Ten Replies to Gavin – Advocacy vs Science

Updated 4-2-09 see below.

This is a plagiarized and linked copy of a post by Gavin Schmidt over at real climate where he deems to lecture about Advocacy and Science. Of course the team has likewise deemed me unqualified, too slow, and unable to comment on the RC threads. Although I’ve never been impolite or off topic I simply have asked tough non-leading questions like-

How can you assume you’re measuring temperature in tree rings simply by correlation? This doesn’t seem reasonable. Please explain.

Well this latest lecture by lord Gavin got me all wound up again.

Advocacy vs. Science

Filed under:

• Climate Science

— gavin @ 6:01 PM

The advocate will pick up any piece of apparently useful data and without doing any analysis, decide that their pet theory perfectly explains any anomaly without consideration of any alternative explanations. Their conclusion is always that their original theory is correct.

The scientist will look at all possibilities and revise their thinking based on a thorough assessment of all issues – data quality, model quality and appropriateness of the the comparison. Their conclusion follows from the analysis whatever it points to.

Which one is which?

My response,

Dear Gavin,

1. A scientist accepts tough questions, an advocate stifles them.

2. A scientist is interested in the quality of his data source, an advocate adjusts and processes the data until it fits his conclusion.

3. A scientist using an instrument for measurement doesn’t assume the measurement is correct simply because of producing the intended result. An advocate will accept a tree ring proxy as a thermometer based on simple correlation analysis.

4. A scientist models data based on measured data, an advocate adjusts the numbers until the final result matches the assumption. How is moisture feedback measured for computer models?

5. A scientist accepts that 50 people in agreement have often been wrong, an advocate declares consensus and stifles dissent.

6. A scientist is concerned about politics in the peer review process, an advocate accepts it silently as long as it supports their project and conclusion.

7. A scientist reveals their methods and calculatoins to the world for reproduction, an advocate hides (censors) to prevent errors being noticed.

8. A scientist admits errors and goes back to work, an advocate hides them by concealing data and reproducing similar results with equally flawed methods. Who’s the denier about the latest hockey stick Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Tamino or me.

9. A scientist doesn’t lobby congress for pet political policies to be enacted, an advocate (Hansen) does.

10. A scientist doesn’t backhandedly and without good evidence (as I have presented) lecture scientists who disagree about being advocates.

Since my multiple reasonable questions were censored over the past months starting back in September, my opinion and comments toward that group have gotten ever stronger here and will likely continue to for some time. When I first asked questions over there I had no idea they were associated with Mann, they posted the paper so I asked. RC tries way too hard to give the impression of consensus by stifling difficult questions and not allowing reasonable discussion.

I was and am still willing to listen but Gavin, Steig (from his obfuscation not his paper) and especially Mann have lost so much of my respect, I can’t trust what they say. Of all the things I wrote and have written, that last comment represents very strong words for me.

Who’s the advocate Gavin, your buddy Mann or me? I’ll give you two guesses…..

———————————–

Update

Anthony Watts has provided exactly what we all felt should be made available, recognition and commentary on the updated data as well as reasons why it wasn’t used. LINK HERE.

This ‘anomaly’ is quantitatively greater than what one would expect from
the iris effect (that is to say, represents a larger negative feedback)(Chou
and Lindzen (2002) Comments on “Tropical convection and the energy
balance of the top of the atmosphere.” J. Climate, 15, 2566-2570.), but,
except for the last paper, all attempted to argue a different origin for the
observation. The last showed that the alternative explanations were
inconsistent with existing models.

Recently, Wong et al (Wong, Wielicki et al, 2006, Reexamination of the
Observed Decadal Variability of the Earth Radiation Budget Using
Altitude-Corrected ERBE/ERBS Nonscanner WFOV Data, J. Clim., 19,
4028-4040) have reassessed their data to reduce the magnitude of the
anomaly, but the remaining anomaly still represents a substantial negative
feedback, and there is reason to question the new adjustments. For
example, a more recent examination of the same datasets explicitly
confirms the iris relations at least for intraseasonal time scales (Spencer,
R.W., W.D. Braswell, J.R. Christy and J. Hnilo, 2007, Cloud and radiation
budget changes associated with the tropical intraseasonal oscillations,
Geophys. Res. Ltrs.)

Now it’s a matter of which scientist you agree with.  Dr. Lindzen has done his part in the past, whether he addressed it in a short letter for WUWT or not is of no consequence.

One thing’s for sure RC looks like crap again.   I wonder if they’ll apologize now for their advocacy remarks.