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
@Shills:
“Re. that Russian paper you have: Get it to the journals, or the court of law if the journals are corrupted. If this gets past the relevant hurdles then the authors too may become experts in my eyes.”
OK. In the meantime, here is an extensive list of papers supporting skepticism on catastrophic AGW, peer-reviewed:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
@Shills:
I finally got to the article you mentioned before:
http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/
The code looks fine. The results of the analysis, however, show that adjustments made by GHCN add a slight positive trend to the raw data (0.2 C per century). That number should have been negative because most of the adjustments are made in order to negate factors like the human urban island effect.
The analysis also covered only some of the adjustments, that is, those made by GHCN. The go-to data set for hockey sticks is HadCRUT3, which differs from GHCN in that it:
(a) includes only some stations from GHCN (see the English translation of the Russian paper I cited, the Russians claim that CRU has cherry-picked at least the Russian stations) — the analysis above does NOT demonstrate that the net worth of the adjustments made to the subset of GHCN stations picked by CRU results in a 0.2 C per century trend, the trend on *raw* data created by cherry-picking Russian stations is 0.6 C, the trend on adjusted data might be significantly greater,
(b) includes stations from other data sets — the analysis above does NOT apply to them at all, there is evidence of cherry-picking *those* stations as well, particularly in Antarctica,
(c) applies other adjustments to station data on top of those made by GHCN — the analysys above does NOT and can not show what effect they have, the interesting bit is that nobody in the entire world, not even CRU, can say what that effect is – citing CRU: “For some stations both the adjusted and unadjusted time-series are archived at CRU and so the adjustments that have been made are known [Jones et al., 1985, Jones et al., 1986, Vincent & Gullet, 1999], but for most stations only a single series is archived, so any adjustments that might have been made (e.g. by National Met. services or individual scientists) are unknown.”
So, there you have it. The analysis is sound, it shows a warming bias in the data set that is a foundation for the homogenized data set that produces hockey sticks, and repeating that analysis on the homogenized data set is impossible, thanks to CRU not providing data and losing / deleting it.
Waldo,
You claim to not like your extremists, but your positions and policies seem to be no different from what they clamor for.
I would suggest that you are projecting regarding your blindness.
A great example is your inability to see problems with the theory you support.
But you and I can agree on this much: this conversation is not going to go very far.
So I do wish you and yours a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Regards,
@Shills:
And one more thing on:
http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/
After thinking a bit more about the analysis above, I am now of the opinion that it is wrong.
The purpose of the analysis is to demonstrate that individual adjustments to stations cancel each other out and thus large adjustments to stations like Darwin don’t matter much, as there are symmetric adjustments to other stations with a different sign. Putting aside the fact that the net sum of all adjustments is a trend of 0.2 C per century, about a third of the total warming trend since 2000 shown by CRU and others, the net sum of all adjustments is far too simplistic a way to check whether or not the adjustments have any bias.
The way climatologists use station data is by interpolating them into temperature surfaces. Roughly speaking:
The Earth surface is being divided into rectangular cells in lat/lon, each cell gets assigned a certain temperature. If a particular cell contains exactly one station, it gets assigned a temperature associated with that station. If a cell contains more than one station, it gets assigned some kind of an average temperature of these stations (not necessarily t1+t2+…+tn / n). If a cell contains no stations, it gets assigned a temperature from the neighboring cells (long story).
All further global computations are being done on this grid of cells.
Now, it is easily seen that it is possible to have an equal number of the positive and negative adjustments arranged in such a way that, say, positive adjustments affect significantly less cells than negative ones. (Let’s say I have 10 positive and 10 negative adjustments. I put all positive adjustments into the same cell. I put each negative adjustment into its own cell. Done, there are many more cells with negative adjustments than there are cells with positive adjustments.) Thus, having a net sum of all adjustments be equal to zero does not necessarily guarantee that these adjustments cancel each other out on the grid. In fact, it is possible to have a net sum of all adjustments be, say, positive, with the net effect on the grid being negative.
The article thus does NOT show that individual adjustments cancel each other out (with regard to global numbers and graphs that are computed on the grid) and that picking on huge adjustments on stations like Darwin is pointless because of that.
And just to make sure we are putting to bed the faux issue of blaming skeptics for the hyperbole associated with AGW, here is the title of Dr. Hansen’s newest book:
“Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity, and much more.”
This is the same Hansen who calls for criminalization of cliamte dissent, as well as openly defends eco-criminals and calls for criminal activity in the name of ‘climate justice’.
@ Anon
Fair enough with the papers. Lets see how it all goes. Any specifics on how the Russian study will be disclosed?
There is a lot of suspicion surrounding that pop. tech list. Namely the large number of papers from the Energy and Environment journal, which has been heavily criticised.
@ Hunter
Just to be clear, hyperbole is seen on either side of the argument.
Just go see this blog:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/
I used to think the peeps there were worth talking to, but now I prefer to come here.
How very, very interesting. Both Anon. and Shills have made an excellent case for the unseaworthiness of the blogosphere. What a surprise.
Why would anyone with an increment of intelligence look for legitimate information there?
This is why we have peer review, refereed journals, and scientific agencies. So simple; so hard to get to. Probably because people so badly believe essentially what they want to believe. So they have blogs. Like this one.
“Both Anon. and Shills have made an excellent case for the unseaworthiness of the blogosphere.”
Just a small addition: …for someone who can’t or won’t check numbers and logic. For a person who can and will do it, it is easy to tell fluff from real scientific arguments. There is no shortage of either.
Cool. I am at least happy that my position, as a layperson, with the AGW science is validated due to expert consensus on the matter.
Would we say my position is more rational than all the laypersons who are against AGW?:
They are not able to analyse the science (like me), not able to tell if blog science is good or bad (like me), so can only go with the mainstream science (which I do), BUT DON”T because they have a belief in conspiratorial science that is only supported by blog science –that they aren’t equipped to judge in the first place. Kinda a begging the question logical fallacy?
So aren’t those laypeeps a little irrational?
Well, there is an argument that you don’t have to be a scientist to smell rats when someone who claims to be a scientist hides his data and methods, making it impossible for other scientists to reproduce his results. Yes, that’s discussing “sources over substance” (which I, personally, won’t do), but these arguments work both ways.
With the Climategate letters, the point of view of a skeptic who is not willing to crunch numbers appears to me to be as valid as the point of view of a supporter who is similarly unwilling to crunch numbers. The only way to choose between these seemingly equal points of view is to start crunching numbers. 🙂
And, to add to what I said:
Both me and others would dispute the statement that arguments against catastrophic AGW are only supported by blog science. I provided a link to the list of 500 peer-reviewed papers which make the case for skeptics (many times over). And it is *not at all clear* that the number of distinguished climate experts supporting the concept of catastrophic AGW exceeds the number of similar experts that don’t subscribe to it.
Shills,
Is your argument even factually correct (forgetting logical for now)?
Meaning, can you prove to me that “AGW science is validated due to expert consensus on the matter?”
If your first statement can’t be proven to be factually correct, your entire argument is crap. So please, find me that consensus would you…
Also, Shills,
All lay-people are not created equal, nor are all of us lay-people.
By the way, the link to the list of 500 peer-reviewed papers which I mention above, was first provided in this thread by Wally (cheers!), not me. Not all of us are lay-people, indeed, or, alternatively, not all lay-people are completely inept when it comes to science.
validated in terms of logic, not in terms of facti
@ Wally
You said:
‘Is your argument even factually correct (forgetting logical for now)? Meaning, can you prove to me that “AGW science is validated due to expert consensus on the matter?”’
You have taken that quote out of context. I am not saying that the AGW science is validated due to the expert consensus. I am suggesting that my position is logically valid, due to the consensus.
Sure, it assumes the existence of the consensus. But I did just say my position is ‘validated’, not nec. sound.
You say:
‘If your first statement can’t be proven to be factually correct, your entire argument is crap [UNSOUND?}. So please, find me that consensus would you…
I think we agree.
But anyway about the consensus, you still doubt that? What would be required to convince you there is a consensus?
Wally says: — and so does Anon.
Also, Shills,
All lay-people are not created equal, nor are all of us lay-people.
What’s your point? If you know the science well enough than my argument need not apply. Whether you know it well enough is up to the scientific community, not a layperson.
@ Anon
You say: By the way, the link to the list of 500 peer-reviewed papers which I mention above, was first provided in this thread by Wally (cheers!), not me.
Fair enough, I wouldn’t want to be linked to that list either. It is heavily criticised.
Whoops sorry ’bout the first line of my prev. post. It’s just notes i forgot to edit out.
Shills,
“Whether you know it well enough is up to the scientific community, not a layperson.” “Well enough” for what? If you mean well enough to make policy decisions, then that is completely up to “laymen”, at least in a representative democracy. Policy is a matter of politics, not science, thank G_d!
Any “consensus” about Climate Change increasingly appears mostly Apologia, i.e. Fidelis Defensor, where the only real consensus is agreement as to what they’d like to be viewed as ‘settled’. While most folks occasionally see what they want to see, the AGW community seems bound and determined everyone see only what they want to be seen. So they’ve taken the intellectually indefensible step of moving from being blind, to trying to blind others!
In a free society that kind of hubris is the kind of Madness the gods give men whom they would destroy.
@Shills:
My note on not all lay-people being inept as regards science was in response to this phrase of yours:
“Would we say my position is more rational than all the laypersons who are against AGW?”
The answer to this, as posed, is “no”.
I also don’t have any problems linking to the list of 500 papers above. I am yet to hear any good critique of that list. All I ever heard was “look at the authors of this paper”. This goes straight into the dust bin (won’t explain why, I believe I said enough on this subject already). If you are aware of other, more substantial, critique of the list, you are more than welcome to share it here.
@ Adiff
You say:’“Well enough” for what? If you mean well enough to make policy decisions, then that is completely up to “laymen”, at least in a representative democracy. Policy is a matter of politics, not science, thank G_d!’
No one is talking about policy making here. Well enough for the scientist’s standards.
Re. consensus
You think the AGW community has forced/ coerced all these diverse groups into saying they support it? Why would they be so servile? And what power does the AGW community have to do this?
@ Anon.
You suggest that there is a type of layperson who could keep up with all the science as well as the scientists? They don’t sound like laypeople to me. They sound like experts who shouldn’t have too much trouble getting published if they tried.
You suggest there is a layperson-skeptic who who knows enough stuff that they can rationally doubt AGW but not know enough to produce any science on it?
Re. the list: I don’t know what you’ve already discussed about it so I don’t know what will be a ‘more substantial’ critique of it for you. What would?
Again what to you req. to be convinced of a consensus?
Waldo,
“I am not saying that the AGW science is validated due to the expert consensus. I am suggesting that my position is logically valid, due to the consensus. ”
Which begs the question, is there a consensus? Prove that first. But even if you do, this is just an appeal to authority. Try again please.
“But anyway about the consensus, you still doubt that? What would be required to convince you there is a consensus?”
When I stop reading journal articles disputing AGW? That might be a start. Maybe when the AGW argument convinces me. That would help too.
You’re the one advocating Policy, and so that’s responded to.
Coercion in the AGW community is now a matter of record, and has clearly been the case for some time now.
The main problem is government funding, which introduces all kinds of ideological and political aspects that really have no place at all in science.
The AGW community is pushing a religion and is clearly willing to falsify data to represent what it wants to be viewed as ‘science’.
I still have yet to read one post by anyone posting here in support of Catastrophic Global Warming that presented any scientific answer to the scientific criticisms of the analysis of the AGW advocacy community or questioning it’s underlying assumptions of large positive feedback.
All I read from AGW supporters here is rhetoric and arguments from authority….so naturally these are what’s responded to. When asked why they think the questions raised about these assumptions aren’t valid all respondents can manage is “because so-and-so said so”. So in short, they’ve no answer at all as far as I can tell.
@ Wally
I know you mean Shills, not Waldo.
You say:
‘“I am not saying that the AGW science is validated due to the expert consensus. I am suggesting that my position is logically valid, due to the consensus. ”
Which begs the question, is there a consensus?’
SURE I know that!! that’s why I say validated, not nec. sound — for the third time.
You say:
‘Prove that first. But even if you do, this is just an appeal to authority. Try again please.’
This is getting painful. Go learn what an appeal to authority is. Please.
you say:
‘“But anyway about the consensus, you still doubt that? What would be required to convince you there is a consensus?”
When I stop reading journal articles disputing AGW? That might be a start. Maybe when the AGW argument convinces me. That would help too.’
It’s weird that a lot of scientists who do read papers as well have come to a different understanding of the lit. than you. Why would there be this difference???
How does being convinced with something have any weight in determining whether there is a consensus or not on something? I don’t think Sydney is a great place to live but it is constantly in the top 10 world-wide. Maybe I am in the minority!!? Maybe you and your opinion are in the minority too!!
If I put every climate scientist in groups of AGW advocates, and skeptics, and you could plainly see where the overwhelming majority was, it seems you would STILL not believe the consensus because you haven’t being convinced of AGW. Doesn’t make sense does it.
A single opinion alone has nothing to do with determining the existence of a consensus.
Despite all this. Even if there was not a consensus but merely a 75 % majority, my position as a layperson with AGW would still have better probabilities than the layperson skeptics.
Again– Re. the list: I don’t know what you’ve already discussed about it so I don’t know what will be a ‘more substantial’ critique of it for you. What would?
@ Adiff
You say:
‘You’re the one advocating Policy, and so that’s responded to.’
What the hell are you talking about?
you say:
‘Coercion in the AGW community is now a matter of record, and has clearly been the case for some time now.
The main problem is government funding, which introduces all kinds of ideological and political aspects that really have no place at all in science.
The AGW community is pushing a religion and is clearly willing to falsify data to represent what it wants to be viewed as ’science’.’
Sounds like a complex conspiracy theory. You are gonna need a lot of evidence to convince anyone of such. When is this huge swindle gonna go to court?
You say:
‘I still have yet to read one post by anyone posting here in support of Catastrophic Global Warming that presented any scientific answer to the scientific criticisms of the analysis of the AGW advocacy community or questioning it’s underlying assumptions of large positive feedback.’
Maybe you should read outside this blog.
I don’t talk about the science because I leave that to the experts. If you wan’t to talk about science, go talk to scientists. If there is good science here then get it out there, where it will make any difference.
About the pos. feedback. what case do you have for that existing, and why do you think the scientists ignore or are ignorant of it –That conspiracy!? haven’t heard much about this.
Argument from authority? What do you know about argument from authority?
Three men can keep a secret if two are dead. – Benjamin Franklin
The President of the USA (most powerful man in the world) can’t get a BJ in the white house without the ENTIRE world finding out?
I’m sorry, anything that is called a conspiracy that involves not just 1-2 or people, but THOUSANDS, is an impossibility.
I think if intelligent people do some honest research they will find the VAST majority of highly qualified people will have consensus that global warming is a measurable and proveable event. In reading this blog I have not found one piece of credible information that debunks AGW.
I wonder if this same discussion was had when Columbus wanted to sail the ocean? I’m sure lots of people called him a “wacko”. I think in 100 years people will look back at us and think we were complete idiots.
Shills, this is painful, you’re right.
“I don’t think Sydney is a great place to live but it is constantly in the top 10 world-wide. Maybe I am in the minority!!? ”
Lets look up consensus: “A. general agreement, unanimity. B. group solidarity in sentiment and belief”
What do you think unanimity or solidarity mean? If there was consensus, there would be no minority opinion. There is no consensus Sydney is a great place to live. If there is disagreement, and no unanimous opinion, there is no consensus.
>Which begs the question, is there a consensus?’
SURE I know that!! that’s why I say validated, not nec. sound — for the third time. <
Great of you to understand this. Now answer the question and lets see if you argument is sound, which of course it isn’t, got it?
“A single opinion alone has nothing to do with determining the existence of a consensus. ”
Remind me, was I only relying on one opinion? No.
“Even if there was not a consensus but merely a 75 % majority, my position as a layperson with AGW would still have better probabilities than the layperson skeptics.”
Is this true? Can you prove that?
Substitute consensus with vast majority.
Also, you forgot the entire definition, unless you feel Merriam Webster is a sham dictionary:
b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned
@Nathan:
“Substitute consensus with vast majority.”
Having a vast majority (of scientists or whoever else) agree on something doesn’t of course prove them right, not even probabilistically (see, eg, Galileo), but what the heck…
Show me your numbers.
You want to talk authorities, let’s.
@ Nathan
See how the likeness to a conspiracy theory is ignored here. There is one horrible piece on conspiracy on the main page (Incentives and Conspiracies, Dec 9), but other than that they don’t seem to think about it much. Wonder why.
@ Wally
My Sydney example was not used to illustrate what a consensus is. It was used to show how stupid this sounds:
(my question): What would be required to convince you there is a consensus?
(Your answer): Maybe when the AGW argument convinces me.
Consensus, majority, 50%, 25% etc, etc. A single opinion alone has nothing to do with determining the existence of a collective opinion. You seem to agree with that now, and that’s why you said this:
(You say): ‘Remind me, was I only relying on one opinion? No.’
Well what am I supposed to think when your answer to my question about the existence of a consensus is:
(You say): ‘Maybe when the AGW argument convinces ME.’ (my caps).
And like I said earlier, even if there was not a consensus but merely a 75% majority, my broader argument (the one about a layperson’s position) still holds, I think.
@ Wally and Anon:
I say:
‘“Even if there was not a consensus but merely a 75 % majority, my position as a layperson with AGW would still have better probabilities than the layperson skeptics.”’
You both say something like:
‘Is this true? Can you prove that?’
–Whoops, I shouldn’t say ‘probabilities’ but rather ‘confidence’, I think. — The 75% is only an indication that the scientists mostly agree, not they their agreement is 75% likely to be correct.
Anon says: ‘Having a vast majority (of scientists or whoever else) agree on something doesn’t of course prove them right, not even probabilistically (see, eg, Galileo), but what the heck…’
I agree it doesn’t prove them right, thats a logical fallacy. I also take back the ‘probability’ mistake.
Anyway, What do you wan’t me to prove? That science is usually right?
It would only be rational for a layperson to go against science if it was shown that science was wrong more often than correct, or half the time. No one could honestly think modern science is wrong more times than correct, or half the time, that would be quite bizarre. I don’t think numbers are needed for that, Anon, are they?
The alternative for a layperson, to go against science, doesn’t make sense unless science can be shown to be, on average, incorrect or only 50 % correct.
Anon says: ‘You want to talk authorities, let’s.’
You have changed you mind or something? What about authorities do you wanna talk about?
Whether scientists are authorities on science? I think they are.
“Substitute consensus with vast majority.”
Prove there is even a “vast majority” then prove that it matters.
Shills,
>(my question): What would be required to convince you there is a consensus?
(Your answer): Maybe when the AGW argument convinces me. ‘Remind me, was I only relying on one opinion? No.’
Well what am I supposed to think when your answer to my question about the existence of a consensus is:
(You say): ‘Maybe when the AGW argument convinces ME.’ (
(my caps). <
And what where the two statements before that? This wasn’t my whole point. This will be the last time I explain this.
“And like I said earlier, even if there was not a consensus but merely a 75% majority, my broader argument (the one about a layperson’s position) still holds, I think. ”
Nice that you’re thinking, but you’re wrong. Its been explained in great detail, and your defense is to build a strawman out of my argument, pretending I’m arguing that I’m the only reason there is no consensus.
“The 75% is only an indication that the scientists mostly agree, not they their agreement is 75% likely to be correct. ”
So, why do I care again?
“It would only be rational for a layperson to go against science”
“Go against science?” WTF are you talking about? Is it not science itself that also remains skeptical of AGW?
“The alternative for a layperson, to go against science, doesn’t make sense unless science can be shown to be, on average, incorrect or only 50 % correct. ”
Shills, this is a huge red herring. To support or remain skeptical of AGW is not to also be supportive or skeptical of science in general.
Between your mistakes, manipulations, and fallicious arguments there is no point in talking to you.
@Shills:
“You want to talk authorities, let’s.” —
“You have changed you mind or something? What about authorities do you wanna talk about?”
I haven’t changed my mind in that I still think that counting how many people support a particular scientific position is a wrong way to judge whether this position is right or not.
But since the discussion seems to return to this question over and over again, let’s actually count how many scientists support catastrophic AGW and how many don’t. The “catastrophic” bit is important.
You seem to say there is an overwhelming majority. Show me your numbers. How many scientists support catastrophic AGW and how many don’t. Please provide a link to the source.
Over.
@ Wally
You say: And what where the two statements before that? This wasn’t my whole point. This will be the last time I explain this.
Sure, fair enough it wasn’t your whole point, but why does it have any weighting at all? It’s still a very silly condition of yours.
You say: Nice that you’re thinking, but you’re wrong. Its been explained in great detail, and your defense is to build a strawman out of my argument, pretending I’m arguing that I’m the only reason there is no consensus.
Lol. You accuse me of making strawmen? Well what is this?
(you say): ‘pretending I’m arguing that I’m the only reason there is no consensus.’
All I’m saying is that a single opinion (let alone your opinion) has nothing to do with determining the existence of a consensus. And it sounded like you were giving your opinion some undue weight. How did you go from this to that? How about we call it a draw re. the strawmen?
You say: ‘Nice that you’re thinking, but you’re wrong. Its been explained in great detail’
What exactly am I wrong about? The agreement factor? My broader argument? What are the details that show this?
‘“The 75% is only an indication that the scientists mostly agree, not they their agreement is 75% likely to be correct. ”
[You say]So, why do I care again?’
Well you might not care, but for lay peeps with decisions to make, knowing how confident experts are on a given issue helps. This is rational because experts usually know their chosen field very well, so are the best peeps to consult.
YOu say: Go against science?” WTF are you talking about? Is it not science itself that also remains skeptical of AGW?
Remember, that point of mine was a general hypothetical where science was useless at giving reliable answers. It was not about AGW, or any real science in particular. I was only using the hypothetical for a point of contention that I suggested in the absence of a clear idea of what I needed to prove to you and Anon. If you don’t like it, it doesn’t matter. Anyway, I think we all agree that science is usually right.
I said: The alternative for a layperson, to go against science, doesn’t make sense unless science can be shown to be, on average, incorrect or only 50 % correct. ”
You say: Shills, this is a huge red herring. To support or remain skeptical of AGW is not to also be supportive or skeptical of science in general.
Like I said it was a general hypothetical, I wasn’t saying anything about AGW. Would my red herring here actually be your strawman?
YOu say:’ Between your mistakes, manipulations, and fallicious arguments there is no point in talking to you. ‘
Well we all make mistakes. But I don’t think my argument is at all broken.
Again, Again– Re. the list: I don’t know what you’ve already discussed about it so I don’t know what will be a ‘more substantial’ critique of it for you. What would?
@ anon
you say: “You seem to say there is an overwhelming majority. Show me your numbers. How many scientists support catastrophic AGW and how many don’t. Please provide a link to the source.”
You think I should send out a survey or something? But what if I fudge it all up? How will you know? What sources will you be satisfied with if I got someone else’s survey?
Plus I never said ‘catastrophic’ why is that so important? because if I only look for an AGW consensus I’ll find one? Why would you need that extra adjective if you are confident there is no AGW consensus, or aren’t you?
@ Wally
Oh wait
You say: ‘pretending I’m arguing that I’m the only reason there is no consensus.’
You are referring to this right?:
‘If I put every climate scientist in groups of AGW advocates, and skeptics, and you could plainly see where the overwhelming majority was, it seems you would STILL not believe the…’
Sure my bad. Sorry. But it still doesn’t make sense for your opinion to be a factor.
Shills,
Another mistake, man, we’re getting used to this,, aren’t we?
So why is it that my opinion, or anyone’s including your’s, isn’t a factor in deciding a consensus? All of us aren’t climate researchers, but if climate research were so cut and dry, with an obvious conclussion, we wouldn’t need to be in order for us to understand it. You know, kinda like how I understand F=ma or relativity.
@Shills:
“You think I should send out a survey or something? But what if I fudge it all up? How will you know? What sources will you be satisfied with if I got someone else’s survey?”
I asked a simple question. How many scientists do you think support the concept of catastrophic AGW and how many don’t, and what is your source. Do you or do you not have the numbers?
“Plus I never said ‘catastrophic’ why is that so important?”
The ‘catastrophic’ bit is absolutely essential, because that’s what is being disputed. We are emitting CO2. This produces some warming. Skeptics agree with this. What skeptics don’t agree with, among other things, is the claim that it has been shown that the amount of warming produced by man-made CO2 is significant. Read this blog. It lays out the point of view of skeptics pretty good.
@ Wally
you say: ‘So why is it that my opinion, or anyone’s including your’s, isn’t a factor in deciding a consensus?’
Because personal opinion doesn’t matter, just the number of opinions of a particular
I don’t get where the mistake lies.
You say: ‘All of us aren’t climate researchers, but if climate research were so cut and dry, with an obvious conclussion, we wouldn’t need to be in order for us to understand it. You know, kinda like how I understand F=ma or relativity.’
I don’t get this either. Maths can often confuse me but that doesn’t mean there isn’t an obvious answer to a given problem.
I am pretty sure that a study is not nec. understandable by a non-expert if it’s conclusions are obvious or cut and dry. The conclusion could merely be the obvious answer to a complex bunch of esoteric premises.
Anyway I don’t think climate science is cut and dry.
Shills,
>Lol. You accuse me of making strawmen? Well what is this?
(you say): ‘pretending I’m arguing that I’m the only reason there is no consensus.’
All I’m saying is that a single opinion (let alone your opinion) has nothing to do with determining the existence of a consensus.<
A consensus is made up of a multiple individual opinions. There is nothing wrong with what I’m saying. Not factually, not logically.
“And it sounded like you were giving your opinion some undue weight.”
How exactly are you determining how much weight my opinion is worth in the first place, let alone assuming how much weight you think I’m giving my opinion.
“How did you go from this to that? How about we call it a draw re. the strawmen?”
I’d be happy to, provided you convinced me I actually made a logical fallacy or use something as evidence that was not factually correct. You’ve done neither.
On this supposed 75% thing you state:
“Well you might not care, but for lay peeps with decisions to make, knowing how confident experts are on a given issue helps. This is rational because experts usually know their chosen field very well, so are the best peeps to consult.”
So tell me exactly how we determine who is most likely right, and to what extent, based on the percentage of scientists in a given field that believe something? Also, feel free to provide some evidence for this 75% (or anything remotely quantitative) in the first place.
“Remember, that point of mine was a general hypothetical where science was
useless at giving reliable answers.”
Which is an asinine hypothetical that only distracts from the issue at hand, meaning its a red herring.
“Well we all make mistakes. But I don’t think my argument is at all broken.”
Between admitted strawmen, mistakes, red herrings, begging the questions with this 75% issue, yeah, you’re argument is broken. There are so many holes through it, that if we are to continue, I suggest you start from scratch. Get some basic facts, make a logical argument from them.
@ Wally
About the opinions thing.
(You said):
‘How exactly are you determining how much weight my opinion is worth in the first place, let alone assuming how much weight you think I’m giving my opinion.’
The problem is that you were after a particular (personal) opinion (you used the word ‘me’). This suggests you give your opinion more weight than if you merely said:
Maybe when the AGW argument convinces one more or 10 more scientists. This could include you if you are a scientist, but is not limited to you.
We can leave this issue if you wan’t because it is just dwelling on a set of conditions you may (or may not) hold in re. to your conviction of a consensus. I don’t think they were conditions I could fulfil anyway because I can’t stop you reading what papers you want. Maybe I’ll just focus on Anon’s conditions.
You say: ‘So tell me exactly how we determine who is most likely right, and to what extent, based on the percentage of scientists in a given field that believe something?’
Not sure what you’re asking here, can you rephrase? I’ll just say:
The less contention around something the more certain the experts are on it. They have all done studies on something and come to similar conclusions. Assuming things are done right, why would this happen? Maybe because they a close to the right answer?
You say: ‘Which is an asinine hypothetical that only distracts from the issue at hand, meaning its a red herring.’
Lol. You don’t think your being a little harsh?
Because you guys, Anon and you, don’t tell me what is exactly wrong with certain statements, I try to guess what the issue might be, hence the hypothetical which was certainly not a red herring (you are entitled to think it’s asinine though). These are the things I’m waiting for clarification on:
– (What would satisfy Anon re. a consensus) ‘You think I should send out a survey or something? But what if I fudge it all up? How will you know? What sources will you be satisfied with if I got someone else’s survey?’
-(Wally and Anon)“And like I said earlier, even if there was not a consensus but merely a 75% majority, my broader argument (the one about a layperson’s position) still holds, I think. ”
(wally says):Nice that you’re thinking, but you’re wrong. Its been explained in great detail, —– what is this great detail?
-(For Anon) ‘Again, Again– Re. the list: I don’t know what you’ve already discussed about it so I don’t know what will be a ‘more substantial’ critique of it for you. What would?’
-(For Adiff) About the pos. feedback. what case do you have for that existing, and why do you think the scientists ignore or are ignorant of it?
@ Anon:
You said: ‘I asked a simple question. How many scientists do you think support the concept of catastrophic AGW and how many don’t, and what is your source. Do you or do you not have the numbers?’
There is a lot of wiggle room between catastrophic and insignificant. AGW can still be worth stopping and not be catastrophic. What kind of sources will you be satisfied with if I got someone else’s survey?’
@Shills:
“There is a lot of wiggle room between catastrophic and insignificant. AGW can still be worth stopping and not be catastrophic. What kind of sources will you be satisfied with if I got someone else’s survey?”
You seem to be dodging the question. I am asking what numbers do you have and what is their source. Nothing more, nothing less. I might find your source to be a bad one, but that’s another topic completely.
Now, for the third time:
How many scientists do you think support the concept of catastrophic AGW, how many don’t, and what is your source?
Shills,
“We can leave this issue if you wan’t because it is just dwelling on a set of conditions you may (or may not) hold in re. to your conviction of a consensus.”
Nevermind the fact that you’re obviously wrong on this issue and that its relatively trivial to your main argument? Anyway, glad we’re making progress.
“The less contention around something the more certain the experts are on it.”
And if you’re paying attention you find a lot of contention over AGW (yes not just on blogs but in peer reviewed journals as well). This is the central fact to your argument that you have not been able prove one way or another.
“They have all done studies on something and come to similar conclusions.”
What? This is a factual statement that need a source. I could site litterally hundreds of papers that don’t come to “similar conclusions.”
On your hypothetical: “Lol. You don’t think your being a little harsh?”
No. You’re creating a hypothetical argument for the purpose of distracting us from the orginal argument. You want us to argue about some sort of pro or anti-science belief structure. That’s very different than discussing the actual science of AGW, the disenting research, and the meaning of both. Both things are science. So, no I’m not being harsh, in fact I’m being nice. Your hypothetical is not only a red herring, its plain dumb to think it is in any way similar to our actual argument.
Shills….
“-(For Adiff) About the pos. feedback. what case do you have for that existing, and why do you think the scientists ignore or are ignorant of it?”
Your question only makes sense if you’re ignorant of the whole set of issues central to ‘climate-skeptic’. Please review Warren’s Phoenix presentation and you’ll see what’s meant by the ‘positive feedback’ issue. It’s the sine qua non of Catastrophic Global Warming, and appears almost unsupportable (as well as contradicted by the data). So go back and see what it is I’m talking about, then ask me question that makes sense.
@ Anon
You said: ‘How many scientists do you think support the concept of catastrophic AGW, how many don’t, and what is your source?’
Lol, dude. Like I said, ‘catastrophic’ is prob. too narrow. It is prob. not the word the AGW agreement statements use, but that’s a guess. If, like you said, the contention is around the quality of being catastrophic, then does that mean a consensus might exist around less extreme AGW, which might still be worth stopping?
You say: ‘ You seem to be dodging the question’
Well that makes two of us. My reason for dodging the question is because, as mentioned, I don’t think the issue surrounds the catastrophic distinction, so why bother? Why do you ignore my question?:
–(getting evidence of consensus) You think I should send out a survey or something? But what if I fudge it all up? How will you know? What sources will you be satisfied with if I got someone else’s survey?’ I don’t want to waste time getting sources you’ve already established as bogus.
Anyway, if you want me to give you a number for ‘catastrophic’ I can’t. But I think, being a possibly extreme view, it would not be a majority view, but I dunno.
@ Wally
You say: ‘Nevermind the fact that you’re obviously wrong on this issue and that its relatively trivial to your main argument?’
We can continue the discussion if you want. either way, I still don’t think I’m wrong, and you haven’t shown that. You seem to think obvious conclusions are easily understood (your post: Dec 28, 5:53) so you shouldn’t have much trouble explaining this to me.
You say: ‘What? This is a factual statement that need a source. I could site litterally hundreds of papers that don’t come to “similar conclusions.”’
Is that the pop. tech list? ( I think you mean ‘cite’). If these papers you refer to are significant than why aren’t they changing the consensus, or are they? Anyway, obviously we better come to a mutual understanding of ‘similar conclusion’.
You say: You’re creating a hypothetical argument for the purpose of distracting us from the orginal argument.
Wow, you really are pained over this hypothetical. I told you my motives for the hypothetical, why do you ignore this and so readily assume it was a purposeful distraction? The hypothetical was a back to basics of sorts or kinda first principles which we would likely both agree on –that science is a very good source. You can’t deny that this belief is integral to a debate around science. Again, its not like you gave me anything much else to go on, remember.
You say: ‘its plain dumb to think it is in any way similar to our actual argument.’
No one was drawing a comparison, it was just a general statement.I claim it is related, relevant, but not ‘similar’.
(Again). You said: ‘So tell me exactly how we determine who is most likely right, and to what extent, based on the percentage of scientists in a given field that believe something?’
Not sure what you’re asking here, can you rephrase?
(Again)-(Wally)“And like I said earlier, even if there was not a consensus but merely a 75% majority, my broader argument (the one about a layperson’s position) still holds, I think. ” (wally says):Nice that you’re thinking, but you’re wrong. Its been explained in great detail, —– what is this great detail?
@ ADiff
You say: ‘Your question only makes sense if you’re ignorant of the whole set of issues central to ‘climate-skeptic’.’
Well no duh. Most questions only make sense when the asker is ignorant of something related to thing thing being questioned.
You say: ‘So go back and see what it is I’m talking about, then ask me question that makes sense.’
What’s with the attitude? Did you have a bad christmas or something?
Anyway, I’ll look in to the Warren stuff. Do you mean the physics-based positive feedback or the social phenomena? What is Phoenix? Anyway, how is he privy to all this stuff? How come the experts over-looked this, any ideas?
Shills,
You say: “You seem to think obvious conclusions are easily understood (your post: Dec 28, 5:53) so you shouldn’t have much trouble explaining this to me. ”
Huh? In that post I wasn’t talking about anything that I needed to explain to you, I was talking about AGW scientists needing to be able to convince other intellegent and educated people, particularly scientists in other fields, that their research proves their conclussion. So far they haven’t done a very good job of that.
This really is comedy here:
>If these papers you refer to are significant than why aren’t they changing the consensus, or are they?Anyway, obviously we better come to a mutual understanding of ’similar conclusion’.No one was drawing a comparison, it was just a general statement.I claim it is related, relevant, but not ’similar’.<
Use related or relevant if you like, I will still disagree for the same reasons. Your hypothetical is not sufficiently relevant or related to this argument to be instructive. You can keep repeating yourself changing out a couple of words all day, you still aren’t making a good argument.
As for this that wasn’t addressed to me:
“Most questions only make sense when the asker is ignorant of something related to thing thing being questioned.”
Well, until you reach a certain level of understanding of the background material it going to be difficult to have an argument with you. The simple reason for that is that before this argument can take place we will first have to catch you up on this background, which non of us likely have the time to do, so we ask you to read up on it yourself. Thus far it seems your stubbornly hanging on to your ignorance, particularly surrounding the consensus issue. As you have probably noticed, no one here is going to listen to you until you stop using the supposed consensus in your arguments. To put it simply, there is no consensus. Various people would like you to believe that, and its relatively popular among the media to believe that, but it simply isn’t true. Here’s a good article writen by a climate researcher at MIT, Richard Lindzen (who’s name you may have noticed), explaining the lack of a concensus: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
Here’s an earlier one: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
@Shills:
“My reason for dodging the question is because, as mentioned, I don’t think the issue surrounds the catastrophic distinction, so why bother?”
Earlier you said:
“Would we say my position is more rational than all the laypersons who are against AGW?”
You don’t think the debate is about whether or not AGW is catastrophic? Why don’t you find out what the debate is about, before mulling over the rationality of your position?
And here are answers to your questions, which I haven’t answered before because they are simply *irrelevant* to the scientific discussion:
“You think I should send out a survey or something?” No.
“But what if I fudge it all up?” I don’t care.
“How will you know?” I don’t care.
“What sources will you be satisfied with if I got someone else’s survey?” Come up with the source and I will say my opinion of it after that.
“I don’t want to waste time getting sources you’ve already established as bogus.” Tough. You said that “the AGW science is validated due to expert consensus on the matter”.
If you are talking about science that appears in reports made by IPCC, please tell us how exactly did you measure the numbers of scientists that do and don’t support these reports. These reports, by the way, make a case for *catastrophic* AGW, the way this term is used in this area.
If you are talking about a simple case of man emitting CO2 and CO2 warming the planet, without any conclusions whatsoever, yes, there is consensus in that (doh!) and nobody here speaks otherwise. It is a bit silly to try and argue that there is a consensus on this simple issue in the blog that discusses something much more complex and important, but well… it happens.
If you are talking about something else, please, tell us exactly what the hell are you talking about?!
Anyway, as I say, you will do good by first familiarizing yourself with what exactly is the issue. Good luck.
To get back on to the topic of this post, the social mania underlying AGW, here is a good NYT op-ed piece:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/opinion/01dutton.html?ref=opinion
Those defending AGW by critiquing the skeptics are missing the point.
@ Anon.
You said: ‘You don’t think the debate is about whether or not AGW is catastrophic?’
This particular page has mainly being writing ‘AGW’ not ‘catastrophic AGW’. If we are actually talking about ‘catastrophic AGW’ you are the only one (I think) who has being good enough to maintain that clarification, and I have been oblivious to it. No blame to point, but I was not aware. I thought the disputes ranged from whether AGW is real, or AGW is significant.
YOu say: ‘These reports, by the way, make a case for *catastrophic* AGW, the way this term is used in this area.’
Are you saying that the kind’s of risk scenarios given in the IPCC are equivalent to the term ‘catastrophic’ in this area? And Just to be fair, you’re pretty much the only person using the term consistently on this page.
You say: ‘And here are answers to your questions, which I haven’t answered before because they are simply *irrelevant* to the scientific discussion:’
How are the questions ‘simply *irrelevant*’? What are the stars for?
You say: ‘Tough. You said that “the AGW science is validated due to expert consensus on the matter”.’
Lol! No I didn’t. This is the second time that line has been taken out of context, first Wally, then Anon.
And I am not obliged to waste time getting info from sources you won’t accept. Maybe obliged to back up my opinion that a consensus exists, but it is a fair request of mine to want to know what kinds of sources would satisfy as backing it up first. Anyway, there is no point giving you sources until we have a mutual understanding of what ‘catastrophic AGW’ means.
Shills,
“Anyway, there is no point giving you sources until we have a mutual understanding of what ‘catastrophic AGW’ means.”
Seriously? Do we have to draw you map? Maybe next we’ll need to explain what the meaning of “is” is?
@Shills:
“Anyway, there is no point giving you sources until …”
Yes, we’ve heard that already. “Why should we give you our data when all you want to do with it is to try and prove us wrong.” Rather characteristic.
You are bluffing. You don’t have any sources to back up your words about any kind of consensus on the topic of AGW other than kindergarten-level logic about man-emitted CO2 warming the planet somewhat.
Your attempts to stray the discussion away by asking irrelevant questions like “what the stars are for” are pathetic.
Anonymous,
The interesting thing that you have gotten Shills to demonstrate is the consistent pattern of AGW true believers when confronted with that reality that the AGW social movement is all about apocalyptic climate catastrophes.
They nearly always pretend that there is no evidence that there is anyone on the AGW promotion side who claims that there is an apocalyptic belief strongly associated with their theory.
It is as if they do not really have the strength of their declared convictions.
But without the catastrophe, what do they have?