Thursday, May 29, 2014

Eli Reads Again

Some links for the bunnies

Magnus Westerstrand discusses the hidden Bengtsson and his media gambit.

I am sad to have witnessed the changes in Lennart Bengtsson's media presence over the last few years. At first it was just a few comments in local media such as this article in UNT 2009 stating among other things that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would only result in a temperature increase of about 1 oC as a result of the logarithmic forcing of CO2.  This is misleading, of course, because it ignores feedbacks which increase that number substantially.   He even admits in his comment, that this could be taken as a way of playing down the problem, but at the same time he writes that it should provide perspective. 

Thomas Stocker discusses how climate scientists are being intimidated by the deniers.
Prof Thomas Stocker, Swiss-born co-chairman of the panel’s working group on the scientific basis for climate change, said the campaign to undermine its fifth assessment report was led by “people and organisations with vested interests”.
An interesting comment from Thomas Piketty on the nature of real world data, not about climate, but IEHO it applies none the less.
For the time being, we have to do with what we have, that is, a very diverse and heterogeneous set of data sources. . . . I have no doubt that my historical data series can be improved and will be improved in the future. . . . but I would be very surprised if any of the substantive conclusions about the long run evolution . . . . was much affected by these improvements.
The details may differ, but the substantive conclusions have remained the same over a very long time.

The Weasel, has lifted some comments from Andy Lacis which explains this as well as an appreciation of  L'Affaire Bengtsson.

And Andrew Gelman has been dipping into econometrics.  He and those who comment at his blog have a few questions.   They are not impressed with Richard Tol's answers.


Brandon R. Gates said...

Is it just that I'm paying more attention of late, or are contrarybunnies squirming further away from the denierbunnies?

Anonymous said...

Tol clarified his "knowledge monopoly" comment over at Curry's Threatre of the Absurd;

"The IPCC does dictate the science to the degree that papers that deviate from the latest report need to work harder to get accepted.
…. The IPCC monopolizes the science-policy interface. This is formally the case in the UN, and informally in many smaller countries. I understand that you are based in the US where the IPCC plays a smaller role, but if you go to, say, municipal climate policy in Austria, then the IPCC is the only source of scientific information.”

Yep, the 'monopoly' extends to some small countries and Austrian municipalities.

That's some climb-down.

Anonymous Etc

Anonymous said...

I almost feel sorry for Tol. Going such paranoid lengths to undermine Cook 97% paper. While having such cognitive problems with admitting so evident flaws in his work. Saulius

willard said...

Eli reads too much, and should go out more:

> The serenity and beauty of the scene rivaled the best of America’s landscape painting. For that moment, the remote island wilderness appeared as tranquil as a still-life, as permanent in form and structure as brush strokes on canvas at the Louvre.

Thus spake the emeritus, Director of Program on Global Change at George Mason U, who also says elsewhere:

[O]ne can only be rather agnostic about the role that human actions have played and are playing in climate change. A new, important paper in the journal Science casts some fascinating light on the question of whether carbon dioxide change precedes temperature change, and therefore is a likely cause of the temperature change, or whether temperature change precedes carbon dioxide change, casting doubt on the role of the greenhouse gas in climate change.

Not sure if Judy finds those views as "particularly interesting" as his recent testimony to Lamarr Smith's House hearing.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous Etc:

Dangit, you made me read a comment thread at Curry's blog! I feel dumber now.


Anonymous said...

How is Gelman's blog post "dipping into econometrics"?

I don't see any. in fact, I don't see any data analysis to speak of, just broad observations.

or does "dipping into econometrics' just mean that Gelman implies Tol did not use econometrics?

Anonymous said...

Tol appears to have some misapprehensions:

"In statistics, an outlier is an observation point that is distant from other observations.[1]" -- wikipedia

"I think that an outlier is an observation that is far from its expectation." -- Tol

That may depend on whether you spell it with an "a" or an "e"

Anonymous said...

After "I think that an outlier is an observation that is far from its expectation" Tol goes on to say "That immediately implies that you [gelman]have a specification in mind. The three observations that you deem outliers are inconsistent with some models but consistent with other models."

The simplest "expectation" is just the average of a set of points, which actually does not imply a "specification"

Ron Broberg said...

Pure comedy gold!

Unsolicited advice for Tol: Sometimes you need to step away from the keyboard.