Global Warming "Skeptics"

[The Bear's Key]

I will add that I think anybody who talks about a natural "balance" is operating from a false premise.

Not wrong. Incomplete, rather. (see why below)

 

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?"

Yes, when it changed faster than nature's able to offset/counterbalance a global change. For instance, with the astronomical collision that possibly forced the extinction of dinosaurs and countless species. A much worse event, but there you have it.

 

Question answered.

[iNow]

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

Hi John,

Please accept my apologies. I don't see where you've addressed a question to me which I've failed to address. It is not my intent to ignore your questions, so if you could please let me know what you'd like me to respond to, that would be great. Thanks, mate.

 

 

 

Speaking of humor in the morning, this was great:

 

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/08/01/the-rules/

Hello world. It’s your friendly neighbourhood denialist here. Look, we need to talk. I think we got off on the wrong foot. You’ve got me all wrong. I’m really an open-minded guy. All I’m asking for is evidence of your AGW claims. Surely that’s not too much to ask?

 

And please note, that when I say evidence, I mean:

 

<snip>

 

Your position is based on religious faith, not on the science. I can tell because you pay attention to the scientific instruments, the corrected data, the computer models and the writings of published scientists, instead of what I know, deep in my heart to be the truth: that AGW is a giant hoax and a fraud.

You really need to read the whole thing. It seems to summarize rather well via parody the issues we've all been circling around in this thread.

[JohnB]

iNow, sorry mate, I didn't realise how many intervening posts there were.

 

I was referring to this;

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

Although rereading the post I can see how it wouldn't look like a directed question too. Apologies, my bad.

 

Bear's Key, sorry but wrong. Regardless of the forcing, the climate has a lag built into it. This will vary for each factor. The bottom line is that should a forcing change, by the time the system has adapted, a different forcing will have changed. The climate will always be playing catch up and can never be "in balance", ever.

 

I thought I'd take the time to really look at the vid iNow linked to. Here is my appraisal;

0:00-0:45. Intro and Appeal to Ridicule.

0:45-1:02. Snide remarks and further Appeal to Ridicule.

1:02-1:41. Interview and statement of the purpose of surfacestations. (Is there anything in that interview bit that is not factually correct?)

1:41-2:29 Denigrating comments. "Junior woodchuck society" etc, basically an ad hom that the volunteers are amateurs and therefore unreliable.

"surfacestations has compiled a list that volunteers feel do not meet published standards" Falsehood. "Feelings" have nothing to do with it. NOAA has published a set of standards that require nothing more than a tape measure and open eyes to see if the standards are met.

 

Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.

 

Class 2 (CRN2) - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.

 

Class 3 (CRN3) (error >=1C) - Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

 

Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.

 

Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface."

 

It does not require a degree to see whether a sensor is in a parking lot or not. The standards are quite unambiguous.

 

2:29-2:40 I do not understand how he finds fault with the concept that if the initial data might be biased, then predictions based on that data would be biased as well. GIGO would seem to apply. The sensible thing would be to actually look at the stations and see if there is data bias. And isn't that exactly what he's complaining about?

 

2:40-3:27 "He's in league with the evil tobacco industry". Poisoning the well.

 

3:27-3:33 "Defending smokers is a thankless task, but somebody has to do it" Deliberate mis quote, pause the vid and read what is really said.

 

3:33-3:49 "Those evil people who make a profit". I thought that was what business was supposed to do. "Advocating one death dealing industry to yet another" Appeal to emotion.

 

3:49-4:03 Accusation stated as fact. Let's see if he provides any proof later.

 

4:03-4:15 False Statement. NOAAs integrity was not "being attacked". I've yet to see NOAA "attacked" on the topic of siting. The general feeling I see is that NOAA was given money for new sensors (MMTS) but not enough to allow for correct siting. They did the best they could with what they had. I fail to see how asking the question "Is your equipment properly calibrated?" could be honestly presented as an attack on integrity.

 

4:15-4:49 Recap of NOAAs position. Which is fair enough.

 

(Aside) It brings up a point I find profoundly illogical in Climate Science. Exactly how does a thermometer measuring temps for "Climate" differ from a thermometer measuring temps for "weather"? It strikes me as saying I can use a tape measure to find length but not width. I'm open to ideas on this, but I frankly can't see the difference. The thing measures temp, it's a thermometer, that's what they're for. What you do with the data afterwards is up to you. (/Aside)

 

4:49-5:06 CRN network. Watts did not make "accusations", he simply reported the results of checking the GHCN network. Since when is checking data or equipment an "accusation"?

 

5:06-5:57 "According to leading scientists at NOAA". The interesting thing about this report is that it isn't a report. It's a "talking points" internal memo that BTW, doesn't actually say who wrote it. The original version did have the name of the person who made the pdf, but that has since been removed by NOAA. So who exactly are these "leading scientists" again? The ones who won't put their name to a report?

 

5:57-6:28 Strawman. Since nobody is arguing that the temps haven't risen this is an attempt to misrepresent the other side. Changes in ice cover point to a warming world but are not proof of an anthropogenic cause.

 

6:28-7:16 "90% of changes in a direction expected as a response to warming". Another strawman. Nobody says it isn't warming FFS.

 

7:16-7:30 The lesson here is that the natural world has no agenda, but climate deniers do. Appeal to emotion. The lesson here is that the natural world adjusts to change however (and again) this does not prove an anthropogenic cause.

 

7:30-7:40 Ooooh, now we get a link to WMDs and those nasty Republicans. Give me a break.

 

7:40-End. Alarm!! The consequences are DIRE!! Appeal to emotion.

 

Note my comment for 3:49-4:03. Was any corroborating evidence of this grand conspiracy presented? Nope, just a personal belief stated as fact.

 

On the title of the vid.

 

"Deniers" did not try to ban it. Sinclair used copyrighted material that didn't belong to him in his presentation. As a commercial artist who copyrights his own work, it's surprising that Sinclair doesn't know just how that particular law works.

 

George Monboit obviously misses the point. Either that or he would rather see a grand conspiracy than a simple case of copyright infringement.

 

Roger Pielke also has something to say about this vid, but I suppose he doesn't count as a "Climate Scientist" to people like Sinclair.

 

If you want to find out what actually went on, Anthony Watts posted the full sequence of events.

 

Those interested might find some similarities with the accusations made against Spiked. The usual "In the Pay of Big (Insert industry here)" garbage.

 

A final point of this vid. At no time does the creator even hint that NOAA was aware of the surfacestations work. Anthony Watts has given presentations to NOAA on exactly what surfacestaions had been finding. This is an example of "omitting with intent to deceive" in my books.

[iNow]

iNow, sorry mate, I didn't realise how many intervening posts there were.

 

I was referring to this;

Post #66 was my response.

[JohnB]

Okay, thanks. I didn't get it.

 

So the "abundance of evidence" is the fact being denied, but you're not willing to say what that evidence is?

 

I'm a nuts and bolts kind of guy. I'm afraid I don't see much difference between your comment and one made by a Theologian about the abundance of evidence that points to a creator.

[iNow]

I'm afraid I don't see much difference between your comment and one made by a Theologian about the abundance of evidence that points to a creator.

 

Okay. I'll link to 100 different peer-reviewed sources providing evidence that human activity is the primary forcing agent in the climate change we are currently experiencing if you point to 100 different peer-reviewed sources providing evidence of a creator.

 

What'dya say? Do we have a deal?

[Mokele]

The problem is, quite simply, that AFAIK nobody here has anywhere near the level of technical knowledge of the subject necessary to discuss the subject's complexity in sufficient detail, or with sufficient knowledge of the literature.

 

 

To use a poor analogy, if this was a discussion about "how do we walk", we could maybe get as far as the Hildebrand gaits, inverted pendulum, and central pattern generators, and maybe address some of the shortcomings of each of these, but without someone who's genuinely familiar with the literature, technology, etc., it'd be impossible to really get anywhere.

 

 

I'm not saying we should just abandon any hope of meaningful discussion. But rather, we should be mindful that if someone here doesn't know the answer to something, in either direction, doesn't mean it's not known, only that *we* don't know it.

 

I'd also like to quote a climatologist I saw speak once: "Just because we don't understand *everything* about climate change doesn't mean we don't understand *anything* about it."

 

I'm sure there are unresolved issues, just as there are in my own field. But just as our incomplete knowledge of muscle physiology doesn't mean I can't make quite accurate predictions based on what we *do* know, our incomplete knowledge of all aspects of climate change does not prevent us being quite confident in what we *do* know.

[JohnB]

iNow, how about just listing a couple of the facts that are being denied?

 

bascule at least gave it a go. (And one of his was wrong) His other points were not so much about "denying" facts but rather about stating wrong things as facts. (Something I see on both sides of the debate)

 

The point of the question is that quite often I see things like "shrinking glaciers" put forward as evidence. (The vid you linked to does this) The problem is that such facts, while proving warming (which is not being denied anyway) do not prove an anthropogenic cause for the warming.

 

Mokele, I agree with much of what you say however given recent papers like Swanson and Tsonis 2009, I do wonder if we know less than we think we do. It's the whole "unknown unknowns" thing.

[iNow]

iNow, how about just listing a couple of the facts that are being denied?

John - It really depends on the person, as some people deny different things. There is a whole spectrum of denial taking place. As an example, here is a link to some of the most common, as well as a ranking of how frequently they are seen:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

 

 

And here is another breakdown of the various types of denial taking place regarding climate change:

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

[bascule]

bascule at least gave it a go. (And one of his was wrong)

 

What one was wrong? Perhaps you didn't like the way I phrased my assertion that the present CO₂ anomaly is almost entirely anthropogenic, but later agreed when I phrased it in a manner more acceptable to you. In regard to that argument natural CO₂ fluxes are a red herring as they balance each other out. The cause of the increasing trend in CO₂ concentrations is almost entirely anthropogenic.

[JohnB]

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

 

Did you mean sources or fluxes? You stated that anthrop sources outnumber natural. That statement is wrong.

 

Fluxes are a different matter. That's why I said;

However, it is[/i'] only part of the story.

 

One could for example quite truthfully say that "Natural sources of CO2 far outweight the anthrop sources both in number and amount. However the sequestration afforded by the natural system more than equals the natural emissions."

 

I do try to be exact in my phrasing, hence my assumption that when you said "sources" you actually meant "sources".

 

I would add that a discussion on sources in general is a very different thing to a discussion on the source of the increase in CO2.

[bascule]

Did you mean sources or fluxes? You stated that anthrop sources outnumber natural. That statement is wrong.

 

Okay, ignore what I stated previously as it was poorly worded (and no, I didn't mean fluxes). What I meant was that the post-industrial CO₂ anomaly is caused almost exclusively by anthropogenic sources.