8 ms·

The idea that the entire case on global warming comes from a single data set that no one made a copy of is absurd on the face of it. Even if one were to willfu

The idea that the entire case on global warming comes from a single data set that no one made a copy of is absurd on the face of it. Even if one were to willfully believe that the rest of the article is true, something which I am dubious about, it doesn't mean much in the greater scheme of climate science. One can always find a sloppy scientist. That's why scientists practice things like peer review and replication. The conclusion that global warming is real has been replicated across any number of studies. People opposed to the idea that global warming is real will point to any discrepancy, bit of sloppy science, or dispute on any detail as evidence that it must -all- be wrong. But it's a fallacious and misleading argument. A bit of sloppy science is nothing more than one bit of sloppy science. A slight dispute over details is nothing more than a slight dispute over details. The core of the position that global warming is real and caused by humans has overwhelming evidence behind it. One sloppy scientist doesn't change that fact.

jacoblyles 17y ago
Steve Mcintyre is an interesting guy. His hobby is to check the data, statistics, and models published in climate science articles. As far as I know his work is quality, at least several of his corrections have found their way into mainstream climate records. The fact that he has been involved in so many tooth-and-nail fights to obtain the data he seeks, often being flatly denied, ought to concern anyone who cares about the veracity of the claims of climate scientists and activists, as well as anyone with a vested interest in a political system that looks poised to spend trillions of dollars on climate policy over the next decade. You can check out his blog here: http://www.climateaudit.org/ http://www.climateaudit.org/. But be warned, it's not political at all. If you don't have a head for data series and regression models, you'll be put to sleep. The amount of bad scientific practices and obfuscation that this one man has uncovered is staggering (scientists cherry-picking data for a paper and then refusing to provide the whole data set seems a common complaint). However, as good citizens we must believe that the thousands of papers he has not gotten around to checking are perfectly valid. To do otherwise is to be painted with the label of "heretic". In the end, it is the poor treatment of the scientific process by scientists and activists, as well as the religion-like enforcement of agreement, that causes me to hold onto my green skepticism. I'm not sure that climate change won't Kill Us All, but I am not convinced by those that do think so. edit: One final cause of my green skepticism is the fact that so many highly-publicized predictions made by environmentalists in the past, many of whom held PHDs, have been wrong. But more importantly, they have always been wrong in one direction, the direction of overstating the environmental damage done by human activity. The environmentalists of the 1960s foresaw a world that would undergo multiple environmental holocausts by the 1980s, which of course never came to pass. While the quality of past predictions has no direct bearing on the quality of current predictions, indeed one might even assume that modern predictions are of higher quality given more advanced methods and greater funding, it does make me skeptical of any would-be green Nostradamus, at least until one establishes a good track record of predicting the future.
- ajross 17y ago
  So how do you weigh your decision? Are you waiting for unassailable evidence? What is your best guess at the cost of regulation needed to fix the problem you are not unconvinced exists? How does that cost change over time as we do nothing? Or do you care about any of that? This isn't (just) an internet flame war. The goal isn't (or shouldn't be) to "win" by poking holes in the oppositions argument. It should be to make the best/safest decision possible given the evidence at hand. But that's the point: there has to be a decision made. By advocating inaction, you are expressly taking the side of the denialists, even though you claim not to agree with them, technically.
  - hughprime 17y ago
    By advocating inaction, you are expressly taking the side of the denialists, even though you claim not to agree with them, technically One thing that the world really needs to do is move beyond labels like "denialist". I'm sick of depiction that the only possible positions we can possibly take are "No way, global warming is absolutely a complete myth" and "zomg we're all going to die!" The truth doesn't always sit somewhere between the two extremes on every controversial debate, but I'm pretty sure this is one of those cases where it does. One can think that anthropogenic global warming is probably a nonzero problem without buying into every extreme-level prediction or supporting every suggested policy prescription.
    - ajross 17y ago
      I don't believe I asked you to buy into "every" prediction or support "every" prescription. But it's a fair point: which regulation choices do you support? My experience is that the seemingly-moderate "science is incomplete" skeptics, when pressed, generally argue for no action at all. That would put them much farther on the "denialist" (I don't know what other label to use, and you didn't offer a suggestion) end of the spectrum, no?
      - SamAtt 17y ago
        See, this is a straw man argument. No one, and I mean no responsible person in government has argued for no action at all in my lifetime. We've had environmental regulations since people were afraid of Global Cooling. This has always been a question of degree not one of "action vs. non-action"
ajross 17y ago
The sad thing is that absurd arguments work. All that's needed for denialism to win is doubt. Just one goof, or bad actor, or wrong result can be spun like this into a "collapse" of the case it is making. The fact that this is an argument of risk, where the argument for carbon legislation needs to be weighed not against the certainty of the science but on the best-guess risks of inaction is completely lost on the public and the media.
zaphar 17y ago
I don't think any intelligent reasonable person objects to the fact that the global temperature is rising. As for Human activity being the cause that is far from settled. Don't get me wrong I'm all for reducing emissions and generally doing anything we can to reduce our impact as much as is possible because it's just good sense. But stating that the industrial age caused the rise when we really have so little understanding of how all this works rankles me just a bit. I especially object to the attempts to assign blame as a scare tactic for political gain. Especially when there are equally valid reasons to reduce emissions and lessen our impact local air quality and increased efficiency in manufacturing being just a few of the reasons. The plain fact is that while there "might" be a correlation with Human activity that does not imply a cause and effect relationship out of hand. I don't think we really have enough data or understanding yet to make an assumption regarding the cause. [Edit: I had a misplaced sentence which totally made that read wrong. Just fixed it]
- SamAtt 17y ago
  You echo my thoughts on the issue. But what really bothers me is the logical outgrowth of that logic. What I mean is, as you said, most agree the planet is getting warmer. That's the actual problem here. But Global Warming advocates are so convinced of their absolute infallibility that they're suggesting a solution based on a cause they can't prove. So my question is "What if they're wrong?" If the Global Warming movement really believes this trend will lead to the end of life as we know it shouldn't they be considering all options? Shouldn't someone be talking about ways to live if their climate predictions are correct and we aren't the cause? The fact that they completely ignore that side of the issue tells me their pushing an agenda not trying to solve the actual problem.
  - zaphar 17y ago
    Indeed, Any solution that assumes the wrong cause may cause just as much harm as it does good. For all we really know the trend could suddenly halt or accelerate despite our attempts to "control" it. When political goals drive the debate then true discourse gets drowned out and progress may either stop or continue in the wrong direction.
- 17y ago
nice1 17y ago
The conclusion that MAN-MADE global warming is real is plain bullshit. What has been replicated is leftist hysteria.
DanielBMarkham 17y ago
The idea that the entire case on global warming comes from a single data set that no one made a copy of is absurd on the face of it. Bullshit. This article never claimed to make a case against global warming. It was about sharing data in the scientific community. If you want to have your snit about global warming falling apart, do it on another (and more appropriate) thread.

jacoblyles 17y ago

Steve Mcintyre is an interesting guy. His hobby is to check the data, statistics, and models published in climate science articles. As far as I know his work is quality, at least several of his corrections have found their way into mainstream climate records. The fact that he has been involved in so many tooth-and-nail fights to obtain the data he seeks, often being flatly denied, ought to concern anyone who cares about the veracity of the claims of climate scientists and activists, as well as anyone with a vested interest in a political system that looks poised to spend trillions of dollars on climate policy over the next decade. You can check out his blog here: http://www.climateaudit.org/ http://www.climateaudit.org/. But be warned, it's not political at all. If you don't have a head for data series and regression models, you'll be put to sleep. The amount of bad scientific practices and obfuscation that this one man has uncovered is staggering (scientists cherry-picking data for a paper and then refusing to provide the whole data set seems a common complaint). However, as good citizens we must believe that the thousands of papers he has not gotten around to checking are perfectly valid. To do otherwise is to be painted with the label of "heretic". In the end, it is the poor treatment of the scientific process by scientists and activists, as well as the religion-like enforcement of agreement, that causes me to hold onto my green skepticism. I'm not sure that climate change won't Kill Us All, but I am not convinced by those that do think so. edit: One final cause of my green skepticism is the fact that so many highly-publicized predictions made by environmentalists in the past, many of whom held PHDs, have been wrong. But more importantly, they have always been wrong in one direction, the direction of overstating the environmental damage done by human activity. The environmentalists of the 1960s foresaw a world that would undergo multiple environmental holocausts by the 1980s, which of course never came to pass. While the quality of past predictions has no direct bearing on the quality of current predictions, indeed one might even assume that modern predictions are of higher quality given more advanced methods and greater funding, it does make me skeptical of any would-be green Nostradamus, at least until one establishes a good track record of predicting the future.

ajross 17y ago
So how do you weigh your decision? Are you waiting for unassailable evidence? What is your best guess at the cost of regulation needed to fix the problem you are not unconvinced exists? How does that cost change over time as we do nothing? Or do you care about any of that? This isn't (just) an internet flame war. The goal isn't (or shouldn't be) to "win" by poking holes in the oppositions argument. It should be to make the best/safest decision possible given the evidence at hand. But that's the point: there has to be a decision made. By advocating inaction, you are expressly taking the side of the denialists, even though you claim not to agree with them, technically.
- hughprime 17y ago
  By advocating inaction, you are expressly taking the side of the denialists, even though you claim not to agree with them, technically One thing that the world really needs to do is move beyond labels like "denialist". I'm sick of depiction that the only possible positions we can possibly take are "No way, global warming is absolutely a complete myth" and "zomg we're all going to die!" The truth doesn't always sit somewhere between the two extremes on every controversial debate, but I'm pretty sure this is one of those cases where it does. One can think that anthropogenic global warming is probably a nonzero problem without buying into every extreme-level prediction or supporting every suggested policy prescription.
  - ajross 17y ago
    I don't believe I asked you to buy into "every" prediction or support "every" prescription. But it's a fair point: which regulation choices do you support? My experience is that the seemingly-moderate "science is incomplete" skeptics, when pressed, generally argue for no action at all. That would put them much farther on the "denialist" (I don't know what other label to use, and you didn't offer a suggestion) end of the spectrum, no?
    - SamAtt 17y ago
      See, this is a straw man argument. No one, and I mean no responsible person in government has argued for no action at all in my lifetime. We've had environmental regulations since people were afraid of Global Cooling. This has always been a question of degree not one of "action vs. non-action"

ajross 17y ago

The sad thing is that absurd arguments work. All that's needed for denialism to win is doubt. Just one goof, or bad actor, or wrong result can be spun like this into a "collapse" of the case it is making. The fact that this is an argument of risk, where the argument for carbon legislation needs to be weighed not against the certainty of the science but on the best-guess risks of inaction is completely lost on the public and the media.

zaphar 17y ago

I don't think any intelligent reasonable person objects to the fact that the global temperature is rising. As for Human activity being the cause that is far from settled. Don't get me wrong I'm all for reducing emissions and generally doing anything we can to reduce our impact as much as is possible because it's just good sense. But stating that the industrial age caused the rise when we really have so little understanding of how all this works rankles me just a bit. I especially object to the attempts to assign blame as a scare tactic for political gain. Especially when there are equally valid reasons to reduce emissions and lessen our impact local air quality and increased efficiency in manufacturing being just a few of the reasons. The plain fact is that while there "might" be a correlation with Human activity that does not imply a cause and effect relationship out of hand. I don't think we really have enough data or understanding yet to make an assumption regarding the cause. [Edit: I had a misplaced sentence which totally made that read wrong. Just fixed it]

SamAtt 17y ago
You echo my thoughts on the issue. But what really bothers me is the logical outgrowth of that logic. What I mean is, as you said, most agree the planet is getting warmer. That's the actual problem here. But Global Warming advocates are so convinced of their absolute infallibility that they're suggesting a solution based on a cause they can't prove. So my question is "What if they're wrong?" If the Global Warming movement really believes this trend will lead to the end of life as we know it shouldn't they be considering all options? Shouldn't someone be talking about ways to live if their climate predictions are correct and we aren't the cause? The fact that they completely ignore that side of the issue tells me their pushing an agenda not trying to solve the actual problem.
- zaphar 17y ago
  Indeed, Any solution that assumes the wrong cause may cause just as much harm as it does good. For all we really know the trend could suddenly halt or accelerate despite our attempts to "control" it. When political goals drive the debate then true discourse gets drowned out and progress may either stop or continue in the wrong direction.
17y ago

nice1 17y ago

The conclusion that MAN-MADE global warming is real is plain bullshit. What has been replicated is leftist hysteria.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

The idea that the entire case on global warming comes from a single data set that no one made a copy of is absurd on the face of it. Bullshit. This article never claimed to make a case against global warming. It was about sharing data in the scientific community. If you want to have your snit about global warming falling apart, do it on another (and more appropriate) thread.