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.]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
” I have also snipped your rehashing of a discontinued discussion on this blog about evolution vs creationism. If you feel I have overstepped, please discuss the matter with Anthony. – Dee Norris”
Was expecting it! When one of your high -profile anti AGW proponents commits such a scientific error, I’m not surprised its been snipped, however I’m sure you will have no objections to a link to the page on this blog where this dicsussion took place http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/uah-global-temperature-dips-in-august/.
I think to gain any credence the anti AGW camp must first understand one simple fact, that just ’cause you say something, don’t mean it’s true! The models have taken into account a lot of the points made above such as solar cycles, ocean cycles, vulcanism etc. and it’s only once you add the effects of CO2 that they start to make sense and tally with known observations. Allan Millar is a good example of the sort of bad science shown in ‘arguments’.
Point 1 does not take into account the ‘masking effect’ of ocean cycles such as La Nina and PDO, these are known, have been factored in and we will probably stay at a similar level of temperature for a few more years yet, however without the extra CO2 it would probably be much colder;
2-The 21st century has a long way to go! Once the oceans return to other patterns then there could very well be a very fast warming event.
3-Sea temperatures have fallen slightly in the last few years at the top 2km as can be measured. As I’m sure you know the ocean averages about 3.km in depth and there seems to be a lot of relative warmth at these depths, especially the deep sea currents, as shown by an global increase in sea level, probably caused by thermal expansion at these depths;
4-There IS a huge reduction in sea ice in the Northern hemisphere, especially in recent years. There is also probably a huge loss in VOLUME of southern ocean ice, resulting in a noticeable reduction in salinity (which of course results in more freezing due to raising of freezing tmperature. This has been hypothesised to be due to the same warm deep ocean currents discussed in point 3 rising and melting the ice from below, this also explains the loss of ice sheets during the Antarctic winter that happened a few months ago. There is still a lot of work to be done on this but so far results match the predictions. Don’t forgt that the Antarctic is almost a closed system and increases in wind velocities have ben reported from both the interior and the circum-polar winds, the circum polar winds and currents isolate the continent from most of the effects of global warming for now, increased winds and currents could make the interior colder as it becomes a tighter system.
However the biggest howler is this
“After all we know that Ice ages are triggered by changes to the amount of TSI received by the Earth but the percentage changes do no seem nearly enough to produce such a violent change.”
Where do you get this garbage from? We know that ice the recent ice-ages were caused by plate tectonics.
And Richard Courteny, dear oh dear..
“Proving one thing is wrong (e.g. “solar”) says nothing about whether another thing (e.g. AGW) is right or wrong. Your claim that AGW is supported by faults in other theories is an example of the logical error commonly called a “straw man” argument.”
I never said that the solar theory is wrong, only that is doesn’t explain the recent high temperatures. It may well play a part in global temperatures but since 1980 the record has shown no correlation with actual events strng enough to show it plays more than a minor role in short term temperature trends.
“And your assertion that “The theory of AGW is still working” is plain wrong according to the normal rules of science. ”
What rules do you follow? You certainly do not know, or want to know what the rules of science are, thankfully the vast majority of real scientists do.
“However, your assertion that the “theory of AGW is still working” is demonstrably right in so far as the “theory of AGW” is a method to obtain research funding
(at least $5 billion per year from governments alone at present)
and to excuse political policies
(e.g. the ‘Florenze Report’: ref. EU Document (2008/2001 (INI)) dated 22.1.2008 issued by the ‘Temporary Committee on Climate Change’ of the EU Parliament).!
This shows how importantly the ‘powers that be’ take the problem, a remarkable outcome and the cause of great jealousy amongst others, yourself probably included.
[snip – Mary we don’t use those words here, and the phrase is insulting tone it down please – Anthony]
I have read a couple comments where people are trying saying that those that visit this site are hypocrites because so long as the evidence is contrary to AGW then it is excepted. Thus we who visit this site are not being skeptics but rather towing the line for Exxon Mobile and the Heartland Institute.
To those people I say nice thoughts but you do not understand what is going on at this site. Most people who come here are skeptical of many things. For instance Many skeptics believe that the sun is the primary cause of tempeture change. However they are often challenging as to the degree of change that this current lull in sunspot activity will cause. Few of the skeptics say that CO2 does not have some warming effect either, they challenge HOW MUCH EFFECT it causes.
As far as the list of scientists and bias in it. Lets face it it is no more biased then the IPCC. I mean think about the bloody name for crying out load the “Internation Panel of Climate Change”. Even the bloody name is biased to believe that climate change is occuring. Which of course it is the climate is in constant flux but then thier mission statment is as follows “The IPCC assesses the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.”
So please tell me how these people can be anything but biased to a certain agenda. Thier mission is not to assess why the climate is changing. Thier mission is not to examine all evidence of factors. In fact if Humans are not causing climate change then the IPCC are not needed, and that is alot of money that they do not get anymore and have to go and get real jobs that may actually contribute something to the world.
Do the math, I am assuming those who read this and will respond to it can do math. Forget about ‘feedbacks’ as they are hypothetical at best and lies at worst. Just do the math on the CO2 and then decide if it can be a primary factor in REAL Catestrophic Global Warming. Make sure you run a comparison of all the other possible factors ( orbit of earth changing, Solor output, deforestation, reforestation, sulfuric coal usage, Magnetic convergance, solor winds, etc ) Please take into account that we still don’t know how to take the earths temperature correcty ( which is what this site started with btw thanks Anthony ) and guess what you are left with. Not much and anyone who says differently is fooling themselves. So I am skeptical of a political organization with an agenda feeding me data and telling me what I should believe. Seriously Watts up with that?
Innocentious (07:09:23) :
“For instance Many skeptics believe that the sun is the primary cause of tempeture change. However they are often challenging as to the degree of change that this current lull in sunspot activity will cause.”
Many skeptics believe this but it is just untrue I’m afraid. Look at this graph and you can see that any correlationbetween sunspots/solar irradiance to temperature disappears after 1980. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7b/Temp-sunspot-co2.svg/600px-Temp-sunspot-
” Make sure you run a comparison of all the other possible factors ( orbit of earth changing, Solor output, deforestation, reforestation, sulfuric coal usage, Magnetic convergance, solor winds, etc ) ”
This has been done and again the results to don’t fit unless you add the effects of CO2.
Your point about taking the earths temperature is very valid and something that needs a lot more work, however bear in mind that Anthony’s work on Urban heat islands affecting temperature sensors has already been worked into the models.
(Mary Hinge)
“Where do you get this garbage from? We know that ice the recent ice-ages were caused by plate tectonics.”
Last time I looked out my window I didn’t see a three kilometre thick ice sheet!
Or are you saying that plate tectonics have changed in the last 15K years?
Plate tectonics are just one factor in glaciation periods if they were the overwhelming factor we would still be covered in ice wouldn’t we? Perhaps you ought to think a little for youself rather than parrot other peoples thoughts.
It’s strange how you and others manage to swallow some of the most amazing concepts without question.
Al Gore et al first tried to get us to believe that increased CO2 was the cause of rising temperatures at the end of the last glacial period. When this was disproved by the ice core records you are now asked to accept that what actually happens is this. :-
Some effect or combination of factors starts to cause the Earth to warm. After a lag, CO2 levels start to rise as a feedback effect. However, at some, not very well described point, this cause and effect reverses itself and suddenly increasing CO2 levels become the cause and increasing temperatures the effect. Then amazingly at some other point this cause and effect reverses itself again. Temperatures start to fall and after a lag CO2 levels start to fall, until we enter another glacial period and the cycle repeats.
How do you manage to swallow all this without breaking into laughter?
Of course all this convoluted somersaulting by the Earths climate is only necessary if the CO2 theory is correct. If it is the Sun driving the climate, together with other factors such as plate tectonics then things are far more understandable.
Alan
The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational media. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit party doctrine, for propaganda effect. For example, if the IPCC makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite history so that any prediction the IPCC previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. The deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the IPCC is absolutely 100% correct. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding climate) or make a mistake (making a grossly misjudged catastrophic prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the IPCC must seem eternally right and strong.
Borrowed from wiki and changed at my whim,
Mike Bryant
(Mary Hinge)
“4-There IS a huge reduction in sea ice in the Northern hemisphere, especially in recent years. There is also probably a huge loss in VOLUME of southern ocean ice, resulting in a noticeable reduction in salinity (which of course results in more freezing due to raising of freezing tmperature.”
Of course you have thought this through thoroughly haven’t you Mary?
If what you say is true where has all this water gone?
You have repeated what the alarmists have said, huge ice melt leading to a hugely accelerating sea rise trend and a massive overall rise in sea levels. You say that a huge melt has already taken place. Where are the huge sea level rises then?
Sea level rise has actually been slowing in the last few years. Another example of dogma defeated by data and facts!
Alan
Umm, Climate Change is ALWAYS occurring…
They also know there wouldn’t be anything to be alarmed about.
Mary Hinge:
I wrote:
“And your assertion that “The theory of AGW is still working” is plain wrong according to the normal rules of science. The theory of AGW would be disproved if there were one clear disagreement between the predictions of AGW theory and empirical observation, and all (yes, ALL) predictions of AGW fail the test of comparison with empirical reality; see
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/AGW_hypothesis_disproved.pdf”
Your complete reply was:
What rules do you follow? You certainly do not know, or want to know what the rules of science are, thankfully the vast majority of real scientists do.
If you had read the URL (less than a page) then you would know “the normal rules of science” – as I do – because I stated them there.
Your ad hominem comments do not overcome the empirical evidence. But they do demonstrate that you recognise the paucity of your argument.
Richard
I disagree completely with this characterization. Skepticism is not automatically a negative view of anything, it’s an objective view, a probing view. Only those with an agenda consider it negative when it is applied towards their beliefs.
Well said, Dee. Any scientist who is not a skeptic is not a scientist.
Dee, Have you been following the continuing exchange between “mugwump” in the skeptic corner and Ray Bradbury in the AGW corner on Real Climate (Spencer Weart topic)? Totally compelling! Wonderfully informative entertainment! Global warming education at its best!
To anyone responding to Ms. Mary,
[snip]…
Richard Courtney – you need to remove the closed quote from your URL to get it to work.
All – As a scientist who also worked along side the IPCC on global warming issues, I believe that AGW definitely is a fact. Albeit with much uncertainty as to the when, the where, and the magnitude. You need only to believe the laws of physics.
1. CO2 and the other greenhouse gases (GHGs) have a demonstrable warming effect on the Earth. This has been accepted for decades. Without this beneficial effect the surface temperature of Earth would be much like Mars. Thank goodness for the greenhouse effect.
2. The quantity of GHGs has been increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere. 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.”
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.
Glad to see you’re up early and on the ball! To summarize I’m saying that any of the theories, such as solar, to describe the recent temperature trends have been shown to be lacking
But the Big Six ocean-atmospheric cycles flipped from cool to warm, one by one, from 1976 to 2001. Then last year, PDO flipped to cool phase. This may well explain both the rise and decadal plateau of the last thirty years.
That seems to be a reasonable correlation. The very existence of the multidecadal cycles was not known for ten years after Hansen’s 1988 speech.
The AMO/PDO index has been shown to correlate with temperatures considerably better than CO2.
As for CO2 warming, positive feedback (the crux of the theory) has been called into very serious question by the Aqua Satellite (if not falsified outright).
None of this relies on solar theories, except that a Garnd Minimum may possibly be preparing to pit its foot into the middle of the equation (250 out of the last 1000 years have been under Garnd Minimum conditions–and, FWIW, we’re “due”).
That plus the Yilmaz and McKitrick papers which (dovetailing with the Rev’s surface station observations) indicate serious exaggeration of the historical climate record of the last century. (Confirmed amply by NOAA’s graph of their own adjustment procedures.)
Until this has been refuted, I consider it most inadvisable that we enact emergency measures that will cut world economic growth by up to half. YMMV!
If false, it should be easy to refute: As is ubiquitous among the climate skeptics, ALL the data, methods, and algorithms are on the table.
Kohl Piersen (05:33:10) : Note also that deductive reasoning can lead to erroneous conclusion
When I said inductive and abductive reasoning could lead to erroneous conclusions I actually meant logical conclusions. Point taken though. Initial assumptions should always be verified!
Even the ‘Hockey Stick’ has survived, mainly because the science behind it has been tested.
The hockey stick has survived about as well as Harry Potter’s broom when the whomping willow was done with it.
Independant Proxy measurements have shown the science is sound.
There seems to be a considerable problem with that data. As it is not disclosed, it is currently being deconstructed. This is not auspicious for its ultimate vindication.
In any arena you can think of, skeptic usually wins. Why? Because has a very special mind.
Mind of questioning, challenging questions, digging deeper in quest for truths.
Doing so- ultimately discovers more to travel either to
“staying a skeptic”
OR to
“new knowledge that may shift her thinking”.
AGW projections from 30 years ago are manifesting themselves, the predictions are being verified.
Not as far as I can see. Hansen’s projections have been posted and compared with the record. Result: not so hot. Are you referring to some other prediction?
I lived in the Netherlands from 2004 to 2008 and as you know much of this part of NW Europe lies at, or below sea-level.
The country is protected from the 1-in-4,000 year storm surge and in some cases, from the 1-in-8,000 year high water mark. In the grand scheme of things this is long term thinking but if Al Gore’s predictions are to be believed, these defences would not take the country much beyond 2050.
What has become clear is the ensuing ‘debate’ is the fact that truth cannot be established scientifically. Science can only speak of probabilities and empirical distributions. It cannot claim to measure all things, even in the visible universe.
You are right to be sceptical.
IIbeck,
Most knowledgeable skeptics understand the .6C/century contribution of CO2.
Its the “positive feedback” b/n C02 and water vapor that seems to be the heart of the debate. As I understand it, more C02 warms the atmosphere just enough for the additional heat to allow more water vapor. Additional heat from water vapor warms the oceans and they emit even more C02. Which warms things up some more, and round and round we go until by the end of the century (according to James Lovelock) our handful of surviving descendants will be found in the Arctic huddled around the last remaining block of ice seeking protection from the oven that our atmosphere is supposed to become.
Which is what they’re teaching my kids in school, thank you very much. Since you worked with the IPCC, perhaps you could give me some words I can use when they wake me up in the middle of the night after having had nightmares about it.
Or do you agree with their science teacher?
Alan Millar (08:02:23) : A lesson in Archimedes Principle
“-…..There IS a huge reduction in sea ice in the Northern hemisphere, especially in recent years. There is also probably a huge loss in VOLUME of southern ocean ice, ……..”
“Of course you have thought this through thoroughly haven’t you Mary?
If what you say is true where has all this water gone?””
Alan dear, you are doing what so many [snip] do, make the most basic errors, in this case you obviously haven’t heard of the Archimedes’ principle. Notice I said OCEAN ice. Put an ice cube or two into a glass of water and make a note of the water level. Done that? Good. Now wait for the ice to melt, what has happened to the water level? Explain.
As should be clear to you after this little experiment is that melting sea ice or ice on the sea surface has no effect on water level.
To Mike Bryant (08:43:05) :
A [snip] 😉
and to llbeck (08:54:57) :
A little bit of sanity at last!
and finally to evanjones (09:04:06)
Always relied on to provide some basis for his arguments, like Anthony a true skeptic .
The North Atlantic cycle looks to be the most interesting and could explain the MWP and the LIA, these could well be more localised than thought, especially as they have a minor effect on global temperatures, as shown by proxy temperature measurements but a much larger effect on Europe. These cycles do have some effect for sure but again, probably not enough to explain recent warming. This is an area that needs a lot more work and illustrates the complexity of the study of climate and climate change.
Warning: If the ad hominem attacks keep going, eventually whole comments will start disappearing because the effort to keep [snipping] is exceeding the value of the material. – Anne the Moderator.
Inductive reasoning is constructing truth from “evidence” while deductive is taking fiat assumptions and making conclusions.
Inductive is science, deductive is religion.
Poor luke…
By after 1980 do you mean after the temperature sets were “adjusted”?
Climate Change is occurring.
∆F = ∆S -T∆H
The system is not in equilibrium, therefore, ΔF ≠ 0.
continental drift is real…changing the movement (air and ocean) and albedo…
d(∆F)/dt≠0.
Climate Change is ALWAYS occurring.
AGW is magic of Lord Voldemort.