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.
Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists’ emails hacked at CRU
Comments
View as Flat
Andrew Dessler Posted 7:41 am
15 Mar 2007
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.
Permalink
Daniel Collins Posted 8:48 am
15 Mar 2007
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
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:46 am
15 Mar 2007
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.
Forward!
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:52 am
15 Mar 2007
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.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
tico89 Posted 1:11 pm
15 Mar 2007
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.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 3:34 pm
15 Mar 2007
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.
Permalink
cieldumort Posted 4:07 pm
15 Mar 2007
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
Permalink
Benny Big Eye Posted 1:08 am
16 Mar 2007
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
Permalink
EliRabett Posted 2:09 pm
17 Mar 2007
Permalink
EliRabett Posted 2:11 pm
17 Mar 2007
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 7:24 am
18 Mar 2007
Permalink
EliRabett Posted 7:57 am
19 Mar 2007
Permalink
koosf Posted 8:42 am
28 Jan 2008
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."
Permalink