Sunday, January 18, 2015

Playoff Bracket

Andrew Gelman, over at Statistical Modeling, Casual Inference and Social Science has been organizing aplayoff bracket to choose the ultimate seminar speaker.  Eli noted that Drew and his ilk have philosophers, artists, comedians and religious, but no scientists.

Now, some, not Eli to be sure, might consider this a problem.  Eli thinks it is an opportunity, but a great one for the bunnies to organize a  climate science debate, not an imaginary one, but one, where, through the magic of the internet, we can have scientists and denialists going at each other in YouTube/Vimeo, whatever brackets

As a matter of history, the Rabett will point to the Dessler vs Lindzen disputation featured oh so many years ago at Rabett Run.

but that was oh so many years ago, and Eli knows there are great lectures out there to be compared.  So, dear readers, who should debate in the climate seminar playoff bracket.


rab said...

That would be "causal", not "casual".

Fernando Leanme said...

It won't work. If you let me choose the participants I will have you represented by Jane Tao, and I will have my side represented by the Zerg of climatology.

Aaron said...

Wagner had it correct. When Erda speaks (Data) all (Gods, Men, Giants, Dwarves) must hear and obey.

It is not happy stuff.

John McCormick said...

The first face-off:

Dr. Peter Ward, U WA paleonotoligst and author of "Under a Green Sky" vs. Pat Michaels, an industry shill at CATO Institute.

John McCormick

Aaron said...

East coast of Greenland in late January, 2015. Mother Earth speaks!

One way to view the image is as a binary plot of energy content of the surface. The white is ice and the black is water. The water has 80 cal/gm more energy. The water may be close to the same temperature as the ice, but the water carries a lot more heat.

The image shows the discharge of liquid water carrying heat of fusion via fjords into a Greenland Sea with limited sea ice. This is very odd because we normally think of the fjords as discharging ice with a much lower heat content. It shows both the GIS and the Greenland Sea warming. AGW is as real as the gravity that is moving the liquid water. The image also warns that our models of fluid flow in the GIS are inadequate.

This is not cherry picking data. Melt of the GIS is a big deal, and Greenland has worn a necklace of polynias of melt, (off and on) for the last few years. Seeing liquid water in the wrong place at the wrong time is like seeing an 80C temperature anomaly in water that is normally liquid.

I live in a place that has been growing fruit for a long time. So here it is is January, and I have pears blooming -- 70 days early. This is the voice of Mother Earth with real implications for our food supply. The fruit bloom must be coordinated with the bee population for pollination, or we do not get a crop. I promise you that people that are in a famine will not argue about AGW. Check the price of fresh green vegetables. That is the voice of Mother Earth warning us that we have real work to do.

We do not debate gravity, we teach the concept to children. We need to do the same with AGW. Even before Surgeon General's Report, we warned children that smoking was bad for them. However, recently a statistics teacher, who does not smoke, was telling me about all the doubt in the data on smoking. The important issue is not, that some studies were poorly conducted, but that there are some very good studies. We are not arguing a legal defense of CO2, we are doing risk analysis for planners and policy makers.

As far as I am concerned, saying fossil fuel is a good source of energy is much more evil than saying that smoking has not been proven to be harmful. Both are lies with huge global consequences. However, the consequences of smoking are limited to the duration of the life span of the smokers, while AGW can cause damages to children born long after the CO2 is released.

We are not going to reach everybody. Trying to convince everybody is a waste of effort. Most of the world is convinced. IPCC AR5 tells us there are real deadlines. We do not have the luxury of wasting time or effort.

We should simply make it illegal to advertise any activity that results in the release of CO2 or to advertise product that that was manufactured using fossil fuels. The activities and products would still be legal, they just could not be advertized.

This could be done in one small market, then given the nature of mass media, advertisers around the world could be sanctioned.


Aaron has identified a three pipe problem.

Anonymous said...

I pick John Nielsen-Gammon, aka the Bobby Orr of ClimateBall. I don't care who the contrarians pick. Senior, perhaps?

Alternatively, I pick Richard Alley and any lukewarming broker that money can buy:

That NG is portrayed at Willard Tony's as a lukewarmer is beyond me and NG.


The most bipartisan fun would be a tag team match with Alley and Ridley on one side and Monckton and Alley Oop on the other.

DEB said...

off topic, but this story about Richard Tol's bad behavior as a journal editor-in-chief looked like something a certain rabbet might enjoy highlighting

Story is at
Title: Paper Exposing Manipulation of Electricity Prices Stymied by Editor with Private Equity Ties