Physicists don't believe in global warming anymore?

Great Debates
121

[QUOTE=intention]
Your puerile, nasty, and untrue assertion that I am deliberately misrepresenting the argument has no place on this board, and is personally very offensive. Come back when you’ve learned not to make ugly, false allegations about the motives of someone you don’t know, and we’ll continue this discussion.

w.
[/QUOTE]
You do repeat the same rubbish over and over again, despite Jshore’s good faith attempts to set you straight. Can you see why an outside observer might think you are being willfully dishonest?

Now personally, I think you’re just too invested at this point to even try to think about the other side. You don’t particularly strike me as dishonest. Stubborn, and unwilling to be proved wrong, but not dishonest.

122

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
When Rachel Carson wrote ‘Silent Spring’, anti-DDT hysteria led to excessive bans, which caused malaria to flourish again, killing millions of children in the third world.
[/QUOTE]

The “Rachel Carson killed millions” shibboleth is a useful flag indicating the quality of thinking that went into a given post, much like “I was probed by Aliens” and “It’s all the fault of the dirty Jews.”

Sailboat

123

[QUOTE=Lobohan]
You do repeat the same rubbish over and over again, despite Jshore’s good faith attempts to set you straight. Can you see why an outside observer might think you are being willfully dishonest?

Now personally, I think you’re just too invested at this point to even try to think about the other side. You don’t particularly strike me as dishonest. Stubborn, and unwilling to be proved wrong, but not dishonest.
[/QUOTE]
Lobohan, from my perspective, jshore does repeat the same arguments again and again, despite my good faith efforts to set him straight. I know you think the same of me, but all that proves is that we disagree, and that there is very little firm ground in climate science. None of the issues are clearcut. The signal in question (about two hundredths of a degree per year) is vanishingly small, and the noise is huge. Why should we expect agreement?

However, I do not accuse jshore or Deeg of dishonesty, although both he and Deeg have accused me of dishonesty.

Can you see why I might think they are being willfully abusive?

Am I stubborn? Sure, I fight for what I believe in. Do I like being proven wrong? No more than jshore, you, or the next man. However, when I am wrong, I stand up and say so. I make mistakes, just like you, jshore, and the next man.

But when jshore or Deeg impugn my honesty, that’s both offensive and against the rules of the SDMB. No, I am not junior modding here, nor am I calling for the mods to intervene.

I’d just like y’all to dial back on the accusations about my motives. I do this for the love of the science and to fight the good fight against ignorance. There is always more to learn, and there is room for people of good will to disagree without accusations.

w.

PS - I try thinking about the other side … I just haven’t found any evidence to think much about as yet. Every time I think I’ll find some, it vanishes. Briffa just wrote a new hockeystick paper to try to shore up Michael Mann, and I though that in this one, finally we might find some evidence. Unfortunately, this one sets a record. In all of the previous hockeystick papers, at least a few of the datasets were archived. In the latest one, they have finally achieved a perfect vacuum – not a single one of the datasets is archived. Not one. But don’t worry, RealClimate will declare it as the final nail in the coffin, and will censor anyone who asks “But where’s the data”?

This is the quality of the folks you are so strongly invested in. Shabby, unarchived, undocumented amateur theatrics and censorship passing as science. So yes, I think about the other side, and someday, there might be something solid there to think about …

PPS - Do I repeat the same arguments? Well, no. I continue to introduce new citations and ideas into the discussion. Perhaps you’d like to comment on the Koutsoyannis paper I just cited above, there’s a new one … or not.

124

[QUOTE=intention]

For those who would like a more nuanced view than comes from RealClimate, the home of scientific censorship, you could try this site.

[/quote]
It is laughable to uphold climateaudit up as some paragon of scientific accuracy and nuance. I’ll take the blog run by actual working climate scientists over any other, any day.

125

Deeg, leave the personal observations out of Great Debates.

intention, if you have a problem with a post, report it, do not overreact to it, here.

[ /Moderating ]

Tom~

126

[QUOTE=intention]
Because in my world, it is assumed that if you say “42% of the people said they would not vote for Obama”, that some of the people in that non-Obama group would vote for McCain, and some for Ron Paul, and SOME WOULD BE UNSURE. That’s how my world works, at least, we’re not required to restate the obvious.
[/QUOTE]
But if they told you they were undecided, you’d assume that some would vote for McCain, some for Ron Paul, and some, after further deliberation, would vote for Obama.

127

[QUOTE=intention]
jshore, in passing, just wanted to say that you are an honorable opponent, always full of surprises. Despite their occasionally driving my blood pressure through the roof, I greatly enjoy our discussions. Your comments on the Koutsoyannis paper would be much appreciated.
[/quote]

I enjoy our discussions too, although I empathize with the blood pressure issue…When my girlfriend sees me jumping up from the computer or furiously typing at the computer after reading your posts, she says that she thinks that my most likely cause of death will be a heart attack while posting to the SDMB. I’ll try to look at the Koutsoyannis paper when I get a chance.

I have to take some issue with the claim that this goes to show how little firm ground there is in climate science. Yes, there are a lot of legitimate disagreements and uncertainties. However, I honestly don’t think that all of this is not that clear-cut.

For example, in regards to the paper by Douglass et al., it seems pretty clear-cut to me the important distinction between an ensemble average over climate models and the actual climate system which is NOT “ensemble-averaging” over internal variability. It also seems pretty clear cut to me that, leaving aside this internal variability issue, the IPCC has never meant that the forced component of the climate change should be accurate to within the standard error of the model predictions. This is simply obvious from a straightfoward calculation of the standard deviation and standard error of the climate sensitivities used in the models and comparison to the IPCC statement regarding the likely range of climate sensitivity. Their stated likely range is only compatible with using the full standard deviation of the model climate sensitivities…if not a broader range.

Furthermore, I have seen considerable evidence to support, and no evidence opposing, the claim that the amplification in warming that the models predict as you go up in the tropical troposphere is due to moist adiabatic lapse rate theory and is independent of the specific warming mechanism.

So, when you say that when you realize that you are wrong you admit it, I would add the caveat that there seems to be lots of times when you don’t realize you are wrong when I think it is quite apparent that you are.

In climate science, there are legitimate sources of controversy and disagreement but there also seem to be some “manufactured controversies” where there is essentially zero-support for one side. I think it is important to distinguish between the two.

The analogy I have made to evolution is, I think, again useful. Are there legitimate uncertainties involving evolution and particularly abiogenesis? Sure. But that does not mean that everything that those arguing against evolution bring up and continue to argue are legitimate sources of controversy.

128

jshore, you sly devil, all this time you had a dog in this fight and you didn’t let us know!

According to Monckton, you helped to write one of the papers in this kerfuffle at the APS. Dang, bro’, it’s awfully slick of you to come in here pretending to be an outside observer handing out dispassionate scientific judgment, when in fact you are one of the participants in the case.

I mean, how cool is that? You get to have your cake and eat it, you get to write the paper and then come here as though you were not involved, pass judgment on the issues as though you were some dispassionate Solomon with no hidden agenda, and then proceed to lecture me on ethics and responsibility … that’s an awesome move, man, I have to commend you. I don’t think I could have pulled that one off.

w.

129

intention: Wow, it is an honor I dream not of…being cited by Monckton and apparently being one of the “members of the very small, very well funded clique that drives the climate scare”! How cool is that!? You showing me that has made my day!

[For the record, I don’t get paid anything to work on climate science…In fact, to the extent I am involved with any relevant organizations, the involvement is that of being a member or contributor…which means that I pay them!]

As for being sly about it, I don’t think I have been particularly sly. In my very first post in this thread, I noted that I was a member of the APS Forum on Physics and Society. Arthur is a friend from grad school and a fellow member (as well as actually being employed by APS although I don’t think he was doing this as part of his job) and sent me his proposed response to Monkton’s article just last week. I read it over and commented on it. Simple as that.

I have actually made mention of this fact (without mentioning Arthur by name) in at least one comment on Anthony Watts’ blog. (I could dig up the comment if you want.) I didn’t mention it here because by the time this all transpired, the conversation here was no longer really about the validity of Monckton’s paper (e.g., it was after my post #32) which was never really taken seriously here…as opposed to on Watts’ blog, which is why it was more relevant for me to mention that I knew for a fact that there were going to be responses that tore it apart since I had actually seen and commented on a draft of one.

130

[QUOTE=jshore]

I have actually made mention of this fact (without mentioning Arthur by name) in at least one comment on Anthony Watts’ blog. (I could dig up the comment if you want.)
[/QUOTE]

See, for example, my 23 July 2008 9:52:43 comment in this thread where I say:

(And note how I post on that blog is even less anonymous than I am here.)

131

[QUOTE=intention]
jshore, you sly devil, all this time you had a dog in this fight and you didn’t let us know!

According to Monckton, you helped to write one of the papers in this kerfuffle at the APS. Dang, bro’, it’s awfully slick of you to come in here pretending to be an outside observer handing out dispassionate scientific judgment, when in fact you are one of the participants in the case.

I mean, how cool is that? You get to have your cake and eat it, you get to write the paper and then come here as though you were not involved, pass judgment on the issues as though you were some dispassionate Solomon with no hidden agenda, and then proceed to lecture me on ethics and responsibility … that’s an awesome move, man, I have to commend you. I don’t think I could have pulled that one off.

w.
[/QUOTE]

What, exactly, are you (so sarcastically) implying? No-one who has read these threads can be in any doubt as to** jshore**'s stance on AGW. No-one would say he was not involved. He’s discusseded his APS involvement . I, for one, am glad that someone who actually participates in the relevant scientific process is involved in these threads. This is a point in his favour, not a stroke against him.

Not like just writing a letter to the comments section of a journal and bragging about it, after all… :rolleyes:

132

Jeez, Mr. Dibble, you just can’t let go of the fact that I have a peer reviewed “Communications Arising” in Nature Magazine, and you don’t … suck it up and live with it.

You ask:

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
What, exactly, are you (so sarcastically) implying? No-one who has read these threads can be in any doubt as to jshore’s stance on AGW. No-one would say he was not involved. He’s discusseded his APS involvement . I, for one, am glad that someone who actually participates in the relevant scientific process is involved in these threads. This is a point in his favour, not a stroke against him.

Not like just writing a letter to the comments section of a journal and bragging about it, after all…
[/QUOTE]
What I’m saying is that jshore has pretended to be an outside commentator on this affair, when in fact he is one of the authors of one of the documents in the fray.

Like you, I see this involvement as a good thing … so why does he pretend he’s not involved. Y’see, when a man has some kind of an involvement with a process, if he’s asked to judge the process it is expected that he would declare his conflict of interest …

As to whether jshore been “open about it”, let me ask - how many here people caught jshore’s announcement on Anthony Watts blog? … thought so … how many people here knew that jshore was up to his ears in the very process that he is here passing judgement on? … thought so …

jshore, for the record Monckton says that the APS Council did not meet to discuss his paper before they slapped their red warning label on it, viz:

[QUOTE=Moncton]
The APS had asked me to submit a paper to its journal Physics and Society on how the IPCC had exaggerated the warming effect of carbon dioxide. I had submitted the paper; a professor of physics unknown to me had reviewed it; I had made all of the requested revisions; the paper had been published; and yet, a week later, a disclaimer had been posted above the paper on the Physics and Society website to the effect that, inter alia, the Council of the APS disagreed with the paper’s conclusions. The indications are that the Council had not in fact met to consider the merits of the paper, and had not, therefore, come to any official opinion on it. The disclaimer was a lie.
[/QUOTE]

Is that true?

w.

133

My apologies to the board.

[QUOTE=intention]
Your puerile, nasty, and untrue assertion that I am deliberately misrepresenting the argument has no place on this board, and is personally very offensive. Come back when you’ve learned not to make ugly, false allegations about the motives of someone you don’t know, and we’ll continue this discussion.

w.
[/QUOTE]

I will restate:

You are not understanding the difference. Nobody is saying that AGW is true because there is a consensus but rather there is consensus because AGW is (likely) true.

A consensus is not proof that a theory is correct; in 1890 there was near 100% consensus that classical physics was correct and we know how that turned out. However, a consensus means that AGW is currently the best explanation for the warming phenomenon. Evolution is similar: despite many objections (even among evolutionary scientists) the scientific consensus indicates that Evolution is currently the best model for explaining life and the fossil record. Maybe tomorrow we learn that we’re a big geranium experiment for advanced aliens and Evolution is complete bunk.

134

[QUOTE=intention]
jshore, you sly devil, all this time you had a dog in this fight and you didn’t let us know!

According to Monckton, you helped to write one of the papers in this kerfuffle at the APS. Dang, bro’, it’s awfully slick of you to come in here pretending to be an outside observer handing out dispassionate scientific judgment, when in fact you are one of the participants in the case.

I mean, how cool is that? You get to have your cake and eat it, you get to write the paper and then come here as though you were not involved, pass judgment on the issues as though you were some dispassionate Solomon with no hidden agenda, and then proceed to lecture me on ethics and responsibility … that’s an awesome move, man, I have to commend you. I don’t think I could have pulled that one off.

w.
[/QUOTE]
I’d like to go on record as saying that this quoted post is among the most pathetic and paranoid I’ve ever witnessed on teh intarwebz. Please don’t insinuate that Jshore is a shill unless you can prove it. It’s very slimy and completely classless.

135

TWEEEET!!

jshore is not the topic of this thread, so attacks on and defenses of jshore will not be tolerated.

[ /Modding ]

136

[QUOTE=intention]

What I’m saying is that jshore has pretended to be an outside commentator on this affair, when in fact he is one of the authors of one of the documents in the fray.

Like you, I see this involvement as a good thing … so why does he pretend he’s not involved. Y’see, when a man has some kind of an involvement with a process, if he’s asked to judge the process it is expected that he would declare his conflict of interest …

As to whether jshore been “open about it”, let me ask - how many here people caught jshore’s announcement on Anthony Watts blog? … thought so … how many people here knew that jshore was up to his ears in the very process that he is here passing judgement on? … thought so …
[/quote]

As I was speaking of manufactured controversy, this is a perfect example. The conversation in this thread quickly switched from the Monckton paper itself to the issue of APS’s stance on climate change and how they arrived at it and to climate change in general. By the time that Arthur asked me to look at his response, there was no good reason for me to bring up here the fact that this occurred. (In fact, after your post today, I actually had to look back over this thread to see if I had mentioned reading over and critiquing his response because I didn’t honestly even remember for sure what I had posted where.)

By the way, while we are clearing the air here, I have made a very sweeping statement that I am in no way paid by anybody regarding anything I say or research or whatever in regards to climate change. It might be helpful if you would make a similar statement.

I am not privy to any special knowledge regarding the internal workings at APS. All I know about that is from the article interviewing one of the two co-editors editors of the newsletter, Al Saperstein, and also from an e-mail message that Saperstein sent me in reply to an e-mail that I sent to him and the other co-editor (which really didn’t say much that wasn’t in that article.)

137

[QUOTE=jshore]
As I was speaking of manufactured controversy, this is a perfect example. The conversation in this thread quickly switched from the Monckton paper itself to the issue of APS’s stance on climate change and how they arrived at it and to climate change in general. By the time that Arthur asked me to look at his response, there was no good reason for me to bring up here the fact that this occurred. (In fact, after your post today, I actually had to look back over this thread to see if I had mentioned reading over and critiquing his response because I didn’t honestly even remember for sure what I had posted where.)

By the way, while we are clearing the air here, I have made a very sweeping statement that I am in no way paid by anybody regarding anything I say or research or whatever in regards to climate change. It might be helpful if you would make a similar statement.

I am not privy to any special knowledge regarding the internal workings at APS. All I know about that is from the article interviewing one of the two co-editors editors of the newsletter, Al Saperstein, and also from an e-mail message that Saperstein sent me in reply to an e-mail that I sent to him and the other co-editor (which really didn’t say much that wasn’t in that article.)
[/QUOTE]
jshore, thanks for clearing the air. For me, the problem is that I assumed you were giving an unbiased outside opinion on the question at hand. Now I find that is not the case.

I did not mean nor did I say that you were paid or were a shill for anyone, that’s not my impression of you in any way.

For me, though, there is a difficulty. It’s like you are a judge in a beauty pageant where one of your daughters is a contestant … I’m sure you can see that, although you are not being paid, your opinion will be biased no matter how much you try for it not to be.

Me, I am not now, nor have I ever, been paid to express my opinion on climate science, nor to do any research on climate science. As I have said before, without being specific, I do this for the love of science and the joy of the hunt for obscure facts, odd correlations, and strange coincidences.

w.

138

[QUOTE=intention]
I used the poll jshore cited, the one you are reading. I did not mention many of the poll’s findings, since any fool with a mouse can click on the link and see them. You seem to think that is “disingenuous” …
[/quote]

I think it’s obvious, but since you requested an explanation, here you are:

Wouldn’t it be nice to know what about the other half? Often in polls, the undecided/unsure category is <10%, so it’s possible that the remaining 40-50% would think that global warming does not pose a danger to the earth in 50-100 years. I would love more information…

This provides a little more information, and puts a little cold water on the conclusion mentioned above.

intention, for someone so obviously intelligent, it does not become you to make such a weakly supported assertion - Stupidity has nothing to do with it.

Why would anyone, believe that intelligence determines whether a person clicks on a link or not? My default assumption, based on my own behavior in clicking on links, is that the determining factors are time available and level of interest. I often don’t click on links in threads I read for those two motivations. I hope that does not reflect on my intelligence! :wink: I’ve tried to remove the whole conundrum by quoting more of the poll. Now not everyone needs to click on the link, because more information is available here in the thread.
I really think its rather silly to try to appeal to readers and lurkers in the thread by saying that I think they’re stupid when all I’ve done is quote more of the poll than you did. Really, intention, you have better ways to pursue your point than this.

Well, now that the statement has been issued, presumably those members who disagree with it will now take it up with the leadership. How much of an uproar has there been from APS members?

139

[QUOTE=Deeg]
My apologies to the board.

I will restate:

You are not understanding the difference. Nobody is saying that AGW is true because there is a consensus but rather there is consensus because AGW is (likely) true.

A consensus is not proof that a theory is correct; in 1890 there was near 100% consensus that classical physics was correct and we know how that turned out. However, a consensus means that AGW is currently the best explanation for the warming phenomenon. Evolution is similar: despite many objections (even among evolutionary scientists) the scientific consensus indicates that Evolution is currently the best model for explaining life and the fossil record. Maybe tomorrow we learn that we’re a big geranium experiment for advanced aliens and Evolution is complete bunk.
[/QUOTE]
Deeg, thank you kindly.

The point about consensus is subtle.

I had asked for your comment on the following quote:

Now that sounds like people believe that those theories are true because they are part of the consensus …

A similar subtle shift in logic occurs in your sentence above that:

Again, your claim is that the consensus means that AGW is currently the best explanation. But it doesn’t mean that. All it means is that the members of the consensus believe it is the best explanation. The consensus does not mean that AGW is currently the best explanation, all it means is that AGW is the most widely accepted explanation. I’m sure you can see the difference.

Let me make this distinction more solid, and give you an example. There is a consensus in the US that God got a woman pregnant and made her have a baby, and then God tortured him and killed him so you could get away with whatever shit you wanted to, as long as you said you were sorry. Oh, and after God had killed him so you could get away with whatever you wanted, then God brought him back to life.

Now, this is the consensus view in the US … but does that make it the best explanation of how the universe actually works, or does it just make it the most widely accepted explanation?

w.

140

[QUOTE=wevets]
IWell, now that the statement has been issued, presumably those members who disagree with it will now take it up with the leadership. How much of an uproar has there been from APS members?
[/QUOTE]
Thanks, wevets. I have no idea how much of an uproar there has been … nor do I know how much of an “uproar” there would be in any case, as these things tend to play out in private. And I’m not sure why, but people writing to the Council of the APS haven’t been cc’ing me their emails …

Having said that, here’s one member’s view of the situation. I don’t think you’ll like it, but I won’t say anything about it, or y’all will bust me for not quoting every single word he said, for those who don’t click on the link.

(In passing, it’s a mystery to me why you guys are so worried that someone might misunderstand something, so worried that I might mislead somebody, that you want me to quote every jot and tittle of a publicly accessible file that is cited on the same page as my comment … but then you turn around and give a complete pass to Mann and Hughes and Bradley and Thompson and Briffa and the rest when they want to influence worldwide science policy by using “scientific” studies that rely on un-archived, inaccessible files and undisclosed, hidden code. But then heck, I’m sure nobody could be misled that way.

Double standard, anyone?)

w.