Climatologist prescribes the IPCC be "put down"

[RegGuheert]

1) It was never my claim that science was "pure" or otherwise flawless.

But you're O.K. with it as long as it matches you own personal ideology? That's fine until it doesn't.

2) Do you even know what "Ad Hominem" means, or do you just like throwing it out there because it's Latin and makes you feel smarter to use it? I ask because you're awfully quick to toss that accusation into the discussion but you've not actually used it correctly.

It means that you attack the source rather than the content:

Linking to Forbes/WattsUpWithThat certainly doesn't help your credibility either. Both of these sites have been caught lying in the most obvious ways in the past.

I linked to specific articles, but you made a simple ad hominem attack of the sites themselves. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[AndyH]

2) Do you even know what "Ad Hominem" means...

That's an easy one. It's the last available weapon after sanity's left the bodies of Greedy Lying Bastards in The Age of Stupid.

 

[klapauzius]

Just out of curiosity, since this argument is so loudly made all the time:

Which "ideology" would be driving the IPCC and the majority of scientists?

If there is a conspiracy, what is driving it?
Monetary gains, comparable say to what big oil, gas and coal are making?

 

[evnow]

I suggest a change in the title - since these are well known deniers.

 

[RegGuheert]

Just out of curiosity, since this argument is so loudly made all the time:

Which "ideology" would be driving the IPCC and the majority of scientists?

If there is a conspiracy, what is driving it?
Monetary gains, comparable say to what big oil, gas and coal are making?

I'm not a big fan of labeling others, because I feel everyone makes decisions based on their core beliefs and that everyone's beliefs are different from everyone else's.

That said, I think that the idea of AGW fits in with multiple ideologies, not just one.

Since I self-identify with one group, I will give it a label: Environmentalists. (My alias here is "TreeHugger" spelled backwards.) That is one group who tends to accept the science of global warming. There are several others.

On the other side of this argument are another set of ideologies. I also happen to have ideologies on this side of the isle. Personally, I am generally opposed to the centralization of governmental power. In my mind, the UN is the epitome of that. And there are other groups that do not accept AGW with which I do not self-associate.

So, for me, the question becomes one of "Is the UN corrupting the science or is the science sound?" Guess what? To answer that question, you cannot simply read Skeptical Science OR Watts Up With That. They both claim the others are idiots. Those ad hominem attacks don't tell anyone anything. And I find plenty on both sides that I do not agree with. But frankly, I find nothing particularly skeptical about Skeptical Science. They seem to say whatever the IPCC says and point out that it's all backed by peer-reviewed papers. I get that. But the UN and their signatories control the funding for the research, so is all the science really just foregone conclusions? For that, I need skeptics of the IPCC, and they happen to live in the other camp.

The bottom line is that I do not accept any argument that says to only get your arguments from here or there. But on those sites, I can see technical arguments about the merits (or not) of the science. For instance, one of the things being pushed in favor of AGW is this graph:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/mean:12/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/mean:12/trend/offset:0.1/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/mean:12/trend/offset:-0.1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyway, I do not consider this issue settled, even if others here do.

 

[RegGuheert]

I suggest a change in the title - since these are well known deniers.

O.K. I changed the title.

 

[Smidge204]

But you're O.K. with it as long as it matches you own personal ideology? That's fine until it doesn't.

Another straw man. How quaint.

It means that you attack the source rather than the content

Wrong. That is not what an Ad Hominem is. Try again. Maybe read the link I supplied.

Here's a hint in case you're too lazy to read the link: The nature of character of the "source" needs to be irrelevant to the point being discussed. Saying that a source is biased or unreliable is not irrelevant. Saying that Anthony Watts is wrong because he has poor hygiene would be an ad hominem because his personal hygiene has nothing to do with whether he's right or wrong. Saying he's wrong because he's been caught lying and misinterpreting data and generally being dishonest with respect to discourse on his site is relevant to his credibility and therefore NOT ad hominem.
=Smidge=

 

[RegGuheert]

Wrong. That is not what an Ad Hominem is. Try again. Maybe read the link I supplied.

Here's a hint in case you're too lazy to read the link: The nature of character of the "source" needs to be irrelevant to the point being discussed. Saying that a source is biased or unreliable is not irrelevant. Saying that Anthony Watts is wrong because he has poor hygiene would be an ad hominem because his personal hygiene has nothing to do with whether he's right or wrong. Saying he's wrong because he's been caught lying and misinterpreting data and generally being dishonest with respect to discourse on his site is relevant to his credibility and therefore NOT ad hominem.

The fact that someone may have lied on that site is completely irrelevant to the point. That, in no way, invalidates anything discussed in this thread. It is character assassination, nothing more.

You other statement

Linking to Forbes/WattsUpWithThat certainly doesn't help your credibility either.

is also an ad homimen attack. It is known as an association fallacy, which is another form of ad hominem.

 

[klapauzius]

That said, I think that the idea of AGW fits in with multiple ideologies, not just one.

Since I self-identify with one group, I will give it a label: Environmentalists. (My alias here is "TreeHugger" spelled backwards.) That is one group who tends to accept the science of global warming. There are several others.

On the other side of this argument are another set of ideologies. I also happen to have ideologies on this side of the isle. Personally, I am generally opposed to the centralization of governmental power. In my mind, the UN is the epitome of that. And there are other groups that do not accept AGW with which I do not self-associate.

I know you said more about all that, but in essence you say that all the scientists involved follow an ideology, i.e. Environmentalism?
Given the size of the field, that would be remarkable in and by itself. Imagine all electrical engineers were communists (another ideology...) or all life scientists libertarians...


I am not sure that either the UN is a centralization of power (look at Syria... I think the UN is the exact opposite of a central power. In fact, the UN is quite powerless and has been from its inception), but I would venture that the majority of climate research is funded either by national governments OR corporations.

 

[RegGuheert]

I know you said more about all that, but in essence you say that all the scientists involved follow an ideology, i.e. Environmentalism?
Given the size of the field, that would be remarkable in and by itself. Imagine all electrical engineers were communists (another ideology...) or all life scientists libertarians...

No, I'm not really saying that. Sure, some scientist at the helm of this issue may have strong ideological views, but I doubt it is a majority. But in a situation where research money and publication is tied to sending the "right" message, then you tend to have a corrupt science. I do believe that is the situation here. Scientist who do not pay homage to AGW are not being dealt with kindly. I think that is well-documented. That doesn't mean the conclusions are incorrect, but it does mean they deserve very strict scrutiny.

 

[klapauzius]

No, I'm not really saying that. Sure, some scientist at the helm of this issue may have strong ideological views, but I doubt it is a majority. But in a situation where research money and publication is tied to sending the "right" message, then you tend to have a corrupt science. I do believe that is the situation here. Scientist who do not pay homage to AGW are not being dealt with kindly. I think that is well-documented. That doesn't mean the conclusions are incorrect, but it does mean they deserve very strict scrutiny.

But science does not have the "right" message (or "wrong" message). Science does not have any message for that matter.

It tries to establish facts, causal connections, develop models of nature that can be represented and understood by the human mind.
Since nature does not care about human motivations or ideology, if a lot of scientists come to some conclusion, there are only a limited number possible explanations

a) its a conspiracy (i.e. a willful distortion of the truth)
b) its the truth
c) its a systematic error (given the large number of independent observations, this would point to some common flaw in the human mind)
d) given the uncertainty inherent in this field, its a fluke

You can assign probabilities to each of these possibilities (in fact the IPCC has done that, (b) is ~ 95% and (d) is ~ 5%). (a) and (c) seem unlikely, given that these are thousands of people that act independently.

 

[smkettner]

Time will vet the truth. I give it another 35 years. Maybe more.

 

[padamson1]

Reminds me of copernicus and other heretics. The masses have been completely wrong plenty of times. Are you old enough to remember the global cooling scare caused by ozone? Let the paranoids be paranoid but don't buy into their paranoia.

Serious irony in the citing of Copernicus and the use of the word heretic. Copernicus was a heretic because he used scientific measurements to disprove the Earth Centric planetary theory created by theologians such as Aristotle. Initially those philosophers were backed up by the Christian churches and scientists like Ptolemy, but as astronomers across the world (mostly the Islamic world BTW) started to more accurately measure planetary movement, questions arose and the helio-centric theory was confirmed. Copernicus was up against the all powerful Catholic church as much as early science, but he is often cited for being the initiator of the scientific revolution: the practice of measure, theorize an explanation, then confirm.

Given that modern man is pumping billions of tons carbon into the air while at the same time reducing the Earth's capability to offset that change via deforestation and desertification (caused by poor agricultural practices), it only seems logical that the planet is going to warm up and oceans will become more acidic. There have been plenty of local minima in temperature trends and ice levels, but the long term trend is easy to measure. Sure lack of ozone will cool the planet a little, but thanx to the reduction of CFCs that should subside (and we'll hopefully be able to go out in the sun for more than an hour and not get sunburn like when I was a kid in the '60s). Yes Copernicus was in the minority at first, but so were the scientists who initially theorized global warming. It has taken decades for the pendulum to swing, against many powerful interests and what is considered the engine of economies worldwide (fossil fuels).

What really defies logic that people can think man's pollution and over use of resources is not going to affect how the planet works. The question is not if, but simply when and how bad is it going to be. That's not paranoia, that's reality in a closed system that is getting more and more stressed as more humans consume more than the planet can produce. It used to be that there weren't enough humans to globally affect the planet, those days are long gone. To deny AGW is to deny common sense.

 

[downeykp]

Nice reply. Copernicus like many like him was thought to be crazy. He eventually won over the science community because what he said was the truth scientifically. It wasn't a theory it was scientific fact.
So there are two avenues to travel down here. Deny that man has any culpability for a heated planet, ie put head in the sand. Or look at carbon levels and temperature levels and come to the conclusion that we are in a world of sh*t. Scientifically climate change is a theory and not a scientific law. But, by ignoring the overwhelming evidence aren't we betting that everything is going to be fine. If we are wrong our children and grandchildren will be the ones who will pay for our inaction.
But wha do I know, I am just a lowly middle school science teacher.

Reminds me of copernicus and other heretics. The masses have been completely wrong plenty of times. Are you old enough to remember the global cooling scare caused by ozone? Let the paranoids be paranoid but don't buy into their paranoia.

Serious irony in the citing of Copernicus and the use of the word heretic. Copernicus was a heretic because he used scientific measurements to disprove the Earth Centric planetary theory created by theologians such as Aristotle. Initially those philosophers were backed up by the Christian churches and scientists like Ptolemy, but as astronomers across the world (mostly the Islamic world BTW) started to more accurately measure planetary movement, questions arose and the helio-centric theory was confirmed. Copernicus was up against the all powerful Catholic church as much as early science, but he is often cited for being the initiator of the scientific revolution: the practice of measure, theorize an explanation, then confirm.

Given that modern man is pumping billions of tons carbon into the air while at the same time reducing the Earth's capability to offset that change via deforestation and desertification (caused by poor agricultural practices), it only seems logical that the planet is going to warm up and oceans will become more acidic. There have been plenty of local minima in temperature trends and ice levels, but the long term trend is easy to measure. Sure lack of ozone will cool the planet a little, but thanx to the reduction of CFCs that should subside (and we'll hopefully be able to go out in the sun for more than an hour and not get sunburn like when I was a kid in the '60s). Yes Copernicus was in the minority at first, but so were the scientists who initially theorized global warming. It has taken decades for the pendulum to swing, against many powerful interests and what is considered the engine of economies worldwide (fossil fuels).

What really defies logic that people can think man's pollution and over use of resources is not going to affect how the planet works. The question is not if, but simply when and how bad is it going to be. That's not paranoia, that's reality in a closed system that is getting more and more stressed as more humans consume more than the planet can produce. It used to be that there weren't enough humans to globally affect the planet, those days are long gone. To deny AGW is to deny common sense.

 

[AndyH]

It wasn't a theory it was scientific fact.

Does science have 'fact'? Doesn't 'proof' belong only to the realm of mathematics? Does science have anything higher in certainty than a theory?

While the DLBs spin theory with a false definition, in the real world a well-supported theory is a very good thing.

 

[klapauzius]

Nice reply. Copernicus like many like him was thought to be crazy. He eventually won over the science community because what he said was the truth scientifically.

Copernicus was the scientific community in his time!!
I think the issues he had was NEVER with convincing other scientists.
Like today, the problem was with an ignorant public, and worse, an ignorant establishment with an irrational and selfish fear of the truth.

 

[klapauzius]

Does science have 'fact'? Doesn't 'proof' belong only to the realm of mathematics? Does science have anything higher in certainty than a theory?

While the DLBs spin theory with a false definition, in the real world a well-supported theory is a very good thing.

Some theories are so well established you could use the word "fact" without having too much of a bad conscience.

When dealing with the global climate, its all about statistics and "facts" here become mere probabilities. I am more and more convinced, that the average human brain is poorly equipped to deal with stochastic variables (see Las Vegas or any Lottery for "proof" ), therefore the whole unfortunate climate debate...

Imagine apples falling to the ground in a Brownian motion pattern (or us being the size of amoebae), we would still have a debate whether gravity was "real" or not.... :lol: :lol:

 

[AndyH]

Does science have 'fact'? Doesn't 'proof' belong only to the realm of mathematics? Does science have anything higher in certainty than a theory?

While the DLBs spin theory with a false definition, in the real world a well-supported theory is a very good thing.

Some theories are so well established you could use the word "fact" without having too much of a bad conscience.

When dealing with the global climate, its all about statistics and "facts" here become mere probabilities. I am more and more convinced, that the average human brain is poorly equipped to deal with stochastic variables (see Las Vegas or any Lottery for "proof" ), therefore the whole unfortunate climate debate...

Imagine apples falling to the ground in a Brownian motion pattern (or us being the size of amoebae), we would still have a debate whether gravity was "real" or not.... :lol: :lol:

Bless you for injecting humor.

The problem with this 'debate' is that it's manufactured and not 'real'. There is no debate in the scientific community as the majority of you have stated. The debate such as it is exists only in the minds of some Americans, a few Australians, and a few tiny scattered groups that choose to disregard science in favor of an erroneous belief system nurtured by a well paid vocal minority that think it's ok to sell the future of the planet for short-term cash flow.

That disciples of the denial industry aren't intelligent enough to understand how they're being played is beyond sad. And very deadly.

 

[nosuchthing]

Climate change science is such a behemoth enterprise by now that it would be difficult for any scientist to try to fit facts into their own beliefs/agenda.

There is no conspiracy except for a little hiccough when some "secret" emails were paraded on the inernet a few years back.

The fact is there are some weird phenomena showing up lately like the size of Arctic ice (there seems to be more of it last year then previous) and so on, stuff that does not fit any models. This is why all that talk of heat in the deep ocean.

I say we have Haliburton nuke all the hot vents, plug them with their superior cement, and voila! The heat has been contained and all's well in the deep blue sea. And the Arctic ice? Getting better because of Nissan/Tesla and all those millions of electric miles we've been driving... :mrgreen:

 

[Stoaty]

The fact is there are some weird phenomena showing up lately like the size of Arctic ice (there seems to be more of it last year then previous) and so on, stuff that does not fit any models. This is why all that talk of heat in the deep ocean.

There really isn't more ice in the Arctic, it is just spread more thinly so covers a larger area. The volume continues to decrease:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/11/2603711/arctic-death-spiral/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;