global warming: salvaging fact from heaps of BS

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

O.K. look I tend to agree with CHASE on this one in that Global Warming is a scam.

[blah blah blah]

I might just add that I really don't like when people register multiple accounts so they can agree with themselves. Don't do that.

[Mr Skeptic]

I might just add that I really don't like when people register multiple accounts so they can agree with themselves. Don't do that.

 

Yeah, it would totally undermine their integrity and make it hard to give them any credibility since the only one who agrees with them is themselves.

[npts2020]

Another thing that doesn't get mentioned enough is the pace the warming is happening, unprecedented for as far back as measurements can be extrapolated or at least several hundred thousand years.

[culvers3]

Since when does having your own opinion not excepted just because I may agree doesn't mean that I am the same person! I'm intitled to my opinion as are you guys if you don't like mine then sorry but we may have to just agree to disagree.

[Chase]

I didn't make multiple accounts and to prove it me and culver are now posting at the exact same time. So everyone who thinks I'm lying is just trying to find ways to frustrate me just like a typical liberal idiot who can only find unfactual info and make up excuses or call someone else and idiot just to shut them down. Oh and by the way me a culver are good friends in school.

[culvers3]

By the way, history shows that those against Global Warming get shunned and or ridiculed for their just as Chase and I are now for those who want proof, click on this URL http://media.www.thecowl.com/media/storage/paper493/news/2008/12/04/Commentary/Warming.Debaters.Silenced-3570554.shtmlopinion

[insane_alien]

you do know that Capn can see the IP address you posted from in the logs right? i'm assuming it is the same otherwise he would not have have said it.

[swansont]

Since when does having your own opinion not excepted just because I may agree doesn't mean that I am the same person! I'm intitled to my opinion as are you guys if you don't like mine then sorry but we may have to just agree to disagree.

 

This is science. What matters is objective scientific evidence* — you can leave your opinions at the door.

 

 

*If you are unfamiliar with what constitutes objective scientific evidence, it would behoove you to learn.

 

By the way, history shows that those against Global Warming get shunned and or ridiculed for their just as Chase and I are now for those who want proof, click on this URL http://media.www.thecowl.com/media/storage/paper493/news/2008/12/04/Commentary/Warming.Debaters.Silenced-3570554.shtmlopinion

 

I refer you to my previous comment. Anecdotes aren't evidence (e.g. it was a record cold in Duluth, so global warming must be false) That link contains several logical fallacies and untruths, and doesn't actually back up any claims that it makes.

 

Asking for rigor in your analysis qualifies as neither shunning nor ridicule.

 

So everyone who thinks I'm lying is just trying to find ways to frustrate me just like a typical liberal idiot who can only find unfactual info and make up excuses or call someone else and idiot just to shut them down.

 

How about posting some factual info then? Not just repeating some other unsubstantiated claim — actual data. Peer-reviewed publications. Things like that.

[Mr Skeptic]

By the way, history shows that those against Global Warming get shunned and or ridiculed for their just as Chase and I are now for those who want proof, click on this URL http://media.www.thecowl.com/media/storage/paper493/news/2008/12/04/Commentary/Warming.Debaters.Silenced-3570554.shtmlopinion

 

Did you know that those who are against calling the earth round also get shunned and or ridiculed for it? And why is it that there are so many non-climatologists who think they know about climate better than the climatologists?

[SkepticLance]

To culvers

 

It is worse than you think. I am a global warming skeptic, but I do not dispute the basic science behind global warming. The world has been warming at an unprecedented rate since 1976, and there is no available explanation apart from human released greenhouse gases. I accept this.

 

However, I am sceptical of some of the other aspects of global warming dogma such as the accuracy of computer models and the disaster scenarios that are often woven. I believe that global warming is a 'slow' process and we have 50 years to get things right.

 

These minor variations from global warming dogma are enough to get me reviled and insulted on this forum, with ad hom attacks and gratuitous insults.

 

So culvers, if you and chase continue to deny global warming, you can expect that attacks will get worse. And they will not be against your debating position. Given time, you can expect outright insults and personal attacks. I do not agree with your position, but I think you have the right to express it (even though you are wrong) without others having a go at you.

 

Sadly, emotions get in the way. Good scientific debate gets lost. And the insults start flying.

[swansont]

From culvers3's link

 

Coleman notes that the basic premise of global warming, which points to the increase in carbon dioxide emissions from the use of fossil fuels, is unfounded. Of carbon dioxide, Coleman writes, "It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it."

 

CO2 being a natural component of the atmosphere is a strawman. Of course it's a natural component. Its atmospheric concentration, however, depends on human activity. Humans, however, did not create CO2. (This is self-contradictory to it being natural)

 

There is other important evidence to consider. Coleman writes that recently, "the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years."

 

Correlation is not causality, first of all. Secondly, the effects we are discussing are longer-term than a sunspot cycle, rendering that argument moot. The argument that we've been cooling since 1998 is false; first of all it's cherry-picking data because 1998 was an anomalously hot year, but even given that, the average temperature has been increasing. There are some graphs (i.e. representations of actual data) here

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

 

The "number of scientists questioning man-made global warming" is a publicity stunt, because most of these scientists have no standing to offer a professional opinion, much like the list of scientists who reject evolution (whose numbers drop dramatically when you only poll biologists)

 

The notion that the debate is over is true. True scientific debate happens in journals, not the editorial page (or here, even) and the articles in journals strongly point toward global warming. If there is evidence otherwise, scientists aren't publishing those studies.

 

Even money we see an appeal to conspiracy response

 

So culvers, if you and chase continue to deny global warming, you can expect that attacks will get worse. And they will not be against your debating position. Given time, you can expect outright insults and personal attacks. I do not agree with your position, but I think you have the right to express it (even though you are wrong) without others having a go at you.

 

There is no excuse or justification for insults and personal attacks, and the staff takes this subject seriously.

 

However, the majority of such instances I have observed come about from failure to follow the protocol of a scientific discussion (e.g. doing things like not backing up your claims with credible sources, using logical fallacies, ignoring evidence presented contrary to your position) It would be a mistake to think otherwise.

 

People get understandably frustrated when dishonest debating tactics are used, so it's not that difficult to see why such behavior occurs (without condoning it)

 

Stick to honest debating tactics and there should be no cause for trouble.

Edited December 12, 2008 by swansont
multiple post merged

[SkepticLance]

swansont

That is not totally correct. At least half the insults I receive come from the fact that the insulter fails to read my posts carefully, and jumps to conclusions. I then get attacked for an imaginary argument.

[iNow]

Is it possible you struggle to effectively communicate, and that your word choice sometimes leads you into these problems?

 

Or, do you truly think that every single other person who responds to these threads is too caught up in dogma... so caught up that they can't see past their own blinders and understand what you ask, because your questions are always framed so quantitatively and crisply?

 

You also get attacked because your posts are not made in a vacuum. You have a history here, and just like others do with me, your future comments are often interpretated based on past posts and arguments you've had.

[SkepticLance]

iNow

Accurate communication is always a problem. This applies not just to me, but also to pretty much everyone who posts on this, or any other medium of communication. I have seen literally dozens of cases where it happens. Often we get people accusing others of 'straw man' arguments, which mostly are just miscommunications.

 

I agree that history often leads people into misreading messages. This is normal and human. However, a good scientist makes an effort to avoid such errors. That makes it even more important to read posts carefully.

[Mr Skeptic]

However, I am sceptical of some of the other aspects of global warming dogma such as the accuracy of computer models and the disaster scenarios that are often woven.

 

I too have doubts about the accuracy of warming predictions and how likely it is to be a disaster. However, I have only my opinion on this an that doesn't really mean much. Since I have no facts to contribute, I usually keep my opinion to myself (unless the subject were politics, then I would consider opinion somewhat meaningful).

 

Another reason is that I agree with most of the actions suggested to fight global warming, since they match up nicely with policies I strongly support such as renewable energy, less pollution, more efficiency, independence from foreign oil, etc.

 

Finally, while I doubt some of the predictions of the climate models (being the skeptic that I am), I likewise am not certain that they are wrong (again, skeptic here). If there is even a small chance of global disaster, it needs to be taken seriously.

 

I'd study the issue more thoroughly, but with all the people who have such a strong opinion and motivation to portray the issue one way or the other, it is very hard for me to take any report at face value, and I am not learned enough to study the raw data myself. While I have my doubts, I will stick with the better safe than sorry side.

[SkepticLance]

Well done Mr Skeptic. Your opinion so fluently expressed reflects a truly rational approach to the issue.

 

There was an interview in the 6 December issue of New Scientist. This does not appear to be on the internet just yet, but should appear within a couple of weeks. Search under "New Scientist"+"Lenny Smith".

 

Dr. Lenny Smith is Professor of Statistics at London School of Economics, and works with global climate models. He is quite sceptical about the accuracy of those models. I will quote his statements in the New Scientist

interview. The following are comments directed at the GCM's.

 

" The temptation to interpret model noise as forecast information invades our living rooms every night. ......."the details we see on TV weather forecasts are noise from the models. I think we are having exactly the same problem with climate projections."........"they cannot give us trustworthy forecasts of climate for regions as small as most countries are."

 

As to why the models go wrong...

"You may not have the right initial conditions to start your forecast; you may not know the right equations; or you may not have the computing power to use these equations

 

For obvious reasons, I cannot quote the entire interview,, but, I hope you will all get to read it when it hits the internet. Dr. Smith feels that computer models are a work in progress, useful in a limited way, but generally over-hyped and over-trusted. I tend to agree.

 

An earlier paper by Dr. Smith and colleagues is at :

 

http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/n471534w71q29k04/

 

I quote from the abstract.

 

"We argue for a reassessment of the role of such models when used for this purpose and a reconsideration of strategies for model development and experimental design. Building on more generic work, we categorize sources of uncertainty as they relate to this specific problem and discuss experimental strategies available for their quantification. Complex climate models, as predictive tools for many variables and scales, cannot be meaningfully calibrated because they are simulating a never before experienced state of the system; the problem is one of extrapolation. It is therefore inappropriate to apply any of the currently available generic techniques which utilize observations to calibrate or weight models to produce forecast probabilities for the real world. To do so is misleading to the users of climate science in wider society."

 

I have no doubt that iNow, swansont and their debate supporters will be able to find alternative references that contradict this, and say that models are wonderful. This is a reflection of the fact that there is not complete agreement on this topic, and the whole global warming modelling scene is highly politicised, and Mr. Skeptic is right to be sceptical.

Edited December 13, 2008 by SkepticLance

[iNow]

" The temptation to interpret model noise as forecast information invades our living rooms every night. ......."the details we see on TV weather forecasts are noise from the models. I think we are having exactly the same problem with climate projections."........"they cannot give us trustworthy forecasts of climate for regions as small as most countries are."

Small point of clarification. It's FAR easier to model global yearly averages than it is to model what the weather will be like in Bumfuk Montana on Wednesday night at 6:43.

 

I've already expressed this idea to you before, but I'll express it again (in fact, IIRC, I got this idea from swansont, not sure though). Think of waves hitting a wall at the beach. Every minute many waves hit a certain height on that wall. When the tides come in, the spot the waves reach is higher, and when they go out, the spot they reach is lower.

 

Now, I may not be able to point to an exact spot on that wall and say, "The next wave will hit exactly here, and the wave after that will hit exactly there," but what I can do with incredible accuracy is to say, "The average height the waves will hit over the next 24 hours is here."

 

This is the difference between modelling weather and modelling climate, and it's a very important distinction for you to try to wrap your head around.

 

 

 

I have no doubt that iNow, swansont and their debate supporters will be able to find alternative references that contradict this, and say that models are wonderful.

 

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call them wonderful, but they're incredibly powerful and accurate. You are again belittling the position of those who disagree with you (you wonder why you get attacked?) Really, Lance... How many times are you going to make me share this with you before you stop repeating the same debunked point? Maybe you should spend some time actually reading it and the links it contains.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=441763&postcount=7

 

 

Being skeptical is one thing, but continuing to deny something when it's been thoroughly and repeatedly proven is not what good skeptics do.

[SkepticLance]

iNow

 

I have done exactly what you have done many times. I have quoted an expert in the field, and shown his ideas and conclusions. I hope his interview is published soon so that you can read it. Dr. Smith believes that GCMs are not, as you put it - incredibly powerful and accurate. Instead, he cautions taking their conclusions too literally, since they are flawed in many ways. And Dr. Smith is a far greater authority on this subject than you or I. Which I admit may, or may not, mean he is right.

 

The point is, however, that GCM's are not universally regarded as the climate equivalent to holy scripture - not to be questioned on pain of blasphemy inquisition. They are incomplete, and imperfect, and wide open to question and to criticism.

[iNow]

The point is, however, that GCM's are not universally regarded as the climate equivalent to holy scripture - not to be questioned on pain of blasphemy inquisition.

Name one person here who has suggested any such thing. Give an exact quote, or STFU.

 

 

They are incomplete, and imperfect, and wide open to question and to criticism.

 

Indeed, and you and I are in perfect alignment on that point, but until you quantize your criticisms, you're not doing science. Quoting authorities is, well, there's a fallacy there. At the very least, share the numbers said authority shared to put the criticisms into context.

 

Numbers, Lance. Until you share those, you're hand waving.

[swansont]

Name one person here who has suggested any such thing. Give an exact quote, or STFU.

 

While I wish to second the call for evidence, the comment that follows is inappropriate.

 

However, if you can't provide such a quote, you should retract the claim.

 

" The temptation to interpret model noise as forecast information invades our living rooms every night. ......."the details we see on TV weather forecasts are noise from the models. I think we are having exactly the same problem with climate projections."........"they cannot give us trustworthy forecasts of climate for regions as small as most countries are."

 

Which is a strawman for global predictions, which do not attempt this. The noise averages down at the larger scale.

[Sayonara]

The STFU comment has received a warning, in case anyone was wondering.

 

As aggravating as some members' posting styles may be, we're all capable of remaining civil.

[SkepticLance]

iNow says he is in agreement with my statement that GCM's are incomplete, imperfect, and open to criticism. That is fine by me. With that agreement, I have no more argument with him on this topic. Let's move on.

[iNow]

Lance, my primary point stands. Unless you're willing to supply specific support of such claims, quotes from members on this board which suggest things like inquisition and holy scripture, then you really should not assert such things.

 

With that said, I apologize for letting my temper get the best of me and responding in the extreme manner I did. I was more forceful with my point than I needed to be.

 

Again, though. Don't say such things unless you're willing to be specific. I can't think of a single time where I suggested anything regarding global climate science was scripture, nor where I acted like the inquisition toward people asking legitimate questions, so I truly take issue with you suggesting any such thing has ever occured here. You are, however, a bright human being who brings a lot to the table, and I'll work harder at avoiding such rhetorical shorthand with you in the future when presenting my disagreement with your tone, assertions, or non-quantified objections.

 

No matter how scrappy we get with each other, we'll most likely always have more agreements than disagreements, and that is where I will try to focus moving forward.

[Mr Skeptic]

iNow says he is in agreement with my statement that GCM's are incomplete, imperfect, and open to criticism. That is fine by me. With that agreement, I have no more argument with him on this topic. Let's move on.

 

I don't think anyone could say that GCM's are complete, perfect, or not open to criticism, especially since the laws of physics are also incomplete, imperfect, and open to criticism. So the above is not really saying much, only that we aren't a bunch of dogma thumping fundamentalists. Specifically, the above does not say that the GCM's are wrong or that their conclusions should be disregarded. Just that they are science.

[SkepticLance]

iNow

Thank you for the apology. Most gracious.

 

The topic of how accurate or reliable GCM's might be is, in fact, not possible to quantify (yet), and is subject to opinion. As a result, quoting the opinion of an expert is, in my own very humble opinion, acceptable.

 

The use of words like 'scripture' is purely descriptive. I feel I can use words for that purpose, even if no-one has yet used them. Call it artistic or writer's license. You used the phrase :

"but they're incredibly powerful and accurate", to describe GCM's. That was over the top, and I used another over the top phrase to counter it.

 

I do not know, and neither do you, how accurate or inaccurate GCM's as done today actually are. However, the indications I have posted here and elsewhere suggest some real shortcomings, and these need to be pointed out.

 

As far as I am concerned, GCM's are a tool only, and a work in progress. As such, they have value, but we must continue to question them in order to make sure they are improved. No doubt they will improve with time, and maybe in a few decades we will be able to use them with the confidence we currently apply to such things as orbital models in astronomy.