One of the Deniers1 favourite tactics is to throw out this or that list or petition of “scientists” who are Climate Deniers (eg “The Deniers“). After you discard the obvious frauds (eg the Oregon Petition), cull out the names that are made up, the ones who are not scientists, the ones who are dead, the real scientists who are not actually Deniers, etc, you are invariably left with a handful who do seem to be scientists and really are Climate Deniers. Huh?
This can be very confusing to the lay person who has no experience with the sciences.
So just how many people are we talking about here? It’s hard to say actually, in part because it depends on just how you define a Denier (or Skeptic). Heartland’s much touted PR event of last winter seems to have drawn only 19 “real scientists” and Wikipedia lists only about three dozen.
Given that there are millions of scientists in the world that’s pretty lame. Even so, if it were only one and she happened to be right then the millions wouldn’t matter. However, searching for some valid scientific basis for the Denier position comes up dry – so what’s going on here?
Let’s step back for a moment and do a reality check. Reality – scientists are human beings. This has some implications:
In the first place there are some scientists who are just plain incompetent. It is an unusual department or faculty of any size that does not have at least one such creature shambling about. Whether they faked their way to tenure or subsequently developed problems of one form or another doesn’t matter, the fact remains they couldn’t conduct adequate science to save their life.
In some cases it is a more elderly member of the department who has not kept up with their field, possibly because of diminishing abilities or just plain loss of interest. Typically these people are inflicted on the first year students or cross promoted into some marginal role until they get the hint and take early retirement to devote themselves full time to their paper clip collection.
More common is the sad victims of the Dunning Kruger effect, people who are oblivious to the fact that they haven’t a clue what they are talking about. We all know people who are perfectly competent in many ways including whatever their profession is, but who hold very strong, grossly uninformed opinions about some topic, either related to their profession or completely different. For some unfathomable reason they imagine that they are also competent at this other topic. Maybe it’s how to manage the Florida Panthers, solving unified field theory, or how to “really” reduce crime.
Regardless of what the topic is the fact remains that they are actually totally clueless. Often they can even use a lot of the right terms and assemble them into coherent sentences, but really it’s utter gibberish. Normally everyone who knows them just rolls their eyes and goes to get a refill of coffee when the rant starts.
Naturally out of millions of scientists there are some who suffer from this affliction, and some of those have chosen climate science as the topic to have grossly uniformed opinions about. Regardless of the topic, what they have to say is nonsense and no one ever cared.
Until recently that is.
The last few years has seen the growth of the Denier Industry and a media wanting to present “both sides of the story”. Both have been very keen to find and publicize the views of anyone with a PhD who is willing to criticise climate science.
Chances are good that in the past few years you could get on TV if you were a Denier with a PhD, did not put your pants on backwards, and didn’t drool too much during the interview. Whether incompetent generally or just with respect to climate science, you could finally have your moment in the sun.
So how does the average person tell the difference between these drones and legitimate climate scientists? There are some tell tale clues.
One of the myths that contributes to the credibility of these crackpots is the B movie scientist who was trying to cross a hawk with a handsaw and accidentally discovered the Unified Field Theory. While there are certainly examples of the maverick who turned out to be right when everyone else was wrong, the fact is that in every case, by pure coincidence, they just happened to be working on the problem for years, if not decades.
So the first question is whether they are even in a relevant field. If you check the Denier lists you find many aren’t. A more important question is whether they have done any actual work on climate science. For legitimate academics their research history is almost invariably available with a quick online search.
However, these are merely indicators. The fact is that someone can have the “right” credentials and even been working directly on climate science and still be hopelessly wrong.
Equally, an intelligent street person who has spent her days reading at the University library could have a well informed, cogent and relevant critique of the science; so how do you tell? Some quick and easy to answer questions to ask yourself:
i) Do they just regurgitate the bogus Denier claims debunked at the excellent sites linked on the right under “Debunking Denier Nonsense”? Yes? Denier!
ii) Do they make specific reference to the science (eg “So and so’s 2004 paper in Nature set’s the forcing parameter too high because they assume …”) or do they give some vague, general statement that you are supposed to believe just because they are “a scientist” (eg “Models don’t work!”). The latter? Denier!
iii) Do they make wild leaps of logic that cannot be supported by the facts they present (if any)? eg “My work shows that the glaciers are actually melting slower than was previously thought, therefore humans are not causing climate change” Yes? Denier!
When these tests are applied to the “scientists” that appear on the Denier lists we find we are left with … well, no one really. I would be most interested if anyone knows of any exceptions, but I have never seen one.
The bottom line is that uninformed, unsubstantiated skepticism, whether by a climate scientist or a street person, is still bunk. Anyone using bunk to deny the reality of climate science is … a Denier1
Yes there are legitimate skeptics, and yes there is intense debate about aspects of climate science, such as radiative forcing and extreme weather. However, these disputes in no way undermine the general truth of anthropocentric climate change.
It’s equivalent to authorities having an intense discussion of exactly what shade of grey elephants are, or just how much of their diet is from grazing vs browsing. These uncertainties about specifics do not cast the very existence of elephants into doubt. Elephants exist regardless of what the answers to those questions are.
Is it possible that climate science is wrong? of course! It is also possible that elephants do not, and never did exist. Unlikely, but possible. Science never deals in absolute certainty, but it also does not reject common sense and rational thinking.
—-
1As I discuss here I do not use the term “Denier” to refer to all climate change doubters. Those who thoughtfully and intelligently address the facts I call ’skeptics’.
Those who irrationally deny the existence of the science and instead propagate the lies and distortions such as those discussed above and linked to the right under “Debunking Denier Nonsense” are “Deniers”.
The choice of the correct term is based on their actions, not their conclusions.
PHOTO CREDITS:
mad_scientist Photo by gnotalex
Mad Scientists Photo by moria
Elephants Photo by *jude*
I just wanted to say that I liked reading this. Dugg.
It’s incredible how they keep regurgitating the same nonsense everywhere.
—-
Great read. It’s so frustrating to constantly have to refute those farsical “lists” of scientists.
Mind you, it’s not half as annoying as those “Volcanoes emit more C02 than man!” arguments.
—-
No argument with your text, except the picture of the “Indian Elephants” is actually African Elephants. I’d have thought you’d have noticed.
—-
Fascinating indeed. Cool stuff.
Jiff
Climate change is a constant [1]. It is amusing that the argument is taken against “Climate Change Deniers” but not “Global Warming Deniers” or rather skeptics [2]. People are skeptical by nature and it’s really hard to filter through all of the bull shit [3] from fanatic environmentalists, pushing uninformed personal agendas. Maybe humans aren’t the cause of the problems? If they pulled their heads out of their asses, they would notice that we’re circling a very hot ball of fire [4] that is magnitudes more wonderful and devastating than humanity.
—-
Lets put things into perspective: [1] These so-called expert scientists can’t even predict tomorrow’s weather [2] and they want you and me to believe that man, without a doubt, is the cause of climate change? [3] Scientists get things notoriously incorrect. The number of times scientists have been proven wrong is equaled only by the number of times economists incorrectly predict the markets. [4] So before policy changes are made, I’ll need a little more hard proof. [5]
—-
Umm, have you used your own criteria on the climate change supporters? For instance, how many of the thousands of scientists actually study climate. In 10 years we will be looking back at this like we did in the 1970s when global cooling was the rage.
—-
I enjoyed your article. Having a link or actually debunking a list of deniers would be a nice addition to this article.
—-
Dude,
for at least 4 paragraphs your ranting about how people are incompetent, and not everyone knows what they are talking about, i could have told you that. Where are you ? where is your sited research? ya thought so. stop writing speculative articles and do some research novice.
—-
I think it’s important to point out many deniers will often use portions of certain science works that may be critical about very specific issues within climate change. They then use that as an example of a scientist being against global warming which is BS.
—-
Hi Folks
My very first Denier (global) swarming [Tip of the Hat to Helen at RSG] Should I feel honoured?
What you get is a bunch of unsubstantiated and absurd claims, all easily debunked, offered up as evidence that the Deniers have more to offer than a bunch of unsubstantiated and absurd claims.
I can make my point no better than to simply post them unedited (but not unannotated).
Thanks
Mike
Keep in mind that not so long ago, the consensus opinion was that the earth was headed for another ice age. [1]
Political correctness aside, please note; one typical erupting volcano easily spews more noxious gases into the atmosphere in one day than all human activity does in a decade [2]. (Or in the case of the Krakatoa eruption of 1883, several centuries.)
Imho, the above blurb was incredibly shrill, dogmatic and willfully ignorant of how atmospheric composition has cycled in the past. [3]
Is C02 rising now? Yes. Has it been higher in the past? Yes. Much, much higher? Yes.
—-
Mike
What I want to see is the actual Denier list, with a mark by each name of those you’ve found deceased, made-up, members of the Oregon Petition, not really Deniers, or crackpots. Then let’s see who’s left.
—-
Had you applied what you said EQUALLY to the “supporting side” this could have been interesting. However with all the hyperbole, rational observations were difficult to note. Here read what you said reversed (see below). I find it applies just as well for describing you and most of the supporter fanatics.
Climate Change Supporters: “But They Are Scientists!”
One of the Supporters favourite tactics is to throw out this or that list or petition of “scientists” who are Climate Supporters (eg “The Supporters“). After you discard the obvious frauds, cull out the names that are made up, the ones who are not scientists, the ones who are dead, the real scientists who are not actually Supporters, etc, you are invariably left with a handful who do seem to be scientists and really are Climate Supporters. Huh? [1]
This can be very confusing to the lay person who has no experience with the sciences.
Science, stranger than truth
Science, stranger than truth
So just how many people are we talking about here? It’s hard to say actually, in part because it depends on just how you define a Supporter (or Fanatic). Coastland’s much touted PR event of last winter seems to have drawn only 19 “real scientists” and Wikipedia lists only about three dozen. Given that there are millions of scientists in the world that’s pretty lame. Even so, if it were only one and she happened to be right then the millions wouldn’t matter – so what’s going on here?
Let’s step back for a moment and do a reality check. Reality – scientists are human beings. This has some implications:
In the first place there are some scientists who are just plain incompetent. It is an unusual department or faculty of any size that does not have at least one such creature shambling about. Whether they faked their way to tenure or subsequently developed problems of one form or another doesn’t matter, the fact remains they couldn’t conduct adequate science to save their life.
In some cases it is a more elderly member of the department who has not kept up with their field, possibly because of diminishing abilities or just plain loss of interest. Typically these people are inflicted on the first year students or cross promoted into some marginal role until they get the hint and take early retirement to devote themselves full time to their paper clip collection.
More common is the sad victims of the Dunning Kruger effect, people who are oblivious to the fact that they haven’t a clue what they are talking about. We all know people who are perfectly competent in many ways including whatever their profession is, but who hold very strong, grossly uninformed opinions about some topic, either related to their profession or completely different. For some unfathomable reason they imagine that they are also competent at this other topic. Maybe it’s how to manage the Florida Panthers, solving unified field theory, or how to “really” reduce crime.
Regardless of what the topic is the fact remains that they are actually totally clueless. Often they can even use a lot of the right terms and assemble them into coherent sentences, but really it’s utter gibberish. Normally everyone who knows them just rolls their eyes and goes to get a refill of coffee when the rant starts.
Naturally out of millions of scientists there are some who suffer from this affliction, and some of those have chosen climate science as the topic to have grossly uniformed opinions about. Regardless of the topic, what they have to say is nonsense and no one ever cared.[2]
Until recently that is.
The last few years has seen the growth of the Supporter Industry and a media wanting to present “both sides of the story”. Both have been very keen to find and publicize the views of anyone with a PhD who is willing to promote climate change.
Chances are good that in the past few years you could get on TV if you were a Supporter with a PhD, did not put your pants on backwards, and didn’t drool too much during the interview. Whether incompetent generally or just with respect to climate change, you could finally have your moment in the sun. [3]
So how does the average person tell the difference between these drones and legitimate climate scientists? There are some tell tale clues.
One of the myths that contributes to the credibility of these crackpots is the B movie scientist who was trying to cross a hawk with a handsaw and accidentally discovered the Unified Field Theory. While there are certainly examples of the maverick who turned out to be right when everyone else was wrong, the fact is that in every case, by pure coincidence, they just happened to be working on the problem for years, if not decades.
Just mundane mad
Just everyday, normal kind of mad
So the first question is whether they are even in a relevant field. If you check the Supporter lists you find many aren’t. A more important question is whether they have done any actual work on climate science. For legitimate academics their research history is almost invariably available with a quick online search.
However, these are merely indicators. The fact is that someone can have the “right” credentials and even been working directly on climate science and still be hopelessly wrong.
Equally, an intelligent street person who has spent her days reading at the University library could have a well informed, cogent and relevant critique of the science; so how do you tell? Some quick and easy to answer questions to ask yourself:
i) Do they just regurgitate the bogus Supporter claims debunked at the excellent sites linked on the right under “Debunking Supporter Nonsense”? Yes? Supporter! [4]
ii) Do they make specific reference to the science (eg “So and so’s 2004 paper in Nature set’s the forcing parameter too high because they assume …”) or do they give some vague, general statement that you are supposed to believe just because they are “a scientist” (eg “Models don’t work!”). The latter? Supporter! [5]
iii) Do they make wild leaps of logic that cannot be supported by the facts they present (if any)? eg “My work shows that the glaciers are actually melting faster than was previously thought, therefore humans are definitely causing climate change” Yes? Supporter! [6]
When these tests are applied to the “scientists” that appear on the Supporter lists we find we are left with … well, no one really. I would be most interested if anyone knows of any exceptions, but I have never seen one.
The bottom line is that uninformed, unsubstantiated skepticism, whether by a climate scientist or a street person, is still bunk. Anyone using bunk to deny the reality of climate science is … a Supporter [7]
Yes there are legitimate promoters, and yes there is intense debate about aspects of climate science, such as radiative forcing and extreme weather. However, these disputes in no way undermine the general truth of anthropocentric climate change.
Fact? or IPCC Hoax?
Fact? or IPCC Hoax?
It’s equivalent to authorities having an intense discussion of exactly what shade of grey Indian Elephants are, or just how much of their diet is from grazing vs browsing. These uncertainties about specifics do not cast the very existence of Indian Elephants into doubt. Indian Elephants exist regardless of what the answers to those questions are.
Is it possible that climate science is wrong? of course! It is also possible that Indian Elephants do not, and never did exist. Unlikely, but possible. Science never deals in absolute certainty, but it also does not reject common sense and rational thinking.
—-
Thanks for your great work. For those interested in another great debunking, this has also been done with a list of those casting doubt of evolution by YouTube user DonExodus2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM.
—-
This is simply a new religious fad… Global Warming or Global Climate Change Vs. Skeptics or Deniers as you call them or whatever you chose to call them. Each side has their own term for the other akin to how the 2 sides of the abortion debate have their own term for the other. There appear to be the same nut cakes in this debate as we can find in the religious believers Vs evolution supporters. This author is definitely in the nut cake column due to my perceived lack of his ability to even consider arguments from the opposing side[1] and his unwillingness to examine claims made by his supporters[2].
How about this, publish BOTH lists, present your research showing the people on BOTH lists agreed to be on the list, still agree to be on the list, are quite alive, and are directly involved in the appropriate field of research [3]. Then let us make up our own minds.
Should we work to reduce our pollution? Yes
Should we cripple our society to achieve equilibrium with the environment? No, maybe, depends.
Should we eliminate our species if its 100% man made and it’s the only way to stop it? [4] No.
How hard should we work to achieve equilibrium IF this whole thing turns out to not be man made? [5]
My opinion on Global Climate Change… the jury is still out! [6] Only time will tell who was right.
How is it that the earth has seen higher temps in the distant past, way before co2 emissions?
—-
Deniers?!? You use that word and talk about ‘their favorite tactics’? GFY!
—-
I find this logic to be somewhat simplistic and crude. You act as though there is no debate worth having when in fact intelligent people can and do frequently differ when it comes specifically to attributing the cause for the warming. [1]
The real danger as I see it is that we as a society might start treating science like it is a religion, whose claims we just accept on the basis of who’s saying them. [2] There should always remain a prominent role for logic and reason when we consider arguments pertaining to science. In particular, we have to wonder how many assumptions are made in order to support our belief in a scientific theory. And this is where establishment science can run into some very big problems. But few laypeople today are even aware of all of the assumptions made to get to anthropogenic global warming. They just accept them without learning anything about them even though a failure of any one of those assumptions can destroy the whole house of cards. The reason that few people know the assumptions is because they would have to listen to the best critics of conventional scientific wisdom out there in order to learn them. And what we in fact have in the world is a lot of people like yourself who are trying to convince the world that there are no good critics of anthropogenic warming. [3] That’s simply not true.
I’d be willing to bet that you’re not aware that we see unusual temperature distributions on many of the planets of our own solar system. [4] Scientists do their best to explain these sorts of things with the mainstream theories, but the observations do not follow directly from the theory. [5] The theory is instead adapted to explain the observation. This happens far more than you probably realize in science. All of the time — every day that goes by in fact — scientists are making unusual observations in space. And each time, the Standard Model is expanded to accommodate the unusual findings. However, they rarely take a step back and wonder if perhaps a different model might better explain the observations. Scientists who abandon the Standard Model like this become part of the “fringe” — basically outcasts. [5]
Another major problem with conventional wisdom these days is that it is oftentimes extremely selective in its approach to understanding the facts. Take for example the discipline of comparative mythology. This is the process of analyzing ancient documents and stories, and making a case for various translations of those documents and stories. Comparative mythologists compare all of the cultural traditions, icons and stories from the entire world, and attempt to draw conclusions about their meaning. This approach is incredibly important when it comes to understanding paganism — which was the dominant paradigm across the entire world prior to Christianity. As you study the pagans in depth — and people have been doing this for decades now — you come to see that the pagans worshiped the planet Saturn, of all things. Rather then Christmas, their yearly harvest festival was called Saturnalia. We even know the exact icons that they used to depict Saturn, and they are the symbol of the star within the crescent (the Islamic icon). Comparative mythologists who study this topic have discovered incredible correlations between the various pagan stories generated by cultures over the entire world. The correlations are incredible not because the stories are all the same — but rather because very strong arguments can be made that they are all different interpretations of a global event seen by everybody. Such dramatic arguments are at least worth a hearing out. But astrophysicists do not follow the field of comparative mythology at all. For those who are interested, I would point you to the works of Dwardu Cardona. His book “God Star” makes an excellent case that many of our modern-day assumptions that underpin conventional scientific wisdom are contradicted by statements made by people of the past.
The problem for conventional wisdom is that scientists do not follow the discipline of comparative mythology AT ALL. [6] Not even a little bit. They just dismiss the entire discipline as unreliable without even looking at the evidence or hearing out the arguments. In doing so, they basically ignore everything said by anybody who existed more than 3,000 years ago. They basically ASSUME that all of those people were idiots or scared of things (like the weather) that we now take for granted. To be absolutely clear, there is no basis for believing that ancient people were idiots. It is an unsupported assumption. Obviously, those people did not have the technology and science that we enjoy today. But, how does it follow from that that we should not be trying to understand information within their writings and stories?
It’s an incredibly important question because it turns out that the ancients had some very relevant things to say about the history of our planet, and how the universe actually works. Everybody knows that Zeus holds in his hand the “thunderbolt of the God”, but few people realize that the various shapes he’s depicted as holding are in fact all z-pinches — plasma physics morphologies that we didn’t come to learn ourselves until the advent of laboratory plasma physics. If you just ignore the entire world at some arbitrary point in the past, you can basically substitute in your own fantasy of what reality was back then. And with this new reality of the past, you can use that as a basis to redefine our current reality.
So, if I can offer some advice, be aware that your reading selection heavily defines your world view. If you’ve made up your mind before hearing out the various critics of conventional wisdom out there, you can easily convince yourself of whatever it is you want. Try reading “God Star”. Challenge yourself a little bit. Immerse yourself in arguments that disagree with your pre-existing belief system. I believe that you will be very surprised with what you find.
—-
Nice cartoon, However same fear mongering bs (esp liked the earth rolling into the pit of fire!) and the wiki article was similarly bland and generic. Would love to know your thoughts on this tidbit
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/12/global-temperature-chart-not-gore-s-movie
—-
Check out ‘Iceagenow.com” for some interesting scientific data.
—-
I’ve never liked the idea of global warming because of my political background, but I’ve never been able to accept alternate theories because they don’t have enough evidence. So in scientific terms I have always agreed with premise of environmentalist’s arguments. Where I disagree is their political conclusions.[1]
As soon as scientists start coming up with policy goals (which is what organizations like the IPCC do) I lose a lot of my trust in their conclusions. [2] As you pointed out politically minded people are out of their league in the scientific arena, but I would contend that it works both ways.
Nothing in your article suggested that you had made the potential error of venturing into the political and policy realm, and I was glad to see this since many similar articles have not been so good about knowing their limitations. [3]
A response to one of the above comments made me question whether you were remaining on the topic of science or if you were doing this for political reasons:
” Climate change will eliminate our species if we don’t stop it”
This statement is at once ridiculous and reasonable depending on the time frame. Now correct me if I am wrong since this stuff coming up is all on the issue of scientific findings, but I know of few studies that predict climate change on a scale similar to what Mars or Venus might have gone through. Currently the worst predictions I know of for global warming include the polar ice caps melting and possibly large desertification of the Earths surface. Both are rather grim in nature and would cause incalculable damage. The key thing is neither are capable of completely wiping out the human race. [4]
What makes your statement reasonable is that an asteroid is more likely to kill us by changing the climate by covering the earth in dust (same with a volcano). Climate change could become severe enough in the future that the earth is depleted of all resources that make life possible (thus killing off humans). But none of these scenarios are both changeable by policy, and refer to global warming.
So in my opinion your statement was more of the fear mongering that has given power to the “deniers”.[5] It is statements like this that make people who are normally supportive, of small forward steps towards helping the environment, suddenly change their minds against your position. Those people want a counterbalance against the doom and gloom predictions, and they will throw science and reason out the window if they have to just to find those people[6]
Climate change just like evolution before it has a PR problem. As long as the arguments for climate or evolutionary science stay on its own ground and doesn’t get into the area of politics or religion it will always win. [7]
—-
I didn’t bother to read the whole thing (i don’t care). I’d like to point this out:
Yes climate change is real. No shit. We’ve known that forever now. It’s called “seasons”. But to convince me that if the earth becomes 6 degrees hotter we’re all fucked is bullshit [1]. Let’s say that right now at this very momment its -68 deg. F in the arctic. If it becomes -62 deg. F, I somehow doubt the polar ice caps are melting too severley [2]. Also, sure. Say global warming is going to fuck us over. Ya, that sucks I guess. Too bad we can’t do anything about it. And before you tell me how I can get solar power and use less fuel and take shorter, colder showers, and wear the same clothes two days in a row, and other eco-friendly bullshit, let me throw a statistic your way. We do in fact supply to the problem. Too bad we only provide 3% of the carbon that goes into the atmosphere yearly [3]. And 2% of it is from us breathing. The other 97%? Trees, decaying plants, volcanoes, etc. So I suppose we should cut down every tree on earth, somehow cause ever volcanoe to go dormant, and waste tax money on a government program which disposes of decaying plans (obviously in an eco-friendly way).
—-
I respect your opinion, but to be honest, it was my top notch science professors who taught me the reasons why I am not a global warming junkie… namely that the cycles of temperature fluctuate naturally [1], that heat in the atmosphere is most affected by factors which are not reducible to my car emissions [2], and that the Academy of Natural Sciences is a politically and religiously charged environment (i.e. you cannot get papers published or grants funded unless you are on the bandwagon)[3]. Does that mean I think Climate Change is unimportant? Of course not… we should deal practically with the issues. Does that mean that all right wingnuts are believable? Of course not… we should take each issue as specifically and non-polemically as possible. But let’s not be guilty of the opposite extreme, as so many Global Warming junkies are. [4]
—-
Here’s a link to a list of common myths about climate change put forward by climate change sceptics. Published in the Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) Aug 2-3 2008.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/global-warming/common-myths-about-climate-change/2008/08/01/1217097533895.html
It makes for a handy ref.
Cheers, Barrie
—-
“But then I have never seen anything even remotely accurate come out of Newsbusters, so I am hardly surprised.”
And I’m not surprised your so quick to take a stab at others credibility [1], I’ve never even heard of newsbusters to be honest, but that was the link I found referencing an old article I had read. and on that same note I’ve never heard anything about you, so why is your written word divine? [2] or some “expert” with a phd that was corrupt before it was even achieved. If you ask me, You fail in calmly and academically trying to state your case, but succeed in throwing rocks.
——
Excellent post. You and I are on different pages of the same book, you working with the denial problem and me working with the “how shall we now live” problem. One motivation for denial, often subconscious, is the fear that our lives would be hell without our current, lavish use of fossil fuels. I debunk that fear at http://diamondcutlife.org/
Alison in Portland, Oregon
—-
Now everyone claim to be green. Green is the most deadly political weapon.
Even a child yell green green green. Who want to be a denier?
I think only those people want the truth, those really want to help, those really speak from their heart can.
Do not follow anyone, but truth.
[1] Given that “environmentalist” describes everything from free market environmentalists to social ecologists it’s hard to imagine anything more specific than “save the environment” that would capture all of their politics.
(or maybe find out what works to save the environment, I’m sure you know of the “tragedy of the commons” dilemma but it is constantly ignored by more left leaning environmentalists. A recent solution to overfishing: http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_t38/idt2008.09.20.04.06.24.html#hdng0)
[2] a) The IPCC is not a scientific institution, but a political advisory body;
b) IPCC’s (and other) institutions policy recommendations are posited as IF/THEN statements which is appropriate and indeed the function of any advisory body, even a purely scientific one;
c) where specific goals are necessary to achieve political meta-goals (eg protect the health and well being of ones citizens) it is appropriate and mandated that an advisory body put forth policy recommendations that facilitate states achieving the meta-goal.
[3] I probably will in future. Aside from any other labels I am a citizen and hence my participation in the body politic is a given, my right to be there inalienable, and I will do so whether welcome or not.
(No doubt your participation is accepted, but I was simply pointing out that you and other climate scientists are no longer experts when the topic changes from climate to politics. This was exactly a problem you were pointing out in your article with the ‘relevant field’ issue.)
[4] A lot depends on how fast things go, and that depends on tipping points.
The Permian-Triassic climate event killed 98.5% of every living thing on the planet – everything. One the the Pleistocene climatic events reduced the global human population to an estimated 10,000 individuals. These were people capable of meeting all of their needs with nothing more than a chipped rock and a pointy stick, and they were almost wiped out.
How do you suppose we will fare under either of those scenarios?
(I suppose that we will fare at least better then primitive human ancestors, and actually the estimates for the human population are lower since Human DNA is all traceable back to a single person. The effects of methane release wont be fully known, because there is no way of knowing how bacteria such as these: http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=88288 will react to a large increase in their diet.)
[5] And I might find you more convincing if you referred to any actual science rather than an ex niliho opinion.
(advice taken, and I can read so you can give me more scientific sources then a biased video on tipping points that makes every worst nightmare assumption then says “oh wait its not really gonna happen, or we aren’t sure at all”)
[6] my commitment is to scientific evidence and rational thought, not what people want to hear. We have polticians for that … and look where it has got us.
(well they kept us out of the useless Kyoto protocol which was viewed as useless by some: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3131285.stm)
[7] Science is about reality as best we can discern it. I freely grant reality has had little place in politics lately (Iraq, the economy), are you saying that is how it should be?
(We are in agreement that political reality is a totally different thing from scientific reality. Most politics is made up of believers not rational thinkers, and that includes the environmental movement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw in order to gain believers you don’t target the believers you target their priests. This is why I complemented you on taking down the “global warming deniers”, and you put in place your own priests like university professors who will teach the subject to students who will only half understand it. The students will then be believers who further spread the ideas. The fact is the environmental movement has ALREADY won. You have reached a tipping point in politics where your ideas cannot be credibly challenged, because of sound science and your believers have turned the issue into a cultural phenomenon. The only weakness you have left is appearing to “extreme” to the non-believers and this is exactly what i complained about in your comment. That is the only thing left they have to attack you on, I’m asking you not to give them even that small advantage.)
Anyways I’m sure you can knock down my feeble attempts at scientific argument, but my political analysis stands. You are fighting a downhill battle, and conservative opposition stands on cultural grounds (or economic grounds if you choose certain methods of protecting the environment). Sorry I dont know how to link and before you do it: don’t take the priest believers analogy so literally, it was to illustrate strategy not how people think.
Thank you for your time in responding and I wish you luck.
You advocates have your own very clever tactics to promulgate the silly GW propaganda.
My favourite is the way you make sure your endless global warming conferences are always held in the peak of the summer season in either the Northern or Southern Hemisheres.
Id like to see a GW conference held in Canada in the middle of January, just to have a good ironic laugh while a CNN reporter is standing in a foot of snow and shivering his butt off.
But I know you guys arent that dumb. Too bad.
—-
Seriously, relax guys!
Personally I doubt there will be climate change. Why? A few scientists told me there would be, and that my friends, is almost as hardcore proof as I need there is some BS going on, I just need some politicians to start telling me the same then I know it’s a lie – oopss , they already did, and taxing me for it too.
On a serious note though, it is good people question science and scientists, it is right and it is proper. Do not make me get a list of the literally thousands of bits of BS that scientists have claimed as fact over the last 100 years to prove my point, you know yourself it is true.
Let’s just go with the ride, if you didn’t have deniers you would be dictators, so really, deniers do scientists a favour.
btw, I am still waiting for that med climate I was promised nearly 25 years ago. When you deliver on that, I will question a little less.
—-
There’s no climate change. It’s a lie spread by un-American communists, probably by the
VietcongTaliban.—-
Your communist censor friend killed my commend.
I tell you: there is no climate change and there is no recession. It’s Obama’s communist propaganda. He just wants to depress everyone so he’d win.
Vote for me and everything will be fine.
—-
I feel like I am not informed enough to thoroughly participate in this conversation, but there is a statement you made, which I can not agree to.
“[4] Trivially true; ie individual scientists are often wrong, bodies of work consisting of tens of thousands of studies such as modern physics, evolution, and climate change almost never are.”
Modern physics is obviously the substitute of classic physics which eg approved of the world view of Newton hundreds of years. There also was a time when people thought the earth is flat. At those times there were only few who challenged the common believe and only few were succesful with that. [1]
Just saying that one side is definately right, because there are few “real” denier on the other side is naive.[2]
And as you seem to be very commited to science you should know that those two examples are by far not the only ones.
Sorry for possible typos, english is not my native-language. [3]
—-
Oh man. So sad.
I’m pretty tired of the people saying things like “Is C02 rising now? Yes. Has it been higher in the past? Yes. Much, much higher? Yes.”
Sure, of course they are very correct. Levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses have been a lot higher in the past. But they act like if that somehow proves that our emissions of greenhouse gasses are not dangerous to us, and that doesn’t follow.
What we need to remember is that the earth has looked very much different in the past. During the history of the planet global average temperatures have risen and fallen and as a consequence weather patterns have changed dramatically, sea levels have changed, and the entire biosphere have gone through massive changes due to the differing environmental pressure on the process of natural selection.
During most of these olden days humanity couldn’t have existed like it does today.
The earth is sturdy. It survives climate change. Individual species are not sturdy. Most of the species that have ever evolved on this planet are extinct, mostly due to climate change making their way of life unsustainable. And if the climate changes drastically again, some species will in all probability survive, and from them will natural selection bring new species that are better adapted for the new climate. But it is no certainty that humanity would be among the survivors. We do have technology to help us, but we are fragile.
Saying that we need to think things over and try to see what we are doing to contribute to global warming, and do our best to change our ways if needed, is NOT some massive conspiracy or fear-mongering. Just a sober outlook on life.
—-
I just finished “Under a Green Sky” by Peter Ward. He has a PhD in paleontology (and is alive :-). Anyway , some of your posters may find it interesting. It reviews past extinction events and their probable causes (rarely impacts, mostly global warming). Obviously ancient global warming events could not have been human caused, but he makes it clear that this is no protection from our current situation. Perhaps what was best about the book (to me anyway) was understanding more about how this sort of science works, warts and all.
—-
Climate change is not being perceived by those who are enclosed in their own artificial environment.They do not bother its impacton them who are playing in the lap of nature.
Most people’s denial of man-made climate change derives from theor political orientation or financial standing rather than facts. I spoke with an axtremely intelligent scientist who recently garduated from college and now works for Lockkheed Martin. He told me that there is no direct evidence that man is responsible for climate change. See what happens to your brain if you listen to Rush Limbaugh for too long?
—-
How about this:
If you are a scientist , and next time you meet a denier… agree with everything they say. I mean lock stock the bloody lot.
Volcanoes, cow farts, sun spots, everything.
It would be worth it to see the look of smugness on their face, and then as they realise you might just be taking the piss, a sense of confusion and inability to talk.
And of course, if you do not have anyone to argue with, you tend to go home early and sleep the whole thing off.
Anyway, we have more pressing things to worry about, like the jews, the martians, the russians, the english, world war 3 , world peace, GMF, GMTV (UK early morning tv show), meteors and the state of daytime TV. If we can survive all these a little climate change should be no problem. 😉
I am happy to run a book on climate change if anyone is interested. The book is anti, so you scientists should be chomping at the perverbial bit.
Good work dude, very much liked your blog… I did write one way back about a year ago pretty much saying the same thing and got a HUGE response.
“Climate change is so much crap, its just a way to scam a few more quid outta you at the pumps, or make you switch lifestyle”… obviously its more than that, but hey!
Good work again buddy!
—-
[…] and for another, some just aren’t very smart or good at their job. You should read this article for a plainly put explanation of […]
Surfed in, hi, love the post. I admire your graciousness in dealing with the topic of deniers and with the deniers themselves. Climate change denial is an act of quiet violence against all life on Earth. In my first year of uni I made a policy of not discussing it because the conversation always seemed to go as follows:
Other Person: (bunk)
Me: (debunk)
OP: (inappropriate reference to science or scientists)
Me: Are you a scientist?
OP: No.
Me: Are you now studying, or have you ever studied, at University level, ecology, climatology, hydrology, geology, palaeontology, biology, microbiology, or any other hard science from which any data concerning climate change has ever been derived?
OP: No.
Me: I am. You’re wrong. This is why. STFU now.
OP: But… (continuing bunk, usually the original bunk I already debunked, somehow untouched by logic and extensive referencing)
Me: FFS. I’ll be over here counting bugs kthxbye.
It never fails to make me want to engineer a lethal virus that is vectored by belligerent stupidity and wilful ignorance.
—-
so lets get this straight…you dismiss the incorrect science of the past as not really science. how are you so sure that today’s science won’t be proven incorrect in the future?
—-
I can’t believe you didn’t allow my comment Mike 😦 feelings hurt! Which bit didn’t you like?
—-
I am an AGW skeptic and damn proud!
And I am happy to wait for the science to truth out either way.
—-
As I said, I am a skeptic. AGW was never ‘proven’ [1] and was only a political football used originally by the Thatcher government to promoter her international standing. [2]
That being said, I am agnostic to the outcome of the science debate which is FAR from settled. However, I am an opponent of the politics that have been inserting themselves into the science.
Anthropogenic CO2 alone does not account for the latter 20th century warming. Come up with a better hypothesis. [3]
http://deenorris.wordpress.com/
Richard Lindzen of MIT doesn’t fall into the category of a denier, but certainly isn’t fully onboard regarding anthropogenic climate change either. Does anyone know of a detailed, point by point refutation or even detailed discussion of his issues? As far as I can see, he’s probably the most credible of the scientists who have publicly expressed doubts. And clearly, he’s not ignorant. If someone can point me to anything useful in print or on the web, I would appreciate it. I have a near term use for that material.
—-
Jus watch Penn and Teller: Bullshit. Due to the fact that they use basic logic as well as scientific research, I trust them alot more than I trust you [1]. It doesn’t matter because you can find evidence for either side of the topic [2]. Then again, you can find evidence that the government caused 9/11, but that doesn’t make the theory any less rediculous.
—-
Zachstaska, Penn and Teller are notorious for accepting bullshit themselves so long as it comes from a free-market-fundamentalist viewpoint. Why else would they accept Steve Milloy as an expert on secondhand smoke while he was employed by Phillip Morris? (Hint: Penn, Teller, and Milloy were all attached to CATO at the time.)
As for their take on climate change, it was, in a word, bullshit itself. I have more up-to-date information on each and every one of the points covered there, and so does Mike (in the sidebar).
Don’t get me wrong; they’re really good at spotting bullshit, particularly religious bullshit. They’re just quite willing to be blinded by bullshit if it smells of less government business — that is, they accept libertarianism as uncritically as their targets accepted religion.
You can find evidence on both ‘sides’ of this discussion. Ask yourself about the quality of each of your sources. That’s the whole point of this post.
[1] Due to the Problem of Induction in science nothing is ever proven. Try to find a ‘proof’ of gravity or the Laws of Thermodynamics. You can’t, because they don’t and cannot exist.
That is why I put proven in quotes. However, a hypothesis can be falsified. And from the CO2 science I know, the global ΔT claims of the AGW proponents are not supported [1], therefore the hypothesis of AGW is false [2].
[2] Climate change science is much older than the Thatcher Government. The science and threat of climate change was already understood in 1958 as this video shows.</block]
And when I was at university, we called it Atmospheric Sciences, which, btw, was my major. But I didn’t say that the Thatcher government started Climate Science, now did I? [3]
[3] An unsubstantiated claim by a blogger counts for less than zero. Show what is wrong with the science “Humans Causing Climate Change” if you want to be convincing.
How about we start with something recent: David H. Douglass and John R. Christy 2008 – http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf [4]
Anyhow, not sure when I am going to get a chance to stop in again as I am pretty busy this time of year lecturing.
Been a pleasure chatting and the best of luck to you.
Dee, this is a subtle point (lost even on proponents), but I’ll try to make this clear.
AGW is not a theory or a hypothesis. It is a consequence of other theories.
Michael Tobis covered this better than I could back in May.
In your specific case, referring to ΔT claims, I’m not sure which specific claims you’re referring to. If you’re referring to the “It’s stopped warming since 1998, or 2001” meme, you belie your own stated education. The claim isn’t that every year is going to be warmer than the last, just that the trend is positive. (Incidentally, if you plot the instrumental temperature record in the years since 1998, the trend is positive. It just isn’t statistically significant. I’m not sure about the satellites (which have their own problems); I’ll download the data tomorrow and see what I get.)
As a lecturer who majored in atmospheric sciences, you should know this. That you don’t disturbs me. (For the record, my undergrad was in physics, although my research record is in cognitive science.)
Also, tomorrow, I’ll address Douglass and Christy. I’ve seen it show up before, but I admit I haven’t had a chance to read it yet.
FYI, Dee enjoys the life of a big fish in a small pond over at Watts Up With That. In fact she’s one of several co-hosts there. A quick perusal of some of her remarks makes it clear that she has no interest in a dialog with an actual scientist. See here in particular for her views on skepticism; among other things she buys into the global cooling myth and concludes with this:
“It was Cassandra who foretold the fall of mighty Troy using a gift of prophecy bestowed upon her by Apollo, Greek god of the Sun. So it would seem fitting that I assume her demeanor for just one brief moment –
“The theory of anthropogenic carbon dioxide as the cause of the latter 20th century warm period was widely accepted by the scientific consensus until it was falsified by protracted global cooling due to reductions in total solar irradiance and the solar magnetic field.
“I am a skeptic and I am damn proud of it.”
It’s interesting that she would speculate on this point in particular since Leif Svalgaard has made himself available at WUWT to explain in great detail why it’s wrong. At the same time she appears to have no interest at all in discussing the relevant science with him. She avoids this current thread, e.g., other than to give someone a reference to Landscheidt(!). (The entire thread is worth a read if you’re not already familiar with Leif’s efforts.)
I wonder a bit about Dee’s science qualifications. She says she majored in atmo science, but doesn’t say she got a degree. Based on her global cooling reference, she was in school around 1980, but it’s not at all clear that she’s been doing anything science-related in the subsequent ~25 years. Finally, she says she lectures, but fails to state on what subject.
Shifting gears, I’d like to note that for me at least this blog theme is a bit eyestrain-inducng. Slightly larger type and a different background color would fix it. If there’s away to expand the comment window vertically, that would be nice as well.
Beating that dead horse just a little more, Dee commented (in this thread):
“On some levels I am content to wait it out. Eventually, the cooling PDO will undermine a large portion of the support for AGW (or even GW). Even Gore sees this if one reads between the lines of his recent prophecy (of course he is still headed in the wrong direction).
“A little bit of complexity theory here. Warming and Cooling models could be considered attractors in a self-organizing system.
“Maybe 80% of the population lacks the training and education to grasp the technical literature on the topic and so make up their minds using the consensus method of their immediate social circles. This is how Goebbels’ Big Lie worked. Suddenly, enough of their neighbors will start to believe otherwise and it will become socially safe to switch to the other attractor of the debate.
“The real challenge is to fight a holding action against majorly stupid actions until the herd switches attractors. It is important to continually pick away at AGW pseudo-sciences, political agendas and mass manipulation of the herd. Each seed of doubt that is sown legitimately based on real science moves the entire herd closer to switching.
“Unfortunately, when the switch does occur, along with the herd will come the people that prey on fear such as Fenton Communications (who have a LONG history of this behavior – remember Alar and the Great Apple Scare of ‘89? Fenton was hip deep in that one too). So, expect to fend off the cries of doom over global cooling at some point.
“Cycles and cycles.”
Of course this sort of thing seems quite erudite to the WUWT crowd.
I agree with you that climate change/global warming is 100% caused by man and we need immediate actions to stop climate change. What should be done about these deniers? Shouldn’t they be stopped so we can begin to solve this situation? Maybe the next administration can pass some legislation to prohibit these deniers from contradicting known science, either fines or put them in prison. No one should be allowed to disagree with the consensus of scientists that know climate change is occurring and occurring fast. Drastic times call for drastic measures!
Sure Ellen, just put me in prison instead of answering my arguments that point out that the NASA and UN IPCC Earth energy budgets are riddled with violations of well-known physics, such as the conservation of energy, inconsistent and wrong use of thermal radiation theory, and an atmospheric absorption that even a black body absorber could not manage at the lowest temperature found in the atmosphere. Radiation that would have to be absorbed at very high altitudes is somehow back radiated to the surface. Photon energy densities are posited to be near twice what they can be. Mean free path lengths for absorption of longwave infrared radiation are ignored. With so many errors of basic physics turning up here, it is no wonder that garbage physics is input into the computer climate models that consistently overestimate the warming effects of CO2. There is no need to face the loss of authority that comes from the revelation of this nonsense physics if you simply put me in prison. You really hit upon the solution to your problem. Just deny the most essential individual rights and you get the kind of society you want.
The claim that ‘millions’ of scientists support the catastrophic GW hypothesis is fiction. I doubt there are millions of scientists working in relevant fields [1]. More importantly, the vast majority of the thousands of scientists that work in relevant fields have no expertize in the climate models which are used to support the claims and are not qualified to have an opinion one way or another [2]. That leaves us with a few hundered scientists that actively work with the climate models and most of those work for NASA and/or the Hadley Center which are run by AGW zealots addicted to the status and government funding that comes with their predictions of catastrophe. This financial/professional conflict of interest means that most of the few hundred scientists that are qualified to have an opinion on the topic are not trustworthy. [3]
—-
I find it interesting that you say that one does not have to be a climate scientist to understand the issues involved because you are bascially acknowledging the list of 30,000+ scientists has merit [1] since the overwhelming majority of people who signed that list are legimate scientists or engineers [2] . You also have to to acknowedge that a signficant minority, if not a majorty, of geologists and meterologists are among the skeptics. Even real climate admits thae the latter point. [3]
However, I suspect that your definition of who is qualified to comment depends on their opinion. i.e. if they agree with AGW and have any sort of credentials then they can be counted as a “supporter”. But if they disagree then they must be dismissed unless they are praticing climate scientists. [5]
Your musings about conspiracy theories are also amusing since you have no problem ranting about the “fossil fuel conspiracy” that allegedly funds deniers [4] but you seem to think pro-AGW scientists are not motivated by their own personal interest. Such blindness and hypocracy among alarmists would be quite comical if it was not for the billions being wasted on anti-CO2 policies.
—-
Poor Mike, spending his productive time on a lost cause.
Go out and get a life, buddy!
Like it or not, the Earth is COOLING. Mother Nature is a bitch, especially for AGWarmers.
—-
Interesting reading. Just to put me in the picture (I’m new to this site), have any of you ever personally collected some of the vast amount of data (climate time series, real temperatures and proxies) that are available?
I’ve looked thoroughly at many hundreds of data series of every type I can find, and have arrived at some firm conclusions. The first is that the earth’s climate has warmed (improved, from my viewpoint) over the last 150 years. Second, that changes seem to occur suddenly, i.e. in steps, that punctuate often long-lived stable regimes.
I seek in vain an explanation for my second conclusion. Can anyone help?
I’ sure that many readers would find it instructive to look very carefully at the numerical data that Professor Mann used in his original (1998) paper on the northern hemisphere climate from 1400 to about 1980. By using very simple techniques on the data you can see many of the things that have happened, and it is interesting, and baffling, to compare them with the famous published graphs.
I would be very interested to learn of your conclusions from this exercise.
Cheers, Robin
Robin, the term to search for is “tipping point” or “threshold”. If you search for it, you’ll probably find a lot of recent stuff on abrupt climate change today, but there’s also other work that can explain historical sudden changes.
The movie Mike threw up here a couple of weeks ago — in this post — explains it in the context of potential future changes (which are scary because we can’t precisely tell where they are). As for longer, historical changes, it’s probably the same basic idea, just with different components and/or timescales.
However, I’m a cognitive scientist, not a climatologist. This is just the best explanation I’m aware of, and I’d love to be corrected by anyone who really does know with greater certainty.
Mike,
If you were really interested in looking at then evindence you would realize that none of it is conclusive [1] and the entire catatrophic AGW hypothesis requires that one blindly accept the output of complex climate models which have never been validiated [2]. I know enough about numerical computer modelling to know that it is rediculous to treat the output of such models as fact unless they have been repeatedly validated against *future* data. [3] This is impossible to do with climate models because we have no earth lab in which we can conduct real experiements. I realize that many alarmist scientists prefer to accept the model output as fact because it allows them to use the models to support their own research but that does not mean those of us without any vested interest in the models should accept them as fact. [4]
To make things worse you have influencial climate scientists like Mann publishing papers that are full of statistical and scientific errors that could only exist because Mann is either incompentent or he is simply massuaging data until he finds the out come he likes [5]. I realize that you will disagree, however, I feel that fact that so many alarmists are willfully blind to the problems in Mann’s work tells mean that many alarmists scientists are not unbaised observers of the evidence and that I cannot accept any claim that cannot verified independently. [6]
In short, your claims of arguing the evidence means absloutely nothing unless you are willing to acknowledge the limitations of computer models and the examples of poor science produced by some climate scientists.
—-
Thanks Brian (and Raven too). Of course I’ve looked for other work on abrupt change, but found little, so will try again using “tipping point”! I started seriously around 1992, when the term “abrupt” seemed to be unknown in the climate world! If you want to look for yourself try the data recently published by Vinther et al on South West Greenland. Can’t collect the address at the moment, but the paper is “Merged Greenland monthly temperatures based on………” and the authors are Vinther, BM, Andersen, KK, Jones PD, and Cappelen J. “Extending Greenland Temperature Records into the late 18th century.
I have been in touch with Vinther regarding an earlier publication, to say that I’d found a marked and very large change in his data in the 1920s. He replied immediately and showed great interest, so I sent him the plots which showed a change of nearly 2 deg C occurring over a period of a couple of months, with almost stable temperatures (possibly very slightly increasing) prior to the step and very stable after the step for many years. From that point onwards I have heard absolutely nothing from him, despite several emails. My suspicion is that either he and co-authors do not wish to know about it, or that they will come up with a new paper showing this remarkable and hitherto unnoticed phenomenon. Thus I’m telling several people about it! The remarkable thing is that virtually all the records for this part of the world show a very similar sharp change, so it is certainly not an instrument difficulty or observational problem. I still wonder why no-one else seems to have spotted this (to me blatantly obvious) peculiarity. I don’t know how to put plots on a blog like this, so you’ll just have to accept what I say. I really recommend that you collect the data, arrange it linearly, deseasonalise it to get rid of the gross month to month changes, and then form its cumulative sum, (sometimes expressed as “cumulative difference from the mean”). Of course the deseasonalised data will have a mean of zero, by virtue of the arithmetic. For the data referenced above the change point is September/October 1922. There are other less pronounced points of sudden change at various time both before and after the very large one.
I often ponder on the cause of this change, which is so geographically widespread and large, and no explanation comes to mind :-(( Perhaps someone can suggest something!
Cheers, Robin
—–
Mike,
The problem with the models (as with a lot of science) is confirmation bias. i.e. the model makers consciously or unconsciously make adjustments and/or assumptions that ensure the models produce the output that they expect. Real world testing is the only way to determine whether a model can accurately predict the future (e.g. numerical models used in aircraft design are tested extensively in wind tunnels before they are ever used to build a real plane). [1] Being able to produce hindcasts only tells us that a computer model is plausible – they don’t tell us whether the model is able to predict future. If you what more detailed (peer reviewed) criticisms of the models try here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3361 [2]
I have carefully read the various attempts to justify the hockey stick and found nothing that actually refuted the critisms [3]. That said, I had thought the MBH98 was a single screw up and that climate scientists only defended it because they needed it to promote their political agenda. When Mann 2008 appeared I had expected to see something that would stand up to scrutiny. Unfortunatly, it appears that this *peer reviewed* paper is also full of questionable assumptions and data manipulations [4] that make it clear that the authors were only interested mining data to produce the desired outcome and the paper tells us nothing useful about the temperatures over the last 2000 years. Anyone who wants to better understand the flaws in Mann 2008 can check out the discussions at climate audit [5].
That said, I agree that climate models could still be right even if the hockey stick is wrong. However, the fact that many influential climate scientists insist on defending it tells me that the climate science community cannot be trusted to look at the scientific facts objectively.
—-
BTW – RealClimate had a recent post that explains why the catastrophic AGW hypothesis depends entirely on climate models because there is no way to determine how much warming CO2 will cause without the use of a climate model. The planet is simply too complex.
—-
Raven: “RealClimate had a recent post that explains why the catastrophic AGW hypothesis depends entirely on climate models because there is no way to determine how much warming CO2 will cause without the use of a climate model.”
They said no such thing. One can get a pretty good idea of equilibrium sensitivity from examining past climate. Models are needed to get a sense of the pattern and speed of the change.
Honestly, Raven, what’s the point of engaging in this “debate” if you allow your bias to damage your reading comprehension?
I would suggest that you read this paper (supplement here) carefully.
—-
There is absolutely no evidence that the warming experienced so far has been a net negative nor is there any empirical evidence that shows we are heading towards catastrophic climate change. The only empirical evidence we have is that the planet has warmed and may continue to warm but we don’t know how fast it will warm nor do we know whether the effects of continued warming will be a net positive or negative. [1]
The claim of catastrophe is based entirely on the assumption that we understand everything there is know about climate and that the climate models are basically correct. [2] The RC reply that you linked confirms that the climate models are useless because it is impossible to test them properly since we only have one realization of the earth’s climate. Models that cannot be tested and verified are useless for making predictions [3]. BTW K’s reply to RC’s rebuttle is here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3361#comment-287315
When it comes to Mann 2008 it appears Mann is using correlation to the recent temperature record as way to select which proxies to use. This technique will produce a hockey stick even if all of the proxies are random noise (something which has been demonstrated here: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/will-the-real-hockey-stick-please-stand-up
To make matters worse, Mann took the Briffa MXD network which had data which was dropped after 1960 and pasted fictious data on the end of it before computing coorelation. There is no scientific justification for this kind of manipulation. If the Briffa MXD does not correlate after 1960 then it is obviously not a good proxy for temperature and should not be used in reconstructions – yet Mann and others use this series over and over.
Similar issues exist with other proxies such as the finnish sediment series. McIntrye and others are still working on deconstructing this paper but the evidence for sloppy science and tunnel vision is already quite evident.
I dismiss the attempts to justify the hockey stick because they are nothing shell game that try to use a group of flawed studies to justify the other ones. For example, the claim that WA replicated the hockey stick with bristle cones or PCs is debunked here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3406
As far as I can there is no credible study that shows that the current temperature rise is outside the range of normal climate variability. Every study that claims to do so has fatal flaws similar to the flaws in MBH98. These flaws are well documented at climate audit if you want to find out more.
—-
A rational voice in the wilderness, you are Raven.
Steve Bloom says:
“They said no such thing. One can get a pretty good idea of equilibrium sensitivity from examining past climate. Models are needed to get a sense of the pattern and speed of the change.”
One cannot make predictions of catastrophe unless one has some way to to predict the “pattern and speed” of change (e.g. 3 degC of warming over 500 years is not much of a concern). So it appears you agree that that predictions of catastrophe depend entirely on the output of climate models.
The *estimates* of CO2 sensitivity from ice age data are not particularily useful because we have almost no reliable data from the time. They also presume that the CO2 sensitivity is a constant and not dependent on the state of the biosphere or absolute temperature.
Part of the disgreement is you seem to assume that the predictions of catastrophe should be treated as fact until proven wrong where I take the view that such predictions should be presumed false until shown to be true. This means I think all of the analysis with real data are inconclusive because these analyses cannot exclude the possibility that natural or non-CO2 factors are dominate.
I’m a skeptic about white letters on black backgrounds, especially on a sunny day when my screen is all dusty.
—-
Raven, note that you a) failed to apologize for misrepresenting the RC post and b) didn’t bother reading the Hansen et al paper (as evidenced by your ignorant assertions about paleo CO2 levels and sensitivity). Try doing both if you want a reply.
—-
As you wish! To me climate change can olny be understood through a Transdisciplinary approach of analysis of the facts and so is the case with my comment.Plz. Read before deleting it once again.
—-
Man’s further introductions of CO2 into the atmosphere will have very little effect in warming the Earth. The total CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is very low compared to the average levels over the last few million years. In fact, due to the exposure of new aluminosilicate surfaces in the Earth’s crust as the glaciers of the Little Ice Age retreated, the CO2 concentrations of 1850 were particularly low. Measuring them against this level as a standard is completely foolish. Roy Spencer has shown that most of our increased, but still low CO2 in the atmosphere comes from natural effects, primarily the warming of the oceans since the end of the Little Ice Age. Man’s contribution is puny and has little effect upon the climate.
The activity of the sun in terms of its irradiance changes, solar wind fluxes, and the expansion and contraction of its magnetic fields produces the primary driver of climate, though volcanoes and the Earth’s molten interior and the Earth’s magnetic field can also produce effects. The solar magnetic field shields the Earth from cosmic rays to varying degrees and this affects cloud cover. More cosmic ray flux and we have more cloud cover and more solar radiation is reflected back into space with cooling resulting, everywhere but Antarctica. Over the eons, the solar system’s position in the Milky Way Galaxy is also critical to climate. All of this is most excellently documented in Ian Plimer’s book Heaven and Earth. Read it if you want a well-balanced and multi-disciplinary understanding of many of the factors affecting the Earth’s climate.
As a physicist, I have been critically reading about the anthropogenic global warming scare for several years. Long ago, I concluded that the hypothesis was probably wrong and certainly unproven. About two years ago, I was certain it was wrong and mostly based on embarrassingly bad scientific method and a severe lack of critical thought. Those who still believe in any reasonable likelihood of man-made global warming becoming catastrophic either have not done their homework or they are really poor scientists. It is now clear from solar studies that we are most likely entering a global cooling period which will make life on Earth for more than 6 billion people much more difficult. The modest increases that man can make to atmospheric CO2 concentrations should be welcomed for the very minor warming it may contribute and to increase crop production in our shortened growing seasons. In short, do not feel guilty about generating CO2!
—-
Anderson, you have the audacity to claim that you are a physicist with an advanced degree. Where did you get your degree, a box of Cherry Pops?
I have posted a comment on your blog where you claim that surface temperature data is all wrong. Please inform the Arctic ice, the receding glaciers, the birds and animals that are migrating north and the flowers which are blooming earlier that they have been confused and that they should not be doing what they are currently doing.
I have no quarrel with the arctic ice. It shows that CO2 levels rise long after the Earth warms and not before. As for the surface data, yes much of it has been manipulated to cool the past and to warm the present. Rural weather station data has been greatly reduced, while far too much data from urban heat island areas has been used. There are serious problems with the surface temperature data.
Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D.
Since you are a scientist, I’m sure that you realise the value of peer-reviewed research.
Plimer’s book certainly doesn’t fall into that category.
Can you quote any real science?
With links, please. 🙂
S2,
Let’s see if he reads site policy to keep himself honest. 😉
Ian,
Apparently, Mr. Anderson received his PhD from Case. 😦
Thanks to that excellent education, he is able to use his considerable literacy to tell lies to his neighbours and community.
GreenFyre,
Those incompetent scientists who reject and outright lie about the climate science dilute the message to the public and cause delays in action and policy. And of course this is their intention, whether they are crackpots or self-perceived mavericks. They do not want anything to change (for them).
Their use of the climate issue is so clearly ideological: it serves to disguise the power relations at play. Their interests are not presented for all to see and these interests make up the dynamics surrounding the issue. Understanding why they hold these views is important to defining the factors that impede change.
Not only are the majority of them industry shills or professionals with vested interests in industry, but there is something else. It is no accident that he and indeed most deniers are males who have professionally benefited not only from society’s aimless consumption but also its various oppressions. Indeed, the relative absence of women in the denialosphere may be a reflection of the traditional glass ceiling in science during the reign of Mr. Anderson and his colleagues in their fields.
My comments are not a personal attack on these scientists (or males). Not at all: the point is about social positioning and some of the attitudes that are still preventing change.
Anyone who understands the concept of ideology will easily appreciate why people can be influenced by Mr. Anderson, and it is not because he correctly references the facts as we can plainly see.
Deniers have shared economic interests and they express a very simplistic economic view.
The way forward is complex and critical. Mr. Anderson and others just don’t have the ability to grasp this. He and the other predominantly old-boy network scientists have chosen to be useless and even destructive to our current situation and it is obvious that they do not want change. Such a surprise.
Intelligent people will just have to move on without them.
The blogosphere potentially occupies a paramount place for providing the public with correct information and support. Keep up the good work. 🙂
Thank you for this website – I just wish I would have looked for it a month ago!! Broke my left clavicle July 3 mountain biking and gracefully threw, errr launched myself over the handlebars. What do they say about balancing your weight? Went to the doctor yesterday (August 8) and there is no growth yet – my day of accident x-ray and yesterdays are identical. Concerned because I am lactose intollerant – only calcium is through vitamins…since the break haven’t been taking as much as you suggested in your story. Didn’t know about this non union thing!! Doc has me going back in 4 weeks – have to wear my figure 8 and my arm sling until then! Still having substantial pain. Is there a light at the end of my tunnel – anyone think a second opinion is in order? What is no fun – haven’t done ANYTHING for one month and at the time of the fall was training for marathon. Got on the stationary bike for 20 minutes one day and alas mixture of boredom and pain set it.
So after all these years we are still waiting for some evidence that man’s emissions of CO2 are causing a catastrophe. Other than the recent El Nino induced temperature increases, there has been no significant temperature increase since the previous El Nino high of 1998.
Meanwhile, we are told that 97% of scientists hold a consensus view on the effects of atmospheric CO2 on the surface and atmospheric temperatures. Yet this consensus viewpoint produces a host of climate computer models that have spreads on the rate of temperature increases over time that disagree with one another by factors of 3. If your agreement on the physics is such that your models disagree by a factor of 3, then it is a certainty that your consensus scientists do not agree on the physics and there is no real consensus. You might as well shout that you understand gravity because your group produces results that say the gravitational acceleration at the surface of the earth is 5 – 15 m/s^2. A more rational observer would note that this means that your group really does not yet understand major factors affecting the action of gravity at the surface of the Earth. It is equally clear that the climate alarmists do not understand enough about the physics of atmospheric CO2 to make accurate predictions about the affect of CO2 on the climate or that natural effects they do not understand are much greater than they think. Of course, the published claims of 97% agreement among scientists has been much debunked, further showing just how biased and captured the publishing journals commonly are in this field of study.
Given the many failed predictions of the alarmists, it is not surprising that the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming is based on an incorrect understanding of the physics. I have explained many of the errors of physics In this article: Why Greenhouse Gas Theory is Wrong — An Examination of the Theoretical Basis at https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2015/03/why-greenhouse-gas-theory-is-wrong.html Many other posts explaining errors are to be found on my blog as well.
I understand that some of you do not want to be tasked with making an effort to understand the science yourselves. You just want to believe what some authority tells you to believe. I am only interested in addressing those who can and will think for themselves.
Why people still use to read news papers when in this technological world all is existing
on net?
Simply a smiling visitant here to share the love (:, btw great style and design .
Una enorme herramienta online para comprar mejor en internet
Nuestro sistema es tan sencillo y efectivo que siempre estamos pensando…
¿De qué manera no se nos ocurrió antes?
Cosas que aportamos para crear un mundo de compras en línea mucho mejor y
(mucho pero ameno):
COMPRAR AÚN MAS BARATO ES POSIBLE!
Uno de los puntos de nuestro algoritmo es que tiene en cuenta el coste
de cuanto quieras adquirir.
SIEMPRE que vayas a comprar algo, asegúrate de que miras el precio aquí … Te sorprenderemos si o
bien si
GENTE FELIZ
Si nuestros usuarios son felices con sus compras, mucho pero!!
Por eso otro de los puntos el algoritmo es que solo muestra
productos por comentarios de gente que es feliz con lo que compra.
¿No te lo crees? Mira ciertos ejemplos!
Estas son las mejores busquedas de compras online que han hecho el día de hoy nuestros
usuarios
The argument from authority is a well-known fallacy. The insistence that all arguments opposing catastrophic man-made global warming must be made by government-funded researchers with time to write articles for Science or other journals controlled by the orthodox and the shills of alarmism simply evades the arguments that many scientists including myself have made that show that the alarmist physics is clearly wrong. It is easy to show that the Earth energy budgets alone are clearly in contradiction of well-known physics. One does not have to wait a hundred years to find out if the computer models will make the right prediction. If the physics put into the model is wrong, the predictions of the model are worthless. When the physics of the authorities is wrong, the guise of authority is lost. I have ripped the false mask off of the alarmist hypothesis many times at my open blog: http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com where you can see if you can refute my arguments about the physics errors in the alarmist hypothesis.