Recent Comments

Prev  2288  2289  2290  2291  2292  2293  2294  2295  2296  2297  2298  2299  2300  2301  2302  2303  Next

Comments 114751 to 114800:

114751. andrew adams at 02:28 AM on 24 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        Pete Ridley, The point I was making is that you made a specific claim about the state of our collective knowlege about what drives our climate, ie that our understanding in this area is very poor. But there is a large body of published science which shows that actually we do understand many of factors which influence our climate rather well. So if I'm to believe you and dismiss the scientific literature then I have to believe that you have some kind of authority on the subject.
114752. Philippe Chantreau at 02:25 AM on 24 July 2010
        What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
        "ad hominid (sic) attacks on his credibility." Well, I would certainly stop short of calling Watts an hominid. However, an attack on credibility is not an ad hom. I have zero knowledge of quilting. Zilch. If I was trying to make a technical comment and criticize others on how they do it, an attack on my credibility would be perfectly justified. It would not call into question my worth as a person (hence disqualifying it as ad-hom) but certainly would do so as a commenter on quilting. That would be fine. Watts history of posts demonstrate that he is not competent to analyze data. If he his, why is he not doing so? He's been at this for over 3 years, that's enough to partially store the bigger part of a degree in applied maths. Saying that he is not competent to analyze data is not an ad-hom.
114753. KR at 02:07 AM on 24 July 2010
        What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
        TruthSeeker - Watts put out some data, Menne analyzed it, and it's not normal peer review process to give the originator of the data refusal rights over your analysis. What Watt could do would be to (a) demonstrate that Menne's analysis was flawed (bad statistics, method, etc.), or (b) show that the more complete data, when analyzed a la Menne, results in different conclusions than the initial data set. He has yet to do either. Watt's current blog posting has not one bit of analysis of how his issues with the data collection affect the global temperature track as derived from the GISS data. That isn't to say that he might or might not have some points in his complaints about Menne's methods or personal interactions. But he has not yet analytically criticized Menne's results.
114754. Philippe Chantreau at 02:03 AM on 24 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        About this: "we need better measurement and more years to find out what is really happening". It applies only because skeptics insist on levels of certainty and a reductionist approach that are both incompatible with complexity. If the same standards were applied to medicine, all progress would stall. Open a pharmacology book and note all the substances for which it is reported "mechanism of action unknown."
114755. NickD at 01:49 AM on 24 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        Pete Ridley at 00:17 AM on 24 July, 2010 said, "Climategate wasn’t spin, it was a scandal exposed by the leaked files and the enquiries held so far were simply whitewashes but they don’t lessen the scandal of the general public’s recognition of it." Besides the ironic spin in your comment, I wanted to point out that, as a member of the general public having no ties to the scientific community (every bit the layperson), what I recognize as scandalous is that private emails were obtained without permission (generally recognized as "stealing"), and released to the general public. I find criminal activity to be generally scandalous. I tend to find, based on personal experience, the view expressed by Doug Bostrom to be much more accurate. Those who were already in-the-know with climate science generally fall into two camps. Those who are self-described "skeptics" tend to look at the the "Climategate" non-controversy as evidence confirming beliefs they already held. Those on the other side of the fence vary a bit from seeing some perhaps inappropriate comments that have little bearing on the larger picture, to being irate at the crime committed and the ensuing death threats, etc leveled at those involved. Those with no knowledge (people who have never heard of this site, WUWT, RC, etc) of climate science have probably never heard of CRU. At least that's my experience. Perhaps there are some facts and figures to back up your "avalanche" comment and subsequent similar assertions. I will continue to wait for them.
114756. shawnhet at 01:45 AM on 24 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        Basically, we have one easy way to tell whether someone is an expert in science and when someone isn't: whether they can make a risky prediction that turns out to be true. If someone did "the work" and ended up no better at predicting what's going to happen than a guy on the street, should we still be listening to him? Cheers, :)
114757. shawnhet at 01:21 AM on 24 July 2010
        What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
        Skywatcher:"skywatcher at 19:06 PM on 23 July, 2010 #74 - shawnhet, your last sentence does not make any sense. There's a huge difference between distribution of heat and addition of heat. One can cause a long-term change in a system, the other can't." I don't understand you here. You'd originally started by saying that "I agree that Milankovitch cycles redistribute heat - but they do this globally - such as shifting insolation preferences from the NH to the SH, namely to a place where it cannot easily redistribute back". Now, presumably, Milankovitch cycles cause long-term changes in a system, so your latest position seems to disagree with your original position. As to my point vis a vis PDO and the temp trend, it is pretty easy to understand IMO. If we assume that X affects temperatures, and there is no trend in X, then it follows that X will not affect the temperature *trend*, but it doesn't mean that X doesn't affect temperature. Cheers, :)
114758. TruthSeeker at 00:51 AM on 24 July 2010
        What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
        #88 "The problem, however, is that the guy who collected the data (Watts) wasn't invited to "peer review" the paper. Which is the normal Peer Review process. " Splurf ... TruthSeeker, if I were drinking coffee when reading your post, you'd owe me a keyboard. There's no polite way to say this: you don't know what you're talking about." Maybe so, I didn't fully research that before I posted it. That, however, doesn't undermine the argument that Watt's makes regarding the quality of data that Menne used. In fact it is the same argument that undermine the Soon paper. I find it self serving to claim its bad for Soon but not for Menne. Like you all have said, I too am curious to see if Watt's gets a paper published. That being said, non of you point to where Watt's criticism of Menne's paper isn't valid. All you do is ad hominid attacks on his credibility, but you don't address the argument that Menne's paper is flawed based on a skewed and uncontrolled dataset.
114759. Ned at 00:34 AM on 24 July 2010
        CO2 effect is saturated
        Hi, Daved. You're right, people do post links to that paper a lot. Fortunately, this site is here to help people quickly assess those kinds of claims. The short answer is that the "falsification" paper by G&T is just nonsense. You can find a rebuttal to it on this site at The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics Or, if you want more depth, there's a lot of discussion of this at the website "Science of Doom": On Having a Laugh – by Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009) On the Miseducation of the Uninformed by Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009) and subsequent posts at Science of Doom.
114760. Doug Bostrom at 00:33 AM on 24 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        Ken Lambert, if you read the home page of this site you'll notice that Skeptical Science is here in large part due to the odd phenomena of so-called climate change skepticism itself; the properties of "climate skeptics" are a topic of investigation and discussion. Posts focusing on such specimens as Monckton are entirely in keeping with the mission of the site. Regarding threads reaching stalemates, I'd offer that we'd like better precision for many measurements while at the same time noting that such precision and harmony as we do have among various data is quite sufficient to inform us that we are looking at a significant risk of and from climate change. Your final points about public opinion and money are spot-on for this site. "Climategate" was a synthetic and hollow matter, as confirmed by multiple investigations, but is turning out to be an interesting topic for social science researchers and thus an appealing topic for those who perceive "climate skeptics" as an intriguing subject of perusal. Preliminary results seem to show that the dominant and more durable effect of "climategate" has been to harden existing beliefs among so-called climate skeptics. The same research indicates that surprisingly few persons were actually aware of the matter at all, with awareness being concentrated among those already following the subject of climate change. Acceptance of "climategate" as a valid matter of concern is strongly correlated with ideology. Research also indicates that fortuitous timing between "climategate" and heavy snowfall in parts of the U.S. and Europe last winter exaggerated the impact of the matter but this effect is not expected to be durable. Your connection between money, mitigation, uncertainty and fear of loss is whether by coincidence or not exactly as though it had been taken from the playbook of the political consultant Luntz in his memorandum of a few years ago to the GOP.
114761. chris1204 at 00:23 AM on 24 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        tobyjoyce @ 39: Some of the best portrayals of the subjective element in science have been described by the late great Stephen Jay Gould. He gives numerous examples of figures we now ridicule explaining how their views made eminent good sense from the perspective of their times. My favourite is his discussion of Archbishop Ussher's 1650 dating of the creation at 4004 BCE - Gould showers praise on Ussher's empirical approach to a difficult question, which apparently involved far more than mere extrapolation of biblical generations but included also cross-referencing to other historical data. He decries modern ridicule of what was excellent science for its time. Your reference to Watson and Einstein set me thinking. Watson's initial failure to give but the most marginal credit to Rosalind Franklin's critical role in the seminal Nature publication on the structure of the DNA molecule is perhaps more worrying than his lack of humility. Interestingly, this does not detract from the integrity of the science. Likewise, Franklin's seemingly much smaller footprint detracts not one iota from the scientific integrity underlying her pioneering work on RNA, an equally important molecule. Fortunately, the science of DNA and RNA however did not take placed in a highly charged socio-political context with major economic implications. However, AWG science does. Once money, politics, inflated egos, and plain cussed stubbornness enter the field, the equivalent of a culture war ensues in which truth is often the first casualty (pardon the cliche). In this context, I think some players (eg, Mike Hulme of UEA), are trying hard to rewrite the rules of engagement and move us into a more civilised space. I think their efforts deserve some recognition.
114762. TruthSeeker at 00:20 AM on 24 July 2010
        Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
        Reply to # 63, 64, & 65. thanks for all your thoughtful responses. I still have a visceral concern with the fact that the only true measurable component is the manmade portion (I don't dispute the results of these measures). That being said, you all have provided many good points that I need to digest. Thanks for that.
114763. Pete Ridley at 00:17 AM on 24 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        Phil (Scadden) ref. comment #24, no, Climategate wasn’t spin, it was a scandal exposed by the leaked files and the enquiries held so far were simply whitewashes but they don’t lessen the scandal of the general public’s recognition of it. On th ematter of climatemodels, lets keep that to the debate on the “How reliable are climate models?” thread. Andrew (Adams), I don’t believe that I have ever claimed to have any authority with regards to global climate processes and drivers but if you think that I have then please show me where. I do have opinions on the subject after having read a lot about it and, like yourself, am at liberty to express them. Best regards, Pete Ridley
114764. NickD at 00:08 AM on 24 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        Pete Ridley at 16:48 PM on 23 July, 2010 says, "Climategate and the subsequent IPCC-gates have started an avalanche of scepticism among lay people around the globe." That's a very strong statement. I'm skeptical, as you provide zero evidence to back up this extraordinary claim. Do you have extraordinary evidence which backs up your assertion that global skepticism amongst laypersons became an "avalanche" after the molehills you cited? @ Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:21 PM on 23 July, 2010 I am with Philipe on this one. I simply don't comprehend the conclusion you have alluded to based on the out of context quote you cite. Could you elaborate?
114765. Ken Lambert at 23:59 PM on 23 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        Tobyjoyce #39 I thought that Freeman Dyson was doing a pretty good job of: "stepping up to defy the conventional climate science wisdom from within". Interesting that the last 10-12 topics on this blog have strayed from discussions about the harder science and into all sorts of areas such as personalities like Monckton & Abraham , links to creationism, 97% of scientists in a room etc. I wonder what happened to the robust blockbuster arguments about the real effect of CO2, water vapour, aerosols, TSI, TOA, OHC, SLR, energy balance etc?? Maybe it is because the deeper these technical discussions go, the more the lack of knowledge and robust measurement in vital areas of climate science are exposed. Several of these threads have petered out with a stalemate ending in something like: "we need better measurement and more years to find out what is really happening". When met with this situation, the fall back position of this blog and the 'AGW consensus' is to say we don't have all the answers, but need to take radical action just in case what we claim is right. The difficulty with this line is that public confidence has been damaged by Climategate, and the exaggerated claims by advocates like Al Gore are not being believed by the great unwashed who will have to pay for the radical changes to their energy sources.
114766. KR at 23:34 PM on 23 July 2010
        Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
        RSVP - The physics of CO2 and the greenhouse gas effect is logarithmic; for each doubling of CO2 levels an additional forcing of ~1 oC is expected. This is because of the Gaussian/Lorentzian bandpass of CO2; the center of the bandpass may be entirely saturated, but with each doubling the width of the absorbed band expands. Positive feedback (primarily H2O, also CO2 cycle) will likely amplify that to ~3-3.5 oC. So a 40% increase only leads to about half a degree in CO2 forcing, ~1.5 oC with all feedbacks (many of which are slow, still in progress). Your calculation is therefore incorrect. Radiation vs. heat flow: There is a constant confusion in terms that comes into play here. Heat (total energy) flows (at some rate) from hot objects to cold ones. However, energy flows in both directions, from hot to cold and (in smaller amounts) from cold to hot via radiation and conduction. "Heat flow" is the net energy exchange. The presence of a cold object makes a warm one lose energy slower then it would be if it were instead facing 3 oK empty space. What I was trying earlier to point out is that it's important not to confuse the parts (radiative and other transfer elements) with the whole (heat flow). The science is extremely well established for radiative equilibrium, also here for thermal radiation and heat flow, dating back to the late 1700's - part of the discussion where caloric theory was dropped as a concept. This confusion in terms, however, seems to be a matter of eternal recurrence...
114767. batsvensson at 23:28 PM on 23 July 2010
        What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
        What is the definition of a 'climate scientists'?
114768. tobyjoyce at 23:06 PM on 23 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        chriscanaris, @35, I take your point, but the great scientists I mentioned (Feynmann, Watson, Einstein) would have been downright losers in a "most humble" competition. Einstein refused ever again to submit a paper to "Physics Review Letters" because it dared to send one of his 1930s papers for peer review. If you are talking about Newton's "standing on the shoulders of giants" type of modesty, then I think all great scientists partake of that. Every scientist needs to know that their theories are contingent and not final, and that type of modesty is a necessity. ALL of out judgments are subjective. Philospohers of science speak about observations being "theory-laden", something even Darwin admitted. Science makes effort to shrug off the subjectivity by statistical tests, by insisting on replication of experimental or model results, by peer-review, and by discussion. Science, like you (and me, a bit!), does learn from its mistakes. The fact is no Watson, Einstein or Feynmann has stepped up to defy the conventional climate science wisdom from within. That speaks volumes to me. Imagine the glittering prizes that would await the scientist who did that successfully - not to mention the sheer intellectual satisfaction.
114769. Philippe Chantreau at 22:55 PM on 23 July 2010
        What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
        "If we're wrong - is the money will be lost ... " Well, that was the modus operandi for a while with the world's banking industry and Wall Street. Funny enough, it still is to a large extent, even though they were wrong. We might as well try it with the energy industry, at least there would be a bunch of good reasons to do so.
114770. Daved Green at 22:49 PM on 23 July 2010
        CO2 effect is saturated
        Hi ok ive realised from google searching that someone is posting this in just about any blog they can and by the body of the post it seems to be the same person . thanks Dave
114771. Philippe Chantreau at 22:47 PM on 23 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        Arkadiusz, on this post #32 http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-nature-of-authority.html#19183. What logic you may use there escapes me.
114772. Daved Green at 22:17 PM on 23 July 2010
        CO2 effect is saturated
        Hi How can these guys be right “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner , Ive beeen looking for rebuttals to there paper but now luck so far can anyone help ? thanks Dave
114773. chris1204 at 22:13 PM on 23 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        Arkadiusz, I'm happy to see you posting particularly since we're talking about the nature of authority. A few weeks ago, you referred to Polish scientists/ scientific bodies who did not endorse the AGW consensus. Another poster put up a link to the December 2007 statement of the Polska Akademia Nauk (Polish Academy of Sciences) which they believed supported the consensus. I happen to be reasonably fluent in Polish despite my Greek surname, Ghanaian childhood, and Australian nationality (a long story - 1939 and all that). I naturally looked up the document - the document strongly endorsed the 'consensus.' I asked if you knew of any more recent statements or statements from other bodies supportive of your stance. I was disappointed by your non-response.
114774. John Brookes at 22:09 PM on 23 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        adelady at 19:50 PM on 23 July, 2010 I think you hit the nail on the head. How dare we tell the opposition that it would take them years of work to be qualified to understand this stuff well! It is very anti-democratic - isn't it?
114775. chris1204 at 22:06 PM on 23 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        tobyjoyce at 19:46 PM on 23 July, 2010 Massimo Piglucci's five useful steps are eminently sensible. However, no matter how much we try, a subjective element enters into our evaluations of all situations. For example, one often speaks in science of an elegant experiment. RSVP's call for humility is thus timely indeed. Looking back over my career, I can think of all too many errors of judgment. I don't make quite so many now (I hope!!!!!).
114776. magaret.wang at 22:03 PM on 23 July 2010
        It's Urban Heat Island effect
        well, i may not as professional and presice as all of you commented on the issue above, and i don't really know the jargon you are talking, but i would like to ask several important questions based on logics, becasue i also interested in the matter, but due to the lack of basic tools and information i could not present a whole image to all of you. my points as as follow : 1. do you think that the sun is the major energy resoure of the surface of the earth (no matter in which form it store,like coal, oil, living creatures, organic matters,carbohydrate...and so on)beside the nuclear reaction the core of the earther is under going and before we discovered and stareted to use nuclear energy? 2.If you do belive that the sun is the major energy supplier to the earther surface, then where those engergy the surface of the earth from the sun got go? It dissapeared by it's self or they just stored in other form rather the heat? 3.Yes i do believe the urben area is much hotter than the rural area, but does that mean UHL is the major contributor to global warming? becuae we all know that about 71% of the earth surface is cover by water, and the propotion of rurual area must be more than times to urban area(according to an estimation rurual area only account for 3% of the earth surface, even if the average tempreture of the urban area is 10 times than the other part of the world , the average tempreture rise it can cause if is only 0.27 centidegree. 4.Look at the the energy we realised from the engery store in other form the near 100 yeas, i think it's not a big quesiton to understand glob warming Got to go, to be continue next time if i were bump into this forum agian next time.
114777. andrew adams at 21:43 PM on 23 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        MattJ, How did he miss his own error here? His own example of his father making dogmatic statements to him shows there is no such division. After all, when a parent tells their kid to go to bed by such and such time or take a bath, that decision too is based on experience: kids need to go to bed earlier than they want, or they don't get enough sleep, and end up cranky the next day; they need hygiene, which need they generally never appreciate, not even after its neglect leads them to serious skin diseases. We would certainly hope that a parent would give instructions to their children based on such considerations, but not everyone is a good parent and sometimes people either don't have such a good understanding of, or simply neglect, their children's best interests. Ultimately a parent's authority is arbitrary because they posses it merely by virtue of being a parent and no one has to prove their fitness or suitability for parenthood beforehand (unless they are adopting I suppose) so I think it is fair for Graham to make the distinction.
114778. andrew adams at 21:33 PM on 23 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        Pete Ridley This has not been achieved by scientists trying to predict future climates because the processes and drivers of global climates are horrendously complex (verging on the chaotic) and are presently very poorly understood. Reliable analysis and prediction of global climates is impossible due to the significant scientific uncertainties. So what authority do you have for your claim regarding our very poor understanding of the drivers of global climate?
114779. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:21 PM on 23 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        Gavin Schmidt once said: “if we are talking about global warming, I am probably the most criticized man in the world (...), why I stopped reading articles about me ...” Is this the reason (may be) that the theory of AGW is false?
114780. RSVP at 20:11 PM on 23 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        Human imagination conceived of the myth Atlas, a human- like figure holding the entire world on his shoulders. With full knowledge of this impossibility, mankind now attempts to treat the entire planet as just one more device under test. The problem is not a lack of authority as much a lack of modesty, which when found will do more for this cause.
114781. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:00 PM on 23 July 2010
        What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
        @Chris „Natural internal variations (e.g. ocean currents like the PDO/AMO) can pretty much only redistributed heat.” “But one would have to conjure up some rather extraordinary thermodynamic arguments to satisfy a notion of persistent accumulation of heat into the climate system by internal variations!” This is not the whole truth. AMO affects the accumulation of energy in the oceans, water vapor content in the atmosphere (the main greenhouse gas), albedo (the desert - and the increasing amount of dust in the atmosphere - such as the Sahara - in the negative phase of the AMO - the vast ash cloud reaching up to America; positive AMO - a significant drop in the number and extent of dust and surface area of the Sahara and the duration of the retention period of snow, keeping the leaves on the plants, the growing season, etc.), ENSO - including water vapor and the quantity of sea (plankton) sulfurous cloud condensation nuclei - the clouds ... - I probably not omitted anything important ... Subsequent cycles of AMO, PDO are different in time (duration: 50 - 90 years) and the range of the temperature anomalies. We are talking about the so-called: cyclical occurrence of extreme El Nino .... Even the IPCC report, in assessing these factors, it is said has a huge range of uncertainty ...
114782. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:57 PM on 23 July 2010
        What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
        I agree to the consensus - for convenience - if it does not slow down (necessary in the scientific process) the process of falsification - skeptical "treatment" theory of AGW. “Also, even if AGW was disproved tomorrow, I'd still argue for a reduced reliance on fossil fuels on the basis of *general* pollution & resource sustainability!” The current problem is in how fast warming will proceed (called "second floor"). If very fast (here, I believe that will not be collected up to 50 "white" scientists in the room - so minded), the major resources should be allocated to the CCS (there is no other way to the rapid reduction of CO2). If we're wrong - is the money will be lost ... If the warming will be slower (and it is much more than he wants IPCC), we should (mostly) spend money on alternative energy sources - it's never hurt us. As noted by Marcus, fossil fuels have many other serious defects. So I agree - I am the "white" in the room. I'll have less problems with getting money for research. And the truth, and so once ... But if I am to be fair to the arguments of those who say: "for the current warming corresponds to the natural cycle of warming, much more than the IPCC says - convincing me. These are often carried out very precisely, logical processes of evidence.
114783. adelady at 19:50 PM on 23 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        "I think part of the resistance to authority is the feeling that nobody's better than me." But I think that links up with the anti-intellectualism, people really want to believe that they can read a magazine or a blog and *know* stuff as well as someone who's put in years. The intellectual stuff is the hardest because it's not like other activities. We all know how likely it is that we'll be seeded at Wimbledon or invited to perform at Carnegie Hall or produce a better chocolate cake than someone who's won every cake competition she's ever entered or all those other obvious external things. We can't kid ourselves so we yield to others' judgments about these people's expertise. When it comes to knowing things a lot of people seem to resent the fact that knowledge and skill (in something like maths) is difficult to acquire at higher levels. The perennial scorn for "ivory tower" academics seems to have exploded into a need, in some people, to show that they're just as capable as someone who's "wasted their lives with their head in a book". As for comparisons, many of these denier people are pretty clever. I think it's hard for some who've usually been among the cleverest people in their own circle to acknowledge that others are much, much cleverer and have done a lot of work to use and enhance their capacity. It's a bit like Monday morning quarter-backing. But it gets nasty when people really believe that the team should be following their instructions rather than the coach's.
114784. tobyjoyce at 19:46 PM on 23 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        I am not fully at ease with this, and I hope I can explain why. Yes, it is true that the scientific consensus is the place to start always when researching a topic. I am sure a large proportion of contrarians read McIntyre and Watts because they find them politically congenial. However, they are then unwilling to engage with the science. We are probably unduly influenced by the first person to explain something to us. However, science contains enough of the subversive and the rebellious to make us cautious about "scientific authority". I am thinking of the young Feynmann, James Watson or Einstein who were not afraid to challenge the establishment of their day. So we should never hesitate to question authority. However, at some point we must decide and put scepticism aside. As I once said in a response on WUWT (to which no one responded) "Even Doubting Thomas had a bottom line". Massimo Piglucci Nonsense on Stilts gives 5 very useful steps to check out expertise in fields where we ourselves have little or none: (1) Examine the arguments of the experts. Piglucci points out that we may not have the expertise to critique the fine points. (2) Look for internal consistency and agreement among the experts. (3) Seek independent advice that the expert is an expert! (4) Ask questions about possible biases. (5) Look at the track record of the expert. We could apply these to (say) a doctor who is recommending a particular course of treatment to a loved one or to ourselves. I think climate scientists measure up very well to Piglucci's criteria, while the contrarian "experts" do not do well at all.
114785. chris1204 at 19:40 PM on 23 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        scaddenp at 13:55 PM on 23 July, 2010 As best as I can tell, the Deep Climate post deals with statistical issues as they relate to the Climategate emails and McIntyre's citation of these. A commentator writing in response to an earlier post indicated that discussion of these emails was off limits on this site. I don't know whether that is true or not. In any case the whole debate over who wrote what and why in response to what seems utterly Byzantine complexity and somewhat beyond the limited capacity of my prefrontal cortex :-). I hope I'm not violating rules by going over these issues but McIntyre's principal beef all along seems to have been with the validity of statistical methodology (very much his field of expertise) and reluctance to share data and code. The various enquiries have exonerated the folks at UEA of misconduct and upheld the integrity of their scientific work. However, some criticism of lack of interaction with the statistical community and willingness to share information seems a consistent theme in the enquiries. As far as I'm concerned, that's exactly where I would want to leave the issues. Indeed, my recollections of the Guardian debate if they serve me well suggest a consensus that in reality there nothing sinister to hide and that openness from the outset would have avoided an awful lot of unpleasantness. Incidentally, you say: 'And as to media - well seeing the reporting about anything you have been involved in should give you a healthy dose of skepticism.' Incidentally, I've been involved in a number of matters which attracted substantial media attention (not much in recent years, thank God). The issues being reported on were not politically charged but related to some complex criminal matters. I was surprised at the time by the accuracy and fairness of some (obviously not all) of the media reporting.
114786. Sheila at 19:17 PM on 23 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        I think part of the resistance to authority is the feeling that nobody's better than me. This strikes me as muddled. Better in what sense? I consider myself a better person than drug barons and paedophiles, so obviously I believe that some people are better than others. Since there's 6,700,000,000 people on this plant (give or take) I have to admit it's unlikely that I'm the best of the lot. I'm not likely to be the smartest, either. Or the most knowledgeable on any given subject. I think the point is that nobody has more rights than I do. That doesn't mean everybody is equally qualified to judge the science behind climate change. And 97% of the active climate scientists say climate change is real, serious, and caused by human activity.
114787. RSVP at 19:09 PM on 23 July 2010
        Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
        "KR Please - if you want to promote (as you apparently do) the idea of waste industrial heat causing global warming, then look at the numbers. It just doesn't add up." I am not sure why you say this. From what I have read here, GHG's have brought temperatures up on Earth some 30 Kelvin from where they would be otherwise. An increase of 100ppm CO2 due to humans with respect to an original 250ppm (or thereabout) represents a 40% increase. Based on the most simplistic notions of proprotionaly, the "numbers" dictate something closer to a (0.4 x 30 = 12) twelve degree increase which is obviously not being detected. Aside from the "numbers", in earlier discussions there have been those defending AGW while at the same time asserting that radiation and heat transfer have nothing to do with each other. There seems to be general misconceptions on quantum electrodynamics that are affecting biases in a big way. Furthermore, if the science is so well established, what exactly needs to be discussed?
114788. skywatcher at 19:06 PM on 23 July 2010
        What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
        #74 - shawnhet, your last sentence does not make any sense. There's a huge difference between distribution of heat and addition of heat. One can cause a long-term change in a system, the other can't.
114789. Marcus at 18:51 PM on 23 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        "Climategate and the subsequent IPCC-gates"? Oh that's just too funny for words. In spite of the attempts by the Right-Wing Media to get mileage out of the e-mails (obtained via a CRIMINAL ACT, I might add), the reality is that it turned out to be a massive storm-in-a-teacup. Even the most Right-Wing media outlets have since dropped the story-leaving just the Right-Wing conspiracy Websites to go on about it (which is essential for them given the lack of any contrary evidence to AGW). Similarly, all of the alleged errors of the IPCC-again highlighted by the Right-Wing press-have likewise proven to have precious little substance. The so-called "avalanche of skepticism" that you claim has actually ceased to materialize-all that happened was that the Denialists become even more convinced of the existence of this non-existent conspiracy. I'm just waiting to hear about when the hackers will be arrested & charged. I've almost no doubt that they have close links to the same organizations that give Oxygen to the likes of Watts, Plimer & Monckton.
114790. gpwayne at 18:37 PM on 23 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        1. adelady

        It's a shame it has to be intellectual, where people have to acknowledge others' superior expertise.

        That acknowledgement requires humility. A striking characteristic of Climate change denialism is the certainty invested in opinions, for all denialism is driven by beliefs rather than evidence. Belief systems rarely engender humility because, by their nature, they require followers to 'know' they are right. The Dunning-Kruger effect is another manifestation of this problem. 4. MattJ

        ...most conspicuous in the failure of his thinking is the false dichotomy between the authority with which he now speaks about music and musicianship, and the parental authority kids hate when their parents tell them to go to bed.

        It is because they are children that they confuse the nature of the authority, believing it to be arbitrary. It is the argument used by climate change deniers to debunk the science: that scientists have an ideological or economic agenda which shapes the results they give us, in order to exercise authority over what we do and how we live. My point is that this authority isn't like a parent, who gains it merely by copulating. It is earned, and the price is high to those who do the work we hear about, for they are the best in their fields. The sub-text, by the way, is anti-intellectualism or inverse snobbery - the demeaning conflation by fundamental ideologues of intellectual achievement and socialism/liberalism/humanism.

        That is, rather than recognize that scientific authority is based on people doing their homework, so that their opinion really IS worthy of authority and respect, the skeptics turn up their noses and stamp their feet shouting 'no' just like the little kid who doesn't want to take a bath when his parent tells him he must.

        Or go to bed. The weird thing about this remark is the deja vu quality, since it's exactly what I thought I said in my piece. 6. Joe Blog You refer to issues of trust. I would like to add that the deference I refer to (and that was queried by omnologos) is a trust in the scientific method, not scientists. In any socialogical group you will find a statistical distribution of saints and sinners. The scientific method is designed to weed out the sinners and it works well enough - given time. That's the tricky bit with climate change - people say 'let's wait until we've got better data, more evidence...' but if any of the putative tipping points are reached meanwhile, we're screwed. In lieu of blind faith, I'll accept what the consensus and logic tells me - because I do believe they speak with authority, and I don't believe they have any reason to lie, since the lie will be discovered all to quickly in this fevered scientific climate. 9. HumanityRules

        When science collides with politics and social policy I think it's very much necessary to do plenty of questioning.

        Sure, but principally one should question the politics and the social policy, not the science that catalysed the discussion. Remember too that denialists do not 'discuss' anything, they just tell us why we're wrong and have no authority to tell them what to do.
114791. Pete Ridley at 18:34 PM on 23 July 2010
        Models are unreliable
        Hi folks, thanks to those of you who have responded with an attempt to debate in a reasonable manner the issue of evidence that is supposed to support the claim that climate model predictions/projections have been validated. I will respond to each of you in turn in subsequent comments. First, since for some reason my fist comment on this blog (on the “Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line” thread has been removed let me repeat it here. The IPCC and other supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis depend very much upon the “projections” of the computerised climate models. The validity of those projections has been challenged repeatedly by sceptics but they are still depended upon to support the notion that our use of fossil fuels will cause catastrophic global climate change. I have been debating this on several blogs with software developers with an interest in this subject, such as Steve Easterbrook, William Connolley (Note 2) and James Annan (Note 3) but it seemed that as soon as I mentioned Dr. Vincent Gray the debate stopped. Dr. Gray is author of “The Greenhouse Delusion”, a member of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (Note 4) and was responsible for having the IPCC admit that climate models had never been properly validated, despite the IPCC trying to suggest otherwise. (In response to his comment the word "validation" was replaced by "evaluation" no less than 50 times in the chapter on "Climate Models - Validation" in an early draft of the IPCC's "The Science of Climate Change".) Yesterday I sent the following comment to Steve Easterbrook’s blog (Note 5) but he refused to post it. Is Skeptical Science prepared to? ________ Climate models are inadequate because of our poor understanding of the fundamental global climate processes and drivers. Improving the quality of the software will not improve their performance. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Popular Tehnology has put together a list of respected scientists who recognise this fact. One of these, Freeman Dyson says "My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models." Have a read of what the rest have to say (http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/07/eminent-physicists-skeptical-of-agw.html). IPCC reviewer Dr. Vincent Gray is putting together an article on the subject of climate model validation. I’ll let you know when it’s available. -------------- There is no one-liner that will rebut this criticism by a true climate science sceptic. NOTES: 1) see http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rebut 2) see http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/06/engineering_the_software_for_u.php 3) see http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/07/penn-state-live-investigation-of.html 4) see http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1 5) see http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=1785&cpage=1#comment-3436 Best regards, Pete Ridley
114792. kdkd at 17:57 PM on 23 July 2010
        What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
        gallopingcamel #92 Please use the Skeptical Science List of Arguments to see how many of the points in the mensnewsdaily article you cited are clearly the result of credulity or dishonesty on the part of the author. I got two paragraphs in and already spotted two discredited arguments before I gave up. If after that, you find it's published something with any credibility whatsoever, please do come back and enlighten us. Repeating dishonesty however does not make them magically come true.
114793. scaddenp at 17:37 PM on 23 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        Peter Ridley - but climategate stuff was spin. Just much easier to read cherry-picked quotes and say tut tut than it is to go to the hard work of getting the whole context. As to authority, you are agree you have to have skill to have authority but I fail to see how climate models have not earned that. Whether climate is chaotic is an open question - weather is - but regardless, we manage to navigate the solar system despite it being a chaotic system in the formal sense. "Reliable analysis and prediction of global climates is impossible due to the significant scientific uncertainties." This is an assertion that you must back with evidence. Sure, you cannot predict next new year's day temperature but that is not what climate is. Predicting a 30 year average within known limits for a given set of forcings is the what predicting climate is about.
114794. ScaredAmoeba at 17:06 PM on 23 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        scaddenp at 13:55 PM on 23 July, 2010 "Some thoughts - I am extremely wary of books...." We should all be extremely wary!

        Leader ….This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs). Further, we analyse CTTs involved with environmental issues and find that 90 per cent of them espouse environmental scepticism. We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.....

        Summary ….Environmental scepticism is an elite-driven reaction to global environmentalism, organised by core actors within the conservative movement. Promoting scepticism is a key tactic of the anti-environmental counter-movement coordinated by CTTs, designed specifically to undermine the environmental movement’s efforts to legitimise its claims via science. Thus, the notion that environmental sceptics are unbiased analysts exposing the myths and scare tactics employed by those they label as practitioners of ‘junk science’ lacks credibility. Similarly, the self-portrayal of sceptics as marginalised ‘Davids’ battling the powerful ‘Goliath’ of environmentalists and environmental scientists is a charade, as sceptics are supported by politically powerful CTTs funded by wealthy foundations and corporations.....

        The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism Jacques, Dunlap and Freeman Environmental Politics Vol. 17, No. 3, June 2008, 349–385 http://tinyurl.com/Think-tanks-pseudoscepticism
114795. Pete Ridley at 16:48 PM on 23 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        John, we defer to experts in the complex sciences underpinning heart surgery or aerodynamics because they have a track record of successful analysis, prediction and application. This has not been achieved by scientists trying to predict future climates because the processes and drivers of global climates are horrendously complex (verging on the chaotic) and are presently very poorly understood. Reliable analysis and prediction of global climates is impossible due to the significant scientific uncertainties. All that is possible at present is speculation about what might happen using fictitious scenarios and unproven hypotheses. As you say, “Scientific authority should not be confused with the authority of parents, or teachers, bosses or politicians”. Unfortunately the authority of the scientists involved in researching those poorly understood processes and drivers of global climates has been thoroughly undermined by politics. That is why lay people are becoming increasingly suspicious of the claim that our use of fossil fuels is driving global climates towards catastrophe. Climategate and the subsequent IPCC-gates have started an avalanche of scepticism among lay people around the globe. Best regards, Pete Ridley
114796. chris1204 at 15:30 PM on 23 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        Marcus at 13:51 PM on 23 July, 2010 Given the multiplicity of discipline that go into climate science, I don't think a mining geologist would be automatically disqualified. Plimer disqualifies himself through lack of coherence and dishonesty. doug_bostrom at 14:19 PM on 23 July, 2010 I wasn't criticising Weart. I went and read this book because so many people on this site recommended him especially in response to posts by perceived 'sceptics' and 'deniers.' I regarded it as time and money well spent though I had hoped to find more of the nuts and bolts of the science. scaddenp at 13:55 PM on 23 July, 2010 I followed up your link to Deep Climate on McIntyre - yes, it's food for thought and I'll try to give it more than the passing glance I can afford right now because of lack of time. As regards data supposedly covered by confidentiality agreements, I have heard so many versions that I don't know quite whom to believe.
114797. scaddenp at 14:58 PM on 23 July 2010
        What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
        "While I believe that mankind does influence the global climate, via aerosols and CO2 emissions, the size of the effect is much smaller than the IPCC wants us to believe." And what is the evidential basis of this belief?
114798. gallopingcamel at 14:43 PM on 23 July 2010
        What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
        While I believe that mankind does influence the global climate, via aerosols and CO2 emissions, the size of the effect is much smaller than the IPCC wants us to believe. If John Cook had asked "What percentage of scientists do not believe in the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming?", the answer might have come out rather differently. The answer to this question would likely be 97% non-believers and only 3% believers. See the article below: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/07/18/97-of-scientists-do-not-believe-in-the-theory-of-catastrophic-man-made-global-warming/
114799. Doug Bostrom at 14:19 PM on 23 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        Chris Canaris, I don't understand what your point was regarding Spencer Weart. Weart does not fashion himself as a practiced authority on climate science nor have I seen him described here as such. He is in fact a historian with a disciplinary background suitable for researching and narrating the history of topics involving physics, you can read his bio here if you're curious about his bona fides. As a competent and diligent historian Weart not only produces a remarkably coherent narrative of a very complicated topic but also offers his readers the Shovel of Authority in the form of extensive citations leading to authoritative sources. Choosing to exert the effort involved in using the Shovel of Authority is of course up to the reader; Weart has no means of injecting the material referenced in his citations directly into the heads of readers. For those scratching their heads and wondering, "Who is this Spencer Weart guy, anyway?" his history of climate science may be found here.
114800. scaddenp at 13:55 PM on 23 July 2010
        The nature of authority
        Some thoughts - I am extremely wary of books. I like them to have a good bibliography and footnotes so I can check anything that seems important. They certainly have their place in gentle introduction into an unknown field but I would check reviews before buying a book. Textbooks are slightly different. The publisher wants to make money, so they need to recommended to students by professors in the textbook field. For that reason, a textbook is generally strenuously reviewed. A well-used textbook in its 3rd plus revision I think is a good starting point. As to McIntyre - what about inappropriate use of ellipses ? Charges about withholding data that isn't a researcher's to give? And as to media - well seeing the reporting about anything you have been involved in should give you a healthy dose of skepticism.

Prev  2288  2289  2290  2291  2292  2293  2294  2295  2296  2297  2298  2299  2300  2301  2302  2303  Next