tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post5469269905476760779..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: Interview Reiner Grundmanneduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-49382052004852723822012-05-31T17:30:52.439+02:002012-05-31T17:30:52.439+02:00I would, from personal experience, have to disagre...I would, from personal experience, have to disagree with Kahan <i>et al</i> (2012), & those who quote them approvingly.<br />I was on/of the (soft) left until age 30 (in accordance with the popular dictum about having no heart and having no brain), to which stage my education was purely scientific and my contact with the right was purely to argue passionately for my views. cAGW was not then on the horizon (this was pre-1988), but I was highly sceptical of Ehrlich, Carson & the Club of Rome. The sky is falling, the sky .... !Scepticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-47222814057529457172012-05-31T15:46:45.228+02:002012-05-31T15:46:45.228+02:00I was not thinking of interviewing "interesti...I was not thinking of interviewing "interesting" people connected to the issue of climate, but people who are active here on the Zwiebel, editors as well as commenters.Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-2865292318526908142012-05-31T15:39:12.719+02:002012-05-31T15:39:12.719+02:00Dear Hans,
It is a good format.
It allows the pe...Dear Hans,<br /><br />It is a good format.<br /><br />It allows the persons interviewed to speak for themselves without reinterpretation by an interviewer or journalist. And if the questions asked are interesting and relevant, all the better. I would guess that I am not the only blog consumer to have observed that journalists generally are failing in their reporting of climate change. Andy Revkin's posts make good use of this format as well.<br /><br />That said, though, anyone willing to say that 'Climategate' really was a 'scandal' - as Reiner is - is immediately going to attract public interest - whatever the format. My guess is that attempts to whitewash 'Climategate' as an invention of the fossil fuel industry find the general public unamused.Alex Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10591760549272940968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-15964512298726499422012-05-31T09:28:10.123+02:002012-05-31T09:28:10.123+02:00HvS:
This format provides a refreshing and nutriti...HvS:<br />This format provides a refreshing and nutritious break from the usual incestuous blogosphere typical re-digestion of other blog or newsmedia content. I appreciate the work you put into this, keep going.hvwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-89199312919991337822012-05-31T09:18:32.599+02:002012-05-31T09:18:32.599+02:00HvS - I like the format. An interview / conversat...HvS - I like the format. An interview / conversation where the interviewee trusts the interviewer to ask the right questions and in exchange is prepared to examine the questions as well as put their point across often works better than an 'essay' to inform a 'lay but educated' (I like that phrase) audience.<br /><br />I admit it probably helps that I am in sympathy with RG.<br /><br />I'd like to see you do this format with people I might not be in sympathy with, say the Michael Manns.<br /><br />Or possibly the IEA economist Birol as to how the IEA 'accept' or 'question' the science of WGI, II and III and build it into their publications and policy comments. He is a bridge between 'the science' and policy?Roddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104358721079710535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-42596353454407828802012-05-31T03:24:08.178+02:002012-05-31T03:24:08.178+02:00The interview with Reiner Grundmann has been looke...The interview with Reiner Grundmann has been looked at by very many people. It may mean that the format of letting people of the caliber of Reiner Grundmann respond to a series of question is attractive. I am preparing one other such interview at this time, but I would appreciate to hear more what people like or dislike with this format. May I ask for opinions of the many, who clicked on this thread?Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-83070081146773657002012-05-30T18:14:55.764+02:002012-05-30T18:14:55.764+02:00Reiner, I already pointed out that *Steve McIntyre...Reiner, I already pointed out that *Steve McIntyre* admitted that the section you quoted did not refer to the divergence problem being identified as the problem by "everyone in the room".<br /><br />Not just Deepclimate. Not just me. No, the person whose quoting you quoted. I am not giving you the direct link, you can surely find it yourself considering the fact that you quoted from that discussion on his blog. Or will you have to admit that you actually used a tertiary source for quoting the e-mail?<br /><br />Eduardo merely showed with a quote from the same e-mail that Mann had aligned the series vertically, which made Briffa's reconstruction "warmer" during the LIA.<br /><br />Finally, it is just one of many problematic issues in your paper. I already pointed out that you made some claims about Phil Jones that are very problematic, but I wanted to take it one point at a time.<br /><br />BamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-77580853051146442422012-05-30T18:11:14.502+02:002012-05-30T18:11:14.502+02:00hvw 13
"Is that a general statement (leaving ...hvw 13<br />"Is that a general statement (leaving aside CC related stuff) for your field, in the sense that you need to choose a journal that is sympathetic to your conclusions, which probably always have some philosophical, political, or otherwise normative component? I figure that would be a remarkable distinction to the dynamics of publication in the natural sciences."<br /><br />In general yes. You have to be within the paradigm, style, tradition of a particular journal. I guess much the same applies in the natural sciences.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-57266371874929878962012-05-30T16:07:34.472+02:002012-05-30T16:07:34.472+02:00hvw - why not quoting the abstract here:
The pola...hvw - why not quoting the abstract here:<br /><br /><b>The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks</b><br /><br />Dan M. Kahan,vEllen Peters, Maggie Wittlin, Paul Slovic, Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, Donald Braman & Gregory Mandel<br /><br />Nature Climate Change (2012)<br />doi:10.1038/nclimate1547<br /><br />Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled. Widespread limits on technical reasoning aggravate the problem by forcing citizens to use unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-19397886143987707432012-05-30T15:52:45.115+02:002012-05-30T15:52:45.115+02:00Integrity is like virginity; once it's gone, i...Integrity is like virginity; once it's gone, it's gone.<br /><br />"The ordinary person cannot prove that climate science is right or wrong but they don’t have to. They can simply make that old decision as to whether they still trust these people any more and they’ve made that decision."<br /><br />http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/why-climategate-destroyed-the-science-of-global-warming/<br /><br />PointmanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-66658196325853317812012-05-30T15:48:47.795+02:002012-05-30T15:48:47.795+02:00There is a paper just out that fits nicely to the ...There is a <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1547.html" rel="nofollow">paper</a> just out that fits nicely to the speculations about skeptogenesis here: Science literacy and numeracy ("studies in physics and chemistry") have no effect but bad company has ("MBA", "right leaning").hvwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-9846946580628267362012-05-30T15:15:48.042+02:002012-05-30T15:15:48.042+02:00Reiner,
more seriously, I enjoyed the peek into t...Reiner,<br /><br />more seriously, I enjoyed the peek into the review experience you provided. While some of this (6 lines reading "This is flawed and I don't like it") being considered a valid critique by an editor seems to just happen everywhere, I am shocked by the editor who considered a critique explicitly to be kept secret as a reason for rejection. This clashes head on with the very idea about what peer-review should accomplish. And what could be the reason, if the reviews are anonymous anyways? Someone ought to name journal end editor. I always thought the "confidential message to the editor" field was reserved for what I write there habitually: "Sorry for being late".<br /><br />You write "..but after some time in the business one knows the odds [of getting through in that particular journal]." Is that a general statement (leaving aside CC related stuff) for your field, in the sense that you need to choose a journal that is sympathetic to your conclusions, which probably always have some philosophical, political, or otherwise normative component? I figure that would be a remarkable distinction to the dynamics of publication in the natural sciences.hvwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-41530739964868821412012-05-30T14:12:38.286+02:002012-05-30T14:12:38.286+02:00hvw
Nice pun but I don't agree. There is alwa...hvw<br /><br />Nice pun but I don't agree. There is always a risk of unfair reviewers but after some time in the business one knows the odds. I could give you a list of journals which I did not consider because less than favourable reviews were to be expected. I was surprised that the ones I chose were also negative.<br /><br />The case of research funding is different.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-17494999653238146462012-05-30T12:54:50.243+02:002012-05-30T12:54:50.243+02:00This is just not fair!
Reiner has trouble to publ...This is just not fair!<br /><br />Reiner has trouble to publish because of reviewers that are "anti-skeptic".<br /><br />Eduardo has trouble getting funding because of reviewers that are "pro-skeptic".<br /><br />This is consistent with my limited experience suggesting that one <i>always</i> runs into the wrong reviewers. Is this a general law? Research is needed!hvwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-63326426852276806512012-05-30T11:57:08.569+02:002012-05-30T11:57:08.569+02:00Form my limited experience, which I do not want to...Form my limited experience, which I do not want to generalize here, my impression is that mistrust in 'paleoclimatology' has taken a hit also in other disciplines. When I submit project applications for thematically wider calls, i.e. I compete with other disciplines, the critical responses of the reviewers could be interpreted as a critique of the whole field, like is possible at all to reconstruct past climate ?, arent the uncertainties so wide so as to make the whole study useless ? '<br /><br />This does not necessarily apply to climate sciences in general. If this has to do with climategate, I cannot know, but I suspect that it haseduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-91063231446388751212012-05-30T11:33:32.614+02:002012-05-30T11:33:32.614+02:00You (severally) speculate about "sceptogenesi...You (severally) speculate about "sceptogenesis". I can only report my own experience.<br />I have several degrees including post-graduate studies in Science (Chemistry, with an undergraduate Physics major), a separate undergraduate degree in Economics, and an MBA. I was already, <b>before</b> Climategate, sceptical. I'd seen too much of the 'Ice Age' scare of the 70s, 'Nuclear Winter' of the 60s, Y2K, various 'flu' scares &c. Anyway, I am always suspicious of 'we must act <b>now</b>' arguments, especially when they cost trillions and re-order society. Also, it would help if the loudest mouths <b>acted</b> as if they believed. Yes, I lean right, but support GM crops, vaccination &c., so can hardly be called 'anti-science'.<br />'Climategate' to me only confirmed what I'd suspected - people can act badly in support of a cause. <i>Noble cause corruption?</i>Scepticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-90513745604413649552012-05-29T22:40:46.520+02:002012-05-29T22:40:46.520+02:00@ Bam
Ah, DeepClimate is a unreliable source, but...@ Bam<br /><br />Ah, DeepClimate is a unreliable source, but McIntyre and Montford are ok. Maybe Wikipedia can provide some helpful insights? <br />;-)<br /><br />AndreasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-75620607848632904622012-05-29T21:57:32.817+02:002012-05-29T21:57:32.817+02:00Bam
You have raised your point before, drawing on...Bam<br /><br />You have raised your point before, drawing on the DeepClimate blog. When I pointed out how contested the interpretation on that blog was, you chose to evade the issue. Eduardo replied to you about the meaning of ‘warmer’ in the statistical proxy reconstructions, and again you chose to evade the issue. And here you go again, with the same excitement, apparently thinking my argument would be obsolete if you could show that one detail in my paper was flawed. This would be the case if my paper in ST&HV was akin to the famous 'house of cards'. <br />The challenge posed by Climategate has been widely accepted, but not by you it seems.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-15073693007969958522012-05-29T19:02:05.214+02:002012-05-29T19:02:05.214+02:00I'm "shocked, shocked" to find that ...I'm "shocked, shocked" to find that academics are unwilling to publish a paper that might be seen as supporting the wrong side.<br /><br />That's game, set, match on the question of academic integrity in general and regarding climate science in particular. It proves there isn't any. And when there is no integrity, there is no value. <br /><br />When the referees are crooked, the results of the game are meaningless.stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05644362748723516825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-91093745310387175322012-05-29T18:49:18.473+02:002012-05-29T18:49:18.473+02:00Reiner, my criticism of you was your use of a stor...Reiner, my criticism of you was your use of a story line that was contradicted by the actual e-mail you cited, and which you concluded with a claim of "scientific misconduct". I provided you a link with the full quote, but you didn't like it. I asked you to explain how someone calling Briffa's reconstruction "warmer" fit with the divergence problem, which makes the reconstruction *colder*. You never answered.<br /><br />So, now I make my last try:<br />What will you do if the person whose selective quotation you used, that would be Steve McIntyre, admits that the e-mail in question does *not* refer to the divergence problem?<br /><br />1. You do nothing. You do not care if this part is factually correct, the story is more important<br />2. You correct this section of the article, even if it means you have to remove the claim of scientific misconduct<br />3. You retract the article<br /><br />Your choice!<br /><br />I do wish to point out that this is not a hypothetical situation. Steve McIntyre *has* admitted that the e-mail you cite as claiming that the divergence problem was a problem for the IPCC, in reality did *not* refer to the divergence problem. In fact, he did so on December 11, 2009, 2.5 years before you got your article published.<br /><br />BamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-11101671897177904142012-05-29T16:33:48.102+02:002012-05-29T16:33:48.102+02:00Mathis, "skeptogenesis" is under-researc...Mathis, "skeptogenesis" is under-researched. I guess ClimateGate may have contributed, but the wave of negative headlines will have emboldened others to say what they really mean (or doubt). Only, when the "normal" skeptics come out and voice their view, we will be able to deal with them. The aggressive claims by some, make them not change their minds but becoming hidden skeptics. <br />In our survey here on the Zwiebel, 1/3 of skeptics started their endeavor with climate science as "warmists", at least that is what they ticked off.Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-16879175754637321992012-05-29T16:26:03.690+02:002012-05-29T16:26:03.690+02:00OK Hans, I agree, good point. But is this sceptici...OK Hans, I agree, good point. But is this scepticism attributable to climategate or did it exist before? And to what degree did climategate turn 'believers' into 'sceptics'. And why climate science and not other sciences? Politics?Mathis Hampelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06315386616041612513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-15099928096754672422012-05-29T16:13:21.670+02:002012-05-29T16:13:21.670+02:00Mathis, you state " most scepticism and certa...Mathis, you state "<i> most scepticism and certainly denial is attributable to political ideologies (and ideologies of science) rather than mistrust in science</i>". Based on my experience with frequent encounters with lay but highly educated audiences, this is simply not true. While "denial" may indeed by guided by political world-views, the large number of skeptics are driven by mistrust against this particular science, not against science in general. This is supported by my surveys among lay people, the results of some have been published here on the Zwiebel - where about 1/3 declare themselves "skeptics".<br />Your claim represents a dismissal of the concern of many people, and I presume that the growth of this group is to some extent based on assertions like yours - which makes people not taken seriously.Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-3493256327692392082012-05-29T16:05:17.266+02:002012-05-29T16:05:17.266+02:00Reiner, thanks for that. You say:
"the Muir ...Reiner, thanks for that. You say:<br /><br />"the Muir Russell Review for a more transparent conduct in climate research. If these recommendations will be implemented remains to be seen". <br /><br />Firstly, one needs to ask scientists if they would play along. For example, Myles Allen is highly sceptical following the German saying: 'Operation gelungen, Patient tot'. Why not trust that climate scientists have learned from climategate (for example, now that they know that their emails are not safe)? <br /><br />Secondly, I assume that transparency shall restore trust. Yet why do we need to restore trust in climate science, (and is it really so low)? Imo, most scepticism and certainly denial is attributable to political ideologies (and ideologies of science) rather than mistrust in science.<br /><br />And if only few people know about climategate, why care at all? Isn't this a 'battle' on the fringe?Mathis Hampelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06315386616041612513noreply@blogger.com