Tags
Wallow in the political slop of bad science and misunderstanding all you want, it does not change the fact that when you refuse to listen to climate facts, you are disagreeing with 98% of climate scientists. We have been aware of the effects of human industrialization on our climate for over 40 years; it is not a matter of belief. I am not saying that you should just agree with anything that experts say, but most people “skeptical” about climate change are motivated by political ideologies, and not science. Would you take medicine that was refuted by 98% of doctors? Would you drive on a bridge that was deemed faulty by 98% of engineers?
As a side note, stop calling climate deniers “skeptics”. Skeptics are those who withhold judgment until they can review the credible evidence according to rational scientific principles, not cynical curmudgeons that are the wet blanket to any claim. Climate “skeptics” disagree with all of the available evidence and scientific foundations, and that is the hallmark of uncritical thinking. What it means to be a skeptic is a lot more nuanced than just disagreeing with everything.
And another thing: why is caring about the environment and our effects on it a political issue? How could saving the planet from a pollutant spewing industrialization of continents possibly be relegated to Republican or Democrat? I imagine that if steps toward reversing climate change cost less money, politics would have less of an influence. But really, it is completely obvious that humans have changed the climate. Humans are at the point where we can literally move mountains, literally alter the Earth around our goals; how could one be so shortsighted as to not see the effects of, for example, belching billions of tons of a green-house gas into the atmosphere? Climate change is perhaps the largest challenge that our entire species has ever had to handle, and it should be handled not by politicians, not by lobbyists, but by humans.
Oh yeah, and that whole “Climate gate” thing? You mean those emails that were meant to be personal correspondence between friends, discussing data and findings with the suitable jargon and humor? Yeah, there was absolutely nothing shady about that. I can prove it…
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. officials on Thursday cleared scientists of charges that they manipulated data about climate change in e-mails that were stolen from a British university in 2009, triggering a climate scandal.
The Department of Commerce’s Inspector General conducted the independent review of e-mails taken from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England, at the request of Republican Senator James Inhofe, a climate change “skeptic”. The e-mails included exchanges between researchers at the university and many of the world’s top climate scientists, including employees at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an office of the Commerce Department.
Some of the more than 1,000 CRU e-mails had appeared to show scientists blasting climate change skeptics and trying to block publication of certain articles.
But the review said it found no data manipulation or inappropriate procedures by NOAA scientists.
“In our review of the CRU e-mails, we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data … or failed to adhere to appropriate peer reviewed procedures,” the Inspector General wrote in a letter to Inhofe. Several British reviews of the matter have exonerated the climate scientists of trying to manipulate data.
There is no longer any reason to be “skeptical” of climate change. We have the data, we have the tools, we have the science, but we do not have the will. If I have to be called a Democrat because I want to save our planet and our species (and every other species), so be it.
Science-Based Life 
Well if you are so sure that the science is fact maybe you can answer the questions I put to Doug and Denise in this conversation.
http://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/what%e2%80%99s-up-there-and-how-we-know/
Please also check out the comments especially the one that spells out the likely cost of decreasing CO2 emissions in line of the IPCC demands.
Hope you can explain to me where Doug and Denise could not.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Hey Roger,
I checked out the conversation that you two had, and it seemed to me like you were skirting her answers, as well as the climate science itself. Your claims like we cannot measure the CO2 in the atmosphere accurately, for example, are simply false, as we have been able to measure the concentrations down to ppm accurately for over 40 years.
It also seems like you show a contempt for climate scientists, given your ample use of quotation marks, and that you in fact did not respond to any of the well laid out science that Denise was giving to you. Both of these factors is probably why they stopped responding to you, as it seemed rather clear that you were more interested in trying to discredit climate change than have a serious discussion.
If you are not willing to accept 40 years worth of evidence from many reputable scientists from all over the world that indicates human-induced climate change, and then change your beliefs accordingly, your beliefs will become pseudo-scientific.
SciPhile,
Please read my link again.
For a start, you will see that I am the one asking the questions and I am the one who is waiting for an answer.
I did not claim that co2 in the atmosphere cannot be measured, I simply pointed out that one could not easily purchase a device to measure it that was sufficiently senstive, however I did agree that scientists with expensive and sensitive equipment and rigorous calibrating could.
I was not trying to discredit the AGW theory, but I am most certainly looking for some scientific proof to support it.
Maybe you can point me to some key papers that answer the questions I put to Doug and Denise.
Actually I am disappointed that you drew such comments from the reading of my post.
I emphatically deny that I am in the least pseudo-scientific. I was querying from Doug and Denise, as they are scientists and see fit to prosletyse AGW, where the scientific proof was for their actions. The rules are their rules, I am just trying to see how they fulful those rules which are what makes them scientists. If they cannot show me and the world then they do indeed deserve the title “scientists”.
If I have it wrong, kindly explain.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
I’m sorry if I misunderstood your arguments, my trigger finger has been a little more touchy as of late. As I am on the time frame of a busy student, I must leave the serious research to the relevant scientists. However, as I understand it from the studies, reports, essays, research, and scientists themselves is that the science is fairly settled on this question.
As for your reference to the difficulty of buying testing equipment, I guess I was confused that you made that point as I did not think it applied to the science.
You also said, “As for the climate science consensus you mention, to be quite honest I am not aware of such a thing.” The latest reports that I have heard [via Skeptic Magazine] state (from NOAA scientists) that there is at least 98% consensus among scientists as to the human-generated effect on climate change.
I think that we are getting caught up on what kind of evidence will satisfy you. If consensus among relevant scientists does not apply, what will? And remember that interpretation of the evidence is indeed independent, but if you do not have the training to correctly interpret the evidence (statistics, probability, climate knowledge, etc.), you may come to wrong conclusions.
As for a primer on the actual evidence, here is a good place to start: Climate Science
Thanks for the dialogue, let me know what you think of the evidence (and the problems I am assuming that you are going to find with it).
SCIENCE RULES
Pingback: TRY SCIENCE-BASED LIFE « Digging in the Driftless
SciPhile,
Thanks for your reply.
Here are my replies to the points/questions you have made/asked.
Scientific Consensus.
In this video. and I recommend that you watch all 52 minutes of it. Dont worry Muller supports AGW, but he does have a lot to say about the shonky science.
However I recall him saying that the consensus claimed, was consensus only among the scientists who contributed to the IPCC.
Here are some scientists who are not part of that consensus.
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1
Click to access hallewisresignationaps.pdf
Click to access UN_open_letter.pdf
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=54
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Here are some academic, published peer reviewed papers that refute key things the IPCC assert. This is only a sample. There are thousands of these floating around actually.
An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
– Richard S. Courtney
An Alternative Explanation for Differential Temperature Trends at the Surface and in the Lower Troposphere (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, November 2009)
– Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy, Richard T. McNider
Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
– David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
– Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Reply to Benestad (2004) (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 175–176, October 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
A null hypothesis for CO2 (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 171-200, August 2010)
– Roy Clark
A natural constraint to anthropogenic global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 225-236, August 2010)
– William Kininmonth
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
– David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 7, Issue 4, December 2000)
– Robert C. Balling Jr.
A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
– Craig Loehle
An empirical evaluation of earth’s surface air temperature response to radiative forcing, including feedback, as applied to the CO2-climate problem
(Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Numbers 1-2, pp. 1-19, March, 1984)
– Sherwood B. Idso
An upper limit to global surface air temperature
(Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Number 2, pp. 141-144, June 1985)
– Sherwood B. Idso
” what kind of evidence will satisfy you. If consensus among relevant scientists does not apply”
Easy. Scientific evidence produced by the rules of science.
There is none. This is what the conversation with Doug and Denise is all about. When I asked them to point me to some scientific evidence which was either Empirical, Statistically valid or showed that the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis could be shown to be superior to the current or “null” hypothesis (The Current Global warming is caused by the same natural causes that produced the Holocene Maximum, Minoan Warming, Roman Warming and the Medieval Warm Period) they could not answer and would not publish my questions on their site. Not surprising because there is no such proof. Everything that AGW is based on are a few correlations which are NOT proof (My Stats 101 Class some 30 years ago).
My background is in Economics. At least I know what a model is. At least I know what constitutes scientific proof.
You next question no doubt is ” Why do we need proof? Shouldnt we do what the IPCC says just in case?”
Well the answer to that is also found in at http://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/what%e2%80%99s-up-there-and-how-we-know in my comment to Critical Blogger March 12, 2011 at 12:46 am.
The truth is that the cost of the IPCC demands and the effects will be terrible and horrifying, many time worse than the Great Depression that your Great grand parents talk about.
Maybe we do need to die and starve to save the world, but at least lets be sure that we do not die in vain.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
While this deluge of information no doubt supports your point and is meant to be impressive, it is still only 2% of climate scientists that are making this noise. Let’s not create a false equality here. 98% consensus does still a consensus make. More importantly, whatever the IPCC may say, or make out of the evidence, or exaggerate the effects, or whatever, the science remains solid.
Also, as a Skeptic, in the best sense of the word, I would never, ever, say “Why do we need proof? Shouldn’t we do what the IPCC says just in case?”. I do not just blindly follow authority, I have analyzed the evidence to the best of my ability and have determined that siding with the scientific consensus about climate change is correct.
Furthermore, refuting science with political ideology is a non-sequitur. The costs of counter-acting climate change has nothing to do with whether or not the science is sound. Costs and political will are just that, political questions. Acknowledging that, I will not argue the politics of climate change, as it is outside my area of expertise. That being said, I believe the science is still valid.
SciPhile,
You would have done well to check out all the references I gave you before you answered.
I think there are close to 40,000 scientists putting their names and reputations on paper listed in those links.
And if there are thousands of papers floating around that contradict the IPCC claims, this simply means there cannot be any consensus. It also means the IPCC and others are guilty of cherry picking.
I notice you have not included even one piece of support to back up your claim.
This is risky as this implies that you have a religious belief rather than a logical belief.
However I will give you a chance to redeem that.
Actually the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis, has never in the whole wide world got near to having any accompanying scientific proof.
There are three ways that one can prove a hypothesis scientifically.
In the case of the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis, this is what therefore is needed.
1 Empirical proof that shows the causation factor of CO2 with respect of Global Warming?
2. Statistical proof of Anthropogenic CO2? In case you dont know it, correlations are never proof.
3. Evidence for the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis to be adopted over the null hypothesis?
Now you may need a little reading to understand what these things are. Here is a site which describes what is needed for #3 which might help. http://www.experiment-resources.com/null-hypothesis.html
Now if you are going to claim that Anthropogenic Global warming is a fact, just try looking for a scientific paper or commentary that describes at least one of the above proof methods.
An obvious place to look would be among the IPCC publications.
Happy reading but there is nothing like the above there or anywhere else.
The fact that there is nothing, means that the IPCC scientists and others have broken their own rules in claiming that there is proof, “the science is settled” and “there is consensus”.
However if you can find a scientific paper showing proof by at least one of the above methods, I will accept it and change my thinking. This is because I deal in facts.
“Furthermore, refuting science with political ideology is a non-sequitur. The costs of counter-acting climate change has nothing to do with whether or not the science is sound. Costs and political will are just that, political questions. Acknowledging that, I will not argue the politics of climate change, as it is outside my area of expertise. That being said, I believe the science is still valid.”
What is the relevance of this paragraph to the conversation?
All I claim is there should be scientific proof of AGW before we go out and starve ourselves.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
I assume that the lack of response from SciPhile means acceptance of Roger’s points? They certainly look reasonable to me.
There is a difference between acceptance and dismissal. Roger trolls all of my posts about AGW and posts a ton of links and “proofs” that are meant to be impressive, but are still not in line with the science.
Again, while he outlines the ways that he would accept AGW, he does not listen to any of the science, and claims that there is no consensus. I don’t know if he has a personal reason to be so stubborn, but it appears as if nothing will sway him. I have therefore left him to his own devices.
A great website that lays out every single one of his arguments, and shows what the science actually says, can be found here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php