El Machinae said:
Just for clarity, what information would need to surface in order for AGW theory to gain more credence?
It's not just information, though obviously that's needed. Climate science needs to be seen to follow the basic scientific method for its theories to be credible. It would help if we had:
a)A reliable temperature record that is accurate to at least an order of magnitude smaller than the size of the warming trend proposed to exist.
b)Data from all over the globe - satellite data is obviously the best option here, and is less susceptible to interference than land based stations. Problem is that only gets you back a few decades, which isn't long enough to observe any trends on a climatic scale.
c)Proper error bars on existing data. When I see data sourced from tree rings and similar proxies quoted to an accuracy of 0.01 degrees it makes me wonder how on earth these things get published. That kind of false accuracy would get marks docked off a school science project. It shouldn't be showing up in a peer reviewed research paper. I seriously doubt these methods (and early thermometer records) are accurate to better than 1 degree, and that's being quite generous. When you look at the proposed temperature anomaly (still less than a degree) and compare to a even a generous interpretation of the accuracy of most of the historical record, scepticism doesn't seem so unreasonable.
d)Falsifiability. A reasonable criticism is that every time there is any newsworthy weather, there'll be stories - at least in the mainstream media - trying to cite it as evidence of climate change. Even unusually cold weather gets this treatment (usually with an extremely mangled version of collapse of the Gulf stream thrown in). Climate change proponents need to be just as quick to highlight the difference between weather and climate, regardless of whether it's cold/hot/wet/dry/whatever. It just isn't honest to do otherwise. They also need to outline what events and observations would indicate that climate change theory is invalid. For any theory to be scientific it must be falsifiable. When all the above conditions get held up as not falsifying climate change theory, alarm bells should start ringing about what would.
e)Predictive power. I've lost count of how many headlines have shown up before climate conferences claiming them as "the last chance to save the world", or claiming the point of no return was only a year or two away. They still showed up last year, and they will again this year. Until climate scientists can accurately predict the climate over a shorter time frame, there is really no reason to lend much credence to the inumerable (conflicting) predictions of what the climate will be like in 2100. I'd be happier with some predictions which the scientists who made them would live to see the accuracy of.
So to sum up: A prediction of how the theory states the climate will change over both short and long time frames. A statement (backed up with observations) of the normal background climate variation that this is to be compared with. A statement in advance of what observations would disprove the theory. A system capable of collecting relevant observations to a sufficient degree of accuracy (in this case that's a satellite system capable of observing the entire planet with the same instruments for decades at a time). Complete honesty in the limitations of that system in collecting those observations - no data to be presented without proper error bars. Predictions to be followed up, and the theory validated or invalidated by them. Scientists to then present the theory and evidence, and correct the inevitably mangled version that will show up in the mainstream media.
That's how science is supposed to work - sadly a lot of it doesn't follow this method, and climate science is a particularly bad offender. When was the last time you heard a climate scientist outline a scenario that would disprove climate change?
El Machinae said:
The mass media and propaganda practices are in place. A great deal of that is due to denialist dollars and due to general unwillingness of the population to form more than a shallow opinion. We know that the denialist propaganda is effective: just look at this thread. Basketcase is still bringing up volcanos. Abegweit is insisting upon scientific corruption.
A major problem is that politics is poisonous to science, and this is a very politicised subject. Yes, there's a lot of propaganda out there and money flying around, but be fair and remember that's on both sides. Every video of tidal waves sweeping across cities, islands sinking beneath the sea or heartwrenching scene of a child supposedly without a future due to climate change is just as much propaganda, and harms climate science's credibility.
I'll certainly grant you propaganda is effective, and yes that old chestnut about volcanos giving out more CO2 than humans is a great litmus test to see whether someone actually knows what they're talking about. Similarly the whole scientific corruption thing - Hanlon's razor really should be remembered in these situations, though personally I'd consider the issue more confirmation bias than ignorance. If there's to be any progress on the science, then the propaganda and the politics needs to be laid aside. The sceptics need to listen to the science, and the proponents need to cut out the ad hominems and be honest about the evidence and their confidence in it. Remember that every scream of "denialist", or accusation of wanting to live out a wasteful lifestyle is an ad hominem, and has no place in a debate. They certainly don't need to be hurled at anyone who dares suggest any climate science is anythign but flawless.
The scientific publications and seminars are available to the public. The AGW proponents are frustrated, because if people would just read them, then there wouldn't be an issue. The denialists benefit by fostering any ignorance that they can. Importantly, it doesn't matter what type of ignorance is fostered. Hell, AGW proponents would entirely love it if the language used by the lay public became less vague; but as it stands, scientific popularisation requires vague language when talking to the lay. But that doesn't mean that the actual science is absent!
The science is available? There are some open access journals, but most are still behind paywalls. There's plenty of "science" in the mainstream media, but having seen the mess they make presenting developments in my own field, I take anything they present in other areas with an extremely large pinch of salt. I do prefer to read the original publications - shame most news stories don't cite them properly even when they are freely available. I guess that's a subject for a different thread. I'd like to see all science freely available (what function do journals actually serve these days?) and everyone scientifically, mathematically and statistically literate enough to read them. I also know how far we are from that.
), including the very real risk of new wars - especially combined with other factors like increasing scarcity of resources and energy shortages.
