How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[Round Robin]

The problem is - who decides how to "weigh the importance" of a paper? You criticise the fact that nature may only have three reviewers, but the IPCC process effectively determines the "weight" of a paper through perhaps just two lead authors. And, as noted by CapelDodger, the IPCC is not in the job of doing primary research, so the analysis by the two lead authors will be no more stringent than those of the three nature reviewers.

Again I have failed. Here we are, a Brit (right?) and a Yank separated by a common language!

I am by no means criticizing the fact that Nature (or any reputable journal, for that matter) may only have a few reviewers and an editor to determine what is worthy of publication. My question was related to what happens after publication: Is publication enough? I don't think so. I think papers--especially seminal ones--need some time in the wild to determine their importance, through replication, corroboration, and other vetting by the scientific community. Papers that are refinements of earlier work (that was accepted by the field) would, I think, also earn more weight (initially, at least) than a seminal one with no history or further scrutiny.

I'm also not suggesting that the lead authors of the IPCC are any more qualified to "weigh the importance" of a paper than the reviewers for Nature; my point was that the acceptance/rejection of work should ultimately come from the scientific consensus, not a few reviewers at Nature or the handful of lead authors at the IPCC.

My understanding was that the IPCC was tasked with compiling the best and most relevant scientific research as determined by "high scientific standards" (from their mission statement). I suppose the argument comes in what constitutes those standards. I propose that mere publication does not qualify as meeting a "high scientific standard". That is why I asked the question: "How were they received?" Because if they were merely published, I don't think that's enough.

The reason for the three dozen or so papers RPSr listed was not that they are individual papers, but a major back-and-forth debate on just a couple of topics (RPSr's topics of choice are: issues with the instrumental record and consequence of land use changes on global and regional climate). RPSr lists both papers that agree and disagree with his views - his list, at any rate, has some balance to it. So certainly not met with the sound of crickets. I would summarise the topic as saying they were accepted, repeated, hypotheses have been formed to explain the evidence, but there are unresolved issues between teams of scientists. I hope that summary is useful.

Yes, that summary was useful, thank you. I am not terribly familiar with this debate and must school myself further. In the absence of having done (literature) research myself, I defer to consensus (as compiled by the NAS, Royal Society, AAAS, etc.), and the consensus does not seem to come down on RPSr's (et al) side on this issue thus far. Could this be the reason the IPCC lead authors didn't include these papers? If so, is following consensus a bias? (note: I didn't say "CONSPIRACY!" ) (also note that was a sincere question and not a rhetorical gotcha)

To stretch your analogy a little bit he was picked for the team, he felt the team was not playing a fair game, so he quit the team.

To stretch the analogy to the point of breaking, did he, "take his ball and go home?" (does that expression exist outside USA?)

I hope my comments above clarify (my opinion) of the status of the papers. I would ask a question back: why do you think (say) two IPCC lead authors are a better basis for weighing importance than three nature reviewers?

Your comments clarify your opinions. I hope that mine persuade you that I do not put the IPCC lead authors above Nature reviewers, but rather put the scientific community and consensus above both the IPCC lead authors and the Nature reviewers.

My criticism was of CapelDodger's illogical argument, not him. CapelDodger might have some valid input elsewhere, but not yet in this debate. His net contribution is an ad hom on RPSr ("hissy fit"), an appeal to motive on RPSr ("What he seems to mean is that the IPCC does not come to the conclusions expressed in these papers"), and now an appeal to motive on me ("Again with the fixation on the IPCC"). Whilst you have also made an ad hom on RPSr (poor form btw - if you don't like his writing, just say so, don't attack the individual), you have at least backed this up with solid debating points.

I have openly admitted that I was committing an ad hom toward RPSr; I read his article and felt that his argument was obscured by an accusatory and venomous tone. That is poor form, if he wishes to be persuasive to a scientific audience. Actually, that I pointed out his tone is not really an ad hom. Had I said he is wrong because he sounds like a "child not picked for the team", that would have been an ad hom. I merely stated that his tone distracts attention from his argument--well, it did mine anyway.

Again, I reiterate my apology to TrueSceptic for continuing to veer off topic.

 

[Round Robin]

We've had this discussion. I have not corrupted your thread with my own position on the science (which would entail detailed technical discussions). I am answering questions posed by another, who I continue to note you are not criticising for doing the same.

As I am the poster in question here I would submit that "attacking the IPCC" is a tactic of GWS.

However, whether or not that is a valid criticism is, to be sure, not relevant to TS's OP and for that I apologize. Perhaps that topic is deserving of another thread, but shucks, there are already so many other GW threads that perhaps the best way to proceed is for me to drop my line of questioning and say to CS: "cheers mate; it's been educational and fun, and I'll stop veering off course in TS's thread"

ETA: (P.S. CoolSceptic: That basically means I'm inviting you to have the last word if a) you want it and b) TrueSceptic doesn't mind one more OT post--and if he does, feel free to PM me with the final zinger )

 

[CapelDodger]

Again I have failed. Here we are, a Brit (right?) and a Yank separated by a common language!

And by the North Atlantic, which is why I can sleep at night.

 

[Round Robin]

And by the North Atlantic, which is why I can sleep at night.

CapelDodger is the penguin on the right; I'm on the left:

 

[CapelDodger]

As I am the poster in question here I would submit that "attacking the IPCC" is a tactic of GWS.

Presenting the IPCC as a focal-point is the initial tactic. Then comes the attack.

Attacking science as it exists in the wild is far too difficult, there's no centre to it. The IPCC is promoted to dictatorial status to provide a clear target.

It's a tactic that some people fall for.

 

[CapelDodger]

CapelDodger is the penguin on the right; I'm on the left:

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/2238947e0829aa3291.gif[/URL]

I laughed so loud m'dog woke up . There were no cats involved, so he's gone back to sleep.

What makes it funnier still is that you clearly don't realise that left and right are reversed in the southern hemisphere .

 

[TrueSceptic]

As I am the poster in question here I would submit that "attacking the IPCC" is a tactic of GWS.

However, whether or not that is a valid criticism is, to be sure, not relevant to TS's OP and for that I apologize. Perhaps that topic is deserving of another thread, but shucks, there are already so many other GW threads that perhaps the best way to proceed is for me to drop my line of questioning and say to CS: "cheers mate; it's been educational and fun, and I'll stop veering off course in TS's thread"

ETA: (P.S. CoolSceptic: That basically means I'm inviting you to have the last word if a) you want it and b) TrueSceptic doesn't mind one more OT post--and if he does, feel free to PM me with the final zinger )

Some degree of drifting OT is inevitable. I have no power to censor what others post in this thread but I feel that it becomes pointless if it starts to look like every other GW thread.

That is all, and thanks for being so reasonable.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I laughed so loud m'dog woke up . There were no cats involved, so he's gone back to sleep.

What makes it funnier still is that you clearly don't realise that left and right are reversed in the southern hemisphere .

Not to mention that their left and right are opposite to what we see them as...

There's another version of this where one trips the other. Just as funny.

 

[Round Robin]

As the git who derailed your thread, TrueSceptic, I feel it is partly my responsibility to get it back on track.

Just yesterday one of my relatives declared that he heard on the news that "all the global warming has been undone."

I'm not sure what he heard because the message was delivered to me through his wife, who didn't know. However, this morning on NPR I heard this report:

Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them
[...]
In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus.

I purposely quote mined the article to make my point: a tactic that I am personally growing quite weary of is when GWS hear of one study--or worse, one main-stream news report--and declare categorically that GW is "undone" (as my relative did yesterday) or simply that it has stopped and is therefore a myth (as my coworker did a few weeks back). Worse is quote mining a study or--in this case--a main-stream news article and only pulling out the bits that fit an ideology.

Reading the whole article reveals much more nuance (NPR is one of the better news outlets in the US, IMO). Read it; it's good. For me, it highlights the difference between GWSkeptics and GWScientists: The skeptics see a report like this and declare the death knell of GW. The scientists (who, after all, reported, not hid the data) see this as an opportunity to understand the earth's climate better. Witness Keven Trenberth (notorious to some GWS, I believe):

But if the aquatic robots are actually telling the right story, that raises a new question: Where is the extra heat all going?

Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.

That can't be directly measured at the moment, however.

"Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says.

It's also possible that some of the heat has gone even deeper into the ocean, he says. Or it's possible that scientists need to correct for some other feature of the planet they don't know about. It's an exciting time, though, with all this new data about global sea temperature, sea level and other features of climate.

"I suspect that we'll able to put this together with a little bit more perspective and further analysis," Trenberth says. "But what this does is highlight some of the issues and send people back to the drawing board."

Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming. But they say there are still things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat.

(my emphasis)

"We don't know and we have things to learn" is a damn sight better than "This proves, proves that GW doesn't exist."

 

[TrueSceptic]

As the git who derailed your thread, TrueSceptic, I feel it is partly my responsibility to get it back on track.

Just yesterday one of my relatives declared that he heard on the news that "all the global warming has been undone."

I'm not sure what he heard because the message was delivered to me through his wife, who didn't know. However, this morning on NPR I heard this report:



I purposely quote mined the article to make it my point: a tactic that I am personally growing quite weary of is when GWS hear of one study--or worse, one main-stream news report--and declare categorically that GW is "undone" (as my relative did yesterday) or simply that it has stopped and is therefore a myth (as my coworker did a few weeks back). Worse is quote mining a study or--in this case--a main-stream news article and only pulling out the bits that fit an ideology.

Reading the whole article reveals much more nuance (NPR is one of the better news outlets in the US, IMO). Read it; it's good. For me, it highlights the difference between GWSkeptics and GWScientists: The skeptics see a report like this and declare the death knell of GW. The scientists (who, after all, reported, not hid the data) see this as an opportunity to understand the earth's climate better. Witness Keven Trenberth (notorious to some GWS, I believe):

(my emphasis)

"We don't know and we have things to learn" is a damn sight better than "This proves, proves that GW doesn't exist."

You catch on fast. This is how it's always been as far as I can see. You just can't take it at face value; you have to apply "my" 3 filters and then see what gets through.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I have mentioned Climate Audit (Steve McIntyre) a few times as being one of very few "sceptic" blogs worth bothering with. Capel Dodger has said that McIntyre is "still a weasel*, though", and I'd like to relate a little story.

Last year McIntyre defended TGGWS against criticism from Bob Ward, representing 37 concerned academics, in a thread called 'Risk Management Solutions Ltd and the 37 Professors'. The threads at CA can take an awfully long time to wade through so I'll save you some time. Start here and then jump to posts 61, 86, 120, 123, 125, 147 and the replies to those. Note that McIntyre does not argue any longer after 147; he changes the subject.

(You might find some other posts interesting or amusing, like the one saying I'm some sort of sleazy lawyer type. )

*Unfair to weasels. They are tough, courageous little mustalids.

 

[TrueSceptic]

*Unfair to weasels. They are tough, courageous little mustalids.

Mustelids. Serves me right for trying to be clever.

 

[mhaze]

I have mentioned Climate Audit (Steve McIntyre) a few times as being one of very few "sceptic" blogs worth bothering with. Capel Dodger has said that McIntyre is "still a weasel*, though", and I'd like to relate a little story.

Last year McIntyre defended TGGWS against criticism from Bob Ward, representing 37 concerned academics, in a thread called 'Risk Management Solutions Ltd and the 37 Professors'. The threads at CA can take an awfully long time to wade through so I'll save you some time. Start here and then jump to posts 61, 86, 120, 123, 125, 147 and the replies to those. Note that McIntyre does not argue any longer after 147; he changes the subject.

(You might find some other posts interesting or amusing, like the one saying I'm some sort of sleazy lawyer type. )

*Unfair to weasels. They are tough, courageous little mustalids.

Oh, interesting. Why don't you summarize what you think is the relevant content from that thread?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Oh, interesting. Why don't you summarize what you think is the relevant content from that thread?

Because I want people to read the original. I don't want anyone claiming that any summary I might have made misrepresents what happened. We know how you work. We see it all the time.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I've become a Muse! I wondered what happened at 500.

 

[mhaze]

Because I want people to read the original. I don't want anyone claiming that any summary I might have made misrepresents what happened. We know how you work. We see it all the time.

Why, we certainly do see misrepresentation all the time. I'm glad that you (the "we" you mentioned being "you") know how I work, since one thing I have the pleasure of doing is pointing out errors in your posts.

So by all means then, I agree with your being reticent to summarize, and referring people to the original sources. Well, of course another option would be to try to improve one's actual abilities to read and summarize objectively, but that would require something of an objective and unbiased point of view.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Why, we certainly do see misrepresentation all the time. I'm glad that you (the "we" you mentioned being "you") know how I work, since one thing I have the pleasure of doing is pointing out errors in your posts.

So by all means then, I agree with your being reticent to summarize, and referring people to the original sources. Well, of course another option would be to try to improve one's actual abilities to read and summarize objectively, but that would require something of an objective and unbiased point of view.

You really can't say anything without being offensive, can you? Do you never wonder why people here treat you the way they do?

 

[Round Robin]

I've become a Muse! I wondered what happened at 500.

congratulations! Earlier today I was oddly inspired to compose a sonnet; now I know why.

 

[David Rodale]

As the git who derailed your thread, TrueSceptic, I feel it is partly my responsibility to get it back on track.

Just yesterday one of my relatives declared that he heard on the news that "all the global warming has been undone."

I'm not sure what he heard because the message was delivered to me through his wife, who didn't know. However, this morning on NPR I heard this report:



I purposely quote mined the article to make my point: a tactic that I am personally growing quite weary of is when GWS hear of one study--or worse, one main-stream news report--and declare categorically that GW is "undone" (as my relative did yesterday) or simply that it has stopped and is therefore a myth (as my coworker did a few weeks back). Worse is quote mining a study or--in this case--a main-stream news article and only pulling out the bits that fit an ideology.

Reading the whole article reveals much more nuance (NPR is one of the better news outlets in the US, IMO). Read it; it's good. For me, it highlights the difference between GWSkeptics and GWScientists: The skeptics see a report like this and declare the death knell of GW. The scientists (who, after all, reported, not hid the data) see this as an opportunity to understand the earth's climate better. Witness Keven Trenberth (notorious to some GWS, I believe):

(my emphasis)

"We don't know and we have things to learn" is a damn sight better than "This proves, proves that GW doesn't exist."

I note you didn't say "This proves, proves that GW does exist", which we hear ad nauseum. Oh yes, you are so objective and fair minded.

The problem is Round Robin, this is yet another conundrum for the CO2 AGW hypothesis.

Do you think the recent non-warming (now "slight cooling") of the oceans helps your side? Maybe Megalodon would like to create a new graph for the choir proving it is. I'm sure he remembers well the discussion concerning the Lyman report from last year

Be my guest and search the archives from many months ago. I said it then and will say it again; no ocean warming, no global warming. We will be reassured no doubt there is much heat "waiting in the pipeline ". Maybe it is hiding in the missing sink with the CO2, or is being masked by some unknown anthropogenic forcing......

 

[Alric]

no ocean warming, no global warming.

Would you care to post a primary reference for either assertion?