Martin Cohen sent me an email with a series of links that all look at global warming alarmism as a phenomenon.
In defence of scepticism
By Martin Cohen, editor of the Philosopher
Climate Hysterians have been redoubling their efforts to portray the debate as one between a few cranks (especailly right-wing ones) and ‘scientists’, whereas the truth is very different. Here, for example, are just four recent substantial articles challenging climate change science, from a neutral or ‘philosophy of science’ perspective.
1. Professor John David Lewis of Duke University, USA, has challenged many of the claims made by proponents of man-made climate change theory, in an article in the prestigious journal Social Philosophy and Policy (Volume 26 No. 2 Summer 2009), saying: ‘Those predicting environmental disasters today focus on particular issues in order to magnify the gravity of their general claims, and they push those issues until challenges make them untenable. Rhetorical skill and not logical argument has become the standard of success.’
2. In a separate review article, published in the Times Higher on the 03 December 2008, Professor Gwyn Prins, the director of the Mackinder Programme for the Study of Long Wave Events at the London School of Economics, says that the ‘principle product of recent science is to confirm that we know less, less conclusively – not more, more conclusively – about the greatest open systems on the planet’, and goes on to predict that for this reason, the ‘Kyoto Flyer’ is about to hit the buffers at Copenhagen.
3. Professor Mike Hulme’s defence of scepticism in the December Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574571613215771336.html
4. And (last but not least!) my own feature article ‘Beyond Debate?’, is in the current (10 December 2009, and not on the website, timeshighereducation.co.uk until that date – but well worth a look!) issue of the scuprlously neutral Times Higher Education. None of these accounts are motivated by either improper influence or a right-wing agenda. As my article explains, climate change lobbyists such as Al Gore (and now Gordon Brown!) are:
* Using images, such as the polar bears supposedly trapped on a melting iceberg, ships in a dried up sea as crude propaganda to appeal to people?s fears rather than their reason.
* Presenting irrelevant ‘data’, such as unusual weather events of high summertime temperatures, as though these were connected to the main climate change hypotheses, of carbon dioxide trapping heat, even though this theory in fact only concerns night-time temperatures. All these articles point out that the supposed causal link between carbon dioxide levels and temperatures has no historical basis, and relies instead on computer models that have been shown to be unreliable and misleading. It says that if, for those at, the Copenhagen summit, the idea of manmade global warming is incontrovertible, the consensus is less a triumph of science and rationality than of PR and fear- mongering.
The full text is at:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409454&c=2
Now I hate to point this out (and this tends to get skeptics very angry) but neither Professor John David Lewis of Duke University, USA, or Professor Gwyn Prins have any professional background in climate science. One is an economist and the other appears to be a history professor (it is surprisingly hard to figure out exactly what either of their credentials are by going to their respective university websites). They are both very impressive people, make no doubt, but they are not climate scientists or climate physicists. And Mr. Cohen’s article, while I am sure it is very good in its own right, is published in what appears to be an education journal.
I always have to wonder why it is so hard to find actual climate scientists quoted on skeptic blogs.
Professor John David Lewis and Professor Gwyn Prins do not have to have any professional background in climate science to see what has gone on. They see that the arguments made are based mostly on models and that the empirical evidence does not seem to support many of the claims made the IPCC. When the data set on which the global temperature reconstructions were based is claimed to have been lost and e-mails and codes show the use of statistical tricks and data manipulation, along with scepticism by those that are promoting AGW it is clear that the situation needs to re-evaluated because there is too much uncertainty even among those that wish to claim that the science is in and debate is over. Given the massive expenses and the damage done by cutting CO2 emissions it makes sense to demand for transparency and clarity before we do something stupid that will harm consumers and taxpayers while it enriches kleptocratic politicians and politically connected rent seekers.
And if you have been paying attention it isn’t, “hard to find actual climate scientists quoted on skeptic blogs.” Look at the NIPCC report and you will find hundreds of them quoted.
Yes Vangel, but wouldn’t you rather get your opinion whether or not the climate is changing from the actual scientists who study climate change? Again (and I hate to harp on this, but…) the climate science community seems pretty convinced and convincing on this subject (the IPCC makes their data available for download online and they, at least, claim empirical evidence to back their climate models). And the Climategate emails you refer to are pretty anti-climactic (if one reads them) compared to what has been widely claimed in the blogosphere, fairly dated (since the most damning are about a decade old) and in any event only implicate a small group of researchers at a single institution.
And if there are so many qualified scientists disputing global warming, why not cite them instead of these fine but unqualified folks?
Waldo,
I love to point out to AGW true believers that AGW is to climate science what eugenics was to evolutionary science:
A social phenomenon wrapped in a veneer of science.
That historians recognize this, and not the scientists caught up in it is entirely appropriate.
If you need to be concerned with people involved with AGW who are not climate scientists, start with the railroad engineer and green investment advisor, Rajendra Pachauri.
By the way, is it climate changing or global warming?
Please clarify which name you are going to use.
Also, argument by authority is really all you have, and that is not working so well, now that people see how much they fib and mislead.
@ Hunter
What historians are making the comparison between Eugenics and climate change?
Waldo is not making the arg. from authority fallacy.
He is not saying that because a climate scientist said it, it is true. He is saying that a climate scientist has a greater than average chance of been correct on the subject than a non-climate scientist. This is completely logical. No?
I’ll tell you what is illogical: all the deniers who think the climategate issue unveiled are major conspiracy. It does not occur to them that those phrases and words (trick, hide…), have connotations other than those their blinkered minds perceive.
If you care, here is an interesting study done on the CRU data:
http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/
Part of the conspiracy?
“He is saying that a climate scientist has a greater than average chance of been correct on the subject than a non-climate scientist. This is completely logical. No?” Good Lord no. A “climate scientist” is incentivised to claim that AGW is real, and just like all those bankers incentivised to make loopy loans, he is likely to respond predictably. What we really need is the views of people intellectually equipped to understand the claims of “climate science” who are not subject to those same incentives, or who have the moral stature to ignore them. Happily, much of the stuff that’s passed off as “climate science” is so elementary that all sorts of people are capable of useful, critical thought about it. Of course it helps no end that, after years when various critics had inferred that some of “climate science” must be close to a criminal conspiracy, the CRU material shows evidence consistent with that inference – plus abundant evidence of comical incompetence.
One of the things that some unscientific people might find hard to appreciate is just how poor some of the “science” is – the “adjustments” made to observed temperatures, for instance, are often plain stupid. Some of these “climate scientists” are very dud scientists indeed.
Michael Chichton MD, PhD, teacher at Cambridge and MIT, made the comparison originally and it is a great one:
pseudo science over laying horrible ignorant public policy.
A quick google of ‘eugenics global warming’ brings up 297,000 hits. Others do see the disgusting but accurate comparison as valid, in large numbers.
Shills(a great name for you, btw), is someone who not only keeps their mind blinkered, but works to keep other minds blinkered, as well.
Willfully ignoring the good news that AGW is a null theory is a great example of what a shill would do.
Pretending that the leaked data, e-mails, and computer code from CRU is not evidence of a group working to falsify data, mislead the people and to defame their colleagues, is a great piece of shill work. Asserting that what they did is ‘science as usual’ is simply a lie.
Thinking that people who have made literal fortunes for themselves and their institutions, plus acquiring great power, would not work to expand their power and fortune is a great example of blindered thinking.
The e-mails, code and data show this behavior right up until this October, Shill.
And AGW promoters and true believers and shills only have straw man and argument by authority. If any reasonably intelligent person does take the time to look critically at the science, they no longer believe the world is facing any sort of climate catastrophe driven by CO2.
Just like eugenics.
“A ‘climate scientist’ is incentivised to claim that AGW is real, and just like all those bankers incentivised to make loopy loans, he is likely to respond predictably.”
This is a frequent rational for the anti-AGW camp. So…
Firstly: anyone who thinks you can get rich working at a university or for the government has never worked for either.
Secondly: there are actual scientists (Roger Pielke foremost, then Reid Bryson [although he only seems to have done a single off-the-cuff interview on the subject] and Roy Spencer [who might be a bit of a nut], for instance, or Dan Botkin) who openly question AGW. But what we find the most of are unqualified people who may be shills for industry or attempting to find a ready and receptive audience for their uninformed views.
Thirdly: if the Climategate emails are the extent of your proof that scientist are manipulating data etc. do you really have anything? I hear a lot of noise on this subject but very little actual proof (and the East Anglia scientists have believably answered these charges, by the way) and most of this noise comes from the blogosphere where people have no firsthand knowledge. I fail to see any real proof of a global conspiricy. You’ve made the charge, hunter and dearieme, prove them.
Fourthly: even if what you are alleging is true, who else can tell us about the atmosphere except meteorologists and climate physicists. I can’t tell you, and I suspect you don’t have the qualifications or knowledge either.
“What we really need is the views of people intellectually equipped to understand the claims of ‘climate science’ who are not subject to those same incentives, or who have the moral stature to ignore them.”
Who, for instance? And why only climate science? Do we also suspect those darn authorities on cancer researchers for shilling their own selfish objectives?
Waldo,
I am a scientist in biomedical research. I can tell you that if I manipulated our data in the manner that the climate scientists have been doing, I would be subjected to disciplinary action and most likely fired. I am singularly unimpressed with pro-AGW arguments that cite the thousands of studies and scientists that support AGW, therefore it must be correct. Argument by Authority is the worst argument there is in science. There seems to be huge groupthink going on.
In the end, the only solution will be for large scale independent audits of the data. So far, the small studies popping up seem to be showing unethical manipulation of the data that goes far beyond the CRU. We all need open minds and a willingness to throw out the crap and start over if necessary.
DD
Where are your facts, Waldo?
For starters, Govt. workers are not underpaid, and govt. scientists are well paid:
http://www.opm.gov/oca/09tables/pdf/SLST-Jan-April.pdf
Additionally, it is power and money that people like.
sort of like being able to do as Phil Jones has done:
Bring in over $2million per year in grants to CRU, make large honoraria (fee$) for speaking and getting lucrative book deals.
Gore’s profiteering off of climate hype is well documented, and he is not alone.
Oddly enough, you mention meteorologists. They, in large majorities, do not support AGW.
what is interesting is the true belivers like yourself, who are self-declared enlightened and careful people, are so carefully uninterested in finding out whyy the leading AGW prmotion scientists are well revealed in private writing what they wrote, defaming who they defamed, destroying data, fudging code, etc. etc., yet have no interest in finding out what else, and who else, was doing the same thing.
Yet you guys are happy to spend trillion$ of other people’s money on this.
Embracing apocalyptic clap trap, which is all AGW really is, is not a winning long term strategy.
Waldo,
First, e-mails aside, the CRU doesn’t have there original data. That is enough, right there, to completely ignore anything based on CRU data. If you can’t make that data available for other studies to replicate or improve on your work, I’m not going to trust your data. This is why in biology we have to provide a Methods section to our paper. So that if someone wanted they could reproduce our work. So far, it seems like the methods section of many climate papers is completely lacking. Also, given that this data was generated by public money, the researchers have a duty to provide this information to public in a timely fashion. At least here in the US, if you lose the original data or don’t make it publicly available in a certain window, you lose your federal funding.
Second, while you say you can’t get rich as researcher, that is true to an extent, but what you fail to understand is that government funding for climate research is only going to draw as much money as it does (thus keeping these people employed, or at the very least well funded, and giving them the prestige of publications in a “hot” field), as long as the public believes the climate posses some danger and that humans can actually effect the climate. Once (or if) that is gone, climate research will go the way of looking for dark matter, instead of being funded like its attempting to cure cancer or generate a vaccine for HIV.
Third, if you know of people in the field that are skeptical of AGW (I’d like to add to your list Richard Lindzen) why do you say “the climate science community seems pretty convinced and convincing on this subject?” Science does not revolve around a “majority opinion.” You have your findings and your degree of confidence in some purposed model based on those finds and that is it. If a single ration scientist in that field (and we have far more than that, they just tend to be ignored by the MSM so the public isn’t very aware of them) doesn’t believe the data supports the conclusion, the science isn’t settled. Further, science needs to be able to convince other intelligent rational people outside the field. It shouldn’t be hard for climate researcher to present his evidence and convince a biologist, chemist, physicist, or even economist. The methods of data analysis are very similar across all fields, as are the reasoning abilities to determine if that data supports a given model.
“if the Climategate emails are the extent of your proof that scientist are manipulating data etc. do you really have anything?”
If you continue reading down this blog, I think you’ll find your first assumption is painfully wrong. Did miss the part about the “adjustments” they made? You could take a set of random numbers and plug them into that formula and still get a hockey stick. That right there proves your model is flawed. That is a legitimate test of the model employed by those who often can’t do the necessary experiments to prove the model. What you need to find, if your model MIGHT be correct, is that you see a significant divergence between the random data and the real data from your model. No such significance was ever even attempted to have been shown. That is one of the major problems with this most of the data supporting AGW. Confidence intervals around slopes generated from regressions, etc., are all no where to be found.
Waldo,
If you really believe “it is … hard to find actual climate scientists quoted on [this] skeptic blog”, then you obviously haven’t spent much time reading it.
Anyway, the issue under discussion in this post isn’t climatology, it’s social science (it’s the social phenomenon of Climate Hysteria that’s subject of Lewis’s and Prin’s work) which is precisely in their professional area of expertise.
So beyond it’s propagandist ‘appeal to authority’ your argument is simply wrong, on every count. Skeptical Climate scientists (as well as Believers) are extensively cited in this blog. The sources you cite, contrary to your statement, are experts in the exactly the field under discussion. And finally, it’s the argument’s merits that matter, not the credentials of the arguer. If it were otherwise, we’d all still live in a Ptolemaic universe and be arguing about whether demonic forces or the influence of ‘the Spheres’ were driving believed changes in climate.
Since real experimental Science requires objective fact, open data, logical consistency and reproducibility, it’s obvious why those who’s seek ideological ends instead increasing the extent and accuracy of understanding of the real physical universe prefer Scholasticism, with it’s reliance on Appeals to Authority, to experimental Science, where facts have to be shown to agree with theories (which is apparently a bit of problem for AGW advocates).
Waldo,
You repeatedly miss the point completely.
The subject of this particular post (by Cohen) isn’t Climate, it’s the social phenomenon of Climate Hysteria.
Accepting the limitations of the public’s latent tendency to Scholasticism and rhetorical appeals to authority, why on Earth would you suggest that climate science specialists might be presumed more reputable students of social phenomenon than social scientists (such as Lewis, Prin and Cohen)?
This is exactly the kind of sloppy, self-serving logic one has come to almost automatically associate with advocates of massive programs to address purported environmental crises, from DDT to Alar to Ozone Depletion and now Climate Change…
Respectfully folks, I agree with what you’ve posted, but only to an extent. First of all: sure, there is a fair amount of climate hysteria out there. Secondly: fine, fire Phil Jones et al. They would not be the first scientists or business-people to cook data. Off with their heads!
But: Are you sure that you – those that question AGW science – don’t have your own version of climate hysteria that is pretty much a mirror image of AGW-certain zealots? Aren’t you every bit as hysterical and closed-mined as those you accuse?
There is also a remarkable group-think even here on this thread which is reflected on other blogs and other threads (same reasons, same thinking, even the same phraseology); those that question AGW scenarios are every bit as dogmatic as the ecologically paranoid thinkers; and AGW deniers are every bit as certain of themselves, even though it is often evident that they lack the scientific knowledge and appear to have only examined one side of the issue. Further, even if Jones is run out of town (and charges against him have not yet been *proven* to my knowledge) how can a single instance bring down an entire decades old discipline?
By the way, the IPCC posts all its reports online: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm. If there is to be an audit, go for it. Prove them wrong.
Personally I am not convinced of AGW/global warming/climate change. It would seem that there is a fair amount of viable alternatives to the alarming scenarios of CO2 pollution(natural inter-glacial period or increased solar radiation, for instance).
But neither am I convinced that we are being manipulated by an evil consortium holding sub rosa meetings in the U.N. – that seems like a fairly melodramatic self-justification to me – and I have to disagree: this is a question of science (not sociology) which a great many qualified scientists agree on. The plaint that “science is not done by consensus” just doesn’t hold water; if the majority of climate scientists hold the same opinion, I can see no valid argument in simply dismissing them because there is consensus on an issue of empirical science(thus clearly it is collusion meant to make money off the taxpayers etc.) – and, yeah, there’s empirical evidence out there.
Again, go to the IPCC, NOAA, EPA sites; visit James Hansen’s NASA site; all their work is out there for the world to see. Read it. Understand it. Prove them wrong.
Waldo,
You know I thought you might ask this question: “Are you sure that you – those that question AGW science – don’t have your own version of climate hysteria that is pretty much a mirror image of AGW-certain zealots? Aren’t you every bit as hysterical and closed-mined as those you accuse?”
The only hysteria going on here is that proper science is not being done, yet the political community is making trillion dollar decisions based on this “flawed” (or what ever you want to call it) science. I’m not sure the reaction is really that of hysteria by skeptics, as I don’t think we’re acting emotionally, except in our outrage that others are letting their emotions increase our taxes and lower our pay. We are, for the most part, attempting to seek the truth. If you read through the blog, which it appears you haven’t done, you’re likely to find a very matter-of-fact tone coming from the posts and the comments. That is something I don’t see when I challenge AGW believers. I usually get all kinds of insults and fallacious arguments (such as the appeal to authority). I hardly ever find someone that can reasonably and rationally explain the data to me while supporting the AGW viewpoint.
From here its going to be tiresome to point out the numerous fallacies in your argument but I will give it shot.
You somehow want us believe we’re “group thinking” just the same as at the top of the AGW advocates? As if having the same criticisms of poor research is somehow group think and should be discredited because of it? You make blanked generalizations like “it is often evident that they lack the scientific knowledge and appear to have only examined one side of the issue?” This exactly what this post was dealing with. You’re dismissing all skeptics’ arguments based on a few that appear to lack scientific knowledge (which for AGW advocates, simply being a skeptic is enough to prove a lack of scientific knowledge, circular reasoning at its best!). Well, Waldo, here’s your chance. Challenge those here, see if they lack scientific knowledge and their argument is a product of group think or ignorance. I don’t think you’ll find much success.
Next you claim, “the IPCC posts all its reports online… If there is to be an audit, go for it. Prove them wrong.”
That’s what being done in other posts on this site and many other linked to from this site. Its all there for you to see. The gaps in logic and problems with the data collection or analysis has all been mapped out. And we should never forget, AGW advocates are the ones making the claim, thus they are the ones with the burden of proof. So, I don’t have to prove them wrong, I just have to demonstrate that their argument is based on faulty data, poor data analysis, or that they have drawn an illogical conclusion based on the data.
Next, “But neither am I convinced that we are being manipulated by an evil consortium holding sub rosa meetings in the U.N.” This is a straw man, with a bit of an appeal to ridicule.
“this is a question of science (not sociology)”
You should read that WSJ link above, if you haven’t. The science is effecting the politics and the politics effecting the science. And in this case they are operating on a positive feedback loop. Scientists find evidence for global warming, politicians latch on to this concept so they can “save the people” from global warming and get votes (or for Al Gore just money), politicians ultimately control grant money, AGW studies then end up being funded to a greater degree than other studies, which gives politicos more ammo for global warm to save the people from. This isn’t how science is supposed to operate.
And you keep going with the fallacies: “The plaint that “science is not done by consensus” just doesn’t hold water; if the majority of climate scientists hold the same opinion, I can see no valid argument in simply dismissing them because there is consensus on an issue of empirical science(thus clearly it is collusion meant to make money off the taxpayers etc.) – and, yeah, there’s empirical evidence out there.”
First, what evidence, if you’re going to make the claim, prove it, or at least link to it. Second, you again make a strawman. We aren’t dismissing the “consensus” because they have all the empirical evidence on their side or that they all want grant money, its because there isn’t a consensus (and no they don’t have all the empirical evidence). You even say as much yourself when you say a “great many qualified scientists agree on.” How many exactly does it take before the consensus is “right,” 60% of the field? 80%, 99%, 100%? In science the term “consensus” just has no meaning. 100% of scientists may agree on a particular thing, then one day, one experiment or discovery blows the entire lid off it. Or 99% of scientists may believe one thing, but years down the road it becomes clear that 1% was right (see DNA as the genetic material and not protein, where early biologists figured DNA was too simple to be the genetic code). These are part of our issues, and why we are against making trillion dollar choices based on this sciences.
“Again, go to the IPCC, NOAA, EPA sites; visit James Hansen’s NASA site; all their work is out there for the world to see. Read it. Understand it. Prove them wrong.”
To this, all I have to say, is you’re obviously new here. Keep reading down the main page. Read the links posted, google Richard Lindzen. Read his publications (his WSJ editorial is a good place to start for the layman: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html).
Well Wally, first off I hate to point this out, but the sources on this blog are:
“A First” – The Mailonline – which appears to be an internet tabloid.
“Powers of 10” – from a blog post written by a former TV/ radio Weatherman.
“Urban Biases” – a youtube video from “a kid and his dad” (?)
“Incentives and Conspiricies” – another blog.
“Why the historical warming numbers matter” – apparently a cross post from this blog author’s other blog
“Example #3” – Crossed posted again from Watt’s blog and written by a construction manager named Willis Eschenbach
“Example #2” – is yet another cross-listed blog, “The Bishop Hill Blog,” for which I could not find an author (although I will admit I did not feel like looking too deeply)
“25” – cites “Myron Ebell is director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Instititute, director of Freedom Action, and chairman of the Cooler Heads Coalition” from Pajamas Media. In other words, he works for two noted conservative think tanks.
“Example of Climate Work” – appears to be this blog author’s own post
“A total bluff” – yet another blog written by Tom Nelson who is apparently an electrical engineer.
And here I began to get weary. Smart people, no doubt, but unlikely that they are in a position to be making such positive scientific pronouncements (now probably somebody is going to accuse me of bowing to the “authorities” or something to that effect).
Now this is usually the point at which ripostes get really nasty (and I hope it is obvious that I am trying my level best to keep things civilized here because this is actually a very intelligent blog) but why should I listen to any of these people? The most qualified is a TV weatherman. Shouldn’t I as a layperson defer to panels of scientists that do in fact have time, equipment, data and expertise, not to mention the sanction of the U.N. and several world governments?
I accept that you claim to be challenging these people’s AGW conclusions…but I’m not sure you are, at least not viably. And yes, Lindzen is a reputable scientist and I would listen to what he has to say.
On the other charge, “The only hysteria going on here is that proper science is not being done” sounds fairly closed minded to me. Certainly some of the scientists at NASA and the EPA are doing good science. And isn’t that exactly the kind of blanket statement you accuse me of making?
And “You’re dismissing all skeptics’ arguments based on a few that appear to lack scientific knowledge” – nope. Read closely. I actually listed just a few names of the reputable scientists who I would be willing to believe [Pielke, Botkin, Spencer, Bryson specifically] and offered what seem to me to be plausible alternatives to AGW [interglacial and solar activity]. But, my friend, all you heard was that I “dismissed all skeptics” – this is why I suggest politely that there is an equal vigor on the anti-AGW side. It simply seems so apparent to me…
Wally, Wally, Wally….
Really Wally! There you go again!
The sources of this blog are, by and large, the same sources as the IPCC, the CRU and other proponents of Alarmism. The author goes out of his way to largely cite these to avoid predictable charges of using ‘marginal’ or ‘disreputable’ sources. The primary sources of this blog are the very same sources the Alarmists use to try to make their case! Almost every citation to similar analysts also use the same sources as well.
For a moment there you sounded like a earnest explorer. But your last post is completely unsubstantiated (and erroneous) rhetoric. If one expects to be taken for anything other than a rhetorician and propagandist, one must delve farther than ‘page 1’!
By the way, referring to one of Britain’s largest print papers sneeringly as “appears to be an internet tabloid” betrays ignorance and failure to do any review beyond the most cursory glance. If it’s just “an internet tabloid”, then the Miami Herald, the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times are too!
Obviously meant for “Waldo”…not “Wally”….
Wally,
I tend to agree with you. While at first Waldo sounded like an open-minded commentator, subsequent posts make it pretty clear they’re probably another lemming outraged that anyone question their Religious faith (in this case, in Climate Alarmism).
“Well Wally, first off I hate to point this out, but the sources on this blog are: ”
Something tells first, you don’t hate it, and second, you will fail to understand the real sources and the point.
>“A First” – The Mailonline – which appears to be an internet tabloid.“Powers of 10” – from a blog post written by a former TV/ radio Weatherman“Urban Biases” – a youtube video from “a kid and his dad” (?)“Incentives and Conspiricies” – another blog.“Why the historical warming numbers matter” – apparently a cross post from this blog author’s other blog“Example #3” – Crossed posted again from Watt’s blog and written by a construction manager named Willis Eschenbach“Example #2” – is yet another cross-listed blog,“Example of Climate Work” – appears to be this blog author’s own post“A total bluff” – yet another blog written by Tom Nelson who is apparently an electrical engineer.<
Using IPCC data, among plenty of other data sets. Fail #8.
Basically the issue you have here is who is telling you what the data says, not just what the data is. You are wedded to this idea that you’ll only listen to a select few people, and I’ll quote, “I actually listed just a few names of the reputable scientists who I would be willing to believe [Pielke, Botkin, Spencer, Bryson specifically].” This is a terrible, terrible mindset. What happens if the 4 (or how ever many people you’ll actually listen to) are wrong, misguided or have an agenda (I’m not saying those 4 do)? Why can’t you separate the argument from the person? I’m sorry you think like this (no I’m not really, but it is sad). This is worse than group think, its no think.
“Now this is usually the point at which ripostes get really nasty… but why should I listen to any of these people?”
Because they can analyze data as well as anyone, and certainly as well as those at the CRU. You don’t have to be genius to understand proper statistical tools or how to administer the scientific method properly. Basically, the tools that make one a good engineer (as this blog’s author is) or a biologist (as I am) are the same as those that make one a good climate researcher. We my not have a lot of the background knowledge across the fields (though we gain it the more we take interest in the field), but we can recognize good and honest research when we see it, similarly, we can spot fraudulent research with conclusions that aren’t supported by the data.
“I accept that you claim to be challenging these people’s AGW conclusions…but I’m not sure you are, at least not viably. And yes, Lindzen is a reputable scientist and I would listen to what he has to say.”
So at least make good on that. Go back and read what he’s written in the last couple years and return and tell me what you think. How’s that sound?
“On the other charge, “The only hysteria going on here is that proper science is not being done” sounds fairly closed minded to me. Certainly some of the scientists at NASA and the EPA are doing good science. And isn’t that exactly the kind of blanket statement you accuse me of making?”
Hardly. I did not state all climate research is bad, more than that I have expanded on that thought, in that post and previous ones on this page, to specifically point out what parts of the science is bad.
As for this: “And “You’re dismissing all skeptics’ arguments based on a few that appear to lack scientific knowledge” – nope. Read closely.”
Lets remember you statement:
You’re claiming that this blog, other blogs, those that question AGW “are every bit as dogmatic as the ecologically paranoid thinkers…even though it is often evident that they lack the scientific knowledge and appear to have only examined one side of the issue.” Only stating that you believe a specific few people “[Pielke, Botkin, Spencer, Bryson specifically],” that’s tantamount to saying the climate research community boils down to the select few people that you deem worthy of listening to. Which brings up the question, why are you here? Its also makes it painfully obvious you have just as closed a mind as you claim I do. If a select few people aren’t talking, you aren’t listening.
Maybe I should take your advice and stop listening to you. After all, who exactly are you? What credentials do you have to prove to me you have a valuable opinion in anything? Maybe now you understand the idiocy of the appeal to authority fallacies you can’t get past?
Well the formatting on the first part of that last post seems to have failed, let’s retry:
“A First” – ‘The Mailonline – which appears to be an internet tabloid.’
And what was the point of this article? That debate was entering something we might call MSM. Also, like it or not, the tabloid was siting the IPCC reports. Fail #1.
“Powers of 10” – ‘from a blog post written by a former TV/ radio Weatherman’
Using NOAA data. Fail #2.
“Urban Biases” – ‘a youtube video from “a kid and his dad” (?)’
Using NASA data. Fail #3.
“Incentives and Conspiricies” – ‘another blog.’
Just a discussion. I classify this under “whatever.”
“Why the historical warming numbers matter” – ‘apparently a cross post from this blog author’s other blog’
Again using IPCC. Fail #4.
“Example #3” – ‘Crossed posted again from Watt’s blog and written by a construction manager named Willis Eschenbach’
Darwin Raw Data from Australia. Fail #5.
“Example #2” – ‘is yet another cross-listed blog’
Using Briffa’s Yamal data. Fail #6.
“Example of Climate Work” – ‘appears to be this blog author’s own post’
Uses the GISS/USHCN data. Fail #7.
“A total bluff” – ‘yet another blog written by Tom Nelson who is apparently an electrical engineer.’
Using IPCC data, among plenty of other data sets. Fail #8.
Waldo, where are you without appeals to authority?
No where.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear – the posters may very well be using IPCC data, but it would seem to me that they are unqualified to interpret what they post. Let me put it even clearer: IPCC data or no, these people don’t have the credentials to make scientific statements. That people here are uncritically accepting what these posters say, and the angry reaction I just got for pointing out that there are no actual working scientists here, are part of the dogmatic reaction I have come to expect.
Example: This from Wikipedia: “The Daily Mail is a British daily tabloid newspaper.” Don’t believe Wikipedia? Today’s headlines (among others): “Microbiotic Madonna scoffing a plate of spaghetti” and my favorite:
Headline: “Patient who claims she was abused by gynaecologist wanted him because ‘she could not have sex with her husband'”
“Bibi Giles leaves Worcester County Court with her husband at the end of the second day of the hearing”
“Bibi Giles, 50, had become ‘infatuated’ with her consultant Angus Thomson, 40, and propositioned him minutes after he allegedly stimulated her during an internal examination, it is claimed.”
See for yourself. This really is a fail folks – on your purported scientific blog, your blogger posted a tabloid source.
This is why I will concede that there are a “select few people that you deem worthy of listening to.” Yes, if the other commentators are as uncritical and reactionary as this blog (and others) would seem to indicate they are. I would not believe a single person on this blog; I will defer will those “select few” who actually have credentials and peer-review.
“Which brings up the question, why are you here?”
I thought that these blogs were for discussion?
Waldo,
By your standards, why are you prepared to accept anything from the IPCC, since its head is not a clilmatologist at all, but is a transportation engineer?
Are you prepared to accept that the people exposed in the e-mail/data/code leak were not simple foot soldiers, but are high level, extremely influential leaders in the AGW community?
Waldo,
“but it would seem to me that they are unqualified to interpret what they post.”
What are your qualifications to make that dismissive claim of skeptics?
“Waldo, where are you without appeals to authority?”
Didn’t I say someone would accuse me of this? Textbook.
If by “authorities” you mean “experts,” hunter, I plead guilty.
By the way, doesn’t this blog rely on “authorities” too? Or can “authorities” only be AGW scientists? And how is this not a dogmatic (quasi-religious) reaction on your part?
“By your standards, why are you prepared to accept anything from the IPCC, since its head is not a clilmatologist at all, but is a transportation engineer?”
Rajendra Pachauri is largely functionary in the IPCC. And, for the record, I would rather they elected a climate scientist.
And I think I posted this earlier, but I really can’t see what the big deal with East Anglia emails are.
“What are your qualifications to make that dismissive claim of skeptics?”
I am an admitted layperson and said so earlier. I just can never figure out a) what AGW creates such anger and paranoia (somebody here will claim that money is involved and / or that the government is out to control his/her lives); b) and why people become so incredibly uncritical and so willing to believe anything that tells them what they want to hear.
Waldo,
Did you expect no one to point that, in fact, you are simply relying on straw man positions and appeals to authority, since you in fact are doing exactly that?
Simply saying that you would prefer that Rajendra Pachauri is a functionary and that you would like someone else is not an explanation of why, since the IPCC is led by a non-climate scientist, it is still credible to you.
If you decline to see why the e-mails are important, that is your choice. You seem to be very strenuous is dismissing any objections to your AGW beleifs, whilavoiding anything that would challenge those beliefs.
I fail to see why a selection of headlines for a paper that are salacious means that the newspaper is worhtless on all topics.
AGW creates anger because those promoting it are dodging open discussion of their work, are demanding everyone in the world (exempting them and their pals) dramatically reduce their lifestyles and destroy well established honorable and vital industry, and are now well caught, despite your steadfast ignoring of the topic, as misleading a rather large number of people.
AGW creates anger because its hardcore true believers are calling for the criminalization of dissent from their beliefs.
Do you want to argue that a great deal of money is not involved with AGW, or that the result of AGW inspired policies will be a diminution of government intrusion on people?
“Perhaps I did not make myself clear – the posters may very well be using IPCC data, but it would seem to me that they are unqualified to interpret what they post. Let me put it even clearer: IPCC data or no, these people don’t have the credentials to make scientific statements.”
Sorry, but that’s BS. A 5 year old can easily make a scientific statement (though I’m interested to hear what you think a “scientific statement” is). In my field I’ve seen undergrads, without anything more than a high school diploma and a few college courses for “credentials,” make observations that the principle investigator, with a Ph.D. and maybe 100 publications, did not notice or think of. Science can be done by anyone. Sure credentials help, in so much that they usually prove you have a certain amount of background knowledge in a specific field and some basic reasoning abilities, but the are not necessary to make scientific statements. My father for example is an economists, but in building one of his econ models he read up on predator/prey and infectious disease models. After doing so he came up with a different way to modeling infectious diseases, with a little help from me for some background, that work is soon to be published (and the journal recently asked him to review a infectious disease modeling paper). Neither of us are experts in infectious disease (if we assume by “expert” we mean with a Ph.D. in that field), but we had enough knowledge of these types of maters (mathematical models, basic bio, plus getting familiar with the field) to make a contribution to the field.
“there are no actual working scientists here”
You’re wrong. Do you even know the definition of scientist? Its starting to sound like you’re the one that isn’t the scientists, in fact you’re starting to sound very ignorant of science in general. Maybe you don’t even have the credentials to talk science at all, much less make judgments on who can make scientific statements.
As for the Mail, I’m not sure what you’re point is. The blog post was simply to take note that someone finally acknowledged this issue, even if its rag that concerns it self with vampire babies. What exactly does that have to do with the argument itself, as presented here and else where (and yes by those with Ph.D.’s in the field)?
“See for yourself. This really is a fail folks – on your purported scientific blog, your blogger posted a tabloid source.”
Ok, you’re obviously confused. That wasn’t a source like when I reference a journal article at the end of research paper, that was source in only as much that it was a topic for discussion….
“I thought that these blogs were for discussion?”
That they are, but if you walk in pounding your chest saying no body here has the credentials for me to listen to, then what’s the point? You just want to tell us how stupid/ignorant/close-minded/etc we are, or do you want to actually discuss something? Until you can drop your endless appeal to authority (and only the specific few authorities who you happen to agree with it seems), there is no more reason to talk to you.
“Didn’t I say someone would accuse me of this? Textbook.”
I guess you know your own faults pretty well, at least you got that going for you…
“If by “authorities” you mean “experts,” hunter, I plead guilty.”
It doesn’t matter if the person is an expert or not, the argument has to stand on its own legs, not the credentials of the arguer.
“I am an admitted layperson and said so earlier.”
Cool, by your standards, everything you said means nothing. Awesome. Thanks.
“you are simply relying on straw man positions and appeals to authority” Are saying that there are no “straw men” here? Pot meet kettle. And I fail to see where I’ve used any straw men – I simply asked why you believe these people represented in this blog but not more qualified IPCC scientists?
“since the IPCC is led by a non-climate scientist, it is still credible to you” Simple, because the IPCC is filled with climate scientists working together from around the world who have advanced degrees, scientific associations, university associations, time, money, and scientific equipment to do their work with. In other words, the PICC, NOAA, EPA and NASA are all powerful scientific bodies who work for our government(s). I believe in my government and see no reason to fear that it is trying to shill me.
“You seem to be very strenuous is dismissing any objections to your AGW beleifs, whilavoiding anything that would challenge those beliefs.” Now THIS is a straw man argument since I have now stated twice on this board that Pielke, Bryson, Spencer, Botkin and even Lindzen are viable people in my book. I have also stated that I do not yet believe in AGW but am willing to listen to those qualified to judge the evidence for or against. Straw man, my friend.
“A 5 year old can easily make a scientific statement.” Sure. But would you believe him?
“It doesn’t matter if the person is an expert or not, the argument has to stand on its own legs, not the credentials of the arguer.” Okay, but if this is a scientific discussion, and you are not a scientist, how to you know the validity of the argument? How do you know if an argument has legs or is simply a facade?
“You just want to tell us how stupid/ignorant/close-minded/etc we are, or do you want to actually discuss something?” I never said any of that (in fact, I think I used the word “intelligent”) and what would you like to discuss? I’d like to discuss the validity of this site? Would you prefer I simply agree with you?
@ Hunter
Your evidence for the doe scientists get says ‘senior scientists’ forgive me if I am a little sceptical that this applies to all scientists.
The issue of arg. from authority comes up a lot here, whether or not the accusation is true or not. Lets all recognise that both sides of the arg. know that an authority’s word does not equal the truth, but is only a better estimate of the truth than a non authority. And lets also recognise that we all know that an expert consensus does not equal the truth, but for the lay-person, I argue, is probably the rational side to be on. Some of you might find this last point moot. So I’d like to hear why.
I predict it prob. some of your reasons relate to the supposed sloppy science?
I understand that my reasoning assumes good science but I just don’t think that has been disproven. Sure, there are so many blogs with ‘evidence’ but I’d prefer peer-reviewed lit. as evidence. Is that so much to expect?
Instead, I kinda see a begging the question fallacy going on:
The science is corrupt, because there are all these mistakes in the science.– How do you know? If there were mistakes wouldn’t they fix them, or be encouraged to fix them like good science is done? — No, because they are corrupt.
“I’m interested to hear what you think a ‘scientific statement’ is”
Now you are splitting hairs. All I am referring to are the posts on this blogs and ones like it vs. the peer-reviewed publications of the major scientific bodies we all know and love so well.
I like your analogy to the infectious disease model and congratulations on your publication. May I assume that you did not devise any new pharmaceuticals or make any patient diagnosis? You did not play doctor or chemist or biologist, I take it? An economist (who, if I understand correctly, looks for patterns among other things) is the right person to work on an infectious disease model and the scenario you described seems like an expert working in his field of with another (presumably) expert. You and your father performed professionally in your disciplines (Botkin as a biologist does this, by the way, evaluating the potential biological effects of AGW, not the climate science behind it, which is out of his area). What I object are the electrical engineers, like one on this board, who are now delving into climate physics, or the conservative think-tank commentators who openly challenge scientists without having the no-how to do so.
Waldo,
“I fail to see where I’ve used any straw men”
Let me help:
“The plaint that “science is not done by consensus” just doesn’t hold water; if the majority of climate scientists hold the same opinion, I can see no valid argument in simply dismissing them because there is consensus on an issue of empirical science(thus clearly it is collusion meant to make money off the taxpayers etc.) – and, yeah, there’s empirical evidence out there.”
That is one. Our argument about “consensus” has nothing to do with dismissing them because there is a consensus or because of grant money. The argument is, there is not a consensus and even if there was, it doesn’t really matter.
Then there was this “But neither am I convinced that we are being manipulated by an evil consortium holding sub rosa meetings in the U.N.” No one said they were evil or had secret meetings…. you exaggerate our words in order to make our argument easier to attack. If the same has been done to you, point it out. Remember, two wrongs don’t make a right.
“Simple, because the IPCC is filled with climate scientists working together from around the world who have advanced degrees, scientific associations, university associations, time, money, and scientific equipment to do their work with.”
That’s great, but it doesn’t make them right. Especially given that the full 2,000 page report hardly sees the light of day, and its primarily the political types that make up that 20 pager version you typically see.
“A 5 year old can easily make a scientific statement.”
‘Sure. But would you believe him?’
If he made a good argument, most definitely. Unlike you, I don’t judge an argument based on the arguer.
“Okay, but if this is a scientific discussion, and you are not a scientist, how to you know the validity of the argument? How do you know if an argument has legs or is simply a facade?”
First, I am scientists. Second, all you need is basic knowledge into the methods used, building mathematical models, various statistical techniques, some basic reasoning skills and some background knowledge that can be gained in a number of ways, only one of which is getting a degree in that field. Lastly, since you’re admittedly not a scientist, but a layman, how do you know its not a facade? How do you know who to believe?
“I never said any of that (in fact, I think I used the word “intelligent”) and what would you like to discuss? I’d like to discuss the validity of this site? Would you prefer I simply agree with you?”
I think you’re not qualified to discuss the validity of this site….
Oops, sorry. Meant “know-how” above. Funny Freudian slip huh?
“The argument is, there is not a consensus and even if there was, it doesn’t really matter.”
Are you sure about this one?
“How do you know who to believe?”
Again, I go with the most obviously qualified people. What else am I supposed to do?
Gotta run, but be back later.
Sorry Hunter, I see my mistake re. the dough scientists get.
“The argument is, there is not a consensus and even if there was, it doesn’t really matter.”
‘Are you sure about this one?’
Yes, I am. Consensus or not, all you ultimately have is the data. If 100% of the people think it supports a certain conclusion, that doesn’t prevent them from being wrong.
“How do you know who to believe?”
‘Again, I go with the most obviously qualified people. What else am I supposed to do?’
First of all, think for yourself.
Waldo, I asked a couple of very straight forward questions regarding your dismissal strategy of making dissembling comparisons.
Would you clarify your position by answering them, please?
“Do you want to argue that a great deal of money is not involved with AGW, or that the result of AGW inspired policies will be a diminution of government intrusion on people?”
“Simply saying that you would prefer that Rajendra Pachauri is a functionary and that you would like someone else is not an explanation of why, since the IPCC is led by a non-climate scientist, it is still credible to you.”(?)
Wally asks a good question:If a large number of people of people believes something, is it pointless to critically examine that consensus belief?
Shills,
The money is huge. Thanks for noticing.
Sorry, there was a lot of stuff there and I was heading out the door. So –
“Do you want to argue that a great deal of money is not involved with AGW, or that the result of AGW inspired policies will be a diminution of government intrusion on people?”
Never said either of those things. We’ve been talking about straw men here (Wally, listening?) and this seems like two good examples. But since you asked, sure, it seems like a lot of money could be spent on AGW. Does anyone question that? A great many things are expensive, after all. The cost of the Iraq war is what, over $700 billion by now? Does this the military is shilling war?
And I think I answered the second question earlier, but just to be clear: I am not particularly paranoid about my government and am not convinced that any of us would feel any real difference in our lives or pocketbooks. Why so scared of this stuff?
“Simply saying that you would prefer that Rajendra Pachauri is a functionary and that you would like someone else is not an explanation of why, since the IPCC is led by a non-climate scientist, it is still credible to you.”(?)
And I did very specifically answer this earlier. Nevertheless, here you go: the IPCC and like organizations are populated by highly qualified professional scientists working in their disciplines.
Wally, didn’t I say someone of bringing up money and the government? You then accused me of using “straw men” strategies.
Sorry, should read “someone would bring up money and the government.” Must be getting tired.
@ Hunter
Just to be specific. You have only given evidence that suggests gov’t employed scientists get a fair bit, not all of em. Alot of the research for AGW is done by non gov’t employed scientists too.
‘If a large number of people of people believes something, is it pointless to critically examine that consensus belief?’
Well no it is not pointless. Some AGW skeptics point to the argument ad populum logical fallacy for this. But again, no one is saying that a consensus equals the truth, only that its is usually truer on average than the fringe theories. Fringe theories exist thruoghout science. It is unusual for a fringe theory, such as AGW skepticism, to get so much attention. I think the conspiratorial aspect is partly to blame.
I suggest all lay-peeps leave the critical thinking to peer-reviewed science. All we can do is, I think, go with the scientific consensus until: there is peer-reviewed lit. which suggests a problem with the consensus theory, or evidence to suggest that the scam, conspiracy really exists.
did any of you see my point about the begging the question fallacy, or the CRU email link I shared? what do you think?
“First of all, think for yourself.”
Okay, I will no longer go to a doctor. I will diagnose myself. Nor will I go to civil engineer or a lawyer or a computer programmer or anyone who might tell me something I don’t know.
It is not a matter of “thinking for oneself,” Wally, but listening to those people who have expertise and experience in a very particular field. It’s not an ideological problem but a practical one.
@Waldo:
“Okay, I will no longer go to a doctor. I will diagnose myself.”
You are stretching whatever is being said to you and you know that.
It’s OK to go to a doctor if you feel ill or are injured. It’s not OK to go to a doctor if you got your hands dirty and need to wash them. Refusing to think for yourself is never good. But you know that and just want to bicker…
Waldo,
I wonder if a good term for you is ‘polite troll’?
Waldo obviously confuses ‘Science’ with ‘Policy’ and, increasingly it seems, much of the academic community does too.
It might be due to the pursuit of government funding, which appears (clearly in the CRU emails) politically ‘policy’ driven. This argues that, like everything else habituated to the “public teat”, Science too will ultimately be corrupted and destroyed by over-reliance on public funding.
Science really has nothing to do with consensus. Policy, and the politics that drive it, have everything to do with consensus.
But the two things are as different as night and day. The moment a scientist goes from objective description of a theory of fact, to policy recommendation, explicitly or implicitly, it’s no longer science. At that point the opinion expressed is not that of science, or of a scientist…but just that of another “cicada”.
Anon.
“’Okay, I will no longer go to a doctor. I will diagnose myself.’ ”
“You are stretching whatever is being said to you and you know that.”
I must disagree. The argument by non-scientists against AGW is fundamentally the same as non-doctors playing doctor. I am simply making an analogy.
“I wonder if a good term for you is ‘polite troll’?”
Sure! I dig that!