Slashdot Mirror
The Limits To Skepticism
jamie found a long and painstaking piece up at The Economist asking and provisionally answering the question: "Does the spirit of scientific scepticism really require that I remain forever open-minded to denialist humbug until it's shown to be wrong?" The author, who is not named, spent several hours picking apart the arguments of one Willis Eschenbach, AGW denialist, who on Dec. 8 published what he called the "smoking gun" — it was supposed to prove that the adjustments climate scientists make to historical temperature records are arbitrary to the point of intentional manipulation. The conclusion: "[H]ere's my solution to this problem: this is why we have peer review. Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things. One thing they cannot do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand. So for the time being, my response to any and all further 'smoking gun' claims begins with: show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here. Otherwise, you're a crank and this is not a story. And then I'll probably go ahead and try to investigate the claim and write a blog post about it, because that's my job. Oh, and by the way: October was the hottest month on record in Darwin, Australia."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
...to link to Willis Eschenbach's response in the summary. It appears that The Economist didn't even bother to contact Eschenbach before publishing this article by an apparently unnamed author. That isn't exactly what I would consider high-quality journalism.
I'm not popular enough to be different.
Homer Simpson, The Simpsons
A little history. Darwin was bombed and mostly flattened in 1941 by the Japanese during WWII. And, most likely, the weather station with it.
Hence, it was probably re-built at a different site with different local effects.
Next?
While labeled flamebait, this is something of a problem, even in less politicized fields of science. Most scientists are earnest truth-seekers, but a minority are not, and the peer-review system is not always robust to them. I work in an area of computer science that will never make Fox News, but even in this area things are sometimes suppressed for what's hard to describe as other than political reasons. At the very least, politically unpopular positions get all sorts of extra hoops to jump through that others don't--- e.g. if you're casting doubt on a position the journal editor or one of his friends staked his career on, better expect some random made-up requirements. If your paper scoops a large and well-funded group's work, there's a chance it'll be rejected by one of their friends, so they get to publication first--- and their publication might coincidentally borrow a few ideas or theorems from your rejected paper.
It's not all bad, and in fact most is probably good. But there are some very rotten parts of the scientific-publishing apparatus. It doesn't help that most journals are run by for-profit companies that are a bit shady themselves (Kluwer, Springer, etc.) who have no real interest in the quality of the science they publish or how to improve it. And it doubly doesn't help that the academic rat-race has gotten increasingly cut-throat, so people feel they need to resort to dirty tricks to get/keep a job, get tenure, get grants, etc.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Particularly when we can't promise that the nations that compete with us on the global stage (*cough* China *cough*) will do the same.
I work for a global mining giant, so I really can't be considered a tree hugger, but China is starting to kick our ass on green technology. Maybe it is inevitable, but I really believe that if we implement some of the policies sooner rather than later - and we know they're coming - that we will be at least as competitive if not the leader in these things. I really love this country (the US). Damn, the better it does the better me and my children do.!
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
But you do realize there clearly ISN'T proof of the hypothesis? Do you realize that there clearly was malfeasance? Several times in fact. IPCC released it's spreadsheet of the data only to be hosed by the fact that it deliberately tossed out the Medieval Warm period?
Even so, simple historical knowledge should convince you AGW can't be true. Greenland used to be GREEN with vegetation. It is presently covered in ice. What does that tell you? England, during the Roman Empire, was a major exporter of WINE.
Even so, KNOWN data from other fields, like ice cores, shows conclusively that CO2 is rising AFTER the temps.
If like me, you did satellite stuff, you KNOW that CO2 represents a miniscule IR component. It's water vapor (and thus clouds) that are much more important.
And last but not least, just a microscopic percentage change in the output of the sun will warm the Earth, as will precession and nutation of the Earth/Earth orbit will.
Perhaps it's time to once again point out that "scientific proof" is a red herring. As any number of science's theoreticians have carefully explained over the years, scientific methods rarely if ever actually "prove" anything. Rather, science works mostly with a double-negative approach: An accepted theory is one that we have failed to disprove. Scientific testing and data collection is mostly aimed at showing that a hypothesis is wrong. Results that agree with a hypothesis are generally called "support", not "proof", because usually the tests can't provide proof. But a single (correctly done;-) test or observation is often sufficient to disprove a theory.
This is why scientific theories are often called "tentative". Scientists are always trying to think of new ways to test a theory, and sometimes they succeed in finding situations where a theory fails. The poster child for this was the failure of Newton's mechanics to explain a number of anomalous observations about a century ago, which led to Einstein's theories explaining how the universe actually works. Of course, his theories have never been "proved", either. They have merely withstood hundreds of new experimental tests. Tomorrow some physicist (or high-school student) may produce a new test that demos an exception to Einstein's equations. But until then, they are accepted not because we've proved them, but rather because we have repeatedly failed to disprove them.
Of course, fundamental physics is "easier" that climate in an obvious way. Weather is much more complex than things like particle physics or orbital mechanics, which can be reduced to some fairly simple equations (though not quite as simple as we thought back in Newton's day). Anything dealing with weather has to be treated statistically, since the complexity is far beyond the capacity of our most powerful super-computers. (Our computers can't even model a butterfly's wings in detail, much less the effect the butterfly has on weather halfway around the world.;-) Since the public is generally totally ignorant of statistics, it's not surprising that people would fail to understand what the AGW theorists are telling us. It's fairly obvious that even most of the posters here in this "nerd" community don't understand the difference between weather and climate. You don't have much of a chance of understanding the issue without a good grounding in statistical methods, in addition to all the kinds of chemistry that you have to understand.
But the constant use of forms of the words "prove" and "proof" in regard to scientific theories should be treated with humor, since such words are an open statement that the author doesn't know much at all about scientific methods. Those are media and propaganda terms; they have very little use in scientific discussions. Proofs are what mathematicians do. Scientists do disproofs. (And it is interesting how well the radically different approaches of math and science complement each other. So far I haven't read much enlightening from either camp on this topic, just the observation that they play well together. But we all know that.)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
I can't believe that your comment got modded insightful.
NONE of the data has been erased. Here's a quote:
The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said.
"When you're looking at climate data, you don't want stations that are showing urban warming trends," Jones said, "so we've taken them out." Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks, he added. "We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world."
Refuting CEI's claims of data-destruction, Jones said, "We haven't destroyed anything. The data is still there -- you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center."
In other words, the guys at CRU deleted the junk which they didn't think was worth keeping. But since their data came from external sources, all of the original data is STILL AVAILABLE. Of course, you won't hear about that at the usual denier blogs, since it's just so much easier to keep your flock bleeting in ignorance when you can say "OMFG, DEY DELETED DA DAT0RZ!!!!".
The quotes cited below are taken from the "Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report" (dated Nov. 2007).
Needless to say, it's unclear what report the original poster was quoting.
"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR's conclusion that 'most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations' (Fig- ure 2.5). {WGI 9.4, SPM} ... It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure 2.5). {WGI 3.2, 9.4, SPM}" (p. 39; emphasis in original).
Nothing, ever, is entirely certain in science. Even "laws" are constantly tested and retested.
"Sea level rise under warming is inevitable. Thermal expansion would continue for many centuries after GHG concentrations have stabilised, for any of the stabilisation levels assessed, causing an eventual sea level rise much larger than projected for the 21st century (Table 5.1). If GHG and aerosol concentrations had been stabilised at year 2000 levels, thermal expansion alone would be expected to lead to further sea level rise of 0.3 to 0.8m. The eventual contributions from Greenland ice sheet loss could be several metres, and larger than from thermal expansion, should warming in excess of 1.9 to 4.6C above pre-industrial be sustained over many centuries" (p. 67).
Yes, not very confident:
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level. {WGI 3.9, SPM}
Many natural systems, on all continents and in some oceans, are being affected by regional climate changes. Observed changes in many physical and biological systems are consistent with warming. As a result of the uptake of anthropogenic CO2 since 1750, the acidity of the surface ocean has increased. {WGI 5.4, WGII 1.3}
Global total annual anthropogenic GHG emissions, weighted by their 100-year GWPs, have grown by 70% between 1970 and 2004. As a result of anthropogenic emissions, atmospheric concentrations of N2O now far exceed pre-industrial values spanning many thousands of years, and those of CH4 and CO2 now far exceed the natural range over the last 650,000 years. {WGI SPM; WGIII 1.3}
Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is very likely due to anthropogenic GHG increases and it is likely that there is a discernible human-induced warming averaged over each continent (except Antarctica). {WGI 9.4, SPM}
Anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has likely had a discernible influence at the global scale on observed changes in many physical and biological systems. {WG
Honestly, this absurd statement made by the author sums up what I felt reading the entire article. It's rife with the rantings of someone who doesn't really understand what's going on, clearly admits he doesn't understand the math, yet wants to chime in and put his $.02 in while discrediting someone else just as unaccredited as himself. This is sheer lunacy.
Actually, the editor of the blog carrying post that the article is commenting on has some background in the subject matter.
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
You bring out examples of supposed flaws in global warming as a "gotcha" argument, but ignore the fact that each and every one of these arguments has been repeatedly debunked.
Again - you're ignoring rebuttals to denialist arguments, then pretending they don't exist. It's not that no-one's listening to your arguments, it's that they are scientific nonsense.
That's Dr. Arthur B. Robinson, Dr. Noah E. Robinson, and Dr. Willie Soon to you. The first two are chemists and the last a physicist, all have PhDs and have published in a range of peer reviewed journals. You will need to come up with a better rationale than that.
WTF The Economist's editorial staff doesn't understand math?
Having looked at that paper and the text surrounding the formula, I wouldn't say that I understand it and I almost certainly have a better math background than the editors at The Economist. It isn't that the formula is incomprehensible; it isn't. The formula is pretty straightforward, but that doesn't mean it is easy to understand. There are not many people on the planet qualified to judge the suitability of the formula for calculating temperature trends. The Economist is making the claim that the climate-change sceptic Willis Eschenbach is not one of those people and that seems like a reasonable claim. Eschenbach is claiming, with no basis, that the formula is an arbitrary adjustment to force a desired trend. The Economist article is stating that until a peer-reviewed journal publishes a paper that backs Eschenbach's claim, it just isn't worth the time fighting over this.
They weren't preventing dissenting opinions from being accepting into peer reviewed journals - they expressed disappointment in the fact that the peer review process wasn't doing its job: weeding out bad science.
I don't think you've captured the true flavor of their hijinks.
Rigging a Climate 'Consensus' - About those emails and 'peer review.'
Scientists actually are pretty skeptical people by nature,...... Most "skeptics" are nothing more than contrarians; skepticism to me implies a willingness to investigate the issue for one's self, but most of the denial movement shows such a poor grasp of the science that they clearly haven't done so.
When it comes to climate, there seems to be two groups - skeptics, and believers. It is amazingly difficult to get believers to reevaluate new data (and perhaps endanger millions in grants?).
Climate of Fear - Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
Physics Group Splinters Over Global Warming Review
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Can most scientists afford to be skeptics?
After all, there is huge money to be made and transferred due to "Climate change", even if it all turns out to b
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Which climate skeptics are on the payroll of "big oil"
You do realize that the American Petroleum Institute not only funds the AGW thinktanks, but Exxon-Mobil actually outright offered a prize for anyone who could get a paper published that defended their positions, right? If you want a specific example, Soon and Baluinas, 2003. Here's some of their background. Half the board of Climate Research resigned in protest after Soon and Baliunas's publication, by the way. So when you see hacked emails showing scientists dissing people like them, or McIntyre, or any of that ilk, realize that the scientists *really do* think that these people are putting out garbage and have vested agendas. It's just that when speaking publicly, they usually have more tact.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
The article is penned by authors of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, an "institute" with just 6 faculty members, among which two sons of institute head Arthur Robinson, Noah and Zachary. A 50% incidence of nepotism? How can this be considered a serious research institution?
To further discredit the paper's first author, who is also the head of the OISM, I will mention he has signed the Discovery Institute's Dissent from Darwin petition.
Now, in addition to the shaky credibility of the authors, you say this paper has not passed peer review. I'll stick with the judgement of serious scientists, thank you very much.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
You do realize that the AGW crowd were getting funding from Shell, Exxon, BP etc - and that they got their wishes into the so-called scientific process?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/
it's in my head
Republicans always love to repeat like sheep that "government bad, companies not as bad and at least provide something of value".
There .. fixed that for you.
The major problem of your argument is that for the last 8 years the Bush government only wanted to hear that global warming did not take place, and the same government has shown no hesistance to lie and cheat to get it their way. So, not only can you not believe the global warmer deniers and other flat earthers from Exxon, but you cannot even believe the global warming deniers in the same periode with government grant (if you can find any of those?).
Which is now completely balanced by Obama administration who accepts human caused global warming as their undeniable truth and bludgeons anyone that thinks differently.
Seems like Obama is more like a mix of Bush and Carter than the lefties will admit.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
What they did was publish thousands of peer reviewed paper, huge reports endorsed by thousands of scientists from around the world, revealed all the raw data, much of the "adjusted data", and all the reasons why the data is adjusted. IF this isn't enough, nothing will be enough to satisfy these skeptics.
Anarchists never rule
I'll make the reasonable assumption that you are pretty intelligent, and evidently you are of skeptical disposition. Have you ever read any papers on climate science? How about earth science? If not, as would be the case for most intelligent non-climate-scientists (not just not just non-scientists), I can say without insulting your intelligence that you have no direct basis for determining what the general thrust of the literature is, much less what the camps are, who populates them and how strong the relative arguments are within those camps.
Unless you've read the literature, this statement, too is presumptive. What it really means is that one or more intermediaries has told you this, and you believe that intermediary more than you believe another intermediary who thinks that most climate scientists are in agreement. So in this case, this entire argument comes down to trust in intermediaries. You don't know who the camps are and who really subscribes to what camp.
I did a "terminal masters" in ocean physics, so I have some direct familiarity with the literature, though certainly not as deep as if I were practicing in this field. My experience is that the camps lean much more towards accepting general consensus about the nature of climate change (largely anthropogenic) and the magnitude of the expected effects than the perception you describe. From what I know directly and from the intermediaries I use when I don't know directly, just about everyone in the climate science community now believes that the arguments around concentrations of carbon and warming are solid. So when people say how much warming will happen in a hundred years, that considered very hard to dispute. Where people have more critiques is how we will get there, and the closer in you get the less agreement there is. However, it's also true that for most of the really wide open questions about climate change, people have been equally wrong guessing towards faster and slower warming. The rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet is a great example of this - nobody from the global climate modelers (like a friend of mine who's doing his postdoc in this now) to the ice physicists understood until a few years back that when the ice sheets began to melt that the meltwater would lubricate the rock upon which the sheets are sitting and cause them to slide more quickly into the ocean. So there's an example where change was called slower. On the other hand, if I understand correctly, there has been a greater uptake of heat by the oceans that was initially expected, which will delay warming on a scale of years to decades, but could result in acceleration once the oceans warm up and provide less capacity to capture heat. So that's a delay in warming.
This statement is also full of presumption. Look at the sales of vitamins, herbal supplements and other non-FDA-approved quasi-drugs. Those sales speak to a large body of people who do feel comfortable taking remedies that are not scientifically tested. Again I challenge you to show me your basis for concluding that they're "green nuts" - sure sounds like your impression more than any data to me.
I don't think this a question of treating the public like imbeciles. There are a vast number of books out there for those that want to learn more about climate science. This is a question of trying to understand the state of a scientific disc