Posted by Dee Norris
skep·tic
One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
from Greek Skeptikos, from skeptesthai, to examine.
I have been reading a lot of the debates that inevitably follow any MSM story on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). In this story at the NewScientist, one of the comments stood out as a vivid example of the polarization that has developed between the those of us who are skeptical of AGW and those of us who believe in AGW.
By Luke
Fri Sep 12 19:15:22 BST 2008
The difference in response between skeptics and scientists is easily explained as the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. Skeptics look for evidence to prove their conclusion and ignore any that does not fit what they believe. This makes it possible for them to believe in revealed religion and ignore anything that disputes it. I guess inductive reasoning can best be classified as deliberate ignorance. My condolences to practitioners of inductive thinking for your lack of logical ability. You don’t know what a pleasure it is to be able to think things through.
I was trained as a scientist from childhood. My parents recognized that I had a proclivity for the sciences from early childhood and encouraged me to explore the natural world. From this early start, I eventually went on to study Atmospheric Science back when global cooling was considered the big threat (actually the PDO had entered the warm phase several years earlier, but the scientific consensus had not caught up yet). One thing I learned along the way is that a good scientist is a skeptic. Good scientists examines things, they observe the world, then they try to explain why things behave as they do. Sometimes they get it right, somethings they don’t. Sometimes they get it as close as they can using the best available technologies.
I have been examining the drive to paint skeptics of AGW as non-scientists, as conservatives, as creationists and therefore as ignorant of the real science supporting AGW – ad hominem argument (against the man, rather than against his opinion or idea). Honestly, I have to admit that some skeptics are conservative, some do believe in creation and some lack the skills to fully appreciate the science behind AGW, then again I know agnostic liberals with a couple of college degrees who fully accept the theory of evolution and because they understand the science are skeptics of AGW. On the other hand, I have met a lot of AGW adherents who fully accept evolution, but have never read On The Origin of Species. Many of the outspoken believers in AGW are also dedicated foes of genetically modified organisms such as Golden Rice (which could prevent thousands of deaths due to Vitamin A deficiency in developing countries), yet they are unable to explain the significance of Gregor Mendel and the hybridization of the pea plant,
In his comment, Luke (the name has been changed to protect the innocent) attributes inductive reasoning to skeptics and deductive to scientists. Unfortunately, he has used inductive reasoning to draw general conclusions about skeptics based on his knowledge of a few individuals (or perhaps even none at all).
Skeptics are a necessary part of scientific discovery. We challenge the scientific consensus to create change. We examine the beliefs held by the consensus and express our doubts and questions. Skepticism prevents science from becoming morbid and frozen. Here are just a few of the more recent advances in science which initially challenged the consensus:
- The theory of continental drift was soundly rejected by most geologists until indisputable evidence and an acceptable mechanism was presented after 50 years of rejection.
- The theory of symbiogenesis was initially rejected by biologists but now generally accepted.
- the theory of punctuated equilibria is still debated but becoming more accepted in evolutionary theory.
- The theory of prions – the proteinaceous particles causing transmissible spongiform encephalopathy diseases such as Mad Cow Disease – was rejected because pathogenicity was believed to depend on nucleic acids now widely accepted due to accumulating evidence.
- The theory of Helicobacter pylori as the cause of stomach ulcers and was widely rejected by the medical community believing that no bacterium could survive for long in the acidic environment of the stomach.
As of today, the Global Warming Petition Project has collected over 31,000 signatures on paper from individuals with science-related college or advanced degrees who are skeptical of AGW. Someone needs to tell the AGW world that’s thirty-one thousand science-trained individuals who thought things through and became skeptics.
It was Cassandra who foretold the fall of mighty Troy using a gift of prophecy bestowed upon her by Apollo, Greek god of the Sun. So it would seem fitting that I assume her demeanor for just one brief moment –
- The theory of anthropogenic carbon dioxide as the cause of the latter 20th century warm period was widely accepted by the scientific consensus until it was falsified by protracted global cooling due to reductions in total solar irradiance and the solar magnetic field.
I am a skeptic and I am damn proud of it.
[The opinions expressed in this post are that of the author, Dee Norris, and not necessarily those of the owner of Watts Up With That?, Anthony Watts, who graciously allows me to pontificate here.]
Yikes! Sorry to hear that, Dee!
Can we say that Anthony’s site is seductive in attracting a discussion of inductive, deductive, or abductive reasoning.
Dee Norris (11:59:54), it appears you have forgotten to credit llbeck as the contributor of much of the material you so eloquently commented about. He may miss it. Wouldn’t want that.
Reply – Ha, I maybe on pain meds, but you can’t fool me – re-read the first line of the comment. – Dee Norris
Mary Hinge: “…add a particularly large splash of finance from companies that will be affected by neccesary changes to protect the environment”
You must be incredibly naive if you think that it’s the companies that pay for those ‘necessary’ changes. Companies exist to make money. Any extra expenses they incur are passed on, ultimately, to the consumer – and the taxpayer, if you’re talking about Govt ltd. That’s you and me that ends up paying for all of that. And, for a great many of us, it’s rapidly becoming a choice between paying for fuel and paying for food.
Ilbeck:
Thankyou for your comment that says to me
“Richard Courtney – you need to remove the closed quote from your URL to get it to work.”
It works for me but – to help – here it is without the closed quote:
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/AGW_hypothesis_disproved.pdf
And that URL is very pertinent to each of your assertions that I answer in turn.
You say;
“1. CO2 and the other greenhouse gases (GHGs) have a demonstrable warming effect on the Earth. This has been accepted for decades. …”
I respond.
True, but so what? The AGW-hypothesis states that anthropogenic CO2 added to the atmosphere will induce “dangerous” warming (ref. IPCC 2007). Atmospheric CO2 cocentration has risen with no sign that it has caused such warming (see the URL). Clearly, other factors are having greater effect than the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. The scientific question is;
“What are those other factors and how do all the factors interact?”
You say;
“2. The quantity of GHGs has been increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere.”
I respond.
Also true, but so what? The same response as I gave to your point 1 applies.
But you continue by asserting:
“This is a measureable quantification with undisputed accuracy and well-documented in the Mauna Loa record and elsewhere. Also evident in ice-core data. The tremendous rise in GHG corresponds to the industrial revolution and the use of fossil energy (mostly oil and coal). This makes sense since we are taking carbon previously sequestered underground, burning it, and forming CO2. At the same time we also are removing trees and other carbon “sinks.”
I respond.
Corelation does not prove causation but coherence can disprove causation.
Coherence indicates that when one thing changes the other also changes (i.e. in this case each time that temperature rises then the atmospheric carbon dioxide increases later, and each time that global temperature falls then the atmospheric carbon dioxide reduces later).
Correlation indicates that there is a statistical relationship between parameters (i.e. in this case a concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide would indicate a global temperature according to the AGW hypothesis).
Global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration cohere such that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration follows temperature by months
(seminal work validated by others: ref. Kuo C, Lindberg CR and David J. Thomson DJ, ‘Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature’, Nature, 343 (1990))
which indicates
(a) that a change to the temperature induces a change to the carbon dioxide
or
(b) that changes to the temperature and carbon dioxide are both induced by some other (unknown) parameter.
But global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration do not correlate and, therefore, the level of one is not determinate of the level of the other.
Many things cohere but do not correlate. For example, leaves fall off trees soon after school children end their summer break each year. This is clear coherence. But the number of leaves that fall does not correlate to the number of school children who return to school.
Coherence with absence of correlation is very suggestive of causation by some other (unknown) parameter. In the case of the children and the leaves, the time of year is the causative ‘other parameter’.
You say;
“3. If you believe in the physics of the greenhouse effect and the measurements of GHG rise, you have to accept that there is a strong possibility that burning of fossil fuels and other anthropogenic activity may have a part in the equation.”
I accepted the possibility that “anthropogenic activity may have a part in the equation”, and assessed this possibility against the empirical evidence. It fails the test of comparison to observation of the real world (see the URL) and, therefore, if the “anthropogenic activity” does have a “part in the equation” then it is a small part that is overwhelmed by other ‘parts’: at very least, this true until now according to the available empirical data.
Richard
Dan
No the petition project is not funded directly or indirectly by exxon. I am sure Dr. Robinson wishes it was.
However, even if it was funded by Exxon that would be irrelevent. Much of the pro AGW stuff out there including IPCC is funded and run by people with a powerful financial interest in promoting AGW.
The 31,000 signatories have no financial incentive to sign, and indeed often risk financial loss for signing. One other thing most of us have is graduate degrees in science and years of working as scientists.
Your statements to the contrary show you did not honestly investigate before you posted.
Luke in the original article shows that he doesn’t understand the entire idea of a theory when he says
“Skeptics look for evidence to prove their conclusion and ignore any that does not fit what they believe. ”
A theory is supposed to explain what has been observed and be useful for succesful prediction, if the theory wasn’t in serious trouble there would be no “evidence” for them to point to. Instead the theory has repeatedly failed in it’s predictions and it clearly needs to be revised or discarded. His statement on this and on the religious issue show a clear and profound lack of understanding of both concepts.
Dee,
Sorry to hear about your accident but it didn’t adversely affect the firing of your synapses. Might we call the Polar bear story a type of sympathetic trap for the mindless or impressionable young people who always seem to feel sorry for victims whether real or not.
Reply – Not so much an accident as stupidity on my part. I am breaking a yearling colt who mother was seized for animal neglect about 20 months ago, just before he was born. He is a little high spirited like all children and tossed his head proudly while I was giving him a hug for his good work. The rest is history as they say….
I strongly object to the use of NeuroLinguist Programing tactics on children whose lack of adult cognitive defenses leave them wide open to manipulation. Bad enough it is used on adults, but it is offensive to see it used on children. – Dee Norris
Dan appears to have left. Pity.
His original post is taken, mostly word for word, from Desmogblog.
I saw no quotation marks, italics or any other attribution. That would be plagiarism.
Dan obviously never confirmed the allegations made in the Desmogblog. The link to the “press release” regarding the Petition by the National Academy, goes to mediamatters. A link on that site, to a supposed press release by the National Academy, goes to a 404.
A google of the supposed NAS statement:
“The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.”
goes only to Desmogblog.
Thus, the above statement appears to be a fabrication of Desmogblog.
To recap; Dan has plagiarized an apparent fabrication. He compounds this, by apparently not researching and confirming the alleged statement by the NAS.
Reply – As I am sure you realize, clones and GMOs are different things. A clone can be of a perfectly ordinary organism and GMOs can have a lot of intra-speciesdiversity between individual specimens. The danger from a lack of diversity in our food source is equally a risk with using limited non-GM0 food-stocks as with GMOs. In both cases, inter and intra-species diversity can be lost by the exclusion of other variations on a species. However, a case can be made that GMOs can increase intra-species diversity by adding to the gene pool. Clones, however, are a huge risk as inter-specimen diversity can be lost. – Dee
You’re right I should have used monoculture instead of the word clones. But you missed my point entirely. Different people believe different things. That is the wonderful diversity of mankind. What you did was take two completely different groups of people and glop them into the same category. However I wont get into it with you over my “heretical” views of GMO’s this is not the site for that. But while you are pushing your golden rice will you at least label it for those of us who dont need its awsome benefits?????
Reply – I got your point originally and I certainly did not glob you all together. I what I said was –
Note the use of the word ‘many’ and not the word ‘all’. It is basic set theory like back in high school. Set C (AGW believers who are foes of GMOs) is an intersection of Set A (AGW proponents) and Set B (GMO foes). The above comment does not preclude the existence of an possible yet unmentioned Set D (in which you claim membership) that is an intersection of Set E (AGW skeptics) and Set B. Set F (GMO supporters) completes the picture.
In case you are interested, I describe myself as E ∩ F.
As for labeling, why not just buy products that are certified GMO-free and labeled as such? I am sure that if the members of Set B create a market demand, someone will supply the products. Heck, I would be happy to sell you GMO-free eggs according to the laws of supply and demand. How much is it worth to you to know the eggs you have at breakfast are GMO-free? I have a friend who will do the same for bison and cattle meats. We will even make sure that the feedstocks are not GMOs if you want to pay for it. – Dee Norris
Alan Millar: “We can be fairly certain that it isn’t, as it would show up in accelerating sea level rise due to thermal expansion”
Besides which, warmer water is less dense – for the same reason – and less dense water doesn’t stay at depth for very long.
If we had had better hybrids at points past, there would have been a heck of a lot less famine and human suffering.
“Can we say that Anthony’s site is seductive in attracting a discussion of inductive, deductive, or abductive reasoning.”
Not to mention, addictive.
evan jones I suspect that edcon has credited you with my original set of ive questions.
Is the correct answer Corruptive?
Reply – Not so much an accident as stupidity on my part. I am breaking a yearling colt who mother was seized for animal neglect about 20 months ago, just before he was born
Tough laws in your state if a horse can be arrested for neglect! Or were you marely (*ahem*) joking?
Er, just kidding. I THINK I know what you meant but that IS the way I keep reading it. Causes a doubletake every time 🙂
Reply – Sheesh! Haven’t you ever heard of ‘Animal Police’? The colt is now facing charges for human cruelty! 😉
Seriously, the mare was seized, not arrested. The neglectful owner was arrested and he eventually forfeited the seized horses (13 Arabians) to the Court who then turned them over to the equine rescue with which I work. – Dee Norris
Alan Millar (11:20:14)
So, what are your experimental results, have you written them down in your exercice book. Now start your essay “Archimedes’ principle states that……”
Back to the point on sea level rise. It’s obvious you now little on this subject as you spout out the usual garbage that you have probably seen on other blogs and belive to be real. This is what you wrote ….
“……….. as it would show up in accelerating sea level rise due to thermal expansion. Perhaps the AGW theorists can explain how physics allow thermal expansion to remain hidden as well!”
The sea level has been rising at a fairly constant rate over the last hundred years, however it has risen at a 50% greater rate in the last 15 years or so ( about 3.3mm/ year, see this graph http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/alt_gmsl_seas_rem.jpg
. This is from CSIRO:
“High quality measurements of (near)-global sea level have been made since late 1992 by satellite altimeters, in particular, TOPEX/Poseidon (launched August, 1992) and Jason-1 (launched December, 2001). This data has shown a more-or-less steady increase in Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) of around 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/year over that period. This is more than 50% larger than the average value over the 20th century. Whether or not this represent a further increase in the rate of sea level rise is not yet certain.”
This, coupled with a slight decrease in the water temperature of the ocean to 2km, would suggest that the thermal expansion is occuring at the lower 1.5km.
Stefan (10:59:43) :
“Mary,
Sorry to add more replies, but I have to ask, you say “probably”… but how do you know?”
I don’t know for sure, thats why I say probably!
Peter (13:06:32) :
“You must be incredibly naive if you think that it’s the companies that pay for those ‘necessary’ changes. Companies exist to make money. Any extra expenses they incur are passed on, ultimately, to the consumer – and the taxpayer,…..”
I think you are the naive one in this, the one thing companies hate more than spending money is losing money. The reason they sponsor so many sceptics is they can ultimately get the consumer to pay to support their mission of disinformation. If they didn’t do thisthey know they will lose money as demand for their products fall either by a popular concensus or by government policies. So by spending a relatively small sum now, some of which can be recouped, they try to ensure their customer base is still their in the future.
A correction on my earlier post. Further searching found the source of the quote, that was attributed to the NAS by Desmogblog.
The supposed quote attributed to the NAS, was apparently made by the Union of Concerned Scientists, which the UCS made commenting on the NAS press release denying connection to the Petition Project.
Desmogblog apparently mistook the UCS editorial comments on the NAS release, as being from the NAS.
So, instead of plagiarizing a fabrication, Dan actually plagiarized a false attribution.
Neither Desmogblog nor Dan bothered to research the providence of the quote.
When I was (much) younger I tended to take what people told me at face value. The result was that in relation to a number of things I was conned. Since those salad days I have adopted a keenly skeptical attitude to …well basically everything. When the man rings me up and says he can help with my phone bill -I tell him I doubt it and ask him to put it in writing. When the woman comes to show me the word of god I point out that the printer’s name on the fly leaf does not appear to bear a heavenly address.
A skeptical attitude may well be a pain in the derierre for friends and acquaintances, nevertheless I have found it to be the surest way to get to the truth.
My take on the AGW debate arises from this (habitual) skeptical stance.
We have a great deal of evidence that for (at least) the past several million years, the earth has undergone successive heating and cooling cycles. The earth has been both hotter and colder than it is right now. The carbon dioxide levels have been both higher and lower than they are right now. Ocean levels have risen and fallen beyond their present levels, and vast areas of land have undergone successive inundations. Indeed, the only constant thing in relation to the earth’s climate is precisely that it is always in a state of flux. The evidence is incontrovertible so far as the occurrence goes – what is not completely settled is the precise causation.
But whatever may be the eventual verdict on the causation, we know one thing beyond doubt – in all of his million years (?) on the planet, mankind has had absolutely nothing to do with changes in the climate.
It is against that background that this skeptic considers the claims recently raised to the effect that, notwithstanding these millions of years of cyclic changes, the planet is now in dire straits because man has been adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
As a skeptic, my immediate response is to ask ‘What is different about the present state of the earth’s climate and the atmosphere so as to distinguish the present (dangerous) state from the changes which have been continuous over eons?’.
If a proponent of AGW cannot point to anything which would set the present circumstances apart from the natural history of the planet, then I am entitled to consider that proponent as being merely overexcited.
Notice that my initial stance does not require me to go into the physics of radiative transfer, spectral absorption, carbon dioxide sensitivity and all the rest. Whatever the actual cause of global climate change (in whatever direction) the starting point in any discussion is that any change is natural UNLESS one can point to something which shows the current state of affairs to be extraordinary in the context of the actual history of the planet.
And there is the nub of the matter. If a proponent of AGW cannot produce something akin to the ‘hockey stick’ to show that the extent or rate of rise of temperature is extraordinary; and that this is associated with extraordinary levels of carbon dioxide, then there is no problem to be considered.
There is at least one major problem with what I have so far seen of the ‘hockey stick’. That is that it relies upon a restricted comparison.
It is unnecessary to consider the merits to be able to observe that restricting the comparison to the last 1000 or 2000 years is in itself, suspicious. The cycling of the earth’s climate did not end/begin 2000 years ago – it has been ongoing through all of the planet’s existence.
Recall that the proponent’s task is to show that the present situation is extraordinary. Inevitable, it will be possible to select some period of climate history which would make the present appear different or even extreme by comparison. But that is not what we are about. The comparison must be made with as broad a sweep of the planet’s climate history as possible. Anything else is just misleading.
Mary: your
The sea level has been rising at a fairly constant rate over the last hundred years, however it has risen at a 50% greater rate in the last 15 years or so ( about 3.3mm/ year, see this graph http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/alt_gmsl_seas_rem.jpg
The importance of arbitrary start and stop dates. The following chart shows much the same as yours, about 3.2 mm/year rise since 1992. But it also shows that if you start the trend in 2006, sea levels have fallen in the last 2-3 years.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global_sm.jpg
Its probably just a coincidence that ALL temperature metrics (UAH, RSS, Hadley and GISS) all show a negative trend since 2002.
And that ARGO shows a sea temperature decline since 2003.
“The unwary reader will now accept as true that humanity is 100% responsible for increasing the greenhouse effect by the use of fossil energy..”
Why is it a problem that the unwary reader accepted something that has been proven by many methods and is undisputed in science. NLP indeed.
Reply – I am still waiting for your proof of this and the sources. – Dee Norris
Why is it a problem that the unwary reader accepted something that has been proven by many methods and is undisputed in science. NLP indeed.
Undisputed in science? Come again?
Not even the IPCC goes that far. And a bunch of IPCC peer reviewers don’t agree with the IPCC, for that matter.
Besides, for GW to be a worry, the IPCC version of positive feedback has to apply. And so far as we can tell so far, the Aqua Sat data (negative feedback) has utterly falsified it. There seems to be less, not more ambient vapor, so less water-based GHG, and more low-level cloud cover, so greater albedo.
So far that data has not been falsified and has not yet been “disputed by science”.
So I am not sure where you are going here.
Sorry, Dee. Missed it. I even performed a word-find search of “beck” and the blasted computer missed it, too. My computer and I apologize.
I frankly dont think that anyone knows what the temperature of the earth is. Or whether you can have a temperature of the earth. 1998: either a current a volcano or just noise. What is the monte carlo simulation that says its real?
I just read a bunch of the original hadley documents and they are just a bunch of number theory. The data cant be seen, they make “statisticly nice” adjustments for 19th century data, and never tell you what the experimental design was, how the measuring stations worked, what kind of thermometer was used, who read it, who build a village around the station, how they controlled for humidity, industry, the sun, the pollution in the atmosphere or any thing else. Its just numbers and adjusted numbers.
They even state that the precision of a measurement is .03C.
I almost fell off my chair.
Everybody is arguing about temperature, but no one is really measuring it or looking at the data or wondering whether the data is any good. Its like letting 4 new postdocs run loose in the lab making buffers and doing pcr runs and then just looking at the graphs that come out and changing the world because of the graphs. I have never in my life seen a more poorly constructed, over analyzed, multiply adjusted, untraceable and irreproducible data set in my life
It would seem that the most reliable measure is Lower Troposphere measured by satellite. And even that is a microwave proxy.
And in turn that has to be further translated in order to estimate surface temperature (and the conversion is fiddly and a subject of some controversy).
But at least the gridding is consistent and microsite violations are sidestepped. (And, P.S., I trust those in charge more, but that’s my prejudice.)
Mary, thanks that’s interesting. I’ve glanced at graphs of global temps from 1880 to present, and at sea level rise since 1880. They both generally go “up”, but other than that they don’t look like they relate to each other very much. Surface temps seem to go up, level, down a bit, up, level, down a bit, and so on. What’s the connection?
I accept that the heat must be down there because there is nowhere else it could be, but only if it has to be somewhere. If it doesn’t have to be somewhere, then we don’t need to assume that it is down there.
Can’t we just measure it and find out?
I’d like to draw your attention to this: http://www.climate4you.com/images/EQUATOR%202008%2008%20vs%201998-2006.gif
That is August 2008 anomaly based on a 1998-2006 baseline. Data is from UAH.