All models need tweaking and interpretation - if they didn't, they would not be models.
What bothers me is tweaks that cause the models to predict more reasonable numbers, but for the wrong reasons; e.g. sulfate aerosols. And in referring to selective interpretation of data, I meant objectively measured data, not model-based data. And before you pounce on that one -- yes, I have seen that happen on both sides of the issue.
You are plain historically wrong - skepticism is the traditional view - the old paradigm, which has been replaced by the new paradigm - anthropogenic global warming.
This easy to demonstrate, as the number of skeptics (the old paradigm) has steadily descreased over decades. This is what happens when old paradigms die out.
You don't seem to see that this is a matter of interpretation. Of course skeptics have decreased as the anthropogenic warming paradigm has grown. That's what "mopping up" science does. That tends to validate the view as a paradigm.
If people like you can't be convinced, then we have a problem.
I would say exactly the same of you. We do have a problem. And I never said I was incapable of being convinced. In evaluating our conversation, I concluded that I would not be convinced by you. It is also painfully obvious that it would be futile for me to attempt to convince you that you are in error.
Regardless of your own interpretation of the history of the paradigm, it does not match my personal history on the issue, which is quite the opposite. It is my open-mindedness that has reversed my beliefs and led me to the position in which I stand today.
Respond and have the last word if you wish. I've had enough of being called "plain wrong" by you. Your black-and-white view completely blinds you to the fact that different interpretations might be valid. It's just plain insulting, and it is not the way I have treated you.
I see the predictions of the catastrophic effects of anthropogenic global warming as being the current paradigm, and the tweaking of models and selective interpretation of data as being the "mopping up" operations of which Kuhn speaks, skepticism being the revolutionary, or at least novel, component.
I accept that we simply have different views, and neither of us is likely to be convinced by the other. At least it keeps life interesting.
I'm sorry that it wasn't clearer from the start. I really was just trying to express my amusement. Also sorry that you found it a waste of time. I found it kind of interesting, though I can't claim not to have been frustrated too.
Anyway, may we both have success in convincing clueless religious zealot SUV drivers of the error of their ways. They are an offense to common sense and a menace to resource conservation, regardless of whether you buy all the claims of global warming proponents (and let's not get into that).
Having a conscience means one is examine the situation rationally and respond to change.
Having a conscience allows for the possibility...
Without a conscience, there is no examination, no action, and no possibility for change. (Emphasis mine.)
As you have said, in your case there is no action, which is my whole point. Your conscience is evidently serving no purpose.
There is a technical term for someone who has no conscience. You know what it is, right?
There's a technical term for a decidedly non-technical description? If "psychopath" is the word you intend me to read from your mind, the definition is slightly more complex and rather inapplicable on the basis that some churchgoers drive SUVs.
And yes, I am willing to take a stand: it is immoral to seek shelter behind self-serving beliefs which remove our conscience.
I never expressed disagreement with that.
No doubt you will again ignore the point and simply proceed ad hominem once more. Label me what you will; my point stands on its own.
Please attribute to me a little more intelligence than that. I was not attempting to argue against your "point". I agree with your point that, as I interpret it, some people use religion to justify hypocrisy. I would disagree if you implied that the majority of religious people in general are guilty of this, but I think you stopped short of saying that. What I did take issue with is your implication that your "conscience" gives you any measure of superiority, because failing, by your own admission, to act on it results in no practical difference. Your own position is not without a measure of hypocrisy. I'm not using this as an ad hominem attack in a wider argument; it is valid logic in the context of your professed beliefs.
And you can stop patronizingly linking to definitions. I'm not stupid.
Now, if manmade GW exists, it's a very grave problem as it's deeply changing the environment in a way we're not sure we can cope with as a species - at least a lot of us are likely not to make it.
But I think that claim is the very core of the controversy. It certainly is important to determine, as quickly as feasible, whether that's the case.
So, I'd rather take action - and see governments take action against it, soon.
When I say "as quickly as feasible", however, I caution against undue haste. The actions we might take have pros and cons. It would be best, if possible, not to damage or destroy economies, and we certainly don't want to mistakenly take action that causes worse damage. The law of unintended consequences imposes a certain risk that is difficult to estimate. Nevertheless, foot-dragging and delays that are purely political in nature are completely unacceptable.
Using the discord as an excuse for letting things go the way they're going doesn't seem to me a very good idea - I think it's criminal indeed
I agree unequivocally. Discord can only hamper efforts on both sides to scientifically determine the truth and find whatever solutions are necessary. I wish we could stop seeing it as two opposed sides, and rather as a cooperative effort, but I'm as guilty as anyone else in that respect. More than any scientist might be, and perhaps even more than the politicians, I think the media is behaving very irresponsibly. Their portrayal of the debate is despicable. They intentionally place the parties in tooth-and-nail opposition because they crave sensationalism. There is an increasing tendency for reporters to draw their own conclusions without consulting any scientific authority at all. Massive cleaving icebergs are spectacular, but before blaming anthropogenic global warming, why couldn't they check with an authority as to whether it is statistically anomalous to the melting activity that has been occurring since the end of the ice age? Land-falling category 4 and 5 hurricanes are spectacular, but a year like 2006 with a huge decrease in Atlantic hurricane activity is just as notable.
Also, I don't mean to decry honest efforts to reduce pollution of all sorts when the benefits and detriments are weighed appropriately. I don't think anyone can deny that we are in a better position today than we would be if not for the efforts of environmental and medical watchdogs since the industrial age began. While we still have a long way to go, we have made strides in, for example, particulate emissions and water pollution. In studying global warming, we are discovering indirectly-related problems we didn't know existed, as well as other indirectly-related ways to benefit humanity. Not to mention that we are simply adding to our overall understanding of how things work.
Thank you. I really enjoy the civilized discourse that I occasionally find on Slashdot.
Oh, it's not my own idea. You're taking issue with smarter people than I. Thomas Kuhn, for example, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions:
Normal science, the activity in which most scientists inevitably spend almost all their time, is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like. Much of the success of the enterprise derives from the community's willingness to defend that assumption, if necessary at considerable cost. Normal science, for example, often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments. (p. 5)
Mopping-up operations are what engage most scientists throughout their careers.... Closely examined, whether historically or in the contemporary laboratory, that enterprise seems an attempt to force nature into the preformed and relatively inflexible box that the paradigm supplies. (p. 24)
In science...novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation. Initially, only the anticipated and usual are experienced even under circumstances where the anomaly is later to be observed. Further acquaintance, however, does result in an awareness of something wrong or does relate the effect to something that has gone wrong before. (p. 64)
First, let's get that straw man out of the way. I am not claiming, nor are the scientists to which I refer claiming, that there is no measurable human contribution to global warming. To say that, "There's no disagreement over man-made global warming in the scientific community" is dead wrong, unless you're defining "community" as only those who agree, which begs the question. Even the Wikipedia article to which you refer says only that there is a "consensus", and also notes that, "only one [survey] has been conducted within the last ten years, which has seen numerous advances in the understanding of climate change."
Here's a list of just a handful of the scientists who are skeptical of predictions of catastrophic climate change. There are many others who do not claim a position on climate change, but whose work supports an alternative view, and has largely been ignored by the alarmists. Further, skeptical scientists refer frequently to published objective data sets that alarmists have selectively ignored or misleadingly sub-sampled.
Balling, R.C., Jr., The heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions Versus Climate Reality and other works
Bengtsson, L., E. Roechner, and M. Stendel, Why is the greenhouse warming proceeding much slower than expected?
Dlugokencky, E.J., et al, Continuing decline in the growth rate of atmospheric methane burden
Idso, K.E., and S.B. Idso, Plant responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment in the face of environmental constraints: A review of the past 10 years' research, and other works
Kalkstein, L.S., A New Approach to Evaluate the Impact of Climate on Human Mortality, and other works
Landsea, C.W., et al, Downward trends in the frequency of intense Atlantic hurricanes during the past five decades
Moore, T.G., Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry about Global Warming
Volin, J.C., et al, Elevated carbon dioxide ameliorates the effects of ozone on photosynthesis and growth: Species respond similarly regardless of photosynthetic pathway or plant functional group
If you want more, I can recommend some good books, to save me re-typing their lengthy bibliographies.
My books are at home, and I am at work, but I will post some info from home later. One that I don't have to look up is Sherwood Idso, whom I know personally, and greatly respect.
Would you trust the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company to give you an accurate report on the health benefits of smoking cigarettes? How about Microsoft-funded studies on the security of *nix OSes?
Would I categorically refuse to even look at the data, and spew forth invective arguing that its scientific claims are necessarily corrupt due solely to the source of funding?
No.
I have seen exhaustively researched, point-by-point refutations in both the tobacco and Microsoft cases. I expect no less. In fact, it is such refutations by skeptical scientists that have convinced me. Now it's the proponents' turn to refute, but all I'm seeing is spew.
That's very similar to what he says in The Satanic Gases. He does indeed acknowledge that there is a human contribution to warming, against which I don't think anyone would argue these days, but that is a far cry from claiming that global warming is due, as you said, "primarily to anthropogenic factors".
I agree that source of funding is an indicator of whether particular research can be expected to agree or disagree with research with different funding. That is to be expected -- the whole reason you sponsor something is generally because you have a stake in the issue. My problem is with the non-science-literate people you mention, spewing forth on something they don't understand, actively steering other people away from skeptical research with the claim that it's all corrupt because it's funded by the energy industry.
As for honest scientists being affected by their source of funding, you need to more narrowly define "affected". It can certainly influence their directions of exploration, their initial hypotheses, or what they consider to be anomalous vs. expected results, but funding doesn't change the laws of physics. And to whatever degree that it can affect scientists, it does so on both sides of the issue.
Are you serious? Boy, that one's a real winner! (Part of what makes it funny to me is that I've imagined someone reading about Sherwood Idso's sour orange trees and saying, "Yeah, but who wants more sour oranges?")
...even Pat Michaels no longer claims that global warming is not due primarily to anthropogenic factors.
Could you point me in the right direction to find that reference? I've only read The Satanic Gases, not his more recent stuff.
However, he still believes that technology will automagically fix the problem so we don't need to worry about it. The fact that he receives most of his funding from fossil fuel companies has no impact on that opinion, I'm sure.
I don't think this is a fair way to characterize anyone's work, and I think the worn-out funding source "argument" needs to be given a rest and the science objectively evaluated instead.
On the contrary, the skeptical scientists are working very hard to prevent the destruction of economies and implementation of "solutions" that will do more harm than good. I've seen this "laziness" claim before, and it is ludicrous. If anyone is lazy, it's the people who see no reason to question the current paradigm.
But the science matters more than the politics anyway, doesn't it? For your strong opinion to be justified, you must have thoroughly compared the science on both sides, right? So why don't you tell me exactly where you disagree with the skeptics, instead of just slinging mud? I've done my homework, and I'm ready when you are.
He's wrong anyway. Current warming is far more pronounced in the northern hemisphere. (Citing The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air About Global Warming, but I can't remember whose research Michaels was quoting, and I don't have the book with me.)
Exactly -- classic misdirection. The system is complex enough that they will always be able to find something that at least sounds bad to direct the attention of the masses where they want it, and away from concepts that oppose the doom and gloom paradigm.
But if you modded the discussion, you wouldn't be able to contribute to it, and Slashdot desperately needs a healthy injection of dissent when it comes to discussing climate change. Your comments are valuable.
If you would do a little research, you would find that it has nothing to do with his "personal inabilities". There are many reputable scientists who share his view.
Incidentally, since you feel compelled to question Mr. Idso's honesty, he was very up-front and forthcoming about his funding. And not embarrassed about it in the least.
As has been pointed out countless times, who else is going to fund his research, than someone with a stake in it? That's the way it works.
Slashdot Mirror
It's proof positive that anyone can get a story posted on /.
And don't forget a very long extension cord for the fridge.
What bothers me is tweaks that cause the models to predict more reasonable numbers, but for the wrong reasons; e.g. sulfate aerosols. And in referring to selective interpretation of data, I meant objectively measured data, not model-based data. And before you pounce on that one -- yes, I have seen that happen on both sides of the issue.
You don't seem to see that this is a matter of interpretation. Of course skeptics have decreased as the anthropogenic warming paradigm has grown. That's what "mopping up" science does. That tends to validate the view as a paradigm.
I would say exactly the same of you. We do have a problem. And I never said I was incapable of being convinced. In evaluating our conversation, I concluded that I would not be convinced by you. It is also painfully obvious that it would be futile for me to attempt to convince you that you are in error.
Regardless of your own interpretation of the history of the paradigm, it does not match my personal history on the issue, which is quite the opposite. It is my open-mindedness that has reversed my beliefs and led me to the position in which I stand today.
Respond and have the last word if you wish. I've had enough of being called "plain wrong" by you. Your black-and-white view completely blinds you to the fact that different interpretations might be valid. It's just plain insulting, and it is not the way I have treated you.
I see the predictions of the catastrophic effects of anthropogenic global warming as being the current paradigm, and the tweaking of models and selective interpretation of data as being the "mopping up" operations of which Kuhn speaks, skepticism being the revolutionary, or at least novel, component.
I accept that we simply have different views, and neither of us is likely to be convinced by the other. At least it keeps life interesting.
Especially if laws can change after publication.
I'm sorry that it wasn't clearer from the start. I really was just trying to express my amusement. Also sorry that you found it a waste of time. I found it kind of interesting, though I can't claim not to have been frustrated too.
Anyway, may we both have success in convincing clueless religious zealot SUV drivers of the error of their ways. They are an offense to common sense and a menace to resource conservation, regardless of whether you buy all the claims of global warming proponents (and let's not get into that).
(I know, already! ;-)
Having a conscience allows for the possibility...
As you have said, in your case there is no action, which is my whole point. Your conscience is evidently serving no purpose.
There's a technical term for a decidedly non-technical description? If "psychopath" is the word you intend me to read from your mind, the definition is slightly more complex and rather inapplicable on the basis that some churchgoers drive SUVs.
I never expressed disagreement with that.
Please attribute to me a little more intelligence than that. I was not attempting to argue against your "point". I agree with your point that, as I interpret it, some people use religion to justify hypocrisy. I would disagree if you implied that the majority of religious people in general are guilty of this, but I think you stopped short of saying that. What I did take issue with is your implication that your "conscience" gives you any measure of superiority, because failing, by your own admission, to act on it results in no practical difference. Your own position is not without a measure of hypocrisy. I'm not using this as an ad hominem attack in a wider argument; it is valid logic in the context of your professed beliefs.
And you can stop patronizingly linking to definitions. I'm not stupid.
But I think that claim is the very core of the controversy. It certainly is important to determine, as quickly as feasible, whether that's the case.
When I say "as quickly as feasible", however, I caution against undue haste. The actions we might take have pros and cons. It would be best, if possible, not to damage or destroy economies, and we certainly don't want to mistakenly take action that causes worse damage. The law of unintended consequences imposes a certain risk that is difficult to estimate. Nevertheless, foot-dragging and delays that are purely political in nature are completely unacceptable.
I agree unequivocally. Discord can only hamper efforts on both sides to scientifically determine the truth and find whatever solutions are necessary. I wish we could stop seeing it as two opposed sides, and rather as a cooperative effort, but I'm as guilty as anyone else in that respect. More than any scientist might be, and perhaps even more than the politicians, I think the media is behaving very irresponsibly. Their portrayal of the debate is despicable. They intentionally place the parties in tooth-and-nail opposition because they crave sensationalism. There is an increasing tendency for reporters to draw their own conclusions without consulting any scientific authority at all. Massive cleaving icebergs are spectacular, but before blaming anthropogenic global warming, why couldn't they check with an authority as to whether it is statistically anomalous to the melting activity that has been occurring since the end of the ice age? Land-falling category 4 and 5 hurricanes are spectacular, but a year like 2006 with a huge decrease in Atlantic hurricane activity is just as notable.
Also, I don't mean to decry honest efforts to reduce pollution of all sorts when the benefits and detriments are weighed appropriately. I don't think anyone can deny that we are in a better position today than we would be if not for the efforts of environmental and medical watchdogs since the industrial age began. While we still have a long way to go, we have made strides in, for example, particulate emissions and water pollution. In studying global warming, we are discovering indirectly-related problems we didn't know existed, as well as other indirectly-related ways to benefit humanity. Not to mention that we are simply adding to our overall understanding of how things work.
Thank you. I really enjoy the civilized discourse that I occasionally find on Slashdot.
Yeah, nice save.
Conscience, without action, makes no difference to anything whatsoever, other than your sense of moral superiority.
Oh, it's not my own idea. You're taking issue with smarter people than I. Thomas Kuhn, for example, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions:
First, let's get that straw man out of the way. I am not claiming, nor are the scientists to which I refer claiming, that there is no measurable human contribution to global warming. To say that, "There's no disagreement over man-made global warming in the scientific community" is dead wrong, unless you're defining "community" as only those who agree, which begs the question. Even the Wikipedia article to which you refer says only that there is a "consensus", and also notes that, "only one [survey] has been conducted within the last ten years, which has seen numerous advances in the understanding of climate change."
Here's a list of just a handful of the scientists who are skeptical of predictions of catastrophic climate change. There are many others who do not claim a position on climate change, but whose work supports an alternative view, and has largely been ignored by the alarmists. Further, skeptical scientists refer frequently to published objective data sets that alarmists have selectively ignored or misleadingly sub-sampled.
If you want more, I can recommend some good books, to save me re-typing their lengthy bibliographies.
My books are at home, and I am at work, but I will post some info from home later. One that I don't have to look up is Sherwood Idso, whom I know personally, and greatly respect.
I just want to say thanks for your intelligent, well-reasoned responses. Around here, it's refreshing.
Would I categorically refuse to even look at the data, and spew forth invective arguing that its scientific claims are necessarily corrupt due solely to the source of funding?
No.
I have seen exhaustively researched, point-by-point refutations in both the tobacco and Microsoft cases. I expect no less. In fact, it is such refutations by skeptical scientists that have convinced me. Now it's the proponents' turn to refute, but all I'm seeing is spew.
That's very similar to what he says in The Satanic Gases. He does indeed acknowledge that there is a human contribution to warming, against which I don't think anyone would argue these days, but that is a far cry from claiming that global warming is due, as you said, "primarily to anthropogenic factors".
I agree that source of funding is an indicator of whether particular research can be expected to agree or disagree with research with different funding. That is to be expected -- the whole reason you sponsor something is generally because you have a stake in the issue. My problem is with the non-science-literate people you mention, spewing forth on something they don't understand, actively steering other people away from skeptical research with the claim that it's all corrupt because it's funded by the energy industry.
As for honest scientists being affected by their source of funding, you need to more narrowly define "affected". It can certainly influence their directions of exploration, their initial hypotheses, or what they consider to be anomalous vs. expected results, but funding doesn't change the laws of physics. And to whatever degree that it can affect scientists, it does so on both sides of the issue.
Are you serious? Boy, that one's a real winner! (Part of what makes it funny to me is that I've imagined someone reading about Sherwood Idso's sour orange trees and saying, "Yeah, but who wants more sour oranges?")
Could you point me in the right direction to find that reference? I've only read The Satanic Gases, not his more recent stuff.
I don't think this is a fair way to characterize anyone's work, and I think the worn-out funding source "argument" needs to be given a rest and the science objectively evaluated instead.
Thanks for the laugh; that's hilarious! I'm picturing your pained expression.
So you're saying that, although there is no practical difference, your guilt gives you a slight moral edge that justifies your self-righteousness?
On the contrary, the skeptical scientists are working very hard to prevent the destruction of economies and implementation of "solutions" that will do more harm than good. I've seen this "laziness" claim before, and it is ludicrous. If anyone is lazy, it's the people who see no reason to question the current paradigm.
But the science matters more than the politics anyway, doesn't it? For your strong opinion to be justified, you must have thoroughly compared the science on both sides, right? So why don't you tell me exactly where you disagree with the skeptics, instead of just slinging mud? I've done my homework, and I'm ready when you are.
He's wrong anyway. Current warming is far more pronounced in the northern hemisphere. (Citing The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air About Global Warming , but I can't remember whose research Michaels was quoting, and I don't have the book with me.)
Exactly -- classic misdirection. The system is complex enough that they will always be able to find something that at least sounds bad to direct the attention of the masses where they want it, and away from concepts that oppose the doom and gloom paradigm.
Funding has less to do with quality than whether the research supports or opposes the current paradigm.
But if you modded the discussion, you wouldn't be able to contribute to it, and Slashdot desperately needs a healthy injection of dissent when it comes to discussing climate change. Your comments are valuable.
If you would do a little research, you would find that it has nothing to do with his "personal inabilities". There are many reputable scientists who share his view.
Incidentally, since you feel compelled to question Mr. Idso's honesty, he was very up-front and forthcoming about his funding. And not embarrassed about it in the least.
As has been pointed out countless times, who else is going to fund his research, than someone with a stake in it? That's the way it works.