Can someone familiar with the thinking at Uncommon Descent explain why there is such opposition to the idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming? There’s this today, following several long commentaries by VJ Torley on the pope’s encyclical, mostly negative. I don’t get the connection. Is it general distrust of science? Or of the “Academy”? Or is there something about the idea that we may be provoking a major extinction event that is antithetical to ID? Or is it, possibly, that the evidence for major extinction events in the past is explains the various “explosions” that are adduced as evidence, if not for ID, then against “Darwinism”?
I’m honestly curious. Personally, I’m really concerned about global warming, and about the more general impact the human species is having on the rest of the world’s ecology, not because I think that major extinctions are inherently tragic (I know Earth will become lifeless one day, and that major extinctions are inevitable) but because human beings evolved to live in one ecosystem, and are unlikely to be fit for a very different one. So we are on the list of potential extinctees. And a hell of a lot of human suffering will occur if our climate changes too rapidly. If there’s anything we can do to slow things down, surely we should?
William J. Murray,
I think because, as someone else noted, you operate in the realm of denialism, rather than skepticism, on both evolutionary and global-warming matters. You point to denialist websites and offer that same palms-upward “I’m just a concerned citizen” stance. Because you’re an amateur not particularly well-versed in scientific rigour, you think that the words of other amateurs are sufficient. Cherry-picking, confirmation bias, all those things.
I’m not saying you should believe anything. That would be foolish. But it does seem odd that one should align oneself with the denialists when one does not know either way. For me, the very rash of amateur denialists falling over themselves to rubbish the science is in itself a reason to be dubious of their claims. But a better reason occurs when one looks at their sites – they exhibit absolutely zero intellectual rigour – there is no proper skepticism. So (I wonder to myself) why would they cherry-pick? And of course when they are right-wingers and/or religious, there’s a couple of pretty good reasons right there. As to the complementary question – why would AGW-promoters distort the facts? – less satisfactory answers are forthcoming. This is a question you have avoided, mostly by sneering. But it is a legitimate one. “They’re all liberals” doesn’t have the same ring to it. I don’t see what political ends are served by promoting AGW, but I do see how denying it can appeal to a certain kind of libertarian, free-market-low-taxes type.
Good job (as you may say) I did not say that. Some scientists could be really bad at it. See the distinction between ‘the method’ and ‘scientists’. Fraudulent and errroneous results struggle to last long without correction, specifically due to the nature of the empirical method.
William J. Murray,
And what, to repeat, are the damning parts of those emails? I’d like to see some actual support for the position, rather than pointing vaguely to ‘undisputed content’. This is one occasion where a direct quote is entirely appropriate.
Elizabeth,
I’ve already answered your question; repeating it will not change my answer. I do not know why people do the criminal and stupid things they do; all I know is that they do those things in droves every day. We know for a fact that some scientists have done those same kinds of stupid and criminal things.
I don’t know what motivation drives a Brian Williams, a Gilles-Eric Séralini, a Dan Rather, a Hwang Woo-suk to lie for no apparent good reason and jeopardize their reputations and careers.
Why are you asking me that question? Do you want me to speculate on their motivations in general? What purpose would that serve? What drives anyone to do the stupid things they do?
Here you are presumably referencing “climate-gate”. You know that at this point impartial observers have concluded that they did nothing wrong? You know that right? Yet you’ll continue to use that trope over and over and over because you are immune to correction.
Deliberately omitting or discrediting disconfirming research is fraud. You’ve given no examples of such.
If WJM really was as sceptical as he thought he was he’d realise the accusations of fraud are unfounded (there is no evidence for them after all) and change his opinion on “climate-gate”. He will never do that.
Despite the fact he can’t say what the fraud was, he knows it existed because some website said so.
When you say “both sides” it makes it seem like the two sides are evenly balanced with regards to evidence. They are not. Yet you don’t consider this.
What you should say is “one side, consisting of the overwhelming majority of scientists, thousands and thousands working in the field vs a few dozen”.
And while consensus does not equal truth, the fact you are giving equal weight to each side hides the fact that one side has far greater support from the very people who would be expected to know.
Presumably you are also on the fence re: the scientific evidence regarding the superior qualities of the white race to all others?
Allan:
“The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.” – IPCC co-author Kevin Trenberth
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” – Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit
“Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.” Mick Kelly, Professor of Climate Change, School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia
“I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.” – Phil Jones
“I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office press release with Doug’s paper that said something like – half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998!” – Phil Jones
“If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone … We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.” – Phil Jones
“Solution 1: fudge the issue. Just accept that we are Fast-trackers and can
therefore get away with anything.” – Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate and Culture in the Department of Geography in the Faculty of Social Science & Public Policy at King’s College London
“If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse sceptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted [from his editorial position at Geophysical Research Letters].” – Tom Wigley, climate scientist at the University of Adelaid
“How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that anti-greenhouse science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on).” – Michael Mann, climatologist & geophysicist.
There’s a lot more, but the point is not to prove any fraud or bad science, but just to show that some of these admitted email statements support having some degree of skepticism about what is going on with AGW reporting and claims.
William,
So let’s take perhaps the most famous example:
What’s your understanding of “Mike’s trick” – good science or fraud?
Yes, “some degree” of skepticism is always warranted as has been pointed out to you over and over again. But you have stated that you don’t believe that the climate is changing and that there is no evidence that could convince you of such. So even if those statements had not been made it would not actually make any difference to you. Therefore your skepticism is not based on the facts, just on the result you want. And that’s not skepticism at all!
I asked you for specific examples of fraud and data manipulation and you come back with quotemines. And that does not make you reconsider your position?
I guess no position is too weak for you.
Q: Do you have examples of the sort of fraud that would warrant calling thousands of scientists frauds?
A: No, but here’s some quotemines stolen from private correspondence.
Where have I denied evolution or global warming? In your mind, is being “skeptical” of thing the same as “denialism”?
Where have I said anything remotely like “I’m a concerned citizen?”
Sufficient .. for what? I’m skeptical of everything. The “words” of amateurs (or oppositional climatologists) mean absolutely nothing to me – I exclude their “words” from the outset. I only use the “words” that AGW-supporters themselves agree are factual.
You are characterizing me and my position, apparently, according to some template you have. I haven’t denied AGW; I haven’t quoted any anti-AGWers or even referred to anything they’ve said. At most I put a link to a site that has a long list of climate-gate emails. I don’t quote how they characterize them – in fact, IMO they mischaracterize them on several occasions based on the actual content of the emails. I assume that anti-AGW advocates are also biased which is why I don’t take their word for anything.
That’s why I read them myself and draw my own conclusions.
I’ve simply said that I am skeptical of AGW claims. We all should be, shouldn’t we? You’ve agreed to as much. So what’s your problem? Why try to characterized me as some kind of “denialist”? To me, IMO, the use of that term is itself bad for science because it puts pressure on people not to even be skeptical or else they might get labeled as some kind of “denialiist”. It’s a propaganda term meant to intimidate/ridicule.
OMagain said:
I only support the claims I actually make. Not the ones you imagine I make.
OMagain said:
Because I only hold beliefs (“to act as if something is true) that help me achieve my goals and none of them are based whatsoever on scientific evidence. I also don’t clam my beliefs represent anything factual or true – they are useful tools, not statements about reality. I explained this.
I don’t believe AGW is occurring, nor do I believe it is not occurring. I have no beliefs about it because such beliefs do not appear to relate to my goals. I don’t adopt beliefs (“acting as if something is true”) that don’t appear to have anything to do with my goals.
And what claim is it that those quotemines support?
Let me remind you of this:
You’ve gone from “the data has been adjusted” to “these people are bad, look at what they wrote”.
If you can’t see that “research data was adjusted to fit the model” is a claim of fraud, one you’ve made and have yet to support….
You are correct. I can only imagine that the continued happy life of those you will leave behind when you shuffle off this mortal coil is of absolutely no concern to you. And you know what, I can really get behind that idea.
Why should you concern yourself with the quality of life you are leaving for you descendants? They are, after all, not helping you achieve your goals so fuck them, right! Right?
Who appears to have the stronger case then? The anti or the pro side? Just based on your non-scientific understanding of the issues.
There are many reason why any particular scientist would lie. It gets a bit more difficult to explain why pretty much all of them all maintains the same lie.
But even then, the merely possibility of lying does not entail they are lying. That needs to be actually demonstrated. Just as one should be skeptical about the conclusions of science, one should be skeptical about assertions that all scientists within a particular field are lying.
Yet
You believe that data was altered and not in a normal way to make it suitable for publication – i.e. fraud occurred. You hold that belief yet I can’t see what goal it is helping you achieve.
Then why do you keep getting involved in debate where evidence actually matters?
OMagain said:
Well, to be fair I can see how you might infer that, but I didn’t mean to imply that it was necessarily adjusted fraudulently, only that before it was adjusted it didn’t fit, and after it was adjusted it did fit. IOW, it had to be adjusted in order for it to fit; otherwise, it didn’t fit. Anti-AGW advocates argue that such adjustments are arbitrary and come from arbitrary and unreasnoable sources; pro-AGW advocates insist they are properly contextualized, scientific adjustments.
Which is why I asked the question in the first place: it seems to me that virtually all the data has to be adjusted in order for it to fit, and virtually all the predictions have failed (spectacularly) to come through. That doesn’t prove or disprove anything, it just makes a case for reasonable skepticism.
William,
By “altered” you mean “fraud” right? Or what do you mean?
So scientifically valid data manipulation makes a case for reasonable skepticism?
No, I don’t think so. If you don’t understand the basis for the manipulation the honest thing to do is ignore the people who claim it is fraud.
Virtually all? So, not all have failed? Which predictions have come true and why do you discard those predictions as evidence?
And on that basis we should do what? Keep burning fossil fuels? If you were in charge, would you wait for definitive evidence to appear (i.e. the sea washing your house away) or would you act on the basis of a model that predicts the future?
OMagain said:
Where would I get off trying to reach a decision about who has the strongest scientific case? I’m not a scientist. How the hell would I know?
Hi Elizabeth,
I’ll bite. It’s very simple. If you believe that (a) the Earth and its climate systems were intelligently designed, and if you also believe that (b) the Designer was an benevolent Deity, and (c) the Designer’s paramount goal was the generation (and preservation) of intelligent beings who were capable of knowing their Maker, then three things seem to follow.
First, such a Deity should have foreseen at least the high likelihood that humans would use fossil fuels as a source of energy to replace wood, as well as the possibility that humans would not realize that burning fossil fuels would impact on climate until it was too late. That being the case, the Deity should have made contingency plans for the human race.
Second, should catastrophic global warming occur over the next few centuries, resulting in the deaths of billions of human beings (not to mention other living creatures), despite our efforts to prevent it, then I think such an outcome would falsify the hypothesis of a benevolent Deity. You can’t blame that on human free will. If our climate systems are so fragile that a rise in CO2 levels from 280 to 420ppm would ultimately bring about a rise of (say) 6 degrees Celsius, then all I can say is: we should have been warned, in no uncertain terms, at least 100 years ago, when we still had a chance to turn things around.
Third, I would expect a benevolent Deity with foresight to anticipate that human beings might inflict a considerable amount of damage on the biosphere as populations rose, lifespans increased and living standards skyrocketed, and I would also expect that such a Deity, being well-disposed towards humans, would build climate systems that were highly robust and could take a beating. The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation agrees with me on this one.
The Pope appears to think otherwise. He blames global warming on our anthropocentric attitude towards other living creatures and our consumerist lifestyle, and he also seems to believe that God deliberately made our ecosystems fragile, in order to make us continually aware of how dependent we are on other creatures. He seems to think that if we had the right spiritual attitude towards God’s creatures, then global warming would never have happened. I have to say I think that’s just plain wrong: it would have simply happened more slowly, and I might add that if we’d polluted less in the 1800s, we would have industrialized more slowly, which means we wouldn’t have gotten so wealthy so fast, which means that infant mortality would have fallen more slowly. That’s why I think China was right to take the “quick and dirty” road out of poverty: thanks to the environmental damage they’ve caused, 10% of their agricultural land is no longer safe for growing crops, but they’ve managed to lift 680 million people out of poverty in just 30 years. You can’t tell poor people to wait a few decades because Mother Earth needs a break.
As I pointed out in one of my posts, the Pope appears to view man as God’s game warden, guarding His creation. But the Bible appears to regard man as God’s viceroy, exercising lordship over creation. The language of Genesis 1:28 and 9:2 is pretty strong. If we’re just game wardens, then it’s pretty hard to see how we could have the right to chop down a forest in order to build a city, construct factories, and farm the surrounding land. The Pope wants us to live in harmony with Nature, but He also wants us to remain tied to Nature. I think the only way we can stop inflicting harm on Nature is to reduce our level of dependence on it.
So there you have it. Being a believer in Intelligent Design per se doesn’t necessitate a denial of dangerous global warming, but if you believe certain things about the Designer and the role of human beings in Nature, then you would tend to reject that belief. I might add that I’m a lukewarmer: I think global warming won’t be dangerous for another 80 years, and I think we can stop it before then. The IPCC says we have 55 years to bring man-made GHG emissions to zero; I don’t think that’s politically possible, although it is technologically possible if we go nuclear.
I’m not in favour of excessive use of fossil fuels and I view it as equivalent to an individual smoking writ large. I would much prefer that we developed natural renewable sources of energy in place of fossil fuels.
Having said that I am skeptical about the effect on global warming that is attributed to anthropogenic sources. The earth has been dealing with fluctuating temperatures throughout its history and seems to be able to absorb changing conditions while allowing life to go on. Naturally produced water vapour has a much greater contribution to the greenhouse effect than CO2, I think its something like 95%. Can anyone tell me what percentage contribution anthropogenically produced CO2 makes to greenhouse gases and how much variation the earth’s natural feedback mechanisms can cope with?
Does anyone have figures for the amount of CO2 produced naturally by animal respiration compared to the amount of anthropogenic CO2 produced?
I am sure we are having an effect on the climate, how much of an effect I am not sure about. But even if the effect is miniscule we should still be doing all we can to reverse the trend. What we need is honesty and not scaremongering. Even if scientists aren’t the ones doing the scaremongering they need to be careful what message they are sending to the media. We all know how the media tends to sensationalize anything to make a good story.
I am waiting to be convinced about the size of the effect we have been making up ’till now.
Vincent,
Welcome back! I hope you’ll stick around. We’ve been having some good discussions.
OMagain said:
Given that even the full-monty, pie-in-the-sky, trillions of dollars worth of proposed corrective measures are not projected to have much of an impact, and given that most of the past predictions apparently have failed; and given that many current green-energy alternatives have their own issues; and given the nature of bureaucratic corruption and waste; I’d proceed down a conservative road of encouraging alternative energy research and development; developing technology that can decrease fossil fuel CO2 emissions into the atmosphere and developing CDR technology to remove CO2 from the air.
I think there are probably better energy sources to be had than oil, (I’m highly skeptical of Big Oil), but I think a lot of “green” alternatives are over-hyped and their problems under-recognized. But, that’s just my skeptical side creeping out again 🙂
Would that be your skepticism talking? Perhaps those projections are wrong? You’ve just made a big deal about previous projections being wrong and now you unquestioningly accept the predictions that happen to align with your view!
What a co-incidence!
Hi Vincent,
Glad you’ve joined in the discussion. As my wife is out for the evening, I ll take the opportunity to chip in my two centimes. Much of what you say I am in agreement with and I understand your dilemma where you obviously clearly see the problems humans create for the environment in simply being so numerous and the Catholic position on birth control now death control is is not the check on population growth it once was.
I’ll repeat that the brilliant thing about many actions people can take to reduce the seemingly inexorable rise in
have no downside. Improving insulation levels, solar water heating, sustainable fuels such as wood and wood pellets are all things we can do for ourselves and save money at the same time.
I’ll bite my tongue on my overview regarding what Kairosfocus writes at Uncommon Descent in general, but I do agree with him that we should not be afraid of re-examining the nuclear option.
I may have mentioned the nuclear option already. 🙂
Thanks, Vincent, and good to see you!
And that is a very informative response.
heh.
I’m actually more optimistic. I don’t think, politically, that we can persuade people to do without what fossil fuel energy provides, but I think there are three (at least) really important potential technological breakthroughs.
One is energy efficient technology, including LED lighting.
One is information technology/internet shopping, making commuting and small-town living possible again.
And one is (still in its infancy but so tantalisingly close) – hydrogen-as-fuel. Once we can make hydrogen from water easily, we have a local energy storage medium and potentially a huge boost to local renewable energy source technology.
And then, as you say, there’s nuclear.
I’m most excited about the hydrogen story, though, because it would radically change the distribution of wealth in the world. If poor countries can readily use solar power, (or wind, or wave, or tide power) to generate hydrogen fuel, then that would be hugely liberating as well as being clean.
OMagain,
No, again, that’s what I’ve read that both sides agree on.
Citation please.
Both sides agree that mitigation is pointless? I’m skeptical of that claim.
Indeed. We have plenty of energy available in the wrong place at the wrong time. Looking at energy stores deserves more effort and encouragement. There’s a scheme being piloted in Spain gathering solar energy and pushing it into storage via sodium and potassium nitrate salts at high temperature. There may be a better link.
@ Lizzie
I’ve downloaded Leechblock!
😉
Welcome!
And a quick question – the process that was used for the “generation” of human beings? Was it evolution? 🙂 Or something else.
Indeed, again!
If perfected, generation of hydrogen to use as vehicle fuel, and that hydrogen generated by a solar or nuclear process has the advantage of being zero in carbon emissions and not requiring great advances in technology to produce vehicles that could run on hydrogen.
Also, I recall an idea that running vehicles on compressed air, where that can be generated sustainably and sold at the roadside would be a great low-tech way of escaping oil dependence. link
I’ve thought for decades this is key. The grid is fantastically inefficient, and only really exists because a) it’s difficult to burn fuel at point-of-use quietly and/or safely and b) it’s difficult to get a constant voltage with local electricity generation from renewables.
Where we can burn fossil fuels at point-of-use (gas boilers and cookers; cars), it’s clearly much more efficient than burning it centrally, but nasty. But you can burn hydrogen locally non-nastily (apart from steaming things up a bit) at point of use, and of course you can also use it to get a constant voltage from fluctuating local renewables.
Producing hydrogen via electrolysis is, unfortunately, rather inefficient, running about 30% efficiency under normal conditions. At elevated temperatures it gets to around 50% efficiency, so there have been proposals for using nuclear to both heat and electrolyze water. Still not very efficient, though.
Work has gone into increasing the efficiency at lower temperatures, but mostly it has involved platinum group elements, thus being quite costly. Unless efficiencies can be greatly increased, and fairly inexpensively, I can’t see hydrogen having much of a future.
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson,
Thank-you for pouring cold water on the idea! 😉
Glen:
Hydrogen production from renewables
The other thing that I find very hopeful about hydrogen is that there’s a bridge to the future – we can already make hydrogen from fossil fuels, so we can develop the engines now.
And once we have moved to hydrogen-burners for local power, then moving to renewable hydrogen sources can be relatively seamless. A hydrogen cell doesn’t care where the hydrogen comes from.
I’d forgotten about fuel cells. As you say, much technology is already available and just requires some encouragement, fiscal incentives perhaps.
Hi Alan Fox, Elizabeth and OMagain,
Thanks for your comments. I would agree with Alan that home insulation (and solar water heaters) represent a very sensible investment, as a way of cutting GHG emissions. I think Liz is right about LEDs and Internet shopping, too.
I’m heartened that Liz is open to nuclear energy. Sadly, however, most young Americans oppose it:
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/07/01/pew-survey-most-young-americans-oppose-offshore-drilling-nuclear-power/#33023101=0
Concerning hydrogen fuel cells in cars, I’m doubtful about its practicality:
http://evobsession.com/hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-fail-in-depth/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EVObsession+%28EV+Obsession%29
In answer to Omagain’s question, I think human beings are the product of engineered evolution. I have no problem in saying that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.
Better get some shuteye.
Only because we seem to have left it too late to develop an alternative in time. There are clear potential dangers, both human and environmental, as presumably you are all too aware of, Vincent! Not a good option for a country lying across tectonic plates.
I don’t know. They said that about horseless carriages. For large vehicles it may make sense (and there were experimental Ballard hydrogen buses in Vancouver when we lived there). And there’s a hydrogen fueling station on our campus in Nottingham even! But I think electric cars are probably the future, with renewables (possibly with hydrogen as intermediary storage) fueling the electricity supply in the garage.
I’m terribly tempted by a Tesla. Right now I use a Prius for long journeys and my e-bike for most other trips. I love my e-bike!
Fuel cells can run on methanol, much less troublesome than hydrogen. Hydrogen is a bitch to store. Among other things, it leeches into the structure of steel and diminishes its strength. Also, poor energy to volume ratio.