How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[Dr. Imago]

Well, it is of course reasonable that all aspects of the radiative forcing be critically examined, since these in the aggregate constitute the so called "man made effect".

Critically examining and questioning another's claim is not the same as making an independent claim. This is the old "prove I'm wrong" tactic, where the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

I've got no problem, and indeed think it is productive, expected, and critical to the process, to question the claims published by scientists. If their methodology is watertight, it will withstand the critical examination. If not, it provides the opportunity for re-examination and clarification.

More succinctly, critical examination of someone else's claim is not tantamount to making a separate, independent claim. It is simply part of the scientific process. Why some pro-AGW people are loathe to accept that is beyond me.

-Dr. Imago

 

[TrueSceptic]

Are "GWS" making claims? Or, are they just asking that the current pro-AGW claims be better substantiated?

Actually, they do both. Most of my list comprises the former, as you can easily see.

 

[TrueSceptic]

It is unfair because it implies I question all measures that would reduce CO2 output. In reality there are of course many measures that make both economic or societal sense as well as reduce CO2 output.

So to rephrase it: "What are the expected costs and benefits of specific measures proposed, and do the latter outweigh the former?"

Note that the question of how to reduce CO2 output is seperate from the one how to reduce climate change. For example, air traffic causes an Earth-cooling effect because those trails reflect sunlight. It would be a mistake to focus only on CO2 reduction, since climate change is what really matters.

Again, I apologise. I thought you intended this for inclusion in my list and I was just paraphrasing.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Critically examining and questioning another's claim is not the same as making an independent claim. This is the old "prove I'm wrong" tactic, where the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

I've got no problem, and indeed think it is productive, expected, and critical to the process, to question the claims published by scientists. If their methodology is watertight, it will withstand the critical examination. If not, it provides the opportunity for re-examination and clarification.

More succinctly, critical examination of someone else's claim is not tantamount to making a separate, independent claim. It is simply part of the scientific process. Why some pro-AGW people are loathe to accept that is beyond me.

No reasonable person objects to what you describe; in fact it is expected and is what happens in the scientific community as a matter of course. Sadly, however, little of this actually happens elsewhere; what we get is misrepresentation of the work of others, outright falsification of data, and personal attacks on Hansen, et al.

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't know what history there might be behind this but I'd rather we didn't use this sort of language here. It is unlikely to get anyone anywhere.

It got something off my chest. But your gaff, your rules, and my apologies . An untypical lapse, I assure you. It's liberating to have space to discuss "sceptic" behaivour, but I mustn't get carried away.

 

[mhaze]

Critically examining and questioning another's claim is not the same as making an independent claim. This is the old "prove I'm wrong" tactic, where the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

I've got no problem, and indeed think it is productive, expected, and critical to the process, to question the claims published by scientists. If their methodology is watertight, it will withstand the critical examination. If not, it provides the opportunity for re-examination and clarification.

More succinctly, critical examination of someone else's claim is not tantamount to making a separate, independent claim. It is simply part of the scientific process. Why some pro-AGW people are loathe to accept that is beyond me.

-Dr. Imago

Okay, let us then go back to Trueskeptic's list and see how it fares. First I'm going to delete the arguments that have nothing to do with science but are oriented toward conspiracy, hoaxes, politics or effects of global warming.

The remaining items I've separated into POSSIBLE and OBVIOUSLY INCORRECT.

• "Obviously incorrect" doesn't mean obviously incorrect to everybody, a naive skeptic might ask those questions.
• "Possible" doesn't mean they are right, just that they certainly bear asking and investigating.

Now, does anyone think that the application of "Possible" causes should not be discussed with reference to items in the IPCC Radiative Forcing chart that are said to have a LOSU (Level of Understanding) respectively of -

• HIGH?
• MEDIUM?
• LOW?

Or is the "science settled?"




POSSIBLE

1. In the 1970s climate scientists said that we were heading into an Ice Age. Why should we believe them now?
2. Weather forecasters can't predict the weather a week in advance so how can anyone predict the climate 10, 20, or 50 years ahead?
3. Climate models are just a collection of formulae tweaked to produce results that are close to measurements.
4. Climate models might be based on physics but it's all so uncertain that the results are meaningless.
5. It's not getting warmer at all. The figures and graphs produced by the climate scientists are all doctored and can't be trusted.
6. The figures don't need to be doctored: lots of the weather stations are unreliable. Garbage in, garbage out.
7. The warming seems to have levelled off so the figures and graphs might be OK after all.
8. It has got warmer but it's nothing to do with us. It's all to do with natural cycles.
9. It was much warmer millions of years ago and we weren't around then so how can we be the cause now?
10. The Medieval Warm Period was at least as warm as it is now. The Vikings colonised Greenland and grapes were grown in Britain.
11. It's caused by increases in the sun's output.
12. It's all to do with sunspots. Or cosmic rays.
13. The so-called greenhouse gases don't cause warming. It's a lie told by the scientists. What really happens is that the temperature rises first and the CO2 follows.
14. It can't be caused by greenhouse gases because they are only a small part of the atmosphere and can't have much effect.

OBVIOUSLY INCORRECT ARGUMENTS

1. CO2 is measured on Mauna Loa, an active volcano that spews out CO2, so how can the measurements be accurate?
2. Volcanoes produce more CO2 each year than all the factories and cars and planes and other sources of man-made carbon dioxide put together so how can we make any difference?
3. It's caused by changes in the Earth's core.
4. It's electrical heating caused by the solar wind interacting with the Earth's magnetic field.
5. Mars has been getting warmer too, so it must be something outside the Earth.

 

[TrueSceptic]

It got something off my chest. But your gaff, your rules, and my apologies . An untypical lapse, I assure you. It's liberating to have space to discuss "sceptic" behaivour, but I mustn't get carried away.

Surely it's a general rule in public forums?

 

[CapelDodger]

Call me a global warming sceptic, or more accurately an "anti-global warming measures" sceptic. What I want is a cost-benefit analysis of measures to reduce global warming: The economic and societal costs to implement such measures, and the expected benefits from them.

How do you want that broken down? By county, state, nation, region? Cost and benefits will be unevenly spread within the divisions, so you'll need a breakdown by socio-economic class as well.

That'll take some doing, since it will have to be done for a wide range of policy mixes, economic trajectories, and climate influences (which are by no means settled; even sea-level rise is a bone of great contention).

You're asking a lot. Then again, you could probably get someone to do a personal projection just for you. I can't see it being cheap if it's any good, but I'm sensing a market opportunity ...

 

[CapelDodger]

Thanks for expertly proving my point.

-Dr. Imago

Thanks for demonstrating how a "sceptic" ignores the vast majority of a post when convenient.

There's only so much drivel a chap can take before he cracks.

I described your point as nonsense, and explained why. You then rambled off into stuff I tried to follow, and did for a while. None of it relevant, of course.

Your point (you may recall) was that TrueSceptic was wrong because he ascribed every element of his list to every GWS - which, of course, he didn't. That's why your point was nonsense.


Then you moved onto trying to impose yourself on the conversation :

I'd like to see a fundamental re-assessment and independent validation of the methodology used to generate the conclusions to date.

Nothing to do with the thread. Much to do with your claim to have been traduced by TrueSceptic, which is, of course, nonsense. (See above.) Claiming victimhood is another faux-sceptic trait.

After that who knows, it was stream of peculiar consciousness stuff. You're not convinced; I asked if you ever would be. After that it's a blur.

 

[CapelDodger]

Surely it's a general rule in public forums?

Getting carried away, you mean? It would seem so from what I've seen.

Sometimes there's a hint of the public house around these parts, but no more than a hint.

 

[Dr. Imago]

Thanks for demonstrating how a "sceptic" ignores the vast majority of a post when convenient.

Your entire post up to the point I snipped was nonsubstantive rhetoric, as was everything after what I snipped above.

-Dr. Imago

 

[Dr. Imago]

First I'm going to delete the arguments that have nothing to do with science but are oriented toward conspiracy, hoaxes, politics or effects of global warming.

I believe you also have to delete number (5) under the list of "possible", as it seems to fit the above description.

-Dr. Imago

 

[egslim]

You're asking a lot.

I know. Seems only reasonable considering the massive investment required. I recall you work at a bank. Do you require a detailed risk analysis before approving a major loan to a business?

 

[CapelDodger]

Well, it is of course reasonable that all aspects of the radiative forcing be critically examined, since these in the aggregate constitute the so called "man made effect". <double click to enlarge>

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/142244696b7a46ad59.bmp[/URL]

Considering that that is what should be done, since the science is not settled, I see a multiplicity of unverified or poorly verified hypotheses by the IPCC's own admission. See right hand column above. Further of those which they consider well understood, many disagree on quite reasonable grounds.

That's a great graph, and I know you love it too. The dominant influence of CO2-forcing is so clearly demonstrated. It doesn't include Slimething's mystic physics, but that's simply too indeterminate.

"The science isn't settled", that's probably in the list already. "There are these other influences, and we don't know them all exactly, so we know nothing useful."

"a multiplicity of unverified or poorly verified hypotheses by the IPCC's own admission".

There are two matters of interest in there (anthropologically speaking). Apart from the bolding, of course, that speaks for itself. The use of "unverified" (the other buzz-word de jour is "unvalidated", which is mostly applied to models. One or other will win out; the important thing is to stress the uncertainty).

And the assumed importance of the IPCC. Which, as we all know, simply collates global research, it has no input to hypotheses or research. That's for the institutions and scientists involved to provide.

It's really not about Al Gore, the IPCC, and Hansen. Really, it isn't.

A true "sceptic", of course, will keep believing that it is.

 

[Dr. Imago]

The use of "unverified" (the other buzz-word de jour is "unvalidated", which is mostly applied to models. One or other will win out; the important thing is to stress the uncertainty).

With all due respect (something you haven't given me), I think you cannot, as a non-scientist, grasp the importance of validation. It's not that the science is unsettled, therefore we know nothing useful. Poppycock. We've learned a hell of a lot.

But, without validating the models, everything that comes thereafter is tantamount to speculation. A validated study means, among other things, that the observations have been reproduced in a controlled setting and the results are then both meaningful and predictive, having controlled for other possible confounding factors.

As much as the pro-AGW camp now wants to assert, the current state-of-science in the Global Climate Change arguments have not been validated. And, when they have been attempted to be validated (such as in dendrochronology) by controlling and prospectively looking at variables, the error ranges are far greater than what's openly disclosed after independent review.

The problem is that a large part of the pro-AGW argument rests on the assumed validity of science that has not yet been proven to be consistent, reproducible, and verified independently. This is a major problem. This essentially renders the current state-of-science to be nothing more than interesting supposition and possibly "guilt by association" rather than rigorous, fundamental, proven fact.

That's the part I object to. For all I know, they could be spot on. They just haven't proven it yet, to the level required to implement and mandate broad, sweeping changes. Yet, some people have concluded that it is beyond reproach or further questioning. I have a big problem with that, and it scares me that this is how we now undertake science: once a body of knowledge is developed, it shoudn't be questioned.

Why is that so hard to understand?

-Dr. Imago

 

[a_unique_person]

With all due respect (something you haven't given me), I think you cannot, as a non-scientist, grasp the importance of validation. It's not that the science is unsettled, therefore we know nothing useful. Poppycock. We've learned a hell of a lot.

But, without validating the models, everything that comes thereafter is tantamount to speculation. A validated study means, among other things, that the observations have been reproduced in a controlled setting and the results are then both meaningful and predictive, having controlled for other possible confounding factors.

They do validate them, against known temperature records, and several indepdendent teams are working on their own, independent models.

 

[CapelDodger]

I know. Seems only reasonable considering the massive investment required. I recall you work at a bank. Do you require a detailed risk analysis before approving a major loan to a business?

I'm retired now. I spent time in the City, I won't deny it, but I was never a banker (more's the pity). I've done work for banks. That's where the money is . (Also gun-runners and drug-dealers, but what I did was all legit, honest.)

There's no bank, no loan, and no business. So ... not a great analogy.

Your best bet, for you and yours, is to look to the local impact, with all its imprecision. If you live in the Mid-West you can scratch sea-level rise from the list of worries, but in Florida, not so much. And so on. Where I live, we've no fear of drought.

There'll be no great global plan, decided on and administered by some conjured-up trusted body, with everybody mucking-in to do their bit. Ain't gonna happen. It'll be difficult enough on regional and national levels.

As a species we've bought the ticket; we have to take the ride as individuals. And families, and communities.

 

[Dr. Imago]

They do validate them, against known temperature records, and several indepdendent teams are working on their own, independent models.

You see, here's the difference. You are making a claim. That they have validated their research. I've demonstrated what it takes for something to be validated.

I've done an exhaustive search, and I have yet to find where the methodology - most specifically on historical temperature records - that hs been validated to the extent required to be beyond questioning. So, I'm offering to you that I'm willing to look at examples where you state they have been, and I will examine them and admit that I am wrong if they are meritorious.

That is exceedingly generous - and intellectually honest - on my part. So, please provide me examples where the methodology, and we can limit it to historical temperature records, have been independently validated as I have described above. I'm not talking about cross-talk (i.e., where ice core samples appear to correlate with tree ring samples). I'm talking about controlled, prospective validation, for example as was attempted in southern France (and failed miserably) on a tree ring data.

-Dr. Imago

 

[mhaze]

You see, here's the difference. You are making a claim. That they have validated their research. I've demonstrated what it takes for something to be validated.

I've done an exhaustive search, and I have yet to find where the methodology - most specifically on historical temperature records - that hs been validated to the extent required to be beyond questioning......-Dr. Imago

Your request for proof of the claims of validation is like climbing a mountain compared to the (unanswered) baby steps that lie unanswered from me, from Warmologists who are so very sure of their premises, and their beliefs.

REQUEST:

Show me the full set of parameters, data sets, and system initialization conditions published for just one climate model run.

 

[jsfisher]

So, I'm offering to you that I'm willing to look at examples where you state they have been, and I will examine them and admit that I am wrong if they are meritorious.

AUP has parroted this claim before, and each time it has been challenged for lack of evidence, he has become mute.