How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[TrueSceptic]

Nice try!

My statement was correct. What are you claiming? Should we go through the court transcript?

 

[mhaze]

My statement was correct. What are you claiming? Should we go through the court transcript?

"Martians are invading.



"Not wrong just unsupported at present".

 

[CoolSceptic]

This thread is about behaviour. Whether this is psychology or some other behavioural science, isn't it still science?

Whose behaviour are you assessing here? Seems to me that you are investigating the possibility of cognitive dissonance present in the mind of some alarmists, who dismiss the claims of sceptics by rationalising the idea that they must have poor thought processes.

Interesting concept to explore. Good to see you suckered a few in on the first page. I see now why strong sceptic arguments would wreck your experiment.

 

[TrueSceptic]

"Not wrong just unsupported at present".

Well if you don't know the difference you have no business being here.

And is CO2 a GHG or not?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Whose behaviour are you assessing here? Seems to me that you are investigating the possibility of cognitive dissonance present in the mind of some alarmists, who dismiss the claims of sceptics by rationalising the idea that they must have poor thought processes.

Cognitive dissonance? That is rich.

Are you claiming that the OP does not represent the behaviour of GWS in general?

Interesting concept to explore. Good to see you suckered a few in on the first page. I see now why strong sceptic arguments would wreck your experiment.

If you have any that are not already in the OP, let's see'em.

(There are some, but most GWS keep recycling my list. Take this as a challenge to demonstrate real scepticism.)

 

[TrueSceptic]

"Martians are invading.

Global warming is natural and does not exist.

"Not wrong just unsupported at present".

Yup.

Do you want to look at that transcript or not? Last time, you vastly exaggerated how many pages it comprises.

 

[mhaze]

Do you want to look at that transcript or not? Last time, you vastly exaggerated how many pages it comprises.

It takes an idiot to know not the difference between a court judgment and a court transcript.

 

[Dr. Imago]

And is CO2 a GHG or not?

No one can effectively argue against the known properties of CO2 in relation to absorbing energy and re-radiating that energy as it approaches its ground state.

What many of us take objection to is the de facto assertion that it is the prime "forcer" of climate change at its current microfractions in the atmosphere, as well as the paramount driver in a yet to be definitively proven cause/effect relationship responsible for the predominating effect behind current observations of what-is-accepted-by-some-as-irreproachable-fact anthropogenic global warming.

-Dr. Imago

 

[CoolSceptic]

Cognitive dissonance? That is rich.

Are you claiming that the OP does not represent the behaviour of GWS in general?

Note the nuance in my post and your post. When I invoked cognitive dissonance, I referred to some alarmists. However, you are quick to claim your views are a generalisation. I would encourage against hasty generalisation.

Yes, there are poor sceptic arguments out there, as I have already noted. There are sound arguments as well.

If you have any that are not already in the OP, let's see'em.

(There are some, but most GWS keep recycling my list. Take this as a challenge to demonstrate real scepticism.)

Very few of them can be wrapped up in a sound bite as you present. My position on climate change is documented by a series of scientific papers, and involves fairly complex statistics that are not always intuitive (stats rarely are). Not sure how that would translate to your list.

 

[Round Robin]

My apologies if I have derailed the thread away from the OP, but I personally think that exploring why GWS reject scientific consensus is highly relevant to the OP. I am not arguing the science; I am questioning why there is so much distrust of scientific consensus in this particular incidence

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?

Thank you, CoolSceptic, for engaging me on this issue in a serious and rational way. I appreciate your thoughtfulness. However, I find your statement to be a bit arrogant. By what criteria are any of use qualified to discuss this topic then? Shall we limit the discussion of GW only to experts directly involved in climate research? Forums like this already exist: they are the peer-reviewed journals, conferences, symposia and scientific organizations that have accepted AGW as probable. Most of us are observers, who may or may not have some experience that overlaps A/GW research in some relevant way.

For myself, I have degrees in physics and astronomy, as well as electrical engineering, and to the degree that I am qualified to comment on the claims of GWS, I do. To the degree that I am not, I defer to expert consensus not individuals. There is a vast difference between using Steve McIntyre or Roger Pielke as an "authority" and using collectively the NAS/AAAS/NMS/AGS/.../.../... as an "authority". To call this a matter of "faith" or "belief" is to belittle the process of the scientific method, in my opinion. "Consensus" is not "counting scientists." A consensus does not form by a vote; it forms after years of thrashing out the facts and hypotheses in peer-reviewed journals, conferences, symposia, etc.

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.

Your position is framed as being quite noble, and I continue to agree with you in principle. I doubt that our respect for science and reason is far apart. However, an honest individual must accept that s/he can never fully grasp a field as large as climate science, or evolution, or any other field that has come to encompass so many different disciplines. Clearly, as laypersons, we are not in a position to spend our days reading all of the relevant literature on climate science. (even those who are in the field likely limit themselves to their area of expertise, since this has become such a multi-disciplinary field) At this point, then, we must pick whom we trust for an honest and balanced overview of the science; I choose the NAS, AAAS, etc. You, evidently, choose different sources to distill the current state of research. It is not naive of me to recognize that I am incapable of grasping the entire field; rather, it would be arrogant to believe that I could.

 

[Round Robin]

Whose behaviour are you assessing here? Seems to me that you are investigating the possibility of cognitive dissonance present in the mind of some alarmists, who dismiss the claims of sceptics by rationalising the idea that they must have poor thought processes.

Interesting concept to explore. Good to see you suckered a few in on the first page. I see now why strong sceptic arguments would wreck your experiment.

I absolutely agree that there are those who use alarmism as a tactic for advancing an agenda, political, ideological, or otherwise. I am adamantly against such tactics and fully recognize that people who do this are likely uninformed ideologues.

That many of us accept the scientific consensus of AGW because of our respect for the scientific method does not make us alarmists, however. I prefer not to lumped in with those who think The Day After Tomorrow is scientific!

Getting back to the OP, subtly suggesting that those like me are alarmists is another tactic that I abhor. Labeling the "other side" as extremists is a great way to lump them all together as a single easily-dismissed bogeyman. You seem largely above that, though, CoolSceptic, so I'm probably just reacting reflexively to a confirmation bias!

 

[mhaze]

No one can effectively argue against the known properties of CO2 in relation to absorbing energy and re-radiating that energy as it approaches its ground state.

What many of us take objection to is the de facto assertion that it is the prime "forcer" of climate change at its current microfractions in the atmosphere, as well as the paramount driver in a yet to be definitively proven cause/effect relationship responsible for the predominating effect behind current observations of what-is-accepted-by-some-as-irreproachable-fact anthropogenic global warming.

-Dr. Imago

Translating ....

If A and B then IF C then IF D then IF E then.....

Did I get that right?

That's the impecable chain of allegedly consensical logic (-al fallacies)?

 

[mhaze]

Svensmark has some interesting ideas!

S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling. They are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and thus the climate.” Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change.

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/cosmoclimatology.svensmark.pdf

ABSTRACT:
Changes in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays alter the Earth’s cloudiness. A recent experiment has shown how electrons liberated by cosmic rays assist in making aerosols, the building blocks of cloud condensation nuclei, while anomalous climatic trends in Antarctica confirm the role of clouds in helping to drive climate change. Variations in the cosmic-ray influx due to solar magnetic activity account well for climatic fluctuations on decadal, centennial and millennial timescales. Over longer intervals, the changing galactic environment of the solar system has had dramatic consequences, including Snowball Earth
episodes.

Discussions by Svensmark now on youtube video -

Climate Mystery - Klimamysteriet part 1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkgEUN_TyoA

The Climate Mystery - Klimamysteriet part 2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mWVhYbMvXBU

Climate Mystery - Klimamysteriet part 3
http://youtube.com/watch?v=q3uB3vJIq4I

Climate Mystery - Klimamysteriet part 4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QmkhGcfKTFw

Climate Mystery - Klimamysteriet part 5
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AmrfWfAgKCs

Climate Mystery - Klimamysteriet part 6
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MCRCoKQRbuk

 

[a_unique_person]

No one can effectively argue against the known properties of CO2 in relation to absorbing energy and re-radiating that energy as it approaches its ground state.

What many of us take objection to is the de facto assertion that it is the prime "forcer" of climate change at its current microfractions in the atmosphere, as well as the paramount driver in a yet to be definitively proven cause/effect relationship responsible for the predominating effect behind current observations of what-is-accepted-by-some-as-irreproachable-fact anthropogenic global warming.

-Dr. Imago

I don't know were you get the 'de facto' from.

From the IPCC report, Understanding and attributing climate change. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

Forcings
considered .....

G: greenhouse gases; Sul: direct sulphate aerosol effect; Suli: (fi rst) indirect sulphate aerosol effect; OzT: tropospheric ozone; OzS: stratospheric ozone; Vol: volcanic forcing; Sol: solar forcing; BC+OM: black carbon and organic matter from fossil fuel and biomass burning.

I also don't know why you are so hung up on

microfractions

.

Just because a molecule is present in small amounts physically, does not mean it can't have a significant effect on a system. I have already given you the example of poisons on the human body. For some reason, that's not good enough.

 

[TrueSceptic]

It takes an idiot to know not the difference between a court judgment and a court transcript.

Thanks for demonstrating once more that you would rather evade the question and hurl insults than discuss the subject.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Translating ....

If A and B then IF C then IF D then IF E then.....

Did I get that right?

That's the impecable chain of allegedly consensical logic (-al fallacies)?

So have you changed your mind about CO2 since last year or not?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Note the nuance in my post and your post. When I invoked cognitive dissonance, I referred to some alarmists. However, you are quick to claim your views are a generalisation. I would encourage against hasty generalisation.

I responded to your mistaken interpretation of the OP.

Of course it is a generalisation. What else could it be?

Yes, there are poor sceptic arguments out there, as I have already noted. There are sound arguments as well.

Why do GW sceptics rarely (or perhaps never) criticise the poor arguments? Why do they so rarely behave like real sceptics?

Very few of them can be wrapped up in a sound bite as you present. My position on climate change is documented by a series of scientific papers, and involves fairly complex statistics that are not always intuitive (stats rarely are). Not sure how that would translate to your list.

These papers have conclusions you can paraphrase, surely?

 

[David Rodale]

Svensmark has some interesting ideas!

S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling. They are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and thus the climate.” Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change.

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/cosmoclimatology.svensmark.pdf

ABSTRACT:
Changes in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays alter the Earth’s cloudiness. A recent experiment has shown how electrons liberated by cosmic rays assist in making aerosols, the building blocks of cloud condensation nuclei, while anomalous climatic trends in Antarctica confirm the role of clouds in helping to drive climate change. Variations in the cosmic-ray influx due to solar magnetic activity account well for climatic fluctuations on decadal, centennial and millennial timescales. Over longer intervals, the changing galactic environment of the solar system has had dramatic consequences, including Snowball Earth
episodes.

Discussions by Svensmark now on youtube video -

Climate Mystery - Klimamysteriet part 1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkgEUN_TyoA

The Climate Mystery - Klimamysteriet part 2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mWVhYbMvXBU

Climate Mystery - Klimamysteriet part 3
http://youtube.com/watch?v=q3uB3vJIq4I

Climate Mystery - Klimamysteriet part 4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QmkhGcfKTFw

Climate Mystery - Klimamysteriet part 5
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AmrfWfAgKCs

Climate Mystery - Klimamysteriet part 6
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MCRCoKQRbuk

Ah yes, aerosols, the deep abyss to warmers, but an insurance policy for AGW to assure the irrefutable hypothesis remains intact.

Aerosols are also the favorite tool for climate modelers to adjust at their pleasure to force, errr, "tune" their models to match observations.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Just because a molecule is present in small amounts physically, does not mean it can't have a significant effect on a system. I have already given you the example of poisons on the human body. For some reason, that's not good enough.

A more apposite example: O3 makes up hundreds of times less of the atmosphere than does CO2 yet it has a very powerful effect: it blocks 97%+ of incoming UV.

 

[mhaze]

Ah yes, aerosols, the deep abyss to warmers, but an insurance policy for AGW to assure the irrefutable hypothesis remains intact.

Aerosols are also the favorite tool for climate modelers to adjust at their pleasure to force, errr, "tune" their models to match observations.

May the tuning of the aerosol parameter in climate models be done against the guidance of peer reviewed research on aerosols' effects?