The Blackboard

I’m not Boris, but when I looked at some of the linked interviews/articles from the Wiki page, I noticed how Z.J. likes to tell you his work history – in detail – whether you ask him or not. An appeal to his own authority, I suppose.
.
As much as I would like, though, I shall refrain from stealing any of Boris’ fun.

ZJ does recite his vita at length. Bear in mind that in congressional hearings these introductions are always done. But… yes.. the appeal to authority is easy to find even where it is not necessary.

Also, there are 3 self-references to past articles in the pdf I linked. Once again, done in all articles everywhere. In his desconstructions, Boris could chose to discover whether anyone agrees with what he wrote and/or whether there is any scholarly rebuttal. ( Bearing in mind that it is in the best interest of scientists to ignore things other scientists ignore, many incorrect things are never rebutted in any peer reviewed publication. So it’s very difficult to prove everyone disagrees with something is untrue. Very difficult.)

While I think it will be safe to say that very, very few people agree with J in it’s entirety, if Boris takes on the challenge, I foresee the potential for people arguing over whether or not everyone knows snowball earth is a wooly eyed fantasy!

I noticed the self-references, too. If you look at the non-self references, they generally support a statement of fact (In the bubble-free ice the explosions form a new gas cavities and new cracks). The subsequent exposition tends to be an interpretation that is not present in the referenced article and is not accompanied by any relevant calculation.
.
Some of the things are interesting. I don’t really know anything about the uncertainties involved when inferring CO2 concentrations in the paleo world, though. Methinks they are larger than what is being implied.

RyanO-
I also know nothing about the uncertainties involved when inferring CO2 concentrations in the paleo world. The result is that for me, rebutting those specific statements becomes too much work. It is also why when I see “accurate but not true” is the parts I do understand, I tend to suspect the same technique is applied in other areas.

It’s also why, in the past, when Boris has suggested I go through some other papers he considers “nutty”, I decline. The most I can say of some papers is: I don’t know enough to prove all sorts of things are false and I don’t plan to devote 120 hours to that item.

I didn’t find the Schneider quote on his web site but I did find this:

Schneider acknowledged that being an advocate might bias the way a scientist presents information. To prevent this, Schneider proposed three rules for the “responsible scientific advocate.”

Finally, the researcher should not hype the information. People may be more likely to act if they are scared, but fear shouldn’t be a part of the researcher’s toolbox, Schneider said.

Hard to fault it, really. Mind you, he’s got Mann and Jones 2003 on his front page. So you have to ask if he does what he proposes all scientific advocates should do and if his friends do it.

Sorry, was that off topic?

So you don’t like “The Ice Age is coming!”. What do you think of http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf ?

Why in hell would I want to spend time dissecting this guy’s arguments? It’s going to be 70 degrees here in Memphis today and I’ve got a date with two lovely young ladies to play on the playground, feed ducks and throw rocks in the pond. And what would I gain, besides an indeterminate amount of some mythical currency? Some supposed understanding that even small inaccuracies can ruin an argument? I know this already and I’ve criticized Gore and others for it before. I actually don’t know what the heck the whole Revkin thing is about and I’m not really interested, either.

But here’s the post I referenced in the other thread. (I apologized to Google and we’re friends again):

http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7

(Bonus: You get to read TCO’s comments as a young wild-eyed skeptic with dreams of world domination in his head. Okay, I made up that last part.)

Interesting read, Boris. A few too many ad homs, though . . . kind of takes away from the credibility . . . some unsupported generalizations . . . too many references to information not in peer-reviewed stuff. For excoriating Z.J., the guy commits many of the same sins, though not as frequently. Of course, some of those sins make for better reading.
.
I must resist the urge to start reading paleo papers . . . already too many things to read . . .

Boris– It’s absolutely beautiful here too. I did some weeding. Wise move to let ZJ’s stuff stand or fall on it’s own!

I think the main point of Revkin’s article was that Gore’s inaccuracies hurt his case more than Will’s do. The reason is: Gore’s case is (for all it’s flaws) closer to the consensus position of what the science says than Will’s.

So, for Will, the controversy helps while for Gore it hurts.

That is: The two men’s messages are not equivalent.

Now I’d better go read TCO. I find I enjoy his hilarious food fights when they take place at other blogs.

Rich,
I wonder if Schneider wrote that before or after his widely quoted gaffe. Maybe he was just backfilling the hole he put himself in.
Mike

Mike B.
Schneider’s reasonable sounding ‘Three rules for the “responsible scientific advocate.”’ appears to be from 2001 ( See: http://news-service.stanford.e.....der59.html where the quote is given full context.)

According to ZJ, the less reasonable sounding “Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.”

is from Stephen H. Schneider, 1989. In an interview in Discover,(October), pp. 45-48. I haven’t found SS’s quote in context.

Boris–
By the way, that thread is hilarious. One of the funny things is that if one wanted to do so it would be possible to show at least a few JZ statements criticized as the blogger as “inaccurate” are not inaccurate, but just organized to be highly misleading! So… they were “accurate but false”.

One guy actually drops in to explain the different meanings of

“written for the hearing before the US Senate…” and “Statement presented before the US Senate…”! and the debate ensues. It appears “accurate but not true!” did, indeed, rear its head. There are a few others… but… it’s nice out. Time for a walk.

Schneider’s website has a document containing the quote:
.
http://stephenschneider.stanfo…..rs/APS.pdf
.
It has the letter from Simon, which has the Schneider quote slightly modified and taken out of context, followed by a letter from Schneider with the full quote:
.

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need, to get some broad base support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention about any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind”
we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

.
To me, just taking the quote out of context makes it sound a lot worse than the whole statement. Schneider’s clearly describing a very real ethical dilemma that highlights the fact that scientists are not robots. They are human, and because of that, their work sometimes presents them with difficult choices when attempting to describe a very esoteric and complex field to the layman. There is no doubt that they must make choices on how data and conclusions are to be presented, which inevitably involves simplification and omission . . . and yet still effectively communicate the spirit of the research.
.
The last part, which is the oft-quoted part, could either be taken at face value or could simply be interpreted as a poor way of explaining that each scientist must decide how best to communicate this information for himself.
.
I always take interview quotes with a grain of salt, anyway. Not everyone is awesome at thinking on their feet, and often “freudian slips” are truly nothing more than poor wording. If it was written by Schneider, that would be a whole different ball game. When writing for public consumption, one has plenty of time to make sure the wording communicates the concept properly. I tend to be far less forgiving when it comes to written work.
.
For me, my takeaway would be that Schneider feels that some amount of hyperbole and omission is warranted when presenting to the public. Based on this quote alone, I certainly would not conclude that Schneider practices or promotes gross misrepresentations or falsifications of the science when presenting to the public.
.
But because the quote is still a tad unsettling, I’d give him no better than a lukewarm C+ on my personal and externally unverifiable scale of scientific integrity. Passing, but not stellar.
.

RyanO–
I added an update and a link to the quote in context to the article. That surrounding text does make a difference, but it is a bit unsettling. As you say, spoken interviews are a bit dicey.

In particular “I hope that means both” (meaning effective and honest” makes a difference. So lopping it off makes ZJ’s use definitely “accurate but untrue”.)

Cool. Thanks, Lucia.
.
While doing the search, I found that his quote had been mangled in other ways depending on which site it was posted on. Funny that someone would question the integrity of a scientist and present as evidence a massaged quote.
.
Most of the quotes seemed to be exact, though . . . albeit out of context.

Another non-climate example of Jaworowski nuttiness – his day job is supposed to be on the Polish Radiological Protection Laboratory. But he actually believes in “the phenomenon of hormesis—that is, the stimulating and protective effect of small doses of radiation, which is also termed adaptive response.” In fact, his recommendation on radiation levels:
“Adopting a practical threshold would be an important step taken toward dealing with radiation rationally and toward regaining the public’s acceptance of radioactivity and radiation as blessings for mankind.”

Jaworoswski, winner of the Golden Horseshoe Award? Guys, there are some Poles you should not look at through a ten foot peep hole.

Oh yes, the entire series, which leaves Joro on the floor in pieces

Anyone who could not find this stuff ain’t even trying.

I think the fact that most of us had no idea who he was is indicative of his level of influence.

Ah, but Ziggy is a major author on the Heartland Institute’s Non-Governmental Panel on Climate Change

Eli– I think the initial problem was Boris mis-spelled and the rest of us has never heard of him!

But he is creative.

Eli–
I have a nice glossy copy of that!

Lucia,

I bet my nice glossy copies of the AR4 reports are bigger!

Too bad, unlke many of you, he is actually a Scientist. And a former IPCC chairman of the subgroup discussing ice Cores. He has forgotten more about clathrate formation under ice pressure tha many of you dilettantes could begin to assess.

Your sainted political bureaucracy of the IPCC thought him sufficiently qualified to write it’s assessment on ice cores’. When they didn’t like what his subgropup of scientists wrote, they substituted the thoughts of non-scientist bureaucrats. Hardly kosher do you think?

“former IPCC chairman”? Nonsense. ZB is not a modest man, as you can tell from his CV here. But he makes no such claim.

Ferdinand Engelbeen nicely dissects Jawarowski’s claims here:

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.....owski.html

Lucia, Many thanks for the GCM absolute temps the other day. I hadn’t seen them before.

The Paleological Git

I know Bender won’t be interested, and probably no one else either, but my favourite nutter is James Maxlow…
http://adt.curtin.edu.au/these.....ndices.pdf

EXPANDING EARTH!!!!
http://books.google.com.au/boo.....wVyvoY-0Dc

Whoa boy!

Every blog should have one thread where readers can collect all nutters – alleged and otherwise. Perhaps this is that thread.

Nathan– My favorite is Whitley Streiber of The Coming global Superstorm”. His other non-fiction contributions relate to his accounts of encounters with alien abduction. He also writes some fiction. You can read more here.

RyanO–

If we can collect all real and alleged nutters, at least we’ll recognize their names!

My contibution-

Big Al is my favorite ‘nutter’.

Andrew

Lucia – Streiber is the first nutter so far whom I actually knew beforehand.

RyanO– His stuff really sells! I don’t think any “side” on the climate wars embraced him. But his writings did inspire a movie!

I’m about to link to something secret, y’all. It’s filtered and blocked by Google! Well, not actually.

EDRO

To prevent misuse of data, commercial exploitation, or property speculation, the project coordinators are withholding names and specific details of the first phase of world’s collapsing cities until further notice.

For the record, That Andrew is not me, Andrew the occasional commenter who pops in to ask lucia a question now and then. Although I don’t much care for Gore either. You know, for every “side” to an argument, you have at least one extremist/nutter. Chalko and Streiber for Pro-AGW crowd, Jaworowski for those who are skeptical. I tend to think that people like that are strawmen set up by the opponents of the “side” they are on. I definitely cringed when I saw Jaworowski’s name on the NIPCC, but was glad to see that he didn’t exercise undue influence on the material. Remember that much more sensible people, including Lubos Motl participated in the report to.

Remember that much more sensible people, including Lubos Motl participated in the report to.

This statement should make skeptics cry into their temperature plot coffee mugs.

Um, I’m sorry, but, why? If you don’t think Lubos is sensible, I would seriously question your ability to objectively evaluate a person’s reasonableness and competence. It seems to you that anyone who doesn’t agree with you isn’t reasonable.

Andrew, I do not mean to besmirch your good (obviously) name with my sometimes less than diplomatic posts, but lets face it, I don’t have to stretch very far to pick the low-hanging fruit, if you catch my drift.

I usually put the notes after my name when I sign, but sometimes I’m at a computer where that does not function. I’m sure people pick up on our different syles anyway.

I encourage any other Andrews with something to say, to please chime in.

Andrew

Andrew ( Comment 11483),

You might have a low opinion of Jaroworski, but he was Chair of the UN’s Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR)for a while.

Presumably this meant he had some scientific standing? Or perhaps the UN isn’t particularly serious when it comes to appointing Chairs to its various Committees? I mean, an economist to Chair the IPCC would be ridiculous on your criterion.

No problem, my well named Comrade (:D how’d that slip out?)! But I’d better shy away from this thread. Me and Boris are close to food fight territory.

“perhaps the UN isn’t particularly serious when it comes to appointing Chairs to its various Committees”

Bingo. But then again, I’m a rabid anti-supra-nationalist.

We may need one of you guys to become “Andrew_FL” and one “Andrew_KY”. (My guess based on IP’s.)

Good guess! Yes, I am from Florida, and I am the one who wrote comments 11492, 11491, 11486, 11483, etc.

Andrew_FL: when your comments arrive in my box, the DNS ends with fl.comcast.net. If you were the main blogger, you’d see mine end wiht il.comcast.net.

So, yours was pretty easy to guess. I went to “whois” on the other Andrew– but that doesn’t always work. If I use whois on the numerical value of my IP, I’m sometimes often supposedly in New Jersey.

I like it! I’m from OH, but would proudly sing the praises of KY!

Andrew

Can’t believe some people here hadn’t heard of Jaworoski. I read his stuff at least a year ago or more along with the guy (can’t remember his name – scurge of the more elderly) who did the work on the past chemical determinations of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Found it interesting – the choosing of all the ~280 ppm CO2 and the fitting of the Siple with the Mauna Loa data and some of his problems with ice cores. Just tucked it away in a corner of my brain for later reference. Have no idea whether it has any veracity.

I have not read all the comments, but in regard to Schneider – what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you really feel strongly that the AGW hypothesis is badly flawed, then why not foam at the mouth, hurl ad hominems and wildly exaggerate? I would much rather they didn’t and make the assumption that perhaps a majority of people want to hear a reasoned argument pro and con. Something like the last discussion on CA regarding the Garth Paltridge paper. I think the cons made the best case regarding the usefulness of the data – and I am a “realist”.

Steve,
Could the guy who did the CO2 work be Ernst-Georg Beck? He presented historical data of the chemical method for determining CO2 concentration. WUWT posted on him last summer:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpre.....#more-1843

Davb

Yup, that would be the guy. In a way (sort of, kind of) his data suffers the same as Paltridge. Kind of “iffy” – but why not throw it out there to be considered? Why all those high readings? I think the scientists (chemists) in those days were a lot more careful attaining their data than some scientists today. At least that is my impression.

And I’m another Andrew altho I usually use my family as well as individual name and I only delurk very rarely — you guys have too much time on your hands;-)

Good to hear from you, Andrew K.

You know, we Andrews could become a politically powerful group if we decided to band together.

We could ad hom our way to some real changes.

Andrew

I didn’t know where else to put this link…
I’m not saying he’s crazy, just that it seems unlikely to me:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=197

Steve (Comment#11529) March 7th, 2009 at 9:13 pm ,

I think the scientists (chemists) in those days were a lot more careful attaining their data than some scientists today.

Contamination control has progressed by leaps and bounds. How carefully you do the analysis of a non-representative sample is irrelevant. Lead analysis is a classic example. Everybody once thought that the background level of lead was a few ppm and it had always been that way. Then Professor Clair Patterson used clean room technology among other things to prevent sample contamination and found huge differences between ancient and current samples. Beck’s paper is an uncritical assemblage of measurements. As such it is useless as a guide to past CO2 levels.

Steve (Comment#11509)

Steve, I have made some comments on Jaworowski as his allegations need to be taken with a lot of salt, to say the least.

Take the “arbitrary” shift of 83 years of CO2 data of the Siple Dome to “match the Mauna Loa data”. A serious accusation, until you read the original Neftel article, and find out that Jaworowski compared the age of the ice layer with the Mauna Loa CO2 data of the same age. Adjacent in the same table (!) there is a list of the gas age of the bubbles (wherein CO2 is measured), which matches the Mauna Loa CO2 levels within a few ppmv for the same age.

Either Jaworowski doesn’t have a clue that enclosed air is (much) younger than the ice at the same depth (quite strange for an ice core specialist), or he simply is fooling people to believe that everything that touches AGW is evil…
See further: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.....owski.html
(Pompous Git did see it first…)

A different view on what Ernst Beck has done: a tremendous amount of work to gather tenthousands of historical CO2 measurements. The problem, besides the accuracy of many of these chemical measurements, is where was measured: many times near huge sources of CO2 (towns, rice fields,…). Beck lumped them all together in averages, without looking at the variability (sometimes hundreds of ppmv diurnal change) and without any criteria for selection or weighing. Thus while I admire his hard work, I completely disagree with his conclusions. The 1942 peak (+80 ppmv up and down in 15 years time) is physically near impossible (especially not the sink speed). See further:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen....._data.html

Ferdinand/DeWitt

Thanks for the comments. Ferdinand, I found your links to be very informative. I think I can release that small part of my brain to other info now!!

Always a little suspicious of Z. When I saw the title of his book with Solar
Cycles, not CO2 ….. I knew not to take the book too seriously. Been influenced by Leif S, who by enlarge has convinced me that the sun has not a very large influence on temperatures over the short period.

Nick Stokes (Comment#11429):
This comment about Jaworowski’s competence in radiological studies is unworthy. The J curve (hormetic response) is a familiar response to radiation effects in living tissue – unfortunately for the extremists. A very nice easy paper to read about overblown science is Chesser and Baker’s Growing up with Chernobyl – http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/chornobyl/publications.htm. One of the nice bits was where they discuss publishing a paper in Nature which they later discovered was in error. Their comments leading up to their issuing a retraction was revealing.
G

GeoS (Comment#11737)

In addition:

I haven’t read the work of Jaworowski on radiation, but have read several studies in the US (and else) that actually low doses of radiation like from radon gives less cancer than lower doses. Something similar can be seen in a lot of natural (digitalis, vitamin A), and man-made poisons (dioxins), where high doses are very toxic and carcinogens, while low doses cure cancer or other diseases…

RE: Nick Stokes (Comment#11429)
OK, a bit off topic (and in no way an endorsement of Ziggy), but, do you have any data to counter the “hormesis” theory?

The real question: does ionizing radiation follow a linear no threshold model? Or, are there other models that may better describe the dose-response relationship?

Movie tidbit: Bet Ziggy is a fan of the movie, “Repo Man”!

Bruce

Ferdinand Engelbeen (Comment#11753) and BDAABAT (Comment#11759)
Bit OT but the linear no theshold hypothesis LNT is interesting. Without getting into detail, the LNT response is simply represented by a linear dose response passing though zero for both dose and response. Another, is represented by a threshold dose at which the response would be zero (the L curve) and yet another where the response goes negative after the threshold (the J curve or hormetic response). LNT is frequently defended on grounds of convenience for calculations and of course by those who like to insist that millions are gonna die.
Ferdinand mentions the toxic effects of substances where somewhat parallel arguments can be seen. I like the one about selenium, a very toxic substance in excess but you need it in trace amounts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selenium.

GeoS and Nick:

Yup. There’s actually a tremendous amount of literature on ionizing radiation and the LNT theory… and how actual experience doesn’t actually follow the model.

Bruce