What happens when something new is discovered that has important implications for humanity or the world at large? Is it not allowed to be pursued because it doesn't fit Judith Curry's notion of what is important? Should the President of the USA dictate what climate research is allowed and what is not?

As for Kip Hansen's initial suggestion that the world stops monitoring changes and stops collecting data on weather, sea level and ocean heat content - that would set the world on a certain road to disaster.

81 comments:

  1. Well, why not. Jane Lubchenko tells a story in which she went to Congress to get $$ for NOAA weather satellites.

    Congressman: Why do we need these expensive weather satellites when we have the Weather Chanel?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can believe it. I shouldn't, but I can :(

      Delete
  2. And there you have it. With more analysis, wit and detail than anybody could reasonably expect form a rapid response science blog.
    Many sites have highly trained astrophysicist, great great stats guys, smart social scientists and a whole bunch of giants of climate science but to my knowledge none have or could produce stuff like this in a couple of hours.

    Yes OK this piece on Dr Curry was a bit like shooting fish in a barrel but Sou has not seen it that way. Her writing standards are exceptional and her speed nudges the impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I bet Judy wishes she could push the restart button for her blog

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I fear you are entirely mistaken, and Judith is quite genuinely very proud of her blog.

      Delete
    2. I think you're entirely right.

      It was just whimsy. I was pretending there could be more to her :)

      Delete
  4. Using the same ridiculous logic Kip Hansen should cover the instrument panel in his car. All these trivial indicators don't really vary much even when spinning his wheels in the mud. As his speed indicator only varies a tiny bit compared to the speed of light. It can be ignored just as temperature of the Earth does not vary compared to zero degrees Kelvin.

    Better still he should paint his windscreen as then all collision targets will simply disappear!

    I am sure he would gladly board a jet air liner where the pilots have no pesky instruments to distract them. The Wright brothers got along fine without them.

    My autistic mate would call him a moron! I have no opinion of how brain damaged Kip Hansen is. It is difficult to measure delusion and projection without instruments. Bert

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bert Kip is not the problem here.

      Delete
  5. "Or is a major portion of the entire 'scientific' endeavor we call Climate Skepticism just an exercise in spinning our wheels, getting the subject mired further and further into the mud?"

    You could say that, Kip

    ReplyDelete
  6. "A dozen or two bright, open minds who would get together to decide how to investigate Earth's climate starting from scratch"

    That is a tacit admission that, for all the billions of dollars spent by the fossil fuel industry, they have not been able to attract the "bright open minds" to their cause.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "...as well as the satellite observations of atmospheric CO2."

    Which satellite measures atmospheric CO2???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, JC's just rooted some nonsense up from last year about the OCO-2 satellite data. See here and here for rational discussion of the idiocy.

      Delete
    2. AIRS, GOSAT and OCO-2 off the top of my head. There may be more.

      Delete
    3. Didn't know they measured CO2 directly. I always focused on Mauna Loa and Antarctica readings.

      Thanks.

      Delete
    4. There is a Japanese one that estimates CO2. I cannot recall it's name.

      Delete
    5. This is akin to satellite temperature analyses, which do *not* measure temperature directly, but use very complex calculations to derive CO2 concentrations.
      For the US satellites:
      Google: NOAA satellites CO2

      Then there is Cheshire Claim: Rupert Darwall Copies Satellite CO2 Nonsense From Murry Salby, my long post on their misuse of the European ENVISAT SCIAMACHY work.

      The remote sensing folks are very, very clever, and they have to be, because this work is really, really hard, and it is all too easy for results to be misinterpreted.

      Delete
  8. Mosher is loyal to Curry but he's clearly treading on shells on Climate etc. His science is forcing him in one direction (in lock step with Phil Jones) whilst Curry is disappearing in the rear vision mirror. How does he handle this on Climate Etc? Gutlessly of course.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since my comment Mosher has become very active indeed and in the right direction.

      Delete
  9. Lol, you know your in the Sh1t as soon as some says "let's workshop it"

    It's when tragedy turns into farce

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, it's going well over there, the engineers have turned up and, once they've sorted out the liability cover, they'll get climate science working again.

      Delete
  10. once the "second law of thermodynamics" gets quoted in any conspiracy thread, you know you are right in loonyville

    ReplyDelete
  11. Maybe they could call their replacement for the surface temperature record "BESTEST". When that one doesn't give them the answer they need they can get another dozen skeptics to create "EVEN BESTER".

    ReplyDelete
  12. If Judith Curry is truly concerned about "the problems generated by scientists that become activists", she should do her bit to relieve the problem by keeping her big yap shut.

    Lurker

    ReplyDelete
  13. If curry is so concerned with natural variability why is she happy to only use UAH temperature data from 1998. Does she not realise the glaring inconsistency?

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Very Reverend Jebediah HypotenuseFebruary 4, 2016 at 6:12 AM

    I like Dr Curry's blog.

    It's one of the funniest blogs on the internet.

    We're talking about a person who has lauded the works of Montfort, Wegman, and Salby.

    We're talking about a person who plays the village heretic in partisan political theatre so she can complain about activist scientists and the politicization of science.

    We're talking about a person who believes that uncertainty is ignorance and that the scientific consensus is the result of a nefarious inside job.

    We're talking about a person who still thinks that 'climate-gate' was a crucial event in the history of civilization as we know it.

    Her 'denizens' lap it up. Ego fed. Mission accomplished.

    Some people get worked up about her shtick - I'm not sure why...

    Climate science has nothing to fear from her collection of "I don't like it", "That's not True Science", and "Look here - I'm the next Galileo!" blog-posts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You should check how Michael Tobis lists Curry's blog on his blog. Hint, it is a word that starts with a B and ends with ONKERS.

      Delete
  15. A restart. Interesting new tactic from Dr Curry and co to discredit climate science. It reminds me of the fallacy(?) of repeating an experiment in the hope you will get a different result.

    I wish they would stop with the philosophy of science Karl Popper thing. After reading some of the comments I was ready to gnaw off my own arm in frustration.

    It makes a change from channeling Dr Richard Feynman high school lectures I guess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed. Maybe if we 'restart' biology the creationists will be vindicated.

      Lurker

      Delete
    2. But where does the process begin? Maybe we need to restart religion first.

      Delete
    3. Science is all we have to make something rational out of all the absurdity of our senses.

      Religion fails as it gets bogged down in dogma.

      Science takes new evidence on board and changes its mind.

      Ignorant twits think they can do it better. Their tiny minds are limited only by their lack of imagination.

      I just do not know why I bother, I could be flying my aircraft that lands on water more than once into a tropical lagoon ....... Bert


      Delete
  16. Kip's do-over suggestion sounds similar to the rhetoric coming from the Berkley Earth folks when they set out to reanalyze all the data, start from scratch, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...and that little 'restart' ended so well for Curry

      Delete
    2. I didn't sign up for this! I was promised......
      never mind.

      Delete
  17. So Kip the Missionary wants a restart? I suggest we start with Richard Lindzen circa mid 1960's and his failed attempt at generating a model for QBO. Skip forward to today, and we have a plausible theory that matches the data nicely:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20160203214100/http://contextearth.com/
    2016/02/03/if-the-glove-dont-fit/

    Too bad that Lindzen stalled progress in atmospheric climate science for over 40 years with his ineptitude. I bet he will want a redo, too :)

    Kip, beware of what you ask for. It may come true.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Looks like Turnbull's innovation is starting to take hold.
    Innovation is shutting down Climate Science in CSIRO!

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-04/climate-science-on-chopping-block-as-csiro-braces-for-shake-up/7139224

    "CSIRO chief executive Larry Marshall said the changes would see the organisation move away from measuring and monitoring climate change, to instead focus on how to adapt to it."

    The minister Pyne is painting this as an organisational decision.

    I am too saddened and angry to pass any more comment. Bert



    ReplyDelete
  19. Sounds to me like she's calling for a Lysenko style purge. Nowadays,every time I read one of these "scientists" that name immediately comes to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "From the policy perspective, failure to implement meaningful reductions in carbon emission and to change/improve the climate in a material way could promote a rethinking of this whole thing, but it will be a decade at least before any meaningful evaluation can be made. " --- It's the frog in the pot on the stove, not noticing the rising temperature, that I think of.

    When I think of the changes I've noticed (in person and in world news) in the past two three decades, I'm terrified of what the next decade will bring, let along the period beyond that. It's like they have no conception of all we have already lost. Or that we are locking-in a huge system with massive momentum and forcing a very rough future for Earth and her inhabitants, whether at 55 mph, or 65 mph really don't make a bit of difference.

    But why would Curry care about the long term future, she's an old fart like me, guaranteed to miss the real fun. She's queen of her ant hill and loves it - immediate gratification, nothing quite like it.

    That intelligent people can look at all transitioning "natural" trends on this planet and the transitions we've already witnessed at this earliest stage of our Grande Geophysical Experiment - and think nothing is changing or threatening and that we still have foreeva to figure things out, is nothing less than stupefying.

    That intelligent people can turn so hubristic and down right sociopathic is heartbreaking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "From the policy perspective, failure to implement meaningful reductions in carbon emission and to change/improve the climate in a material way could promote a rethinking of this whole thing, but it will be a decade at least before any meaningful evaluation can be made."

      We cannot get sensible gun control through Congress, so let's reexamine mechanics and see if bullets can really kill people.

      Delete
    2. Silly goose: The NRA answered that question years ago. "Bullets do not kill people, people kill people."

      :-o

      Delete
  21. Ummm.. I've read the entire post at Judith Curry's place, and I didn't see anything which indicated that Kip wanted to "ban monitoring of ... global mean surface temperature".

    Rather, he said we should (re)consider what metrics are most important. There's nothing there about banning measurements of any kind.

    There are plenty of stuff the skeptics do say that we can honestly criticize. Do we have to start making up stuff?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you want to be a bit pedantic and not allow Sou any artistic licence as well as being a bit nitpicking - then you may be technically correct.

      The words Sou highlights obviously are intended to mean Kip thinks these activities are a waste of time and should be discontinued. I think the existence of his 12 bright things directing what should be studied amounts to him wanting a ban.

      Delete
    2. No, even saying "I don't think this is the best useof our money" is very, very far from a ban.

      And I don't even think he said that. Kip just wants to put everything out on the table for consideration, as far as I can tell.

      C'mon, we're scientists. We don't need to use artistic license; we can make our points using facts and evidence. Or if not, then they're probably not worth making.

      I disdain the deniers' approach because it relies so heavily on distortion and fuzzy thinking. I'd be disappointed if people here start falling to the same level.

      Delete
    3. By the way, if someone wants to re-examine what metrics are most important for climate and climate change, more power to them.

      I doubt they'll find anything new, but I think it's a very useful exercise for the vast majority of interested non-scientists, who probably haven't examined these metrics and their importance even once.

      It's kinda like most homework in college courses: you're not doing new work, just re-doing old work to help you understand it.

      Delete
    4. Sorry, Windchasers, but methinks you are tone trolling here. The likes of Dr. Curry and Kip Hansen have already made it apparent through their actions/viewpoints on many issues concerning AGW over the years that they are partisan political animals.

      They try to dress up their 'skepticism' as science, but when you've been following these people as long as most of the readers here have, you can see right through all their bullshit. They are not honest brokers. Not even remotely.

      Delete
    5. Windchaser, in the article I linke to where Kip Hansen wrote:

      Is the seemingly unending battle over tiny changes in metrics such as LOTI (Land-Ocean Temperature Index), ocean heat content, Annual Global Mean Temperature Anomaly Over Land & Sea (and its plethora of alphabet/version variations), fledgling measurements of global sea level rise, [and the list goes on] . . . is this the purpose of Climate Science? Can we justify the effort and resources being spent on this activity? Does any of it produce new understanding of the Earth’s climate or lead us to answers about potential solutions to changing climate?

      Do you agree with Kip that monitoring climate change is a waste of effort and resources? Do you think it should be discontinued as he is suggesting? Do you think that he's not suggesting it can't be justified?

      Delete
    6. Metzomagic, I've been following the issue a long time. I'm not a fan of most of what's posted on Curry's blog.

      But that's no excuse for making up stuff. Sorry.

      If you want to call a strict adherence to distortion-free analysis "tone trolling".. well, I think you're misusing the term.

      Call it what you will, but it's dishonest, and it's something that we shouldn't be doing. If you can't rebuke someone without distorting what they say, then you've got a problem. The fact that Curry is wrong on so many other blogs isn't an excuse for making up stuff here.

      So no, it's not about tone. It's about what's correct and what's not.

      Delete
    7. Do you think that he's not suggesting it can't be justified?

      Reading the entire blog post, I think he's suggesting that we should give everything a look, and consider what's justified and what's not. That is the overall tone of the post and the comments. Not "this is wrong", but "let's examine our premises and see which ones are justified".

      For instance, Kip said:
      "If we started to investigate the Earth’s climate from first principles, where would we start? What questions would we seek to answer?"
      -- and --
      It should be obvious to all that I am out of my depth here – in over my head – let me be the first to point this out. I don’t know what questions should even be asked.

      In other words, he seems to be genuinely asking questions. Which is a great place to start, so long as you actually follow through and look for the answers.

      I suspect that upon giving it such a look, he'd agree that measuring surface temperatures is necessary.

      The problem here is not that Kip is asking questions about climate science. It's that many of these questions have already been well-answered, and Kip seems to be unaware of that.

      Delete
    8. K. Hansen: "Is the seemingly unending battle over tiny changes in metrics...the purpose of climate science?"

      This is not a sincere question. It's rhetorical bilge.

      What 'battle'? The imaginary one in which blog naysayers place themselves centrally?

      'tiny changes' in large numbers involve large amounts of energy. Interest in the satellite record and its recent divergence is technically important. Even a 'sincere' amateur should understand this.

      Delete
    9. Metzomagic is almost right. Windchasers is doing more than tone trolling, she (or he) has called me a liar more than once, and justifies it by arguing that Kip Hansen didn't mean the words that he wrote.

      If Kip didn't mean what he wrote then he should have written something different, and probably would have.

      Delete
    10. Windchasers apologises on behalf of Kip Hansen and argues he didn't really mean what he wrote when he suggested that monitoring climate change can't be justified, saying: "In other words, he seems to be genuinely asking questions. Which is a great place to start, so long as you actually follow through and look for the answers. "

      The entire article by Kip Hansen is an example of concern trolling. Concern trolls present themselves as reasonable and very nice, agreeable people who basically agree but just have one little concern.

      Kip is a science denier from way back who favours WUWT. He is usually very nice about it, but just "concerned". Maybe climate science is on the right track, but then again maybe it's all a hoax, and before we jump to the conclusion that it's real, maybe we should start over from scratch and in another 165 years we might have an answer.

      Kip might be "nice" and agreeable and a very lovely chap all around. He's a climate science denier through and through. It's not nice to delay action to mitigate climate change. It's wrong and nasty, even when it comes from seemingly nice people.

      Deniers are not innocent

      Delete
    11. Sou, I love most of what you write. I come to your site every day. But I think you're wrong on this one. I think you're distorting what Kip is saying.

      Yes, Kip is wrong. Not in that he thinks we should "ban monitoring" of surface temperatures - he never said that. Didn't say anything close.

      He's wrong because he's apparently unaware of the premises underlying climate science and all the work that has been done, but thinks it should be re-examined anyway.

      Again: this is not about tone, not in the slightest. It's about an accurate representation of what someone is saying.

      Delete
    12. Windchaser, if you apologise for falsely accusing me, more than once, of lying, I'll allow you for re-interpreting what Kip wrote as being something different from what he actually wrote. I'll disagree with your interpretation, but I'll allow you to interpret it as you please.

      You've already given your version of "an accurate representation" of what someone is saying when they ask if monitoring temperature, ocean heat and sea level "can be justified". I don't agree with your interpretation, but I won't call you a liar.

      (It's one thing for you to interpret what he actually wrote differently to him suggesting we stop it, it's quite another thing for you to accuse me of lying when I interpret it as him wanting to stop it.)

      Delete
    13. I actually meant *concern* trolling, not tone trolling. Sorry, very long day at the office and getting late here. Thanks for the correction, Sou.

      And what both Kip and Windchasers are doing is *textbook* concern trolling:

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll

      Delete
    14. "Didn't say anything close."

      So, Windchaser, if it was not anything close, how did this discussion happen? Spontaneous creation from the primeval ooze?

      Delete
    15. The thing about questioning the value of monitoring climate change is that this monitoring is crucial. If there were a higher category than "essential" than monitoring change would fit. If we don't keep an eye on what is happening, how quickly, and where - what hope have we of responding to the signals?

      What happens when sea level accelerates further but we don't notice how much it's risen till the next cyclone and storm surge?

      What happens when land surface temperatures have crept up, but we only notice it when the number of "catastrophic" fire danger days is 20 a year instead of three a year?

      For someone to even hint at a suggestion that this monitoring is a waste of resources is foolish. To say it outright as Kip Hansen did is beyond foolish. To be an apologist for someone who suggests this is ...

      Delete
    16. So, Windchaser, if it was not anything close, how did this discussion happen? Spontaneous creation from the primeval ooze?

      As far as I can tell, JD, if you say "I'm not sure if we should do X", some people will interpret that as "we shouldn't do X". They take your uncertainty as a statement about the certainty of science or scientists or general public knowledge.

      Reading Kip's words, he says over and over again that he doesn't know. That he's not qualified. That there are better people to handle these questions.

      To me, that means "I don't know". I can't see how that can be interpreted as "climate scientists are wrong on this". Rather, he comes across as genuinely unsure of what is the correct way to approach this. As many climate skeptics and deniers are! (Unsurprisingly.)

      In contrast, Curry is all-too-willing to say that scientists don't know nuffin', even about questions that have been very carefully studied for quite some time.

      Just as Kip would be wrong to conflate his own ignorance with what climate scientists don't know, it's also wrong to conflate his questions with an accusation that climate scientists are measuring the wrong things. He says he doesn't know, and I think we should take him at his word.

      And this should go without saying, but Kip's ignorance has very little bearing on what policies we should be enacting.

      I welcome and encourage this questioning attitude; it's the first step towards understanding the science. So long as he also takes the next step, and cracks open a book on the subject and educate himself.

      Delete
    17. The thing is, we'll get to see exactly how the Kip Hansen/Judith Curry repriming of science will work, because the venture capitalist who's now running the CSIRO is basically doing exactly what they want.

      Vale Australian science.

      Delete
    18. Reading Kip's words, he says over and over again that he doesn't know. That he's not qualified. That there are better people to handle these questions.

      Another one straight out of the denier handbook: Kip is "just asking questions". That just *might* be acceptable behaviour if he didn't have a whole boatload of prior history on this. He's the resident troll-in-chief over at places like Andy Revkin's.

      Delete
    19. Again, there's nothing wrong with asking questions, so long as you don't:

      - project your own ignorance onto everyone else, or
      - use that as an excuse to avoid taking action.

      Questions are good. Using questions as an excuse to cover for laziness is not.

      Delete
    20. Give it a rest Windchasers. As metzomagic says, Kip is a long term denier. He's been commenting on denier blogs so long that he can be classed as a disinformer, not merely a denier, since there is no excuse for him to not have learnt something about climate. He's been at WUWT since well before HW got off the ground.

      I'll regard your refusal to apologise to me in the manner in which you unmistakably intend it, and in the same light as your defense of Kip Hansen's nonsense.

      Delete
    21. "Reading Kip's words, he says over and over again that he doesn't know. That he's not qualified. That there are better people to handle these questions."

      Oddly, Kip and Wind apparently have failed to notice that the persons who actually are "better people to handle these questions" nearly unanimously disagree with their "concerns".

      And, I don't know about "project[ing] your own ignorance onto everyone else", but I would say that Kip and Wind are certainly projecting their own ignorance onto said better people.

      Delete
    22. Lolwut, jgnfld? I normally get called an alarmist. My position is nearly identical with that of the IPCC.

      I'm going to reject the tribalist notion that if I have any disagreements with you whatsoever, then I must be part of "the other side". Scientists disagree with each other all the time, and yet they manage to still agree on most stuff.

      Case in point, I think. I certainly don't share Kip's belief that climate science needs a reboot.

      Sou, the only thing that I intend to convey is that I still think you're wrong on this; that what you claimed Kip said was not supportable by what he actually said in the links you provided here as supporting evidence.

      Still a big fan of your blog otherwise. Keep up the good work.

      Delete
    23. Perhaps we could summarise Kip's position as "I've no idea what you (the climate scientists) are doing, but I'm sure you're doing it wrong"?

      Delete
    24. Not impressed (with Windchasers comments). One way I judge people is their willingness to see another point of view. I don't care much about politeness on a blog normally, but there are lines that I draw.

      I couldn't care less whether or not Windchasers accepts climate science. My beef was with her (or him) arriving as my guest at HotWhopper to call me a liar multiple times, and refusing to apologise.

      That's very rude. It's trollish (Tol-ish) behaviour in my book.

      Delete
    25. Windchaser is much to generous towards Kip Curry. ("Kip" is chicken in Dutch.)

      However, not funding is not the same as banning.

      Curry and the Republican politicians she puts her hope in could not stop the funding of the measurement of the global mean surface temperature. They are made for meteorology, not climatology. They are made by 200 sovereign countries, not just by the USA.

      Delete
    26. We kunnen de klimaatrevisionisten in het Nederlands aanspreken, hebben ze waarschijnlijk ook niet van terug :)

      Delete
    27. Windy, Kip is pushing a framing of climate science that is completely at odds with reality, but entirely in tune with pseudo-skeptical wishful thinking.

      It's a massive exercise in projection, and distortion..an outsider pretending to be an insider. A fictional account of a field.

      Then Curry adds her disingenuous handwringing at the end...it's a double act of concern trolling by two simply academically irrelevant people, who have been given prominence for their willingness to fabricate imaginary realities in the service of professional denialism.

      Curry has been quoted in 'The Australian' newspaper on the CSIRO cuts, making completely ignorant comments about CSIRO Ocean and Atmosphere's research. The technique is the same as K.Hansen's: handwringing [science has lost its way, let's start again?], brazen misdirection [they shouldna being playing IPCC games], making stuff up [they should have been concentrating on southern hemisphere science].
      O&A *were* concentrating on SH science, as their publication record clearly indicates. Curry just lied about it.

      Delete
    28. Reply to Windchasers ==> Yes, maybe Miriam didn't actually read the essay, just looked for snippets to misquote/misunderstand.

      You are absolutely right, I asked this question:

      "Is the seemingly unending battle over tiny changes in metrics such as LOTI (Land-Ocean Temperature Index), ocean heat content, Annual Global Mean Temperature Anomaly Over Land & Sea (and its plethora of alphabet/version variations), fledgling measurements of global sea level rise, [and the list goes on] . . . is this the purpose of Climate Science? Can we justify the effort and resources being spent on this activity? Does any of it produce new understanding of the Earth’s climate or lead us to answers about potential solutions to changing climate?"

      It is a serious scientific question. I certainly am not the first to pose it.

      There is no suggestion that such records should not be kept or such metrics should not be followed -- it is the endless battle....the re-configuration, re-analysis, bickering, etc about very tiny changes in these metrics that may be a waste of research efforts. Just a simple count of how many different versions of surface temperature there are shows at least a lot of duplication of effort -- and the results are so close to one another that it seems to be wasted effort and wasted research dollars.

      Miriam does not like be contradicted -- and does not like folks pointing out that she accuses her victims of saying things they didn't (no matter how true that is...).

      Thanks for your support of accuracy in reporting and fair play.

      My essay asks a lot of questions, provides no answers and calls for a disinterested top-flight professional review of the scientific field we call Climate Science. How that can be a threat to anyone, I really don't know.

      Delete
    29. "Is the seemingly unending battle over tiny changes in metrics...is this the purpose of Climate Science?"

      That's not a serious scientific question, it's a tiring bit of concern trolling. You know that Kip. The 'unending battle' is a framing and a fiction. It's rhetoric. The battle is all in your mind.

      The reason why there are several takes on global mean temperature is because 'serious inquirers ' insist that the numbers are fudged. It's all for you 'skeptics' Kip, don't you feel special?

      If you're concerned about a waste of research efforts, accept that competent people have answered your questions...a long time ago.

      Delete
  22. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thank you. I've been trying to point past Kip and his ilk for years. In his Dotearth guest post cited here, he failed to note Andy Revkin wasn't promoting his views, indicated in both his "Editor's Picks":

    "I honestly think Andy wanted to give Kip all the rope he needed...The outcome was predictable, and not pretty."

    "If I were Andy I'd get tired of always being criticized by everyone who never swings a bat, so I'd gave kip a bat and send him up to the plate too."

    Back in the day, climate science denial was popular at DotEarth, and the truth barely got a word in. Andy is a popular and famous guy who gets invited everywhere (Pope Francis had him at his conference last year while producing Laudato Si, and he got an AGU award for communication recently). He's a difficult case: a personable chap, with a "can't we all get along together" attitude and a tendency to endorse fracking and ignore truly clean energy. He appears to have stopped buddying with Pielke Jr. but in scientific circles has earned some opprobrium for his willful blindness to the seriousness of our situation.

    Unfortunately, giving people like Kip a platform only gives them a line on their list of accomplishments, and lends power to their elbow. Like one of those toys that always bounces back up.

    ReplyDelete
  24. windchasers, setting aside your personal attacks, people like Kip are the most difficult to overcome because they are plausible. I'm sorry you went south here, but after many years of regular attacks from Kip, who sounds quite plausible but never weighs in on the side of truth, you should be able to identify his victim, which is climate science. He and his colleagues' stock in trade is politeness, but I prefer rude truth to polite dishonesty.

    Here's his most recent, which I have replied to in situ:

    "eGads! "The main objective of the meeting is to increase the efficiency and impact of communications of I.P.C.C. findings across the world."

    Now that they have "settled" on political findings (the science portions being far different from the political summaries), they need help not in normal communication -- if their efforts were to simply communicate obviously true findings, it would be easy -- and they would have had success. As it is, only the choir is listening to them. Now they want new propaganda efforts.

    A new propaganda effort will backfire -- the harder they push, it will only become more apparent that they have overblown uncertain results, push continually unfulfilled predictions, and have generally mucked up the whole field.

    The tide is beginning to turn. More propaganda will produce more push back -- not only from the public, but from politicians, and senior climate scientists as they achieve positions (tenure, retirement, etc) that allow them to resist the usual pressures that prevent so many from speaking out.

    It won't be fast, but it will come....


    If you are honestly an "alarmist" you will see that this is not honest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. clarification, years of personal attacks on me and my colleagues at DotEarth from Kip, wmar, Kurt, and the a posse who have taken possession of DotEarth, which is the New York Times' only climate blog, sadly.

      It fits management policy, which is not exactly to lie, but to allow false balance on a regular basis. For example, in the recent Congressional temperature record witchhunt, there was a good but overly neutral article on Rep. Lamar Smith's crusade to shut down NOAA's temperature record reporting (two weeks late), an OpEd from Smith himself, a dishonest piece by Paul Thacker
      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/opinion/sunday/scientists-give-up-your-emails.html
      and a clear one from Mike Mann (I make that 1 3/4 for truth, 1/4 neutral, and 2 for attack dogs). There was no report at all on Sen. Ted Cruz's nonsense that followed.

      For a good review of the temperature record nonsense accessible to a sufficiently informed layperson, Dr. Swanson's letter to Rep. Smith quoted here: "UAH TLT Series Not Trustworthy:
      http://rabett.blogspot.com/2015/12/uah-tlt-series-not-trustworthy.html

      For background on Ted Cruz's attack, here:
      https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/ted-cruz-just-plain-wrong/

      (sorry, couldn't get html right, please cut/paste links for access)

      Delete
    2. Reply to Susan ==> Thank you for re-posting my DotEarth comment here -- I like the exposure.

      You are being disingenuous when you say "years of personal attacks on me and my colleagues at DotEarth from Kip," -- You know that is simply not true. I do not post personal attacks, on you or anyone else. (I have no idea who you think are your "colleagues" at Dot Earth.) I often post comments that contradict or that are quite the opposite of your point of view -- which is not the same thing at all. That is the purpose of comment sections -- too have a chance to state one's own point of view or opinions.

      Delete
  25. My thanks to Miriam O’Brien for mentioning my recent essay at Judith Curry's "Climate Etc." blog -- I consider it a badge of honor that she considers my meager contributions to the efforts to set things in Climate Science right important enough to warrant a full-blown personal attack here. It would have been better if she has actually read the essay, of course, but no one is perfect.

    You can read it here : http://archive.is/nUBBg

    Read the comment section too.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not the first badge you've had, Kip. Eg http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/10/the-latest-conspiracy-theory-from-wuwt.html

      Given you have made a minor career of being a fake sceptic who writes for climate conspiracy blogs, it might not be the last.

      Delete
    2. Reply to Miriam ==> Thank you for this, I hadn't realized that you had honored me in the past. Keep up the good work. Your attacks place me amongst some of the best company in the world.

      (I see that you didn't understand that essay either...not to worry, you certainly weren't alone on that one -- it was a pretty deep "philosophy of measurement" question.)

      Delete
    3. "...my meager contributions to the efforts to set things in Climate Science right..."

      Pfft. You have no idea how on the money you are there, Kip. The idea that you have established that anything is wrong in CS is also risible.

      Why are you such a delusional nutcase, Kip?

      Delete
    4. "I see that you didn't understand that essay..."

      I see that you still don't understand the science, so it's no surprise that you imagine that Sou doesn't "understand" that essay...

      Delete
    5. Kip Hansen writes: it was a pretty deep "philosophy of measurement"

      LOL. No, it was pretty deep in B.S.

      For instance, you wrote: You cannot average away original measurement error.... Oh really? Funny, I do it every day. Hundreds (thousands?) of other calibration labs do it every day. The instruments we calibrate are then used to machine, fabricate, and test millions of parts and products.

      Averaging away original measurement error is one of the most basic techniques in metrology - you know, the science of measurement.

      Oh, and the whole idea that these measurements are imaginary is just denial wrapped in pseudoscience. It's quite obvious you know very little about metrology. LIGO's laser interferometers are able to detect slight changes in length to 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. That's 1 part in a billion trillion. Please go tell them to stop measuring imaginary gravity waves emitted billions of years ago.

      Just because you are Sergeant Schultz ("I know nothing!"), doesn't mean that everyone else is as ignorant as you.

      Delete
    6. Since Kip seems to yearn for infamy, I've promoted my response to here.

      Delete

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.