Texas A&M Regents Professor and Texas State Climatologist
From his Climate Abyss blog at the Houston Chronicle, Texas State Climatologist Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon takes an extended interest in Dr. Robert Brown’s comment-turned-essay on WUWT.
Skeptics Are Not Deniers: A Conversation (part 1)
Robert Brown, a Lecturer of Physics at Duke University, had an essay up on Watts Up With That?. It was originally a comment, but Anthony Watts made it a full post, noting “as commenter REP put it in the update: ‘it is eloquent, insightful and worthy of consideration.’”
The comment came in response to the controversy over the use of the term “denier” in a Nature paper by Bain et al. as the category name for people who either “believed climate change was occurring, but that humans were not contributing substantially to it, or did not believe the climate was changing”.
Bain, in attempting to explain himself, digs a deeper hole. First he notes that those he would call skeptics and those he would call deniers are two distinct sets of people: “So in my mind we were ultimately challenging such “denier” stereotypes. But because we were focused on our target audience, it is true that I naively didn’t pay enough attention to the effect the label would have on other audiences, notably skeptics.” But then, he proceeds to refer to skeptics as those who believe AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is not occurring, which is precisely fits the definition of “denier” given in his Nature study!
Brown’s comment offers a different characterization of most skeptics, at least those who frequent WUWT, including himself: “they do not ‘deny’ AGW…What they challenge is the catastrophic label and the alleged magnitude of the projected warming on a doubling of CO2.” This seems to be cleanly outside Bain’s “denier” definition, but since Bain equated deniers with skeptics, Bain is tarring them both with a broad brush.
I must note here that Brown’s definition of “skeptic” also arguably fits most surveyed members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union, of whom 57% regard global climate change as at most moderately dangerous.
The rest of Brown’s essay is a defense of (his own) skepticism, as he has defined it. It actually is very high-quality, as such things go, so it’s worth discussing.
So as to have an actual discussion, rather than merely a critique, I sent him my immediate responses, and he responded to them, and I responded to his responses, etc. Our conversation remained interesting (at least to me) even as it grew longer and longer. So I’m posting it in six parts, to be released in six consecutive days.
Here’s Part 1. The numbered points are summarized by me from his WUWT post. Note that none of the issues really get argued through to resolution, but you get a good sense of where we’re coming from.
See the full post at:
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/07/skeptics-are-not-deniers-a-conversation-part-1/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Perhaps there is hope for civil dialogue after all… here and there at least 🙂
N-G is hiding behind an ice free Antarctica…from 30 Mya ! ! !
I’m embarassed for the Lone Star state….we can’t guess albedo to +/- 0.5 but we detect a signal from +/- 0.000001 change in CO2….what happened to the concept of “significant digits” ? ? ?
All genuine scientists are skeptics. There is, however, such a thing as a denier, as much as I hate to use the word, and they may occupy any side of any issue. They can be identified by their refusal to admit even the possibility that they may be wrong.
This should get very interesting. From the first few interactions it appears John N-G hasn’t had to deal with anyone with the knowledge that Dr. Robert Brown possesses. John makes a couple of illogical statements that Robert quickly points out.
The biggest problem in climate science is it really is built on a broad base of junk. Yes, junk. Nothing but guesses at things no one really understands to any substantial degree. Those who try to defend it can be easily made to look silly when the lack of certainty is made apparent. Most do what John just did. They make general claims about models, etc. that can’t be directly refuted but contain no information at all.
Junk science built on junk data from people who won’t call it what it is … junk.
That’s a fair bit of spin on that study! The actual numbers ( http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html ) are that “Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.” So only 13% see it as posing “relatively little danger”. “Moderately dangerous” does not seem like a skeptic to me. Presumably, most people would not believe that we should take no mitigating action to address something that is moderately dangerous!
And, to say it “will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years” is a very dramatic statement. If they had surveyed me, I probably would have debated quite a bit between saying something that strong and certain or just going with moderately dangerous. After all, “very great danger to the earth” seems to imply that the Earth itself is in peril. And, I think that the Earth will survive just fine (especially over the geologic time scale) even if we manage to kill off most of ourselves and a large fraction of other species; after all, such cataclysmic events have happened before. Still, that doesn’t mean it is something I don’t want to put any effort into avoiding!!!!
Always willing to think the best of people, I admit to accepting his response/explanation as an apologetic overture and was magnanimous in my comments. I am exceedingly critical of someone’s science, and never critical enough of their motives or their personal explanations.
Live and learn
Thanks
“And, I think that the Earth will survive just fine (especially over the geologic time scale) even if we manage to kill off most of ourselves and a large fraction of other species; after all, such cataclysmic events have happened before. Still, that doesn’t mean it is something I don’t want to put any effort into avoiding!!!!”
Ha! Well said. It’s that old ‘perspective thing”.
It’s time to mow the lawn.
I would be very hesitant to come anywhere near establishing criteria for who is and who isn’t a legitimate skeptic.
“The rest of Brown’s essay is a defense of (his own) skepticism, as he has defined it. It actually is very high-quality, as such things go, so it’s worth discussing.”
“…as such things go”
lol
Is that damning-with-faint-praise, or praising-with-faint-damns?
I don’t think I need to read parts 2,3,4,5, and 6, Sir.
The American Physical Society among others has stated the evidence is incontrovertible. Lets look at the definition of incontrovertible:
http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/incontrovertible
incontrovertible
adjective that is true and cannot be disagreed with or denied
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/incontrovertible
Adj. 1. incontrovertible – impossible to deny or disprove
In both cases, “incontrovertible” means impossible to deny. To deny something that is impossible to deny is impossible. Therefore, there cannot be any deniers.
That is the beauty of truth. It has no contradiction. A lie on the other hand always has an end, because it leads to a logical contradiction.
His blog is a worthwhile read – for example:
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/04/about-the-lack-of-warming/
This is interesting. I was just settling in for a good long read when Part 1 ended. Can’t wait for Part 2.
Is it N-G’s position that we are in fact deniers? Not sure I understand the point of this exchange. N-G is model-oriented and I’ve not seen any models with enough skill to outwit a room full of monkeys. RGB nails that point well and the uncertainty challenge is unanswered with models.
What happened 30MYA is not relevant and there is no evidence conditions from that time are recurring. It is quite likely the current land mass arrangement disallows many things that happened then while allowing other things previously denied.
Which brings me to my favorite point: Climate is the frame work within which weather happens. It forms the bounds for what we witness and can witness. It is always changing. Not in a fickle way but in a slow ponderous way. Most importantly it is not global. There are enough variables in the system to allow climate excursions regionally which is why we see Antarctic ice increase as Arctic ice is blown into the north Atlantic.
Climate change is entirely normal and not to be feared but to be understood. It will make no adjustments to appease our comforts – that is our job. The lull in the current glaciation cycle is just that. The ice will return and there is not stopping it. Unlike what happened 30MYA, the ice is recurring and receded only recently in geologic time. Our state of Washington bears the scars of it like it happened yesterday (learn more at Scablands).
If you think about it, there’s a lot of “marketing” going on with AGW. Don’t like what someone says, just throw out a label, “Denier”, problem solved. No need to think of consider another point of view, just throw our a marketing label and turn off the brain.
Someone published research the contradicts AGW, just call it, “junk science” or “research bought by the oil companies”, problem solved. No need to even consider any contradiction.
Absolute applause for Dr N-G. This is what a frank and honest discussion of climate science looks like. This is what a discussion with Mann, Jones, Briffa, Trenberth and the rest of “the team” does NOT look like. I’ll not say a single ill word about his position vs Dr Brown’s. This is not about who won the argument. This is about showing the world what a civil argument based on facts and logic looks like. Kudos to both Dr N-G and to Dr Brown.
Chicken Little climatologists
How they label us is not important. What is important is for us to label them.
Eugene WR Gallun
“John Nielsen-Gammon: Skeptics Are Not Deniers”
================================================
@all so called “skeptics”. Just forget the whole climate hoax (debate, controversy, fiction, whatever) for a minute and focus on the phrase “Skeptics Are Not Deniers”. Isn’t it ridiculous? Yes, it is in multiple ways.
First, this is “sceptics against scientists” implication, bad for “Sceptics”.
Second, “skeptic” implies a weak or even unreasonable position per definition: “someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs” (WordWeb dictionary).
To the term “denier”. It has a bad connotation, but it’s original meaning is “One who denies” (WordWeb dictionary). So if a “skeptic” does not agree with catastrophic AGW, then from the standpoint of those who believe that it is a fact they can logically call “skeptics” “deniers”. The problem is only that there is a bad connotation there because of the term “Holocaust denier”.
The most ridiculous thing is when “skeptics” argue that they do not deny AGW. No, it is irrelevant, that there is something you do not deny, because they do not call you denier for that. They call you “denier” for what you deny, like the catastrophic consequences. You do deny the catastrophic consequences, don’t you, so what is the problem?
Now, if you want them stop calling you denier, if it is so important to you, then… right, then agree with them on everything. This would be at least logical. Or stop whining, lose your humiliating term “skeptic” and start questioning everything about the AGW concept.
I am a scientist. I have studied possible causes for climate change for the past 33 years, focusing upon biogenic methane releases from agriculture. I have published in the peer reviewed literature and am considered an expert in my field.
I am also a skeptic of wild, exaggerated claims by hyperventilating types (Hansen esp.) who have clear political agendas and those with overt economic motivations (Pachauri, Gore et.al). Most of the data they defend is trash, as exposed by the elegant analysis of Stephe McIntyre and others.
The global system is far too complex to define in the precise and concrete terms that they use. I don’t deny that there might be a relationship between man’s activities and climate, but I have yet to see this proven. Prof. Lindzen’s opinions on the subject are very much like my own. If they want to call me a “denier,” my feelings aren’t hurt. They are asses.
joeldshore says:
July 9, 2012 at 7:51 pm
===================
Your link is from an article dated April 24, 2008. That was at a time when most of us believed in the integrity of scientists.
The cat is now out of the bag and it has been revealed that the the so-called ‘climate scientists’ have no integrity or code of ethics. This comment of yours and others from the past show you fit right in with their scheme of things.
I will do my best to not call you a troll, but it taxes my general disposition. I will just try consider that you are a fire and brimstone type of believer. To consider that also taxes my disposition.
Well … just let me ask. Are you a troll?
“N-G: Wrong. For eons, until about 30 million years ago, the Antarctic was ice-free. The climate state associated with the ice-free Antarctic was warmer by several degrees…”
Yeah, because the Antarctic continent was not yet at the southern pole! Being north of the southern pole gave it a better shot at being warm!
The Wikipedia has the South Atlantic beginning to open after the Cretaceous, circa 145 to 65 MA. . .
Over time, Gondwana gradually broke apart and Antarctica as we know it today was formed around 25 million years ago. Antarctica was not always cold, dry and covered in ice sheets. . .
About 65 MA, Antarctica (then connected to Australia) still had a tropical to subtropical climate, complete with a marsupial fauna. About 40 MA Australia-New Guinea separated from Antarctica, so that latitudinal currents could isolate Antarctica from Australia, and the first ice began to appear. . . Around 23 MA. . . ice began to spread, replacing the forests that then covered the continent. Since about 15 MA, the continent has been mostly covered with ice, with the Antarctic ice cap reaching its present extension around 6 Ma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica
So, N-G is saying that continental drift had nothing to do with the change in climate faced by Antarctica?
Buy me another drink!
Greg House:
I really don’t give a damn what you call me.
There are two peices of actual evidence that there is no recent third stable warm state. There are trapped bubbles of air in deep, as in 200,000 years deep, antarctic ice, that show the following:
1) Twice the carbon dioxide (at twice the atmospheric pressure to boot) as now.
2) Trapped in ICE.
This means that if we arrive at twice the amount of carbon dioxide as now, we will have ice in antarctica.
This is hard physical data. It shows that the models are flat out wrong.
X2 CO2 and ice, any questions?
michael hart says:
July 9, 2012 at 8:18 pm
And you will be a poorer man for it, because this is a remarkably good discussion. To pick at a nit, and throw away the opportunity to read an engaging and frank debate where a warmist honestly engages a skeptic because of that nit, is your loss.
Thank you John Nielsen-Gammon for your frank engagement with the indomitable Robert Brown.
Skeptics are normal people who expect others to do their jobs. Not enrich themselves by satisfying left wing academics and politicians with obvious nonsense.
I said I would say no ill of Dr N-G because I think he does both sides a noble service by making his conversation with Dr B public in this fashion. No matter what your own belief is, this discussion in this format has enormous value and I for one intend to read every word of each installment.
Now having said that, I never said that I wouldn’t keep score. I have scored the first round as being rather decisive, with one of the protagonists well ahead on points. I believe there was one foul incurred due to an “out of bounds” argument, but otherewise a clean bout so far.
I believe I shall need more popcorn, and perhaps a hot dog and pop.