This is the very first paragraph of Monckton's response to Gavin Schmidt's demolition of Monckton's paper on climate sensitivity.
For the second time, the FalseClimate propaganda blog, founded by two co-authors of
the now-discredited "hockey-stick" graph by which the UN's climate panel tried
unsuccessfully to abolish the mediaeval warm period, has launched a malevolent,
scientifically-illiterate, and unscientifically-ad-hominem attack on a publication by me.
Monckton goes on to make many more ad hominem attacks on Schmidt. And what are the ad hominem attacks that Monckton alleges that Schmidt makes?
I shall replace all comments by him that are
purely ad hominem with "+++". I shall refrain from any ad-hominem remarks of my
own, and shall answer what little science there is in his blog ad rem. Schmidt's text is in bold face: my response is in Roman face.Schmidt: "+++ ... the most egregious error is a completely arbitrary reduction by 66% of the radiative forcing due to CO2. He +++ justifies this with reference to tropical troposphere temperatures ..."
M of B: Schmidt somehow fails to point out that my division of climate sensitivity by three to take
account of the failure of observed tropical mid-troposphere temperatures to increase at thrice the
surface rate as predicted by all of the models relied upon by the UN, far from being "completely
arbitrary", was taken from a paper by Lindzen (2001), read together with the lecture-notes and drafts
that preceded the paper. Here are two quotations from Professor Lindzen, ...... we can reasonably bound the anthropogenic contributions to surface warming since 1979 to a third of the observed warming, leading to a climate sensitivity too small to offer any significant measure of alarm ...
Let's see what the "purely ad hominem" bits were:
As Deltoid quickly noticed the most egregious error is a completely arbitrary reduction (by 66%) of the radiative forcing due to CO2. He amusingly justifies this with reference to tropical troposphere temperatures
So it was "purely ad hominem" to link to my post where I wrote:
But Lindzen (2007) (which was published in Energy and Environment rather than in a proper journal) does not say that CO2 radiative forcing is too high by a factor of three. In fact, he specifically says that ÎF2x "is about 3.5 watts per square meter". As far as I can tell, Monckton has misunderstood this statement from Lindzen:
we can reasonably bound the anthropogenic contributions to surface warming since 1979 to a third of the observed warming, leading to a climate sensitivity too small to offer any significant measure of alarm
This is a statement about sensitivity not CO2 forcing.
So far from failing to point out that the alleged source of the 66% reduction in forcing was Lindzen (2007) (not Lindzen (2001) as Monckton now claims), Schmidt did so and Monckton deleted it from his quote of Schmidt on the grounds that it was "purely ad hominem". And note that Monckton seems to have conceded my point that Lindzen was arguing for a lower sensitivity, not for a lower forcing. Of course, he hasn't admitted that his paper was wrong to use Lindzen to justify dividing the forcing by three.
Monckton continues with more confused arguments:
The evaluation of final climate sensitivity is of course left entirely unaffected whether one chooses to divide the forcing, the feedbacks, or the no-feedbacks climate sensitivity by three, since climate sensitivity is the product of these three parameters.
But you can't just arbitrarily choose one of them to divided by three and then go on to reduce the others. From a premise that sensitivity is too high by a factor of three, Monckton manages to conclude that sensitivity is too high by a factor of six, thus contradicting his premise.
Anyway, Monckton goes on in this vein for a while, with lots of bluster and failing to prove Schmidt wrong.
So, Monckton felt that an argument that proved him wrong was an ad hominem, and says that he himself refrained from any ad hominem remarks. I can only conclude that Monckton thinks "ad hominem" means "an argument that proves your opponent wrong". He is mistaken. Ad hominem, from the Latin "to the man", refers to an argument that attacks the opponent personally rather than addressing that person's arguments. You'd think that someone who read classics at Cambridge would be a bit better with Latin.
There is more on Monckton's latest efforts from Daniel Rothenberg, Richard Littlemore, Atmoz and Eli Rabett.
And Arthur Smith is putting together a thorough list of all the mistakes in Monckton's paper.
Lord Monckton is +++add random insult here+++.
just trying to educate him on "ad hom" attacks..
Is it just me or is the Eli Rabett link (to SPPI) is the victim of a 404?
404: that's a link to the Viscount's rebuttal to Arthur Smith, which SPPI took down, due to Arthur's strong complaint.
See Rabett on Lord Voldemort bleats for the history of the takedown.
Of course, I'm sure some people kept copies of the SPPI PDF, given that it seemed likely to disappear, and it seemed to be a useful item.
Much thanks for the plug!
-Daniel Rothenberg
No, Mockton's got it right. "Ad Hominem" is latin for "nahnahnahnah I'm not listening!" (links to liberal facts at sites like wikipedia notwithstanding)
Ad hom is sooooo 2006.
Dano's brief reminder of the meading of ad hom:
ad hom: You are wrong because you are an idiot.
NOT ad hom: You are wrong because of A, B, and C. And, BTW, you are an idiot.
Does the denialosphere - half of whom having this explained to them - now stop using ad hom? Gee, let's think...
Best,
D
It sort of comes across more like, "you are wrong because my withering sarc beats yours any day"
Do you think we should all re-read Robbie Burns?
Or only some of us?
Monckton is indicative of how absurd the whole debate on climate science has become.
He has no formal training in science and his stuff (drivel) has been debunked time and again by real scientists.
His antics are somewhat amusing (and quite frankly bizarre), but he has gotten far more attention than he deserves.
Act two. Methinks it would be a very good thing to protect Arthurs back on this one, which means scouring the net and replying to all provocations from M.
I disagree.
Monckton is like a little kid who craves attention.
Give him attention and he will keep doing what he has been doing.
Ignore him and (like the little kid), he will eventually realize that the approach is not working.
The best approach is to debunk and then proceed to ignore all of his complaints about "ad hom attacks" and other nonsense.
These do not deserve a response.
#10 JB:
I don't think ignoring Monckton will work. Rather than acting like a small child, i.e. when realising he/she is wrong and will shown signs of contrition for his/her actions, Monckton has not displayed no such remorse. Rather, responses are more akin to delusion.
JB:
I'm with Eli: help Arthur out.
One never knows what silly things will happy, and sometimes it is well worth gathering details, from past experience. In particular, as occurred last year, useful pieces were scattered around, although there were more here than anywhere else.
Despite the errors in M's Latin, he makes some very good points in the 'causes of global warming' debate. I suggest you read his recent letter to Ms Wong which I hope she will consider very carefully.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…
Monckton is an ass. That, however, does not obviate the need to explore the many holes in AGW theory, now beginning to rise to the surface even in the Chicken Little media. Stick to the science and the scientists, even if the ad hominems on both sides are more entertaining.
Now let's give Monckton credit for trying and coming close. "Amusingly" is an adverb not an ad hominem. It's the closest he got to getting anything right.
the thought of Vis-can't-count being sued for copyright violation and defamation is just too delicious (momentary blogasm).
Shorter wmanny: The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... Om... Om... Om...
Anyway, Monckton should follow the example of a certain mail order fraud known as Neo-Tech, and simply call everything he doesn't like as a non sequitur.
wmanny #14
"Stick to the science and scientists" is excellent advice.
What do *you* do to do that?
How about helping us out and posting *your* list of:
- main sources for climate science
- real scientists who you know personally and with whom you interact on this issue
- top holes in AGW theory [which any classic skeptic would have]
I have a hobby of trying to understand where people get their information. Oddly, many people simply won't answer such simple questions...
Re:14
Yeah that is a real issue. Fortunately much more of science publishing is now in the pubic domain, although by no means all.
I'm a medic and so have access to certain academic databases: ISI for example. Google scholar is pretty good though, but of course still lets in the woo occasionally. I still don't get to see geophysical research letters though. Fortunately if a paper is controversial or important you'll usually find someone has a pdf of it up somewhere.
Help Arthur out?
Why does Arthur Smith need anyone's help?
He has threatened copyright infringement which should be enough to make even the "Lord" sit up and take note.
Tit for tat in the ad hom department will not accomplish anything except get Monckton more attention.
Unfortunately, Monckton is merely representative of a certain "class" of people who (for whatever reason) choose to "publish" their "science" on web sites, in magazines and forums for PUP (pure unadulterated opinion) like that of the APS instead of in peer reviewed journals.
It's sometimes entertaining, but it has little if anything to do with science.
In pre-internet days, these people would not have received the time of day from anyone -- least of all from the scientists.
"the FalseClimate propaganda blog" -- Presumably he meant he isn't going to use any ad hominems /after/ the text stating he won't; so that one, five words in, doesn't count.
#18, long story short, I have settled these days for reading realclimate and climateaudit side-by-side between publications of the IPCC reports (the meat, not the policy "90%" stuff) whence my own skepticism was born. Granted those two sites preach to their choirs, in the main they offer a good quantity of links and allow readers to form their own opinions over the long haul. I am especially interested in McIntyre's efforts to get actual data into the public domain. I have interacted with a few of the players privately, which is surprisingly easy to do, and I am naturally loath to mention them here since I plan to keep doing so.
I'm sure he'll claim it's an ad bloginem so it's cool :)
Wmanny:
I do hope you realize that he really has zero impact in this area, despite his hyperventilating pompous self-aggrandizing posts on the matter?
The internet and cheap connectivity has scientists, publishers, grant agencies, everyone thinking hard about how best to get data out there. Of course, they're focused on getting it out to scientists, since scientists are those doing science. McIntyre's a gnat on the elephant's ass, at best.
You've noticed, I'm sure, that McIntyre's attacks on the likes of Thompson have gotten him absolutely nowhere, despite his bold claims of having various journals, PNAS, etc dead to rights?
re: #14 #22 wmanny
That you study the IPCC is good.
The following is not being contentious: you made strong statements, I'm just trying to understand how people reach their opinions.
"That, however, does not obviate the need to explore the many holes in AGW theory, now beginning to rise to the surface even in the Chicken Little media."
0) When you say "AGW theory", what's your definition? Do you mean what the IPCC AR4 says, or something else?
1) "many holes" is a bit vague, so can you perhaps list the top (5-10?) holes you find in the AR4? I.e., which section #s / page #s do you find wrong or unconvincing? Since this is about science and scientists, the "Chicken Little press" is irrelevant.
2) Just to make sure, since you gave excellent advice "stick to the science and scientists", I didn't see some things listed, but I don't want to make assumptions about what you do/don't do, so I'll ask more specifically:
a) Do you attend lectures by real climate scientists?
(I know this is not easy everywhere). If so, surely it can do no harm to name people whose talks you've heard? Maybe we've heard some in common, so can have a rational discussion about what they say.
If none, have you found useful videos on the Web by scientists?
b) Do you have (or have had) personal contact & discussion of this topic with real scientists?
(I.e., like Nobel physicists, in US, members of National Academy of Scientists, in UK, Royal Society; Presidents, Deans of Science, Department heads, professors in relevant areas in strong research universities?
Senior researchers at national research labs (in US, like NCAR, NOAA, GISS, GFDL, in UK Hadley, in Oz CSIRO, etc.
Editors of peer-reviewed scientific journals?)
c) Are you a member of any relevant scientific societies?
d) Do you subscribe to any scientific journals?
e) Do you read any primary research literature in the field?
f) Have you read any books on this besides the IPCC AR4? [Certainly if one only reads one, that's the one.]
g) Do you (or have you) participated in peer-review as an author, reviewer, or editor?
h) Can you say anything about your background in physics and statistics?
3) Back to 1), is there some modest set of "worrisome issues about AGW", which if laid to rest, would convince you that AGW (as defined by the IPCC) is real and a problem? Can you list them?
Monckton and his ilk are victim bullies
The heat and drought haven't addled Eli's brain*. 'Victim bully' is better than 'have-nothing little man'.
Best,
D
* they've caused Dano to get up earlier to get a ride in, however.
#24
John,
Don't worry about me and how I form my opinions -- I do it in my own opinion-forming way, and I don't need your disingenuous laundry list to help me know how we little people think. I'll leave the "Who You Know" game to your own self (and the word you are searching for is not "contentious" but "pompous") I am a small-fry BSEE high school teacher, but I have read and heard extensively enough about the various issues, from proxies to politics, to know that the debate is evidently not over, and I am not imbecile enough to believe that anyone who dissents is 'ipso facto' in cahoots with Big Oil, at least not moreso than we all are.
That there have been predictive problems in trying to model an almost infinitely chaotic climate system should not come as a surprise to anybody who reflects that we have been studying it for about three seconds in geological time. That is not to say we give up -- far from it, and improving the models is a good idea. Nor is it to impose draconian solutions because a group of scientists signed off on its superiors' policy-making report stating we are 90% certain, whatever the hell that means.
Climate science is in its infancy, and the history of science, for those of us who have read even a page or two, shows that scientific infants have no problem pronouncing their correctness before they reach adolescence. Heaven forbid a scientist dies before she has gotten the world to act on her theory.
In any event, my influence is very small and you have little to worry about unless I teach your children or grandchildren. I'll keep reading the blogs and journals and attending lectures, with or without your guidance.
It's older than quantum mechanics and relativity, and about the same age as evolutionary biology.
Are those so young as to be useless as well?
Sheesh, it's about 2/3 as old as the Linnean system of taxonomy ...
And climate isn't "infinitely chaotic", it's a much easier problem than predicting the local weather. Which is why Hansen was able to do such a reasonable job of predicting future temperature trends back in 1988 with what is, by today's standards, a simple model.
Can you try to find some denialist talking points that are a bit more recent? Infinite repetition of the old ones is really boring. Clogs the intertubes unnecessarily and all that.
This is true of all of science. So by your standard, all of science is useless. Is this what you teach your high school students?
He's a libertarian. No bout adoubt it.
That there have been predictive problems in trying to model an almost infinitely chaotic climate system should not come as a surprise to anybody who reflects that we have been studying it for about three seconds in geological time.
all of this, of course, is false.
the 1988 predictions were pretty good. remember, denialists have been telling us that temperature would be going down for quite some time now. but temperature, at best, has stayed flat for a minor time period...
the climate system isn t very chaotic. i hereby predict, that there will be a summer again next year!
hm, dhogaza already took apart the "young" thingy..
wmanny writes:
Jean-Joseph Fourier deduced the existence of the greenhouse effect in 1824. Louis Agassiz proved there had been ice ages in the 1850s. John Tyndal showed that the major greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere were water vapor and carbon dioxide in 1859. The first quantitative estimate of global warming under doubled carbon dioxide was made by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
Are you using "infancy" in relation to geological time, or something?
Hopefully by now he realizes it best describes HIS state of knowledge.
For some odd reason your link to Rabett Run goes to SPPI. . .
Mortifying;).
Anyhow links for those who are not playing the bumps
Oops, sorry. It now points to your new post.
#28 dhogaza
"He's a Libertarian. No doubt about it."
While it seems plausible, there is still some room for doubt, as Libertarians do not have an exclusive.
appeared there in May with firm ideas and and more.
It's too bad: I asked my usual questions to try to understand his experience, sources, and approach to learning ... and the response was insults and evasion of straightforward questions, and a very big chip on the shoulder, plus non sequitur comments about oil people.
Whether Libertarian or not, I would suggest a very strong case of Dunning_kurger Effect, which fortunately is curable, if so derired. Sadly, in my experience, most afflictees do not want to be cured because:
"I'm not an expert, but I know more than the people thought to be experts, like scientists who spend their lives studying it; I've gained this knowledge by following a few websites who have the truth not understood by most."
is much more comforting than:
"Some people know much lot more than I do on this topic, and it will take serious hard work to learn enough to have a useful opinion, especially since at least some of these people are smarter than I am."
Oil folks:
As best as I can tell, only a relatively small handful of anti-AGW folks are paid directly from oil companies, or indirectly via thinktanks or related family foundations. Far more people are anti-AGW for other extra-science reasons, which I could summarize as:
"If you jump out of a skyscraper, the laws of physics could care less about your politics."
John, to:
"It's too bad: I asked my usual questions to try to understand his experience, sources, and approach to learning ... and the response was insults and evasion of straightforward questions, and a very big chip on the shoulder, plus non sequitur comments about oil people."
Your usual questions? You treat others in that sort of high-handed manner? That you react to my pointing out your pompous behavior by shifting it to a chip on my shoulder is not surprising. Pompous folks by definition are unable to see themsleves in that light.
I am (obviously) new to this crowd and (also obviously) will not be reading any further, so you all can have a high old waste of time labelling me -- sorry, "him" -- a Libertarian(!), pretending you don't understand what I mean by the infancy of climate science, imagining what sort of [poor] teacher I must be, and the like.
I don't doubt the sincerity of your beliefs, even as you so keenly doubt mine, but as I am primarilty interested in the conflict of ideas since I left the reservation -- I used to be a true believer -- there is clearly none of that encouraged here. And "denialist"? How grade-school is that? That you folks have yet to mature past the point of implying those who dissent are akin to Holocaust deniers is an insult to so many people it's hard to know where to begin.
Elsewhere for me. It has not been fun.
"Elsewhere for me"
Do we have your word on that?
"It has not been fun."
indeed not
For any concerned trolls waiting in the wings to take up where George Michael
left off, I'll give you a few pointers.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
If you want to claim that 95+% of the people working in a hard science are wrong, that is EXTRAORDINARY. You are going to need some SHOCKING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
And by this, I don't mean shockingly bad, shockingly cherry picked or shockingly ignorant, I mean something along the lines of what the orbit of mercury was to the theory of general relativity. You need an alternate theory which explains reality vastly better than the one we have now.
Good luck with that by the way.
Hmmm, "true believer".
That sheds potential light on this case.
In trying to understand why people believe what they believe, I've discussed this with several friends who are psychology professors. Specifically, I asked about the observed behavior when someone:
A) Has a very strong belief in one direction.
B) For one reason or another flips to the other extreme, without being in the middle.
They said, look up "ambiguity tolerance" and "all-or-none personality". People vary strongly in their tolerance for ambiguity.
Some people are perfectly happy with:
.5 +/.2, or normal distribution around .6, with SD = .1.
error bars
statistical signifcance tests
Others need 0 or 1.
My friends say they've seen a few, rare cases where people oscillate between the two extreme views.
Someone new to a scientific topic outside their own expertise:
A. Can find out if there is a consensus among the relevant scientists, and just simply accept it, either out of faith in authority or simply by knowing that with modern science, whether it's right or wrong, it's usually our best approximation.
If accepted on faith, and that faith gets punctured, a person who leans towards all-or-none can easily switch to ardent anti-AGW. I've seen several like that.
B. Can recognize the consensus, but accept it only conditionally as very likely, and then spend a lot of time studying the topic, keeping a list of arguments and seeing how evidence arrives, and watching this over years to see whose arguments stand up or not.
For instance, after reading Fred Singer's books and watching his SEPP website over the years, and hearing Naomi Oreskes' discussions, I'd have no trouble labeling him a denialist. Likewise, anyone who keeps claiming that AGW isn't real because (Mars or Jupiter, or whatever) is getting warmer is a denialist.
I tend to only use the term "denialist" for:
- real people with real names
- who actively produce and disseminate disinformation on AGW
- whether they actually believe it not (because, there are some people who *have* to know better. For instance, if an ocean meteorologist says {sea level isn't rising - just look at the longest record, from Stockholm, which proves otherwise}, he has to know better (i.e., Fennoscandian Post-Glacial Rebound), and putting in an OpEd just means he's tryingto fool people. Denialist.
I personally prefer the term "denier" for someone who uses such arguments but is not actively involved, or is anonymous anyway (IUOUI). As best as I can tell, many such do not really know the science very well.
C. Of course, someone may harbor a general disbelief of science and scientists, or may have other non-science reasons for distrusting the scientific consensus here, or not being willing to actually study the science enough or listen to people who have. For some reason I don't quite understand, some people can look at the Great Wall and think that if one brick at the top jiggles, the whole thing falls down.
Obviously, this discussion can't go to any rational place with wmanny (especially as it confirms his style from RC), but I since I actually do ask people the sort of questions I listed, and sometimes have productive discussions, I'll try to summarize those in a later post.
"I am (obviously) new to this crowd and (also obviously) will not be reading any further, "
this is, of course, the first step in finding the weak spots in the arguments of those with whom one disagrees.
As always, AGW proponents have "beliefs", AGW doubters have "opinions". Yeah.
This is worth pointing out every time some wag uses the word "belief" to describe AGW.
Wmanny.
I know that you'll continue reading for at least a little while, so...
John once asked a similar question of me, and I was happy to supply the background to the subject (why I bother engaging trolls at all). If his questions confront you perhaps it is an indication of the state of your internal equilibrium on the subject, rather than of any pomposity on John's part. I find that John has a great deal of both knowledge and wisdom to offer on both the science of AGW, and the motivations of those who deny it, and your posts are as validly inspected as any others on Deltoid.
And I too use the term 'Denialist', because that is what these people are. The fundamental science behind green-house gas physics is indisputable: the only 'out' is sensitivity, and that is being more securely nailed all the time. I think that if you bothered to seriously enquire you'd find the AGW proponents here would welcome true dissent if it were based upon defensible science, but the amount of such endeavour is miniscule compared to the bulk of Denialist tripe that is paraded. Just bring the scientific and the statistical evidence to the table. It doesn't have to rely on the sincerity of anyone's beliefs; just on the science. Just as you said yourself a while back.
It simple, really.
And this is why you are having (at least, in your perception of it) a rough time. Elspi said it well - if you're going to make extraordinary claims, you need to bring extraordinary counters to the consensus. In spite of repeated Denialist attempts, this has yet to be done, and believe me that if it were the consensus would rapidly change - real scientists know how to assess the evidence, and (paranoid Denialist conspiracies aside) no scientist worth his salt is going to continue riding a bus if the wheels are falling off. Thus far attempts at a refutation of the AGW science have all come to grief.
If climate science is in its infancy, then so are many disciplines of biology. Genetics has been around for roughly the same period of time, but it grows in leaps and bounds with improved understanding and technology. Climate science is no different, and it is mendacious to claim otherwise.
You're obviously critical of the AGW case, and you recognise Monckton for the prating knave that he is. If you apply this scrutiny to the Denialist case as well then you may actually find yourself behaving more like a real sceptic, and then perhaps the truth will become more easily apparent...
And finally, as someone who has teaching qualifications and has taught at secondary school, in addition to two and a half decades working in several scientific disciplines and teaching at a tertiary level, I would ask you to be careful in how you engage your students in the science of AGW. I have a number of relatives and friends who are career science teachers, and whilst some of them are very good, not a one is actually a 'scientist', in spite of several genuinely thinking that they are, and telling folk as much.
I myself am especially careful in how I teach material outside of my disciplines of expertise: I can only say that it must be that much more difficult for someone who has no professional (or at least good practicing amateur) experience in scientific endeavour outside of a school. It is not really a circumstance where personal feelings or intuitions have a valid place - if you want to share these with your students you should predicate them with the observation that you are not actually qualified (academically or experientially) to dispute the science.
Or better still, don't say anything at all.
I am not saying that science teachers do not understand the basis of the sciences that they teach, but rather that to challenge the body of understanding requires a deeper experience of the scientific process than can be easily acquired by working as a teacher.
It is for this reason that I believe that just about all science teachers would be much better for the experience of having worked as 'true' scientists for at least five years before they teach.
I know that it made an enormous difference to my capacity to do so.
Straight out of the traditional science denialism playbook, used by creationists, HIV deniers, etc as well as our climate science ones.
And no matter what is being denied, when I see a statement such as this, one word immediately leaps to my mind:
"liar".
Oh, and we knew *exactly* what you were saying when you described climate science as being in its infancy, and we know *exactly* why it's a bullshit claim.
Just to set the record straight.
re: #40 Bernard J
Thanks for the kind words, and nice commentary on teaching.
1) Needless to say, the questions I asked didn't just originate with me. They come from:
a) Long history of having to calibrate audiences to use appropriate level of discussions of technical issues, going back ~30 years to university teaching.
b) Being asked similar questions myself by climate scientists.
c) Watching them respond to post-lecture questions, often of the form: "I hear you, but I'm still confused or have reservations. What should I do to learn more and be able to sort out the confusion?"
d) And of course, from personal experience in calibrating how much someone knows, someone jumped on a casual comment about Tahoe ski seasons & global warming with "There's no evidence whatsoever of global warming - it's all a hoax."
I asked how she knew, and got back
A: "I've studied it thoroughly."
I asked her if she could name her sources?
A: "I've studied it thoroughly."
I asked if she read science journals, talked to scientists, or attended lectures at Stanford [~30 minutes' drive].
A: "I've studied it thoroughly."
I asked if there were any particular pieces of evidence that would change her mind?
A: "She'd know them when she saw them, but they weren't there, because she'd studied the topic thoroughly."
re: #40 Bernard J
You might want to review Walter Manny's comments (and replies from other people) over at Real Climate. Perhaps this can be called "Victim bully" behavior or maybe it's something else that deserves a new term. I've given a few excerpts for flavor, but of course, one should read the whole sequences for context.
Searching RC for wmanny yields 4 threads:
A: May 08, Global Cooling-Wanna Bet?
B: May 13, The Global Cooling Bet - Part 2.
C: May 18, Climate Change and Tropical Cyclones (Yet Again).
D: May 21, How to cook a graph in three easy lessons.
Posts from wmanny include:
A:
May 9, #101, #109
May 10, #142, #144
May 11, #152, #177
May 12, #190, #193
May 13, #194, #208
Excerpts:
#101
"On the off chance, then, an observation: why would an escape clause be needed in the event of a volcanic eruption? Aren't all natural and anthropogenic projections, in the aggregate, included in models that purport to be good predictors?"
#109
"That's my point -- are the predictive models complete? And if not, what's the utility of any model that needs to be excused when natural events occur?"
#142
"Until we understand how all the various and chaotic climate forcings work, I am afraid we are mere climate alchemists. That greenhouse gas emissions are predictable is not a good excuse for making those emissions the overriding factor in models."
#144
"The Hansen piece, which predictions didn't pan out in any of the famous scenarios, demonstrates the difficulty of getting all the contributions right, though he would argue, and rightly so, that the science was in its infancy in '88. I would argue that it still is."
#152
"...once AGW is shown to be a trivial factor in the geological swing of things, the backlash will be strong. Were I a cynic, then, I might pretend to be a believer, but I prefer to shoot straight with my students and try to educate them about the myriad other reasons to behave in more sustainable ways. Most of them have been indoctrinated in AGW, but a minority could use some other incentives."
#177
"When Gore overstates the case in Myanmar, as another example, he does a huge disservice to the AGW cause, and those of us seeking cleaner energy for reasons aside from AGW can be heard gnashing our teeth in unison."
#190
"Gavin, I can understand why you might not decide to publish this first paragraph -- it would be embarrassing for you -- but for you to accuse me of taking my cues from a BMI "hatchet job" (I don't know what BMI is, by the way) is so unfair I almost don't know how to respond. I'm not sure what you think is to be gained by laying the "nonsense" bit on me. If you don't print the next part, though, I will know you are not sincere in what you say, and move on. I am sure NPR has the audio transcript if you want to listen yourself."
#193
"To Gore's statement, what can I say? You obviously did not listen to the audio transcript, and it appears you have no intention to do so and are relying on others to tell you what he said."
#194
"Neutral listeners! Well, you have the religion, and you can't talk someone out of that."
#208 THE PAYOFF
"Hmmm. I will say I am enjoying the process of letting my science colleagues in on this site's true colors regarding dissent! They have been telling me for years about RC's supposedly disinterested stance, and they have been surprised to learn otherwise."
B:
May 13, #13
May 17, #89
May 18, #105
#13
"I see the media in comfortable lockstep with AGW proponents"
#105
"103. Careful. Paradigm shifting. Dichlorine peroxide break-down rates not as previously understood. Science consensus being called into question, as invariably happens throughout the history of science. TBD whether Montreal has proven to have changed much."
C:
May 19, #37
#37 (about Miskolczi article mentioned in comments)
"To those of you interested in seeing the actual 43-page, peer-reviewed article and its citations, over and above the curt dismissals of gavin, "raypierre", and Nick Stokes, here is the link to the work itself:"
D:
May 22, #16, #59
#16
"Pierrehumbert unwittingly makes the point, I believe, that disagreement about what goes into the models (e.g. arguably unrealistic radiative forcing in Spencer's) is precisely why there is no consensus on the subject of AGW, media repetition of that insistence notwithstanding."
#59 THE PAYOFF REAFFIRMED
"Badly done, RayPierre, on the censorship, and once again I get to demonstrate to my AGW colleagues, who led me to your site to begin with, exactly how tolerant you are of dissent. You are evangelicals all, at this place, and I will miss some of it, but there are clearly more useful places to go to seek genuine disinterest, debate and actual conflict of ideas. I have learned what RC's true colors are, and it did not take as long as I thought it would."
====
If there's any doubt, one should go back and review these threads in context, including the (generally-patient) comments by RC editors.
Oops, note of course that Walter must have been listening to one of the BMI-hacked audios, as far as I can tell.
Google: bmi gore
would have quickly found the story.
Even if some think Monckton is wrong - or rather they think the scientists who support his views are wrong - the planet has been cooling for the last ten years. At last we are realising that anthropogenic CO2 is not the cause of recent global warming. That is a step in the right direction.
Correction...
Even if some think Monckton is wrong - or rather they think the scientists who support his views are wrong - we think the planet has been cooling for the last ten years. At last we are realising For decades we have been thinking that anthropogenic CO2 is not the cause of recent global warming which of course does not exist since it's recently cooling. That we think is a step in what we think is the right direction.
The person who added a "correction" to my comment refuses to identify himself but Lawrence Sterne had a profound response to him - "There is a worth in thy honest ignorance - t'were almost a pity to exchange it for knowledge"
Anthony Brookes writes:
No, it hasn't:
Tim Ball's errors
Tilo Reber's errors
What you are realizing and what people familiar with the real world are realizing appear to be two different things.
If the trolls do not tire of telling their lies, then it behoves us to not tire in refuting them...
Seriously, Anthony Brookes, if you think that the planet has been "cooling for the last ten years", please show your calculations demonstrating this.
You see, all of the statistical analyses that any competent person might complete show no cooling. Unless you have some magical database that has escaped the notice of the world's climate scientists you are going to have your nose rubbed in any number of analyses that contradict your claim.
Oh, and just out of curiosity, when you do your calculations, ask yourself also what trends emerge if you interrogate the last eleven years, or the last nine years, or the last thirty years, or fifty.
And ask yourself why you chose to mention "the last ten years" in the first place.
the planet has been cooling for the last ten years.
I call bullsh*t on this tired, long ago-refuted argument.
Let's put this to bed, please. Until the next recycling cycle.
Best,
D
Oops.
Better link. And a closed tag.
Since 1998 - That's ten years in my simple maths. I see other contributors are wanting to close this blog down which is usually the sign of having lost the argument. But there isn't much of an argument anymore. Most people are already downgrading from the expression 'global warming' to 'climate change' which gives them an honourable escape route. When politics takes hold of science it always leaves a nasty taste. Let's hope the changeover is gradual as no animosity is intended and there have been some quite eminent scientists on the pro-global warming track. The planet istself is now saying 'cool it'.
'Simple' being the operative word.
An important word in this context would be 'valid', but unfortunately it is not applicable...
Another correction...
Since 1998 - That's ten years in my simple maths. I see think other contributors are wanting to close this blog down which I think is usually the sign of having that I think they have lost what I think is the argument. But I think there isn't much of what I think is an argument anymore. Most people, I think, are already downgrading from what I think is the expression 'global warming' to what I think is 'climate change' which I think gives them what I think is an honourable escape route. When I think politics takes hold of science I think it always leaves what I think is a nasty taste. Let's I think we should hope that what I think will be the changeover is gradual as far as I think, as no animosity is intended and I think there have been some quite eminent scientists on the pro-global warming climate science track. The planet istself, the way I think about it, is now saying 'cool it'. Or so I think.
Well there are certainly some alarmists on this site. Like many, I first thought the concept of global warming from anthropogenic CO2 was a tenable hypothesis, but after reviewing so, so many, papers - I'm almost punch drunk from the volume of documents I have read - I have come down on the side of the realists. Also I have checked the credentials as far as possible of the scientists who have persuaded me, and more importantly have found that the pro-global warming scientists are heavily, one could almost say, totally funded by vested interests. That sets alarm bells ringing even before investigating the facts. I found so many errors were highlighted by the 'experts' and such a frequency of hyperbole that many ostensibly sensible people became convinced that anthropogenic CO2 was not only a certainty but confirmed to a scientific level of proof. Such is politics and it is great pity that so many have failed to see the political motives behind this movement. In due course the alarmists or the realists will be accepted as right. It is just that having spent so long investigating all the theories, their protagonists and their opponents, I have come down firmly that CO2 is irrelvant as a substantial global warming contributor. It will no doubt take a lot to convince the alarmists that they are mistaken - some may never accept this position. I though am happy that I have done all the homework necessary and have reached a logical and justifiable stance.
Anthony Brookes said: "I though am happy that I have done all the homework necessary and have reached a logical and justifiable stance".
Do you wear a clown suit all the time or only when discussing AGW?
Me (ok, I wasn't the first to say this): "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."
Anthony Brooks: "but after reviewing so, so many, papers - I'm almost punch drunk from the volume of documents I have read -"
Could you be a little more specific about all the papers you have read that those stupid climate scientists have missed/misunderstood. 'cause you are about one post from an
EPIC FAIL.
It's not that you haven't given us extraordinary evidence, you haven't given us ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL.
Anthony Brooks:
Here's a classical analogy of your previous three posts:
Lord Polonius: What do you read, my lord?
Hamlet: Words, words, words.
Lord Polonius: What is the matter, my lord?
Hamlet: Between who?
Lord Polonius: I mean, the matter that you read, my lord.
(Hamlet, II, ii, 191-195)
Or, if you prefer the modern version - in 4 words...
Where is your proof?
Wow, they're out in force recently.
Hey, Brooksie, don't you realize that science denialists of every subgenre uses EXACTLY THIS SAME ARGUMENT. It's a dead-giveaway that you're lying, know nothing of the science, and haven't studied shit.
We hear it from creationists ... "I used to believe in evolution until I started studying the science..."
We hear it from HIV denialists ... "I used to believe HIV causes AIDS until I started studying the science..."
And we JUST HEARD IT FROM YOU.
Please, trolls, brush up your act, find new material, you're as entertaining as the 100th showing of a Perry Mason episode on KPTV.
Bernard J in 53 refers to a link that has rotted.
The point is that Dano enjoys when the ignorant assert
when it was the head propagandist of the right, Frank Luntz, who suggested the phrase.
So Brookes has been duped and looks foolish. Don't feel bad, lad, you're at the end of a long, long line. I use this as an indicator for dupedness and credulity, as it never fails.
Best,
D
Why are so many Global warming alarmists foul-mouthed ? Is it a substitute for intellect ?
Anthony...you've just been challenged with prose from the bard. Please don't hide behind behind faux indignation, just answer the questionWhere is your proof?
"Why are so many Global warming alarmists foul-mouthed?"
This is what passes for evidence? (Never mind that I cannot see a swear word on the screen) This is not even a red herring as there isn't even a fish here.
Can you or can you not provide ANY EVIDENCE of your claims?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
(With apologies to whom I have ripped off)
D = "Denialist"
R= Receptionist
DH= Dhogaza
M= Mashey
D: Ah. I'd like to have an AGW debate, please.
R: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
D: No, I haven't, this is my first time.
R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one debate, or were you thinking of taking a course?
D: Well, what is the cost?
R: You have no idea.
D: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.
R: Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment.
Pause
R: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory. Ahh yes, Try Mr. Dhogaza; Room 12.
D: Thank you.
(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)
DH: WHAT DO YOU WANT?
D: Well, I was told outside that...
M: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
D: What?
M: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, denialist, maloderous, LIAR!!!
D: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN DEBATE, I'm not going to just stand...!!
M: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
D: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
M: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
D: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
M: Not at all.
D: Thank You.
(Under his breath) Stupid git.
(Walk down the corridor)
D: (Knock)
M: Come in.
D: Ah, Is this the right room for a debate?
M: There isn't one.
D: Yes there is.
M: No there isn't.
D: Yes there is.
M: No there isn't.
D: Is!
M: Isn't!
D: Is!
M: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute debate or the full half hour?
D: Oh, just the five minutes.
M: Ah, thank you. Anyway, the debate is over.
D: It most certainly is not.
M: Look, let's get this thing clear; it quite definitely is.
D: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is.
D: Isn't.
M: Is.
D: Isn't.
M: Is.
D: Oh look, this isn't a debate.
M: Yes it is.
D: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
M: No it isn't.
D: It is!
M: It is not.
D: Look, you just contradicted me.
M: I did not.
D: Oh you did!!
M: No, no, no.
D: You did just then.
M: Nonsense!
D: Oh, this is futile!
M: No it isn't.
D: I came here for a good AGW debate.
M: No you didn't; no, there IS no debate.
D: A debate isn't just contradiction.
M: Can be.
D: No it can't. A debate involves arguments connecting a series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
M: No it doesn't.
D: Yes it does! It's not just contradiction.
M: Look, if I were to debate you, I would have to take up a contrary position.
D: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
M: Yes it is!
D: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is!
D: Debate is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
M: No it isn't.
D: It is.
M: Not at all.
D: Now look.
M: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
D: What?
M: That's it. Good morning.
D: I was just getting interested.
M: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
D: That was never five minutes!
M: I'm afraid it was.
D: It wasn't.
M: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to debate any more. The debate is over.
D: What?!
M: If you want me to go on debating, you'll have to tell me what Nobel Prize winning scientists you know.
D: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh, come on!
M: (Hums)
D: Look, this is ridiculous.
M: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you're properly credentialed.
D: Oh, all right.
M: Thank you.
D: Well?
M: Well what?
D: AGW theory has a hole or two in it, eh?.
M: I told you, I'm not allowed to debate unless you tell me where you get your ideas.
D: I just said!
M: No you didn't.
D: I DID!
M: No you didn't.
D: Look, I don't want to debate that.
M: Well, you didn't.
D: Aha. If there's no debate, why are you debating? I've got you!
M: No you haven't.
D: Yes I have. If you're debating, there must be one.
M: Not necessarily. I could be debating in my spare time.
D: Oh I've had enough of this.
M: No you haven't.
apologies again. M needs to be DH in the appropriate section.
nothisrealname:
And your point is...?
Shorter version appears to be that if one is rude, the earth is flat.
Hey, dhgouza, what for are you making so nice with "Former Skeptic", who by your tight logic must be a liar -- "I used to be a skeptic, until I started studying the science."
nothisrealname:: Misapplying Monty python is a hanging offence.
The correct reference is the dead parrot sketch. You get to play the pet store owner. The reality based community get to play the John Clease character. You talk about the plumage and they RUDELY insist that the parrot is no more.
So once more with feeling:
Me: Can you or can you not provide ANY EVIDENCE of your claims?
(THIS IS AN EX-PARROT.... IF YOU HADN'T NAILED HIM TO THE PERCH, HE WOULD BE PUSHING UP THE DASIES....)
nothisrealname:: Why are you so rude
(You stunned him... He likes resting on his back...He is just pining for the fords)
Maybe from there you can segue into the black knight (trust me, you were born to play that roll).
"pro-global warming scientists are heavily, one could almost say, totally funded by vested interests."
and yet, once again, we see that the huge glaring and powerful fact(s) which has convinced the loyal opposition beyond all power to budge, is withheld from we poor suffering few; yet we are berated for our failure to see the light, at the same time as the existence of these giant uber-convincing facts is emphasized, but they are dangled just beyond our reach. oh, will the punishment never end!! i humbly hope someday to have earned the right to be considered worthy enough that i may also be shown the actual truth which has convinced those who have seen the light. someday, the truth of which climate scientists are bought and paid for by which vested interests will be mine I vow it!!
elspi, you're right. Dead Parrot more a propos. And, psst: Mine's better.
Cast: D: Denialist, PC: Correct Person
D: 'Ello, I wish to register an AGW complaint.
PC: We're closin' for lunch.
D: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this AGW theory what I purchased mere years ago from this very boutique.
PC: Oh yes, the, uh, the ever-rising, anthropogenically induced temperature...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
D: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. It're flat, that's what's wrong with it!
PC: No, no, 'it's uh,...it's resting.
D: Look, matey, I know a flat HadCRUT when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
PC: No no it's not flat, it's, it's restin'! Remarkable theory, the AGW, idn'it, ay? Beautiful HOCKEY STICK shape!
D: The hockey stick don't enter into it. It's stone flat.
PC: Nononono, no, no! 'It's resting!
D: All right then, if it's restin', I'll wake it up! (shouting at the graph) 'Ello, Mister HadCRUT! I've got a lovely fresh denialist for you if you show...
(owner splices the graph)
PC: There, it moved!
D: No, it didn't, that was you splicing the proxy!
PC: I never!!
D: Yes, you did!
PC: I never, never did anything...
D: (yelling and testing the graph repeatedly) 'ELLO GRAPH!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your skeptic testing!
(Takes graph out of the notebook and does statistical analysis.)
D: Now that's what I call a flat temperature.
PC: No, no.....No, 'it's stunned!
D: STUNNED?!?
PC: Yeah! You stunned it, just as it was warmin' up! Climates stun easily, major.
D: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That temperature has definitely pancaked, and when I bought into it a mere decade ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged AGW rise.
PC: Well, it's...it's, ah...probably pining for the bristlecones.
D: PININ' for the BRISTLECONES?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did it fall flat on its back the moment I got bought it?
PC: The climate prefers kippin' on its back! Remarkable climate, id'nit, squire? Lovely hockey stick!
D: Look, I took the liberty of examining that hockey stick when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been turning so abruptly in the first place was that it had been NAILED there.
PC: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that graph down, the tempurature would have risen even more sharply, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!
D: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this graph wouldn't "voom" if you put a hundred billon tons of CO2 in the air! Your theory is bleedin' demised!
PC: No no! It's pining!
D: It's not pinin'! 'Its passed on! This theory is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed that graph down, AGW'd be be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now 'istory! It's off the twig! It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off it's mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-THEORY!!
depp=true
notiz=[Do not change your name to avoid kill files]
If it's so blatantly obvious that the climate scientists are backing the global warming theory due to vested interests, then why haven't Monckton et al. sued Gore and Hansen yet?
All the 'skeptics' here should petition them to go ahead and sue, just like they kept saying they would!
:) </plug>
Anthony Brookes.
You have, according to your own admission, "done your homework".
You will therefore be able to supply, off the cuff, the references (and whatever other sources you used) to do your homework. Go on, please substantiate your claim that:
Now, little troll, Not later... now.
Anthony Brookes writes:
And your qualifications to do so are what? You've taken courses in radiation physics and atmosphere physics, have you? Tell me, when did carbon dioxide cease to be a greenhouse gas?
"Why are so many Global warming alarmists foul-mouthed ? Is it a substitute for intellect?"
Easily answered. One's vituperative, humorless aspects rise to the surface when a cherished belief begins to be challenged, or worse, refuted by evidence. How DARE you disagree with that which I hold so sacred? Sure, science is skepticism, not belief, but too many insistists are naturally reluctant, because they are human, to examine for even a moment the inking of a thought that their cherished theory, which in many cases supports their careers, may be.... wrong. I do sympathize.
Here's one to watch: Wait until the next uptick in global temperatures arrives, as it must, and you will find that all the indignance concerning the insignificance of recent flattening, will dissipate into thin - excuse me - thick air. Only upward trends count, but on the off chance that temperatures keep trending marginally down for another decade or more, then we will discover that - surprise - AGW has caused AGC. I'm sure the groundwork is already being laid for that switcheroo. Probably why, among other reasons, we are instructed to refer to Climate Change rather than Global Warming.
AGW, like all theories-become-religions, is here to stay.
depp=true
notiz=[Do not change your name to avoid kill files]
Ahhh, this explains the hatred spewed forth on denialist sites by libertarians and other right-wingers whose cherished belief in the free market and individualism is threatened by scientific understanding of the costs of unfettered destruction of our planet's resources.
Thanks you so much for clearing this up.
"Climate Change" was coined by conservative Republicans who wanted a less threatening spin phrase to replace Global Warming.
It's classic that not only do you not know the science, you don't even know who coins denialist phraseology.
Oh, hi, dhogaza, lovely to see you. I thought you had disappeared when I called you out on your unidirectional mind-reading of who is a 'liar'. No matter. I notice you are still like a dog on a bone with 'denialist', too. Temper, temper. So angry, so threatened. So... humorless.
In any event, those IPCC types (nee IPGW, right?) must truly be cowed by those nasty right-wingers insisting they use proper terminology. Right-wingers like Tom Friedman, say. (Today: "Remember: climate change means 'global weirding,' not just global warming." 8/4: "...climate change deniers...") Please. Anyway, relax, your side is winning big. We skeptics - damn it, forgot myself - we denialist loonies are mere voices in the wilderness.
depp=true
notiz=[Do not change your name to avoid kill files]
nothisrealname.
My acceptance of AGW is most definitely not cherished, and I eagerly await a challenge or a refutation with evidence. The thing is, you and your ilk do not come up with scientifically credible evidence - it's as simple as that.
And if you expect to be showered in cherry-blossom petals and rose-water for the kindergarten ideas that most denialists proffer, well, you can hardly expect to be treated with kid-gloves.
Oh, and as I have said numerous times before, nothing beats a rabid, extreme-conservative denialist for potty-mouthing. Anyone who has half a clue about the blogosphere would know this.
Crikey, another who subscribes to a Great Scientific Conspiracy. You really have no idea how science is conducted, do you?
Or are you actually just covering your own bum for when the thermometer goes north?
And I presume that you have conducted the survey that shows how many scientists hold on to their 'cherished beliefs' for career reasons? Or perhaps you have references to such?
Any yet you wonder why folk such as yourself often have invective directed at them...
"Any yet you wonder why folk such as yourself often have invective directed at them..."
Precisely wrong. I know wherefore the invective flies, as I have pointed out, and I find it both predictable and amusing. As to your dreamy observation, "it's as simple as that," well, wouldn't that be nice! It would be as though the debate were over. Oh, swearword, I forgot - the debate IS over!
And to the potty-mouths on this site, or is there only one: please mark Bernard and stop mimicking those "rabid, extreme-conservative denialists". I mean, really, to stoop to their level. Tch, tch.
depp=true
notiz=[Do not change your name to avoid kill files]
If the truth hurts, perhaps you should reconsider your science denialist, ideologically driven, refusal to face reality, point of view.
Oh, and as to my kindergarten ideas, you forgot, "Nyah, nyah." Or, perhaps, "I know you are, but what am I." But who am I to advise you on which name-calling you prefer.
depp=true
notiz=[Do not change your name to avoid kill files]
It's interesting that our troll hasn't actually brought any *facts* to the table ...
Well, the very term "trend" implies "statistically significant" in science, so there's actually only one trend over the last 150 years, and that trend happens to be upwards.
The trend - as the word is used in science - isn't down over the past decade, and sure, when La Niña's effect comes to an end, the resulting uptick will fit the long-term trend.
If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with statistics, which means you have a probability, which means ...
I'd dearly love to play poker with you.
Good God man get back on your meds.
Oh, I see. Bog the thread down in mock-indignation and petulance.
At the risk of an "oo-er" in response (since apparently our language has to decend to that level, on the heels of the denialist capacity for science)... I smell trollshit. John and Marion will be shaking their heads in chagrin that we've ever given your trolling the time of day.
How about you get back to the science, and exactly where it is wrong, or to stay on-topic, where Monckton is right and where climate scientists are wrong.
You've danced, pranced and prattled around here a lot nameless troll, but your science has been underwhelming.
nothisrealname seems to think his lame and snarky bit of plagiarism is smart and funny.
It's not.
To nothisrealname,
"Precisely wrong. I know wherefore the invective flies, as I have pointed out, and I find it both predictable and amusing."
No, you asserted that Bernard gets uppity when his cherished ideas are challenged. He provided you with an explanation for the real cause of his annoyance, yet you still seem to want to talk about what you think is really going on in his head, so much for the heartfelt condemnation of "uni-directional mind reading".
So far you've made one clear assertion that has no basis: that AGW is an ex-theory.
Besides the statistically insignificant 10 year temperature trend do you have any evidence to show? You've been asked plainly for evidence and have responded by changing the subject.
Dear Gang:
Sorry for the delay - I was catching up on some greenhouse footprint reading and making myself even stupider. Thanks, though, while I was away, for making my points for me ad nauseum re. humorlessness and name-calling. I especially enjoyed Luminous' parody of herself or himself: "It's not." Oh. Shoot, and all my friends thought I WAS smart and funny, but I guess they're not terribly bright themselves. And the plagiarism! I can't believe I sunk so low as to try to pass the Pythons' work off as my own. I am ashamed. I knew I shouldn't have tried to match wits with youse guys. Soon, one of you sleuths will make another discovery about me.
Notice, however, for all that you disapprove of my prattling attempts at irony, you just can't leave it alone. Try it. Just ignore me. Don't respond. If I'm the moron (or troll) you pretend to think I am, why lower yourselves? John and Marion seem to be able to remain elevated. Nevertheless, I'm just as entitled to my opinions as you are, and I am no more obliged to lay out chapter and verse of where my reading has led me than you are to name yours, especially in an advocacy blog such as this one. Please, ignore me. I have nothing to say.
depp=true
notiz=[Do not change your name to avoid kill files]
"One's vituperative, humorless aspects rise to the surface when a cherished belief begins to be challenged, or worse, refuted by evidence. "
alternately, the hundred and third time somebody smugly enlightens you that "in countries other than the US, what the US calls soccer is called football" or something equally profound and novel, the basc evolutionary urge to improve the species' gene pool by removing these defective specimens rises to such a peak that it cannot be ignored without sublimating it into some verbal form.
Blah, blah, blah... I am no more obliged to lay out chapter and verse of where my reading has led me than you are to name yours...blah, blah, blah.
You see, the thing is, when I read the threads on deltoid I see repeated examples of extensive references and links to properly peer-reviewed science, provided by those 'advocates' that you seem to so despise.
We're still waiting for your science though...
Well, Bernard, you made it until 11:15 anyway, before you couldn't resist the urge to throw in another frustrated response to some idiot who has no idea what he is talking about. For what it's worth, I do not 'despise' the advocates - I disagree with them, nay, party with them. Funny how disagreement and disrespect are so often conflated. I do hope you are reading threads other than this one; there are blogs out there which manage to adhere to a far more civil and inviting tone. Rightly or wrongly, probably the latter, I have not adhered to that tone here. Respectful discourse seems somehow out of place. Anyway, must go - gotta get back on my meds.
Z, sorry I could not follow your soccer/football analogy, though it would appear you are manfully fighting the urge to kill me, so as to upgrade our gene pool. Soldier on, but probably best for you to ignore me as well, much though I admire your intellect.
depp=true
notiz=[Do not change your name to avoid kill files]
Wow, nothisrealname is so much clearer without the vowels. Maybe if we remove the consonants too, and just leave the punctuation, he will be coherent.
"Personal atttacks on other commenters will be disemvowelled."
You mean, of course, personal attacks directed in a particular direction, right? It's OK to attack denialists and trolls, in other words.
depp=true
notiz=[Do not change your name to avoid kill files]
Also, you forgot to retro-censor #65, #66, and #69. Get on it before I begin to suspect you are tolerant of dissent!
depp=true
notiz=[Do not change your name to avoid kill files]
s clvr!
re: #24, #42 [I said I'd explain more, it got long, sorry]
I often ask the sorts of questions in #24 and I gave some more background on where they came from in #40, i.e., synthesized from watching experts try to help people (like me) learn.
This puts the questions back in one place, with some plausible Replies, further Answers, and side Comments.
WHAT SOURCES DO YOU USE FOR LEARNING ABOUT AGW? WHICH DO YOU TRUST?
R1: I read websites and blogs.
A1: Can you say which ones?
C: As in #42, if someone won't even answer this, it's a Very Bad Sign that they are mostly reading and trusting non-science blogs.
R2: Newspapers, and popular press. What else should I read?
A2: Unfortunately, these often get it wrong, either in over-interpreting or exaggerating the science or in denying it, depending on the paper and the editor/reporter. A few, like Andy Revkin of the NYTimes, are pretty good.
For more depth see
RealClimate's Start Here. Read the science websites RC lists especially, which will give you the mainstream science view supported by almost all climate scientists and scientific societies.
You can use RC to keep up with current discussions, and you might sample the blogs mentioned. At some point, you should canvas the opposing views (see end), but get a good grounding on the scientific consensus first. You might watch Naomi Oreskes' video American Denial of Global Warming as background both for the science and then the earliest attempts against it.
As in RC, at some point, you will want to go look at the IPCC, if only the 20-page Summary for Policymakers, but for more depth, the Technical Summary, and then the full report. It's all online, although if you really want to get serious, at some point, buy at least the first volume of AR4, and then if really, really serious, the other volumes.
R3: How about Wikipedia?
A3: Wikipedia actually has some good articles, but as usual, it's not a definitive reference, but a quick way to get started. I'd certainly prefer the various science organization's websites.
a) DO YOU ATTEND LECTURES BY REAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS?
R1: no, how would I do that? And why?
A1: It depends on where you live.
If you're *really, really* lucky, you live near enough a university or institute that has active research in climate (& energy). Such places frequently offer public talks by local faculty and expert visitors.
If you're lucky, you live near enough a good college that at least has visiting speakers.
At the least, after a bit of rummaging on their website, you can usually find someone to email:
"I'm trying to learn more about climate change. Does the university have any public talks on such?"
Quite often, even if a talk isn't advertised as public, you can ask someone if it's OK to come.
(Sometimes, if somebody says where they live, I may know a specific relevant school. Of course, if they're near my part of the SF Bay Area, it's trivial, since Stanford has so many events on environment & energy by world-class speakers they sometimes get in each other's way.)
Some {universities, institutes, scientific societies} offer outreach programs and will send speakers for local schools or civic groups.
Live talks are really valuable, even if you don't ask questions yourself. Hearing others' questions and speakers' answers can be very instructive.
However, if you live too far away, at least the Web can bring you videos and podcasts.
b) Do you have (or have had) personal contact & discussion of this topic with {top-notch real scientists; I gave some labels one might expect of such}?
b) DO YOU HAVE (OR HAVE HAD) PERSONAL CONTACT & DISCUSSION OF THIS TOPIC WITH {TOP-NOTCH REAL SCIENTISTS}?
I mentioned some helpful labels one might see.
R1: no, how would I do that? and why?
A1: see a) above, but you can add other meetings or lectures where climate is not the primary topic. This is obviously easier in some places that others, but for understanding how scientists work, and who is competent, it really helps to meet some.
Given a sometimes-contentious topic, it is valuable to figure out:
a) how much *you* actually know so far and
b) who the real experts are. This is not always trivial, as even fine scientists (including a few Nobel winners) can go off the rails into topics where they don't know much. This occasionally happens around retirement time, although many scientists keep doing good work for many years after. I.e., scientists are human.
Ideally, you want people who have a research publication track record in climate science, in peer-reviewed journals (see later), or some demonstration beyond their own claims that real science recognizes them.
C: Exposure to top people makes it much harder to be afflicted by Dunning-Kruger, i.e., in which less competent people overrate their own competence and have difficulties rating others' competence. It is always easy for people to think they know more they do, but any contact with top people helps one calibrate better. [For instance, once upon a time I thought I was a pretty good programmer, until I started working with some incredible ones :-)]
c) ARE YOU A MEMBER OF ANY RELEVANT SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES?
R1: No, how would I do that? and why?
(US answer):
A1: Join AAAS, if only for a year. You do *not* have to be a scientist to be a member.
A professional membership costs $146; K-12 teacher gets it for $99.
You can see what they think is important and how they work. You get 51 issues of Science magazine per year.
Even joining AAAS for one year may be useful. You can see what's going on and how things work.
d) DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO ANY SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS?
(US answer):
One might start with Scientific American, SciAm, not a peer-reviewed *journal*, but written for an educated general audience.
If that's OK for you, then try c) above, joining AAAS and getting Science. The first half of each issue has news, editorials, perspectives, reviews that are accessible to someone who reads SciAm.. Also, you get access to the website, so you can look at past articles.
The second half has primary research reports written by scientists for other scientists in their field ... but quite likely almost incomprehensible to anyone else. I see many articles in which I give up after one sentence. Don't worry about it.
Nature is the other primo science journal. It costs $199/year.
Many local libraries carry Science and Nature.
e) DO YOU READ ANY PRIMARY RESEARCH LITERATURE IN THE FIELD?
R1: What's that?
A1: That's the Real Stuff, i.e., peer-reviewed research in credible journals. Journals vary in their credibility and "impact factor" - getting an important article in Science, Nature, or the key journals of major professional societies is a big win for a researcher. Getting one in Energy&Environment or Journal for Scientific Exploration isn't ... which shows that journal titles can be quite confusing.
Obviously, you have to be getting serious to be doing this very often, but sometimes it can really help understand how science is done, how scientists write, and how the work builds. Also, it is instructive to compare actual research papers with press releases and comments on blogs, as all too often, the paper is filled with caveats and restrictions that get lost. Fortunately, you need not subscribe to everything in sight, as people do often have copies up on their websites.
Most people will not go this deep, but anyone who wants to seriously challenge {almost all climate scientists and scientific societies, US National Academy, Royal Society, AAAS, etc} should be doing this regularly, which means not only reading Science/Nature, but likely joining the AGU and reading journals there, at least.
f) HAVE YOU READ ANY BOOKS ON THIS?
R1: No, where do I start?
A1: Sooner or later, if you really want to get deply into this, you'll want to read the IPCC's AR4, which is not primary research, but is a compendium and analysis of the large body of primary research.
There are many good books, but my favorite starting point is by Bill Ruddiman, who I'd call "a scholar and a gentleman":
William F. Ruddiman, "Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum", ~$12 at Amazon, including review of mine.
It is very clearly-written and easily accessible to non-experts, pulls together many different factors. it carefully delineates between hypotheses and theories (in the way scientists use the terms), and shows how the first starts to become the second, or disappears.
Chapter 18 on "Global-Change Science and Politics" is a calm, insightful discussion of the issues, one of the best I've seen.
I've given away half a dozen of these to help people get started.
g) HAVE YOU EVER PARTICIPATED IN PEER-REVIEW AS AN AUTHOR, REVIEWER, OR EDITOR?
R1: No, why? and what's this Peer Review stuff anyway?
A1: Peer Review is one hurdle a paper must pass before it gets printed in a credible journal. The author submits the paper, and if it gets past the editor, is sent to a few (anonymous) referees, relevant experts. Each sends in a verdict ranging from Accept to Reject, with various intermediates possible. They can suggest changes. They can be scathing. Stronger journals accept only a small fraction of submitted papers.
This is necessary, but not sufficient - think of an acceptance as saying:
"We think this is worth looking at, and it might be important, and it's not obviously wrong"
rather than
"We're sure this is right."
The real worth of research only shows up over years. Good work tends to get referenced often, and later papers build on or modify earlier results. Other work may never get referenced, or may propose something that gets refuted quickly, and then drops from sight.
As Stephen Schneider says (paraphrased):
There is 1) well-established science, 2) there are things for which there are still competing explanations, and 3) there is speculation.
Scientists spend a lot of time arguing about the third, and especially the second category. They don't argue much about the first, they just assume it. Real scientific controversies are clear, for instance, during the decades-long fight over the existence of continental drift.
If a new paper claims to demolish anything important in the first well-established category:
that could be a scientist's (Nobel?) dream!
but usually, the new paper is wrong. It may take a while to figure out why.
A more likely event is that a scientist generates a new explanation for existing data. Quite often the explanation may be wrong, gets refuted, or fails to get enough confirmation to turn a hypothesis into a well-accepted theory. But sometimes, it's good enough to get serious study, and perhaps with modifications, gains support. For example, Ruddiman's several hypotheses are in that process, i.e., you can watch science in progress there. With enough data, people often discover mysterious new cyclic explanations ... that fall apart when the next period's data arrives. Occasionally, real cycles appear, as via Milankovitch.
Science is like the Great Wall of China, built brick-by-brick, and sometimes brickwork at the top turns out to be bad, and is torn down, but that lower down gets like steal I-beams. Even if one brick gets wobbly or appears not to fit, the whole Wall doesn't suddenly fall down.
[Fortunately, science is unlike software, where some one-line change in source code may cause an OS to crash and lose everything :-)]
Peer-review doesn't guarantee correctness or importance, although strong journals try very hard, as their reputation depends on minimizing bad mistakes and providing important results.
Be careful of non-peer-reviewed material that contradicts the body of per-reviewed work. It's OK to write OpEds, whitepapers, letters to editors, but if that material contradicts the peer-reviewed literature, it's a potential red flag, especially when produced by a scientist writing outside their own domain. If a scientist could write a good paper disproving a major consensus, it would go to Science or Nature, not as an OpEd in a newspaper or a whitepaper on some thinktanks' website.
h) CAN YOU SAY ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR BACKGROUND IN PHYSICS AND STATISTICS?
This question is intended to guide the level of further discussion. A typical answer might be:
R1: Not much, rusty high school physics, no formal statistics.
A1: High school physics (and chemistry) are just fine.
On statistics, it's more important to be able to defend yourself from bad statistics than to be a statistics expert.
Read the classic little book by Darrell Huff, "How to Lie with Statistics", and maybe add Gerald Everett Jones' "How to Lie with Charts". Learning to quickly recognize "cherry-picking" is worth a lot.
However, just knowing a few things will help a lot in avoiding confusion on AGW, especially the endless arguments about whether the Earth is warming/cooling this week, this year, the last 10 years, whatever.
While we have reasonable measurements of the Earth's surface temperatures, most of the extra heat from the Greenhouse Effect is actually in the oceans, where it's harder to measure. See the bathtub analogy.
The Earth's surface temperatures form a *very noisy time series*. The variation from {night-to-day, day-to-day, month to month, year-to-year, and even decade-long periods} is greater than the overall trend, and it takes 20-30 years to get statistical significance. RC has some good analyses, but tamino's "Open Mind" blog has many fine examples of good statistical analyses of climate data. It's really important to know that real trends aren't obtained by drawing a line between the first point and the last point, which human eyes do naturally. One has to do *regression analysis* and with non-cherry-picked data.
It makes very little sense for the general public to get excited about short-term jiggles. Scientists don't, unless something happens that looks like it might be the start of a departure from an existing trend, not just noise. For instance, the large Summer 2007 Arctic ice melt might have been a random jiggle, or it might be the start of a new trend. It's to know for sure yet.
Day-traders may spend their lives watching minute-by-minute jiggles in stock prices. Warren Buffet doesn't.
R: BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER SIDE?
A: The Oreskes and Ruddiman pieces give some background. But, you can go to ClimateAudit, check the blogs under BlogRoll, or
Google: global warming hoax
For sure, try Kristen Byrne's ponderthemaunder, a 15-year-old's proof that AGW is all wrong, and often refrenced by some people.
After you have some grounding in mainstream climate science, to be sure, spend some time looking at {skeptics, contrarians, denialists, whatever term is appropriate}.
It takes some experience to sort out science from non-science, especially when faced with nice-looking graphs and equations. I used to have fun reading (now-deceased) John daly's "Still Waiting for Greenhouse", as he had panache and nice pictures, at least.
It is especially valuable to pick a few sites or authors and see how their views change over time (years). Real scientists normally provide measures of uncertainty that tend to get refined (narrowed) over time with new data, and to be cautious.
But, some people keep the same bottom line ("No regulation of CO2" or "No regulation of anything"), but the reasons keep changing, or new data is simply ignored. It is very easy for a first encounter to look reasonable, and credible, until you see it in sequence. Over years, a common sequence is:
There is no global warming
Well, maybe there is, but it's not caused by humans
Well, even if it's caused by humans, it's good for us
It would cost too much to fix
And it's too late anyway
For example, check out Fred Singer's website, www.sepp.org, and read his two books ("Hot Talk Cold Science, and "Unstoppable Global Warming - every 1500 years." The most sophisticated anti-AGWer is probably political scientist Bjorn Lomborg, so you might try "Cool It!", but then read Things Break comments.
Finally, I find John Cook's website Skeptical Science invaluable. It list frequently-reused, but long-debunked wrong arguments, each with a clear webpage explaining the argument, the errors, examples of usage, and pointers to backup in the scientific literature. It can be a good exercise to go through some article with this available. I've found short articles that managed to cram in a dozen errors. The list is not exhaustive, but certainly covers the most common wrong arguments.
R: I'M STILL SKEPTICAL
A: OK, classical skepticism is good. But (classic) skeptics, as most scientists are, commonly evaluate a proposition by weighing the evidence for and against it, and offer measures of uncertainty. They also look hard at data that seems to be contradictory, as that data may either reveal something really new or it may be in error. A good discipline is to say:
Proposition X is the consensus position of the people who spend their lives doing it. I don't take that on faith, because they could be wrong, but of course, in modern science, if there's anything even close to a consensus, it's likely the best bet, and if disproved, will likely be done by a professional, not an amateur.
Still, here is my working list of things that cause doubts. I'll add to the list as new ones arise, I'll study ones I don't understand to see if there's an explanation already there, and I'll see if new data, or new explanations arise, and see what happens.
So for instance: a few years back, #1 on the list (it was, for me) might have been:
Satellites and balloons don't seem to agree close enough with surface stations
And then errors were identified in the satellite computations.
If someone cannot identify their top 5-10 concerns specifically, but just knows AGW is wrong, and cannot identify what would change their minds, that's not classic skepticism, it's something else.
NOW, THAT BRINGS US BACK TO VISCOUNT MONCKTON
As an exercise for the reader, which of Cook's list of wrong arguments does he manage to get into the second paragraph after "The Context", i.e., the one starting "The models..."?
John, graciously offered, and I'll give it another shot now that I know more about where you are coming from.
WHAT SOURCES DO YOU USE FOR LEARNING ABOUT AGW? WHICH DO YOU TRUST?
R1: I read websites and blogs.
These days, RC and CA, primarily, though I follow threads around like any other surfer. You have explored my rookie attempts to engage on RC, out of context to be sure, but I admit I was not prepared for the animosity and censorship I encountered there, was baited, responded badly, and I now simply read. Both sites preach to their own choirs, and I don't trust either one per se. I also admit I admire the tone of CA more - RC positively snarls - but my evolving bias informs that comfort level, to be sure.
R2: Newspapers, and popular press. What else should I read?
I don't believe much that I read in papers, for obvious reasons.
[your section about using RC and Wikipedia]
I would say RC is a terrible place to go for someone who wants to learn. It is Mann's and Schmidt's advocacy site, and while admire the courage of their convictions, you need to share those convictions to participate. That said, it is a vital piece of the puzzle.
I don't allow my students to use Wikipedia, and would never consult it myself. Its shortcomings are notorious.
To the IPCC report, I would recommend reading the summary last, not first - the summary is politicized. Granted, it's heavy sledding, though more so for lay readers such as myself.
a) DO YOU ATTEND LECTURES BY REAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS?
In addition to attending lectures, while I have been able to hear visitors to my school (Holdren most recently), and I can get to the Cary Institute every so often, it is possible to listen and read on-line as well as see the videos and pods you mention.
b) DO YOU HAVE (OR HAVE HAD) PERSONAL CONTACT & DISCUSSION OF THIS TOPIC WITH {TOP-NOTCH REAL SCIENTISTS}?
I have answered this, not to your satisfaction, in the affirmative. Personal contact is personal, and I will not share it on this or any other site, especially insofar as it is ongoing. I agree that such contact is very useful indeed, though it should not be a requirement for anyone who wants to learn.
c) ARE YOU A MEMBER OF ANY RELEVANT SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES?
No. I am a calculus and English teacher. I am a relatively intense and skeptical reader on AGW, but it is an avocation only. Were I still a physics teacher, that would change.
e) DO YOU READ ANY PRIMARY RESEARCH LITERATURE IN THE FIELD?
As much as I can, but I am lucky to have free access through my library and science colleagues. Again, heavy sledding for the untrained eye, or partially-trained eye such as mine.
f) HAVE YOU READ ANY BOOKS ON THIS?
IPCC reports only.
g) HAVE YOU EVER PARTICIPATED IN PEER-REVIEW AS AN AUTHOR, REVIEWER, OR EDITOR?
No.
h) CAN YOU SAY ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR BACKGROUND IN PHYSICS AND STATISTICS?
BSEE, high school physics teacher for three years. BC Calc. teacher. Weak on stats.
R: BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER SIDE?...
i) [my suggestion] DO YOU ACTIVELY SEEK OUT OPPOSING POINTS OF VIEW AND KEEP AN OPEN MIND?
Here, I would suggest avoiding strawmen such as Byrne and Monckton. Most of your suggestions are clearly geared towards making sure a novice reader does not take skeptics too seriously. I would make a different suggestion, somewhat analogous to the one I make to my students: do your own reading, don't accept at face value anything that I tell you, that dad and mom tell you, that your bio teacher tells you... Take over the process of your own education. Trust your instincts and then dig hard to discover what is informing those instincts and let the evidence take you where it will.
NOW, THAT BRINGS US BACK TO VISCOUNT MONCKTON
Monckton's an ass. Oops, after all that, an ad hominem!
John, thank you, and if you have the time, can you lay out your answers to the above questions or refer me to where you have already done so?
It's revealing that wmanny prefers the tone of a site in which an entire field of science is routinely accused of fraud and dishonesty. Apparently he thinks it is civil and well-mannered to do so.
Pffft. Obviously any science site is going to advocate science. Are you saying you don't share that conviction, truth over dishonesty? I can't take anyone seriously who proposes CA as a source of objective information. McIntyre's dishonesty ought to be visible to anyone with a junior high school introduction to science.
Walter Manny of Millbrook:
I'm out of bandwidth for long comments for the next couple days, but I'd suggest in the meantime:
a) Note that RC's START HERE mostly leads to websites of scientific organizations, many of which are more accessible than IPCC.
b) Consider watching Oreskes' video, noting that she is an award-winning geoscientist/science historian. I wish I could also point at the next video, about the Western Fuels Association, but that isn't up yet.
c) Really, really consider getting Ruddiman's book. Many people have found it very useful.
d) And for sure, if Stephen Schneider comes by that way again (he was at Vassar within last year), try to attend.
(more next week).
John Mashey [of where?]:
I will await your return, then. Oreskes believes there is scientific consensus, and that the majority of the American public understands that. Well, yeah, who doesn't? I don't need an introduction to all that or her "Science" study and follow-up, so we can skip it. If you are interested, I would prefer to engage in discussion about what is commonly referred to as a slagheap of recyled and easily dismissed concerns and alternative ideas put forward by the legitimate skeptic community, if you think there is one. If you already believe that there are no reasonable concerns about AGW theory that need examining, please let's end before we begin. If not, I would request that you answer your own questionnaire or direct me to where you have previously done so, and then we can start.
wmanny:
That's not what Oreskes' video is about. It is about proven frauds who moved into the global warming denialism business. Aren't you interested in knowing who the proven frauds are?
wmanny
The majority of scientists believe that there is scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Heck, this is practically a tautology.
If you are privy to information that indicates that a majority of scientists do not believe that there is a consensus, please share.
I'd be very interested to know whom or what you define as a legitimate sceptic community and, conversely, whom or what you define as a non-legitimate sceptic community.
My impression is that the two bodies are confused or conflated by many who subscribe to the denialist line of thought, which works only to the harm of true sceptical enquiry.
If wmanny is still out there:
I'm still working on this, it just got long.
Re: 102 wmanny (Walter Manny)
This long essay GREW from a dialog in the thread above into something that may be a more general resource than just some answers to Mr. Manny.
There are 3 PARTs so far:
PART 1 MOTIVATION & APPROACH TO SCIENCE
PART 2 RELEVANT PERSONAL BACKGROUND
PART 3 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS, SOURCES
PART 1 MOTIVATION & APPROACH TO SCIENCE
1.1 WHY THIS?
I'm always curious when people with decent-or-better educational backgrounds *strongly* espouse conclusions directly opposite that of mainstream science. Is the mainstream wrong? Have they not yet done sufficient study? Or are there extra-science reasons?
Walter Manny teaches Calculus & English (since 1996) at Millbrook School, which seems a nice prepatory school in a lovely rural area ~90 miles North of New York City.
As I owe much to fine high school teachers, especially of math, science, and history, I was curious that a Yale-educated teacher at a credible school, would take such a strong position as Mr. Manny does, including evident contempt for serious climate scientists. Hence, I asked the usual sorts of questions.
When wmanny disappeared for a while, but "nothisrealname [Do not change your name to avoid kill files]" appeared, it seemed unlikely that an English teacher would write that way, but certainly the obvious idle speculation arose.
In any case, Mr Manny answered my set of questions, mostly, and asked for my answers, which appear in PART 3. This PART gives necessary general background, and my relevant background appears in PART 2.
1.2 IDEAS, HYPOTHESES, THEORIES IN SCIENCE
To paraphrase Stanford Professor Stephen Schneider, in any scientific discipline, ideas can be roughly categorized as:
(S3) Some things are well-established - strong proof is required to overturn [strong theory]
(S2) Some things (especially measured effects) have competing explanations. [hypotheses]
(S1) Some things are speculation. [ideas]
S3 includes:
(a) simple statements
(b) statements about probability distributions of some measured or projected quantity, often expressed with confidence intervals. Many people are far more comfortable with single numbers than distributions, and are n ot accustomed to error bars on measaurements.
Sometimes, S2 hypotheses gain strength because new measurements shrink confidence intervals small enough that competing hypotheses can be ruled out.
EXAMPLE: (a) cigarette smoking increases the risk of disease, now sufficiently understood in the US that few adults start smoking. (b) Numerous studies provide statistical measures of the likelihood of developing various diseases. Of course, controlled lab experiments on humans are not feasible.
EXAMPLE: (a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the recent increase in CO2 is substantially due to human activities, (b) The temperature sensitivity to doubling CO2 (from 280ppm to 560ppm) is believed to be in range ~1.5C to ~4.5C, not exactly 3C.
While some technical disciplines allow/require exact yes/no answers, this is rare among complex observational disciplines for which simple lab experiments or mathematical proofs do not exist. Natural scientists in particular require subtantial *ambiguity tolerance*.
People new to a specific topic are often confused by fierce arguments on S2 or S1 and think they are about S3, especially if just reading abstracts of research papers.
Benny Peiser and KM Schulte both displayed especially severe cases of this error in attacking Naomi Oreskes' 2004 essay in Science.
It is important for a newcomer to read, not just the current mainstream view, but enough history to understand its development, and understand where a given idea fits and how long it has been there.
If one studies science histories, one can find obvious progressions, which might be roughly categorized as follows, and based only on peer-reviewed science, since nothing else counts for much:
CASE 1 S1 -> nowhere
CASE 2 S1 -> S2, but refuted fairly quickly, via errors, new data
CASE 3 S1 -> S2..., but competing explanations persist, long battles
CASE 4 S1 -> S2 -> S3 wins over competing explanations
CASE 1: someone publishes something that is not very interesting, seems to have no way to be falsified, or turns out to have serious errors.
Peer-review only says "We didn't find obvious errors in a quick review and this might be worth reading".
Passing peer-review does not prove correctness or importance. Not being able to get papers through peer-review should be a major red flag for the reader.
Scientists with new major results do not just write OpEds or web pages, or publish them in Energy&Environment or Journal for Scientific Exploration. They send their results to Science, Nature, or other credible journals.
CASE 2: an interesting new idea appears and gets attention, but then fairly quickly (within a few years) gets refuted, or claims of strong effects get weakened.
EXAMPLE: Richard Lindzen's "IRIS" hypothesis attracted interest, but did not gain widespread scientific support, as substantial conflicting evidence existed. There may still be some interest, but this paper did not suddenly invalidate AGW as some wanted to think.
CASE 3: multiple hypotheses arise and persist for some time, gathering support, being modified, sometimes combining, or failing to accumulate evidence. An issue can stay open decades, and then quickly be resolved if the right new data or explanation appears.
EXAMPLE:Geologists argued fiercely for many decades over Alfred Wegener's hypothesis of continental drift, but when enough new kinds of data appeared following World War II, most geologists quickly accepted it.
CASE 4: some hypothesis has gained additional supporting data from multiple research efforts, and is accepted as a strong theory. This may well take decades, and there is often a continuous transition from hypothesis to well-supported theory, not a sudden jump, although the latter occasionally happens. Any theory is just an approximation to reality, and a good new theory must explain everything a previous good theory did, plus be a better approximation.
EXAMPLE: it took many years to accumulate data that showed the health effects of tobacco. Some chemicals in cigarette smoke are known to be carcinogens without knowing the exact biochemical processes that cause them to be so.
EXAMPLE: Newton's laws of motion work pretty well on Earth, well enough to launch satellites. Einstein's work better, and are needed for GPS satellites. Relativity is often revered, not just because it explained existing awkward data, but because it made many correct predictions of effects that were not yet observable.
EXAMPLE: the idea that H. Pylori bacteria caused some peptic ulcers went from an odd idea to being well-accepted in few years, and of course, Warren and Marshall got a Nobel for their work. Important wacko ideas that turn out to be true are big wins.
The publication cycle of the most credible peer-reviewed journals is long enough that a non-expert should be prepared to be wary of any paper only 1-2 years old, especially if it has novel implications counter to mainstream established science. It normally takes at least several years to reach CASE 3, and many more for CASE 4.
Some people fasten on any new paper without understanding this, and in some cases, persist for years in referencing papers that have long since been refuted.
Sometimes, a good, or even great, scientist will become fixated on some idea, and will fight on in its behalf ... forever. Most scientists change their minds when the balance of evidence becomes clear, but some do not.
EXAMPLE: Sir Fred Hoyle was a great astrophysicist, but fought for the "steady-state universe" long after overpowering evidence had accumulated for the Big Bang. Halton Arp has done fine observational astronomy, but also has not accepted the Big Bang.
EXAMPLE: Sir Ronald Fisher was a great statistician, but never accepted the statistical evidence for the smoking-cancer connection.
CURRENT EXAMPLE OF REAL SCIENCE ONE CAN WATCH HAPPENING: my favorite example of scientific process in visible action can be found in William Ruddiman's "Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum" plus surrounding papers, arguments, counter-arguments, modifications, to-and-fro-ing. Bill offers several somewhat surprising hypotheses (early CO2, early CH4, and more recent plague effects on CO2), with enough evidence from a highly-regarded researcher to make it to S2, but not yet (and maybe never) part of S3.
Unlike many arguments, this set is actually understandable to non-experts (like me), and one can actually watch science in progress. These hypotheses may linger with insufficient evidence to confirm or deny (CASE 3), may get refuted later, or may turn out to be brilliant multidisciplinary theories accepted as the best explanations for otherwise puzzling data.
1.3 METAPHOR: THE GREAT WALL OF SCIENCE
Think of progress in a scientific discipline as building a large structure, like the Great Wall of China (well, Olympics has been on :-), with multiple segments (subdisciplines) each building upwards, but also trying to connect to form one consistent, connected whole. The Wall is so big that no one can see the whole thing. Quite often really exciting work happens in the gaps between well-established segments. Following are examples of the various CASEs.
CASE 1: Someone places a brick (S1), but no one else cares, so it never connects with the Wall.
CASE 2: Someone else quickly appears and kicks the brick away (CASE 2).
CASE 3: The brick looks OK, and others start working with it, perhaps moving it around, or placing more bricks and mortar atop it (S2). Perhaps other groups do the same thing with competing alternative segments of the Wall.
CASE 4: Sooner or later, some segment acquires enough bricks, and mortar, and even steel rebars, at which point it is enough stronger than the alternates, that the latter are abandoned.
A new brick anywhere is not yet mortared in, and probably takes a few years, even if it's atop the existing wall, i.e., a refinement of the mainstream. If a new brick is a bit wobbly, that doesn't mean the Wall collapses. Nobody cares very much about a brick until it has been tested, and mortaredwith others. In particular, a tall stack of bricks erected by one worker alone, with no connections, may carry very little interest, and falls over easily. Important papers in science get cited positively by other people, not just by the authors and colleagues, and not just to refute.
Measurement errors happen. ARGO buoys or weather balloons are found to have calibration problems. After years of use, computer programs for satellite temperature calculations are found to have simple sign errors. That's life.
A new brick placed far away from the Wall has to be very compelling to pull efforts in that direction (H. pylori and peptic ulcers). Scientists are strongly motivated to establish such new directions, not just add another brick to the Wall,as it's a good way to get a Nobel, as happened in that case.
Sometimes a well-established part of a Wall runs into a height limit, and needs a whole new level, i.e., Newton -> Einstein. The lower level is fine as far as I goes, but the second level is a better approximation. People have many hypotheses for the next level, but there is as yet no agreement.
For some people, usually not those directly involved in Wall-building, the appearance of a single brick anywhere else is enough to declare its collapse. Some may cite collections of old discarded bricks, cherry-pick specific bricks, or ignore inconvenient recent bricks, mortar and even steel, and claim the whole Wall is down. People routinely claim to have disproved long-established major laws of physics, which might be considered steel-reinforced concrete (like laws of Thermodynamics), and others then publicize such claims as proof of collapse.
It is very rare for long-established, rebarred Wall segments to be torn down or even reworked in major ways. When it does happen, it is almost always done by people experienced in the field, not by amateurs. Long-established AGW Walls are not demolished in a few months of part-time effort by 15-year-old students without much knowledge of physics and statistics. It is sad but true that most scientific breakthroughs are not generated by unknown lone scientists working alone in their basements.
It is easy for a non-expert, starting with the wrong book, website, or blog, to become convinced that AGW is all wrong, especially with a snapshot at one point in time, and especially if they get pulled into a self-reinforcing group that knows this.
(Ruddiman calls this an amazing "alternate universe" in which "most of the basic findings of mainstream science are rejected or ignored.")
It takes time for a non-expert to assess authors. If someone claims the Wall is wrong, but relies mostly on workers who contributed little, or cites long-discarded bricks, or changes their reasons every few years, then one can assume they are doing anti-science. It is well worth going back 5-20 years and seeing how people did or did not change their views. It is worth checking the publication records of those referenced. One must be especially careful when an expert builder on one segment retires, and then suddenly starts opining on a completely different segment in directions totally opposite the current workers there.
Real scientists would describe the Wall by how well-established each element was. If a non-expert backtracks what good scientists say, they'll find that wrong ideas get discarded, good ones progress and gain support, and understanding improves.
The IPCC is especially explicit about its confidence levels.
1.4 EXTRAORDINARY AND NON-EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS
Carl Sagan was known for saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", although this was more likely occasioned by his thoughts about parapsychology and other "interesting" ideas. I've read plenty of these for fun, and because every once in a while, something crazy turns out to be a better approximation ... but *HARDLY EVER*.
NON-EXTRAORDINARY POSITION ON AGW
*I* subscribe to the mainstream science position that global warming is real, is substantially caused by humans, and will very likely cause serious problems under Business-As-Usual (BAU) assumptions.
Clouds, ocean heat exchange, and aerosols, especially contribute uncertainty, but I believe the IPCC's uncertainty bounds are reasonable, and I know smart people are working hard to tighten the bounds. Like many, I do worry about inherently-conservative IPCC forecasts in the presence of potentially non-linear effects/tipping points and I think there is easily enough evidence to require action. (I say "inherently" given the nature of the IPCC process, as discussed with a useful number of IPCC authors.)
Any non-expert (like me) *could* arrive at that same non-extraordinary position in two different ways:
(a) DEFAULT ACCEPTANCE OF MAINSTREAM
One either doesn't know enough physics/math/statistics, or doesn't want to spend the time to study AGW deeply, so one assumes the professional mainstream opinion is the best approximation of reality available.
Modern science is so huge that nobody can know everything, even in a specific discipline, so (a) is what most people have to do most of the time on most topics. One would find a few credible sources, understand the position, perhaps talk to a few experts, and that would be sufficient. [In PART 3, see Peter Darbee for an example of a smart non-technical person's approach.]
(b) DEEPER INSPECTION BY INTERESTED (CLASSICAL) SKEPTIC
One conditionally assumes the mainstream, but really wants to study the topic to be sure, to be able to discuss the topic intelligently, and to give the objections every reasonable chance.
One generates a list of concerns about the mainstream position, studies each one in depth, and see whether the list grows or shrinks. Scientists think about preponderance of evidence, and are usually alert to contradictory data that might be right, since when found, such often lead to advances. Quite often, contradictory data turns out to be erroneous, or when fixed, is well within the plausible range.
This requires studying a selection of those disagreeing with the mainstream, and carefully assessing what they say, and giving them every possible chance to prove their cases.
However, it also requires some familiarity with well-established non-science methods of attacking science, and ability to assess credibility of sources' biases in any direction, possibly from ideology or economics,
One might go even further into studying anti-science memes, how they spread, who spreads them, how they work, their psychology and demographcs, etc. (For me, this is a continuation of a long interest in science vs non-science issues.)
(c) ANTI-MAINSTREAM POSITION
Suppose an educated person takes the position:
"Even though I'm no expert, I'm almost certain mainstream scientists are wrong and these others are right."
I'd call that an *extraordinary* claim, in which case I ask my usual questions to try to understand why someone takes this position. It *might* be that they know more than the professionals, and thus *vastly* more than I do, in which case I could learn something new ... but, *HARDLY EVER*.
Since AGW is non-extraordinary mainstream science, I'm not sure it needs a lot of justification...
...but my answers may be useful as an example of the way a person in (b) approaches an area outside their immediate profession, and may record some useful information for others.
(Continued in PART 2)
PART 2 RELEVANT PERSONAL BACKGROUND
Many can skip this, but it may be helpful to understand the starting point and approach.
2.1 OVERVIEW
Since "John Mashey" is a very rare, and likely, a unique name, I am trivial to locate:
Google: john Mashey
hits a Wikipedia entry that also points to a short bio as Computer History Museum Trustee. I'm a "half-retired" computer scientist/ex-corporate executive who consults for venture capitalists and technology companies, advises startups, does private equity investing, attends lectures and conferences, does community work, travels for fun, skis, bicycles, i.e., what people do here when they want to taper off after years of intense Silicon Valley hard-drive and world business travel.
At DeSMogBlog, as a reply to Viscount Monckton's comment I gave some more background in my Reply, in part as an explanation of the 40-pager I'd written on the Monckton+Schulte vs Oreskes silliness in 2007.
Briefly, I got a BS Mathematics (+ 1 course short of BS Physics as well), then MS & PhD Computer Science, at Penn State, followed by 10 years (1973-1983) at Bell Laboratories as Member of Technical Staff, then Supervisor. Since then, I spent 17 years at Silicon Valley computer companies, mostly as a Director / VP / Chief Scientist. Of course, "computer scientist" is a broad label, and many of us do more engineering than science, although some topics (like computer performance analysis) share more methods with the natural sciences. I've also done troubleshooting / evangelism / competitive analysis / marketing / business-alliance work that is not so easy to categorize.
Google Scholar: JR Mashey
will find a few publications, some of which are modestly well-known. Industry folks tend not to write as many papers as do academics. I was busy giving other talks (500+) and sales pitches (1000+).
2.2. [Mashey of Portola Valley ... wmanny asked]
It is easy to find that we live in Portola Valley, a quiet small town next to Stanford University on the opposite side from well-known Palo Alto, i.e., PV is an edge of Silicon Valley. PV is an intensely environment-conscious town (even for SF Bay Area) with unusual educational demographics, populated mostly by corporate executives, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, lawyers, doctors, senior technical people.
Nearby Sand Hill Road is the world's center of venture capital, next to Stanford's SLAC. Many surrounding towns are working hard on plans for reducing carbon footprints or dealing with expected sea-level rise. Plug-in car conferences are popular. *Not* commonly found in S.V. are "left-wing pinko socialist using AGW as an excuse to destroy American capitalism." (or something like that) :-)
An easy bike-ride away is Stanford, of course a *very* strong research university in many relevant disciplines, including climate, environment, energy, economics, computing. Many lectures are open to the public.
2.3. A FEW MORE RELEVANT BACKGROUND ITEMS
++ I grew up on a 100-year-old family farm North of Pittsburgh, PA (i.e., sort of mid-West). Farm kids learn early about taking care of fixed resources, about Liebig's Law of the Minimum, and about *not* over-interpreting day-to-day weather changes, i.e., we grow up dealing with "noisy time series" and knowing that sometimes averages matter, and sometimes variability matters more.
++ As an undergraduate, I worked summers as a mathematician/programmer at the US Bureau of Mines in Pittsburgh doing data analysis for coal research, building statistics software, etc. Western Pennsylvania includes Appalachian coal country, relevant to assessing coal industry practices.
++ Besides undergraduate math & physics (& computer science), I took several psychology courses, including statistics for experiments and some cognitive psychology. This was handy later at Bell Labs, when I built a group that was half cognitive psychologists. It is useful in talking to psychology professor friends about why people believe weird things, anchoring effects, Dunning-Kruger Effect, all-or-none personalities, psychology/sociology of scientific research. Such friends have been very helpful.
++ In grad school, I did some operations research, stochastic processes, statistics, etc along with computer science.
++ When I worked there, at its height, Bell Laboratories was ~25,000 people, mostly engineers and scientists. An MS or PhD was required to be a Member of Technical Staff. Besides Nobel prize winners, some of the world's best computer scientists worked there, as did some of the world's finest statisticians, like John Tukey and Joseph Kruskal. The Bell System collected vast amounts of data, and many Bell Labs people used statistical tools to drive major decisions.
Internal review of papers proposed for outside publication was usually tougher than most external peer reviews, and ones with serious statistics tended to be examined by the best, which enforced some discipline.
Such an environment tends to improve the accuracy of one's assessment of one's own abilities, because there is almost always someone around who knows much more or is much smarter, or both. In addition, bold, but ill-informed, statements get slaughtered quickly, so one tends to learn to ask questions.
++ Wikipedia mentions me as a founder of SPEC, an organization technical computer people started in 1988 to downplay meaningless, counterproductive marketing "mips ratings" in favor more scientific measures, with careful data collection and disclosure. The "microprocessor wars" of the 1980s and 1990s included considerable marketing and anti-marketing efforts, but this helped improve the situation.
++ While at Silicon Graphics, when not designing chips, software, or supercomputers, I spent 50% of my time talking to customers, who included many senior scientists and engineers, CTOs, sometimes CEOs or senior government people. I visited many universities and research labs around the world, covering many science and engineering disciplines.
I probably helped sell $500M of computers to petroleum geologists. I spent some time with climate modelers, some of whom still use members of an architecture family I helped design long ago. [SGI Origin 3000 / Altix supercomputers]. At this level, one may well spend a day with senior technical people, discussing the problems they are trying to solve, what they know, what they don't know, what they would do with more compute power, etc. To do this, one has to be able to at least talk the domain-specific language somewhat.
++ These days, being half-retired, I do things like *due diligence* for venture capitalists, i.e., they pay me to be able to quickly assess the credibility of a team looking for money, and be skeptical of technology and business plans, and dig in quickly to understand them. Such work has a high level of ambiguity, and decisions must be made without always having clearly right and wrong answers. Of course, such work was internal business-as-usual in all 4 companies that employeed me.
2.4 CLIMATE SCIENCE SELF-CALIBRATION
Just for calibration, I'd rate my climate *science* expertise as perhaps 2 on a scale of 10, i.e., that of a technical professional with some relevant background who can read primary research, who understands the basics of statistics, physics, math and computing, and could probably keep up with undergraduates studying Earth Systems Science, although my knowledge would be spottier than someone completing a formal B.S. program. I'm probably more experienced at the general issues of skeptical analysis of misinformation.
This is nowhere near close to someone doing a PhD in climate science, much less established professional researchers, and of course, the top professionals are far above that. Ray Ladbury (who certainly knows far more than I on this) often writes of this calibration, as at RealClimate.
So, on to the questions.
(Continued in PART 3)
PART 3 - ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS, SOURCES
Remember, my self-assessment is that I'm about a 2 on a scale of 10, i.e., nowhere close to being a climate science expert. This is just my set of answers, not claimed to be an optimal set that would be recommended by experts. Also, this set is mostly about climate science, not about energy, economics, and policy. That's a mostly separate set of references. First, one has to get the science.
3.1 WHAT SOURCES DO YOU USE FOR LEARNING ABOUT AGW? WHICH DO YOU TRUST?
TRUSTED ONES:
IPCC TAR, and then later AR4.
Books/reports by relevant national research bodies, like US National Academies, NRC.
Primary research articles in peer-reviewed journals like Science.
Websites of NASA GISS, NOAA, NCAR, UK Met/Hadley, US NAS, Australia's CSIRO, GFDL, NSIDC, credible scientific organizations, many of which I've had professional contact with. Given Swiss ancestry, I'm also fond of the Swiss Glacier Monitoring Network's website.
Books by real climate scientists [i.e. who publish peer-reviewed research, preferably current]
Lectures by climate scientists, other senior scientists & discussions with them. Direct exposure really helps, but of course, is only routinely possible in some places. BUT if you get any chance at all to see such people talk, it's worth it, especially for people who have long experience in quickly evaluating people's credibility by seeing how they speak and answer questions.
Blogs (primarily to keep up with current events, sometimes to learn; resources are way better than in 2001-2002, but of course, Blogs should *never* be primary places to learn science. Good ones help.).
RealClimate (clearly #1, since each starts with an article from a real climate scientist, and they actually answer reasonable questions, and have more patience than I would.)
Open Mind (for great data analysis and statistics tutorials)
Rabett Run, Deltoid, Atmoz and others often carry useful analyses of science an anti-science, and there are more.
Skeptical Science is a very useful resource. It lists commonly-repeated, long-refuted arguments on one page, explains each one accessibly for non-experts, but (crucially) cites peer-reviewed research.
OTHERS, WEBSITES (And later) BLOGS
In 2001, 2002, or when a new one appears, these were/are used in the mode "What do they say? Are there any reasonable concerns that should be added to my list?"
(Deceased) Tasmanian John Daly's Waiting for Greenhouse was my favorite website in this category - he at least had panache and nice pictures, and was indefatigable. I learned a lot about AGW cherry-picking from studying his work and pawing through many surface station records off and on for a a year or so.
These days, I look in on such sites only occasionally, because I came to believe they weren't doing science. However, anyone new to this should take a look and do their own calibration, after they're seen the real science.
SPPI, ClimateAudit, Watts, IceCap, ponderthemaunder, JenniferMarohasy, SEPP, EPW & Marc Morano, many others once or twice. Somewhere I have a list of ~60 that took ponderthemaunder seriously, before I gave up looking at them.
It is actually useful to read such, but without substantial exposure to real science, one can fall into an "alternate universe" that has very different physics [as per Bill Ruddiman]. Some people's *primary* experience is such blogs, although it is difficult to get many to admit that. There appear to be certain ideological / economic / personality properties that encourage and support this, but that's another whole discussion for the future.
At this point, *my* main interest is to understand the flow of disinformation memes, the players, their motivations, and calibration of credibility (or incredibility) levels. I dig into specific cases as they come up, some of which I'll mention later.
a) DO YOU ATTEND LECTURES BY REAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS?
Typically several times a month at Stanford, sometimes elsewhere, at Bay Area government meetings, local town meetings, etc.
b) DO YOU HAVE (OR HAVE HAD) PERSONAL CONTACT & DISCUSSION OF THIS TOPIC WITH {TOP-NOTCH REAL SCIENTISTS}?
Yes, frequently on this topic, and many times on many topics over decades.
Here's a sample. See their biographies to understand what top-notch people are like, ranging from good researchers to long-established people at the top of the profession.
Needless to say, I'm very far below this league, but am lucky to talk to such people regularly and even ask a non-dumb question now and then. Of course, I subscribe to the ordinary mainstream position because I've studied the science to my satisfaction, not just because a few experts say so, i.e., the following is *not* an "argument to authority", it's a simply self-calibration.
People can write anything they want on blogs, especially anonymously.
It is a different experience to sit with a small group of neighbors 5 feet from a Nobel physicist who gives a clear, compelling talk about AGW, and then straightforwardly, easily answers every "What about this?" question from the audience and sometimes identifies disinformation by its origin from specific people he knows personally.
People who are really, really sure ... are stunned to suddenly realize they might have been sure of the wrong thing, and their expressions show it.
Here are a few of the people that have especially impressed me, who I've heard speak, seen answer questions, and (mostly) been able to speak with. They all subscribe to the mainstream science position.
--Professor Stephen Schneider, Stanford, NAS (member National Academy of Sciences).
I've heard him talk a handful of times, was lucky to be the "discussant" for one of his seminars. (I'd just read Lomborg's TSE and was still working through it, so I was supposed to be the "skeptic.") I learn something every time, as he's an excellent communicator as well as a strong multidisciplinary scientist. He is widely misquoted by certain people.
--Professor Burton Richter, Stanford, Nobel Physicist, NAS, past president of APS
He gave a short version of this talk, Gambling with the Future at a little local town meeting. The abstract of that talk says:
"We are already in a regime that has no precedent in the last 400,000 years, and these consequences are almost certainly bad if greenhouse gas concentrations increase unabated." His remarks were firmer.
--UCSD Professor Naomi Oreskes is a geoscientist/science historian, recently promoted July 2008 to Provost of the Sixth School at UCSD.
I've read one of her books, reviewed a few chapters of her forthcoming book, talked to her a few times, exchange email now and then. I've attended two of her talks, both of which had NAS members there:
The American Denial of Global Warming and
You CAN argue with the facts.
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We're Not Wrong? is well worth reading, especially the general discussion of scientific processes.
The next three gave climate talks at a several-day Imperial College, London alumni conference last year in Cambridge. IC is the "MIT" of the UK, and we've attended many IC events with their faculty over the years.
--Professor Sir Peter Knight, Physicist, Fellow of the Royal Society (UK), Principal of Natural Science at Imperial College London.
--Professor Joanna Haigh of Atmospheric Physics at IC, a Lead Author on IPCC TAR.
--Professor Ronald Prinn, MIT Atmospheric Science, a Lead Author on IPCC AR4. He heads the MIT Center for Global Change Science, which includes Richard Lindzen.
I was especially glad to finally hear him, as he moderated a famous debate between Stephen Schneider and Richard Lindzen in 1990, and about 10 years ago, he thought the scientific evidence on AGW was still "equivocal". MIT World references a video akin to the talk I heard. He describes changing his mind, as he is certainly no longer equivocal. I recommend his video especially for his discussions on uncertainty.
--Lord Ron Oxburgh, geoscientist, ex-Rector (head) of Imperial College, ex-Chairman of Shell. He is also a cross-bencher in the House of Lords.
He's an old friend from many meetings, and as Shell Chairman said he's worried about climate and the planet.
--Dr Bert Metz, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, co-chair IPCC WG III for TAR & AR4.
I've heard him talk, talked to him some, exchanged some email.
--Professor Mark Z. Jacobson, Stanford Civil & Environmental Engineering.
I've attended several of his seminars. He is very good researcher & modeler, testifies to Congress. His website has many interesting publications.
-- Professor Rob Dunbar, Professor-Geological and Environmental Sciences, Director-Earth Systems Program, Stanford.
--Dr Dan Cayan, UCSD, Scripps, USGS.
I heard him give this talk at a good local government conference on sea-level rise.
-- Dr. Bruce Molnia, glaciologist at USGS, studies Alaskan glaciers, as they (mostly) retreat.
He gave a nice talk at the Menlo Park USGS, with great before-and-now pictures like this.
--I've heard more talks by IPCC authors and other climate scientists, but I lose track, especially with panel sessions, and of course, have had occasional email conversations with others. Of course, during my years at SGI, I've spoken to/with many other climate scientists, as described in PART 2.
Following are a few more, who are not geoscientists/climate scientists, but top-notch people who are certainly smarter than I, have looked at climate science, can of course talk to top climate scientists as they wish.
--Dr Arno Penzias, Nobel Physicist, used to run Bell Labs Research division.
We have lunch/dinner now and then, and he's no climate scientist, but he's certainly looked at the topic, and works on investments in energy technology at a big venture capital firm.
--Dr John Hennessy, President of Stanford, NAS.
John is an old colleague and friend of 20+ years, and has definite ideas about the importance of dealing with climate change, for example here, which certainly reflects one-to-one conversations.
--Peter Darbee, CEO of Pacific Gas and Electric (very large utility in Central/Northern California).
This describes the way a nontechnical, but smart, person learns climate issues.
There are of course, many well-educated people around Silicon Valley who are working on climate and energy issues.
All these people could be wrong, but personally, I'd have to be a lot smarter and more knowledgable about climate science to tell them so, even if that';s what I thought.
Someone who takes the extraordinary position (mainstream is wrong) *must* be prepared to say to themselves:
"I'm right and they're wrong. I know more than these people do about climate science, or I'm smarter, or they're all in a conspiracy, or they're getting paid to lie, or something, because I'm *sure* they are all wrong, not I."
That's a different position than (legitimately) saying "I don't know much, not yet enough to know", but some say "I'm not sure" after years of reading blogs, which probably means something else. The people above who aren't climate scientists spent much less time to reach their conclusions.
c) ARE YOU A MEMBER OF ANY RELEVANT SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES?
AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science)
I joined AGU for a while to track down articles, including MBH98/99 to better understand the "hockey-stick wars."
[ACM; IEEE CS - occasionally relevant for computational science issues.]
e) DO YOU READ ANY PRIMARY RESEARCH LITERATURE IN THE FIELD?
AAAS's Science every week, and it often carries relevant articles.
I usually average 1-2/month from other sources, i.e., typically published papers on author's websites. I sometimes get preprints from authors. Right now, emphasis is on energy & economics, so not reading the pure climate science papers quite so often.
f) HAVE YOU READ ANY BOOKS ON THIS?
Yes. Following are some classifications, a reader's guide, and then an alphabetized list of some of those I own, with comments and some editorial opinions.
A On critical thinking, classical skepticism, weird ideas, self-defense against disinformation
B Popular-oriented books
C General books on climate by scientists
D Serious textbooks on climate science by climate scientists, which tend to be more technical, and sometimes are similar to E or to peer-reviewed papers.
E Major compendiums by official teams, IPCC, NAS, i.e., secondary compilations based on primary research generally found in peer-reviewed publications.
F Climate+politics, or science+politics, or structure of science, or other
Z Disinformation, or silly theories believed passionately, or careless exaggeration. Most of these started in some other category, but then I decided had too much distortion to stay there.
NOTE: this list generally avoids books whose main emphasis is intersection of climate, energy, economics, policies, solutions, i.e., where there is far more room for real argument.
READER'S GUIDE
CRITICAL THINKING:
For general defense against disinformation of various sorts: {BES2001, CAP1987, HUF1954, JON1995, KUR2001, MON1991, PAU1998, TUF1983}.
Scientists can believe strange things and stick wih them: {ARP1998, EHR2001, EHR2003}
Many people can believe really strange things {FRA1986, GAR1981, GAR2000, PLA2002, RAN1986, SCH1994}, some of which the originators believe, and some of which are hoaxes. Some retain belief even after the hoaxers show them how they did it.
STARTING FROM SCRATCH ON CLIMATE SCIENCE (B &C)
If I had to pick one book to read, it would be RUD2005.
Useful popular books are {GOR2006, MAN2008, REV2006}. Normally, I wouldn't recommend a politician's description of climate science, but in this case, it's a well-presented, mostly-accurate equivalent of talks by many climate scientists. MAN2008 is a nice recent addition.
One might go on to [GRA1997].
At some point, one should learn more of the history of this topic, via {WEA2003}, or through the first half of Naomi Oreskes's video "The American Denial of Global Warming." mentioned above. Many key basics of climate science are actually quite old.
LEARNING MORE (D & E)
Start reading more technical materials, such as {HOU1997, HAR2000, MAC2003, KRA2003}.
Then, it may be worth looking at US National Research Council reports and similar work, like {USGC2000, USNRC2000, USNRC2001}.
An of course, sooner or later, if one is serious, one has to look at the latest IPCC reports {IPCC2007}, which can be found online - read the SPM, the TS, and then sample the full technical reports. Of course, by then, one might be reading primary research articles, at least occasionally.
Category E entries are especially authoritative and useful, as serious scientists evaluate and summarize current knowledge. Of course, they also get out of date, and in the IPCC's case, there is always a cutoff date for incolusion, which means the latest research is not there. As noted in PART 1, sometimes research that is 1-2 years' old may not survive challenge, so this is probably OK. The NRC reports tend to be much shorter and more topical.
UNDERSTANDING POLITICS AND ANTI-SCIENCE (F)
Organized anti-science in the US grew up around tobacco, for which {BRA2007} is an excellent and illuminating history. Most anti-science campaigns since have used similar tactics, some of which are described in {MOO2005, MIC2008, WAG2006}
It is common to ascribe anti-AGW funding to Big Oil, but IMHO, I think it is more due to Big Coal {GOO2006} and family foundations whose fortunes were built at least in part on fossil fuels. I grew up near coal country and worked for the US agency whose job in part was regulating them. As a group, coal companies, at least in Appalachia, make oil companies look like the most enlightened and environmentally-conscious on the planet, although of course there is substantial individual variability. We'll burn all the oil we can, and natural gas is way better on CO2 than coal, which makes the gas folks happy. Coal folks know that CO2 restrictions are not good for their business, and some have funded extensive disinformation efforts.
Of course, most people who have strong anti-AGW beliefs have reasons for doing so other than getting paid.
For a detailed analysis of the tactics of anti-AGW non-science motivated by ideology or economics, a great source will be Naomi Oreskes' forthcoming book, but until then, start with the last 30 minutes from each of her two talks mentioned earlier.
For discussion of progressions in real science and real controversies, see {KUH1996, ORE1999}.
For an example of a scientist committed to an idea, see {SVE2007, ARP1998}, of which {SVE2007} is often cited by others to deny AGW. It is difficult to know for sure, but occasionally scientists build a theory in an area of expertise, attempt to extend it far beyond as an explanation for many effects, and hold to it no matter what.
I consider "X, therefore not AGW" different from disinformation of the form "anything but AGW."
DISINFORMATION (Z)
I originally placed some books in other categories, but came to believe they were (sometimes clever) disinformation (i.e., Z).
{SIN1999, SIN2007} are Fred Singer's books. I picked up the first one very early, as Singer seemed to have a reasonable background, and at that point, "satellites != ground" was a legitimate concern, as seen in {USNRC2000}. My first thought was that Singer was just defending satellites, given his experience with them. In some cases, scientists defend "their" data no less fiercely than mother cats their kittens. I learned more later.
It is well worth comparing the two books, especially in light of the additional evidence that's accumulated in between. Of course, by the time I read {SIN2007}, I was much more familiar with Singer's actions, so was not surprised.
{SIN1999} says GW isn't happening at all, but if it were, it would be good, and there should be no CO2 restrictions.
{SIN2007} says GW happens naturally every 1500 years, and there should be no CO2 restrictions.
At some point, I may do an additional PART that tracks through a comparison of these two, especially with regard to satellites.
{ESS2002} is a book by Essex and McKitrick. At some point, I may do an additional PART that analyzes the McIntyre/McKitrick/Mann kerfuffle, using this book as context, and consider ideas why continuing this forever is attractive to some people, despite Wegman saying it was time to move on, years ago. For now, it is probably enough to review {MOO2005} and understand the US Data Quality Act.
See {SIM1996, LOM2001, LOM2007} for Bjorn Lomborg, but as discussed elsewhere, one really should read Julian Simon and the surrounding history for context. I originally gave Lomborg's TSE a "read it, carefully" rating in Amazon, before I'd had to time to really dig around, and before I'd gone back and reread Simon. I've written some pieces on this elsewhere recently, but maybe will pull them together later. Lomborg is probably has the cleverest anti-AGW tactics around.
PARTIAL BOOK LIST (SHOULD HAVE ENERGY & ECONOMY, BUT NOT YET)
[ARP1998] Halton Arp, Seeing Red - Redshifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science, 1998 (A)
Arp is a fine observational astronomer, but doesn't believe in Big Bang or usual interpretation of red-shift.
[BER2000] John J. Berger, Beating the Heat, 2000
Arctic penguins - ugh; heart may be in right place, but counterproductive, IMHO. Alarmist! (B -> Z)
[BES2001] Joel Best, Damned Lies and Statistics - Untangling numbers from the media, politicians, and activists, 2001 (A)
[BRA2007] Allan M. Brandt, The Cigarette Century, 2007 (F)
Oddly relevant, as the cigarette wars laid the foundation of anti-science tactics in the US, copied into acid rain, CFC, global warming and many other fights to suppress inconvenient science.
[CAP1987] Nicholas Capaldi, The Art of Deception, 1987 (C)
[DES2006] Andrew E. Dessler, Edward A. Parson, The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change, 2006 (F)
[EHR2001] Robert Ehrlich, Nine Crazy Ideas in Science- A few might even be true, 2001 (A)
Physicist offers advice in evaluating crazy-sounding ideas; pp 5-10 is nice summary of evaluation criteria.
[EHR2003] Robert Ehrlich, 8 Preposterous Propositions, 2003 (A)
[ESS2002] Chrisopher Essex, Ross McKitrick, Taken by Storm - The troubled science, policy and politics of global warming, 2002 (F -> Z)
[FAG1999] Brian Fagan, Floods, Famines, and Emperors, 1999 (C)
Fagan is an anthropologist, and writes readable books that sometimes show the climate effects on various civilizations.
[FAG2000] Brian Fagan, The Little Ice Age, 2000 (C)
[FAG2004] Brian Fagan, The Long Summer, 2004 (C)
[FRA1986] Kendrick Frazier, Ed, Science Confronts the Paranormal, 1986 (A)
[GAR1981] Martin Gardner, SCIENCE Good, Bad and Bogus, 1981 (A)
[GAR2000] Martin Gardner, Did Adam and Eve Have Navels - debunking pseudoscience, 2000 (A)
[GOO2006] Jeff Goodell, Big Coal, 2006 (F)
Many blame Big Oil for funding all disinformation; look closer at Big Coal.
[GOR2006] Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, 2006. (B)
I didn't learn any new science when I saw this, but since it essentially agreed with what real scientists said, with a few minor caveats, I appreciated the presentation.
[GRA1997] Thomas E. Graedel, Paul J. Crutzen, Atmosphere, Climate, and Change, 1997. (C)
Readable, well-illustrated text by two heavyweights.
[HAR2000] L. D. Danny Harvey, Global Warming - The Hard Science, 2000 (D)
[HOU1997] John Houghton, Global Warming - The Complete Briefing, 2nd Ed 1997 (D)
[HUF1954] Darrell Huff, How to Lie with Statistics, 1954 (A)
Classic, indispensable, cheap.
[IPCC2001] IPCC Climate Change 2001, (TAR- 3 volumes + Emissions Scenarios) (E)
[IPCC2007] IPCC Climate Change 2007 (AR4 - 3 volumes) (E)
[JON1995] Gerald Everett Jones, How to Lie with Charts, 1995 (A)
[KRA2003] Konrad B. Krauskopf, Dennis K. Bird, Introduction to Geochemisty, 3rd Ed 2003 (D)
[KUH1996] Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1996 (F)
[KUR2001] Paul Kurtz, ed, Skeptical Odysseys, 2001 (A)
[LOM2001] Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist, 2001 (F -> Z)
Read SIM1996 first.
[LOM2007] Bjorn Lomborg, Cool It! (US edition), 2007 (F -> Z)
[LOM2007b] Bjorn Lomborg, Cool It! (Longer UK Edition), 2007 (F -> Z)
[MAC2003] Mackay, Battarbee, Birks, Oldfield, ed, Global Change in the Holocene, 2003 (D)
Collection of many articles.
[MAN2008] Michael E. Mann, Lee R. Kump, Dire Predictions - Understanding Global Warming, 2008 (B/C)
Very recent, popular-level guide explaining the IPCC findings.
[MIC2008] David Michaels, Doubt is Their Product, 2008 (F)
[MON1991] Mark Monmonier, How to Lie with Maps, 1991 (A)
[MOO2007] Chris Mooney, Storm World, 2007 (F)
[MOO2005] Chris Mooney, The Republican War on Science, 2005 (F)
Science got really noticed by politics in WW II, and from then through the George H. W. Bush administration, science was mostly nonpartisan, but unfortunately, some very counterproductive politicization of science has happened since.
[ORE1999] Naomi Oreskes, The Rejection of Continental Drift, 1999 (F)
Good history of real, long-running *scientific* controversy.
[PAU1988] John Allen Paulos, INNUMERACY Mathematical illiteracy and its consequences, 1998 (A)
[PIM2001] Stuart l. Pimm, The world According to Pimm, 2001 (C)
[PLA2002] Phlip Plait, Bad Astronomy, 2002 (A)
[RAN1986] James Randi, Flim-Flam, 1986 (A)
[REV2006] Andrew C. Revkin, The North Pole Was here, 2006 (B)
Good general book with great photos.
[ROM2007] Joseph Romm, Hell and High Water, 2007 (F, B)
Some climate science, more on energy and policy.
[RUD2005] William F. Ruddiman, Plows, Plagues & Petroleum, 2005 (C)
Fine summary of world climate history, hypotheses/theories and science in progress, non-science. Clear and calm writing. From experience, it is fairly accessible to non-technical people new to AGW - I've given away copies to friends, and they have given away more.
[SCH1994] Jim Schnabel, Round in Circles, 1994 (A)
People can believe in weird things like alien crop circles, even after "Doug and Dave" explained.
[SCH1989] Stephen Schneider, Global Warming, 1989 (C)
Prof. Schneider was very early to articulate concerns.
[SCH1996] Stephen Schneider, Laboratory Earth, 1996 (C)
[SCH2002] Stephen Schneider & Terry Root, ed Wildlife Responses to Climate Change - North American Case Studies, 2002 (D)
Some people worry incessantly about whether surface stations are perfect or not. Birds, insects, plants, animals, trees don't read thermometers, but they were already moving poleward, or uphill, if they could.
[SEL2004] Richard C Selley, The Winelands of Britain: Past, Present & Prospective, 2004 (F)
Geologist/oenophile traces historical growth and shrinkage of UK wineries over two millennia. Current wineries are North of Medieval Warm Period and heading North quikcly. Slightly out of date, a few vineyards are already in Leeds, Selley's projection for 2050. Visit the Loch Ness winery around 2100AD.
[SIM1996] Julian L. Simon, The Ultimate Resource 2, 1996 (F -> Z)
Read this before reading Lomborg, and check Simon's affiliations.
[SIN1999] S. Fred Singer, Hot Talk Cold Science - Global warming's unfinished debate, Revised 2nd Ed, 1999 (C -> Z)
[SIN2007] S. Fred Singer, Dennis T. Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming every 1,500 years, 2007 (C -> Z)
It is a good exercise to read SIN1999 and SIN2007, see what changes, and what doesn't change, especially in the light of major revisions to satellite and balloon results that happened between.
[STE1999] William K. Stevens, The Change in the Weather, 1999 (F)
[SVE2007] Henrik Svensmark, Nigel Calder, The Chilling Stars, A New Theory of Climate Change, 2007 (C, Z)
The theory (cosmic rays) isn't new, the data clearly contradicts it, but is strongly held by Svensmark. Widely quoted by some to claim that CO2 has no effect, it's all cosmic rays.
[TUF1983] Edward Tufte, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, 1983 (A)
Most about doing it right, but Chapter 2 is about doing it wrong, and recognizing such. A truly wonderful and beautiful book, as are Tufte's later three, all of which are worth having for anyone who wants inspiration for good presentation of data.
[USGC2000] US Global Change Research National Assessment Synthesis Team, 2000 (E)
[USNRC1999] US Panel on Climate Observing Systems, Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems, 1999 (E)
[USNRC2000] US NRC, Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change, 2000 (E)
This is a very good example of real scientists assessing uncertainties when different measurements disagreed. The disagreements mostly got resolved a few years later as major errors were discovered in satellite computations.
[USNRC2000b] US NRC, Issues in the Integration of Research and Operational Satellite Systems for Climate Research, 2000 (E)
[USNRC2001] US NRC, Climate Change Science, 2001 (E)
[USNRC2001b] US NRC, Improving the Effectiveness of U.S. Climate Modeling, 2001 (E)
[WAG2006] Wendy Wagner, Rena Steinzor, ed Rescuing Science from Politics, 2006. (F)
[WAR2007] Peter D. Ward, Under A Green Sky, 2007. (C)
Extinctions, or how bad could it get sometime, by serious scientist. Alarming, but not alarmist.
[WEA2003] Spencer Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming, 2003 (C)
Invaluable history - read this, or see AIP website.
g) HAVE YOU EVER PARTICIPATED IN PEER-REVIEW AS AN AUTHOR, REVIEWER, OR EDITOR?
A: yes, maybe a dozen times. Some even got accepted.
A&R: Internal reviews at Bell Labs.
R: Program Committee Hot Chips & USENIX & a few other conferences (every few years)
R: A few NSF proposal reviews
E: Guest Editor, IEEE Micro (twice); Program Chair/Co-Chair several times for Hot Chips and USENIX.
This is a modest level of scuh activity - academics and soem industry researchers do much more.
h) CAN YOU SAY ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR BACKGROUND IN PHYSICS AND STATISTICS?
Physics: until last term of undergraduate school, was planning to be physicist; skipped last course for computer science class, so just got BS Math, else would have had dual BS.
Subscribed to Scientific American since 1967, and followed physics somewhat since.
Worked summer jobs doing programming and data analysis with geophysicists at US Bureau of Mines.
Have helped design many computers used by physicists; many discussions with physicists at National Research Labs, climate modeling labs, universities, oil companies, etc.
Statistics: some study in high school. Several courses each in undergraduate and grad school. Frequent exposure to practical statistical methods at Bell Labs (home of John Tukey, Joseph Kruskal, etc).
Helped introduce more statistical techniques into industry-standard computer performance analysis, including the relevant section of the industry-standard Hennessy&Patterson computer architecture book. In last few years, gave invited lectures on statistical techniques for performance analysis at Stanford, Princeton, Cambridge, QMUL, U Texas Austin, UC Davis, Intel, SPEC, etc.
Obviously I am neither a physicist nor a statistician, although I have substantial experience in detecting misuses of statistics and graphs, and have studied disinformation tactics.
All this is a sample of things to study, and not necessarily an optimal set, more a subset of the books I have here and a description of my particular experience.
It's enough to understand the basics, and to know that others know much more.
John,
Thanks so much for your comprehensive response, which I note has grown into its own entry! There is no possible way for me to do it justice or to respond in kind, especially as it's back to work tomorrow, coming up for breath again around June.
I will say this much, though. In my experience in and out of the ivory tower (which included a trip to Mountain View back in my business days) I find it the rule rather than the exception that intelligent people disagree, often strenuously, on issues substantive and otherwise.
I appreciate very much your point of view, and I understand where it comes from. I could quibble that you appear to have given up seeking alternative explanations for what else besides our misbehavior, in the main, might cause the climate to change, but that may be a mischaracterization, and it would be forgivable in any event if you truly think you have done with the skeptic's task to your satisfaction.
I have not finished that task, and indeed for the time being I am increasingly skeptical of AGW theory with each passing day. That is not to say I believe the IPCC is wrong-headed in the trenches or is doing bad science. I assume the models are improving with effort. I have a big problem with how that science is being represented, though, and it is difficult for me to get from the meat of the report and all its built-in uncertainties, particularly as surround the LOSUs, to such wildness as is represented in Gore's film, as one example.
I also find it difficult to swallow that each and every scientist who objects to the party line, so to speak, is greeted in the same routine, ad hominem style. If I were to raise a name on this site, Geigengack as an example, I could guarantee that within minutes there would be a claim as to his mental imbalance, oil company support, or the like. So rarely are skeptical ideas addressed in the spirit that they should be: Huh, what about it? So often are they addressed in the spirit: Well, that needs to refuted ASAP, given the evident impurity of his motives.
I could go on, won't at present, and once again I appreciate your great effort and presentation of your point of view.
Walter
Hmmm, Giegengack, [let's see](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/broadly-misleadin…). Nope, no attacking him for oil company support. Ideas that challenge reasonably well established science can and should face searching scrutiny. No alternative explanations for current warming have withstood such scrutiny.
and indeed for the time being I am increasingly skeptical of AGW theory with each passing day.
Oooh. The self-marginalized denialist fringe rejects scientific findings.
Who f'n cares.
Best,
D
Unfortunately, wmanny didn't choose to address what I actually wrote.
As he says, he's more skeptical of AGW every day, and I can't say I'm surprised. Enough for me.
John,
I'm not sure I see the need for you to be uncivil and address me in the third person, as though I were not here. You were the one who made things personal, not me. (I used to be "wmanny", remember, until you decided I needed to be treated differently than the other posters.)
As to your concern that I did not address what you actually wrote, well, what in particular did you want me to address? Yours was an impressive recounting of your life story and a useful compendium of all of that which has brought you to your current point of view. It did not strike me as something you wished me to address point by point, especially insofar as it was opened up as a general topic later on.
If you would like to engage, chapter by chapter of the AR4, for example, go for it. I see that overall report as a collection of certainties about CO2 and uncertainties about practically everything else. There is a chasm, to me, between the Summary for Policymakers and the chapters which it interprets. The chasm is wider still between the chapters and the call for immediate, drastic measures before we reach The Tipping Point. Having said that, I do not know if you are a subscriber to tipping point fears.
Clearly I have struck a nerve with the folks on this site, you in particular. I am unsure exactly why that is so, but I suspect it is because as much as you want to say "enough for me" and simply dismiss a dissenting point of view, you know it would be somewhat disingenuous because you know I am not a name-calling idiot, much though that might be preferable.
As to your potshot, if it was one: "I can't say I'm surprised", I assume you meant to say that it is not surprising to you that a misinformed, ill-motivated heretic such as me would be more skeptical the more he reads. Perhaps, though, you meant to be more respectful, stating it as no surprise that someone like me, who is struck by the ongoing uncertainties and LOSUs surrounding CH4, water vapor, albedos, irradiance and the like, might grow increasingly skeptical in the face of the ofttimes shrill calls for alarm. If I don't hear back, I will assume the best in you and that it was the latter. Be well,
Walter
Shorter wmanny: GALILEO!!!
Walter Manny:
(I thought you were back to work):
I actually did a fair amount of work to provide sources for various levels of expertise, and references to people I've talked to who are certainly smarter than more knowledgable than I, all of whom think AGW is real and an issue.
Your response was that you were more skeptical of AGW every day. OK, I tried, and I only have so much bandwidth for this, and I spent most of it writing something with extensive references.
But, since you mentioned an issue of incivility, I certainly didn't get an answer to one issue that I raised:
"When wmanny disappeared for a while, but "nothisrealname [Do not change your name to avoid kill files]" appeared, it seemed unlikely that an English teacher would write that way, but certainly the obvious idle speculation arose."
So I must ask explicitly: were you "nothisrealname", and if so, do you regard those posts as good examples of civility and reasoned discourse for the students and faculty of Millbrook School?
John,
Sorry for the assumption that you already knew about it -- I had thought that whole 'nothisrealname' business was fairly obvious, and in retrospect a pretty lame attempt at satire. I admit I was angered at having been called a liar, which I had thought was against the rules on this site, and I got sucked back in. So, yes, it was uncivil and intentionally so -- if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't. A bit LCD on my part.
You will note, though, that I am trying harder not to respond to the bait since I returned, and I remain interested in hearing you out. So, what about it? Are you willing to leave the personal stuff aside, as I am, and let me know your thoughts about the uncertainties and LOSU? From a previous request, "if you already believe that there are no reasonable concerns about AGW theory that need examining, please let's end before we begin." If you are truly unconcerned, there is no need for you to respond, and once again I thank you for your 'tour de force" on the subject. It would be perfectly fair for you to leave it at that.
Walter
I'm out of bandwidth for about a week.
Since I suggested that blogs are really not the best place for learning climate science, how about reading something (like say Ruddiman) in the meantime. IPCC AR4 is a big learning curve jump from blogs.
I do believe IPCC has done a reasonable job on LOSU's in AR4, both from my own experience and from having discussed the topic with Stephen Schneider, and heard him talk on it several times, along lines suggested in discussion. I expect the AR5 will do better. I have of course, discussed the topic with several atmospheric scientists, to see if their assessments of uncertainties accord with IPCC's, and they do. I especially like Figure 2.20 on p.203,and to some extent wish they'd used it for the SPM, although I understand their reluctance to use probability distributions there. The bulk of the total uncertainty in the bottomline comes from the cloud albedo effect. Most of the ones with LOW are also relatively small effects. Unsurprisingly, there's a lof ot research focused on reducing the larger uncertainty bars.
A useful comparison is with cigarette smoking, in which some people get very ill, and some don't, and they don't know why, although they know the statistics. Likewise, some substances appear to be carcinogens, but the exact biochemical mechanisms are not yet known, or at least, weren't in 1964. These would have to be (or have to have been) accounted fairly low LOSUs. which didn't stop the Surgeon General, thank goodness.
I've frequently had to help make multi$M decisions with more uncertain data than this, so uncertainty bars are life as usual.
If I worry about something, it's the possibility of non-linear effects like ice-albedo feedback around the Arctic or permafrost melt speeds. Every bit of experience says that predictions across inflection points are tricky, and unfortunately, most feedbacks seem to be positive, as can be seen from the jiggles in the long-term records.