Jump to content
Mr Rayon

Who here is a global warming skeptic?

Recommended Posts

Maybe the way that climate change is presented focuses attention on the extremes too much. This graph shows that extremes are normal and not unprecedented:

 

Moberg-2005-550x388.png

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7079/full/nature04575.html

 

These are two great example of your cognitive dissonance (hypocrisy / dishonesty / whatever) when it comes to this subject.

 

1. That data is from the models that you say are wrong. Therefore you should not be using it.

 

2. The fact that there has been change in the climate in the past is obviously true. Perhaps you could explain why you think that our understanding of past causes of climate change proves that our understanding of current climate change is wrong? (Presumably because some ignorant tabloid journalist told you so.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the way that climate change is presented focuses attention on the extremes too much.

This is probabily more an issue with science reporting than science itself.

 

 

This graph shows that extremes are normal and not unprecedented:

We all know, and all acknowledge that extreme weather events have always been part of normal weather patterns. It is the frequency and in some cases the magnitude of these extreme events that appears to be increasing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the way that climate change is presented focuses attention on the extremes too much. This graph shows that extremes are normal and not unprecedented:

 

Moberg-2005-550x388.png

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7079/full/nature04575.html

 

Your link is to a correction to a paper (which is paywalled), which mentions the Søylegrotta Cave record. Is that what we're looking at? The temperature of a cave? Hardly a representation of global climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probabily more an issue with science reporting than science itself.We all know, and all acknowledge that extreme weather events have always been part of normal weather patterns. It is the frequency and in some cases the magnitude of these extreme events that appears to be increasing.

Frequency is actually declining: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/10/01/extreme-weather-failing-to-follow-global-warming-predictions-hurricanes-tornadoes-droughts-floods-wildfires-see-no-trend-or-declining-trends/

 

These are two great example of your cognitive dissonance (hypocrisy / dishonesty / whatever) when it comes to this subject.

 

1. That data is from the models that you say are wrong. Therefore you should not be using it.

 

2. The fact that there has been change in the climate in the past is obviously true. Perhaps you could explain why you think that our understanding of past causes of climate change proves that our understanding of current climate change is wrong? (Presumably because some ignorant tabloid journalist told you so.)

Nonsense, the graph is plotted data that anyone can plot for themselves from the data listed here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/moberg2005/nhtemp-moberg2005.txt Edited by Shelagh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense, the graph is plotted data that anyone can plot for themselves from the data listed here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/moberg2005/nhtemp-moberg2005.txt

 

What, exactly, are you saying is nonsense?

 

As your link says, that graph is derived from models. But you claim that models are too inaccurate to be used, therefore why are you using them?

 

But if you are happy to use models for the last two thousand years why are you unhappy to use models for the present and near future?

 

Can you really not see how inconsistent your position is?

(And, of course, you can't help but be inconsistent because you are arguing based on blind belief, rather than science.)

 

So far, your best arguments have been:

  • "CO2 is harmless but I think it would be a good idea to spend money reducing it"
  • "Climate models show the climate has changed but climate models are too inaccurate to use"
  • "Scientists agree that the data shows that CO2 causes climate change but I am going to believe a novelist and assorted liars instead"

Did you have a lot of "Must try harder" entries in your school reports?

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is nonsense; I have said none of this:

 

 

As your link says, that graph is derived from models. But you claim that models are too inaccurate to be used, therefore why are you using them?

 

But if you are happy to use models for the last two thousand years why are you unhappy to use models for the present and near future?

 

Can you really not see how inconsistent your position is?

(And, of course, you can't help but be inconsistent because you are arguing based on blind belief, rather than science.)

 

So far, your best arguments have been:

 

  • "CO2 is harmless but I think it would be a good idea to spend money reducing it"
  • "Climate models show the climate has changed but climate models are too inaccurate to use"
  • "Scientists agree that the data shows that CO2 causes climate change but I am going to believe a novelist and assorted liars instead"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Let's try again without my sarcastic comments which were obviously a distraction from the serious questions.

 

Nonsense, the graph is plotted data that anyone can plot for themselves from the data listed here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/moberg2005/nhtemp-moberg2005.txt

 

1. What, exactly, are you saying is nonsense?

 

2. As your link says, that graph is derived from models. But you claim that models are too inaccurate to be used, therefore why are you using them? (Do you need me to quote the post where you have said this?)

 

3. But if you are happy to use models for the last two thousand years why are you unhappy to use models for the present and near future?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Did you have a lot of "Must try harder" entries in your school reports?

 

This needn't be personal.

 

I understand the frustration though, since this discussion has gone far beyond any definition of skepticism. Every response supports a conclusion that this is about denial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Let's try again without my sarcastic comments which were obviously a distraction from the serious questions. 1. What, exactly, are you saying is nonsense? 2. As your link says, that graph is derived from models. But you claim that models are too inaccurate to be used, therefore why are you using them? (Do you need me to quote the post where you have said this?) 3. But if you are happy to use models for the last two thousand years why are you unhappy to use models for the present and near future?

1. I did not misuse or misrepresent the data presented. The extremes of temperature are there for everyone to see. It is nonsense to say that graphs should only be reproduced by one group of people.

 

2. I did not make any claims about anything. That seems to be part of the frustration of the AGW supporters here: the fact that I have not denied the possibility of climate change, only failed to accept that there is a link to human activity. The uncertainty in the models is not from the collected data; it is from how that data is being used to predict a trend.

 

3. Climate change is ongoing. The idea of being in control of the climate by changing human activity, and thus modelling the world to suit humans, shows a lack of respect for the natural world. We are not in control. Climate science will not determine the future; the way people adapt and cope with climate change will determine the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I did not misuse or misrepresent the data presented. The extremes of temperature are there for everyone to see. It is nonsense to say that graphs should only be reproduced by one group of people.

 

I didn't say you misused or misrepresented it. I jut pointed out that it is a product of modelling. And you have expressed a lot of scepticism of models. It seems slightly hypocritical to attack climate science by using the models that you think are its weakest point.

 

2. I did not make any claims about anything. That seems to be part of the frustration of the AGW supporters here: the fact that I have not denied the possibility of climate change, only failed to accept that there is a link to human activity. The uncertainty in the models is not from the collected data; it is from how that data is being used to predict a trend.

 

You do realise that the graph you used does not show the collected data? It shows that data interpreted via models to generate a temperature record. (None of that data is actual temperatures.) Why don't you think the same uncertainty applies to reconstructions of past climate change (where we have a lot less data) as you think applies to our understanding of the current climate?

 

 

3. Climate change is ongoing. The idea of being in control of the climate by changing human activity, and thus modelling the world to suit humans, shows a lack of respect for the natural world. We are not in control. Climate science will not determine the future; the way people adapt and cope with climate change will determine the future.

 

Climate change is ongoing. But is not random. It is caused by (and has always been caused by) a number of different factors. The amount of radiation from the sun, the amount of cloud cover, the amount of various gases in the atmosphere, volcanoes, how much ice there is (complicated feedback mechanisms there) and many other factors.

 

Why do you think that attempting to understand the role of all these different factors is disrespectful? Do you think that any attempt by science to understand (and model) the natural world is disrespectful?

 

And no, we are not in control, but like all the other components of the natural world, we can affect the world. It is, surely, responsible to try and understand what effects we might have? And then to reduce that, where possible. We have done that with acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, reducing the amount of waste going to landfill, reducing the spread of potentially invasive species from one country to another, and so on. These have all required modelling to identify the problem and possible solutions. Were these all disrespectful to nature?

 

Climate science will not determine the future. But it can help us understand what might happen in the future so we can make better choices. How will people be able to plan to adapt and cope if we don't use climate models to try and understand what is happening? Without that, people will not be able to start taking action until the effects become apparent. By then it may be harder and more expensive to make the required changes.

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change is ongoing. The idea of being in control of the climate by changing human activity, and thus modelling the world to suit humans, shows a lack of respect for the natural world. We are not in control. Climate science will not determine the future; the way people adapt and cope with climate change will determine the future.

 

 

You’re the one showing a lack of respect for the natural world unless you think polluting it to this extent is reasonable.

 

http://www.frenship.us/cms/lib3/TX01917862/Centricity/Domain/1622/China%20Air%20pollution.pdf

 

Chinese scientists have warned that the country's toxic air pollution is now so bad that it resembles a nuclear winter, slowing photosynthesis in plants – and potentially wreaking havoc on the country's food supply.

 

 

 

 

Maybe you should try adapting to starvation.

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a bit much (and quite pathetic) to encounter this kind of humourless and blatant filibustering on this kind of a discussion forum though. Maybe it is a sign of things to come.

 

I agree with your use of the word pathetic, as it rightly describes the arguments (if one can even call them that) of deniers. It's also sad how we've understood the basics of this issue for decades, yet here we are entering 2016 and still arguing with the misinformed instead of taking action to improve our world and help future generations of humans and other life.

 

Recall, though, that this site is a community for people who enjoy discussing science related topics, and while it is frequented by many folks who are reasonable and educated and have a passion for evidence-based thinking, there are ultimately no criteria nor requirements when creating an account and joining.

 

That means we will have people of many different backgrounds, ages, and ideologies participating, and it also means we will often get climate deniers, creationists, anti-vaxxers and the like participating. Our role is try correcting the flaws in their thinking and to inoculate from their silliness those who may be less familiar with the subject but watching undecided from the sidelines.

 

While we may not succeed in changing the minds of the willfully ignorant and obstinately obtuse, we may at least reinforce the truth or even change the minds of those who are still sitting on the proverbial fence, but who genuinely desire to learn and understand and not persist in such flagrant foolishness.

Edited by iNow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I did not misuse or misrepresent the data presented. The extremes of temperature are there for everyone to see. It is nonsense to say that graphs should only be reproduced by one group of people.

 

2. I did not make any claims about anything. That seems to be part of the frustration of the AGW supporters here: the fact that I have not denied the possibility of climate change, only failed to accept that there is a link to human activity. The uncertainty in the models is not from the collected data; it is from how that data is being used to predict a trend.

 

3. Climate change is ongoing. The idea of being in control of the climate by changing human activity, and thus modelling the world to suit humans, shows a lack of respect for the natural world. We are not in control. Climate science will not determine the future; the way people adapt and cope with climate change will determine the future.

 

 

If politicians admit there’s a problem despite a potential negative fiscal impact, then we’re probable already up to our necks in the midden, try adapting to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. Climate change is ongoing. The idea of being in control of the climate by changing human activity, and thus modelling the world to suit humans, shows a lack of respect for the natural world. We are not in control. Climate science will not determine the future; the way people adapt and cope with climate change will determine the future.

Gross and unsavoury stupidity!

 

We have upset the natural world by dumping enormous quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. ( Do you deny this? If so why?) The intention of those you are arguing against is to reduce this dumping and eventually eliminate it (Do you deny this? If so why?), allowing the balanced, natural condition to be regained over time. (Do you deny this? If so why?) In short, those who accept AGW are committed to reducing human interference with the natural world, (Do you deny this? If so why?) while those who deny wish, in their arrogance and ignorance, to continue disrespecting the natural world. (Do you deny this? If so why?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gross and unsavoury stupidity!

 

We have upset the natural world by dumping enormous quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. ( Do you deny this? If so why?) The intention of those you are arguing against is to reduce this dumping and eventually eliminate it (Do you deny this? If so why?), allowing the balanced, natural condition to be regained over time. (Do you deny this? If so why?) In short, those who accept AGW are committed to reducing human interference with the natural world, (Do you deny this? If so why?) while those who deny wish, in their arrogance and ignorance, to continue disrespecting the natural world. (Do you deny this? If so why?)

Without human interference, smog will remain a problem in Chinese cities. Without human interference, homes that are currently under water in the UK will suffer the same circumstances over and over again. Without human interference, arsonists will continue to set fire to forests and grasslands. Without human interference, years of drought will persist because of poor management of water resources. Human interference is essential in creating a better world. Humans can control the environment; they cannot control the climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without human interference, smog will remain a problem in Chinese cities. Without human interference, homes that are currently under water in the UK will suffer the same circumstances over and over again. Without human interference, arsonists will continue to set fire to forests and grasslands. Without human interference, years of drought will persist because of poor management of water resources. Human interference is essential in creating a better world. Humans can control the environment; they cannot control the climate.

 

 

If the climate is affected by humans, and it is, then of course they can, just for once please answer the £$%*&* questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for finally answering a question. It is sad that your response lacks any substance, but is little more than unsupported opinion.

 

Perhaps we cannot control the climate, but we sure as hell can stop fucking it up1.

 

 

1. There are occasions when thoughts are best expressed in Anglo Saxon/Middle English. I believe this to be one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without human interference, smog will remain a problem in Chinese cities. Without human interference, homes that are currently under water in the UK will suffer the same circumstances over and over again. Without human interference, arsonists will continue to set fire to forests and grasslands. Without human interference, years of drought will persist because of poor management of water resources. Human interference is essential in creating a better world. Humans can control the environment; they cannot control the climate.

 

We can't control the environment but we can affect it (for better or worse). For example, if a volcano releases huge quantities of toxic gas or dust we can't stop it. But we can manage our own contributions.

 

The same is true of the climate, which is obviously affected by the environment. Why do you think it has changed in the past if not because of changes in the environment? (For example, volcanoes releasing large quantities of gas and dust.)

 

So why do you exclude this one aspect of the environment from our requirements to be responsible citizens of the planet?

And why do you believe that the climate is so much more beyond our control than anything else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for finally answering a question. It is sad that your response lacks any substance, but is little more than unsupported opinion.

 

Perhaps we cannot control the climate, but we sure as hell can stop fucking it up1.

 

 

1. There are occasions when thoughts are best expressed in Anglo Saxon/Middle English. I believe this to be one of them.

Ophiolite, we will have to agree to disagree. This is my last response to you; even if you ask me a question, I will not reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

 

Ophiolite, we will have to agree to disagree. This is my last response to you; even if you ask me a question, I will not reply.

 

Shelagh

 

We do not work like that. You either discuss matters with all members or you bow out completely. You do not get to make an argument for all to see and then refuse to answer those who challenge you. By the way - "agreeing to disagree" is pretty nearly the antithesis of science; we agree to follow the evidence not to stick to our prejudices in the face of it.

 

Your attitude in the two global warming threads leaves a lot to be desired. Your arguments have seemed to consist of a foul admixture of straw men, argumentum ad ignorantiam, and bald assertions; we will not allow this to continue - especially in a thread on a subject which is settled science.

 

This is a science forum and we refuse to allow political and rhetorical arguments to flourish in the science fora. The attitude displayed in the quoted post will not be tolerated - if you wish to continue to post on climate change without risking sanction please limit yourself to scientific arguments founded on fact rather than personal opinion and anecdotage.

 

Do not respond to this moderation - report the post if you feel it is unjust

 

Everyone else let's draw and line under this and move on - please do not try to re-kindle the non-scientific argument.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could just link to the post I made on page 1 of this thread, where I laid out my view of skepticism. However, only 37% of you will follow the link. It is over forty pages back. :) So, here it is again. I think it is worth repeating. I would be interested to know how many of you agree, or disagree with me and to what extent.

 

I am a global warming skeptic. I think it is not only plausible to have doubts, but essential, especially if we wish to honour the memories of Bacon and Galileo and Newton. We should doubt the data gathering techniques, we should doubt the analytical processes, we should doubt the conclusions. We should doubt the researchers, we should doubt their motives, we should doubt the peer review process.

Doubt is a cornerstone of good science. Skepticism is an essential part of the scientific method.

Having doubted all of these things in relation to global warming I am left with the distinct impression that global warming is very real and very serious. However, as a good skeptic, there is one area in which I have no doubt. I do not doubt the possibility that new research could turn our current understanding on its head - its just that that possibility is, on the balance of the evidence, extremely remote. In the meantime we should proceed on the basis that global warming is a real and present danger.

Oh, and have a look in your dictionary. You will likely find that skepticism and denial are not synonyms. Skeptical? Just go ahead and check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were lots of good posts at the beginning of the thread-it serves to show how bad it got at the end.

 

Until I read them now I didn't realise it was respectable to be sceptical about Global Warming.

 

To my "shame" I was almost pleased when the evidence became clear that fossil fuels were warming the planet as it forced our hand to go down a road I already wanted to go down.

 

I felt a similar shameful emotion with the Twin Towers: "now the Americans know what terrorism is they will stop supporting the IRA " (and they did, didn't they?)

Edited by geordief

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a global warming skeptic. I think it is not only plausible to have doubts, but essential, especially if we wish to honour the memories of Bacon and Galileo and Newton. We should doubt the data gathering techniques, we should doubt the analytical processes, we should doubt the conclusions. We should doubt the researchers, we should doubt their motives, we should doubt the peer review process.

 

Doubt is a cornerstone of good science. Skepticism is an essential part of the scientific method.

 

Having doubted all of these things in relation to global warming I am left with the distinct impression that global warming is very real and very serious. However, as a good skeptic, there is one area in which I have no doubt. I do not doubt the possibility that new research could turn our current understanding on its head - its just that that possibility is, on the balance of the evidence, extremely remote. In the meantime we should proceed on the basis that global warming is a real and present danger.

 

Oh, and have a look in your dictionary. You will likely find that skepticism and denial are not synonyms. Skeptical? Just go ahead and check.

 

 

Whilst I understand the nuances of what you have said I suggest a default position of doubt is not an appropriate one. Most people are not capable of a genuine sceptical critique of complex science and doubting the truth of what an overwhelming majority of experts within a field say until personally satisfied otherwise is a path more likely to lead to error than not. I suggest the default position should be to take what the experts say as true unless there are legitimate grounds for doubt - such doubt then to be followed by thorough and competent investigation.

 

Despite the refrains about falling back on appeals to authority, such deferring to experts is actually the most appropriate position for people without relevant expertise to take. More importantly failure to take the expert advice seriously is, for those in positions of trust and responsibility, potentially negligent and where the consequences can be shown to have resulted in harm to others, it could be criminally negligent.

 

I'm fairly sure that for holders of public and corporate postions of trust, unless you have appropriate expertise yourself and have reasonable grounds to disagree with your peers, disregarding expert advice would be counted as negligent, ie that would in line with precedents of law in most jurisdictions when it comes to questions of negligence.

 

What would make me doubt the science on climate? Were panels of independent experts within the most respected science advisory bodies like US National Academy of Sciences or UK's Royal Society to find egregious errors, inconsistencies or malpractice sufficient to call the fundamentals into question I would pay attention. Such panels have, on the contrary, found the science to be valid and consistent. Those organisations have well and truly earned their reputations for probity, excellence and community service; they deserve to be taken seriously.

Edited by Ken Fabian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would make me doubt the science on climate? Were panels of independent experts within the most respected science advisory bodies like US National Academy of Sciences or UK's Royal Society to find egregious errors, inconsistencies or malpractice sufficient to call the fundamentals into question I would pay attention. Such panels have, on the contrary, found the science to be valid and consistent. Those organisations have well and truly earned their reputations for probity, excellence and community service; they deserve to be taken seriously.

Nice post. Specific to the point above, we have this:

 

https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone should be sceptical of everything, that is how science works. However, once clear evidence is presented the claims should be taken seriously. That said, one should also always be open to the possibility of being shown wrong.

 

But then what Ken Fabian says is absolutely right. At some point one has to trust the experts.

Edited by ajb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.