Climate Change: Fact, Fiction, Something in Between?

[steveo73]

Guys - I'm pretty educated on this topic. You are entitled to your opinions but the arrogance to make out that you are right because you are using science and its like the flat earth theory is quite simply delusional.

I'd love to have a rational debate with each side calmly and logical stating their point of view however its not possible at this point because you guys resort to this stuff all the time.

Its a pointless discussion because logical reasoning is simply not possible.

[jacob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

A description about how a small handful of people wrote the playbook on how to create and maintain a public perception of controversy despite the existence of an established scientific consensus. I recommend it as a way of gaining insight into the standard ways of how data can be and has been manipulated to create false impressions for several different issues. It's like the methods of Bernays but instead of trying to sell products, the goal is to develop anti-scientific beliefs in the public instead to achieve certain policy goals. The applied version of agnotology so to speak.
Also see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology

It's interesting (and scary) how universally applicable these tricks of the trade are. When I received my doctorate I actually swore an oath that was the scientific equivalent of the medical "do no harm". Apparently, those who go into public policy or PR are free to ignore this at will.

[steveo73]

Jacob - those are interesting points. I sort of feel though that those tricks that you are talking about are exactly what GW proponents are trying to use. GW proponents state that their predictions are based on science. The problem is that you have to understand what they mean when they state science.

I'll try to make this a simple proposition for you. There is a simple formula that goes like this:-

x = a + y + z.

If the variables a + y+ z are known and they are input into the equation but the end result does not equal x then there is obviously some error in the formula. This is what has definitely happened with regards to GW. This is where the science argument completely falls over. You have a choice here. The first option is to state well the formula requires some work and quite possibly we are not modeling the relationship that we are trying to model correctly. The second option is to state its scientific that the formula is correct.

To me taking the second approach is unscientific. To me that approach shows a whole lot of ignorance. This is the approach of the GW proponents.

I'm a skeptic. This doesn't mean that I don't believe. It means that I require much clearer proof to be able to state yes GW is occurring. I take a factual approach whereas the GW proponent takes the approach of being in my opinion dishonest when it comes to making their point. They state they are using science and they might be. The point being they use their version of science which doesn't pass my version of what I consider science.

I think a good way to look at this is to take a step back and look at the pro-warming arguments especially the terminology that is used. I hear the term physics being used however the climate is a very complex system and physics are not the best way to understand how the climate works. The reason that this is the case is that at this point we do not understand how a whole bunch of different factors that contribute to the weather interact. If we are using physics then how come the models don't work as predicted.

This article also uses physics to explain why GW is not occurring:- http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/ ... ience.html

I think that this article was also linked to on this thread:- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ogist.html

Here is another article based on the same comments:- http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/john-c ... lid-48622/

It is really interesting to hear the comments regarding science:-

The IPCC still claim that their research shows that man-made global warming will lead to extreme weather events becoming more frequent and unpredictable.

Climate expert William Happer, from Princeton University, supported Mr Coleman’s claims.

“No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonisation of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production,” added William Happer, from Princeton University in support of Coleman.

“The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.”

In 2010 a high-level inquiry by the InterAcademy Council found there was “little evidence” to support the IPCC’s claims about global warming.

I understand that lots of people want to buy into GW. I understand its an emotional issue. It shouldn't be. It should be something that is discussed logically and factually.

The facts are not on the side of the GW proponents at this point. That is really where it ends if we are taking what I consider a scientific viewpoint.

This is another really good article that explains some key points that I have tried to get across unsuccessfully.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawk ... /page/full

And one more article yet again that iterates the different between the GW "science" and what I and others consider science.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index ... ttled.html

I hope you can see the parallels between the GW proponents arguments and this point here:-

For decades, peptic ulcer was believed to be caused by mental stress and excess stomach acid. Following many years of experiments, physicians Barry Marshall and Robin Warren reported in 1985 that peptic ulcer was caused by Heliobacter pylori.

I really think that this discussion should be focused on science and what constitutes science. I think once that occurs the GW proponents will have to take a step back and stop with the BS arguments that they continue to use.

[George the original one]

When I check what the InterAcademy Council actually reported in 2010 vs. the quote used, they do not match. Your anti-GW source is manipulating you big-time! You'll find that report prominently featured at http://www.interacademycouncil.net/ and discover that it's a review of the IPCC organization rather than a dispute over the science.

[workathome]

He's just trolling

[jacob]

As has been repeatedly stated and collated and published, there is an overwhelming consensus between scientists that climate change is real and is happening and that humans are responsible. We're talking 97% support which by any definition would be landslide of agreement between people who are experts in the field.

Conversely, support in the general population is closer to 50/50 depending on what year you ask. (It's higher after natural disasters and lower in other periods.).

Why is there such a wide gap between people who know what they're talking about and the public? This has been studied too---by psychologists and sociologists, and obviously think tanks, public policy experts, and other propaganda workers.

In agnotology, that is, the study of culturally induced doubt, denialism is defined as

--- the use of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate/controversy when there in fact is none with the ultimate goal of rejecting an established proposition for which scientific consensus exists.

Debating an argument usually means testing the strength of a proposition with the ultimate goal of finding the truth about the proposition. It REQUIRES that both parties adhere to the rules such as being willing to consider ALL the evidence (instead of cherry-picking), to reject deliberate distortions (such as manipulated graphs---temperature graphs as shown above are the most popular ones), to accept verified evidence into the discussion instead of rejecting it as "opinions" or "viewpoints", and to follow the rules of logic (not dismissing logical conclusions as "beliefs").

Without this it's not a debate. It's just a silly exercise in rhetoric (like engaging a 15 year old debate-student as to whether the moon exists) or a scary propaganda activity, depending one's perspective.

What is interesting to me is how these rules are broken in consistent ways regardless of what's being denied. Whether it's the holocaust, the efficacy of measles vaccinations, evolution, moon landings, the connection between cancer and smoking, or climate change.---That while many logical fallacies exist, the same few are being used over and over.

Here's the playbook so that people can spot them.

1) Data manipulation, that is, showing only a subset of the data with the intent of leading people to the opposite conclusion of what the entire dataset shows. For example, temperature graphs that only show the data between 1998 (a high point) and 2009 (a low point). The trick here is to hide long term trend in the natural variability by cherry-picking a period to show the conclusion one desires. A scientist doing this would quickly find themselves in front of the ethics committee. Whereas working scientists repeatedly check themselves against this kind of deception and can generally spot it a mile a way, orators consistently abuse it, and laymen tend to fall for it.

2) Cherry-picking, that is, drawing on isolated and weak papers as being representative of the entire body of evidence and focusing on that in the attempt to "prove" that the entire body of evidence is wrong. This can be an outdated paper (e.g. "scientists in the 1970 promised a new ice age" (fact: there was only a handful of papers published on aerosols. The hype came about due to a popular non-fiction book.). More regularly, the focus seems to be on the latest discoveries trying to insinuate that because this particular one point (out of thousands of others) doesn't match up, they're all wrong. Which leads me to ...

3a) Moving the goal posts, that is, requesting new evidence and dismissing it as being insufficient when delivered. E.g. "two decimals of precision is not enough proof for me. I require three decimals before I accept it." "No, three decimals is not enough, I now require at least five before I'm convinced." Following the "debate" over several years makes this obvious. In general the strategy here is akin to a slash and burn retreat where the aim is to extend the duration of the "debate" for as long as possible. In the case of tobacco, this worked for decades.

3b) Removing the goal posts, that is, requesting evidence to a degree that is impossible to provide. Basically, this is a call for complete certainty before any conclusion is made. Science is PROCESS that converges on the correct answer so to scientists this demand is ludicrous. To laymen, however, it sounds like a fair demand. This is why this strategy is quite effective.

4) False experts, that is, similar to cherry-picking data except with people. One way is called white-coating, which metaphorically involves taking a person, slabbing a white coat on him and passing him off as a doctor. There's an example in the thread above. You take a weather forecaster and create the impression that he is a climate scientist despite the two fields having little to do with each other (see point 10 below). Titles ("PhD scientist") are also frequently used to invoke public trust as are lists ("Here are the signatures of 10000 PhD scientists"). Sometimes when/if you read such lists you learn that both Lisa and Bart Simpson are skeptical scientists. Another common approach is to pick an outlier i.e. one of the 3% of actual climate scientists who disagree with consensus and present them as if they represent the entire body of scientists or at least half the field to maintain the illusion of wide controversy. This is similar to the data manipulation in point 1.

5) Implying conspiracy, that is, dismissing the data by suggesting that the world-wide consensus and the tens of thousands of papers are the result of some elaborate conspiracy and that we ought to pay attention to those "heroic skeptics" who are have spent 15 years challenging the truth.

6) Projection, that is, accusing the other side of using the methods one is guilty of---"It is not me who is using rhetorical tricks. It is you.", this of course being part of the rhetoric playbook itself. Also a psychological issue.

7) The straw man fallacy, that is, generally reducing the opponent's complex argument to a simple and misrepresentative argument and then refuting the simple argument. ("Look, the theory (which in reality is a complex series of coupled 3D hydrodynamical equations with extensive microphysics that run on the biggest supercomputers in the world) can be understood as a x=y+z which is simplification of the theory but x=y+z is clearly wrong so therefore the actual theory is wrong too.") The straw man only works if the audience is ignorant or uninformed about the complexity of the original argument. Which is actually the case. This is why the straw man is popular. This is also why people who enjoy a freshman level of science education tend to fall for some of the crackpot papers that are floating around. Basically, while they know a few equations, they're ignorant about a lot of others leading hem to mistakes that are obvious to experts. Also see, the Dunning-Kruger effect.

8) The red herring, which attempts to distract attention away from the important issue ("co2 causes warming", "humans contribute enough co2 to cause warming", "the scientific community overwhelmingly agrees on this") by talking about things of less or no relevance to the important issue ("it was hotter back in the days of the dinosaurs", "climate has always changed", "it snowed in my back yard"). This works because the public generally lacks the education to distinguish and evaluate the importance of various observations and put them in proper perspective. In general, it takes expert level to rank the relevance of conflicting observations. It also works because the media format prefers to focus on single and controversial issues and because the public is very unlikely to pick up a book and educate themselves.

9) Appeal to consequences. For example, "the scientific predictions sound so horrible to me that I refuse to believe that the predictions are true", that is, because the person is emotionally distressed the science must be wrong. Similar to the Ostrich strategy that maybe if I stick my head in the sand the problem will go away. "Maybe if I refuse to believe I have cancer, the diagnosis will be wrong." While this strategy works quite well in the human sphere because one can talk oneself out of most problems later on (see politics as usual, kicking the can), it is unfortunately suicidal when dealing with an adversarial opponent or an opponent which doesn't care, like nature or cancer.

10) False analogies. For example, saying that climate science is similar to weather forecasting and because we can't forecast the weather, we can't forecast the climate. Using false analogies works when the public does not understand where the analogy breaks down. The false analogy strategy exploits ignorance. Similarly: "The science is too complex for me personally to understand, therefore it is too complex to understand for climate scientists as well."

So... these are basically the standard methods by which the public has been and is being successfully manipulated into believing in that a controversy [between "fact or fiction"] actually exists when it does not.

[Dragline]

In agnotology, that is, the study of culturally induced doubt, denialism is defined as

--- the use of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate/controversy when there in fact is none with the ultimate goal of rejecting an established proposition for which scientific consensus exists.

I had not heard of "agnotology" before. It is a most useful concept.

From my lawyer-mind perspective, items 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 are the stock and trade of structuring arguments to convince juries or other fact-finders. The rest are generally prohibited by the rules of evidence.

Now you can see why scientists hate lawyers even more than the general public does.

I'm still waiting for the Scopes Monkey Trial of climate change. Followed by the inevitable movie "Inherit the Wind Farm."

[IlliniDave]

I'm a layman on this particular subject, and it does appear the consensus is that CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming, and humans add C02 in the atmosphere, therefore there is warming due to human presence. Most of the the legitimate debate seems to concern the rate of human-precipitated warming in the future and what the consequences of the various predictions are. Which is all in the realm of speculation.

I am skeptical of climate models as they exist today. My gut feel is that the earth's climate is much more robust than we give it credit for. In time the data will either validate or invalidate the models. We can measure temperature much more precisely now and going forward than we can go back settle arguments about stuff like the medieval climate and whether today's climate is unprecedented or not. But the GW Industry is big money now, and I have some of the same native distrust of it that I have about other entities like Big Pharmacy and Big Government. They start out well-meaning but then turn into organisms with their own perpetuation/survival being job one.

[Dragline]

When I check what the InterAcademy Council actually reported in 2010 vs. the quote used, they do not match. Your anti-GW source is manipulating you big-time! You'll find that report prominently featured at http://www.interacademycouncil.net/ and discover that it's a review of the IPCC organization rather than a dispute over the science.

Moreover, except for the last of the five sources, the sources cited fall into the category of "politically slanted news" -- i.e., the viewpoint is pre-determined and then something is found to support it. Most "news" actually falls into this category, as it only exists for eyeballs and click-bait.

Always read the "About" section before considering. I would not rely on these anymore that I would articles on "Slate" or "Salon", which probably say the opposite, regardless of the topic at issue.

The last, which was the most interesting, tacitly admits that there is a scientific consensus that climate change is a reality and then declares, "but that's not good enough", because we might find a better or different scientific explanation in the future. This, in fact, simply describes the nature of science -- the never-ending quest for better models to replace less robust ones.

But ultimately, that is like saying that Newton propounded great falsehoods through his "Newtonian Physics" that should never have been trusted, because they were later dis-proven by Einstein. In fact, Newton's models were "close enough" (and still are) for almost all real-world applications. The colloquial expression is we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[jacob]

@IlliniDave - Nothing is what it "seems" to be when it comes to the "public debate". Please read my post above about how the public debate is methodically manipulated to create the impression that many established issues are still up for debate.

In fact, there's no legitimate debate between actual scientists about the consequences either. That is, there is strong scientific consensus on what the consequences of continued emissions will be. It is a settled issue.

Actual scientists debate things like the details of deep ocean mixing in the Atlantic ocean, soil erosion due to river flows, or the behaviour of industrial particulates in the lower atmosphere. They're mainly studying details so that people who live in say Washington state don't have to extrapolate local predictions out of more general predictions about the North American continent as a whole. This has perhaps been the major development over the past 10 years.

Science does not operate by gut feel. But yes, by definition time will certainly validate or invalidate the models. However, wanting to wait for absolute validation is moving the goal posts (see 3 above), especially when previously forecasted consequences are already coming to pass, here, now, in the present. Scientists overwhelmingly believe that time will to continue to validate the models with increasingly levels of details (as they have so far). The only thing that's hard to estimate with science is the human policy response. Scientists handle this issue using scenario predictions.

It is true that we can not send thermometers back in time but indirect historic temperature records (prior to the age of thermometers) have been established through multiple and independent methods.

Your big money argument is part false analogy (10) and part conspiracy(5). First, the science industry is not big (in terms of money). Second, it is not an even an industry but a scientific community made up of individuals (professors, postdocs, and grad students). Third, even if two organizations had the same size or the same access to money, it does not follow that they operate in the same way. The actual scientists (out of which there aren't that many ... maybe a few thousand globally) get paid regardless of which side of the argument they come out on---and practically all of them come out on the same side, whereas it would be much more profitable for them personally if they arranged to come out on opposing sides on a 50/50 basis. If they weren't getting paid for doing climate science (because no further research was desired) they would be doing something else.

[jacob]

The last, which was the most interesting, tacitly admits that there is a scientific consensus that climate change is a reality and then declares, "but that's not good enough", because we might find a better or different scientific explanation in the future. This, in fact, simply describes the nature of science -- the never-ending quest for better models to replace less robust ones.

And it's also a solid #3 in the toolbox above.

[workathome]

Is it really such a bad thing if New York City sinks into the ocean and the Chicago area gets a bit warmer?

[Dragline]

I'm tellin' ya now-- Duluth is going to be where its at!

[IlliniDave]

@ jacob, I'm not making an argument one way or the other. I take no stock in the public debate, it is essentially politics sometimes bordering on religion. I'm not going to be a convert for either side of the GW issue (the sides being: it's going to be catastrophic to human survival in the short-term versus something that occurs at a rate we as a species can adapt to). My profession is computer modeling of complex systems, systems far less complex and far better understood than global climate. There's danger it putting too much faith in computer models too soon. It's an immense problem to model. They do some of it across the street from where I work (at the local university), as well as process raw climate data from various NASA collection instruments. I am not party to that, but I'm not forming opinions in a complete and utter vacuum.

In this case, it *is* rocket science, to borrow a tired [edit]: metaphor.

I'm not saying you are right or you are wrong. I'm simply admitting I don't know.

[IlliniDave]

I'm tellin' ya now-- Duluth is going to be where its at!

I'm ready, I'll be ~ 100 miles north (and slightly east) of Duluth!

[jacob]

All I'm saying is that the scientists who do work with this stuff do know and that the supposed scientific debate doesn't exist because almost all scientists practically agree. The public debate is indeed clouded, mostly thanks to a deliberate effort from various special interests, but the scientific consensus is very clear.

As for my references/confidence, I spent 10 years of my life building dynamic computational models of stellar atmospheres with approximately the same level of complexity (I only used the small supercomputers ) and the exact same kinds of physics (obviously not in degree but in kind), so I'd say that my layman's opinion is rather informed. I could probably transition into the field of climate modelling and contribute after a year or so of acquiring specific and detailed domain knowledge as it's not all the different from what I already know. Kinda like switching from flying jets to passenger planes.

The basic physics of what and how the greenhouse effect is and works is, believe it or not, actually close to 200 years old! The experimental verification that CO2 causes the effect in Earth's atmosphere is between 120 and 150 years old depending on who you credit (the guy who suggested doing it or the guy who actually did it). That's older than evolution or electrodynamics. It's possible to calculate simple estimates (as presented in most textbooks) by pencil using basic thermodynamics. This is within the capability of science majors or very motivated AP Physics high schoolers insofar they actually learned something instead of just passing the class. Spherically symmetric computer models are at least 30 years old. My main scientific work was building an advanced version of one of those, pretty much the last generation of 1D models. Three-dimensional models appeared 15-20 years ago. I've been a "superuser" on one of those. They have been refined ever since. It's definitely not a case of this being an idea that some people came up with recently and then decided to throw a bunch of computers at it. No, the methodology and numerical modelling experience behind it is pretty damn solid.

Another way of gauging the maturity of a field and its methods is to see how many universities have a graduate program for it. It's a lot. New fields only tend to have a handful or at most a dozen in the world.

[steveo73]

As for my references/confidence, I spent 10 years of my life building dynamic computational models of stellar atmospheres with approximately the same level of complexity (I only used the small supercomputers ) and the exact same kinds of physics (obviously not in degree but in kind), so I'd say that my layman's opinion is rather informed. I could probably transition into the field of climate modelling and contribute after a year or so of acquiring specific and detailed domain knowledge as it's not all the different from what I already know. Kinda like switching from flying jets to passenger planes.

I really find this laughable. Seriously this is where I think you are going wrong. You call modeling this stuff scientific but you are missing the point completely. I have also worked with statistical models. I could model this stuff within time no problems. The problem is that this isn't scientific. There are a bunch of assumptions that underly a model and there are confounding variables. Its not scientific and I tried to explain that to you earlier. I'm surprised that you continue to go down this path when the holes in this approach are really significant.

The kicker with this approach though is that the GW models aren't working. If they were working then you might have a point. They aren't.

All I'm saying is that the scientists who do work with this stuff do know and that the supposed scientific debate doesn't exist because almost all scientists practically agree. The public debate is indeed clouded, mostly thanks to a deliberate effort from various special interests, but the scientific consensus is very clear.

I love how I was called a troll and yet we haven't seen one factual argument stating that my perception is incorrect.

Just to clear up your little point here. This is not factual or scientific. I explained clearly previously why this is not scientific or factual. Scientists agreeing is not factual or scientific. This is not a valid argument. A valid argument would be we have analyzed this and the results conform to our understanding. This is not what is occurring at all. Consensus does not equal science. Science is factually based and there is a requirement to prove it. Currently there is no proof for GW. That is where it ends. Plenty of scientists and rational thinkers disagree with the GW hypothesis and can see the massive holes in the load of crap that is being hoisted on the ignorant public.

Lastly if some solid proof becomes available I would more than happily change my opinion. I get the impression that you guys cannot and will not. Its become something that you can't drop no matter what proof is presented to you. Imagine a scientist seeing his model wasn't working and stating well I'm not going to reassess my hypothesis. That in my opinion is poor science.

I'm going to have to drop this again because of the ignorance that pervades this discussion however I suggest a bunch of you go and educate yourself on this issue prior to acting like you know what you are talking about when you don't.

[theanimal]

. A valid argument would be we have analyzed this and the results conform to our understanding. This is not what is occurring at all.
.

How do you think those scientists came into agreement? I think you should read through the thread again with the comic in mind. Facts and logical reasoning have been provided. You continually refuse to acknowledge or accept them.

[steveo73]

. A valid argument would be we have analyzed this and the results conform to our understanding. This is not what is occurring at all.
.

How do you think those scientists came into agreement? I think you should read through the thread again with the comic in mind. Facts and logical reasoning have been provided. You continually refuse to acknowledge or accept them.

Are you serious ? Facts being scientists have formed a consensus. The sheep argument is not valid.

[George the original one]

> Currently there is no proof for GW.

Right, receding glaciers and polar ice aren't proof.