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?
At least with brick walls you know they don’t really have ears and you don’t have any expectation that they are actually listening to you.
Oh please. This site gets more and more bizarre all the time. Please add that little bit of nonsense to the site rules so that it can be equally applied to everyone. Thank you.
Mung,
Feeling’s mutual, I’m sure.
Allan, I just hope keiths adds this latest twist to his OP on Moderation! But then we’ll all probably want to avoid ever citing his OP lest we end up owning it.
I’m tempted to taunt hotshoe_ into citing some of these anti-gay sites so that I can then claim that now she “owns” their position. But even I am not that perverse.
What does “you cite it, you own it,” even mean? I’m sure it will all be clearly explained in the amended rules.
What models specifically were those?
Also, as already noted earlier with regards to the predictions of models:
You need to separate the two subjects:
1. Can we accurately predict the climate decades into the future?
vs
2. Can we have a high degree of certainty there is such a thing as AGW?
The answer to the first one is, no not very accurately. The answer to the second one is yes. Those two statements do no entail any contradictions.
Yes there has.
Who predicted they would go extinct, what was the time table and on what assumptions of their model?
Who predicted “winter would disappear”, what was the time table and on what assumptions of their model?
Who predicted “New York will be under water”, what was the time table and on what assumptions of their model?
Who predicted “Mountain and snow/ice would evaporate”, what was the time table, what mountains did they predict in should happen on and on what assumptions of their model?
But you seem to be claiming there are no AGW-affected geographical areas, so why would people leave them?
Also, again, who predicted these relocations, from where to where would the move, what was the timetable and on what assumptions?
You give a number of predictions and say they’ve failed. I want to see the actual predictions first. Please cite the primary scientific literature, not just popular press articles written by journalists.
He cited it in support of a claim he made. So I expect him to retract the claim if the support is invalid.
And no, of course it’s not a site rule. A cite rule perhaps, though.
I confess I do get irritated though, at people who cite dodgy references to support claims and then back off when challenged.
I bothered to look into the damn thing in some detail. Being, you know, a skeptic, and wondering if the sources had a point.
*growl*
Mung,
I was responding to your first post – re: brick walls – not your second.
I never argued that it did. What I would like to know is the percentage of warming attributed to anthropogenic effects and how the trend compares with past periods of global warming. Does anyone have any idea?
Of course there is a bigger picture. Ideally it would be nice to have comparisons between all these producers and consumers of CO2. Is it perhaps too difficult to untangle?
CO2 makes up only around 0.04% of the atmosphere In my opinion its beneficial effects probably outweigh its detrimental effects.
Hi Rumraket. How are you?
Its not a meaningless statement, it is simply a fact about the earth and earthly life. The earth is very good at sustaining life. I don’t believe the biosphere is as fragile as some people think but I still think that we should be finding ways of curbing the use of fossil fuels, reducing the rate of deforestation and trying to reverse the population growth by education and incentives.
Its obvious that if we all stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow millions of people would suffer and die.
Elizabeth,
I cited that source for the specific info in alterations of data – both sides agree the data was altered – as I said. I did not cite it for the accusations of wrongdoing or motivations, which I clearly explained to OMagain (and you) was not part of my argument. I don’t know if it was fraudulently altered, altered via some kind of non-fraudulent but mistaken bias, or correctly altered; however, both sides admit it was altered. It did not match the expected charting before it was altered; it did match it afterward.
I explained this in detail. You insistence that I mean things I do not mean, and that I take ownership for things I did not claim and explicitly stated otherwise, just demonstrates that this is like some kind of religious issue with you guys. Skepticism is not allowed on this subject.
For anyone who thinks that significant AGW is accepted by virtually all of science I would like to know what they say about the global warming petition signed by over 31000 scientists:
The Petition Project
EL said:
The claim I made was that the data was altered. What I linked to supported that point – data was altered, or adjusted, or changed. Both sides agree to this. I did not claim, however, that it was fraudulently altered.
CharlieM,
Obviously, they’re all paid off by big oil. And they’re ID supporters. Who knew there were so many?
Yeah, petitions.
What is missing is a list of scientists by academic discipline. If your degree is in (say) electrical engineering or medicine, why is your opinion on another field any more valid than my milkman’s?
William J. Murray,
Boo and, indeed, hoo. A wearisome battle over ownership of the term ‘skeptic’. You can be as skeptical as you like. And so can we, over your claims.
You know those emails were taken out of context, don’t you? You know that 8 separate investigations found no wrong-doing, nor doubt on the validity of climate science research, O More-Skeptical-Than-Thou One?
CharlieM,
Sustaining life of some form, but there have been at least 5 mass extinctions and many smaller ones. Extinctions, indeed, mark the boundaries between geological divisions. While optimism may prove to be justified, there seems little point in taking NO action to counter the many negative effects of our rapidly expanding acquisition of the earth’s biomass. Global warming is but a small part. The religiously-inspired idea that God would, somehow, not let it happen is one of the greatest difficulties in facing up to our responsibilities. The ideologically-inspired idea that NOTHING can be allowed to interfere with our ‘freedoms’ is another. The fact that a chunk of the planet is far too busy killing each other to worry about environmental matters is another.
I did a bit of digging on the rigour with which the petition was compiled. It’s hilarious. Geri Halliwell, yet! Of course that’s just some evil evo having a laugh. God forbid I should be skeptical of Skeptic claims. The rest of the list is beyond reproach. Chortle.
How carefully did you look? Here is the link I provided. From there you can access the list you say is missing.
They give the following reason for instigating the petition:
The petition is only ciculated to American scientists and they also send out a review article with the petition card.
Do you think that the average milkman is just as competent as a trained scientist to read and understand this review? You must have a very poor opinion of university level scientific training in the USA if that is the case!
Good. And do you now accept that the rationale by which your source regarded the alteration as suspicious (that the error were more in one direction than the other) was flawed?
Not at all. I do my best to try to understand what you mean, and you appeared to give that link as a case for being skeptical about the history of temperatures in the American Corn Belt. The actual link made the strong suggestion that the data had been altered in a manner inconsistent with mere routine error adjustment – that the fact that the adjustments always tended to support the GW trend was in itself cause for suspicion.
If you didn’t buy that argument, you certainly didn’t point out its flaws. And if someone links to a flawed argument, in your case in apparent support for the case of equal opportunities skepticism, then it seems a reasonable assumption on the reader’s part to think they have missed the flaw.
Of course skepticism is “allowed” on “this subject”. But skepticism, surely, is not the same as blanket acceptance of the validity of any counter-view. That would be LACK of skepticism of the counter-view. For instance, you seem to buy, without skepticism, the findings of those Random Cascade Generator experiments, despite their lack of experimental rigour, just as you seemed to have bought this one.
So no, you do not apply equal opportunities skepticism, and worse, your skepticism seems to be more a blanket “I don’t believe anything I don’t personally experience”thing rather than anything based on a systematic evaluation of the arguments and evidence.
To me that’s not “skepticism” at all – it’s more a kind of solipsism.
Heh:
So little over a quarter of the “American scientists” willing to sign that petition had even completed their training?
As the vast majority of American Scientists have PhDs, what does that tell you about the subset of American Scientists who, allegedly, signed this petition – that they are, on average, far less qualified than the average American Scientist?
Or that the petition organisers don’t know what a scientist is?
Either way, does it invite confidence in the petition?
Did you go to the official list to find that name?
If someone did mistakenly let it slip through then they have now removed it. Are there any other spurious names you can dig up?
Williams’ curse is that his Morton’s deamon is unaware of it’s own existence.
CharlieM,
Carefully enough to do exactly what you said. All I see is a raw list of names and a take-our-word-it count, not a verifiable cross-ref. It’s shoddy scholarship.
Yes. They also include a ‘want more to send to all your friends?’ check-box. “Join the campaign! Get your vaguely-qualified friends on board! No, we don’t know how many similarly-qualified people would vote against. Why do you ask?”
I have a poor opinion of this kind of approach to the issue. I am a scientist by their criteria, and so are my wife and 2 eldest children. But I would not consider us more qualified to vote on the issue than my milkman. Meanwhile the AAAS is very clear on its position. Same for Britain’s Royal Society. Why do you weight this amateurishly-collected rag-bag of names more highly than these (and numerous other) august bodies?
Of course the data was altered. Originally the data was inside a device, the device that collected it. The data was then altered by being moved across a transfer mechanism, no doubt being serialized into a form that can be transmittable across a lossy mechanism (such as the internet) and then reconstructed on the receivers side. At some point it only consisted of differences in electrical signals in a wire. At another point it was perhaps held in the form of a magnetic charge.
So it’s trivially true that the data was altered. But given you don’t understand any of what I just said (it’s not possible you have personally experienced the separation of data) it’s not surprising you make these trivial claims and expect them to be considered profound.
CharlieM,
OK, let’s try a sample. You’ll have to take my word for it, but these are the results of every name I searched, in order.
Robert A Hefner IV. He’s real, and he has a degree in geology (but then so does my mate Mike, and he’s an idiot!). He is also in the oil and gas business. Hmmmm …
Jane K Hearn. Can’t find her.
Charles C. Hawley. Geologist. Head of Alaskan exploration at a mining company. Hmmmmm …
George L. Hazelton. Can’t find him.
Eugene R. Hill. Can’t find him (unless they mean the painter and decorator).
Of course this is unscientific, though it is hardly any less scientific than the original poll. In fact I’m sure that most of the names are legitimate – they are who they say, they have a degree, and (at the time) were ‘climate skeptics’. But it proves nothing. Why should I (a biochemist) care about the opinion of a geologist? What are the proportions in the entire population from which the sample was drawn?
Bias? Or conspiracy to cook the books about the state of AGW consensus?
From Cook’s emails to team members:
…
You, your wife and your 2 eldest children have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields but you do not think you are more capable of understanding the science or of reviewing the petition article than the average milkman! Really?
From Art Robinson who instigated the petition:
In addition to scientific research bias and fraud, there is the additional problem of publication bias and fraud. After all, it is the editors of scientific publications that determine what will and will not get published.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
And yet, despite all that, you are sitting at a computer based on quantum principles formulated by those very same scientists.
So, the system evidently works. You just don’t like the conclusions for climate, but are happy to accept them for computers.
To be filed under the Elizabeth Liddle “Why would scientists lie?” categorical heading:
Should we ask them why they lie?
Actually, there’s a page on the adjustment methodology (I linked to it earlier). It’s to adjust for things like not all stations taking temperatures at the same time of day.
Yes, and you will probably find that in cases of fraud it was done covertly, by individuals and at most, small groups (maybe pairs of researchers). As soon as the conspiracy got any larger than that, the risk of detection would become huge, as nobody has any incentive to protect fraud by others. And, as I said, the penalties for fraud in science are, effectively, end-of-career,
And have you any idea of what “publication bias” is, William? And of how it is detected? And how it is prevented? And who developed those methods?
And can you say what you mean by “publication fraud”?
I would agree. I’ve read the petition article, and I also train people with degrees in science in scientific methodology. Most would not have the expertise to see where the article’s errors lie (although with luck, a few of them would after they’ve done my module).
Why oh why lie? HIV Scientist Pleads Guilty to Fraud
Why would they risk everything and lie? Gene Therapy Researcher Faked Data
Is there a neurologist in the house that explain why – in biological terms, of course – scientists lie? Neurologist Faked Stroke Data
Lie again, lie again, jiggety-jig! OMagain had better hope our computers aren’t relying on any of this guy’s work!
Do note that they were caught.
CharlieM,
I don’t think it follows automatically that our degrees equip us to evaluate these claims better than others. My wife believes all sorts of nonsense! 😉 I’ve seen some very intelligent people advance some ridiculous arguments.
You are an ID supporter. You don’t say if you have a degree or not, but I do and I am not an ID supporter. It’s even in a biological disipline. Do you take any notice of me? No? So why care about a subset of geologists, physicists and chemists?
Meantime, what about the AAAS and Royal Society?
William J. Murray,
Non-functioning products tend not to gain much market penetration.
BWE,
Ah, but they were the tip of the iceberg! The whole of science is rotten to the core! Rotten, I say!
William, you are often frustrated when people miss the point you are making.
Well, right now, I am that frustrated.
And all in collusion, which is why they they weren’t caught! Oh, wait… I mean, why the entire field was brought down! I mean… oh, wait….
I have a PhD and I say ID is bunk!
Has Phillip Johnson apologized for promoting the fraud that HIV is a fraud?
Or for ID, for that matter?
Glen Davidson
It’s funny, but when I mentioned this in relation to a PSI meta-study your response was something like “anything EXCEPT PSI is real eh?” So publication bias and fraud is only a “problem” sometimes eh William?
What’s that word. It begins with ‘H’. Anyone?
Bottom of the barrel desperation. You just don’t get it do you?
If our computers were relying on a fraudulent body of work do you think they would work?
Scientists are human and therefore fallible. Somehow William thinks this is some kind of revelation.
I have to laugh at William. Science corrects itself (something unavailable to theism) and he gets uppity. Any human endeavor will have problems that come from using humans. But, in the long run, given sufficient attention, science corrects.
You can’t have a 50,000 person conspiracy.
I would be interested to know where you think the errors lie. If it turns out to be too technical for me to grasp then so be it, but its not just me who will be reading your critique.