The point I made, and which you quoted, defines the state of mind with which I approach my evalutation of Mr Gore’s evidence and conclusions (I usually prefer to call him Saint Al of Gore to reflect the status he seeks for himself).

To say that he has “zero supporting evidence” is, if I might say so, erroneous. There is certainly some evidence capable of supporting his case. Whether it goes further and proves his case is another matter entirely. I do not believe it does and, from what you say, I suspect you are in agreement with me. His house does have foundations, they just appear (on the evidence currently available) to be foundations of sand.

One of the most powerful criticisms of Saint Al’s case is that it is overstated. A good case is only ever weakened by overstatement. If those who disagree with him also overstate their case all they will achieve is to weaken their own position.

By the way, a belated happy 4th of July to you all.

http://www.thefatbigot.blogspot.com

I know that is a strong influence on my approach to this issue. I do not want Mr Gore’s theory to be true, so I approach it with suspicion and latch onto everything I hear or read which seems to undermine it. The same applies in reverse for those who want his predictions to be true.

It’s got nothing to do with want. It’s got everything to do with feasibility and evidence. Gore’s got zero supporting evidence. Therefore his, I hesitate to even call them hypotheses, let’s call them ideas, are without merit and not feasible.

The point I was trying to make, in my clumsy and inept way, is that we all value different things in different ways and our personal assessment of the value of something necessarily affects the way we view a threat to it.

Those who value the creature-comforts of modern life will not only wish to retain those comforts but are likely to view every aspect of a theory that threatens them with suspicion. The very fact that the things you enjoy might be taken from you if Mr Gore is correct, is a powerful incentive to approach everything he says with caution. You don’t like his conclusion so you hope he is wrong in his premise. It causes you to draw a presumption against what he says; the more you fear his conclusion the stronger the presumption and the more you are resistant to proof of his premise.

I know that is a strong influence on my approach to this issue. I do not want Mr Gore’s theory to be true, so I approach it with suspicion and latch onto everything I hear or read which seems to undermine it. The same applies in reverse for those who want his predictions to be true.

If AGW was a theory with few or no obvious implications for human wellbeing, it would probably be a matter of passionate debate among a few pointy-heads, and the rest of us could get on with our lives. But its implications are otherwise, so how we deal with it becomes a matter of our own judgement and negotiation with others – in other words, as you say, politics (with a small p).

I assume you mean detrimental implications, which have no basis in reality.

Fair enough. But if the ad hominen is true it muddies the waters, and if it’s false the debater undermines his own argument.

“We each have to balance whether the detriment we suffer by changing our ways (if we perceive it to be a detriment at all) is outweighed by the resultant benefit.”

If AGW was a theory with few or no obvious implications for human wellbeing, it would probably be a matter of passionate debate among a few pointy-heads, and the rest of us could get on with our lives. But its implications are otherwise, so how we deal with it becomes a matter of our own judgement and negotiation with others – in other words, as you say, politics (with a small p).

My gut instinct on this is that Europeans are more in favour of political solutions than are the Anglo-American countries, and the US is less in favour of political solutions than the Anglo countries. But that judgement reflects my own bias that opposition to AGW is primarily ideological.

“As a (very) general rule those on the right value material comforts more than those on the left and those on the right value established institutions and practices more than those on the left.”

I’d say that leftists are more comfortable with government solutions, while rightists are more comfortable with market solutions. Fortunately, we don’t have to choose between the two, and government and market solutions can work in tandem.

“And it doesn’t help that we all like to think we are more impartial and balanced than we really are (except me, of course).”

Likewise.

You should have 4 bullets, the first being (i) Is human activity causing the planet to measurably warm? Then you can go on with the rest. I say the answer to the first bullet is no. So I can ignore the rest.

As a (very) general rule those on the right value material comforts more than those on the left and those on the right value established institutions and practices more than those on the left.

Funny, here I thought the far right was those right-wing redneck poor religious southernersa and fly-over country mid-westerners and the far left was the wealthy aristocratic northeastern yankees and left-cost Californians.

“The IPCC uses the hoax of man made global warming to increase its power and that of a corrupt, anti-American United Nations…”

The argument here is that the IPCC is pushing a scientific hoax in order to gain power. That is quite clearly an ad hominen argument: the IPCC desires power, therefore AGW is false. So, yes, Hartmann is playing the man. Am I invoking motive to dismiss his argument? No. I’m merely applying a simple analytical technique to critique his argument.”

You make a fair point Mr Brendan, although I do not see that extract from Mr Hartmann’s article as part of his scientific analysis. His analysis is that the IPCC skewed the evidence and here he seeks to give an explanation why they did so.

In the end it seems to me to make no difference to the substance of a point whether it includes a personal attack and/or an attribution of ill-motive. If someone tells me a cricket ball is square I could answer him by saying “you are wrong because you are a loathesome spotted reptile” or I could produce a cricket ball from my pocket to demonstrate his error (I don’t always carry one, but I am English so I do from time to time). His proposition is either right or wrong and, therefore, my repudiation of it is either wrong or right based on fact not on the way he presents it or the way I attack it.

I agree entirely with your “aside”, but we have to bear in mind that the science of Mr Gore’s theory is one part only of the equation. If we accept that human activity is causing the planet to warm we must then examine three other things: (i) what the consequences of that warming will be, (ii) what steps we can take to reduce warming and (iii) what effect those steps will have on our material standard of living and way of life.

We each have to balance whether the detriment we suffer by changing our ways (if we perceive it to be a detriment at all) is outweighed by the resultant benefit. This exercise is not a matter of science, rather it is a very personal judgment, one could describe it as a political judgment. The greater the perceived detriment the less inclined we will be to suffer it unless we really have to. If a hole in a wall of my house might allow a beetle to enter I am less inclined to fill the hole than if the potential intruder is a rat.

I believe this explains why the AGW debate tends to be a left-right argument. As a (very) general rule those on the right value material comforts more than those on the left and those on the right value established institutions and practices more than those on the left. So if we are told “you must stop flying in aeroplanes or the world will boil” those on the right will, generally speaking, be more resistant to the command than those on the left. Those who want to continue flying will be more inclined to seek to undermine the evidence behind the proposition that “the world will boil” than those who see no detriment. This makes no difference to the accuracy of either side’s analysis of the science but it helps to explain why those who want the AGW theory to be wrong are inclined to apply a “lefty” tag to their opponents and vice versa.

And it doesn’t help that we all like to think we are more impartial and balanced than we really are (except me, of course).

http://www.thefatbigot.blogspot.com

What I meant to say…

Perhaps applying those skills to the IPCC and those on the left who find their arguments so convincing would be helpful.

Perhaps applying those skills to the IPCC would helpful and those on the left that find their arguments so convincing.

I have not questioned Hartmann’s motives, merely pointed out the flaws in his argument. Nor have I accused him of advancing an ad hominen argument. Whether or not he did so had nothing to do with my objections over his claim that AGW is a hoax. And my objections had nothing to do with Hartmann’s claim that the hoax is leftist. My objection would still apply if he claimed AGW was a rightist or centrist hoax.

But since you’ve raised the ad hominen issue, take this statement from the article:

“The IPCC uses the hoax of man made global warming to increase its power and that of a corrupt, anti-American United Nations…”

The argument here is that the IPCC is pushing a scientific hoax in order to gain power. That is quite clearly an ad hominen argument: the IPCC desires power, therefore AGW is false. So, yes, Hartmann is playing the man. Am I invoking motive to dismiss his argument? No. I’m merely applying a simple analytical technique to critique his argument.

(As an aside, it’s unavoidable that ‘sceptic’ has now become a mark of identity rather than a stance towards the evidence. For my money, what we should be aiming for is ‘critical thinking’ rather than loyalty to one group or another. Not likely to happen, though.)

What matters is the evidence.

I’m a lawyer not a scientist, so I am not qualified to assess much of the technical scientific research; but I am qualified to judge whether I am satisfied by the evidence put forward. I can only judge it for myself not for anyone else, I can only judge it by applying my notions of common sense and I bear in mind at all times that others might disagree with my conclusions. Where I read of others disagreeing with my conclusions I weigh-up the points they make and see whether they cause me to change my mind either wholly or in part.

If there is evidence that someone might have a personal motive for reaching a particular conclusion one might feel it necessary to examine the evidence more closely for fear that his motive might skew his stated conclusion; yet if that evidence supports the conclusion then his motive falls away. If the evidence does not support his conclusion then it matters not a jot whether the conclusions have resulted from the application of a biasing motive or a simple arithmetical error.

In the article cited here Mr Hartmann criticises the AGW theory as a construct of the political left, but he seems to do so linguistically not substantively. First he sets out his arguments on the evidence (as he has assessed it) and then he attributes motive ex post facto. As I understand his article he does not say “Mr Gore and his friends are lefties therefore I dismiss their propositions.” Rather he says “I dismiss their propositions because I believe them to be unsupported by evidence and I believe the reason they put forward conclusions unsupported by evidence is because they are lefties seeking to promote a political cause.” His attribution of motive makes no difference to the accuracy or inaccuracy of his analysis of the evidence.

Mr Gore’s case does not get stronger if he is proved not to be a lefty, nor does it fail simply he is proved to be a lefty, it stands or falls on the merits of the evidence he puts forward.

When we examine whether a conclusion is supported by the available evidence we use various analytical tools. One of the most common is to examine how the conclusion has been reached.

If a witness says “I was at Waterloo Railway Station in London at 6pm” I might ask him what he did during the day and how he reached Waterloo Station. If he were to say “I had tea with my friend in Islington, North London, and took the number 73 bus at 5.50pm straight to Waterloo” I know his conclusion is not matched by the path of his evidence – quite literally in this example because the number 73 bus does not go to Waterloo and the most direct route by road takes at least 20 minutes. His conclusion fails because the steps which he says lead to that conclusion are not consistent with it. It is a simple technique which underlays much cross-examination in courts around the world.

Another analytical technique is to see whether the proponent of a conclusion has, when challenged, said or done anything to obstruct independent investigation into the issue. Let us assume that John Doe submits a claim for expenses to his employer. The employer does not usually requires receipts but sometimes asks for them. When John Doe is asked to provide a receipt for the cost of an aeroplane flight he says “you don’t need a receipt you can trust me”, when pressed he repeats the same words. The employer knows there will be a paper-trial proving one way or the other whether John Doe took the flight, his attempted obstruction of the investigation causes suspicion. It might well be that paperwork is produced when the employer insists, but in the meantime there is suspicion which causes the investigation to be pursued not abandoned.

Applying the first of these two simple analytical techniques to the conclusions which Mr Gore and the IPCC ask us to accept, I find it very difficult to accept them. The path they take in order to reach their conclusions is littered with serious questions about: (i) the temperature measurements they have relied on, (ii) their apparent dismissal of the sun as a major factor in variable average earth temperatures, (iii) their assertion that rises in temperature follow chronologically from rises in CO2 levels when the opposite appears to be the case, (iv) their absence of explanation for the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age, (v) their reliance on models which have consistently failed to reflect what has actually happened since they were set up and many other matters. This does not mean, to my mind, that their conclusions are wrong, but it does lead me to have serious doubts that their conclusions follow from the path of supporting evidence on which they rely.

I then ask myself what I should make of the assertions: “the debate is over” and “the science is settled”. In one way that is easy, debate is never over on anything ever; science is never settled on anything ever. Not once. Not now, not yesterday, not last year, not in the distant past, not tomorrow, not next year, not ever, never, never, never; lest there be any doubt, I mean never.

Did Mr Gore make these absurd statements because he believes them to be true? Did he make them in order to try to maximise the life of his highly profitable lecturing business? Did he make them because he believes the evidence he relies on not to support his conclusions? Were they just soundbites thrown out during a speech and thought to be persuasive but substantively meaningless?

I don’t know the answers to these questions, but what I do know is that seeking to stifle debate makes me suspicious. Indeed, I only started looking into the whole AGW “thing” when I heard Mr Gore tell me I shouldn’t. His assertions made me question his motive and thereby required me to look at the evidence. But that is the only place motive has in a debate such as this – whatever his motive might be, his evidence stands or falls by itself.

Mr Hartmann’s paper is not conclusive it is just another piece of the argument. Make of it what you will. Criticise his scientific propositions if you can do so on the basis of evidence. Criticise his conclusions if you believe they do not follow from his scientific propositions. But do not try to dismiss his case on the basis of motive, all you will achieve is to damage your own credibility.

http://www.thefatbigot.blogspot.com

What is your evidence for this claim?

As I say, this explanation ignores the substantial amount of scientific study of AGW before Thatcher began to speak publicly on the matter in the late 1980s. In 1983 the National Academy of Sciences released a report estimating the warming effects of increased CO2 on atmospheric temperatures, and a US Environmental Protection Agency study estimated possible environmental and economic effects.

In 1985, an international conference of scientists warned of future atmospheric warming due to emissions, and the IPCC was formed in 1988. So Margaret Thatcher was one of the voices that helped to bring the matter to the attention of the public and other politicians, and she also helped create an institution to research the subject. But the claim, or at least implication, that AGW was the whole-cloth creation of politicians, and one politician in particular, is false.

“That gravy train is being derailed…The consequences will not be pretty, believe me.”

No train derailment is pretty. I notice you have a fondness for the darkly prophetic hint of imminent apocalypse. Sounds rather alarming.

You imply a total corruption within science. Is this likely? What sort of fallout do you have in mind?
Yes indeed, Brendan, climate science has been corrupted by the AGW hypothesis, for the very reasons already stated, but you, as an AGW Believer wish to ignore that. The AGW hypothesis is a dying one, and is only propped up now by politicians, by the MSM, and by pseudoscientists like Hansen, as well as others who are on the AGW gravy train. Well, guess what? That gravy train is being derailed, as well it should be. The consequences will not be pretty, believe me.

I don’t. But it’s a reasonable assumption that most of the audience were not climate scientists, unless that part of the world produces a disproportionate numbers of such scientists.

“…highly educated climatologists and physicists have to say about the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming resulting from increases in carbon dioxide.”

Straw man. Not all AGW scientists argue for “catastrophic” AGW. IPCC reports certainly apply many caveats. And even some sceptics, such as Lindzen, accept AGW, but dispute the potential effects. The fact that a few well qualified climate scientists dispute global warming or its effects establishes nothing. The general view is that the evidence for AGW is convincing. Majorities are not always right, but it’s more likely that, over time, scientists offering a range of views will provide a more reliable judgment than the odd contrarian.

As I say, for the layperson this issue ultimately comes down to: which scientists do I believe? Time will tell which are right, and we may be in for some surprises, but to date the evidence supports AGW.

“Finally, an article on the “hockey stick” deception by James Hansen’s protege, Michael Mann.”

As I understand it, deception in science is regarded as a very serious matter. It can kill a scientist’s career. If you have any evidence of deception you should take it to the relevant authority.

“The empirical [real world] evidence currently points to global cooling, not warming — and certainly not catastrophic AGW…”

According to a graph on this site, the last ten years have been the warmest in the past 30 years. In other words, the trend of global temperatures has been upwards, and current temperatures are consistently elevated above earlier decades.

That’s an ad hominen, if used to discredit a sceptic’s arguments. A hoax is a positive thesis, not a mere gainsaying. The aim of the hoaxer is to persuade others to believe in something that the hoaxer knows is false, not to persuade others to doubt something that may or may not be known to be true. The latter is plain deception, not a hoax.

This brief history focuses almost exclusively on Margaret Thatcher and ignores the extensive early work in climate science, which began to take off in the 1950s. By the time Thatcher came on the scene the scientific work was well under way. Nor does the Thatcher claim explain the extensive research work in the United States and elsewhere, places beyond the reach of her political authority. A history of the early years of AGW will show that the initiative came primarily from climate scientists rather than politicians.

But you will know all that, because as a sceptic you will have researched the subject rather than taken someone else’s word as gospel.

“Even if there were one, I’m not sure it would be immune from politics, and would likely be rife with AGW supporters. When the AGW fraud is exposed, the fallout will be enormous, I’m afraid.”

You imply a total corruption within science. Is this likely? What sort of fallout do you have in mind?