7 ms·

I used to do research on climate change, specifically on combining land, sea, and air models together and getting them to run on a massive cluster. It was very

I used to do research on climate change, specifically on combining land, sea, and air models together and getting them to run on a massive cluster. It was very important to the other researches that the models produce the 'right' predictions which at the time was runaway global warming. When the models didn't show this it was presumed that the models were wrong so hyper-parameters were tuned to try to torture the models to produce the 'right' result. When even that didn't work they went so far as future pollute the data. Disillusioned with academia I left to work in industry. My question is this; How qualified and experienced do I need to be in order to be able to legitimately and completely distrust the climate change 'experts'? Because I feel like I've earned that right.

ctrl-j 9y ago
> When the models didn't show this it was presumed that the models were wrong so hyper-parameters were tuned to try to torture the models to produce the 'right' result. When even that didn't work they went so far as future pollute the data. Please name and shame. I've also done work in the field, and this kind of behavior was never acceptable - and should not be. If you let the bad actors hide in obscurity, they will continue to practice bad science.
- huffpopo 9y ago
  Like a #metoo movement for scientists. AFAIK Hyper-parameter tuning is fairly normal and necessary given how easy it is for the models to become unstable on their own and future polluting is often accidental. It can come down to judgement calls and difference of opinions as to what degree of intervention is acceptable which leaves a lot of wiggle room If you removed all future pollution and and left hyperparameters at the initial best guess you often end up with crazy results in backtesting. E.g. if our past predictions were correct then we should be living on Venus right now which obviously we're not so we must need different hyperparameters. My former colleagues were trying their best and even they knew their adjustments were going beyond reasonable. They never signed off on the final results so the project was politically useless and subsequently killed. They've all since left the climate change industry disillusioned as well.
  - balthasar 9y ago
    What is the climate change industry?
  - praxulus 9y ago
    Wait, so the terrible science you're talking about was never actually published, yet you still distrust the rest of the field?
    - huffpopo 9y ago
      The group leaders were pushed things too far for me to accept as legitimate but not far enough to produce the results needed. We were aware of others that pushed things even further and they got to continue working. This adds a selection criteria bias to those still doing the research which has me trusting them even less. And this was before ClimateGate which made the shenanigans done by other groups public.
      - gech 9y ago
        Your reference to and unreserved use of the term "ClimateGate" makes me question your agenda here. Wasn't "ClimateGate" determined to be a smear campaign? I'm asking rhetorically as I can see the discussion devolving.
        todd8 9y ago
        I generally keep my eyes open for climate change news and didn't see this. Do you have any reasonable references that explain that ClimateGate was a smear campaign? I thought it was a small number of committed researchers making some mistakes and straying from strict scientific protocols; I never saw that it was a smear campaign.
        Oletros 9y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#University_of_East_Anglia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_c...
nnash 9y ago
I'd be really interested in reading more about your findings, anywhere I should start in particular?
jacobsheehy 9y ago
You earned the right to distrust the people you worked with, of course. Nothing can be said about the rest of climate science from your anecdote, however. Otherwise, there would be no medicine, no cars, no spaceships, or anything. If we always took a group of bad people who should be in jail, and then applied our opinions of them to someone on the other side of the world who happens to study the same topic, we would never get anywhere. I'm sorry about your experience with would-be-criminals and evil people. They are not representative of science in general or of climate science specifically.
- huffpopo 9y ago
  I think you're being too harsh on my former colleagues, they were not evil or even particularly bad people. Hyperparameter tuning is necessary and future pollution is often accidental. The problem is when the tuning is goal seeked and the future pollution is not accidental and these problems are endemic to the industry and science in general. CRU East Anglia of Climategate fame went much further and actually published their results and I'm pretty sure none of them are in jail. My colleagues left the industry which makes me less optimistic about those who stayed.
  - Oletros 9y ago
    > CRU East Anglia of Climategate fame went much further and actually published their results and I'm pretty sure none of them are in jail. Now it is clear that you have an agenda because or you don't know what happened on East Anglia or you're just lying
- krona 9y ago
  They are not representative of science in general or of climate science specifically. Citation needed. By the way, attributing wickedness is unnecessary; bias, incompetence and naivety seems sufficient for what's being described by OP.
stirbot 9y ago
Sounds like we have a similar background. How long ago was this? How many models did you work with? I had access to a few models and it was trivial to cause runaway warming. It was naturally something everyone tried when they were handed the keys to the servers. I recall causing the oceans boil within a few centuries.
- huffpopo 9y ago
  ~2006-2007, and it was a continuous stream of models. I was between the modellers and the cluster so I would rewrite the models to work on cluster.
jmcqk6 9y ago
I think in order to make the claim that climate change isn't happening, you need to be able to explain how a massive change in CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere will not result in warming. There is fundamental data that does not depend on climate models that tells us we're in danger. Atmosphere composition in one of them. Ocean ph is another. If you have specific criticisms against how climate models are being run, then the place for that debate is within the scientific community, with scientific arguments. Apparently you have decided that is not for you, though.
- huffpopo 9y ago
  I make no claim that climate change isn't happening. Being between the modeler and the results meant it was my job to explain the result to the modeler. So criticizing climate change models within the scientific community was my job for over a year and a half.
  - Florin_Andrei 9y ago
    > criticizing climate change models within the scientific community was my job for over a year and a half So you had a long and glorious career spanning more than 18 months, that makes you feel entitled to criticize those who studied the field for decades and are actually making a living therein.
    - huffpopo 9y ago
      Yes; but it seems your answer to my question is that I must also have several decades of experience.
      - Florin_Andrei 9y ago
        My answer is - you need to actually understand the thing you're criticizing, not just feel like you do. Another prerequisite is a lack of agenda or bias.
- gus_massa 9y ago
Florin_Andrei 9y ago
> How qualified and experienced do I need to be in order to be able to legitimately and completely distrust the climate change 'experts'? Because I feel like I've earned that right. Well, distrust of experts is the fuel that powers the anti-vaccination trend, the fluoride scare, etc. There are large hordes of soccer moms out there who feel the same as you do - that they are more qualified than the experts to make decisions on vaccination schedules. But let's get back on the main topic. The answer to your question, of course, is - you are entitled to distrust experts when you are an expert yourself. Not a semi-dilettante, not someone who has dabbled in related fields, not someone who made coffee for the actual experts.
- strictnein 9y ago
  Kind of an asinine comment. Based on his statements he's at a level far above those of "soccer moms" and has done far more than "make coffee".
  - Florin_Andrei 9y ago
    Yet far less than actually building climate models. Assuming his self-assessment is true.
guscost 9y ago
I'm pretty sure I'm not allowed to have my own suspicions, so thanks for speaking up. If you're not trolling, really do consider writing under your real name and naming others involved. If it's too much of a risk to anyone's career or personal safety right now, you could always wait to publish until you're retired and/or old.

ctrl-j 9y ago

> When the models didn't show this it was presumed that the models were wrong so hyper-parameters were tuned to try to torture the models to produce the 'right' result. When even that didn't work they went so far as future pollute the data. Please name and shame. I've also done work in the field, and this kind of behavior was never acceptable - and should not be. If you let the bad actors hide in obscurity, they will continue to practice bad science.

huffpopo 9y ago
Like a #metoo movement for scientists. AFAIK Hyper-parameter tuning is fairly normal and necessary given how easy it is for the models to become unstable on their own and future polluting is often accidental. It can come down to judgement calls and difference of opinions as to what degree of intervention is acceptable which leaves a lot of wiggle room If you removed all future pollution and and left hyperparameters at the initial best guess you often end up with crazy results in backtesting. E.g. if our past predictions were correct then we should be living on Venus right now which obviously we're not so we must need different hyperparameters. My former colleagues were trying their best and even they knew their adjustments were going beyond reasonable. They never signed off on the final results so the project was politically useless and subsequently killed. They've all since left the climate change industry disillusioned as well.
- balthasar 9y ago
  What is the climate change industry?
- praxulus 9y ago
  Wait, so the terrible science you're talking about was never actually published, yet you still distrust the rest of the field?
  - huffpopo 9y ago
    The group leaders were pushed things too far for me to accept as legitimate but not far enough to produce the results needed. We were aware of others that pushed things even further and they got to continue working. This adds a selection criteria bias to those still doing the research which has me trusting them even less. And this was before ClimateGate which made the shenanigans done by other groups public.
    - gech 9y ago
      Your reference to and unreserved use of the term "ClimateGate" makes me question your agenda here. Wasn't "ClimateGate" determined to be a smear campaign? I'm asking rhetorically as I can see the discussion devolving.
      - todd8 9y ago
        I generally keep my eyes open for climate change news and didn't see this. Do you have any reasonable references that explain that ClimateGate was a smear campaign? I thought it was a small number of committed researchers making some mistakes and straying from strict scientific protocols; I never saw that it was a smear campaign.
        Oletros 9y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#University_of_East_Anglia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_c...

nnash 9y ago

I'd be really interested in reading more about your findings, anywhere I should start in particular?

jacobsheehy 9y ago

You earned the right to distrust the people you worked with, of course. Nothing can be said about the rest of climate science from your anecdote, however. Otherwise, there would be no medicine, no cars, no spaceships, or anything. If we always took a group of bad people who should be in jail, and then applied our opinions of them to someone on the other side of the world who happens to study the same topic, we would never get anywhere. I'm sorry about your experience with would-be-criminals and evil people. They are not representative of science in general or of climate science specifically.

huffpopo 9y ago
I think you're being too harsh on my former colleagues, they were not evil or even particularly bad people. Hyperparameter tuning is necessary and future pollution is often accidental. The problem is when the tuning is goal seeked and the future pollution is not accidental and these problems are endemic to the industry and science in general. CRU East Anglia of Climategate fame went much further and actually published their results and I'm pretty sure none of them are in jail. My colleagues left the industry which makes me less optimistic about those who stayed.
- Oletros 9y ago
  > CRU East Anglia of Climategate fame went much further and actually published their results and I'm pretty sure none of them are in jail. Now it is clear that you have an agenda because or you don't know what happened on East Anglia or you're just lying
krona 9y ago
They are not representative of science in general or of climate science specifically. Citation needed. By the way, attributing wickedness is unnecessary; bias, incompetence and naivety seems sufficient for what's being described by OP.

stirbot 9y ago

Sounds like we have a similar background. How long ago was this? How many models did you work with? I had access to a few models and it was trivial to cause runaway warming. It was naturally something everyone tried when they were handed the keys to the servers. I recall causing the oceans boil within a few centuries.

huffpopo 9y ago
~2006-2007, and it was a continuous stream of models. I was between the modellers and the cluster so I would rewrite the models to work on cluster.

jmcqk6 9y ago

I think in order to make the claim that climate change isn't happening, you need to be able to explain how a massive change in CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere will not result in warming. There is fundamental data that does not depend on climate models that tells us we're in danger. Atmosphere composition in one of them. Ocean ph is another. If you have specific criticisms against how climate models are being run, then the place for that debate is within the scientific community, with scientific arguments. Apparently you have decided that is not for you, though.

huffpopo 9y ago
I make no claim that climate change isn't happening. Being between the modeler and the results meant it was my job to explain the result to the modeler. So criticizing climate change models within the scientific community was my job for over a year and a half.
- Florin_Andrei 9y ago
  > criticizing climate change models within the scientific community was my job for over a year and a half So you had a long and glorious career spanning more than 18 months, that makes you feel entitled to criticize those who studied the field for decades and are actually making a living therein.
  - huffpopo 9y ago
    Yes; but it seems your answer to my question is that I must also have several decades of experience.
    - Florin_Andrei 9y ago
      My answer is - you need to actually understand the thing you're criticizing, not just feel like you do. Another prerequisite is a lack of agenda or bias.
gus_massa 9y ago

Florin_Andrei 9y ago

> How qualified and experienced do I need to be in order to be able to legitimately and completely distrust the climate change 'experts'? Because I feel like I've earned that right. Well, distrust of experts is the fuel that powers the anti-vaccination trend, the fluoride scare, etc. There are large hordes of soccer moms out there who feel the same as you do - that they are more qualified than the experts to make decisions on vaccination schedules. But let's get back on the main topic. The answer to your question, of course, is - you are entitled to distrust experts when you are an expert yourself. Not a semi-dilettante, not someone who has dabbled in related fields, not someone who made coffee for the actual experts.

strictnein 9y ago
Kind of an asinine comment. Based on his statements he's at a level far above those of "soccer moms" and has done far more than "make coffee".
- Florin_Andrei 9y ago
  Yet far less than actually building climate models. Assuming his self-assessment is true.

guscost 9y ago

I'm pretty sure I'm not allowed to have my own suspicions, so thanks for speaking up. If you're not trolling, really do consider writing under your real name and naming others involved. If it's too much of a risk to anyone's career or personal safety right now, you could always wait to publish until you're retired and/or old.