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.]
[directed at Dee] So even if your private fantasy of a falsification of AGW were to transpire, your attempt to liken apples and oranges would still fail.
Private? I think not. The skeptics in this debate are quite open with their data and methods.
It’s Briffa et al. who aspire to “privacy” of data and method.
Fantasy? If CO2 positive feedback loop theory is falsified, CAGW is falsified, plain and simple. And the Aqua Satellite data seems well on the way to doing just that. (Imagine that.)
I hope at least one or two of you got a chuckle out of my ramblings.
Don’t forget that Sept. 19, a mere three days hence, it will be International Talk Like A Pirate Day.
Be there, ye swab!
Arrrr . . .
Aye! me be gettin’ me charts marked up and shipshape. No grog there’ll be fer this scurvy bilge rat!
evanjones (17:53:00) :
“I have to disagree with anna v (I think, a first). I totally disagree with the Malthusian approach. We have expanded food supply FAR more than we have increased population. And there is a far smaller percentage starving now than, say, fifty years ago.”
Ah, well. This is not a chorus. ( despite Cassandra)
” It has gotten to the point where the nations with the most food and best medicine have birthrates well below the replacement rate of 2.1 per couple, average.”
True, true, but how did this happen? By education, education education, free dissemination of contraceptive options and the consequent emancipation of women from the continuous burden of giving birth from puberty to menopause. You are not a woman I suppose, and cannot visualize what life would have been for you, had you not had all these western options. Even Queens bred like rabbits if they were not lucky enough to get puerperal fever to clog their tubes.
“The Malthusian food model works for most animals (esp. those which typically give birth to many at a time), but the human animal has busted the equation utterly. Even Malthus, in his declining years, conceded this.”
Sure, again by education, and free dissemination of contraceptive methods.
“And if there had been hybrids to bypass the LIA wheat disaster or the potato blight, those concerned would have avoided famine, plain and simple.”
That is the west, where education and contraceptive dissemination were available ( and the worst famine was in ireland where they believed in the Pope). If you had a better food suppl;y, yes less people would have suffered.
But look what is happening to the third world where they expand until they deplete the resources.
Modern medicine is responsible for many more adult deaths in numbers, not percentages, than anything else. Before modern medicine in the third world nature kept the numbers down by diseases so that even though many infants were born, many infants died. Then medicine came and many infants survived, to die of starvation later.
To talk of percentages is misleading if you are counting souls. Fifty years ago the world population was less than two billion. It is approaching six now. You need real numbers of people to see real numbers of suffering on the balance.
This situation in the third world cannot be solved by throwing more and better food at them or more and better medicine. The populations will expand in the malthusian way unless their economies reach the western levels and education and contraception methods give other options.
Brendan H said –
“But your attempt distorts the reality, which is that the likes of continental drift, punctuate equilibira, and of course AGW are theories which over time gained the acceptance of most scientists. Thus, the relevant common phrase is ‘accepting the theory’, not “challenging the consensus”.”
Isn’t your “AGW ….[is a]… theory which over time gained the acceptance of most scientists” just a wee bit premature? Surely it remains (well and truly) to be seen whether or not AGW gains the acceptance of ‘most’ scientists.
The difference between AGW and continental drift etc is precisely that it has NOT been accepted by ‘most’ scientists.
But in any case, I think that a more apt analogy will turn out to be something like would be the theory of phrenology, or perhaps the theory of the ‘luminiferous ether’.
For my part, I can ‘t see the relevance of worrying too much about the ‘consensus’. The history of science is littered with theories which had general (or at least widespread) acceptance but proved to be wrong. And sometimes it was the minority view which turned out to be correct.
Reply – As it is global warming, I would favor phlogiston as the principle forcing agent. It has a better chance at explaining the warming then CO2, IMHO. – Dee Norris
Evan Jones:
You assert that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic, saying:
“I am forced to agree with Boris about the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels. We have a natural system where X goes in and X comes out. Humans add just a small bit in on a regular basis. The result is that it accumulates. X +H goes in X goes out.
Actually, that is slightly simplistic. A little more goes out as well, too. It’s really more like X+H goes in and X+(H/2) goes out. The remaining H/2 accumulates.”
I wish it were as simple as that. But the C13:C12 isotope ratio changes of atmospheric CO2 show it is not.
As I have repeatedly pointed (including above), some (e.g. IPCC) have claimed the carbon isotope ratio changes support a suggestion for an anthropogenic source of the increases, but all such claims omit a quantitative analysis of the isotope ratio changes because the direction of the ratio changes agrees with the claims but the magnitude of the ratio changes does not. The quantitative discrepancy is at least a factor of three. It suggests that most of the observed increases in CO2 are caused by something other than “human emissions”. And if that unknown ’something’ is causing most of the isotope ratio changes then the ’something’ could be causing all of these changes.
There are many possible causes of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. In our 2005 paper
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005))
we demonstrated that it is possible to model several of them to match the empirical data with high accuracy.
Our study provides six such models with three of them assuming a significant anthropogenic contribution to the cause and the other three assuming no significant anthropogenic contribution to the cause. Each of the models matches the available empirical data without use of any ‘fiddle-factor’ such as the ‘5-year smoothing’ the UN IPCC uses to get its model to agree with the empirical data.
So, if one of the six models of our paper is adopted then there is a 5:1 probability that the choice is wrong. And other models are probably also possible.
And the six models each give a different indication of future atmospheric CO2 concentration for the same future anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide.
This indicates that the observed rise may be entirely natural; indeed, our paper suggests the observed recent rise to the atmospheric CO2 concentration most probably is natural. Hence ‘projections’ of future changes to the atmospheric CO2 concentration and resulting climate changes have high uncertainty if they are based on the assumption of an anthropogenic cause.
Does the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration have a natural cause, or an anthropogenic cause, or some mixture of natural and anthropogenic causes?
I don’t know and – at present – nobody can know because the empirical data cannot tell us.
But many people claim to know. And, as Dee might point out, they should beware because Nemesis followed Hubris.
Richard
The problem isn’t that of skeptic vs. scientist, that’s a false dichotomy. The action on the ground is old science vs. new science. Science is always provisional. In the case of AGW the so-called “skeptics” are the new kids on the block citing potential major nulls banging on the hull of mainstream science.
When good scientists frequent these fora we benefit from the calmer, more conservative side of science bringing perspective to the discussion. Of the two that I know of who frequent Tony’s blog they appear disinclined to engage in alarmist speculation — either ultra-warmist or ultra-coolist.
As for the sociological phenomena of information cascades within science, journalism or society at large it’s one thing to widely entertain a theoretical fad – say, a contracting universe that ends in a “Big Crunch” – but it’s an entirely different matter to reify any yet-unproven theory by either nightmare scenarios or a commensurate legislative reaction.
In the case of AGW the self-appointed believers crowd in the front pews and decry the hazard of the back-pew apostates moving into the middle.
It’s ostensibly responsible of them except these acolytes of AGW have been found to be eco-maniacal schoolboys one-upping each other in a competition to claim the hallowed ground of salvation (self-appointed knights errant in the noble cause). True believers stake their claims in either stolid faith or irrefutable science, but what do they believe? In evidence of a self-made Hell? Of course not, because there is no evidence that a 200 ft. rise in sea level is either imminent or inevitable.
The pulpit is shown to be occupied by some rather curious charlatans intent upon building a New Church of Precaution that’s come more to resemble an epidemic of a new hysteria – a Gaia Syndrome – replete with lugubrious monotonic operettas of shoddy data, self-defeating graphs and carbon indulgences. Part of this grand charade is the proffered dream of humanity serving in their Green Heaven. This is actually dangerous, this messianic call – as Barrack Obama himself said – to create a heaven right here on Earth, proffering salvation for all (by token of Green Taxes) against the original sin of personal carbon emissivity.
Of course there is no dichotomy – there is only the constancy of indifferent Nature, and human thought can no more lay claim to absolute knowledge of it now than it did when spirits and demons were thought to occupy human bodies as manifest illness. So when the AGW faithful asperse skeptics as the devil’s advocates wishing to rule in a self-made climate Hell, they are framing a dialectic where none need exist. It only exists because they have said it so and have drawn upon all manner of circumstantial data to help reify the claim. But nothing reifies worst-case scenarios better than fear and rather than concede that the provisional case needs further study – post haste – they have proclaimed – a priori – the debate is over, the science is settled, etc.
But we poor knaves were never really offered the choice of how we’d rather live. If the choice is a self-made climate Hell versus serving the likes of Al Gore in a Green Heaven, there’s a good chance most people would rather rule over their own affairs rather than cede the accoutrements of energy-based society to some bureaucratic crusade against Western “life styles.” People are not sheep and eventually resist desperate efforts to stampede the indifferent herd.
Is a decade of a stable temperature trend sufficient to call off doomsday? OK, 15 years perhaps? No, complacency will bring us to perfidy, the horsemen are coming, they’re just around the temporal corner and the polity must repent now, it is mandatory, compulsory. Free will be damned, the Auto de Fe is as sacrosanct as the primate that sanctions all our activities.
Note how the clarion call comes sans caveat on the perils of excessive power or original sin? There’s a bigger, deeper agenda at hand of an inner doctrine of new powers belying the outer doctrine of environmental peril. And that is really it, this AGW fear-mongering is far more about putting the cart of government before the horse of individual pursuit than it is about stabilizing something as dynamic and still poorly understood thing as climate.
Evanjones: “Private? I think not.”
I was referring to this fantasy: “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.”
Oddly enough, the article ends: “I am a skeptic and I am damn proud of it.” This, despite offering a fantasised positive thesis, ie a theory about “global cooling”.
“If CO2 positive feedback loop theory is falsified, CAGW is falsified, plain and simple. And the Aqua Satellite data seems well on the way to doing just that.’
Let’s let the scientists do their stuff before jumping the gun. Still, it’s interesting that you accept falsifiability in regard to AGW. On Popper’s criterion, that means you also accept that AGW is a genuine scientific theory.
And I’m not so sure that the falsification of AGW is just around the corner. If a hypothesis has sufficient staying power to become a theory, and the theory has managed to withstand many assaults, I would say it’s looking pretty robust.
It is not so easy to land a blow when punching a cloud of gas. Wasn’t the Vostok ice record originally a confirmation of CO2 warming theory? Then when the 800 year lag was discovered, something was conjured that still kept it a seeming confirmation of CO2 warming theory?
Let’s let the scientists do their stuff before jumping the gun.
We agree on this.
Still, it’s interesting that you accept falsifiability in regard to AGW. On Popper’s criterion, that means you also accept that AGW is a genuine scientific theory.
Of course. It’s science, not religion. And a complex set of factors (not all known) to boot. Certainly it is a genuine theory, and possibly true. I doubt it, but it’s certainly possible. Even the IPCC asserts only “high likelihood” for its theories, so presumably they concede they might be wrong, as well.
I find Dee’s “fantasy” not to be unlikely. Feedback is in question and that is an Achilles’ heel in CAGW theory. With the behavior of the sun and reversion of multidecadal oscillations, we may very well be in for quite a cold spell.
And I’m not so sure that the falsification of AGW is just around the corner. If a hypothesis has sufficient staying power to become a theory, and the theory has managed to withstand many assaults, I would say it’s looking pretty robust.
There has been rather little “assault”. It is just cranking up. Besides, AGW theory arose a decade or more before multidecadal oscillations had even been discovered. And H20 feedback loops were theorized before the Aqua Satellite data. Either/both of those factors could easily turn out to undo the theory.
Or not. As you say, it’s all falsifiable, and we will have to wait and see.
Richard:
Yes. The ratio is significant evidence. But we also need to account for the additional CO2. The oceans exude an extra 100ppmv, true, but only in the face of a 10°C swing. We don’t have anything like that here.
So, as we ask Mary, “Where is the extra heat going?”, I must also ask where the extra CO2 is coming from. And I doubt it’s the ocean, and even if it is, I doubt a less-than-1-degree swing could be causing it.
Is it possible that anthropogenic carbon sinks out faster than the natural variety, but “clogs the vents” thus causing more natural CO2 to be retained?
evanjones (08:27:44)
“Is it possible that anthropogenic carbon sinks out faster than the natural variety, but “clogs the vents” thus causing more natural CO2 to be retained?”
According to atomic theory, no. Atoms are identical and indistinguishable individually.
If you go into metaphysics, then maybe ( tongue in cheek) by metaphysics I mean transferring part of the human aura to the aura of the atom.
Seriously though, not all the natural sources of CO2 are taken into account, like those 200.000 vents in the ocean bottom from small volcanic cones we were hearing a while ago. There is a CO2 volcanic vent in Milos, a greek island, that a professor has studied, and he claims that only that vent gives off 2% of the world CO2. I am too lazy to chase the link, and it is anecdotal anyway.
According to atomic theory, no. Atoms are identical and indistinguishable individually.
Not even different isotopes? That’s how natural and anthropogenic carbon differs.
I understand we are discovering new sources of natural carbon emission. But is natural input going up, or are we merely discovering what was going on all along?
evanjones (10:36:35) :
“Not even different isotopes? That’s how natural and anthropogenic carbon differs.”
Not as far as chemical reactions and physical reactions go, so there can be no natural mechanism to separate isotopes of Carbon in CO2. You have to go nuclear, or have a very accurate centrifuge to get the slightly heavier C13 CO2 molecules to separate.
The overwhelming majority of carbon comes as carbon 12 (98.9%), 1.1% is carbon 13, and carbon 14 is radioactive and a trace element. The last two are useful for identifications and datings but not for generating physical mechanisms.
“I understand we are discovering new sources of natural carbon emission. But is natural input going up, or are we merely discovering what was going on all along?”
There are noises about volcanism growing, but it seems nobody in the subject is making world statistics. Who knows? One more factor in the chaotic input of climate.
The point is that it has to be coming from somewhere.
According to the DoE, mankind coughed up c. 7.2 BMTC last year via industry, and around half accumulated in the atmospheric sink (c. 760 BMTC, total), with the rest winding up in the ocean and soils/vegitation sinks. That would account for the 0.4% atmospheric carbon increase per year.
The question is, is that wrong? And if it is wrong, then where is the extra carbon coming from?
Kohl Pierson: “The difference between AGW and continental drift etc is precisely that it has NOT been accepted by ‘most’ scientists.”
The world’s major scientific organisations have endorsed AGW.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Stefan: “Wasn’t the Vostok ice record originally a confirmation of CO2 warming theory? Then when the 800 year lag was discovered, something was conjured that still kept it a seeming confirmation of CO2 warming theory?”
It still is, although indirectly, and of course the heat-retaining properties of CO2 are well established in the laboratory.
The “something” you have in mind is the fact that the Vostok ice record relates to specific climatic events: the emergence of the earth from ice ages. These events are usually understood to result from changes in the earth’s axis, but such a change is insufficient to explain the subsequent warming, hence CO2 is assumed to be a feedback, causing more warming.
This is a reasonable assumption given what we know of both the properties of CO2 and its rising presence in the ice cores.
The ice cores provide valuable background information about climate. But since the earth is not currently emerging from an ice age, there is no reason to assume that the same factors are playing out today in the same sequence as then. In other words, since the climate is a feedback system, CO2 can be both a cause and an effect of warming.
Evanjones: “Besides, AGW theory arose a decade or more before multidecadal oscillations had even been discovered.”
The interesting aspect of these events is whether they have much to do with the aggregate increase/decrease of energy within the climate system, or whether they mainly redistribute the existing energy within the system.
Don’t know much about the Aqua satellite data, but I’m sure the climate scientists are on to it.
evanjones:
You ask:
“According to the DoE, mankind coughed up c. 7.2 BMTC last year via industry, and around half accumulated in the atmospheric sink (c. 760 BMTC, total), with the rest winding up in the ocean and soils/vegitation sinks. That would account for the 0.4% atmospheric carbon increase per year.
The question is, is that wrong? And if it is wrong, then where is the extra carbon coming from?”
With respect your question shows a lack of understanding.
Each year the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases and falls (with the seasons) by more than 10 times the human emission. The rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is the residual of this fluctuation at the end of each year.
A small change in the natural emission to the air or the natural sequestration from the air would induce a change in that residual.
The observed change to the residual each year since 1958 (when measurements began at Mauna Loa) is about 2% of the natural emission (and, of course, about 2% of the natural sequestration).
The additional carbon dioxide added by burning of fossil fuels is less than 4% of the natural emission (and sequestration) each year. And the natural sequestration processes are almost certainly capable of absorbing a 4% addition each year because the observed rate of increase to the sequestration (in response to seasonal changes in the emissions) is more than 100 times greater than the rate of increase to the human emissions.
I remind that this exchange began because you stated the IPCC view when you said;
“I am forced to agree with Boris about the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels. We have a natural system where X goes in and X comes out. Humans add just a small bit in on a regular basis. The result is that it accumulates. X +H goes in X goes out.
Actually, that is slightly simplistic. A little more goes out as well, too. It’s really more like X+H goes in and X+(H/2) goes out. The remaining H/2 accumulates.”
But that assumes the natural emission and natural sequestration is invariate (i.e. as you say, “X goes in and X comes out”). And that assumption is known to be wrong because several things (e.g. variations in temperature, local ocean acidity, etc.) change the natural emission and natural sequestration. Furthermore, the degree of change with time is not known: some people attempt to estimate it by assuming no change to ocean acidity, or temperature effects are similar to transition from the last ice age, or etc. but all such guesstimates are probably very, very wrong.
So, a claim that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic is derived
(a) by using an assumption that is known to be wrong
(b) to reach conclusions that observation suggests is wrong.
Having said that, the anthropogenic emission could be the cause of the rise. The important point is that anybody is mistaken when claiming to know that the anthropogenic emission is or is not the cause.
Richard
If CO2 is assumed to be responsible for the further warming in the ice record, does this then mean that the ice record gives us a directly known value for the warming resulting from a doubling of CO2?
Brendan
“The world’s major scientific organisations have endorsed AGW.”
Surely you’re don’t think that this is the same thing as “most scientists” (they were your words not mine).
Organizations are not scientists. I thought that was obvious.
To Mary Hinge, and the other AGW proponents, could you please answer me this.
What are the quantifiable evidence “events” that would disprove or falsify CO2 induced Man Made Global Warming.
I.e. What are the specific events, that if they happened, would cause you to decide that the concept of CO2 induced Man Made Global Warming was incorrect and unsupported.
An alternative concept is that the climate is experiencing nothing more than natural variability and is outside the control of man and will warm and cool on its own without our “help”.
The other things that concern me are the reports of a lack of transparency, openness and repeatability of climate science. There are reports of missing data, unsupported statistical techniques, and what amounts to blatant fraud. Check the “Bishop Hill” thread http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3427 at ClimateAudit.
The above is not an individual case, Scientists at the Australian CSIRO recently claimed Intellectual Property as a reason for not releasing their data, which once it was extracted from them wsa promptly torn apart. Refer to http://landshape.org/enm/csiro-wars/
What are your thoughts on these practices – surely science should be conducted with effective data storage and availability, and the sharing of methods and results so that the methods and results can be verified (repeated) by other scientists.
I am very concerned that the poor scientific processes that seem to be rife in the AGW camp will only produce equally poor results – results that will be relied upon by Governments and communities.
To Mary Hinge, and the other AGW proponents,
What would be the personal meaning for you if CO2 induced man made catastrophic global warming was demonstrated to be false?
Would you life loose meaning? Would you feel less right and important? Would you feel lost and depressed?
It is very life significant to be part of a “World Saving Movement” and to possess the “Truth”. Significance that would be lost if AGW was shown to be false.
I’m curious as to the motives for the heavy emotional investment that seems to be made. “I.e. AGW MUST be RIGHT!”. Check out “Cognitive Dissonance” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
IMHO – If (and I don’t think that this is the case) Catastrophic AGW is in fact correct (a la Hansen’s 2015 tipping point, runaway warming, etc). Then it is already too late to save the world, as China and India (approx 2.5 Billion People) are rushing towards the modern world and modern world CO2 consumption standards and they do not care what the West thinks.
2015 will arrive in a heartbeat…
That will be a good test of the AGW theory.
Graeme,
I am considering your questions from a different perspective. I think that for me the questions are:
1) What would it take for me to believe that warming will be catastrophic and it is caused by man’s contributions of CO2?
2) Since I believe that I am part of a movement that is trying to save the free world from socialism, if I were proven to be wrong, would my life lose meaning, would I feel less right and important, would I feel lost and depressed?
I guess I must think of these questions a little more before I answer. I am sure that some here have already considered the questions more than I have.
Doubt is a virtue.
In my experience “Certainty” like Pride, “…Goes before a fall”.
I do IT change implementations for a living, and “doubt” is an asset that improves the reliability of results.
Certainty of belief is an experience that seems to be associated with Arrogance, Hubris and the rest…
The key reasons that I doubt CO2 induced Catastrophic Warming is that I have,
1. Not seen convincing evidence that the current climate exceeds natural variability.
2. Not seen convincing evidence that there are positive feedbacks for high CO2 that will lead to run-away warming.
3. Not seen convincing evidence that the tools and processes used by Climate science are effective for eliminating false information and will self-correct the ‘science”
and
4. I have seen people use AGW scare tactics to promote their own self interest and personal agendas in ways that look a lot like the sorts of techniques used by con men and charlatans.
5. I have seen AGW moving first towards “Climate Change” and then to “Climate Chaos” – i.e. adopting a “universalist” explains everthing position that is nothing less than a intellectually bankrupt non-falsifiable pseudo-scientific position.