In one of the comments to Daniel’s post on the stolen climate emails, techskeptic points to a wonderful chart at Information is Beautiful. The author did a great deal of gruntwork to lay out the various arguments of “The Global Warming Skeptics” vs. “The Scientific Consensus.” As far as I can tell, it’s a legitimately balanced view of both sides, complete with citations. If you’re confused about the various issues and accusations being bandied back and forth, there are worse places to start. This is a small piece of the full chart.
Of course, there is no such thing as a purely objective and judgment-free presentation of data, no matter how scrupulously the data itself may be collected; if nothing else, we make choices about what data to present. And a side-by-side comparison chart like this can’t help but give a slightly misleading impression of the relative merits of the arguments, by putting the conclusions of an overwhelming majority of honest scientists up against the arguments of a fringe collection of politically-motivated activists. But it’s certainly good to see the actual issues arrayed in point-counterpoint format.
Still, there remains a somewhat intractable problem: when people are arguing about issues that necessarily require expert knowledge that not everyone can possibly take the time to acquire for themselves, how do we make judgments about who to believe?
This problem has been brought home by the incredibly depressing news that James Randi has come out in favor of global-warming denialism (via PZ Myers). Randi is generally a hero among fans of reason and skepticism, so it’s especially embarrassing to see how incredibly weak his reasoning is here. It basically amounts to: “The climate is complicated. And scientists don’t know everything. And I admit I don’t know much about the field. Therefore … we have good reason to distrust the overwhelming majority of experts!” Why Randi chose not to apply his vaunted powers of skepticism to the motivations behind the denialists remains a mystery.
This gets to the heart of why I’ve always been skeptical of the valorization of “skepticism.” I don’t want to be skeptical for the sake of being skeptical — I want to be right. To maximize my chances of being right, I will try to collect what information I can and evaluate it rationally. But part of that information has to include the nature of the people making arguments on either side of a debate. If one side consists of scientists who have spent years trying to understand a complicated system, and the other is a ragtag collection of individuals with perfectly obvious vested interests in the outcome, it makes sense to evaluate their claims accordingly.
By all means, we should apply our own powers of reason to every interesting problem. But when our reasoning leads to some conclusion at odds with the apparent consensus of a lot of smart people who seem to know what they’re talking about — whether it’s on the nature of dark energy, the best way to quantize gravity, the most effective route to health care reform, or the state of the environment — the burden is on us to understand the nature of that difference and try to reconcile it, not to take refuge in “experts don’t know everything” and related anti-intellectual piffle.
it is a pseudoscience.
Peer reviewed science criticizing climate change models or STFU.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-8.1.html
@Scott B,
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=cost/benefit+analysis+of+global+warming&hl=en&safe=off&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholart
If you are teaching then you probably grade your students based on their political views. All Republicans get D no matter how well they do homework. If they are Republicans they fail just because they are biased. On the other hand if they are liberals then they are neutral and unbiased.. Is that the case?
What do you think?
It’s like this:
Students who cite politically-motivated think tanks left or right wing to support their argument will get very low marks for use of sources. Whereas students who cite academic literature from the relevant field will do somewhat better.
It’s not Republicans that are the problem, but political extremists. Idealogues. On this issue the science-deniers happen to be right wing, but history has shown that left wing idealogues are just as bad.
>>To ask how a person who deletes data can be honest is to admit to never having handled data. Besides, as you should know if you were making the slightest effort to keep up, NO RAW DATA WAS DELETED.
DaveH,
Why do you want to whitewash the fact that raw data were withheld from FOIA request? And why do you talk about honesty of overwhelming majority of scientists? It does not matter what overwhelming majority is, the matter is that Jones, Mann and Co were dishonest and what they did may be a crime. Hansen’s failure to release his raw data makes him suspect too. As you know he is going to get a court case because of this.
You like to disqualify peoples opinion based on merely their political believes or past associations. If you do so you should admit that it is much more logical to disqualify people based on actual acts of dishonesty they committed. Judging only by the released code, request to delete emails owned by government you can see that CRU team is dishonest. And now let us use the same trick as you do: they are dishonest so I we should not trust them. Unlike you however I do not claim that making my opinion in this way is actually “based on science” (because I am not a Geophysicist, I am a Mathematician 🙂 )
DaveH #77
What you say sounds logical at first glance. The problem is that you decide at will what constitutes a think tank. You may decide to designate e.g. “Energy and Environment” as a think tank forum and designate e.g. Hansen as an unbiased person, not an activist in any way. Such designations will merely reflect your own bias. I see it as a problem. To be unbiased you must judge papers and reports based on their content. If they are wrong you should be able to tell why they are wrong.
I like Steve McIntire because he argues based on content rather than on guilt by association and personality assassination. I have inclination to trust him more because unlike folks from realclimate he does not argue as a political activist.
http://climateaudit.org/
What I say sounds logical because it is how academia works.
you can see that CRU team is dishonest.
More libel.
As could be explained to a young child, but apparently not you, IF one scientist deleted FOIA requests illegally it would not change the science nor would it change the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists are honest.
In fact, even IF (we have investigations and trials in our country) a scientist illegally deleted FOIA requests it would not discredit him as a scientist, just as an administrator.
Such designations will merely reflect your own bias.
No faux postmodern bollocks, please. A think tank is a think tank, especially if it calls itself a think tank, and a scientist is a scientist.
James Hansen is a scientist. The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank.
I imagine you like Steve McIntyre because he is not a climatologist and his blog goes against the conclusion you don’t like which also happens to be the overwhelming scientific consensus as summarized by the apolitical UN body, the IPCC, in its reports.
I like http://www.realclimate.org because it contains scientific information as presented by the actual climatologists, and helpful links to explanations of the IPCC reports.
The news is I don’t like the scientific consensus either. However, not liking it doesn’t change reality.
>>As could be explained to a young child, but apparently not you, IF one scientist deleted FOIA requests illegally it would not change the science
As could be explained to a young child, but apparently not you, I am talking about dishonesty per se not even the content of science. This is procedural dishonesty which may or may not reflect on content, but it certanly make it suspect. Second, it was not just FOIA request, it was code with “the fudge factor.” And that is more direct evidence of fraud. Have you looked at that code David? Oh no, you are a geophysicist….Thirdly there were report from Russia and New Zeland about aledged tampering with data by CRU. These are sistematic signs of fraud. Stop whitewashing this, it makes you to look as disengineous biased person. We need to recollect raw data and recalculate all these timeseries and then only we will see who was wrong and who was right.
>>James Hansen is a scientist. The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank.
I have been working in environmental institute ( as a programmer). The institute is de-facto extreme -left thinktank, though it is set up within a conventional University within school of Environmental Studies. I have not met any “scientist” within that school who is not an activist in one or another way. And their environmental activism effect what they teach and the way they write. So I do not care how James Hansen desinates himself, for me he is a radical activist just as my former collegues.
>>The news is I don’t like the scientific consensus either. However, not liking it doesn’t change reality.
If I have evidence that leaders who coocked IPCC report were coocks, I can’t take it as a reality and when I see active supression of descent via illegitimate manipulation of peer-review process I can not call it consensus. “Climate Consensus” is a lie.
So, what about the trends in the real climate? I do not really know about the reality and I prefer to be explicit agnostic on the issue. I did not examine all literature and I do not have my own opinion. I have sufficient evidence to distrust the lie of consensus and I do not think that any sane person should act based on a lie. So, I wrote to my representatives and senator asking them not to support any international agreement on climate. Not that VT liberlas would listen, but Climategate is good indication of the suspect fraud which even they can understand. Nobody is going to believe now in scientists in white robes flying unicorns and seeking only truth when there is evidence that they are coocks.
So, IPCC is a toast and they deserve it. The sad thing is that now general public will have less respect for science and this is trully regretable: A small bunch of dishonest geophysicists spoiled the prestige and honor of everyone else.
Can somebody give me an approximation on this thing: If we burn through so much of the remaining fossil fuel reserves in the next few decades, that it becomes prohibitively expensive to use them, will we have done irreversible damage to the climate? (According to the consensus scientists).
I think the real question should not be whether we’re going to limit emissions, it should be whether it’ll be cheaper to do so or to survive the change. Lowlands be damned, they can sink for all I care.
This is procedural dishonesty which may or may not reflect on content, but it certanly make it suspect. Wrong.
As could be explained to a young child, but apparently not you, IF one scientist deleted FOIA requests illegally it would not change the science nor would it change the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists are honest.
In fact, even IF (we have investigations and trials in our country) a scientist illegally deleted FOIA requests it would not discredit him as a scientist, just as an administrator.
Since you persist in repeating falsehoods on which you have been corrected, it must be concluded that you are a serial liar.
Second, it was not just FOIA request, it was code with “the fudge factor.”
Your reaction to scenarios and REM code demonstrates you are as much a programmer as you are philosopher.
And that is more direct evidence of fraud.
More libel. There’s nothing wrong with anonymity, but repeated anonymous libel is pure cowardice.
Thirdly there were report from Russia and New Zeland about aledged tampering with data by CRU.
See comments #41 and #59.
If you followed the news, you would know the New Zealand story is nonsense too.
We need to recollect raw data
Go ahead. Then publish in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
I have been working in environmental institute ( as a programmer). The institute is de-facto extreme -left thinktank, though it is set up within a conventional University within school of Environmental Studies.
Your anecdotes might convince some plankton. On a particularly gullible day.
If I have evidence that leaders who coocked IPCC report were coocks
Cooks? Crooks? You don’t have such evidence either way. Well, maybe that they can whip up an omelette at home, idk.
Since you persist in repeating falsehoods on which you have been corrected, it must be concluded that you are a serial liar.
illegitimate manipulation of peer-review process
No such thing happened.
I can not call it consensus.
If you are a serial liar and conspiracy theorist, you can avoid calling the scientific consensus a consensus, yes.
but Climategate is good indication of the suspect fraud
The only confirmed criminal activity is that the CRU servers were hacked and their emails stolen!
Since you persist in repeating falsehoods on which you have been corrected, it must be concluded that you are a serial liar.
A small bunch of dishonest geophysicists spoiled the prestige and honor of everyone else.
Libel again.
Since you persist in repeating falsehoods on which you have been corrected, it must be concluded that you are a serial liar.
Smears about scientists, unfounded aspersions about the science, and demonstrable lies. That is all you have.
Present the peer reviewed science or STFU.
http://www.realclimate.org
DaveH, could you please advise which Police investigation concluded that the release of the CRU emails was in any manner illegal?
it is all about repeatability, and falsification: what piece of data would you need to see to completely change your mind? Certainly the hockeystick is an oft-quoted tool of persuasion, but then …
well, first the data itself: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html and similar debunkings suggest (as I believe) the stick itself is valid no matter how you look at it
unless …
unless you step back a bit … http://www.rense.com/general88/warming.htm — the charts on that page show the hockeystick to be valid, yes, but completely absurd and irrelevent to the picture, indeed they show that the stick only appears if you crop the data AT THAT POINT.
So now, which is it? Is Rense.com making this up? (It is Rense after all) Or are the hockey fans hiding something? Is there a second source for the 1000-year and 10000 year data? Anyone know of any educated debunkings one way or the other?
MichaelG,
Yes, it is possible it may turn out that they were leaked, in a manner that was not illegal (by someone who had the authority to access all the emails and data and release them).
I revise my statement – There is currently no confirmed criminal activity surrounding the UEA emails.
Mr G,
The Medieval Warm Period was a local not global phenomenon.
The info you want is at http://www.realclimate.org, and in the IPCC report, and in the MSM eg http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7592575.stm and on wikipedia….
>>As could be explained to a young child, but apparently not you, IF one scientist deleted FOIA requests illegally it would not change the science nor would it change the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists are honest.
It will make him suspect and will say nothing about the majority.
>>>In fact, even IF (we have investigations and trials in our country) a scientist illegally deleted FOIA requests it would not discredit him as a scientist, just as an administrator.
Again, an intellegent person will think about reason why the record was deleted. What the scientist has to hide? But as you are not an intellectual person, you can not put yourself in shoes of an intellectual person and can not think of how any normal person would think.
>>>Since you persist in repeating falsehoods on which you have been corrected, it must be concluded that you are a serial liar.
You did not correct anithing you just expressed your dumb geophysicist opinion and what you said does not count as an intellignent argument. Only becuase of your arrogance you may assume that your “corrected” something.
>>Smears about scientists, unfounded aspersions about the science, and demonstrable lies.
You did not demonstrate anithing, all what you have a posture, smeares, ad-hominem arguments .
In any case Dave I started feeling as if I am talking to an animal or some sort of American version of a Russian Communist commisare who can throw allegations without any considerations and shut people without any investigation. Your tone may be appropriate for a geophysicist union, but here it looks outlandish. There is no point in having a debate with an intellectual thug like you are. Repeating one sentence in bold in differnt places of your message also suggests that you may be a paranoid.
If you defend possible fraud from inquery, you should be treated as a potential criminal.People like you can not be reasoned with they can be only destroed and I hope that Jim Inhofe and other Republicans will find the way to defund junk scientists like you and put you out of business in the nearest future. I will send them modest contribution of $25 per person to support their campaigns.
with utmost disgust,
sergey
Again, an intellegent person will think about reason why the record was deleted. What the scientist has to hide?
We do not know that ANY were deleted.
As could be explained to a young child, but apparently not you, IF (big IF) one scientist deleted FOIA requests illegally it would not change the science nor would it change the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists are honest.
Nor would it automatically mean they had anything to hide. Also, we have trials in this country.
But, we do not know that ANY were deleted.
You realise that the IPCC is NOT one scientist, nor is it one university. It is the global Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change. Its job is to reflect the worldwide scientific consensus.
The very idea that this allegation based on flimsy circumstantial evidence which has nothing to do with the published scientific papers from many different sources invalidates all those years of scientific research, especially when so much of the data is available to the public, is frankly ridiculous.
If you defend possible fraud from inquery, you should be treated as a potential criminal.
If you beat your wife you should be treated as a potential criminal.
People like you can not be reasoned with they can be only destroed
Okaaay…
>>Nor would it automatically mean they had anything to hide. Also, we have trials in this country.
Actually, all what I suggested is that “lost” aka deleted raw data from CRU should be recollected and time series should be recalculated. Let NASA and CRU release their raw data and all their algorithms and if I can reproduce their calculations I may even agree with them. At the moment I merely suspect that the raw data would considerably alter the so called “science of global warming.” Yes we have many scientists in IPCC, but we have only few data centers and if data is compromised only in 2 places all research may be at fault. My suspicions may be wrong but they are reasonable. The fact is that neither NASA nor CRU t release many of their crucial data and algorithms in spite of FOIA requests and if you deny this one then you are a denier. And that is sick to deny the fact. (May data sets are available, so what? It is a demagogy to talk about *some* available data sets when FOIA requests are still not answered by CRU and Goddard Institute)
But I agree with both of your sentences above. Let them have a trial and if found guilty that should be followed by swift execution. And that is what Jim Inhofe wants to do while you want to shield potential fraud from just inquiry with your demagogy which only a geophysicist could take seriously. But nobody else is going to take your demagogy seriously.
Among the several topics discussed in the OP was an article by Randi, who has now posted a follow-up article titled “I Am Not ‘Denying’ Anything,” which clarifies his stance. The article can be accessed here:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html
The following is a brief quote.
“I do not, and did not, deny the established fact — arrived at by extensive scientific research — that average global temperatures have increased by a bit less than one Celsius degree. My commentary was concerned with my amateur confusion about the myriad of natural phenomena that obviously bring about worldwide climate changes and whether we can properly assign the cause to anthropogenic influences. Yes, I’m aware of the massive release of energy — mostly heat — that we’ve produced by exhuming and burning oil, natural gas, and coal. We’ve also attacked forests and turned them into fuel by converting them into paper at further energy expense, paper that is also burned, in turn. My remarks, again, are directed at the complexity of determining whether this GW is anthropogenic or not. I do not deny that possibility. In fact, I accept it as quite probable. I remain respectful of science and its participants.”
My bold.
Let them have a trial
No. Investigation first, and then a hearing IF and only IF any wrongdoing were found.
and if found guilty that should be followed by swift execution.
Er, yeah. We’ll put that one down to translation.
The fact is that neither NASA nor CRU release many of their crucial data
NASA have released their entire gridded temperature anomaly data. All of it. Temperature anomalies are what they study, and all the GISTEMP data is available for download.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp
CRU don’t even own all the data they use.
If they haven’t cleared the backlog of FOIA requests, so what?
As far as the science goes, which is what matters, there are plenty data, and the scientific papers which anyone with a subscription can read, and the IPCC report and http://www.realclimate.org
Those of us who are old enough to remember how boring doctrinaire Marxists used to be will find the zealots of neoliberalism rather familiar. Simple economic ideas such as the old lefty bit about surplus value and the new righty bit about the omnipotence of market mechanisms are like Chinese finger puzzles. Apparently some folks are quite incapable of escaping them. Meanwhile, the Sergey’s “Let them have a trial and if found guilty that should be followed by swift execution” line, if actually meant, harkens back to the bloodthirstiness of previous ideologues, some of whom were doubtless also named Sergey. Of course for the time being it is just puerile.
#3 grad student
can you cite papers that quantify the magnitude of the greenhouse effect with direct measurement? preferrably a rigorously instrumented satellite measurement. not trying to be a troll here, just seeking knowledge.
This discussion is just pointless hot air. All it proves is:
Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience
Irrespective of which side you are on..
Jim # 92, The ideas about free market and federalism belong to founders of this country, they are not new. If you have no clues about a subject why to bring the subject in?
>>Meanwhile, the Sergey’s “Let them have a trial and if found guilty that should be followed by swift execution” line, if actually meant, harkens back to the bloodthirstiness of previous ideologues.
Of course I would not use word “execution” in its literal meaning. I mean it to be the penalty for fraud, something which Bernie Madoff got or something which tobacco companies got for their fraud. Do you have any problem with what was done to tobacco companies?
Also, the old ideology which was probably not so boring to you sometime ago never relied on trial. There were just executions without trial.
>>>some of whom were doubtless also named Sergey.
I like this one…It is like talking to a young teenager. You say that you are old yet, still you did not learn how to stay within limits of decency. OK, let me explain you what you parents should have explained you: ” Some criminals were doubtless also named Jim. Should this fact make you look as criminal? Of course not. Secondly, decent kids do not make fun of other kids names. Now, please go and play in schoolyard with your friends and do not be mean to them”
“Yes, I’m aware of the massive release of energy — mostly heat — that we’ve produced by exhuming and burning oil, natural gas, and coal. We’ve also attacked forests and turned them into fuel by converting them into paper at further energy expense, paper that is also burned, in turn. My remarks, again, are directed at the complexity of determining whether this GW is anthropogenic or not.”
This is Randi’s reply to the criticism of his post. Read it at
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html
Randi thinks that GW is a result of the heat released by burning stuff, and not the result of the greenhouse effect. A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the heat released as a result of human activities is negligible. Randi needs to do some highschool-physics level reading before spouting such nonsense.
@93
http://www.ipcc.ch – You can dl the tech summary of the latest report from there.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ – loads and loads and loads of lovely data
@97
>>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ – loads and loads and loads of lovely data
All massaged by members of the Climate Cult? No thanks..
All massaged by members of the Climate Cult? No thanks.
That’s data, or links to data, from scientists all around the world.
From labs in Japan, to universities in Europe, to American state universities, Caltech, the Antartic and Artic weather stations, MIT, NASA…
Including raw data from satellites.
If you think science is a cult what are you doing on a science blog?
I hope you’re wearing your tinfoil hat.
Incidentally, the online Flat Earth Society argue that there is a NASA conspiracy (spaceflight isn’t possible, and the sun is a NASA spotlight 3000 miles away, you see…)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
Why are you denying global warming?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_92zN9MkIKKw/SyERgpj8isI/AAAAAAAAAmg/5HAlg6_IaO4/s1600-h/lulu.jpg