Zach LarkinsKYOTO VII (cont'd)
As I mentioned in my last article, Dr. David Suzuki seems to think that the media are portraying the debate about the Kyoto Accords as accurate. I take great exception to this. Mr. Lawrence Solomon has done some deep digging and written, in a series of articles, what the main stream media don't want you to know.
Dr. Suzuki's celebrity seems to have gone to his head and he is doing everything in his power to convince us that because we didn't address the matter of global warming sooner, we are all likely to fry by about 4 PM next Friday.
Politicians worldwide have jumped on this bandwagon, and while I admit the warming problem should be dealt with, I have to question the urgency of it.
From his first article of ‘The Deniers', Mr. Solomon says we need some statistics. He states that, "In the global warming debate, there are essentially two broad camps. One believes that the science is settled, that global warming is serious and man-made, and that urgent action must be taken to mitigate or prevent a future calamity. The other believes that the science is far from settled, that precious little is known about global warming or its likely effects, and that prudence dictates more research and caution before intervening massively in the economy."
I would have to agree that the science is far from settled. How else to explain a study by Michael Mann, who says, "the temperature increases that we have been experiencing are likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years and that the 1990's was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium." which was challenged by Dr. Edward Wegman, whose CV reads, "gained his Ph.D. degree in mathematical statistics from the University of Iowa. In 1978, he went to the Office of Naval Research, where he headed the Mathematical Sciences Division with responsibility Navy-wide for basic research programs. He coined the phrase computational statistics, and developed a high-profile research area around this concept, which focused on techniques and methodologies that could not be achieved without the capabilities of modern computing resources and led to a revolution in contemporary statistical graphics. Dr. Wegman was the original program director of the basic research program in Ultra High Speed Computing at the Strategic Defense Initiative's Innovative Science and Technology Office. He has served as editor or associate editor of numerous prestigious journals and has published more than 160 papers and eight books, and says, "Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990's was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported." Wegman accepted an assignment from an energy and commerce committee and agreed to assess the Mann controversy pro bono. He conducted his third-party review by assembling an expert panel of statisticians, who also agreed to work pro bono. Wegman also consulted outside statisticians, including the Board of the American Statistical Association. At its conclusion, the Wegman review entirely vindicated the Canadian critics and repudiated Mann's work. The Canadians in question were Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who published peer-reviewed critiques of their own.
"Just who are the global warming skeptics who question the studies from the great majority of climate scientists and what are their motives? Many in the "science is settled" camp claim that the skeptics are untrustworthy, that they are either cranks or otherwise at the periphery of their profession, or that they are in the pockets of Exxon or other corporate interests." writes Mr. Solomon. I find it hard to believe the "science is settled" crowd can ignore the credentials of the ‘Deniers'. But they are of the Suzuki, Gore followers who disregard anything that doesn't fit into their little world of impending calamity. Wegman is only one of those interviewed for this series, and others that you will hear from have just as impressive CV's. They cannot be dismissed out of hand.
Wegman became involved in the global-warming debate after the energy and commerce committee of the U.S. House of Representatives asked him to assess one of the hottest debates in the global-warming controversy: the statistical validity of work by the aforementioned Michael Mann. Mr. Solomon writes, "You may have heard of Mann's hockey-stick shaped graph, which showed relatively stable temperatures over most of the last millennium (the hockey stick's long handle), followed by a sharp increase (the hockey stick's blade) this century. Mann's findings were arguably the single most influential study in swaying the public debate, and in 2001 they became the official view of the International Panel for Climate Change, the UN body that is organizing the worldwide effort to combat global warming. When Wegman corrected Mann's statistical mistakes, the hockey stick disappeared. Wegman found that Mann made a basic error that "may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimate studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians."
This small group of climate scientists were worked on their own, largely in isolation, and without the academic scrutiny needed to ferret out false assumptions. "Wegman believes that much of the climate science that has been done should be taken with a grain of salt -- although the studies may have been peer reviewed, the reviewers were often unqualified in statistics. Past studies, he believes, should be reassessed by competent statisticians and in future, the climate science world should do better at incorporating statistical know-how." writes Mr. Solomon. And how true that is. If the Suzuki/Gore crowd can so easily disregard the findings of true scientists, why don't they subject themselves to the same scrutiny they place on people like Wegman?
Because they are afraid of being exposed as frauds? Wegman states that "there are a host of fundamental statistical questions that beg answers in understanding climate dynamics." He goes on to say, "One place to start is with the American Meteorological Society, which has a committee on probability and statistics. "I believe it is amazing for a committee whose focus is on statistics and probability that of the nine members only two are also members of the American Statistical Association, the premier statistical association in the United States, and one of those is a recent Ph.D. with an assistant-professor appointment in a medical school." That's two out of nine, folks. And the "science is settled" group wants you to take their word for it? I don't think so.
Wegman cited the American Meteorological Association's 2006 Conference on Probability and Statistics in the Atmospheric Sciences, where only eight presenters out of 62 were members of the American Statistical Association. Eight out of 62. It seems to me that statistians should carry great weight in this discussion. Why are they shunned or ignored? As Wegman summed it up to the energy and commerce committee in later testimony: "I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong Answer Correct = Bad Science." With bad science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer.
In an interesting side note, I heard on the radio today that Al Gore is planning some ‘Live Aid' type concerts sometime this spring. He said he couldn't do it now as it's too cold.
Sources: Lawrence Solomon - The National Post
Dr. Suzuki's celebrity seems to have gone to his head and he is doing everything in his power to convince us that because we didn't address the matter of global warming sooner, we are all likely to fry by about 4 PM next Friday.
Politicians worldwide have jumped on this bandwagon, and while I admit the warming problem should be dealt with, I have to question the urgency of it.
I would have to agree that the science is far from settled. How else to explain a study by Michael Mann, who says, "the temperature increases that we have been experiencing are likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years and that the 1990's was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium." which was challenged by Dr. Edward Wegman, whose CV reads, "gained his Ph.D. degree in mathematical statistics from the University of Iowa. In 1978, he went to the Office of Naval Research, where he headed the Mathematical Sciences Division with responsibility Navy-wide for basic research programs. He coined the phrase computational statistics, and developed a high-profile research area around this concept, which focused on techniques and methodologies that could not be achieved without the capabilities of modern computing resources and led to a revolution in contemporary statistical graphics. Dr. Wegman was the original program director of the basic research program in Ultra High Speed Computing at the Strategic Defense Initiative's Innovative Science and Technology Office. He has served as editor or associate editor of numerous prestigious journals and has published more than 160 papers and eight books, and says, "Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990's was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported." Wegman accepted an assignment from an energy and commerce committee and agreed to assess the Mann controversy pro bono. He conducted his third-party review by assembling an expert panel of statisticians, who also agreed to work pro bono. Wegman also consulted outside statisticians, including the Board of the American Statistical Association. At its conclusion, the Wegman review entirely vindicated the Canadian critics and repudiated Mann's work. The Canadians in question were Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who published peer-reviewed critiques of their own.
Wegman became involved in the global-warming debate after the energy and commerce committee of the U.S. House of Representatives asked him to assess one of the hottest debates in the global-warming controversy: the statistical validity of work by the aforementioned Michael Mann. Mr. Solomon writes, "You may have heard of Mann's hockey-stick shaped graph, which showed relatively stable temperatures over most of the last millennium (the hockey stick's long handle), followed by a sharp increase (the hockey stick's blade) this century. Mann's findings were arguably the single most influential study in swaying the public debate, and in 2001 they became the official view of the International Panel for Climate Change, the UN body that is organizing the worldwide effort to combat global warming. When Wegman corrected Mann's statistical mistakes, the hockey stick disappeared. Wegman found that Mann made a basic error that "may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimate studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians."
This small group of climate scientists were worked on their own, largely in isolation, and without the academic scrutiny needed to ferret out false assumptions. "Wegman believes that much of the climate science that has been done should be taken with a grain of salt -- although the studies may have been peer reviewed, the reviewers were often unqualified in statistics. Past studies, he believes, should be reassessed by competent statisticians and in future, the climate science world should do better at incorporating statistical know-how." writes Mr. Solomon. And how true that is. If the Suzuki/Gore crowd can so easily disregard the findings of true scientists, why don't they subject themselves to the same scrutiny they place on people like Wegman?
Because they are afraid of being exposed as frauds? Wegman states that "there are a host of fundamental statistical questions that beg answers in understanding climate dynamics." He goes on to say, "One place to start is with the American Meteorological Society, which has a committee on probability and statistics. "I believe it is amazing for a committee whose focus is on statistics and probability that of the nine members only two are also members of the American Statistical Association, the premier statistical association in the United States, and one of those is a recent Ph.D. with an assistant-professor appointment in a medical school." That's two out of nine, folks. And the "science is settled" group wants you to take their word for it? I don't think so.
Wegman cited the American Meteorological Association's 2006 Conference on Probability and Statistics in the Atmospheric Sciences, where only eight presenters out of 62 were members of the American Statistical Association. Eight out of 62. It seems to me that statistians should carry great weight in this discussion. Why are they shunned or ignored? As Wegman summed it up to the energy and commerce committee in later testimony: "I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong Answer Correct = Bad Science." With bad science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer.
In an interesting side note, I heard on the radio today that Al Gore is planning some ‘Live Aid' type concerts sometime this spring. He said he couldn't do it now as it's too cold.
Sources: Lawrence Solomon - The National Post
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern