# How many people take Global Warming totally on faith? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 21, 2007, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356 "2007-08-21T13:06:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 39
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2007, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/761 "2007-10-01T14:58:11Z")
But also consider this, is the funding for climate research benefiting from _concerns_ about AGW, or _debate_ about AGW? One could just as easily make the case that it’s beneficial (financially) for them to maintain uncertainty and controversy, rather than everyone jumping on the bandwagon and “advocating” AGW. I think you’ll agree that at the present time, a paper disputing AGW is more likely to stir up debate than one agreeing with AGW. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2007, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/762 "2007-10-01T16:02:50Z")
[QUOTE=scr4] But also consider this, is the funding for climate research benefiting from _concerns_ about AGW, or _debate_ about AGW? [/quote] I would say it’s concern. For example, take another look at Senator Snowe’s press release: > [@](#): > > There is overwhelming scientific evidence that warming trends are real, and that overall climate change through more severe weather events, droughts, and temperature swings, and the emergence of new diseases in places not found in the past is affecting Maine, the United States, and, indeed, the world. This threatens wildlife species that live in narrow ecosystems around the globe. The science tells us that the time for mitigation actions against further warming is now - the health of the planet cannot be ignored. > > Look for example at the 2001 National Academies’ report - ‘Climate Change Science: Analysis of Some Key Question’, which states that, “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.” > > These findings are alarming considering that the carbon dioxide emitted today will linger in the atmosphere on average for at least a century. > > * * * > > That’s whey I’m fighting to maintain critical funding to support Abrupt Climate Change research so we better understand and monitor trends throughout time. Note that she doesn’t make the argument that because there is a lot of uncertainty about AGW, we need more money to study it. On the contrary, she claims that the evidence is “overwhelming.” ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2007, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/763 "2007-10-03T08:31:21Z")
[QUOTE=jshore] … Of course, scientists are human and are affected by worldly things. However, you are arguing that somehow this has happened in a way that has corrupted the entire process of science, i.e., at the level of very well-respected organizations like the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences and the similar academies in at least the 10 other major countries that signed on to the joint statement, the councils of the AMS and the AGU, etc., etc. Isn’t it much simpler to believe that a few scientists, who from their associations clearly have strong political biases and/or industry connections are affected by those biases rather than that those biases have taken over pretty much the entire scientific establishment? [/QUOTE] Well, here’s a quote from Gavin last week about what he sees as the things that drive climate scientists … > [@](#): > > I think this is a general problem; many of the incentives for success within an academic field - the push for novel techniques, the ownership of specific slices of data, the desire to emulate the paths to success of the previous generation - actually discourage work across the field that pulls together disparate sources of information. The ownership of specific slices of data? That’s how you succeed in climate science? So that’s why it’s been so hard to get these guys to release the data that they developed using government grants, data they developed while drawing government salaries … they think they own it. That’s the “incentive for success”? … that and drawing a government salary. You think that people are somehow not affected by having their entire job dependent on the “existence” of AGW. Gavin Schmidt does nothing but climate models. If the AGW hypothesis were proven wrong, he’d be out of work. Nobody but AGW believers need highly inaccurate climate models of what the world would look like in 100 years. Meanwhile, you think that some guy who takes a few thousand from some tainted source has been bought … right, he couldn’t make it without the few thousand, while Gavin has no economic stake in the question. I’m also amazed that you think that only people who don’t believe in AGW have “political biases” or “industry connections”. Please cite your study that reveals that AGW supporters don’t have “political biases” … while you are looking for that citation, Al Gore is looking to make millions off of carbon credits, but that’s not an “industry connection”, I guess. A quote from Phil Jones is very relevant here … Phil responded to Warwick Hughes asking him to reveal his data, data Phil developed using government funds, by saying: > [@](#): > > Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. If you don’t see that quote, from one of the most highly respected climate science researchers, as being symptomatic of a very deep, profound problem in the field, then I fear for the future of science in general. w. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2007, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/764 "2007-10-03T10:15:32Z")
> [@](#): > > Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. I would say that’s the most troubling statement I’ve heard in connection with the whole AGW debate. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2007, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/765 "2007-10-03T10:53:43Z")
I bailed out on this thread I started long ago, I never expected it to reach 16 pages. I poked in here this morning and found: > [@](#): > > Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. In other words, take what I say on faith - from a leading AGW scientists. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2007, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/766 "2007-10-03T13:35:13Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] I would say that’s the most troubling statement I’ve heard in connection with the whole AGW debate. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=kanicbird] In other words, take what I say on faith - from a leading AGW scientists. [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: Of course I noticed several pages before that I understand why scientists do those things, **but also that I do not agree** ; so spare me your recent “discovery” that climate scientists like other scientists can be reluctant to disclose information to groups that have an agenda against them. Even so, it remains that I would expect a demonstration of what are the items the climate scientists got wrong to declare all evidence of AGW null and void. As mentioned before, data is available to do research even if some refuse to reveal their algorithms, I’m still waiting for refutation of AGW or for good evidence that computer modeling is not a valid tool to investigate this. [http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn12453-prepare-for-another-ten-scorching-years.html](http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn12453-prepare-for-another-ten-scorching-years.html) August 2007 > [@](#): > > Buoys network > The forecast is only possible because better figures are available on the state of the world’s oceans, says Doug Smith, a climate modeller who developed the predictions with colleagues at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, UK. > > A network of automated ocean-going devices, now numbering around 3,000, has been deployed around the planet since 1999. The devices, known as Argo floats, provide updates on ocean temperature and salinity - factors that are critical in determining global climate patterns. > > Armed with the Argo results, Smith was able to create a climate model that started with an accurate representation of the world’s oceans. Without access to such data, traditional models had ignored the fine details of current climate. That meant the predictions they produced were only reliable for periods decades in the future, at which point the influence of variations in factors like ocean temperature will have been swamped by more powerful forces, such as greenhouse warming. > > Temperature plateau > Smith’s approach seems to be working. Some of the figures published this week come from a trial of the model that was run in 2005. Comparisons with subsequent observations show that the model captured the recent plateau in global temperatures. > > Such lulls could be used by climate change sceptics to argue that the world is not warming as predicted and that plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions are unnecessary, says Smith, so it is useful to be able to spot a brief pause in what is expected to be a steady increase. “There would be pressure not to mitigate emissions if we couldn’t predict a flattening,” he says. > > Policy makers are also likely to benefit in other ways, says Zhang, since the approach used by Smith will soon be applied to regional climate models. That could eventually lead to better predictions of droughts and floods, events that are hard to predict even a few months in advance. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2007, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/767 "2007-10-03T14:25:00Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] :rolleyes: Of course I noticed several pages before that I understand why scientists do those things, **but also that I do not agree** ; [/quote] Sorry to break it to you, but this thread is not about your character. Anyway, what’s significant about the quote is that the scientist in question appears to have admitted the real reason why he’s reluctant to share information. Suggesting that his professional values are fundamentally at odds with the core values of science. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2007, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/768 "2007-10-03T16:23:00Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Sorry to break it to you, but this thread is not about your character. Anyway, what’s significant about the quote is that the scientist in question appears to have admitted the real reason why he’s reluctant to share information. Suggesting that his professional values are fundamentally at odds with the core values of science. [/QUOTE] Suggesting is not the same as affirming, and once again, you really have nothing to show that he is wrong, only a supposition that he is. I’m not defending him for his stubbornness, just that this line of attack is silly in regards to dealing with the evidence. Going back a little: [QUOTE=brazil84] What can I say – I also predicted around 1997 that there would be a big crash of so called “dot com” stocks. Things went against me for quite a while [/QUOTE] . Like Ray Kurzweil can tell you, the fact that several dot coms fell down, was not the end of the internet industry, far from it. Same thing with AGW. As for climate scientists and the IPCC standing to benefit from public concern about AGW, do you think then that if one can show you that for example the Forecasting Principles critic cited by \*\*intension \*\*had something to gain that therefore he is unreliable? Yes or no? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2007, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/769 "2007-10-03T17:12:51Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] Suggesting is not the same as affirming, and once again, you really have nothing to show that he is wrong, only a supposition that he is. [/quote] He’s definitely wrong in the sense that his reason for witholding data is not legitimate. You yourself said that you did “not agree.” Of course, you can never be 100% sure what is in his heart. > [@](#): > > I’m not defending him for his stubbornness, just that this line of attack is silly in regards to dealing with the evidence. Why? > [@](#): > > Like Ray Kurzweil can tell you, the fact that several dot coms fell down, was not the end of the internet industry, far from it. So what? My only point was that just because things move in one direction doesn’t mean they won’t switch directions later. That’s how an asset bubble or other kinds of mass panic work. They can snowball for quite a while before they collapse. > [@](#): > > As for climate scientists and the IPCC standing to benefit from public concern about AGW, do you think then that if one can show you that for example the Forecasting Principles critic cited by \*\*intension \*\*had something to gain that therefore he is unreliable? > > Yes or no? By “unreliable,” do you mean “worthy of skepticism?” If so, my answer is “yes.” No scientific claim should be accepted just on the fiat of the person making the claim. On the other hand, if by “unreliable,” you mean “not worth paying attention to,” my answer is “no.” ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2007, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/770 "2007-10-04T12:13:48Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] …Of course I noticed several pages before that I understand why scientists do those things, **but also that I do not agree** ; so spare me your recent “discovery” that climate scientists like other scientists can be reluctant to disclose information to groups that have an agenda against them. … [/QUOTE] GIGObuster, it seems that you don’t understand how science works. Here’s the short course: 1. A scientist somewhere does a study, based on some data, and comes to some kind of conclusion. 2. Other scientists see if they can replicate the study, using the first scientist’s data and methods. If they cannot replicate it, they figure that the first scientist made some kind of mistake, and his study is thrown out. 3. Yet other scientists investigate the logic, the algorithms, the mathematical transformations, the statistics, the computer codes, the underlying assumptions, the physics, and any and all other relevant parts of the study, to see if the study makes sense, to find any errors, to see if it is wrong anywhere. 4. If the study can be replicated, and no one can find anything wrong in it, then it is accepted as being scientifically valid. Note that this is _basically an adversarial process_. A new study makes claims that seem to overthrow existing beliefs. The people that still believe in the existing beliefs try to find fault with the new study. If they cannot do so, the new study stands. Here’s the short version: FINDING SOMETHING WRONG IN NEW IDEAS, OR FINDING SOMETHING WRONG IN EXISTING IDEAS, IS AT THE VERY HEART OF SCIENCE. That’s how science progresses. Ideas are thrown out there to the world, and if no one can find anything scientifically wrong with them, they are accepted as scientific fact … until someone down the line finds something wrong with the new idea, and it is replaced in turn with an even deeper understanding. Einstein found faults and cracks in Newton’s ideas. Wegener found something wrong in the idea that continents don’t move. Mann said that he had found problems with the idea of the Medieval Warm Period … and then McIntyre found something wrong with Mann’s work. Drs. Marshall and Warren found flaws in the claim that stress causes ulcers, and proposed a new cause. That’s the nature of science, scientists find something wrong, and then they either propose how to fix it, or they throw it out altogether. Now, let’s look again at Phil Jones’ quote: > [@](#): > > Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it? It’s bozo simple. He should make the data available because until he does, it’s not science — it’s just an unsubstantiated claim. He should make the data available because science can’t move forwards until he does. He should make the data available because nobody can replicate his work until he shows his cards. In particular, he should be sure to make his data available to “groups who have an agenda against him”, because just revealing the data to people who believe he is right is meaningless. Only when his work is examined by scientists who are hostile to his claims can it be judged to be valid — if his supporters say he is correct it means nothing, but if people from the opposing camp can’t find errors in his work, we can have confidence in his conclusions. In short, he should make the data available because without transparency, science does not and cannot work. Of course people want to try and find something wrong with Phil Jones’ data and methods — that’s what science does, it looks critically at claims to see if there is something wrong with them. Clearly, Phil Jones does not understand science. He does not know that he must expose his data and methods to the harsh glare of scientific inquiry for it to be accepted as scientifically valid. Unfortunately, this egregious error pervades the climate science field. I’ve given a variety of examples of this before, of people hiding their data and methods, from Mann to Thompson to Hansen to Hughes to Esper to Moberg to Luckman to Jacoby to Briffa to Phil Jones and onwards. They don’t want their work looked at, they don’t want to reveal their data and/or their code and methods … gosh, I wonder why? Occam’s Razor suggests that a man hides something because he has something to hide … but you can make up your own mind about their motives, the motives aren’t important anyway. Because at the end of the day, regardless of their motives … without transparency, without access to the data and methods and code, it’s not science — it’s just apocryphal stories that we have no way to verify. That’s the reason I said above: [QUOTE=intention] If you don’t see that quote, from one of the most highly respected climate science researchers, as being symptomatic of a very deep, profound problem in the field, then I fear for the future of science in general. [/QUOTE] Best to everyone, w. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2007, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/771 "2007-10-04T20:06:54Z")
\*\*intention \*\* that was the most useless post I have ever seen, if you had bothered to read you would have noticed that indeed I do not agree with hiding algorithms, only that I understand why they behave like that. Now, after forcing the algorithms from them I would expect then that if the criticism was valid to find quickly the basic flaw on their research, as I mentioned before you are only finding problems with the quality of the coding not the physics and chemistry used for the experiments. (here one has to point that AFAICR Turing in the middle of the last century demonstrated how you can get good information even from a program that has flaws) I should say there has been no direct evidence that the modeling of the physics in the research that points to man made CO2 as the most likely cause of the warming to be flawed. As reported in the last NewScientist, the work of Doug Smith is confirming what it was found before, and yes, he should be taken to task if he does not publish the data and information how he got the confirmation of his predictions. But as I mentioned before, I have the confidence now that the critics will find bupkiss for support for their points. I’m still waiting for evidence that indeed the original research of the Wegener of AGW was wrong. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/772 "2007-10-05T01:25:53Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] \*\*intention \*\* that was the most useless post I have ever seen, if you had bothered to read you would have noticed that indeed I do not agree with hiding algorithms, only that I understand why they behave like that. Now, after forcing the algorithms from them I would expect then that if the criticism was valid to find quickly the basic flaw on their research, as I mentioned before you are only finding problems with the quality of the coding not the physics and chemistry used for the experiments. (here one has to point that AFAICR Turing in the middle of the last century demonstrated how you can get good information even from a program that has flaws) I should say there has been no direct evidence that the modeling of the physics in the research that points to man made CO2 as the most likely cause of the warming to be flawed. As reported in the last NewScientist, the work of Doug Smith is confirming what it was found before, and yes, he should be taken to task if he does not publish the data and information how he got the confirmation of his predictions. But as I mentioned before, I have the confidence now that the critics will find bupkiss for support for their points. I’m still waiting for evidence that indeed the original research of the Wegener of AGW was wrong. [/QUOTE] Oh, I see, I guess I didn’t understand your post. You meant that you don’t approve of scientists hiding their work … but you certainly understand why they hide it. Ummm … so, why do they hide it? Like I said, Occam’s Razor suggests that they hide it because there’s something to hide, and Michael Mann certainly did … but it sounds like you think there’s some other perfectly valid reason for them to hide their work. What would that reason be? w. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356.md?page=38)