How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[CapelDodger]

Although each of these individuals were involved in different parts of the report (modelling; disease; paleoclimate), each reports a consistent problem with the IPCC process, that it presents a one-sided view of the science, brushing inconvenient papers or data under the carpet. It isn't proof, but the consistent problem does suggest there is a significant flaw in the IPCC process, leading to a bias in the reports.

(My emphasis)

This reveals you as a GW Sceptic right from the get-go. The choice of words, the focus on the IPCC, and the implicit belief that it has any such power.

The IPCC exists only to collate published research. It doesn't direct, initiate, fund, or publish any research itself. (Nor does it collect climate data.) It's not terribly important, and nor is a few individuals storming off in hissy-fits because the consensus is against them.

 

[Pipirr]

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080304110949.aspx

about 100 scientists participated in the conference

81 of whom obviously believed that if they were photographed, they would lose their souls.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

81 of whom obviously believed that if they were photographed, they would lose their souls.

 

[CapelDodger]

Does that mean we also see an end to counting scientists by photo shoot? It just doesn't strike me as a very reliable proxy

Pat Michaels is quite a favourite in the GW Sceptic camp, so his conversion from "it won't happen" via "it's not happening" to "it's happening but it doesn't matter" is something of note. The Heartland jolly itself, well, not so much.

It isn't compulsory for all sceptics to agree, and to imply as such is a fallacy. Climate science, being a relatively immature science with data sets rather more limited than we would like, has a plethora of viewpoints (unsurprisingly), some of them contradictory. The scientific process will help to focus these over time. Some of them will fall by the wayside, which may (or may not) include the mainstream view.

You might be surprised by how often the mainstream view turns out to be the correct one. Outside the current mainstream we have a plethora of splinter- parties trying to prove the mainstream wrong, each in their own fashion. Events continue to support the mainstream view, which is yet another burden for the GW Sceptic community. No wonder it's so factional.

 

[CoolSceptic]

This reveals you as a GW Sceptic right from the get-go. The choice of words, the focus on the IPCC, and the implicit belief that it has any such power.

The IPCC exists only to collate published research. It doesn't direct, initiate, fund, or publish any research itself. (Nor does it collect climate data.) It's not terribly important, and nor is a few individuals storming off in hissy-fits because the consensus is against them.

Just to correct you on one point: I'm not a GW sceptic per se, but an AGW sceptic; the nuance here is important.

Yes, I am aware that the IPCC is essentially a literature review. And a literature review should review all of the literature, not just the bits that support one side of an argument. If the IPCC disagree with the contents of a paper, then fine, report it and explain it. That's what a literature review should do. What a literature review should not do is completely ignore (without reference) papers in the peer-review record that bring into question the IPCC position. (Note that I did not propose, at any point, that the IPCC should be conducting original research, so your point in this regard is a straw man.)

I'm not sure what "a few individuals storming off in a hissy fit" is supposed to mean, but it sounds awfully ad-hom ish. These individuals made cases with regard to errors in the IPCC analysis, with reference to the peer-reviewed record. If you want to call that a "hissy fit", then fine, but if you want to persuade people, perhaps addressing the issues raised might be more constructive? I apologise for not posting direct links to the arguments raised, which is an unfortunate result of my newbie status.

PS. Thanks, Lucifuge

 

[CoolSceptic]

Events continue to support the mainstream view, which is yet another burden for the GW Sceptic community.

Indeed, and to be more specific, I believe almost any "event" short of a protracted cooling would "support" the mainstream view, which is one of its greatest weaknesses (IMHO).

 

[Round Robin]

Of course there is bunches.

But first, you understand that the IPCC documents are not peer reviewed science?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/peerreview.html

Lots on IPCC here, including the FOI requests that yielded the reviewer comments.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=23

Trenberth by the way was the "lead arthur".

Thank you for the links, mhaze. The problem that I have with the information here is the source; the SPPI appears to be a political advocacy group whose declared agenda is to debunk AGW. For a political advocacy group with an agenda to be used as evidence that the IPCC is political and has an agenda seems somewhat ironic to me. That, in itself, does not mean that their information is wrong, but it hardly seems a reliable source and it gives me pause before accepting their work at face value. My anecdotal experience is that I have yet to observe any advocacy group declare, "you know what, the other side is actually right. We're going to change our position." I don't see those (like myself) who accept AGW as probable using Greenpeace or The Sierra Club as references for evidence.

The point of the article you linked (although I admit to only reading the policy summary) seems to be critical that the comments of reviewers were not always accepted or given due consideration. Well, what makes the comments of reviewers any more correct or valid than the original text of the report? Also, since the IPCC reports are really just compilations of existing peer reviewed literature, I really don't think that the IPCC is discounted because the authors did not accept all of the comments.

Also, there was a complaint that not all chapters were reviewed by all auditors. Well, isn't that what one would expect? Wouldn't the reviewers review the sections that they are most familiar with? Another complaint was that the predominant reviewer comments were praise, fixing typos, etc... well, if this is a compilation of already-peer reviewed work, is this really a valid complaint?

In all, I was unimpressed.

As for ClimateAudit, well, Steve McIntyre is a well known doubter of AGW, but at least he has a modicum of credibility, such as his identification of the GISS 1934/1998 error.

Overall, I'd be more impressed by sources that aren't among the usual suspects of those bleating about alarmism and balanced "sound science", or those with political rather than scientific leanings. There are so few outliers in this debate and I simply don't understand why they are given equal credibility with the thousands of scientists that accept the consensus, along with the NAS, AAAS, and so many other scientific organizations.

Frankly, if those organizations were to reverse their position on this issue, I would change my view in turn, neither willingly nor reluctantly. As laypersons, is there an honest position beyond accepting the consensus of the vast majority of experts in the field?

 

[CoolSceptic]

The point of the article you linked (although I admit to only reading the policy summary) seems to be critical that the comments of reviewers were not always accepted or given due consideration. Well, what makes the comments of reviewers any more correct or valid than the original text of the report?

If the reviewers' comments were incorrect or invalid, then the reviewer should explain why they are incorrect or invalid. The comments should not be simply dismissed without reason. Greater transparency during the review process would help here also. The number of hoops that had to be jumped through just to see the reviewer's comments does not inspire confidence.

Overall, I'd be more impressed by sources that aren't among the usual suspects of those bleating about alarmism and balanced "sound science", or those with political rather than scientific leanings. There are so few outliers in this debate and I simply don't understand why they are given equal credibility with the thousands of scientists that accept the consensus, along with the NAS, AAAS, and so many other scientific organizations.

If there are so few outliers, why does the IPCC ignore contradictory evidence in the scientific record rather than deal with it head on? Then there would be no room for debate - if your position was true. Having reviewed some of the issues raised myself, some of them are quite compelling, and would be difficult to answer.

Frankly, if those organizations were to reverse their position on this issue, I would change my view in turn, neither willingly nor reluctantly. As laypersons, is there an honest position beyond accepting the consensus of the vast majority of experts in the field?

Climate science is a multi-disciplinary activity. There are many people outside of the field of climate science who have specific expertise on a subject relating to climate science. In my own experience, I've witnessed arguments promoted by climate scientists that are woefully ill-informed. This doesn't falsify all of climate science of course, but do not place climate scientists on a pedestal, and don't believe that majority voting applies in science. Argue about the science, not the numbers of scientists.

I would also suggest you review the positions of the scientists I listed in my previous post, who are credible scientists in relevant fields, and how they found the IPCC processes resulted in a bias in the reports. You can dismiss these on numbers if you want, but as I noted to CapelDodger, it would be rather more convincing if you addressed the actual points they make.

 

[Dr. Imago]

Argue about the science, not the numbers of scientists.

Thank you! I've been saying this all along. Maybe someone will listen to you instead.

Most here apparently don't understand the concept of "proof of principle" but will take whatever data and studies that have been posited on the subject completely at face value, just because they've been "peer reviewed". I've mentioned before that there is a boatload of crappy, contradictory, and clinically irrelevant "peer-reviewed" studies that are published every year in medical journals. Thankfully, we have the ability to independently judge the merits and relevance of these studies without implementing every one into our daily practice.

Here's one of my favorites published recently from my own discipline's journal (I laughed out loud when I read it... only another anesthesiologist would understand, though). This one even made the cover!

http://www.anesthesiology.org/pt/re...y35xhJ1JrCG2fcRz!-667243907!181195629!8091!-1

Why should this field be any different (ahem... dendrochronology)?

-Dr. Imago

 

[Round Robin]

Argue about the science, not the numbers of scientists.

That is a nice turn of phrase, and I agree with you in principle, but in practice it is unrealistic; I must be honest with myself and my qualifications.

I am not a climate scientist, nor are likely most of us here. I am, therefore, not qualified to argue the science. If I tried to read a pro and con pair of papers, all I could do is agree with the scientist who makes the best case or who makes a good argument I may agree with, but the data could be falsified, misinterpreted or cherrypicked, or the methodology could be completely wrong and I'd be unqualified to know one way or the other. The facts are affected by neither eloquent opponents nor ridiculous proponents.

Also, as a layperson, I do not read the tremendous quantities of papers that are published in the peer reviewed literature, so I have only a surface exposure to the research.

Therefore, I rely on the experts in the field to review the literature and assess the science. This is what the NAS, AAAS, etc. do among other things. Who am I to suggest that I have a better handle on the vast multi-disciplinary science of climate science than among the most prominent and reliable scientific societies in the world. This is not argument from authority; that would be saying AGW is real because Al Gore or James Hanson says it is, or saying it is false because Michael Crichton or Steve McIntyre says it is.

Science generally works, and a scientific consensus rarely forms around a totally wrong theory. History has proven the scientific method to be sound; what reason do I have to believe that it has failed in this instance?

 

[a_unique_person]

Thank you! I've been saying this all along. Maybe someone will listen to you instead.

Most here apparently don't understand the concept of "proof of principle" but will take whatever data and studies that have been posited on the subject completely at face value, just because they've been "peer reviewed". I've mentioned before that there is a boatload of crappy, contradictory, and clinically irrelevant "peer-reviewed" studies that are published every year in medical journals. Thankfully, we have the ability to independently judge the merits and relevance of these studies without implementing every one into our daily practice.

Here's one of my favorites published recently from my own discipline's journal (I laughed out loud when I read it... only another anesthesiologist would understand, though). This one even made the cover!

http://www.anesthesiology.org/pt/re/anes/abstract.00000542-200712000-00009.htm;jsessionid=HQnT3mjtknSJthTtXH9QP76pyp9qL8FTQtnpy35xhJ1JrCG2fcRz!-667243907!181195629!8091!-1

Why should this field be any different (ahem... dendrochronology)?

-Dr. Imago

The science behind greenhouse gases and the role of CO2 was started over 100 years ago. I think I am safe in assuming they have the basics sorted out by now. It's not some modern discovery, like the various iterations that have recently been going on over cholesterol, and what is good and bad about it.

 

[CoolSceptic]

That is a nice turn of phrase, and I agree with you in principle, but in practice it is unrealistic; I must be honest with myself and my qualifications.

I am not a climate scientist, nor are likely most of us here.

Hidden appeal to authority, which is not valid for the following reason. I am not a climate scientist (neither are the vast majority of the 2500-ish IPCC contributors, by the way) but I have expertise in two areas which are essential to supporting the AGW argument; statistics and modelling. I've discussed these topics with climate scientists, and noted a number of unsound statements made by them on these topics.

Now that doesn't falsify AGW, and I've never made that claim (indeed, true falsification of AGW is extraordinarily difficult, beyond years of protracted cooling, as noted above). But it does ring alarm bells when I hear these things going on.

I am, therefore, not qualified to argue the science.

I hate to point this out, but by engaging in debate here, that is exactly what you are doing. If you feel unqualified to comment, why do it? Because you believe the scientists are right. But if you don't understand the science, how do you know? Faith? Belief? I would always encourage people with an interest to investigate the science. Although science is occasionally counter-intuitive, it is always tractable and understandable. Putting it on an unreachable pedestal is a little naive.

This is not argument from authority;

Lets be clear here: it is an argument from authority. You've said you don't understand the science and are taking a group of people's word for it. I can't think of a clearer appeal to authority than that.

that would be saying AGW is real because Al Gore or James Hanson says it is, or saying it is false because Michael Crichton or Steve McIntyre says it is.

Agreed; those would also be appeals to authority. However, outlining an argument made by one of those people and defending it would not be an appeal to authority.

Science generally works, and a scientific consensus rarely forms around a totally wrong theory.

Errmmm... no. Trial and error are a part of the scientific method (see Popper) and it is not unusual for science to go down a blind alley. What is true is that science is self-correcting, but that can take decades even when out-of-sample data is quickly available. When out-of-sample data itself takes decades to arrive, I suspect it could take centuries to self-correct.

 

[CoolSceptic]

Thank you! I've been saying this all along. Maybe someone will listen to you instead.

Ha, and what do you think the odds of that are?

I still can't link (I think) but the medical field has far tighter controls, better experiments etc. etc. than climate science, yet still gets things wrong. Quite a good paper by John Ioannidis in PLoS Medicine (for those who are unfamiliar with it, google his name and "why most published research findings are false"). His corollary 5 is an interesting one - but read the text rather than just the headline. It isn't just about money, it is about belief, prestige and in some cases politics (for example, Lysenkoism).

 

[TrueSceptic]

So does that end half the sceptic arguments we see here? I hope so.

Surely you jest? Why would they change now?

Global warming is entirely natural and unstoppable and does not exist!

 

[TrueSceptic]

Well, climateaudit seems to be bouncing my posts these days, so thought I'd register here for some critical banter

Welcome. Have you read the OP? Do you understand what this thread is about?

 

[TrueSceptic]

I hate to point this out, but by engaging in debate here, that is exactly what you are doing. If you feel unqualified to comment, why do it? Because you believe the scientists are right. But if you don't understand the science, how do you know? Faith? Belief? I would always encourage people with an interest to investigate the science. Although science is occasionally counter-intuitive, it is always tractable and understandable. Putting it on an unreachable pedestal is a little naive.

I again refer you to the OP. This thread is about GWS behaviour, not climate science itself.

 

[mhaze]

.....be saying AGW is real because Al Gore or James Hanson says it is, or saying it is false because Michael Crichton or Steve McIntyre says it is.

Michael Crichton's book beats Al Bore's movie.

 

[CoolSceptic]

I again refer you to the OP. This thread is about GWS behaviour, not climate science itself.

I was answering a direct question posed by Round Robin, which I assume was related in some way to the OP. Interesting how you single me out rather than Round Robin. Any reason for this?

That said, let us look at your original post. The aim of your original post is not really clearly stated. You seem to want a list of arguments presented by global warming sceptics. In your list are a large number of poor arguments. The existence of poor sceptic arguments does not falsify the possibility of strong sceptic arguments, so the list does not discredit all sceptics. The people I listed (and would have linked to if I was allowed to) provide much stronger sceptic arguments. Therefore my response seems reasonably on topic; I'm providing you with stronger GWS positions than the straw men or poorly nuanced points you raised. I can't link or quote the arguments yet (the former due to my newbie status, the latter because of forum rules). However I note nobody has yet addressed the content of my point, beyond

- smearing the people I link to as a few individuals having a hissy fit (argumentum ad hominem)
- an appeal to authority
- an attempt to divert the debate by claiming it was off topic (and not criticising the question asked for being presumably equally off topic)

All in all, not very convincing so far. Got anything better?

 

[a_unique_person]

Michael Crichton's book beats Al Bore's movie.

Everything in Crichton's book was wrong. Al Gore made over a hundred claims in his film, only a few were wrong or debateable.

 

[Dr. Imago]

Michael Crichton's book beats Al Bore's movie.

Well, at least maybe we can agree that they were both largely emotive and works of fiction.

-Dr. Imago