Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report - Get a Free Blog

Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report V1.0 09/26/10
1.4 Why do people care about the shaft?
Understanding gained from studies is shown first, split into 3 main eras,
showing important elements of science for each. Biology, chemistry and
physics inform understanding for all eras. Models and data are continually
used to cross-check each other, so scientists care about the past. A
straighter hockey shaft implies higher climate stability, whereas stronger
jiggles indicate higher sensitivity to CO2 changes, less stability and higher
chance of more extreme (bad) results. Oddly, those who attack the MBH
hockey stick for its straightness, ought to like it, as it argues for lower CO2
sensitivity than inferred by curves with stronger variations.
But of course, the attackers do not like it. A possible rationale for the
attack is shown in sketches at right, roughly combining earlier charts.
Suppose ―avoid CO2 regulation at all costs‖ (E) is one‘s goal, from:
� Strong interest in using or especially selling fossil fuels
� Ideological opposition to government regulation of anything
� Any of the many other reasons in [MAS2010, Figure 2.6].
It is not easy to attack the modern temperature record (B, the ―blade‖),
although some try. It is really difficult to attack basic physics, good
enough for approximate answers, although some try that as well. The shaft
(A) of the hockey stick really does not matter to policy and the blade (B) of
the stick is solid. Models (C) that predict temperatures as function of
emissions choices are already good enough, getting better and are mostly
needed for regional understanding and more accurate forecasts.
―Science bypass‖ is based not on doing real science, but on confusing the
public, a well-honed tactic developed especially for the tobacco industry,
[MAS2010, §1]. Arguments over statistical minutiae raise doubts and
confusion in the general public. It works well to invoke arguments
accessible only to experts. 3 Ideas are often packaged as anti-science
Memes, repeated endlessly although long ago debunked. Many seem to
attack (A or B) or (D) on credibility of climate science or the IPCC, but the
real goal always seems the avoidance or at least delay of inconvenient
action (E) (―mitigation) in favor of ―adaptation‖ alone, usually meaning
that someone else adapts, later or elsewhere.
3 Of people who are sure that MBH99 is a fraud due to decentered Principal
Component Analysis (PCA), what fraction had even heard of PCA before?
16
Our best science says this,
but if more people accepted it,
they might act (E) to change C.
But some have clear goal:
avoid any restriction CO2 other GHGs.
Relatively few would otherwise care
about fights over tree-rings. XXX fix
A
Paleoclimate: Proxies
D: Climate science, IPCC
B
Modern: Data
1) Avoid acceptance of E
1a) Attack models
1b) Attack IPCC credibility
2) B increasingly hard target, but is hockey blade ,
3) Attack (~~irrelevant to C) hockey shaft (A)
3a) Attack statistics of 1999 about A
3b) Confusion rubs off on B
3c) and on credibility of (D) climate science and
IPCC …Good strategy! It works!
3a
3b, 3c
? E: Act
C
Future: Models
? E: Act
Not so bad