Only sort of. Cognitive science is an interdisciplinary field, but my university shoehorned it into psychology. Any psych degree requires a broad sampling of the field, and this particular effect would fall between cognitive and social psychology. (That said, my bachelor’s isn’t even in psych – it’s in physics!)

Dunning-Kruger is one of the many things everyone involved in this discussion should know about. It puts SO much in perspective. It’s sort of like the Manpollo vids in that aspect: risk management and self-criticism are key to cutting through ideology.

For example, I could cite your repeated attacks on Al Gore despite no climate scientist ever citing him, but that’s a general hallmark of many people who do not think scientifically. So instead, I’ll look at a very specific claim of yours.

He [Hansen] has adjusted the temperature records to compensate for instrument and siting errors, yet will not disclose how these adjustments were calculated

In truth, Hansen HAS published this algorithm, and the raw data is available. However, a person unable to think like a scientist wouldn’t know where to look. Since this information really only matters if you have the scientific understanding to use it properly, there’s no reason for the method to be written in plain English on some website somewhere as opposed to in the scientific literature. (Which is where Hansen published it.)

Here’s the technique one would use, assuming you weren’t a scientist. (If you were a scientist, a simple literature search would have answered your question, but you probably don’t have access to the ISI Web of Knowledge or similar databases.) See if you would have thought of it. If you weren’t able to, you should question any evaluation you have on matters of science. If you WERE able to think of this system, ask yourself why you didn’t apply it.

A quick search for “GISS data” (GISS = Goddard Institute of Space Studies; anyone yelling at Hansen should know this is where he works) reveals many links, but the first one takes you to http://data.giss.nasa.gov/, which is the official GISS website. The SECOND link is http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/, which is referring to the GISS temperature data. That’s your target.

On that page, you see the following paragraph:
The current analysis uses surface air temperatures measurements from the following data sets: the unadjusted data of the Global Historical Climatology Network (Peterson and Vose, 1997 and 1998), United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data, and SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research) data from Antarctic stations. The basic analysis method is described by Hansen et al. (1999), with several modifications described by Hansen et al. (2001) also included.

Hmm. Two references to where the basic method is published. But I’ll go on.

Later on the page, under the same section, you’ll see:
A global temperature index, as described by Hansen et al. (1996), is obtained by combining the meteorological station measurements with sea surface temperatures based in early years on ship measurements and in recent decades on satellite measurements. Uses of this data should credit the original sources, specifically the British HadISST group (Rayner and others) and the NOAA satellite analysis group (Reynolds, Smith and others). (See references.)

Now this provides other references, except this time Hansen et al 1996 is linked. Reading that provides a discussion of the GISS temperature index system, including a basic discussion (with references) on how they adjust for the Urban Heat Isand Effect. (It’s not described in this paper directly, but it references other papers where it *is* described, albeit in rather technical terms. A plain-English summary, however, *is* provided in Hansen et al 1996, so you can grasp the method there.)

Continuing on, we find a discussion on why the temperature record starts in 1880 (uninteresting to this talking point) and, critically:
Modifications to the analysis since 2001 are described on the separate Updates to Analysis.
That’s referring to Steven MacIntyre’s only contribution to climate science, when he caught a mistake in post-2001 continental US data. The scientists, far from suppressing this argument, accepted it, corrected for it, and cited MacIntyre in their discussion on the adjustment.

Now, any of the papers that were NOT linked directly above on the GISS data page are referenced in their Reference Section at the bottom of the page. Many of them are available for download through the mirror provided. (Some are not, probably due to subscription costs – science journals have to pay bills too – but these are available through any university library or research institute. If you live near a university, swing by their library and ask for help finding them if you want.)

Oh, and as a special bonus, if digging through scientific papers isn’t your thing, Hansen provides code for implementing all of his algorithms, right there on the page. There’s also links to the FTP server (standard method for transferring files among researchers) where all of the raw data are available! (You have to compile and run the code yourself, and obtain the data in the right structure — this is academic research, not end-user interface-ready code. Again, why would it need an easy interface if everyone who would really care enough to look understands how to use a Unix command line?)

With all of that information readily available, with less than ten seconds of Googling (even without a scholarly literature search), it is trivially easy to see that Hansen not describes his adjustments in great detail at multiple levels of depth, but he also freely provides all of his code and raw data. And yet, with all of this, you still say he “will not disclose how these adjustments were calculated”.

I ask you this: If you are incapable of verifying what you say, why say it? If you are capable of verifying it, why haven’t you? And finally, now that you have been shown to be incorrect, will you adjust your viewpoint accordingly?

If you’re wrong on this recited talking point, could you be wrong on other interpretations as well?

I conclude by referencing something that you should probably be aware of, in a form everyone can understand.

It appears you subscribe to a different credibility spectrum than I do. I can’t say that I don’t find it biased toward a pleasing conclusion, but I don’t think I’ll be able to convince you otherwise. Even though the hockey stick was approved by the NAS, and later expanded on (see the 1000-year temp record in the latest IPCC report – a whole hockey team), it’s easy enough to find blogs and editorials that say it was “discredited”. With the internet, it’s easy to convince yourself of whatever you want in a topic like climate change.

But I’m still waiting for those peer-reviewed papers to back up your claims. So far all you’ve linked me to are blog posts and articles from conservative think-tanks.

Doesn’t make your insults of Hansen, Mann, Oreskes, and the IPCC appear so warranted. If you don’t like some conclusions that these scientists are finding, dig up a formal retraction that the journals made and send it to me, rather than the words of a layperson that’s mad at the scientists. Journals make retractions all the time. I’m making it easy for you here….

Do you really think we could sufficiently adapt to the warming that’s expected? Perhaps the developed world could, at the beginning at least, but what about the developing world? Do you think India and Africa have the resources for any kind of adaptation?

Won’t it be more expensive to move 40% of the world’s population away from coastal areas, find new staple crops (as rice, wheat, corn, etc can’t survive heat waves), develop vaccines for all the vector-borne diseases that would spread with warming, ship fresh water to newly arid communities, develop conservation strategies for up to half of the world’s species, and build floodways around vulnerable communities – than it would to simply develop new technologies and limit our use of old technologies today? Wouldn’t it require more money and more government intervention?

Also keep in mind that if we wait until things get really bad and then stop our carbon emissions all at once, the problem won’t stop all at once either. There’s a lag time from CO2 emissions to CO2 concentrations. There’s also a lag time for changes in CO2 to changes in temperature. We’re always acting about 50-60 years ahead of ourselves. “A wait and see policy may mean waiting until it’s too late.” I can’t remember who said that – I think it was the NAS, I’d have to go back and check – but they said it in the 1950s. About climate change. And we’re still sitting here trying to work out whether or not there even is a problem.

Sorry the link failed. Here’s the fix: click on it again. When it bombs-out, go to the address bar of your browser and delete the last character in the URL, which is a ‘close-parenthesis’ mark. I put the link in parentheses and the trailing one was picked up as part of the link. I mentioned the BMI study on media bias to support the 20/20 segment by John Stossel.

I cringed when you recommended reading some of Oreskes’ work. To me, she seems what I imagine Michael Mann (of Hockey Stick infamy) was like before he made it to the big time. I read the text of her speech last year in Dublin, and I felt that much of what she said was disinformation in unabashed furtherance of alarmism.

I will not say that the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, or Science magazine lacks credibility, but they are certainly not without warts. For example:

National Academy of Sciences:

Anyone wondering why Al Gore and many others (including the IPCC) avoid scientific debates and avoid any discourse that would cast doubts on the efficacy of AGW science? Read this excerpt from the NAS book ‘Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavior Science Research Priorities’ at http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11186&page=86 . On page 86, NAS says: “By focusing scientific efforts increasingly on decision relevance, such a program of measurement, evaluation and analysis would increase the influence of empirical evidence and empirically supported theory in environmental decisions relative to the influents of politics and ideology”. This seems a bit abstract, but I interpret NAS’s words to mean that focusing scientific research to support public policy objectives will help achieve the desired outcome, i.e. provide support for a political agenda. Scientific debates would de-focus support for AGW policy objectives, thus no scientific debates are to be allowed. NAS exists, in part, to give scientific advice to the Federal government, and receive funding in exchange.

We know that Al Gore won’t stay in the same room as anyone who would challenge him on the science. And we have all heard of IPCC scientists who left the IPCC because their comments containing statements of doubt were excluded from IPCC assessment reports by the politicians.

NASA:

James Hansen is the NASA official who maintains the land-based temperature record for U.S. measuring stations. He has adjusted the temperature records to compensate for instrument and siting errors, yet will not disclose how these adjustments were calculated. The adjustments always widen the gap between temperatures from the start date and the present, and which helps support claims for his AGW advocacy. And we see an ever-widening gap between Hansen’s temperature record and temperatures measured by orbiting satellites. To me, this is a credibility gap ignored and protected by NASA.

Science magazine:

I was advised to read some of what Naomi Oreskes has written. I read accounts of her memorable paper published in “Science” (in 2004) which claimed that nearly 100% of the scientific papers and articles about ‘climate change’ (Google search hits, I believe it was) supported the AGW consensus view. It seemed compelling. Others could not replicate her work. She later admitted her study was actually based on the search term ‘global climate change’, not ‘climate change’ as was cited in her paper. Her study still could not be replicated. No such support for her ’100%’ claim existed, even using ‘global climate change’. Far from it. See http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/05/oreskes-study-errata.html . Oreskes’ study went the way of Mann’s Hockey Stick. I imagine she never expected her work to get such a tough peer review. Science magazine did not gain any credibility by publishing her paper.

In summary, let me say that AGW science has not reached the point where it can support actionable public policy measures of the breadth and scope of what our government proposes. Right now, the best we should do is develop plans for adaptation to the effects of localized warming and deal with it if/when warranted over time. But the governments of the world have spent tens of $billions over the years to prove that AGW is so. They must want it to be so, and will not accept any second opinions.

However, when there’s a funny / ironic / hypocritical / outrageous / WTF!!?! moment in the climate struggle, I usually send it out via the International Journal of Inactivism, specifically through their Mindless Link Propogation section. (I think I’m second only to Frank himself for submissions there; I also helped with the infamous Twisty Maze of Think Tanks project at the main journal.)

That’s a very interesting story. You have a lot of interesting stories, please keep sharing them. Alternatively you could start your own blog and I’ll subscribe. WordPress isn’t too hard to use.

I’m not at all surprised he was from George C Marshall! When it comes to extremist right-wing disinformation organizations, nothing much surprised me anymore. With them, the ends justify the means – it’s the other way for science.

Yes, I have seen the Oreskes video, it’s very good. I’d recommend that all readers go check it out.

On a related note, have you heard of the book Shop Class As Soulcraft, by Matthew Crawford? It’s an elaboration of an essay he wrote called “In Defense Of Working With Your Hands”, essentially telling us to stop looking down on manual workers as using less intelligence than your usual non-academic intellectual, written by a Ph.D. in political philosophy who left the intellectual world to run a motorcycle maintenance garage. (Surprisingly good read, too.)

This may sound unrelated, but there’s a reason for it. In the original essay (I don’t have a copy of the book with me to cite other examples), he describes one of his earlier jobs:
I landed a job as executive director of a policy organization in Washington. This felt like a coup. But certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn’t fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style — that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning.
(Emphasis mine.)

He also appeared on the Colbert Report, describing another position he had which involved producing a whole lot of crap (his own words) by summarizing about 28 scientific papers per day (!!) with no quality control. Colbert applauded him for “actively damaging knowledge”.

Why is this important? Well, he doesn’t identify the group he was with, but a quick search on MediaTransparency.org shows us exactly which “Washington policy organization” this was — and it turns out to be the George C. Marshall Institute. (Matthew Crawford was appointed executive director in 2001.) This has been called the hub of antiscientific (and particular anti-climate change) viewpoints for decades. For example, here’s Naomi Oreskes talking on the subject (start the video at ~26 minutes in to see the section on the Marshall Institute), and a quick search on ExxonSecrets for that group and its associated members is a who’s who of climate inactivists.

That’s a great quote about scientists not being either pro- or anti- either conclusion. In science, the means justify the ends.

Therefore, you have provided no peer-reviewed research to back up your claims. Again, instead of simply insulting Warmers, back up your views with some credibility. A conservative think-tank simply cannot compare to a peer-reviewed journal on a topic of science.

I can’t understand what your objection is to the more complicated Risk Managment grid – do you think it’s too detailed, while the simpler one is too simple? Should we simply ignore the possibility that this problem could be real at all? Is that ethical or responsible?

The IPCC is a political organization, but it does not do any of its own research. It simply compiles all the articles and reports regarding climate change since its last assessment report, and restates the findings in a more concise way without repetitions – much easier to navigate. So if you don’t like the IPCC, it doesn’t matter, because everything in it came from somewhere else. Try explaining how the National Academy of Sciences lacks credibility. Or NASA. Or Science magazine.

The “authority” that Craven refers to is not the government. He is referring to scientific bodies such as the NAS, who do not want to take our money. This may be difficult for you to understand, but credible science doesn’t work from the bottom up – starting with a conclusion they like and then choosing evidence to fit it. They work from the top down. They use methods which have been tried and tested to develop a conclusion. Then they try to prove themselves wrong. In science, the means justify the ends.

I accept that there are some scientists who dispute AGW, but if you are taking their word for it because they’re smart people with PhDs, it is simple logic to trust the Warmer’s side of the debate, because we have many more smart people with PhDs. I don’t claim absolute consensus, as that is impossible in science, but I do claim overwhelming agreement, as discussed in Artificial Balance and Gambling on a Lie.

It’s also important to remember that, in science, not all evidence is equal. If it was, we’d still be forced to accept the words of Aristotle who said that air had no mass. In science, only the best evidence floats to the top, that which passes peer-review, eliminates bias, and has not been disproved.

What do you expect me to do? Accept the words of anyone and everyone, no matter their credibility, falsifiability, or logic? Accept evidence even if it has been proven faulty by a more credible source?

How do you choose which evidence is most credible?

What