All subscribers to THB should read the Daniel Sarewitz paper that Roger referenced. His link is behind a paywall but here’s a link to a downloadable pdf:
This is a valuable and nuanced discussion of the intersection of policy and science. Whether you think climate change is a hoax or impending doom, it deserves your thoughtful consideration.
It is curious that Sarewitz dismisses the Montreal Protocol (which resulted in the ban of CFCs) in a footnote as a “success story” that was resolved by “positive feedback among convergent, scientific, political, diplomatic and technological trends”. He didn’t offer an opinion as to why those same factors of positive feedback don’t seem to be operative in the case of climate change. That could be a fruitful line of inquiry.
On Feb 21, 2017: Scientists from Colorado State University and University of Arizona say Colorado River flows will keep shrinking as climate warms.
On May 1, 2024: A new study led by University of Colorado researchers predicts that river flows on the Colorado River will most likely rise 5-7% in the quarter-century starting in 2026.
I was struck by Sarewicz’s aside on the preeminence of technological innovation and evolution over mandates. Would that our politicians have internalized that!
It would seem Sarewitz is mildly full of it or he unintentionally has shown us the problem....studies with far too wide a scope combined with the hubris of the scientist to deduce "facts" from an inordinately large number of studies that have an overwhelming number of confounding factors and/or misplaced attribution due to lack of knowledge. If you can make two "legitimate " opposing claims from a body of study, you and the other guys pumping out the facts are in the wrong business.
Humility, narrower focus, and more humility. That's a winning hand every single damned time.
And I’m thankful you have clarified what the best data (so far) says according to the IPCC. Like all outsiders I was only aware previously of the summaries which are nonsense in total opposition to the data and so I thought the ipcc was totally useless, but it turns out to be only partially useless.
Some great nuggets in here.
“Put simply, for a given value-based position in an environmental controversy, it is often possible to compile a supporting set of scientifically legitimated facts.”
A good working definition for “decision based evidence making”.
And here is yet another:
“Instead of using science to inform understandings of the thing that just happened, we use the thing that just happened to cherry pick which subset of science we decide is relevant.”
Both definitions fit, both are functions of narrative control.
Just one thing in that post I don't fully agree with, I think the IPCC doesn't state that all of the recent (last 150 years) rise in temperature is due to human causes.
No, the IPCC says that the first warming of about 0,5°C can't be due to increased CO2 from human activity. For the rest it says that human causes are the dominant factor. If you use the IPCC reasoning about 1/2 to 2/3 of warming is due to human factors.
I find this, again, unsatisfactory in that it does not point to how media SHOULD be relating "the science" to an event.
There are a series of questions to be addressed.
1) Does the event reinforce or contradict the model linking CO2 (and other GHG) to harmful geophysical changes?
2) According to those same best models, what is the difference in the probability distribution (mean and variance) of the specific damaging weather event as a result of the CO2 (and other GHG) accumulation since some previous reference period? That difference is the "attribution" of the event.
3) Given the probability distributing actually faced, had optimal adaption taken place? Were incentives in place to lead decision-making entities to have taken the optimal degree of adaptation?
Clearly a _reader_ cannot know whether the model used for attribution is consistent with past data. If there a way that it could not be without it just being a badly estimated model?
Rule 2.
Reasonable and clearly reduces the confident in instant analyses, as a researcher may have a bias toward one result or another and consciously f unconsciously follow estimating procedures to obtain that result.
Rule 3.
It is not clear how Rule 3 fits with Rules 1 and 2. Is it that
1) following rules 1 and 2 produces a point estimate, the event attribution is (p2 – p1), with p1 being the probability with no change in CO2 concentration and p1 the probability with the actual change in CO2 concentration?
2) the traditional detection and attribution approach asks, can we reject the hypothesis that (p2 - p1) is zero?
How do these rules translate into what researchers should do and how journalists should interrogate an attribution claim?
👏👏👏👏👏As most statisticians understand, with enough data torturing you can almost always provide a correlation which someone will misinterpret as causation.
Anyone who still blindly “follows the science” after the Covid debacle/tragedy/scam utilizing that cover has not been paying attention to how frequently that admonition is misused , sometimes naively but often in an intentionally misleading manner.
Hi Roger--Manchester United fan here. I'd be curious to learn about the ramifications of this year's FA Cup third-round ties on hurricane damage. I guess we will have to wait and find out!
Thanks again, Roger, for your derailed research and analysis.
The climate whiplash once again proves that there are theories and mathematical models and there is the truth (real world observations).
All subscribers to THB should read the Daniel Sarewitz paper that Roger referenced. His link is behind a paywall but here’s a link to a downloadable pdf:
https://cspo.org/legacy/library/110104F2FV_lib_SarewitzEnvSciPo.pdf
This is a valuable and nuanced discussion of the intersection of policy and science. Whether you think climate change is a hoax or impending doom, it deserves your thoughtful consideration.
It is curious that Sarewitz dismisses the Montreal Protocol (which resulted in the ban of CFCs) in a footnote as a “success story” that was resolved by “positive feedback among convergent, scientific, political, diplomatic and technological trends”. He didn’t offer an opinion as to why those same factors of positive feedback don’t seem to be operative in the case of climate change. That could be a fruitful line of inquiry.
And example:
On Feb 21, 2017: Scientists from Colorado State University and University of Arizona say Colorado River flows will keep shrinking as climate warms.
On May 1, 2024: A new study led by University of Colorado researchers predicts that river flows on the Colorado River will most likely rise 5-7% in the quarter-century starting in 2026.
I was struck by Sarewicz’s aside on the preeminence of technological innovation and evolution over mandates. Would that our politicians have internalized that!
Nice discussion, Roger
It would seem Sarewitz is mildly full of it or he unintentionally has shown us the problem....studies with far too wide a scope combined with the hubris of the scientist to deduce "facts" from an inordinately large number of studies that have an overwhelming number of confounding factors and/or misplaced attribution due to lack of knowledge. If you can make two "legitimate " opposing claims from a body of study, you and the other guys pumping out the facts are in the wrong business.
Humility, narrower focus, and more humility. That's a winning hand every single damned time.
Great piece, love cherry pie.
And I’m thankful you have clarified what the best data (so far) says according to the IPCC. Like all outsiders I was only aware previously of the summaries which are nonsense in total opposition to the data and so I thought the ipcc was totally useless, but it turns out to be only partially useless.
Some great nuggets in here.
“Put simply, for a given value-based position in an environmental controversy, it is often possible to compile a supporting set of scientifically legitimated facts.”
A good working definition for “decision based evidence making”.
And here is yet another:
“Instead of using science to inform understandings of the thing that just happened, we use the thing that just happened to cherry pick which subset of science we decide is relevant.”
Both definitions fit, both are functions of narrative control.
I thought "the science was settled", that the hot hand is not a
fallacy. Is there something more recent than Miller & Sanjuro 2019?
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2450479
Excellent piece. This is yet another manifestation of confirmation bias.
Thanks again, Roger, but I don't get the cartoon's relevance. What am I missing?
Just one thing in that post I don't fully agree with, I think the IPCC doesn't state that all of the recent (last 150 years) rise in temperature is due to human causes.
The iPCC charter only looks for human causes
No, the IPCC says that the first warming of about 0,5°C can't be due to increased CO2 from human activity. For the rest it says that human causes are the dominant factor. If you use the IPCC reasoning about 1/2 to 2/3 of warming is due to human factors.
I find this, again, unsatisfactory in that it does not point to how media SHOULD be relating "the science" to an event.
There are a series of questions to be addressed.
1) Does the event reinforce or contradict the model linking CO2 (and other GHG) to harmful geophysical changes?
2) According to those same best models, what is the difference in the probability distribution (mean and variance) of the specific damaging weather event as a result of the CO2 (and other GHG) accumulation since some previous reference period? That difference is the "attribution" of the event.
3) Given the probability distributing actually faced, had optimal adaption taken place? Were incentives in place to lead decision-making entities to have taken the optimal degree of adaptation?
Here are my suggestions
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/how-to-be-a-smart-consumer-of-climate
Roger,
Rule 1.
Clearly a _reader_ cannot know whether the model used for attribution is consistent with past data. If there a way that it could not be without it just being a badly estimated model?
Rule 2.
Reasonable and clearly reduces the confident in instant analyses, as a researcher may have a bias toward one result or another and consciously f unconsciously follow estimating procedures to obtain that result.
Rule 3.
It is not clear how Rule 3 fits with Rules 1 and 2. Is it that
1) following rules 1 and 2 produces a point estimate, the event attribution is (p2 – p1), with p1 being the probability with no change in CO2 concentration and p1 the probability with the actual change in CO2 concentration?
2) the traditional detection and attribution approach asks, can we reject the hypothesis that (p2 - p1) is zero?
How do these rules translate into what researchers should do and how journalists should interrogate an attribution claim?
Researchers
1. Show how well model results compare with observations
2. Preregister
3. Calculate model's emergence time scale and present it in comparison to IPCC doing the same
Journalists
1. Ask how well model results compare to observations
2. Ask if study is preregistered
3. Ask how model's emergence time scale compares to IPCC and request an explanation for differences
Any study that fails to follow these rules can be understood as exploratory, not great science, or marketing
1. Meaning the confidence limits of p1 and p2?
2. Yes as best practice. But if asked before any registration has been done should the answer always be "I have not done the full analysis?"
3. I guess I still do not understand Rule 3. [Not necessarily your fault. :)]
👏👏👏👏👏As most statisticians understand, with enough data torturing you can almost always provide a correlation which someone will misinterpret as causation.
Anyone who still blindly “follows the science” after the Covid debacle/tragedy/scam utilizing that cover has not been paying attention to how frequently that admonition is misused , sometimes naively but often in an intentionally misleading manner.
Thank you.
Hi Roger--Manchester United fan here. I'd be curious to learn about the ramifications of this year's FA Cup third-round ties on hurricane damage. I guess we will have to wait and find out!
Ha! Thanks for helping clear the fixture jam for the Gunners to win the Champions League ;-)
A United fan, now there is a modern form of self-flagellation.
These days it’s a hard position to be in.
I still like my Giggs jersey but that’s about it.
You always provide valuable insights.