How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[varwoche]

Here's some evidence of precisely what I'm talking about...
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm

Now, you have to understand what is going on here. Prior to this, the assumption was that the massive "spike" of atmospheric carbon dioxide was taken as evidence that we were doomed.

This evidence counters your assertion.

Prior to the release of the above report, many examples of the following type of story were released in the lay media...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1217958.htm

A singular news report tells me next to nothing. The amount of stock you put into this one piece of meta data makes little sense.

Next, let's go from a news outlet straightaway to a "green friendly" website...

It's a given that many agenda-driven web sites will twist facts to suit their agenda. This conveys exactly nothing about the state of the science.

NOAA made a mistake? And at a magnitude of 28.7% over the actual value? How could this happen? I applaud them for acknowledging this and having the courage and responsibility to inform the reader, but what other mistakes have NOAA made?

Mistakes occur everywhere, all the time. If we're going to dismiss bodies of science (to the extent of even using scare quotes, implying that "climate science" isn't real science) based on mistakes made, then all science is bad; all science should be doubted.

Furthermore, there is only talk of CO2, as well as admonishments about why we should be worried, in these articles.

In one news article and one commondreams artice? This is extreme cherry-picking.

There is no reference to the actual recorded temperature data, which doesn't directly correlate with the CO2 data.

In a news article? So what. Countless studies have used actual recorded temperature data.

Numbers added for convenience:

"Some unknown mechanism"? (1) That's good science?!?? (2) These interested scientists are going to leave it at that? (3) What other work has been done to understand these "unknown" mechanisms? (4) Is it occurring? (5) How come we don't regularly hear about it if it is? (6) How come everyone seems to want to focus on human CO2 emissions?

(1) They're damned if they blame humans, damned if they don't. If something is unknown, it is proper to say so.
(2) I doubt it.
(3) I don't know specifically, but I do know that NOAA continues to conduct/publish research.
(4) You're asking the same question over and over.
(5) NOAA continues to conduct/publish research. Why anyone may or may not hear about it I can't say.
(6) Because it's probable that it's a driver of climate change. But even then, extensive research is being conducted in other areas, which flies in the face of your assertion.

 

[Round Robin]

The reason for distrust is probably manyfold. My main reason is that I have asked questions from areas I know and understand well which are important in climate science, and received answers from experts in the field which display a remarkable ignorance of the basics.

That is a fair point and would certainly give me pause as well; but I have a question--and this is a sincere question of ignorance, not a rhetorical gotcha: Are the "experts in the field" the statisticians or modelers (your fields, I believe?) responsible for the studies in question, or were they specialists in some other aspect climatology? i.e., should they have had a knowledge of the statistics?

Here's some context to my question. My wife is a microbiologist with the NSABP, an organization that designs and runs large clinical trials for breast and colon cancer. It is a large tent: there are biologists, nurses, pathologists, oncologists (both surgeons and researchers), regulatory experts, etc. They work with the NCI, the FDA, and international groups where necessary (if it is an international trial). When the data are collected, they are all sent to the biostatistical center at the University of Pittsburgh for analysis. Because this is a group of only loosely-overlapping, yet complex and deep specialties, it is unlikely that if even one of the oncologists were asked a basic question about statistics, that he'd get it entirely right--particularly to the satisfaction of a working statistician. The work is necessarily compartmentalized.

Similarly, were a statistician asked a question about spectroscopy or some other physics topic and made an error, that would not necessarily invalidate the study at hand. Big-tent fields require specialists and specialists are not always knowledgeable of all aspects of a field of study--nor should they be expected to.

Let me be clear that I am not accusing you of misrepresenting your doubt, since you are a working statistician and have published peer-reviewed work; I am only asking a sincere question of whether those who held basic misunderstandings of statistics should be expected to understand it.

Of course I think EVERYONE should know, study, and love physics, but for some reason, some people find it boring!

 

[a_unique_person]

To make it less of a puzzle, let me make two brief comments.
As an economist, I have to start by stressing the obvious. Carbon dioxide emissions do not fall from heaven. Their volume (ECO2) is a function of GDP per capita (which means of the size of economic activity, SEA), of the number of people (POP) and of the emissions intensity (EI), which is the amount of CO2 emissions per dollar of GDP. This is usually expressed in a simple relationship which is, of course, a tautological identity:
ECO2= EI x SEA x POP
but with some assumption about causality it can be turned into a structural equation. What this relationship tells is simple: If we really want to decrease ECO2 (which most of us assembled here today probably do not consider necessary), we have to either stop the economic growth and thus block further rise in the standard of living, or stop the population growth, or make miracles with the emissions intensity.

How many strawmen, how much ignorance, can there be in one speech? Even as an economist he fails. The constant accusation is made that only CO2 is regarded as a forcing when it comes to Global Warming, which is simply *wrong*. However, he makes the assumption that without CO2 emissions, economic growth is impossible! For gods sake, what a moron.

 

[mhaze]

How many strawmen, how much ignorance, can there be in one speech? Even as an economist he fails. The constant accusation is made that only CO2 is regarded as a forcing when it comes to Global Warming, which is simply *wrong*. However, he makes the assumption that without CO2 emissions, economic growth is impossible! For gods sake, what a moron.

Really?

 

[jaydeehess]

Sorry to interupt........

on another forum this exchange occurs in which I quote from a NatGeo article;

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070712-sun-climate_2.html

"Up until 1985 you could argue that the sun was [trending] in a direction that could have contributed to Earth's rising temperatures," said study author A. Mike Lockwood of the University of Southampton in Britain.

Two decades ago, "it did a U-turn. If the sun had been warming the Earth, that should have come to an end, and we should have seen temperatures start to go the other way," Lockwood said.

Yet Earth's temperatures have continued to climb since that date—making a strong solar role in warming appear unlikely. (What is global warming?)

"I think it's quite conclusive," said Lockwood, who co-authored the report appearing in the current issue of the U.K. journal Proceedings of the Royal Society A.

To which one poster responds

..........why do you get your science news from soundbites back up by websites that claim scientists say. then they neglect to tell you the scientists are social science scientists.

when I link to the credentials of the scientists quoted in the article he respods with;

............When a scientist goes and makes assumptions that appear logical, such as your dissertation of logic regarding my "cooling" remark, in order to try and force large scale change with no direct evidence, they are no longer academic scientists, they are social scientists.

My question here is, is it common for the Global Warming skeptics to discount any and all scientist's study or comment by denigrating them to pure political statements if it does not conform to the beliefs of the GWS credo?

 

[jaydeehess]

To make it less of a puzzle, let me make two brief comments.
As an economist, I have to start by stressing the obvious. Carbon dioxide emissions do not fall from heaven. Their volume (ECO2) is a function of GDP per capita (which means of the size of economic activity, SEA), of the number of people (POP) and of the emissions intensity (EI), which is the amount of CO2 emissions per dollar of GDP. This is usually expressed in a simple relationship which is, of course, a tautological identity:
ECO2= EI x SEA x POP
but with some assumption about causality it can be turned into a structural equation. What this relationship tells is simple: If we really want to decrease ECO2 (which most of us assembled here today probably do not consider necessary), we have to either stop the economic growth and thus block further rise in the standard of living, or stop the population growth, or make miracles with the emissions intensity.

You don't believe that is a "throw your hands up in despair, oh there's nothing that can possibly be done" attitude? The same arguement was made concerning stopping the use of DDT IIRC.

I am afraid there are people who want to stop the economic growth, the rise in the standard of living (though not their own) and the ability of man to use the expanding wealth, science and technology for solving the actual pressing problems of mankind, especially of the developing countries.

Stepping into realm of conspiracy theories. Wrong sub-forum.

 

[CapelDodger]

...and she had a wonderful time, thank you!

Glad to hear it. Be warned : her third birthday party is liable to end up in over-excitement and tears before bedtime . Or perhaps you already have experience of the Terrible Two's ?

 

[mhaze]

Sorry to interupt........

on another forum this exchange occurs in which I quote from a NatGeo article;

To which one poster responds

when I link to the credentials of the scientists quoted in the article he respods with;

My question here is, is it common for the Global Warming skeptics to discount any and all scientist's study or comment by denigrating them to pure political statements if it does not conform to the beliefs of the GWS credo?

Why would anyone care about some excerpts of a blog discussion between unknown individuals, over some excerpts of a paper from July of 2007? Were you not able to carry your own in the debate?

Concerning the article in question, though, here was a quick comment by Pieres Corbin -

In desperate attempts to shore up their crumbling doctrine of man-made climate change, Professor Lockwood and Henry Davenport (Letters, July 14) themselves cherry-pick data. Prof Lockwood’s “refutation” of the decisive role of solar activity in driving climate is as valid as claiming a particular year was not warm by simply looking at the winter half of data. The most significant and persistent cycle of variation in the world’s temperature follows the 22-year magnetic cycle of the sun’s activity. So what does he do? He “finds” that for an 11-year stretch around 1987 to 1998 world temperatures rose, while there was a fall in his preferred measures of solar activity. A 22-year cycle and an 11-year cycle will of necessity move in opposite directions half the time.

 

[CapelDodger]

Sorry to interupt........

Not at all, your post is on-topic, whcih can't be said of all posts .

My question here is, is it common for the Global Warming skeptics to discount any and all scientist's study or comment by denigrating them to pure political statements if it does not conform to the beliefs of the GWS credo?

It's certainly common for the talisman of "political motivations" to be used in warding off the Evil Eye of observations. This "social scientist" theme may be peculiar to this guy, and I don't doubt he thinks it very clever.

Of course, not all scientists have the Evil Eye. Just as there are Black Magic and White Magic, there's White Science (Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, the Pielkes, to name but a few of the few) which eschews politics and economics and so these are not social scientists .

The conspiracy theme is coming through ever more strongly, don't you think? It's always been there, of course, but it's getting louder in the mix.

 

[Pipirr]

Why would anyone care about some excerpts of a blog discussion between unknown individuals, over some excerpts of a paper from July of 2007?

Because it's relevant to the topic of this thread.

 

[CapelDodger]

Why would anyone care about some excerpts of a blog discussion between unknown individuals, over some excerpts of a paper from July of 2007? Were you not able to carry your own in the debate?

jaydeehess came to ask a question in a forum where there's relevant expertise.

Concerning the article in question, though, here was a quick comment by Pieres Corbin

Can't you carry the debate alone?

In desperate attempts to shore up their crumbling doctrine of man-made climate change, Professor Lockwood and Henry Davenport (Letters, July 14) themselves cherry-pick data. Prof Lockwood’s “refutation” of the decisive role of solar activity in driving climate is as valid as claiming a particular year was not warm by simply looking at the winter half of data. The most significant and persistent cycle of variation in the world’s temperature follows the 22-year magnetic cycle of the sun’s activity. So what does he do? He “finds” that for an 11-year stretch around 1987 to 1998 world temperatures rose, while there was a fall in his preferred measures of solar activity. A 22-year cycle and an 11-year cycle will of necessity move in opposite directions half the time.

The problem there is that 1985 is 22 years ago, so Corbyn (another White Scientist) has simply made up this "eleven-year stretch". In fact, of course, the data shows that there's been no trend in solar activity since the 50's. There's no refuge in the Sun. Not that you should throw it out yet, of course; as things get warmer over the next five or six years you'll be wanting Solar Cycle 24 to explain it away.

 

[a_unique_person]

Why would anyone care about some excerpts of a blog discussion between unknown individuals, over some excerpts of a paper from July of 2007? Were you not able to carry your own in the debate?

Concerning the article in question, though, here was a quick comment by Pieres Corbin -

In desperate attempts to shore up their crumbling doctrine of man-made climate change, Professor Lockwood and Henry Davenport (Letters, July 14) themselves cherry-pick data. Prof Lockwood’s “refutation” of the decisive role of solar activity in driving climate is as valid as claiming a particular year was not warm by simply looking at the winter half of data. The most significant and persistent cycle of variation in the world’s temperature follows the 22-year magnetic cycle of the sun’s activity. So what does he do? He “finds” that for an 11-year stretch around 1987 to 1998 world temperatures rose, while there was a fall in his preferred measures of solar activity. A 22-year cycle and an 11-year cycle will of necessity move in opposite directions half the time.

There's your problem. If you want to be taken seriously, avoid people like Corbyn like the plague. He is a nutter.

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2008/03/whither-weatheraction.html#links

 

[CapelDodger]

Convinced, yes, but with 100% certainty? Surely you have a few % left over?

Life's too short for constant uncertainty. I want to get the "Told you so!" in while I'm still kicking. (Posthumous TYS's are better than nothing, of course.) For me they're the gold stars on the exercise-book of life. "Told you probably!" is for Philosophers and such-like intellectual riff-raff. TYS means putting your cock on the block and taking the consequences.

Have you ever considered that this forum will one day be a source for historical theses? I have, and I want to rate "Honourable Mention" status, not "Fukuyama". (Poor Francis, History will not be kind to him ... Cock, block, consequences.)

 

[mhaze]

There's your problem. If you want to be taken seriously, avoid people like Corbyn like the plague. He is a nutter.

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2008/03/whither-weatheraction.html#links

This comment from you, leads me to wonder about the merits of other bits of advice you may offer -

Originally Posted by a_unique_person
How many strawmen, how much ignorance, can there be in one speech? .... he makes the assumption that without CO2 emissions, economic growth is impossible! For gods sake, what a moron.
​

Care to revise it?

Irrespective of whether you do or do not correct this minor error in your own writing, your typical denigrating of published scientists who do not share your narrow and far left environmental views doesn't matter one bit.

 

[a_unique_person]

This comment from you, leads me to wonder about the merits of other bits of advice you may offer -

Originally Posted by a_unique_person http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif
How many strawmen, how much ignorance, can there be in one speech? .... he makes the assumption that without CO2 emissions, economic growth is impossible! For gods sake, what a moron.
​

Care to revise it?

No.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Life's too short for constant uncertainty. I want to get the "Told you so!" in while I'm still kicking. (Posthumous TYS's are better than nothing, of course.) For me they're the gold stars on the exercise-book of life. "Told you probably!" is for Philosophers and such-like intellectual riff-raff. TYS means putting your cock on the block and taking the consequences.

Have you ever considered that this forum will one day be a source for historical theses? I have, and I want to rate "Honourable Mention" status, not "Fukuyama". (Poor Francis, History will not be kind to him ... Cock, block, consequences.)

I understand your POV, but I simply cannot be so certain about just about anything.

Your TYS simply won't work with the people you want it to: do you really think that in 10 (or 15, 20, 30) years' time that they will admit that you said what you claimed, or even that it's really got warmer, and if it has, that it's anthropogenic? That would contradict all the evidence we have for GWS behaviour to date.

Re FF, is someone, somewhere, writing "The End Of Science"?

 

[a_unique_person]

I understand your POV, but I simply cannot be so certain about just about anything.

Your TYS simply won't work with the people you want it to: do you really think that in 10 (or 15, 20, 30) years' time that they will admit that you said what you claimed, or even that it's really got warmer, and if it has, that it's anthropogenic? That would contradict all the evidence we have for GWS behaviour to date.

Re FF, is someone, somewhere, writing "The End Of Science"?

Can you be reasonably certain that CO2 absorbs and re-emits radiation?

 

[Pipirr]

Re FF, is someone, somewhere, writing "The End Of Science"?

Already done...

http://www.amazon.com/End-Science-Knowledge-Twilight-Scientific/dp/0553061747

 

[CapelDodger]

No. That is not what I am demanding, it is what you have chosen to mischaracterise me as demanding (that's the trait of someone presenting a strawman argument, by the way). I did not suggest the IPCC includes every single paper ...

What you posted was

"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."

(My emphasis).

How is that not a demand that the IPCC specifically address every paper that might be relevant?

... but presents a broad spectrum of papers instead of one narrow viewpoint that is not representative of the scientific record.

The IPCC reports are sourced from, and cover, the spectrum of science. The IPCC is the International Panel on Climate Change, not the IPAGW.

And in doing so, they do not have to resolve differences (which would require analysis), but merely highlight differences of position exist within the scientific community. This is trivial to do and common practice within such a literature review. It ain't rocket science.

The IPCC reports are models of their type. They address uncertainties and all the relevant science. Not every paper, but they reference a heck of a lot.

If they are not doing primary science, it's a literature review, whatever semantics you want to place over the top of that, fine.

The IPCC is what it's mandated to be. It collates and condenses the current science for the benefit of policymakers. The influential policymakers have their own scientific advisors and scientific institutions to double-check it all, and there aren't many policymakers who wouldn't like AGW to just go away. They have enough on there plate with all the old stuff, the last thing they need is a climate they can't depend on because of the fuel they do depend on.

Unless you're suggesting the IPCC was mandated to produce a biassed tome?

That would seem to be much closer to what you're suggesting. The people that mandated the IPCC are movers and shakers who are not going to let it run wild or "go native".

The IPCC presents a view of science to policymakers. See, it has the word "government" right there in it. Policymakers are not interested in hunting through the scientific literature to see what bits the IPCC has missed, otherwise there would be no point in having the IPCC in the first place. Hmmm, now I mention that...

Unlike you, policymakers don't want to hunt through scientific literature. They delegate that. Policymakers delegate all the time.

Oh dear. If you actually read RPSr's posts, you would see on AR4 he has a long list of papers, from multiple authors (including himself and many others) which present a view alternative to the IPCC which were not considered, and a few papers which add nothing new to the record which were included. Can you believe that? He provided EVIDENCE!

So he claims. He claims that these papers weren't considered. Where's his evidence? And when you say "presented a view", do you mean a view, or various views that take the "A" off "AGW"?

(Love your use of capitals; very stylish.)

And what do you provide? A claim of a hissy fit? Wow! Evidence versus ad hominem attack, which of these sounds constructive, and which sounds convincing? What do you have other than hand-waving and ad hominems to counter the evidence presented?

Abuse of ad hominem is another common GW Sceptic trait. I calls 'em as I sees 'em, and when I see a hissy-fit that's what I calls it.

"Swamped by the mainstream"? Really?

Well, yes.

Have you counted papers? Does counting papers make them more right? Maybe in your strange world. What is the threshold required to get included? Since most papers are narrow in view, couldn't that argument be used to subjectively reject almost any paper? Wouldn't that cause bias? Ooops!

Now to me, that's a hissy-fit. It's an imprecise term, but hardly pretends to be otherwise.

Any sign of a valid rebuttal to any of my points?

None that you noticed, apparently. You may also not have noticed that on this thread playing the man not the ball is the rule of the game. You're only here in the same way that a fruit-fly is in a genetics lab.

Enjoy.

No! Quick, change the subject....

Another GE Sceptic trait : whine about what people will do, in case they don't and a whining opportunity is lost.

 

[CapelDodger]

I understand your POV, but I simply cannot be so certain about just about anything.

Your TYS simply won't work with the people you want it to ...

You mistake my audience. It's not the entrenched I'm concerned with, it's my peers and other normal folk.

do you really think that in 10 (or 15, 20, 30) years' time that they will admit that you said what you claimed, or even that it's really got warmer, and if it has, that it's anthropogenic? That would contradict all the evidence we have for GWS behaviour to date.

True, but let's face it, it's not a special behaviour. It's pretty common at both macro- and micro-level. Never special, but specious always comes into it.

Re FF, is someone, somewhere, writing "The End Of Science"?

You've inspired me to start on my unfinished work "Well That About Wraps it For The End of History, Then (More Follows)".

(Jeebus, that's convoluted even for me.)