GW skeptics, alarmists & denialists
Global warming (GW) skeptics argue against alarmists. The GW mainstream mock the denialists. Both are correct.
The GW debate is generally between activists (who want to see significant government intervention) and non-activists. Unfortunately, both groups spend much of their time arguing against the worse arguments of their opponents. Activists argue against denialists and non-activists argue against alarmists. The reality is that there are plenty of sensible skeptical and mainstream positions in the middle and that is where the debate needs to take place.
Some basics facts of the GW issue include: the earth has got warmer over the last 100 years; humans are putting more co2 into the atmosphere (and will continue to); more co2 should lead to higher temperatures. Though these issues weren’t allways obvious, those who now deny them can reasonably be called denialists who make up the embarassing part of the non-activists side.
In contrast, skeptics are skeptical of the need for government action for a number of reasons. Some people doubt the degree our knowledge of previous global warming. Some people doubt how much co2 impacts on temperatures (the lambda debate). Others accept a probably temperature increase within the mainstream range (1.5 – 4.5 degree increase this century) but question whether the consequences will be bad or believe that the consequences are not as bad as the consequences from action.
On the other side, there is no real evidence for catastrophy. Over the top scare stories about the collapse of civilisation, the destruction of the earth, dramatic climate change and great depressions have the same level of credibility as the denial argument and these alarmists make up the embarassing part of the activist side.
Both sides tend to ignore their own embarassments and concentrate on their opponents embarassments, though mainstream GW activist James Annan has argued against the alarmists like Stern.
Unfortunately, some activists such as John Quiggin and Tim Lambert are especially inclined to forgive alarmists, attack & abuse denialists and pretend skeptics don’t exist. Quiggin & Lambert now regularly refers to all non-activists as denialists in an attempt to discredit arguments they disagree with. In a recent article about the non-activist side, Quiggin talks about the folly of denialism but he once again ignores real skeptical arguments.
Another inappropriate argument used by Quiggin & friends is “death by association”. Quiggin likes to stress the fact that GW non-activists are often associated with non-activist groups (eg CATO) and supported by people who oppose activist policies (eg the energy industry). This is neither suprising nor relevant to the quality of the arguments. Quiggin implies that funding buys opinion. The reality is that most people determine their own opinions and then get paid by people who are willing to pay them. I am an unpaid skeptic. If I started receiving funding that would not change the quality of my arguments. It is true that I am associated with a non-activists group (the ALS) but then, I founded the ALS. Does Quiggin believe that I am only skeptical because I am following the ALS line?
By pretending skeptic = denial and arguing “death by association”, Quiggin & friends are confusing the real issues and avoiding the real debates. Denialists and alarmists should be rebuked when needed (eg alarmist Stern) and ignored when possible (like denialist Ken Ring) and activists and non-activists alike should concentrate on the best arguments of their opponents in the hope that open and respectful dialogue might bring progress.
90 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Recent Comments
2dogs on Policy Libertarianism vs. Stru… 
Jim Fryar on Fred Nile did not have relatio… 
TerjeP (say tay-a) on Fred Nile did not have relatio… 
taxpayer on Ransom Demands 
Joseph Clark on Fred Nile did not have relatio… 
Fleeced on Fred Nile did not have relatio… 
Ma sealake on A new political force – … 
papachango on Fred Nile did not have relatio… 
Jarrah on Shame 
Fermista on Fred Nile did not have relatio…
Catallaxy Files- Labor lost the economic debateLenore Taylor in the SMH. One of the first fights inside the ALP will be about why it so comprehensively lost the economic debate during the election campaign. Very senior figures are asking why Labor didn’t talk louder and sooner about its achievements in managing the country through the global economic crisis. With the national [...]
- Open Forum September 4, 2010
- Wots this then?Peter Martin has set out the types of ‘error’ Treasury identified in the Coalition policy costings. The Charter of Budget Honesty sets out guidelines for election costings, in order to make sure they are done on the same basis. One forbids the counting of proceeds from expected ”second-round effects” such as a saving on the [...]
- Labor lost the economic debate
- Andrew Norton
- Graduates three years onGraduate Careers Australia has released Beyond Graduation 2009, a follow-up survey three years on of graduates they first surveyed in 2006. A few points of interest on topics of particular interest to me: * The proportion of their sample who were overseas had doubled from 3.2% to 6.8%, which means that they will not be [...]
- How well-known are think-tanks?I received a letter today from John Roskam, executive director of the Institute of Public Affairs, outlining the organisation’s recent successes (and it has indeed flourished under his leadership). He included with the letter what I think is the first ever survey of think-tank name recognition. Though as John points out in the letter the [...]
- The financial benefits of higher educationThe ABS has an interesting new publication out today on the financial benefits of higher education. ABS anlayst Hui Wei uses data from the 1981, 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006 censuses to provide estimates of rates of return for investment in higher education. In the figure below, the rates are based on post-tax earnings [...]
- Graduates three years on
- IPA news
- Government: who needs it? September 2, 2010The election result isn't all bad. If you own shares, you shouldn't be unhappy we don't have a government yet. That's...
- Gillard likely to cop expansive Green agenda August 31, 2010Julia Gillard says that neither party has convinced Australia that it alone has won the right to govern and that "our...
- The cost of fighting the cost of living August 31, 2010Despite both major parties claiming they'll fight to stop increases in the cost of living, neither are likely to deliver...
- Government: who needs it? September 2, 2010
If you want to argue that a lot of people on both sides use dirty tactics arguing with each other in these sorts of debates, then you might want to keep the number of examples from each side balanced. At present you name JQ & TL as purveyors of dirty tactics — an extra example of someone specific doing the same sort of thing from the other side might be more balanced.
By their own reasoning we shouldn’t take JQ and TL seriously. I don’t think either has published a peer-reviewed article on climate science. One is an economist, the other a computer scientist.
JQ in particular essentially wants to shut down dissent. He has expressed this desire frequently. He does this mainly by implying funding determines opinions, and the debate will never be ‘over’ until fossil fuel companies stop funding the skeptics (I believe he prefers the stronger term ‘denialists’). I don’t think he’s ever called for governments, which have an interest in the way the science debate pans out, to stop funding climate scientists though.
If someone disagrees with JQ’s position in the mainstream media, it’s not the case that having the ideas published, however misleading, is a good thing for those just entering the debate to learn to be wary of. For him, it’s unacceptable behaviour for a media organisation. He feels it impugns the credibility of these organisations. I think it’s his own credibility that’s sunk lower.
If it is now acceptable to pressure media organisations to silence your opponents, I hereby call for a complete ban on all economists advocating an increase in the minimum wage. They should be rounded up and shot. If anything, JQ should be happy that such ideas are put out there. Gives him and TL something to demolish on their blogs and probably gains readership!
If you actively promote the non-activist position (irony noted) then you need to take Quiggin seriously, certainly in the Australian context. He has a lot of influence (which he has earned through hard work) and he makes some very strong arguments. His arguments are featured in passing in influencial books such as Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers”.
John Quiggin does have some gapping holes in his arguments that he simply avoids. And he is part of a contingent working to ensure that the masses are coraled into adopting a “politically correct” approach to AGW. By tagging and demonising people as “denialists” he is working at winning the debate not through reasoned logic but through narrow appeals to tribalism. Of course he does not see it this way.
I think John Quiggin should be strongly confronted, although obvioulsy in a respectful manner. The parts of his argument that he does cover in detail are done with great diligence.
Whilst he has big gaps in his logic I do not maintain that if these gaps were filled he would be shown to be wrong in his conclusions. For all I know he may in fact turn out to be right in his conclusions.
For sure, John & Tim deserve respect. They might be right about the science, I don’t know enough to comment. I was just pointing out (as I did previously) that the following two tactics reflect badly on those who use them. Probably they reflect amateurism.
1. the supposed funding-opinion link (why is this relevant to a real debate?)
2. the appeal to authority (who cares what degree you have or whether the paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal? the actual arguments are what matter.)
These two tactics are used to save time and at a glance dismiss certain people. For example, follow my link and you will see John dismissed Michael Crichton (who has spent about 4-5 years studying GW) despite the valid suggestions he makes about improving climate science methodology –double-blind studies, etc.
It just doesn’t seem right.
3. calling for your opponents to be given lesser coverage (in the media)
Are these the tactics of intellectuals or propagandists?
On item two I think it does matter. A peer reviewed paper deserves more weight because it has been reviewed for obvious flaws in the data or methods. Of course if you have the qualifications to make such an assesment yourself then you could give equal weight to papers that have not been reviewed.
If we are having a discussion about how much money is in my bank account I think you would agree that a document from the bank should carry more weight than a document from my best friend. In real life authority matters, even if it is not always correct. Nobody claims that the peer review process is perfect but likewise it is not without merit.
conrad — my post was largely inspired by JQ and his tendency to concentrate on denialism, equate denialism with skepticism (wrongly) and dismiss skeptics because of their funding. That would explain why I use him (and his partner in crime) as my main example.
I did offer some balance in referencing a mainstream GW scientist who doesn’t make such mistakes (James Annan) and a denialist (Ken Ring).
Your post is incoherent. I’m attacked both for allegedly pretending “skeptics” don’t exist and also for regularly calling these “skeptics” “denialists”. Do I ignore them or call them denialists? Naturally you provide no support for your claims. How about if you want to take issue with something I’ve written, you link to my post and tell us what you object to instead of making things up?
I’m glad to hear that you are not influenced by money in way, but others may, perhaps, be different.
Oh, and nice job equating Stern with Ken Ring.
As an economist, Stern should publicly justify his outrageously low discount rate.
Tim, I’m sorry you didn’t understand my point. To clarify, my point was that skeptics and denialists are not the same.
You & JQ have referred to GW non-activists as “denialists”. Given that non-activists could be “skeptics” or “denialists” then you seem to be implying that skeptics are really just denialists and that real skeptics don’t exist.
You ask: “Do I ignore them or call them denialists?”
Effectively you do both. I don’t think it is inconsistent to say that you refer to skeptics as denialists and then ignore their real arguments.
JQ has directly claimed that there are no skeptics now, just denialists. If you disagree with JQ and accept that there is a sensible skeptical position clearly different from denialism and an ongoing open debate, then I will update my original post. However, if that is your position it is well hiden by your blog where you refer to skeptics as “deluded & shills” and “crazy or disingenuous”.
I wasn’t arguing Stern & Ring are the same. They were just easy to find examples of alarmism and denialism. I would have thought you appreciated skeptical condemnation of denialism. I would certainly appreciate it when I see you & JQ give a stronger condemnation of alarmism.
John, how about you provide an example of something I’ve written where I’ve referred to skeptics as denialists and ignored their real arguments?
As far as I can tell, you are just making stuff up.
I can’t show were you haven’t written about real skeptical arguments. That’s a strange request.
As for confusing skeptics with denialists — you refer to nutty denialists here — refering to McKitrick, Monckton & the Lavoisier Group. And you refer to ExxonMobil as denialists here.
But this post wasn’t really about you. It was about the important distinction between skeptics and denialists, the tendency of both sides to argue against the weaker arguments of their opponents, and the importance of recognising that denialists and alarmists are distractions from the real debate between the mainstream & skeptics. Do you accept all of this?
The term “peer reviewed” is one of the most abused in science. Firstly – how is a “peer” defined ? Secondly – how is the validity of their view defined ?
I have a BSc in biological sciences and a degree in medicine.
There have been folk in NZ who are not scientifically qualified but have been capable of analysing vast amounts of medical research data and producing conclusions that have predated those of the medical community. Embarrasingly they have been vilified by the medicsal community before being found to be correct in their conclusions.
I spent many years analysing traffic safety and concluded that speed cameras were largely over applied and not a significant factor in reducing the road toll.
The point is that one does not have to be an “expert in the field” eg a climatogist, medical or other researcher – but one simply needs to have the requisite intelligence and analytical skills in order to dissect out the fundamental logical flaws in an argument.
I have not read any research yet wrt to climate change that convinces me that the current rise (anthropogenic) in CO2 is anything other than a correlation with temperature rise. I have searched the internet extensively. The IPCC are rabid in their condemnation of the “denialists” and yet seem incapable of answering this absolutely fundamental question.
Actually Andrew — I can’t see your “fundamental question”.
Given the theoretical link between greenhouse gases & temps and the current correlation between co2 and temperatures the logical conclusion is that the recent co2 changes are related (at least in some way) with the temperature changes. I can’t see what other conclusion can be reached.
I readily admit that we don’t know how much of the temperature change has come from higher co2, that we don’t know exactly how the climate works and that we don’t know exactly what’s going to happen next… but your implicit claim that there may be no co2-temp link sounds like irrational denialism.
The fundamental question is does CO2 rise follow or precede GW ? or don’t we know.
My father was a Professor of Philosophy (all philosophical fields but specialising in modal logic and mathematics) and I was exposed to logical argument from year dot.
I learnt around age 5 that correlation does not mean cause and effect.
I am astonished that anybody entering this forum should suggest that this is the case – especially when all evidence to date points to CO2 rise folowing GW by several hundred years.
This is the fundamental question.
If GW clearly follows CO2 rise then there is a clear and difficult case for the “sceptic” to answer.
If it does not then what is the explanation?
It must be alternative to the CO2 hypothesis and I welcome its articulation.
Please tell me where I have it wrong.
I am agnostic.
You raise a fair point about historical temperature changes preceeding co2 changes, indicating that causation may flow the other way (at least to some degree). However:
(1) That doesn’t invalidate the science that shows the theoretical link between greenhouse gases and temperatures. We know that greenhouse gases increase temperature (otherwise it would be 32 degrees cooler now)
(2) You original post explicitly mentioned anthropomorphic co2 increases which obviously aren’t caused by temperature changes (because you’d said they are anthropomorphic).
Of course it’s true that correlation does not imply causation. The example my old professor used to use was that the aggregate snowfall in winnipeg is correlated with world GDP, but they are not related. Also, even when there is a relationship the direction of the causation can be controversial. Do rich people get more generous, or do more generous people become richer?
The anomoly you mention raises questions about how well we understand all of the various relationships and feedbacks, but it doesn’t bring the basic science into question.
The skeptical position is not to deny the science, but to question the size of the relationships, whether there are other things going on we don’t fully understand and questioning the consequences and policy responses.
You are right to let the co2-temp timing anomoly give you pause. But don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
From that which I have read – even if the recent human caused CO2 increases were contributing to GW – the effect would only account for a small increase in the recent observed increase in temperature.
There must therefore be some other significant contributer which is not mentioned in the literature.
Whether this is anthropogenic or not I don’t know and I have been trying to find out via internet search.
It is certain that there is a lot going on which we don’t understand.
This applies to virtually every field of science.
The problem lies with the application of the “precautionary principle” in the absence of any significant anthropogenic evidence.
While it may seem reasonable to invoke this principle because “we don’t know” – it may be equally dangerous to invoke this principle precisely because “we don’t know”.
The debate about what is causing exactly what is still ongoing, with some people claiming that the natural variation of the sun (not anthropogenic) is more important. The mainstream position is that the effects of greenhouse gases are about three times bigger than the effect of the sun in explaining recent warming.
I’m inclined more towards the mainstream position… but even this doesn’t necessarily tell us what is going to happen next and it is the future we’re worried about.
I agree that the precautionary principle is misguided. We should act on what information we have. All the precautionary principle does is bias the public policy calculations towards government action, which I find inappropriate given the relative historical merits of the government v free markets.
What is the mainstream postion wrt ghgs other than co2? ie the percentage by which they have been calculated to have been increased by human activity?
Andrew,
I think with gases like Methane a lot of the discussion is still in a state of flux. There are rival theories that the mainstream treats as valid (although they can’t all be correct). I think it is because it is easier to calculate the CO2 coming out of a power station than the Methane being caused by changes to land use and agriculture.
Regards,
Terje.
An easier question to answer might be what is the estimated total (ie human plus natural cause) percentage rise in the most significant gases such as methane over the last century – or is this not known?
John, you claimed that I “referto skeptics as denialists and then ignore their real arguments”. The only examples of people I referred to as denialists were folks like Monckton and McKitrick. I have not ignored their arguments but refuted them in detail.
And I don’t see why I should ignore Monckton — his view have been given wide prominence.
What are these good skeptic arguments that you accuse me of ignoring?
Tim
Sounds as though you might be able to answer my questions
Tim — You asked me to show where you called called skeptics denialists and I did.
Your supposed “refutation” generally fails to combat the important arguments. You complain about an unlikely chinese voyage being used as evidence, but removing that doesn’t change the argument. You complain about Monckton saying “redundant” when he shouldn’t have, but removing that doesn’t change the argument. You complain that he inappropriately implied the earth was a black body, but if he had used different wording his point would have been valid (that lambda might be around 0.3 instead of 0.8).
You consistently concentrate on the easy targets instead of getting to the heart of an issue. That is probably because at the heart of the GW issue is greater uncertainty that you want to admit and a real debate.
Andrew, to see the mainstream estimated contributions of different forcings over the last 250 years (including co2, methane, aerosols, sun etc) check out:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/forcing_1750-2000-toppanel.jpg
And an associated discussion of the mainstream position at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/attribution-of-20th-century-climate-change-to-cosub2sub/
If you want basic information about how the climate science works there are plenty of links to various mainstream and skeptical sites at the ALS global warming page.
Monckton’s two main arguments were that there it was significantly warmer in the middle ages and that the climate senstivity was much lower than the scientifically accepted figure. I dealt with both of these.
The ludicrous Chinese navy North pole story was part of his evidence on the MWP. It was not some irrelevant detail. I note that you won’t even admit the Chinese navy story is rubbish. I didn’t debunk every single piece of evidence he threw out on the MWP — that would have resulted in a 3000 word post. A normal person might wonder about the reliability of the the evidence he offered if he comes with something as nutty as the Chinese navy stuff. But not you.
And I didn’t “complain” about his language on climate sensitivity. He only gets low values for sensitivity by ignoring lags and/or feedbacks and ignoring the evidence that shows it to be higher. This is wrong. The real climate system does have feedbacks and lags. You can’t accept the existence of lags and feedbacks and also that the sensitiivty is 0.3.
Could you please tell this non-human where you dealt with Monckton. I was assuming that this was your rebuttal. You mention three points: (1) Chinese navy (2) sensitivity & black body; and (3) hockey stick. The first doesn’t make any difference, the second was worded wrong but theoretically relevant and on the third you do nothing but link to a report that admits the hockey stick has errors. That is a pretty poor excuse for a rebuttal.
Your complaint about his language is here.
The feedback mechanisms can work in different directions, so (despite what you said) it certainly is possible for the final lambda to be 0.3. Wrong again Tim. I don’t have my heart set on that number, but the importance of the sensitivity and the uncertainty about it’s value is very relevant.
As for whether the chinese navy story is true — I agree that it is unlikely and shouldn’t have been used. I think it’s an interesting hypothesis and was a fun read, but it has nothing more than circumstantial evidence to back it up.
John, you claimed that I “referto skeptics as denialists and then ignore their real arguments”. After much prodding you came up with a post I made criticizing Monckton where I DID NOT CALL HIM A DENIALIST and DID address is real arguments.
And not only did I address the climate senstiivity on my blog, I commented here several times in a futile attempt to get you to correct the nonsense you posted on the subject. And you responded with a post accusing me of ignoring the issue. You are a real piece of work.
You’ve progressed from irrelevant or misleading statements straight up to lying now Tim. Not a good shift.
Let’s look at what you wrote:
“John Quiggin collects some of the nutty ideas the global warming denialists” (note: the people in question were Monckton, McKitrick & Lavoisier)
“After much prodding you came up with a post I made criticizing Monckton where I DID NOT CALL HIM A DENIALIST”
Opps. Even when you shout you’re wrong. And what is this “much prodding” crap? You asked for an example of you equating denialists with skeptics and in the very next response (only 22 minutes later) I provided it.
You then claim you have addressed his arguments when you mostly haven’t.
TL: “And you responded with a post accusing me of ignoring the issue.”
Actually, as hard as this might be to believe, the purpose of this post was not to discuss you. But I did mention you (& JQ) because it is true that you (& JQ) have gone soft on alarmists, equated skeptics with denialists and are inclined to ignore the real skeptical arguments in favour of cheap point scoring. I will admit that you did discuss the issues on this blog, but mostly you just provided links and gave snide comments that were misleading or wrong.
I think John is a sock puppet.
Who is driving the puppet Yobbo?
I can’t work out whether its a denialist, a sceptic, a sceptic denialist, a AGW agnostic or Kermit the frog (now an endangered species along with the Giant New Zealand Landsnail – often confused with a New Zealand politician – but considerably more attractive)
Please explain and also answer the question with a yes or no – do you believe in AGW ?
If not why not. If so why so?.
In 250 words or less.
John isn’t a sock puppet. I was just trying to anticipate Lambert’s next move.
Do I “believe” in it, like God?
I believe the globe is getting warmer. I don’t necessarily think it’s because of human actions, and I don’t necessarily think it’s going to be an overall bad thing.
Environmentalists love more than anything to predict the end of the world, especially when it’s our fault. The reason there are so many “denialists” and “skeptics” is because environmentalists are the little boys who cried wolf.
Dear Yobbo
You identify a fundamental need of many human beings – ie the need to believe that some near cataclysmic event is going to do us all in.
Now as an amateur psychologist (economist, doctor, politician, rocket scientist, musician, naturopath, psychopath et etc ) I would suggest that the aetiology of this need arises from the the fact that most humans are aware that at some stage they will croak – unless they get very lucky.
This awareness I reckon binds us with regard to this unsatisfactory endgame.
United in our understanding it has seemed over the eons that the only fair thing is for us all to kick the bucket at the same time.
The end has been nigh since history began.
The most recent significant (scientific) threat being the prospect of nuclear war – everyone was building bomb shelters and learning how to stick their head between their ears and kiss their arse goodbye.
Currently the Green Parties throughout the world have become the new doom merchants.
The pychodynamics remain unchanged – only the manner of our collective fate.
Well – I think its all a crock of shit.
We’re all gonna die.
The best thing most people can do for themselves is integrate this fact fully into their conciousness and accept it.
Therein lies the release from all cataclysmic speculation and also the door to pure science – uncontaminated by the desire to be right or wrong.
Out of this understanding arises the optimum response.
I remain unconvinced that AGW is our new Armageddon.
It would not be fair if we all croak at the same time. Some have had a longer go at living. The old people shoud shuffle off first. Which is why everybody knows it’s not fair when a child croaks.
Very true
I have four children
The oldest is 12.
In my medical job I meet people every day who have to deal with adversity far greater than my own.
I work alot with the poorer sectors of the community.
Many are poor financially and in health but strangely rich in spirit.
Most would be absolutely unaware of the issue of GW.
It is a strange and extraordinarily complex world in which I live.
The only way I can pretend to make sense of it is via scientific understanding, introspection and scientific concord or discord wrt to this.
GW is strangely remote in my day to day life.
The only reason I became interested is because my 80 yo mother viewed the Al Gore film 3 weeks ago and gave me an earbashing. She is a Green party supporter and highly principled individual.
——————————–
Very true. I have four children. The oldest is 12.
In my medical job I meet people every day who have to deal with adversity far greater than my own. I work alot with the poorer sectors of the community. Many are poor financially and in health but strangely rich in spirit. Most would be absolutely unaware of the issue of GW.
It is a strange and extraordinarily complex world in which I live. The only way I can pretend to make sense of it is via scientific understanding, introspection and scientific concord or discord wrt to this. GW is strangely remote in my day to day life.
The only reason I became interested is because my 80 yo mother viewed the Al Gore film 3 weeks ago and gave me an earbashing. She is a Green party supporter and highly principled individual.
Andrew — can you please try to edit your comments properly. For an example, see your first comment (which I edited) or your last comment (with both unedited and edited version). It just makes your comments easier on the eye. Cheers.
fair comment
“If you actively promote the non-activist position (irony noted) then you need to take Quiggin seriously, certainly in the Australian context. He has a lot of influence (which he has earned through hard work) and he makes some very strong arguments”
No he doesn’t. Dudes just an intellectual hitman. Sells his proffession downriver since any left-wing economist is going to get lefties telling everyone they are brilliant.
Since the science of economics runs counter to left-wing-ness and thats just the way it is. And as a result a great demand exists for left-wing economists everywhere.
Lets see some POSITIVE evidence for catastrophic warming Lambert.
Stop running fat man.
John, I have eight posts on my blog about Monckton. I have twenty six on McKitrick. But you acciuse me of ignoring them. How many posts do I need before I am not ignoring them?
Why do libertarians hate science?
Geez. I love science. Other than chemistry I used to top it all the time at school. And I did pretty well in chemistry also. I went on and did a degree in engineering on the back of that. Science is not in any danger here. Nobody is attacking science.
Tim, most of what you write about skeptics is snarky and dismissive and intentionally avoids considering their best arguments. You then claim them debunked. If you want to honestly address the other other side of any debate you should concentrate on their best (not worst) arguments.
It is possible to write several books worth about the exagerations and mistakes of alarmists, but that doesn’t prove the skeptics case correct. If I (as a skeptic) want to honestly engage the activists in debate I need to consider the best (not worst) arguments of the mainstream activists.
If you re-read my original post you’ll see that this is one of my primary points. That point still holds.
Lambert. Its you who hate science. Dudes like me just go where the chips fall.
You got any positive evidence for catastrophic-global-warming yet?
I……don’t……..THINKSO!!!!!
Ah, so apparently when you accused my of ignoring the skeptics you meant that I ignored their good arguments. Well, the skeptics aren’t doing a good job if they keep offering bad arguments that I can shred, are they?
As for ignoring their good arguments, slap the cuffs on. I plead guilty. I also plead guilty to ignoring Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
Tim – how do you counter the CO2 argument? ie that
CO2 is historically a follower and not a leader of GW?
Tim — you sound suprised that I’m talking about you ignoring the real skeptical arguments. But that’s what I said from my first response to you. Perhaps you need to spend more time reading and less time ranting.
I have never denied the existence of bad non-activist arguments. There are also plenty of bad activist arguments. It is petty and pointless to concentrate only on bad arguments and ignore the real arguments.
Tim
What are the good arguments for AGW point by point?
We all accept that GW exists.
I have asked this question in different forms on this forum and also the other in which you and I participate.
All I want is a synopsis – not a lengthy discourse.
I very much look forward to your integration of the facts
Yes, John I asked about this in my first comment. You still haven’t told us wht these “real arguments” are that I’m avoiding. Are these “real arguments” secret or something?
Andrew, read the NAS report.
You are avoiding coming up with POSITIVE evidence implying catastrophic global warming as a result of industrial CO2-release.
On occasion I am asked to do some data mining in relation to specific pathologies. During such investigations I have seen people proclaiming cures for Cancer, Aids, hep C. MS, PD, asthma, Alz, MCI, ADHD … . The simple truth is that the vast majority of people who engage in such analyses and lack qualifications typically get it wrong. They cherry pick the data, they misunderstand the concepts, and they often have no understanding of statistical analysis. Hell, there are many physicians, including immunologists, who still accept the “self nonself” doctrine in immunology, they should read Polly Mattzinger but they won’t. So if the medical community and research community still clings to atavistic models how am I expected to trust amateurs when I no longer trust the experts?
I do read many of these claims because one should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. However, one has to consider the possibility that even a broken clock is right twice a day, that given enough people making such claims occasionally someone is going to get it right.
For myself this makes it very difficult for me to take seriously the analyses of those who haven’t invested a great deal of time and effort to understand a matter outside their area of expertise. I have no means of assessing the veracity of their analyses.
In medical research it is not that hard to penetrate the data because medical research is still largely couched in language, with some occasional and often misapplied statistical analyses. A Steve Jones, a cutting edge geneticist once lamented, there are two types of scientists: those who use mathematics and those who understand mathematics. Many researchers have commented to me that research papers are littered with mathematical errors. Laughably, many simply rely on reading the abstract only or the Cochrane reviews. Lazy.
As if this isn’t bad enough it is perfectly obvious that medicine often makes huge blunders in the advice it gives, and this after numerous clinical trials and meta analyses and peer review. In any event peer review is a bit of a joke, it doesn’t work nearly as well as most people believe. I have read far too many papers that contain silly errors, how these got past the reviewers is beyond me. Biomedicine is extremely demanding and it requires years of practice to skillfully handle the findings.
In relation to GW the problem is greatly increased because the concepts are arcane, the mathematics extremely difficult, and most amateurs confine themselves to reading the reports etc but without checking the references, or the assumptions embedded in the analyses.
This is not to say that ALL non expect analyses are to be dismissed. Such people do get it right occasionally but it is a logical error to cite a few examples as evidence that any intelligent person can contribute in a meaningful way to any field, that is cherry picking the data! In Neuroscience and physics the problem is very noticeable and very infuriating. There is always some “expert” out there who knows better than everyone else, who has solved this or that great mystery. Many of these people need a DaD2 antagonist!
“There have been folk in NZ who are not scientifically qualified but have been capable of analysing vast amounts of medical research data and producing conclusions that have predated those of the medical community. Embarrasingly they have been vilified by the medicsal community before being found to be correct in their conclusions.
I spent many years analysing traffic safety and concluded that speed cameras were largely over applied and not a significant factor in reducing the road toll.
The point is that one does not have to be an “expert in the field” eg a climatogist, medical or other researcher – but one simply needs to have the requisite intelligence and analytical skills in order to dissect out the fundamental logical flaws in an argument.”
dear dead soul
I am not sure of the point you are trying to make by quoting me at the end of your piece.
You seem to be suggesting that we should be totally cynical wrt to the outcome of any research because even experts in their respective fields disagree – can cheat the data – cheat the stats and cherry pick.
This is certainly true of much medical research and the rule of thumb that we have in NZ is that around nine out of ten papers are bin material.
As you are clearly familiar with scientific method and critique there is no need for me to explain how these decisions are made.
Despite this, science advances a pace and is improving our day to day lives dramatically.
This is clear evidence of the success of the scientific method. Your nihilism is not justified by virtue of this fact.
With regard to the ability of intelligent folk having the ability to critique and be right about science outside of their immediate discipline I think that you are being a little to general.
I would not attempt to critique a paper on nuclear physics – it is certainly an arcane field. However I feel I can make valid criticisms wrt to science on the fringe of my basic fields – wich are biological and medical. Especially for example social scientific papers referring to smacking and poverty.
There is no need to be a “dead soul”.
Andrew,
Yes, Andrew, I am being overly nihilistic. Put it down to the despair of trawling through hundreds of studies! I do not doubt the power of science, I just have much greater doubts about my cognitive abilities than most people have about theirs.
Terje,
I didn’t make myself clear in my first post, it was a reference to those on this forum suggesting you and others, in asserting that you repudiated the WMD evidence in the first instance, were lying. There is no justification for this. Libertarians doubting the honesty of government? Who would have thought … . Who could ever doubt that you would lay a charge of dishonesty against a government!?
As to the Bush Administration, there has always been ample evidence to lay the charge of lying by some members of the administration.
dear dead soul
With regard to cognitive ability and doubt, I wouldn’t worry too much.
Anybody who sticks their neck out and offers an opinion is open to ridicule.
Open discussion/ feedback is de rigeur wrt to modifying all of our views.
We all take a risk in offering our opinion publicly.
The risk being that someone out there will make me feel like a fool.
In the 1980s I participated in many “encounter groups” in an attempt to get on better with others.
It was pretty humiliating but we were all in the same boat.
On balance it improved my understanding of how to listen to others and get on better with my spouse and friends.
It takes a degree of courage to participate in forums like this one – and all those who have participated have exposed themselves to the risk of ridicule, aggessive feedback etc.
They are more courageous and make a greater contribution than those who remain silent.
“In the 1980s I participated in many “encounter groups” in an attempt to get on better with others.”
Man I wouldn’t want that sort of thing hanging around my kneck.
Jeepers.
You might want to keep some things to yourself fella.
Maybe
But you have exposed yourself -Graemebird- to the game.
The game being internet debate.
You would be smart to play the game in civil fashion.
Stick to comment which facilitates the willingness for people to participte in these forums and stay away from macho posturing.
If your feedback is a reflection of your general disposition then I would suggest that you are a scientific and social isolate – or at least heading that way.
Andrew,
Well stated. Oh but don’t worry about my confidence. I’m renowned for upsetting the apple cart. The debate here is nothing compared to the riot I started on a neuroscience forum regarding foundational issues in neuroscience. That ended up with a professor of psychology and an associated professor of neurophysiology having it out with another in a way only academics can! Sadly most scientists ignore philosophy, they think that science is devoid of the same.
However, I am very cynical about “skills transference”. I’ve read too many texts by academics operating outside their field of expertise who make complete asses of themselves. Every Nobels like Penrose are guilty of this. And let’s not forget Einstein’s repudiation of QM, or Mach’s repudiation of Einstein. Or Linus Paulling and all that vitamin C nonsense. He is the only person to win the Nobel twice and died of prostate cancer. However, there is a way that vitamin C can be used to fight cancer. Not via vit c alone but in combination. Strange as it may seem vit c can act as a potent oxidant under specific physiological conditions which are relatively easy to create.
As to your statement:
There is no need to be a “dead soul”.
This is actually a reference to an old Russian novel by Golgol. The phrase is an oxymoron which should have cued you to realising it has a specific meaning. See what I mean by assuming one understands meanings and concepts?
You have a good attitude Andrew, I appreciate your feedback.
[...] Some global warming (GW) activists, such as Quiggin & Gore, like to claim that there is no ongoing controversy regarding global warming and no serious debate between the mainstream and the skeptics. This has sparked a debate about whether there is a debate. [...]
Pingback by GW: debate about debate « Thoughts on Freedom | December 11, 2006 |
Yeah it has “GW debate about debate”
The more I read the more it sounds like religion.
Thanx Dead Soul for your comments.
I am attempting to lead a decent life after years of moral decay.
I am not well read and feel more ignorant every day.
I have lead a life of whih I am not proud.
I am still agnostic re AGW.
Andrew,
Moral decay? Don’t worry about that, I’ve relished moral decay! People who lives upright lives all their lives often strike me as anal retentive. A friend of mine, now in her late 30′s, spent decades in moral decay. Lots of drugs, lots of partying … . She has gone back to university: results so far 7 6 7 7. Brilliant, she only got the 6 because she hated the subject.
Reading will increase your knowledge but beyond a certain point it will also make you very much aware of how ethereal knowledge can be. It takes a long time to reach that point. Karl Popper expressed it beautifully: “We may differ in what we know but in our infinite ignorance we are all equal.” Sadly, most people haven’t read enough to realise the truth of that.
Remember: when moving forward don’t keep looking over your shoulder, you might stumble and fall.
You’ll be fine, character is more important than knowledge or intellect or one’s personal history.
By the way, despite being much more well read than most people I am agnostic about many more things than most people.
Now see what you’ve done, you’ve made reach into my archives(see below).
Ralph Waldo Emerson’s definition of Success
“To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and to endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty; to find the best in others; to leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition; to know that even one life has breathed easier because you lived; this is to have succeeded.”
The more knowledge
the more grief
The more wisdom
the more sorrow
Or Carl Jung(Memories, Dreams, and Reflections:
If a man knows more than others he becomes lonely.
Rationalism and doctrinairism are the diseases of our time; they pretend to have all the answers.
ibid, page 330
Overvalued reason has this in common with political absolutism: under its dominion the individual is pauperized.
Beginning to think is beginning to be undermined.
Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus, page 50
It is always easy to be logical. It is almost impossible to be logical to the bitter end.
ibid, p. 16
But it is bad to stop, hard to be satisfied with a single way of seeing, to go without contradiction, perhaps the most subtle of all spiritual forces. The preceding merely defines a way of thinking. But the point is to live.
–
A man’s errors are his portals of discovery.
James Joyce.
The strength of a man’s virtue must not be measured by his efforts, but by his ordinary life.
Pascal’s Pensees, trans W. F. Trotter, 1947, page 352.
“If we define a religion to be a system of thought which contains unprovable statements, so it contains an element of faith, then Godel has taught us that not only is mathematics a religion but it is the only religion able to prove itself to be one.”
John Barrow – mathematical physicist
25
The soft lines of these hills and the hand of evening on this troubled heart teach me much more. I have returned to my beginning. I realize that if through science I can seize phenomena and enumerate them, I cannot for all that apprehend the world.
Albert Camus
And learning better to feel joy, we learn best not to hurt others or to plan hurts for them.
Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra.
“Stick to comment which facilitates the willingness for people to participte in these forums and stay away from macho posturing.
If your feedback is a reflection of your general disposition then I would suggest that you are a scientific and social isolate – or at least heading that way.”
Now dude.
You’ve got a magnificently TOUGH-SOUNDING name.
MONTGOMERY.
Fantastically tough. But in my experience its the dudes that come are given sissy names that end up tough or at least in the movie business.
Sylvester. Clinton. Bruce. Quentin. Charles (Chuck),
Anyway. Thats neither here nor there.
But to a girly-man who winds up going into encounter groups the way I talk may seem like macho POSTURING.
But other folks who knew me better would say that this is not posturing but this is just GRAEME talking.
“If your feedback is a reflection of your general disposition then I would suggest that you are a scientific and social isolate”
Well the science is wrong and bogus. So it would be a more righteous thing to be a science isolate in that sense.
But I wouldn’t say I was socially isolated. I would say I was socially lazy. And it takes a good reason to get me out on the town these days.
But what was your point?
Dear Greamebird
What I was trying to do when I joined this particular circus was get an explanation as to how it was historically that CO2 rise followed GW by 1000 years historically – and this time it goes up concurrently.
It suggests to me that there may be same unknown factor/s other than CO2.
I’ve asked this question on one of Tim Lamberts’ blog sites – which you may be able track down. But despite being ridiculed by all the Lambertophiles – no-one was prepared to provide an explanation. I got plenty of referrals to various websites – but that was it.
So – what is the explanation from anyone out there who really understands the science/
Andrew,
I have looked for answers to the same question. It seems that nobody knows. However what is of greater concern is that it also seems that nobody cares.
Regards,
Terje.
Dear Terje
In what sense do you mean nobody cares?
I mean that this huge contradiction between AGW and the data does not seem to give anybody much pause when they say that an increase in CO2 will cause global warming. There does not seem to be much effort made to reconsile the apparent empiracle contradiction. Nobody seems to be beavering away at finding an answer. Of course I could be very wrong which would be great news.
I totally agree
Terje and Andrew could have a point. A former collaborator of mine used to refer to these anomalies as “orphan studies”. Typically these are ignored. The physicist John Wheeler once stated, “In any discipline find the strangest thing and then explore it.” I’m a real prick when it comes to such things because I when I see these inherent contradictions I place most cogitation about the subject matter on hold. You will find such contradictions in evolutionary theory, immunology, endocrinology, neuroscience, physiology … . In regard to my areas of interest, I just keep hammering away … .
If Terje could point me to some links re this matter I would appreciate it. That’s right, I’ve read nothing about Global warming. (Reading newspapers don’t count!)
I made cursory search on google scholar and Eselvier and found very little in the search terms
“global warming causation”
Dear dead soul
The point is particularly pertinent wrt to all medical science.
There are numerous examples over the last 100 years wherein there has appeared to be consensus on a huge range of issues only to find after meta analysis raised to the power of 4 that the previously held consensus was flawed.(notably all peer reviewed raised to the power of 4 as well).
Sometimes it takes a generation to establish the harm done by a particular drug.
eg diethylstilbestrol wrt to Ca cx in offspring.
Climate science has certainly accelerated – but it is my impression that those who are sceptical are being effectively slandered because they ask questions which the AGW folk can’t answer.
The issue seems to be somewhat deeper than pointing to a simple correlation between CO2 emmisions and “AGW” – there are too many unanswered questions surrounding this hypothesis.
I think that the majority of people who participate in these blogs – particularly the Tim Lambert acolytes – don’t have a clear understanding and therefore resort to endless circular reference to publicaitons that they do not understand themselves.
If they did so they should have the willingness to provide the agnostic with a convincing synopsis – rather than ridicule.
So far this has not happened.
There is a single reason for this – and that is that such a synopsis does not exist.
This points to an extraordinary lack of precision and also an extraordinary degree of arrogance from these people.
I am described as a “denialist” because I ask questions.
The problem is I am denied answers.
Try a google search on the following terms: ice core data co2 lag
will do
OK – I’ve had a look – somewhat brief
The AGW argument would be consistent with say the last 5/6 of warming but not the first 1/6 as far as can be discerned from paleocliatological studies.
And following this CO2 rises with warming.
All this points to is a a lack of causation in the first 1/6 and a correlation in the lsdt 5/6.
So why is this cause rather than consequence in the last 5/6. ?
Does the Paleoclimatological record substantiate that in the last 5/6 that warming follows CO2 – or is simply correlated ?
I am not sure that the argument for AGW is advanced by this knowledge.
The knowledge is however permissive of the hypothesis.
The problem as I see it is that if CO2 had a role in the last 5/6 it seems odd that when things cool down again the temperature drop happens in spit of the still high CO2 levels and then only later (800 years) does CO2 begin to decline again. CO2 quite distinctively follows temperature which ever direction the temperature trend takes. And other than the lag the two are highly correlated suggesting that temperature really drives CO2.
Also we never see CO2 lead temperature.
Yup – its a problem for the AGW CO2 guys to address.
Given that CO2 is an extraordinarily weak GHG in its own right the only way that any AGW CO2 hypothesis can be supported is by a new and profound amplification effect produced by what we know is a different world climatically, geologically and ecologically from “previous” worlds.
I would like to see a hypothesis based around this.
I would like to see a hypothesis based around this.
Don’t be silly, asking the scaremongerers to justify their claims would be outrageous. Just be safe in the knowledge that polar bears and south sea islanders are going to have to learn how to swim and that we need to do something about it.
Dear Brendan
What do we need to do based upon your understanding?
I live in New Zealand and we have no South Sea Islanders seeking refugee status on the basis of rising seas.
As for polar bears – yes GW is no doubt a bad thing.
What are the solutions?
It is a fact of all life that it has a beginning and an end.
Unless there is a solution there is little point in articulating problems wrt polar bears, Archie’s frog, the giant NZ land snail etc
As a doctor I meet people every day who connect me with (a) the harsh realities of the “unfairness” of life and (b) the immutability of human behaviour.
What do we need to do based upon your understanding?
I forget to add the tag /sarcasm off.
We need do nothing except get rich.
Funnily enough that is what I tell my patients these days – that is when I’m working in areas that are less poverty stricken than South Auckland.
This being completely off the topic of GW – which I was dragged into by my 79yo mother Green Party mother who had see the Al Gore film and concluded the end was nigh (the irony somewhat lost upon her – bless her sole).
My specific advice to NZers re their future healthcare needs is “get rich or get out” – why? – because 8 years of Labour (left centrist govt) has brought our health system to the brink of collapse. Simply because they have failed to recognise that intellectual capital flows to the point of highest demand. ie I could double my salary by moving to the UK or put up with a 30% pay rise by moving to Australia.
The money was there but they chose to spend it on the most aggressive economic malignancy – bureaucracy.
Bureacrats overseeing bureaucrats… much like the infinite images that one sees of oneself when placed between toalmost parallel mirrors.
We have a series of strikes in the health sector at the moment as a consequence of the stupidity of our government.
They do not understand health economics
Another irony is that the poverty gap has predictably increased in NZ over the last 8 years.
Ie the constituency which voted in Labour has chosen to receive it anally not once but thrice.
All totally predictable as I am sure you understand.
“get rich or get out”
Wealth production is the best cure for everything.
The money was there but they chose to spend it on the most aggressive economic malignancy – bureaucracy.
They should have handed the cash back to taxpayers so that they could work out whether you deserve to get paid more for your services.
Not everything. Wealth can solve many problems but there are lots of problems that wealth does not resolve. And an unbalanced pursuit of wealth can compromise many aspects of a persons well being. Wealth does not buy happiness. Unless your definition of wealth is so broad as to be a tautology.
Well put Terje
Andrew
May she live to 120, but why is your 79 yld ma worrying about AGW?
This is another example of the Greens scaring the shit out of old ladies and kids. These guys come out of horror movie set.
“And an unbalanced pursuit of wealth can compromise many aspects of a persons well being. ”
Yet if they were born into wealth, they would not have this problem.
I am relatively wealthy (financially)
Unfortunately the brain went astray – so the other kind of wealth I find a bit elusive.
I agree re the old girl – but she’s not happy unless she’s worried – or had a few gins.
The Greens in New Zealand are a strange lot.
Some of their goals are reasonable, but unfortunately most have had a frontal lobe bypass and seem incapable of logical reasoning.
Not that logic is the b all and end all – but its a lot handier to be able to think logically and clearly when faced with problems than the alternative.
Dear Graemebird
In case you misunderstood me I should make it clear that I have no malice toward you whatever.
Nobody has called me a girly man before – my oldest brother who died of CJD last year was a transexual.
I understand your anger re the left wing greeny mob but the way to deal with it is via the mind.
If you were to visit my home you would find the walls full of holes created by me.
I have spent the last 5 years learning martial arts from a Vietnam veteran in an attempt to contain an anger problem which has been compounded by other factors which I cannot disclose. I have never acted violently to any human being – except verbally.
I am 50 yo with 4 children and not proud of any of this.
If you were in the same situation you would do anything you could to try and deal with the problem.
I try everything – including pschotherapy.
I have certainly destroyed alot of relationships with my tongue – but it has just F……d me up. I wouldn’t wish my disposition upon my worst enemy.
I have anger problems too, Andrew. But since the web, i have been able to project it onto lefties who were born to act as human punching bags.
It’s fun, it a good tension realease and when your stressed out you feel a lot better for it. Low blood, pressure and low LDL.
I highly recommend lefty bashing to anyone with tension or anger managment problems. My wife says it has done me a lot of good. I intend to persue this “exercise” regimen to the end of my days.
On a serious note
I would be great if you could do a post on medicine economics or as you see it at the coal face. I’m sure JH would only be too happy to post it . we talk about it frequently but never seen a doc actaully give his side of the story.
I’ve tried lefty bashing amongst other therapies – it worked for a while but the I discovered that our right wing politicos were just as f……g stupid. I’ve alienated just about every politician in the country with salvos of hostile E-mails.
Re health economics – it is a fascintaing area – and unlike global warming – I understand it very well – in fact better than the vast majority.
I was going to stitch to gether an article for one of our News papers on the issue.
I will try and bash out a synopsis for you over the next few days.
I have a question
I have noted that Terje and John Humphries in particular have contributed to various other blogs – mostly run by a guy called Quiggin and another called Lambert.
These blogs are characterised by the most extraordianary invective and ridicule from various pro AGW folk with responses from you guys that are very civil.
How do you deal with it?
What motivates those who speak with such certainty to be so graceless and humourless?
If they are right then the evidence should speak clearly.
Given the range of projected increase in temperature from AGW to be 0.6 to 7 C – what on earth drives these folk to such verbal violence?
I am still learning alot wrt to GW and am of no political persuasion – but if I was in the same room as Lambert or Rabett and a number of others I would find it very hard to contain myself.
That is what I mean by anger management.
I will have to bow out.
John H is an economist – I didn’t know this. I failed high school economics – but I believe I have a considerable degree of insight into health economics.
I will work on a summary of my understanding of this and leave the AGW debate alone in the meantime.
I wish you all a merry Xmas etc
“If they are right then the evidence should speak clearly.”
Well there’s your answer right there.
They are wrong and they have to spin it.