Is "Consensus" shifting?

[bascule]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

 

This article reminds me an awful lot of the movie Expelled. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt abound.

 

Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers

 

So there are 700 scientists (are they even in a related field? what are their credentials?) that "disagree with the U.N." total that this particular Senator was able to locate. Note that Wikipedia's list is far less substantive.

 

This number is compared to the number of scientists who authored a summary of the IPCC assessment report aimed at policymakers, never mind the IPCC's 4th assessment report was authored by 620 scientists (and it was reviewed by even more).

 

Can you say apples and oranges?

 

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02.

 

Wow, the author of this article knows so much about what she's discussing she actually typed C Zero 2 instead of CO₂.

 

And "flat-lined"?

 

 

Hey look at that... not very flat there.

 

Sad to see the WSJ going downhill like this. It used to be a respectable publication.

 

I know this is a very non-skeptical crowd

 

I think you'll find this is an extremely skeptical crowd, particularly about disinformation being propagated by non-scientists.

 

You seem to equate skepticism with climate change denial. That's a diction error. Phrasing like "dissent with the mainstream scientific assessment" is more apt.

 

I hope you can understand why when the mainstream scientific assessment is challenged the community here is skeptical of such challenges.

[Sisyphus]

No, I'm not. But you are indeed falling back on the same tired "you're like a creationist" argument that has no bearing on my questions. I am not the one calling for an end to the questioning, I am simply saying that it's not time to STOP questioning the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

 

You are, actually. Your argument is that scientific consensus has been wrong, therefore it isn't a valid basis for action. So if you find that people keep comparing you to a creationist, that might be a sign to reevaluate your logic. Am I as sure of AGW as I am of the fact of biological evolution? No, not at all. But it's probably true, and it is not rational to deny that. Obviously we should keep questioning. But in the meantime, we need to act as if it is true. Do you understand that much?

[jryan]

 

And "flat-lined"?

 

 

Ok, so tell me, if you split that 30 year graph into a 20 year up slope between 1970 and 1999 that is heavily influence by a 1998 el Nino, and a 11 year down slope from 2000 to present, how big of a difference is that 30 year trend statistically given the 5,000 to 10,000 years we are supposedly comparing these trends to?

 

Not much, if any. Especially not is predicting future trends.

 

Hey look at that... not very flat there.

 

No, it's not. It's called selective sampling.

 

 

You seem to equate skepticism with climate change denial. That's a diction error. Phrasing like "dissent with the mainstream scientific assessment" is more apt.

 

No, it is the other side that equates skepticism with climate change denial. I don't deny climate change... it always changes. The only thing abnormal would be stasis.

 

I am SKEPTICAL about the attribution of the last 150 year trend.

 

I hope you can understand why when the mainstream scientific assessment is challenged the community here is skeptical of such challenges.

 

I hope you understand why I find "oh well he's just a..." rebuttals less than compelling.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You are, actually. Your argument is that scientific consensus has been wrong, therefore it isn't a valid basis for action. So if you find that people keep comparing you to a creationist, that might be a sign to reevaluate your logic. Am I as sure of AGW as I am of the fact of biological evolution? No, not at all. But it's probably true, and it is not rational to deny that. Obviously we should keep questioning. But in the meantime, we need to act as if it is true. Do you understand that much?

 

Well, no. To a hard core believer I can see why my insistence of questioning would seem like debating ID. I would just be prepared to be very wrong if I were you.

 

Seriously, we can whip out anything from scientific history and show that the minority opinion carried the day in the end, and times when the majority did. In this case, as we are discussing THIS case and IT'S merits, you are the phrenologist.

[iNow]

Well, no. To a hard core believer I can see why my insistence of questioning would seem like debating ID.

 

As I reminded you earlier, belief has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It's about accepting the evidence which is itself overwhelming, consistent, and (for all intents and purposes) conclusive.

 

 

All of this crap about "phrenology" and "science has been wrong before" is a big stupid smokescreen... a bunch of hand waving that wastes everyones time, and deflects the conversation such that the denier is no longer required to argue their position on the merits and based on evidence.

[Sisyphus]

Another way you're acting like a creationist: claims of persecution and forced silencing. Dude, NOBODY IS SAYING YOU CAN'T QUESTION IT. The problem is not with "your insistence on questioning," and insisting it is is intellectually dishonest. I question it. Scientists continue to question it. It is not an article of faith. It is, however, probably true. We act on the information we have. It's called rational skepticism.

[jryan]

As I reminded you earlier, belief has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It's about accepting the evidence which is itself overwhelming, consistent, and (for all intents and purposes) conclusive.

 

Well that's wrong. When you are discussing climate in terms of 150, 500, 6,000 years, and statistically created chronologies and proxies it is always a matter of belief.

 

Belief in your proxy theory, belief in the accuracy of the proxies in the absence of directly observable data. Belief that the application of these proxies is correct and descriptive.

 

You are talking about theories and models that have either zero (furture) or limited (1800s) direct observational record of the actual measurable quantity of interest (temperature and more specifically global climate)

 

You will always be absent actual observed data for the period you are interested in, unless you focus soly on the last 60 years when the direct global measure of gridded temperature exist in large scale... but then you have to accept that a 10 year trend out of 60 is statistically significant.

 

So if you want to show that 10 years is statistically insignificant you have to BELIEVE in your proxies for the unobservable.

 

 

All of this crap about "phrenology" and "science has been wrong before" is a big stupid smokescreen... a bunch of hand waving that wastes everyones time, and deflects the conversation such that the denier is no longer required to argue their position on the merits and based on evidence.

 

I only brought up phrenology because CaptainPanic chose to question the "Heaven and Hell" book based on the fact that the author isn't a climatologist. I mentioned Phrenology as a branch of scientific study that had to be disproved from without.

 

Many here, including you, refuse to address opposition views beyond your opinions about the authors. The fact that such insular behavior is counter to the scientific method is not any fault of mine. It is simply setting up a paradigm where dissent will always come from outside the discipline.

 

I'm also still waiting for a reason why climatologists don't leave the statistical modeling to those with doctorates in the field, rather than do the modeling themselves.

 

If leaving climatology to the climatologists is a valid argument then why not leaving statistics to the statisticians?

[SH3RL0CK]

Ok, so tell me, if you split that 30 year graph into a 20 year up slope between 1970 and 1999 that is heavily influence by a 1998 el Nino, and a 11 year down slope from 2000 to present, how big of a difference is that 30 year trend statistically given the 5,000 to 10,000 years we are supposedly comparing these trends to?

 

Not much, if any. Especially not is predicting future trends.

 

 

 

No, it's not. It's called selective sampling.

 

 

 

 

Dude, I agree with you that we need to know a lot more about our climate than we presently do. However, you are blowing smoke here.

 

Take the brown graph; years 2000- present. Other than 1998; all previous peaks (going back to 1980) are smaller than these maximum. The minimums in 2000 to present are all higher than the minimums previous. Clearly 2001 to Present is warmer than 1980 to 1997, with some room for arguement 1998 to 2000. Granted these are "anomalies" and not actual temperatures which might tend to exagerate the extent of the problem...but still the overall trend is clear.

 

By selective sampling are you saying the data is wrong? If so, you need to present either alternate data indicating otherwise; or show why this data is wrong.

 

Or are you saying 2007 to 2009 is the start of a new downward trend? Since this is only two years, please provide an explaination of what changed in our climate to start this downward trend now.

[jryan]

Dude, I agree with you that we need to know a lot more about our climate than we presently do. However, you are blowing smoke here.

 

Take the brown graph; years 2000- present. Other than 1998; all previous peaks (going back to 1980) are smaller than these maximum. The minimums in 2000 to present are all higher than the minimums previous. Clearly 2001 to Present is warmer than 1980 to 1997, with some room for arguement 1998 to 2000. Granted these are "anomalies" and not actual temperatures which might tend to exagerate the extent of the problem...but still the overall trend is clear.

 

By selective sampling are you saying the data is wrong? If so, you need to present either alternate data indicating otherwise; or show why this data is wrong.

 

Or are you saying 2007 to 2009 is the start of a new downward trend? Since this is only two years, please provide an explaination of what changed in our climate to start this downward trend now.

 

I'm not saying that there isn't a warming trend from 1970 to 2000. I am saying that in a 30 year trend the final 11 years are VERY significant.

 

If you want to actually go back further than the last 30 years (to limit the significance of the last 11 years)... say 150 or 1000, or 2000 years, then the majority of that time is modeled data that is believed to be accurate, but is not directly known.

 

And the current models that we are using to establish future trends -- those based on CO2 as a leading forcer of climate -- fail to account for current cooling trends within their confidence interval, or well to the low side of the confidence interval.

[swansont]

1. I fully understand what "skeptic" and "skepticism" mean.

 

Your use of the terms belie this claim. You say that this is a non-skeptical crowd. Yet a skeptic is someone who will not accept claims without evidence, which implies that this crowd has accepted global warming without evidence. I think it's clear that those who wish to discuss it here have actually looked at the issue in some depth. Hence my confusion about your use of the term. The acceptance of global warming conclusions does not appear to be a blind one, ergo labeling posters here as non-skeptical is merely an attempt to poison the well. (and we frown upon the use of logical fallacies)

 

2. Of course they are two very different things. I never claimed otherwise. But when you are using a supposed scientific consensus to justify a political consensus it is important to know the two can and do intermingle.

 

And yet you continue to avoid clarifying which consensus you refer to when you use the word. That's equivocation. (another logical fallacy)

 

Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen are very political.

 

Yes they are. They are trying to turn a scientific consensus into a political one, because — as we agree — they are different things.

 

 

Did opposition to phrenology begin as a consensus? Political consensus in the case of phrenology isn't all that prevalent in any event as there was not that much policy derived from it's erroneous conclusions.

 

Eugenics, on the other hand, may be a better topic if you want to talk about improper union of scientific and political consensus.

 

It's quite clear that politics can use poor or fabricated science as a justification for action or inaction. But as phrenology was discredited scientifically, rather than popularly, then it's a poor example for you to have brought up. There are many such medical examples that are popular and yet have no support from science. I don't see how this advances your position, though, since it merely supports the notion that popular support can exist for concepts that have no scientific support.

 

I only brought up phrenology because CaptainPanic chose to question the "Heaven and Hell" book based on the fact that the author isn't a climatologist. I mentioned Phrenology as a branch of scientific study that had to be disproved from without.

 

Plimer's book is Heaven and Earth. You've made this error several times.

 

Phrenology was debunked by people versed in the skills needed to debunk it. Which would include people studying neuroscience of the time — hardly an example of disproving from without. It's not like it was dismantled by a bunch of podiatrists.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Ok, so tell me, if you split that 30 year graph into a 20 year up slope between 1970 and 1999 that is heavily influence by a 1998 el Nino, and a 11 year down slope from 2000 to present, how big of a difference is that 30 year trend statistically given the 5,000 to 10,000 years we are supposedly comparing these trends to?

 

Not much, if any. Especially not is predicting future trends.

 

 

 

No, it's not. It's called selective sampling.

 

Ironic you'd point out selective sampling when it's what you propose to do. Is there any legitimate scientific reason to break the graph up into two sections? Is there a mechanism that would explain the behavior if one were to do this, i.e. warming for the first part, and then flatter for the second?

[bascule]

Ok, so tell me, if you split that 30 year graph into a 20 year up slope between 1970 and 1999 that is heavily influence by a 1998 el Nino, and a 11 year down slope from 2000 to present

 

Where to begin...

 

Let's start with:

 

2009 - 2000 = 9, not 11

 

If we were to plot a trend line between 2000 and the present it would still be positive.

 

The only significant "down slope" is in the year 2007 and is explained by the La Nina oscillation.

 

No, it is the other side that equates skepticism with climate change denial. I don't deny climate change... it always changes. The only thing abnormal would be stasis.

 

I am SKEPTICAL about the attribution of the last 150 year trend.

 

And I am likewise skeptical about your arguments against the mainstream scientific consensus. I am also skeptical about your abilities as a skeptic, considering the article you linked contains some pretty blatant inaccuracies and embellishments.

 

If you were a true skeptic you might point out what parts of the article are worthwhile and what parts of the article you think are wrong or you disagree with.

 

Perhaps as an exercise in skepticism you can take a cold hard look at that article and note some things you disagree with or feel are in error.

[jryan]

Your use of the terms belie this claim. You say that this is a non-skeptical crowd. Yet a skeptic is someone who will not accept claims without evidence, which implies that this crowd has accepted global warming without evidence. I think it's clear that those who wish to discuss it here have actually looked at the issue in some depth. Hence my confusion about your use of the term. The acceptance of global warming conclusions does not appear to be a blind one, ergo labeling posters here as non-skeptical is merely an attempt to poison the well. (and we frown upon the use of logical fallacies)

 

I didn't want this to become a semantic argument, but I guess we are there:

 

skep⋅tic

  /ˈskɛptɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [skep-tik] Show IPA

Use skeptic in a Sentence

–noun

1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.

3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.

4. (initial capital letter) Philosophy.

a. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.

b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.

 

Either #1 or #2 will do. A skeptic is one who actively doubts something... once you have decided the the evidence is sufficient you cease to be skeptical.

 

 

 

And yet you continue to avoid clarifying which consensus you refer to when you use the word. That's equivocation. (another logical fallacy)

 

Scientific consensus. Which again doesn't matter because the claimed scientific consensus is in accord with the political consensus, so it is pointless to even question.

 

If the scientific consensus becomes skeptical of AGW, I suppose you would become skeptical? Or, what subdivision of the scientific community do you give the most weight to? If the consensus of PhDs in Statistics is that the climate models are bad statistics, yet the climatologists say their statistics are sound, who do you give weight to?

 

Yes they are. They are trying to turn a scientific consensus into a political one, because — as we agree — they are different things.

 

Now, will they work to undo the political consensus if the scientific consensus breaks down? Or will they cling to "you can't listen to them because they are just.." arguments? We have already seen the preeminent AGW climatologists play keepers with their data and code if they think the person asking is a skeptic or deniar.

 

I can't be anything but a skeptic until they allow the full light of day to be shined on the full proofs and data sets without legal action.

 

It's quite clear that politics can use poor or fabricated science as a justification for action or inaction. But as phrenology was discredited scientifically, rather than popularly, then it's a poor example for you to have brought up. There are many such medical examples that are popular and yet have no support from science. I don't see how this advances your position, though, since it merely supports the notion that popular support can exist for concepts that have no scientific support.

 

Then you are missing the point. I fully expect that any demise of the AGW theory will come from the scientific world. If you go back and see the post the lead me to that example you will see that it was in response to the statement that the author of "Heaven and Earth" was a geologist and that their opinion would change when the climatologists opinions change.

 

I simply brought up a scientific discipline that wasn't changed because phrenologists decided they were full of crap. Relying on the people who now have a life's work invested in AGW isn't always the wisest and most open minded approach as their whole careers rest now on this being true.

 

 

Plimer's book is Heaven and Earth. You've made this error several times.

 

Yep you're right. Fixed.

 

Phrenology was debunked by people versed in the skills needed to debunk it. Which would include people studying neuroscience of the time — hardly an example of disproving from without. It's not like it was dismantled by a bunch of podiatrists.

 

You're missing the point entirely, as many people in this very thread have made claims that only climatologists can sway them. Neurophysiology and nueropsychology are not phrenology, their influence was not from inside phrenology. It was a whole separate discipline, as was psychology. I m saying that phrenologists didn't disprove themselves.

 

I am asking, primarily, if (for example) a STATISTICIAN would carry sufficient weight to sway you as the whole framework of climatology is built on statistical analysis.

 

Would you consider a statistician to be "inside" climatology?

 

 

Ironic you'd point out selective sampling when it's what you propose to do. Is there any legitimate scientific reason to break the graph up into two sections? Is there a mechanism that would explain the behavior if one were to do this, i.e. warming for the first part, and then flatter for the second?

 

I am arguing that if you are going to carve out 30 years from 150, or 2000 and use that 30 year span as a stand alone demonstration of global warming then there is no compelling reason NOT to carve out 10 from the 30 and use that as a compelling arguement.

Edited July 9, 2009 by jryan

[iNow]

I am asking, primarily, if (for example) a STATISTICIAN would carry sufficient weight to sway you as the whole framework of climatology is built on statistical analysis.

 

Would you consider a statistician to be "inside" climatology?

The simple truth is that your statistician may find minor (or even major) faults with one study (or even a small handful of studies), but they are NOT going to find fault with anything even approaching a majority of studies.

 

If their claims were valid, I would accept them and discount that one study. However, again, their claims will be focused on one or two datasets, not the vast mountains of datasets across research modalities which ultimately leads to our acceptance of AGW. The data in favor is overwhelming, and is not all based on "bad stats."

[jryan]

The simple truth is that your statistician may find minor (or even major) faults with one study (or even a small handful of studies), but they are NOT going to find fault with anything even approaching a majority of studies.

 

If their claims were valid, I would accept them. However, again, their claims will be focused on one or two datasets, not the vast mountains of datasets leading to our acceptance of AGW.

 

There-in lies that "belief" that you say you don't have.

 

Climatology is a very incestuous discipline, and the numbers of global temperature data sets, for example, is rather small. An error in one dataset effects all studies that used it in their model.

 

That is just a simple example.

 

But I am glad that you support a full blind statistical audit of climate modeling and climatology. It's certainly worth a few billion dollars for a comprehensive and structurally impartial verification of the science for the peace of mind before spending trillions on the cure.

[bascule]

I didn't want this to become a semantic argument, but I guess we are there:

 

skep⋅tic

  /ˈskɛptɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [skep-tik] Show IPA

Use skeptic in a Sentence

–noun

1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

 

Let's see, you linked:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

 

...ostensibly purporting it to be factual.

 

It contains such blatant untruths as:

 

The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02.

 

Which is not only a baldfaced lie:

 

 

But one you subsequently embellished as:

 

20 year up slope between 1970 and 1999 that is heavily influence by a 1998 el Nino, and a 11 year down slope from 2000 to present

 

(of course, ignoring La Nina, which explains the only substantial downslope in 2007, which lasted 1 year)

 

You are actively spreading disinformation.

 

Sorry, I think you've lost the right to call yourself a skeptic. The only skeptics here are the ones questioning the lies you purport to be truthful, lies that fly in the face of established science.

[CaptainPanic]

I'm not in the habit of handing over my wallet simply because someone claims they are an expert.

Although it's not exactly on topic, I wish to make a statement about "handing over the wallet".

That's a classic argument against sustainable energy: money.

We're all transferring billions and billions of dollars/euros to some dictatorships in the Middle East... and nobody questions that. I consider that money "lost" or "gone". It's used to construct palm islands in Dubai and highways through the deserts.

 

Sustainable energy, like wind and solar power do have a payback time (.pdf - check table VII (note that the table is split over 2 pages))... wind power in Denmark has a payback time of 8 years. Imported oil has no payback time at all... assuming you don't actually own an oil field, or live in an oil-rich country.

 

From experience I know that very often first the financial argument is brought up. Then later the fact that "we can't store energy" is mentioned. We can store energy. Hydro power and smart grids are two realistic options, but more options exist.

 

Somehow, everybody thinks that money spent on sustainable energy is money thrown away. The simple facts are however that sustainable energy investments are always done in your own country: it will therefore (1) generate jobs, in construction, operation and maintenance, (2) keep the money in your own country and (3) actually make profit as I showed with the link.

 

Also for the consumers, this is interesting. Using solar, you can have your own payback time (which admittedly is still too long, but which goes down all the time). The kWh prices of solar and wind are rapidly approaching the fossil prices (note: you do need to use the right technology - solar in the arctic won't work).

 

If you're worried about the financial situation about your country, then there are worse things you can spend your money on than on clean energy.

 

If leaving climatology to the climatologists is a valid argument then why not leaving statistics to the statisticians?

If the consensus of PhDs in Statistics is that the climate models are bad statistics, yet the climatologists say their statistics are sound, who do you give weight to?

Climate has really a lot to do with statistics. In fact, you can't study climate without statistics.

If you can show me that climatologists actually make mistakes in their statistics, or if you can show me that you have some evidence that the majority of climatologists have insufficient experience in statistics, then I'd value that information a lot.

I would assume that the rest of the scientific community would value that information a lot too. Science is not belief. If there is a sound reason to discard previous results, then that's what will happen.

 

So, please provide a link or reference... Of this whole discussion, the remark that a statistics study was done about the methods of the climatologists (IPCC?) is the most interesting.

 

However, I do think that plenty of statisticians and other mathematicians were involved in the calculations and models of the IPCC. In fact, I think you cannot be a climatologist without a strong background in statistics. It's part of the job.

 

Either #1 or #2 will do. A skeptic is one who actively doubts something... once you have decided the the evidence is sufficient you cease to be skeptical.

 

That's the whole point indeed.

So, a skeptic will question both studies that say that the climate changes, and the studies that say that climate change is either not proven or not true.

 

You, however, seem to question only the climate change, but you do not question the book you referred to.

 

In addition, being skeptic does not mean you cannot reach a conclusion based on the facts that are presently available. I question the climate change. I see evidence that it is true, and I see evidence that it's not true. However, the evidence that there is a climate change seems much stronger, and therefore I conclude that I have to act as if it is true. I do realize that I am not 100% sure.

[swansont]

I didn't want this to become a semantic argument, but I guess we are there:

 

skep⋅tic

  /ˈskɛptɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [skep-tik] Show IPA

Use skeptic in a Sentence

–noun

1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.

3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.

4. (initial capital letter) Philosophy.

a. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.

b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.

 

Either #1 or #2 will do. A skeptic is one who actively doubts something... once you have decided the the evidence is sufficient you cease to be skeptical.

 

 

So you are claiming that I (and others here) never questioned the validity of AGW claims. False, I say. And I disagree with your conclusion — a skeptic is one who questions. If your definition was right, as a skeptic, you cannot accept gravity, or that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that your clock is correct. Have you ever decided the evidence was sufficient for you to rely on those events?

 

 

 

 

Scientific consensus. Which again doesn't matter because the claimed scientific consensus is in accord with the political consensus, so it is pointless to even question.

 

That's not really true in the US. We haven't passed any significant legislation to limit AGW, and the previous administration certainly was not in lock-step with the scientific consensus.

 

 

If the scientific consensus becomes skeptical of AGW, I suppose you would become skeptical? Or, what subdivision of the scientific community do you give the most weight to? If the consensus of PhDs in Statistics is that the climate models are bad statistics, yet the climatologists say their statistics are sound, who do you give weight to?

 

Sure. Show me the plethora of papers by statistics experts debunking the AGW work.

 

 

Then you are missing the point. I fully expect that any demise of the AGW theory will come from the scientific world. If you go back and see the post the lead me to that example you will see that it was in response to the statement that the author of "Heaven and Earth" was a geologist and that their opinion would change when the climatologists opinions change.

 

As I said, you chose a poor example. Phrenologists weren't pursuing science.

 

But look at examples that are better. Who exposed Piltdown man as a fraud? I was the paleontologists studying evolution. Who took down the cold fusion claims of Pons & Fleischman? Other physicists. Not outsiders. The paradigm of an outsider needing to do the debunking only works if the whole group of climatologists are perpetrating a fraud or are grossly incompetent.

[jryan]

Let's see, you linked:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

 

...ostensibly purporting it to be factual.

 

It contains such blatant untruths as:

 

 

 

Which is not only a baldfaced lie:

 

 

But one you subsequently embellished as:

 

 

 

(of course, ignoring La Nina, which explains the only substantial downslope in 2007, which lasted 1 year)

 

You are actively spreading disinformation.

 

Sorry, I think you've lost the right to call yourself a skeptic. The only skeptics here are the ones questioning the lies you purport to be truthful, lies that fly in the face of established science.

 

 

So let me get this straight... the article states that temperatures since 2001 have been level, and your evidence against hat claim is the averaged slope of the last 30 years?

 

I hate to break it you you, but that isn't how to get the trend of the last 8 years.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So you are claiming that I (and others here) never questioned the validity of AGW claims. False, I say. And I disagree with your conclusion — a skeptic is one who questions. If your definition was right, as a skeptic, you cannot accept gravity, or that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that your clock is correct. Have you ever decided the evidence was sufficient for you to rely on those events?

 

No, swansont. You may very well be skeptical about things other than AGW, hell, you may even be skeptical about some aspects of AGW... but right now you are only questioning the challenges to global warming. This doesn't make you a AGW skeptic, it makes you an AGW protectionist.

 

You can very well cast doubt on the opposing views of AGW and call yourself a skeptic. But not a skeptic of AGW.

 

Certainly both sides of the debate need to be viewed with skepticism, and certainly I find more compelling in the skeptics side (especially since they hide nothing yet Schmidt and Hansen and Jones and Mann and others have a history of withholding information). What I object to in your, and other supposedly scientifically minded posters, is that the theory that you believe shoudl no longer be viewed skeptically.. or the mass delusion that what we see on this forum and many other AGW forums passes as skeptical evaluation.

 

 

That's not really true in the US. We haven't passed any significant legislation to limit AGW, and the previous administration certainly was not in lock-step with the scientific consensus.

 

No, it wasn't. And actually the previous president was not very big on ACTUAL pollution either... a topic that we would probably agree on. But we are ready to pass cap-and-trade and spends trillions of dollars on alternative energy like the world will burst into flames tomorrow.

 

Since all of that money will be coming out of every American's pockets, and the cash we spend will be paid by our children, we have a duty as much to spend wisely as protect the Earth. In this case I don't think we are actually protecting the Earth by limiting the basic fuel for all life on Earth.

 

 

Sure. Show me the plethora of papers by statistics experts debunking the AGW work.

 

Questioning Extreme Weather predictions - http://www.stat.unc.edu/faculty/rs/talks/APHA-Richard.L.Smith.pdf

 

Testimony of Dr. Edward J. Wegman, director at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics and board member of the American Statistical Association testifying on the statistics behind high profile AGW studies:

 

http://archives.energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/07192006hearing1987/Wegman.pdf

 

 

William M. Briggs, Statistician and Professor at Cornell Medical... here is a blog post about poor statistics in AGW:

 

http://www.blogcatalog.com/blog/william-m-briggs-statistician/3060f440a08c463ca4cb771107aa44c5

 

And on... what would you consider a plethora, anyway?

 

As I said, you chose a poor example. Phrenologists weren't pursuing science.

 

Yes they were. Their theory was simply very flawed.

 

Are you only pursuing science if the outcome ends up being right?

 

 

But look at examples that are better. Who exposed Piltdown man as a fraud? I was the paleontologists studying evolution. Who took down the cold fusion claims of Pons & Fleischman? Other physicists. Not outsiders. The paradigm of an outsider needing to do the debunking only works if the whole group of climatologists are perpetrating a fraud or are grossly incompetent.

 

 

You say they are better only because they agree with you. I am saying that science is not all Piltdown Man and Relativity. There was also the recent hooplah about the physicist who thought he might have found the foundation of the much sought unified theory. He was proven wrong as well, very wrong actually... that doesn't mean he isn't a scientist.

 

For your example to work you have to first accept a truth of fraud without evidence of fraud in the work of the statisticians I posted above, and many other scientists as well.

 

You would do so as an article of your own faith.

Edited July 10, 2009 by jryan
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

So let me get this straight... the article states that temperatures since 2001 have been level, and your evidence against hat claim is the averaged slope of the last 30 years?

 

I hate to break it you you, but that isn't how to get the trend of the last 8 years.

I hate to break it to YOU, but even looking at just the last 8 years, you're still wrong (most noticeably, with your chosen method of analysis).

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/

John Tierney and Roger Pielke Jr. have recently discussed attempts to validate (or falsify) IPCC projections of global temperature change over the period 2000-2007. Others have attempted to show that last year’s numbers imply that ‘Global Warming has stopped’ or that it is ‘taking a break’ (Uli Kulke, Die Welt)). However, as most of our readers will realise, these comparisons are flawed since they basically compare long term climate change to short term weather variability.

 

This becomes immediately clear when looking at the [graph above]:

 

 

The red line is the annual global-mean GISTEMP temperature record (though any other data set would do just as well), while the blue lines are 8-year trend lines – one for each 8-year period of data in the graph. What it shows is exactly what anyone should expect: the trends over such short periods are variable; sometimes small, sometimes large, sometimes negative – depending on which year you start with. The mean of all the 8 year trends is close to the long term trend (0.19ºC/decade), but the standard deviation is almost as large (0.17ºC/decade), implying that a trend would have to be either >0.5ºC/decade or much more negative (< -0.2ºC/decade) for it to obviously fall outside the distribution. Thus comparing short trends has very little power to distinguish between alternate expectations.

 

So, it should be clear that short term comparisons are misguided, but the reasons why, and what should be done instead, are worth exploring. <

further elaboration and support at the link

>

 

 

 

 

 

Looking at only 8 years of data is looking primarily at the “noise” of interannual variability rather than at the forced long-term trend. This makes as much sense as analysing the temperature observations from 10-17 April to check whether it really gets warmer during spring.

[CaptainPanic]

[...]But we are ready to pass cap-and-trade and spends trillions of dollars on alternative energy like the world will burst into flames tomorrow.

 

Since all of that money will be coming out of every American's pockets, and the cash we spend will be paid by our children, we have a duty as much to spend wisely as protect the Earth. In this case I don't think we are actually protecting the Earth by limiting the basic fuel for all life on Earth.[...]

 

So, if Americans invest in sustainable energy, that costs trillions of dollars. That's true. That is an investment. Please note the difference between oil and a wind turbine. One is a fuel, the other is a generator. One is consumed and then gone forever, the other produces something... and with some maintenance will keep doing that for 20+ years.

 

What happens if you spend money on some infrastructure in the US? Say, a bridge?

It costs money.

Then why is it built?

Perhaps because it has added value?

You'd be right to think that it has added value. It increases mobility (shortens travel time). It even creates jobs in construction and maintenance.

Perhaps, the country gets better, not worse, from certain investments.

 

Perhaps investing in sustainable energy is not exactly the same as throwing money into a black hole. Perhaps you agree that it will create jobs. It will actually reduce money thrown away to desert states that don't do anything for you Americans.

 

I have no problem with the discussion about AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). But your motivation (or fear) to have this discussion is just weird. I don't understand why you'd rather give money to other countries than invest it in your own country.

I repeat that wind energy has a payback time. That means that you get your money back. (At least, the investor - which should be a US based company in your case). Ever tried to get your money back from some Saudi oil sheik? It's quite difficult.

 

So, let's continue this interesting discussion, but please stop screaming about the trillions of dollars lost. It is money invested, not lost.

 

And I would really appreciate it if you would be so kind to link to the fact that the statistics of the climatologists is flawed.

Edited July 10, 2009 by CaptainPanic

[bascule]

So let me get this straight... the article states that temperatures since 2001 have been level

 

Okay please look at this graph, starting at 2001, and if you think it's level, you are an idiot:

 

 

and your evidence against hat claim is the averaged slope of the last 30 years?

 

My evidence against the claim is present in the graph. Yes, the trend line for the past 10 years, much less the past 30 years is positive. You pretend this graph is a lie? A graph based on two independently measured date sets which correlate. If you are honestly arguing that this graph does not reflect an increasing surface temperature, I am sorry, you are hopeless, you are a nincompoop who is distorting emperically measured reality, and in such case you are not even worth listening to, you are a climate change denialist who discards emperical evidence for politically convenient assumptions.

 

 

I hate to break it you you, but that isn't how to get the trend of the last 8 years.

 

Actually: Read harder, Homer. You seem to suck at maths, so I will reiterate:

 

*sigh*

 

If we were to plot a trend line between 2000 and the present it would still be positive.

 

Ok, so tell me, if you split that 30 year graph into a 20 year up slope between 1970 and 1999 that is heavily influence by a 1998 el Nino, and a 11 year down slope from 2000 to present

 

To reiterate:

 

The only significant "down slope" is in the year 2007 and is explained by the La Nina oscillation.

 

Yes please, embellish El Nino but pretend La Nina doesn't exist. It only bolsters the argument of the ignorant, such as yourself. I mean seriously, I'm trying to explain things to you, but you sit here and ignore me and regurgitate the arguments of the uninformed. I can only reprimand you for being a ignoramus, much akin to Rush Limbaugh. Shame on you. Try to actually study the facts, not partisan talking points.

 

Oh poor, poor redheaded stepchild. You have much to learn. Fortunately there is a very, very patient bascule to teach you.

 

Where to begin...

 

Let's start with:

 

2009 - 2000 = 9' date=' not 11

[/quote']

 

Anyway... where were we? Oh yes, you ignoring reality and substituting fantasy. Could you please actually respond to my arguments which constitute reality? I realize you would rather substitute your own fantasy world and ignore reality, but unfortunately this is a science forum and that sort of thing is discouraged. You are instead encouraged to consider things like facts and evidence and base your decisions on those, not what Faux Noise tells you to believe.

 

To reiterate, you are not a skeptic. I am a skeptic. You are a partisan mouthpiece. If you were a skeptic you would consider the evidence. But you don't. And it is a shame. Stop denying science and consider the evidence. Until then you are a climate change denier.

 

Bottom line: you aren't a skeptic. You are a believer of fantasy. You want the world to operate as you hope it would operate, as opposed to what is. Sorry, science dictates otherwise. What is is what is. You cannot change that, even if it is politically inconvenient. The world is what it is.

 

Stop trying to inject your political invective as if it were truth. You are full of crap. Look at the reality of the situation and accept it.

Edited July 10, 2009 by bascule

[swansont]

No, swansont. You may very well be skeptical about things other than AGW, hell, you may even be skeptical about some aspects of AGW... but right now you are only questioning the challenges to global warming. This doesn't make you a AGW skeptic, it makes you an AGW protectionist.

 

You can very well cast doubt on the opposing views of AGW and call yourself a skeptic. But not a skeptic of AGW.

 

By this logic one can only be a skeptic if they reject something. That's a very odd interpretation of the definition. Skepticism is simply requiring evidence, not the rejection of all claims. One might be skeptical that we landed on the moon, but examination of the evidence shows we did, and examination of the counter-claims shows they are without basis. The moon-landing deniers are not skeptics.

 

 

 

Certainly both sides of the debate need to be viewed with skepticism, and certainly I find more compelling in the skeptics side (especially since they hide nothing yet Schmidt and Hansen and Jones and Mann and others have a history of withholding information). What I object to in your, and other supposedly scientifically minded posters, is that the theory that you believe shoudl no longer be viewed skeptically.. or the mass delusion that what we see on this forum and many other AGW forums passes as skeptical evaluation.

 

You don't actually know that it's not being treated skeptically (using the actual definition of the word, not yours). What you seem to be claiming is that a skeptic would reject AGW. What I and some other posters who disagree with that statement are countering with is that a skeptic who had not accepted AGW would have better, i.e. scientifically and logically sound, arguments against it.

 

 

 

Since all of that money will be coming out of every American's pockets, and the cash we spend will be paid by our children, we have a duty as much to spend wisely as protect the Earth. In this case I don't think we are actually protecting the Earth by limiting the basic fuel for all life on Earth.

 

We're talking about CO2 here, right? That's the "basic fuel" of life? And since concentrations are 25% higher than they were 50 years ago, how is this limiting it?

 

 

 

Yes they were. Their theory was simply very flawed.

 

Are you only pursuing science if the outcome ends up being right?

 

 

 

 

 

You say they are better only because they agree with you. I am saying that science is not all Piltdown Man and Relativity. There was also the recent hooplah about the physicist who thought he might have found the foundation of the much sought unified theory. He was proven wrong as well, very wrong actually... that doesn't mean he isn't a scientist.

 

No, but he was proven wrong by other physicists, right? Not by a geologist.

[jryan]

By this logic one can only be a skeptic if they reject something. That's a very odd interpretation of the definition. Skepticism is simply requiring evidence, not the rejection of all claims. One might be skeptical that we landed on the moon, but examination of the evidence shows we did, and examination of the counter-claims shows they are without basis. The moon-landing deniers are not skeptics.

 

But you aren't examining the counter claims, you are using moon landing deniers to rationalize why you don't examine counter claims. More to the point, when people like Mann are taken to task for poor statistics by actual statisticians, rather than examine the counter claim those like you go running to biographies to see is the person ever worked for an energy company.

 

 

 

 

 

You don't actually know that it's not being treated skeptically (using the actual definition of the word, not yours). What you seem to be claiming is that a skeptic would reject AGW. What I and some other posters who disagree with that statement are countering with is that a skeptic who had not accepted AGW would have better, i.e. scientifically and logically sound, arguments against it.

 

You know why I know you haven't treated it skeptically? Because when such claims are made you provide no actual rationale, except for a graph that shows more misunderstanding of the subject than it displays understanding. But that is more between me and bascule than you and me.

 

 

 

 

We're talking about CO2 here, right? That's the "basic fuel" of life? And since concentrations are 25% higher than they were 50 years ago, how is this limiting it?

 

 

So, other than the blip on the radar that we call "The Age of Man", the CO2 has been MUCH higher than today and life continued and was very diverse... the Earth was also absent any runaway global warming too... Given that, 25% isn't that big of a deal as far as "saving the Earth" goes. It seems it is more an argument for "saving our coastal cities"... but that doesn't have the same ring to it.

 

 

No, but he was proven wrong by other physicists, right? Not by a geologist.

 

And mathematicians, actually. Again, are you arguing that correction must come from within and not from overlapping disciplines? Climatology, after all, is really a subset of geology, and they all fall under Earth Sciences.

 

So do we simply accept whatever gerrymander allows you to cut out the opposing voices?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Okay please look at this graph, starting at 2001, and if you think it's level, you are an idiot:

 

 

Oh good, the insults have started.

 

 

My evidence against the claim is present in the graph. Yes, the trend line for the past 10 years, much less the past 30 years is positive. You pretend this graph is a lie? A graph based on two independently measured date sets which correlate. If you are honestly arguing that this graph does not reflect an increasing surface temperature, I am sorry, you are hopeless, you are a nincompoop who is distorting emperically measured reality, and in such case you are not even worth listening to, you are a climate change denialist who discards emperical evidence for politically convenient assumptions.

 

I'm not pretending the graph is a lie. I am stating that to state anthropogenic global warming is happening based on a 30 year graph is silly when the most recent third is displaying cooling.

 

It's like showing the arc of a thrown stone and stopping a quarter of the way into the descent, drawing a average line that has a distinct up slope and claiming it proves that the rock will actually fly into space.

 

In the case of that 30 year trend we have the upward thrust being El Nino, and the downward pull being El Nina.

 

 

Actually: Read harder, Homer. You seem to suck at maths, so I will reiterate:

 

*sigh*

 

Eesh...

 

 

To reiterate:

 

Yes please, embellish El Nino but pretend La Nina doesn't exist. It only bolsters the argument of the ignorant, such as yourself. I mean seriously, I'm trying to explain things to you, but you sit here and ignore me and regurgitate the arguments of the uninformed. I can only reprimand you for being a ignoramus, much akin to Rush Limbaugh. Shame on you. Try to actually study the facts, not partisan talking points.

 

I'm not disregarding El Nino OR pretending La Nina doesn't exist. Quite the contrary. There is currently a La Nina in progress which your graph cuts off while being heavily influenced by the El Nino in the mid 90s.

 

I would assume, being that you understand the La Nina and El Nino cycle, that you know the 30 year running trend is pointless when you know that there is a La Nina in progress.

 

 

Oh poor, poor redheaded stepchild. You have much to learn. Fortunately there is a very, very patient bascule to teach you.

 

More eeesh.

 

 

Anyway... where were we? Oh yes, you ignoring reality and substituting fantasy. Could you please actually respond to my arguments which constitute reality? I realize you would rather substitute your own fantasy world and ignore reality, but unfortunately this is a science forum and that sort of thing is discouraged. You are instead encouraged to consider things like facts and evidence and base your decisions on those, not what Faux Noise tells you to believe.

 

I am responding bascule. I am choosing to ignore your attempts to derail the discussion into personal attacks.

 

I learned last time I came through here to ignore iNow posts all together as that seems to be his method as well.

 

So how about you forgo the insults and wow me with your grasp of the subject matter?

 

 

To reiterate, you are not a skeptic. I am a skeptic. You are a partisan mouthpiece. If you were a skeptic you would consider the evidence. But you don't. And it is a shame. Stop denying science and consider the evidence. Until then you are a climate change denier.

 

To reiterate, no you aren't, as much as you may want to believe so. Your first response to a challenge to AGW is defensive, not inquisitive. And your prolonged response to doubters is offensive.

 

You spend no time questioning the supporting studies while directing energy towards belittling those with questions.

 

 

Bottom line: you aren't a skeptic. You are a believer of fantasy. You want the world to operate as you hope it would operate, as opposed to what is. Sorry, science dictates otherwise. What is is what is. You cannot change that, even if it is politically inconvenient. The world is what it is.

 

Bottom line, yes I am. I believe that questions about the theory of global warming can and do originate from both inside and outside the field of climatology, and I read both the pro and con of the theories with an open mind. The trouble is, when I see one side turn to ad hominem as the go-to defense of their position, as well and attempt to limit who has access to their data and code I can't help but realize they are not operating within the scientific paradigm, but have rather turned towards advocacy.

 

The much discussed 30 year temperature graph is a good example.

 

There are very real questions about the usefulness of that 30 year trend (we haven't even started on the climate anomalies it inherited in the decades prior to the time slice), yet rather than discuss the current La Nina and it's counterbalance to the El Nino that dominates that time slice, you jump to the insults.

 

Why? Because you have no answers, I assume, as you have provided none.

 

Stop trying to inject your political invective as if it were truth. You are full of crap. Look at the reality of the situation and accept it.

 

See, here is something for you to consider... in the long term, with regard to funding of environmental study, and the trust by the public in general, if this theory turns out to be a tempest in a tea pot, the environmental movement will have bypassed shooting itself in the foot for the alternative of jamming the barrel in it's mouth.

 

When so much is being planned politically to remedy this scientific theory it is VERY important to make sure you are getting it right as the whole of the public trust rests in this theory.

 

The trouble is there is too much politics in the science to begin with. When leading scientists become political advocates the science suffers.

Edited July 10, 2009 by jryan
Consecutive posts merged.

[SH3RL0CK]

jryan,

 

I too am skeptical (which I will discuss in more detail below) about the global warming theory. But it is undeniable that today's climate is warmer than it was in the past. To argue otherwise is being ignorant. And no, that is NOT intended as an insult to you, unless you want to deny this point. Either stop denying the climate has changed relative to 10, 50, 100 years ago; or provide actual evidence it hasn't changed.

 

My skepticism is in regards to some (not all) of the claims by those insisting and demanding on huge, expensive, complex changes immediately. There needs to be more debate and research on what to do in response to this climate change. Sure, there is a problem but how big of a problem is it? How can we fix (or mitigate) it? Lets count the cost and benefits for proposed actions and determine what actions are sensible (and before we can really do this, we need to understand our climate better than we currently do).

 

It is ignorant, IMO, of people to presuppose massive changes to our economy are absolutely necessary without having even a shred of research regarding if this will even result in anything positive let alone pass a cost/benefit analysis. Panic does not solve problems.

[Phi for All]

My skepticism is in regards to some (not all) of the claims by those insisting and demanding on huge, expensive, complex changes immediately.

I could agree if the changes being suggested gave no benefits other than mitigating AGW effects, but I think moving immediately to more sustainable energy sources and pollution reduction makes sense even if our AGW fears are out of proportion, even though the evidence suggests they are not. I'm not heavily swayed by the arguments about "throwing trillions of dollars away" when many of the changes proposed will mean more responsible use of resources no matter what happens to the global climate.

 

I support the immediate implementation because many of the changes should have taken place 30 years ago but were suppressed by lobbyists and never had their fair chance at shifting market stances.

[insane_alien]

I agree with Phi. the proposed changes to energy infrastructure are improvements on what is quite frankly antiquated technology.

 

an aspect of it we can all agree on is that pollution=bad. the proposed changes to infrastructure would drasticly reduce said pollution and hence are a good idea whether you believe global warming or not.

 

the fact you can take global warming out of the equation and still find these changes a worthwhile thing shows that it is a non-issue and your arguements to the contrary bear no effect on AGW or energy infrastructure.

 

they have no relevancy here.