Global Warming

[yovargas]

Jeez, folks. I don't understand what the problem is. GBG's position seems pretty clear to me. How bout simplifying it to this - GBG does not trust much of this research at face value for reasons he has repeatedly stated; most of the rest of us do trust much of this research at face value for reasons others have repeatedly stated. Since nobody in this thread, to my knowledge, has gone out and done the research or tried to duplicate or analyze it, than all of us can only trust that it is true or that it is not.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

For instance, there's
a certain party from Chicago,
South Side Chapter.
Now, some people say
he's gotten a little too big for his spats.
But l say he's a man who'll go far.
Some people say he's gone too far.
But l say,
you can't keep a good man down.
Of course, he's still got a lot to learn.
The big noise he made
on St Valentine's Day,
that wasn't very good for public relations.
And lettin' them two witnesses get away.
That sure was careless.
Some people would say
that's real sloppy.
But l say: to err is human,
to forgive divine.

That's Little Bonaparte in Some Like It Hot.
This style of argument reminds me of that movie sequence. In other words there's this or that highly unlikely idea which I couldn't possibly believe but nevertheless I will continue to present all sorts of arguments for.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Okay. I'll answer, but I'm sure you won't be satisfied with the answer.

Do I think there is evidence for further deficiencies? Probably, but I haven't the means for finding it.

What is the evidence? I refer you to my previous answer.

There is a trend to "circle the wagons" amongst climate scientists when challenged by "skeptics", as "climategate" demonstrated. I believe it is a consequence of the over-politicization of the research. I also believe that research is being skewed because research is results driven, and the economic imperative has become geared to producing data that confirms AGW.

Voronwë, I take repeated demands as symptomatic of intimidatory behaviour; bullying. If my answers fail to meet your high expectations, then I would hope that you would simply accept that. I have kept a consistent position, from my first post in this topic. I am skeptical of forced orthodoxy.

Fini

First of all, I apologize that I have made you feel bullied or intimidated. That has not been my intention. It is clear that there is a disconnect between our respective understandings of the difference between evidence and supposition, and so I will not pursue this any further.

[vison]

Jeez, folks. I don't understand what the problem is. GBG's position seems pretty clear to me. How bout simplifying it to this - GBG does not trust much of this research at face value for reasons he has repeatedly stated; most of the rest of us do trust much of this research at face value for reasons others have repeatedly stated. Since nobody in this thread, to my knowledge, has gone out and done the research or tried to duplicate or analyze it, than all of us can only trust that it is true or that it is not.

My cousin goes to a Crystal Healer. I go to a regular doctor. Why do I do that, when she says the Crystal Healer is so much better? I go to a regular doctor because, jeez, yovargas, I trust MUCH, NOT ALL modern medicine and I don't trust Crystal Healers at all. I am not a doctor. I can only use my head to think with - and my thinking tells me that modern western medicine is better than Crystal Healing, even if she does burn nice candles and hold your hand while she heals you. AND takes your $20 or whatever she charges.

The same with climate science. The vast majority of climate scientists seem pretty sure that something bad is going on. There is a healthy amount of argument, but overall there is a consensus. So many of the doubters are NOT climate scientists. So who am I going to "trust"?

GBG's position does not seem so clear to me as it does to you. He doubts, simply because, hey, scientists here and there have fiddled with data, have made mistakes, are human. But the pile of work being built is so enormous, so validated, that I think it rational to accept the idea that, hey, something bad is going on and we better look out.

Could it all be a mistake? Of course it could. There are people all around the world working to prove it is. And IF they build a high enough pile, their "view" will become the "truth". "Settled", in other words.

But so far? Not much of a pile.

And since many millions of dollars of industry money is being devoted to propaganda against climate change instead of into ways of profiting from it, I am on the Right Side.

[Primula Baggins]

Here are two scenarios:

1. A climate scientist finds nothing alarming in her data, but the rich liberal media and the attendant fame persuade her that she needs to push the alarmist agenda for her own future success, and so she bends her data to fit that. She submits the cherrypicked data to a corrupt journal, which publishes it. Someday down the road this one paper helps her get a committee position or something. (Until her data are conclusively challenged by multiple labs, one of her technicians turns on her and reveals the chicanery, and she is fired shortly after her first appearance on Rachel Maddow.)

2. A climate scientist finds some very alarming data, and looking at her children persuades her that she needs to publish it. She submits it to a journal, which reviews it and accepts the paper. Other climate scientists test her data and are able to reproduce it. Someday down the road this one paper helps her get a committee position or something. (Labs that test her data continue to reinforce it, and although she never gets rich, she never gets fired either, even after her appearance on Rachel Maddow.)

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

And the third scenario. A climate scientist finds some results that, if manipulated in a certain fashion, can be used to support an argument that the climate scientist believes is a crucial argument, but which, frustratingly, is difficult to prove to a skeptical public. In collusion with a reputable publication, the scientist presents the data with an alarmist trend, even though that trend is unsupported by the data, with the admitted purpose of creating said alarm. Furthermore, the scientist is unapologetic about this falsification. The ends justify the means. The reputable publication, being complicit in the falsification, consequently demonstrates, for the "best of motives", a capacity to deceive readers as policy regarding this discipline.

This should make readers more skeptical over published results from climate scientists, as there is admitted history of collusion between scientists and publisher with the purpose of deception.

AGW zeolots, such as vison, are true believers in the same way that homeopathic medicine zealots are true believers. I'm not a true believer. In anything. I'm skeptical of forced orthodoxy, especially when breathless conclusions supporting that forced orthodoxy are shown to be false. Homeopaths try to fit data to create a proof. This is not an acceptable scientific method. Yet it is exactly what has been undertaken here. I find that troubling, and it reinforces my skepticism.

There is a repeated ad hominem attack against AGW skeptics, accusing them all of being in the pay of "industries". Strangely, those attacks are never levelled at AGW supporting scientists who also receive their funding from those "industries". It seems, to a certain mindset, that only the orthodox can be upright! The truth, as always, is far more complicated. There are skeptics who aren't funded by "industries", and there are AGW proponents who are. As is the case with ad hominem attacks, this one only has pinprick worth.

So for, I hope, the final time, I'd like to make my position clear. I am not certain regarding AGW, although I lean towards it. However, I find the "AGW industry" remiss in the way it claims each and every extreme weather event as "proof" of AGW. They are nothing of the sort. I believe that the orthodox conclusions of climate scientists regarding AGW as the motor behind global warming is stated with too much certainty. Irrespective of the accusations of others, I am not in denial (as I thought I made clear in my first post on this topic), but I maintain my skepticism.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

There are two communities which seem to get confused.
There is the scientific community which publishes research and which may indeed comment and warn about the consequences of their research as they see them. That is their privilege based on their hard work and particular insight.

Then there are the advocacy groups who use the scientific work selectively for polemic purposes. Some of these groups make measured statements. Some do not.
It seems unfair to target the scientific community for the wilder excesses of the second group.

But then there is another community who target scientists exclusively in order to make the public distrust the science. This is a deliberate strategy honed over many campaigns. I heard one supporter of the third group on another Tolkien messageboard crow that one such climate scientist was on suicide watch after such targetting.

[Primula Baggins]

Working to discredit science as such is a major industry in the United States, Tosh. Scientists keep coming up with conclusions that (a) contradict the Bible, or (b) might cost corporations some market share. It has to be stopped, and the only way to devalue science is to discredit the data itself by implying the journals and the scientists themselves are corrupt and in collusion. I saw it years ago with evolution and the link between smoking and cancer; now it's climate change.

"Circling the wagons" against disingenuous and misleading attacks is not an unreasonable response for scientists to make. Trying to set the record straight is not defensiveness born of guilt. The ones who want to discredit science, though, are really good at portraying it that way. It's all gravy, after all, when any attempt to dispute a charge can be painted as proof that the charge is legitimate; I guess an honest person would not be so arrogant as to deny that he's a corrupt liar and his entire professional life has been a fraud.

(I'm not talking about GbG's posts; I'm talking about things like energy-company ad campaigns, lobbying in Congress, etc.)

[vison]

AGW zeolots, such as vison,

Put a cork in it.

I think the climate is changing, and I tend to think it doesn't matter a rat's ass if it the change is man-caused or merely man-exacerbated -- in either case we ought to be preparing to deal with it.

I could go to Crystal Healer and let her soothe my concerns. She thinks all science is silly, anyway.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

AGW zeolots, such as vison,

Put a cork in it.

If I've mis-stated your position, then I withdraw it. It was most probably a consequence of you mis-stating my position.

I think the climate is changing, and I tend to think it doesn't matter a rat's ass if it the change is man-caused or merely man-exacerbated -- in either case we ought to be preparing to deal with it.

"Dealing with" can only give partial respite. Cause is as, if not more, important. The degree to which humanity is responsible matters. My most serious quibble with the "Climate Change Industry" (for such it has become) is the way it is used to peripheralise "competing" environmental issues. Everything is CO2 this and CO2 that. It is incredibly narrow.

ToshoftheWuffingas you miss out that third community, which has been the issue over the last page or so; the scientific community that sensationalises its data for reasons of advocacy. This distortion is counter-productive, dishonest, and really should be avoided. What is deplorable here is that Science has crossed the line from science reportage to political advocacy, and by doing so loses credibility.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I agree that the comment about AGW Zealots and the comparison to homeopathic zealots was unnecessarily insulting. Also, Ghân, I don't believe that anyone has accused you of being in denial (if you believe otherwise, please point out such posts to me privately). Misrepresenting the posts of others is also not appropriate here.

This is a topic that often seems to generate hard feelings. Let me ask that everyone step back and be careful to moderate there own tone and content.

[River]

Working to discredit science as such is a major industry in the United States, Tosh. Scientists keep coming up with conclusions that (a) contradict the Bible, or (b) might cost corporations some market share.

Unless, of course, the science actually gains you market share. In that case, plaster "scientifically proven!" all over the ads!

[Ellienor]

AGW zeolots, such as vison, are true believers in the same way that homeopathic medicine zealots are true believers.

I find this statement just mindbogglingly ironic because, of course, there is NO science supporting homeopathy and in fact, scientific facts completely contradict the "theory" behind homeopathy. So to compare climate change supporters (who are on the side of the weight of the evidence) to homeopathy supporters (who are going against evidence) is inapposite and inappropriate, to say the least.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

AGW zeolots, such as vison, are true believers in the same way that homeopathic medicine zealots are true believers.

I find this statement just mindbogglingly ironic because, of course, there is NO science supporting homeopathy and in fact, scientific facts completely contradict the "theory" behind homeopathy. So to compare climate change supporters (who are on the side of the weight of the evidence) to homeopathy supporters (who are going against evidence) is inapposite and inappropriate, to say the least.

Yes, I concur with your irony. However, I was not comparing theory with theory; I was comparing zealot with zealot, and how each presents data. It was a specific criticism of method, not the underlying factual basis of each belief system. The AGW belief system is supported by theory based on empirical fact. Homeopathy isn't. That does not preclude supporters of AGW behaving like supporters of homeopathy, and engaging in non-scientific methods.

However, it isn't the best analogy, as the amount of confusion generated shows, so I'll withdraw it.

[Ellienor]

Well, I have a lot more respect for the AGW "zealots" than I do for the homeopathy "zealots."

And for me, I tend to extend the benefit of the doubt to results published that tend to support AGW because, after all, the climate change records, the physics of the molecules, and the theory all tend to point one way. Therefore more data published supporting AGW tends to not make my skepticism-meter go off.

And, you know, if AGW is wrong? That's fine with me. In fact, it would be nice to know that the world is outgassing CO2 because it's heating up from some completely natural cause (the reasoning I have seen some here use.) I really don't have an axe to grind or a dog in the hunt. I was trained as a scientist. I have faith in the ability of the scientific community to grope around and through lurches and sideways motions and arguments and lots of lots of data, to overall make progress towards understanding of the natural world.

[elfshadow]

And, you know, if AGW is wrong? That's fine with me. In fact, it would be nice to know that the world is outgassing CO2 because it's heating up from some completely natural cause (the reasoning I have seen some here use.) I really don't have an axe to grind or a dog in the hunt. I was trained as a scientist. I have faith in the ability of the scientific community to grope around and through lurches and sideways motions and arguments and lots of lots of data, to overall make progress towards understanding of the natural world.

This is an excellent point. To be honest, I never understood why the whole global warming debate was so terribly contentious. Even if humans are not responsible for the increase in carbon dioxide emissions, there are still plenty of reasons in my mind to take the same steps that people are advocating now. There are plenty of other good reasons to drive less, burn fewer fossil fuels, find efficient and viable sources of renewable energy, recycle, etc. If people who are able could drive less and walk or bike or take public transportation more, there would be less traffic for those who really need the roads and perhaps we as a nation would be more fit. If we could develop a wide-scale renewable energy network, perhaps we wouldn't have as many political battles over natural resources with other countries. If we could all recycle more, perhaps we wouldn't fill up so many landfills and we could have more space to do other things. I do not think any of the solutions that AGW supporters usually suggest to decrease global warming would be a bad idea if it turned out that we were not responsible for global warming. So I just don't see what all the hullabaloo is about.

[River]

There are plenty of other good reasons to drive less, burn fewer fossil fuels, find efficient and viable sources of renewable energy, recycle, etc. If people who are able could drive less and walk or bike or take public transportation more, there would be less traffic for those who really need the roads and perhaps we as a nation would be more fit. If we could develop a wide-scale renewable energy network, perhaps we wouldn't have as many political battles over natural resources with other countries.

In addition, if we cease burning fossil fuels, the troubles we have with air pollution will abate and the environmental and humanitarian damage that comes with fossil fuel extraction will also stop. Furthermore, if the US in particular can wean itself from fossil fuels, we can stop propping up/going easy on/licking the toes of states we probably shouldn't be so nice to just because those states sell us oil. It's full of win, really. So full of win that, for strategic purposes, the U.S. military has ordered less dependence on fossil fuels. Like elsha, I fail to see what the big hang-up is.

(As an aside, though I am not generally a fan of the military, I'm rather glad they're taking this action - where the military tech goes, the civilian tech follows.)

[Primula Baggins]

A further point: even if we are not causing global warming, mitigating it and reducing the extent of the climate disaster is a good thing. We take action (or try to) to mitigate the effects of other natural disasters. What exempts this one (if [big if] it is natural)? There seems to be no doubt it's happening; why shouldn't we do what we can to slow it down, just as we fight wildfires burning near towns or hurricane flooding near inhabited coastlines?

[vison]

I don't think, myself, that it can be slowed down. But we can certainly begin to get ready for the results. And of course we should stop pouring poisons into the air, water, and earth. We're like Orcs in that way. Fouling everywhere we go.

[Primula Baggins]

We can stop making it worse, certainly.

Limiting the increase in atmospheric CO2 would delay the worst of it to some degree, allowing more time for the world to prepare for sea level rises, droughts, and severe weather; but the political reality appears to be that that will never happen. At least not soon enough.