A geologist from James Cook university is not convinced at all.
Interestingly, he does have open political affiliations, being a member of conservative think tank The Institute of Public Affairs.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Popular Mechanics
Been meaning to pop over there for a while. They have a good track record of debunking nonsense, and let's face it, they love hot machines and all sorts of gadgets. If there was any science-related site that may have some reservations about CAGW I reckon Popular Mechanics would be it.
But no. Lots articles relating to the subject, but the ones I saw all built on the premise that it is in fact happening. Being the kind of people they are, they were looking for solutions, especially ones that required big and cool gadgets.
But no. Lots articles relating to the subject, but the ones I saw all built on the premise that it is in fact happening. Being the kind of people they are, they were looking for solutions, especially ones that required big and cool gadgets.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Richard Lindzen
My son, having spotted an online article that put the blame on water vapour, pointed me to Physics World, which has quite a bit on the topic (put 'global warming' in the search box there). The first article I spotted was from Richard Lindzen, who disputes both the rate of warming and the anthropogenic aspect of it. I see he's also an MIT chap, which gives him some gravitas.
The site seems to cater for various opinions, as the next one I saw took a totally different viewpoint. They are all from the Met office in UK. The Met has clearly taken a firm position on CAGW, so it may be that the views of their scientists' are set in stone.
It should also be mentioned that the afforementioned Richard Lindzen is on record as doing considerable consulting work for the likes of ExxonMobil.
The site seems to cater for various opinions, as the next one I saw took a totally different viewpoint. They are all from the Met office in UK. The Met has clearly taken a firm position on CAGW, so it may be that the views of their scientists' are set in stone.
It should also be mentioned that the afforementioned Richard Lindzen is on record as doing considerable consulting work for the likes of ExxonMobil.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Roger W Cohen
This man seems well-qualified and offers a reasonable description of his doubts about, not just CAGW, but plain old AGW. He reckons it's cooling. He does sink the boot in a little by accusing his former colleagues at IPCC of cognitive dissonance, but who's to say he doesn't have a point?
One of the things put to me that triggered this little exercise was the claim made to me that a lot of dissenters had an agenda, some connected to resource companies. I assumed that such affiliations would be declared, but was told that this is rarely the case, and that in fact some sponsorships are well-disguised.
Now this may mean nothing of course (while Roger didn't add a disclaimer to his article, his previous employment is no secret to those with Google access) but in checking his background I see that he is a former manager of Strategic Planning and Programs for ExxonMobil. Of course that doesn't invalidate his views, but since the majority of climate scientists and science organisations who support at least the thrust of the IPCC's findings are regularly accused of fiscal self-interest influencing their conclusions, it's only fair that others declare their potential influences.
One of the things put to me that triggered this little exercise was the claim made to me that a lot of dissenters had an agenda, some connected to resource companies. I assumed that such affiliations would be declared, but was told that this is rarely the case, and that in fact some sponsorships are well-disguised.
Now this may mean nothing of course (while Roger didn't add a disclaimer to his article, his previous employment is no secret to those with Google access) but in checking his background I see that he is a former manager of Strategic Planning and Programs for ExxonMobil. Of course that doesn't invalidate his views, but since the majority of climate scientists and science organisations who support at least the thrust of the IPCC's findings are regularly accused of fiscal self-interest influencing their conclusions, it's only fair that others declare their potential influences.
The Cornwall Alliance
In their stewardship of Creation, they report on such cutting edge issues as "major split among Southern Baptists over global warming" and on their main page feature a link to economist and Czech president Václav Klaus's declaration that the IPCC is a political group and their views are being gullibly accepted. Fair enough, that's his opinion, but I'm not sure how this helps their promotion of Creation.
I guess they concur with Klaus's disagreement with matters such as politics interfering with hard science. Well maybe not rock-hard: "God calls us to steward creation, but presently much environmental advocacy and activism contradict sound theology and sound science." - from a front page listing of their stewardship agenda. I'll be keeping an eye out for any discoveries where sound science and sound theology clash, and how they deal with it.
I guess they concur with Klaus's disagreement with matters such as politics interfering with hard science. Well maybe not rock-hard: "God calls us to steward creation, but presently much environmental advocacy and activism contradict sound theology and sound science." - from a front page listing of their stewardship agenda. I'll be keeping an eye out for any discoveries where sound science and sound theology clash, and how they deal with it.
Roy W Spencer
Apparently positive cloud feedback is assumed as a given in all climate models as used by IPCC. Casting PCF into doubt, as Roy W Spencer does apparently effectively, as covered in this article by him at the Climate Science site, serves to weaken the veracity of the models put forward to support the IPCC's conclusions.
He maintains that there needs to be progress made in data collection methodology before the issue can be solved, and goes as far as to say "Until that progress is made, I consider the existence of positive cloud feedback in nature to be more a matter of faith than of science."
For the IPCC and others to base (what they consider to be) critical decisions on nothing more solid than faith is a pretty big accusation. In science that's tantamount to fraud.
Incidentally, Roy is no stranger to the concept of faith, being on the advisory board of the Cornwall Alliance, a coalition "committed to bringing a balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment". Their slogan is "For the Stewardship of Creation".
He maintains that there needs to be progress made in data collection methodology before the issue can be solved, and goes as far as to say "Until that progress is made, I consider the existence of positive cloud feedback in nature to be more a matter of faith than of science."
For the IPCC and others to base (what they consider to be) critical decisions on nothing more solid than faith is a pretty big accusation. In science that's tantamount to fraud.
Incidentally, Roy is no stranger to the concept of faith, being on the advisory board of the Cornwall Alliance, a coalition "committed to bringing a balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment". Their slogan is "For the Stewardship of Creation".
Continuous adjustment
In case the impression has been created that these science dudes cook up a quick model, fall in love with it, and leave it at that, this 10 year log may show things in a different light. Way above my head, but it doesn't look like it's come from a random word generator.
Walter Cunningham
Another viewpoint. The earth is warming, but it's not man-made.
Of great interest to me is comment #78 by 'drm'. It starts off:
All this emphasis on individuals and their credentials and motivations, whether Cunningham or Al Gore or James Hansen, gets us too focused on narrow issues. The scientific academies take in far more scientists and consideration.
It goes on to make a useful point. This is kind of the conclusion I've come to. While there is further analysis from commenters from both sides, #78 represents more of a meta-view that is perhaps more appropriate for non-scientists.
Of great interest to me is comment #78 by 'drm'. It starts off:
All this emphasis on individuals and their credentials and motivations, whether Cunningham or Al Gore or James Hansen, gets us too focused on narrow issues. The scientific academies take in far more scientists and consideration.
It goes on to make a useful point. This is kind of the conclusion I've come to. While there is further analysis from commenters from both sides, #78 represents more of a meta-view that is perhaps more appropriate for non-scientists.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Tim Lambert
Threads like this (see the following robust discussion from differing viewpoints) make me realise that even if I did have a much better understanding I'd still have trouble coming to a definitive conclusion. In the end, I guess consensus really does mean something. I'd have to look at which argument has the largest number of qualified, hopefully non-partisan supporters. The answer to that one is pretty obvious.
American Physical Society
They'll print alternative viewpoints, but the preface is pretty unambiguous about where they stand.
Jon Jenkins
This is the article that prompted my friend's comments and consequently my puny attempt at self-edification.
I had seen the article in my daily timber-based paper, skimmed a few lines and concluded 'so he's a skeptic, but not a climate specialist' and moved on. Sure the article contained some strident and emotive language, but I see this on both sides of the debate (although when I think about it, probably none of the name-callers were genuine climate scientists).
So that's the problem with most of the information that regular people get from the daily papers. They don't print peer-reviewed scientific papers because we wouldn't understand them. So we only get to read opinions. And those opinions are generally weighed by the reader's judgment of the author. So if I see someone like Philip Adams claiming - as he does - a deep understanding of climate science, or prattling on about another pet subject (which he is greatly in need of now without Howard and Bush to obsess him) I assume that the opposite of what he is saying is probably correct. To the lay person it's easy to conclude that - assuming there is doubt about the science - it's a pick and choose job. And from what it looks like, the Left always chooses Global Warming, the Right the opposite. The ideologies seem to suite the broad agendas of both sides: back to nature or endless exploitation. But that's just the politically aligned. Many of us aren't, and have an independent viewpoint on any particular subject. So my judgement of CAGW as simply a political position - where I put equal credence to both sides - is probably very lazy and decidedly naughty of me, so I'm trying to make amends.
Back to Jon Jenkins' article. Like I said, it didn't seem any more emotive or inflammatory that lots of other stuff I've read and heard on the subject. But having another look at it, I imagine if I were an experienced scientist who had conducted serious research, perhaps over many years, on the subject of AGW I'd be pretty damn pissed off to be simply labeled a fraud, creating bogus findings to feed my addiction to public money.
But... if the subject is so important to mankind's future, those who do understand what the scientists are doing with their modeling should drop the strategy of simply dismissing such articles and go through the tedium of methodically refuting each and every such article they consider to be misleading.
UPDATE: Fortunately, upon reading the Australian today I see this is happening. Jenkins got feedback of a calibre which he probably didn't deserve.
Anyway, the scientists may have convinced themselves, but - while the general public seems to implicitly accept CAGW, things might change when it starts hitting their pockets - they still need to work on the voters. And since they don't have the resources of mineral giants to hire PR firms, they're simply going to have to build up public trust brick by brick.
That means getting dummies like me on side, not by saying "Shut up! The debate's over!" or "There's a consensus!", even though that may be strictly correct. The rest of us don't really know that, and don't like to be told what to think.
I had seen the article in my daily timber-based paper, skimmed a few lines and concluded 'so he's a skeptic, but not a climate specialist' and moved on. Sure the article contained some strident and emotive language, but I see this on both sides of the debate (although when I think about it, probably none of the name-callers were genuine climate scientists).
So that's the problem with most of the information that regular people get from the daily papers. They don't print peer-reviewed scientific papers because we wouldn't understand them. So we only get to read opinions. And those opinions are generally weighed by the reader's judgment of the author. So if I see someone like Philip Adams claiming - as he does - a deep understanding of climate science, or prattling on about another pet subject (which he is greatly in need of now without Howard and Bush to obsess him) I assume that the opposite of what he is saying is probably correct. To the lay person it's easy to conclude that - assuming there is doubt about the science - it's a pick and choose job. And from what it looks like, the Left always chooses Global Warming, the Right the opposite. The ideologies seem to suite the broad agendas of both sides: back to nature or endless exploitation. But that's just the politically aligned. Many of us aren't, and have an independent viewpoint on any particular subject. So my judgement of CAGW as simply a political position - where I put equal credence to both sides - is probably very lazy and decidedly naughty of me, so I'm trying to make amends.
Back to Jon Jenkins' article. Like I said, it didn't seem any more emotive or inflammatory that lots of other stuff I've read and heard on the subject. But having another look at it, I imagine if I were an experienced scientist who had conducted serious research, perhaps over many years, on the subject of AGW I'd be pretty damn pissed off to be simply labeled a fraud, creating bogus findings to feed my addiction to public money.
But... if the subject is so important to mankind's future, those who do understand what the scientists are doing with their modeling should drop the strategy of simply dismissing such articles and go through the tedium of methodically refuting each and every such article they consider to be misleading.
UPDATE: Fortunately, upon reading the Australian today I see this is happening. Jenkins got feedback of a calibre which he probably didn't deserve.
Anyway, the scientists may have convinced themselves, but - while the general public seems to implicitly accept CAGW, things might change when it starts hitting their pockets - they still need to work on the voters. And since they don't have the resources of mineral giants to hire PR firms, they're simply going to have to build up public trust brick by brick.
That means getting dummies like me on side, not by saying "Shut up! The debate's over!" or "There's a consensus!", even though that may be strictly correct. The rest of us don't really know that, and don't like to be told what to think.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Plan B
'Just over half – 54 per cent – of the 80 international specialists in climate science who took part in our survey agreed that the situation is now so dire that we need a backup plan that involves the artificial manipulation of the global climate to counter the effects of man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.'
Unless this is satire, it seems that some of the CAGW scientists are starting to get a real hard-on.
I sure wish there were some citations in these articles. Who are these 'international specialists in climate science' and who appointed them as such?
Unless this is satire, it seems that some of the CAGW scientists are starting to get a real hard-on.
I sure wish there were some citations in these articles. Who are these 'international specialists in climate science' and who appointed them as such?
Nature again
While back at Nature, an odd article claiming that the 10 year low in temperatures has done little to allay fears of CAGW. Nothing is cited except two self-referential links. Looks a little self-fulfilling to me.
Perhaps a more useful angle would have been to explain the context of such anomalies to the lay person, and why they (apparently) aren't significant. (Just remember not to make too much of a single record hot year if it comes up in future!)
Perhaps a more useful angle would have been to explain the context of such anomalies to the lay person, and why they (apparently) aren't significant. (Just remember not to make too much of a single record hot year if it comes up in future!)
World Climate Report
Meanwhile the World Climate Report give the actual figures. If actual trends don't support CAGW, then the public has to accept the computer modeling without having any way of understanding it. Since accepting it means a flow of money out of taxpayers' pockets, that's always going to be the hard sell when it comes time to pay.
Nature
A year's round-up from a CAGW perspective, including rehabilitation of the infamous hockey stick.
William M Connolley
On his Stoat blog, dissects some rather liberal reinterpretation of an AGW document.
This bloke seems pretty well-qualified on the subject, and is certainly not a 'denier'. But he doesn't subscribe to all the imminent cataclysm fears either.
This bloke seems pretty well-qualified on the subject, and is certainly not a 'denier'. But he doesn't subscribe to all the imminent cataclysm fears either.
McKitrick paper
This Wiki entry on the McKitrick on his paper with McIntyre 'Criticism of Mann et al 1998' illustrates the confusion of the debate.
In McKitrick's case the idealogical difference with the likes of Mann and the IPCC seems to be merely of certainty. McKitrick seems more prepared to allow for error in estimating catastrophic results of AGW.
In McKitrick's case the idealogical difference with the likes of Mann and the IPCC seems to be merely of certainty. McKitrick seems more prepared to allow for error in estimating catastrophic results of AGW.
Climate Audit
A very informative site with some pretty rigorous discussion and debate from both sides (and, amazingly, in the middle) without the politics or the nastiness.
This discussion is interesting and current.
This particular comment within the discussion is quite illuminating and very well put, at least in the eye of this layman. More explanations of the calibre of this Neal J. King chap would be most welcome.
This discussion is interesting and current.
This particular comment within the discussion is quite illuminating and very well put, at least in the eye of this layman. More explanations of the calibre of this Neal J. King chap would be most welcome.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Subtotal
My thoughts at this early stage (note to self, it's only me reading this, so keep it simple):
* Most if not all heavyweight science institutions and publications support CAGW.
This alone means that us uneducated citizens really have to trust these people. We simply can't read the data and make good sense of it. That's why we have experts.
* It's not helpful shouting down doubters.
It gives the impression that the evidence is flimsy. There is also the fact that the public is being asked for significant money in counteracting CAGW. Most of us like reassurance that the money is spent wisely (though it almost never is).
* Only listen to genuine experts.
Forget over-inflated multi-millionaire jet-setters with Powerpoint shows. They're in it for fame and money.
* Most if not all heavyweight science institutions and publications support CAGW.
This alone means that us uneducated citizens really have to trust these people. We simply can't read the data and make good sense of it. That's why we have experts.
* It's not helpful shouting down doubters.
It gives the impression that the evidence is flimsy. There is also the fact that the public is being asked for significant money in counteracting CAGW. Most of us like reassurance that the money is spent wisely (though it almost never is).
* Only listen to genuine experts.
Forget over-inflated multi-millionaire jet-setters with Powerpoint shows. They're in it for fame and money.
Consensus?
This article emphasizes the strength of the consensus, even back in the early days.
And of course a refutation of this.
Then a expose of that. Although the source is rather unfortunate. Media Watch tends to restrict its targets to those who don't share its 'soft left' leanings.
Then a commentor on this site - which seems to have some clear arguments for CAGW without excessive name-calling - disputes the consensus by citing these skeptics.
Individuals:
Dr David Legates[U Delaware]
Jorgen Steffenson[Neils Bohr Inst]
Dr Willie Soon[Harvard]
Dr John Christy[U Alabama]IPCC
Dr Roy Spencer[U Alabama]
Dr Neils-Axel Morner[U Stockholm]
Roger Pielke
Robert Balling[U Arizona]
Richard Lindzen[MIT]IPCC
William Gray[U Colorado]
Patrick Michaels[U Virginia]
Pr Paul Reiter[Pasteur Inst]IPCC
Pr Ian Clark[U Ottawa]
Pr S I Akasofu[Arctic Research Centre]
William Kinimonth[Aust Meteor]
Dr Eugenio Hackbart[Brazil]
Dr David Douglas[U Rochester]
Dr Tim Patterson[U Carleton]
Dr Tad Murty[U Carleton]IPCC
Dr Vincent Gray[NZ]IPCC
Dr Jan Vizer[U Ottawa]
Note 5 who are/were in the IPCC.
Groups:
1]The 1992 Statement by Atmospheric Scientists[47 names]
2]The Leipzig Declaration
3]The Heidelberg Declaration[4600 names]
4]The Oregon Petition[31,000 names]
There were of course some dud names in the Oregon Petition, but apparently it's now cleaned up and represents genuine dissenters.
And of course a refutation of this.
Then a expose of that. Although the source is rather unfortunate. Media Watch tends to restrict its targets to those who don't share its 'soft left' leanings.
Then a commentor on this site - which seems to have some clear arguments for CAGW without excessive name-calling - disputes the consensus by citing these skeptics.
Individuals:
Dr David Legates[U Delaware]
Jorgen Steffenson[Neils Bohr Inst]
Dr Willie Soon[Harvard]
Dr John Christy[U Alabama]IPCC
Dr Roy Spencer[U Alabama]
Dr Neils-Axel Morner[U Stockholm]
Roger Pielke
Robert Balling[U Arizona]
Richard Lindzen[MIT]IPCC
William Gray[U Colorado]
Patrick Michaels[U Virginia]
Pr Paul Reiter[Pasteur Inst]IPCC
Pr Ian Clark[U Ottawa]
Pr S I Akasofu[Arctic Research Centre]
William Kinimonth[Aust Meteor]
Dr Eugenio Hackbart[Brazil]
Dr David Douglas[U Rochester]
Dr Tim Patterson[U Carleton]
Dr Tad Murty[U Carleton]IPCC
Dr Vincent Gray[NZ]IPCC
Dr Jan Vizer[U Ottawa]
Note 5 who are/were in the IPCC.
Groups:
1]The 1992 Statement by Atmospheric Scientists[47 names]
2]The Leipzig Declaration
3]The Heidelberg Declaration[4600 names]
4]The Oregon Petition[31,000 names]
There were of course some dud names in the Oregon Petition, but apparently it's now cleaned up and represents genuine dissenters.
Source data
For the record, here's some authoritative source data that presumably scientific people would refer to in examining CAGW.
I'm not going to even try to read it, as I'm sure I wouldn't understand it. But it has been endorsed by the following:
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Above info from scienceblogs.com.
Likewise this one.
Best I can do is look for others to interpret the data for me.
In the end I guess it all comes down to reputation. If you have to put absolute trust in others, you want to know that they're good for it.
I'm not going to even try to read it, as I'm sure I wouldn't understand it. But it has been endorsed by the following:
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Above info from scienceblogs.com.
Likewise this one.
Best I can do is look for others to interpret the data for me.
In the end I guess it all comes down to reputation. If you have to put absolute trust in others, you want to know that they're good for it.
Richard L Smith
An interesting article in an American Statistical Association newsletter about the need for statisticians to play a greater role in presenting data on AGW and the like. Its seems data interpretation is not as transparent as it should be.
Something unexpected
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, has a few dissenting opinions.
The juxtaposition of these two news stories serves to make some of the more theatrical CAGW supporters look a bit Chicken Little:
Imminent end to the snowfields!
... and ...
Best snow in a generation!
Obviously the press likes to deal in absolutes, or at least exclamations. Presumably well-meaning scientific types like to sex up their press releases, but it can backfire.
The juxtaposition of these two news stories serves to make some of the more theatrical CAGW supporters look a bit Chicken Little:
Imminent end to the snowfields!
... and ...
Best snow in a generation!
Obviously the press likes to deal in absolutes, or at least exclamations. Presumably well-meaning scientific types like to sex up their press releases, but it can backfire.
Friends of Science
These people couldn't disagree more with the Met Office. Both state absolute 'facts', and both sets of 'facts' are opposite. Makes balanced judgement rather tricky.
Oh hang on, there appears to be a teensy problem with FoS. It seems they've been snacking on some oil industry funds channeled secretively through a third party.
Oh hang on, there appears to be a teensy problem with FoS. It seems they've been snacking on some oil industry funds channeled secretively through a third party.
David Bellamy
This is the article recently published. Now many may not agree with him of course, and I've seen some question his quality as a scientist (I can't vouch either way), but surely he has a right to his opinion without being written off as a trouble-maker or crook.
On the other hand, this may cause some skepticism of David's skepticism; he is a member, along with the likes of Bob Carter, Dr David Evans, William Kininmonth and John McLean of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) and its Oz counterpart the (ACSC).
Of course, if you were a dissenter and felt a twinge of persecution, you'd probably seek like-minded folk.
On the other hand, this may cause some skepticism of David's skepticism; he is a member, along with the likes of Bob Carter, Dr David Evans, William Kininmonth and John McLean of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) and its Oz counterpart the (ACSC).
Of course, if you were a dissenter and felt a twinge of persecution, you'd probably seek like-minded folk.
James Annan
Here's a reply refuting David Evans' position.
This guy seems to know what he's talking about and has the credentials. Like many of his peers, though, he tends to be extremely dismissive of skeptics: "I've got limited patience for wrestling with pigs (you both get mucky, but the pig enjoys it)".
Perhaps a reasonable attitude among intellectual peers, but it looks very arrogant to the great unwashed.
Regardless, the whole thread presents some interesting debate.
This guy seems to know what he's talking about and has the credentials. Like many of his peers, though, he tends to be extremely dismissive of skeptics: "I've got limited patience for wrestling with pigs (you both get mucky, but the pig enjoys it)".
Perhaps a reasonable attitude among intellectual peers, but it looks very arrogant to the great unwashed.
Regardless, the whole thread presents some interesting debate.
Scientific American
A top quality mag in my opinion. I'd certainly put stock in whatever its editor deems to publish. It's pretty clear they are comfortably in the CAGW camp.
However, like New Scientist, many of their readers don't seem convinced. Here's a fun quote:
If you think you understand how science works, take this quick quiz:
1. Consensus matters - True or False?
2. Computer models are evidence - True or False?
If you answered "True" To any of the above statements, you flunk science.
Of course that's rather glib, but so is the argument to which it alludes.
However, like New Scientist, many of their readers don't seem convinced. Here's a fun quote:
If you think you understand how science works, take this quick quiz:
1. Consensus matters - True or False?
2. Computer models are evidence - True or False?
If you answered "True" To any of the above statements, you flunk science.
Of course that's rather glib, but so is the argument to which it alludes.
David Evans
He caused a bit of a stir with an article in The Australian about his personal transformation. Since the Oz is accused by some of being partisan toward big biz, here's a similar article at the ABC site.
A more detailed article here.
Surely this person has his own genuine views and is not a tool of Big Coal.
A more detailed article here.
Surely this person has his own genuine views and is not a tool of Big Coal.
Joanne Nova
I know nothing of this person, but discussions on her site confirm in my mind why debating is ultimately pointless, at least for someone as ill-informed as me. There are many good points on both sides. But here's a comment from Joanne that probably sums up the thoughts of many casual observers, particularly the second para:
'I drop things and I see them fall. But I’m not absolutely 100% certain that the greenhouse effect is doing anything at all. It probably is. I am 99.99% sure it keeps us warmer today, not because an authority told me that, but because the explanation of the greenhouse effect is internally consistent, it makes sense, and I have yet to read anyone who had a good reason to disagree. When it comes to the enhanced greenhouse effect, though, I used to think it made sense. I was worried. Then when I discovered that the science had changed, AND that no one was reporting the new results I became very suspicious. Then I read alternate theories, and saw the endless repetition of ‘argument by authority’ I realized that those who claim there is no evidence are right.
When I also saw that the ‘believers’ stop debate through intimidation and bulling tactics I was convinced the case for AGW must be weak. Otherwise, believers would not feel threatened. They would just point to the evidence.'
The quote, incidentally, is from a comment reply by Joanne in a post about some typically intimidatory dialog from a CAGW proponent.
What concerns me as to jumping unquestioningly onto the Catastrophic AGW bandwagon is: what if they're not 100% right? Have they factored in a margin of error? You sure don't read about such, at least in the press. It's all about certainty.
'I drop things and I see them fall. But I’m not absolutely 100% certain that the greenhouse effect is doing anything at all. It probably is. I am 99.99% sure it keeps us warmer today, not because an authority told me that, but because the explanation of the greenhouse effect is internally consistent, it makes sense, and I have yet to read anyone who had a good reason to disagree. When it comes to the enhanced greenhouse effect, though, I used to think it made sense. I was worried. Then when I discovered that the science had changed, AND that no one was reporting the new results I became very suspicious. Then I read alternate theories, and saw the endless repetition of ‘argument by authority’ I realized that those who claim there is no evidence are right.
When I also saw that the ‘believers’ stop debate through intimidation and bulling tactics I was convinced the case for AGW must be weak. Otherwise, believers would not feel threatened. They would just point to the evidence.'
The quote, incidentally, is from a comment reply by Joanne in a post about some typically intimidatory dialog from a CAGW proponent.
What concerns me as to jumping unquestioningly onto the Catastrophic AGW bandwagon is: what if they're not 100% right? Have they factored in a margin of error? You sure don't read about such, at least in the press. It's all about certainty.
Don J Easterbrook
This bloke's a geologist. Does that mean his opinions are suspect (minerals etc)? The figures sure don't look made up, but how would I know?
But would he really stake his professional reputation on a statement such as 'No tangible, physical evidence exists that proves a cause–and–effect relationship between global climate changes and atmospheric CO2' for a few bucks, or might this be his real conclusion?
In another article he predicts 40 years of cooling.
But would he really stake his professional reputation on a statement such as 'No tangible, physical evidence exists that proves a cause–and–effect relationship between global climate changes and atmospheric CO2' for a few bucks, or might this be his real conclusion?
In another article he predicts 40 years of cooling.
New Scientist
I like New Scientist. Plenty of interesting stuff and easily digestible to lay persons. But I've always been a little sus of their unquestioning support of CAGW. Of course, it may be that they know a lot more than us common folk and are thus comfortable with their conclusions after satisfying themselves with many years of rigorous questioning.
The benefits
Well this is a different take altogether from Der Spiegel, based on Svante Arrhenius' and more recently Hans von Storch's views. It supports AGW, but without the C (catastrophic) prefix. Also it not only suggests that there are limits as to what can be done, it suggests an outbreak of pretty girls in bikinis and other benefits.
Denial immoral
This is a big call. Perhaps it's correct, but that sort of talk that, to a lay person, looks a lot like suppression of free speech.
Certainly when I read statements like 'the debate is over', 'to disagree is immoral' and 'burn heretics' I get a little skeptical about objectivity. Perhaps there are better ways to refute counter-claims than attempt to shut them down. While scientists may have had these arguments a million times over and are satisfied they've won, the public haven't.
Certainly when I read statements like 'the debate is over', 'to disagree is immoral' and 'burn heretics' I get a little skeptical about objectivity. Perhaps there are better ways to refute counter-claims than attempt to shut them down. While scientists may have had these arguments a million times over and are satisfied they've won, the public haven't.
Interference
Here's something I haven't heard much about. Climate scientists et al complaining of political interference in their data publication. In fact I assumed it was more the other way around: pressure in academic institutions to toe the line on CAGW. A scientist genuinely in search of knowledge would certainly be seriously demoralised to be told to modify findings to suit business interests.
MIT
Here's the other side, the Union of Concerned Scientists at MIT. Now to a layman MIT has a huge amount of cred. They have adopted the CAGW position apparently as a fundamental tenet. Here's their AGW 101 article.
Not much comment necessary here. In my simple mind MIT carries a lot of mass in the science world.
At this early stage of my learning journey, if someone put a gun to my head right now and forced me to give unquestioning support to either side, it'd be the MIT mob and not the Creationists.
Not much comment necessary here. In my simple mind MIT carries a lot of mass in the science world.
At this early stage of my learning journey, if someone put a gun to my head right now and forced me to give unquestioning support to either side, it'd be the MIT mob and not the Creationists.
The first juicy seam
Let's start with the skeptics. This site keeps popping up in various searches, so I'll assume it's quite influential and perhaps representative of that side of the argument. In that context it's a reasonable place to start looking for links, but ultimately it represents just the sort of political partisanship that I'm trying to get away from.
But wait, there's more: on closer inspection it is actually a big blow to the credibility of skeptics, at least the ones presented by Senator Inhofe. Here is one of them, tubby TV weatherman Chris Allen, who explains his ultimate motivation for AGW skepticism:
My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture. It must have slipped these people's minds that God created the heavens and the earth and has control over what's going on. (Dear Lord Jesus...did I just open a new pandora's box?) Yeah, I said it. Do you honestly believe God would allow humans to destroy the earth He created? Of course, if you don't believe in God and creationism then I can see why you would easily buy into the whole global warming fanfare. I think in many ways that's what this movement is ultimately out to do - rid the mere mention of God in any context. What these environmentalists are actually saying is "we know more than God - we're bigger than God - God is just a fantasy - science is real...He isn't...listen to US!" I have a huge problem with that.
Whoa! Now that's an angle I've not seen before, but perhaps there's more of it out there. This 'skeptic' has accepted the premise that a magic man with a kindly beard created everything (except the shaving kit) in six days without so much as putting in for overtime. (Reminds me of another AGW skeptic, one Sarah Palin, who predicted that 'God will decide the election'. I thought even devout Christians believed in free will.)
Furthermore, here's a list (from The Daily Green, obviously a totally partisan site and certainly not one that I'd normally visit for information) that suggests nearly a quarter of Inholf's skeptics could be accused of having financial incentives toward being such.
What about the rest? Could there be a religious motivation there somewhere? Is this why the religious right tend to be in the anti-CAGW camp? I think religion is a personal issue and everyone is free to practice theirs (although I do have a problem with those who'd like to cut my head off because I don't share their faith). And being a personal thing means to me it's wrong to have it influence public policy. If I like the colour yellow I can have a yellow house and car, but I have no right to insist public buildings and roads are the same colour.
But wait, there's more: on closer inspection it is actually a big blow to the credibility of skeptics, at least the ones presented by Senator Inhofe. Here is one of them, tubby TV weatherman Chris Allen, who explains his ultimate motivation for AGW skepticism:
My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture. It must have slipped these people's minds that God created the heavens and the earth and has control over what's going on. (Dear Lord Jesus...did I just open a new pandora's box?) Yeah, I said it. Do you honestly believe God would allow humans to destroy the earth He created? Of course, if you don't believe in God and creationism then I can see why you would easily buy into the whole global warming fanfare. I think in many ways that's what this movement is ultimately out to do - rid the mere mention of God in any context. What these environmentalists are actually saying is "we know more than God - we're bigger than God - God is just a fantasy - science is real...He isn't...listen to US!" I have a huge problem with that.
Whoa! Now that's an angle I've not seen before, but perhaps there's more of it out there. This 'skeptic' has accepted the premise that a magic man with a kindly beard created everything (except the shaving kit) in six days without so much as putting in for overtime. (Reminds me of another AGW skeptic, one Sarah Palin, who predicted that 'God will decide the election'. I thought even devout Christians believed in free will.)
Furthermore, here's a list (from The Daily Green, obviously a totally partisan site and certainly not one that I'd normally visit for information) that suggests nearly a quarter of Inholf's skeptics could be accused of having financial incentives toward being such.
What about the rest? Could there be a religious motivation there somewhere? Is this why the religious right tend to be in the anti-CAGW camp? I think religion is a personal issue and everyone is free to practice theirs (although I do have a problem with those who'd like to cut my head off because I don't share their faith). And being a personal thing means to me it's wrong to have it influence public policy. If I like the colour yellow I can have a yellow house and car, but I have no right to insist public buildings and roads are the same colour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
