Science! Science? Science...

[Phaethon]

Originally Posted by Rich10

What do most scientists think? I'll admit that it comes down to how you ask the question. If you asked a group of scientists the question, "Is man or nature responsible for global warming?" A reasonable response is that nature causes global warming since global warming originates with the sun. Even if man increases the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, ultimately it is the sun that causes the warming. I've seem silly arguments like this and I just groan. The sun is a given and a poorly worded question gives a silly result.


Or we could ask the following question: Is man responsible for the increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and does the increase in CO2 contribute to the increase in temperatures? Again, a skeptic could respond that most CO2 comes from decaying plant matter and as a result, man's activities are a small percentage of CO2 emissions. Again, this is a silly argument because decaying plant matter is beyond our control.

Most reasonable people recognize that man, by burning fossil fuels is putting carbon back into the earth's atmosphere, that was taken out of the earth's atmosphere between the Carboniferous through Cretaceous periods (if I remember my earth history correctly). Its not particularly hard to show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As a result, a reasonable conclusion would be that an increase in CO2 causes global warming. I am willing to accept the conclusion of the majority of scientists who agree with this assessment.

Everything you say about CO2 is right. It is a greenhouse gas and at least theoretically should warm unless something else counteracts it.

The point of AGW is that CO2 is the only cause... that there are no other things that could have warmed the earth in the last 30 years. Nothing.

My point has always been that we don't know enough about how the climate works to say that natural variations couldn't have caused it

But, where does this assessment come from? There is no annual poll of scientists as to what they believe. A famous study out of Australia in 2013 found that of the 4,014 papers on global climate change, 97% assumed that humans were responsible. This is where the 97% figure comes from. I'll agree that it isn't the same as saying that 97% of scientists believe that man causes global climate change, but its a damn high percentage of recent papers. Unfortunately, I haven't heard of a new blockbuster paper that turns this on its head. See the article from Scientific American which I understand hires very few politicians.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...lobal-warming/

It's famous alright - or should i say infamous.
Read Richard Tol's rebuttal.

From the article you quoted:

One of the problems with Cook's appeal to authority is this: So far, no one has quantified the consensus among natural scientists on global warming. In fact, it cannot be done easily, said Jon Krosnick, a social psychologist at Stanford University who has been studying communication strategies for decades.

While the Cook study may quantify the views expressed in published literature, it does not establish the beliefs of any defined group of scientists, Krosnick said.

"How do you determine who qualifies to be surveyed and who doesn't qualify?" he asked. "Personally, I haven't seen anyone accomplish that yet."

[quote]
Why do I say "unfortunately"? The majority of the models predict the worst affects of global climate change in decades, not months. As a result, this is a problem (lets just assume for the sake of argument that this is a real problem) that we are deferring to our children and grandchildren. There is no movement that has captured this country that would have us significantly reduce our emission of greenhouse gasses. On a world wide basis, the situation is likely worse because we are dealing with an externality where one's actions affect all of the earth, as opposed to just affecting the individual. Developing countries are increasing their carbon emissions, not decreasing them. Absent some technological breakthrough that gives cheap energy that does not produce greenhouse gases, I unfortunately do not believe that any action will be taken. Economics wins over the impact to our children.
[\quote]

But what if the models are wrong? If they're wrong, and the world isn't hurdling towards runaway heat, then why waste the money? And if you look at how the models have done over the last 20 years, there's little reason to put faith in them. The real temperatures for the last 20 years are well under the model average and almost outside the 95% confidence band.

Maybe we just don't know all that affects the climate!

Originally Posted by Rich10

As for eating red meat and bacon, nitrates have been suggested as a possible cancer causing ingredient for some time. It has been suggested that people restrict their red meat intake for a while (due to heart health and other reasons). I eat red meat; I love bacon and I'm not going to stop eating either one. If I am harming anyone, I am harming myself. I can live with that. For example, if someone wants to drink to excess, he is just harming himself. When he drives while drunk, he risks other people's lives. I can live with the first, not the second.

I don't think anyone has said that our eating and exercising habits are healthy - by and large as a society, they're not. But the story was how meats cause cancer. I saw one review of the study that said that the increase between a vegetarian and a processed meat consumer was an increase in risk from 55 to 67 out of 1000, or a 1.2% increase. That's about right, but is not in line with the headlines - which make it sound much higher. And like you, I'll take the 1.2% increased risk and enjoy my crispy bacon.

[Phaethon]

Originally Posted by Owlman

Personally, I do not trust the majority of secular scientists as far as I can throw them. Too much history of publishing "Earth shattering finds", which turn out to be not so earth shattering, AKA pseudo science.

For the most part, I trust scientists. What I don't trust is Science by Press Release. I discount almost all press releases as being biased by the scientist wanting to make a splash or by news wanting to sell papers or by evangelists wanting to prove their point.

The majority of secular scientists have never had a press release for one of their papers.

[Dysole]

Quick chime in. The meat ---> cancer is not false but is more of an example of the difference between statistical significance and effect size. Based upon this study, it appears that meat like bacon increases the chances a person will develop bowel cancer. It is hardly the largest risk factor and so its actual effect on you developing bowel cancer is going to be minimal compared to other bowel cancer risk factors. (This does not mean that gorging yourself on red meat is going to be the correct answer either)

Just to compare it to the climate change debate since you seem to be doing so, everything I have researched on the subject shows that there is a correlation and a decent enough effect size on our use of pollutants and the changes it enacts upon the planet. We actually don't need the temperature to rise all that much for life to get real crappy real fast. (However, like smoking the actual effects are still a ways off in the future) And I mean really is it our fault? Well yes, but when we first started burning fossil fuels we didn't realize their long term effects and were focused on the power they could provide to us. So like the red meat situation, gorging on fossil fuels is not the correct answer.

~Dysole, who's mostly just been lurking and may or may not chime in as the fancy strikes me

[Rich10]

I have a feeling that I'm going to regret this, but I'll go for one more spin.

Originally Posted by Phaethon

Everything you say about CO2 is right. It is a greenhouse gas and at least theoretically should warm unless something else counteracts it.

The point of AGW is that CO2 is the only cause... that there are no other things that could have warmed the earth in the last 30 years. Nothing.

My point has always been that we don't know enough about how the climate works to say that natural variations couldn't have caused it

Yes, I have read about "shiny clouds" and other possible differences. Clearly, CO2 isn't the only factor involved in the retention of heat by the Earth. But, according to the experts, the increase in CO2 is the factor that has changed the most and is most likely responsible for the increase in temperatures.


Earlier, you said that you were an engineer. Unless you are a climatologist, meteorologist or in some other way are an expert on the Earth's climate, you simply don't have the expertise in this topic. If you have this expertise, I would be very interested in hearing your credentials.

Originally Posted by Phaethon

One of the problems with Cook's appeal to authority is this: So far, no one has quantified the consensus among natural scientists on global warming. In fact, it cannot be done easily, said Jon Krosnick, a social psychologist at Stanford University who has been studying communication strategies for decades.

While the Cook study may quantify the views expressed in published literature, it does not establish the beliefs of any defined group of scientists, Krosnick said.

"How do you determine who qualifies to be surveyed and who doesn't qualify?" he asked. "Personally, I haven't seen anyone accomplish that yet."

I agree that it is not a fair statement to say that 97% of scientists agree on... well pretty much anything. That's not what this survey measured. It measured what percent of peer reviewed studies assumed that global warming was caused by man. I would like to see a study prepared by the denier crowd that disputes this. I would like to see a credible study performed by the denier crowd.


I am very likely older than you, but I can remember when the tobacco companies paid for research to deny that tobacco use was harmful. Why didn't their attempts work? Simply because the number of studies that showed that tobacco was harmful far outnumbered the few that said that it wasn't harmful. There is some comfort in numbers.

Originally Posted by Phaethon

But what if the models are wrong? If they're wrong, and the world isn't hurdling towards runaway heat, then why waste the money?

I recently had the timing belt changed on one of my cars. I spent a reasonable amount of change on changing something that still worked just fine. You might say that I wasted the money. I did it because I would have had to pay 10x more if the timing belt broke.


Over the past year, I paid for life insurance. You might say that I wasted the money (as I didn't die). I did it because I wanted my family to be taken care of If something happened to me.


Sometimes (even frequently), it is wise to invest funds to prevent an undesirable outcome. If we aren't personally experts in a field (say global climate change), it is wise to get the advise of experts. By experts, I mean scientists who have published articles in peer reviewed publications, not schlock websites that do not have peer reviewed studies and are full of half truths or from individuals who have a few facts from such schlock websites, but no real expertise. Be smart enough to know what you don't know. As I said earlier, if you have such expertise, please provide it. If not, why don't you admit that you are arguing points you barely understand with data that you don't have.

Originally Posted by Phaethon

For the most part, I trust scientists. What I don't trust is Science by Press Release. I discount almost all press releases as being biased by the scientist wanting to make a splash or by news wanting to sell papers or by evangelists wanting to prove their point.

The majority of secular scientists have never had a press release for one of their papers.

Whether the research has a press release or not, it still has to pass a peer review. I'll tell you what would make a real splash, research that convincingly refutes that global climate change is caused by man. I guess that we're still waiting for this splash.


And what exactly is a "secular scientist"? Is it a scientist who doesn't define science according to a strict reading of the bible?

[wriggz]

Originally Posted by Rich10

Over the past year, I paid for life insurance. You might say that I wasted the money (as I didn't die). I did it because I wanted my family to be taken care of If something happened to me.

And what exactly is a "secular scientist"? Is it a scientist who doesn't define science according to a strict reading of the bible?

I may not be a scientist but I'm in insurance are we are actually pretty worried about weather events and predicting future trends so there is that. If there is a scientific conspericy no one has let the largest insurance company in Canada in on the secret since we are spending lots of money in claims and creating larger funds for the future, both of which are loathed to business types.

Now you might say that insurance is a corporation and why trust them over the oil industry. I don't trust corporations I trust them to make money. if there is no man made impact that is good for both insurance and oil. if the is it is only bad for oil. may be there is a reason ExxonMobil did studies in the 70s and 80s, apparently hushed it up and spend money on counter research.

the insurance industry would love to find that climate change was crap (we are still paying out those claims from the increase weather events, as a publicly traded company you can check). you can even check out our loss history showing huge up ticks in payouts correlating to co2 production.

As they said follow the money.

[caps]

Originally Posted by dok

That's an exaggeration.

Clearly you haven't seen enough Neil deGrasse Tyson memes on facebook...

(I completely agree with Aldin on his points so far)

[Phaethon]

Originally Posted by Rich10

Whether the research has a press release or not, it still has to pass a peer review. I'll tell you what would make a real splash, research that convincingly refutes that global climate change is caused by man. I guess that we're still waiting for this splash.


And what exactly is a "secular scientist"? Is it a scientist who doesn't define science according to a strict reading of the bible?

If it's not in a refereed journal, it doesn't have to pass peer review. even then, there are innumerable examples of press release science being destroyed by science. Two that come to mind immediately are the BICEP 2 gravitational waves and the faster than light particles discovery out of Italy. Science by press release and science that's wrong.

I treat science press releases with as much credibility as political press releases...

I am really trying to move away from AGW, not because I have changed my views, but because this topic is bigger than any one area. The way we practice science is in many ways compromised and we as a society have to be able to understand what is happening.

PS - and because you specifically mentioned this, I am an engineer, and the areas that I have always claimed were flawed were in data analysis and models - two areas i am an expert in and areas that don't need "climate science" background to discuss. The data analysis methods used in some of the studies AGW has relied on are fundamentally and fatally flawed. Unvalidated models, such as every GCM model in existence, can very easily give any result the operator wants - and is very susceptible to bias. In the case of GCMs, the proof of inaccuracies is evident in how poorly they've tracked the last 20 years versus temperatures.

[Rich10]

Originally Posted by Phaethon

If it's not in a refereed journal, it doesn't have to pass peer review. even then, there are innumerable examples of press release science being destroyed by science. Two that come to mind immediately are the BICEP 2 gravitational waves and the faster than light particles discovery out of Italy. Science by press release and science that's wrong.

I treat science press releases with as much credibility as political press releases...

In each of these cases, I would argue that the press releases increased the scrutiny of these "discoveries". Each was debunked fairly quickly.


If you want to go back further, I recall that in 1989, Fleischmann and Pons claimed that they had created cold fusion reactions by using palladium in an electrolysis experiment. It was covered on the front page of virtually every newspaper. Overnight, the price of palladium spiked. Every major university tested this incredible claim but none could replicate the results. Errors in the original experiment led to a critical review of the experiment, and it was quickly discovered that cold fusion was a myth. If a press release is well publicized, it is generally extensively tested and challenged.


Publicity helps to shine a light on bad (or poorly performed) science.

Originally Posted by Phaethon

PS - and because you specifically mentioned this, I am an engineer, and the areas that I have always claimed were flawed were in data analysis and models - two areas i am an expert in and areas that don't need "climate science" background to discuss. The data analysis methods used in some of the studies AGW has relied on are fundamentally and fatally flawed. Unvalidated models, such as every GCM model in existence, can very easily give any result the operator wants - and is very susceptible to bias. In the case of GCMs, the proof of inaccuracies is evident in how poorly they've tracked the last 20 years versus temperatures.

With respect to your expertise in this field, I have 1 question:
Do you work in the field of climatology or meteorology or do you base your knowledge of the data analysis methods used in climate studies largely on what you read on the internet?

[Phaethon]

Originally Posted by Rich10

In each of these cases, I would argue that the press releases increased the scrutiny of these "discoveries". Each was debunked fairly quickly.


If you want to go back further, I recall that in 1989, Fleischmann and Pons claimed that they had created cold fusion reactions by using palladium in an electrolysis experiment. It was covered on the front page of virtually every newspaper. Overnight, the price of palladium spiked. Every major university tested this incredible claim but none could replicate the results. Errors in the original experiment led to a critical review of the experiment, and it was quickly discovered that cold fusion was a myth. If a press release is well publicized, it is generally extensively tested and challenged.


Publicity helps to shine a light on bad (or poorly performed)

Unfortunately, in the press - people remember the headline, not the retraction. Look at how many people still believe vaccines cause autism?

How many people think AGW has caused an increase in asthma? There is no evidence of such a connection and yet it's trumpeted by our president as proof. Look at how many people think the number and/or strength of weather events are increasing? There's no data supporting it.

With respect to your expertise in this field, I have 1 question:
Do you work in the field of climatology or meteorology or do you base your knowledge of the data analysis methods used in climate studies largely on what you read on the internet?

Careful when you include meteorology - meteorologists (along with geologists) by and large dismiss AGW.

I am an aerospace engineer, with over 25 years of experience. I base my comments on my knowledge of data analysismethods. That it agrees largely with a statistician like Steve McIntyre and a climate scientist like Judith Curry just reinforces that the errors are not due to misunderstanding the science, but due to poor analytical methods.

As far as models go, as an engineer, I have a much more critical eye towards models that scientists. When a scientist misuses a model, they go back, fix it and publish another paper. When an engineer misuses a model, people die. An unvalidated model is useless to an engineer. And models can only be validated against data, not other models.

[Phaethon]

Here's a very interesting article on the insular nature of many of our higher institutes of learning and how that lack of diversity can cause problems

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/op...sity.html?_r=0

[Dysole]

@Phaethon , what would it take for you to accept global warming is a danger that we need to take care of right now?

~Dysole, who honestly isn't even sure what Phaethon's position is outside of "Science isn't as foolproof as you think it is."

[Phaethon]

Originally Posted by Dysole

@Phaeton, what would it take for you to accept global warming is a danger that we need to take care of right now?

~Dysole, who honestly isn't even sure what Phaeton's position is outside of "Science isn't as foolproof as you think it is."

Interesting question - first, if you go back to my first post on the subject, I said that half the warming we've seen since 1970 is probably man-made. no, serious! I actually do believe CO2 has warmed the planet!

What it would take for me to think it's dangerous is for the basic theory and validated models ( ie, models that match the data AND have shown a predictive ability) that are shown to accurately model the climate - including cloud formation, oceanic current interactions, solar impacts and accurately output trends in weather (oh, and not to mention the supposed thumbprint of AGW - the tropospherical hotspot which doesn't exist). All of these areas have a great amount of uncertainty in how they affect climate and long term weather. Once we have that, then we can get to the discussion of what to do about it. Oh, and these methods have to stand up to the inspection not only by AGW advocates, but also and more importantly AGW critics.

On a similar question - what would it take for you to not accept it? Or even question it?