How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
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/...s/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.

Care to elaborate on this Monbiotian view?

 

[CoolSceptic]

What you posted was

If the IPCC disagree with the contents of a paper, then fine, report it and explain it."

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

OK CapelDodger, this is the only point you made of substance, and you are simply misinterpreting my point (although I accept I could have made it clearer).

Example: two papers on the same topic give differing views and explanations. This happens all the time in science, including climate science. The usual resolution is to agree a test which will resolve the conflict. However, the test may not be complete in time to inform a literature review.

I say "Explain It". I do not mean "explain which viewpoint is correct". I mean "explain the presence of a conflict". You do it like this: "There is a conflict of view between these scientists, which is being resolved by further investigation". You can even argue about weight of evidence supporting one over the other, but you need to mention the conflict.

That is what I meant, and should have been evidently clear. If it wasn't then, it should be now. Explaining differences in this manner meets the IPCC goal of “A comprehensive and rigourous picture of the global present state of knowledge of climate change” (my emphasis, IPCC report goals). Doing so requires no substantial effort, and such claims are clearly false.

As stated, I have clear evidence of this that I might now be able to link - so lets give it a go. This link gives a list of papers which were not addressed in IPCC AR4 despite being current in the peer-reviewed literature and therefore raises questions as to the objectivity of the scientific assessment.

Even if you claim the report cannot include all science on a topic (a dubious claim, especially given the reports goals of being comprehensive), who gets to choose what goes in? The lead author, who has a horse in the race? Reviewers have no say since their comments can be dismissed without explanation. The "procedure", such as it is, virtually invites bias.

The rest of your post consisted of ad hominem attacks that did nothing to address the evidence I have presented.

 

[CoolSceptic]

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?

I couldn't agree with this point more! I have been working my way up the climate scientist food chain to look for the best arguments, and recognise that I'm not there yet. I did try posting one or two comments up on RealClimate in the early days, but they were censored unfortunately - but then RealClimate made a post on the topic and made a real hash of it anyway, so I wasn't too disappointed by this. I have a few friends who have similar viewpoints that did manage to get questions up more recently (I think their moderation policy has relaxed to some degree recently), but did not get credible answers.

Having followed some of the debate on ClimateAudit, Dr Judith Curry (who is always helpful and thoughtful, and with whom I do agree on many points) was not willing to engage on the topic (the sig/noise ratio was not good, so understandable), but did recommend some reading material. Dr Curry does have directly relevant experience. Unfortunately around 150 euros worth of reading material, which is nothing for a professional in the field but a bit much for someone trying to carry out analysis in their spare time on top of doing the day job. (Luckily the day job does involve plenty of mathematical modelling and statistics). Nevertheless, the cost means that might have to wait for the when I next expect to be spending a lot of time in the library with some flexibility to do what I want.

In practice, perhaps by the time I finally get my ducks in a row and have my argument properly crystallised and clear with respect to climate science, someone else closer to the topic will probably already have presented it. But at least my own curiousity will be addressed. In the meantime, I'm always on the lookout for victims - I mean thoughtful critical thinkers - to try it out on Breaking through the signal-to-noise ratio is always difficult in online climate science debates though, I am often guilty of responding to trolls as well... bad habit, which I should try to kick, otherwise I'm just adding to the noise. (NB: obviously, not referring to conversations with you here!)

 

[a_unique_person]

Care to elaborate on this Monbiotian view?

He has directly linked economic growth to CO2 production. That is absurd.

​

​

 

[CapelDodger]

OK CapelDodger, this is the only point you made of substance, and you are simply misinterpreting my point (although I accept I could have made it clearer).

I responded to what you posted. "Misinterpret" is at least a step above "misrepresent" (aka strawman), but if you were clear there'd be no room for that. I'm not psychic, nor do I expect you to be.

Example: two papers on the same topic give differing views and explanations. This happens all the time in science, including climate science. The usual resolution is to agree a test which will resolve the conflict. However, the test may not be complete in time to inform a literature review.

I say "Explain It".

Explain what? There's a very distinct lack of clarity in that contribution.

Perhaps we should go back and start again, from where you first weren't clear. Think of that as a first draft, incorporate the response, and present the second draft. Include examples by all means.

 

[mhaze]

He has directly linked economic growth to CO2 production. That is absurd.
​

Not at all absurd.
​

 

[jaydeehess]

Quote:CoolSceptic
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.[/quote]

Seems to me that CS is demanding that politicians be micromanagers and scientists.
There is a reason why politicians might delegate such a task to scientists, most politicians have no science background beyond high school. Most politicians have an Arts degree, or maybe economics or law. Thus they have not the capacity, to understand the jargon and calculations in scientific papers, nor would they be likely to even know where to start looking for relevent papers.

Perhaps then the call should go out, an impetus be implemented, for younger students, those in grade 7/8, to take courses designed to give them a B.A. in history, another in economics and also one in a hard science such as physics or chemistry with at least a first year course in political science. A cadre of such people would then be worthy of, and prepared for, being elected to office. It looks like that would satisfy CS, and frankly I'd like to see such a thing come to pass as well., but until then I suppose that politicians will have to delegate such tasks to people with training to prepare reports on scientific matters.

,,,,,,,,, or we can do what the present USA administration does, also hire spin doctors to re-write the science reports to properly present the conclusions reached.

 

[TrueSceptic]

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

The basic physics is questioned only by the most dishonest, delusional, or ignorant.

Aside from my inability to believe in anything 100% (e.g., I am a lifelong atheist, but cannot say that no god exists with 100% certainty), I believe that the application of any theory to such a complex, noisy, system as our climate is open to doubt because of current computing and measurement limitations.

There is always the possibility, no matter how small, that some other factor will be discovered to better explain what is happening.

Of course "sceptics" cannot agree amongst themselves, let alone with the rest of us, what is happening, let alone what might explain it!

 

[TrueSceptic]

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

OK, but why would TYS provide any satisfaction for you in this case?

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.

Not sure what you're saying here.

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.)

Go to it with a will!

 

[CapelDodger]

,,,,,,,,, or we can do what the present USA administration does, also hire spin doctors to re-write the science reports to properly present the conclusions reached.

And they presumably thought they could get away with that. Hubris, I calls it.

Oddly enough, Margaret Thatcher does have a Chemistry degree, and played quite a significant role in the political history of AGW. She started publicising AGW in the mid-80's, which was quite a boost to its political and public credibilty, and not just in the UK.

 

[TrueSceptic]

And they presumably thought they could get away with that. Hubris, I calls it.

Oddly enough, Margaret Thatcher does have a Chemistry degree, and played quite a significant role in the political history of AGW. She started publicising AGW in the mid-80's, which was quite a boost to its political and public credibilty, and not just in the UK.

Indeed, and I think she was a prime mover in establishing the IPCC. Was this an underhand ploy to support nuclear power and reduce UK dependence on coal? Or have I been suckered by propagandists?

 

[CapelDodger]

OK, but why would TYS provide any satisfaction for you in this case?

Because I'm a cynical, cold-hearted, egotistical bastard. I wish CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas and so none of this ever came up, China and India could power themselves to prosperity on coal energy with impunity, a world just like the GW Sceptics desperately want it to be. But that's not the way it is.

On a personal level I try not to be part of the problem. I try not to be part of any problem. I try to do my bit for solutions, but within reason.

Not sure what you're saying here.

I get that a lot . I'm just saying that there are lots of beliefs people cling onto for comfort, against any amount of evidence, and they'll grab at any specious argument in the process. GW Scepticism is one of those beliefs, just another apple in the barrel.

Go to it with a will!

"Frankie, Frankie ... what were you thinking?"

What's in "The End of History" (or anything else in his oeuvre) hardly matters, schoolkids will be giggling at him in a century's time just because of that title. Historians will not be kind to him. They're kinder to that civil servant back in the 1890's who said the US Patent Office should be closed down because "everything has been invented". "The End of History" hits a lot closer to home. Fukuyama's going to be Canuted (which is much like SwiftBoating, except that it never stops).

 

[CapelDodger]

Indeed, and I think she was a prime mover in establishing the IPCC. Was this an underhand ploy to support nuclear power and reduce UK dependence on coal? Or have I been suckered by propagandists?

I think those aspects made her open to the argument. She was also big on the "great car-culture", which AGW does no favours to, but transport emissions are not as prominent over here as in the US. It's more to do with AGW not going against the flow than it being recruited. When you don't have reasons not to believe the science its pretty damn' convincing.

Compare and contrast with the US. Eight years of Reagan, four of Bush Major, eight of Bush Minor, in 28 years. All of those adminstrations were/are intimately connected to the oil sector. There was no such influence in Thatcher's government.

By the way, to hear Lord Munchkin tell it Thatcher was hanging on his every word back in those days. I guess he didn't have much to say about AGW at the time. Or he's a glib self-promoting egotist.

It speaks volumes on the poverty of GW Scepticism that Monckton has become prominent so suddenly and so unquestioningly.

 

[a_unique_person]

By the way, to hear Lord Munchkin tell it Thatcher was hanging on his every word back in those days. I guess he didn't have much to say about AGW at the time. Or he's a glib self-promoting egotist.

It speaks volumes on the poverty of GW Scepticism that Monckton has become prominent so suddenly and so unquestioningly.

He is mentally ill, IMO, a classic narcissist in everyway. Way over pumped evaluation of himself, his abilities, his importance. To think he is accepted so readily tells you a lot about the denier crowd.

 

[mhaze]

He is mentally ill, IMO, a classic narcissist in everyway. Way over pumped evaluation of himself, his abilities, his importance. To think he is accepted so readily tells you a lot about the denier crowd.

Well, we shall have to present some of his arguments so they may be debated on their merits. let's see-here is a simple essay which should do.

Trenberth's 23 scientific errors in one short article.

Taking the first six errors, they appear obvious, the only debatable assertion being this in #3:

Computer models are merely expensive forms of elaborate guesswork, to which the foolish cling in the near-total absence of any analytical basis in theoretical physics for the absurdly exaggerated effects of insignificant increases in the atmospheric content of trace gases on temperature that are imagined by the IPCC.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, we shall have to present some of his arguments so they may be debated on their merits. let's see-here is a simple essay which should do.

Trenberth's 23 scientific errors in one short article.

Taking the first six errors, they appear obvious, the only debatable assertion being this in #3:

Computer models are merely expensive forms of elaborate guesswork, to which the foolish cling in the near-total absence of any analytical basis in theoretical physics for the absurdly exaggerated effects of insignificant increases in the atmospheric content of trace gases on temperature that are imagined by the IPCC.

OK, you've convinced me, Monckton is a complete idiot.

 

[mhaze]

OK, you've convinced me, Monckton is a complete idiot.

Taking errors 7-12, they appear clearly errors.

No obvious material for discussion there.

So far Monkton is doing pretty good.

No evidence of mental illness so far.

 

[TrueSceptic]

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?

Yes, it is, and you will find other common behaviours and claims summarised in the OP.

Welcome. All intelligent interruptions are appreciated.

 

[mhaze]

Taking errors 7-12, they appear clearly errors.

No obvious material for discussion there.

So far Monkton is doing pretty good.

No evidence of mental illness so far.

Error 17, on the precautionary princicple, could be debated one way or the other. The remaining errors 13-18 are simple errors of fact.

Error 17. Trenberth says, “At least we should plan for the coming changes.” The “precautionary principle” – plan against a danger even if the scientific basis for it is unsound or incomplete - killed 30 to 50 million people from malaria when the environmental movement succeeded in getting DDT banned worldwide. Before the ban, 30 years ago, just 50,000 people a year were killed by malaria. After the ban, the mean annual death-rate rose to 1 million. On 15 September 2006, the World Health Organization at last lifted this murderous ban, caused by needless and heedless “planning”. Its spokesman said that science and the data had to replace politics in future.
Trenberth, please note.
​

No evidence of mental illness through "Error 18", and two errors found that could possibly be debated one way or the other (eg, possibly not "errors" depending on how you look at it).

 

[David Rodale]

OK, you've convinced me, Monckton is a complete idiot.

AUP, is the lower stratosphere cooling? Should it be?