Climate Change and the Integrity of Science

[Double K]

You were making semantic arguments earlier, going as far as to paste the definition of hypothesis, and suggest that unless others consider AGCC to be a hypothesis they didn't understand what a hypothesis is.

Personally I find it hard to fathom that you are still banging on about it not being a hypothesis. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

 

You wanted me to link you "data" for the express purpose of "debunking" it. Which indicates to me you don't really care about understanding the science. You just want it to be wrong.

And you wanted me to post my arguments against, for the express purpose of proving your theory correct. There seems to be an interesting double standard going on there, but I'm sure you don't see it given the self righteous stance so far. If the purpose of analysis isn't to find and limit error, then please explain to me the purpose of a Quality Assurance analysis.

 

When I linked you IPCC AR4 you immediately looked for any words that conveyed fear, uncertainty, or doubt and ignored the rest.

Uhm, in a debate, one argues the positive, and one argues the negative. That's how this works, I find points that support my case, you find points that support yours. So far, in regards to every point all you have done is shout me down, not provided me with hard data that proves it works, I'm sorry you have not convinced me that these errors in the system have been accounted for adequetly.

 

 

Why are you trying to "disprove" climate science? Since you'd never even heard of IPCC AR4 you do not appear to have much of a background in the topic. You try to understand climate science first before coming to an opinion as to whether or not it's wrong. But, as I stated earlier, your bias is that it's wrong, and you are now actively looking for information to support that bias.

Again, debate - positive/negative, its how debate works.

And no, you've assumed my bias is that it's wrong, I personally have no bias I couldn't give a rats a** if its right or wrong to be honest with you, but you've asked for review on the science and you've recieved it, but you obviously just dont like people making comment on it unless they are a climate expert, I suggest to you that you're looking in the wrong place if that's the sort of discussion and analysis you are after. This again leads to the point I explained earlier where scientists assume that because someone doesn't understand the finer points of their science that they somehow can not contribute in a meaningful fashion.

 

I can assure you climate scientists do not wear white coats. The ones I worked with liked jeans, polo shirts, and tennis shoes.

Yeah, again, I think you're taking some things I say far too literally, broaden your scope a little mate.

 

but you don't seem ready to at all entertain the idea that they might be right. Then, after all that, you wonder why there's a need to label people with "climate science denier" as you claim climate scientists are wrong while having only a tentative grasp on the issue.

Again you expect people without the science background to converse on an equal playing field. You're never going to get that happen, and that is actually my point. You also do not seem ready to entertain the idea that it might be wrong. I propose a new label for people that support the idea of climate science.

Climate Elitist Wanker. Lets see how that one flies in the public domain.

You see the problem is with the negative connotation associated with the "denier" label. Climate Change Denier. I mean really. This is just stupid.

 

 

Before you try to claim the leading experts in any field are wrong, you should do them the courtesy of attempting to understand their field. Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air.

 

At least I'm not blowing smoke up them simply because they are scientists.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

That's funny, because Newton's law of gravitation has been falsified by general relativity.

 

Sorry, I don't make the definitions, and I don't have the authority to change "Newtons Laws" to "Newtons theories" so if you would like these changed complain to the relevant authority. Apply to whoever does to have these changed.

[Pangloss]

"Discounting of unknown variables"? What exactly do you mean by that? The model output has a known range of uncertainties. That's standard scientific practice. You make it sound as if climate science is built on a tower of assumptions.

 

I didn't say that, and I support the effort to enact change on this issue. I don't know if humans are the cause or not, but in my opinion there is more than sufficient evidence to enact major, gradual change in our energy consumption. And I believe that a confluence of motivations, rather than regulation and ideological podium-pounding, is the best way to accomplish this.

[iNow]

I can't stand is bigots who think that because they have knowledge pertaining to something that the rest of the world must be idiots

I should mention that I don't enjoy strawmen, either.

[Double K]

I should mention that I don't enjoy strawmen, either.

 

It's good to see that you agree the CW argument is a strawman argument then. I'm glad we agree on something.

[bascule]

...you obviously just dont like people making comment on it unless they are a climate expert, I suggest to you that you're looking in the wrong place if that's the sort of discussion and analysis you are after.

 

On the contrary, if you're looking for unscientific "as my gut tells me" type of debate on climate science, perhaps you're in the wrong place.

 

...you expect people without the science background to converse on an equal playing field. You're never going to get that happen, and that is actually my point.

 

I'm hoping people who are interested in public policy issues related to the climate system actually study the science behind our present understanding. In that regard, there are many people on these forums who are well informed. JohnB, who provided a good well-informed counterpoint at the beginning of this thread, is one of those people, and has actually taken it upon himself to analyze some raw data and come up with some numbers which are significantly different from estimates created by NASA's GISTEMP, one of the most commonly cited authorities on the global mean surface temperature, which is the very metric by which "global warming" is judged. I have absolutely no explanation for this discrepancy and I do think it's a significant result. I'd be very interested to hear NASA GISS's opinion on that.

 

Uhm, in a debate, one argues the positive, and one argues the negative. That's how this works

 

That's a very myopic view of debate, unless you're talking about a formal debate. The issue of climate change, and specifically anthropogenic climate change, is extremely nuanced, and understanding the nuances takes a lot of research.

 

All that said, if you are interested in learning some more about climate science, there is some very good debate going on here.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

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".

 

I really wonder though... is there a better way to resolve the hostility involved in what should otherwise be a scientific debate? I mean, you've seen it here. You see it on TV. Al Gore is chastized by many. There's namecalling going on all over the place. James Hansen is practically a pariah at NASA now. Fox and Friends (by which I mean News Corp) have given massive coverage to the CRU controversy and made it sound like the scientific case for anthropogenically forced climate change is in shambles. Michael Mann has been implicated through his email exchanges with CRU. The IPCC has been dragged through the mud.

 

Where did this hostility come from? Who is sowing the seeds of enmity between climate science researchers and a certain demographic of the population? Why can't this debate simply be reasonable?

Edited May 13, 2010 by bascule

[Double K]

On the contrary, if you're looking for unscientific "as my gut tells me" type of debate on climate science, perhaps you're in the wrong place.

 

My initial impression from the OP was that this was a "throw around" topic relating to the integrity of the science, not one for scientific debate on the analysis methods used, although it certainly turned into that as I tried to justify my position. (when i say throw around dont interpret it as throw away, there's a difference)

[bascule]

My initial impression from the OP was that this was a "throw around" topic relating to the integrity of the science, not one for scientific debate on the analysis methods used, although it certainly turned into that as I tried to justify my position. (when i say throw around dont interpret it as throw away, there's a difference)

 

It was originally in a science forum before being tossed into politics. But even so, this is still a science-related message board, so when a political topic is being driven by scientific research, it's best to stick to what the research says, unless you have specific problems with it.

[Double K]

Where did this hostility come from? Who is sowing the seeds of enmity between climate science researchers and a certain demographic of the population? Why can't this debate simply be reasonable?

Human Nature (not the band) - the condition

and

Politics.

[iNow]

It's good to see that you agree the CW argument is a strawman argument then. I'm glad we agree on something.

 

You've failed to accurately grasp the point I was making, and further misrepresented my position while doing so. Please review my comments again in context and ask questions if you are unsure of my meaning.

[Double K]

You've failed to accurately grasp the point I was making, and further misrepresented my position while doing so. Please review my comments again in context and ask questions if you are unsure of my meaning.

 

BINGO!

It's frustrating when that happens isnt it?

[iNow]

BINGO!

It's frustrating when that happens isnt it?

 

Since you failed to ask me a question about the meaning of my posts, and further posted the term "BINGO!," you have made clear that you properly understood them. Given that, I will again request you stop misrepresenting me when responding.

[Double K]

Since you failed to ask me a question about the meaning of my posts, and further posted the term "BINGO!," you have made clear that you properly understood them. Given that, I will again request you stop misrepresenting me when responding.

 

I misrepresented your quote about strawmen as

1. it was an obvious verbal attack, as was your prior comment where you had not contributed to the entire discussion yet waded in with some slander.

2. you then proceeded to misrepresent my statements, and label my argument as a strawman argument without grasping my intent, or quite possibly grasping it but taking a pot shot regardless.

3. I took your statement out of context to prove the point to you, and it obviously worked. Welcome to my world.

[Pangloss]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Please rely instead upon the Reported Post button in the upper-right corner of a message. All reported posts are reviewed by staff members and action taken where appropriate. Thanks.

[swansont]

You see the problem is with the negative connotation associated with the "denier" label. Climate Change Denier. I mean really. This is just stupid.

 

[sarcasm]Yeah, because only those on the right are allowed to come up with labels that evoke a visceral reaction. When the left does it, they're just being mean.[/sarcasm]

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It's just the general attitude. They start with the assumption that the science is wrong and work backwards. Then they apply an extreme degree of confirmation bias, ignoring any supporting evidence and actively looking for any words or phrases they can cherry pick to undermine the science. Projections! Uncertainties! Margins of error! Unknown quantities! Unexplained behaviors!

 

If there is a way to educate these people as to the science, I haven't found it. They're on a cherrypicking expedition and can't seem to be convinced otherwise.

 

I think that "assumption" is too weak a statement; to me it implies a proof-by-contradiction attitude, and that if they find an inconsistency they will know the assumption to be false. No, they have already decided upon the answer, which shapes any further discussion they might have. Honest discourse is no longer possible with someone who has adopted a fundamentally dishonest approach, in which the ends justify the means. The scientifically illiterate undecideds are swayed more effectively by appeals to emotion than by facts, so anyone willing to lie or misrepresent a position ("no warming since 1998," "models can't be trusted," "scientists fabricated the data") has an advantage, but when proponents try and appeal to emotion as well, they are attacked for fear-mongering ("ocean levels could rise by several meters, flooding low-level regions, endangering many").

[jackson33]

We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet. [/Quote]

 

From your op link, bascule; If there is indeed "uncertainty" associated with scientific conclusions (extremely arguable, what conclusions have been made), then why should actions taken be any less certain as to remedies. Said another way, one point I've consistently made since the 1960's (in vain), is that those actions taken, themselves can be and have been more destructive than the original perceived problem itself. Not only are they suggesting impossible remedies, a total change and overnight (relatively speaking) to the lifestyle of all society, they may be advising on premature evidence including the adverse consequences.

 

No one is denying the planet has been warming, certainly since the period science told us it was cooling and there is no argument that mans activity, itself is PART of the EVENTS (warming and cooling) or otherwise said part of the environment that naturally controls the weather patterns on planet earth or in fact what's naturally being changed in the atmosphere. The question should be asked, what if the science is wrong and those "risk" if actions are indeed successful and we some how dropped CO2, to levels of 300ppm, when mans influence was about a tenth of what it is today, or less.

 

For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend. [/Quote]

 

'Apples and Oranges'; I can recite you history, give you my understandings of what was and how it developed to what is today and with unlimited evidence and it will be "overwhelmingly accepted" by historians, but necessary all of them, same on most all issues and in particular AGW. What I can't do or can computer models used today or likely ever accurately predict the future. There is not one item under warming/cooling/CO2 Atmospheric Composition/Temperatures/Solar Flares or anything thing else in nature, that has not been before, likely to be again or be in extremes to those probabilities. There are simply too many variables that natural adjustment by nature itself, will follow or correct, mans activity probably the least important. One may very well be the current Iceland Volcano eruption, ongoing today.

 

(i) through (v) [/Quote]

 

These are all based on questionable *if's* and all could be argued by a good many skeptical SCIENTIST, in the relative fields. I'm tired of going over these thousands of people that have made their counter points, over and over again or the recorded history of the many political movements that led to a consolidation under AGW.

 

Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.[/Quote]

 

One self inflicted argument by the author of the article, among many; "unprecedented in modern times", validating what I've been saying. Al Gore, the modern day self proclaimed spokesperson for all extremist environment movements, buys an Ocean Front Property, on the Pacific where he once predicted would be under water, think by 2010. Somebody, please make sense of this...

 

On the list of names; How much would you bet these people and those still with NASA in the US are funded (dependent on Government) for their jobs, creditability, purpose, have them because they simply WILL NOT be skeptical of an ongoing political issue?

[swansont]

No one is denying the planet has been warming, certainly since the period science told us it was cooling and there is no argument that mans activity, itself is PART of the EVENTS (warming and cooling) or otherwise said part of the environment that naturally controls the weather patterns on planet earth or in fact what's naturally being changed in the atmosphere.

 

Yes, there are people denying that warming is taking place.

 

The "it's natural" argument is flawed, and if you bring it up in the climate science section I'll be happy to debunk it, even though it's been shot down before.

 

Al Gore, the modern day self proclaimed spokesperson for all extremist environment movements, buys an Ocean Front Property, on the Pacific where he once predicted would be under water, think by 2010. Somebody, please make sense of this...

 

The several articles I've seen all say "ocean view" which is a very different thing than "ocean front." (Though it may become ocean front eventually … ) None of them gave an address, though, so it's difficult to check. An ocean view property could be several tens of meters above sea level and not predicted to be under water in Al and Tipper's lifetime, or even their kids', even under worst-case scenarios.

[bascule]

...one point I've consistently made since the 1960's (in vain), is that those actions taken, themselves can be and have been more destructive than the original perceived problem itself.

 

Can you please provide any sort of context about what you're talking about. Who is making the recommendations? What recommendations? In what way are they destructive?

 

You think it's destructive to, for example, move from incandescent bulbs to LED and CFL lighting?

 

Not only are they suggesting impossible remedies,

 

Who is advocating what impossible remidy?

 

a total change and overnight (relatively speaking) to the lifestyle of all society

 

Who is suggesting what "total change" overnight?

 

I'm not sure who you're trying to argue with, but you stuck my name on your post, so I feel the need to respond.

[Double K]

I've deliberately not quoted anyone else in this post as it does seem to escalate arguments.

 

Firstly can I just ask, why does it have to be an argument? Can't it just be a discussion? Argument implies that someone is already right, and someone wrong, and that it needs to be aggressive. Discussion just seems a little more civilised.

 

In my profession, we plan for 100, 150 and 200 year storms or storm events (flooding, quake, etc). It's factored into design and our designs must meet "predicitons" (based on past records) of these rare events.

It's prudent planning to account for the possibility of these events.

I agree that if this is all climate change science is trying to achieve then it would seem imprudent to ignore them, IF the science is sound. (I'm not saying it isn't!) I'm also not saying it is! Q100, Q150 and Q200 storm events are based on past data, it is not interpolated data, the main problem I have with a model predicting future scales is that it is interpolated from past trends, and as was well pointed out there are simply too many unknowns that could skew this trend one way or another.

 

I can also tell you that there has not been a Q200 storm event for over 200 years (at least in my region), which means there is a strong likelyhood of larger storm events happening which times quite nicely with the release of Al Gores agenda to push this ahead - because he knows that he can demonstrate increased storm activity in this time, it may well be that these storm events fall under the scale expected of Q200 scales yet no one from this time is alive to say oh yeah that happened in 1820, actually I remember it being worse. Some of these Q200 scale events began occuring in the early to mid 90's and you can expect them to continue over at least the next decade.

 

This of course does not disprove the GW model, or the risk presented in the GW model, but it does raise the question if these recent events are simply part of a "natural" cycle, or if we are seeing true escalation in frequency and scale of said events.

[bascule]

why does it have to be an argument?

 

I already asked that question, and you responded:

 

Human Nature (not the band) - the condition

and

Politics.

[Double K]

I would now like to revise that statement to include the band also..

they enrage me...

[swansont]

I can also tell you that there has not been a Q200 storm event for over 200 years (at least in my region), which means there is a strong likelyhood of larger storm events happening

 

No, this is the gambler's fallacy. If the timing of the events is random, and they occur every 200 years, on average, you still have a 0.5% chance of one occurring each year.

[Double K]

No, this is the gambler's fallacy. If the timing of the events is random, and they occur every 200 years, on average, you still have a 0.5% chance of one occurring each year.

 

But I thought 95% certainty meant it was reliable?

 

95% certainty is widely accepted throughout science as indicating a significant result.

Edited May 15, 2010 by swansont
fix attribution

[john5746]

Yeah I tried. I think I'm about done here.

 

Worth repeating....

[swansont]

But I thought 95% certainty meant it was reliable?

 

What does that have to do with a 200-year event?

[Double K]

What does that have to do with a 200-year event?

 

You stated that there is a 0.5% chance of a 200 year event happening on any given day (which is statistics and really unsupportable anyways)

Which I'm not sure how you arrived at anyways, because statistically wouldnt it be more like 0.5% per year, (200 years, half a percent chance per year - that would make sense but on a day basis I don't think your stats are correct.)

 

You're saying that there is a 99.5% chance that it wont happen on any given day, in which case your 95% chance = virtual certainty argument from earlier should be applied meaning that a 200 year event is fairly reliably going to happen every 200 years.