Accuracy of An Inconvenient Truth

[swansont]

Lets not get into that, as far as I have read none on this thred are climatologists, yet we all have a strong opinion about something involving climatology.

 

I have never claimed expertise, and have tried to limit my responses to the validity of the criticisms and arguments presented. I doesn't take expertise in the specific discipline to spot specious reasoning, logical fallacies and misunderstanding of scientific methodology.

 

The thing is, no contrary data have been presented, so no expertise in climatology has really been necessary. It's pretty much all been rhetoric and fabrication. Not only has it not been science, at times it's been anti-science. The thought that opinion enters into it is part of the problem.

[SkepticLance]

It strikes me that we are now descending to arguing semantics. What is hypothesis and what is theory and what are facts?

 

However, it appears that bascule now accepts that there is significant uncertainty in climate models. That is progress of a kind, I guess.

 

This whole thing reminds me of the "Limits to Growth" debacle of 1973. The Club of Rome assembled some of the world's best scientists and economists to try to predict the future. At that stage, they set resource limitations as the big problem. They carried out extensive modelling to work out what would be likely to happen. Of course, the modelling was by numerous calculations using the human brain rather than super-computers, but the principle was the same. One conclusion they reached was that, by the year 2000, the world would have run out of oil. They called for drastic action to limit consumption of various resources, or else there would be disaster.

 

No-one, of course, took any notice. And of course there was no disaster. Does this sound familiar?

 

The Club of Rome would have achieved much more accurate predictions by simply taking existing trends and extending them into the future. eg. the trend to discovering new oil fields. The trend to reduced cost of metals etc.

 

That is precisely what I am saying. The more complex a model has to be, the more the scope for error. And there is nothing more complex than climate models.

 

Again, I repeat. For temperature to increase beyond what we are seeing now as the existing trend, carbon dioxide emissions have to increase exponentially. Why is this?

1. Solar forcings are likely to stop increasing.

2. The theoretical carbon dioxide to temperature curve reduces slope with increasing carbon dioxide. All else being equal, just to keep the temperature increase linear, greenhouse gas emissions have to keep the rate of increase increasing. This might happen, but to get temperature to increase to the high levels some models predict, greenhouse gas increases must be drastic indeed.

[Dr. Dalek]

This paper argues that anthropogenic forcings are dominant.

 

I'm still waiting for anyone to produce any peer-reviewed scientific paper arguing that natural forcings are dominant.

There is a huge difference between "is dominant" and "consistent with."

Furthermore the paper clearly states that though the climate data is "consistent with" an dominant anthropogenic influence . . . .

This consistency' date=' however, does not prove that there has been a large anthropogenic influence[/quote']

Also, you may note that earlier in the thred I said my opinion was that:

How man kind may be effecting it is uncertain and subject to study and debate.

This paper clearly supports my position that mankinds effect is "uncertain."

I also stated that my opinion was that nature was the primary driver. It's an opinion. It then stands that I do not claim to know that nature is the dominant influence, only that I believe it to be based on the cyclynal nature of the climate. I cannot say that I will find a paper that proves nature to be the dominant influence because if those who have found evidence to support my opinion use the same methods as your sources then all of the data regurding natures influence will be as uncertain as mans, therefore asking for proof that I am right could proove to be impossible.

I will continue looking for papers never the less.

[doG]

I'm still waiting for anyone to produce any peer-reviewed scientific paper arguing that natural forcings are dominant.

You'll be wating a while since the only people spending any time or money trying to point a finger are the ones that want us to believe man is THE cause whether it's true or not.

[bascule]

However, it appears that bascule now accepts that there is significant uncertainty in climate models. That is progress of a kind, I guess.

 

SkepticLance, when have I ever said that there isn't uncertainty in individual climate models? Like I said before, I helped people deploy and use climate models for the past 5 years. I saw our model greatly improve wtih the addition of GEMTM. This is also the pattern you're seening: the quality of climate modelling has gone up dramatically in recent history. Climate scientists along with other physicists and chemists are producing reusable modules which can be shared among different models, such as the Earth Systems Modeling framework and General Energy and Mass Transfer Model.

 

But when you look at the hockey stick reconstruction, what you see are similar results for 12 different GCMs. The average trend produced by them agrees with empirical temperature measurements for the past 150 years. As our ability to model improves, we're only seeing further confirmation that anthropogenic effects are driving climate change.

[bascule]

This paper clearly supports my position that mankinds effect is "uncertain."

I also stated that my opinion was that nature was the primary driver. It's an opinion. It then stands that I do not claim to know that nature is the dominant influence' date=' only that I [b']believe[/b] it to be based on the cyclynal nature of the climate. I cannot say that I will find a paper that proves nature to be the dominant influence because if those who have found evidence to support my opinion use the same methods as your sources then all of the data regurding natures influence will be as uncertain as mans, therefore asking for proof that I am right could proove to be impossible.

I will continue looking for papers never the less.

 

Unlike you I'm not asking for proof. If there were an argument to be made that natural forcings are the primary driver of climate change, wouldn't it stand to reason that at least one climate scientist would have advanced it? I've heard the name of dozens of alleged "climate skeptics" dropped here, and all they seems like they want to do is malign the rest of the climate science community. They don't want to attempt to advance the other hypothesis scientifically. Why is that?

[SkepticLance]

bascule

The funny thing is that it seems the protagonists and antagonists in this discussion have actually come quite close to agreement.

 

You say you accept that climate models are uncertain, and that the degree to which natural/anthropogenic forcings operate are also uncertain, though you believe that anthropogenic dominate.

 

We say that climate models are uncertain and that relative strength of forcings natural vs anthropogenic are uncertain, though some think natural dominates, and I personally think we just don't know.

 

I really do not see a great difference in our positions, and that difference is literally a matter of opinion, not science.

 

I think you would agree with me??? ..that science is not a democracy and (like the earlier non-belief in plate tectonics) whichever theory is accepted by the most people at any point in history does not determine the final scientific outcome.

 

My own opinion is that the whole global warming debate has been utterly distorted by politics, and by media reports that look for the most dramatic story, rather than the most scientific. I suspect that the majority of scientists working for the IPCC would agree with the level of uncertainty which we sceptics have expressed.

[bascule]

You say you accept that climate models are uncertain, and that the degree to which natural/anthropogenic forcings operate are also uncertain, though you believe that anthropogenic dominate.

 

All evidence to date says they do, and no one has made an argument to the contrary in a peer-reviewed paper.

 

We say that climate models are uncertain and that relative strength of forcings natural vs anthropogenic are uncertain, though some think natural dominates, and I personally think we just don't know.

 

Those who think natural forcings dominate have not been able to make a scientific argument for their case. Why is that?

 

"Some people" are not a credible source. Paper after countless paper cooroborates that anthropogenic forcings dominate.

 

I really do not see a great difference in our positions, and that difference is literally a matter of opinion, not science.

 

Your position rests on doubting the conclusions of the climate science community, and you do it, as far as I can tell, because you don't understand how the scientific process operates.

 

I think you would agree with me??? ..that science is not a democracy

 

No, science isn't a democracy. If you can't advance a scientific argument which survives the peer review process, your opinion is worthless.

 

whichever theory is accepted by the most people at any point in history does not determine the final scientific outcome.

 

That's the nature of falsifiability. If someone presents evidence which undermines your position, you have to change it. However, that doesn't mean you shouldn't believe the conclusions that science comes up with just because they can be potentially falsified. ALL science is potentially falsifiable. By your logic, we should ignore all conclusions that science has come up with to date, because it's potentially falsifiable.

 

My own opinion is that the whole global warming debate has been utterly distorted by politics

 

Yes, for some reason, the majority of news stories question anthropogenic forcings driving global warming (or even that global warming is happening), yet none of the scientific literature questions it, it all corroborates anthropogenic forcings being predominant. Why is this?

 

It seems to me like everyone who disagrees with anthropogenic forcings being dominant are people who haven't submitted their ideas to the peer review process.

 

and by media reports that look for the most dramatic story, rather than the most scientific. I suspect that the majority of scientists working for the IPCC would agree with the level of uncertainty which we sceptics have expressed.

 

My personal opinion, having worked with a number of climate scientists for years, is that they would look on you as being horribly underinformed and having a rather poor knowledge of climate science. I think they'd find it cute that you don't know what a first order climate forcing IS yet you're trying to argue as to the state of our scientific knowledge about them.

[SkepticLance]

bascule,

Your version of 'logic' is flawed. For example, you seem to think that climate scientists all agree with you. Sorry. There are lots that accept that there are no certainties. And these are highly qualified, and very experienced true scientists.

 

Your 'certainty' about anthropogenic forcings is just your delusion. Plenty of climate scientists admit to uncertainty about that point. I am not sufficiently arrogant myself to try to say what must be. I know that any argument I might present might be wrong. Sadly, you do not.

[bascule]

bascule' date='

Your version of 'logic' is flawed. For example, you seem to think that climate scientists all agree with you. Sorry. There are lots that accept that there are no certainties. And these are highly qualified, and very experienced true scientists.[/quote']

 

There are lots of well-respected, PhD biologists who ascribe to Intelligent Design as well. But you don't see them getting papers published in peer-reviewed journals...

 

I'll go ahead and be "illogical" by siding with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists out there who accept that anthropogentic forcings are predominant.

[Dr. Dalek]

Yes, for some reason, the majority of news stories question anthropogenic forcings driving global warming (or even that global warming is happening), yet none of the scientific literature questions it, it all corroborates anthropogenic forcings being predominant. Why is this?

What do you mean the majority of news stories?

In the newspapers I receive and television I watch it is directly the opposite.

Majority? You need a larger sample size my firend.

[bascule]

What do you mean the majority of news stories?

In the newspapers I receive and television I watch it is directly the opposite.

Majority? You need a larger sample size my firend.

 

Hmmm...

 

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/posts.html?pg=6

 

Gore cites two studies to explain why so many people remain so skeptical about global warming. The first looked at a random sample of almost 1' date='000 abstracts on climate change in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 and found that exactly zero doubted “that we’re causing global warming.” The second surveyed a random sample of more than 600 articles about global warming in popular media between 1988 and 2002 and discovered that 53 percent questioned “that we’re causing global warming.”[/quote']

[Dr. Dalek]

I digress. The real point is that Scientific Concensus is NOT scientific evidence.

Both sides of this debate have presented evidence to support their opinions, or at least show evidence that they are not wrong.

 

However I'd like to point out that we all seem to be debating about science but none of us use the scientific method:

The scientific method involves the following basic facets:

 

Description. Information must be reliable' date=' i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).

Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.

Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.

Understanding. Identification of the cause or causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent. Before a factor that is the object of research can be said to be understood, the following conditions must be met:

Covariation of events. The hypothesized cause must correlate with observed effect.

Time-order relationship. The hypothesized cause must occur before observed effect.

[b']Elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process which requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate the results to validate them. [/b]

The last of these is the most frequently contentious area, which leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.

Interestingly enough, SwanSpot pointed out a lack of the scientific method. This might be the one thing we have agreed on this whole time.

 

Hmmm...

 

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/posts.html?pg=6

 

Hmmmmm.......

In 1996 a survey of climate scientists on attitudes towards global warming and related matters was undertaken by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch. . . The international consensus was' date=' however, apparent regarding the utility of the knowledge to date: climate science has provided enough knowledge so that the initiation of abatement measures is warranted. However, consensus also existed regarding the current inability to explicitly specify detrimental effects that might result from climate change. This incompatibility between the state of knowledge and the calls for action suggests that, to some degree at least, scientific advice is a product of both scientific knowledge and normative judgment, suggesting a [b']socioscientific[/b] construction of the climate change issue.

In 1997, Citizens for a Sound Economy surveyed America's 48 official state climatologists on questions related to climate change [15']; of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely manmade

Wikipedia Source

[swansont]

I digress. The real point is that Scientific Concensus is NOT scientific evidence.

Both sides of this debate have presented evidence to support their opinions' date=' or at least show evidence that they are not wrong.[/quote']

 

 

But consensus happens because of the evidence, and the direction it points.

 

 

However I'd like to point out that we all seem to be debating about science but none of us use the scientific method:

 

..."Elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process which requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate the results to validate them. "

 

The 938 abstracts indicates that plenty of repeated experiments are occurring. That none of them doubted the cause indicates that plenty of validation is going on.

 

Interestingly enough' date=' SwanSpot pointed out a lack of the scientific method. This might be the one thing we have agreed on this whole time.[/quote'] Who?

 

 

Hmmmmm.......

 

 

Wikipedia Source

 

For someone who argues that consensus isn't evidence, it's ironic you would quote what you did. Were these climatologists publishing, or were they political appointees?

[bascule]

However I'd like to point out that we all seem to be debating about science but none of us use the scientific method

 

I guess evolutionary biology and astronomy aren't sciences. However, climate scientists do perform experiments... inside of climate models.

 

What you're really trying to argue is that climate science is impossible.

[Dr. Dalek]

The 938 abstracts indicates that plenty of repeated experiments are occurring. That none of them doubted the cause indicates that plenty of validation is going on.

I was pointing out that we, on this thred are not using the scientific process.

Sorry, I seem to have typed Swanspot, instead of swansont.

 

For someone who argues that consensus isn't evidence, it's ironic you would quote what you did. Were these climatologists publishing, or were they political appointees?

One survey was from two German scientists, my point was that the so called consensus could be a result of

socioscientific construction

The other study was by a coalition of businesses. My point was to try and call attention to my source so I could point out bascule's source (wired mag.) not being a peer reveiwed journel.

 

I guess evolutionary biology and astronomy aren't sciences. However' date=' climate scientists do perform experiments... inside of climate models.

 

What you're really trying to argue is that climate science is impossible.

[/quote']

You misunderstand me. I mean WE, the people on this thred are not using the scientific method. We are basing all of our facts and opinions on other peoples work. Whereas the scientific method involves observation and experimentation that we ourselves would preform! Not throwing other peoples work, scientific journels, and opinions at each other.

If it were we who were using the scientific method, we would be doing experiments and data gathering, but we arn't we're relying on other people to do it for us.

[SkepticLance]

Swansont said :

 

But consensus happens because of the evidence, and the direction it points.

 

Dr. Dalek pointed out that there is no consensus. This is something I have stated earlier, also. I am aware of a number of climate scientists who do not fall in behind the IPCC position. Swansont's quote above demonstrates the reason for this lack of consensus. It is simply because the evidence as yet is not sufficient to obtain consensus.

[bascule]

Dr. Dalek pointed out that there is no consensus. This is something I have stated earlier, also. I am aware of a number of climate scientists who do not fall in behind the IPCC position. Swansont's quote above demonstrates the reason for this lack of consensus. It is simply because the evidence as yet is not sufficient to obtain consensus.

 

Dr. Dalek's poll is from 1997... produced by a special interest think tank (Citizens for a Sound Economy) and not peer-reviewed.

 

Here's the paper Gore is referencing... it's from a well-respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal, Science, and published in 2004:

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306/5702/1686?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=oreskes&searchid=1103210845409_5389&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=12/31/2004

 

Here's RealClimate's take on skepticism of the scientific concensus:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=86

 

The skeptic attitude to consensus usually starts with "there is no consensus". That's wrong, and they usually retreat from it to "but consensus science is meaningless", and/or "consensus has nothing to do with science". The latter is largely true but irrelevant. The existence of the consensus doesn't do a lot to determine what science is done; it doesn't prevent contrary lines being explored. But the consensus view does come into the tricky interface between science and policy, and science and the media.

 

Here's his take on IPCC:

 

IPCC based its conclusion of human influence on climate on:

 

A longer and more closely scrutinised observational record

New model estimates of internal variability

New estimates of responses to natural forcing

Improved representation of anthropogenic forcing

Sensitivity to estimates of climate change signals

Qualitative consistencies between observed and modelled climate changes

A wider range of detection techniques

 

...and all of this lead them to write: The increase in the number of studies, the breadth of techniques, increased rigour in the assessment of the role of anthropogenic forcing in climate, the robustness of results to the assumptions made using those techniques, and consistency of results lead to increased confidence in these results. Detection and attribution have rapidly developed into an entire discipline and deserves its own post, sometime.

[swansont]

Swansont said :

 

But consensus happens because of the evidence' date=' and the direction it points.[/i']

 

Dr. Dalek pointed out that there is no consensus. This is something I have stated earlier, also. I am aware of a number of climate scientists who do not fall in behind the IPCC position. Swansont's quote above demonstrates the reason for this lack of consensus. It is simply because the evidence as yet is not sufficient to obtain consensus.

 

Do they do research, and if so, why haven't they published their results?

[SkepticLance]

bascule

Your 'Science' reference talks about consensus on the twin ideas that the world is warming and that humans have some effect.

 

We do not dispute that. Where consensus is lacking is on the degree to which humans affect climate, what the future will hold, and whether we should take drastic action.

[bascule]

bascule

Your 'Science' reference talks about consensus on the twin ideas that the world is warming and that humans have some effect.

 

It isn't that "humans have some effect"' date=' it's papers that support the concensus viewpoint of the IPCC, that:

 

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

 

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

 

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

 

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

[bascule]

Can all of you climate science skeptics answer one question for me?

 

Why don't you apply all the same criticisms you apply to global warming to evolutionary biology?

 

There's still considerable uncertainty about our evolutionary lineage. We don't know how early mammals evolved into primates, for example. Are primates the descendants of rodents? Or do we share a lineage with bats, tree shrews, and flying lemurs? We don't know. There's considerable uncertainty.

 

Our evolutionary history cannot be experimentally verified. Therefore, it doesn't follow your asinine ideas of what the "scientific method" is (by the way, there is no one single "scientific method", and not all sciences are experimental)

 

The earlier back you go, the more uncertainty you'll run into. The best biologists can assemble is an unrooted tree of how early life evolved, and even then connections within the tree only represent a best guess.

 

How can biologists possibly claim that man descended from single cell organisms and that there is a common ancestor to all life on earth, given how much uncertainty there is?

 

I think you're complete hypocrites for questioning climate science the way you do, yet not applying the same criticisms to biology. I think you should be evolutionary skeptics too, and not accept evolution until biologists have eliminated all the uncertainties.

 

As for me, I accept the scientific conclusions of both biology and climate science, and despite the uncertainty in both fields, I accept that man descended from single celled organisms and that all life on earth has a common ancestor, and I also accept that anthropogenic forcings are primarily responsible for recent global warming trends.

[doG]

How can biologists possibly claim that man descended from single cell organisms and that there is a common ancestor to all life on earth, given how much uncertainty there is?

I personally don't claim that at all. I believe evolution exists because we can verify it in the lab. Even the annual evolution of the flu supports what some term micro-evolution.

 

On the origin of man, I'm in the we-just-don't-know camp. We have the data to support that some species evolved from others. We have data and evidence to show how many species are related genetically. For many though we don't have any data or evidence to support any claim of their origin.

[SkepticLance]

bascule.

It is time you dumped that ridiculous link you have invented between climate scepticism and anti-evolution.

 

The first is a science debate. The second is a religion versus science debate.

There are many sceptical climate scientists, and their scepticism is based on their honest evaluations as scientists, particularly an appreciation of the doubts and uncertainties of certain current climate dogmas.

 

There are, as you have said, a small number of Ph.D. biologists who resist belief in evolution. However, they take this position out of religious conviction. I challenge you to name even one atheist or agnostic Ph.D. biologist who takes an anti-evolution stance. Indeed, there are more religious biologists who support evolution than those who oppose it.

[Dr. Dalek]

Can all of you climate science skeptics answer one question for me?

 

Why don't you apply all the same criticisms you apply to global warming to evolutionary biology?

Yes' date=' there is a lot of uncertainty in evolutionary biology, however, that is why evolution is called a theory, rather than a law. Also as far as I know there are no plausible alternatives to evolution as a theory. Where as Mankind, and doomsday global warming are treated as fact rather than as a theory, which of course makes me suspicious.

 

I could counter your argument in saying that evolution is a widely accepted theory, just like global warming, however there is a plausible alternative to global warming. That being natural variation.

In fact I presented an article from the National Academy of Sciences a short time ago by climatologists that said just that. They said:

likelihood of an (unknowable) internally generated trend component, the model/observed data comparison presented here demonstrates that the observed century time scale global-mean temperature changes are consistent with a dominant anthropogenic influence and secondary influence from solar irradiance increases. . . . This consistency, however, does not prove that there has been a large anthropogenic influence. Given uncertainties in the forcing (both anthropogenic and natural),