The evidence for human caused climate change

[CavLancer]

Okay Ziggy, you're a good sport! The reverse is true as well. In 5 years if the world is irrefutably getting warmer then off comes my hat to you.

 

[Murky]

You don't need to be an actual scientist to have that proper training. I've got it even though I'm not a scientist. The answer is no. The people holding scientists accountable don't have to be scientists. The ClimateGate incidents prove that, sometimes, all it takes is a hacker.....

ClimateGate didn't disprove the science of global warming. The scientists involved were exonerated of manipulating data. It is true they that got irritated with deniers making frequent requests for information. The purpose of those requests was harassment. The data is there for anyone to see. If you had someone emailing you repeatedly asking for information how would you react? Again the purpose was harassment not to get to the truth.

"Proper training" says (this has been my main theme for a while here) that peer pressure is not appropriate in science. I hear it all the time, not only from global warming alarmists but from many global warming scientists themselves: "look, dude, almost everybody else believes in global warming, you need to get with the program". Peer pressure = science fail.

This is false. Scientists hold each other to higher standards and dissent is a given in every field of study. They aren't pressuring based on consensus. They are simply stating that the empirical evidence supports the theory. To deny something is true just because it represents an inconvenience is what drives most deniers. Global warming is not about peer pressure it is about physics. It is fact that Co2 traps heat from the sun and warms the planet. Deal with the facts and stop with the unfounded accusations.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Okay Ziggy, you're a good sport! The reverse is true as well. In 5 years if the world is irrefutably getting warmer then off comes my hat to you.

Not to me, I take no credit since I have not predicted anything, just repeating what scientists in this field predict.

 

[Murky]

If the majority of climate scientists really were this evil cabal of greedy conspirators wouldn't they have sold out to the fossil fuel industry a long time ago? Doesn't the industry have more money to pay them? If you were a climate scientist looking to get rich would you waste your time requesting grants from the government or just become a sell-out to industry?

 

[Rashiminos]

Indeed they are. What precisely is your point? Do you have one?

Most of the out-gassing from a pop bottle is due to a release of that pressure. Furthermore, the trend in the ocean matches the trend in the atmosphere because of an increase in carbon dioxide (or carbonic acid, as the case may be) contributed to both systems.

 

[Crezth]

If the majority of climate scientists really were this evil cabal of greedy conspirators wouldn't they have sold out the fossil fuel industry a long time ago? Doesn't the industry have more money to pay them? If you were a climate scientist looking to get rich would you waste your time requesting grants from the government or just become a sell-out to industry?

I tried that tack already. You'll get countered with "But OBAMA (aka SATAN) won the election!!! That PROVES that the Liberal Elite-illuminati Green Industry is more powerful than poor, weak, mistreated Big Oil!"

Either that or some word spaghetti about how the "real world" works with some choice things to say about statism on the side.

 

[Crezth]

It does not. I'm not the one arguing that one's groups efforts should be dismissed under the other group's efforts. I was arguing for an integration of those efforts, vis a vis accepting good science from 'non-scientists,' (such as good biology from non-biologists). The merits of the work should not disappear depending on the person evaluating or the person evaluated.

I'm saying that the efforts don't need to be integrated because they aren't segregated. When the global warming deniers start submitting "good science," they'll start getting accepted. But they have not, so you can see how this is working out.

Mendel's work was rejected, initially.

But it was accepted eventually, so the system, as it exists now, works. Your examples of people outside of the scientific community getting their beliefs accepted within it all demonstrate that the scientific community is very functional in its scientific efficacy and in sifting gold from dirt.

Your support of the scientific method. If empiricism doesn't work in the larger universe, then science has in-built limitations.

Ehhh, not really. Science isn't about empiricism per se, it's about having a body of knowledge built on a system of testable predictions and hypotheses. It doesn't argue "truth" as such, just what is or is not likely.

If malpractice suits in favor of the plaintiff are statistically insignificant, what's the deal with 'tort reform?'

Tort reform goes both ways: some folk (many doctors) think tort law should be less punitive, some other folk think it should be more punitive. It gets into ethical discussions as well, but no part of the argument is really that experts are unreliable.

It's enough to assume that if a theory predicts that there is no such hole, then that theory is flawed in some way, and perhaps that hole should be explored to determine the extent of the flaw.

You need to demonstrate the existence of the hole, first.

 

[Murky]

I tried that tack already. You'll get countered with "But OBAMA (aka SATAN) won the election!!! That PROVES that the Liberal Elite-illuminati Green Industry is more powerful than poor, weak, mistreated Big Oil!"

Either that or some word spaghetti about how the "real world" works with some choice things to say about statism on the side.

A lot of the denial is based on a mistrust of government. They view the scientists as being on the side of government because they get government grants. What they fail to realize is that the industry doesn't exactly have their best interests in mind when they are making business decisions. The corporations primarily measure their success in how much money they can make for investors. If the environment gets destroyed in the process, they can just use a good PR firm to cover their tracks or say it's about creating jobs. Never mind about what happens 5 years from now, let alone what is going to happen to future generations towards the end of the century.

 

[Rashiminos]

I'm saying that the efforts don't need to be integrated because they aren't segregated. When the global warming deniers start submitting "good science," they'll start getting accepted. But they have not, so you can see how this is working out.

"scientific community", "John Everyman"
"denialist", "????"

Ehhh, not really. Science isn't about empiricism per se, it's about having a body of knowledge built on a system of testable predictions and hypotheses. It doesn't argue "truth" as such, just what is or is not likely.

Tested by what? Tests involving what? (The validity of that system is dependent upon empiricism being useful). Consider that withdrawn in favor of "lean towards the usefulness of evidence/ observations in testing hypotheses."

You need to demonstrate the existence of the hole, first.

Is that you in an impersonal sense?

 

[peter grimes]

For 5-6 months out of every year, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels actually decrease. Not surprisingly, we see the lowest levels during the winter months. Perversely, it's the temperature that affects co2, not vice versa. I have no idea why.

Without knowing you sources for this it's tough to reply with specifics, but at least allow me to point out that you're implying a causation when really there may only be a correlation.

Just because the temperature drops along with lowering concentrations of CO2 doesn't mean that one caused the other.

 

[peter grimes]

Your examples of people outside of the scientific community getting their beliefs accepted within it all demonstrate that the scientific community is very functional in its scientific efficacy and in sifting gold from dirt.

I don't think there are many other examples, and I suspect that you're right about the filtering effect - letting the good stuff through (no matter where it comes from) and rejecting/annotating the bad (no matter where it comes from).

Another example of science self-monitoring is the practice of retracting already published articles. Andrew Wakefield's fabrication of data, once revealed, resulted in The Lancet retracting his work. Could the system be more robust? Certainly. Is the system 'entirely crud' (as one poster in this thread claims)? Far from it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Without knowing you sources for this it's tough to reply with specifics, but at least allow me to point out that you're implying a causation when really there may only be a correlation.

Just because the temperature drops along with lowering concentrations of CO2 doesn't mean that one caused the other.

He's likely referring to the seasonal 'breathing' of the planet. It's actually a pretty cool phenomenon. During summer, the plants grow and thrive using atmospheric CO2. Then the plant life freezes during the winter, and so the carbon is sequestered. Then, in the spring it rots, releasing CO2.

 

[peter grimes]

I was suspecting that as well, El Machinae, but I'm still hoping he replies.

The explanation for this was laid out in the first few weeks of my first climatology class in college. It was fascinating, since Keating's discovery was presented almost like a detective story. Of course, I guess that's true of many great scientific stories.

 

[Benefactor]

Nobody was exonerated. Your own link said this:

"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA." The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations."

I don't see any exonerating there.

Finding no evidence of fraud or scientific miscondunct.

One committee (out of 8) said that they were not being open enough, which is hardly suprising considering that when the media got hold of all these emails they cherry picked quotes to manufacture controversy and ratings.

 

[Crezth]

"scientific community", "John Everyman"
"denialist", "????"

John Everyman was my usage of newspeak to make a cheap point. I admit that.

My main point with that was to demonstrate the uselessness of putting John Everyman in an oversight position, simply because oversight positions demand a degree of competence.

I've also not used the term denialist to date (feel free to Archive me on this and prove me wrong, I will rebuke myself if I have used it).

Tested by what? Tests involving what? (The validity of that system is dependent upon empiricism being useful). Consider that withdrawn in favor of "lean towards the usefulness of evidence/ observations in testing hypotheses."

I don't know, read about it yourself. Or better yet, become a scientist. But empiricism is not integral to the process of science in that it is an epistemology. When talking about practicality, however, as a means of asserting which evidence should be admitted it happens to be a useful filter.

I am "an empiricist" but that has no bearing on these arguments.

Is that you in an impersonal sense?

That is. I maintain that if those opposed to global warming had done good scientific work, it wouldn't be "ignored" or "shut out" by the scientific community. This is really my point in its entirety.

 

[Rashiminos]

I've also not used the term denialist to date (feel free to Archive me on this and prove me wrong, I will rebuke myself if I have used it).

You have used denier. Is that substantially different to denialist in your opinion? If so, what would you say the difference is?

When talking about practicality, however, as a means of asserting which evidence should be admitted it happens to be a useful filter.

What use do you find for this 'filter'?

That is. I maintain that if those opposed to global warming had done good scientific work, it wouldn't be "ignored" or "shut out" by the scientific community. This is really my point in its entirety.

And I'd maintain that Mendel's work, despite containing some good parts, was ignored for a period of several decades. Eventually it was incorporated, but for some time...

 

[Crezth]

You have used denier. Is that substantially different to denialist in your opinion? If so, what would you say the difference is?

Oh it's semantics. Sorry for using that term. I really just meant "one who denies" rather than "filthmonger" which seems to be how it's interpreted.

What use do you find for this 'filter'?

Applied science, mainly, which I've mentioned in this thread but I'd like to return to as an example that science works. You can't build a car with conjecture and theories of the metaphysical. Or at least I don't think you can.

And I'd maintain that Mendel's work, despite containing some good parts, was ignored for a period of several decades. Eventually it was incorporated, but for some time...

But it was eventually accepted. So, too, with global warming denial should it prove correct.

I understand that the dimension of time is exacerbated especially with global warming, since there's so much fuss about averting it, but really that makes those considerations all the more relevant. We can't abandon sustainability policies on the chance that global warming might be proven wrong in the future, especially when there's no reason to other than that it may pose a slight economic hurdle. But there are plenty of good reasons to remove dependency on oil and to recycle and preserve the environment that aren't related to global warming, so it's not exactly like the demanded course of action is harmful so as to be evaded in earnest.

Furthermore, I think that science has come a long way even since the 19th century. It's a lot more effective.

 

[Rashiminos]

We can't abandon sustainability policies on the chance that global warming might be proven wrong in the future, especially when there's no reason to other than that it may pose a slight economic hurdle.

I have a hypothetical then: Suppose some people, through good scientific work, have reason to accept that anthropogenic global warming is not the actual case. Suppose their work has yet to fall within the "eventually accepted" realm. Should those people be led (forceably, by law) to act as if AGW was the case?

But there are plenty of good reasons to remove dependency on oil and to recycle and preserve the environment that aren't related to global warming,

Sure.

 

[peter grimes]

We can't abandon sustainability policies on the chance that global warming might be proven wrong in the future, especially when there's no reason to other than that it may pose a slight economic hurdle. But there are plenty of good reasons to remove dependency on oil and to recycle and preserve the environment that aren't related to global warming, so it's not exactly like the demanded course of action is harmful so as to be evaded in earnest.

This is the key. The faster we 'hydrogenate' our energy economy the better off everyone will be (unless you're economically dependent on fossil fuel industry profits).

The costs of GW mitigation are opportunities for infrastructure investment which creates jobs and opens new economic niches. The risks of inaction are economically stagnating at best.

 

[Crezth]

I have a hypothetical then: Suppose some people, through good scientific work, have reason to accept that anthropogenic global warming is not the actual case. Suppose their work has yet to fall within the "eventually accepted" realm.

Let's suppose.

Should those people be led (forceably, by law) to act as if AGW was the case?

Why would this be the case? I guess I don't really see what your point is.