Climate Change and the Integrity of Science

[bascule]

An open letter from 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel laureates, decries the "recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular."

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/689

 

While I understand the frustration that critics and "skeptics" of climate science are going through when they find their criticisms perhaps unduly dismissed, it's difficult for legitimate climate science skepticism to exist in the outwardly anti-science environment perpetrated by various unscientific critics.

 

I hope for a future where criticisms are leveled by those who understand what arguments lack scientific merit yet are still skeptical about mainstream climate science can join the scientists in rejecting these types of complaints.

 

At least from what I observed, however, that is not how the majority of "skeptics" behave. I'll be interested to see how this one plays out.

[JohnB]

TBH, I have the same problem with this letter as I do with things like the Oregon Petition. (Or whatever it's called lately;))

 

It comes across as simply "I can get a lot of people to agree with me, therefore I'm right". I think that this is damaging to science because it is the opposite of how science is supposed to function.

 

It can also be counter productive and provide fodder for the "other side".

 

Peter Gleick has already blogged a couple of times on this letter, a good version is here. Note that "Blackbird" has a look at exactly who some of the signers are and their areas of expertise.

 

He notes, for example, that two of the 26 checked are political scientists, how that transfers into being climate "experts" is a mystery. There is the obligatory response from Dr. Gleick and I'm sure the argument will run for many posts, comments and days.

 

To a great degree though, I think that it is beside the point. Every time one of these things comes out, the argument always starts about who the signers are and whether or not they are "qualified" to comment. It becomes a simple "Appeal to Authority" debate which is, in the end, pointless.

 

I think it also worthwhile to note that the "sceptics" have come out strongly against the actions taken by a certain AG with respect to Micheal Mann. I'm sure that Dr. Mann was quite surprised to have Mc Intyre attacking the investigation.

 

There is a middle ground here, but playing the "I can get lots of signatures" game isn't the way to find it.

 

There is a definite "trust" problem now and part of the problem is the denial;) in some areas that there is a problem. The "mine, mine" attitude to raw data has to change, or Joe Public is going to come down very hard on science funding. This would be doubleplus ungood.

[Double K]

One of the things that causes frustration in this argument is that "climate change" science is no longer a science, but has become a religion.

 

What I mean by this is that (as stated already) it's no longer a point made with hard data, undisputable evidence and subject to peer review (as all good science is and should be) but it is now a game of

You are either

a) A Supporter of all that is good for humanity

or

b) A Climate Change Denier.

 

This is dangerous ground because it forces anyone 'undecided' on the issue to choose based on morality - it's psychological manipulation at it's most subtle (and is psychology 101) and it simply makes anyone with a critical mind, or whom is weary of just taking their "benevolent leaders" word for it immediately question it's validity. One thing I -CAN- guarantee is that our leaders have agendas, and they aren't always in everyone's best interest.

 

Unfortunately there is SO MUCH data that supports both sides of the arguments, that it's become almost impossible to choose without being forced into either cattegory a) or b) from above.

 

All opposition is now shouted down as heresy (Climate change denier) and no real debate or analysis can continue once this card has been played.

 

Personally I have no problem with less pollution, I think this can only be a good thing, regardless of if it will affect climate or not. While we are at it, can we tackle poverty, and famine and many other factors which we CAN have a more immediate effect on and WILL have much more real data to use for analysis of it's success.

[swansont]

One of the things that causes frustration in this argument is that "climate change" science is no longer a science, but has become a religion.

 

One problem is that such statements only serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Any discussion that is outside of the scientific realm is going to be outside of the scientific realm. The statement is a fallacious emotional appeal based on a distortion of the facts, i.e. a strawman. Which is not a scientific argument.

 

There is plenty of peer-reviewed literature being published. Scientists are discussing science, and critically analyzing results. That others are not doing so does not change this fact.

[randomc]

Perhaps scientists working on climate change should refuse to participate in the public debate altogether, and instead delegate this task to economists and other professional risk assessors.

 

The strength of scientific consensus is apparently the pivotal issue, but this seems to me a completely slanted way to make a decision about whether action should be taken. Consensus could be balanced against AGW and it would still make more sense to act than not, simply because of the level of risk involved.

 

Probably i'm taking too simplistic a view, but this seems to me a way in which the public debate would be more sensibly dealt with by climate change scientists.

[bascule]

One of the things that causes frustration in this argument is that "climate change" science is no longer a science, but has become a religion.

 

I'll admit that rhetoric on both sides of the "debate" has grown increasingly vitriolic.

 

Unfortunately there is SO MUCH data that supports both sides of the arguments, that it's become almost impossible to choose

 

That's a misrepresentation of the current state of climate science. While there are and will always be uncertainties and unpredictable events, the science behind anthropogenically forced climate change is solid.

 

All opposition is now shouted down as heresy (Climate change denier) and no real debate or analysis can continue once this card has been played.

 

This is a label which is deservedly applied to those who willfully misrepresent the state of modern climate science. While there are people who poignantly question the conclusions of climate science, I'm afraid those people are few and far between, versus those are less concerned about things like facts and are for all intents and purposes slandering the scientists involved.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Perhaps scientists working on climate change should refuse to participate in the public debate altogether, and instead delegate this task to economists and other professional risk assessors.

 

This is the approach Richard Dawkins has taken to evolution denial. His rationale is by debating evolution deniers on a level playing field he's giving them too much credit and dragging himself down to their level. It's a case of people who, again, are less concerned about facts and more concerned about getting their message out, so rather than engaging in legitimate debate they merely use the "debate" as a platform to proselytize to the audience.

 

In general I think it would be good for climate scientists to distance themselves from the policy debate, and instead find political advocates (e.g. Al Gore) they can educate as policy advocates.

[Double K]

That's a misrepresentation of the current state of climate science. While there are and will always be uncertainties and unpredictable events, the science behind anthropogenically forced climate change is solid.

 

This is a label which is deservedly applied to those who willfully misrepresent the state of modern climate science. While there are people who poignantly question the conclusions of climate science, I'm afraid those people are few and far between, versus those are less concerned about things like facts and are for all intents and purposes slandering the scientists involved.

 

This is the approach Richard Dawkins has taken to evolution denial. His rationale is by debating evolution deniers on a level playing field he's giving them too much credit and dragging himself down to their level. It's a case of people who, again, are less concerned about facts and more concerned about getting their message out, so rather than engaging in legitimate debate they merely use the "debate" as a platform to proselytize to the audience.

 

In general I think it would be good for climate scientists to distance themselves from the policy debate, and instead find political advocates (e.g. Al Gore) they can educate as policy advocates.

 

Please don't think that my comments here mean I disagree with climate change science, but allow me to debate for the 'negative' a minute. (this already has an inference about it, do you see the psychology involved?)

 

Firstly, I think I was misunderstood in regards to your first paragraph, my point is not that science is flawed, it's that for Joe Average, there is just too much data out there, supporting either side, that it has become impossible to make an informed decision without being influenced by the emotional rhetoric.

 

"This is a label which is deservedly applied to those who willfully misrepresent the state of modern climate science" This pertains to the "Climate change denier"(Heretic) label. Why does there need to be a label at all? Again this immediately puts a "label" which is well studied and analysed. "Social Reaction Theory" or "Labelling theory" will give you some insight into this, and don't forget that the initial purpose of television and media came from the military industrial complex AND intensive studies were done on the psychology of misinformation, and propaganda, and social reaction. My point is that placing a label on either side of the debate immediately degenerates valid discussion into slinging matches as either side attempts to justify their position rather than allowing non-judgemental open review. Social Reaction theory article: http://www.articlealley.com/article_524965_50.html

 

"This is the approach Richard Dawkins has taken to evolution denial. His rationale is by debating evolution deniers on a level playing field he's giving them too much credit and dragging himself down to their level." This statement is a perfect example of social reaction theory.

 

"instead find political advocates (e.g. Al Gore)"

And there-in lies the dilema. For a scientific debate to remain free, it must not take sides. As soon as it affiliates with a politician it has chosen a side, and especially Mr. Al Gore, I would just like to point you to a few things that lead me to question his position on this.

When someone in this position seeks to gain immense amounts of money from introducing a system (which is terribly flawed) it shows me that the government is not serious about taking action, but is serious about cashing in.

 

If we were in such TRULY dire circumstances that the planet was at threat, I would hope that ALL industry that pollutes was instantly shut down to assess the threat and assess the recovery of mass interruption. For one - we could stop production of ALL softdrinks(soda) on the planet this releases insane amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere daily. Secondly lets shut down all oil companies. See it's the fact that cash remains king, industry giants can buy credit offsets (with cash!) and continue to pollute at the same level. The government has just found a new way to tax, but has literally taken no action to reduce the threat, and this tells me that there is an alterior motive. When climate change science aligns itself with the corrupt, it appears corrupt - when all opposition and fair debate is shouted down as morons without a clue, and yet no action is taken to remedy the findings it appears hypocritical and seems as though a vested interest has been formed.

 

For average joe whom doesnt have access to all of the hard data, and even still wouldnt understand alot of it regardless, how can you expect them to trust a government which has time and again been shown through demonstration to be interested in appeasing big industry at the price of average joe for centuries? In the current Emission Trading Schemes, big industry changes nothing, continues to pollute, and at best - passes on it's additional costs to the end consumer.

[Mr Skeptic]

For average joe whom doesnt have access to all of the hard data, and even still wouldnt understand alot of it regardless,

 

That's the main problem I have with AGW -- I can't personally verify it. Since it is a politicized topic, I'm also leery of taking anyone's word for it. On the other hand, many of the proposed solutions we need to do anyways for other reasons.

 

how can you expect them to trust a government which has time and again been shown through demonstration to be interested in appeasing big industry at the price of average joe for centuries?

 

I don't know anyone who trusts the government to do what is necessary, especially on this topic.

 

In the current Emission Trading Schemes, big industry changes nothing, continues to pollute, and at best - passes on it's additional costs to the end consumer.

 

You say that as if it is a bad thing. Passing the additional costs to the end consumer is, in fact, what would cause them to change their behavior. The trick is for the extra cost to reflect the environmental cost, rather than pollution being free and profitable.

[Double K]

That's the main problem I have with AGW -- I can't personally verify it. Since it is a politicized topic, I'm also leery of taking anyone's word for it. On the other hand, many of the proposed solutions we need to do anyways for other reasons.

 

Totally agreed, I personally, would love to inhale less exhaust on my way to work, and scrub less rubber and exhaust particles from my balcony on the weekend.

 

 

 

You say that as if it is a bad thing. Passing the additional costs to the end consumer is, in fact, what would cause them to change their behavior. The trick is for the extra cost to reflect the environmental cost, rather than pollution being free and profitable.

 

The end consumer isn't alone in driving the market. Ok yes, they drive the demand end of the supply and demand chain. however there are no real alternatives from the Supply end, and simply introducing a tax which affects the supply end very little because they offset the cost by passing it on, does not drive industry to create new sollutions. If industry does not suffer, or is able to mitigate it's suffering it has no incentive to find alternatives.

[bascule]

Why does there need to be a label at all?

 

I prefer to call out misinformation campaigns for what they are. I have absolutely no qualms with labeling any anti-science camps as "deniers", because at the same time they're claiming the scientists don't know what they're talking about and denying the legitimacy of the science.

 

My point is that placing a label on either side of the debate immediately degenerates valid discussion into slinging matches as either side attempts to justify their position rather than allowing non-judgemental open review.

 

You've got your causation backwards. The label is applied as a result of the active misinformation campaigns. Removing the labels would not legitimize the debate. It was never a valid debate to begin with.

 

On one side you have scientists. They research the issue, look at all the available data and interpretations, and choose what best fits the totality of information available.

 

On the other hand you have the climate science deniers. They start with the foregone conclusion that everything the scientists have concluded is wrong, then work backwards finding information that fits their foregone conclusion. Information that works against their foregone conclusion is rejected. "It's been really cold this winter in Texas! So much for global warming!" While climate scientists can point out that "global warming" refers to the long-term trend in global mean surface temperature and does not mean that winter stops being cold, and furthermore that we should expect more erratic weather including colder winters in certain locations, such subtleties are generally lost on these people.

 

"This is the approach Richard Dawkins has taken to evolution denial. His rationale is by debating evolution deniers on a level playing field he's giving them too much credit and dragging himself down to their level." This statement is a perfect example of social reaction theory.

 

Richard Dawkins is actively avoiding giving mindshare to evolution deniers. I certainly find that respectable.

 

And there-in lies the dilema. For a scientific debate to remain free, it must not take sides.

 

Science most certainly takes sides. Modern physicists are resolutely against the idea of luminiferous aether. If you were to deny relativity and claim that light instead travels through luminiferous aether, scientists would be resolutely against you and suggest you study the Michelson–Morley experiment.

 

As soon as it affiliates with a politician it has chosen a side, and especially Mr. Al Gore, I would just like to point you to a few things that lead me to question his position on this.

 

Scientists have policy recommendations to make based on their conclusions. What I'm suggesting is these scientists remove themselves from the political process, and instead educate politicians to become advocates for their policy recommendations, rather than trying to participate directly in the political process, which I agree would make them biased.

 

This is more or less how the IPCC functions: they compile their evidence then provide a comprehensive set of policy recommendations based upon the evidence they've collected.

 

What you seem to be suggesting is that scientists not directly make any sort of policy recommendations, instead throwing their conclusions out there and letting politicans attempt to comprehend their evidence and come to their own conclusions about what sorts of policies should be enacted.

 

I strongly disagree with this approach because politicians are laymen and cannot make prudent policy decisions without the direct input of scientists. Politicians and scientists should be working hand-in-hand on this sort of policy, but I'd prefer scientists be removed from the political process itself. Instead scientists can be called as experts and asked specific questions by politicians as part of the debate.

 

For average joe whom doesnt have access to all of the hard data, and even still wouldnt understand alot of it regardless, how can you expect them to trust a government which has time and again been shown through demonstration to be interested in appeasing big industry at the price of average joe for centuries?

 

In this debate, it's "big industry" that stands to lose a lot more as part of a sound policy response to climate change. I find it rather odd you're worried that the government will sell out Joe Average to Big Industry as part of climate science policy changes. If anything, it's industry that will suffer.

 

In the event that costs are passed on to the consumer, this will motivate changes in consumer behavior which will hopefully lead them to make different choices. Imagine the US passed a $10 tax on each incandescent light bulb sold (or let's say any lamp which emits X lumens / watt equivalent to an incandescent light bulb). This would motivate consumers to seek more energy efficient alternatives.

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

That's the main problem I have with AGW -- I can't personally verify it.

 

You can't personally verify the standard model either. Does that mean you doubt it?

 

And that's just one of countless examples of modern science that a layman cannot personally verify, because they don't have the equipment or expertise to do so.

Edited May 10, 2010 by bascule
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

I prefer to call out misinformation campaigns for what they are. I have absolutely no qualms with labeling any anti-science camps as "deniers", because at the same time they're claiming the scientists don't know what they're talking about and denying the legitimacy of the science.

 

And they have no qualms calling the AGW proponents a "religion". I'm just saying...

 

You can't personally verify the standard model either. Does that mean you doubt it?

 

Of course I doubt it. Fortunately, that theory is not politicized so I'm not nearly as leery of trusting what people say about it.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The end consumer isn't alone in driving the market. Ok yes, they drive the demand end of the supply and demand chain. however there are no real alternatives from the Supply end, and simply introducing a tax which affects the supply end very little because they offset the cost by passing it on, does not drive industry to create new sollutions. If industry does not suffer, or is able to mitigate it's suffering it has no incentive to find alternatives.

 

It doesn't matter to the environment whether a product is not sold because it is no longer profitable to make, or if it is not bought because it is too expensive. As for which of these would happen more, it would depend on the elasticity of the product in question, not so much on the details of how the environmental costs are paid.

[Double K]

I prefer to call out misinformation campaigns for what they are.

This is commonly referred to as counter intelligence. Don't take the word "intelligence" to mean it's smarter, its simply a propaganda cycle.

 

 

You've got your causation backwards. The label is applied as a result of the active misinformation campaigns. Removing the labels would not legitimize the debate. It was never a valid debate to begin with.

Again with the "heresy"? Really?

This is exactly why there is no real debate on the topic, because the supporters are so convinced they are right that anyone questioning their line is somehow insulting them.

 

On one side you have scientists. They research the issue, look at all the available data and interpretations, and choose what best fits the totality of information available.

 

These same scientists are paid by government purse, in which case they are corruptable to serve a government agenda. The "negative" side of the argument has no agenda - their agenda is simply to understand the science, understand the problem, and come to a sollution that doesnt just appease industry with no reduction in emissions.

 

On the other hand you have the climate science deniers. They start with the foregone conclusion that everything the scientists have concluded is wrong, then work backwards finding information that fits their foregone conclusion.

 

Well that's what happens with any hypothesis. First you provide the hypothesis, then you try to disprove the hypothesis - thats how it becomes a theory!

Hypothesis preceeds theory preceeds law!

This is scientific rules, yet the scientific community doesnt want to play by these rules on this topic.

It also seems that scientists that support the hypothesis take it personally and emotionally when challenged which means the debate loses integrity.

 

Science most certainly takes sides. Modern physicists are resolutely against the idea of luminiferous aether. If you were to deny relativity and claim that light instead travels through luminiferous aether, scientists would be resolutely against you and suggest you study the Michelson–Morley experiment.

 

Ok firstly, I'm talking about political affiliation, science can take an affirmative or negative "side" but political affiliation is another thing all together.

Secondly, if enough scientists agreed on the hypothesis and suddenly screamed all opposition down as Aether Deniers the same argument would arise.

 

What you seem to be suggesting is that scientists not directly make any sort of policy recommendations, instead throwing their conclusions out there and letting politicans attempt to comprehend their evidence and come to their own conclusions about what sorts of policies should be enacted.

 

But this is what they have done to the general population - and in case you didn't realise we operate in a democracy which means majority rules - not government mandate (which has been the trend of late)

 

In this debate, it's "big industry" that stands to lose a lot more as part of a sound policy response to climate change. I find it rather odd you're worried that the government will sell out Joe Average to Big Industry as part of climate science policy changes.

 

I already see this in process. The evidence is very clear I dont need a science expert to tell me how I have been affected by recent changes to global economics, many of which are driven by resources.

Big industry loses nothing when it can offset its polluting habits by buying "carbon credits" which it then passes the cost of onto the consumer - how does this affect the industry one iota??

 

In the event that costs are passed on to the consumer, this will motivate changes in consumer behavior which will hopefully lead them to make different choices.

 

The industry you speak of - big oil is probably the largest contributor here, has been well known to squash alternative sources for a long time. Not only this, but you make it sound as though alternatives are the responsibility or capability of the consumer but they are not. (responsibility yes, capability no)

There need to be alternatives and unless industry is forced to provide alternatives why would they? And this is clearly the case, considering the importance of the scienctific evidence, there really has been very little urgency by industry to provide alternative energy sources for the masses. The end consumer can limit consumption but other than that without an alternative...what then?

[bascule]

And they have no qualms calling the AGW proponents a "religion". I'm just saying...

 

Yes, and evolution deniers label "darwinism" a religion too. It doesn't make their position any less informed, or change the fact they're denying the knowledge that science has to offer because it conflicts with their personal opinions.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Hypothesis preceeds theory preceeds law!

This is scientific rules, yet the scientific community doesnt want to play by these rules on this topic.

 

Remember what I was talking about earlier in regard to misrepresenting science? That's what you're doing here. Climate science has advanced far beyond the level of mere hypothesis. You claim otherwise. This is simply wrong.

 

It also seems that scientists that support the hypothesis take it personally and emotionally when challenged which means the debate loses integrity.

 

No, their frustration results from the misrepresentation of science. As I noted earlier:

 

While I understand the frustration that critics and "skeptics" of climate science are going through when they find their criticisms perhaps unduly dismissed, it's difficult for legitimate climate science skepticism to exist in the outwardly anti-science environment perpetrated by various unscientific critics.

 

There is comparatively little legitimate criticism of climate science compared to a massive and ignorant cacophony of anti-science proponents voicing their uninformed opinion.

Edited May 11, 2010 by bascule
Consecutive posts merged.

[Double K]

Remember what I was talking about earlier in regard to misrepresenting science? That's what you're doing here. Climate science has advanced far beyond the level of mere hypothesis. You claim otherwise. This is simply wrong.

 

There is comparatively little legitimate criticism of climate science compared to a massive and ignorant cacophony of anti-science proponents voicing their uninformed opinion.

 

You're position has now changed from debate and open forum to personally charged attacks. This is exactly what I was hoping for as it demonstrates my theory that debate can not occur because it quickly turns from facts or analysis of facts, to mud slinging.

 

I'm not mis-representing anything. Science must be open to peer review, and whilst the science that they claim to have used is proven, the hypothesis that the planet is warming due to human manipulation of the environment is still nothing more than a hypothesis. There is ample evidence to suggest the planet goes through warming and cooling cycles and has done so for MILLENIA yet this fact is dismissed by simply recounting trends from the last century. When you talk about a sample size of data, for any analytical purpose, anything with a small sample size does absolutely not mean that you can determine trends from it. Out of 100 people surveyed it was found 98% prefer chocolate milk to coca-cola - therefore lets now apply this to the entire global populaton of 5billion+. Data can be manipulated and statistics especially to show almost any trend you like. This is dangerous territory.

 

For a planet lasting thru millenia, most of which we are insignificant during the lifecycle of, we have taken a small data sample and applied to it a very large data scale of which we have very little depth of knowledge about except going back several thousands/hundreds of thousands or perhaps even millions of years - and yet the earth is much older than this.

 

Until "climate change" stands up to analytical debate then it's nothing more to me than manipulated data(and there are plenty of "scientists" who dispute the findings as inaccurate, or mis-represented).

 

Almost nothing on the internet is trustworthy as a source for data, almost nothing printed is trustworthy as its printed by those with vested interest. The layman does not have access to data that is trustworthy or non-skewed.

 

It's also very dangerous allowing scientists and politicians into an arena together. You just have to look at Einstein to see this. He discovers a new energy source - government takes it, corrupts it, and then bombs people with it. I'm not saying it's the scientists mis-representing their data, it's the politicians.

 

But as your initial question was regarding the integrity of debate on climate change, this goes significantly towards damaging said integrity.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm not mis-representing anything. Science must be open to peer review, and whilst the science that they claim to have used is proven, the hypothesis that the planet is warming due to human manipulation of the environment is still nothing more than a hypothesis.

 

And bascule's point is that, in his view, this statement is completely false.

 

We have had numerous discussions on the subject here, and covered many of the same arguments you've just made. Just look through the Climate Science forum. I'd hate for this thread to end up repeating the same old tired points.

 

edit: also, I hope we can avoid personally charged attacks.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Cap'n Refsmmat

[Double K]

Hold on one second here.

It seems you have confused my comments as stating that I am debunking GW.

 

I am not.

 

The question was pertaining to the integrity of scientific debate surrounding GW and also integrity of science pertaining to GW.

 

It is my belief that as soon as you put science in bed with politics you can throw integrity down the toilet, and let it float along with all the faesces that float down that stagnant stream of historically significant errors in judgement on behalf of science. The two can not gel, one corrupts the other and as science is the "pure" element of the two I need not define which one corrupts.

 

Furthermore, my point that all debate is met with negative emotionally charged responses, has been proven even throughout this thread. Whether those be made through frustration or some other reasoning, it does not further the integrity of the science, and by your own admissions the topics and subject matter which derived the initial hypothesis of GW are complex and by the time someone understands one point, 30 others have arisen.

 

Fine leave it to the experts to sort out, but keep politics out of it, even tho its already too late for that, and secondly, allow the experts to test and review and do so without fear of being called a "heretic".

[bascule]

Remember what I was talking about earlier in regard to misrepresenting science? That's what you're doing here. Climate science has advanced far beyond the level of mere hypothesis. You claim otherwise. This is simply wrong.

 

There is comparatively little legitimate criticism of climate science compared to a massive and ignorant cacophony of anti-science proponents voicing their uninformed opinion.

 

You're position has now changed from debate and open forum to personally charged attacks. This is exactly what I was hoping for as it demonstrates my theory that debate can not occur because it quickly turns from facts or analysis of facts' date=' to mud slinging.[/quote']

 

There's nothing personally charged here, but clearly you disagree with modern climate science and level arguments against it, namely that modern climate science hasn't advanced to the level of a theory and is still at the level of a hypothesis. I'm sorry if I've offended you personally, but your opinions aren't scientific and contradict the science on the matter. Climate scientists have reconstructed the general circulation of the atmosphere within computer models. Let me present you with a video which demonstrates the level at which modern climate science is able to reconstruct the climate system. This is not a hypothesis:

 

tbXwRP0CQNA

 

As this is a science-related subforum it's science and not opinions that count, and if you wish to contradict the conclusions of climate science you need to present a scientific argument, not simply write off the conclusions of tens of thousands of scientists as mere "hypothesis". The science behind climate change is sound.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It is my belief that as soon as you put science in bed with politics you can throw integrity down the toilet

 

That's an ad hominem. Even if a scientist is campaigning politically that does not make the information that scientist is presenting wrong. Scientific theories must be judged independent of the scientists who present them. Anything less is a logical fallacy.

[Double K]

You clearly don't read what I've said, you have a preformed ideal and you're not about to change your thinking on it.

 

Your OP was clearly regarding Climate Change and the integrity of science.

I've addressed these points but you've managed to somehow say that I'm questioning the actual science.

 

I have no access to hard data to question it's validity, so how do you even assert that I disagree with modern science? That's nothing more than an attempt at character assassination. Which again goes to further my argument which I made earlier.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

As this is a science-related subforum it's science and not opinions that count, and if you wish to contradict the conclusions of climate science you need to present a scientific argument, not simply write off the conclusions of tens of thousands of scientists as mere "hypothesis". The science behind climate change is sound.

 

Fine lets go with "science" for you as you have misinterpreted much of what I have said.

 

"Suggestibility also depends upon the source of propaganda. People are particularly sensitive to the influence of a good parent figure sought in the external world to protect them from persecution by bad 'internal' parent figures. To be effective, propaganda must correspond with or symbolize existing unconscious fantasies. It should begin with an appeal to fear by pointing out symbols of bad parents, thus arousing unconscious fantasies for which can then be erected compensatory symbols of good parents to lend support in facing reality dangers greater than the imaginary ones created by the appeal to fear."

http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=paq.012.0156b

 

the source of GW information: The government + scientists.

 

"People are particularly sensitive to the influence of a good parent figure sought in the external world to protect them:" The government + scientists

 

"It should begin with an appeal to fear" : Complete anihilation, planetary destruction

 

This sort of psychological attack gives limited information, or even information that must be taken at face value from an "expert".

 

"the use of propaganda against an enemy, supported by such military, economic, or political measures as may be required. Such propaganda is generally intended to demoralize the enemy, to break his will to fight or resist, and sometimes to render him favourably disposed to one’s position. Propaganda is also used to strengthen the resolve of allies or resistance fighters. The twisting of personality and the manipulation of beliefs in prisoners of war by brainwashing and related techniques can also be regarded as a form of psychological warfare"

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/481682/psychological-warfare

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I have no access to hard data to question it's validity, so how do you even assert that I disagree with modern science?

Because you did.

 

I'm not mis-representing anything. Science must be open to peer review, and whilst the science that they claim to have used is proven, the hypothesis that the planet is warming due to human manipulation of the environment is still nothing more than a hypothesis. There is ample evidence to suggest the planet goes through warming and cooling cycles and has done so for MILLENIA yet this fact is dismissed by simply recounting trends from the last century.

You even question its validity by referencing hard data, as shown in the last sentence of that quote.

[bascule]

you've managed to somehow say that I'm questioning the actual science.

 

Yes, that's what you're doing here:

 

the hypothesis that the planet is warming due to human manipulation of the environment is still nothing more than a hypothesis

 

You're relegating one of the central topics of modern climate science to mere "hypothesis". That is not the case. The science of anthropogenically forced climate change is supported by a wealth of evidence.

 

I have no access to hard data to question it's validity, so how do you even assert that I disagree with modern science? That's nothing more than an attempt at character assassination.

 

For someone who's accusing scientists of being "so convinced they are right that anyone questioning their line is somehow insulting them," you sure are taking an awful lot personally.

[Double K]

You're relegating one of the central topics of modern climate science to mere "hypothesis". That is not the case. The science of anthropogenically forced climate change is supported by a wealth of evidence.

No, I'm not.

You want me to analyse and debunk DATA then provide me with DATA. If you want a general discussion then make an open ended title like

"Climate change and the integrity of science" which invokes an opinionative response, I have provided no data, you have provided no data, this is not a "scientific" debate and proves yet again my point that these debates are not based on science but based on emotion, opinion and can never continue as true debate, I think I've made this point in at least 5 posts now. Yet you continue to steamroll right past the point and continue by debunking my argument by attacking me. If there is a wealth of evidence, LETS SEE IT, I'm not just going to take your word for it, if you want to take on the role of being the planets saviour and using science as your sword of justice then you are going to have to find a way to educate the masses to see the data for what it is, not beat them over the head with the stick of data and sit there in your armchair with your superior swollen brain organ, it aint gonna work that way pal.

 

For someone who's accusing scientists of being "so convinced they are right that anyone questioning their line is somehow insulting them," you sure are taking an awful lot personally.

 

Now who's using ad-hominems to win their argument?

 

It would seem then from the responses that your OP was intended as bait to simply attack anyone who questions your scientific authoritar on climate change science. Yet again, one of my points. I see this daily in real life, people who do the task and think that they have foreseen everything, know everything, or do not respect the opinion and input of others, this arrogance results in costly delays, and dangerous working conditions. Just because someone is not a specialist in the field you are, does not mean they can not contribute in a meaniingful way.

 

I should have known that a simple example to illustrate my point (regarding the age of the planet) would be misconstrued as you try to defend your point.

The real problem is, you've made no point. Your argument has been completely based on debunking me and my opinion, and not providing any supporting evidence. You've provided me with a computer simulation. This is a simulation based on data input into it. Where is this data from? Who input the data? (did they make a typo and input a b instead of an m?) Who QA checked the data? Who provided him with his funding for the study, was it Al Gore? PS. I make computer models all day long, and I can guarantee you what happens in my computer model is not 100% correct, it's merely an accurate estimation.

 

I can provide you with an alternative computer simulation, please hold;

 

 

If the purpose of the post is to have data analysed, provide the data for review.

[bascule]

You want me to analyse and debunk DATA then provide me with DATA.

 

Ample information about the physical science basis of climate change, including attribution and human factors, is available as part of the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report:

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm

 

That, by the way, is what you're labeling as a "hypothesis"

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No, I'm not.

You want me to analyse and debunk DATA then provide me with DATA. If you want a general discussion then make an open ended title like

"Climate change and the integrity of science" which invokes an opinionative response, I have provided no data, you have provided no data, this is not a "scientific" debate and proves yet again my point that these debates are not based on science but based on emotion, opinion and can never continue as true debate, I think I've made this point in at least 5 posts now. Yet you continue to steamroll right past the point and continue by debunking my argument by attacking me. If there is a wealth of evidence, LETS SEE IT, I'm not just going to take your word for it, if you want to take on the role of being the planets saviour and using science as your sword of justice then you are going to have to find a way to educate the masses to see the data for what it is, not beat them over the head with the stick of data and sit there in your armchair with your superior swollen brain organ, it aint gonna work that way pal.

bascule has posted the information you want over numerous threads over several years in this forum. The information is widely available in scientific literature with some research. So let's not head into another one of these discussions, please, unless you have something new to bring up.

 

It would seem then from the responses that your OP was intended as bait to simply attack anyone who questions your scientific authoritar on climate change science. Yet again, one of my points.

I think you'll find that making assumptions about people's motives on forums is a bad idea: you're often wrong, and it makes discussions personal, which is just what you are trying to avoid.

[Double K]

That, by the way, is what you're labeling as a "hypothesis"

 

Why are you so defensive?

Do you understand the definitions?

This dataset can quite clearly be put under the categories here:

 

"For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

 

Like all hypotheses, the working hypothesis can be constructed as a statement of expectations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

 

"In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_hypothesis

 

Chapter 3, 4, &5 are all titled "Observations:"

Chapter 10 & Chapter 11 "Projections"

 

A projection is not a fact, it's an assumption based on data, or A HYPOTHESIS.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Why are you so defensive?

Do you understand the definitions?

This dataset can quite clearly be put under the categories here:

 

"For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

 

Like all hypotheses, the working hypothesis can be constructed as a statement of expectations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

 

"In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_hypothesis

 

Chapter 3, 4, &5 are all titled "Observations:"

Chapter 10 & Chapter 11 "Projections"

 

A projection is not a fact, it's an assumption based on data, or A HYPOTHESIS.

 

Earlier you were criticizing climate science because you thought it was unproven:

 

I'm not mis-representing anything. Science must be open to peer review, and whilst the science that they claim to have used is proven, the hypothesis that the planet is warming due to human manipulation of the environment is still nothing more than a hypothesis. There is ample evidence to suggest the planet goes through warming and cooling cycles and has done so for MILLENIA yet this fact is dismissed by simply recounting trends from the last century.

 

[...]

 

Until "climate change" stands up to analytical debate then it's nothing more to me than manipulated data(and there are plenty of "scientists" who dispute the findings as inaccurate, or mis-represented).

 

Now you're making the semantic argument that even if it's true, it's still "only" a hypothesis.

 

So, bascule has provided you the data you were looking for. Do you still hold that climate science is unreliable, or is your disagreement with bascule one of semantics?