We assume that many of our readers will be interested in the declaration of the G8 summit in Heiligendamm (Germany), which was agreed yesterday by the leaders of the G8 countries. We therefore document the key passages on climate change below. As usual we refrain from a political analysis, but as scientists we note that it is rewarding to see that the results of climate science are fully acknowledged by the heads of state.
The declaration states:
CLIMATE CHANGE
48. We take note of and are concerned about the recent UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. The most recent report concluded both, that global temperatures are rising, that this is caused largely by human activities and, in addition,that for increases in global average temperature, there are projected to be major changes in ecosystem structure and function with predominantly negative consequences for biodiversity and ecosystems, e.g. water and food supply.
Fighting Climate Change
49. We are therefore committed to taking strong and early action to tackle climate change in order to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Taking into account the scientific knowledge as represented in the recent IPCC reports, global greenhouse gas emissions must stop rising, followed by substantial global emission reductions. In setting a global goal for emissions reductions in the process we have agreed today involving all major emitters, we will consider seriously the decisions made by the European Union, Canada and Japan which include at least a halving of global emissions by 2050. We commit to achieving these goals and invite the major emerging economies to join us in this endeavour.
50. As climate change is a global problem, the response to it needs to be international. We welcome the wide range of existing activities both in industrialised and developing countries. We share a long-term vision and agree on the need for frameworks that will accelerate action over the next decade. Complementary national, regional and global policy frameworks that co-ordinate rather than compete with each other will strengthen the effectiveness of the measures. Such frameworks must address not only climate change but also energy security, economic growth, and sustainable development objectives in an integrated approach. They will provide important orientation for the necessary future investment decisions.
51. We stress that further action should be based on the UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. We reaffirm, as G8 leaders, our responsibility to act. We acknowledge the continuing leadership role that developed economies have to play in any future climate change efforts to reduce global emissions, so that all countries undertake effective climate commitments tailored to their particular situations. We recognise however, that the efforts of developed economies will not be sufficient and that new approaches for contributions by other countries are needed. Against this background, we invite notably the emerging economies to address the increase in their emissions by reducing the carbon intensity of their economic development. Action of emerging economies could take several forms, such as sustainable development policies and measures, an improved and strengthened clean development mechanism, the setting up of plans for the sectors that generate most pollution so as to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions compared with a business as usual scenario.
52. We acknowledge that the UN climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change. We are committed to moving forward in that forum and call on all parties to actively and constructively participate in the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia in December 2007 with a view to achieving a comprehensive post 2012-agreement (post Kyoto-agreement) that should include all major emitters.
53. To address the urgent challenge of climate change, it is vital that major economies that use the most energy and generate the majority of greenhouse gas emissions agree on a detailed contribution for a new global framework by the end of 2008 which would contribute to a global agreement under the UNFCCC by 2009. We therefore reiterate the need to engage major emitting economies on how best to address the challenge of climate change. We embrace efforts to work with these countries on long term strategies. To this end, our representatives have already met with the representatives of Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa in Berlin on 4 May 2007. We will continue to meet with high representatives of these and other major energy consuming and greenhouse gas emitting countries to consider the necessary components for successfully combating climate change. We welcome the offer of the United States to host such a meeting later this year. This major emitters’ process should include, inter alia, national, regional and international policies, targets and plans, in line with national circumstances, an ambitious work program within the UNFCCC, and the development and deployment of climate-friendly technology. This dialogue will support the UN climate process and report back to the UNFCCC.
I realized I might not have fully addressed your comment. The evidence on the harmful effects of tobacco is abundant and clear. At some point that industry somehow rationalized a choice of putting profits before life. Regardless of the discussions on addiction, IF you suggest that the response to that choice was out of proportion because the EVIDENCE is lacking (which you seem to do), then I doubt your sincerity.
re 349 We pretty much do understand the “cause” as you describe; we just don’t understand the trigger, or the most basic cause, and I’m not down to the esoteric particle physics level. (We do know how bunches of other stuff works.) We do not know why a particular cell all of a sudden chooses to mutate cancerous-like and why at the same time the physiological defenses all of a sudden choose not to fight this cell like they have millions of times before. Above that I agree that we know tons of how cancer works and grows and can die.
“It’s all well and good (if not a bit tiresome) to keep scientists on their toes by trying to poke holes in their explanations and theories.”
Yeah, it would sure be nice if everyone just rolled over and quit asking pesky questions. What a life!
“…simply questioning the credibility of any particular piece of evidence for AGW is very unlikely to undermine the theory….”
Certainly not undermine the entire theory in one fell swoop. But how should one question an entire system theory other than by pointing out little holes that might not add up and trying to resolve them (forgetting the contention that we are not to question at all, per the above.)
“If you want to make a useful contribution as a skeptic, you really need to provide an alternative explanation that fits the existing data. For starters, it would help to explain how rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere would NOT cause global warming.”
Shirley you jest. First off, the question is not simply CO2 caused global warming. It’s the degree, the prognosis, the degree of problems (or benefits), and the degree of action required, if any. And as long as us skeptics are serious (even if later proved wrong) we’re not required to disprove your contentions by proving a negative. You’re making the charge. You prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt (or something akin to that.)
re 350: “If I had to choose a camp, I would rather go to that, with methods I disapprove but purpose I do, rather than this, with both highly objectionable methods and purpose. I agree it would far from ideal, but life often does that to us.”
Actually I do not have a problem with an impassioned person trying to accomplish their goals any way reasonable, even stretching the facts. As a matter of fact it is very difficult to get any political action accomplished without hyperbole and taking things to near-ridiculous extremes, and being ultra loose with the facts. That’s how marijuana got banned (bad) and how automotive emission controls came to be (turned out good) e.g. For instance, that’s what the AGW protagonists might have to do — become alarmists, exaggerate things, fudge the science, etc. to accomplish their sincere well-intentioned aims (though for many of them it goes against their grain.). BUT IT AIN’T SCIENCE and IT AIN’T TRUE. That’s all I’m saying.
Re 352 [We do not know why a particular cell all of a sudden chooses to mutate cancerous-like and why at the same time the physiological defenses all of a sudden choose not to fight this cell like they have millions of times before.]
When you say “we,” I presume you are referring to yourself? Because you certainly don’t appear to know much about the molecular biology and physiology of cancer.
As for poking holes in the scientific underpinnings of AGW theory, as far as I can tell you haven’t been able to change any minds among the regular posters here. And I seriously doubt that you have planted any seeds of doubts in the minds of the RC moderators, or other climatologists who drop in from time to time. I’m still waiting to see your list of favorite non-peer-reviewed sources of information about atmospheric CO2, global warming, etc.
Re #352: [Yeah, it would sure be nice if everyone just rolled over and quit asking pesky questions.]
It would be even nicer if someone would come up with some new pesky questions, instead of just recycling the old ones over and over again. Original & thought-provoking is good, but same old same old gets tiresome, you know?
Rod B (#353) wrote:
I would – if it involved stretching the facts.
The problem is that once you start stretching the facts you begin to lose the ability to rationally assess whether it is in your best interest – or anyone’s interest – to do so. Particularly if you are passionate about it. That is the problem with letting politics or ideology override science. I know that Gavin would be against stretching the facts as well – for much the same reason.
I also know that climatologists have been overly conservative in their projections and, given the nature of the phenomena they are studying tending to understimate things rather than overestimate things. They keep discovering forms of positive feedback they weren’t aware of, such as the fact that hurricanes increase the poleward flow of warm water, resulting in the arctic ice cap melting at an higher rate, or positive feedbacks which they were aware of at a theoretical level but didn’t expect to see for decades. Such as the reduced ability of the Antarctic ocean to absorb carbon dioxide.
In any case, the best way to determine whether claims are being exaggerated or not is to learn more about the science. Without understanding the science, it would prove rather difficult to assess the relationship between the evidence and the claims presumably being made on the basis of such evidence.
But it might also help to keep mind the fact that every scientist is a defendant standing before his peers when he presents a paper defending a conclusion, and likewise, every scientist is a jurist when he examines the works of other scientists in his or other fields. Being in the field, he is better able to assess the evidence which is presented, the arguments which are made, and the conclusions arrived at by others in his field.
Rod B: Actually, the gobbledygook is “the reverse correlation of temp and CO2 for millions of years.” Fix that before you try to understand the data – you don’t even know what the data is, right now. Also, accurate and true ARE synonyms, actually.
Ah, but if you’re pretending to be “scientific” then the onus is on you to produce an alternative hypothesis that can (credibly) explain the observations. I presume that’s why so many “sceptics” are keen to promote the solar theory du jour. They mostly fail the credibility test, of course, but that’s science…
On the other hand, if your scepticism is not rooted in the science, but in a curmudgeon’s dislike for the zeitgeist, there’s nothing to be done. But, as James suggests, it would be nice if you could up with something new from time to time.
Rod B., You say that the onus is not on you to disprove the hypothesis of anthropogenic causation, but given that the science we are dealing with is inductive, that is in fact one of the only two ways to overturn the hypothesis. The other, of course, is to show some result that incontrovertibly conflicts with the hypothesis.
Many people seem to have a hard time with inductive science, because there is no crucial piece of evidence on which the theory depends. Rather there are countless, small pieces, and they either support the theory or they do not (note that I don’t include evidence that is incontrovertibly incompatible with the theory, as it then ceases to be a valid theory). If you have multiple theories, the question becomes which theory best explains the evidence–where “best” may be measured by probability, parsimony, etc.
The situation is rather like putting together the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle with no idea of what picture it will make. At some point, though enough of the puzzle is in place that someone will be able to identify the picture even though there may still be pieces missing. And at some point, enough pieces will be in place that for the hypothesis to be wrong, it would have to be completely wrong–a mere tweak here and there would not suffice to fix it. That is where we are with anthropogenic causation of climate change. The parameters are all pretty tightly constrained and coupled. Change any parameter or all the parameters slightly, and it doesn’t change the main conclusions. Change any parameter significantly, and others start to violate their own constraints. The people who really understand the situation are the researchers doing climate studies. However, even the skeptics are at a loss for alternative explanations–to the point where Svensmark and Shaviv are trying to explain changes in terms of things that are not changing (e.g cosmic ray flux). So, of course, we continue to look at new possibilities as they arise, but not many are arising. And in the mean time, we have a theory that is adequate to explain the evidence, is based on known, reasonble physical mechanisms known to be occuring, and that has no credible opposition. And still you contend that we should wait to act–on a system with known positive feedbacks and an exponentially rising perturbation acting on it. Does that seem prudent to you?
RE: # 353
RodB, you remind me of a character in a western movie (cannot recall the title but Kevin Costner might have played a role).
The character was a — unique — Indian scout who rode his pony sitting backwards; in fact, whatever he did was opposite the norn. He was a contrary and his tribal bretheren gave him some lattitude because he was recognized as such. I suppose every tribe, culture, community has its contraries…riding backwards.
Trouble with contraries is they only see where they have been and not where they are going.
You say:
[For instance, that’s what the AGW protagonists might have to do — become alarmists, exaggerate things, fudge the science, etc. to accomplish their sincere well-intentioned aims (though for many of them it goes against their grain.). BUT IT AIN’T SCIENCE and IT AIN’T TRUE. That’s all I’m saying.]
Assuming you are saying non-scientists who are AGW protagonists are not doing the science — they [[fudge the science]] — we can dismiss that rant.
But, when you say:
[the question is not simply CO2 caused global warming. It’s the degree, the prognosis, the degree of problems (or benefits), and the degree of action required, if any. And as long as us skeptics are serious (even if later proved wrong) we’re not required to disprove your contentions by proving a negative]
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DISPROVE SCIENTISTS CONTENTIONS AND ACCEPTED FACT.
Start with increasing acidification of oceans and talk us through that.
Or, just be content being a contrary. The world will make room for you, too.
Rod, I assumed our conversation was not on scientific evidence and data but rather on the endless courtroom battles. IF that is the case, then the “ain’t science” “ain’t true” “stretching the fact” are understandable. After all, a courtroom is the place where the perception of a few is more important than any facts, hence the facts are used only to influence that perception, and therefore are usually abused.
However, if you were talking about the very well established evidence linking smoking to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, then we obviously disagree. The science there is unequivocal and the investigation owes nothing to stretched facts.
re 355: [It would be even nicer if someone would come up with some new pesky questions,…]
a fair criticism…..
re 356, Timothy: [The problem is that once you start stretching the facts you begin to lose the ability to rationally assess whether it is in your best interest – or anyone’s interest – to do so. Particularly if you are passionate about it. That is the problem with letting politics or ideology override science. I know that Gavin would be against stretching the facts as well – for much the same reason.]
Yes, it’s a very fine line (a high tightrope really) and, to the ethically inclined, causes deep reflection and creates angst. I’m just saying it often is required in politics, but even there one has to carry it to some unclear limit, but not one inch more, lest you fall into an abyss. But, I agree that this is NOT helpful in scientific discourse. It destroys one’s credibility real fast, and it is considered really bad form by most (but unfortunately not all) scientists.
I should add that the current AGW issue seems to be making political headway without resorting to excessive hyperbole and distortions. That’s good for the protagonists and I think a better debate. We’ll see if that continues to hold….
re 357 [accurate and true ARE synonyms]
Not according to Sally Field in “Absence of Malice”…..
re 361, Philippe: You’re correct. I was very explicitly talking ONLY of the political arena (a little broader than the courtroom) and definitely NOT talking of the scientific arena. Some of the tactics I describe are sometimes/often required for political accomplishment. These same tactics are usually suicidal in scientific circles, not to mention very distasteful to most scientists.
The science of tobacco vs. cancer might or not be convincing on its own. None-the-less, whether they needed to or not, the anti-tobacco lobby used extensive distortions and hyperbole, changed the science, and flat out made up stuff (from Gov’t agencies, no less) to advance their case. So far the AGW protagonists have not had to resort to those tactics and have been pretty successful. (‘Course the AGW camp has a higher incidence of true scientists than the anti-tobacco lobby.) I appreciate and respect the AGW process so far(even though I’m a skeptic).
[[The character was a — unique — Indian scout who rode his pony sitting backwards; in fact, whatever he did was opposite the norn. He was a contrary and his tribal bretheren gave him some lattitude because he was recognized as such. I suppose every tribe, culture, community has its contraries…riding backwards.]]
Little Big Man. Dustin Hoffman, 1971, I think. Hoffman didn’t play that guy, who had a bit part.
Re Rod B.’s comments:
113 torturous, convoluted, weird combos of indivudual bits of information combined to explain the elephant. Now this might all be valid…But it still doesn’t pass the sniff test … no matter how often the disparate pieces are repeated. I appreciate and respect the AGW process so far (even though I’m a skeptic)
203 I wish you guys would quit boiling down the science to the idolatry of peer review and a great majority of a vote.
352 Certainly not undermine the entire theory in one fell swoop. But how should one question an entire system theory other than by pointing out little holes that might not add up and trying to resolve them
352 First off, the question is not simply CO2 caused global warming. It’s the degree, the prognosis, the degree of problems (or benefits), and the degree of action required, if any.
So, Rod, what exactly is your goal here? If you were interested in the truth, you would look at the evidence and see where it take you (or at least understand how climatologists arrived at their conclusions about AGW). Instead, you seem quite willing to ignore vast quantities of data in a quest to find a weakness, however small, in the scientific framework on which AGW theory is based, apparently because you don’t like the economic implications of AGW being true.
If I am misreading your comments, and you really are just seeking the truth, whatever that truth might be, I would ask you:
What currently-missing data would be needed to convince you that AGW is real? If you really are looking for the scientific truth regarding climate change (to the extent that scientific truth can be revealed), you should be able to offer some scientific criteria that would cause you to change your view from skepticism to acceptance – that is, what holes in AGW theory need to be plugged and what would it take to make those plugs?
And then there is this comment:
336 Coming from anyone else I would have to conclude that my skepticism is validated — but Gavin is about as straight as they come, so, alas, I have to give it some credence
Let me get this straight: If you have a positive, first-hand encounter with a scientist you are willing to, at least tentatively, give some credence to his/her views. But, in the absence of that personal experience, you are unable or unwilling to accept the conclusions of an anonymous scientist if those conclusions don’t fit your world-view? Have I interpreted your statement accurately here?
Please help me out here – I am trying to get inside the mind of a skeptic…I want to know what makes you tick.
re: #367 (and many others in this thread, and even more frequently in unmoderated blogs elsewhere)
Really, much of this discussion has nothing to do with climate science, but is about psychology: personality or social psych, which are different expertise-sets than normally found in RC. I have some psych background, but not much in those topics, so I started asking friends who are psychology professors, trying to understand belief systems and the ways in which they evolve.
They didn’t know offhand of specific studies on the psychology of AGW belief/disbelief, but of course, there is substantive literature on similar topics in other domains. If I’m lucky, maybe I’ll get somebody qualified to study the AGW case stirred up to do so. Some of this is well-modeled by enumerations of logical fallacies.
I of course ignore the cases of tobacco or oil/coal companies, who have obvious economic reasons for their professed beliefs, i.e. this is about *sincere* beliefs by others without such direct incentives:
Personality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring
First opinions tend to be sticky.
This affects almost everybody.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity_intolerance
Many people have low tolerance for ambiguity, i.e., prefer 0 or 1, gravitate to 100% certainty in one direction or another, and occasionally, if one 100% belief is broken, flip all the way to 100% certainty in the other direction. Such people are not likely to like inductive science (as in Ray’s #359), statistical proofs in general. They like means, but aren’t really happy with standard deviations, skews, kurtosis, confidence intervals, error bars. They are much happier hearing certainties than well-caveated scientific-style discussions.
I conjecture that when somebody asks for a simple lab experience that proves AGW or that smoking causes cancer, it’s related to this.
This is a *lot* of people!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality
Some reservations on this one, but following ideas may be relevant: conventionialism, authoritarian submission, ready acceptance of pseudoscience. Also, it is pretty clear that many of the topics can apply to both extreme left and right politically.
Social psychology
I haven’t dug in here much yet, although there is a clear pattern of people getting irritated by extreme believers on one side, or even people who they simply dislike for other reasons, and then taking a 100%-hard position the other way. For some people, it is sufficient that Al Gore says AGW exists to be forever 100% sure it does not.
I always liked Robert Frost’s comment:
“I never dared be radical when young for fear it would make me conservative when old.”
Logical fallacies
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
A lot of these show up, including:
1. Ad Hominem (and 32. Personal Attack)
Anti-tobacco lobby says X, extreme-environmentalists say Y, therefore X and Y are wrong, and even X’ and Y’ (somewhat similar positions backed by serious science) are wrong too.
3. Appeal to authority
Abdusamatov says so.
4. Biased Sample
5. Burden of Proof
22. Confusing cause and effect
41. Straw man
and a big one:
6. Appeal to consequences of a belief
I.e., It can’t be happening because it would be really bad if it did.
Finally, I recommend the following research paper, although it has some dense psych-speak:
Robert J. MacCoun, “Biases in the Interpretation and Use of Research Results”,
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/MacCoun_AnnualReview98.pdf
p.272 is useful:
“At one end of a continuum, one has a need for cognitive closure; at the other end, a need to avoid closure. The closure that is desired or avoided is *specific* when one seeks or shuns a specific answer, or *nonspecific* if one seeks or avoids closure irrespective of its content…. advantages of this framework over earlier concepts such as intolerance of ambiguity, authoritarianism, and dogmatism.”
Clearly, if somebody needs to be certain, and has gotten anchored on one side or the other, no amount of scientific discussion is likely to move them, which is why some arguments go on forever.
Note: this is very different from a rational skeptic who says: “I know there is a mass of data, and I think AGW is plausible, but I have these 5 specific concerns” and as such get crossed off, their probability estimate rises to likely, then very likely, etc.
p.273, etc on “Bayesian Priors and Asymmetric Standards” is helpful.
p.275-281 “Corrective Practices” is well worth reading.
Finally, although I couldn’t find it freely accessible on-line:
Michael J. Mahoney, “Psychology of the Scientist: An Evaluative Review,”
Social Studies of Science, v. 9, no. 3 (Aug 1979), pp 349-375.
is also useful.
NOTE: observe that that journal is now nearly 40 years old….
SUMMARY:
Psychology is more relevant than climate science in some of these discussions.
Re 365: See, this what you get for using deception, distortions, hyperboles, skewed science ands so forth. I’m surprised that you find it shocking. When the tobacco industry became a lobby group and started using those tactics, they should obviously have expected the emergence of a contrary lobby using the same tactics. It’ a rule of war. The moment you use a weapon, you make its use morally justified to your opponent. That’s what has prevented nuclear weapons from being used more than twice so far.
And, as you pointed, that’s why the climate contrarian view is still so popular so far. Although Katrina was used beyond its actual significance, climate scientists and even environmental groups have been reluctant to resort to the extreme tactics used by the Swindle, Beck, and many others. It’s a very honorable choice, but unfortunately the public’s perception of reality suffers from it.
However, I maintain that the science linking tobacco to lung disease, cardiovascular disease AND lung cancer is unequivocal. The pathophysiological changes in endothelial and platelet function are well known and have been shown to be identical for second hand smoke. The emphysematic changes are documented ad infinitum, the list of chemicals contained in tobacco smoke that have been proven to cause cancer is too long to summarize here.
By the way I think the emphasis on definition and clearing up misdefinitions and incomprehension I am seeing in this set of comments is very good.
To expand on it, a “reverse correlation” is normally averaging potential stimuli/signals to weed out a likely match for a response. It’s fairly obvious that in the sentences
reverse correlation is not meant, but rather, either “inverse” or “negative” correlation.
But that crude level of error masks a very profound underlying misunderstanding. If variable x is changing in an appreciable way and variable y is “ignoring” the change in x, there is neither a positive nor a negative correlation – neither a (direct) correlation nor an inverse correlation. There is in fact no correlation at all. Coupled with the odd distinction between a statement being accurate and a statement being true, it’s a very distressing, and too typical, picture.
If I might, some of the denialists here are probably gun enthusiasts. If so, you might consider how you’d respond to someone saying “because of the pellets they dug out of him (Browning 20 ought six 9mm), we knew it was his rifle because of the firing of the ballistics and we tested the paraffin in the wounds.” You’d be happier if he said “I have no idea about this stuff, but I have a gut feeling he’s guilty.”
Clearly, if the cards were on the table, it’s more pleasing to denialists to see a section of a graph of what is believed to be the C02 and temperature history at a sufficiently large scale that it doesn’t resemble the graph in “An Inconvenient Truth,” and you can have a discussion about all that – why pick scale X, what about the temp leading C02 at the end of glaciations, why is a shorter time scale better now or not, and so on. Indeed, that’s what I find on this site – it’s ubiquitous.
Speaking of which, no, you don’t need to be a solar physicist to know what solar activity is in a given period. If a theorist makes their criterion for solar activity sufficiently clear, you can just look up the data for the relevant period and either agree or disagree. It’s not as simple as tides, but it’s not a deep mystery, either. the cycle of solar activity is around 11 years, with a maximum and other peaks, and there’s been an increase in baseline activity of about 1/20th of a percent every decade as far as we can tell, for about 30 years (and maybe more, but we don’t have good estimates on that now). That’s accounted for, and a plethora of researchers have modeled what that amount of increase would do to temperature minus things like anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases – http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterrestrial/sunclimate/welcome.shtml In other words, instead of being ignored, it’s part of the model. I am not a “solar physicist” but I can look this stuff up.
Chuck (367), this is a big bunch! I doubt I’m worth it. I’ve been over this before, but maybe not too clearly. I’ll try again and trust I’m not too redundant or verbose.
I am primarily trying to understand the science (and its conclusions) of global climate change, especially that caused by us as it affects the current and future environment/society/culture/way-of-like/economy…… I also react to logic in a discussion that sounds fallacious. This in part is just being my loveable curmudgeon self (and at my age and history, I have a right [;-} ), part connected with my first statement.
Most of the examples you cite fall into the logic side, not the reams of data and science side. When I ask a scientist for the info and the reply is 1) we all say so, or 2) it’s all been peer-reviewed, or 3) we’re smarter scientists, so roll over, shut up and enjoy it, there is nothing in those that adds to an understanding of the science. (Though, admittedly, it might be a clue that when the science is explained it might not be an individual guess and have some credence.) Now when I challenge ala 1, 2, 3 above, most of you guys go ballistic, for what rational I can’t totally fathom (though John might viz-a-viz his interesting post #368 here). I’m not disagreeing with any data or the science, because neither is contained in the three examples.
Another example of logic vs. data that I reject is reacting to my “gray” question with a black and white premise (a “1” or “0” as john would say). As your post cites, in response to some detailed question I asked about IR absorption, one heatedly shot back, ‘why don’t I believe CO2 caused global warming?!?’ — not what I asked (can’t recall the specifics now) at all. I do believe that greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere increase the surface temperature of the earth. This is a no brainer. But I have some uncertainties and unknowns in the area of “how much?”, “to what degree?”, etc. e.g. This sounds small, but it could be indicative again of the logic and rational process which in turn taints the credibility. Like the gross overaction (my opinion) to my statements that might at best put a teeny-tiny insignificant mar in the armor. I pointed out once that the average global temperature was lower in the late 50s than it was in 1940. So I said we had COOLING from 1940 to the late 50s. Seemed pretty simple to me, but a bunch went absolutely berserk, said I was really stupid, wrong, and implied my kids are ugly (just kidding!!). That told me that they (and I’m talking of a few in all of this, not pigeon-holing) are defensive and insecure with their science (or at least appear overtly to be) which again taints the science. An acceptable answer might have been 1) maybe unique aerosols caused some cooling, or 2) it’s in the noise; who cares?, or 3) (the best) you can’t analyze annual variations in a statistically averaged global warming over many decades.
A couple of examples of where I have unsatisfied concerns is 1) the mathematics of forcing and temp changes by increasing CO2, and 2) the accuracy of the measurements of global temp and CO2 concentration and their correlation. Now I’ve asked straight questions along these lines often before, recently a bunch in The Weirdest Millennium thread, and gotten some answers and aids but which didn’t fully satisfy me. Now before you take a stab, in this area the ball is in my court to get further educated one level down so I can either better understand or more credibly refute the answers.
Finally, re my #336, I simply have formed a respect for Gavin, had criticized a badly written paragraph of his (not 100% seriously), and simply tempered my criticism by giving him some benefit of the doubt. No deeper than that.
re 369 I find those political tactics neither shocking nor surprising. I see them as unfortunately required, with some reservations, to get some things through because it’s often what it takes to get the populace behind you, which what it takes (other than cash) to get the politicos on board and active.
I don’t see the AGW contrarian view as popular as you do. I think it has a decent popular support (which still might be a minority by the numbers but a majority in interest), which is why the political activities have so far remained above the fray of “dirty tricks”.
I would say the anti-tobacco lobby outdid the industry in their shenanigans, but that’s just my opinion. I’m surprised (a little) that you cite second hand smoke as a credible issue. In that, the government nearly outdid the blatant falsehoods of the anti-marijuana/hemp camp back in the 30s. The EPA got perilously close to being charged with flagrant fraud and maybe contempt by a Federal judge over their first second-hand smoke study a few years ago (which they recently basically re-issued as the “2nd” study.)
re: #369
Philippe: you would appreciate the Brandt history, which would describe the entire process a bit differently. In particular, note that the tobacco industry was once the Tobacco Trust (i.e., monopoly), split up in 1911 via antitrust, but in such a way that the resulting pieces were quite used to collusive behavior … they didn’t really need to “become a lobby group”.
=====
Of course, one of the more eloquent & thoughtful expressions of the tension between science and communication is by Stephen Schneider:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider
See the section starting:
“Schneider once spoke of the difficulties scientists face communicating their work to the public:”
Certain people sometimes quote this, omitting the last 1-3 sentences, which rather changes the meaning.
[[I do believe that greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere increase the surface temperature of the earth. This is a no brainer. But I have some uncertainties and unknowns in the area of “how much?”, “to what degree?”, etc.]]
By itself, doubling of CO2 would cause an increase in surface temperature of about 1.2 degrees K. (Houghton 2004). With feedbacks, the increase would be 1.5-4.5 K, with the most probably value around 3.0 K. A recent survey of long-term paleoclimatology implies that the best value is about 2.8 K. But, as you point out, there are still uncertainties. As the world warms, we’ll be able to refine this figure more and more.
RodB wrote in 352:
You’re not in the position of proving a negative. I’ll repeat my call to the “skeptics” community (always using the loosest possible definition of the term):
Null hypothesis: “Dumping 100 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere will not significantly change the dynamics and chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans.”
The questions to the “skeptic” community: “Have we accumulated enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis?” and “If not, what standard of evidence would need to apply?”
Let’s hear your thoughts, JimC and RodB.
“And stop calling me Shirley!”
re: #372
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/index.htm
http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sgri/
http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sgri/SearchResults.aspx?r=quick&keywords=lung%2
0cancer&whole_words=False&flag_words=
http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sgri/disease.aspx?DiseaseKey=1246
http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sgri/result.aspx?ResultID=6776
The newer SG reports have dandy databases of scientific studies in which one can search for papers, and see their key results plotted in a consistent form. This sequence includes 900 articles on secondhand smoke exposure alone. Note that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is NOT the EPA, and the woman who runs it is pretty serious:
http://www.cdc.gov/about/leadership/bio.htm,
although of course, the fact that she’s also an associate professor at UC San Francisco (a very strong medical-research place) would probably be a strike against her for some [see below under “vermin”.]
That’s science [and it’s also nice presentation that allows the user to rummage around, not just read the reports].
At the other extreme, Googling around for EPA fraud, scam, etc revealed many websites (which Rod B must prefer to those that have actual science), of which the most amusing was entitled:
“California is Ruled by Psychotic Vermin”
and its main page included:
“Why we should exterminate these vermin, genocide their children, and smash their putrid culture to rubble.”
Re 372: My comment about second hand smoke was about cardiovascular risk. The changes in endothelial and platelet functions conducive to cardiovascular disease have been shown to be identical for first hand and second hand smoke, although the prevalence is lower for the second. I have no idea what happened in court and don’t really care. As we have discussed, BS flies thick in the courtroom and the final decision may have little to do with objective reality.
As for the climate contrarian view, my point was that its popularity is out of proportion with the actual evidence supporting the null hypothesis. Furthermore, totally nonsensical ideas, long debunked for readers of this thread, still enjoy widespread support. How many are out there in the general public who still think that a single volcano emits more CO2 per eruption than all human activities in a year? How many think that the historical CO2 lag in the proxy record disprove its role in current warming? How many have even heard of Milankovitch cycles?
And Rod, about your post # 352, it sounds to me very much like lawyer’s mindset. “You’re making the charge,” or the burden of proof idea are concepts from the law. In science, things work somewhat differently. If you contest the initial “charge”, by default you’re making an opposite or alternate charge. Your burden of proof for that is as heavy as the one for whatever you contest.
Jim is right. What physical processes and observational evidence exist for the null hypothesis?
re 375 (Jim): [Null hypothesis: “Dumping 100 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere will not significantly change the dynamics and chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans.”]
Actually that is not a totally unreasonable suggestion. I agree, for skeptics to gain a point we ought to confront the AGW science with scientific alternatives. But we might not have figured it out rigorously enough yet — and we shouldn’t have to accede while we try to figure it out.
re 377: [BS flies thick in the courtroom and the final decision may have little to do with objective reality.]
Well, one man’s BS is another’s science.
re popularity: I think the vast majority of the public would not even know what your talking about with those questions.. I just feel that AGW has significant public support; but you might be right — I never actually counted.
Re 379 [ …But we might not have figured it out rigorously enough yet — and we shouldn’t have to accede while we try to figure it out. ]
In science, the usual modus operandi is to ask a question, come up with the data, then explain those data in the context of the question and draw a conclusion. You seem to be going about this backwards – you already have your conclusion, but no data to support it. That is OK, of course, but you shouldn’t be surprised that people question your motives, esp. when most of your questions have been (as far as I can tell) addressed in the peer-reviewed literature and IPCC reports.
Re: 381. When the questions have been addressed by scientific research, published in the literature, and yet then are still questioned by laymen, it really becomes a question of whether such laymen want to make the effort to learn about the subject at all. Or are they simply stuck in their unscientific beliefs. The later is quite sad in the 21st century.
Re 380: “one man’s BS is another’s science.” Disagreed. BS is BS, period. There are objective criteria to establish that.
Chuck Booth (#381) wrote:
I supect that a large part of the problem has to do with why certain forms of fallacious reasoning will often work.
I am thinking specifically of appeal to emotion and ad hominem attacks – as well as the reason why it is so easy for people to fall into the habit of thinking in terms of us versus them. At a certain level they have never learned how to think methodically, and this even extends to the inability to distinguish between identification and evaluation, or for that matter cognition and emotion, at least not in a rigorously methodical way. Thus it becomes all to easy for them to skip the process of identification or cognition to the process of evaluation or let the emotions which they feel override the process of thought itself.
Likewise, when they see someone advocating a given view or making a specific assertion, it becomes all to easy for them to think in terms of that individual’s motives, to think that they are advocating those views in order to achieve a particular objective, especially once we get into the realm of politics or science. This is why they have difficulty distinguishing between politics and science, why they find it all too easy to ascribe ulterior motives to someone who is proposing a scientific theory which (as far as they can tell) comes into conflict with their religious or political beliefs.
At the concrete level of everyday life, they tend not to fall into such fallacious reasoning, and they find it easier to distinguish between identification and evaluation. But once the subject becomes more abstract or more emotionally charged for them, it becomes all too easy for various forms of fallacious reasoning.
It becomes all too easy for them to believe something simply because they want it to be true. Likewise, when they fall into this, it is all too easy to let emotions such as anxiety to interfere with their ability understand. So at a certain level, I would say that this isn’t really a question of people being unwilling to make the effort to understand or learn (as Dan suggests in #382) so much as their not knowing how to. At a certain level, I believe that modern man isn’t really that far removed from the “primitives” who had difficulty distinguishing between natural causation and conscious motives, who anthopomorphized various aspects of the natural world. And at a certain level, I believe that our supposedly civilized has failed its citizens by failing to teach them the rudements of informal logic and rationality.
PS
Anyway, I don’t think that what I have just said regarding the trouble that many sometimes have thinking in accordance with the most basic principles of informal logic is especially profound. In fact I think it is something everyone has sensed at certain moments when dealing with people who are “simply being unreasonable.” But it helps to put it into words.
re 378: [“You’re making the charge,” or the burden of proof idea are concepts from the law. In science, things work somewhat differently. If you contest the initial “charge”, by default you’re making an opposite or alternate charge. Your burden of proof for that is as heavy as the one for whatever you contest.]
I think it’s far simpler than that. If person A says, “I’ve determined something here, so we have to upset the global apple cart”, he ought to have to explain it a bit. It’s not our onus to prove him wrong.
re 381: [In science, the usual modus operandi is to ask a question, come up with the data, then explain those data in the context of the question and draw a conclusion…]
That was how the early skeptics of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, for example, did it???? I don’t think so; and we’re talking of (some of) the pillars of physics.
Re 387
Skepticism by experts in the field is quite common (as described by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions; http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html). I would suggest that skepticism of AGW by people with no particular expertise in the field of climatology or related sciences (atmospheric chemistry, oceanography, etc) is a very different situation – they are not pillars of the scientific community drawing on their years of research and publication in the field.
In 379, RodB says:
Thank you for the nod. Now to the second part of the question: What standard of evidence would convince you to reject the null hypothesis? Is there some critical threshold of peer-reviewed papers? Or do you need to see some replicated smoking-gun evidence, like, say, the observation of the Tau neutrino? Not sure what that would be for anthropogenic climate change…maybe the collapse of the Greenland ice cap?
Rob B (#386) wrote:
An onus is an obligation, but there are numerous obligations which exist in various contexts within a civilized society. I would argue that one such obligation is to educate oneself as needed where one’s education is deficient if one is to have one’s views regarded as reasonable, particularly as reasonable alternatives to the views of those who are more educated than oneself within a given subject. Those who are more educated in that subject will oftentimes be willing to help, but when such help is extended and accepted, this may also entail an obligation of sorts.
The subjects which you have taken an interest in have some difficulty associated with them. I myself am still learning even at a fairly basic level. The people here are more informed than myself and have shown a willingness to teach me and correct my mistakes to the extent that they have the time to do so. I am grateful when they do this.
At the same time, I realize that their time is limited and that much of the learning that I must do will have to be on my own. I can’t afford much in the way of books, but given the internet, much of the information that I need is out there as the result of the magnanimous efforts of those know more than me. It is dispersed, with different but related subjects being treated by different websites, but if I look for it, I will usually find it.
You might consider this as well – in addition to learning here.
Re 386. Rod B said: “I think it’s far simpler than that. If person A says, “I’ve determined something here, so we have to upset the global apple cart”, he ought to have to explain it a bit. It’s not our onus to prove him wrong.”
By all means, the result must be explained–but to whom? Should it require explanation to the satisfaction of the experts who actually understand the science (the usual case in science) or to every drooling, SUV-driving moron and greedhead who might be affected–an innovation that should it be applied to science in general would end civilization as we know it? Rod, a lot of these guys think the stunts on Jackass are cool. I think it is probably a superhuman task to explain even the concept of climate, let alone its subtleties, to them.
By the usual standards of scientific debate, the debate is over. The argument at this point ought to be with how to deal with the issue.
re 388 (Chuck): What you say makes good sense. Problem is that it is not practical. You’re saying if one has expertise in the field he can just challenge outright; but if one does not have the requisite expertise he can only challenge by using the expertise that he does not have. Can’t win for losin’ — though admittedly, from a purists vantage, it is logical.
RE #391
I knew a girl at one time who had flunked several tests in calculus in a row. I do not know what her native intelligence was, but I wouldn’t be surprised if she was somewhat above average. However, she had been stuck in the class without the appropriate preparation. She didn’t even know how to simplify fractions.
She asked me for help – six hours before her next test on integral calculus. She ace’d the test. Then again, I knew a guy who asked me for help with calculus. All he wanted to know were the answers. When it finally came time to take the test, it was in a large auditorium. He asked me to take the test for him – and I reluctantly did so – feeling guilty over the fact that I had done a poor job of helping him learn calculus. But I shouldn’t have done that. Whatever responsibility I had paled in comparison to his own. He had no desire to learn, and I was under no obligation to teach him.
If someone has no desire to learn there is very little you can do with them. If all they choose to do is contradict those who know more than them within a given subject, then the views that they espouse do not deserve to be taken seriously or treated on an equal footing with the views of those who know far more than they do.
re 389 (Jim): Well, I guess a smoking gun like the entire Arctic melting would do it — but by then it’s too late and whether I’m finally convinced will not matter a twit to anybody. More peer reviewed papers or an even larger consensus definitely will not do it (if it would it would have already). I do question the accuracy and veracity of certain pieces of the science. I’ve mentioned a couple of examples as requested before, but it’s not helpful to go over them again. A number of folks have tried to alleviate my doubts, to no avail so far, and I view the ball is in my court to get my doubts more precise and specific.
Timothy (390): I agree fully.
re 391 (Ray): [the result must be explained–but to whom? Should it require explanation to the satisfaction of the experts who actually understand the science (the usual case in science) or to every drooling, SUV-driving moron and greedhead who might be affected]
Sorry, but DAMN RIGHT, or at least explained satisfactorily to their chosen representatives. Only dictators and self-proclaimed (even if they actually are) elites don’t have to explain anything they do.
Re 392 Can’t win for losin’
Rod,
I guess it depends on what you are trying to win.
I certainly don’t question your right to want to understand more about the subject. Nor would I question your right to be skeptical…about anything. It just seems to me you are aiming many of your questions and comments at the wrong audience – a bunch of blog addicts (I’m sure the blogosphere jargon has a name for people like us, though I don’t know what it is) who possess collective knowledge about a diverse array of subjects, but are not themselves climatologists- in fact, most of us are trying to learn as much as we can, just like you. However, many of your skeptical comments seem to make mountains out of molehills, as if an incorrect or misleading comment by me (or another climatologist) somehow has relevance to the science of AGW (I can assure you my comments have no impact whatsoever on the field of climate science; I doubt they have much impact on anyone’s thinking on these threads, either).
Since the RC moderators are not likely to provide personalized tutoring services to novices, I think (to echo Timothy Chase’s comment on this) it is beneficial for us all to read what has been written by the climatologists both on this blog and in the published literature before we attempt to poke holes in their arguments and conclusions, as more informed comments and questions tend to lead to far more productive and stimulating discussions (I can imagine the RC moderators rolling their eyes and chuckling over some of the debates carried out here). I say that because it appears to me that at least 50% of the comments posted on the RC threads are attempts to rebut comments from skeptics (some admitted, some not) that are based on misinformation, logical fallacies, and misrepresentation (I’m not saying your comments fall into those categories) But, that is just my humble opinion – I’m merely a visitor here…and I do enjoy a bit of intellectual sparring.
Rob,
I have a lot of work to do myself in this area, but I will see if I can share it with others if I am able to do enough.
Anyway, thank you.
PS to Rob
Do stick around. I would miss you if you didn’t.
Re #379: [I agree, for skeptics to gain a point we ought to confront the AGW science with scientific alternatives. But we might not have figured it out rigorously enough yet — and we shouldn’t have to accede while we try to figure it out.]
I think the problem isn’t that you (by which I mean the whole skeptic/denialist community) haven’t had time to figure tthings out. It’s that you’ve made up your mind in advance what you want the answer to be – that you can go on burning oil & coal with no adverse effects – and you simply refuse to recognize that the real world isn’t cooperating with your desires. Your position is roughly analogous to a Flat Earther trying to come up with a scientific explanation for satellites :-)