Josh The Incredibly Useful Sceptic Science & Policy Scale - Josh 265
Mar 15, 2014 Josh I have been musing for some time about a way to show the range of sceptic views compared to non-sceptic views and I think I have come up with something simple that could be useful and fun.
Below is an example of a two part scale showing Science in one band going from Certainty to Uncertainty and a corresponding Policy band below showing policies that cost more or cost less. I have added some possible examples of ranges of opinion and people from around the climate blogosphere.
Click the images to get bigger versions.
;)
As it is only an example, I may well have put people in the wrong place or got the ranges wrong - my apologies. Also let me know what improvements could be made and I will post new versions.
If you would like to print out your own version here is the scale on its own:
;)
And here are some people:
;)
Have fun and let me know what you think.
Reader Comments (39)
haha! Josh, I ALWAYS laugh out loud when I see your depiction of Steve McIntyre! It's wonderful! :-D
The problem is my mind is twofold:
1) alarmists look at the output of the climate models (when they look at all) and say they are great just because they go up, and forgive all the sins such as no ability to do clouds right or rainfall that is absurdly wrong.
2) they take the highest projections of the models as real and therefore that the sky is falling
Awesome.
I'm to the right of the Sky Dragons where the Science scale returns to 'Certain' of no Faith in Science (not shown on chart).
Andrew
Brilliant Josh. Any chance of the science and policy becoming two perpendicular axes, giving a position for each of us in 2D space? That could be particularly interesting.
I'd prefer a scale in the shape of a Mobius loop.
Absolutely brilliant. Will retweet and place on my blog!
Looks like I am in your end of the scale for skeptics, Bish.
Very realistic as well as amusing.
Perhaps having Lord Deben as a gnome rubbing his hands in anticipation of all that money coming his way
Pity Roger Pielke snr is not there as he has tried to be the voice of reason and good science.
So many climate astrologers to choose from? Perhaps Kevin Trenberth the pretend Nobel Prize winner, should be there. Looking angry and confused by the missing heat. Must be a travesty! Sack these evil sceptics!
The problem(?) I see is that I (and many I suspect) are in the "spend nothing" camp while being somewhere in the middle part of the science scale. I have yet to be convinced:
a. Any reasonable policy can significantly alter the climate; and
b. Even if a. was true, that some warming would be harmful.
The problem(?) I see is that I (and many I suspect) are in the "spend nothing" camp while being somewhere in the middle part of the science scale. I have yet to be convinced:
a. Any reasonable policy can significantly alter the climate; and
b. Even if a. was true, that some warming would be harmful.
I do so want my own Josh toon tag.
I second the request for the first scale to be a loop. The boys and the mann are actively antiscientific and little different from the loopy giraffes I mean skydragon.
Rather than "Activism", how about "Religious belief in GCMs"? And at the other end "Don't believe GCMs". You could call it the Trenberth-Tisdale axis.
Josh might want to consider including Joanne Nova to accompany Judith and Lucia. Joanne does a great job in Aus.
A third scale : Actual CO2 usage,
As many greens want the UK to lead by example cutting, while they #GreensGoByAir somehow exempt their own personal example ..even before you consider many magic green measures like wind, green products, some recycling etc. are probably counter productive
The "Spend more" label needs to be amended to the more-accurate "Spend more of other peoples' money"
Perhaps show the two scales as horizontal and vertical axes. That's what I was especting to see before I scrolled down, and I think it would be helpful.
Mr Lomberg should be there, on the adaptation end of the policy axis. Judith Curry's avatar is bang-on.
Interesting that many activists who are certain that science is right about CAGW are certain that it's wrong about GMO, Badger Culls, Fracking etc. Basically wrong about almost everything else. What is it about these theories that we are all doomed - CAGW, over-population, nuclear war, various dread diseases - that makes activists believe them so passionately?
Great!
Add me to the list asking for a 2D version.
Nice one, Josh. :D
We actually recently attempted a similar scale (just on the science issue) on our Global Warming Solved blog here.
Obviously, all of these attempts are highly subjective, but we attempted to assign some prominent climate researchers on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 = "Global warming is a man-made crisis" and 5 = "Global warming is a natural process".
It's probably not as entertaining as your scale, but what do you think?
Climate sceptics are accused by some of "denying" the science of, or evidence for, catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. To see just how unscientific the readers of this blog are, here's a little experiment.
Do you agree with the science of points 1,2 and 3 below?
Sir Mark Walport has written to David Cameron recommending that farmers should start to plant GM crops.
1. "There is no scientific evidence to suggest that such crops are dangerous to humans or the environment," he says.
Sir Mark Walport, the new Chief Scientific Advisor to the government, said he would advise ministers that
2. "there is absolutely no medical benefit of homoeopathy other than a possible placebo effect."
Article by Sir Mark Walport on climate change and the recent extreme weather:
3. "Our climates are changing, and greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are in large part responsible. The scientific consensus on this is very clear. There is ample evidence, from multiple sources: the atmosphere is warming, the oceans are warming, glaciers and ice sheets are melting and sea levels are rising. There is also strengthening evidence that some types of extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and intensity."
Personally, I'm perfectly happy with points 1 and 2. But having looked at the evidence, I can see no justification for the assertions made in point 3. Not only are Walport's conclusions not supported by scientific evidence, but the evidence that does exist is highly suspect, having been fiddled, fudged and tortured to give the desired answer.
I could go on, but…
Suffice it to say I have my own views about just who is being unscientific here.
Oops! Sorry all, wrong thread.
Should have been the Walport thread.
JD
Richard Drake, if you added a time dimension we could then use multivariant analysis to forecast where we'll all be by 2100 ......
HAS: The result would be as accurate as extrapolating a hockey stick, to be sure :)
Ron Sinclair: "Josh might want to consider including Joanne Nova to accompany Judith and Lucia. Joanne does a great job in Aus."
Seconded, and don't forget Donna.
Ron Sinclair / Mique: couldn't agree more about Jo, even though she is a bloody Australian.......
Josh, I think you’re making a category mistake here. If activism in the AGW case is persuasion about matters of public policy, then all or almost all of the above can be categorised as activists to one degree or another.
Activism comprises a range of persuasive activities. To name just some: blog posts; articles, letters, appearances in the wider media; speeches and lecture tours; books; submissions to legislative bodies; collections for specific causes. And of course, cartoons.
The unspoken premise of the cartoon seems to be that activism is a bad thing. Some types of activism might be bad or misguided, but as a category, activism is neutral.
I think the two scales - science and policy, should be the side labels to the two bars. The science bar for me would run from absurdly invented (by catastrophic alarmist zealots), through highly tortured, grossly exaggerated, strongly biased (to align with continued grant funding, publication gatekeeping and career protection), slightly biased, impartial, unconvinced, alternative theory advocates.
The policy bar range should not include policy, thats the subject. It ranges from Draconian proscriptive to Do nothing and get a life, or even Bring it on, feed the plants.
Jack Dawkins
To be brief (as it's the wrong thread) I think that Walport is wrong on all three points. WRT the first two:
GM has some merit, but 'roundup ready' crops are treated with glyphosate, for which the long-term effects of human consumption are simply unknown.
Homeopathy is quite popular with vets, whose patients are not generally open to suggestion.
I think I'm to the hard right on both charts.
I would ask that you put numbers on them too. from 0 to 100 (perhaps %, but undecided).
This is excellent. I might move the whole Judith Curry to Josh listing one hash mark to the right, and I might switch Bish and Anthony Watts, but these are minor. What matter is that someone has finally published a pantheon. Is Richard Lindzen hard to pigeonhole?
Nice one Josh. Did you forget the BBC or did that one fall of the left side?
I especially enjoyed the Judith Curry and Steve McIntyre images. Please send each of them an autographed copy! I'm sure that they would appreciate it.
At first glance I liked it - sort of... On closer inspection, the depiction of science as having a straightforward gradation into activism from *no faith*, I find a bit disconcerting. This is a very post modern take - especially characatured. After all, the semiotics of this illustration characterise the notion of science as a *faith* whose scale ranges from atheist to proselytism and we are expected to accept this: Science is no longer outside dogma, but imprisoned within.
Further, I get the sense that *between* the extremes there lies a middle-ground, where the sensible people reside... Or perhaps where *consensus* can be achieved? I have to say there is - for me personally - an undercurrent of a pre-determined outcome that I find very unsceptical. Gadarene.
Those players should be in a board game - "You must go immediately to Antarctica without passing Peer Review, and must throw a six and declare that the Ross Ice Shelf is melting before continuing on your quest to be an IPCC Lead Author".
Justin Ert: Very powerful critique - and I am one who originally said "Brilliant Josh". If BH readers will indulge me, your parting shot reminds me of one of my favourite sentences in the New Testament, describing the situation after Jesus had cast the demons out of the maniac into the Gadarene swine, causing (according to the writers from whom we know about the incident) their untimely rush over the local cliff:
One doesn't have to accept the first-century demonology of the author or his accuracy as a historian to pick up something profound here. The ex-maniac was in his right mind and those who had always looked down on him weren't glad but afraid. Isn't that true of the reaction to converts from CAGW to a more sceptical stance?
Should Dame Julia be placed beside the Sky Dragons? For different reasons of course. They take issue with the science. She seems to ignore it, as for example, in her recent extemporising about the Somerset floods. It is almost as if she saw those floods as a crisis too good to waste. Not very scientific really. But good politics when the mass media is largely on your side.
As for the scales, I think they are grand, but I wonder if a 3rd dimension labelled 'capitulation', or to respond in the odious spirit of denier-speak, 'collaboration' would be useful to get some sense of how far someone has jumped on the scare-them-silly-it is good-for-us-all bandwagon. But that may be redundant. The existing axes may well be sufficient for purposes of discriminating between the admirable and the despicable. Another brilliant contribution from Josh, artist to the gods of truth and goodness, cartoonist-in-chief for lovers of integrity, and major provider of insights coupled with generosity, humour and humanity.
Josh
I tried a graphical plot approach with the horizontal axis as certainty moving in the opposite direction to yours and the vertical axis as mitigation costs, but when I plot the people on it all I got was a horizontal line with a steep uptick at the right hand end.
I must be doing it wrong.