Discussion > Bogged down in Nomansland
Barry 1.54pm
They certainly didn’t survey readers of Climate Audit, because Corner said no sceptical climate blog would co-operate. (and why should they, given that the clear purpose of the survey was to smear sceptics?). Of course people who are sceptical of the moon landing are more likely to be climate sceptics, just as people who believe in fairies are more likely to vote Green. Lewandowsky’s research is absurd, as are the conclusions Corner draws.
They are also offensive, as if you concluded from the fact that most primitive stone age hunter gatherers live in Australia that Australians were more likely to be primitive stone age hunter gatherers. True, in some statistical sense, but what would you think of a researcher who tried to promote this “fact”?
Mike Jackson
You ask: how it is possible to carry on a sensible debate with this mindset? You’ll see soon, with the second part of our conversation coming soon to a blog near you.
geoffchambers
Baffled:
Thanks BBD. You’ve just confirmed what I thought. No climate scientist is willing to say “we know that climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 is going to be close to 3°C” (unless you redefine the meaning of “know” and “close to”).
Scientific consensus (lots of scientists agreeing) :
Since the TAR, the levels of scientific understanding and confidence in quantitative estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity have increased substantially. Basing our assessment on a combination of several independent lines of evidence, as summarised in Box 10.2 Figures 1 and 2, including observed climate change and the strength of known feedbacks simulated in GCMs, we conclude that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, or ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is very likely larger than 1.5°C.
BBD
BBD, one more try to get an answer: Do you agree that it is often indeed relatively easy to throw together words, like here "knowledge" and "likelihood", in some meaningful way, but if used separately, terms like knowledge (we are mortals; under certain circumstances we are dying with thirst / hunger) and likelihood (we may become immortals; under certain circumstances, most likely, we could defeat any dying of thirst / hunger) are defined differently and mean different things?
September 2011
BBD thinks that “Basing my assessment on a combination of several independent lines of evidence, I conclude that the film is likely to start between 2 o’clock and 4.30. It is unlikely to start before 1.30” means the same thing as “I know the film will start close to 3 o’clock”.
Just don’t ever go out on a date with him (/her).
geoffchambers
Chez BBD:
Customer: Do you do a three course meal for around £30?
Maitre d’ BBD: Certainly Sir. Based on our assessment, our set menu is likely to cost between £20 and £45, with a most likely value of £30. It is unlikely to cost less than £15.
Voice from kitchen: I think it might be £60 today, or maybe £80
Customer (sceptically): Er thanks. I’ll get my coat.
geoffchambers
geoffchambers
Geoff
You seem to me to be skirting around Corner's latest piece of blatant political activism in the Guardian.
The piece, and the pseudo paper it references, are completely devoid of logical thought or scientific method.
He would have been more honest if he'd just joined in directly with the old CIF lags and written "Look - deniers are morons they believe all sorts of nutty stuff - ha ha ha!"
Can't you see that he's doing exactly what I did when I dug up that picture of him waving his stupid placard demanding "Action Now" at Copenhagen? I was mocking him and trying to convey the message "Would you have any faith in this guy as an impartial academic researcher?".
He's doing exactly the same I was - blatant partisan activism.
The difference being that he has persuaded people to give him access to a publicly funded position - and exploited this role to set himself up as a serious academic, "government adviser" and Graun go-to pundit.
The real irony is that, in the UK at least, conspiracy theories are mainly promulgated in the pages of that very paper. The Guardian is the only mainstream newspaper AFAIK to have given credence to the 9-11 "truth" nonsense - and one of its favourite pundits - Meacher - is the only senior UK politician to have endorsed it.
Even Barry, who exudes goodwill, tolerance and trust from every pore of his being, has realised that Corner is a lying fraud.
It baffles me how you think any good can come of engaging him in subtle dialogue about the nuances of scepticism.
Foxgoose
Foxgoose:
I said:
Lewandowsky’s research is absurd, as are the conclusions Corner draws.
You said:
The piece, and the pseudo paper it references, are completely devoid of logical thought or scientific method.
Do you think there’s any difference between our positions worth arguing about?
As you point out, he’s doing exactly what you were doing - blatant partisan activism - the only difference being that he has three handy official perches from which to preach, and here we are chatting to each other (most enjoyably, I’ll add) to an audience of dozens.
Your ability to analyse what’s going on dispassionately is not that common in our circles, though I’m pleased to see a number of others, on this thread and on other recent threads started by Dung and Lucy Skywalker, who are interested in raising the meta-sceptical question: What do we think we’re up to?
I don’t expect people to agree with my particular experiment. I just ask to be left alone to get on with it, and see what comes of it.
I promise the next round of our conversation isn’t “a subtle dialogue about the nuances of scepticism”. It won’t change the world either, but I hope it’ll be interesting.
I’ve had long chats, on threads and in private exchanges, with Barry. We have different styles and approaches, but I agree with Chris M on Dung’s thread: let the polemicists be polemic, and the diplomats be tactful. We’ll get there in the end.
geoffchambers
geoffchambers
It would have been better to admit the error rather than bluster weakly.
Since you did not admit the error, I will repeat the correct statement to avoid confusing others: the scientific consensus is that ECS to 2 x CO2 is ~3C.
BBD
BBD
It would have been better to admit the error rather than bluster weakly.I agree there. You are apparently admitting that, for you, “close to” means “plus or minus 50%”, and “know” means “conclude that it is likely”. It may be good enough for Humpty Dumpty or Pachauri, but in the real world, it effectively excludes you from sensible discussion.
geoffchambers
geoff, the following statement is extremely clear:
we conclude that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, or ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C.
It always disappoints me when 'sceptics' try to pretend that it doesn't mean exactly what is says: the most likely value for ECS is ~3C.
BBD
Read the Annan discussion of his 2006 paper I linked above. It is useful.
BBD
Utterrly convinced. Perhaps would be better, as lying implies self knowledge and intent.
Like so many activists, utter belief that they are correct.
The paper and article with its indinuations, is junk, it might as well claim to approach unidentified christian blogs andd claim on the basis of a 1000 fringe/extreme readers thst all christisns are anti science, anti evolution creationist.
Or approach a similar number of unidentified Islamic websites, same nethodology and find that readers are all jihadists.
Utter junk, and all it really shows is the papers authors own preconceptions and predujices and Adam Corners own, for writing it and making the articles claims and insinuations.
Barry Woods
Barry
Steady on! You're beginning to get judgmental.
Geoff
May the force be with you.
Foxgoose
I haven't started being judgmental yet ;-)!!!
That new research paper/Guardian article, ALL of the blogs surveyed were Alarmist,warmist,consensus blogs.
All of them!!!
And based on this, somehow the sceptics are conspiracy theorists!!
There really is no hope for the whole field of Eco phsycology!
Teaser. 2 of the blogs were, Tamino & Scott Mandia !!!!
Barry Woods
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Last night in my fastness I went out for a tipple with mates. We were joined by two students and one was doing a PhD in socio-political blogging and expected to work in government!
Now reading what’s been revealed here, perhaps I should not have been so surprised.
It seems Machievellian university social scientists envisage the manipulation of a passive population – for their own good, of course! But I doubt the average government department will be able to assimilate such obscure sophistication.
Has government actually made use of output from Pidgeon and Corner?
Ecclesiastical Uncle
Bogged down no longer - unblocked at last!
My second conversation with Adam Corner is up at Barry Woods’ new blog at
http://unsettledclimate.org/2012/08/20/dr-adam-corner-talks-with-geoff-chambers-discussion-2/
It won’t be going up at TalkingClimate, since, as Adam says: “it is getting quite far away from the remit of presenting new research on climate change communication” which is true enough,since it’s a comment on the research into climate change comunication.
Many thanks to Barry for putting it up, and for offering to moderate in order to keep comments on-topic.
geoffchambers
Thanks BBD. You’ve just confirmed what I thought. No climate scientist is willing to say “we know that climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 is going to be close to 3°C” (unless you redefine the meaning of “know” and “close to”).