Tim Worstall

Hansen Responds to McIntyre

Well, yes.

For example, the urban warming that we estimate (and remove) is larger than that used by the other groups (as discussed in 2001 Hansen et al. reference above).

Err, isn’t that what the argument is about? Your methods?

There’s more, of course.

The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children.

This is the considered view of one of the world’s leading climate change scientists. Having read this I’m a great deal more worried than I was before.

He’s barking. "Captains of industry" do not determine what people do. They respond to the demands of the populace as voted for with their dollars, each and every one having an equal vote. If you want to blame someone then one must blame the consumer: we have met the enemy and he is us, in Pogo’s words. Our time preferences are out of whack perhaps.

But this is James Hansen for goodness sakes! A barking moonbat, blaming everything on Biiiig Ooooooil!

Christ, amazed the Jooos don’t make it in there too.

In

27 responses

  1. Philip Thomas Avatar
    Philip Thomas

    My dad, now retired, was senior management of a very big car company. Next phone home, I’ll have to tell him he’s killed the planet. He set out to achieve a lot in life but even he never expected to manage that much.

    Reply
  2. Jim Avatar
    Jim

    Yeah, how crazy must you be to believe that oil companies have funded efforts to attack and undermine the scientific evidence for AGW!!! Oh, hold on, of course they have. So why are you making James Hansen out to be the crazy one?

    Reply
  3. StuartA Avatar
    StuartA

    Err, isn’t that what the argument is about? Your methods?
    Not really, no. It was about some slightly wrong data, which had negligible effect on the global temperature preductions, as you will have seen in Hansen’s response. It was misrepresented and blown out of proportion by right-wing ideologues in an entirely unscientific manner.
    They respond to the demands of the populace as voted for with their dollars, each and every one having an equal vote.
    Another re-run of the “buying is democracy” line, then. Each dollar may count as an equal vote, but plainly each person does not have equal influence. Most of the world has essentially no influence via this means, including many people in areas of the world predicted to be most affected by global warming.
    Meanwhile, “Big Oil” is lobbying against anti-global warming measures, including the Pigovian taxes that even you admit are needed to mitigate their externalising of costs. Yet in your world the profit maximising obligations of those “Captains of Industry” apparently absolve them of moral responsibility — the consumers made them do it.
    If you want to blame someone then one must blame the consumer
    Presumably you will be advocating Monbiot-style spartan living, then. It’s strange I haven’t seen you do this.

    Reply
  4. Chris Avatar
    Chris

    Maybe because his analysis has been shown to be based on flawed data, which reduces the amount of change in temperature in the last 40 years by half. Suddenly that extremely scary 0.7 degree change becomes 0.4 degrees.
    Nowhere in his rebuttal does he reveal the algorithms used to produce his data. Nowhere does he show that the reverse-engineered algorithm is incorrect. In fact, he merely adjusts his data, accounting for the error he didn’t know existed, and continues chugging along the same path.
    Really, a scientist defending his methods by invoking the specter of the “royalty” of industry, and accusing his detractors of actively seeking to produce a “tipping point” that will destroy “Creation” for “our children”. That was not a scientific defense, that was an ad hominem attack with charts.

    Reply
  5. Tim Newman Avatar
    Tim Newman

    Yeah, how crazy must you be to believe that oil companies have funded efforts to attack and undermine the scientific evidence for AGW!!!
    This should be of no concern to anyone if the scientific evidence for AGW is sound.

    Reply
  6. StuartA Avatar
    StuartA

    Maybe because his analysis has been shown to be based on flawed data, which reduces the amount of change in temperature in the last 40 years by half.
    It has, as Hansen points out, an “invisible” effect on global temperature.
    Nowhere in his rebuttal does he reveal the algorithms used to produce his data.
    He points readers to the 2001 paper which, being a scientific paper unlike his response to Fox et al., does describe the algorithms used.
    Really, a scientist defending his methods by invoking the specter of the “royalty” of industry… blah
    No, he accepted Macintyre’s correction. He then attacked the right-wing press and other global warming deniers for hugely exaggerating the import of this.

    Reply
  7. Niels Avatar
    Niels

    “He’s barking. “Captains of industry” do not determine what people do. They respond to the demands of the populace as voted for with their dollars, each and every one having an equal vote. ”
    Only where your average “voter” is smarter than your average PR person.
    It is a little hysterical, I’ll grant you, but not entirely without merit.

    Reply
  8. Tim Newman Avatar
    Tim Newman

    CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil
    Presumably Hansen has done some research into the production figures of the world’s oil companies before bringing this topic up, which leaves me to wonder why he has mentioned ExxonMobil.

    Reply
  9. StuartA Avatar
    StuartA

    Presumably Hansen has done some research into the production figures of the world’s oil companies before bringing this topic up, which leaves me to wonder why he has mentioned ExxonMobil.
    Considering he’s talking about “attempts to discredit evidence of climate change”, ExxonMobile would seem to be the most relevant, on account of their funding of the CEI, etc. What do production figures have to do with that?

    Reply
  10. Jim Avatar
    Jim

    “This should be of no concern to anyone if the scientific evidence for AGW is sound.”
    That’s delightful – these attempts to mislead me are irrelevant because I have decided I am in full agreement with them. And yet I suppose you regard yourself as a ‘sceptic’.

    Reply
  11. pogo Avatar
    pogo

    StuartA: Not really, no. It was about some slightly wrong data, which had negligible effect on the global temperature preductions, as you will have seen in Hansen’s response. It was misrepresented and blown out of proportion by right-wing ideologues in an entirely unscientific manner.
    No. The “unscientific” bit was the combination of (a) the error existing in the first place, and (b) the lack of publically-available data and methodology that meant that the error was not picked up for the best part of seven years, and then it was by reverse-engineering performed by a complete “outsider”.
    As to “blown out of proportion”… The error itself may have been small, but you fail to appreciate the magnitude of what it might indicate. It was contained in what is considered to be the “gold standard” of temperature databases, and a stupid error like this serves only to cast doubt on all the other non-published data and methods – which appears to be the majority of it.
    Science demands openness, it’s the very basis of the scientific method fergodsake!
    Also, to pick up a point in another of your postings, “describing” an algorithm is not the same as publishing the code.

    Reply
  12. Philip Thomas Avatar
    Philip Thomas

    Come off it, Stuart. These captains of industry are people like my Dad, not moustache-twiddling villains from silent films. They’re trying to earn an honest living by giving people what they want and the economy what it needs. We’re so quick to complain about the oil, power, car companies and yet so slow to recognise how much our great quality of life is a consequence, direct and indirect, of their efforts. Economics, like politics, isn’t some polarised field of heroes and villians and trying to to force it to be (however, natural it may be to do so) further clouds an already complicated state of affairs.

    Reply
  13. Philip Thomas Avatar
    Philip Thomas

    Oh, BTW, on the subject of science, this is hugely embarrassing. Having a significant flaw in your data pointed out is a big deal and he’s bound to take it personally. It’s one of the problems with getting contrary results published in a peer-reviewed system. Arguments in journals tend to be quite rare, but when they happen you can always read the spite between the lines.

    Reply
  14. StuartA Avatar
    StuartA

    [A] stupid error like this serves only to cast doubt on all the other non-published data and methods – which appears to be the majority of it.
    I assume you have no evidence for the idea that the “majority of it” (whatever “it” is, exactly) is unpublished. Vast amounts of climate change analysis and data are published.
    The error did not have a major effect on global temperature estimation, as discussed, pace Fox et al. Even if there were similar errors elsewhere, this incident does not provide reason to believe they would discredit the overall analysis as it stands. Whatever errors there may remain in the data/methods, there is no prima facie reason to assume that they exaggerate the risk of global warming: the error could equally be in the other direction.
    Science demands openness, it’s the very basis of the scientific method fergodsake!
    Agreed. But where did Hansen fail to display openness?
    Also, to pick up a point in another of your postings, “describing” an algorithm is not the same as publishing the code.
    I was responding to the claim that he had failed to “reveal” the algorithms. He did reveal them, as I pointed out. Publishing the code is another matter, but certainly GISS source code is available here.
    How do you think McIntyre detected the error if Hansen wasn’t open with his data and methods?
    Tim adds: As McIntyre has actually pointed out, he had to reverse engineer it.

    Reply
  15. StuartA Avatar
    StuartA

    Come off it, Stuart. These captains of industry are people like my Dad, not moustache-twiddling villains from silent films. They’re trying to earn an honest living by giving people what they want and the economy what it needs.

    I am saying that these “captains of industry” are lobbying against doing anything about global warming. That, as far as science can tell, is likely to have dire consequences for the human race if unchecked. Your admiration for your Dad doesn’t change that.
    We’re so quick to complain about the oil, power, car companies and yet so slow to recognise how much our great quality of life is a consequence, direct and indirect, of their efforts.
    Nobody — or at least, nobody sane — is complaining about the benefits brought by fossil fuels, cars, etc. But there are also apparently costs, and if we are to be rational they must be taken into account. The ideal solution would of course not involve losing any of these benefits, but either way, those costs have to be dealt with.

    Reply
  16. Philip Thomas Avatar
    Philip Thomas

    Agreed, Stuart.
    We would expect oil companies to fight against taxation on their product and we would expect others to fight for it. This adversarial contest results in pretty decent outcomes. However, I’m ever conscious of how industry is portrayed as some faceless creature and its wealthy leaders as some suit-clad robber-barons, whilst on the other side we have poor people fighting for the future safety of the planet and its children. It’s so comic book that I’ve no patience for those, like Hanson, who frame it in such terms.

    Reply
  17. StuartA Avatar
    StuartA

    Tim adds: As McIntyre has actually pointed out, he had to reverse engineer it.
    Yes, I saw that claim on the wingnut sites. As far as I can tell, it amounted to comparing “GISS raw version [data] to three USHCN versions”. That is, NASA provided the information required for a reader to detect the error, and various people again exaggerated the situation.

    Reply
  18. pogo Avatar
    pogo

    Me: [A] stupid error like this serves only to cast doubt on all the other non-published data and methods – which appears to be the majority of it.
    StuartA: I assume you have no evidence for the idea that the “majority of it” (whatever “it” is, exactly) is unpublished. Vast amounts of climate change analysis and data are published.
    I apologise, it’s purely an opinion, admittedly bolstered by reading many complaints on the “wingnut” sites that they can’t get researchers to publically-archive their data etc.
    StuartA: The error did not have a major effect on global temperature estimation, as discussed, pace Fox et al. Even if there were similar errors elsewhere, this incident does not provide reason to believe they would discredit the overall analysis as it stands. Whatever errors there may remain in the data/methods, there is no prima facie reason to assume that they exaggerate the risk of global warming: the error could equally be in the other direction.
    That’s perfectly true. However, my criticism is nothing to do with the magnitude of the error per se or the “direction” in which it may have operated, it is a criticism of the process by which this analysis is made and propogated.
    Me: Science demands openness, it’s the very basis of the scientific method fergodsake!
    StuartA: Agreed. But where did Hansen fail to display openness?
    Just about everywhere as far as I can see! 🙂
    StuartA: I was responding to the claim that he had failed to “reveal” the algorithms. He did reveal them, as I pointed out. Publishing the code is another matter, but certainly GISS source code is available here.
    Yes, but “revealing them” by describing them is a long way from posting how it was actually done. I can describe in excruciating detail how to play the violin, but damned if I can do it! As for your pointer to the GISS code, that is for the climate modeling system. NASA are still steadfastly refusing to publish the routines that they use for “correcting” the temperature database.
    StuartA: How do you think McIntyre detected the error if Hansen wasn’t open with his data and methods?
    By firstly noting a fairly massive discontinuity in the corrected figures as of 2000, then doing exactly what you describe in the post above this one.
    It might be worth noting McIntyre’s comments about the “helpfulness” or otherwise of the database’s “owners”… (my bold)
    “Fixing” bad data with software is by no means an easy thing to do (as witness Mann’s unreported modification of principal components methodology on tree ring networks.) The GISS adjustment schemes (despite protestations from Schmidt that they are “clearly outlined”) are not at all easy to replicate using the existing opaque descriptions. For example, there is nothing in the methodological description that hints at the change in data provenance before and after 2000 that caused the Hansen error. Because many sites are affected by climate change, a general urban heat island effect and local microsite changes, adjustment for heat island effects and local microsite changes raises some complicated statistical questions, that are nowhere discussed in the underlying references (Hansen et al 1999, 2001). In particular, the adjustment methods are not techniques that can be looked up in statistical literature, where their properties and biases might be discerned. They are rather ad hoc and local techniques that may or may not be equal to the task of “fixing” the bad data.
    Making readers run the gauntlet of trying to guess the precise data sets and precise methodologies obviously makes it very difficult to achieve any assessment of the statistical properties. In order to test the GISS adjustments, I requested that GISS provide me with details on their adjustment code. They refused. Nevertheless, there are enough different versions of U.S. station data (USHCN raw, USHCN time-of-observation adjusted, USHCN adjusted, GHCN raw, GHCN adjusted) that one can compare GISS raw and GISS adjusted data to other versions to get some idea of what they did.
    The full version is at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1885 and it doesn’t make for encouraging reading.

    Reply
  19. StuartA Avatar
    StuartA

    Just about everywhere as far as I can see! 🙂
    I’m not sure that’s fair. As I pointed out, there clearly was enough information out there to detect the error, and when it was pointed out Hansen acknowledged the problem. They do provide data and source code, just not all of it.
    While it is certainly the ideal, it would be false to suggest that scientists always, or even typically, release the source code used to perform analysis/simulation. To portray GISS’s refusal as a conspiratorial lack of openness is, I maintain, an exaggeration.
    Tim adds: I don’t claim it is a conspiracy. But I do claim that they should indeed release them.This is the most expensive decision the human race will ever take (either way, to limit, to adapt or to ignore, if it is all true) and I really don’t see why the results should not be checked.

    Reply
  20. Cleanthes Avatar
    Cleanthes

    Well Stuart, it’s good that you are at least reading Climate Audit.
    McIntyre had to reverse engineer the process: he had to try and figure out precisely what Hansen had done – his method was not published in sufficient detail.
    Fail to publish the exact lists of precisely WHICH sites you used in which combinations and which ones were excluded and your results, however alarming and however they may confirm the “consensus”, ARE NOT SCIENCE. If your entire process cannot be replicated by others, you have no *verifiable* results.
    It is only when your exact results can be replicated that you can then show the sensitivities – the importance of this adjustment or that, of the exclusion of this site but not that one.
    The lack of openness remains not just scandalous, but astonishing. The deliberate obstruction of many AGW believers right up to and including the behaviour of the IPCC regarding reviewers comments – all maintained and stored electronically by the IPCC, only available in hard copy if you go in person to the library in Harvard unless you pay to have someone photocopy a selected small number of pages, borders on the criminal.
    It isn’t science.

    Reply
  21. StuartA Avatar
    StuartA

    Out of interest, are you called Cleanthes after Hume’s proponent of the design argument? It would I suppose accord with your ultimately faith-based dogmatism.
    McIntyre had to reverse engineer the process
    We’ve just been through this. You repeating the charge adds precisely nothing. Nor, for that matter, does your ranting about library procedures. Something doesn’t cease to be science because you dislike photocopying charges.
    Of course the ideal of science is exactly reproducible results, but unfortunately scientific publications frequently don’t meet that standard, partly because of the way results are currently published. That doesn’t mean the authors are guilty of “deliberate obstruction”. I repeat: they provided enough information for the error to be detected, accepted the correction, and acknowledged it. That is science. But if you wish to alter scientific openness for the better, you could start by advocating free journals instead of the glorious products of free enterprise that we now have.

    Reply
  22. Tim Newman Avatar
    Tim Newman

    That’s delightful – these attempts to mislead me are irrelevant because I have decided I am in full agreement with them.
    I assume that you have shifted the argument to speculating as to what I am thinking as opposed to addressing what I actually wrote because you have no answer for the latter.
    In the field of scientific enquiry, nobody should be concerned if attempts are made to attack or undermine a hypothesis supported by scientific evidence.

    Reply
  23. Maggie's Farm Avatar
    Maggie’s Farm

    A few Friday Links

    Kudlow on why the Fed should ease rates today. No, it’s not to rescue the hedgies. h/t, Driscoll. And voila – they did. Is Kudlow God?The toll of tolerance in Iraq. The Globe, via VikingWhy I am having doubts about Fred: The Hammock CampaignBeefcake P…

    Reply
  24. Philip Thomas Avatar
    Philip Thomas

    In the field of scientific enquiry, nobody should be concerned if attempts are made to attack or undermine a hypothesis supported by scientific evidence.
    True but naive. Scientists are people, just like anyone else, and they get emotionally invested in theories. I had a hell of a time getting one of my papers published because one of the reviewers (though anonymous, you can tell) was a guy who a large part of his research supports a theory my work did not. My work was eventually published so credit to the system, but I’m certain if my work had supported his hypothesis it would have had a much easier ride of it.
    If you are interested, I recommend any of Stephen Jay Gould’s books of essay collections for some illustrating examples of the role of personality in science.

    Reply
  25. Bostonian Avatar
    Bostonian

    Stuart,
    It seems completely reasonable to me that Hansen should prove his results, considering their importance.
    I don’t know why you find that concept threatening.

    Reply
  26. Stuart A Avatar
    Stuart A

    I don’t know why you find that concept threatening.
    I don’t. I said full openness was “the ideal” above.
    What I am arguing against is the suggestion that GISS’s behaviour in this case is egregiously secretive given the norm in science. It just isn’t.
    Firstly, scientists compete, most particularly for funding, and don’t necessarily hand over source code to competing teams if it gives them an advantage in racking up publications. It’s against the spirit of science, but it happens I’m afraid.
    Secondly, there is growing pressure to commercialise research. This reduces the likelihood of open sharing. There has been restricted access to all sorts of climate measurements because of their commercial value. Thank free enterprise.
    Thirdly, the current publishing model is centred around commercial journals that have not adapted to the digital environment. In my view, papers should be published for free access online with all accompanying data. There are some moves towards this, but it is not yet the norm. Instead companies like Elsevier charge universities thousands per year in subscriptions in order to provide antiquated paper versions, and, at best, PDFs of the same thing.
    I don’t know the status of the GISS information McIntyre wanted. But it is just reality that some random request for a scientist’s source code isn’t going to be answered positively generally. The screaming denunciations of Hansen just aren’t warranted.
    Tim adds: So you’ll be happy with my posting over at Planet Gore then: no screaming denunciation, just a request for those workings to be made available?

    Reply
  27. Harry Eagar Avatar
    Harry Eagar

    Read carefully what Hansen said: He said the changes prodded by McIntyre do not move the curve.
    In English: Hansen has known all along that climate extremes have not changed between the early 20th c. and the late 20th c.
    He might as well just open his veins and let the sap run out.
    How stupid do you have to be to diss your own work?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading