[mistermann]

Yes, I read that report and participated in the subsequent discussion [0] where I raised a number of concerns with the study, but wasn't able to find anyone who would seriously and objectively address them.

Frustrated by the unwillingness of anyone to engage in rigorous discussion in that thread, I also contacted the authors to see if they were willing to address some of the concerns. Unfortunately, I did not hear back.

I must confess, this strange combination of group declaration that "the science is in", combined with complete refusal to discuss "the science", leaves me feeling a bit suspicious about the degree to which anyone has actually read the science, or is thinking critically on this matter.

If you could address some of the concerns I raised in [0], I would be delighted.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21708936

[mturmon]

> I raised a number of concerns with the study, but wasn't able to find anyone who would seriously and objectively address them.

This is an inaccurate summary of that thread, in which you raised a simple accusation that the article cherry-picked the models, were swatted down with a citation from the article referenced in the OP, and then retreated into a maze of long, twisty replies that failed to raise any other specific points.

Your comments in this thread have had the same flavor. Consider brevity and specificity.

[mistermann]

> This is an inaccurate summary of that thread, in which you raised a simple accusation that the article cherry-picked the models

Ironically, or not, your summary of my summary of that thread is inaccurate.

> "you raised a simple accusation that the article cherry-picked the models" is not what I did. What I did do is ask for an explanation of how we know no cherry picking occurred. Their methodology for article selection was not published, so therefore it cannot be reproduced. I emailed the authors asking for clarification, and they did not reply.

> were swatted down with a citation from the article referenced in the OP

"swatted down", but didn't address my actual question, rather re-reffering to the original ambiguous wording that I was complaining about.

A reproducible methodology could clear up the uncertainty (and please note, my claim is that there is uncertainty not that there is wrongdoing), yet no methodology was offered in the original paper, and the authors did not reply to the request.

In such situations, I adopt a position of "Unknown - more information is required", but obviously others have a much more flexible approach to what they're willing to believe. Although, I wonder if this approach varies depending on the subject - would be interesting to read up on.

> and then retreated into a maze of long, twisty replies that failed to raise any other specific points

"Mazes of long, twisty replies", and failures to "raise any other specific points" are a common consequences when one party in a discussion is unwilling to directly address questions as asked, and the other party's response to that is re-asking the same question.

> Your comments in this thread have had the same flavor.

Indeed they do, as do the replies: unwillingness to directly address questions as asked.

> Consider brevity and specificity.

I will do so.

In return, please consider honesty, epistemic humility, your willingness to acknowledge that ambiguity often exists in written language, and whether a lack of 100% agreement should be interpreted as opposition, as opposed to curiosity and strictness. Sometimes those who appear to be your enemy may actually be some of your best friends.

EDIT: Here's another way to look at it (a better description of my main intent): "conspiracy theorists" and "deniers" are a problem, to some degree, in broad acceptance of climate change messaging, agreed? Might it be a good idea to consider whether there are some flaws in the messaging that could be improved, that would result in reducing the material they have to work with in any influence campaigns?

[mturmon]

Your question was answered in the comment underneath it -- the answer is taken from the article in the discussion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21709446

Basically: selection criterion was, any published model that had the inputs ("forcings") and outputs (temperature) needed.

Then, incredibly, the paper author chimed in with this offer:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21709010

And you couldn't respond constructively. If he didn't include a model, point it out.

Instead, you've come to another thread complaining that you had concerns and "wasn't able to find anyone who would seriously and objectively address them".

[mistermann]

Pardon the delay in replying, I didn't see this until now.

> Your question was answered in the comment underneath it -- the answer is taken from the article in the discussion:

> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21709446

Well, shit. This is kind one of those timing error, at the time I wrote that the thread was quite young, so I presumed my more substantive complaint (which is immediately under my comment) would have been seen. That'll teach me for being trite, hopefully.

Anyways, here is that comment (and I imagine you won't like my pedantry, but I did note it as such, and I'm not forcing anyone to answer - if they'd like to allow ambiguity/uncertainty to remain, be my guest):

---------------

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21708936

> As noted in TFA, they looked at 17 forecasts from 14 models

Pardon a little pedantry:

>> The researchers compared annual average surface temperatures across the globe to the surface temperatures predicted in 17 forecasts. Those predictions were drawn from 14 separate computer models released between 1970 and 2001. In some cases, the studies and their computer codes were so old that the team had to extract data published in papers, using special software to gauge the exact numbers represented by points on a printed graph.

They compared annual average surface temperatures across the globe to 17 forecasts, from 14 separate models.

But....how many models did they look at, before choosing those particular 14 models?

TFA doesn't say.

Articles written in this style provide rich fodder for conspiracy theorists, particularly because there is no shortage of examples in the past where authoritative, trustworthy organizations have gotten caught in lies. Rare is the climate change article I've read that can't easily have similar holes poked in it.

What's the real truth here? Based on the literal content of this article, no one knows. It is speculation vs speculation.

---------------

> Then, incredibly, the paper author chimed in with this offer:

> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21709010

> And you couldn't respond constructively. If he didn't include a model, point it out.

An obvious lack of thoroughness and reasonableness on my part - it would have been wiser to restate my above question in it's entirety rather than expecting him ti find it. So I'll take the reputation hit on that one.

But then on the other hand, I did email one of the authors directly (after looking through the github repo to see if my questions were answered there), with a much more detailed question, in polite terms, and with mention of the possibility that this sort of ambiguity is open to exploitation by propagandists, but didn't hear back, so far anyways.

UPDATE:

To the author's credit, they did address a question posed to them here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21709249

Also, his reply to another comment is suggestive that all available models (that fit his criteria) were in fact used: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21708782

I get a fairly trustworthy feel from him after reading those, although I still prefer that these things were written using more defensive wording.