Analyzing the Global Warming Alarmist Phenomenon
Martin Cohen sent me an email with a series of links that all look at global warming alarmism as a phenomenon.
In defence of scepticism
By Martin Cohen, editor of the Philosopher
Climate Hysterians have been redoubling their efforts to portray the debate as one between a few cranks (especailly right-wing ones) and ’scientists’, whereas the truth is very different. Here, for example, are just four recent substantial articles challenging climate change science, from a neutral or ‘philosophy of science’ perspective.
1. Professor John David Lewis of Duke University, USA, has challenged many of the claims made by proponents of man-made climate change theory, in an article in the prestigious journal Social Philosophy and Policy (Volume 26 No. 2 Summer 2009), saying: ‘Those predicting environmental disasters today focus on particular issues in order to magnify the gravity of their general claims, and they push those issues until challenges make them untenable. Rhetorical skill and not logical argument has become the standard of success.’
2. In a separate review article, published in the Times Higher on the 03 December 2008, Professor Gwyn Prins, the director of the Mackinder Programme for the Study of Long Wave Events at the London School of Economics, says that the ‘principle product of recent science is to confirm that we know less, less conclusively – not more, more conclusively – about the greatest open systems on the planet’, and goes on to predict that for this reason, the ‘Kyoto Flyer’ is about to hit the buffers at Copenhagen.
3. Professor Mike Hulme’s defence of scepticism in the December Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574571613215771336.html
4. And (last but not least!) my own feature article ‘Beyond Debate?’, is in the current (10 December 2009, and not on the website, timeshighereducation.co.uk until that date – but well worth a look!) issue of the scuprlously neutral Times Higher Education. None of these accounts are motivated by either improper influence or a right-wing agenda. As my article explains, climate change lobbyists such as Al Gore (and now Gordon Brown!) are:
* Using images, such as the polar bears supposedly trapped on a melting iceberg, ships in a dried up sea as crude propaganda to appeal to people?s fears rather than their reason.
* Presenting irrelevant ‘data’, such as unusual weather events of high summertime temperatures, as though these were connected to the main climate change hypotheses, of carbon dioxide trapping heat, even though this theory in fact only concerns night-time temperatures. All these articles point out that the supposed causal link between carbon dioxide levels and temperatures has no historical basis, and relies instead on computer models that have been shown to be unreliable and misleading. It says that if, for those at, the Copenhagen summit, the idea of manmade global warming is incontrovertible, the consensus is less a triumph of science and rationality than of PR and fear- mongering.
The full text is at:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409454&c=2
Waldo:
Now I hate to point this out (and this tends to get skeptics very angry) but neither Professor John David Lewis of Duke University, USA, or Professor Gwyn Prins have any professional background in climate science. One is an economist and the other appears to be a history professor (it is surprisingly hard to figure out exactly what either of their credentials are by going to their respective university websites). They are both very impressive people, make no doubt, but they are not climate scientists or climate physicists. And Mr. Cohen’s article, while I am sure it is very good in its own right, is published in what appears to be an education journal.
I always have to wonder why it is so hard to find actual climate scientists quoted on skeptic blogs.
December 15, 2009, 6:59 pmVangel:
Professor John David Lewis and Professor Gwyn Prins do not have to have any professional background in climate science to see what has gone on. They see that the arguments made are based mostly on models and that the empirical evidence does not seem to support many of the claims made the IPCC. When the data set on which the global temperature reconstructions were based is claimed to have been lost and e-mails and codes show the use of statistical tricks and data manipulation, along with scepticism by those that are promoting AGW it is clear that the situation needs to re-evaluated because there is too much uncertainty even among those that wish to claim that the science is in and debate is over. Given the massive expenses and the damage done by cutting CO2 emissions it makes sense to demand for transparency and clarity before we do something stupid that will harm consumers and taxpayers while it enriches kleptocratic politicians and politically connected rent seekers.
And if you have been paying attention it isn’t, “hard to find actual climate scientists quoted on skeptic blogs.” Look at the NIPCC report and you will find hundreds of them quoted.
December 15, 2009, 8:03 pmwaldo:
Yes Vangel, but wouldn’t you rather get your opinion whether or not the climate is changing from the actual scientists who study climate change? Again (and I hate to harp on this, but…) the climate science community seems pretty convinced and convincing on this subject (the IPCC makes their data available for download online and they, at least, claim empirical evidence to back their climate models). And the Climategate emails you refer to are pretty anti-climactic (if one reads them) compared to what has been widely claimed in the blogosphere, fairly dated (since the most damning are about a decade old) and in any event only implicate a small group of researchers at a single institution.
And if there are so many qualified scientists disputing global warming, why not cite them instead of these fine but unqualified folks?
December 15, 2009, 8:34 pmhunter:
Waldo,
December 15, 2009, 10:41 pmI love to point out to AGW true believers that AGW is to climate science what eugenics was to evolutionary science:
A social phenomenon wrapped in a veneer of science.
That historians recognize this, and not the scientists caught up in it is entirely appropriate.
If you need to be concerned with people involved with AGW who are not climate scientists, start with the railroad engineer and green investment advisor, Rajendra Pachauri.
By the way, is it climate changing or global warming?
Please clarify which name you are going to use.
Also, argument by authority is really all you have, and that is not working so well, now that people see how much they fib and mislead.
Shills:
@ Hunter
What historians are making the comparison between Eugenics and climate change?
Waldo is not making the arg. from authority fallacy.
He is not saying that because a climate scientist said it, it is true. He is saying that a climate scientist has a greater than average chance of been correct on the subject than a non-climate scientist. This is completely logical. No?
I’ll tell you what is illogical: all the deniers who think the climategate issue unveiled are major conspiracy. It does not occur to them that those phrases and words (trick, hide…), have connotations other than those their blinkered minds perceive.
If you care, here is an interesting study done on the CRU data:
http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/
Part of the conspiracy?
December 16, 2009, 3:14 amdearieme:
“He is saying that a climate scientist has a greater than average chance of been correct on the subject than a non-climate scientist. This is completely logical. No?” Good Lord no. A “climate scientist” is incentivised to claim that AGW is real, and just like all those bankers incentivised to make loopy loans, he is likely to respond predictably. What we really need is the views of people intellectually equipped to understand the claims of “climate science” who are not subject to those same incentives, or who have the moral stature to ignore them. Happily, much of the stuff that’s passed off as “climate science” is so elementary that all sorts of people are capable of useful, critical thought about it. Of course it helps no end that, after years when various critics had inferred that some of “climate science” must be close to a criminal conspiracy, the CRU material shows evidence consistent with that inference – plus abundant evidence of comical incompetence.
December 16, 2009, 4:45 amOne of the things that some unscientific people might find hard to appreciate is just how poor some of the “science” is – the “adjustments” made to observed temperatures, for instance, are often plain stupid. Some of these “climate scientists” are very dud scientists indeed.
hunter:
Michael Chichton MD, PhD, teacher at Cambridge and MIT, made the comparison originally and it is a great one:
December 16, 2009, 6:26 ampseudo science over laying horrible ignorant public policy.
A quick google of ‘eugenics global warming’ brings up 297,000 hits. Others do see the disgusting but accurate comparison as valid, in large numbers.
Shills(a great name for you, btw), is someone who not only keeps their mind blinkered, but works to keep other minds blinkered, as well.
Willfully ignoring the good news that AGW is a null theory is a great example of what a shill would do.
Pretending that the leaked data, e-mails, and computer code from CRU is not evidence of a group working to falsify data, mislead the people and to defame their colleagues, is a great piece of shill work. Asserting that what they did is ’science as usual’ is simply a lie.
Thinking that people who have made literal fortunes for themselves and their institutions, plus acquiring great power, would not work to expand their power and fortune is a great example of blindered thinking.
The e-mails, code and data show this behavior right up until this October, Shill.
And AGW promoters and true believers and shills only have straw man and argument by authority. If any reasonably intelligent person does take the time to look critically at the science, they no longer believe the world is facing any sort of climate catastrophe driven by CO2.
Just like eugenics.
Waldo:
“A ‘climate scientist’ is incentivised to claim that AGW is real, and just like all those bankers incentivised to make loopy loans, he is likely to respond predictably.”
This is a frequent rational for the anti-AGW camp. So…
Firstly: anyone who thinks you can get rich working at a university or for the government has never worked for either.
Secondly: there are actual scientists (Roger Pielke foremost, then Reid Bryson [although he only seems to have done a single off-the-cuff interview on the subject] and Roy Spencer [who might be a bit of a nut], for instance, or Dan Botkin) who openly question AGW. But what we find the most of are unqualified people who may be shills for industry or attempting to find a ready and receptive audience for their uninformed views.
Thirdly: if the Climategate emails are the extent of your proof that scientist are manipulating data etc. do you really have anything? I hear a lot of noise on this subject but very little actual proof (and the East Anglia scientists have believably answered these charges, by the way) and most of this noise comes from the blogosphere where people have no firsthand knowledge. I fail to see any real proof of a global conspiricy. You’ve made the charge, hunter and dearieme, prove them.
Fourthly: even if what you are alleging is true, who else can tell us about the atmosphere except meteorologists and climate physicists. I can’t tell you, and I suspect you don’t have the qualifications or knowledge either.
“What we really need is the views of people intellectually equipped to understand the claims of ‘climate science’ who are not subject to those same incentives, or who have the moral stature to ignore them.”
Who, for instance? And why only climate science? Do we also suspect those darn authorities on cancer researchers for shilling their own selfish objectives?
December 16, 2009, 8:26 amDD:
Waldo,
I am a scientist in biomedical research. I can tell you that if I manipulated our data in the manner that the climate scientists have been doing, I would be subjected to disciplinary action and most likely fired. I am singularly unimpressed with pro-AGW arguments that cite the thousands of studies and scientists that support AGW, therefore it must be correct. Argument by Authority is the worst argument there is in science. There seems to be huge groupthink going on.
In the end, the only solution will be for large scale independent audits of the data. So far, the small studies popping up seem to be showing unethical manipulation of the data that goes far beyond the CRU. We all need open minds and a willingness to throw out the crap and start over if necessary.
DD
December 16, 2009, 9:02 amhunter:
Where are your facts, Waldo?
December 16, 2009, 9:12 amFor starters, Govt. workers are not underpaid, and govt. scientists are well paid:
http://www.opm.gov/oca/09tables/pdf/SLST-Jan-April.pdf
Additionally, it is power and money that people like.
sort of like being able to do as Phil Jones has done:
Bring in over $2million per year in grants to CRU, make large honoraria (fee$) for speaking and getting lucrative book deals.
Gore’s profiteering off of climate hype is well documented, and he is not alone.
Oddly enough, you mention meteorologists. They, in large majorities, do not support AGW.
what is interesting is the true belivers like yourself, who are self-declared enlightened and careful people, are so carefully uninterested in finding out whyy the leading AGW prmotion scientists are well revealed in private writing what they wrote, defaming who they defamed, destroying data, fudging code, etc. etc., yet have no interest in finding out what else, and who else, was doing the same thing.
Yet you guys are happy to spend trillion$ of other people’s money on this.
Embracing apocalyptic clap trap, which is all AGW really is, is not a winning long term strategy.
Wally:
Waldo,
First, e-mails aside, the CRU doesn’t have there original data. That is enough, right there, to completely ignore anything based on CRU data. If you can’t make that data available for other studies to replicate or improve on your work, I’m not going to trust your data. This is why in biology we have to provide a Methods section to our paper. So that if someone wanted they could reproduce our work. So far, it seems like the methods section of many climate papers is completely lacking. Also, given that this data was generated by public money, the researchers have a duty to provide this information to public in a timely fashion. At least here in the US, if you lose the original data or don’t make it publicly available in a certain window, you lose your federal funding.
Second, while you say you can’t get rich as researcher, that is true to an extent, but what you fail to understand is that government funding for climate research is only going to draw as much money as it does (thus keeping these people employed, or at the very least well funded, and giving them the prestige of publications in a “hot” field), as long as the public believes the climate posses some danger and that humans can actually effect the climate. Once (or if) that is gone, climate research will go the way of looking for dark matter, instead of being funded like its attempting to cure cancer or generate a vaccine for HIV.
Third, if you know of people in the field that are skeptical of AGW (I’d like to add to your list Richard Lindzen) why do you say “the climate science community seems pretty convinced and convincing on this subject?” Science does not revolve around a “majority opinion.” You have your findings and your degree of confidence in some purposed model based on those finds and that is it. If a single ration scientist in that field (and we have far more than that, they just tend to be ignored by the MSM so the public isn’t very aware of them) doesn’t believe the data supports the conclusion, the science isn’t settled. Further, science needs to be able to convince other intelligent rational people outside the field. It shouldn’t be hard for climate researcher to present his evidence and convince a biologist, chemist, physicist, or even economist. The methods of data analysis are very similar across all fields, as are the reasoning abilities to determine if that data supports a given model.
“if the Climategate emails are the extent of your proof that scientist are manipulating data etc. do you really have anything?”
If you continue reading down this blog, I think you’ll find your first assumption is painfully wrong. Did miss the part about the “adjustments” they made? You could take a set of random numbers and plug them into that formula and still get a hockey stick. That right there proves your model is flawed. That is a legitimate test of the model employed by those who often can’t do the necessary experiments to prove the model. What you need to find, if your model MIGHT be correct, is that you see a significant divergence between the random data and the real data from your model. No such significance was ever even attempted to have been shown. That is one of the major problems with this most of the data supporting AGW. Confidence intervals around slopes generated from regressions, etc., are all no where to be found.
December 16, 2009, 9:14 amADiff:
Waldo,
If you really believe “it is … hard to find actual climate scientists quoted on [this] skeptic blog”, then you obviously haven’t spent much time reading it.
Anyway, the issue under discussion in this post isn’t climatology, it’s social science (it’s the social phenomenon of Climate Hysteria that’s subject of Lewis’s and Prin’s work) which is precisely in their professional area of expertise.
So beyond it’s propagandist ‘appeal to authority’ your argument is simply wrong, on every count. Skeptical Climate scientists (as well as Believers) are extensively cited in this blog. The sources you cite, contrary to your statement, are experts in the exactly the field under discussion. And finally, it’s the argument’s merits that matter, not the credentials of the arguer. If it were otherwise, we’d all still live in a Ptolemaic universe and be arguing about whether demonic forces or the influence of ‘the Spheres’ were driving believed changes in climate.
Since real experimental Science requires objective fact, open data, logical consistency and reproducibility, it’s obvious why those who’s seek ideological ends instead increasing the extent and accuracy of understanding of the real physical universe prefer Scholasticism, with it’s reliance on Appeals to Authority, to experimental Science, where facts have to be shown to agree with theories (which is apparently a bit of problem for AGW advocates).
December 16, 2009, 9:33 amADiff:
Waldo,
You repeatedly miss the point completely.
The subject of this particular post (by Cohen) isn’t Climate, it’s the social phenomenon of Climate Hysteria.
Accepting the limitations of the public’s latent tendency to Scholasticism and rhetorical appeals to authority, why on Earth would you suggest that climate science specialists might be presumed more reputable students of social phenomenon than social scientists (such as Lewis, Prin and Cohen)?
This is exactly the kind of sloppy, self-serving logic one has come to almost automatically associate with advocates of massive programs to address purported environmental crises, from DDT to Alar to Ozone Depletion and now Climate Change…
December 16, 2009, 9:46 amWaldo:
Respectfully folks, I agree with what you’ve posted, but only to an extent. First of all: sure, there is a fair amount of climate hysteria out there. Secondly: fine, fire Phil Jones et al. They would not be the first scientists or business-people to cook data. Off with their heads!
But: Are you sure that you – those that question AGW science – don’t have your own version of climate hysteria that is pretty much a mirror image of AGW-certain zealots? Aren’t you every bit as hysterical and closed-mined as those you accuse?
There is also a remarkable group-think even here on this thread which is reflected on other blogs and other threads (same reasons, same thinking, even the same phraseology); those that question AGW scenarios are every bit as dogmatic as the ecologically paranoid thinkers; and AGW deniers are every bit as certain of themselves, even though it is often evident that they lack the scientific knowledge and appear to have only examined one side of the issue. Further, even if Jones is run out of town (and charges against him have not yet been *proven* to my knowledge) how can a single instance bring down an entire decades old discipline?
By the way, the IPCC posts all its reports online: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm. If there is to be an audit, go for it. Prove them wrong.
Personally I am not convinced of AGW/global warming/climate change. It would seem that there is a fair amount of viable alternatives to the alarming scenarios of CO2 pollution(natural inter-glacial period or increased solar radiation, for instance).
But neither am I convinced that we are being manipulated by an evil consortium holding sub rosa meetings in the U.N. – that seems like a fairly melodramatic self-justification to me – and I have to disagree: this is a question of science (not sociology) which a great many qualified scientists agree on. The plaint that “science is not done by consensus” just doesn’t hold water; if the majority of climate scientists hold the same opinion, I can see no valid argument in simply dismissing them because there is consensus on an issue of empirical science(thus clearly it is collusion meant to make money off the taxpayers etc.) – and, yeah, there’s empirical evidence out there.
Again, go to the IPCC, NOAA, EPA sites; visit James Hansen’s NASA site; all their work is out there for the world to see. Read it. Understand it. Prove them wrong.
December 16, 2009, 11:59 amWally:
Waldo,
You know I thought you might ask this question: “Are you sure that you – those that question AGW science – don’t have your own version of climate hysteria that is pretty much a mirror image of AGW-certain zealots? Aren’t you every bit as hysterical and closed-mined as those you accuse?”
The only hysteria going on here is that proper science is not being done, yet the political community is making trillion dollar decisions based on this “flawed” (or what ever you want to call it) science. I’m not sure the reaction is really that of hysteria by skeptics, as I don’t think we’re acting emotionally, except in our outrage that others are letting their emotions increase our taxes and lower our pay. We are, for the most part, attempting to seek the truth. If you read through the blog, which it appears you haven’t done, you’re likely to find a very matter-of-fact tone coming from the posts and the comments. That is something I don’t see when I challenge AGW believers. I usually get all kinds of insults and fallacious arguments (such as the appeal to authority). I hardly ever find someone that can reasonably and rationally explain the data to me while supporting the AGW viewpoint.
From here its going to be tiresome to point out the numerous fallacies in your argument but I will give it shot.
You somehow want us believe we’re “group thinking” just the same as at the top of the AGW advocates? As if having the same criticisms of poor research is somehow group think and should be discredited because of it? You make blanked generalizations like “it is often evident that they lack the scientific knowledge and appear to have only examined one side of the issue?” This exactly what this post was dealing with. You’re dismissing all skeptics’ arguments based on a few that appear to lack scientific knowledge (which for AGW advocates, simply being a skeptic is enough to prove a lack of scientific knowledge, circular reasoning at its best!). Well, Waldo, here’s your chance. Challenge those here, see if they lack scientific knowledge and their argument is a product of group think or ignorance. I don’t think you’ll find much success.
Next you claim, “the IPCC posts all its reports online… If there is to be an audit, go for it. Prove them wrong.”
That’s what being done in other posts on this site and many other linked to from this site. Its all there for you to see. The gaps in logic and problems with the data collection or analysis has all been mapped out. And we should never forget, AGW advocates are the ones making the claim, thus they are the ones with the burden of proof. So, I don’t have to prove them wrong, I just have to demonstrate that their argument is based on faulty data, poor data analysis, or that they have drawn an illogical conclusion based on the data.
Next, “But neither am I convinced that we are being manipulated by an evil consortium holding sub rosa meetings in the U.N.” This is a straw man, with a bit of an appeal to ridicule.
“this is a question of science (not sociology)”
You should read that WSJ link above, if you haven’t. The science is effecting the politics and the politics effecting the science. And in this case they are operating on a positive feedback loop. Scientists find evidence for global warming, politicians latch on to this concept so they can “save the people” from global warming and get votes (or for Al Gore just money), politicians ultimately control grant money, AGW studies then end up being funded to a greater degree than other studies, which gives politicos more ammo for global warm to save the people from. This isn’t how science is supposed to operate.
And you keep going with the fallacies: “The plaint that “science is not done by consensus” just doesn’t hold water; if the majority of climate scientists hold the same opinion, I can see no valid argument in simply dismissing them because there is consensus on an issue of empirical science(thus clearly it is collusion meant to make money off the taxpayers etc.) – and, yeah, there’s empirical evidence out there.”
First, what evidence, if you’re going to make the claim, prove it, or at least link to it. Second, you again make a strawman. We aren’t dismissing the “consensus” because they have all the empirical evidence on their side or that they all want grant money, its because there isn’t a consensus (and no they don’t have all the empirical evidence). You even say as much yourself when you say a “great many qualified scientists agree on.” How many exactly does it take before the consensus is “right,” 60% of the field? 80%, 99%, 100%? In science the term “consensus” just has no meaning. 100% of scientists may agree on a particular thing, then one day, one experiment or discovery blows the entire lid off it. Or 99% of scientists may believe one thing, but years down the road it becomes clear that 1% was right (see DNA as the genetic material and not protein, where early biologists figured DNA was too simple to be the genetic code). These are part of our issues, and why we are against making trillion dollar choices based on this sciences.
“Again, go to the IPCC, NOAA, EPA sites; visit James Hansen’s NASA site; all their work is out there for the world to see. Read it. Understand it. Prove them wrong.”
To this, all I have to say, is you’re obviously new here. Keep reading down the main page. Read the links posted, google Richard Lindzen. Read his publications (his WSJ editorial is a good place to start for the layman: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html).
December 16, 2009, 12:46 pmWaldo:
Well Wally, first off I hate to point this out, but the sources on this blog are:
“A First” – The Mailonline – which appears to be an internet tabloid.
“Powers of 10” – from a blog post written by a former TV/ radio Weatherman.
“Urban Biases” – a youtube video from “a kid and his dad” (?)
“Incentives and Conspiricies” – another blog.
“Why the historical warming numbers matter” – apparently a cross post from this blog author’s other blog
“Example #3” – Crossed posted again from Watt’s blog and written by a construction manager named Willis Eschenbach
“Example #2” – is yet another cross-listed blog, “The Bishop Hill Blog,” for which I could not find an author (although I will admit I did not feel like looking too deeply)
“25” – cites “Myron Ebell is director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Instititute, director of Freedom Action, and chairman of the Cooler Heads Coalition” from Pajamas Media. In other words, he works for two noted conservative think tanks.
“Example of Climate Work” – appears to be this blog author’s own post
“A total bluff” – yet another blog written by Tom Nelson who is apparently an electrical engineer.
And here I began to get weary. Smart people, no doubt, but unlikely that they are in a position to be making such positive scientific pronouncements (now probably somebody is going to accuse me of bowing to the “authorities” or something to that effect).
Now this is usually the point at which ripostes get really nasty (and I hope it is obvious that I am trying my level best to keep things civilized here because this is actually a very intelligent blog) but why should I listen to any of these people? The most qualified is a TV weatherman. Shouldn’t I as a layperson defer to panels of scientists that do in fact have time, equipment, data and expertise, not to mention the sanction of the U.N. and several world governments?
I accept that you claim to be challenging these people’s AGW conclusions…but I’m not sure you are, at least not viably. And yes, Lindzen is a reputable scientist and I would listen to what he has to say.
On the other charge, “The only hysteria going on here is that proper science is not being done” sounds fairly closed minded to me. Certainly some of the scientists at NASA and the EPA are doing good science. And isn’t that exactly the kind of blanket statement you accuse me of making?
And “You’re dismissing all skeptics’ arguments based on a few that appear to lack scientific knowledge” – nope. Read closely. I actually listed just a few names of the reputable scientists who I would be willing to believe [Pielke, Botkin, Spencer, Bryson specifically] and offered what seem to me to be plausible alternatives to AGW [interglacial and solar activity]. But, my friend, all you heard was that I “dismissed all skeptics” – this is why I suggest politely that there is an equal vigor on the anti-AGW side. It simply seems so apparent to me…
December 16, 2009, 1:41 pmADiff:
Wally, Wally, Wally….
Really Wally! There you go again!
The sources of this blog are, by and large, the same sources as the IPCC, the CRU and other proponents of Alarmism. The author goes out of his way to largely cite these to avoid predictable charges of using ‘marginal’ or ‘disreputable’ sources. The primary sources of this blog are the very same sources the Alarmists use to try to make their case! Almost every citation to similar analysts also use the same sources as well.
For a moment there you sounded like a earnest explorer. But your last post is completely unsubstantiated (and erroneous) rhetoric. If one expects to be taken for anything other than a rhetorician and propagandist, one must delve farther than ‘page 1′!
By the way, referring to one of Britain’s largest print papers sneeringly as “appears to be an internet tabloid” betrays ignorance and failure to do any review beyond the most cursory glance. If it’s just “an internet tabloid”, then the Miami Herald, the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times are too!
December 16, 2009, 2:02 pmADiff:
Obviously meant for “Waldo”…not “Wally”….
December 16, 2009, 2:04 pmADiff:
Wally,
I tend to agree with you. While at first Waldo sounded like an open-minded commentator, subsequent posts make it pretty clear they’re probably another lemming outraged that anyone question their Religious faith (in this case, in Climate Alarmism).
December 16, 2009, 2:09 pmWally:
“Well Wally, first off I hate to point this out, but the sources on this blog are: ”
Something tells first, you don’t hate it, and second, you will fail to understand the real sources and the point.
>“A First” – The Mailonline – which appears to be an internet tabloid.“Powers of 10” – from a blog post written by a former TV/ radio Weatherman“Urban Biases” – a youtube video from “a kid and his dad” (?)“Incentives and Conspiricies” – another blog.“Why the historical warming numbers matter” – apparently a cross post from this blog author’s other blog“Example #3” – Crossed posted again from Watt’s blog and written by a construction manager named Willis Eschenbach“Example #2” – is yet another cross-listed blog,“Example of Climate Work” – appears to be this blog author’s own post“A total bluff” – yet another blog written by Tom Nelson who is apparently an electrical engineer.<
Using IPCC data, among plenty of other data sets. Fail #8.
Basically the issue you have here is who is telling you what the data says, not just what the data is. You are wedded to this idea that you’ll only listen to a select few people, and I’ll quote, “I actually listed just a few names of the reputable scientists who I would be willing to believe [Pielke, Botkin, Spencer, Bryson specifically].” This is a terrible, terrible mindset. What happens if the 4 (or how ever many people you’ll actually listen to) are wrong, misguided or have an agenda (I’m not saying those 4 do)? Why can’t you separate the argument from the person? I’m sorry you think like this (no I’m not really, but it is sad). This is worse than group think, its no think.
“Now this is usually the point at which ripostes get really nasty… but why should I listen to any of these people?”
Because they can analyze data as well as anyone, and certainly as well as those at the CRU. You don’t have to be genius to understand proper statistical tools or how to administer the scientific method properly. Basically, the tools that make one a good engineer (as this blog’s author is) or a biologist (as I am) are the same as those that make one a good climate researcher. We my not have a lot of the background knowledge across the fields (though we gain it the more we take interest in the field), but we can recognize good and honest research when we see it, similarly, we can spot fraudulent research with conclusions that aren’t supported by the data.
“I accept that you claim to be challenging these people’s AGW conclusions…but I’m not sure you are, at least not viably. And yes, Lindzen is a reputable scientist and I would listen to what he has to say.”
So at least make good on that. Go back and read what he’s written in the last couple years and return and tell me what you think. How’s that sound?
“On the other charge, “The only hysteria going on here is that proper science is not being done” sounds fairly closed minded to me. Certainly some of the scientists at NASA and the EPA are doing good science. And isn’t that exactly the kind of blanket statement you accuse me of making?”
Hardly. I did not state all climate research is bad, more than that I have expanded on that thought, in that post and previous ones on this page, to specifically point out what parts of the science is bad.
As for this: “And “You’re dismissing all skeptics’ arguments based on a few that appear to lack scientific knowledge” – nope. Read closely.”
Lets remember you statement:
You’re claiming that this blog, other blogs, those that question AGW “are every bit as dogmatic as the ecologically paranoid thinkers…even though it is often evident that they lack the scientific knowledge and appear to have only examined one side of the issue.” Only stating that you believe a specific few people “[Pielke, Botkin, Spencer, Bryson specifically],” that’s tantamount to saying the climate research community boils down to the select few people that you deem worthy of listening to. Which brings up the question, why are you here? Its also makes it painfully obvious you have just as closed a mind as you claim I do. If a select few people aren’t talking, you aren’t listening.
Maybe I should take your advice and stop listening to you. After all, who exactly are you? What credentials do you have to prove to me you have a valuable opinion in anything? Maybe now you understand the idiocy of the appeal to authority fallacies you can’t get past?
December 16, 2009, 2:36 pmWally:
Well the formatting on the first part of that last post seems to have failed, let’s retry:
“A First” – ‘The Mailonline – which appears to be an internet tabloid.’
And what was the point of this article? That debate was entering something we might call MSM. Also, like it or not, the tabloid was siting the IPCC reports. Fail #1.
“Powers of 10” – ‘from a blog post written by a former TV/ radio Weatherman’
Using NOAA data. Fail #2.
“Urban Biases” – ‘a youtube video from “a kid and his dad” (?)’
Using NASA data. Fail #3.
“Incentives and Conspiricies” – ‘another blog.’
Just a discussion. I classify this under “whatever.”
“Why the historical warming numbers matter” – ‘apparently a cross post from this blog author’s other blog’
Again using IPCC. Fail #4.
“Example #3” – ‘Crossed posted again from Watt’s blog and written by a construction manager named Willis Eschenbach’
Darwin Raw Data from Australia. Fail #5.
“Example #2” – ‘is yet another cross-listed blog’
Using Briffa’s Yamal data. Fail #6.
“Example of Climate Work” – ‘appears to be this blog author’s own post’
Uses the GISS/USHCN data. Fail #7.
“A total bluff” – ‘yet another blog written by Tom Nelson who is apparently an electrical engineer.’
Using IPCC data, among plenty of other data sets. Fail #8.
December 16, 2009, 2:41 pmhunter:
Waldo, where are you without appeals to authority?
December 16, 2009, 4:10 pmNo where.
Waldo:
Perhaps I did not make myself clear – the posters may very well be using IPCC data, but it would seem to me that they are unqualified to interpret what they post. Let me put it even clearer: IPCC data or no, these people don’t have the credentials to make scientific statements. That people here are uncritically accepting what these posters say, and the angry reaction I just got for pointing out that there are no actual working scientists here, are part of the dogmatic reaction I have come to expect.
Example: This from Wikipedia: “The Daily Mail is a British daily tabloid newspaper.” Don’t believe Wikipedia? Today’s headlines (among others): “Microbiotic Madonna scoffing a plate of spaghetti” and my favorite:
Headline: “Patient who claims she was abused by gynaecologist wanted him because ’she could not have sex with her husband’”
“Bibi Giles leaves Worcester County Court with her husband at the end of the second day of the hearing”
“Bibi Giles, 50, had become ‘infatuated’ with her consultant Angus Thomson, 40, and propositioned him minutes after he allegedly stimulated her during an internal examination, it is claimed.”
See for yourself. This really is a fail folks – on your purported scientific blog, your blogger posted a tabloid source.
This is why I will concede that there are a “select few people that you deem worthy of listening to.” Yes, if the other commentators are as uncritical and reactionary as this blog (and others) would seem to indicate they are. I would not believe a single person on this blog; I will defer will those “select few” who actually have credentials and peer-review.
“Which brings up the question, why are you here?”
I thought that these blogs were for discussion?
December 16, 2009, 4:34 pmhunter:
Waldo,
December 16, 2009, 4:35 pmBy your standards, why are you prepared to accept anything from the IPCC, since its head is not a clilmatologist at all, but is a transportation engineer?
Are you prepared to accept that the people exposed in the e-mail/data/code leak were not simple foot soldiers, but are high level, extremely influential leaders in the AGW community?
hunter:
Waldo,
December 16, 2009, 4:36 pm“but it would seem to me that they are unqualified to interpret what they post.”
What are your qualifications to make that dismissive claim of skeptics?
Waldo:
“Waldo, where are you without appeals to authority?”
Didn’t I say someone would accuse me of this? Textbook.
If by “authorities” you mean “experts,” hunter, I plead guilty.
By the way, doesn’t this blog rely on “authorities” too? Or can “authorities” only be AGW scientists? And how is this not a dogmatic (quasi-religious) reaction on your part?
December 16, 2009, 4:37 pmWaldo:
“By your standards, why are you prepared to accept anything from the IPCC, since its head is not a clilmatologist at all, but is a transportation engineer?”
Rajendra Pachauri is largely functionary in the IPCC. And, for the record, I would rather they elected a climate scientist.
And I think I posted this earlier, but I really can’t see what the big deal with East Anglia emails are.
“What are your qualifications to make that dismissive claim of skeptics?”
I am an admitted layperson and said so earlier. I just can never figure out a) what AGW creates such anger and paranoia (somebody here will claim that money is involved and / or that the government is out to control his/her lives); b) and why people become so incredibly uncritical and so willing to believe anything that tells them what they want to hear.
December 16, 2009, 4:44 pmhunter:
Waldo,
December 16, 2009, 4:58 pmDid you expect no one to point that, in fact, you are simply relying on straw man positions and appeals to authority, since you in fact are doing exactly that?
Simply saying that you would prefer that Rajendra Pachauri is a functionary and that you would like someone else is not an explanation of why, since the IPCC is led by a non-climate scientist, it is still credible to you.
If you decline to see why the e-mails are important, that is your choice. You seem to be very strenuous is dismissing any objections to your AGW beleifs, whilavoiding anything that would challenge those beliefs.
I fail to see why a selection of headlines for a paper that are salacious means that the newspaper is worhtless on all topics.
AGW creates anger because those promoting it are dodging open discussion of their work, are demanding everyone in the world (exempting them and their pals) dramatically reduce their lifestyles and destroy well established honorable and vital industry, and are now well caught, despite your steadfast ignoring of the topic, as misleading a rather large number of people.
AGW creates anger because its hardcore true believers are calling for the criminalization of dissent from their beliefs.
Do you want to argue that a great deal of money is not involved with AGW, or that the result of AGW inspired policies will be a diminution of government intrusion on people?
Wally:
“Perhaps I did not make myself clear – the posters may very well be using IPCC data, but it would seem to me that they are unqualified to interpret what they post. Let me put it even clearer: IPCC data or no, these people don’t have the credentials to make scientific statements.”
Sorry, but that’s BS. A 5 year old can easily make a scientific statement (though I’m interested to hear what you think a “scientific statement” is). In my field I’ve seen undergrads, without anything more than a high school diploma and a few college courses for “credentials,” make observations that the principle investigator, with a Ph.D. and maybe 100 publications, did not notice or think of. Science can be done by anyone. Sure credentials help, in so much that they usually prove you have a certain amount of background knowledge in a specific field and some basic reasoning abilities, but the are not necessary to make scientific statements. My father for example is an economists, but in building one of his econ models he read up on predator/prey and infectious disease models. After doing so he came up with a different way to modeling infectious diseases, with a little help from me for some background, that work is soon to be published (and the journal recently asked him to review a infectious disease modeling paper). Neither of us are experts in infectious disease (if we assume by “expert” we mean with a Ph.D. in that field), but we had enough knowledge of these types of maters (mathematical models, basic bio, plus getting familiar with the field) to make a contribution to the field.
“there are no actual working scientists here”
You’re wrong. Do you even know the definition of scientist? Its starting to sound like you’re the one that isn’t the scientists, in fact you’re starting to sound very ignorant of science in general. Maybe you don’t even have the credentials to talk science at all, much less make judgments on who can make scientific statements.
As for the Mail, I’m not sure what you’re point is. The blog post was simply to take note that someone finally acknowledged this issue, even if its rag that concerns it self with vampire babies. What exactly does that have to do with the argument itself, as presented here and else where (and yes by those with Ph.D.’s in the field)?
“See for yourself. This really is a fail folks – on your purported scientific blog, your blogger posted a tabloid source.”
Ok, you’re obviously confused. That wasn’t a source like when I reference a journal article at the end of research paper, that was source in only as much that it was a topic for discussion….
“I thought that these blogs were for discussion?”
That they are, but if you walk in pounding your chest saying no body here has the credentials for me to listen to, then what’s the point? You just want to tell us how stupid/ignorant/close-minded/etc we are, or do you want to actually discuss something? Until you can drop your endless appeal to authority (and only the specific few authorities who you happen to agree with it seems), there is no more reason to talk to you.
December 16, 2009, 5:05 pmWally:
“Didn’t I say someone would accuse me of this? Textbook.”
I guess you know your own faults pretty well, at least you got that going for you…
“If by “authorities” you mean “experts,” hunter, I plead guilty.”
It doesn’t matter if the person is an expert or not, the argument has to stand on its own legs, not the credentials of the arguer.
“I am an admitted layperson and said so earlier.”
Cool, by your standards, everything you said means nothing. Awesome. Thanks.
December 16, 2009, 5:08 pmWaldo:
“you are simply relying on straw man positions and appeals to authority” Are saying that there are no “straw men” here? Pot meet kettle. And I fail to see where I’ve used any straw men – I simply asked why you believe these people represented in this blog but not more qualified IPCC scientists?
“since the IPCC is led by a non-climate scientist, it is still credible to you” Simple, because the IPCC is filled with climate scientists working together from around the world who have advanced degrees, scientific associations, university associations, time, money, and scientific equipment to do their work with. In other words, the PICC, NOAA, EPA and NASA are all powerful scientific bodies who work for our government(s). I believe in my government and see no reason to fear that it is trying to shill me.
“You seem to be very strenuous is dismissing any objections to your AGW beleifs, whilavoiding anything that would challenge those beliefs.” Now THIS is a straw man argument since I have now stated twice on this board that Pielke, Bryson, Spencer, Botkin and even Lindzen are viable people in my book. I have also stated that I do not yet believe in AGW but am willing to listen to those qualified to judge the evidence for or against. Straw man, my friend.
“A 5 year old can easily make a scientific statement.” Sure. But would you believe him?
“It doesn’t matter if the person is an expert or not, the argument has to stand on its own legs, not the credentials of the arguer.” Okay, but if this is a scientific discussion, and you are not a scientist, how to you know the validity of the argument? How do you know if an argument has legs or is simply a facade?
“You just want to tell us how stupid/ignorant/close-minded/etc we are, or do you want to actually discuss something?” I never said any of that (in fact, I think I used the word “intelligent”) and what would you like to discuss? I’d like to discuss the validity of this site? Would you prefer I simply agree with you?
December 16, 2009, 5:31 pmShills:
@ Hunter
Your evidence for the doe scientists get says ’senior scientists’ forgive me if I am a little sceptical that this applies to all scientists.
The issue of arg. from authority comes up a lot here, whether or not the accusation is true or not. Lets all recognise that both sides of the arg. know that an authority’s word does not equal the truth, but is only a better estimate of the truth than a non authority. And lets also recognise that we all know that an expert consensus does not equal the truth, but for the lay-person, I argue, is probably the rational side to be on. Some of you might find this last point moot. So I’d like to hear why.
I predict it prob. some of your reasons relate to the supposed sloppy science?
I understand that my reasoning assumes good science but I just don’t think that has been disproven. Sure, there are so many blogs with ‘evidence’ but I’d prefer peer-reviewed lit. as evidence. Is that so much to expect?
Instead, I kinda see a begging the question fallacy going on:
The science is corrupt, because there are all these mistakes in the science.– How do you know? If there were mistakes wouldn’t they fix them, or be encouraged to fix them like good science is done? — No, because they are corrupt.
December 16, 2009, 5:32 pmWaldo:
“I’m interested to hear what you think a ’scientific statement’ is”
Now you are splitting hairs. All I am referring to are the posts on this blogs and ones like it vs. the peer-reviewed publications of the major scientific bodies we all know and love so well.
I like your analogy to the infectious disease model and congratulations on your publication. May I assume that you did not devise any new pharmaceuticals or make any patient diagnosis? You did not play doctor or chemist or biologist, I take it? An economist (who, if I understand correctly, looks for patterns among other things) is the right person to work on an infectious disease model and the scenario you described seems like an expert working in his field of with another (presumably) expert. You and your father performed professionally in your disciplines (Botkin as a biologist does this, by the way, evaluating the potential biological effects of AGW, not the climate science behind it, which is out of his area). What I object are the electrical engineers, like one on this board, who are now delving into climate physics, or the conservative think-tank commentators who openly challenge scientists without having the no-how to do so.
December 16, 2009, 5:51 pmWally:
Waldo,
“I fail to see where I’ve used any straw men”
Let me help:
“The plaint that “science is not done by consensus” just doesn’t hold water; if the majority of climate scientists hold the same opinion, I can see no valid argument in simply dismissing them because there is consensus on an issue of empirical science(thus clearly it is collusion meant to make money off the taxpayers etc.) – and, yeah, there’s empirical evidence out there.”
That is one. Our argument about “consensus” has nothing to do with dismissing them because there is a consensus or because of grant money. The argument is, there is not a consensus and even if there was, it doesn’t really matter.
Then there was this “But neither am I convinced that we are being manipulated by an evil consortium holding sub rosa meetings in the U.N.” No one said they were evil or had secret meetings…. you exaggerate our words in order to make our argument easier to attack. If the same has been done to you, point it out. Remember, two wrongs don’t make a right.
“Simple, because the IPCC is filled with climate scientists working together from around the world who have advanced degrees, scientific associations, university associations, time, money, and scientific equipment to do their work with.”
That’s great, but it doesn’t make them right. Especially given that the full 2,000 page report hardly sees the light of day, and its primarily the political types that make up that 20 pager version you typically see.
“A 5 year old can easily make a scientific statement.”
‘Sure. But would you believe him?’
If he made a good argument, most definitely. Unlike you, I don’t judge an argument based on the arguer.
“Okay, but if this is a scientific discussion, and you are not a scientist, how to you know the validity of the argument? How do you know if an argument has legs or is simply a facade?”
First, I am scientists. Second, all you need is basic knowledge into the methods used, building mathematical models, various statistical techniques, some basic reasoning skills and some background knowledge that can be gained in a number of ways, only one of which is getting a degree in that field. Lastly, since you’re admittedly not a scientist, but a layman, how do you know its not a facade? How do you know who to believe?
“I never said any of that (in fact, I think I used the word “intelligent”) and what would you like to discuss? I’d like to discuss the validity of this site? Would you prefer I simply agree with you?”
I think you’re not qualified to discuss the validity of this site….
December 16, 2009, 5:51 pmWaldo:
Oops, sorry. Meant “know-how” above. Funny Freudian slip huh?
December 16, 2009, 5:51 pmWaldo:
“The argument is, there is not a consensus and even if there was, it doesn’t really matter.”
Are you sure about this one?
December 16, 2009, 5:53 pmWaldo:
“How do you know who to believe?”
Again, I go with the most obviously qualified people. What else am I supposed to do?
Gotta run, but be back later.
December 16, 2009, 5:55 pmShills:
Sorry Hunter, I see my mistake re. the dough scientists get.
December 16, 2009, 6:02 pmWally:
“The argument is, there is not a consensus and even if there was, it doesn’t really matter.”
‘Are you sure about this one?’
Yes, I am. Consensus or not, all you ultimately have is the data. If 100% of the people think it supports a certain conclusion, that doesn’t prevent them from being wrong.
“How do you know who to believe?”
‘Again, I go with the most obviously qualified people. What else am I supposed to do?’
First of all, think for yourself.
December 16, 2009, 8:04 pmhunter:
Waldo, I asked a couple of very straight forward questions regarding your dismissal strategy of making dissembling comparisons.
Would you clarify your position by answering them, please?
“Do you want to argue that a great deal of money is not involved with AGW, or that the result of AGW inspired policies will be a diminution of government intrusion on people?”
“Simply saying that you would prefer that Rajendra Pachauri is a functionary and that you would like someone else is not an explanation of why, since the IPCC is led by a non-climate scientist, it is still credible to you.”(?)
Wally asks a good question:If a large number of people of people believes something, is it pointless to critically examine that consensus belief?
Shills,
December 16, 2009, 10:00 pmThe money is huge. Thanks for noticing.
Waldo:
Sorry, there was a lot of stuff there and I was heading out the door. So -
“Do you want to argue that a great deal of money is not involved with AGW, or that the result of AGW inspired policies will be a diminution of government intrusion on people?”
Never said either of those things. We’ve been talking about straw men here (Wally, listening?) and this seems like two good examples. But since you asked, sure, it seems like a lot of money could be spent on AGW. Does anyone question that? A great many things are expensive, after all. The cost of the Iraq war is what, over $700 billion by now? Does this the military is shilling war?
And I think I answered the second question earlier, but just to be clear: I am not particularly paranoid about my government and am not convinced that any of us would feel any real difference in our lives or pocketbooks. Why so scared of this stuff?
“Simply saying that you would prefer that Rajendra Pachauri is a functionary and that you would like someone else is not an explanation of why, since the IPCC is led by a non-climate scientist, it is still credible to you.”(?)
And I did very specifically answer this earlier. Nevertheless, here you go: the IPCC and like organizations are populated by highly qualified professional scientists working in their disciplines.
December 16, 2009, 10:54 pmWaldo:
Wally, didn’t I say someone of bringing up money and the government? You then accused me of using “straw men” strategies.
December 16, 2009, 11:08 pmWaldo:
Sorry, should read “someone would bring up money and the government.” Must be getting tired.
December 16, 2009, 11:09 pmShills:
@ Hunter
Just to be specific. You have only given evidence that suggests gov’t employed scientists get a fair bit, not all of em. Alot of the research for AGW is done by non gov’t employed scientists too.
‘If a large number of people of people believes something, is it pointless to critically examine that consensus belief?’
Well no it is not pointless. Some AGW skeptics point to the argument ad populum logical fallacy for this. But again, no one is saying that a consensus equals the truth, only that its is usually truer on average than the fringe theories. Fringe theories exist thruoghout science. It is unusual for a fringe theory, such as AGW skepticism, to get so much attention. I think the conspiratorial aspect is partly to blame.
I suggest all lay-peeps leave the critical thinking to peer-reviewed science. All we can do is, I think, go with the scientific consensus until: there is peer-reviewed lit. which suggests a problem with the consensus theory, or evidence to suggest that the scam, conspiracy really exists.
did any of you see my point about the begging the question fallacy, or the CRU email link I shared? what do you think?
December 16, 2009, 11:20 pmWaldo:
“First of all, think for yourself.”
Okay, I will no longer go to a doctor. I will diagnose myself. Nor will I go to civil engineer or a lawyer or a computer programmer or anyone who might tell me something I don’t know.
It is not a matter of “thinking for oneself,” Wally, but listening to those people who have expertise and experience in a very particular field. It’s not an ideological problem but a practical one.
December 16, 2009, 11:38 pmAnonymous:
@Waldo:
“Okay, I will no longer go to a doctor. I will diagnose myself.”
You are stretching whatever is being said to you and you know that.
It’s OK to go to a doctor if you feel ill or are injured. It’s not OK to go to a doctor if you got your hands dirty and need to wash them. Refusing to think for yourself is never good. But you know that and just want to bicker…
December 17, 2009, 2:13 amhunter:
Waldo,
December 17, 2009, 7:26 amI wonder if a good term for you is ‘polite troll’?
ADiff:
Waldo obviously confuses ‘Science’ with ‘Policy’ and, increasingly it seems, much of the academic community does too.
It might be due to the pursuit of government funding, which appears (clearly in the CRU emails) politically ‘policy’ driven. This argues that, like everything else habituated to the “public teat”, Science too will ultimately be corrupted and destroyed by over-reliance on public funding.
Science really has nothing to do with consensus. Policy, and the politics that drive it, have everything to do with consensus.
But the two things are as different as night and day. The moment a scientist goes from objective description of a theory of fact, to policy recommendation, explicitly or implicitly, it’s no longer science. At that point the opinion expressed is not that of science, or of a scientist…but just that of another “cicada”.
December 17, 2009, 9:24 amWaldo:
Anon.
“’Okay, I will no longer go to a doctor. I will diagnose myself.’ ”
“You are stretching whatever is being said to you and you know that.”
I must disagree. The argument by non-scientists against AGW is fundamentally the same as non-doctors playing doctor. I am simply making an analogy.
December 17, 2009, 11:07 amWaldo:
“I wonder if a good term for you is ‘polite troll’?”
Sure! I dig that!
December 17, 2009, 11:08 amWaldo:
“It might be due to the pursuit of government funding, which appears (clearly in the CRU emails) politically ‘policy’ driven.”
Wally, didn’t I predict that government and money would come up?
December 17, 2009, 11:10 amhunter:
Waldo,
December 17, 2009, 1:38 pmYOur deliberate obtusenbess in pretending that government and money is not a relevant factor in this is simply ignorant on your part. Pretending that you predicted someone would bring up money, when every AGW promo site, and book stores shelves are lined with, writing about how skeptics are cynically funded by a vast conspiracy is silliness on your part.
The problem with being a polite troll is you are still a troll:
Shallow, unserious, dissembling, deceptive and wrong.
Wally:
Waldo,
The anonymous poster above pointed out the issue with your “analogy.” What you’re effectively doing is saying that a select few established climate scientists have monopoly on evaluating climate research. I suppose for someone who doesn’t trust their own abilities to critically evaluate a scientific argument, that response makes sense. However, for those of us with a scientific background, it sounds asinine. To change your analogy to be more accurate of the situation, you’re saying an ER doctor can’t evaluate the work of surgeon. You see, all sciences, and even other analytical fields such as econ, are sufficiently similar that the tools that make one a biologist or economist, allow you to evaluate the work of other fields, with the caveat that you’ve caught up on the back ground. You even recently stated that an economist, who is in the business of looking for patterns, is well suited for infectious disease modelings. That is a pretty accurate statement. So, what of climate modeling? Is that not also looking for patterns? I’m just not sure how you can have it both ways. Either we can apply our tools to multiple fields or we can’t. Unless you want to say that econ and epidemics are more similar than econ and the climate?
-“It might be due to the pursuit of government funding, which appears (clearly in the CRU emails) politically ‘policy’ driven.”
-”Wally, didn’t I predict that government and money would come up?”
Nice that you predicted it and all, but its part of the argument. Predicting it would come up doesn’t prove we should ignore it, or that it isn’t a valid argument. Just as predicting people will say you’re just using an appeal to authority, insulate you from criticism from using an appeal to authority. I mean seriously? How about I say this: I know you’re just going to claim this is an ad hominem attack, but you’re so stupid that no one should listen to what you say, ever for anything. There, since I’ve predicted your normally valid argument against me, you can’t use it, we have to discuss your intelligence and you have to prove your smart enough to talk to.
December 17, 2009, 2:20 pmADiff:
To say “The argument by non-scientists against AGW is fundamentally the same as non-doctors playing doctor” isn’t an “analogy”, it’s “simply” confusing the issues. The issue of purported Global Warming is a scientific one. But all policy in response (or rejection) of any aspect of that are Policy questions, political, and hence absolutely NOT the domain of ‘experts’ or cliques of any kind, but the proper domain of citizens, regardless of credentials, professions or what-have-you. In questioning Policy reactions, if any, to such scientific theory, there is no privileged class (unless, of course as always, and properly, it be wealth). In such discussions scientists have very correctly no special standing whatsoever and appeals to such are mere sophistry and deceitful.
December 17, 2009, 4:19 pmShills:
Wally said:
You see, all sciences, and even other analytical fields such as econ, are sufficiently similar that the tools that make one a biologist or economist, allow you to evaluate the work of other fields, with the caveat that you’ve caught up on the back ground.
– Not buying this. Sure, some of the shared skills would allow for some evaluation, but not enough to put you all on a level playing field. A climate scientist prob. knows best about climate science, as an astrophysicist prob. knows best about that stuff. Otherwise what would be the point of peer-reviewed journals, using peers from the relevant field?
Anyway, I think this arg. is getting nowhere. Might I suggest a kind of loose return to first principles. Then you can pinpoint the contentious issues without having to go over all these insignificant accusations.
December 17, 2009, 4:43 pmShills:
@ ADiff
What are you talking about re. science vs policy? Maybe I’m missing the context here but most of what is been discussed here is science and reason. No one here is asking policy questions. And even if we were, you do know that gov’ts have advisors and some of them are actually experts in a given field. That is because most reasonable gov’ts want to make informed decisions on issues. Makes sense.
Do you think the issue of whether to accept or deny AGW should be left up to democratic vote?
Maybe I’m not getting you…
And I think Waldo’s analogy still holds.
Wally said:
‘What you’re effectively doing is saying that a select few established climate scientists have monopoly on evaluating climate research.’
The analogy says nothing about a ’select few’.
December 17, 2009, 5:00 pmWaldo:
“What you’re effectively doing is saying that a select few established climate scientists have monopoly on evaluating climate research.”
Nope. Just that we should listen to them because they are established climate scientists.
“I know you’re just going to claim this is an ad hominem attack, but you’re so stupid that no one should listen to what you say, ever for anything.”
Yup. Ad hominem attack. Usually these come up much earlier. I thought perhaps this board was above that but you, Wally, just proved me wrong. I usually figure that the ad hominem attack comes after someone is unable to shout someone else down, and I guess that’s the case. Sorry that I frustrate you but it’s your problem. Sticks and stones anyway.
And I have to agree with Shills here. I don’t buy your contention, Wally, that any old science training qualifies you to work in any old field you want to. This is so silly, in fact, I think its reasoning speaks for itself.
“this arg. is getting nowhere. Might I suggest a kind of loose return to first principles. Then you can pinpoint the contentious issues without having to go over all these insignificant accusations.”
Smartest thing said on this board yet.
December 17, 2009, 5:01 pmWally:
Shills,
“Not buying this. Sure, some of the shared skills would allow for some evaluation, but not enough to put you all on a level playing field. A climate scientist prob. knows best about climate science, as an astrophysicist prob. knows best about that stuff. Otherwise what would be the point of peer-reviewed journals, using peers from the relevant field?”
Oh, sure to certain degree scientists in a given field know best, but that doesn’t exclude other scientists out side of that field from critiquing or expanding on that field, which was my point. For instance, I was a Microbio and Physics major in my undergrad, I’m currently in a Ph.D. program at some cross roads between developmental biology and math. I’ve never had a development class, nor was I math major. But I picked it up as my interests carried me. My undergrad and graduate training, besides giving me plenty of area specific background knowledge in areas I will soon forget, has given me the tools to be a good scientist above all else. I can always brush up on the specifics or desired methods for a field given enough time. I believe an intelligent, well trained scientist could equip himself to be a so called “expert” in any scientific field given maybe 1-2 years of hard work. And at the drop of a hat that scientist could at least critique a given research paper to determine if it’s following the most basic scientific principles, which it has become obvious that several prominent figures surrounding AGW have not been doing.
“Anyway, I think this arg. is getting nowhere. Might I suggest a kind of loose return to first principles. Then you can pinpoint the contentious issues without having to go over all these insignificant accusations.”
After all that, yes, agreed.
December 17, 2009, 5:10 pmWally:
“Nope. Just that we should listen to them because they are established climate scientists. ”
What about climate scientists that don’t meet some sort of “established” threshold? Like say a post doc?
But to not misrepresent you, so you’re saying we should base public policy on established climate scientists?
“Yup. Ad hominem attack. Usually these come up much earlier. I thought perhaps this board was above that but you, Wally, just proved me wrong.”
Sadly you did not understand that my point there was not to insult you, but to point out the irrelevance of predicting that someone will point out your fallacious argument. I do not actually believe you are stupid. You are, however, terribly misguided on this issue of defaulting to the “established” scientist(s).
“Wally, that any old science training qualifies you to work in any old field you want to. This is so silly, in fact, I think its reasoning speaks for itself.”
You’re building strawmen, sir. I didn’t say any science training alone qualifies you to work in any field….try again.
December 17, 2009, 5:17 pmWaldo:
“What about climate scientists that don’t meet some sort of ‘established’ threshold? Like say a post doc?”
I guess I would say I would take an IPCC-employed scientist over a post-doc over an ABD in climate science over an MA candidate over an undergraduate physics major over Brad Pitt over Mike Tyson over a hotdog vendor in Central Park over a coma patient…
But here is where the debate has derailed. We are now splitting hairs and playing rhetorical ping-pong rather badly.
December 17, 2009, 8:04 pmAnonymous:
I will try to say it as simple as I can.
Suppose tomorrow we wake up and see that all of the world’s best mathematicians declare that from now on 2*2 should equal 5, and all the math that we use should be adjusted for this new fact. Waldo says we should listen to them and we all would. But what would be different between Waldo and some of the other people here is that Waldo would listen, accept and get busy redoing the traditional math as we know it, while other people would listen, analyze, find that 2*2 does not after all equal 5, and concentrate their efforts on checking what exactly is it that made our very best mathematicians go insane.
That’s what is meant by having to think for yourself and that’s what’s going on in the debate on catastrophic AGW.
December 18, 2009, 12:07 amADiff:
Waldo,
By any other name, yer still a Troll.
December 18, 2009, 1:03 amhunter:
Waldo,
December 18, 2009, 6:31 amIt takes two to play pingpong, and you are the one, according to the consensus here, who is unable to play.
Wally:
Waldo,
“But here is where the debate has derailed. We are now splitting hairs and playing rhetorical ping-pong rather badly.”
That’s generally what tends to happen when someone can’t give up a fallacous argument. Either someone points out the appeal to authority, and you stop, or you keep it up and we diverge on the red herring of explaining why you shouldn’t use that argument. So, in short, if you want a better debate, make an argument without such an obvious logical fallacy.
December 18, 2009, 8:02 amWally:
“I guess I would say I would take an IPCC-employed scientist over a post-doc over an ABD in climate science over an MA candidate over an undergraduate physics major over Brad Pitt over Mike Tyson over a hotdog vendor in Central Park over a coma patient…”
Nevermind the evidence any of these people have to support these claims….
December 18, 2009, 8:04 amWaldo:
“according to the consensus here”
So now consensus matters? I’ll that the scientific consensus, thank you.
“That’s generally what tends to happen when someone can’t give up a fallacous argument.”
Pot meet kettle – sure, continue the uncritical acceptance of unqualified opinion.
December 18, 2009, 8:40 amEnough Already:
People have an apacolypse gene – no? A commonly recurring theme in human history – no? Climate change is religion:
Only climate scientist (priests) can talk to god. It would be dangerous for people to see the data (try to talk to god). People must give up fossil fuels (sacrifice) or there will be storms, flood, droughts (apacolypse). We (priests) need $billions$ (offerings) to continue our work (conversations with god on behalf of the people). To become a climate scientist requires years of special training and sacrifice with little tangible reward (trust us, we are priests). Many fail. We must act now, by the time you see the damage it will be too late (have faith).
And every religion needs evil. (demonic) Oil company executives are seeking to destroy the world (providing a pleasure that will ultimately lead to destruction). Paid (possessed) industry shills spew disinformation (lies). It ir righteous to protect the people from disinformation (temptation) because they might get confused (fall from grace and refuse to sacrifice and make offereings).
Waldo is helping the good priests save the world from the devil. You’re gonna convince him otherwise.
December 18, 2009, 9:06 amWally:
“That’s generally what tends to happen when someone can’t give up a fallacous argument.”
‘Pot meet kettle – sure, continue the uncritical acceptance of unqualified opinion.’
First that’s a strawman, I have hundreds of peer reviewed papers that don’t support AGW (list here: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html), statements from supposed “qualified” person’s opinions, etc. Second, even if we assume you’re correct, and I am doing this, two wrongs don’t make right. Either way you lose.
And lets look back at this comment of yours: “But here is where the debate has derailed. We are now splitting hairs and playing rhetorical ping-pong rather badly.”
If by this we assume you want to get back to a more serious debate of the issue and don’t want to play ping-pong, you’re last post was very hypocritical. Either make valid, factual argument about something, or admit you’re just here to play ping-pong.
December 18, 2009, 10:28 amSkeptical:
I too am just a layperson who reads.
For Waldo who cites IPCC (as well as other institutions like NOAA, NASA, etc.) as authoritative, I have read that many scientists who participated in IPCC disagree with the Summary for Policy Makers, saying that it does not accurately represent the actual work done. The peer review process has also been criticized, most notably by Richard Lindzen who did participate in the 1st 3 reports, and is highly critical of the IPCC overall. I also suggest you look at the Petition Project for a sizable list of scientists from many disciplines who disagree with AGW theory.
The argument on it’s face to me is absurd – that an increase in Co2 of about 110 ppm (from 270 to 380) – completely overwhelms all other climate forcings (PDO, AMO, OHC, solar variations, clouds, etc.). That this increase alone is putting the planet in peril and we must make dramatic, life altering changes in our lifestyle, otherwise, we are doomed (sea level rise, more violent storms, drought, famine, on and on and on).
I have found charts on other sites showing that over the last 600 million years, Co2 levels were as low as they are today in 2 other periods, and that Co2 levels have been many times higher in other periods, even during ice ages. I don’t know how accurate this information is, but I find the info as credible as information I find on RealClimate and other AGW sites.
Other factors like feedback, the diminishing effect of increased levels of Co2, etc. also make me question the assertion that Co2 alone can cause the kind of catastrophe being projected by AGW supporters.
As for the anger part, I will quote hunter since I think it is worth repeating:
AGW creates anger because those promoting it are dodging open discussion of their work, are demanding everyone in the world (exempting them and their pals) dramatically reduce their lifestyles and destroy well established honorable and vital industry, and are now well caught, despite your steadfast ignoring of the topic, as misleading a rather large number of people. AGW creates anger because its hardcore true believers are calling for the criminalization of dissent from their beliefs.
December 18, 2009, 11:52 amSkeptical:
More on the anger part.
Over the last 2 decades, the world has been systematically brainwashed by AGW in the media and via TV shows airing on Discovery, Science Channel, and National Geographic. There has been no honest questioning done by the media, and in fact, the MSM openly criticizes anyone who is skeptical, and openly supports the assertion that any scientist who disagrees with AGW has been paid off by the fossil fuel industry, yet the MSM does not question Gore’s motives. In any show that purports to show 2 sides of the story, invariably, 90% or more of the time spent is showing catastrophic events, scientists making claims about AGW, then a small amount of time for a rebuttal by a “denier”, followed by an assertion that the denier is associated with big oil – it’s a pretty consistent formula.
The only reason the debate is over is because it was never allowed to happen, except in the blogosphere.
December 18, 2009, 12:12 pmADiff:
Enough Already,
I agree with you about AGW being a religion. Most of the non-scientific advocacy community and a portion of the scientific community involved in the issue are clearly approaching it like religion. ‘Environmentalism’ is certainly a religion for part of that community. For many (if not most!) their positions are ‘Received Truth’ (based faith, however disguised by Scholasticism or other defensive shibboleths). Questioning their dogma is either misguided and/or evil. At any rate, much of the AGW advocacy and ‘environmentalist’ community are about as effectively anti-Science as it gets.
This is all wrapped up with anti-Western, anti-Capitalist philosophical contexts to some degree or other depending on the stylistic preferences of individual participants and cliques… After all, isn’t AGW, like so many popular hysterics, ‘bubbles’ and crazes, really just a matter of style (primarily for self-identification)?
BTW, no point in responding to Waldo’s posts unless he decides offers substantive & cogent argument (instead of the rhetoric and declamation that are all seen so far). It’s generally better not to feed Trolls.
I find it interesting that the few (apparent) AGW Believers who’ve I’ve seen post here (including Waldo among their number) have offered NOTHING in the way of critiques or issues on the plethora of technical challenges presented on this site, but exclusively resort to “Is not…Is So” declamations or rhetorical techniques like Appeal to Authority or Bandwagon. While this doesn’t prove there are no substantive answers to these criticisms from AGW, it does at least suggest that if such exist, they certainly haven’t become common knowledge among the ‘Movement’’s evangelists at least.
December 18, 2009, 12:16 pmEnough Already:
The “science” is rife with fundamentalism. Consider proxy temperature reconstructions and surface station temperature reconstructions.
Climate scientists are attempting to pull tiny signals from very noisy data. At worse, it’s a rorschach test; at best, the certainty is overstated. But try suggesting, over on RC, that maybe a global average temperature so derived is not a terribly useful parameter; try suggesting that a millenial reconstruction without a midieval warm period or a little ice age is, at a minimum, questionable. Or, god forbid, ask for the data.
Don’t question the scientists (priests)!
This will all make very intersting history – one day.
December 18, 2009, 4:03 pmShills:
Why don’t we try find some common ground to start from.
Like what kind of sources we think are the most reliable. My choice would be peer-reviewed lit. Are their legit. charges of failure in this system?
Anyway, stop going on about appeals to authority. It seems like such a buzz word here, and other threads. It is NOT an appeal to authority to say you trust an expert opinion more than a non expert, that makes sense. It is only an appeal to authority when you say that the experts opinion/facts are nec. true.
December 18, 2009, 5:37 pmAnonymous:
@Shills:
You suggest we stop questioning appeals to authority and switch to discussing which sources we think are most reliable??! Yeah, right…
How about we discuss actual science? Do you have anything to say here?
December 19, 2009, 3:26 amShills:
@ Anon
Whats ya problem? You see some contradiction or somethin?
Let me clarify. Sure we should question/point out appeals to authority when they exist, but it seems that a lot of peeps don’t know what that is and so false accusations are coming up often. Appeals to authority are a lot rarer than you might think. Sure peeps might say: this expert says this point that refutes this point by that non expert. But they are not saying that the point is correct because it comes from an expert (the fallacy), rather the point is prob. correct because it is a result of the studies/work done that we find experts doing.
By coming to a mutually held standard for sources and evidence we at least agree on something, and thus have one less thing to argue about. Sounds good, right??!
December 19, 2009, 6:02 pmShills:
@ Anon
And yes, discussing science, by referring to scientific peer-reviewed journals, is exactly what I’m advocating.
Also, I saw your 2*2 analogy. If that were to happen, it would be because there was a strong and robust argument built against the consensus view, that eventually changed all the mathematicians minds. As a layperson, in might seem insane to you that 2*2=5, but if the experts are honest, who are you to dismiss it (honest questioning is fine though). Maybe kinda like how it might have seemed insane to our forefathers when they were told the earth is not flat. All the skeptics would be laughing and saying, ‘well why don’t we fall of the earth then!’
I understand that my analogy of flat earth (Earth) is epistemically different to yours (maths), but mine actually fits better with the AGW issue (Earth).
December 19, 2009, 6:25 pmDouglas2:
From reading some of the above comments, I now know why my PhD supervisor looked at me as if I was a martian when I suggested that we get a professor from another department, who was expert in the particular statistical techniques we were using, as part of my review committee.
He obviously would have nothing to say that was useful, not knowing the intricacies of our field.
December 19, 2009, 9:44 pmWaldo:
Shills,
I’m not sure the people here really want to discuss or debate anything; they want the choir. I think they have (had) a safe space where they can reinforce their beliefs and they simply want a limited discourse with people who already think like they do. I suspect that these beliefs were formed before they actually read anything about AGW and I suspect most of these beliefs are politically motivated (Al Gore is the anti-Christ here). And I think they would prefer that we simply leave so they can get back to their round-robin. But what gets me is how incredibly paranoid the whole thing is, for instance, Skeptical at least answered a direct question with this:
** “AGW creates anger because those promoting it are dodging open discussion of their work, are demanding everyone in the world (exempting them and their pals) dramatically reduce their lifestyles and destroy well established honorable and vital industry, and are now well caught, despite your steadfast ignoring of the topic, as misleading a rather large number of people. AGW creates anger because its hardcore true believers are calling for the criminalization of dissent from their beliefs.”
I believe Skeptical is earnest but where does this come from? The IPCC puts its publications out for all the world to see along with its codes – all one needs is an Internet connection and a computer or a library. They are completely open. And what dramatic reductions are we talking about here? What industries are about to be destroyed? Skeptical seems to be summing George Orwell or Aldous Huxley.
Without this kind of gross exaggeration and politicization, though, I suspect the whole thing would die down – it’s not that often that we as a society question our scientists. One wonders (assuming Skeptical is an American) how he/she feels about the $700-billion-plus spent on the Iraq war or the implications of the Patriot Act. Perhaps Skeptical is just as agitated about these too…perhaps…
Your comment about the flat earth above is pretty funny…considering. Repeatedly the CS crowd has rallied around the ‘would-you-have-believed-the-authorities-when-Galileo-yadda-yadda’ strategy. But, my friends, you are the crowd that would have demanded that Galileo be silenced, not the other way around.
December 19, 2009, 10:08 pmhunter:
Waldo,
December 20, 2009, 7:36 amGosh, I don’t even rate an attribution?
** “AGW creates anger because those promoting it are dodging open discussion of their work, are demanding everyone in the world (exempting them and their pals) dramatically reduce their lifestyles and destroy well established honorable and vital industry, and are now well caught, despite your steadfast ignoring of the topic, as misleading a rather large number of people. AGW creates anger because its hardcore true believers are calling for the criminalization of dissent from their beliefs.””
And then you have this non-productive strategy of not answering the question or substantively address the point, and then dismiss it as some sort of one-sided anger.
If you watch the news, and understand it, COP15 riots were not by skeptics storming the sacred halls. The riots, until it got too cold, were of AGW extremists demanding even *more* be done.
The IPCC regurgitates what is shown to be junk science.
The IPCC, it is now clear, has suppressed critical reviews of AGW theory.
Industries set for destruction are oil and coal, to start with, along with companies that burn coal and refine oil. In the US, the EPA is empowered to regulate CO2 as it sees fit. Its leadership is very political.
You assert skeptics are Orwellian, yet you are the one drifting into the Iraq war and patriot act.
You can also assert that Galileo would have been condemned by skeptics, but sans time machine, you should not be so confident that you, with you grovelling dependence on peer reviewed authority, would not have been urging those in authority to shut down that pesky man.
Waldo:
Yeah, it’s very uncool to riot under almost any circumstance, and it simply makes accomplishing anything harder in the long run. Nevertheless, hunter, you do realize how much of the world and to what extent the world is concerned with the issue?
But this statement is pure exaggeration -
** “AGW creates anger because its hardcore true believers are calling for the criminalization of dissent from their beliefs.”
You are probably referring to Hansen’s statements to ABC and such. And you are wrong. Hansen called for the heads of the fossil fuel industry to be tried for crimes against humanity for spreading disinformation about AGW. You have made a fairly typical exaggeration prompted, I suspect, by the blogosphere. And even if Hansen did say that fossil fuel chiefs should be tried, so what? Do you honestly think we are going to start rounding up and trying AGW dissenters? Point to one person arrested on such grounds. Likewise, no one is talking about “destroying” any industries; regulating, yes, destroying, no. You are trying to deceive me through exaggeration. In reality, this is more like the kinds of things that will happen:
Sen. Robert Byrd on Thursday issued a long statement with an unusually stern message for the coal industry and its attempts to counter opposition to mountaintop removal mining.
Byrd, D-W.Va., says the coal industry needs to stop using “fear mongering, grandstanding and outrage as a strategy” and instead help stave off global climate change and curb the mountaintop method.
“As your United States Senator, I must represent the opinions and the best interests of the entire Mountain State, not just those interests of coal operators and southern coalfield residents who may be strident supporters of mountaintop removal mining,” Byrd said in both the written statement and audio recording released Thursday.
“The IPCC regurgitates what is shown to be junk science.”
No. Blogs like this one purport to contradict the science…but do they? I’ll go with the IPCC.
December 20, 2009, 12:26 pmWally:
Waldo,
“But, my friends, you are the crowd that would have demanded that Galileo be silenced, not the other way around.”
Really? When we’re the ones outraged by the apperent Penn State/CRU manipulation of the peer review system? Sorry Waldo, that doesn’t jive with arguments being presented, nor do you even point out which particular posts or statements support the mentality to silence anyone. For what I can tell, everyone here is advocating more free access to information (CRU raw data for example, where did that go?) and for the freedom of ideas to published based on merit of reseach not the conclusion from the data. Sorry Waldo, you’re proving to be more and more of just a troll with ever passing comment. You’re not here for a honest, logical, factual discussion, you’re here to incite the crowd.
December 20, 2009, 1:38 pmhunter:
Waldo,
December 20, 2009, 6:39 pmSo it is OK to try corporate execuutives for their climate views, as long as only corporate execs are the ones getting tried?
What about the calls to terminate the professional licenses of, say, meteorologists, who disagree?
http://wx-man.com/blog/?p=500
How about if they call for trying politicians?
“David Suzuki, celebrity scientist on politicians ignoring climate alarmists: “What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act.”
And you are cheering the senile Senator because his staff has written a threat against a group of Americans over his signature for their temerity to disagree with AGW, and you dare say that skeptics are extremists?
The head of the IPCC is directly profiting from his position by earning huge fees as a consultant in the green energy finance sector.
Yet you would rather go with his advice.
And you snark around pretending to be sophisticated and clever.
A troll, no matter how polite he tries to be, and no matter how smart, always ends up showing that nothing is really behind the facade.
Getting you guys to talk is the key. It is the Queeg strategy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zgeQmzV9kk
hunter:
Wally,
December 20, 2009, 6:39 pmThe only thing our friend Waldo is inciting is laughter. And not with him.
Shills:
The whole Galileo analogy could go either way, but probably, in my opinion, history will show that the AGW skeptics are the traditionalists who can’t/ won’t separate ideology/religion and science. Why? because the chance that science has really sacrificed so many of it’s principles (those principles that were defended so much by those like Darwin and Galileo) for money, is a huge stretch of the imagination like most conspiracy theories. I say it could go either way because, it’s not an impossibility that the sun won’t rise tomorrow.
Whatever, it’s just an analogy.
@ Hunter.
We all have lines of argument that aren’t been addressed by the opposing side. How ’bout you puts some of yours down again so we can get them addressed.
This AGW arg. is not gonna bring fruit:
science is only responsive to science that has gone through the mainstream scientific processes. The skeptics believe these processes are corrupt, so there is no point submitting through the mainstream processes. So where is this all gonna go? To the court of law?
How do the AGW skeptics see this ending? I am interested to know?
December 20, 2009, 7:05 pmhunter:
Shill,
December 20, 2009, 8:12 pmIt is not tradition. It is authoritarianism. Galileo and his telescope were popular wiht the Bishops and priests, until he started challenging the status quo.
It is the AGW promoters who cannot stand challenges to their authority, and seek to try, de-frock and defame their challengers.
As a skeptic, I see this ending as it ended in Kyoto, Jakarta and now Cop15: with much waste of breath, a lot of hand waving, and no action.
I see it ending with a whimper, as fewer and and fewer people believe the ever-increasing level of hysterical shrieking, because no matter how loud the sales pitch, enough people still go out doors and notice the lack of a climate apocalypse.
Shills:
@ Hunter
Well I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. We both think our cause is the voice of rational science against the ideologues.
I find your prediction of the ending a little confusing. If I was a person who believed that a great portion of the scientific community was pulling the wool over the world’s eyes, I’d expect a lot of heads to roll in the future. And some firm changes to how science is done.
But am I right about this?:
science is only responsive to science that has gone through the mainstream scientific processes. The skeptics believe these processes are corrupt, so there is no point submitting through the mainstream processes. So how does AGW skepticism get its point across?
So where is this all gonna go?
December 20, 2009, 10:32 pmWaldo:
“climate apocalypse”
Sigh. Will the hyperbole never end? I always suspect people begin to exaggerate when they are losing an argument and feel that their point is not being made forcefully enough.
December 21, 2009, 12:06 amWally:
Huh, Waldo, that’s funny. What do you think of people that use logical fallicies as their main argument in general?
December 21, 2009, 12:24 amAnonymous:
@Shills:
“You suggest we stop questioning appeals to authority and switch to discussing which sources we think are most reliable??! Yeah, right…” –
“Whats ya problem? You see some contradiction or somethin?”
Yes. There is a contradiction. The first part of the sentence invites not to discuss questions related to authority. The second part of the sentence invites to discuss questions related to authority. Discussing “which sources we think are most reliable” is exactly discussing who has and who hasn’t authority to state something in the subject area of science.
I suggest we discuss science, not sources. The message instead of the messenger.
“By coming to a mutually held standard for sources and evidence we at least agree on something, and thus have one less thing to argue about. Sounds good, right??!”
No. That’s just smoke and mirrors that could be too easily used to subvert the discussion. If you want to discuss that, please go ahead, but I will stay out of it because in the next five minutes someone will bring up the ever-wonderful thought of “let’s stick to peer-reviewed publications for starters”, which will short-circuit it all and make us go in rounds.
The discussion we, skeptics, want to have is this:
Scientific arguments in favor of catastrophic AGW are unsound, but the contrarian point of view has never been fully heard because the pro-AGW folks were hiding code and data, and hijacking the publication process to silence their opponents. Let’s leave it to investigators and prosecutors to determine who exactly is guilty of what, and by all means let’s have a real scientific debate, with numbers, as to whether catastrophic AGW is real or not and whether we should rush to save our lives or not. Here are our scientific arguments (eg: http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf) that disprove the numbers posed by the proponents of catastrophic AGW. We invite the proponents of catastrophic AGW to adjust their numbers and results or tell us why they won’t do it.
That’s it. If your answer to this is “well, let’s start by discussing which sources we think are most reliable”, that’s just evading the real discussion and going back to discussing whom you’d rather take on faith.
December 21, 2009, 9:19 amhunter:
Waldo,
December 21, 2009, 1:09 pmThe intersting thing about AGW trolls like yourself is that when the very terms used by their guys is used, the try, as you are now, to slink away and blame the one quoting the term.
360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2210
A blog that supports AGW promotion and promoters, has even done a nifty analysis of how people are tuckered out by the constant drumbeat of apocalypse soon by the global warming hype machine.
So please do not think you are fooling anyone, except possibly yourself and other trolls, that using the term ‘apocalyptic’ is a misuse of what is in regular use in the AGW community.
And there are some 3,000,000 google references to ‘apocalypse’, and they are used almost exclusively by AGW promoters and believers to describe what they think is awaiting us.
But Waldo, I do agree with your point: The losing side does raise the level of their claims to screeching hyperbole.
As your side does daily.
Google ‘apocalypse’, google ‘worse than was predicted’, google ‘climate catastrophe’.
You could apply some of that excess integrity (how does one have ‘excess integrity, by the way?) to this, and try an honest answer. For once.
Waldo:
“the very terms used by their guys”
“the global warming hype machine”
“As your side does daily.”
Textbook. Us vs. Them.
Hannity, Michael Moore, Limbaugh, Coulter, Al Frankin and all that awful bunch make a killing off this mentality.
December 21, 2009, 1:38 pmWaldo:
And yes, hunter and Wally, for the record – hyperbole and distortion on the pro-AGW side is just as dishonest and disturbing. They too have an Us vs. Them mentality all too often.
December 21, 2009, 2:16 pmhunter:
Waldo,
December 21, 2009, 3:47 pmIt may be text book, but it is also accurate.
You seem to acknowledge that you were wrong to claim that I was misquoting AGW narrative regarding apocalypse. Is that true?
Your list of opinionators is intersting, but meaningless. None of them, as far as I can tell, are posting here. Unless you are……?
Awful? Maybe annoying, maybe over the top, but none of them were writing the e-mails or testifying to congress or writing op-ed pieces about crimes against humanity. I do not even think one of them holds themselves out as a climate scientist. One did squeak into a Senate seat, which he is working hard to dishonor. But awful?
Did you have a point behind your (feeble)’textbook’ snark, or were you just hoping the amazing power of your kung fu would silence us pesky denialists?
Shills:
@ anon
You don’t understand:
You said:
‘The first part of the sentence invites not to discuss questions related to authority. The second part of the sentence invites to discuss questions related to authority.’
First, WHAT SENTENCE are you referring to?
Second, Lets pretend there was such a sentence, let me correct your interpretation of it. (CORRECTIONS IN BOLD):
‘The first part of the sentence invites not to FALSELY ACCUSE OF LOGICAL FALLACIES . The second part of the sentence invites to discuss questions related to authority.’
See the difference? Did you even read my initial reply?
ANon says: ‘I suggest we discuss science, not sources. The message instead of the messenger.’
Well sure, throw some science up. But you know what. Wouldn’t it be better use of time if you submitted that science to a good peer-reviewed journal (one that isn’t part of the conspiracy) and see what happens. If you get knocked back, it’s because either your science is shit, or there is conspiracy against you.
I know I’m not the boss of this forum so we don’t have to discuss sources if you don’t want. Hey actually now I agree that sticking to peer-reviewed lit. would short circuit the discussion but that’s because you skeptics ASSUME the system is corrupted (assumptions are not what good skeptics make).
That Russian doc. you have will need explaining to those of us who can’t read it. I sure can’t. And if it is proof than go send it to a peer-reviewed journal or some law firm who thinks you have a case.
Tell us how it all goes, Anon.
@ Hunter and Waldo
who really cares about which side says what more often? No matter who said it first, two wrongs don’t make a right. And whoever said it the most doesn’t a proof of losing make.
@ Wally
Whose making logical fallacies?
For the third time, I still wanna know what you all think of this: (right,wrong?):
science is only responsive to science that has gone through the mainstream scientific processes. The skeptics believe these processes are corrupt, so there is no point submitting through the mainstream processes. So how does AGW skepticism get its point across?
December 21, 2009, 5:03 pmWaldo:
******”You seem to acknowledge that you were wrong to claim that I was misquoting AGW narrative regarding apocalypse. Is that true?”
Oh hunter, hunter, hunter, you seem to deliberately misunderstand me at every turn. (I actually never thought you were quoting anybody; it never occurred to me.)
So, let me set you straight: people, including AGW scientists, including you, including bloggers who insist on the end of the world, who grossly exaggerate in an attempt to mask the weakness of their statements have already lost the argument.
Silly hunter, you crack me up.
December 21, 2009, 7:52 pmhunter:
Waldo,
December 21, 2009, 8:06 pmYou don’t even know what your people say. Then you berate me, assuming I am just making up extreme statements.
Then I show you I am honestly quoting you.
Then you imply that I lost because I accurately quoted your schmuck extremists.
Then you come up with a psychotic statement that I am somehow predicting the end of the world.
By your own standards, you have lost, and your side has lost.
But, troll you are, behind your facade, to even comprehend how vapid you are.
I would agree with your assessment of who is losing and add that clever trolls, who carefully cultivate their ignorance, and blithely avoid actually acknowledging arguments and evidence, ahve already lost, as well.
Waldo:
“I accurately quoted your schmuck extremists”
Us vs. Them. Textbook.
And hunter does not see, and never will see, that he is an equal extremist to anybody he is “accurately quoting.” And no, hunter, you never quoted me – you may have quoted people just like you on the opposite end of the spectrum, but that’s all. I don’t like them any better than I like you, my good man. Both extreme ends are screwing up the honest evaluation of AGW as extremists do with so many things.
But this exchange is going nowhere.
December 21, 2009, 8:55 pmAnonymous:
@Shills:
“WHAT SENTENCE are you referring to?”
I meant my sentence “You suggest we stop questioning appeals to authority and switch to discussing which sources we think are most reliable??!” in which you apparently found no contradictions.
“let me correct your interpretation of it.”
I won’t. I paraphrased exactly what you said. Your exact phrase was “It is NOT an appeal to authority to say you trust an expert opinion more than a non expert, that makes sense.” It is wrong. Trusting a (scientific) opinion on the basis of its origin and not substance is exactly what appealing to authority is.
“That Russian doc. you have will need explaining to those of us who can’t read it. I sure can’t. And if it is proof than go send it to a peer-reviewed journal or some law firm who thinks you have a case.”
If you don’t understand science, all you contribute to the discussion are your personal beliefs. Do what you preach and leave the field to those who can discuss actual numbers, statistics and graphs (and in 90% of the cases this is college grad math, not difficult to follow) instead of fluffy stuff like beliefs.
And, if you are curious about the content of the Russian paper, it shows that:
When interpolating temperatures for Russia, CRU used only a small portion of the station data that has been available, covering only 60% of the country. The stations they chose to use were bad with respect to track length and track continuity. The majority of chosen stations were in cities instead of in rural regions (no shortage of those, CRU has just chosen not to use them). Data for some of the chosen stations has been altered, with the effect of the changes being to emphasize warming. The chosen stations show significantly higher warming trends than the remaining ones.
Let’s discuss that, maybe?
December 22, 2009, 12:27 amAnonymous:
@Shills:
I think I might have been a bit too harsh. Sorry for that. I stand by what I said, but I apologize for the tone. Let’s give it one more try.
First, your corrected message:
“The first part of the sentence invites not to FALSELY ACCUSE OF LOGICAL FALLACIES . The second part of the sentence invites to discuss questions related to authority.”
Corrected as above, this does not contain any contradictions.
However, this invites to discuss “who” instead of “what”, sources instead of science. I am not interested in that. Nor should anyone who wants to know whether we are seeing catastrophic AGW, and should take action, or not.
If you don’t feel qualified to discuss numbers and logic behind papers, that’s OK. What’s not OK is when you (might not be you personally, but we have an example in this thread already) start accusing others that they, too, are unqualified to do that, and that the only people who are qualified are “experts”. If you can’t tell exactly, with math and logic, why the critique is unsound, you have no grounds to dismiss that critique.
Second, Russian doc:
“That Russian doc. you have will need explaining to those of us who can’t read it. I sure can’t.”
If you meant the fact that the paper is in Russian, here is an English version:
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/iea1.pdf
December 22, 2009, 1:48 amShills:
@ Anon.
You said:
‘Your exact phrase was “It is NOT an appeal to authority to say you trust an expert opinion more than a non expert, that makes sense.” It is wrong. Trusting a (scientific) opinion on the basis of its origin and not substance is exactly what appealing to authority is.’
Sure, I agree the you shouldn’t trust science ‘on the basis of its origin and not substance’?
No one is saying that. Sure, it is a logical fallacy to take what scientists say as truth purely based on the fact that they are experts. That is a confusion of cause and effect:
the fallacy is to think: Expert – leads to – good research.
Where as in reality: good research – leads to – Expert. – leads to -probably reliable opinion
It is the standard of research, understanding, time devoted etc. that makes an expert opinion more reliable than a non expert. It is not a certainty, just a probability. But still, the probability that they are correct is higher than a non expert. It makes sense for a layperson to trust (more) an expert, just as it makes sense for a punter to go with the champion boxer and not the challenger. If the challenger wins, well then the challenger is proving himself in his chosen field and steadily becoming an expert worth bettin’ on.
Again, I agree that the research is what truly matters but, not everyone is able to analyse the research appropriately, so laypeople, undergrads writing a paper, politicians etc go with who are regarded as experts. NOT because they are experts, but because their work makes them experts.
There is no exclusivity to being an expert. Like you say, the research just requires ’substance’, and then they are possibly worth referencing.
If I was to say to you: I don’t care what you show me, you are wrong and the experts are right.–that would be an appeal to authority.
I merely say: not knowing the science, I feel safer betting on the expert side.
You say:
‘If you can’t tell exactly, with math and logic, why the critique is unsound, you have no grounds to dismiss that critique.’
I totally agree. As a layperson, I would certainly have no grounds for dismissing it, but I would be inclined to suspend judgement on it until some (other) experts have looked at it.
Re. that Russian paper you have:
Get it to the journals, or the court of law if the journals are corrupted. If this gets past the relevant hurdles then the authors too may become experts in my eyes.
December 22, 2009, 4:37 amAnonymous:
@Shills:
“Re. that Russian paper you have: Get it to the journals, or the court of law if the journals are corrupted. If this gets past the relevant hurdles then the authors too may become experts in my eyes.”
OK. In the meantime, here is an extensive list of papers supporting skepticism on catastrophic AGW, peer-reviewed:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
December 22, 2009, 6:35 amAnonymous:
@Shills:
I finally got to the article you mentioned before:
http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/
The code looks fine. The results of the analysis, however, show that adjustments made by GHCN add a slight positive trend to the raw data (0.2 C per century). That number should have been negative because most of the adjustments are made in order to negate factors like the human urban island effect.
The analysis also covered only some of the adjustments, that is, those made by GHCN. The go-to data set for hockey sticks is HadCRUT3, which differs from GHCN in that it:
(a) includes only some stations from GHCN (see the English translation of the Russian paper I cited, the Russians claim that CRU has cherry-picked at least the Russian stations) — the analysis above does NOT demonstrate that the net worth of the adjustments made to the subset of GHCN stations picked by CRU results in a 0.2 C per century trend, the trend on *raw* data created by cherry-picking Russian stations is 0.6 C, the trend on adjusted data might be significantly greater,
(b) includes stations from other data sets — the analysis above does NOT apply to them at all, there is evidence of cherry-picking *those* stations as well, particularly in Antarctica,
(c) applies other adjustments to station data on top of those made by GHCN — the analysys above does NOT and can not show what effect they have, the interesting bit is that nobody in the entire world, not even CRU, can say what that effect is – citing CRU: “For some stations both the adjusted and unadjusted time-series are archived at CRU and so the adjustments that have been made are known [Jones et al., 1985, Jones et al., 1986, Vincent & Gullet, 1999], but for most stations only a single series is archived, so any adjustments that might have been made (e.g. by National Met. services or individual scientists) are unknown.”
So, there you have it. The analysis is sound, it shows a warming bias in the data set that is a foundation for the homogenized data set that produces hockey sticks, and repeating that analysis on the homogenized data set is impossible, thanks to CRU not providing data and losing / deleting it.
December 22, 2009, 7:27 amhunter:
Waldo,
December 22, 2009, 9:23 amYou claim to not like your extremists, but your positions and policies seem to be no different from what they clamor for.
I would suggest that you are projecting regarding your blindness.
A great example is your inability to see problems with the theory you support.
But you and I can agree on this much: this conversation is not going to go very far.
So I do wish you and yours a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Regards,
Anonymous:
@Shills:
And one more thing on:
http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/
After thinking a bit more about the analysis above, I am now of the opinion that it is wrong.
The purpose of the analysis is to demonstrate that individual adjustments to stations cancel each other out and thus large adjustments to stations like Darwin don’t matter much, as there are symmetric adjustments to other stations with a different sign. Putting aside the fact that the net sum of all adjustments is a trend of 0.2 C per century, about a third of the total warming trend since 2000 shown by CRU and others, the net sum of all adjustments is far too simplistic a way to check whether or not the adjustments have any bias.
The way climatologists use station data is by interpolating them into temperature surfaces. Roughly speaking:
The Earth surface is being divided into rectangular cells in lat/lon, each cell gets assigned a certain temperature. If a particular cell contains exactly one station, it gets assigned a temperature associated with that station. If a cell contains more than one station, it gets assigned some kind of an average temperature of these stations (not necessarily t1+t2+…+tn / n). If a cell contains no stations, it gets assigned a temperature from the neighboring cells (long story).
All further global computations are being done on this grid of cells.
Now, it is easily seen that it is possible to have an equal number of the positive and negative adjustments arranged in such a way that, say, positive adjustments affect significantly less cells than negative ones. (Let’s say I have 10 positive and 10 negative adjustments. I put all positive adjustments into the same cell. I put each negative adjustment into its own cell. Done, there are many more cells with negative adjustments than there are cells with positive adjustments.) Thus, having a net sum of all adjustments be equal to zero does not necessarily guarantee that these adjustments cancel each other out on the grid. In fact, it is possible to have a net sum of all adjustments be, say, positive, with the net effect on the grid being negative.
The article thus does NOT show that individual adjustments cancel each other out (with regard to global numbers and graphs that are computed on the grid) and that picking on huge adjustments on stations like Darwin is pointless because of that.
December 22, 2009, 9:48 amhunter:
And just to make sure we are putting to bed the faux issue of blaming skeptics for the hyperbole associated with AGW, here is the title of Dr. Hansen’s newest book:
December 22, 2009, 1:08 pm“Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity, and much more.”
This is the same Hansen who calls for criminalization of cliamte dissent, as well as openly defends eco-criminals and calls for criminal activity in the name of ‘climate justice’.
Shills:
@ Anon
Fair enough with the papers. Lets see how it all goes. Any specifics on how the Russian study will be disclosed?
There is a lot of suspicion surrounding that pop. tech list. Namely the large number of papers from the Energy and Environment journal, which has been heavily criticised.
@ Hunter
Just to be clear, hyperbole is seen on either side of the argument.
Just go see this blog:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/
I used to think the peeps there were worth talking to, but now I prefer to come here.
December 23, 2009, 6:33 pmWaldo:
How very, very interesting. Both Anon. and Shills have made an excellent case for the unseaworthiness of the blogosphere. What a surprise.
Why would anyone with an increment of intelligence look for legitimate information there?
This is why we have peer review, refereed journals, and scientific agencies. So simple; so hard to get to. Probably because people so badly believe essentially what they want to believe. So they have blogs. Like this one.
December 23, 2009, 8:44 pmAnonymous:
“Both Anon. and Shills have made an excellent case for the unseaworthiness of the blogosphere.”
Just a small addition: …for someone who can’t or won’t check numbers and logic. For a person who can and will do it, it is easy to tell fluff from real scientific arguments. There is no shortage of either.
December 24, 2009, 12:13 amShills:
Cool. I am at least happy that my position, as a layperson, with the AGW science is validated due to expert consensus on the matter.
Would we say my position is more rational than all the laypersons who are against AGW?:
They are not able to analyse the science (like me), not able to tell if blog science is good or bad (like me), so can only go with the mainstream science (which I do), BUT DON”T because they have a belief in conspiratorial science that is only supported by blog science –that they aren’t equipped to judge in the first place. Kinda a begging the question logical fallacy?
So aren’t those laypeeps a little irrational?
December 24, 2009, 1:37 amAnonymous:
Well, there is an argument that you don’t have to be a scientist to smell rats when someone who claims to be a scientist hides his data and methods, making it impossible for other scientists to reproduce his results. Yes, that’s discussing “sources over substance” (which I, personally, won’t do), but these arguments work both ways.
With the Climategate letters, the point of view of a skeptic who is not willing to crunch numbers appears to me to be as valid as the point of view of a supporter who is similarly unwilling to crunch numbers. The only way to choose between these seemingly equal points of view is to start crunching numbers.
December 24, 2009, 4:20 amAnonymous:
And, to add to what I said:
Both me and others would dispute the statement that arguments against catastrophic AGW are only supported by blog science. I provided a link to the list of 500 peer-reviewed papers which make the case for skeptics (many times over). And it is *not at all clear* that the number of distinguished climate experts supporting the concept of catastrophic AGW exceeds the number of similar experts that don’t subscribe to it.
December 24, 2009, 4:31 amWally:
Shills,
Is your argument even factually correct (forgetting logical for now)?
Meaning, can you prove to me that “AGW science is validated due to expert consensus on the matter?”
If your first statement can’t be proven to be factually correct, your entire argument is crap. So please, find me that consensus would you…
December 24, 2009, 8:15 pmWally:
Also, Shills,
All lay-people are not created equal, nor are all of us lay-people.
December 24, 2009, 8:17 pmAnonymous:
By the way, the link to the list of 500 peer-reviewed papers which I mention above, was first provided in this thread by Wally (cheers!), not me. Not all of us are lay-people, indeed, or, alternatively, not all lay-people are completely inept when it comes to science.
December 25, 2009, 1:10 amShills:
validated in terms of logic, not in terms of facti
@ Wally
You said:
‘Is your argument even factually correct (forgetting logical for now)? Meaning, can you prove to me that “AGW science is validated due to expert consensus on the matter?”’
You have taken that quote out of context. I am not saying that the AGW science is validated due to the expert consensus. I am suggesting that my position is logically valid, due to the consensus.
Sure, it assumes the existence of the consensus. But I did just say my position is ‘validated’, not nec. sound.
You say:
‘If your first statement can’t be proven to be factually correct, your entire argument is crap [UNSOUND?}. So please, find me that consensus would you…
I think we agree.
But anyway about the consensus, you still doubt that? What would be required to convince you there is a consensus?
Wally says: — and so does Anon.
Also, Shills,
All lay-people are not created equal, nor are all of us lay-people.
What’s your point? If you know the science well enough than my argument need not apply. Whether you know it well enough is up to the scientific community, not a layperson.
@ Anon
You say: By the way, the link to the list of 500 peer-reviewed papers which I mention above, was first provided in this thread by Wally (cheers!), not me.
Fair enough, I wouldn’t want to be linked to that list either. It is heavily criticised.
December 25, 2009, 5:53 pmShills:
Whoops sorry ’bout the first line of my prev. post. It’s just notes i forgot to edit out.
December 26, 2009, 12:19 amADiff:
Shills,
“Whether you know it well enough is up to the scientific community, not a layperson.” “Well enough” for what? If you mean well enough to make policy decisions, then that is completely up to “laymen”, at least in a representative democracy. Policy is a matter of politics, not science, thank G_d!
Any “consensus” about Climate Change increasingly appears mostly Apologia, i.e. Fidelis Defensor, where the only real consensus is agreement as to what they’d like to be viewed as ’settled’. While most folks occasionally see what they want to see, the AGW community seems bound and determined everyone see only what they want to be seen. So they’ve taken the intellectually indefensible step of moving from being blind, to trying to blind others!
In a free society that kind of hubris is the kind of Madness the gods give men whom they would destroy.
December 26, 2009, 12:43 amAnonymous:
@Shills:
My note on not all lay-people being inept as regards science was in response to this phrase of yours:
“Would we say my position is more rational than all the laypersons who are against AGW?”
The answer to this, as posed, is “no”.
I also don’t have any problems linking to the list of 500 papers above. I am yet to hear any good critique of that list. All I ever heard was “look at the authors of this paper”. This goes straight into the dust bin (won’t explain why, I believe I said enough on this subject already). If you are aware of other, more substantial, critique of the list, you are more than welcome to share it here.
December 26, 2009, 2:51 amShills:
@ Adiff
You say:’“Well enough” for what? If you mean well enough to make policy decisions, then that is completely up to “laymen”, at least in a representative democracy. Policy is a matter of politics, not science, thank G_d!’
No one is talking about policy making here. Well enough for the scientist’s standards.
Re. consensus
You think the AGW community has forced/ coerced all these diverse groups into saying they support it? Why would they be so servile? And what power does the AGW community have to do this?
@ Anon.
You suggest that there is a type of layperson who could keep up with all the science as well as the scientists? They don’t sound like laypeople to me. They sound like experts who shouldn’t have too much trouble getting published if they tried.
You suggest there is a layperson-skeptic who who knows enough stuff that they can rationally doubt AGW but not know enough to produce any science on it?
Re. the list: I don’t know what you’ve already discussed about it so I don’t know what will be a ‘more substantial’ critique of it for you. What would?
Again what to you req. to be convinced of a consensus?
December 26, 2009, 5:51 amWally:
Waldo,
“I am not saying that the AGW science is validated due to the expert consensus. I am suggesting that my position is logically valid, due to the consensus. ”
Which begs the question, is there a consensus? Prove that first. But even if you do, this is just an appeal to authority. Try again please.
“But anyway about the consensus, you still doubt that? What would be required to convince you there is a consensus?”
When I stop reading journal articles disputing AGW? That might be a start. Maybe when the AGW argument convinces me. That would help too.
December 26, 2009, 12:15 pmADiff:
You’re the one advocating Policy, and so that’s responded to.
Coercion in the AGW community is now a matter of record, and has clearly been the case for some time now.
The main problem is government funding, which introduces all kinds of ideological and political aspects that really have no place at all in science.
The AGW community is pushing a religion and is clearly willing to falsify data to represent what it wants to be viewed as ’science’.
I still have yet to read one post by anyone posting here in support of Catastrophic Global Warming that presented any scientific answer to the scientific criticisms of the analysis of the AGW advocacy community or questioning it’s underlying assumptions of large positive feedback.
All I read from AGW supporters here is rhetoric and arguments from authority….so naturally these are what’s responded to. When asked why they think the questions raised about these assumptions aren’t valid all respondents can manage is “because so-and-so said so”. So in short, they’ve no answer at all as far as I can tell.
December 26, 2009, 12:28 pmShills:
@ Wally
I know you mean Shills, not Waldo.
You say:
‘“I am not saying that the AGW science is validated due to the expert consensus. I am suggesting that my position is logically valid, due to the consensus. ”
Which begs the question, is there a consensus?’
SURE I know that!! that’s why I say validated, not nec. sound — for the third time.
You say:
‘Prove that first. But even if you do, this is just an appeal to authority. Try again please.’
This is getting painful. Go learn what an appeal to authority is. Please.
you say:
‘“But anyway about the consensus, you still doubt that? What would be required to convince you there is a consensus?”
When I stop reading journal articles disputing AGW? That might be a start. Maybe when the AGW argument convinces me. That would help too.’
It’s weird that a lot of scientists who do read papers as well have come to a different understanding of the lit. than you. Why would there be this difference???
How does being convinced with something have any weight in determining whether there is a consensus or not on something? I don’t think Sydney is a great place to live but it is constantly in the top 10 world-wide. Maybe I am in the minority!!? Maybe you and your opinion are in the minority too!!
If I put every climate scientist in groups of AGW advocates, and skeptics, and you could plainly see where the overwhelming majority was, it seems you would STILL not believe the consensus because you haven’t being convinced of AGW. Doesn’t make sense does it.
A single opinion alone has nothing to do with determining the existence of a consensus.
Despite all this. Even if there was not a consensus but merely a 75 % majority, my position as a layperson with AGW would still have better probabilities than the layperson skeptics.
Again– Re. the list: I don’t know what you’ve already discussed about it so I don’t know what will be a ‘more substantial’ critique of it for you. What would?
@ Adiff
You say:
‘You’re the one advocating Policy, and so that’s responded to.’
What the hell are you talking about?
you say:
‘Coercion in the AGW community is now a matter of record, and has clearly been the case for some time now.
The main problem is government funding, which introduces all kinds of ideological and political aspects that really have no place at all in science.
The AGW community is pushing a religion and is clearly willing to falsify data to represent what it wants to be viewed as ’science’.’
Sounds like a complex conspiracy theory. You are gonna need a lot of evidence to convince anyone of such. When is this huge swindle gonna go to court?
You say:
‘I still have yet to read one post by anyone posting here in support of Catastrophic Global Warming that presented any scientific answer to the scientific criticisms of the analysis of the AGW advocacy community or questioning it’s underlying assumptions of large positive feedback.’
Maybe you should read outside this blog.
I don’t talk about the science because I leave that to the experts. If you wan’t to talk about science, go talk to scientists. If there is good science here then get it out there, where it will make any difference.
About the pos. feedback. what case do you have for that existing, and why do you think the scientists ignore or are ignorant of it –That conspiracy!? haven’t heard much about this.
Argument from authority? What do you know about argument from authority?
December 26, 2009, 6:03 pmNathan:
Three men can keep a secret if two are dead. – Benjamin Franklin
The President of the USA (most powerful man in the world) can’t get a BJ in the white house without the ENTIRE world finding out?
I’m sorry, anything that is called a conspiracy that involves not just 1-2 or people, but THOUSANDS, is an impossibility.
I think if intelligent people do some honest research they will find the VAST majority of highly qualified people will have consensus that global warming is a measurable and proveable event. In reading this blog I have not found one piece of credible information that debunks AGW.
I wonder if this same discussion was had when Columbus wanted to sail the ocean? I’m sure lots of people called him a “wacko”. I think in 100 years people will look back at us and think we were complete idiots.
December 27, 2009, 7:59 amWally:
Shills, this is painful, you’re right.
“I don’t think Sydney is a great place to live but it is constantly in the top 10 world-wide. Maybe I am in the minority!!? ”
Lets look up consensus: “A. general agreement, unanimity. B. group solidarity in sentiment and belief”
What do you think unanimity or solidarity mean? If there was consensus, there would be no minority opinion. There is no consensus Sydney is a great place to live. If there is disagreement, and no unanimous opinion, there is no consensus.
>Which begs the question, is there a consensus?’
SURE I know that!! that’s why I say validated, not nec. sound — for the third time. <
Great of you to understand this. Now answer the question and lets see if you argument is sound, which of course it isn’t, got it?
“A single opinion alone has nothing to do with determining the existence of a consensus. ”
Remind me, was I only relying on one opinion? No.
“Even if there was not a consensus but merely a 75 % majority, my position as a layperson with AGW would still have better probabilities than the layperson skeptics.”
Is this true? Can you prove that?
December 27, 2009, 10:57 amNathan:
Substitute consensus with vast majority.
December 27, 2009, 4:17 pmNathan:
Also, you forgot the entire definition, unless you feel Merriam Webster is a sham dictionary:
b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned
December 27, 2009, 4:24 pmAnonymous:
@Nathan:
“Substitute consensus with vast majority.”
Having a vast majority (of scientists or whoever else) agree on something doesn’t of course prove them right, not even probabilistically (see, eg, Galileo), but what the heck…
Show me your numbers.
You want to talk authorities, let’s.
December 27, 2009, 4:27 pmShills:
@ Nathan
See how the likeness to a conspiracy theory is ignored here. There is one horrible piece on conspiracy on the main page (Incentives and Conspiracies, Dec 9), but other than that they don’t seem to think about it much. Wonder why.
@ Wally
My Sydney example was not used to illustrate what a consensus is. It was used to show how stupid this sounds:
(my question): What would be required to convince you there is a consensus?
(Your answer): Maybe when the AGW argument convinces me.
Consensus, majority, 50%, 25% etc, etc. A single opinion alone has nothing to do with determining the existence of a collective opinion. You seem to agree with that now, and that’s why you said this:
(You say): ‘Remind me, was I only relying on one opinion? No.’
Well what am I supposed to think when your answer to my question about the existence of a consensus is:
(You say): ‘Maybe when the AGW argument convinces ME.’ (my caps).
And like I said earlier, even if there was not a consensus but merely a 75% majority, my broader argument (the one about a layperson’s position) still holds, I think.
@ Wally and Anon:
I say:
‘“Even if there was not a consensus but merely a 75 % majority, my position as a layperson with AGW would still have better probabilities than the layperson skeptics.”’
You both say something like:
‘Is this true? Can you prove that?’
–Whoops, I shouldn’t say ‘probabilities’ but rather ‘confidence’, I think. — The 75% is only an indication that the scientists mostly agree, not they their agreement is 75% likely to be correct.
Anon says: ‘Having a vast majority (of scientists or whoever else) agree on something doesn’t of course prove them right, not even probabilistically (see, eg, Galileo), but what the heck…’
I agree it doesn’t prove them right, thats a logical fallacy. I also take back the ‘probability’ mistake.
Anyway, What do you wan’t me to prove? That science is usually right?
It would only be rational for a layperson to go against science if it was shown that science was wrong more often than correct, or half the time. No one could honestly think modern science is wrong more times than correct, or half the time, that would be quite bizarre. I don’t think numbers are needed for that, Anon, are they?
The alternative for a layperson, to go against science, doesn’t make sense unless science can be shown to be, on average, incorrect or only 50 % correct.
Anon says: ‘You want to talk authorities, let’s.’
You have changed you mind or something? What about authorities do you wanna talk about?
Whether scientists are authorities on science? I think they are.
December 27, 2009, 7:03 pmWally:
“Substitute consensus with vast majority.”
Prove there is even a “vast majority” then prove that it matters.
December 27, 2009, 11:23 pmWally:
Shills,
>(my question): What would be required to convince you there is a consensus?
(Your answer): Maybe when the AGW argument convinces me. ‘Remind me, was I only relying on one opinion? No.’
Well what am I supposed to think when your answer to my question about the existence of a consensus is:
(You say): ‘Maybe when the AGW argument convinces ME.’ (
(my caps). <
And what where the two statements before that? This wasn’t my whole point. This will be the last time I explain this.
“And like I said earlier, even if there was not a consensus but merely a 75% majority, my broader argument (the one about a layperson’s position) still holds, I think. ”
Nice that you’re thinking, but you’re wrong. Its been explained in great detail, and your defense is to build a strawman out of my argument, pretending I’m arguing that I’m the only reason there is no consensus.
“The 75% is only an indication that the scientists mostly agree, not they their agreement is 75% likely to be correct. ”
So, why do I care again?
“It would only be rational for a layperson to go against science”
“Go against science?” WTF are you talking about? Is it not science itself that also remains skeptical of AGW?
“The alternative for a layperson, to go against science, doesn’t make sense unless science can be shown to be, on average, incorrect or only 50 % correct. ”
Shills, this is a huge red herring. To support or remain skeptical of AGW is not to also be supportive or skeptical of science in general.
Between your mistakes, manipulations, and fallicious arguments there is no point in talking to you.
December 27, 2009, 11:38 pmAnonymous:
@Shills:
“You want to talk authorities, let’s.” –
“You have changed you mind or something? What about authorities do you wanna talk about?”
I haven’t changed my mind in that I still think that counting how many people support a particular scientific position is a wrong way to judge whether this position is right or not.
But since the discussion seems to return to this question over and over again, let’s actually count how many scientists support catastrophic AGW and how many don’t. The “catastrophic” bit is important.
You seem to say there is an overwhelming majority. Show me your numbers. How many scientists support catastrophic AGW and how many don’t. Please provide a link to the source.
Over.
December 28, 2009, 12:33 amShills:
@ Wally
You say: And what where the two statements before that? This wasn’t my whole point. This will be the last time I explain this.
Sure, fair enough it wasn’t your whole point, but why does it have any weighting at all? It’s still a very silly condition of yours.
You say: Nice that you’re thinking, but you’re wrong. Its been explained in great detail, and your defense is to build a strawman out of my argument, pretending I’m arguing that I’m the only reason there is no consensus.
Lol. You accuse me of making strawmen? Well what is this?
(you say): ‘pretending I’m arguing that I’m the only reason there is no consensus.’
All I’m saying is that a single opinion (let alone your opinion) has nothing to do with determining the existence of a consensus. And it sounded like you were giving your opinion some undue weight. How did you go from this to that? How about we call it a draw re. the strawmen?
You say: ‘Nice that you’re thinking, but you’re wrong. Its been explained in great detail’
What exactly am I wrong about? The agreement factor? My broader argument? What are the details that show this?
‘“The 75% is only an indication that the scientists mostly agree, not they their agreement is 75% likely to be correct. ”
[You say]So, why do I care again?’
Well you might not care, but for lay peeps with decisions to make, knowing how confident experts are on a given issue helps. This is rational because experts usually know their chosen field very well, so are the best peeps to consult.
YOu say: Go against science?” WTF are you talking about? Is it not science itself that also remains skeptical of AGW?
Remember, that point of mine was a general hypothetical where science was useless at giving reliable answers. It was not about AGW, or any real science in particular. I was only using the hypothetical for a point of contention that I suggested in the absence of a clear idea of what I needed to prove to you and Anon. If you don’t like it, it doesn’t matter. Anyway, I think we all agree that science is usually right.
I said: The alternative for a layperson, to go against science, doesn’t make sense unless science can be shown to be, on average, incorrect or only 50 % correct. ”
You say: Shills, this is a huge red herring. To support or remain skeptical of AGW is not to also be supportive or skeptical of science in general.
Like I said it was a general hypothetical, I wasn’t saying anything about AGW. Would my red herring here actually be your strawman?
YOu say:’ Between your mistakes, manipulations, and fallicious arguments there is no point in talking to you. ‘
Well we all make mistakes. But I don’t think my argument is at all broken.
Again, Again– Re. the list: I don’t know what you’ve already discussed about it so I don’t know what will be a ‘more substantial’ critique of it for you. What would?
December 28, 2009, 6:16 amShills:
@ anon
you say: “You seem to say there is an overwhelming majority. Show me your numbers. How many scientists support catastrophic AGW and how many don’t. Please provide a link to the source.”
You think I should send out a survey or something? But what if I fudge it all up? How will you know? What sources will you be satisfied with if I got someone else’s survey?
Plus I never said ‘catastrophic’ why is that so important? because if I only look for an AGW consensus I’ll find one? Why would you need that extra adjective if you are confident there is no AGW consensus, or aren’t you?
December 28, 2009, 6:42 amShills:
@ Wally
Oh wait
You say: ‘pretending I’m arguing that I’m the only reason there is no consensus.’
You are referring to this right?:
‘If I put every climate scientist in groups of AGW advocates, and skeptics, and you could plainly see where the overwhelming majority was, it seems you would STILL not believe the…’
Sure my bad. Sorry. But it still doesn’t make sense for your opinion to be a factor.
December 28, 2009, 4:04 pmWally:
Shills,
Another mistake, man, we’re getting used to this,, aren’t we?
So why is it that my opinion, or anyone’s including your’s, isn’t a factor in deciding a consensus? All of us aren’t climate researchers, but if climate research were so cut and dry, with an obvious conclussion, we wouldn’t need to be in order for us to understand it. You know, kinda like how I understand F=ma or relativity.
December 28, 2009, 5:53 pmAnonymous:
@Shills:
“You think I should send out a survey or something? But what if I fudge it all up? How will you know? What sources will you be satisfied with if I got someone else’s survey?”
I asked a simple question. How many scientists do you think support the concept of catastrophic AGW and how many don’t, and what is your source. Do you or do you not have the numbers?
“Plus I never said ‘catastrophic’ why is that so important?”
The ‘catastrophic’ bit is absolutely essential, because that’s what is being disputed. We are emitting CO2. This produces some warming. Skeptics agree with this. What skeptics don’t agree with, among other things, is the claim that it has been shown that the amount of warming produced by man-made CO2 is significant. Read this blog. It lays out the point of view of skeptics pretty good.
December 28, 2009, 6:36 pmShills:
@ Wally
you say: ‘So why is it that my opinion, or anyone’s including your’s, isn’t a factor in deciding a consensus?’
Because personal opinion doesn’t matter, just the number of opinions of a particular
I don’t get where the mistake lies.
You say: ‘All of us aren’t climate researchers, but if climate research were so cut and dry, with an obvious conclussion, we wouldn’t need to be in order for us to understand it. You know, kinda like how I understand F=ma or relativity.’
I don’t get this either. Maths can often confuse me but that doesn’t mean there isn’t an obvious answer to a given problem.
I am pretty sure that a study is not nec. understandable by a non-expert if it’s conclusions are obvious or cut and dry. The conclusion could merely be the obvious answer to a complex bunch of esoteric premises.
Anyway I don’t think climate science is cut and dry.
December 28, 2009, 7:15 pmWally:
Shills,
>Lol. You accuse me of making strawmen? Well what is this?
(you say): ‘pretending I’m arguing that I’m the only reason there is no consensus.’
All I’m saying is that a single opinion (let alone your opinion) has nothing to do with determining the existence of a consensus.<
A consensus is made up of a multiple individual opinions. There is nothing wrong with what I’m saying. Not factually, not logically.
“And it sounded like you were giving your opinion some undue weight.”
How exactly are you determining how much weight my opinion is worth in the first place, let alone assuming how much weight you think I’m giving my opinion.
“How did you go from this to that? How about we call it a draw re. the strawmen?”
I’d be happy to, provided you convinced me I actually made a logical fallacy or use something as evidence that was not factually correct. You’ve done neither.
On this supposed 75% thing you state:
“Well you might not care, but for lay peeps with decisions to make, knowing how confident experts are on a given issue helps. This is rational because experts usually know their chosen field very well, so are the best peeps to consult.”
So tell me exactly how we determine who is most likely right, and to what extent, based on the percentage of scientists in a given field that believe something? Also, feel free to provide some evidence for this 75% (or anything remotely quantitative) in the first place.
“Remember, that point of mine was a general hypothetical where science was
useless at giving reliable answers.”
Which is an asinine hypothetical that only distracts from the issue at hand, meaning its a red herring.
“Well we all make mistakes. But I don’t think my argument is at all broken.”
Between admitted strawmen, mistakes, red herrings, begging the questions with this 75% issue, yeah, you’re argument is broken. There are so many holes through it, that if we are to continue, I suggest you start from scratch. Get some basic facts, make a logical argument from them.
December 28, 2009, 7:28 pmShills:
@ Wally
About the opinions thing.
(You said):
‘How exactly are you determining how much weight my opinion is worth in the first place, let alone assuming how much weight you think I’m giving my opinion.’
The problem is that you were after a particular (personal) opinion (you used the word ‘me’). This suggests you give your opinion more weight than if you merely said:
Maybe when the AGW argument convinces one more or 10 more scientists. This could include you if you are a scientist, but is not limited to you.
We can leave this issue if you wan’t because it is just dwelling on a set of conditions you may (or may not) hold in re. to your conviction of a consensus. I don’t think they were conditions I could fulfil anyway because I can’t stop you reading what papers you want. Maybe I’ll just focus on Anon’s conditions.
You say: ‘So tell me exactly how we determine who is most likely right, and to what extent, based on the percentage of scientists in a given field that believe something?’
Not sure what you’re asking here, can you rephrase? I’ll just say:
The less contention around something the more certain the experts are on it. They have all done studies on something and come to similar conclusions. Assuming things are done right, why would this happen? Maybe because they a close to the right answer?
You say: ‘Which is an asinine hypothetical that only distracts from the issue at hand, meaning its a red herring.’
Lol. You don’t think your being a little harsh?
Because you guys, Anon and you, don’t tell me what is exactly wrong with certain statements, I try to guess what the issue might be, hence the hypothetical which was certainly not a red herring (you are entitled to think it’s asinine though). These are the things I’m waiting for clarification on:
- (What would satisfy Anon re. a consensus) ‘You think I should send out a survey or something? But what if I fudge it all up? How will you know? What sources will you be satisfied with if I got someone else’s survey?’
-(Wally and Anon)“And like I said earlier, even if there was not a consensus but merely a 75% majority, my broader argument (the one about a layperson’s position) still holds, I think. ”
(wally says):Nice that you’re thinking, but you’re wrong. Its been explained in great detail, —– what is this great detail?
-(For Anon) ‘Again, Again– Re. the list: I don’t know what you’ve already discussed about it so I don’t know what will be a ‘more substantial’ critique of it for you. What would?’
-(For Adiff) About the pos. feedback. what case do you have for that existing, and why do you think the scientists ignore or are ignorant of it?
@ Anon:
You said: ‘I asked a simple question. How many scientists do you think support the concept of catastrophic AGW and how many don’t, and what is your source. Do you or do you not have the numbers?’
There is a lot of wiggle room between catastrophic and insignificant. AGW can still be worth stopping and not be catastrophic. What kind of sources will you be satisfied with if I got someone else’s survey?’
December 29, 2009, 3:14 amAnonymous:
@Shills:
“There is a lot of wiggle room between catastrophic and insignificant. AGW can still be worth stopping and not be catastrophic. What kind of sources will you be satisfied with if I got someone else’s survey?”
You seem to be dodging the question. I am asking what numbers do you have and what is their source. Nothing more, nothing less. I might find your source to be a bad one, but that’s another topic completely.
Now, for the third time:
How many scientists do you think support the concept of catastrophic AGW, how many don’t, and what is your source?
December 29, 2009, 6:51 amWally:
Shills,
“We can leave this issue if you wan’t because it is just dwelling on a set of conditions you may (or may not) hold in re. to your conviction of a consensus.”
Nevermind the fact that you’re obviously wrong on this issue and that its relatively trivial to your main argument? Anyway, glad we’re making progress.
“The less contention around something the more certain the experts are on it.”
And if you’re paying attention you find a lot of contention over AGW (yes not just on blogs but in peer reviewed journals as well). This is the central fact to your argument that you have not been able prove one way or another.
“They have all done studies on something and come to similar conclusions.”
What? This is a factual statement that need a source. I could site litterally hundreds of papers that don’t come to “similar conclusions.”
On your hypothetical: “Lol. You don’t think your being a little harsh?”
No. You’re creating a hypothetical argument for the purpose of distracting us from the orginal argument. You want us to argue about some sort of pro or anti-science belief structure. That’s very different than discussing the actual science of AGW, the disenting research, and the meaning of both. Both things are science. So, no I’m not being harsh, in fact I’m being nice. Your hypothetical is not only a red herring, its plain dumb to think it is in any way similar to our actual argument.
December 29, 2009, 8:47 amADiff:
Shills….
“-(For Adiff) About the pos. feedback. what case do you have for that existing, and why do you think the scientists ignore or are ignorant of it?”
Your question only makes sense if you’re ignorant of the whole set of issues central to ‘climate-skeptic’. Please review Warren’s Phoenix presentation and you’ll see what’s meant by the ‘positive feedback’ issue. It’s the sine qua non of Catastrophic Global Warming, and appears almost unsupportable (as well as contradicted by the data). So go back and see what it is I’m talking about, then ask me question that makes sense.
December 29, 2009, 3:49 pmShills:
@ Anon
You said: ‘How many scientists do you think support the concept of catastrophic AGW, how many don’t, and what is your source?’
Lol, dude. Like I said, ‘catastrophic’ is prob. too narrow. It is prob. not the word the AGW agreement statements use, but that’s a guess. If, like you said, the contention is around the quality of being catastrophic, then does that mean a consensus might exist around less extreme AGW, which might still be worth stopping?
You say: ‘ You seem to be dodging the question’
Well that makes two of us. My reason for dodging the question is because, as mentioned, I don’t think the issue surrounds the catastrophic distinction, so why bother? Why do you ignore my question?:
–(getting evidence of consensus) You think I should send out a survey or something? But what if I fudge it all up? How will you know? What sources will you be satisfied with if I got someone else’s survey?’ I don’t want to waste time getting sources you’ve already established as bogus.
Anyway, if you want me to give you a number for ‘catastrophic’ I can’t. But I think, being a possibly extreme view, it would not be a majority view, but I dunno.
@ Wally
You say: ‘Nevermind the fact that you’re obviously wrong on this issue and that its relatively trivial to your main argument?’
We can continue the discussion if you want. either way, I still don’t think I’m wrong, and you haven’t shown that. You seem to think obvious conclusions are easily understood (your post: Dec 28, 5:53) so you shouldn’t have much trouble explaining this to me.
You say: ‘What? This is a factual statement that need a source. I could site litterally hundreds of papers that don’t come to “similar conclusions.”’
Is that the pop. tech list? ( I think you mean ‘cite’). If these papers you refer to are significant than why aren’t they changing the consensus, or are they? Anyway, obviously we better come to a mutual understanding of ’similar conclusion’.
You say: You’re creating a hypothetical argument for the purpose of distracting us from the orginal argument.
Wow, you really are pained over this hypothetical. I told you my motives for the hypothetical, why do you ignore this and so readily assume it was a purposeful distraction? The hypothetical was a back to basics of sorts or kinda first principles which we would likely both agree on –that science is a very good source. You can’t deny that this belief is integral to a debate around science. Again, its not like you gave me anything much else to go on, remember.
You say: ‘its plain dumb to think it is in any way similar to our actual argument.’
No one was drawing a comparison, it was just a general statement.I claim it is related, relevant, but not ’similar’.
(Again). You said: ‘So tell me exactly how we determine who is most likely right, and to what extent, based on the percentage of scientists in a given field that believe something?’
Not sure what you’re asking here, can you rephrase?
(Again)-(Wally)“And like I said earlier, even if there was not a consensus but merely a 75% majority, my broader argument (the one about a layperson’s position) still holds, I think. ” (wally says):Nice that you’re thinking, but you’re wrong. Its been explained in great detail, —– what is this great detail?
@ ADiff
You say: ‘Your question only makes sense if you’re ignorant of the whole set of issues central to ‘climate-skeptic’.’
Well no duh. Most questions only make sense when the asker is ignorant of something related to thing thing being questioned.
You say: ‘So go back and see what it is I’m talking about, then ask me question that makes sense.’
What’s with the attitude? Did you have a bad christmas or something?
Anyway, I’ll look in to the Warren stuff. Do you mean the physics-based positive feedback or the social phenomena? What is Phoenix? Anyway, how is he privy to all this stuff? How come the experts over-looked this, any ideas?
December 31, 2009, 5:21 amWally:
Shills,
You say: “You seem to think obvious conclusions are easily understood (your post: Dec 28, 5:53) so you shouldn’t have much trouble explaining this to me. ”
Huh? In that post I wasn’t talking about anything that I needed to explain to you, I was talking about AGW scientists needing to be able to convince other intellegent and educated people, particularly scientists in other fields, that their research proves their conclussion. So far they haven’t done a very good job of that.
This really is comedy here:
>If these papers you refer to are significant than why aren’t they changing the consensus, or are they?Anyway, obviously we better come to a mutual understanding of ’similar conclusion’.No one was drawing a comparison, it was just a general statement.I claim it is related, relevant, but not ’similar’.<
Use related or relevant if you like, I will still disagree for the same reasons. Your hypothetical is not sufficiently relevant or related to this argument to be instructive. You can keep repeating yourself changing out a couple of words all day, you still aren’t making a good argument.
As for this that wasn’t addressed to me:
“Most questions only make sense when the asker is ignorant of something related to thing thing being questioned.”
Well, until you reach a certain level of understanding of the background material it going to be difficult to have an argument with you. The simple reason for that is that before this argument can take place we will first have to catch you up on this background, which non of us likely have the time to do, so we ask you to read up on it yourself. Thus far it seems your stubbornly hanging on to your ignorance, particularly surrounding the consensus issue. As you have probably noticed, no one here is going to listen to you until you stop using the supposed consensus in your arguments. To put it simply, there is no consensus. Various people would like you to believe that, and its relatively popular among the media to believe that, but it simply isn’t true. Here’s a good article writen by a climate researcher at MIT, Richard Lindzen (who’s name you may have noticed), explaining the lack of a concensus: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
December 31, 2009, 12:29 pmHere’s an earlier one: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
Anonymous:
@Shills:
“My reason for dodging the question is because, as mentioned, I don’t think the issue surrounds the catastrophic distinction, so why bother?”
Earlier you said:
“Would we say my position is more rational than all the laypersons who are against AGW?”
You don’t think the debate is about whether or not AGW is catastrophic? Why don’t you find out what the debate is about, before mulling over the rationality of your position?
And here are answers to your questions, which I haven’t answered before because they are simply *irrelevant* to the scientific discussion:
“You think I should send out a survey or something?” No.
“But what if I fudge it all up?” I don’t care.
“How will you know?” I don’t care.
“What sources will you be satisfied with if I got someone else’s survey?” Come up with the source and I will say my opinion of it after that.
“I don’t want to waste time getting sources you’ve already established as bogus.” Tough. You said that “the AGW science is validated due to expert consensus on the matter”.
If you are talking about science that appears in reports made by IPCC, please tell us how exactly did you measure the numbers of scientists that do and don’t support these reports. These reports, by the way, make a case for *catastrophic* AGW, the way this term is used in this area.
If you are talking about a simple case of man emitting CO2 and CO2 warming the planet, without any conclusions whatsoever, yes, there is consensus in that (doh!) and nobody here speaks otherwise. It is a bit silly to try and argue that there is a consensus on this simple issue in the blog that discusses something much more complex and important, but well… it happens.
If you are talking about something else, please, tell us exactly what the hell are you talking about?!
Anyway, as I say, you will do good by first familiarizing yourself with what exactly is the issue. Good luck.
January 1, 2010, 6:17 pmhunter:
To get back on to the topic of this post, the social mania underlying AGW, here is a good NYT op-ed piece:
January 1, 2010, 11:20 pmhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/opinion/01dutton.html?ref=opinion
Those defending AGW by critiquing the skeptics are missing the point.
Shills:
@ Anon.
You said: ‘You don’t think the debate is about whether or not AGW is catastrophic?’
This particular page has mainly being writing ‘AGW’ not ‘catastrophic AGW’. If we are actually talking about ‘catastrophic AGW’ you are the only one (I think) who has being good enough to maintain that clarification, and I have been oblivious to it. No blame to point, but I was not aware. I thought the disputes ranged from whether AGW is real, or AGW is significant.
YOu say: ‘These reports, by the way, make a case for *catastrophic* AGW, the way this term is used in this area.’
Are you saying that the kind’s of risk scenarios given in the IPCC are equivalent to the term ‘catastrophic’ in this area? And Just to be fair, you’re pretty much the only person using the term consistently on this page.
You say: ‘And here are answers to your questions, which I haven’t answered before because they are simply *irrelevant* to the scientific discussion:’
How are the questions ’simply *irrelevant*’? What are the stars for?
You say: ‘Tough. You said that “the AGW science is validated due to expert consensus on the matter”.’
Lol! No I didn’t. This is the second time that line has been taken out of context, first Wally, then Anon.
And I am not obliged to waste time getting info from sources you won’t accept. Maybe obliged to back up my opinion that a consensus exists, but it is a fair request of mine to want to know what kinds of sources would satisfy as backing it up first. Anyway, there is no point giving you sources until we have a mutual understanding of what ‘catastrophic AGW’ means.
January 1, 2010, 11:22 pmWally:
Shills,
“Anyway, there is no point giving you sources until we have a mutual understanding of what ‘catastrophic AGW’ means.”
Seriously? Do we have to draw you map? Maybe next we’ll need to explain what the meaning of “is” is?
January 2, 2010, 2:42 pmAnonymous:
@Shills:
“Anyway, there is no point giving you sources until …”
Yes, we’ve heard that already. “Why should we give you our data when all you want to do with it is to try and prove us wrong.” Rather characteristic.
You are bluffing. You don’t have any sources to back up your words about any kind of consensus on the topic of AGW other than kindergarten-level logic about man-emitted CO2 warming the planet somewhat.
Your attempts to stray the discussion away by asking irrelevant questions like “what the stars are for” are pathetic.
January 2, 2010, 6:58 pmhunter:
Anonymous,
January 2, 2010, 7:56 pmThe interesting thing that you have gotten Shills to demonstrate is the consistent pattern of AGW true believers when confronted with that reality that the AGW social movement is all about apocalyptic climate catastrophes.
They nearly always pretend that there is no evidence that there is anyone on the AGW promotion side who claims that there is an apocalyptic belief strongly associated with their theory.
It is as if they do not really have the strength of their declared convictions.
But without the catastrophe, what do they have?
Shills:
@ Wally
You say: ‘Seriously? Do we have to draw you map?’
Well, excuse me for being careful.
I don’t think there is a standard definition for ‘catastrophe’ in the IPCC. I have seen them use it for regional events such as flooding and drought, up to global events such as the disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
Anyway, I have no problem with major droughts and floods being called catastrophic. And if that is the kind of ‘catastrophic’ you guys mean than I’ll go with that. And that would mean you guys dispute the IPCC projections classed as ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’, broadly speaking?
@ Anon.
You say: ‘You are bluffing. You don’t have any sources to back up your words about any kind of consensus on the topic of AGW other than kindergarten-level logic about man-emitted CO2 warming the planet somewhat.’
Lol. All I wanted was a some indication of what sources you don’t like and some clarification on the ‘catastrophic’ distinction. Anyhoo, I think I have enough of an idea of the term ‘catastrophic’ now. I’ll give it a shot. Although thanks for nothing re. sources you won’t accept. Also I doubt anyone uses the term ‘catastrophic’, prob. more like ‘dangerous’, ‘adverse’.
You say: ‘Your attempts to stray the discussion away by asking irrelevant questions like “what the stars are for” are pathetic.’
Lol. You guys are neurotic. A brief answer to my question would not deflect much attention away from this discussion, you know that.
@ Hunter
You say: ‘that reality that the AGW social movement is all about apocalyptic climate catastrophes.’
I’m not concerned with the social movement, just the science. Apocalyptic seems like a too strong-a word for what the science predicts.
@ Anon.
You say: ‘“Anyway, there is no point giving you sources until …”
Yes, we’ve heard that already. “Why should we give you our data when all you want to do with it is to try and prove us wrong.” Rather characteristic.’
‘…UNTIL we have a mutual understanding of what ‘catastrophic AGW’ means.’ Or at least give me some more clues as to what skeptics dispute.
lol you guys are neurotic (explain stars) only one little question.
January 3, 2010, 1:28 amShills:
Woops. that stuff after the second ‘@ Anon.’ are notes I forgot to delete.
January 3, 2010, 1:32 amShills:
And just so you all don’t get too excited. I doubt I can find many, if any, of those consensus agreement statements or surveys that explicitly say they accept the IPCC’s ‘catastrophic’ predictions. If that is what you are asking than I am prob. beat.
Lol. I guess those surveys and statements came out when the skeptic position was against simple AGW, not just ‘catastrophic’ AGW, which it seems the position has changed to.
It’ll be interesting to see where this goes…
January 3, 2010, 2:37 amShills:
Just to be clear. I wouldn’t be beat in the sense that my arg. is not proved, all I need is expert consensus for that. I was just starting broad…
January 3, 2010, 2:53 amhunter:
Shills,
January 3, 2010, 4:46 pmYou can tell yourself you are only concerned about the science, but so what?
AGW theory lives in the public square, and its believers demand certain public policies and they are all justified by claims that if those policies are not implemented, things will get very bad.
If you were actually concerned about the science as you claim to be, you would not fail to note that
1- no catastrophe is even near to happening
2- the track record of apocalyptic claims is .000
3- many of the claims allegedly proving AGW theory are well within moe and natural variability
4- no predictive claims about AGW caused weather events have proven to be true
Anonymous:
@Shills:
You came into this thread speaking about skeptics trying to go against the consensus (yes, let’s make things simple, we are speaking about the consensus on what is considered “likely” or “very likely” in IPCC reports). You posted mountains of words on how it makes more sense to go with the consensus even though having the majority of whoever agree on something doesn’t necessarily make them right. Now you say that you will try to find a source that would demonstrate that the consensus exists, and you are feeling like you might not find such a source. But if you are only starting to look for such a source now and feel like you might not be able to find it, this is proof positive that you didn’t have that source when going into the discussion. That is, you were talking about there being a consensus with no basis. You were bluffing.
That’s it.
January 3, 2010, 6:02 pmShills:
@ Hunter:
Well yes, like you said ‘will get very bad’. It doesn’t mean anything terrible is going to happen tomorrow. The IPCC seems to think that most of the observed changes are in line with warming.
@ Anon.
Hold her steady. The issue focused on now is that of evidence showing explicitly whether peeps agree with IPCC predictions. This is something new that you brought to the table. Remember, originally I thought we were arguing about the existence of AGW or significant AGW. Most peeps here only say ‘AGW’, be it a loose term. That is the level of consensus/dispute my prev. stuff assumed. We are now looking for something much more specific.
January 3, 2010, 7:34 pmAnonymous:
@Shills:
As I pointed out several times, it is a bit stupid to be arguing whether or not CO2 can produce some warming. It is also a bit stupid to think that this is where the debate is. But, all right, let’s put this aside and try out one more time.
Do you think there is a consensus on the content of IPCC papers?
If you don’t, you are in the same boat as skeptics and the answer to your question “would we say my position is more rational than all the laypersons who are against AGW?” is “no, if by the laypersons you mean the readers of this blog”. If you didn’t mean the readers of this blog, then the answer is “meh, maybe, but why are we talking about that here”.
If you do, we’ve made a full circle.
January 4, 2010, 12:25 amAnonymous:
To make it crystal clear, the readers of this blog – as well as the author of this blog – do NOT argue that CO2 does not produce warming. They argue something else and usually use the term “AGW” as a shorthand for “AGW of the scale pictured in IPCC reports”.
January 4, 2010, 12:30 amhunter:
Shills,
January 4, 2010, 6:32 amAre you then saying that AGW is not producing a climate crisis?
Shills:
@ Anon.
You say: ‘As I pointed out several times’.
Well you’ve only said something of the sought twice to me, not several. Let’s not get carried away.
You say: ‘it is a bit stupid to be arguing whether or not CO2 can produce some warming. It is also a bit stupid to think that this is where the debate is’.
No one was suggesting that anyway.
I don’t understand your if-yes/no-then paragraph. Could you rephrase.
You say: ‘To make it crystal clear…’
So does man-made CO2 produce warming? Is the man-made warming significant?
@ Hunter:
You say: ‘Are you then saying that AGW is not producing a climate crisis?’
What does the ‘Are you then’ part follow from? I don’t think it follows from our last words.
I do think there is a climate crisis.
January 4, 2010, 5:31 pmhunter:
Shills,
January 4, 2010, 7:59 pmWhat evidence do you have of a crisis?
Shills:
@ Hunter
Your question is kinda similar to another one I’m giving a shot at so hold up for that.
January 4, 2010, 11:29 pmAnonymous:
@Shills:
You think there is a climate crisis for which there is a consensus, yet you can’t tell us why exactly you think so.
You ask me to clarify the “if-yes / no-then” part of my post without actually answering the question that it was written for (do you think there is a consensus on the content of IPCC papers?).
You don’t really want to talk about science, do you? You’d rather discuss the meaning of the word “several”. Pretty sad.
January 5, 2010, 2:08 amAnonymous:
@Shills:
To save you an effort of writing an obligatory “but you don’t answer my questions, too” post, here are answers to your two questions:
“So does man-made CO2 produce warming?” Yes.
“Is the man-made warming significant?” No, it does not look that way from the data that we have.
January 5, 2010, 2:15 amShills:
@ Anon.
You say: ‘You think there is a climate crisis for which there is a consensus, yet you can’t tell us why exactly you think so.’
Hmm. I don’t think you are recognising the distinction here. What you have asked me to show is specific agreement with the IPCC’s predictions. That is harder to show than the general consensus that AGW is significant, and thus poses a high risk/ crisis for the future. See the dif?
You say: ‘do you think there is a consensus on the content of IPCC papers’
The IPCC says specific things, such as confidence levels here and there. I think there is a general agreement, prob. consensus, on the broader points, but some significant variance on the specifics.
You say: ‘You’d rather discuss the meaning of the word “several”. Pretty sad.’
Forgive me if I don’t like being portrayed inaccurately. Fair enough, no?
You say: ‘To save you an effort of writing an obligatory…’
If your on a role:
Remember this one.– The pop. tech. list: I don’t know what you’ve already discussed about it so I don’t know what will be a ‘more substantial’ critique of it for you. What would?
You could just link me to your discussion on it.
January 5, 2010, 4:42 amAnonymous:
@Shills:
“What you have asked me to show is specific agreement with the IPCC’s predictions. That is harder to show than the general consensus that AGW is significant, and thus poses a high risk/ crisis for the future. See the dif?”
I don’t know what exactly do you mean by AGW being significant, in terms of numbers. What do you mean by that and what is your source for claiming the consensus?
“The IPCC says specific things, such as confidence levels here and there. I think there is a general agreement, prob. consensus, on the broader points, but some significant variance on the specifics.”
OK. What is your source for this?
“Remember this one.– The pop. tech. list: I don’t know what you’ve already discussed about it so I don’t know what will be a ‘more substantial’ critique of it for you. What would?”
Scientific critique of scientific points made in papers that form the list.
Examples:
Links to raw data and source code used to create HadCRUT3 and similar data sets, with the resulting data showing the same curves as those in IPCC reports. That would deny skeptics their points on not being able to reproduce the results of pro-AGW folks (meaning pro-catastrophic AGW).
Exact descriptions of adjustments made to raw data, with rationale behind them that makes sense. Exact descriptions of selection criteria for stations, again, with rationale that makes sense. That would deny skeptics their points on raw data being bended and cherry-picked to fit the presupposed notion of catastrophic warming.
Scientific defense of the method of judging a physical variable by its proxies used by Mann, which generates hockey sticks on any kind of data, including random data.
Scientific defense of the claim of climate being dominated by positive-feedback loops. Scientific defense of the claim that, similarly to the predicted warming, the recent cooling is a result of such a positive-feedback loop that was apparently unaccounted for during previous analysis made by pro-AGW folks (meaning pro-catastrophic AGW again).
I can go on and on and on.
January 5, 2010, 8:53 amhunter:
Shills,
January 5, 2010, 1:42 pmIf there is no crisis, why do we need crisis management?
Wally:
Shills,
“Forgive me if I don’t like being portrayed inaccurately. Fair enough, no? ”
Several: 2 a : more than one b : more than two but fewer than many c chiefly dialect : being a great many
Good lord man….several can mean as few as two. I don’t see where Mr. Anonymous is portraying you inaccurately at all.
January 5, 2010, 2:37 pmShills:
@ Anon.
By significant I mean not negligible. But I think the consensus hangs around the idea that the observed warming is mostly AGW.
The evidence for this is everywhere. Here is a recent survey:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf.
You say: OK. What is your source for this?
similar question to the main question I’ll answer soon-ish
About the list. I can’t comment on the science. If it’s good science than it’s being looked at. But you don’t think that list was dishonest in anyway?
@ Hunter:
You say: ‘If there is no crisis, why do we need crisis management?’
I didn’t say there was no crisis.
@ Wally:
What dictionary is that? Fair enough. All of mine say ‘more than 2′.
January 5, 2010, 6:57 pmAnonymous:
@Shills:
A small remark:
“About the list. I can’t comment on the science. If it’s good science than it’s being looked at. But you don’t think that list was dishonest in anyway?”
I am repeating myself, but I would rather discuss science than sources. It seems rather wasteful to theorize about what might be written in a paper, when you can read it. If you can’t reason about the actual science in the paper, that’s fine, but please keep in mind that any general arguments you can make about possible biases that the authors might or might not have had carry a much lower weight than factual arguments about the content.
Now for the real meat:
“I don’t know what exactly you mean by AGW being significant, in terms of numbers. What do you mean by that and what is your source for claiming the consensus?”
“By significant I mean not negligible. But I think the consensus hangs around the idea that the observed warming is mostly AGW. The evidence for this is everywhere. Here is a recent survey: …”
This is quite illustrative. I am specifically asking to clarify the use of the word “significant” with numbers (eg, how many degrees of warming will human-induced AGW account for during the course of a century). You don’t cite any numbers and instead “clarify” the word “significant” to mean “non negligible”, which is just another word with no numbers behind it.
The paper that you cite suffers from the same problem. The two questions asked to the respondents were (the majority answered “yes” to both):
“1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
My answer here would be “yes” as well. Does that mean that I support the notion of catastrophic AGW? No, not at all. The warming that we recently had was relatively small, not at all atypical given the history of the Earth, attempts to show that the warming will get out of hand in the near future to date have been absolutely abysmal and do not hold any ground, and so on and so forth.
“2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
Well, doh, I personally would probably answer “no” because I know this is a loaded question, but many would answer “yes” meaning “yes, it makes sense to spend time to research the link between human activity and global temperatures”. Answering “yes” is, again, in no way an endorsement of the notion of catastrophic AGW in general or the (rather strange, to put it mildly) science in IPCC reports in particular.
It would have been better to ask questions like “3. Do you agree with the predictions regarding climate made in IPCC report X?” or “4. Do you think the Earth will warm by Y degrees in the coming 100 years?”, but of course we never see the proponents of catastrophic AGW using questions like these, because yes, you guessed it, there is no consensus there.
So, there we have it. Whatever consensus pro-AGW folks (catastrophic AGW) claim to exist invariably turns out to be related to something trivial, like a consensus on whether or not it makes sense to research the impact of human activity on the climate (doh!). There is nothing close to a consensus on numbers like the amount of warming or cooling that we are going to experience in the coming century. It is the numbers that are vital for deciding whether or not the warming is significant enough *to take action about it* (keeping things simple and putting numerous complexities like the efficiency of proposed actions and the merits of various economical trade-offs aside). Yet, somehow having no consensus on these numbers does not prevent the proponents of catastrophic AGW from pretending that there is one and making recommendations to policy makers (!).
January 6, 2010, 3:38 amhunter:
Shills,
January 6, 2010, 6:34 amPlease stop evading.
If there is a crisis, where is this crisis?
Please be clear.
What does it look like?
What is this crisis doing?
Shills:
@ Anon.
About the list. Well if you don’t care much about the sources of articles than you will looked fairly on these realclimate refutations of some of those papers.
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/450-more-lies-from-the-climate-change-deniers/
(not sure if all links work)
‘2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
Well, doh, I personally would probably answer “no” because I know this is a loaded question, but many would answer “yes” meaning “yes, it makes sense to spend time to research the link between human activity and global temperatures”. Answering “yes” is, again, in no way an endorsement of the notion of catastrophic AGW in general or the (rather strange, to put it mildly) science in IPCC reports in particular.
So are you saying that the peeps that answered yes to Q. 2, are agreeing that AGW is happening? Or merely saying that it is worth seeing if there is any AGW?
I agree that this survey falls on the vagueness of the term ’significant’. The only thing this survey shows is that they think AGW is happening. You agree? I now agree that responses ‘yes’ to Q. 2 do not nec. indorse that the warming is mostly human induced, or catastrophic, but could include it.
But we agree that this survey shows a consensus that AGW is happening at some level, big or very small?
@ Hunter
The crisis is holding back the temp. increases to avoid the predicted negative impacts of those temp. increases in the future. Read a wiki or something.
January 6, 2010, 6:12 pmWally:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/several
About that survey, how in the world are their only 79 climate researches with “recent” publications? And aren’t you biasing your sample by only surveying people that actively publish on “climate change?” How do the authors determine who’s publishing on “climate change?” What if someone did research to find no such thing as climate change? Does that count?
January 6, 2010, 6:49 pmAnonymous:
@Shills:
“So are you saying that the peeps that answered yes to Q. 2, are agreeing that AGW is happening? Or merely saying that it is worth seeing if there is any AGW?”
I think that if we get to the bottom of it, it is the latter. Everyone has heard by now scary tales of how we are all going to die due to the warming that we create, so when posed with a question formulated like the one in the article, people tend to err on the safe side and essentially say to themselves “can I say that we are not changing the climate? no… let’s then say that human activity is a significant factor, even though I don’t know that either, so that we can hope to find out what exactly is going on here”.
I bet if the question was formulated in the following way: “Do you think that human activity is / is not / might be a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”, most people would go for “might be”.
January 6, 2010, 7:33 pmShills:
@ Wally:
The survey covers more than just active publishers, so it’s not biased to specialists. And even if it was just of published climate scientists, that does not constitute a bias unless you have reason to believe that this group is being dishonest. Also the article says it included dissenting opinions. And the 79 only includes those that have more han 50% of their published lit. on climate change.
Anon. says:
‘I bet if the question was formulated in the following way: “Do you think that human activity is / is not / might be a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”, most people would go for “might be”.’
Look at the graph again, there are three responses.
January 6, 2010, 8:18 pmWally:
Shills,
I know the entire survey isn’t biased. But if you are to ask people that publish the most in a particular field if humans are causing something in that field, I think they are naturally inclined to say “yes.” After all, the areas we fund the most are areas we think we can effect (compare biomedical funding to say physics funding). I think Anonymous has explained this reasoning pretty well. I also dispute that a mere 79 people constitutes enough of a sample to speak for the entire climate change research community. It also seems that this 50% and 5 years is a very arbitrary set of standards to determine who is considered a “specialists.” Do you some how loose your specialists title when your publications on a specific climate research topic drop to 49%?
“unless you have reason to believe that this group is being dishonest.”
I very much think we have reason to doubt the honesty of this group. Have you not been paying attention to the emails, data loses, methods that produce the same result when using random data, etc.? Their honesty is very much in question.
January 7, 2010, 10:05 amhunter:
Shills,
January 7, 2010, 4:06 pmReading wiki, since it is clear that their climate editor is corrupt and rewriting history to misrepresent AGw and skeptics(Orwellian efforts, for the troll), would be a waste of time.
Instead of being so vague, give us a flavor of the impending doom that AGW is bringing.
Shills:
@ Wally:
You say: ‘But if you are to ask people that publish the most in a particular field if humans are causing something in that field, I think they are naturally inclined to say “yes.”‘
Those kind of natural urges are supposed to be suppressed in science. Sure, a scientist here and there may fumble, but a whole field?
You say: ‘I think Anonymous has explained this reasoning pretty well.’
I am interested to read that. Where to?
You say: ‘I also dispute that a mere 79 people constitutes enough of a sample to speak for the entire climate change research community.’
I think the sample size generally has to be more than 30 or 40 to allow for some meaningful extrapolation. But I’m no statistician.
What would be less arbitrary than the criteria stated? The line has to be drawn somewhere.
You say: ‘I very much think we have reason to doubt the honesty of this group. Have you not been paying attention to the emails, data loses, methods that produce the same result when using random data, etc.? Their honesty is very much in question.’
So which one is it? Are the scientists merely falling into natural urges or are they wilfully corrupt? Neither has been suggested to be true, except in the blogosphere and mass media. If there really was some widespread conspiracy going on wouldn’t the emails have shown a large network of suspicious communications? All they show is some annoyed scientists responding unprofessionally.
January 7, 2010, 4:20 pmshills:
@ Hunter
What evidence do you have for those allegations of corruption? And wiki doesn’t have editors in the traditional sense.
Read the IPCC pubs. for some indication of consequences.
What are you trying to get at? Are you unsure if a significantly warmer planet will be very disruptive for future generations?
January 7, 2010, 5:03 pmWally:
Shills,
“Those kind of natural urges are supposed to be suppressed in science. Sure, a scientist here and there may fumble, but a whole field?”
I agree its unlikely a whole field is going to act this way, but it would seem to me that much of the field has been tainted by a select few at the top of the field (ie. Jones, Mann). So I do believe that the field in general has latched on to this AGW thing largely because they have to in order to survive give the behavior of those at the top.
“I am interested to read that. Where to? ”
Don’t be a dick Shills, you’ve read his posts.
“I think the sample size generally has to be more than 30 or 40 to allow for some meaningful extrapolation. But I’m no statistician.”
That’s a general rule they teach you in STAT 101. But depending on what you’re doing it may or may not be correct. Taking a poll is tricky business. Ie. if you conducted a poll in your home town about the approval rating of Obama and got only 30-40 people do you actually think it would be representative of the nation? What if you got 30-40 people from across the US? When taking a poll you have to be vary careful to make sure you’re polling a sample of people that equal represents the entire group. So if we had 20 researchers from CRU in this 79 sample, that would make up ~25% of the sample. I have no idea if that’s the case or not, but it should be pretty obvious that isn’t a representative sample anymore. They say they just sent out an email, or something with a link right? They didn’t really address any bias issues at all.
“If there really was some widespread conspiracy going on wouldn’t the emails have shown a large network of suspicious communications? All they show is some annoyed scientists responding unprofessionally.”
Well, I’m not sure I call it a “widespread conspiracy” but its definitely not ethical science that is being done by some of those in this field (again see lost raw data, analysis/methods that are hidden so no replication can be done, contacting people to get help writing bad reviews, etc).
January 7, 2010, 6:10 pmShills:
@ Wally:
Re. the Anon. stuff. If he hasn’t said it on this spec. thread than I haven’t seen it. If it is on here than I can’t remember there being much.
Re. the survey. It could be a dishonestly biased survey, but there is no evidence of this. I think one of the author’s (M. Kendall Zimmerman) masters thesis is based on the data so it’d be pretty risky for her to use biased data for her submission. Your example of a bias, a CRU overrepresentation in the survey, is possible but remember that only 4% of the respondents were from outside of U.S. and Canada, thats about 125 peeps from 21 different countries. If anything there is a US bias.
The theory that climate science has a suppressive hierarchy that skews data has yet to be shown. Why would the little scientists need to support this suppression?
January 7, 2010, 11:42 pmhunter:
Shills,
January 8, 2010, 6:54 amYou mean the IPCC that uses wiki as source material, or the IPCC that just got busted for making false claims about glacier loss? Or perhaps the IPCC that is led by a guy who is getting very rich advising companies and investors on the ideas he has the IPCC promote?
And if you are unenlightened about how unreliable wiki is, just read:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/william-connolley-and-wikipedia-turborevisionism/
hunter:
Shills,
January 8, 2010, 6:58 amSorry about the double post.
irt your question, please answer my question with specifics.
Your side is claiming that we are facing ‘climate disruption’, climate catastrophe’ a ‘planetary fever’, etc. etc. etc.
But what are the manifestations of this disruption, catastrophe and fever that we need to worry about?
And, as a second question, why are you so evasive on this?
It should be the heart of your position, tripping eloquently from your lips.
When a doctor tells you to undergo chemo, the physician is not vague about the cost of doing nothing.
Please illuminate your position, if you can.
Wally:
Shills,
“Why would the little scientists need to support this suppression?”
Granting for one, also actually being able to pass the rigged peer review (which is supported by communications that have been referenced in this blog).
January 8, 2010, 10:02 amShills:
@ Hunter
Wiki is pretty reliable, not far off closed encyclopaedias. The turbo posting thing with Connolley doesn’t incriminate either side.
Where does the IPCC quote Wiki?
If the IPCC have made mistakes then they’ll prob. rectify them.
Someone making money off something doesn’t mean it’s a scam. You can make money of the issue too you know.
The manifestations. changes in temp that will endanger ecosystems that can’t adapt in time. Glacier retreat that feed major rivers, more extreme weather… Pretty much the same stuff the IPCC says yo.
I’m sure this ain’t news to ya. What are you trying to say? I’m evasive because there are better sources than me on the topic.
@ Wally
Can you direct me to the evidence for rigged peer-review system and the other stuff of Anon’s?
How do the bigger scientists dictate who of the little scientists get funding, all over the world?
Why couldn’t these little scientists speak out? Why aren’t the college professors and lecturers, or any of the working scientists warning the undergrads that their chosen field goes against the philosophy of modern science. Why are the peeps on the survey going along with a false theory if they know their names are kept private? Why don’t any of the major scientific organisations around the world share your suspicions? Why aren’t the any (I think) court proceedings on the issue?
Again, As of yet, to my knowledge there is no suggestion that a widespread scam is happening.
January 8, 2010, 9:10 pmWally:
Shills,
“Can you direct me to the evidence for rigged peer-review system”
Go back to the main blog page, read that email in the “Defending the Tribe” post. There is no question the scientists referenced are attempting to stifle dissenting opinions (and doing so by behaving unethically), which is also seen in another email in their attempt to get certain papers out of the IPCC reports.
“How do the bigger scientists dictate who of the little scientists get funding, all over the world?”
Well you do know how the granting system works, right? Here in the US grants are basically peer reviewed in a similar way to papers. They send out the grants to specialists in the field, or set up panels of specialists to meet to grade the grants. Part of the process includes looking at the previous work done by the PIs. Meaning if they had been hindered in publishing by a rigged peer review, they no longer look to be as productive. Plus, the same people rigging the peer review are likely to be the reviewers of the grant in the first place. So if Cook, Briffa, Mann, etc., are all willing to consult with one another to rig peer review, not only does that effect the granting by hindering publications, why wouldn’t they also do it for granting directly? Basically, they have behaved unethically and lost the trust that they can behave in manner necessary for the success of peer review.
“Why couldn’t these little scientists speak out?”
First, some do. Second, and to speculate, it may be easier for some to just go with the flow.
“Why aren’t the college professors and lecturers, or any of the working scientists warning the undergrads that their chosen field goes against the philosophy of modern science.”
Can you show me that some college professors aren’t doing that? What do you think Lindzen is doing?
“Why are the peeps on the survey going along with a false theory if they know their names are kept private?”
Well with only 79 active climatologists polled, I’m not sure exactly how much weight we should be assigning this poll. Also, with no discussion of bias issues or confidence intervals in that poll I can’t give any weight to it. What if we learned the confidence interval was 30%? What if we learned that those believing in AGW were more likely to answer the survey? This was a very incomplete poll.
“Why don’t any of the major scientific organisations around the world share your suspicions?”
Uh, I can cite several major climatologists that share my suspicions. I’m not quite sure why we need “organisations” here (though I’m sure I could find a handful of industrial organizations that share my thinking)? Are organizations inherently better some how? Aren’t they really just more likely to represent the group-think? And isn’t this just an appeal to popular belief anyway? Or basically, so what if X number of people don’t agree, that doesn’t make me wrong.
“Why aren’t the any (I think) court proceedings on the issue?”
There isn’t anything big going on now because we haven’t seen any major legislation passed to restrict CO2 yet. Thus, there isn’t a lot of need for the court proceedings. But as soon as the EPA tries to enforce that CO2 endangerment finding or Cap and Trade is passed, expect to see plenty of court battles.
January 9, 2010, 12:47 pmshills:
@ Wally:
That ‘defending the tribe’ thing only suggests misdemeanours of a select few, not the entire world of climate science.
I can’t show you that profs. earn’t warning their students. The onus is on the skeptics to give evidence of this conspiracy.
You have no reason to think the survey is dishonestly biased. Like I said it was the same data used for Zimmerman’s masters thesis, that doesn’t prove anything but I sure wouldn’t compromise my thesis with doge data.
If the scientists are clearly committing fraud then someone must be getting in trouble for it. By now there have been a lot of eyes focused on climate science.
Don’t you think that he CRU emails would show more than just the few unethical statements or actions made if there was a major conspiracy? Or are all those discussions made from dif. email accounts?
I have been waiting for Anon. to come back before putting forward other surveys but I may has well do it sooner rather than later. This, remember, was my task in showing evidence for a consensus in the IPCC’s ‘catastrophic’ claims.
January 9, 2010, 5:48 pmAnonymous:
@Shills:
Sorry for dropping out for a bit.
“I bet if the question was formulated in the following way: “Do you think that human activity is / is not / might be a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”, most people would go for “might be”.”
“Look at the graph again, there are three responses.”
Looked. There are indeed three responses, and most people go for “yes” or “no” instead of “I’m not sure”. I lose the bet.
I still think that most of the “yes” answers do not carry much weight in that they mostly mean “yes, I hear about AGW all the time, I accept what I hear at face value because I believe that science is generally done by honest people, I think that the topic is important, let’s research it more”. I suggest we wait a bit for new reports and see how many of these “yes” answers will convert to “no”, as more people become disillusioned in the way climate science is done, in the wake of the Climategate scandal.
I am happy to hear we agree that answers to this and other questions in the survey can not in any way demonstrate an endorsement of the idea that the climate change is mostly human-induced or catastrophic.
I think you are wrong about the climate researchers in the survey not being biased, and about there being no problem with the permanent doctoring of Wikipedia pages on climate change. As different as peer-reviewed science and Wikipedia are, both these things, in the portion dedicated to climate change, have long been dominated by the proponents of catastrophic AGW, with similar effects.
Dominating the processes of peer review and scientific publication allowed the pro-AGW camp to significantly increase the number of papers supporting their views and significantly reduce the number of papers going against these views. There is plenty of evidence of that in the emails. This has been going on for years.
Dominating the process of editing key Wikipedia pages related to climate change allowed the pro-AGW camp to silence the contrarian points of view, establish that catastrophic AGW is “common knowledge”, and, basically, brain-wash the masses (eg, by labeling skeptics “deniers” to invoke an unfavorable association).
Both these things no doubt had an impact on the result of the survey, at the entire spectrum of more-informed to less-informed.
January 10, 2010, 3:25 amhunter:
Shills,
January 10, 2010, 4:29 pmBS.
If you are simply going to pretend nothing is real except what you already believe, and you are immune to fact or information, then the heck with ya.
Shills:
@ Anon.
You say: ‘I still think that most of the “yes” answers do not carry much weight in that they mostly mean “yes, I hear about AGW all the time, I accept what I hear at face value because I believe that science is generally done by honest people, I think that the topic is important, let’s research it more”.’
I don’t think so. Most of these respondents aren’t lay peeps. They have training and knowledge to make an educated answer without having to rely on ‘face value’ assumptions. They would not rationalise in such a sloppy way. If they were in doubt, they didn’t have to choose ‘yes’.
You say: ‘I am happy to hear we agree that answers to this and other questions in the survey can not in any way demonstrate an endorsement of the idea that the climate change is mostly human-induced or catastrophic.’
I didn’t say that. I said that those opinions could be in there along with any other opinions which fall under the vague definition of ’significant’.
How is the survey biased?
I didn’t say there was nothing wrong re. the wiki editing. The wiki stuff doesn’t incriminate either side. Both sides were editing.
There is no evidence that the peer-review system is rigged. The CRU emails show some unethical actions but this does not suggest the entire system is rigged.
I have some more surveys:
http://dvsun3.gkss.de/BERICHTE/GKSS_Berichte_2007/GKSS_2007_11.pdf
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf
Anon. should be happy as it addresses the IPCC as well.
@ Hunter
You say: ‘BS.
If you are simply going to pretend nothing is real except what you already believe, and you are immune to fact or information, then the heck with ya.’
How do you know this doesn’t apply to you?
January 11, 2010, 2:03 amShills:
@ Anon.
You say: ‘I still think that most of the “yes” answers do not carry much weight in that they mostly mean “yes, I hear about AGW all the time, I accept what I hear at face value because I believe that science is generally done by honest people, I think that the topic is important, let’s research it more”.’
I don’t think so. Most of these respondents aren’t lay peeps. They have training and knowledge to make an educated answer. They wouldn’t make such sloppy rationalisations and If they were in serious doubt, they didn’t have to choose ‘yes’.
You say: ‘I am happy to hear we agree that answers to this and other questions in the survey can not in any way demonstrate an endorsement of the idea that the climate change is mostly human-induced or catastrophic.’
I didn’t say that. I said that those opinions could be in there along with any other opinions which fall under the vague definition of ’significant’.
How is the survey biased?
I didn’t say there was nothing wrong re. the wiki editing. The wiki stuff doesn’t incriminate either side. Both sides were editing.
There is no evidence that the peer-review system is rigged. The CRU emails show some unethical actions but this does not suggest the entire system is rigged.
Now for some other surveys:
http://dvsun3.gkss.de/BERICHTE/GKSS_Berichte_2007/GKSS_2007_11.pdf
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf
They address the IPCC so that should please Anon.
@ Hunter:
You say: ‘BS.
If you are simply going to pretend nothing is real except what you already believe, and you are immune to fact or information, then the heck with ya.’
Lolol. How do you know this doesn’t apply to you?
January 11, 2010, 2:13 amshills:
testing
January 11, 2010, 3:05 amShills:
@ Anon.
You say: ‘I still think that most of the “yes” answers do not carry much weight in that they mostly mean “yes, I hear about AGW all the time, I accept what I hear at face value because I believe that science is generally done by honest people, I think that the topic is important, let’s research it more”.’
I don’t think so. Most of these respondents aren’t lay peeps. They have training and knowledge to make an educated answer. They wouldn’t make such sloppy rationalisations and If they were in serious doubt, they didn’t have to choose ‘yes’.
You say: ‘I am happy to hear we agree that answers to this and other questions in the survey can not in any way demonstrate an endorsement of the idea that the climate change is mostly human-induced or catastrophic.’
I didn’t say that. I said that those opinions could be in there along with any other opinions which fall under the vague definition of ’significant’.
How is the survey biased?
I didn’t say there was nothing wrong re. the wiki editing. The wiki stuff doesn’t incriminate either side. Both sides were editing.
There is no evidence that the peer-review system is rigged. The CRU emails show some unethical actions but this does not suggest the entire system is rigged.
Now for some other surveys:
http://dvsun3.gkss.de/BERICHTE/GKSS_Berichte_2007/GKSS_2007_11.pdf
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf
They address the IPCC so that should please Anon.
@ Hunter:
You say: ‘BS.
If you are simply going to pretend nothing is real except what you already believe, and you are immune to fact or information, then the heck with ya.’
Lol. How do you know this doesn’t apply to you?
January 11, 2010, 3:07 amShills:
Now for some other surveys:
http://dvsun3.gkss.de/BERICHTE/GKSS_Berichte_2007/GKSS_2007_11.pdf
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf
January 11, 2010, 3:08 amShills:
Now for some other surveys:
January 11, 2010, 3:10 amShills:
http://dvsun3.gkss.de/BERICHTE/GKSS_Berichte_2007/GKSS_2007_11.pdf
January 11, 2010, 3:11 amShills:
And
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf
Sorry but I’m having trouble uploading things for some reason…
January 11, 2010, 3:12 amShills:
@ Anon.
You say: ‘I still think that most of the “yes” answers do not carry much weight in that they mostly mean “yes, I hear about AGW all the time, I accept what I hear at face value because I believe that science is generally done by honest people, I think that the topic is important, let’s research it more”.’
I don’t think so. Most of these respondents aren’t lay peeps. They have training and knowledge to make an educated answer. They wouldn’t make such sloppy rationalisations and If they were in serious doubt, they didn’t have to choose ‘yes’.
You say: ‘I am happy to hear we agree that answers to this and other questions in the survey can not in any way demonstrate an endorsement of the idea that the climate change is mostly human-induced or catastrophic.’
I didn’t say that. I said that those opinions could be in there along with any other opinions which fall under the vague definition of ’significant’.
How is the survey biased?
I didn’t say there was nothing wrong re. the wiki editing. The wiki stuff doesn’t incriminate either side. Both sides were editing.
There is no evidence that the peer-review system is rigged. The CRU emails show some unethical actions but this does not suggest the entire system is rigged.
Now for some other surveys:
(see other posts for links)
They address the IPCC so that should please Anon.
@ Hunter:
You say: ‘BS.
If you are simply going to pretend nothing is real except what you already believe, and you are immune to fact or information, then the heck with ya.’
Lolol. How do you know this doesn’t apply to you?
January 11, 2010, 3:14 amhunter:
Shill,
January 11, 2010, 10:17 amBecause my position is clear, and yours is hidden.
My position is that no climate manifestations have been experienced that are outside the range of historical variability, and that AGW- catastrophistic cliamte change induced by CO2 changes, will do no better than any other global catastrophic claim since the story of Noah was first recounted.
You’re full of BS because you choose to not answer the question.
Shills:
I think I answered your question(s) in the end. Like I said, it is nothing you wouldn’t have heard elsewhere. Maybe you are right that AGW will go the way of Noah, that would be great. But the science doesn’t agree with you yet.
January 11, 2010, 2:35 pmWally:
Shills,
“That ‘defending the tribe’ thing only suggests misdemeanours of a select few, not the entire world of climate science.
I can’t show you that profs. earn’t warning their students. The onus is on the skeptics to give evidence of this conspiracy.”
Interesting how you can state these two things side by side. Couldn’t a select few in the right places influence the entire field? The entire field doesn’t have to be corrupt here. And don’t these emails suggest a conspiracy, at least at some level?
“You have no reason to think the survey is dishonestly biased.”
I also don’t have much (really *any*) evidence that it was properly done either.
“If the scientists are clearly committing fraud then someone must be getting in trouble for it. By now there have been a lot of eyes focused on climate science.”
Give it time, we’ve likely only seen the tip of iceberg.
“Don’t you think that he CRU emails would show more than just the few unethical statements or actions made if there was a major conspiracy?”
You’re exaggerating my argument by continuing with this “major conspiracy” or “the entire world of climate science” business. I don’t think every last climatologists is in on this, I think a few at the top have distorted the field to favor their beliefs. Really, I thought we’d gone over this.
“This, remember, was my task in showing evidence for a consensus in the IPCC’s ‘catastrophic’ claims.”
Which, even if we take it as a given that this survey is representative of the field, we should remind you is still just either an appeal to popular belief or authority, or both. So, you’ve done all this work only to make a fallacious argument.
January 11, 2010, 3:19 pmWally:
Anon,
“Dominating the processes of peer review and scientific publication allowed the pro-AGW camp to significantly increase the number of papers supporting their views and significantly reduce the number of papers going against these views. There is plenty of evidence of that in the emails. This has been going on for years.”
Its not only in these emails, its in statements of people trying to publish anti-AGW papers that they run into a brick wall during the review process and/or granting process. The emails are simply the smoking gun.
January 11, 2010, 3:24 pmShills:
@ Wally
Just quickly. looking at a consensus is not an appeal to authority or pop. Look it up.
January 11, 2010, 4:00 pmhunter:
Shills,
January 11, 2010, 4:20 pmJust be clear:
What do you think is ahead if we do nothing re: CO2?
Wally:
Shills,
Of course “looking at a consensus” is different from actually using it. Unfortunately you’re “looking” at it only to actually make your appeal.
January 11, 2010, 4:40 pmAnonymous:
@Wally:
“Its not only in these emails, its in statements of people trying to publish anti-AGW papers that they run into a brick wall during the review process and/or granting process. The emails are simply the smoking gun.”
Yes, absolutely, I agree.
@Shills:
“I still think that most of the “yes” answers do not carry much weight in that …”
“I don’t think so.”
I think, you don’t, I don’t buy your logic, you don’t buy mine. It would have been better if the questions were more direct, that’s it.
“I didn’t say there was nothing wrong re. the wiki editing. The wiki stuff doesn’t incriminate either side. Both sides were editing.”
You might not be familiar with what actually was and still is going on at Wikipedia. In short, not all edits are equal. Some contributors may override others, others may not. It so happens that one of the CRU guys have gotten a hold of Wikipedia pages dedicated to all things climate. As a result, he has been systematically eliminating all edits which run counter to the point of view of catastrophic AGW. The skeptics have been much less “lucky”, or just more honest. Each page on Wikipedia has a history of edits. You can take a look at the edits yourself, or I can post some juicy pieces here.
Let’s move to the second survey which you offer in order to support your point that there is some kind of consensus among scientists on the content of IPCC reports:
All questions are formulated such that it is possible to provide answers on the scale of 1 (very likely) to 7 (very unlikely). 4 is “hmmm, hard to say”. I suggest we recalibrate this scale to -3 (very likely) to 0 (hmmm) to 3 (very unlikely) so that the numbers are easier to comprehend.
* Page 5. Discussion. Table 1. “How well do you think atmospheric climate models can deal with the following processes?” with 6 different processes like, eg, clouds – answers vary from -0.78 to 0.83. This is essentially “ummm, hard to say” with slight nods into “can deal” and “can’t deal”.
* Page 5. Discussion. Table 2. “How well do you think ocean models can deal with the following processes?”, 5 processes. Same as above.
* Page 5. Discussion. Table 3. “The current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of:” with 5 choices like sea ice or greenhouse gases – answers vary from -0.32 (hmm, somewhat disagree) to 0.91 (hmm, somewhat agree).
* Page 6. Discussion. Table 5. “To what degree do you think the current state of scientific knowledge is able to provide reasonable predictions of:” with 4 time periods from “inter-annual variability” to “variability on >100 year scale” – answers vary from 0.01 (hmm, hard to say, really) to 1.11 (I think we are UNABLE to provide reasonable predictions). (If you are wondering about table 4, it is uninteresting, the results are basically: models can not predict future.)
* Page 7. Conclusion: “As the data seems to suggest, the matter is far from being settled in the scientific arena.”
* B30. “Climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” – 53% are varying degrees of “yes”, 42% are “not sure” or varying degrees of “no”, 5% didn’t answer.
And now we come to a crown jewel:
* B37. “To what extent do you agree or disagree that the IPCC reports accurately reflect the consensus of thought within the scientific community?”
Talk about asking a loaded question. Instead of asking “do you agree with IPCC reports?” they are asking “do you agree that others mostly agree with IPCC reports?”. These are two very different questions.
As an example: Do I think that discussing AGW is important? Yes. Do I think that others regard this as important as well? Hell, no. Do you, Shills, agree with the science in IPCC reports? The answer is probably “not sure”, because you said you don’t feel like you know enough to understand them. Do you, however, think that others agree with them? Well, yes, that’s what you are arguing here.
You see? By replacing a direct question with an indirect one, the authors of the report stop measuring consensus on a scientific position (however useless this concept of consensus might be) and start measuring *perceived popularity* of that position.
Of course, they get a moderate “yes, regardless of what I might think about IPCC reports myself, I think that other people agree with them”.
B36 is the same.
That’s quite a consensus.
I will check out the third survey later.
January 11, 2010, 6:23 pmShills:
@ Wally
Yep bad word ‘looking’. I am not looking, As a lay person, I am using the consensus to indicate that most experts have looked at the evidence and come to broad agreement on the issue. By going with the consensus I go with the scientific confidence, rather than against it, which I argue is more rational. There is no logical fallacy involved.
@ Anon.
So re. the little survey.
Do you think the peeps who answered ‘yes’ believe human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Re. the wiki thing. You’re right I know nothin’ about it much. But I don’t yet see any instance of Connolley being in the wrong. Wiki don’t seem to think so. Do you think wiki is rigged?
You say: ‘Instead of asking “do you agree with IPCC reports?” they are asking “do you agree that others mostly agree with IPCC reports?”. These are two very different questions.’
Yep. I agree there is a difference, but it doesn’t make it useless. From the data, it seems that most of the respondents perceive the IPCC reports are moderately close to the science.
January 12, 2010, 6:51 amAnonymous:
@Shills:
“Do you think the peeps who answered ‘yes’ believe human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
Yes, in that it is significant enough to warrant investigation. No, as in they do not say “yes” to that, in that human activity is a primary driving force behind recent temperature variations.
“Instead of asking “do you agree with IPCC reports?” they are asking “do you agree that others mostly agree with IPCC reports?”. These are two very different questions.”
“I agree there is a difference, but it doesn’t make it useless.”
It does make it useless for the purposes of determining if there is a consensus on the science in IPCC reports. See my examples.
“From the data, it seems that most of the respondents perceive the IPCC reports are moderately close to the science.”
No, not at all. From the data, it seems that most of the respondents answer key questions like “is current science advanced enough to make a judgement on the effects of clouds” or “is current science advanced enough to predict the state of climate in X years” or “is climate change mostly human-induced” with “meh, hard to say” with slight nods into “meh, maybe” and “meh, maybe not”. Look at the charts and tables in the survey. It’s all there.
January 12, 2010, 8:51 amWally:
“By going with the consensus I go with the scientific confidence, rather than against it, which I argue is more rational. There is no logical fallacy involved.”
First, what is your standard of “consensus” exactly? Are you going by “general agreement” or the “solidarity in belief” standard? We can easily point out there is no solidarity and even the “general agreement” hasn’t been established (and the most resent poll you posted even provided evidence that there is a lack of general agreement). Yes, the Earth has warmed in the last ~100-150 years, everyone agrees on that. Yes, humans probably have *some* impact, but there is a large dispute over just how much that *some* really is and how confidently we know that *some*. So, in your argument you’re still falling into the “begging the question” fallacy. You can’t establish that there is a consensus, nor can you establish that a consensus even means you’re more likely to be right.
Second, you’re still appealing to authority. You can deny it all you want, but that doesn’t change the truth. You’re telling us that the experts are right and we should just believe them because they are experts. Sorry, they have to make their case and prove it, just like everyone else. While I’m not a climatologists, I have a strong background in physics, statistics and mathematical modeling, so they should have no trouble explaining this to me, if its actually true. Unfortunately for them, they are having a lot of trouble explaining to me and many others. Not only do their methods and analysis seem suspect, but so do their ethics.
Third, if you’re content on just deferring to some assumed consensus, why do you bother talking to us? It should be pretty obvious by now that most of us are here for the very reason that we don’t just defer to the authority. We demand that all conclusions drawn make logical sense and are backed by sound (and ethical!) science. Frankly, that is something that is never going to change about me. That is a fundamental trait required for a scientists, and something that seems to be lacking in some that advocate AGW.
January 12, 2010, 11:53 amShills:
@ Anon.
You say: ‘It does make it useless for the purposes of determining if there is a consensus on the science in IPCC reports. See my examples.’
So you think the perceived agreement is an illusion that the respondents mistakenly have?
That last line of mine you quoted wasn’t referring to the whole survey, just the IPCC question.
Hey, is that Russian paper of yours doing the rounds?
@ Wally:
I’m happy with a general agreement. I think there is a general agreement that most of the warming is AGW. A widespread confidence in a theory would indicate that the theory has strong rigour. I’m not saying that the AGW is more likely correct. Only that the confidence is strong in one direction. It is too messy to apply probabilities to it. If you had nothing else but this joint confidence that A should happen now, would you make A happen now?
You say: ‘You’re telling us that the experts are right and we should just believe them because they are experts’.
Never said that.
I’m saying that it’s more rational to go with the expert agreement if you are a layperson. Whether that applies to you, I dunno. If you can understand the science than sure play with the science.
January 12, 2010, 3:39 pmWally:
Shills,
“I think there is a general agreement that most of the warming is AGW.”
I think you’re wrong. Your own source above seems to prove that. And at what point do we call something a “general agreement?” 60-40 split, 80-20, 95-5? At what point is something now more likely to be true, and to what extent? This argument just doesn’t work.
“A widespread confidence in a theory would indicate that the theory has strong rigour.”
And what happens when that one guy that thinks its BS is right? Does that guy providing his evidence somehow lack rigour?
“Only that the confidence is strong in one direction. It is too messy to apply probabilities to it.”
Sorry, but that’s exactly what you need to do. These qualitave measures of likely hood such as “strong” just don’t carry any weight. How many scientists believe X, how often in the past have the same portion of scientists believed anything and been right. That’s the kind of study that would establish how likely you are to be right based on this “general” agreement. Without that we’re just left with these meaningless qualitative statements including “strong” or “general,” and I’m sure we could both give anecodes where the general agreement was right or wrong until we’re blue in the face.
“I’m saying that it’s more rational to go with the expert agreement if you are a layperson.”
Which may or may not be true, thus the appeal to authority. It is not an argument based on any sort of facts surrounding the issue at hand, just what a group of people think. Somehow you think you’ve found a loop hole or something in this fallacy. You haven’t.
January 12, 2010, 7:08 pmShills:
@ Wally
You say: ‘I think you’re wrong.’
Have you checked out the 3rd survey?
You say: ‘And what happens when that one guy that thinks its BS is right? Does that guy providing his evidence somehow lack rigour?’
Not at all. If his evidence is good than other scientists will recognise this and change their opinions. The more scientific scrutiny the idea passes through successfully the less problems the idea seems to have, and the more favoured, by those who use science to understand the phenomena, opposed to ideas that haven’t stood up to the same amount of scrutiny.
You say: ‘Sorry, but that’s exactly what you need to do.’
Sure it would help, but it’s way impractical. In the wake of such info how would you decide? Or: if 8 out of 10 experts said do this now to prevent further harm what would you do?
You say: ‘Which may or may not be true, thus the appeal to authority. It is not an argument based on any sort of facts surrounding the issue at hand, just what a group of people think.’
No, It is based on a bunch of scientists each doin’ some informal bayesian inference in their minds with the available FACTS and evidence and coming to a conclusion that is broadly shared amongst them. If the evidence and facts did not point more in a given direction than you would expect greater variance in opinion. SO, the general agreement is a product of the facts and evidence.
Rationality isn’t nec. about what is truth or fiction or varying degrees of these. It is also about making informed decisions based on the evidence (and the products of this evidence) that we have. So, at one point the evidence that a dolphin is prob. a fish would be a rational assumption until you look further. What if you had to make a decision on the class of the creature before the further study, what would you say?
It’s more rational to go with the expert agreement if you are a layperson.” —- not appeal to authority
The experts are right because they are in agreement———is appeal to authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
January 13, 2010, 12:31 amAnonymous:
@Shills:
“So you think the perceived agreement is an illusion that the respondents mistakenly have?”
And you think it is not? Why? We have made a full round now with me asking you to provide proof of the consensus, you bringing up reports which say that most of their audience think that such a consensus exists, and me asking “why” again.
“Hey, is that Russian paper of yours doing the rounds?”
It seems there are a couple other folks digging in the same direction now, so, I guess, yes.
January 13, 2010, 1:39 amShills:
@ Anon.
You say: ‘“So you think the perceived agreement is an illusion that the respondents mistakenly have?”
And you think it is not? Why? We have made a full round now with me asking you to provide proof of the consensus, you bringing up reports which say that most of their audience think that such a consensus exists, and me asking “why” again.’
Totally don’t get what you are trying to say here. Can you rephrase?
January 13, 2010, 4:21 amAnonymous:
@Shills:
At one point in this thread you stated that there is a consensus on AGW. Let’s keep things simple and just refer to this as “the consensus”.
I asked why do you think so.
You brought up several surveys, in particular survey #2.
I said that the relevant question in that survey was “do you agree that others mostly agree with IPCC reports?”, not “do you agree with IPCC reports?”, and thus answers to this question do NOT show whether the consensus exists.
You ask “So you think the perceived agreement is an illusion that the respondents mistakenly have?”.
I answer “Yes. If you think otherwise I must ask again – why do you think that the consensus exists and is not an illusion?”.
My last question “why do you think that the consensus exist?” is exactly like my first one. That is, with respect to survey #2, we have now made a full circle. Survey #1 did not show the consensus either. Survey #3 we have not yet touched. Stay tuned.
January 13, 2010, 10:37 amWally:
Shills,
“Have you checked out the 3rd survey?”
I looked through it, yes, but you’ll have to point me towards which part you’re leaning on, because I didn’t seem to find anything that supports your position.
“The more scientific scrutiny the idea passes through successfully the less problems the idea seems to have, and the more favoured, by those who use science to understand the phenomena, opposed to ideas that haven’t stood up to the same amount of scrutiny.”
And in the wake of all politicization of this field and the emails providing evidence of rigged peer review, I don’t think we have the necessary “scientific scrutiny” to even care what a poll says. If the deck has been fixed, should we think the guy that won is actually the better player?
Re: Proving how often a “general agreement” is right:
Me: ‘Sorry, but that’s exactly what you need to do.’
You: “Sure it would help”
It wouldn’t just help, it would take us from hand waving to actually KNOWING. If you want to say its rational to go with the experts’ general agreement you have to prove the general agreement is actually more likely to be right. Otherwise you’re just hand waving. If you find it impractical to do so, tough. You can’t make a statement outside the scope of what your facts support.
“No, It is based on a bunch of scientists each doin’ some informal bayesian inference in their minds with the available FACTS and evidence and coming to a conclusion that is broadly shared amongst them.”
And they are capable of being either wrong or biased. Thus, we don’t care what some 80 or 90 percent (or what ever) of scientists say, we care about the evidence itself. In any case, you have no proof that the majority is more likely to be right than the minority.
“Rationality isn’t nec. about what is truth or fiction or varying degrees of these. It is also about making informed decisions based on the evidence (and the products of this evidence) that we have.”
Appealing to an authority on what is to be rational is not rational nor logical. You’re twisting yourself into knots trying to defend this illogical and not even factual argument.
January 13, 2010, 11:58 amShills:
@ Anon.
You say: ‘I answer “Yes. If you think otherwise I must ask again – why do you think that the consensus exists and is not an illusion?”.’
Lol. You think that those people in the field could be a bad judge of the opinions of the people in their own field? Sure it’s just a judgement but you have no reason to believe that the researchers have it so off the mark. So how’d the researchers propagate such an illusion?
@ Wally:
Check out the Climate change impacts part in survey 3.
You say: ‘I don’t think we have the necessary “scientific scrutiny” to even care what a poll says.’
You are sceptical of the quality of the science of an entire globe spanning, mutli-decade long inquiry that supports AGW theory. But your little evidence for a globe-spanning rigged peer-review system is enough to convince you it exists.
You yourself say: ‘You can’t make a statement outside the scope of what your facts support.’
You say: ‘And they are capable of being either wrong or biased. Thus, we don’t care what some 80 or 90 percent (or what ever) of scientists say, we care about the evidence itself. In any case, you have no proof that the majority is more likely to be right than the minority’
As a lay person we leave the science to the experts. They are the ones who have analysed the evidence and come to an opinion. they ALSO don’t care about the numbers, just the evidence. The widespread agreement with this theory doesn’t mean there is a better chance that they are right, just better confidence.
You say: ‘Appealing to an authority on what is to be rational is not rational nor logical.’
I am not appealing to authority to argue what is rational. I am appealing to a consensus (which is born from evidence) that indicates a high level of confidence in the theory. There is no comparable confidence, or substantial evidence to the contrary of this confidence or the theory itself in the lit. that is casting serious doubt on the theory. Given this, I argue that the more rational choice (given it has to be made) is the one with the confidence and the evidence. The act of evoking authority to help argue that a position is more rational is not illogical. Using expert opinion makes perfect sense, hence govt advisers, expert testimonials in court etc.
The act of evoking authority to argue that a position is nec. correct is an appeal to authority.
Does my dolphin analogy work for you? How would you class the animal, given the situation posed?
Can you show me how my use of the consensus is an appeal to authority rather than just saying it is?
January 14, 2010, 6:23 pmAnonymous:
@Shills:
“Lol. You think that those people in the field could be a bad judge of the opinions of the people in their own field?”
Yes. People misjudge what other people think all the time. That doesn’t make them bad at what they do, just shows that they are normal people with no supernatural powers.
“Sure it’s just a judgement but you have no reason to believe that the researchers have it so off the mark.”
Yes, I have. Besides, I heard that already. I asked you to provide a first-hand source that would demonstrate that the consensus exists. You couldn’t do this yet you continue to press your point. As I said, this is going in rounds.
January 15, 2010, 12:35 amAnonymous:
@Shills:
Just noticed…
“they ALSO don’t care about the numbers, just the evidence.”
Yeah, right, that’s why they hide their source code and delete their data so that noone else can reproduce their results, to name just a few things.
January 15, 2010, 12:39 amShills:
@ Anon.
You say: ‘Yes, I have. Besides, I heard that already. I asked you to provide a first-hand source that would demonstrate that the consensus exists. You couldn’t do this yet you continue to press your point. As I said, this is going in rounds.’
You never said ‘first hand’, Anon. Remember when I asked you what kind of sources you would like and you were too slack to give any indication?
You say: ‘People misjudge what other people think all the time. That doesn’t make them bad at what they do, just shows that they are normal people with no supernatural powers.’
But in the very field they are a part of? And this isn’t just a minor aspect of the field but the highly visible IPCC. You really think the perception would be no indication at all?
Anyway, in the 3rd survey the IPCC part poses questions that aren’t based on perception.
January 15, 2010, 1:23 amShills:
@ Anon:
You say: ‘Yeah, right, that’s why they hide their source code and delete their data so that noone else can reproduce their results, to name just a few things.’
So who deleted the data, CRU? does that action incriminate all climatology? Did they even delete the data to keep it away from scrutiny or was it for property reasons?
I said this to Wally and I’ll say it to you: How can you be so skeptical of surveys and years of science but not have any problem of expanding the suspect dealings of a few to an entire field?
January 15, 2010, 2:44 amAnonymous:
@Shills:
OK, third survey. Consensus on IPCC reports.
Page 92. Chart 40a. “The IPCC reports accurately reflect the consensus of scientific thought pertaining to … temperature” – the result is 5, which is again “meh, maybe”. As in survey #2, the question is stated not in the form “do you agree with IPCC reports” but rather “do you agree that others agree with IPCC reports”.
Another question of interest is:
Page 64. Chart 21. “How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?” – the result is 75% of the way from “not convinced” to “convinced”, with the standard deviation capable of taking it into “don’t know”. You have to remember though that a full quarter of the respondents are authors of IPCC reports (6a+6b). If you take away these folks, the result becomes “don’t know, maybe, maybe not”.
Which chart was supposed to demonstrate a consensus?
“You never said ‘first hand’, Anon. Remember when I asked you what kind of sources you would like and you were too slack to give any indication?”
Correct. Laying out exactly which kind of source with which kind of questions, audience, error bars, etc, I would accept would take me pages and even then I would probably miss some trick. After all, who’d have thought that they would be asking questions like “do you agree that other people agree with X” instead of just “do you agree with X”…
“You really think the perception would be no indication at all?”
You continue to ask useless questions. I can answer them (the answer to this question is “perception of a consensus does not mean that it exists”), but this does not really advance us. Please provide a first-hand source or admit that you can’t do this.
“How can you be so skeptical of surveys and years of science but not have any problem of expanding the suspect dealings of a few to an entire field?”
I don’t expand the suspect dealings of a few to an entire field. I am saying that it looks like the suspect dealings of a few had a significant effect on the entire field due to positive feedback loops (sic!) created by these select few accepting papers talking in favor of their concepts and rejecting papers talking against them. Authors of accepted “pro” papers would in turn (without any fraud) accept more such papers. Authors of rejected “counter” papers would fail to accept more “counter” papers.
January 15, 2010, 8:47 amShills:
@ Anon.
Remember, the task is to show that there is an agreement that catastrophic AGW, like that shown in the IPCC, is likely, not nec. agreement across the board with the IPCC. SO this means that respondents that think the IPCC under-estimates the effects are also in agreement with those that think the IPCC is accurate, re. the possibility of catastrophe.
You say: ‘with the standard deviation capable of taking it into “don’t know”.’
Umm, congrads. you’ve shown that by using the standev. the majority are above the ‘I don’t know’ (4) part. Why are you caring so much about standev. on such a skewed dist.? Why bother so much with the sum. stats when you can clearly see the distribution graphically? Do you you use the standev. and mean after or before you take out the 25% data (after all the accusations you guys make of data manipulation this is pretty hypocritical).
Plus why can you take out the IPCC authors?!! You are astounding. You can take out the IPCC contributors for some assumption (you don’t even know what they responded) but I can’t assume the peeps in a given field would have a good idea of the general opinion of the peeps in their same field? Oh my.
Lol, what exactly is your conclusion from this graph?
You only look at a few of the questions, what about the rest?
You say: ‘You continue to ask useless questions. I can answer them (the answer to this question is “perception of a consensus does not mean that it exists”),’
Yeah, I agree it doesn’t nec. mean it exists but you haven’t shown how it could be so off the mark?
You say: ‘created by these select few accepting papers talking in favor of their concepts and rejecting papers talking against them.’
So a few CRU guys might have (can you be more spec.) stopped some papers from going into a particular journal they were reviewing. And somehow everyone else on different editorial boards for different journals gradually decided to do the same thing, uniformly against AGW skepticism? What is your evidence for this feedback?
January 15, 2010, 8:24 pmAnonymous:
@Shills:
OK. Let’s concentrate on 2nd question. Let’s skip the bit on standard deviation, I agree it is too “meta” to opine about.
Page 64. Chart 21. “How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?” – the result is 75% of the way from “not convinced” to “convinced”, with a full quarter of the respondents being authors of IPCC reports.
Please note that 75% of the way from “not convinced” to “convinced” is only half-way through from “don’t know” to “convinced”. Not much.
It is true that I don’t know how that question has been answered individually by each of the asked authors of IPCC reports. I presume, however, that most of them answered “totally convinced” because they are, well, authors of the report supporting this idea. If we subtract them as biased, or, alternatively, if we invite enough people so that the proportion of authors is significantly less (please bear with me), the answer will drift even more towards “don’t know”.
Is that all you have?
“You only look at a few of the questions, what about the rest?”
What about them, indeed?
“(the answer to this question is “perception of a consensus does not mean that it exists”)”
“Yeah, I agree it doesn’t nec. mean it exists but you haven’t shown how it could be so off the mark?”
Yes, I have shown that. See my examples.
If a person comes to you and asks whether you agree with the science in IPCC reports, your answer, as follows from this thread, is “I don’t know, I am not qualified”. If he then asks whether you agree that other people (scientists) agree with the science in IPCC reports, your answer, as follows from this thread, is “yes”.
Switching from one question to another changes the answer in your case from “don’t know” to “yes”. So, “it”, indeed, can be off the mark, and I believe that it is.
“So a few CRU guys might have (can you be more spec.) stopped some papers from going into a particular journal they were reviewing. And somehow everyone else on different editorial boards for different journals gradually decided to do the same thing, uniformly against AGW skepticism?”
Not all papers or journals publishing on climate change are the same. People from CRU had cosy relationships with editors of several of the key journals which were setting the tone for the rest. They passed several of the key papers (and stopped their critique) with truly astonishing results which had been widely cited because of their amazingness.
The effect has been large.
January 16, 2010, 6:56 amAnonymous:
@Shills:
Oh, yes, the evidence of CRU guys passing their papers and stopping countering papers is in the Climategate emails. There are other sources as well, but this is perhaps the most accessible one.
January 16, 2010, 7:00 amShills:
@ Anon:
You say: ‘Page 64. Chart 21. “How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?” – the result is 75% of the way from “not convinced” to “convinced”, with a full quarter of the respondents being authors of IPCC reports.’
Why aren’t you using the median which is typically better indicator of central tendency in skewed dist.? lol, you might have if it were skewed the other way? Just look at the graph over 83% of respondents fall from ‘possibly’ to ‘very much’ with over 65% of the total respondents in the ‘likely’ and above. And the question states ‘most’ of the warming. So a graph that merely said something to the gist ‘half’ or a ‘third’ ( still over your skeptical opinion) would probably look even more negatively skewed.
You say: ‘it is true that I don’t know how that question has been answered individually by each of the asked authors of IPCC reports. I presume, however, that most of them answered “totally convinced” because they are, well, authors of the report supporting this idea. If we subtract them as biased, or, alternatively, if we invite enough people so that the proportion of authors is significantly less (please bear with me), the answer will drift even more towards “don’t know”.’
This is one of the stupidest things I’ve heard from you.
Just because you have worked on the IPCC doesn’t mean you agree that most of the warming is man-made. The point of the IPCC is that they look at all view points. remember, and come to a synthesis. Contributing authors don’t cover every topic, only one chapter. You don’t even know what AR they worked on. Maybe they changed their minds? Maybe the IPCC isn’t biased? HEY! why don’t I get rid of a bunch of the negative responses because some are prob. being paid off by the oil companies!! Again, for someone who’s so worked up about supposed data manipulation this is hypocritical
But the most important point: even if most of that 25% did say ‘yes’ why should their opinion be discounted? They are experts like everyone else in the poll. Do you think that everyone who works for the IPCC is tainted or something? Really.
You say: ‘If a person comes to you and asks whether you agree with the science in IPCC reports, your…
If a skeptic climate scientist is asked for his opinion, he might so ‘no’. If asked for his perception of the climate science community he might say ‘yes’. Both answers are fine. It doesn’t matter that they aren’t the same, because they are different questions. The one being asked is for a perception of the community in which they spend their professional lives working in. They go to meetings, conferences etc. They would not have a greatly inaccurate perception of their own field. Your example which includes me and you is silly because we are not part of that community.
Have you looked at the other IPPC graphs? the ones that use the 4 as ‘accurate’ in between under-estimate and over-estimates. These ones show that an almost-consistent 80% of respondents agree that the relevant level of impacts, as described by the IPCC, is possible. In fact a fair portion think the IPCC under-estimates it.
You say: ‘People from CRU had cosy relationships with editors of several of the key journals which were setting the tone for the rest.’
What evidence to you have for this? What do you mean by ‘cozy’? You are saying that the scientific process has been discarded in favour of personal connections? Why would the other editors be compelled to do what the CRU guys say? Where in the emails is this theory supported and what are your less ‘accessible’ clues to the greatest deception in history?
January 17, 2010, 5:37 amAnonymous:
@Shills:
“Why aren’t you using the median which is typically better indicator of central tendency in skewed dist.?”
I am using the measure used on that page by the authors of the survey.
“Just because you have worked on the IPCC doesn’t mean you agree that most of the warming is man-made. … Again, for someone who’s so worked up about supposed data manipulation this is hypocritical.”
I don’t imply that the answers in the survey were dishonest or that the final results have been manipulated. Careful, please.
“Even if most of that 25% did say ‘yes’ why should their opinion be discounted? They are experts like everyone else in the poll.”
They are experts which have been accepted as authors of IPCC reports, reports that proclaim catastrophic AGW. That’s a strong selection criteria. It is bound to show itself in any survey related to climate which these authors participate in.
“If a skeptic climate scientist is asked for his opinion, he might so ‘no’. If asked for his perception of the climate science community he might say ‘yes’. Both answers are fine. It doesn’t matter that they aren’t the same, because they are different questions. The one being asked is for a perception of the community in which they spend their professional lives working in. They go to meetings, conferences etc. They would not have a greatly inaccurate perception of their own field.”
So, they won’t answer “yes” to one question and “no” to another? I don’t buy it at all. Besides, why guess. Show me a survey with a direct question and the majority of people answering “yes” to it. So far, you have been unable to do this, and we have been through three surveys already.
“People from CRU had cosy relationships with editors of several of the key journals which were setting the tone for the rest.”
“What evidence to you have for this?”
Emails. See Climategate.
“What do you mean by ‘cozy’?”
I mean that the editors were letting people from CRU know in advance of papers preparing to be published by their opponents, that they were dragging feet publishing such papers while printing papers coming from CRU in record times, and so on and so forth. The evidence of this is again, in the emails.
“You are saying that the scientific process has been discarded in favour of personal connections?”
Yes.
“Why would the other editors be compelled to do what the CRU guys say?”
Ask them.
“Where in the emails is this theory supported and what are your less ‘accessible’ clues to the greatest deception in history?”
Let’s save it for another discussion. The characteristic phrase from the emails is this:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Less accessible clues are the emails that weren’t in the leaked archive, the code (with comments), the FTP logs (which, for example, show that people at CRU have rarely been held up to a standard of making data they lean upon in their papers accessible to general public, that is common to scientific journals, and sometimes were deleting that data shortly after the paper has been published), and the data, FOIA’d and not yet FOIA’d alike.
January 18, 2010, 6:40 amAnonymous:
Forgot one more less accessible “clue” – exchanges with journals by the authors of dissenting papers.
January 18, 2010, 6:43 amShills:
@ Anon.
Anon. They give the mean and median for every graph. For such skewed data the median is typically a better measure of central tendency. Either you know this and are being disingenuous with me, and yourself, or you don’t. And possibly this throws suspicion on your ability to read the climate data after all.
You say: ‘I don’t imply that the answers in the survey were dishonest or that the final results have been manipulated. Careful, please.’
No. I didn’t say that you implied the answers in the survey were dishonest. I’m saying that YOU are manipulating the data, which is hypocritical.
You say: ‘They are experts which have been accepted as authors of IPCC reports, reports that proclaim catastrophic AGW. That’s a strong selection criteria. It is bound to show itself in any survey related to climate which these authors participate in.’
Firstly, the IPCC takes in all viewpoints and creates a synthesis. They are not bent on proving AGW theory, they are simply synthesising the general understanding of the science, be it for or against AGW. I’m sure they would gladly look at any dissenting opinions as long as they seem genuine.
You say: ‘That’s a strong selection criteria’
How does the selection criteria support your argument?
Secondly, So what is your point? re. ‘bound to show itself in any survey related to climate’. They are experts. They look at the evidence. Their opinions would show itself in a survey. Big deal. Where is the problem, Anon?
Thirdly, you don’t address any of the uncertainties I stated in the last post.
There is no reason why they should be excluded.
You say: ‘So, they won’t answer “yes” to one question and “no” to another? I don’t buy it at all. ‘
What? I said that they could answer ‘yes’ to one and ‘no to another, because they are different questions. Maybe scientists are honest and aren’t afraid to admit that their opinion is not the shared one.
You say: ‘Besides, why guess. Show me a survey with a direct question and the majority of people answering “yes” to it. So far, you have been unable to do this, and we have been through three surveys already.’
The very first survey (Zimmerman) had the majority saying yes to AGW being significant.
The one about most of the warming being human-induced is one with the majority saying yes.
the ones in the IPCC section that use the 4 as ‘accurate’ in between under-estimate and over-estimates. Around 80% think the IPCC have it accurately or under the mark.
Re. your general deception theory:
Your gonna need to show some evidence to support your ideas, instead of just stating them. The most crucial being the alleged anti-scientific effect the CRU guys had over all the journals and, climatology in general. This is, as far as I know, not shown in the emails. The quote you gave of the intention to stop the papers going to IPCC was not effectual. The papers were reviewed by the IPCC.
You say: ‘ask them’
The onus is on you to show evidence of this deception.
January 18, 2010, 5:54 pmAnonymous:
@Shills:
“They give the mean and median for every graph. For such skewed data the median is typically a better measure of central tendency.”
I didn’t notice they give the median as well. I am sorry for that. Let’s use the median.
“I’m saying that YOU are manipulating the data, which is hypocritical.”
Ouch. I used one of the measures they provided. Admittedly, using another measure which they provided as well would have been more appropriate, but saying that I am manipulating the data is a bit much. I didn’t use any fudge factors, like some of these guys, you know.
“Firstly, the IPCC takes in all viewpoints and creates a synthesis. They are not bent on proving AGW theory, they are simply synthesising the general understanding of the science, be it for or against AGW. I’m sure they would gladly look at any dissenting opinions as long as they seem genuine.”
I can’t help but laugh at that. This is why Jones writes to the other guy that they should get papers of critics removed from the next IPCC report even if it would mean “redefining the meaning of peer-review”. And this is why repeated comments from a few grudgingly acceptic skeptic reviewers like Steve McIntyre that, say, urge the relevant CRU guy to not stop the graph at a certain point and show all data are met with “no, that would be inappropriate”. Yeah, right.
“How does the selection criteria support your argument?”
Asking “how old are you?” in a kindergarten is bound to provide results centering around 3-4 years, don’t you think? Similarly, asking guys whose report says that we have catastrophic AGW, whether they support the concept of catastrophic AGW or not, is bound to produce a “yes”.
“They are experts. They look at the evidence. Their opinions would show itself in a survey. Big deal. Where is the problem, Anon?”
You can’t say “hey, there are many people who agree with me” and then point back to yourself as a proof. This survey does just that, in that a large number of participants are authors of the report that you want to measure consensus on, and are biased.
I am not sure how more clear I can be here.
“What? I said that they could answer ‘yes’ to one and ‘no to another, because they are different questions. Maybe scientists are honest and aren’t afraid to admit that their opinion is not the shared one.”
OK. Now remember that this line started with me objecting to use questions like “do you agree that others agree with X” instead of “do you agree with X”. I said that positive answers to the first question do not imply positive answers to the second question. I thought that your remark meant that you disagree, but if you agree, then, well, you agree that we can’t use that question to measure the consensus.
And this closes it, then. You agree that neither of your surveys show any kind of proof that there is a consensus on the science in IPCC reports.
I suggest we save the topic of Jones and others manipulating scientific opinion for another day.
January 19, 2010, 12:07 amAnonymous:
And, speaking of a summary of our arguments on the surveys in this thread:
Survey 1. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
We agreed that answering “yes” to this question is in no way an endorsement of the notion of catastrophic AGW in general or the science in IPCC reports in particular.
Survey 2. Climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes – yes or no?
53% are varying degrees of “yes”, 42% are “not sure” or varying degrees of “no”, 5% didn’t answer. If you would argue that 53% is still the majority, I won’t stop you.
Survey 3. The IPCC reports accurately reflect the consensus of scientific thought pertaining to temperature – yes or no?
The answer is a weak “meh, maybe”. If you want to pick a fight over a different question, I won’t stop you either.
January 19, 2010, 12:46 amShills:
@ Anon:
YOu say: ‘I didn’t notice they give the median as well. I am sorry for that. Let’s use the median.’
Are you that blind or you just don’t know what a boxplot is? I’m sorry but I really doubt your ability to ‘look at the science’ now.
You say: ‘Ouch. I used one of the measures they provided. Admittedly, using another measure which they provided as well would have been more appropriate, but saying that I am manipulating the data is a bit much. I didn’t use any fudge factors, like some of these guys, you know.’
The manipulation I’m talking about is your exclusion of the 25%.
you say: ‘I can’t help but laugh at that. This is why Jones writes to the other guy that they should get papers of critics removed from the next IPCC report even if it would mean “redefining the meaning of peer-review”. And this is why repeated comments from a few grudgingly acceptic skeptic reviewers like Steve McIntyre that, say, urge the relevant CRU guy to not stop the graph at a certain point and show all data are met with “no, that would be inappropriate”. Yeah, right.’
Dude, those papers made it into the IPCC’s assessment! they didn’t last long though. This is actually evidence that the IPCC does look at all view points.
You say: ‘You can’t say “hey, there are many people who agree with me” and then point back to yourself as a proof. This survey does just that, in that a large number of participants are authors of the report that you want to measure consensus on, and are biased.’
The question that you were taking the 25% off doesn’t say anything about agreeing with the IPCC.
You say: ‘…but if you agree, then, well, you agree that we can’t use that question to measure the consensus.’
We have muddled ourselves into confusion. I am saying that a survey that asks for a perception of the community in which that person is from is not too far off the mark because they spend all their time in that community. So, no, I don’t agree with you that the perception would be useless.
You say: ‘Survey 3. The IPCC reports accurately reflect the consensus of scientific thought pertaining to temperature – yes or no?
The answer is a weak “meh, maybe”. If you want to pick a fight over a different question, I won’t stop you either.’
Why are you ignoring the: is most warming human-induced graph in survey 3? You have not shown that it is biased.
And the IPCC section ones that ask for an opinion–not a measure of ‘perception’.
January 19, 2010, 4:39 amAnonymous:
OMG. I am blind, manipulating data, Jones saying that he will eschew dissenting opinions no matter what means that he and others are actually considering them, “survey” equals “question”, and after answering all the silly questions for the umpteenth time I am ignoring you.
Have fun, boy.
January 19, 2010, 8:49 amWally:
Anon: ‘I didn’t notice they give the median as well. I am sorry for that. Let’s use the median.’
Shills: Are you that blind or you just don’t know what a boxplot is? I’m sorry but I really doubt your ability to ‘look at the science’ now.
Forgive me for interrupting, but which box plot was actually using the median (which question and which survey)? And I have to disagree on the use of the median over the mean, pretty much regardless of which question it was. Maybe when we’re talking about a sampling of some distribution of that looks like 90, 100, 101, 10000. But in this case we only have a dynamic range of what 7? Plus, we have fairly large sample sizes so one or two outliers isn’t going to kill your mean given this kind of range. And most questions answered weren’t particularly skewed anyway.
“Dude, those papers made it into the IPCC’s assessment! they didn’t last long though. This is actually evidence that the IPCC does look at all view points.”
But did they not “last long” because Phil Jones torpedoed them as he said he was going to try and do? Remember just referencing something, doesn’t mean you actually agree with it or used it to make your conclusions.
January 19, 2010, 11:34 amAnonymous:
Oh, that will teach me never to take what Shills says at its face value. I thought I missed a number cited on the page along with the mean and trusted Shills enough not to recheck. Turns out I missed two big boxes out of possible 6 positions whose location somehow signals that the consensus is better than the one given by a numeric value of 5.678 that I used.
Details: The boxes are 5-6 and 6-7, on the interval of 0-7. A good part of the second box has to be ignored according to the methodology cited in the beginning of the paper, as the boxes are supposed to show 50% of median answers. The “median” line for the boxes is at 6 only because the resolution is too coarse, sort of how the earlier number of 5.678 rounds to 6. Saying that the measure of the consensus is “6″ instead of “5.678″ is nothing more than doing this rounding.
Thanks for calling that out, Waldo. And I almost bought it, like we weren’t fooled enough by CRU and the rest. Unbelievable.
January 19, 2010, 5:40 pmShills:
@ Wally
You’re back. Could you tell me how I was making the appeal to authority logical fallacy?
the graph we were talking about is Q. 21, p. 64.
You say: ‘But did they not “last long” because Phil Jones torpedoed them as he said he was going to try and do? Remember just referencing something, doesn’t mean you actually agree with it or used it to make your conclusions.’
The papers would have been discussed and jointly decided on. So Jones alone would not have been able to dismiss the papers.
@ Anon.
Not sure what to say. We are/were having an argument. If I’ve been doing so unfairly I’d like to know how. If you’d like to change tack we could instead focus on your evidence for the manipulative powers of the CRU guys. Or we can go to different surveys:
This survey takes flak from all fronts.
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/survey.pdf
This one is dif. in that it looks at published paper abstracts instead of opinions
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
And this is just a wiki which links to statements of varying degrees of explicit or implicit agreement with the IPCC and AGW theory. They are not all within the range of what I’d call experts in the field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-78
As a relevant aside. I think the inquest into the CRU hack, and the suspicious emails will be finalised near the end of january so, that should be something interesting to look at.
January 19, 2010, 5:40 pmAnonymous:
Wally, not Waldo, of course.
January 19, 2010, 5:41 pmShills:
@ Anon:
Lol. I don’t think that was what Wally was saying.
You say: ‘A good part of the second box has to be ignored according to the methodology cited in the beginning of the paper, as the boxes are supposed to show 50% of median answers.’
What? Don’t understand. Is this your take-25%-off claim or something else?
You say: ‘ Saying that the measure of the consensus is “6″ instead of “5.678″ is nothing more than doing this rounding.’
The median is 6, that is not a rounding. the middle response in the entire sample is 6. The edges of the boxes only tell you that the lowest answer in the 2nd quartile was a 6 and the highest answer in the 3rd quartile was a 7. It doesn’t tell you much about the nature of the distribution around those points. That’s why you look at the graph, which clearly shows the distribution better than any sum. stats or boxplot. Around 83% are on the ‘yes’ side of ambiguity with over 66% going from ‘likely’ to ‘very much’.
I posted something earlier with lots of links in it but didn’t turn up yet so this one is actually after the one with the links.
January 19, 2010, 6:49 pmShills:
Sorry. A correction: 2nd quartiles lowest value would be a 5.
January 19, 2010, 9:21 pmAnonymous:
@Shills:
“What? Don’t understand.”
Please read the first few pages in the survey.
January 19, 2010, 11:31 pmAnonymous:
Wally, this is page 64, chart 21 in:
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf
Shills was talking about the boxplot. The boxplot is below the chart, the way it is constructed is described on page 3.
January 19, 2010, 11:38 pmShills:
Read the pages.Whats up?
January 20, 2010, 12:45 amAnonymous:
Page 3. “The boxes contain the 50% of total values falling between the 25th and 75th percentile, meaning that 50% of the cases have values within the box, 25% have values larger than the upper boundary and 25% have values less than the lower boundary.”
The intent is to ignore 25% of the lower voices and 25% of the higher voices. The way boxes are drawn for the chart we are discussing, 25% of the higher voices are in. If the resolution of the boxes was smaller (there were more gradations available for the answers), the median on the boxes would have been less than 6.
Same for median on the answers, but you were discussing boxes, not the chart (your phrase: “Are you that blind or you just don’t know what a boxplot is?”).
I hope we are done with this.
January 20, 2010, 4:19 amShills:
@ Anon:
Umm. I think you might have confused things.
You say: ‘The intent is to ignore 25% of the lower voices and 25% of the higher voices.’
No, none of the data is being ignored. The box just shows where 50% of the responses are around the median. Everything outside still counts
You say: ‘The way boxes are drawn for the chart we are discussing, 25% of the higher voices are in. ‘
If you are saying the 4th quartile, the highest 25%, is included in the box then you are mistaken. The reason you can’t see any whiskers is because the 3rd quartile’s highest value is a 7, hence there is no room to put the whiskers. The 3rd quartile contains a 7 as its highest point (hence the box edge being at 7) and the whiskers contain an extra 25% of answers, all 7. Just look at the percentages on the graph. bar 7 has 34.59% of responses, so the highest 25% must be in there.
You say: ‘If the resolution of the boxes was smaller (there were more gradations available for the answers), the median on the boxes would have been less than 6.’
No. If there were say 14 choices (1,1.5,2,2.5…) with the same distribution. There is every chance the median could be 6.5, because the median falls in the upper half (just) of the 6 choices. If you don’t want to take me at face value than do the maths, the percentages are all there.
You say: ‘Same for median on the answers,’
You mean the mean? Why?
You say: ‘but you were discussing boxes, not the chart (your phrase: “Are you that blind or you just don’t know what a boxplot is?”).’
Repeatedly I have suggested you just look at the graph.
January 20, 2010, 5:27 pmShills:
Well. Assuming I have covered your issue with the graph, I think it is a good bit o’ evidence for the claim that AGW is happening a lot more than the skeptics think.
The questions which ask for an opinion of the degree of accuracy (4 being accurate) for the IPCC on the magnitudes of various issues such as temp, sea level and extreme events, shows that the IPCC is mostly agreed upon. In fact, a good percentage think it understates the magnitudes.
Even if we take off Anon’s 25% and assume they answered 4, the mean would stay around 4, leaning to the left (under-state). Meaning the IPCC is seen as accurate by about a third, seen by a third as understating the magnitudes, and overstating the magnitute by the remaining third. So that is two thirds that think the IPCC’s predicted magnitudes are possible.
The links I tried to post earlier haven’t turned up yet so I’ll post ‘em individually.
This one has taken flak from all fronts:
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/survey.pdf
January 21, 2010, 3:20 amShills:
This one:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
January 21, 2010, 3:22 amShills:
This one is just a wiki that links to dif. statements of varying agreement with the IPCC or AGW theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature
January 21, 2010, 3:24 amShills:
Anon. I know your not ignoring me but merely havin’ a short break. You still unsure about the median business? When can I see your evidence for the mass deception theory?
And when will Wally explain how I’ve made the appeal to authority logical fallacy?
January 22, 2010, 3:59 pmShills:
So why the quitin’ ?
Things get too hard for you and you give up?
Was I been unfair?
Wanna talk it thru?
Maybe I had a point?
You guys learn something ?
January 26, 2010, 3:55 amWally:
Shills, I stopped because I got tired of repeating myself. If you reject my argument(s), that’s fine. You’re allowed to do so, but that doesn’t mean you’re right. Also, don’t assume that because we stopped responding that either we think you’re right nor don’t have anything else to argue. I simply don’t want to engage in this argument any longer. Just because you’re the most stubborn person in the room, posting basically to your self for almost a week, and no one is left talking to you, doesn’t mean you are right.
My points have been made, as have your’s, we then started going in circles, and I only have so much tolerance for merry-go-rounds. Maybe I’ll see you in a future post and we can avoid the merry-go-rounds.
January 26, 2010, 3:00 pmShills:
@ Wally:
You say: ‘My points have been made, as have your’s, we then started going in circles, and I only have so much tolerance for merry-go-rounds.’
If you have a problem we can address it. What exactly is going around in circles? Is it our argument on appeal to authority? If you want to convince me on that then show me a good link or something that clearly shows I’m making the logical fallacy, instead of just saying it. If you want the argument to stop being circular than the ball’s in your court.
Also forgive me if I doubt the sole reason is due to round-aboutin’. Most of the arguments between ANon and me of late were about reading stats. There was no repeatings, the argument was going like any argument would until Anon went mute.
January 26, 2010, 4:30 pmWally:
“If you want to convince me on that then show me a good link or something that clearly shows I’m making the logical fallacy”
Ok, I’ve done this, but I’ll give you one more go round.
Your argument basically breaks down into this:
A layperson can’t understand the science of climate change. (ignoring of course that various levels of lay people could educate themselves if they desire to do so)
The consensus opinion of scientists is likely to be right. (You don’t even attempt to prove this statement)
A layperson should then appeal to the consensus opinion of scientists. (Appeal to authority)
What you’ve done in an attempt to disguises your appeal to authority is to wrap it up in more complicated statements. Breaking your argument down into it most basic form should make it pretty obvious how this is not a logical, nor factual argument. So, I completely fail to see how we are even still discussing this other than the fact that I happen to be waiting for something to finish at work.
Also this entire argument is made completely irrelevant by the first line. The mere fact that we are here on a climate change blog likely indicates that both of us have taken an interest in educating ourselves on the subject and are likely to be able to understand the necessary science. Well, maybe you want to remain a layperson and thus perpetuate this argument, but I am certainly not. So this argument is irrelevant, not factual, and fallacious. Yet you’re here disputing whether its fallacious or not….but WHO CARES? All it takes is one of those three things to be completely meaningless in regards to the larger topic of this discussion, which of course has been lost for, oh a month. (And of course we’re ignoring subtitles like what really constitutes a consensus and if there is one…)
And honestly, at this point, if you don’t understand the problems with your argument I just give up. Some people can’t understand quantum mechanics, other can’t understand organic chemistry, some can’t grasp microeconomics, maybe you just have trouble with logic. Heck, maybe I just can’t figure out how to communicate with you. But what is not true is that my silence means anything more than I simply don’t care to talk about this any more. Now, this will be the last time I deal with this issue.
“Most of the arguments between ANon and me of late were about reading stats. There was no repeatings, the argument was going like any argument would until Anon went mute.”
I don’t know, I seem to remember you two going back and forth on what the same stat means several times…. You also fail to adequately address several other issues that may bias the results and appear to have a bias in your own interpretation of the results. Of course all this has been pointed out to you, but you either ignore it or basically repeat yourself.
Just one example:
I say: “And in the wake of all politicization of this field and the emails providing evidence of rigged peer review, I don’t think we have the necessary “scientific scrutiny” to even care what a poll says.”
You say: “You are sceptical of the quality of the science of an entire globe spanning, mutli-decade long inquiry that supports AGW theory. But your little evidence for a globe-spanning rigged peer-review system is enough to convince you it exists.”
I’m sorry, what kind of argument is this exactly? What “multi-decade long inquiry that supports AGW theory?” Please, prove that to me. Show me exactly where someone proves exactly how much CO2, or anything else, we’ve put into the atmosphere and exactly how much of an effect it has had over various other cycles (ie. sun, pacific, etc) and noise. I have PROOF several members rigged peer-review and that the IPCC report is heavily compromised by political spin. Where is your proof of AGW?
This is just one example of you dodging the arguments of others. You back away from the opposing argument create an appeals to ridicule (ie. “your little evidence,” where you don’t address the evidence simply degrade it) and making blind statements of fact (decades of research supporting AGW, despite my, I guess, “little evidence”).
Then you say stuff like this: “As a lay person we leave the science to the experts. They are the ones who have analysed the evidence and come to an opinion. they ALSO don’t care about the numbers, just the evidence.”
But I’ve address these kinds of issues before. Just for example, the emails where various scientists (Mann, Jones) discuss blocking papers because they don’t like their conclusions and attempting to use their political weight to trivialize opposing opinions in the IPCC report. How exactly is that just caring about the evidence? Are these the scientists we’re appealing to? In fact, these are the scientists at the top of the AGW research crowd. Sorry, but fuck that. This area of science is compromised and I suspect it will be a few years before we fully understand just how compromised it is.
January 26, 2010, 6:18 pmAnonymous:
To clarify, yes, I quit the debate because it got repetitive.
Examples:
“If you are saying the 4th quartile, the highest 25%, is included in the box then you are mistaken. The reason you can’t see any whiskers is because the 3rd quartile’s highest value is a 7, hence there is no room to put the whiskers.” — This is exactly what I meant about the results being influenced by having too few possible responses.
“If there were say 14 choices (1,1.5,2,2.5…) with the same distribution. There is every chance the median could be 6.5, because the median falls in the upper half (just) of the 6 choices.” — Yes, there is a chance of that. There is also a chance for the median to be 6 or 5.5. Again, that’s what I am saying, there are too few responses for the boxplot methodology to work. And that’s before we say that 25% of the respondents are heavily biased.
Did I say anything I haven’t said before? No. Repetitive…
Similarly to Wally, I will give the debate one more chance.
The reports do not show any kind of a strong consensus. We have been fighting over several questions responses to which were most favorable to the idea that there is a consensus on catastrophic AGW. What we didn’t do and what is glaringly obvious is go over questions in the same reports, responses to which show that there is absolutely no consensus.
You say that there is a question in the last report that shows that most scientists think that IPCC reports accurately reflect the magnitude of changes to, say, temperatures? OK. These same scientists also think that climate models are not very good at predicting future temperatures. They also think that the overall understanding of climate change is only so-so. What gives? On the one hand, the surveyed scientists think that they don’t know much and can’t really predict future temperatures, yet on the other hand they think that the predictions made by IPCC are correct? How is that useful? Again, that’s before accounting for the fact that 25% of the respondents are heavily biased, and are essentially being asked every time in the report whether they agree with themselves.
I, of course, agree with Wally in that even if there was a consensus on catastrophic AGW, it wouldn’t mean much, but I am still to see evidence that this consensus exists. Some of the reports brought up in this thread were new to me, and I am thankful for that, but the figures they have actually make it clear that the consensus is nowhere to be found.
January 26, 2010, 11:49 pmShills:
@ Wally:
You say: ‘Ok, I’ve done this, but I’ll give you one more go round.’
If you are referring to the appeal to auth. fallacy then no you haven’t. you haven’t linked me to anything.
I suggested a pretty reasonable way to show how I’m making the appeal to authority. Why don’t you link me to a source which describes how an appeal to authority is made.?
You say: ‘The consensus opinion of scientists is likely to be right.’
No. The confidence of the scientists is high.
You say: ‘A layperson should then appeal to the consensus opinion of scientists. (Appeal to authority)’
Not ’should’. Just more rational.
You say: ‘Also this entire argument is made completely irrelevant by the first line.’
No it is not. A layperson who can understand all the science is not a lay person.
You say: ‘if you don’t understand the problems with your argument I just give up’
Well you haven’t explained it much at all.
You say: ‘I don’t know, I seem to remember you two going back and forth on what the same stat means several times…’
Like what? You sure it wasn’t just plain old arguing?
You say: ‘You also fail to adequately address several other issues that may bias the results and appear to have a bias in your own interpretation of the results. Of course all this has been pointed out to you, but you either ignore it or basically repeat yourself.’
Like what? If I don’t like what Anon. says I’ll argue against it. Fair enough? I don’t think I’ve ignored anything.
You say: ‘Where is your proof of AGW?’
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
(Other links on next post cuz CS doesn’t like multi links.)
If you have a problem with the science or the conclusions than submit a paper on it.
And so how does a few supposedly rigged peer-reviews negate all of this?
You say: ‘How exactly is that just caring about the evidence? ‘
Maybe because they could see that those papers lacked good evidence? Besides, these alleged misdmeanors don’t negate all the science. They are evidence to some bad behaviour but what evidence do you have of the far reaching deception?
You say:’This area of science is compromised and I suspect it will be a few years before we fully understand just how compromised it is.’
Compromised in what way? Prove it is serious, and it will all be exposed for everyone to see.
January 27, 2010, 12:19 amShills:
Other links for proof on AGW:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
January 27, 2010, 12:31 amShills:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/greenhouse_gases.html
Also, just go to the IPPC.
Again, if you have a problem with the science then tell someone who can do something about it. I don’t understand it.
January 27, 2010, 12:39 amShills:
@ Anon:
With the median
There is no chance it would be 5, or 5.5. Look at the percentages. Also you are forgetting the skewed distribution affects the mean.
You say: ‘On the one hand, the surveyed scientists think that they don’t know much and can’t really predict future temperatures, yet on the other hand they think that the predictions made by IPCC are correct? ‘
Have you seen the range of projections in the IPCC? It is not certain. The models are not the only thing they use to make predictions.
Did you see my other links. like the Oreskes paper?
January 27, 2010, 1:01 amAnonymous:
“There is no chance it would be 5, or 5.5. Look at the percentages.”
Don’t put words into my mouth. I said 6 or 5.5. On a boxplot, with 25% top and 25% bottom responses being thrown away according to the methodology in the paper, there is a chance for the median to be 6 or 5.5. Look at the percentages.
Of course, I am familiar with the Oreskes paper. She claims to have analyzed 900-something abstracts of papers on climate change and concluded that the majority support the concept of catastrophic AGW. When others looked into the same abstracts she analyzed, they have only found 13 abstracts (~1%) that support the concept of catastrophic AGW directly. This is one more fluke.
January 27, 2010, 1:28 amAnonymous:
Quoting Oreskes talking about her paper:
“…in various interviews and conversations after, I repeated pointed out that very few papers analyzed said anything explicit at all about the consensus position. This was actually a very important result, for the following reason. Biologists today never write papers in which they explicitly say “we endorse evolution”. Earth scientists never say “we explicitly endorse plate tectonics.” This is because these things are now taken for granted.”
In other words, she admits she found nothing explicit. She thinks this is proof positive that the consensus exist. You can agree with her, of course, but I, for one, find this laughable.
January 27, 2010, 1:38 amAnonymous:
Sorry for writing short messages, but I thought I’d point out to Shills that yes, with the increased resolution of responses (1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, …, 7), it is indeed possible for the median *on the histogram* to go from 6 to 5.5 as well. If you think this is impossible, your math is wrong.
January 27, 2010, 1:50 amShills:
@ Anon”
You say: ‘What we didn’t do and what is glaringly obvious is go over questions in the same reports, responses to which show that there is absolutely no consensus.’
I only need to show, your task for me, that there is a consensus on catastrophic AGW, not every aspect of it. And for my own case, A consensus on AGW being a serious problem because so much of the warming is anthropogenic, is all I care about.
You say ‘Again, that’s before accounting for the fact that 25% of the respondents are heavily biased, and are essentially being asked every time in the report whether they agree with themselves.’
I don’t agree that they are being asked if they agree with themselves. Cont. authors only look at one aspect not the whole publication, and it is a synthesis so individual opinions are not nec. the same as the group opinion. But, I def. agree that as a matter of principle those that were part of the IPCC should not be asked to comment on the IPCC, that’s why I factored it in with one of my posts (see, I don’t ignore Wally). But, the question about ‘most of the warming’ does not say anything about the IPCC.
January 27, 2010, 2:28 amShills:
@ Anon.
You say: ‘On a boxplot, with 25% top and 25% bottom responses being thrown away according to the methodology in the paper, there is a chance for the median to be 6 or 5.5. Look at the percentages.’
LOL!! Dude, I am repeating myself. The box plot does not throw away those responses. they are just separated. The median calculation includes all the data.
You say: ‘*on the histogram*’ What is the point of this distinction? Do you know the dif. between median and mean?
You say you use math to find that it is possible to get a median of 5.5. How? How do you get that? Lol. The middle number is the middle number no matter how much you take of the sides
You say: ‘ When others looked into the same abstracts she analyzed, they have only found 13 abstracts (~1%) that support the concept of catastrophic AGW directly.’
Yeah, like who?
Did they find any that explicitly dispute AGW? Because she didn’t. And where did you get her quote from?
January 27, 2010, 2:58 amAnonymous:
“You say you use math to find that it is possible to get a median of 5.5. How? How do you get that? Lol.”
Easy. We increase the resolution of answers from { 1, 2, …, 7 } to { 1, 1.5, 2, …, 7 }. With infinite resolution, the answers that were rounding to 6 on the old scale are really in the range of (5.5, 6.5). If all of them are, say, 5.6, they will now round to 5.5 instead of 6, and the new median will be 5.5 as well.
How’s that for “LOL”?
“When others looked into the same abstracts she analyzed, they have only found 13 abstracts (~1%) that support the concept of catastrophic AGW directly.”
“Yeah, like who?”
It looks like you are one more time looking to argue personas instead of numbers.
The answer to your question is several different people, although it does not matter because Oreskes herself says that she has not been able to find any direct support for the concept of catastrophic AGW, as follows from the quote I provided earlier.
I took this quote from here:
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/08/oreskes_responds_to_schulte.php
What would your course be now? Will you dispute that Oreskes said what I have written or will you dispute that direct support does not matter?
January 27, 2010, 5:42 amAnonymous:
The last sentence should have used “will you say” instead of “will you dispute” in both places. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
January 27, 2010, 5:45 amAnonymous:
Err… Sorry again, I must have had too much coffee. The correct version of the last sentence:
Will you dispute that Oreskes said what I have written or will you say that direct support does not matter?
January 27, 2010, 5:48 amWally:
Sigh…
“You say: ‘The consensus opinion of scientists is likely to be right.’
No. The confidence of the scientists is high.
You say: ‘A layperson should then appeal to the consensus opinion of scientists. (Appeal to authority)’
Not ’should’. Just more rational.”
Both of these adjustments of the statements are inconsequential when dealing with the truthfulness or validity of your argument. Not you, nor anyone else, can quantify exactly how much “confidence” we have in the consensus. Sorry, this is not a statement of fact. Get over it. Similarly “should appeal to…” and “its more rational to appeal to…” are functionally equivalent. Both are appeals to authority. Whether it be you’re appealing to them for rationality or not makes no difference logically. And basted, I told myself I wouldn’t respond to anymore of this idiocy, but alas, the page was still up when I came in today.
>You say: ‘Also this entire argument is made completely irrelevant by the first line.’
No it is not. A layperson who can understand all the science is not a lay person. <
That’s not my point at all. My point is that I don’t care what a layperson that just does what other people tell them to do, or thinks what other people tell them to. If they are to have a voice in this discussion they need to make an attempt to understand the science for themselves. Simply repeating what other people say is a waste of time.
As for the rest, well I grow more and more tired of circular arguments, were I say one thing, you say another in response to it, but what I said first is still a valid response to what you said, etc… In short you provide zero compelling evidence to disprove anything I say or prove anything you say.
You do this in several ways. First you link to a history of climatology page that basically hints at a correlation between CO2 and temperature, but it doesn’t even mention R^2 in the entire piece. You also seem to have linked to this page without even reading it entirely, otherwise you might have noticed statements such as: “In the network of feedbacks that made up the climate system, CO2 was a main driving force. This did not prove by itself that the greenhouse effect was responsible for the warming seen in the 20th century. And it did not say how much warming the rise of CO2 might bring in the future. What was now beyond doubt was that the greenhouse effect had to be taken very seriously indeed.”
So we need to take it seriously, but no one really knows why people are modeling CO2 as the main driving force, nor if CO2 will actually continue to correlate with temps in the future. That’s rich.
Or it states such nonsense such as: “All, that is, except a few panels composed primarily of people with limited if any expertise in climate science, representing ideological and business interests who opposed government regulation.”
I guess the work of climate scientists such Lindzen should just be trivialized by claiming he has some “ideological and business interest?” And what makes work done by industries inherently less likely to be right anyway? What about the benefit for climate scientists in pushing this catastrophe theory in order to gain more government funding, because as well all know, governments love to be perceived as “saving the people.” I guess we can appeal to motive for one group but not the other right? And this is the kind of honest opinion you subscribe to?
“Around 2008 some scientists began to warn that these changes were coming on faster than the international panels had predicted. Also as predicted only sooner, the world was beginning to suffer worse heat waves, droughts, floods, and severe storms, while the sea level rose and important ecosystems began to show signs of stress. ”
By now this entire paragraph has been proven to be comeplete BS. There is absolutely zero evidence supporting worse heat waves, droughts, floods and severe storms. More to the point, in 2008 the Earth had been cooling for a decade (now at 12 years), these models using positive feedback loops leading to increasing temps have not held up. (Note: all of the data for this can be found in this blog)
Anyway, if this is the kind of crap you think actually proves your case, well I guess you’re just layman and you can’t actually understand what you’re reading. So, I shouldn’t blame you. I should expect that you know what an R^2 is, or that you need to establish that the slope of your regression is significantly different from zero, or that correlation doesn’t mean causation, etc…
Another strategy of yours is to put words in other people’s mouths: “Maybe because they could see that those papers lacked good evidence? Besides, these alleged misdmeanors don’t negate all the science. They are evidence to some bad behaviour but what evidence do you have of the far reaching deception?”
So when one scientists says to another: “If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense. So they do lots of monte carlo stuff that shows the superiority of their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but NEVER actually show how their method would change the Tornetrask reconstruction from what you produced.”
That’s them saying that the other group lacks evidence? Sounds like Briffa is in over his head, can’t understand this “monte carlo stuff” with “a lot of “Box-Jenkins stuff” that is “appears to be correct theoretically,” but he wants to trash it because it “could really do some damage.” But he needs help doing it. So, he breaks with ethical science and confidential peer review and asks someone else to help him dump on it. But oh, that’s not a sign of rigged peer review. Nor are the statistics showing how CRU papers and those of researchers friendly with CRU had publications accelerated, while those attempting to publish works conflicting with the CRU conclussions where held up or black balled entirely, likely in a similar way to this paper. But, yeah these scientists were just judging the evidence….right….
“Compromised in what way? Prove it is serious, and it will all be exposed for everyone to see.”
Shills, this is where you just become disingenuous. You’ve read the evidence, its been reported on this blog and presented to you by commenters (the emails, other scientists attempting to speak out against being black balled, IPCC claims that have ZERO grounding in fact, “lost” data, methods that can be repeated to give the same result but with random data, etc). Just because you trivialize the evidence without actually addressing it (see you idiotic claims such as, “But your little evidence for a globe-spanning rigged peer-review system”) doesn’t mean it isn’t true, nor that I need to present you with anything else to prove my case. It just shows that you’re sticking your fingers in your hears and going “la-la-la-la” as I present my case, then largely repeating yourself when you respond. As such there is little point to respond to you. Now if you want to make any other arguments, that don’t essentially repeat yourself for, I don’t know, the 10th or 20th time, by all means make them.
January 27, 2010, 11:33 amShills:
@ Anon
You say: Easy. We increase the resolution of answers from { 1, 2, …, 7 } to { 1, 1.5, 2, …, 7 }. With infinite resolution, the answers that were rounding to 6 on the old scale are really in the range of (5.5, 6.5). If all of them are, say, 5.6, they will now round to 5.5 instead of 6, and the new median will be 5.5 as well.
How’s that for “LOL”?’
LOl! indeed. What the hell is this rounding business? There is no rounding off in determining a median. I have said this before.
You say: ‘6 on the old scale are really in the range of (5.5, 6.5)’
No. the answers that were 6 are split in two: 6, 6.5. It doesn’t make sense to shift them down, because a choice of 6 does not imply a choice of a high 5 as much as a choice for a low 6 or high 6.
You say: ‘If all of them are, say, 5.6, they will now round to 5.5′
There is no rounding. If the 50% answer was a 5.6 than the median would be a 5.6. We cannot speculate how many of the 6’s are a 6 or 6.5, so we just split them down the middle evenly. But this is merely an unbiased speculation, might has well just take the median as 6.
Your ideas are pretty bizarre.
About Oreskes:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/naomi-oreskes-consensus-on-global-warming.htm
See what Benny Peisner says? –Not saying that this is what Oreskes essay shows tho. The glaring thing it shows is that there are very few papers out there doin much disputin.
January 27, 2010, 7:50 pmAnonymous:
“6 on the old scale are really in the range of (5.5, 6.5)”
“No. the answers that were 6 are split in two: 6, 6.5.”
So, now you argue that when someone has to choose an answer on the scale of 1 to 7 and his real opinion is 5.9, he will answer 5 instead of 6?!
You are just making stuff up now. LOL more, please.
“The glaring thing it shows is that there are very few papers out there doin much disputin.”
The glaring thing is that you don’t comment on whether Oreskes has been able to find a lot of direct support for the concept of catastrophic AGW (she hasn’t) and whether that’s important for establishing that there is a consensus on that (it is).
January 27, 2010, 11:32 pmShills:
@ Anon:
Oh, I get it. With you the median is not being rounded it’s just the individual peeps doin it in their heads. OK. assuming all the peeps think in terms of degrees of a choice, as in 6,6.1,6.2… and then round it off, then there is a chance it could be 5.5 but no more than it could be 6.5. But we don’t know what degrees of the 5’s, 6’s or 7’s exist. So why not take the middle: 6.
About Oreskes:
She seems to find implicit and explicit agreement that most of the warming is AGW though. How do you feel about that?
@ Wally:
You say: ‘Not you, nor anyone else, can quantify exactly how much “confidence” we have in the consensus.’
Well, there is no need to be exact, but when a vast majority of experts agree on something it means there is a great deal of confidence, lack of doubt, on the something.
You say: ‘Both are appeals to authority. Whether it be you’re appealing to them for rationality or not makes no difference logically.’
When will you show me how I am making the appeal to authority logical fallacy? I’ve asked you like three times. You guys give me shit for repeating’ the same old stuff, well you ain’t much better.
You say: ‘My point is that I don’t care what a layperson that just does what other people tell them to do, or thinks what other people tell them to.
Well Either way, if you care or not, how does this affect my argument?
You say: ‘By now this entire paragraph has been proven to be comeplete BS. ‘
Really how? If you and this blog have some good evidence than send it out there.
You say: ‘In short you provide zero compelling evidence to disprove anything I say or prove anything you say.’
Re. the appeal to authority fallacy: Ditto.
You say: ‘That’s them saying that the other group lacks evidence?’
It sounds like they have found a flaw in the paper. They seem to be behaving unethically but the ind. investigation is still ensuing, so lets see what it says.
You say: ‘But oh, that’s not a sign of rigged peer review. Nor are the statistics showing how CRU papers and those of researchers friendly with CRU had publications accelerated, while those attempting to publish works conflicting with the CRU conclussions where held up or black balled entirely, likely in a similar way to this paper. But, yeah these scientists were just judging the evidence….right….’
It’s not a sign of a major widespread rigged system. What stats? Show us your evidence that the CRU guys are able to manipulate the entire scientific field in favour of one particular theory (directly or indirectly).
You say: ‘doesn’t mean it isn’t true, nor that I need to present you with anything else to prove my case.’
Sure it doesn’t mean it’s not true. But you do need more evidence to convince us all that this widespread deception is happening. How does a few badly sourced IPCC statements support your idea for a deception? Maybe the IPCC made a mistake, did that occur to you? Dude, get your friends together and prove your point. If it is so obvious to you than why not create a case, until than, why should we believe you? sincere question, yo.
Again, will you show me how I’m making the appeal to authority logical fallacy?
January 28, 2010, 4:33 amShills:
For Wally:
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/resources/globalwarming/documents/oreskes-on-science-consenus.pdf
Oreskes gives a bit of an idea of scientific confidence and consensus.
January 28, 2010, 4:50 amAnonymous:
“OK … there is a chance it could be 5.5 but no more than it could be 6.5. But we don’t know what degrees of the 5’s, 6’s or 7’s exist. So why not take the middle: 6.”
During the last few posts I was simply pointing out that increasing resolution (eg, twice) could indeed result in the median moving downwards (to 5.5), which was something you didn’t believe. I am thankful we have been able to establish that, despite suffering through your endless “LOLs”.
“She seems to find implicit and explicit agreement that most of the warming is AGW though. How do you feel about that?”
I feel that “… very few papers analyzed said anything explicit at all about the consensus position”, same as Oreskes herself.
She thinks that this is a strong indicator of the consensus, and I think that this is nothing but.
I rest my case.
January 28, 2010, 5:19 amAnonymous:
BTW, I feel for Wally.
@Shills:
“When will you show me how I am making the appeal to authority logical fallacy? I’ve asked you like three times. You guys give me shit for repeating’ the same old stuff, well you ain’t much better.”
You asked “like three times” and every time you have been given an answer, you just choose to ignore these answers.
You: “A layperson should then appeal to the consensus opinion of scientists.”
Wally: “[This is] appeal to authority.”
You: “Not ’should’. Just more rational.”
Wally: “‘It’s more rational to appeal to the consensus opinion’ and ’should appeal to the consensus opinion’ are functionally equivalent. Both are appeals to authority.”
You: “How I am making the appeal to authority logical fallacy?”
Can you say ‘repetitive’?
Do you need a full break out on why your first sentence constitutes an appeal to authority? No problem:
You say, again: “A layperson should then appeal to the consensus opinion of scientists.” Why? Why appeal to the consensus opinion of scientists instead of, say, an opinion of your dentist? Well, that’s obvious, isn’t it. Because scientists are presumably more knowledgeable about whatever is being discussed. Because their opinion is listened to by others. Because they are commonly regarded as authorities. That is, a layperson should appeal to the consensus opinion of scientists because they are regarded as authorities on the subject matter. And this is an appeal to authority, because, citing Wikipedia:
“Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.”
If you want to nitpick on “correct” above, you can replace it with “more likely to be correct”, the definition will still hold. If you seriously want to go nuts on that and will argue that this variation of the Wikipedia’s definition: “a statement is more likely to be correct if it is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative” is actually true, well, we probably can’t save you…
Clear? I hope so, because I sure am not going to arguing this point again.
January 28, 2010, 5:53 amWally:
Shills,
“Well, there is no need to be exact, but when a vast majority of experts agree on something it means there is a great deal of confidence, lack of doubt, on the something.”
Which is shown by the basically, “meh, maybe” responses by scientists in the field when being asked about the ability of models to predict future warming, etc? You got some rosy glasses on here pal.
“When will you show me how I am making the appeal to authority logical fallacy? I’ve asked you like three times. You guys give me shit for repeating’ the same old stuff, well you ain’t much better.”
For the love of god. I’m not even going to address this anymore. Anon has put it pretty well anyway. If you can’t get this at this point I’m happy to just concede that I can’t explain it to you and/or you are just incapable of understanding it.
“Well Either way, if you care or not, how does this affect my argument? ”
It doesn’t effect the validity or truthfulness of your argument, but it points out that your argument is irrelevant to the larger issues at hand.
“Really how? If you and this blog have some good evidence than send it out there. ”
It is out there actually. You know, haven’t you heard of the IPCC retracting its Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2025…etc…?
“It sounds like they have found a flaw in the paper. They seem to be behaving unethically but the ind. investigation is still ensuing, so lets see what it says.”
What was the flaw? That is was too complicated for Briffa? That it only showed how the methods/results he preferred where a load of crap? And we should just wait? Is that what our democratic leaders or those at the IPCC really want us to do?
“It’s not a sign of a major widespread rigged system.”
So, several top scientists, who happen to reviewers for pretty much every major climate journal, engaging in unethical actions is not rigged peer review? And lets get away from subjective qualifiers such as “major widespread.” I would call this “major,” but not “widespread,” because it seems to have only effected a few individuals, but those individuals have a lot of influence in this area of science. However, you may disagree.
“What stats? Show us your evidence that the CRU guys are able to manipulate the entire scientific field in favour of one particular theory (directly or indirectly).”
Given that its been presented on this blog, I’ll leave it to you to find. I honestly don’t care to take the time to link to you the evidence if you’re just going to ignore it (the appeal to authority bit) or trivialize it without addressing it (just about any factual evidence I’ve brought up before).
“But you do need more evidence to convince us all that this widespread deception is happening.”
You should replace “us all” with “me.” At this point I don’t care about convincing you anymore. Its pretty obvious you’re either stubborn, stupid, bias or any combination. Thus far you can’t understand an appeal to authority, you minimalize unethical science, ignore that much of the data still being used today can’t be replicated (ie. the hockey stick lacking the MWP), etc. If you wanted to show me just how blindly people can follow they preconceived ideals, you’ve succeeded.
“How does a few badly sourced IPCC statements support your idea for a deception? Maybe the IPCC made a mistake, did that occur to you?”
By making statements that had ZERO research to prove them? That’s just “mistake,” like maybe I left the milk out? If its just a simple mistake, what’s that say about how much care went into making sure everything in that report had strong scientific evidence supporting it? How many other “mistakes” did they make? Sorry, this is pathetic. In science you don’t say anything you can’t support. In most fields you’d get slammed in peer review for making one erroneous statement that goes beyond the scope of your data. Well the IPCC reports have now demonstrated quite clearly that this kind of rigor was not used when they were being written. So, yeah, the whole damn thing is compromised by this. What else have the said that goes beyond the scope of their data?
“Dude, get your friends together and prove your point. If it is so obvious to you than why not create a case, until than, why should we believe you? sincere question, yo.”
Dude, yo. People are doing this (and yes that even includes pass peer review journals). I generally have my hands full contributing to an area of science that isn’t full of BS, so sorry. This about my limit of “speaking out.” Now if we can get you to think past what a consensus means or what kinds of forms an appeal to authority can take….
January 28, 2010, 2:19 pmShills:
@ Anon:
I don’t use ’should’ because it has a moralistic character.
Anon You are the first person to actually attempt an explanation of why it is a logical fallacy. Wally has never done this, he just says it is, like your example above shows. So guys, quit accusing me of being unnec. repetitive.
But I disagree with you.
You say: ‘If you want to nitpick on “correct” above, you can replace it with “more likely to be correct”, the definition will still hold. ‘
No. That is an important difference. The difference is the assertion of certainty, necessity– something I don’t do. I am not saying that the experts are right, only that the evidence and confidence outweighs that of the skeptic’s evidence. In such a situation you have no certainty, but given you have to make a decision which side seems to be doin’ better? Is it more rational to go with the side that is supported by a lot of evidence and confidence or the other side that does not?
You said you looked up the Wiki on it. So did I:
‘The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.’
‘The more relevant the expertise of an authority, the more compelling the argument. Nonetheless, authority is never absolute, so all appeals to authority which assert that the authority is necessarily infallible are fallacious.’
‘Many trust a surgeon without ever needing to know all the details about surgery themselves. Nevertheless, experts can still be mistaken, wilfully deceptive, subject to pressure from peers or employers, have a vested financial interest in the false statements, or have unusual views (or views that are widely criticized by other experts) within their field (this makes the majority of experts right, and thus the renegade expert is wrong), and hence their expertise does not always guarantee that their arguments are valid.’
‘An appeal to authority cannot guarantee the truth of the conclusion, given the nature of truth and the Consensus theory of truth, because the fact that an authority says something does not necessarily make it so.’
‘In informal logic, the fact that a majority of experts in a given field believe X—for example, the fact that nearly all medical scientists think that HIV causes AIDS and reject AIDS denialism—makes it more reasonable for a person without knowledge in the field to believe X.’ — sounds similar to my claim.
@ Wally:
You say: ‘In science you don’t say anything you can’t support. In most fields you’d get slammed in peer review for making one erroneous statement that goes beyond the scope of your data. ‘
They are getting slammed. They do fix mistakes. If you assume an organisation of humans should never slip up a bit than I think your expectations are too high.
You say: ‘Which is shown by the basically, “meh, maybe” responses by scientists in the field when being asked about the ability of models to predict future warming, etc?’
CHerry pick much?
You say: ‘t is out there actually. You know, haven’t you heard of the IPCC retracting its Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2025…etc…?’
The Himalayan glaciers blunder doesn’t negate the claims of drought, flooding. What is your etc?
You say: ‘What was the flaw? That is was too complicated for Briffa? That it only showed how the methods/results he preferred where a load of crap? And we should just wait? ‘
The flaw was a lack of practicality to my untrained understanding. None of what you have said is proven, so we wait and see what is proven.
January 28, 2010, 8:07 pmAnonymous:
“If you want to nitpick on “correct” above, you can replace it with “more likely to be correct”, the definition will still hold.”
“No. That is an important difference.”
I guessed right…
As I said, if you want to go nuts on that and say “a statement is more likely to be correct if it is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative” is actually true, we can’t save you.
Nobody ever measured the degree of correlation between having authority and being right. The reason people still use having authority as a shortcut for being right is that they don’t have time to pay attention to the question at hand and they don’t have anything else apart from authority to lean upon. This last bit is really what makes it, if you don’t have any thoughts about a particular subject, there is nothing you can do but borrow thoughts of others.
If you reworded your point and said that “laymen” have nothing to lean upon besides authority, nobody would disagree. Many would, however, argue that spending minimal effort researching the subject matter is more *rational* than doing nothing and blindly believing what others say to you, and is something you *should* do if you feel strongly about something…
January 29, 2010, 2:51 amAnonymous:
By the way, Wally wasn’t really cherry-picking. Most of the questions in your surveys, Shills, are political, like, “what you think our governments should be doing now?”, etc. I had to make a special effort to find non-political questions, answers to which could be seen as an acceptance of catastrophic AGW. A huge portion of non-political questions had answers along the lines of “meh, maybe” or “well, we don’t really understand factor X” that Wally cited.
January 29, 2010, 3:01 amAnonymous:
By the way, speaking of laymen and consensus…
Take a look at this article:
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100128/LIFESTYLE14/1280467/1409/METRO/Study–Global-warming-means-wacky-weather-near-Great-Lakes
The article basically tries to argue that harsher winters are sure signs of global warming, which is hilarious by itself, but that’s beside the point. Look at the opening paragraphs:
“In coming years, global warming will have a bizarre, seemingly incongruous impact on winters here in the Great Lakes region: shorter, milder cold seasons coupled with bigger winter storms. That is the consensus among researchers involved in a National Wildlife study titled “Oddball Winter Weather: Global Warming’s Wake-up Call for the Northern United States.”
Care to guess how many researches were involved in the study and stand behind that consensus? Two.
Want to bet that a lot of people will misread / extrapolate this to some kind of a global consensus speaking in favor of catastrophic AGW? I thought so.
Thinking for yourself is never optional.
January 29, 2010, 4:44 amAnonymous:
(The page is a bit laggy so this may appear twice. Sorry if that happens.)
And, speaking of laymen and consensus…
Take a look at this article:
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100128/LIFESTYLE14/1280467/1409/METRO/Study–Global-warming-means-wacky-weather-near-Great-Lakes
The article basically tries to argue that harsher winters are sure signs of global warming, which is hilarious by itself, but that’s beside the point. Look at the opening paragraphs:
“In coming years, global warming will have a bizarre, seemingly incongruous impact on winters here in the Great Lakes region: shorter, milder cold seasons coupled with bigger winter storms. That is the consensus among researchers involved in a National Wildlife study titled “Oddball Winter Weather: Global Warming’s Wake-up Call for the Northern United States.”
Care to guess how many researches were involved in the study and stand behind that consensus? Two.
Want to bet that a lot of people will misread / extrapolate this to some kind of a global consensus speaking in favor of catastrophic AGW? I thought so.
Thinking for yourself is never optional.
January 29, 2010, 4:52 amWally:
“They are getting slammed. They do fix mistakes. If you assume an organisation of humans should never slip up a bit than I think your expectations are too high.”
They didn’t just “slip up a bit” they printed a finding that had ZERO data to back it up. This isn’t me saying something is significantly different, but I forgot to mention to what P value, or some minor oversight. This is a large fundamental finding with ZERO data to support it.
>You say: ‘Which is shown by the basically, “meh, maybe” responses by scientists in the field when being asked about the ability of models to predict future warming, etc?’CHerry pick much? <
Cherry pick? Again this is a very fundamental question. You claim that the consensus implies a lack of doubt, but the very survey you point to shows the scientists have quite a lot of doubt despite a consensus. Anyway, it appears we are reaching the end of your intellectual capabilities if all you can do to respond is blindly claim “cherry pick much.”
“The Himalayan glaciers blunder doesn’t negate the claims of drought, flooding. What is your etc?”
Oh, gosh, the etc is quite long. Such as the increasing rate and intensity of tropical storms, floodings and heat waves (if anything its been cold snaps) are also BS. I honestly haven’t seen any body check on the drought claims though.
“The flaw was a lack of practicality to my untrained understanding.”
So its not practical to prove that the common line of thinking (whether it be in data collection, data analysis or interpretation) is wrong? Before we can go forward we at least have to get rid of the BS. To my understanding, it seems like Briffa was looking for anything to dispute this paper, including claiming it didn’t offer something better. Though that seems odd to me. Proving something doesn’t work that is being used is just as important providing something that works. In the 1500’s many times the treatments to disease were just as bad as the disease itself. Certainly it would have been nice if someone would have proved that bleeding someone with a bacterial infection was bad, even if they didn’t also prove you could cure bacterial infections with antibiotics….
January 29, 2010, 1:34 pmWally:
I’ll respond to this because you seem to have broken out of your circular responses which have typically gone:
Your argument
Me stating the flaw
You stating that isn’t a flaw w/out providing reasoning
Me further explaining the flaw
You asking me to explain the flaw
repeat
I will warn you however, that your new line of logic is even worse than the first.
“No. That is an important difference. The difference is the assertion of certainty, necessity– something I don’t do. I am not saying that the experts are right, only that the evidence and confidence outweighs that of the skeptic’s evidence.”
That’s not your argument at all! You aren’t weighing any of the actual evidence, you’re fucking appealing to the authority to weight the evidence for you. For the love of god man.
“In such a situation you have no certainty, but given you have to make a decision which side seems to be doin’ better? Is it more rational to go with the side that is supported by a lot of evidence and confidence or the other side that does not?”
Again, depending on who you talk to the “a lot of evidence” means varying degrees of things and even switches sides from the skeptical to the pro-AGW side. Thus, you need to actually make a logical and factual argument and not rely on what some group of people think. Alos, there is not the level of confidence you wish there to be.
January 29, 2010, 1:48 pmWally:
Anonymous,
“Many would, however, argue that spending minimal effort researching the subject matter is more *rational* than doing nothing and blindly believing what others say to you, and is something you *should* do if you feel strongly about something…”
Indeed. If someone would actually take the amount of time objectively researching this area for the amount of time shills has looked for polls or argued about what an appeal to authority is, certainly they would be capable of actually having a discussion of the facts and data instead of over what other people think.
January 29, 2010, 1:52 pmAnonymous:
I completely agree.
January 29, 2010, 5:03 pm