Global Warming. Let's do it again.

No, I really can’t. Maybe my viewpoint on this is so adamant and set that it will take longer than expected to change. I won’t apologize for it, but at least I’m at the point where I can admit I’m wrong about it. I’m no expert on this stuff. I have to rely on the experts reporting it all. Maybe I’m expecting too much simplification about the whole debate when even the experts can’t agree.

But this is all interesting information and I ask it keeps coming. Rome wasn’t built in a day, but the job was eventually done. Thanks for whatever patience everyone grants me in this matter. :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=duffer]
Maybe I’m expecting too much simplification about the whole debate when even the experts can’t agree.

[QUOTE]
But they do agree, and we keep telling you what they agree on: that a dangerous parts per million concentration will be reached this century without action. What part of this are you unsure about?

Have you actually read it? It’s a pretty thorough debunking of many of the claims of the Global Warming people. Using statistics and science. Politics has nothing to do with it.

Wow…Statistics and science. So, I guess he published the peer-reviewed version somewhere? (I think this is a new use of the term “debunking” meaning that it was widely accepted by the conservative community…not the scientific community!)

“Many of the claims” regarding global warming have always been political. Those may legitimatley be addressed by marshalling scientific evidence against them. However, he also abused evidence to attmept to “debunk” genuine scientific concerns about global warming and claims that “politics has nothing to do with it” are sheer nonsense. Politics had EVERYTHING to do with his book. I do not say a political work is a bad thing, but it is a political thing and denying that is foolish.

Since I have the book to hand and can’t spot any of this, can you provide any cites?

Not without getting it back out of the library. If it is checked in, I’ll see what I can dig up.

Actually, it didn’t. Read some of the “critiques”; they’re absolutely embarrassing - The Pit has better structured arguments. Here’s one from Nature, complete with Lomborg’s retort.

Nobody cares about the relativity cranks, and the fruits of their crankiness don’t get into the papers.

ID cranks DO get into the papers, on account of their continual lobbying that ID should be taught in public schools on an equal footing with evolution.

As a result, even though there is no expert debate in the scholarly journals about ID v. Evolution, there is a very non-expert debate in the public square about it. In that debate, it is necessary to appeal to the scholarly consensus. And that necessity is on account of a well-funded fundie refusal to accept ‘evilution’, rather than due to any residual unsettledness in the scientific consensus for evolution.

You would not be agreeing or disagreeing with me; I don’t know much about the ACC critics, and accordingly haven’t made a claim.

Are we talking about global warming, or evolution?

Sorry, but I can’t drop it, as I never picked it up. But I’ll continue to refrain from that strawman. :slight_smile:

True, of course. But aspects of it are. Nobody’s going to revisit the notion that the Earth orbits the Sun. No new theory or evidence will come along to undermine that.

Who are ‘those people’, what ‘one aspect of science’ am I trying to ‘squash’, how does it benefit me the most, and why am I apparently blind to my self-interest?

True. But sometimes there is no hypothesis on the other side, just a cranky idea like ID without any supporting evidence.

:confused:

Did anyone make that claim? Or is this a strawman?

And just like new evidence pertaining to the workings of evolution will refine the theory of evolution, so will this refine our understanding of global warming.

But in neither case has the underlying theory been undermined, it seems.

This BBC article may be of interest.

Well, a lot of that story gets to the issue of to what extent the media and scientists focus on the most probable outcome vs. the range of possible outcomes (and, in particular, more catastrophic outcomes). Obviously, there is some tendency of the media to report extremes (“New study shows temperatures could rise as much as 10C”). However, counterbalancing that, there is also a tendency in the media (said to be much truer in the U.S. media than European media) to give “balance” to stories by providing “both sides”, so that you end up with stories where the views of, say, the IPCC and the views of a small minority of industry- and think-tank-funded “skeptics” like Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, and the like are given equal weight when in fact the latter represent a very small minority view in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

There are legitimate questions … and differences of opinion … on how scientists should frame their results. Here is a discussion at RealClimate in which the basic point is that it is reasonable to present more catastrophic scenarios that are considered possible but not highly probable as long as one makes it clear that they are not what is considered to be the most likely scenario. However, given that there is still some considerable uncertainties, it is necessary to discuss what could happen that could be worse than the “median” prediction in addition to entertaining the possibility that it might not be as bad as people think. After all, one should entertain what are the possible range of bad outcomes in addition to what the most likely outcome will be. And, there are disturbing indications from the past that the most likely outcomes discussed could be ignoring something…like a catastrophic methane release or another dramatic positive feedback…that, while not currently considered highly likely, could possibly come to pass.

Regarding the ClimatePrediction.net example, what the scientists were reporting that they felt was necessary to emphasize was that, although the mean prediction of climate sensitivity from their climate modeling was around 3 C, there was a long enough tail encompassing what were felt to be reasonable possible values of parameters to indicate the possibility of a climate sensitivity as high as 11 C (whereas, it did not seem possible to get any sensitivity much below about 2 C if I remember correctly). The fact that the modeling suggested the climate sensitivity could be this high was deemed of sufficient importance to put some emphasis on that fact that such high sensitivities could not be ruled out and then that emphasis was probably magnified by the media reports. Other scientists, such as Gavin Schmidt at NASA and James Annan have tried to emphasize that from their point-of-view, including other independent measures of climate sensitivity such as those estimated from the glacial - interglacial transitions, the very high-end (and also very low-end values) seem implausible and the climate sensitivity value is really very likely to be in the mid-range of ~2-4 C.

Here’s another article of interest.

Oh please, a blog? A blog which sweeps the absoluteley central issue right under the carpet:

… and guess what? We’ve let vast quantities out again in mere decades. How he suggests a clealy anthropogenic 30% increase is nothing to do with humans digging up CO2 stores and burning them is quite beyond me.

That’s a very arrogant attitude. Are people not allowed to have their say? If not, what are you doing posting here? It’s not an anonymous blog either - he has put his name to it - and it’s on his business site. And the article is well argued.

So, do you have a counterargument to anything he says?

Sure, people are allowed to have their say…but that doesn’t mean we have to take their opinions seriously. Do you really think it is news that a conservative blogger has doubts about AGW? What exactly are you trying to prove by posting that link? Your attitude seems to be, “Well, I can find conservative bloggers who claim that AGW isn’t happening so how do you refute them?” This is hardly a cogent argument and is rather intellectually lazy.

I should resist the urge to even respond to this, but since you asked what is wrong with his brilliant logic, I’ll give you a few examples:

Actually, the conclusion that greenhouse gases are and will continue to cause significant warming comes from multiple lines of scientific evidence, including to name just a few:

(1) That the absorption of infrared radiation by CO2 is well-understood physics.

(2) That the basic idea of feedbacks that enhance this effect, such as warming causing an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere which absorbs additional radiation and the melting of ice causing an decrease in the earth’s albedo which leads to more absorption of solar radiation, is well-understood physics.

(3) That these processes, when simulated by climate models, predict the warming and that it has been shown that the instrumental temperature record of the past ~150 years have so far only been explained by the models by incorporating the effects of greenhouse gases.

(4) That the Northern hemispheric temperature in the late 20th century is, on the basis of proxy data, likely higher than it has been at any time in the past 2000 years and that the rise in temperature over the 20th century is likely unprecedented in that time. [These are statements about the northern hemisphere as the southern hemisphere proxy data is too sparse.]

(5) That the pattern of warming of the oceans can be well-explained by the effects of greenhouse gases and, at least so far, cannot be explained by appeals to anything else.

(6) Paleoclimate evidence that suggests that the climate sensitivity to the known forcing of CO2 is approximately 3 deg C for a doubling of CO2, which is the current best-estimate from climate models.

The IPCC reports are prepared by scientists in an open peer-reviewed process that summarizes the peer-reviewed literature. Its conclusions have been endorsed just last year by the joint statement from the National Academies of Science of major countries including the U.S., as well as by the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and countless other respected scientific organizations. Even companies like BP, Shell, and Ford have accepted the reality of the threat posed by AGW.

Far from having studies come out since 2001 which have “refut[ed] much of it”, many recent studies have provided stronger evidence for its conclusions and the next report due out next year will no doubt state many things more strongly. An example of some of the new evidence:

(1) Studies showing how the pattern of warming in the oceans matches that expected for warming due to greenhouse gases.

(2) Almost complete reconciliation between the warming in the surface temperature record and the warming in the satellite temperature record available since 1979. (The fact that the satellite data once seemed to show less warming was a source of much grist for the deniers.)

(3) Satellite data showing how the behavior of water vapor in the upper troposphere is in line with what is predicted by climate models and in complete disagreement with the alternative hypothesis that the amount of water vapor would remain constant. This and other studies provide evidence that the models seem to be handling the water vapor feedback approximately correctly.

(4) Evidence from several papers of an increase in hurricane intensity that seems to be correlated closely with an increase in SSTs. [The 2001 IPCC report concluded that no changes in hurricane frequency or intensity had been discerned. While the evidence here is not yet definitive, it is clearly suggestive enough to cause the next IPCC to change their definitive conclusion that no such evidence has been seen.]

This is why that joint statement by the national academies of sciences re-affirmed the IPCC conclusions just last year.

Consensus does not mean that every last scientist agrees. If that were the case, then there would be no consensus on evolution. In the peer-reviewed scientific literature, the consensus is extremely overwhelming, as a study in Science by Naomi Oreskes showed. (Some people have quibbled with how she defined agreement with the consensus but none of them have showed that they could define it in any other plausible way that led to a fundamentally different conclusion.)

The change in name is to better reflect the full reality of what will happen (e.g., different areas will see different climate effects)…although the basic idea that the global temperatures will rise has not changed. There are plenty of testable predictions and they are being tested every year in the hundreds, if not thousands, of papers published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

While in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, the issues are discussed on the basis of the scientific evidence, I think when scientists have lost in the peer-reviewed literature and take their tired and deceptive arguments directly to the public, it is fair-game (in addition to pointing out the flaws in their arguments) to point out that these are a small cadre of scientists who almost all seem to have affiliations to fossil fuel industries or conservative think-tanks. Like the tobacco lobby, the goal of these scientists and those who sponsor them is not really to win the scientific argument but instead to raise enough doubt amongst the public that people believe the science is not settled enough and therefore no action should be taken yet. (It is similar to the goal of creationists, who don’t try to prove their theory but just to raise enough doubts about evolution to justify “teaching the controversy”). Hence the joint statement by the national academies of sciences stating that the science is in fact definitive enough to warrant taking action.

Sorry, I really should exercise more self-control…but it’s hard when I continue reading the stuff I just skimmed before.

Well, we certainly agree on the first point. On the other hand, it demonstrates the kind of chutzpah of the guy who kills both his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan! The reason that this politicization has occurred is because of the rabid anti-environmentalism of the dominant right-wing of the Republican Party.

The fact is that some of those who are championing global warming include the dying breed of moderate to conservative Republicans who are not in an ideological straightjacket. These include John McCain (who co-sponsered the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act), Sherwood Boehlert who is the head of the House Science Committee (although he is unfortunately not running for re-election this year), and Vernon Ehlers who is one of two physicists in the Congress (the other one, a liberal Democrat, is not surprisingly also a champion on the issue).

Quartz, your blogger friend isn’t even knowledgeable about the politics of the issue, let alone the science of the issue.

That’s more like it.

BTW note that I said that it was well argued, not that it was brilliant.

However, you come back to the issue of consensus, which is where I must disagree. Consensus is very dangerous, and can be very wrong. I’ve peviously stated my issues with consensus earlier in the thread.

RTFirefly and I dealt with this issue of consensus in posts #65 and 66. The basic point is that on scientific questions of no importance to the public at large, there is no need to worry about whether a consensus exists among scientists and what it is. However, if a scientific issue has policy implications, it is necessary for policymakers to understand what the state of the science is. “Consensus” has no real meaning or purpose within the scientific enterprise itself. Scientists don’t stop taking data or proposing hypotheses or whatnot just because it is determined that a consensus exists.

I don’t know what alternative you would propose. The only alternative that I have heard proposed (either implicitly or explicitly) is that there be some sort of free-for-all where policymakers (and the public) listen to “both sides” and adjudicate the issue themselves. This hardly seems wise to me as such people are eminently unqualified to do this. Why do you think we set up the National Academy of Sciences if not, at least in large part, to weigh in with scientific expertise on issues like this?

But scientists are presenting this as being of extreme importance to the public at large.

But those who do query the consensus - like Lomborg - are bullied. This is both wrong and dangerous: if someone fears to speak out, then progress is stultified. Those who denigrate people who speak out against a consensus simply for speaking out, as SentientMeat seemed to do, and not addressing the issues raised do their cause no good at all. If you won’t answer the other guys’ points, people will think your argument lacks merit.

This is what happens in the U.K… Select Committees and Parliamentary Commissions do exactly this. I believe the U.S. has similar things with Senate hearings(?).

Being masters of bullshit themselves, they’re usually quite good at spotting bullshitters. And there are civil servants there who are usually very clever indeed. Further, some politicians are quite clever: Gordon Brown’s no intellectual slouch, for instance.

Quartz, a propos your statement, the UK government, and the UK opposition, and the cross-party parliamentary subcommittees, are all now on the side of AGW.

(BTW, citing an entire blog as one’s argument, as I think we’ve discussed before in another place a while back, is a lazy manner of debating and deserves nothing but derision, since it requires the reader to sift through reams of opinion to find the salient points; it’s far more polite to extract the points you feel are salient, quote them and their sources, and only then cite the blog. Citing the entire blog as proof is pointless.)