Hang the bastards!

What should be the cost of skepticism?

Posted by Andrew Dessler (Guest Contributor) at 2:26 PM on 15 Mar 2007

Read more about: climate | climate change skepticism

Every few months, it seems, someone comes out with the great idea about how people who are wrong in the climate-change debate should have something really bad done to them. Who can forget our very own David's, ahem, indiscretion? Or Heidi Cullen and her suggestion to strip skeptical meteorologists of their AMS credentials?

Over on Roger Pielke Sr.'s Climate Science blog, guest blogger Hendrik Tennekes suggests some tit-for-tat:

More than once I have dreamed of regulations that would cut the retirement pay of climate modelers in half if their forecasts proved off the mark at their retirement. Such an arrangement would also help them keep their feet on the ground concerning the prediction horizon of climate scenarios.

What's interesting is Tennekes doesn't mention what should happen to scientists who claim that climate change is not happening, yet turn out to be wrong. Perhaps they should have their retirement taken away, too?

While I'd hate to see Tennekes, Dick Lindzen, and Bill Gray living together under a freeway underpass, asking passing motorists for $1 to squeegee their windshields, I do think it might stop some of their ridiculous statements. Now that I think about it, it would make a hilarious sitcom (hey, if Two and a Half Men is a hit ...).

Oddly, Tennekes' criticisms are not based on the physical content of the models, but more on an overarching distrust of models, combined with cultural differences. This is based on an analogy between engineers and climate models, which I'm afraid reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of climate science.

Tennekes is indeed a credible scientist, who wrote a classic book on turbulence. But he's now retired, and his statements put him squarely into the aged skeptics category. I think it would make a fascinating study for a psychologist or age researcher to explain their proliferation.

For story: Hang the bastards!
13 Comments | Post a Comment

Quick follow-up

When I talked about the cultural difference between engineers and climate science, here's what I was referring to.

Engineers need to build, e.g., a bridge that will withstand a certain load with extremely high (something like 99.99+%) confidence.

However, because of time lags in the climate system, we will only be 99.99+% sure of climate impacts when the impacts are occurring and unavoidable. Thus, adopting this standard is the same as saying that we will rely entirely on adaptation.

A good analogy is piloting a supertanker. They take miles to turn, so you have to start turning them long before you reach an obstacle (like Prince William Sound). If you wait until you are atop the rocks, then it is too late to avoid them.

Thus, the standard applied by the engineer is entirely different from the standard applied by policymakers on climate change.

by Andrew Dessler at 2:41 PM on 15 Mar 2007

Predictions, hypotheses, warnings

I draw an equivalence between a model prediction coming true (within bounds of uncertainty) and an hypothesis holding up (predictions are hypotheses). If modelers are to have their pay cut for predictions that didn't materialise, so too should all other scientists whose hypotheses are rejected. Boy, would that pour frigid water on the scientific process.

Some predictions are actually designed to fail. They are meant more as warnings. Predictions of climate models are often interpreted that way.

Blog: Down to Earth

by Daniel Collins at 3:48 PM on 15 Mar 2007

one problem

It appears the majority of people are beginning to believe that climate change is upon us and they are acting to reduce or prevent rapid climate change. So... if the climate scientist are correct and people respond appropriately, their predictions will not come true. They should not be punished if this is what happens.

Otherwise, this is just absurd. But I thought I'd play along.

P.S. Government officials that predict U.S. forces will be greeted as liberators and be home in a few months should be SEVERELY punished.

by wiscidea at 4:46 PM on 15 Mar 2007

Trish, I Just Bought Amalgamated CO2!

Remember Gomez Addams? He used to have the old stock ticker tape in his den and making fortunes by investing in "Amagamated Lint" and other companies?

In some sense, just as in the stock market, it doesn't matter if the models are right or wrong -- it only matters what we as individuals think...at some point, each person has to draw their conclusions. It's not the "modellers" who win or lose -- it's you or I.

And so, in reality, each of us may plan -- for example, I have been thinking about buying cheap land in central Canada hoping that it will emerge as the California of the late 21st Century.

Skeptics might hope to buy land cheaply along the coast line, hoping that AGWers will sell their beach front property at a song, fearing ocean level rises.

Bottom line is what it's all about. It's one thing to mouth off about "what you think" about global warming, but at some point, you have to make a financial choice. Buy in, sell out, or stay put.

by jabailo at 5:52 PM on 15 Mar 2007

Life and history are about hypotheses

The whole of scientific history has come from scientists holding hypotheses, making experiments, and usually being proven wrong. Occasionally, a scientist is strangely proven right, and gains fame, fortune, and is able to waltz off into the sunset, usually due to extreme good luck (I mean, come on, penicillin?). Progress is about taking leaps of faith. However, these are founded on proof and prior knowledge, rather than just wild stabs in the dark (which is what some of the sceptics could really do with...), so it's more a leap of mostly-proven faith, which is what climate change is about. Some people will still look the other way even when there is 99.99+% confidence (i.e. when it is actually happening) and rave about it all being a plot by the CIA in conjunction with Martians.
Personally, I think the biggest punishment for bad science and bad predictions is to be made famous, and forever be ridiculed for your stupidity. I hope that happens with the sceptics.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

by tico89 at 8:11 PM on 15 Mar 2007

Wow, Dangerous Misconceptions and BS

>> we will only be 99.99+% sure of climate impacts when the impacts are occurring and unavoidable.>>

LOL, what a load of...
If you can't read the scientific signs and symptoms that are occurring NOW (even 20 years ago) then you should not profess an opinion.

The end of this world is coming and you would wait, like all the other sheep, bleating and running in circles but doing nothing until it is too late. It is immoral to lead people astray
with blinkered logic or because the big boys can't play anymore... but hey, you are in good company.

LOL, y'all deserve the consequences of your arrogant egos, but the rest of civilisation does not. Shame you guys are playing with all life on this planet, bastards.

>>> it doesn't matter if the models are right or wrong -- it only matters what we as individuals think. >>>

LOL, classic BS
Science is NOT CONSENSUS
If the end of this world is nigh and the signs and symptoms are glaringly obvious,
it does matter what science says..... Totally matters....
politics has no say in the matter.... and neither does you or I, for that matter.

Civilisation has come a long way, scientific opinion must be respected and if need be, globally acted upon for the general good, but personal opinion should only be applied to your own personal self.

by Zarkov at 10:34 PM on 15 Mar 2007

Seals and Crafts

Mr. Dressler, I think it should be pointed out that Dr. Cullen didn't really say that skeptical AMS members should have their seals revoked. This, I believe, is a very important distinction between what the spinsters have propagandized, and what was actually written.

To quote your own quote even, Dr. Cullen wrote:

"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval."

In other words, if a met applying for an AMS seal of approval does not possess at the least a very basic and realistic understanding of climate science, then they should not be considered eligible for the seal, which, as you know, implies a strong air of legitimacy to on-camera mets.

Currently, those OCMs who believe things as far out as "Cosmic Rays are causing fluxes: global warmings and coolings," or as religious as "God wouldn't allow us to warm up His planet - therefore it is a hoax!," are freely allowed to impart those views on their audiences with that wonderful AMS seal of approval backing up their nutty assertions, by default!

To reiterate - two key points:
Dr. Cullen was clearly suggesting that possesing a basic understanding of climate science should be a qualifier when earning one's AMS seal

and
A couple of clueless mets who currently posses AMS seals already talking out their necks while on air and/or in print do show us how it idiotic is to continue the practice of issuing AMS seals to those who can not at least speak to the fundamental science of climate change.

ciel

by cieldumort at 11:07 PM on 15 Mar 2007

Agreed

Dessler,

You're right about the difference between scientists and engineers. Engineers are pushing boundaries with known scientific tools; they aren't creating anything new out of the unknown like scientists. So holding scientists to the same standard is just hogwash.

It's actually this same attempt to apply engineering standards to science that got us into the problem with Yuccs Mountain. The modellers that were working on groundwater movement were accused of misconduct for tweaking their algorithms and models.

But on another point....I don't know if skulking around Pielke's blog is going to get you much of anything useful, except for some off-the-wall statements that could be inflammatory.

Benny Big Eye

by Benny Big Eye at 8:08 AM on 16 Mar 2007

What's really concerning

What is really concerning is that Tennekes is clueless about computer codes, software engineering and modeling in general. Still he acts like the high priest and the groupies say more please.

by EliRabett at 9:09 PM on 17 Mar 2007

Do you know?

Hi, do you know the full story about Tennekes being chucked out in a reorganization at the KNMI

by EliRabett at 9:11 PM on 17 Mar 2007

not really

the only thing I know about tennekes is his book and his posts on pielke's blog.

by Andrew Dessler at 2:24 PM on 18 Mar 2007
[ Parent ]

Sorry,

Wasn't very clear. I really don't know either but was wondering if you knew more about the why and wherefore. Certainly there is bitterness. A lot of the denialists have a personal backstory, for example Jastrow, the first director of GISS when GISS was about space science. I think you can trace through him to Baliunas.

by EliRabett at 2:57 PM on 19 Mar 2007

Tennekes sacked?

Not sure, neither is he.

In a Dutch interview it says:
"His opinion is that that skepticism was the reason for his eventual dismissal. He said things they didn't want to hear."

"Volgens hem is dat scepticisme ook de reden waarom hij uiteindelijk ontslagen is. Hij zei dingen die ze niet wilden horen."

by koosf at 3:42 PM on 28 Jan 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.