4 ms·

Hopefully all of those who called anyone skeptical of AGW over the last few years "climate change denialists" (by extension from "Holocaust denialists") are now

by tjic 17y ago

Hopefully all of those who called anyone skeptical of AGW over the last few years "climate change denialists" (by extension from "Holocaust denialists") are now acknowledging that there WERE serious issues with the assertions all along, and are now apologizing for their rashness and intemperance. I wouldn't bet on it though.

gjm11 17y ago
If those people were claiming that there were no mistakes anywhere in the high-profile AGW literature, then they should certainly be apologizing. (But then, anyone claiming that should have been apologizing anyway; everything has mistakes, near enough.) If they were merely saying: there's a huge body of scientific work supporting AGW, and claims to the contrary are consistently found to be the result of error or dishonesty ... well, then, I don't see how this makes the slightest difference to that.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  Much of the trumpeting over AGW has been about "consensus among the scientific community", as if scientists get to vote to decide what's true. We are now discovering that if there is, indeed, such a consensus, then it's partly due to derailing the literature (see Hadley) or selling to us media sources as if they were scientists doing real research. I think they've got a lot to apologize for, and they now have a lot of work to try and prove their views to a world that has every reason to be critical.
  - Retric 17y ago
    Why do you think that is the case?
  - lutorm 17y ago
    While it's true that you can't do science by consensus, it is legitimate to look at a range of studies and see where they agree. Those parts that most studies agree on can justifiably be called the "consensus among the scientific community". Your last paragraph simply isn't justified. Do you think any action or conclusion lives up to that standard? In particular, why do you think those that argue that AGW is not happening should be given more of a benefit of the doubt? AGW is the conclusion of applying simple physics to the problem. In my mind, if you are going to argue that it's not happening, you have much more justification to do.
    - CWuestefeld 17y ago
      In particular, why do you think those that argue that AGW is not happening should be given more of a benefit of the doubt? ... if you are going to argue that it's not happening, you have much more justification to do. Because the scientific method dictates that the burden of proof is borne by the one proposing the theory. The opposite is impractical, because for most questions it's not possible to prove the open-ended negative.
      - gjm11 17y ago
        I think talk of "the theory" is ambiguous, so let's break this down a bit. (All the claims I'm going to list should really be made in a quantitative form. They all can be; I'm just too lazy right now to look up the numbers.) Theory 1: More CO2 in the atmosphere tends to produce warmer climate. This is, on the face of it at least, a consequence of well-established physics. The burden of proof here is on anyone wishing to deny it, just as it would be for "if I drop a dachsund from the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, it will fall to the ground". Theory 2: Human activity over recent decades has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Yup, the burden of proof here would be on those who advocate this theory. As it happens, there's no shortage of evidence. See, e.g., http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html . Theory 3: Human activity such as we've seen over recent decades is likely to lead to warmer and warmer climates, if CO2 emissions aren't reduced and other drastic steps aren't taken. It seems to me that, given Theory 1 and Theory 2, the burden of proof is on anyone who wishes to reject Theory 3, because it's basically a consequence of those two. (If you strengthen Theory 3 to include the claim that human activity over the last several decades has in fact led to warmer climates, then I agree that the burden of proof is on whoever's making that extra claim. It seems to me that the evidence for that claim is in fact very strong, and with that evidence in place the rest of Theory 3 becomes even more the default position in the absence of strong disconfirming evidence.)
    - yummyfajitas 17y ago
      Global Warming (CO2 traps heat, causing the earth to be warmer than otherwise) is the conclusion of simple physics. Simple physics can not prove that the current warming trend is caused mostly by humans, which is what AGW claims. To do that, you need very complicated physics to prove that CO2 (and nothing else) caused the warming trend.
  - sophacles 17y ago
    A not uncommon scenario: There is data X, as the result of some experiment. Researches in group 1 say X implies A and B, researchers in group 2 say X implies A and C, and researchers in group 3 say X implies Q then A. They all propose different sets of experiments to further understand the phenomenon, they all write different papers, etc. Yet we can say there is consensus about implication A. Even if some data Y comes along (at a later point) completely disproving A, consensus on A (currently) drives further research. For example: the ether, higgs particle, various cutting edge medical stuff. My point here is they aren't voting on what is true so much as agreeing on the most likely scenario given the evidence and deciding how to further persue investigation.
  - yters 17y ago
    Plus, most of the original concerns don't even make sense, even if you take them at face value. 100 years to rise a foot? Millions and millions of people dead? Sure.... All glaciers melting is going to cause sea level rise? I see someone's missed the lesson on buoyancy and displacement.
    - yummyfajitas 17y ago
      Buoyancy and displacement are irrelevant if the glaciers are not already floating. If the arctic ice sheet melts, nothing happens. If the antarctic or Himalayan glaciers melt, that will cause rising sea levels. (Fortunately for us, the antarctic ice sheet is thickening.)
      - Retric 17y ago
        Unfortunately many other ice sheets are not.
      - yters 17y ago
        Where is most ice located?
  - gjm11 17y ago
    No one is claiming that truth is decided by a vote among scientists, and I don't see what's gained by pretending that anyone is. What is sometimes claimed (and a good thing too, because I think it's true) is that when the great majority of experts in a field agree about something then they are likely (though of course not certain) to be right. The Hadley emails do not in fact show that the consensus on climate change was the result of "derailing the literature", whatever exactly that is supposed to mean. And this glacier thing looks to me much more like a confluence of cockups than a deliberate attempt to mislead anyone. Everyone should be critical about everything. That applies not only to the claim that humans are causing climate change, but also to the claim that we are not. It seems to me that the former claim wins easily in (1) plausibility on the grounds of basic physics, (2) weight of scientific evidence (so far as I or any other layman can tell), and (3) historical honesty/dishonesty of proponents. Are you suggesting that AGW needs to be "proved" whereas not-AGW does not? If so, why?
hristov 17y ago
What serious issues? This article does not evidence any serious issues with the overall global warming theory. It was just one report of many produced by a large body that overestimated the effects of global warming. Climate change denialists use provide misleading reports all the time but they never admit their mistakes.
- nfnaaron 17y ago
  The overall theory becomes less believable with each "isolated incident." You can dismiss one or two, I guess, but eventually you have to wonder how many more isolated incidents there are going to be. You couldn't have made up a more alarming factoid if you tried. I'm a skeptic (not a "denier"), but when I read this particular prediction I was alarmed. 2035? That's within most peoples' lifetime. 100s of millions of people? Yikes! After a minute or two of thinking about it, I concluded that it sounds pretty unlikely and they probably either don't really know how to get from current data to melting glaciers and were merely guessing, or they were lying, or they were bumbling. In general I don't worry about global warming. I believe there is some. I believe humans contribute to some of it. I believe that the scientists and politicians understand almost every little bit of detailed data that they have (isolated incidents notwithstanding). And I believe that their ability to effectively predict broad results based on that data is no better than Popular Mechanics back in 1940 predicting that we'd all have flying cars in 2000 (and where's mine?).

by tjic 17y ago

gjm11 17y ago

If those people were claiming that there were no mistakes anywhere in the high-profile AGW literature, then they should certainly be apologizing. (But then, anyone claiming that should have been apologizing anyway; everything has mistakes, near enough.) If they were merely saying: there's a huge body of scientific work supporting AGW, and claims to the contrary are consistently found to be the result of error or dishonesty ... well, then, I don't see how this makes the slightest difference to that.

CWuestefeld 17y ago
Much of the trumpeting over AGW has been about "consensus among the scientific community", as if scientists get to vote to decide what's true. We are now discovering that if there is, indeed, such a consensus, then it's partly due to derailing the literature (see Hadley) or selling to us media sources as if they were scientists doing real research. I think they've got a lot to apologize for, and they now have a lot of work to try and prove their views to a world that has every reason to be critical.
- Retric 17y ago
  Why do you think that is the case?
- lutorm 17y ago
  While it's true that you can't do science by consensus, it is legitimate to look at a range of studies and see where they agree. Those parts that most studies agree on can justifiably be called the "consensus among the scientific community". Your last paragraph simply isn't justified. Do you think any action or conclusion lives up to that standard? In particular, why do you think those that argue that AGW is not happening should be given more of a benefit of the doubt? AGW is the conclusion of applying simple physics to the problem. In my mind, if you are going to argue that it's not happening, you have much more justification to do.
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    In particular, why do you think those that argue that AGW is not happening should be given more of a benefit of the doubt? ... if you are going to argue that it's not happening, you have much more justification to do. Because the scientific method dictates that the burden of proof is borne by the one proposing the theory. The opposite is impractical, because for most questions it's not possible to prove the open-ended negative.
    - gjm11 17y ago
      I think talk of "the theory" is ambiguous, so let's break this down a bit. (All the claims I'm going to list should really be made in a quantitative form. They all can be; I'm just too lazy right now to look up the numbers.) Theory 1: More CO2 in the atmosphere tends to produce warmer climate. This is, on the face of it at least, a consequence of well-established physics. The burden of proof here is on anyone wishing to deny it, just as it would be for "if I drop a dachsund from the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, it will fall to the ground". Theory 2: Human activity over recent decades has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Yup, the burden of proof here would be on those who advocate this theory. As it happens, there's no shortage of evidence. See, e.g., http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html . Theory 3: Human activity such as we've seen over recent decades is likely to lead to warmer and warmer climates, if CO2 emissions aren't reduced and other drastic steps aren't taken. It seems to me that, given Theory 1 and Theory 2, the burden of proof is on anyone who wishes to reject Theory 3, because it's basically a consequence of those two. (If you strengthen Theory 3 to include the claim that human activity over the last several decades has in fact led to warmer climates, then I agree that the burden of proof is on whoever's making that extra claim. It seems to me that the evidence for that claim is in fact very strong, and with that evidence in place the rest of Theory 3 becomes even more the default position in the absence of strong disconfirming evidence.)
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    Global Warming (CO2 traps heat, causing the earth to be warmer than otherwise) is the conclusion of simple physics. Simple physics can not prove that the current warming trend is caused mostly by humans, which is what AGW claims. To do that, you need very complicated physics to prove that CO2 (and nothing else) caused the warming trend.
- sophacles 17y ago
  A not uncommon scenario: There is data X, as the result of some experiment. Researches in group 1 say X implies A and B, researchers in group 2 say X implies A and C, and researchers in group 3 say X implies Q then A. They all propose different sets of experiments to further understand the phenomenon, they all write different papers, etc. Yet we can say there is consensus about implication A. Even if some data Y comes along (at a later point) completely disproving A, consensus on A (currently) drives further research. For example: the ether, higgs particle, various cutting edge medical stuff. My point here is they aren't voting on what is true so much as agreeing on the most likely scenario given the evidence and deciding how to further persue investigation.
- yters 17y ago
  Plus, most of the original concerns don't even make sense, even if you take them at face value. 100 years to rise a foot? Millions and millions of people dead? Sure.... All glaciers melting is going to cause sea level rise? I see someone's missed the lesson on buoyancy and displacement.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    Buoyancy and displacement are irrelevant if the glaciers are not already floating. If the arctic ice sheet melts, nothing happens. If the antarctic or Himalayan glaciers melt, that will cause rising sea levels. (Fortunately for us, the antarctic ice sheet is thickening.)
    - Retric 17y ago
      Unfortunately many other ice sheets are not.
    - yters 17y ago
      Where is most ice located?
- gjm11 17y ago
  No one is claiming that truth is decided by a vote among scientists, and I don't see what's gained by pretending that anyone is. What is sometimes claimed (and a good thing too, because I think it's true) is that when the great majority of experts in a field agree about something then they are likely (though of course not certain) to be right. The Hadley emails do not in fact show that the consensus on climate change was the result of "derailing the literature", whatever exactly that is supposed to mean. And this glacier thing looks to me much more like a confluence of cockups than a deliberate attempt to mislead anyone. Everyone should be critical about everything. That applies not only to the claim that humans are causing climate change, but also to the claim that we are not. It seems to me that the former claim wins easily in (1) plausibility on the grounds of basic physics, (2) weight of scientific evidence (so far as I or any other layman can tell), and (3) historical honesty/dishonesty of proponents. Are you suggesting that AGW needs to be "proved" whereas not-AGW does not? If so, why?

hristov 17y ago

What serious issues? This article does not evidence any serious issues with the overall global warming theory. It was just one report of many produced by a large body that overestimated the effects of global warming. Climate change denialists use provide misleading reports all the time but they never admit their mistakes.

nfnaaron 17y ago
The overall theory becomes less believable with each "isolated incident." You can dismiss one or two, I guess, but eventually you have to wonder how many more isolated incidents there are going to be. You couldn't have made up a more alarming factoid if you tried. I'm a skeptic (not a "denier"), but when I read this particular prediction I was alarmed. 2035? That's within most peoples' lifetime. 100s of millions of people? Yikes! After a minute or two of thinking about it, I concluded that it sounds pretty unlikely and they probably either don't really know how to get from current data to melting glaciers and were merely guessing, or they were lying, or they were bumbling. In general I don't worry about global warming. I believe there is some. I believe humans contribute to some of it. I believe that the scientists and politicians understand almost every little bit of detailed data that they have (isolated incidents notwithstanding). And I believe that their ability to effectively predict broad results based on that data is no better than Popular Mechanics back in 1940 predicting that we'd all have flying cars in 2000 (and where's mine?).