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
@ Wally
You say: ‘Seriously? Do we have to draw you map?’
Well, excuse me for being careful.
I don’t think there is a standard definition for ‘catastrophe’ in the IPCC. I have seen them use it for regional events such as flooding and drought, up to global events such as the disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
Anyway, I have no problem with major droughts and floods being called catastrophic. And if that is the kind of ‘catastrophic’ you guys mean than I’ll go with that. And that would mean you guys dispute the IPCC projections classed as ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’, broadly speaking?
@ Anon.
You say: ‘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.’
Lol. All I wanted was a some indication of what sources you don’t like and some clarification on the ‘catastrophic’ distinction. Anyhoo, I think I have enough of an idea of the term ‘catastrophic’ now. I’ll give it a shot. Although thanks for nothing re. sources you won’t accept. Also I doubt anyone uses the term ‘catastrophic’, prob. more like ‘dangerous’, ‘adverse’.
You say: ‘Your attempts to stray the discussion away by asking irrelevant questions like “what the stars are for” are pathetic.’
Lol. You guys are neurotic. A brief answer to my question would not deflect much attention away from this discussion, you know that.
@ Hunter
You say: ‘that reality that the AGW social movement is all about apocalyptic climate catastrophes.’
I’m not concerned with the social movement, just the science. Apocalyptic seems like a too strong-a word for what the science predicts.
@ Anon.
You say: ‘“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.’
‘…UNTIL we have a mutual understanding of what ‘catastrophic AGW’ means.’ Or at least give me some more clues as to what skeptics dispute.
lol you guys are neurotic (explain stars) only one little question.
Woops. that stuff after the second ‘@ Anon.’ are notes I forgot to delete.
And just so you all don’t get too excited. I doubt I can find many, if any, of those consensus agreement statements or surveys that explicitly say they accept the IPCC’s ‘catastrophic’ predictions. If that is what you are asking than I am prob. beat.
Lol. I guess those surveys and statements came out when the skeptic position was against simple AGW, not just ‘catastrophic’ AGW, which it seems the position has changed to.
It’ll be interesting to see where this goes…
Just to be clear. I wouldn’t be beat in the sense that my arg. is not proved, all I need is expert consensus for that. I was just starting broad…
Shills,
You can tell yourself you are only concerned about the science, but so what?
AGW theory lives in the public square, and its believers demand certain public policies and they are all justified by claims that if those policies are not implemented, things will get very bad.
If you were actually concerned about the science as you claim to be, you would not fail to note that
1- no catastrophe is even near to happening
2- the track record of apocalyptic claims is .000
3- many of the claims allegedly proving AGW theory are well within moe and natural variability
4- no predictive claims about AGW caused weather events have proven to be true
@Shills:
You came into this thread speaking about skeptics trying to go against the consensus (yes, let’s make things simple, we are speaking about the consensus on what is considered “likely” or “very likely” in IPCC reports). You posted mountains of words on how it makes more sense to go with the consensus even though having the majority of whoever agree on something doesn’t necessarily make them right. Now you say that you will try to find a source that would demonstrate that the consensus exists, and you are feeling like you might not find such a source. But if you are only starting to look for such a source now and feel like you might not be able to find it, this is proof positive that you didn’t have that source when going into the discussion. That is, you were talking about there being a consensus with no basis. You were bluffing.
That’s it.
@ Hunter:
Well yes, like you said ‘will get very bad’. It doesn’t mean anything terrible is going to happen tomorrow. The IPCC seems to think that most of the observed changes are in line with warming.
@ Anon.
Hold her steady. The issue focused on now is that of evidence showing explicitly whether peeps agree with IPCC predictions. This is something new that you brought to the table. Remember, originally I thought we were arguing about the existence of AGW or significant AGW. Most peeps here only say ‘AGW’, be it a loose term. That is the level of consensus/dispute my prev. stuff assumed. We are now looking for something much more specific.
@Shills:
As I pointed out several times, it is a bit stupid to be arguing whether or not CO2 can produce some warming. It is also a bit stupid to think that this is where the debate is. But, all right, let’s put this aside and try out one more time.
Do you think there is a consensus on the content of IPCC papers?
If you don’t, you are in the same boat as skeptics and the answer to your question “would we say my position is more rational than all the laypersons who are against AGW?” is “no, if by the laypersons you mean the readers of this blog”. If you didn’t mean the readers of this blog, then the answer is “meh, maybe, but why are we talking about that here”.
If you do, we’ve made a full circle.
To make it crystal clear, the readers of this blog – as well as the author of this blog – do NOT argue that CO2 does not produce warming. They argue something else and usually use the term “AGW” as a shorthand for “AGW of the scale pictured in IPCC reports”.
Shills,
Are you then saying that AGW is not producing a climate crisis?
@ Anon.
You say: ‘As I pointed out several times’.
Well you’ve only said something of the sought twice to me, not several. Let’s not get carried away.
You say: ‘it is a bit stupid to be arguing whether or not CO2 can produce some warming. It is also a bit stupid to think that this is where the debate is’.
No one was suggesting that anyway.
I don’t understand your if-yes/no-then paragraph. Could you rephrase.
You say: ‘To make it crystal clear…’
So does man-made CO2 produce warming? Is the man-made warming significant?
@ Hunter:
You say: ‘Are you then saying that AGW is not producing a climate crisis?’
What does the ‘Are you then’ part follow from? I don’t think it follows from our last words.
I do think there is a climate crisis.
Shills,
What evidence do you have of a crisis?
@ Hunter
Your question is kinda similar to another one I’m giving a shot at so hold up for that.
@Shills:
You think there is a climate crisis for which there is a consensus, yet you can’t tell us why exactly you think so.
You ask me to clarify the “if-yes / no-then” part of my post without actually answering the question that it was written for (do you think there is a consensus on the content of IPCC papers?).
You don’t really want to talk about science, do you? You’d rather discuss the meaning of the word “several”. Pretty sad.
@Shills:
To save you an effort of writing an obligatory “but you don’t answer my questions, too” post, here are answers to your two questions:
“So does man-made CO2 produce warming?” Yes.
“Is the man-made warming significant?” No, it does not look that way from the data that we have.
@ Anon.
You say: ‘You think there is a climate crisis for which there is a consensus, yet you can’t tell us why exactly you think so.’
Hmm. I don’t think you are recognising the distinction here. What you have asked me to show is specific agreement with the IPCC’s predictions. That is harder to show than the general consensus that AGW is significant, and thus poses a high risk/ crisis for the future. See the dif?
You say: ‘do you think there is a consensus on the content of IPCC papers’
The IPCC says specific things, such as confidence levels here and there. I think there is a general agreement, prob. consensus, on the broader points, but some significant variance on the specifics.
You say: ‘You’d rather discuss the meaning of the word “several”. Pretty sad.’
Forgive me if I don’t like being portrayed inaccurately. Fair enough, no?
You say: ‘To save you an effort of writing an obligatory…’
If your on a role:
Remember this one.– The pop. tech. 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?
You could just link me to your discussion on it.
@Shills:
“What you have asked me to show is specific agreement with the IPCC’s predictions. That is harder to show than the general consensus that AGW is significant, and thus poses a high risk/ crisis for the future. See the dif?”
I don’t know what exactly do you mean by AGW being significant, in terms of numbers. What do you mean by that and what is your source for claiming the consensus?
“The IPCC says specific things, such as confidence levels here and there. I think there is a general agreement, prob. consensus, on the broader points, but some significant variance on the specifics.”
OK. What is your source for this?
“Remember this one.– The pop. tech. 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?”
Scientific critique of scientific points made in papers that form the list.
Examples:
Links to raw data and source code used to create HadCRUT3 and similar data sets, with the resulting data showing the same curves as those in IPCC reports. That would deny skeptics their points on not being able to reproduce the results of pro-AGW folks (meaning pro-catastrophic AGW).
Exact descriptions of adjustments made to raw data, with rationale behind them that makes sense. Exact descriptions of selection criteria for stations, again, with rationale that makes sense. That would deny skeptics their points on raw data being bended and cherry-picked to fit the presupposed notion of catastrophic warming.
Scientific defense of the method of judging a physical variable by its proxies used by Mann, which generates hockey sticks on any kind of data, including random data.
Scientific defense of the claim of climate being dominated by positive-feedback loops. Scientific defense of the claim that, similarly to the predicted warming, the recent cooling is a result of such a positive-feedback loop that was apparently unaccounted for during previous analysis made by pro-AGW folks (meaning pro-catastrophic AGW again).
I can go on and on and on.
Shills,
If there is no crisis, why do we need crisis management?
Shills,
“Forgive me if I don’t like being portrayed inaccurately. Fair enough, no? ”
Several: 2 a : more than one b : more than two but fewer than many c chiefly dialect : being a great many
Good lord man….several can mean as few as two. I don’t see where Mr. Anonymous is portraying you inaccurately at all.
@ Anon.
By significant I mean not negligible. But I think the consensus hangs around the idea that the observed warming is mostly AGW.
The evidence for this is everywhere. Here is a recent survey:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf.
You say: OK. What is your source for this?
similar question to the main question I’ll answer soon-ish
About the list. I can’t comment on the science. If it’s good science than it’s being looked at. But you don’t think that list was dishonest in anyway?
@ Hunter:
You say: ‘If there is no crisis, why do we need crisis management?’
I didn’t say there was no crisis.
@ Wally:
What dictionary is that? Fair enough. All of mine say ‘more than 2’.
@Shills:
A small remark:
“About the list. I can’t comment on the science. If it’s good science than it’s being looked at. But you don’t think that list was dishonest in anyway?”
I am repeating myself, but I would rather discuss science than sources. It seems rather wasteful to theorize about what might be written in a paper, when you can read it. If you can’t reason about the actual science in the paper, that’s fine, but please keep in mind that any general arguments you can make about possible biases that the authors might or might not have had carry a much lower weight than factual arguments about the content.
Now for the real meat:
“I don’t know what exactly you mean by AGW being significant, in terms of numbers. What do you mean by that and what is your source for claiming the consensus?”
“By significant I mean not negligible. But I think the consensus hangs around the idea that the observed warming is mostly AGW. The evidence for this is everywhere. Here is a recent survey: …”
This is quite illustrative. I am specifically asking to clarify the use of the word “significant” with numbers (eg, how many degrees of warming will human-induced AGW account for during the course of a century). You don’t cite any numbers and instead “clarify” the word “significant” to mean “non negligible”, which is just another word with no numbers behind it.
The paper that you cite suffers from the same problem. The two questions asked to the respondents were (the majority answered “yes” to both):
“1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
My answer here would be “yes” as well. Does that mean that I support the notion of catastrophic AGW? No, not at all. The warming that we recently had was relatively small, not at all atypical given the history of the Earth, attempts to show that the warming will get out of hand in the near future to date have been absolutely abysmal and do not hold any ground, and so on and so forth.
“2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
Well, doh, I personally would probably answer “no” because I know this is a loaded question, but many would answer “yes” meaning “yes, it makes sense to spend time to research the link between human activity and global temperatures”. Answering “yes” is, again, in no way an endorsement of the notion of catastrophic AGW in general or the (rather strange, to put it mildly) science in IPCC reports in particular.
It would have been better to ask questions like “3. Do you agree with the predictions regarding climate made in IPCC report X?” or “4. Do you think the Earth will warm by Y degrees in the coming 100 years?”, but of course we never see the proponents of catastrophic AGW using questions like these, because yes, you guessed it, there is no consensus there.
So, there we have it. Whatever consensus pro-AGW folks (catastrophic AGW) claim to exist invariably turns out to be related to something trivial, like a consensus on whether or not it makes sense to research the impact of human activity on the climate (doh!). There is nothing close to a consensus on numbers like the amount of warming or cooling that we are going to experience in the coming century. It is the numbers that are vital for deciding whether or not the warming is significant enough *to take action about it* (keeping things simple and putting numerous complexities like the efficiency of proposed actions and the merits of various economical trade-offs aside). Yet, somehow having no consensus on these numbers does not prevent the proponents of catastrophic AGW from pretending that there is one and making recommendations to policy makers (!).
Shills,
Please stop evading.
If there is a crisis, where is this crisis?
Please be clear.
What does it look like?
What is this crisis doing?
@ Anon.
About the list. Well if you don’t care much about the sources of articles than you will looked fairly on these realclimate refutations of some of those papers.
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/450-more-lies-from-the-climate-change-deniers/
(not sure if all links work)
‘2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
Well, doh, I personally would probably answer “no” because I know this is a loaded question, but many would answer “yes” meaning “yes, it makes sense to spend time to research the link between human activity and global temperatures”. Answering “yes” is, again, in no way an endorsement of the notion of catastrophic AGW in general or the (rather strange, to put it mildly) science in IPCC reports in particular.
So are you saying that the peeps that answered yes to Q. 2, are agreeing that AGW is happening? Or merely saying that it is worth seeing if there is any AGW?
I agree that this survey falls on the vagueness of the term ‘significant’. The only thing this survey shows is that they think AGW is happening. You agree? I now agree that responses ‘yes’ to Q. 2 do not nec. indorse that the warming is mostly human induced, or catastrophic, but could include it.
But we agree that this survey shows a consensus that AGW is happening at some level, big or very small?
@ Hunter
The crisis is holding back the temp. increases to avoid the predicted negative impacts of those temp. increases in the future. Read a wiki or something.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/several
About that survey, how in the world are their only 79 climate researches with “recent” publications? And aren’t you biasing your sample by only surveying people that actively publish on “climate change?” How do the authors determine who’s publishing on “climate change?” What if someone did research to find no such thing as climate change? Does that count?
@Shills:
“So are you saying that the peeps that answered yes to Q. 2, are agreeing that AGW is happening? Or merely saying that it is worth seeing if there is any AGW?”
I think that if we get to the bottom of it, it is the latter. Everyone has heard by now scary tales of how we are all going to die due to the warming that we create, so when posed with a question formulated like the one in the article, people tend to err on the safe side and essentially say to themselves “can I say that we are not changing the climate? no… let’s then say that human activity is a significant factor, even though I don’t know that either, so that we can hope to find out what exactly is going on here”.
I bet if the question was formulated in the following way: “Do you think that human activity is / is not / might be a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”, most people would go for “might be”.
@ Wally:
The survey covers more than just active publishers, so it’s not biased to specialists. And even if it was just of published climate scientists, that does not constitute a bias unless you have reason to believe that this group is being dishonest. Also the article says it included dissenting opinions. And the 79 only includes those that have more han 50% of their published lit. on climate change.
Anon. says:
‘I bet if the question was formulated in the following way: “Do you think that human activity is / is not / might be a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”, most people would go for “might be”.’
Look at the graph again, there are three responses.
Shills,
I know the entire survey isn’t biased. But if you are to ask people that publish the most in a particular field if humans are causing something in that field, I think they are naturally inclined to say “yes.” After all, the areas we fund the most are areas we think we can effect (compare biomedical funding to say physics funding). I think Anonymous has explained this reasoning pretty well. I also dispute that a mere 79 people constitutes enough of a sample to speak for the entire climate change research community. It also seems that this 50% and 5 years is a very arbitrary set of standards to determine who is considered a “specialists.” Do you some how loose your specialists title when your publications on a specific climate research topic drop to 49%?
“unless you have reason to believe that this group is being dishonest.”
I very much think we have reason to doubt the honesty of this group. Have you not been paying attention to the emails, data loses, methods that produce the same result when using random data, etc.? Their honesty is very much in question.
Shills,
Reading wiki, since it is clear that their climate editor is corrupt and rewriting history to misrepresent AGw and skeptics(Orwellian efforts, for the troll), would be a waste of time.
Instead of being so vague, give us a flavor of the impending doom that AGW is bringing.
@ Wally:
You say: ‘But if you are to ask people that publish the most in a particular field if humans are causing something in that field, I think they are naturally inclined to say “yes.”‘
Those kind of natural urges are supposed to be suppressed in science. Sure, a scientist here and there may fumble, but a whole field?
You say: ‘I think Anonymous has explained this reasoning pretty well.’
I am interested to read that. Where to?
You say: ‘I also dispute that a mere 79 people constitutes enough of a sample to speak for the entire climate change research community.’
I think the sample size generally has to be more than 30 or 40 to allow for some meaningful extrapolation. But I’m no statistician.
What would be less arbitrary than the criteria stated? The line has to be drawn somewhere.
You say: ‘I very much think we have reason to doubt the honesty of this group. Have you not been paying attention to the emails, data loses, methods that produce the same result when using random data, etc.? Their honesty is very much in question.’
So which one is it? Are the scientists merely falling into natural urges or are they wilfully corrupt? Neither has been suggested to be true, except in the blogosphere and mass media. If there really was some widespread conspiracy going on wouldn’t the emails have shown a large network of suspicious communications? All they show is some annoyed scientists responding unprofessionally.
@ Hunter
What evidence do you have for those allegations of corruption? And wiki doesn’t have editors in the traditional sense.
Read the IPCC pubs. for some indication of consequences.
What are you trying to get at? Are you unsure if a significantly warmer planet will be very disruptive for future generations?
Shills,
“Those kind of natural urges are supposed to be suppressed in science. Sure, a scientist here and there may fumble, but a whole field?”
I agree its unlikely a whole field is going to act this way, but it would seem to me that much of the field has been tainted by a select few at the top of the field (ie. Jones, Mann). So I do believe that the field in general has latched on to this AGW thing largely because they have to in order to survive give the behavior of those at the top.
“I am interested to read that. Where to? ”
Don’t be a dick Shills, you’ve read his posts.
“I think the sample size generally has to be more than 30 or 40 to allow for some meaningful extrapolation. But I’m no statistician.”
That’s a general rule they teach you in STAT 101. But depending on what you’re doing it may or may not be correct. Taking a poll is tricky business. Ie. if you conducted a poll in your home town about the approval rating of Obama and got only 30-40 people do you actually think it would be representative of the nation? What if you got 30-40 people from across the US? When taking a poll you have to be vary careful to make sure you’re polling a sample of people that equal represents the entire group. So if we had 20 researchers from CRU in this 79 sample, that would make up ~25% of the sample. I have no idea if that’s the case or not, but it should be pretty obvious that isn’t a representative sample anymore. They say they just sent out an email, or something with a link right? They didn’t really address any bias issues at all.
“If there really was some widespread conspiracy going on wouldn’t the emails have shown a large network of suspicious communications? All they show is some annoyed scientists responding unprofessionally.”
Well, I’m not sure I call it a “widespread conspiracy” but its definitely not ethical science that is being done by some of those in this field (again see lost raw data, analysis/methods that are hidden so no replication can be done, contacting people to get help writing bad reviews, etc).
@ Wally:
Re. the Anon. stuff. If he hasn’t said it on this spec. thread than I haven’t seen it. If it is on here than I can’t remember there being much.
Re. the survey. It could be a dishonestly biased survey, but there is no evidence of this. I think one of the author’s (M. Kendall Zimmerman) masters thesis is based on the data so it’d be pretty risky for her to use biased data for her submission. Your example of a bias, a CRU overrepresentation in the survey, is possible but remember that only 4% of the respondents were from outside of U.S. and Canada, thats about 125 peeps from 21 different countries. If anything there is a US bias.
The theory that climate science has a suppressive hierarchy that skews data has yet to be shown. Why would the little scientists need to support this suppression?
Shills,
You mean the IPCC that uses wiki as source material, or the IPCC that just got busted for making false claims about glacier loss? Or perhaps the IPCC that is led by a guy who is getting very rich advising companies and investors on the ideas he has the IPCC promote?
And if you are unenlightened about how unreliable wiki is, just read:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/william-connolley-and-wikipedia-turborevisionism/
Shills,
Sorry about the double post.
irt your question, please answer my question with specifics.
Your side is claiming that we are facing ‘climate disruption’, climate catastrophe’ a ‘planetary fever’, etc. etc. etc.
But what are the manifestations of this disruption, catastrophe and fever that we need to worry about?
And, as a second question, why are you so evasive on this?
It should be the heart of your position, tripping eloquently from your lips.
When a doctor tells you to undergo chemo, the physician is not vague about the cost of doing nothing.
Please illuminate your position, if you can.
Shills,
“Why would the little scientists need to support this suppression?”
Granting for one, also actually being able to pass the rigged peer review (which is supported by communications that have been referenced in this blog).
@ Hunter
Wiki is pretty reliable, not far off closed encyclopaedias. The turbo posting thing with Connolley doesn’t incriminate either side.
Where does the IPCC quote Wiki?
If the IPCC have made mistakes then they’ll prob. rectify them.
Someone making money off something doesn’t mean it’s a scam. You can make money of the issue too you know.
The manifestations. changes in temp that will endanger ecosystems that can’t adapt in time. Glacier retreat that feed major rivers, more extreme weather… Pretty much the same stuff the IPCC says yo.
I’m sure this ain’t news to ya. What are you trying to say? I’m evasive because there are better sources than me on the topic.
@ Wally
Can you direct me to the evidence for rigged peer-review system and the other stuff of Anon’s?
How do the bigger scientists dictate who of the little scientists get funding, all over the world?
Why couldn’t these little scientists speak out? Why aren’t the college professors and lecturers, or any of the working scientists warning the undergrads that their chosen field goes against the philosophy of modern science. Why are the peeps on the survey going along with a false theory if they know their names are kept private? Why don’t any of the major scientific organisations around the world share your suspicions? Why aren’t the any (I think) court proceedings on the issue?
Again, As of yet, to my knowledge there is no suggestion that a widespread scam is happening.
Shills,
“Can you direct me to the evidence for rigged peer-review system”
Go back to the main blog page, read that email in the “Defending the Tribe” post. There is no question the scientists referenced are attempting to stifle dissenting opinions (and doing so by behaving unethically), which is also seen in another email in their attempt to get certain papers out of the IPCC reports.
“How do the bigger scientists dictate who of the little scientists get funding, all over the world?”
Well you do know how the granting system works, right? Here in the US grants are basically peer reviewed in a similar way to papers. They send out the grants to specialists in the field, or set up panels of specialists to meet to grade the grants. Part of the process includes looking at the previous work done by the PIs. Meaning if they had been hindered in publishing by a rigged peer review, they no longer look to be as productive. Plus, the same people rigging the peer review are likely to be the reviewers of the grant in the first place. So if Cook, Briffa, Mann, etc., are all willing to consult with one another to rig peer review, not only does that effect the granting by hindering publications, why wouldn’t they also do it for granting directly? Basically, they have behaved unethically and lost the trust that they can behave in manner necessary for the success of peer review.
“Why couldn’t these little scientists speak out?”
First, some do. Second, and to speculate, it may be easier for some to just go with the flow.
“Why aren’t the college professors and lecturers, or any of the working scientists warning the undergrads that their chosen field goes against the philosophy of modern science.”
Can you show me that some college professors aren’t doing that? What do you think Lindzen is doing?
“Why are the peeps on the survey going along with a false theory if they know their names are kept private?”
Well with only 79 active climatologists polled, I’m not sure exactly how much weight we should be assigning this poll. Also, with no discussion of bias issues or confidence intervals in that poll I can’t give any weight to it. What if we learned the confidence interval was 30%? What if we learned that those believing in AGW were more likely to answer the survey? This was a very incomplete poll.
“Why don’t any of the major scientific organisations around the world share your suspicions?”
Uh, I can cite several major climatologists that share my suspicions. I’m not quite sure why we need “organisations” here (though I’m sure I could find a handful of industrial organizations that share my thinking)? Are organizations inherently better some how? Aren’t they really just more likely to represent the group-think? And isn’t this just an appeal to popular belief anyway? Or basically, so what if X number of people don’t agree, that doesn’t make me wrong.
“Why aren’t the any (I think) court proceedings on the issue?”
There isn’t anything big going on now because we haven’t seen any major legislation passed to restrict CO2 yet. Thus, there isn’t a lot of need for the court proceedings. But as soon as the EPA tries to enforce that CO2 endangerment finding or Cap and Trade is passed, expect to see plenty of court battles.
@ Wally:
That ‘defending the tribe’ thing only suggests misdemeanours of a select few, not the entire world of climate science.
I can’t show you that profs. earn’t warning their students. The onus is on the skeptics to give evidence of this conspiracy.
You have no reason to think the survey is dishonestly biased. Like I said it was the same data used for Zimmerman’s masters thesis, that doesn’t prove anything but I sure wouldn’t compromise my thesis with doge data.
If the scientists are clearly committing fraud then someone must be getting in trouble for it. By now there have been a lot of eyes focused on climate science.
Don’t you think that he CRU emails would show more than just the few unethical statements or actions made if there was a major conspiracy? Or are all those discussions made from dif. email accounts?
I have been waiting for Anon. to come back before putting forward other surveys but I may has well do it sooner rather than later. This, remember, was my task in showing evidence for a consensus in the IPCC’s ‘catastrophic’ claims.
@Shills:
Sorry for dropping out for a bit.
“I bet if the question was formulated in the following way: “Do you think that human activity is / is not / might be a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”, most people would go for “might be”.”
“Look at the graph again, there are three responses.”
Looked. There are indeed three responses, and most people go for “yes” or “no” instead of “I’m not sure”. I lose the bet.
I still think that most of the “yes” answers do not carry much weight in that they mostly mean “yes, I hear about AGW all the time, I accept what I hear at face value because I believe that science is generally done by honest people, I think that the topic is important, let’s research it more”. I suggest we wait a bit for new reports and see how many of these “yes” answers will convert to “no”, as more people become disillusioned in the way climate science is done, in the wake of the Climategate scandal.
I am happy to hear we agree that answers to this and other questions in the survey can not in any way demonstrate an endorsement of the idea that the climate change is mostly human-induced or catastrophic.
I think you are wrong about the climate researchers in the survey not being biased, and about there being no problem with the permanent doctoring of Wikipedia pages on climate change. As different as peer-reviewed science and Wikipedia are, both these things, in the portion dedicated to climate change, have long been dominated by the proponents of catastrophic AGW, with similar effects.
Dominating the processes of peer review and scientific publication allowed the pro-AGW camp to significantly increase the number of papers supporting their views and significantly reduce the number of papers going against these views. There is plenty of evidence of that in the emails. This has been going on for years.
Dominating the process of editing key Wikipedia pages related to climate change allowed the pro-AGW camp to silence the contrarian points of view, establish that catastrophic AGW is “common knowledge”, and, basically, brain-wash the masses (eg, by labeling skeptics “deniers” to invoke an unfavorable association).
Both these things no doubt had an impact on the result of the survey, at the entire spectrum of more-informed to less-informed.
Shills,
BS.
If you are simply going to pretend nothing is real except what you already believe, and you are immune to fact or information, then the heck with ya.
@ Anon.
You say: ‘I still think that most of the “yes” answers do not carry much weight in that they mostly mean “yes, I hear about AGW all the time, I accept what I hear at face value because I believe that science is generally done by honest people, I think that the topic is important, let’s research it more”.’
I don’t think so. Most of these respondents aren’t lay peeps. They have training and knowledge to make an educated answer without having to rely on ‘face value’ assumptions. They would not rationalise in such a sloppy way. If they were in doubt, they didn’t have to choose ‘yes’.
You say: ‘I am happy to hear we agree that answers to this and other questions in the survey can not in any way demonstrate an endorsement of the idea that the climate change is mostly human-induced or catastrophic.’
I didn’t say that. I said that those opinions could be in there along with any other opinions which fall under the vague definition of ‘significant’.
How is the survey biased?
I didn’t say there was nothing wrong re. the wiki editing. The wiki stuff doesn’t incriminate either side. Both sides were editing.
There is no evidence that the peer-review system is rigged. The CRU emails show some unethical actions but this does not suggest the entire system is rigged.
I have some more surveys:
http://dvsun3.gkss.de/BERICHTE/GKSS_Berichte_2007/GKSS_2007_11.pdf
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf
Anon. should be happy as it addresses the IPCC as well.
@ Hunter
You say: ‘BS.
If you are simply going to pretend nothing is real except what you already believe, and you are immune to fact or information, then the heck with ya.’
How do you know this doesn’t apply to you?
@ Anon.
You say: ‘I still think that most of the “yes” answers do not carry much weight in that they mostly mean “yes, I hear about AGW all the time, I accept what I hear at face value because I believe that science is generally done by honest people, I think that the topic is important, let’s research it more”.’
I don’t think so. Most of these respondents aren’t lay peeps. They have training and knowledge to make an educated answer. They wouldn’t make such sloppy rationalisations and If they were in serious doubt, they didn’t have to choose ‘yes’.
You say: ‘I am happy to hear we agree that answers to this and other questions in the survey can not in any way demonstrate an endorsement of the idea that the climate change is mostly human-induced or catastrophic.’
I didn’t say that. I said that those opinions could be in there along with any other opinions which fall under the vague definition of ‘significant’.
How is the survey biased?
I didn’t say there was nothing wrong re. the wiki editing. The wiki stuff doesn’t incriminate either side. Both sides were editing.
There is no evidence that the peer-review system is rigged. The CRU emails show some unethical actions but this does not suggest the entire system is rigged.
Now for some other surveys:
http://dvsun3.gkss.de/BERICHTE/GKSS_Berichte_2007/GKSS_2007_11.pdf
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf
They address the IPCC so that should please Anon.
@ Hunter:
You say: ‘BS.
If you are simply going to pretend nothing is real except what you already believe, and you are immune to fact or information, then the heck with ya.’
Lolol. How do you know this doesn’t apply to you?
testing
@ Anon.
You say: ‘I still think that most of the “yes” answers do not carry much weight in that they mostly mean “yes, I hear about AGW all the time, I accept what I hear at face value because I believe that science is generally done by honest people, I think that the topic is important, let’s research it more”.’
I don’t think so. Most of these respondents aren’t lay peeps. They have training and knowledge to make an educated answer. They wouldn’t make such sloppy rationalisations and If they were in serious doubt, they didn’t have to choose ‘yes’.
You say: ‘I am happy to hear we agree that answers to this and other questions in the survey can not in any way demonstrate an endorsement of the idea that the climate change is mostly human-induced or catastrophic.’
I didn’t say that. I said that those opinions could be in there along with any other opinions which fall under the vague definition of ‘significant’.
How is the survey biased?
I didn’t say there was nothing wrong re. the wiki editing. The wiki stuff doesn’t incriminate either side. Both sides were editing.
There is no evidence that the peer-review system is rigged. The CRU emails show some unethical actions but this does not suggest the entire system is rigged.
Now for some other surveys:
http://dvsun3.gkss.de/BERICHTE/GKSS_Berichte_2007/GKSS_2007_11.pdf
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf
They address the IPCC so that should please Anon.
@ Hunter:
You say: ‘BS.
If you are simply going to pretend nothing is real except what you already believe, and you are immune to fact or information, then the heck with ya.’
Lol. How do you know this doesn’t apply to you?
Now for some other surveys:
http://dvsun3.gkss.de/BERICHTE/GKSS_Berichte_2007/GKSS_2007_11.pdf
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf
Now for some other surveys:
http://dvsun3.gkss.de/BERICHTE/GKSS_Berichte_2007/GKSS_2007_11.pdf
And
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf
Sorry but I’m having trouble uploading things for some reason…
@ Anon.
You say: ‘I still think that most of the “yes” answers do not carry much weight in that they mostly mean “yes, I hear about AGW all the time, I accept what I hear at face value because I believe that science is generally done by honest people, I think that the topic is important, let’s research it more”.’
I don’t think so. Most of these respondents aren’t lay peeps. They have training and knowledge to make an educated answer. They wouldn’t make such sloppy rationalisations and If they were in serious doubt, they didn’t have to choose ‘yes’.
You say: ‘I am happy to hear we agree that answers to this and other questions in the survey can not in any way demonstrate an endorsement of the idea that the climate change is mostly human-induced or catastrophic.’
I didn’t say that. I said that those opinions could be in there along with any other opinions which fall under the vague definition of ‘significant’.
How is the survey biased?
I didn’t say there was nothing wrong re. the wiki editing. The wiki stuff doesn’t incriminate either side. Both sides were editing.
There is no evidence that the peer-review system is rigged. The CRU emails show some unethical actions but this does not suggest the entire system is rigged.
Now for some other surveys:
(see other posts for links)
They address the IPCC so that should please Anon.
@ Hunter:
You say: ‘BS.
If you are simply going to pretend nothing is real except what you already believe, and you are immune to fact or information, then the heck with ya.’
Lolol. How do you know this doesn’t apply to you?
Shill,
Because my position is clear, and yours is hidden.
My position is that no climate manifestations have been experienced that are outside the range of historical variability, and that AGW- catastrophistic cliamte change induced by CO2 changes, will do no better than any other global catastrophic claim since the story of Noah was first recounted.
You’re full of BS because you choose to not answer the question.