Global Warming "Skeptics"

[bascule]

Exactly -- because it's illogical, counter-productive, and a poor way to convince anybody of anything.

 

Actually I feel completely the opposite: with many of these individuals I've reached the point where continued discussion is counterproductive because we're both talking past each other. These are not the kind of people who can be swayed by evidence or scientific arguments. For them the agenda is ideological, and I'd have no easier time convincing an anti-abortion advocate that a blastula isn't a person.

 

Just like ostracizing them.

 

If someone is disseminating disinformation about a scientific topic on a science forum and is unwilling or unable to even try to understand the science instead of their disinformation, it's my opinion they should at the very least be in some way admonished, if not completely ostracized/banned. If people are here to learn, great! If people are here solely for the purpose of spreading talking points for their antiscientific agenda, this may not be the best place for them to be.

Edited July 23, 2009 by bascule

[Pangloss]

No, that's not my point. To summarize again for our readers... the misinformation, falsehoods, and inaccuracies tend to come much more frequently from those who deny global warming than from those who accept it as valid.

 

I'm sorry, I thought you were saying that the message occurs more frequently, but apparently you're saying that global warming deniers use misinformation more frequently than people who accept global warming as fact. (Yes?)

 

You could be right, and it's an interesting opinion. It doesn't justify demonization, in my view -- especially since many of those people are operating on lack of information or the information they have is out of date (which I believe we've agreed happens frequently, especially in conservative circles where anti-GW discussion is popular). In my view such people aren't encouraged by demonization -- they're driven farther away.

 

 

If someone is disseminating disinformation about a scientific topic on a science forum and is unwilling or unable to even try to understand the science instead of their disinformation, it's my opinion they should at the very least be in some way admonished, if not completely ostracized/banned. If people are here to learn, great! If people are here solely for the purpose of spreading talking points for their antiscientific agenda, this may not be the best place for them to be.

 

I agree. Which is one of the ways in which a private forum community differs from the larger public community, which has an obligation to be more tolerant of dissent. But we're not talking about censorship, we're talking about demonization (ostracizing behavior). Different subject. Just as I don't think such people should be silenced, I also don't think ostracizing should be made illegal. I just think ostracizing people for their views is counter-productive and a bad idea.

 

You mentioned in your post that you think it worthless to try to reason with an anti-abortion advocate. I'm sure you're right, but the problem is determining whether the person whom you're communicating with is that sort, or is another sort who might have an open mind. If you insult them, do you get to find out which sort they really are? Or do they just insult you back? One of my concerns is that if ostracizing behavior is deemed socially acceptable, what happens to the overall discourse? In other words, are we going to have a conversation about global warming on this planet, or are we going to make everyone pick sides and line up for the appropriate abuse and then see who wins?

 

Not that that applies to anyone here (even our most hair-triggered and frustrated members are still able to listen, at least in my experience), but that's where I'm coming from with my concern about ostracization and justified abuse.

[iNow]

apparently you're saying that global warming deniers use misinformation more frequently than people who accept global warming as fact. (Yes?)

Yes.

 

 

It doesn't justify demonization, in my view

 

<...>

 

In my view such people aren't encouraged by demonization -- they're driven farther away.

 

As bascule has already pointed out, demonization is HARDLY the first step. It's only after continued effort and patience have failed... only AFTER the person shows a failure to accept valid rebuttals supported by evidence... only AFTER the individual expresses a continued willful ignorance of the facts... only AFTER the primary channels have fallen on deaf ears/blind eyes that exasperation takes over and enough is enough... You call a spade a spade.

[Pangloss]

I understand.

[swansont]

As bascule has already pointed out, demonization is HARDLY the first step. It's only after continued effort and patience have failed... only AFTER the person shows a failure to accept valid rebuttals supported by evidence... only AFTER the individual expresses a continued willful ignorance of the facts... only AFTER the primary channels have fallen on deaf ears/blind eyes that exasperation takes over and enough is enough... You call a spade a spade.

 

Yes, exactly — it's a response. And even here, by being vociferous about a spade being called a spade, there is a problem. It distracts from the dishonest behavior that provoked the response.

 

An underlying problem is that coming up with real data, and explaining the complex science behind it, is hard. Misrepresenting it is easy, just like you can smear someone with false allegations. People don't remember the rebuttal, and associate the claim with that person. (Want an example? Obama's birth certificate. Has the truth cleared that up?)

[Mokele]

But then what's the answer? Ignoring them doesn't work. Labeling them doesn't work. Debating them doesn't work. Insulting them doesn't work. Unless you have a super-secret de-stupiding ray, how do we deal with crackpots (both anti-GW folks and of other sorts), especially when they exist in sufficient numbers to influence policy?

[GutZ]

I don't know...maybe that idea I put forth! At least you can set rules based on some foundation.

 

If you set forth what is fact then you have a basis to go on. You satisfy both sides. Also the scientific community is at rest because they are represented before the discussion takes place. It makes the mods job easier with there less need to make so many judgment calls. People are freely able to discuss GW within the context of fact sheet.

 

Is it so hard that GutZ could just have an astronomically amazing idea?

 

Well I don't really blame you, I do post half-assed a lot.

Edited July 24, 2009 by GutZ

[Mokele]

Except when one side refuses to accept even basic facts as real, as is often the case.

[Phi for All]

I don't know...maybe that idea I put forth! At least you can set rules based on some foundation.

I think GutZ is moving in the right direction with his idea in post #43. My only concern is that people get too easily marginalized with convenient labels here. I just think we need to be more careful how we apply them so we post intellectually honest discussions, even if they aren't always with intellectually honest people. Let's not resort to torture just because the enemy does it.

 

For the most part, we do a pretty good job of laying out decent refutations of misunderstood science. We point out errors, we cite reputable sources and we don't stoop to the kinds of bad logic the opposition uses. But too often we throw out subtle well-poisonings ("anyone with a second-grade education would know X..."), or we reject evidence in a way we'd never be allowed to reject the person posting it ("That's a stupid article" rather than, "That article doesn't draw a proper conclusion because...").

 

Calling a spade a spade sounds like good old folk wisdom, but it's sort of an Appeal to Homily. It too often assumes that the person doing the calling is qualified to judge spades in every instance, and it poisons the well on any future evidence or discussions with that person. We can always get rid of someone who is persistent in their misinformation or in complete denial of facts garnered by using peer-reviewed scientific methodology, but while they are here, I would like to see them given a more than fair chance, even when they're being deceitful. Call it the scientific high ground.

 

This is a lot like criminal justice. I'm not arguing that incorrigible criminals be set free, I just want each crime tried separately and fairly before we label them incorrigible and throw them in jail for life.

[GutZ]

I guess you can never have an utopia for more than one person.

 

I am not saying you are not on the ball scientifically either. Like I said this is the best run forum I come across. I see a lot of your effort being trivialized by the people who refuse to work with in the facts. I understand there is importance to allow free thought within the forums without ridicule or labelling. That comes mostly from frustrated posters that take the time to express rational and factual post.

 

you can't satisfy both at the same time so...both are misplaced. both commit basically the same thing (at least someone could make a decent argument for that). If you allow one side to do so, then the other side should have it's right to do the same, or punish both.

 

Not a great position to be in.

[Pangloss]

Some interesting posts above. I think also people get too caught up in "what happened" or "what's happening now", and don't focus enough on the effort itself. If you look at the long history of civilization, what matters is not so much the mistakes that were made, but whether the society in question acted to try and fix them. My country solved slavery with the stroke of a pen on July 9th, 1868. But it took more than a century more to actually begin a conversation about race relations that is still under way. So I have a lot more respect for the society of 1968, who wanted to change than I do for the one of 1868, which was mostly unmotivated and disinterested in change, and in fact wanted stability and peace at any cost.

 

How will people in the future look back at us? Won't they already judge us harshly -- ALL of us -- as the society that tolerated back-alley abortions, foolish politicians saving patients with zero brain activity, and nonsensical debates about enforced prayer disguised as free speech? Even knowing that we fixed those problems, they'll still view us as the same set of people who allowed them before they were fixed.

 

So I think what matters is the *effort*. Converting everyone to the right cause isn't the point at all (and is impossible anyway). What matters is the WAY in which you fight the good fight.

 

We even see signs of this every day. When a special interest group makes a hypocritical statement about how other special interest groups are influencing a vote. When a politician talks about "family values" and then gets caught committing adultery. When an radio ideologue roasts a "family values" politician for committing adultery just to win over more supporters to the cause. These are all examples of doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

 

Our judges in the future will know what we accomplished, and they will also know exactly how we did it.

[iNow]

So, how to handle it when people deny the facts of climate change? This is a question to all readers.

[Phi for All]

So, how to handle it when people deny the facts of climate change? This is a question to all readers.

I'm pretty proud of the way we handle it most of the time. We try to be patient, we try to inform, we try to remain objective. If we can try to avoid labeling someone too quickly, and let the system handle persistently poor arguments (report these posts rather than bring up past threads in a current one), I think we can stay honest so "those darn deniers'" arguments will stand out as being poorly drawn.

[Pangloss]

Exactly. Stay on message, accept human flaws in people, and don't stoop to their level.

 

Now if I could only follow my own advice!

[JohnB]

So, how to handle it when people deny the facts of climate change? This is a question to all readers.

I think this is part of the problem. What "facts" are deniers denying?

 

That the world has warmed? Nope.

 

That CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Nope.

 

That the temps in the late 20th C were "unprecedented"? Lack of evidence to support that claim. It is up to those making the claim to openly provide proof, otherwise it can't be denial to disagree.

 

That the temp rise is at an "unprecedented" rate? Again inconclusive. Reconstructions done without tree rings seem to show that some previous natural rises were of a similar magnitude.

 

That all internal and external forcings have been sufficiently accounted for and that CO2 is therefore the major forcing of the climate system? There you might be on firmer ground, however it has yet to be demonstrated that the forcings have been sufficiently accounted for.

 

I would point out that a paper published a couple of years ago attempting to explain the plateau of recent years tried to establish that aerosols were 3 times as great a negative forcing than previously thought. Of course, if this were the case, then the forcings used in climate models would be wrong and they could no longer be viewed as reliable because they would be unable to correctly predict the past in hindcasting.

 

So what exactly are the deniers supposed to be denying?

[iNow]

The abundance of evidence across research modalities all pointing to the same consensus of a human cause.

[bascule]

I think this is part of the problem. What "facts" are deniers denying?

 

That the world has warmed? Nope.

 

Some of the ones I've seen:

 

• Global mean surface temperatures have been decreasing since 1998 (via a SFN member)
  
• Warming has "flatlined" since 1998 (via the Wall Street Journal)
  
• The surface temperature trend of the contiguous 48 states of the US has shown no warming (via a SFN member)
  

 

All of these are false.

 

That CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Nope.

 

Many times I've seen the argument made that historically CO₂ concentrations increase in response to warming temperatures (as less CO₂ is able to dissolve into the oceans). They go on to suggest that increasing concentrations of CO₂ are an effect of warming temperatures, not one of the causes.

 

Another tidbit of disinformation I see quite often is that natural sources of CO₂ greatly outnumber anthropogenic sources, when the opposite is true.

Edited July 26, 2009 by bascule

[JohnB]

Some of the ones I've seen:

 

Global mean surface temperatures have been decreasing since 1998 (via a SFN member)

Warming has "flatlined" since 1998 (via the Wall Street Journal)

The surface temperature trend of the contiguous 48 states of the US has shown no warming (via a SFN member)

 

All of these are false.

 

I'd have to agree with you there, with the caveat that certainly for the last 8 or 9 years any temp change has to be described as "statistically insignificant". It's not going anywhere much, trendwise.

 

Another tidbit of disinformation I see quite often is that natural sources of CO2 greatly outnumber anthropogenic sources, when the opposite is true.

Actually, the natural emissions are far greater than the human ones. The difference is that for the past 10,000 years or so the natural emissions have been pretty much balanced by natural sequestration.

 

A Few Things Ill Considered says;

This is quite true that the natural fluxes in the carbon cycle are much larger than anthropogenic emissions.

 

Skeptical Science says;

Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 Gt. The ocean releases about 330 Gt. In contrast, human emissions are only around 26.4 Gt per year.

So natural emissions are circa 770 Gt/year compared to human 26.4 Gt/year. Human emissions are far less than the natural ones.

 

Hence for somebody to say that human emissions are dwarfed by the natural ones is factually true, it is not disinformation. However, it is only part of the story.

 

Many times I've seen the argument made that historically CO2 concentrations increase in response to warming temperatures (as less CO2 is able to dissolve into the oceans). They go on to suggest that increasing concentrations of CO2 are an effect of warming temperatures, not one of the causes.

 

This is an area I have problems with.

 

Firstly, it is undeniable;) that ice cores show that the temps do indeed rise before the CO2 does. It also continues to rise after the temps start going down. These are the observed facts. The logical conclusion from these facts is that CO2 concentrations less than 280 ppm cannot start or maintain warming cycles. Would you agree?

 

I believe I've said this before, but to put things in words rather than links.

 

As I understand the idea an interglacial has three parts. Firstly the warming is started by Milancovich forcings leading to a rise in CO2. Secondly, at some point in the temp rise CO2 becomes the primary forcing agent driving temps higher. The third stage is when some (currently unknown) negative forcing opposes and overwhelms the CO2 causing the temps to drop. Of course as the temps drop the CO2 is reabsorbed into the oceans. Would that be about right?

 

This sequence does fit the facts and is a reasonable hypothesis. Where I have problems with it is that in previous interglacials the CO2 concentration rose from 180 to circa 280 ppm while temps changed by nearly 10⁰ C for the warming period. Consequently, since we have had a 100 ppm increase in CO2 in the last 150 years and if CO2 was a major forcing in previous interglacials, shouldn't we have had far more warming than has occurred?

 

Alternatively, what if the CO2 rise in previous interglacials never became the major forcing?

 

In that scenario we still have three stages. Firstly the initial forcing starts the warming and releases the CO2 explaining the observed lag. Secondly the initial forcing continues with CO2 providing some amplification. Lastly the initial forcing collapses(?) or reverses(?) and the temps drop. By having a different forcing causing the majority of the temp rise we remove the problem of temps dropping while CO2 rises.

 

I suggest that this scenario is also consistent with the observed facts and in addition removes the problem of the recent 100 ppm increase not causing the same magnitude of warming as previous such rises.

 

Thoughts?

[Mokele]

Where I have problems with it is that in previous interglacials the CO2 concentration rose from 180 to circa 280 ppm while temps changed by nearly 100 C for the warming period. Consequently, since we have had a 100 ppm increase in CO2 in the last 150 years and if CO2 was a major forcing in previous interglacials, shouldn't we have had far more warming than has occurred?

 

The problem may simply be how fast we've done it. The atmosphere is, after all, very big, and Milancovich cycles are, all things considers, pretty slow (at least nowhere near as fast as 150 years). We cannot be sure that warning wouldn't reach 10C higher if we simply stabilized CO2 levels and let things play out on a geological time scale.

 

It's also worth noting that it's hard to really draw comparisons with past cycles because, at those times, there were two forcings (Milancovich and CO2), but now we've decoupled them, which means the results are going to differ from past cycles.

 

As a side note, are you sure about the 10C figure? That seems awfully high, by my recollection. I recall the difference being about half that.

[JohnB]

As a side note, are you sure about the 10C figure? That seems awfully high, by my recollection. I recall the difference being about half that.

I was just eyeballing the Vostok core graph. http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3057.aspx

 

Sorry, I should have made that clear. There would of course be high latitude amplification involved so I would expect the lower lats to warm by only 1/3 to 1/2 that amount. Even so, I doubt that anybody is going to push the idea that if we stabilised CO2 at current levels we could still expect another 2-4 degrees of warming anyway.

 

Your comments on speed and decoupling are also interesting and must be considered.

 

What I do find interesting is that this cycle is different from the previous ones. CO2 rose as expected but for some reason the temps stopped short of previous maximums and just sort of levelled off.

 

I've come across some papers that imply that the Milancovitch cycles are "incomplete" in their forcing attribution. There appears to be some reasonably large problems with the 100K period. The forcings don't match the change apparently. It's something I'm reading up on as I find the papers.

[Mokele]

What I do find interesting is that this cycle is different from the previous ones. CO2 rose as expected but for some reason the temps stopped short of previous maximums and just sort of levelled off.

 

I think it's a bit soon to say "leveled off" - for all we know, the past climate changes involved a "stepwise" progression, or this could be a natural property of the system (CO2 rises -> more plants -> CO2 levels off due to increased fixation -> plants max out for given CO2 level -> CO2 resumes rising -> repeat). Prior records don't have the sub-decade level resolution needed to see that as anything but subtle noise, if at all.

 

I've come across some papers that imply that the Milancovitch cycles are "incomplete" in their forcing attribution. There appears to be some reasonably large problems with the 100K period. The forcings don't match the change apparently. It's something I'm reading up on as I find the papers.

 

Can you link to them; I'd like to look them over. I should have access via my university servers (as well as to some you may not, and vice versa).

[bascule]

JohnB, I'm confused. Do you dispute that the present CO₂ anomaly (since the industrial revolution) is overwhelmingly if not almost completely anthropogenic in origin?

[JohnB]

I think it's a bit soon to say "leveled off"

I was referring to the Holocene in general, not the last few years. If you look at the graph I linked to you'll see the previous interglacials were quite short and sharp. The Holocene followed the general pattern until circa 10k BP when temps stopped rising (short of previous maximums) and just sort of levelled off. (Give or take a degree or 3)

 

Can you link to them; I'd like to look them over.

I'll try to find them again. They're just papers I came across while looking for others so I'll have to go through my history file.

 

JohnB, I'm confused. Do you dispute that the present CO2 anomaly (since the industrial revolution) is overwhelmingly if not almost completely anthropogenic in origin?

No, I don't think I would dispute that at all. The vast majority of the increase would be due to human emissions with some small amount due to CO2 release as the oceans warm. I would think the isotope analysis would easily demonstrate that.

 

I think where we mostly differ is in respect to climate sensitivity to CO2 increase and the possible results of any temp increase.

 

I will add that I think anybody who talks about a natural "balance" is operating from a false premise. Nature has never been in balance and never will be. When people say to me "The Climate is changing", the only logical and sensible response I can give is "No sh*t Sherlock. Was there ever a time when it wasn't?"

 

If anything, rather than skeptic, I would probably classify myself as an extemely "luke warmer".

 

Yes, the world has warmed. Yes, humans are probably partly to blame. No, I don't think the world (or human society) is going to end.

 

I'm always mindful that while 2+2=4, so does 1+3 and 6-2.

[iNow]

A great post from last year on this very issue. Relatively short, and worth the full read:

 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2008/06/why_the_right_wing_attacks_sci.php

The key was a unique feature of the environmental movement: its reliance on science. The new strategy (not just a tactic) was to create an environmental skepticism, a contrarian counter-argument, superficially also based on science. This wasn't an easy trick because environmental science was based on a robust scientific consensus, international in scope and as deep as it was wide. the environmental movement held the scientific high ground. So an ingenious and simple method was used. Accuse environmental science of environmental skepticism's own defects, reducing environmental science to the [Conservative Think Tanks (CTTs)] own level. Environmental science, the CTTs would claim, exaggerated, or even fabricated, the seriousness of environmental problems by manipulating data. Its scientists were corrupted by a political agenda.

 

The sheer audacity of this has to be admired. The strategy was to go directly at the single thing the environmental movement depended upon most, the science, and to reject its validity outright. It was a jiu-jitsu move, using the authority and language of science to discredit it while simultaneously giving it an extra push by giving a new priority to economic considerations. If you could convince people the benefits were in doubt but the costs were certain, you would have a strategy that fit beautifully with anti-regulation and anti-corporate liability objectives. Throw in the claim that environmental regulation would threaten progress and prosperity and the Green Scare would be bearing Right wing fruit. <

more at link

>

 

 

A post script was offered the following day, also worth the read:

 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2008/06/reiterating_the_main_point_of.php

The cardinal point is that the attacks aren't about science. Refuting false statements about whether CO

₂

is or is not a driver of global warming may seem (and be) necessary, but it is not the objective of the attackers. Karl Rove is famous for his doctrine that you attack your adversary at his strongest point. Environmental science's strongest point is the scientific integrity and credibility of the developing consensus that human activities are driving a significant increase in mean global temperatures. It is not the science of global warming that the Right Wing is concerned about but the policy consequences it entails. It is therefore necessary to destroy its authority and credibility.

 

The attack on the science has two components. The first is the most obvious: to use what appear to be scientific arguments to cast doubt on what the scientific community deems valid arguments about climate change. But the second may be the most important: to do it in a way that casts aspersions on all kinds of scientific argument. The attackers don't care if they are accused of political or economic bias in making their own scientific arguments because one of their objectives is to establish a covert narrative that says science is

always

biased and tainted by political corruption.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This is awesome.

 

P_0-gX7aUKk

 

 

Via Deltoid

[JohnB]

Nothing like a good conspiracy theory to get the day started is there?

 

Would you care to actually answer my question in the post above?