Followup: Anti-Global Warming Story Itself Flawed 536
The Bad Astronomer writes "As posted earlier on Slashdot, a Forbes Op/Ed claims there is a 'gaping hole in global warming' theories, based on a recent paper. However, both the Forbes article and the paper on which it's based are themselves seriously flawed. The paper has been excoriated by climate scientists, saying the model used is 'unrealistic' and 'incorrect,' and the author has a track record of using bad models to make incorrect conclusions."
Let's get half the posts out of the way right now (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, whether or not the original article is BS, why is the very first point that the rebuttal piece linked above makes the fact that the original article uses the word 'alarmist' umpteen times? This is like counting the number of times the word 'denier' appears in the rebuttal. Both sides call each other names.
If you really believe that humans are not responsible for climate change in a significant capacity, and you see people running around talking about mass extinction and migration, then you'd probably call them alarmists.
If you really believe that humans are responsible for climate change in a significant capacity, and you see people running around dismissing climate change as nothing more than politics or researchers looking for more grants to keep their jobs in spite of the massive threat to, well, everything we know, love, and take for granted, then 'denier' is probably not even the meanest term you could come up with for them.
But talking about either one hasn't got anything to do with science, just like most schoolyard name-calling hasn't got anything to do with the science. There are industrial interests on both sides and not that many people who both care about solving the problem rather than calling a halt to civilization while also demonstrating the capacity and civility to talk about the issue without resorting to this kind of thing. Consequently, I can't help but wonder how many interested, semi-educated, but very-far-from-climate-experts like me there are out there who look at all this stuff and just scratch their heads.
Re:And many of the "climate" scientists... (Score:2, Insightful)
You have fudged data from the last century or so and think you've got a model that shows anything whatsoever? This is not to say AGW proponents are right or wrong- just that they haven't the foggiest as they've not honestly done any science with the subject yet.
Sigh... citation needed.
A real citation too. Not just speculation, potential for bias, alleged scientific misconduct. Show me the proof that the entire field is "fudging the data". And when I say proof, I do not mean other researchers trash talking, I mean actual data of fudged data. Because I suspect you are fudging it more than they are.
As my Grandma says: (Score:5, Insightful)
Two Wrongs don't make a Right...
Re:Of course! (Score:5, Insightful)
Carbon taxes are necessarily going to be a part of the solution, yes, but the effect could and would be offset by tax breaks elsewhere. Hell, for some reason tax breaks are a part of the debt reduction plans, to think that businesses would fail miserably under a mountain of taxes because we're trying to reduce pollution is nonsense and not backed up by history.
Nice of you to speak up for those poor widdle corporations though against those big, mean treehuggers, by the way.
Also, if you read the article -really closely- (IE, with your eyes) you'll notice that the reasons they give have nothing to do with dogmatic beliefs.
Re:Well, duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
But what about the damned data? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not defending the article in question, but this one is just a big a pile of crap as the other.
Granted, the original had a sensationalist headline and the article was distinctly written from a skeptic's perspective.
However - shouldn't we be looking at the raw data and either confirming or debunking it?
To Paraphrase this article: "You don't to need to see the data because people who stand the most to lose if this research is right are telling you it is bull. And you shouldn't ask any questions because the guy who did the research doesn't agree with the people this research doesn't support. Oh, and did we mention he thinks there's a creator? So it's only an *IF* he's right, and we've already explained that we don't need to verify this because, as you can see, he's just some crazy bastard who took funding from an energy company. We don't see any reason to go beyond the *if* and neither should you. Yeah, he's a corrupt, quack job for sure.. nothing to see here..."
I want to see the scientific proof, not the "he doesn't think like most of us so this article is flawed" bullshit.
Give me *real* scientific process.
Seriously - WTF happened to the scientific process? By this measuring stick, both articles are flawed. Can we get back to the real question now?
The goal is to scientifically understand our environment so we can make better predictions and protect it. Nobody I know wants dirty air or polluted water; climate change proponent or skeptic. So can we kindly STFU with that kind of crap and focus on finding the truth instead of trying to gain political points and power?
*sigh* - rant over-
Re:Of course! (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree with your premises. Why would we need any carbon tax if global warming is beneficial to the biosphere and humanity as a whole (see: Medieval Warm Period).
Put another way, how would you feel if I demanded that all governments around the world provide massive carbon *subsidies* (on the level of what they put, per MW, to say, solar and wind), because I believe that a warm world is a good world, and that CO2 helps warm the planet?
Frankly, the libertarian position of "leave me alone" works either way - the government intervention position has to be *completely correct* in order for it to be beneficial (and let's take a wild guess about how often that happens).
Re:Evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Caution (Score:2, Insightful)
Appeal to authority. Very typical of religious movements - you've just replaced the Pope with nasa.gov.
I'll start believing in CAGW when *any* alarmist makes a clear, concise list of observations that would falsify their hypothesis, and then we all try *really hard* to look for those observations, and are completely unable to find any. That's called science.
A pox on all their houses (Score:2, Insightful)
Most climate science on both sides of the argument is on shaky ground. I totally agree with Freeman Dyson.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html [edge.org]
The true believers on both sides are way too confident in their beliefs. They (both sides) are closer to religion than they are to real science. There is way too much ad hominem and way too little real science.
If I had to pick a side in the debate, I would tend to side with Henrik_Svensmark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark [wikipedia.org] His theory about cosmic rays modulating cloud formation has, at least, the advantage of being falsifiable. That stands in stark contrast with Al Gore who takes absolutely anything as proof of anthropogenic global warming. ;-)
Re:Natural Climate Change Denial is... (Score:2, Insightful)
You act like it's a complex issue, when it's actually rather simple.
______________
"Is it the sun?"
Sometimes but definently not for the past 40 years or so.
http://i.imgur.com/TSxqy.png
"Are we certain that less and less infrared radiation is exiting out into space, almost entirely in the wavelength we'd expect CO2 and CH4 to block?"
Yes
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm [skepticalscience.com]
Is the rate of warming significant?
Yeah, I'd say 100x faster than you'd expect from changes in earth's orbit alone is significant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bftcWQiZPPg [youtube.com]
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-to-explain-Milankovitch-cycles-to-a-hostile-Congressman-in-30-seconds.html [skepticalscience.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU#t=5s [youtube.com]
"Do we know that the CO2 is from fossil fuels. i.e. "Manmade CO2"
Yes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm [bbc.co.uk]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dj2yv1T53o [youtube.com]
DONE. That's all you need to know.
With absolute certainty, we can say that "manmade CO2" is the main cause the recent increase in heat on earth.
___
Any other questions that aren't on this list of common strawman arguments?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php [skepticalscience.com]
Speaking of Forbes (Score:3, Insightful)
People get so worked up over this shit. This isn't science - the "science" is pretty inconclusive otherwise there wouldn't be so much name calling. Nah, this is politics. And politics has absolutely nothing to do with science.
Re:And many of the "climate" scientists... (Score:3, Insightful)
All I see there is a giant train of thought log from a scientist trying to get a dataset and a program to play nice.
This happens in science. I have a friend who's just completed a Phd in Psychology. She found it necessary to learn how to code in Perl in order to get the datasets she was working with in a useful form. Now, bear in mind this is someone who, whilst very clever, has no prior experience writing code beyond the odd Excel macro. Can you imagine how much of a hack those Perl scripts must be?
Unfortunately, most scientists aren't software engineers. This actually presents a more profound problem in general for any science that relies in large datasets because it introduces a source of random error.
Thankfully AGW models from lots of different sources match up with each other and historical data to a large degree, so overall AGW is good science.
Re:Let's get half the posts out of the way right n (Score:3, Insightful)
If there was a Satan and he did buy souls, I'd wager a good chunk of the population of this planet would probably sell it to him for an iPhone 5. The fact of the matter is that people never do the sensible thing, they never consider long-term consequences. Even without well-funded oil-friendly groups like the Heartland Institute, it would be damned hard to convince people that puking hundreds of millions of years worth of CO2 into the atmosphere in the space of a few centuries was a bad thing, and even getting them to that point it would be even harder to convince them that they needed to change their behaviors.
Bring in groups like the Heartland Institute and its small number of well-paid "researchers", and it becomes well-nigh impossible. In a hundred years I guarantee you our great-great grandchildren will be asking "What in the fuck was wrong with people?" By then, it will be too late, of course, on several fronts; not just AGW but peak oil and trying desperately after we've stuck it all in our collective gas tanks to try to find new techniques to overcome our inability to wean ourselves of cheap complex hydrocarbons.
Re:The paper disclaims its own results (Score:4, Insightful)
All that matters is that the oil company shills and all the brainless morons who slavishly follow them can come on Slashdot and shout "See, this study shows it's all bunk!"
Re:Of course! (Score:4, Insightful)
You see, this isn't a matter of belief. We're not talking about the premise of your religion here. All of the range of scientific projections on what the planet will be like if warmed a few degrees, or more, are of a far less comfortable place to live, with far less carrying capacity, leading to a whole lot of death and dislocation for human populations. You may believe that human life is evil, and so all this would please whatever beings you worship. Yes, we have sociopaths among humanity who have no compassion for other human beings. But it's not the majority of us, even if it's a large subset of the self-identified "libertarians" who like to go all Pollyanna about what a few degrees C in rise in average temperature will do to the quality of life - particularly human life.
Re:A pox on all their houses (Score:5, Insightful)
Could you point me to the papers that Al Gore has published on AGW. For that matter, can you point me to the articles that Freeman Dyson has published on AGW.
Re:And many of the "climate" scientists... (Score:2, Insightful)
You have fudged data from the last century or so and think you've got a model that shows anything whatsoever? This is not to say AGW proponents are right or wrong- just that they haven't the foggiest as they've not honestly done any science with the subject yet.
Sigh... citation needed.
A real citation too. Not just speculation, potential for bias, alleged scientific misconduct. Show me the proof that the entire field is "fudging the data". And when I say proof, I do not mean other researchers trash talking, I mean actual data of fudged data. Because I suspect you are fudging it more than they are.
How about YOU cite a source where there is an actual hypothesis and repeatable experiment?
How about YOU verify the accuracy and methodology of temperature measurements and estimates throughout Earth's history?
How about YOU certify current temperature measurements?
The claim is that we need to live like hippies and give all our money to Al Gore and friends or THE ENTIRE EARTH WILL BE RUINED FOREVER.
The very foundation of that claim, that the Earth is undergoing any sort of damaging change, needs to proven before you can even discuss what, if anything, can or should be done to stop it. But global warming isn't a scientific issue - it's a political issue, so you've picked your side (democrat) and decided to brand anyone who dares question the base claim as a retarded, selfish, greedy, narrow-minded republican.
The people who realize that the entire fucking thing is all political bullshit are most likely NOT republicans OR democrats, because people with brains hate both parties. They hate both parties because they're filled with mindless morons like you. Morons who want everything to be black or white, right or wrong, and are willing to determine such based on what side they've already chosen, instead of actually deciding on the merits of the issue.
Basically: It's all bullshit, and you'll continue to cry "citation needed" despite plenty of valid citations having been given, and despite the severe lack of valid citations supporting your view. People like you are enabling and encouraging the morons in government. People like you are ruining western countries right and left.
Re:Caution (Score:5, Insightful)
An appeal to an authority where the person is in fact an authority is not fallacious. Would you rather everyone who quotes a climatologist put in a full bibliography? In other words, your complaint is bullshit.
If someone is quoting Al Gore, well, that's a fallacious appeal to authority. If someone is citing NASA atmospheric scientists, that is a legitimate citation.
Re:And many of the "climate" scientists... (Score:1, Insightful)
[quote]AGW models from lots of different sources match up with each other and historical data to a large degree[/quote]
But they are looking at each others' results and the historical data as they design their models.
Are you familiar with the concept of curve-fitting?
Re:Don't Use Labels Like 'Alarmist' and 'Denialist (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, Prof. A says the world is a sphere. Prof. B says the world if flat. Prof. A has a extensive list of evidence coalescing on a coherent picture. Prof. B has a large collection of counterarguments against various specific pieces of Prof. A's list. Prof. A believes that, as a society, we'd be best off in working out how to best prosper in a spherical world. Prof. B believes it would be premature to go ahead with that before we've had a debate and opened our minds to the reinterpretation of all of Prof. A's evidence. Indeed, Prof. B cites as further evidence of the wrongness of Prof. A's analysis that so many other scientists agree with Prof. A. How, after all, could so many scientists agree, despite all the counterarguments collected by Prof. B, unless those scientists were conspiring to foist their "spherical earth" interpretation on society?
Ya know, sometimes you've just got to take what the majority of your best scientists suggest is the most successful set of theories and best collected sets of observations and go with that. This is despite that everything and anything is always open to doubt. We're doubt monkeys. That aspect of us is integral to our capacity to do science. But it's not the whole game. And treating it like it's the whole game is as incapacitating as if we lacked all doubt to begin with.
Re:And many of the "climate" scientists... (Score:3, Insightful)
What observations would falsify your hypothesis that human emitted CO2 is causing warming of the earth that will have catastrophic consequences for humanity, assuming you exclude all proxy data?
Say, 15 years of no statistically significant warming, but continuously rising CO2 levels?
Re:Caution (Score:4, Insightful)
In the case of our politicians, usually their fields of expertise extend to business and law. They don't have any basis other than listening to the authorities in the field to even begin having a reasonable opinion on the subject, or any other scientific field of study. If the experts are legitimately conflicted, then they have to make tough decisions, and hopefully do so with the humbleness required to see that they are flying blind. If the experts in the field largely agree, which is more or less true per GP with regard to global warming, then our politicians should be using that as a basis for policy (while still, of course, reasonably hedging their bets in case they are wrong and we find new, more appropriate models as the science advances).
Now, the only way I can get anything like that out of my politicians is if the general populace stops thinking that reading blogs for 30 minutes gives them the required basis to have a meaningful opinion on a subject. It's cool that you are into science and all, but unless you have the skill set required to critically analyze research papers on climatology, there is no "we" that should do anything regarding the research presented. There is only a "they", and the "they" is made up of climatologists working in the field. And do you know what answer "they" have given us? It's that "... the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the 'greenhouse effect'" per the article listed above.
If we keep electing politicians that think they know better just because they agree with our own poorly-informed views, it's eventually going to be the death of us all.
Re:And many of the "climate" scientists... (Score:2, Insightful)
If you think all they are doing is curve fitting you're pretty clueless about how GCM's work.
Re:Of course! (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly, the libertarian position of "leave me alone" works either way
Your right to wave your fist around ends at my nose.
You can burn as much fossil fuel as you want if you don't put the waste into the atmosphere.
Re:Evidence? (Score:4, Insightful)
Trenberth takes it on further [realclimate.org] on RealClimate.