Hint: He did his homework, then took himself to the other side of the debate.
Guest essay by David Siegel
My name is David Siegel. I’m not a climate expert; I’m a writer. Early in 2015, I became interested in climate science and decided to spend the better part of this year trying to learn what I could. It didn’t take long before it was clear that there isn’t likely going to be any catastrophic warming this century. What was clear is that skeptics are losing this battle, and I want to tell you why.
For thirty years, James Hansen and Al Gore have been building their PR machine along with David Fenton, the wizard of nonprofit PR. They understand that the messenger is more important than the message. People don’t easily change their minds. People get their opinions from “experts” and brand names like NASA, MIT, Harvard, TIME, The Daily Show, etc. Fenton knows the game is about credibility and repetition, not science. As long as we are trying to convince people with the facts, we will lose.
So I did my homework and wrote a 9,000-word essay aimed at liberals who have a voice, who have access to media, and who might take 30 minutes to educate themselves.
I submitted my piece to every liberal publication, from the LA Times to the Atlantic Monthly to National Geographic to Huffington Post and many more. They all turned it down. Now I’m launching it myself and hope you will read it and help spread the word.
I ask you to help get the word out through social media, links, and the press, to the liberal audience I’m going after. Links really help. If you can help reach Bill Gates, Jeff Skoll, Jon Stewart, George Clooney, and other influential liberals, I hope to help them understand that the science is not settled. I think this is the best way to tip the scales back to reasonable, impactful environmentalism. If you can help move it on Reddit, Voat, Quora, NewsVine, etc., I would appreciate that.
I’m going to ask people to leave comments here, rather than on my page, because I can’t manage the comment spam there. I will, however, read the comments here and will respond if I can.
My work is aimed at your liberal friends; please send them to read it.
Excerpt:
What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?
If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.
More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in preserving our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible.Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.
Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.
1 Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves.
2 Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural.
3 There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.
4 New research shows that fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, at both long and short time scales.
5 CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much.
6 There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.
7 Sea level will probably continue to rise, naturally and slowly. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.
8 The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others. Polar bear numbers are up, not down. They have more to do with hunting permits than CO2*.
9 No one has shown any damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people who eat them.
10 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. There’s a tremendous amount of trickery going on under the surface*.
Could this possibly be right? Is it heresy, or critical thinking — or both? If I’ve upset or confused you, let me guide you through my journey
You’ll find it at: www.climatecurious.com.
It would be interesting to see a statistic that shows and compares the number of people that have moved from alarmists to skeptics relative to the number of people who have moved from skeptics to alarmists.
@ur momisugly David Siegel
A noble action, ….. but IMHO, …. of little to no practical value.
The primary problem is, …. the US Public School Systems have been dedicated, ….. for the past 30+- years, …. to the Teaching and Testing of the claimed “dire effects” of CO2 causing Anthropogenic Global Warming climate change …. and thus they are per se “graduating” more adamant believing “CO2 warminists” each and every year than you or anyone else can possibly re-educate in/on factual Science.
State School Boards, the Department of Education and/or County School Boards might be a better “target” for sending your “submitted commentary” to ….. because they have “the power” to change the Science curriculum in the Public Schools.
I grew up in the 90s watching TV shows like Captain Planet and other mainstream media that demonized CO2. So naturally I believed all of the hype. But as I grew older and wiser, I began to queation it all.
I’ve watched and read many documentaries on all of the environmental destruction humans are doing across the globe yet it’s all being ignored by the powers that be.
From GMOs that force produce to release pesticides all year round (instead of just during spring is killing off huge amounts of insect popuplations that are critcal to pollination) to the toxic rivers of China and all the way down to the deforestation of the Amazon.
The real issue is with the environment and not the climate. We need to pass policies in protecting the natural order of life from ourselves and not corporate interests.
Dog, do read up on GMO crops. They do not release persicides. They contain naturally occuring persticides that kill the insect larvae that try to eat them. The have zero effect on pollinators. Whether the neonicotide class of. Hemically applied pesticides is a major impactor on pollinators is a matter of swrious scientific debate. Under some circumstances, clearly yes. As for seed coatings, probably not.
Colony Collapse Disorder is complicated, but nothing to do with GMO.
From a farmer and environmentalist who studied these issues before deciding what to plant where and when. The several wild honey bee colonies in the hollow trees of my woodlots exist very nicely alongside the Bt corn, soy, and alfalfa. But they also have plenty of water sources (a running sping with the trickle out’ , two dammed ponds) and plenty of food sources (wild apples and crabapples in the spring, plenty of wildflowers in the pastures, wild backberries in forest openings (we selective log about 120 acres in four woodlots), and alfalfa blossoms in summer). Not the constantly transported commercial hives speading varoa mite and viral disease.
I meant naturally occurring pesticides which I always thought were released just during the spring to give budding plants a chance to grow.
I guess I have a bit reading to do….
Thanks for the heads up!
Thank you ristvan, for stating the truth about GMO crops. See my comment about the Triple Crown above.
Dog, as a corn & soybean grower, I see the use GMO seed and Glyphosate to eliminate competitive “weeds” as a reduction in the normal habitat of the desirable component of insect population (mantis, butterfly, bee etc and on up the food chain).
i have been engaging in conversation with locals about the establishment of wildflower habitats on ground which is set-aside or residential and the possibility of getting assistance from the advocate organizations. Nothing too serious has been done yet, but by spring I hope to know if we have to fund it ourselves or not.
Thank you for more evidence for my informal study of how few people win the “Triple Crown.” Meaning: how many people get all three answers correct when asked the following questions:
1) Is CAGW a legitimate hypothesis? (No.)
2) Do you accept that evolution is a fact? (Yes.)
3) Are anti-GMO activists wrong? (Yes.)
Now that you have educated yourself regarding CO2, might I suggest that you educate yourself regarding GMOs. The fears that haunt your dreams have been disproven.
I have written several songs decrying the ridiculousness of a fight on climate change and have very little luck getting anybody in the St. Louis area musician crowd to help record them. I got kicked out of a band last year after announcing my skepticism around a group of k-12 music teachers who played in this band also.
Mr. Siegel, welcome to the search for the real mechanisms of climate and the cycles thereof.
I will share my latest lyrical efforts for your entertainment.
The tune is in a A minor and reminds one of John Prine or Steve Earle.
Thank you for the essay. Unfortunately, you are not likely to reach much of the audience here that you at first targeted.
“What was clear is that skeptics are losing this battle, and I want to tell you why.”
You explained in following paragraph the “why” for your belief that skeptics are losing the battle. I would like you to expand on the use of the word “clear”. In other words, what is your evidence that skeptics are losing the battle (for public opinion)?
I would contented that the skeptics are winning, if ever so slowly. The rhetoric of the warmist side has reached a very high pitch; “climate deniers worse than holocaust deniers”; “climate change is the most serious threat to national security”, “climate change threatens human existence”, “coal trains are death trains”, etc. But, over the last 10 years, ‘climate change’ has moved to dead last in people concerns in the US, and even worldwide as evidenced by a UN survey.
I am not over optimistic. The battle will go on for tens of years, but it is a war of attrition. A skeptic win is inevitable. The only question is what damage the warmist can do to the world economy before that happens. The Paris conference will give some answers.
Texas Dave, here is your UN survey data.
On a posting about Portugal climate change, a note was made.
The people have had enough of dramatized reports predicting an imminent climate apocalypse just around the corner. According to a Eurobarometer poll conducted in July 2013, a mere 4% of the European population now cites the alleged climate catastrophe as their most pressing concern. Moreover, the number is zero percent in seven European countries, including Portugal.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/05/surprising-facts-about-climate-change-in-portugal-why-the-climate-catastrophe-is-not-happening/
A quick research led to me to comment.
The most optimistic statement made – From the 2011 polling – Half (50%) of all Europeans think that climate change is one of the world’s most serious problems and around one in six Europeans (16%) think it is the single most serious problem.
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/citizens/support/docs/report_2014_en.pdf
Progress is being made. Drop from 16% to 4% in just 2 years.
And from the June 2011 Special report – pg 14- QB3 From the following list, please pick the five main environmental issues that you are Worried about. (ROTATE – MAX. 5 ANSWERS)
It is interesting to note the huge decrease of 23 percentage points of climate change since 2007, from 57% to 34%. And that’s top 5 worries.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pdf/EB_summary_EB752.pdf
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Enjoy%20interglacial_zpsu4jr488m.png
Who’s scared of global warming?
Unfortunately his point 4 is very likely not true.
He should contact Willis on point 4 – (the 11 year sunspot cycle, among other things).
The issue is interesting. I think there is probably no one on this site that is not an “environmentalist” in the sense that we wish our planet to be clean and unspoiled by human activity. That does not translate into unchanged! When I was young it was a perfectly acceptable aspiration to “make the deserts bloom” and I personally think the same is true today. Golden Gate Park in San Francisco is a botanical garden, and a lovely one, not a wilderness. Yellowstone and Yosemite are parks replete with campgrounds for the pleasure and serenity they afford human beings not laboratories to study the law of the claw and fang in the presence of wolves and grizzly bears that humans have to quit meddling with. Stewardship of our planet does not mean returning to some mythical time of “naturalness”.
There is no more ecologically destabilizing practices by mankind than those driven by poverty and economic want. Take a look at “the other side of the tracks” in any inner city or charcoal based third world country. Economic progress requiring increased levels of skill and education with concomitant elevation of the standard of living should be the goal of any “environmentalist” and all this nonsense about “traditional practices” is just that, nonsense. Modern people get it. Keeping our world fit to live in is understood to be a legitimate cost for production of our way of life that must be accounted for. The only way that happens is through technological innovation and progress. Fairy tales about wind and solar somehow filling that bill is to commit resources to a technology still born with respect to the job at hand. It’s like trying to build the Hoover dam with table spoons.
“I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is).”
“I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats.”
I’m confused. Only one author is listed, but there seem to be two: One who tries to protect the environment and one who doesn’t.
Mr. Siegel wonders whether his ten points are “heresy” or “critical thinking.” I don’t think it’s really much of either, but mostly oversimplification. It’s also hard to miss the note of sour grapes, mixed with conspiracy theory implications, that comes when Siegel mentions having had his work rejected by other publications. Perhaps the work was rejected for being similarly reductive?
It’s absolutely true, I want to add in passing, that global warming receives disproportionate attention to other environmental issues–species and habitat loss, nitrogen runoff, overfishing, marine pollution, to name some of the big ones. And it’s absolutely true that alarmists exist, and that ad hominem and hasty generalization and post-hoc fallacies fly thick from every side on this issue. But “disproportionate attention” doesn’t mean there aren’t serious concerns that need to be taken seriously.
1. Both true and false. Weather is climate: true. But plenty of studies DO show links between the greenhouse effect and weather change. Both are functions of the troposphere, both involve thermal gradients, solar radiation, and large-scale complex patterns.
2. Mostly true. There are of course natural variations in the planet’s greenhouse effect. Solar energy varies, natural factors in terrestrial and marine biogeochemical exchange vary, and the atmosphere itself moves and varies in complex ways.
3. Mostly false. There is always uncertainty in science. Models are always flawed. But the chemistry of climate change is pretty basic–some chemicals at varying levels of the atmosphere tend to absorb solar radiation at certain spectra while other chemicals tend to scatter, refract, or reflect radiation. CO2 added to salt water creates carbonic acid. Carbon in the soil or in biota or underground can be either stored or in flux, and when it’s in flux it has to go somewhere. The math, science, and logic are all pretty straightforward here. Models of the effects of these changes are absolutely flawed by definition–because they’re models. But they’re generally–not always–handled with margins of error.
4. Mostly false. Solar fluctuations do correlate, but less closely than do anthropogenic contributions.
5. Mostly true. CO2 certainly has lower global warming potential than does CH4, or CFCs or SF6. Water vapor contributes more to the greenhouse effect. And it will indeed take a lot of decarbonization to change the climate.
6. Absolutely true. Carbon is an element. It is not moral. The moral dimensions of climate change do not come from good or evil in the environment. Moral obligations are owed to other people . To the extent that global warming is an ethical concern, it is so because the effects seem likely to fall disproportionately on the poor.
7. Mostly true, but misses the point. There are obvious links between warming and melting of land ice and sea-level rise: it doesn’t take research to show that. There are also clear links between rising CO2 and warming–though many people reading this site may not admit this.It takes only the transitive property to connect the dots the rest of the way.
8. Mostly true, I think. Natural variations exist. Even human contributions can be considered “natural,” so we should be careful about that word. I don’t know anything about polar bears. I haven’t spent time researching them. They’re not on my radar. Maybe that’s a moral failing; I don’t know.
9. False, false, and true. Three separate claims here. Damage to reef systems is clear. Additional CO2 emitted will slowly, subtly acidify the ocean. The real issue isn’t THAT CO2 is being emitted: it’s that the pace and amount exceeds the ocean’s capacity to absorb, exceeds the rate at which CO2 can be redeposited on the ocean floor, Fish, however, are indeed primarily threatened by overfishing. That’s a different argument.
10. Mostly true. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately, I suppose), all “scientific inquiry” is conducted by humans in specific cultural contexts. Since the time of Francis Bacon, there never has been science completely uninflected by politics and culture and/or public relations. Our knowledge is nearly always purposive. It’s best to acknowledge that.
As someone persuaded by atmospheric science and motivated by ethical concern for others, I appreciate when everyone fights fair. So it’s good when ad hominem attacks and careless generalities and distorted data are outed. Neither side of an issue should get to cherry-pick data or accuse others of being conspiratorial in their motives or of being illiterate. And so I appreciate those moments when Siegel gets facts right. I just wish there were more of them.
Let me guess; you didn’t bother to even read the essay backing up those ten points. You merely did what many Warmist trolls do; nitpick, and throw out the Warmist version of “facts”, which have been debunked countless times.
Bruce. I don’t think anything I said is either warranted or at all reasonably countered by your name-calling and guess-work and sweeping generalizations. If you want to be taken seriously, think and be civil.
Just because you think what you said is reasonable, doesn’t make it reasonable when read by people who actually know what they are talking about.
If your going to make comment Mark read all of his stuff and the references and then give a counter with some actual fact rather than your own opinion and a huge dose of conjecture. Personal opinion carries virtually no weight at all. You make statement after statement that are completely unsupported – it is just arrogant twaddle
Sorry if I came off as arrogant. It’s not “twaddle,” though, nor is it personal opinion. I have a day job, and frankly don’t see the need, on a site like this, to sort through and cite widely available documentation on basic science as if this were a peer-reviewed scholarly publication. There’s no “conjecture,” either. I don’t think I made any hunches. I just am not persuaded that Siegel is thinking clearly.
Fine but that not how you come across. I agree though that he needs a much stronger argument
/case than this, it was very quickly blown out of the water by people who wished him good luck – and not sarcastically either
Translation: I believe that my opinion trumps his facts.
Mark:
Each of your points is untrue. If you actually think they are true then please say why you think that and provide your evidence. Until you do provide some evidence your points are merely unsubstantiated assertions of an anonymous internet popup.
For example, your first assertion says
“Plenty of studiesDO show links between the greenhouse effect and weather change”? Really?
If so, then what are these “studies”, what do they say, and where?
Please note that – as you say – weather is a function of thermal gradients: indeed, weather is driven by thermal gradients. But, AGW predicts little temperature rise at the equator with largest temperature rises at the poles (ref. IPCC AR1) and this would REDUCE temperature gradients so would be expected to REDUCE severe weather.
And several papers Report reduced severe weather; see this.
So, does your postulated “weather change” mean less severe weather events? If so, then why did you not say that?
I could provide similar refutation of all your other assertions. But there is no need because they are all ambiguous and you have not substantiated any of them.
Richard
The assertions I have made–you’re right that they are assertions, made in response to assertions Siegel made over evidence he seems to me to be overmatched by (which it’s easy to be)–are all relatively straightforward, and evidence for them is extensive. Here are some overviews in response to your challenge of my first point.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
http://s3.amazonaws.com/nca2014/low/NCA3_Full_Report_02_Our_Changing_Climate_LowRes.pdf?download=1
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page7.php
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~atw/yr/2010/collins_etal_2010_natgeo.pdf
Temperature gradients at the equator would not simply be “reduced,” by the way. There are oceanic and atmospheric thermal gradients; there are currents of water and wind. It’s more complex than you let on.
I didn’t assume that everyone needed access to science that is readily available. That was clearly not a safe assumption.
Mark:
Thankyou for your reply although it is – to be polite – lame.
It is not reasonable to make unsubstantiated assertions and when asked to substantiate them to reply to the request as you have by saying
Your arrogant assumption is that people would only have “readily available” the knowledge of and access to whatever not-referenced information you are considering.
Furthermore, your “overviews” are just that; overviews. You claim that justifications for your assertions are somewhere within those overviews. What on Earth makes you think anybody would believe your claim or would search through those documents in hope of finding what you claim?
If you really want to justify your assertions then cite, quote and if possible link to your evidence. A claim that your evidence is somewhere within an overview is merely an additional unsubstantiated assertion.
Importantly, why should I think your links contain what you think they do when you misrepresent my words?
I wrote
and you say to that
I see no reason to think a person understands what he reads when claims
“little temperature rise at the equator”
means
“Temperature gradients at the equator would not simply be “reduced”.
When you demonstrate such inability to understand what I wrote then I see no reason for anybody to believe your unsubstantiated assertion that a set of “overviews” contain information which supports your assertions. And they don’t: model projections are evidence of the opinions of the modelers and of nothing else.
Richard
Okay. I should acknowledge that it WAS indeed arrogant to post comments on a website like this, using terms like “true” and “false.” That I didn’t present evidence to support my assertions is a totally reasonable point, and compounded the part of this that is my fault. I was multitasking while my students were working. I should have paid better attention. That’s not an excuse; it’s an etiology.
I wrote in frustration at what seemed and still seems to me to be inaccuracies and sweeping generalizations about “the liberals,” “the warmists,” “the mainstream media,” on the part of both the author and the commentators. I tried to represent, in broad, broad strokes, what I believe is an entirely reasonable and altogether commonsense position. That position, to be perfectly clear, is that (a) global warming is indeed occurring right now, (2) it is mostly the result of human combustion of fossil fuels as well as other industrial and agricultural practices, (3) it represents a tragedy of the commons, since the atmosphere and the oceans are no one’s private property, and any costs–or benefits–that may occur to them will be shared by others; (4) although no models can entirely accurately project what the costs and benefits will be, most models predict effects that are severe enough they ought to be taken seriously; and (5) this does not mean that the worst scenarios are any more likely than the best possible outcomes; it just means that proper preparation–technological, ecological, economic, and social–is desirable.
I stand by all of the assertions I made, Richard, despite your claim that ALL of them are untrue. I think you are being penny-wise and pound-foolish in how you view this issue. It is simple addition– no?– to see that carbon stored underground in fossil fuels goes, upon combustion, into the air. Though that amount is small measured against respiration and decomposition, it is continually, annually positive. Until it is redeposited in the ground, it will remain in the air and in the oceans and in as many primary producers as can take it up. Carbon that was stored is in flux. Surely these facts of the carbon cycle do not need citation. That carbon dioxide, methane, sulfur hexafluoride, and other compounds absorb solar radiation in the troposphere is likewise factual. That carbon dioxide dissolved in salt water creates a weak acid is simple chemistry. These basics alone make global warming and ocean acidification a logically likely outcome of fossil fuel consumption.
Obviously there are complicated chemical, biological, and thermal properties in this world that can regionally vary the impacts of warming and acidification. But they don’t change the logic or the math. This is not ignorance or opinion on my part; so please don’t condescend. If I am wrong about these basics, please prove that to me.
More importantly, speaking of proof, I now understand that in cursorily replying to your request for evidence for my first assertion, I was walking–clumsily, I admit– into a kind of trap. There’s something pharisaical about your style of argumentation. You want me to prove that global warming has caused any instance of weather change. But the fact that no swallow makes a summer, and your relatively fundamentalist view of what constitutes proof means that I can’t simply say that longer, hotter summers in most of the US are part of a preponderance of evidence. You won’t accept models on principle. So it is definitionally just about impossible to “prove” to you that the climate is changing. You apparently want to quibble back and forth about thermal gradients at the equator, as if that is what constitutes genuine understanding of the big picture of human reliance on nonrenewable resources and the need to transition to renewable resources sooner rather than later.
I do appreciate that a number of responders here seem genuinely interested in dialogue. I am not trying to set myself up as any kind of perfect exemplar of thinking, and God knows not as an exemplar of practice. (I feed my kids, just about nightly, those disposable pouches of pureed fruits and vegetables, because it’s just about the only way to get them to eat their veg. I also used to drive them around the block or leave my engine running to get them to fall asleep.) I do not mean to condescend to you or to anyone here. I think there is reasonable middle ground between thinking that global warming is a leftist plot to start the new world order and thinking that skepticism is denialism, funded by the petrol lobby, that ought to be punished with a prison sentence. We may disagree about where that middle ground is. That’s fair.
I understand your letter, which appears to be reasonable in some respects. However, it reveals a fundamental lack of numerical knowledge about what has happened in the past, and right up to the present. I simply ask whether you /personally/ have ever downloaded any climate time series and carried out any numerically based analysis, or even made your own graphics – very easy these days.
I have studied climate data since 1992, when I first became aware that these time series often contain some well disguised but important and perhaps vital information.
I presume that you are fully acquainted with the several “indexes” or indices that many climate professionals seem to regard as being indicative of “something”, but often this is vaguely described or hinted at. I routinely analyse many such series, and other more direct climate data such as global, regional and site data for temperatures, sea levels, ice extent etc etc. I’ve made literally thousands of analyses and plots. I hope that you may have done so too, but infer that you have not simply because of the several statements in your posting. I would really like to see some of your analyses.
Robin
Mark: You are so close to having your lightbulb moment. In case you are at least partially held back by the same thing that held me back; the thing that galls me every time the subject of CAGW comes up and I have to decide whether to speak up or not, here are my two cents worth of advice:
Yes. There are some ludicrously misinformed, angry, unpleasant and dogmatic people on the correct (skeptic) side of this issue. And it really, really does suck to have to keep that kind of company. They make discourse more difficult; they are incapable of seeing their similarity to equally awful people on the other side; they have hair-trigger tempers and rarely think twice before going nuclear… on their own allies. And–more damaging than anything else–they make the issue political, often while criticizing those who believe in CAGW for the very same thing.
But the fact that I give a second’s thought to the TYPE of person on “my” side is flawed behavior on my part. The fact is: scientific principle DEMANDS that you ignore the messenger and stick only to the message.
Please google, or youtube, interviews and speeches by any of the following people if you want to hear intelligent, calm, clearly-reasoned evidence that will convince you that the idea of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming due to CO2 emissions is completely wrong. Prof. Bob Carter, Patrick Moore, John Christy, Freeman Dyson and others.
If you aren’t interested in being persuaded away from the belief that human CO2 emissions are “bad,” then you can still hear how “fighting climate change” will do much more harm than good. The documentary “Cool It” is excellent.
Mark:
Verbosity is NOT an alternative to evidence. Your many words still provide no evidence that your assertions have any validity (they don’t).
And there is nothing “pharisaical” in my explaining to you that when you make assertion then you need to provide evidence for the assertion if you hope anybody will accept that your assertion has any validity.
You claim to have students and I pity them if their tutor needs to have these points explained to him.
Richard
Richard, this is a comment section on a .com site. It is not peer-reviewed science. This forum shares more features, it seems to me, with comment sections on sites where Christian fundamentalists gather to worry about how gay marriage is taking over the world and how evolution is “just a theory.” What passes for evidence on some of these fundamentalist websites and their comments sections consists primarily of cherry-picked quotations pulled out of historical and social and textual context, quotations which the commentators refuse to acknowledge they are *interpreting.* There are even conversion narratives here as well as there, people claiming to have “seen the light,” and the same libertarian gnosticism that tends to accompany communities of true believers who find themselves unjustly marginalized and oppressed. (This observation, by the way, is what led me to think of your style of reasoning as similarly “pharisaical,” in tone and structure and function.
What I said, in my most recent comment, was that human contributions to the carbon cycle are continuous and continuously positive, and that these contributions slowly but surely affect atmospheric and marine chemistry (though to unknown effects). You can call this statement mere assertion if you’d like, but it is verifiable in any chemistry laboratory anywhere. For less than $50 + postage, I can send you all the materials you need to see how carbon dioxide behaves in a saline solution. It’s been done before so many times, in so many places, I simply don’t see the need to root around in specialist literature to prove to you what is simple chemistry. (I have already acknowledged that the earth’s chemistry is more complicated than what is in a lab; but they are that: complications.)
More importantly, you clearly have a very narrowly circumscribed–I would say “attenuated”–definition of what constitutes evidence. My students struggle more with making claims than they do producing ample, reliable evidence for their assertions; they are college students, they are young, and it is frankly harder to reason than it is to cite. They are also writing in an academic context, rather than posting on a science-y blog. What I tell them is that, depending on context and field, evidence can be statistical, testimonial, physical, anecdotal, experiential, but it can also be factual and/or logical. When you say “prove it,” and I refer you to websites and scholarly publications, you accuse me of not providing adequate evidence, and then hit the “all models are entirely subjective” button. When I return to the basics of biogeochemistry, you consider this verbosity and mere assertion. (As for my verbosity, you might be right; I thought I was being garrulous and conversational, but you don’t see it that way. La vie.) In short, then, again: if I am wrong about the carbon cycle, please prove that to me.
As for “takebackthegreen,” and your charge that fighting climate change doing more harm than good, doesn’t that depend entirely upon how one “fights”? How is it harmful to promote renewables using the same kind of subsidies that fossil fuels have relied upon? How is harmful to anticipate future and externalized costs of current (and antiquated) technologies? How is it harmful to seek ways to undercut the either-or fallacy of economic growth and environmental responsibility?
None of this is to say that “carbon is bad.” Nor is it good. It’s just an abundant element; it doesn’t have a face. Nor is coal “bad.” It is probably necessary in the near term to burn it with the best capture and storage and co-generating technologies we have available. We can think through these things in society together–they ARE political, necessarily so.
Mark: I’ve given you a reference that answers your question and many more. Why not go watch it? Watch the first ten minutes, at least. You have nothing to lose and very much to gain. It will leave you feeling more optimistic than any documentary you’ve seen. Plus, as I said, Lomberg is on your side. He believes in AGW.
Or–if what you believe is more important to you than whether your beliefs are true or not–don’t watch it.
Mark:
As you say, WUWT is not peer reviewed science. However, it is the world’s best science blog having won that title outright as a result of winning the poll in three successive years.
A scientific discussion needs to be of EVIDENCE and not opinions.
I yet again point out that verbosity is NOT an alternative to evidence. Your many words still provide no evidence that your assertions have any validity (they don’t).
And your insults, irrelevancies and red herrings fail to conceal the fact that you have provided no evidence of any kind to substantiate your assertions (which is not surprising because they are all mistaken).
Richard
Is this how you think science is done, Richard? Would you prefer to debate without using sentences? It’s possible for me to cut and paste literally thousands of figures and charts from peer-reviewed scientific literature. Is that science?
CLAIM: Excessive CO2 acidifies oceans, affecting coral reefs and other habitats
EVIDENCE: (The conclusions reached by each of these articles rely on experimental and observational data rather than modeling; they are not unanimous or cherry-picked; they just happen to come only from lead authors whose surnames start with A,B, or C.)
Albright et al,, 2010. “Ocean acidification compromises recruitment success of the threatened Caribbean coral Acropora palmata” PNAS
Andersson AJ, Kuffner IB, Mackenzie FT, Jokiel PL, Rodgers KS, Tan A. 2009. “Net loss of CaCO3 from a subtropical calcifying community due to seawater acidification: Mesocosm-scale experimental evidence.” Biogeosciences
Anthony, K. R. N., D. I. Kline, G. Diaz-Pulido, S. Dove, and O. Hoegh-Guldberg. 2008. “Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA
Anthony, K. R. N., J. A. Kleypas, and J.-P. Gattuso. 2011. “Coral reefs modify their seawater carbon chemistry—implications for impacts of ocean acidification.” Global Change Biology
Barkley, H., A. L. Cohen, Y. Golbuu, V. R. Starczak, T. M. DeCarlo, K. E. F. Shamberger, 2015. “Changes in coral reef communities across a natural gradient in seawater pH.” Science Advances
Birkeland et al., 2013. “Safety in Numbers? Abundance May Not Safeguard Corals from Increasing Carbon Dioxide” BioScience
Borges AV, Gypens N. 2010. “Carbonate chemistry in the coastal zone responds more strongly to eutrophication than to ocean acidification.” Limnology and Oceanography
Brander LM, Rehdanz K, Tol RSJ, van Beukering PJH. 2012. “The economic impact of ocean acidification on coral reefs.” Climate Change Economics
Caldeira, K., M. E. Wickett, 2003 “Oceanography: Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH.” Nature
Castillo et al. 2014. “The reef-building coral Siderastrea siderea exhibits parabolic responses to ocean acidification and warming.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B
Comeau, S., R. C. Carpenter, Y Nojiri, H. M. Putnam, K. Sakai, P. J. Edmunds. 2014 “Pacific-wide contrast highlights resistance of reef calcifiers to ocean acidification” Proceedings of the Royal Society B
Cooper TF, De’ath AG, Fabricius KE, Lough JM. 2008. “Declining coral calcification in massive porites in two nearshore regions of the northern Great Barrier Reef.” Global Change Biology
Cornwall, C., and Hurd, C. 2015 “Experimental design in ocean acidification research: problems and solutions”
Crain C, Kroeker K, Halpern BS. 2008. “Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems.” Ecology Letters
Crook, E., et al. 2013. “Reduced calcification and lack of acclimatization by coral colonies growing in areas of persistent natural acidification” PNAS
Mark,
Despite the appeals to authority, oceans are not “acidifying”.
dbstealey:
Right. NOAA’s WOD pH time series…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/31/ocean-ph-accuracy-arguments-challenged-with-80-years-of-instrumental-data/
…reveals absence of the downward trend in the oceanic pH that would support the “acidification” hypothesis. A representation to the contrary was presented Congressman Ed Markey in testimony before the U.S Congress. In his testimony, Markey misrepresented calculations of a computer model as readings of a pH meter…
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/restore-the-worlds-ocean-ph-measurements
…perhaps because the calculations supported acidification but not the readings.
Mark:
I again express my pity for the students you claim to teach.
Evidence consists of data that supports your assertions. I am astonished that you boast you do not know this.
I repeat what I explained to you above when I wrote
The same is true of a list of references.
I will demonstrate this to you. Take these references
Courtney RS, ‘An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre’, Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999
Kiehl JT, ‘Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity’, GRL, vol. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007
Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’, E&E v16no2 (2005)
Each of those references is clear and accurate but on their own they are evidence of nothing except the fact that those papers exist. However, I have used each of them as evidence in posts I have provided to WUWT in recent weeks.
This is an example of a statement with supporting evidence and supplementary argument.
The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
Anybody can discuss my statement that says,
“The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger”
by agreeing or finding fault with the evidence I have presented which concurs with it.
Merely providing the statement without the evidence would be an assertion incapable of discussion (other than “yes ’tis” and “no ’tisn’t”) so should be rejected.
I hope – but admit I doubt – you now understand what scientific evidence is.
Richard
You like to condescend, don’t you, Richard? Your charitable lessons on how to use evidence, your repeated pity for my students, your assumption that because I don’t cherrypick evidence the way you do (Gregory’s essay from “Friends of Science” cited seriously? Citing yourself repeatedly?) that therefore I just don’t know how to argue–it doesn’t really persuade anyone outside of this blog that your positions on climate sensitivity are somehow more reliable than the vast majority of papers you don’t choose to cite.
Evidence must be representative, must be fair, must be credible. You seem to think that something quickly gleaned from a few studies can somehow replace years of study of the peer-reviewed literature. (Scientists *routinely* refer to others’ work–by title– as evidence, with the completely rational understanding that all an intelligent person needs to do is to find the work in question and read it for himself/herself.) The peer-reviewed literature has completely shot holes in Idso and in Lindzen and Choi (e.g., Chung et al. 2010). Acknowledge that. Cite Lunt. Cite Hansen. Cite Annan. You’re being completely disingenuous. You’re claiming negative feedback when by far more and by far more careful studies show just the opposite. You’re clinging to shoddy, dated studies. And you’re doing this under the self-important pretense of showing someone how evidence works? You see where I get the analogy with the Pharisees.
Schwartz rev. 2008:
“Reanalysis of the autocorrelation of global mean surface temperature prompted by the several Comments, taking into account a subannual autocorrelation of about 0.4 year and bias in the autocorrelation resulting from the short duration of the time series has resulted in an upward revision ofthe climate system time constant determined in Schwartz [2007] by roughly 70%, to 8.5 ± 2.5 years (all uncertainties are 1-sigma estimates). This results in a like upward revision of the climate sensitivity
determined in that paper, to 0.51 ± 0.26 K/(W m-2 14 ), corresponding to an equilibrium temperature increase for doubled CO2 of 1.9 ± 1.0 K, somewhat lower than the central estimate of the sensitivity given in the 2007 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but consistent within the uncertainties of both estimates.” This is a low estimate of sensitivity, not at all alarmist, but you disregard it.
I’m not sure how I can be expected me to show you evidence of anything when you can’t be troubled to read– or cite– scientific literature fairly in the first place.
But then your forum has a science blog award. That’s something.
Mark: Don’t let your disagreement with Richard over technical/personality issues cause you to reject his message.
There is no need to drown in charts and data and confusing interpretations of acronym soups. I suggested that you search out several respected scientists who make brief and eloquent cases for the insignificance of AGW. Don’t read about them. Go watch interviews/speeches with an open mind for an hour.
You owe it to yourself.
Mark, I repeat my advice to you, given with due respect for your views, that you should set to and actually download some the data sets that are readily available. You will need to be able to use some statistical software and graphics technology in order to appreciate what has actually been happening in the world of climate. If you are unable or unwilling to put in this amount of effort your ideas should be discarded as unsupported.
If you don’t do this, and continue to rely on the publications of the “climate establishment” as your source of information I’m afraid that your current opinion (I re-state “opinion”) can never change. Ten or twenty years from now everyone will be forced to admit that the current mainstream opinions and dogma are in gross error. Unfortunately, I shall not be around to witness this, being 87 already, but my offspring will, and I hope remember me!
Mark:
It is not “condescending” to try to help someone who boasts he does not know what evidence is and claims he “teaches” others.
I have genuinely tried my best to help you but you demonstrate that your ignorance is deliberate so you cannot be helped. I shall try no more because I see no purpose in beating my head against a brick wall.
In conclusion, I repeat what I said to you earlier.
Please think about that because you cannot learn until you understand it.
Richard
Dear Mark,
Do please be careful: we are all allowed to put our opinions here and it is a “site for sore eyes” (pardon the pun) and gives a tremendous amount of valuable information.
The very fact that you have taken the trouble to write here is, how shall I say, “interesting”, however; you might like to “check your facts twice” before using the keyboard.
You will find a great deal of GENUINE ASSISTANCE from certain people here: they are usually helpful and glad to give of their knowledge.
None of us is an “S. Fred Singer” or a “Willie Soon” or a “Richard S. Lindzen” but we ALL GIVE OUR BEST here, courtesy of Mr. Watts and his reasonable moderation people.
Allow me to make this suggestion if you would kindly consider it.
Write whatever you wish, then just ask, “What’s up with that ?”.
I promise you that some answers you receive will be more powerful than your question(s).
Regards,
WL
Mark your “8. Mostly true, I think. Natural variations exist. Even human contributions can be considered “natural,” so we should be careful about that word. I don’t know anything about polar bears. I haven’t spent time researching them. They’re not on my radar. Maybe that’s a moral failing; I don’t know.”
Since only half the polar bear areas have been surveyed to get estimated numbers, your understanding would only be only half as wrong as the experts.
“9. False, false, and true. Three separate claims here. Damage to reef systems is clear. Additional CO2 emitted will slowly, subtly acidify the ocean. The real issue isn’t THAT CO2 is being emitted: it’s that the pace and amount exceeds the ocean’s capacity to absorb, exceeds the rate at which CO2 can be redeposited on the ocean floor”
a little something you may put in thinking cap and modify you False.
From http://www.bikiniatoll.com/BIKINICORALS.pdf
In the northern atolls of the Marshall Islands, 23 nuclear tests with a total yield of 76.3 megatons (TNT equivalent) were conducted across seven test sites located either on the reef, on the sea, in the air and underwater between 1946 and 1958. Five craters were created, the deepest being the Bravo crater at 73 m depth (Noshkin et al., 1997a) (Figs. 2, 3). Post-test descriptions of environmental impacts include: surface seawater temperatures raised by 55,000 C after air-borne tests; blast waves with speeds of up to 8 m/s; and shock and surface waves up to 30 m high with blast columns reaching the floor of the lagoon (approximately 70 m depth)
The results of our 12 year long nuclear war on coral. After less than 50 years, a total of 183 scleractinian coral species were recorded, compared to 126 species recorded in the pre-bomb study.
There are more species now than then.
And from http://www.co2science.org/articles/V15/N7/EDIT.php
And in reporting the results of a study of a large brain coral that lived throughout the 17th century on the shallow seafloor off the island of Bermuda, Cohen and Madin (2007) say that although seawater temperatures at that time and location were about 1.5°C colder than it is there today, “the coral grew faster than the corals there now.”
Other studies have shown earth’s corals to be able to cope with climate-induced warmings as well as coolings. In a study of patch reefs of the Florida Keys, for example, Greenstein et al. (1998) found that Acropora cervicornis corals exhibited “long-term persistence” during both “Pleistocene and Holocene time,” the former of which periods exhibited climatic changes of large magnitude, some with significantly greater warmth than currently prevails on earth; and these climate changes had almost no effect on this long-term dominant of Caribbean coral reefs. Hence, there is good reason to not be too concerned about long-term changes in climate possibly harming earth’s corals. They apparently have the ability to handle whatever nature may throw at them in this regard.
An unofficial spokesman for the Allied Coral Species Association is thought to have stated – We have survived nuclear war, climate temperature changes of over 10 degrees, planetary magnetic shifts, giant undersea lava flows and plate tectonics for over 400 million years. We are personally more worried about you.
Warren Latham
October 16, 2015 at 4:14 am
Agreed! What in the world is a “climate proponent”?
Skeptics really need to tighten-up their language to avoid helping the alarmists move the goal posts. Then again, it may be too late for that.
Skeptics also need to avoid like the plague multiple exclamations points. Nothing you can do will make you look more like a teen-age boy on Twinkies, because that is one of the first things you will learn in bone-head English 101. One exclamation point per sentence. That’s it!
It’s not only about the science, but also about presentation.
Fight fire with fire, and slogans with slogans. The good writers and wordsmiths here are encouraged to mix up their long paragraphs with a few short ones to summarize. Short statements are easier to remember, and easier to deploy, than long ones.
The Great Global Warming Scare is predicated on CAGW caused by the trace gas CO₂. That hysteria has been the justification for the demonization of coal, and carbon in general, and the rationale to build vast arrays of wind turbines and solar panels, which work only intermittantly, and must have conventional power back-up for those times when the wind doesn’t blow, and the sun doesn’t shine.
Whirlygigs don’t work
When the wind doesn’t blow,
And so we get our power now,
From the fire down below.
The rational person might conclude that the best plan is to dispense with the wind and solar completely as an unnecessary expense, and go with the cheapest, most abundant fuel, which is coal.
Calculating the so-called “carbon footprint” of anything is a bad plan which plays right into the alarmists’ hands. We are carbon-based lifeform.
When it comes to energy, cheaper is better. Cheaper energy allow greater numbers of people to enjoy the benefits of modern civilization. Without power, it ain’t happening. Obama’s war on coal is in fact a war on the poor.
For the average person, economic arguments will trump scientific ones. Wind turbines cost more than they are worth, and so they become a vast money sucking mechanism, causing utility prices to “necessarily skyrocket.” Skyrocketing energy prices hurt the poor most of all, but also affect the middle class. It is only the more wealthy who can easily shrug off increased prices for the magic juice coming out of their many outlets.
And by the way, those profiting from wind turbines come from what class? Just take a wild guess…
For many, this entire CAGW kerfuffle is more about feelings than it is about facts. The average Joe Schmo rather enjoys the idea that he is making sacrifices to help save the planet. He is also possibly too dimwitted to make all the right connections, especially when subjected to the daily blasts from the Mighty Wurlitzer, whose glaring, blaring output of the same ol’ one-note samba about climate should all by itself be enough to convince those who dismiss the idea of any men behind the curtains.
Because there is no record or evidence of any harm from CO₂ – rare situations like Lake Biwa eruption excluded – the entire CAGW case is built on the informal logical fallacy known as special pleading.
CO₂ is beneficial to everyone except the alarmists who are trying to demonize it.
CO₂ is good.
Steve P,
If you promise to never again refer to the CAGW alarmist hoax, as a “kerfuffle”, I will keep reading your posts.
To refer to it as such is akin, IMO, to referring to WWII as a “disagreement”.
PS:
Steve,
Not really, but since your post was aimed at presuming to tell people how to talk, and admonishing them to “tighten up their language”, it seemed more than a little jarring to read that sentence.
Tsk Tsk.
I said: “Skeptics really need to tighten-up their language to avoid helping the alarmists move the goal posts.”
Note please, the important part about moving the goalposts.
My comment was in reference to the headline here, which uses the term “climate proponent,” a vague, and meaningless expression. Skeptics should oppose, rather than encourage the use of vague language in the climate debates, especially when it is used for labeling, and pigeon-holing. Most especially when it appears here.
Vague language is one of the building blocks of fallacies, and of specious arguments.
Kerfuffle by contrast, is a perfectly good, and fairly precise English word
borrowedappropriated from the Scots, and tsk tsk about it all you like, my use of that word here is appropriate in the contest of what I was saying, and in no way moves the goalposts. But it does seem rather odd that you go out of your way to make this flimsy quibble about my choice of words, when I wrote in all 16 paragraphs, including a verse of doggerel.I merely suggest that is the way many people feel, although I probably threw you off with the cryptic introductory phrase “For many…”, or the use of the fictional everyman Joe Schmo, who won’t easily give up the idea that he is helping save the planet, because for some, it’s more about feelings, than it is about facts.
It’s a warm and fuzzy feeling being part of the crowd who are saving the planet, and no fuss, no commotion, no kerfuffle from the doubting, disputing, denying CAGW skeptics is going to spoil their party.
Steve P:
Hear hear!
Just a pet peeve, but it is common practice to have a corresponding footnote when you use an asterisk. When I run across an asterisk without a footnote, it causes me to forget whatever it was I just read.
Yeah!
*
Hm,
Point 1, 2 and 3: yes, everybody agree to this.
Point 4: This is just plain wrong. The fluctuations in energy from the sun are very small and does not correlate at all with changes in earth’s temperature
Point 5: is just an unfounded claim
Point 6: You can argument along the same lines and claiming that there are no such thing as sewage pollution.
Point 7: No link between CO2 and sea level? Well the link is that CO2 increase the temperature which melt glaciers and expand the ocean volume. Almost everyone agree in this, the debate is about how much the temperature may increase.
Point 8: Yes we all agree
Point 9 and 10: Other unfounded claims
No thanks
/Jan
Jan,
Start over without the mendacious presumptions you used to make your decrees.
A presumption is not a link. Neither is supposition, conjecture or purposeful theorizing.
Your imaginary link between CO2 and …………….anything…… is the fatal flaw you cling to.
Actually, I was wondering when someone might raise point 5. I don’t agree with most of Jan’s statements, but I do agree that point 5 “CO2 has very little to do with it” is much too dismissive. There are big arguments about the sensitivity of global temperature to CO2, and most luke-warmists put it between 1 and 2 Celsius per doubling. Point 5 is, I think, only consistent with a view that sensitivity is less than 1 degree.
I expect one could argue for hours on how to interpret that “very little”. But without a more detailed description, that statement is going to put off any alarmist readers and allow themselves to say “nah, nah, nah this guy is crazy and is simply denying the influence of CO2”.
Rich.
It’s the imaginary link between the earth’s global temperature and anything else that’s the problem. Try doing an FFT on the global temperature records*. The only thing that stands above a pink noise floor is ENSO. That’s it. So nothing is correlated to the temperature record (at least in a statistically/DSP valid manner)
This includes an alleged relationship between both term solar fluctuations, and, well C02 as well…
Peter
* reference: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lw1kzdfjw0ifcdo/10.1.1.28.1738.pdf?dl=0
Jan – wheres your proof that the matching sun cycles to temperature are not relevant, other than the energy mantra we keep hearing noone seems to be able to successfully disprove the link. You might be right but if you are going to claim you are right you have to be able to disprove the link. The fact that the pattern is there doesnt mean there is a link either – but it sure looks more likely than not ….. but thats my opinion, just like yours and I have no means to prove it – just like you cant disprove it either.
Your point 6 analogy is just plain daft especially as the point being made is so obvious that making your analogy just looks ridiculous.
Point 7 again your analogy has no weight at all. You actually ridiculed the link between the suns cycles and changing temperature then go on to randomly pick CO2 and sea level as it suits your argument. As sea level rise for the best part of 200 years has shown little variation but man made CO2 has multiplied many times over your counter argument is very weak indeed
9 I think the point he is making is that the original claim is unfounded so well done
and 10 – I very much doubt that you bothered to look at the reference but even so can you honestly tell me with your hand your heart that there is no trickery when it is openly admitted by alarmists that trickery is fair play if it achieves the ends.
These threads breakdown when such meaningless argumentative drivel is spouted and countless boring rebuffs like mine appear, I agree with Willis et al though not rebuffing it gives the pedlar of it far too much credence
Show me this matching.
Claims about correlation between sunspot cycles and climate pop up every now and then, and they are refuted each time.
Then look at his statement:
Very strongly indeed? Someone should have noticed that, don’t you think?
This is just foolishness. Just as foolish as claiming that carbon cannot be a pollutant because it comes out of the human body.
/Jan
You mean the Soon Connolly and Connolly paper that got somewhat thrashed here on WUWT? Cherry pick your TSI research, cherry pick your temperature record, and voila, you have a correlation. Also you can’t use trend analysis on an autocorrelated time series…. I could go on your you can read this link (note the link to a previous discussion there as well). The paper actually has a good discussion on the historical TSI and temperature estimates though.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/08/a-short-summary-of-soon-connolly-and-connolly-2015-re-evaluating-the-role-of-solar-variability-on-northern-hemisphere-temperature-trends-since-the-19th-century/
Peter
Jan, did you really just log onto a science site and attempt to refute something my saying “everybody knows this”?
Laugh so hard I am crying…then cry so hard I am laughing.
Most vivid example all week of warmista jackassery.
Mods, typo, …something by saying…
Welcome to the bright side David Siegel.
I trust your education will continue.
I do not completely agree with most of your list, but as you expand your knowledge base that should be a self correcting niggle.
Funny how generous life in the civilized world is when you are NOT wilfully wallowing in self hatred.
The theorem of the magic gas, CO2 is evil, is so stunningly stupid that any carbon based life form should be forgiven for laughing the “believer” out of their space.
As noted you are sure to find out just how tolerant your progressive planet saving friends are.
As for sceptical point of view losing…how do you figure?
What you see as greater advances by the UNIPCC Team ™ I see as shrill desperation guaranteed to trigger a hostile reaction in the normal citizenry .
By that I mean those who have taken the “Govt experts” at their word, paid those ever increasing energy bills and never looked into Climatology.
These people will not offer a voice until they are severely gouged by govt stupidity, but more are paying attention.
However all the best in your journey into the light.
Congratulations. You will now have a difficult path to follow, but you have done the job of learning about something and then forming an opinion. This is the ideal in a democratic society.
David Siegel,
I read with some interest your lead post and the entire comments section to date. I have not read your 9,000 word essay.
My interest in reading them was mostly focused on the fundamental underlying reason those people, who you say have a conceptual position that is called liberal, aren’t accepting what you say in your essay. For the liberal intellectual leadership, it is important that concepts like ‘liberal / liberalism’ have at their base a logically hierarchical and consistent system of concepts in areas that epistemologically, metaphysically and ethically justify the political concepts of liberalism. I think you need to address the concepts at the basis of the liberal intellectual leadership with that leadership. I think that is where the strategy needs to be. I suggest that you need to take on the conceptual systems discourse with the liberal intellectual leadership in their normal habitats; with the philosophically focused academics associated with root ideological think tanks. Fenton, Bill Gates, Jeff Skoll, Jon Stewart, and George Clooney aren’t even close to the liberal intellectual leadership.
So, I do not think your strategy has much potential to be effective, but I wish you good luck.
Fortunately, it is diametrical philosophical systems and hierarchical concepts that are involved wrt the numerous problematic aspects of the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. The adversarial philosophic systems situation has been going on for 2,500+ years and it has never been more vigorously in contention and actively argued than in the early 21st century. Good news, that.
John
Those with training in exact sciences don’t believe in scientists. Engineers use Euclidian geometry because its propositions stand demonstrated, not because they believe in Euclid. This opens a gulf of understanding between believers and practitioners of science.
Did the author really say that even though he knows being vegan isn’t healthier for him, he continues the lifestyle because it’s better for the environment…and THEN state he would “gladly fly halfway around the world to take a photo of animals in their natural habitat”?
D’oh!!!
Do no photos of those animals already exist?
My personal journey into skepticism started when the president began using the 97% figure and it was all over the media. Having been fooled since I was a child by misleading ads in comic books, I have always been wary of vague terminology, so I wanted to know “how many scientists is 97%?” Of course I went straight to Google and was shocked that the answer was not forthcoming. It did lead me to the Skeptical Science blog which popularized the figure, and I was again shocked to see that the answer was not readily available anywhere on that website. They are proud to tell you how many papers they sifted through, and how many scientists they contacted, but not how many ended up in the final study. Further Googling finally led me here, where the answer was laid bare, and I found out why the proponents of CAGW were hiding it. The 97% is a pathetically small group of people.
As soon as I find that someone is going to great lengths to deceive me, I know it’s because the truth doesn’t support their position.
Whenever I encounter a believer in the 97% figure, I simply ask them to take the same journey I did and find out for themselves,”how many scientists is 97%?”
“The oft-repeated statistic that claims 97% of scientists believe in man-made global warming, is a joke. That number can be tied to a vague 2009 questionnaire that was only answered by 79 scientists from the climate field, and which ignored the opinions of thousands of researchers from multiple relevant fields. There is no consensus”
(I borrowed that quote from somebody – sorry somebody, I don’t have your name)
Actually 3 studies, as shown below. But you also need to know the questions asked and how they were answered.
As Legates et al., 2013 pointed out, Cook defined the consensus as “most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.” Cook then relied on three different levels of “endorsement” of that consensus and excluded 67% of the abstracts reviewed because they neither endorsed nor rejected the consensus.
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local Universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; (and so forth). [Note only government scientist, private sector need not apply]
This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey
With 3146 individuals completing.In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.
the AMS survey Stenhouse et al., 2014. In this survey, global warming was defined as “the premise that the world’s average temperature has been increasing over the past 150 years, may be increasing more in the future, and that the world’s climate may change as a result.” Questions –
So answering the questions –
1) most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic?
2) When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
3) Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
4) Regardless of the cause, do you think that global warming is happening?
5) How sure are you that global warming (a. is /b. is not) happening?
Answers and questions use generalized words of most, think, significant, contributing and no values or significance is asked for. No where is proof or dates or amounts or data of +/- estimates required and did you see CO2 anywhere? Do these questions really provide the answer that; stopping man-made, catastrophizing, CO2 control knob, ever increasing (global warming / climate change / disruption / weirding ) [pick 1 or more], which can only be prevented by higher taxes, more regulations and a loss of personal freedom will actually keep us all from floating down the River Styx in a handbasket?
Thanks DD for that concise presentation of the nuts and bolts of the 97%. I’m going to print that out and keep it handy.
Next, I think I will do a study proving Bigfoot is real by contacting every zoologist I can think of, but then excluding anyone who isn’t a self-described “Bigfoot Researcher”. And I will poll only the Bigfoot Researchers currently writing articles about Bigfoot that have been printed in magazines under the assumption that they know more about Bigfoot than anyone else. I will ask them if Bigfoot might exist and I expect I can best that 97% figure and prove once and for all that the scientific consensus says that Bigfoot is real!
@Hoyt Clagwell – good one!!!
Guess what will happen if he does his homework on the vegan choice…
1 Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves.
Yes, there are. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-07/record-heat-virtually-impossible-without-climate-change-report/6077634
2 Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural.
Do you have citations to support this position?
“Yes there are”?
Get a grip. You are citing this.
……..”The independently-funded group used new modelling to look at the odds of extreme heat events occurring, with and without man-made emissions.”
How is it you view that as evidence, let alone “conclusive proof”?
If you’re not David Appell you could be.,
Steve, when you post a refutation of the study, i’ll look at it. Asking questions back to me is not refutation.
Sounds like Appell to me. He told us he trolls here under pseudonyms.
…, when you post a refutation of the study
Upside down and backward as usual, Chris. Those sounding the alarm, like in your posted link, have the onus of producing convincing evidence showing that what they claim is in fact happening.
They have failed, and failed miserably.
First, they selected one region: Australia. That is natural regional variability. It is not “global warming”, much less the endlessly predicted “runaway global warming and climate catastrophe”.
See, global warming stopped many years ago. That falsifies the runaway global warming scare: despite a steady increase in (harmless, beneficial) CO2, there has been no global warming at all.
Only eco-religious fanatics still proselytize that “climate chance” is anything but the natural ebb and flow of natural climate variability. If Australia is especially warm, then some other region is especially cool. Because global warming just isn’t happening.
I’m not Appell.
The paper evaluated possible causes for the heat wave and could not . You do understand that heat waves have causes, right? It’s not just a random thing like rolling the dice and seeing what comes up. The paper looked at possible causes, and concluded that without a contribution due to higher CO2 levels, the heat wave would not have occurred.
dbstealey said: “…, when you post a refutation of the study
Upside down and backward as usual, Chris. Those sounding the alarm, like in your posted link, have the onus of producing convincing evidence showing that what they claim is in fact happening.”
Nope, he said there were no links between rising CO2 and droughts, heat waves, etc. I gave a paper that showed there was a connection between the two, for the 2013 heat wave in Australia. You (or he) saying you don’t believe the study’s results is not a refutation. It’s simply you saying you don’t agree with those conclusions.
Chris says:
I gave a paper that showed there was a connection between the two, for the 2013 heat wave in Australia. You (or he) saying you don’t believe the study’s results is not a refutation. It’s simply you saying you don’t agree with those conclusions.
Exactly right, I don’t agree. Those ‘conclusion’ are total bogosity. They demonstrate no “connection”, all they do is assert something with no evidence besides a computer that was programmed by people who have a preconceived idea of what the results should be. You may believe that’s science if you like. The rest of us know better. This is in that propaganda link you posted:
The independently-funded group used new modelling to look at the odds of extreme heat events occurring, with and without man-made emissions. A computer simulation of the atmosphere…&etc.
Chris, who were the ‘independent’ groups who funded that nonsense? That paper is just more propaganda feeding the ‘green’ narrative, and I reject it outright.
That’s not science, Chris, that is just a way for those people to feed your confirmation bias. They’re leading you by an invisible ring in your nose. And you like it.
None of those fake “studies” mean anything without reproducible, empirical, testable measurements. They are no more than baseless opinions. You only believe them because you want to.
Chris,
Perhaps you are unaware of what modelling is?
It is not direct measuring or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling
“Modelling as a substitute for direct measurement and experimentation[edit]
Models are typically used when it is either impossible or impractical to create experimental conditions in which scientists can directly measure outcomes. Direct measurement of outcomes under controlled conditions (see Scientific method) will always be more reliable than modelled estimates of outcomes.”
“Modelling refers to the process of generating a model as a conceptual representation of some phenomenon. Typically a model will refer only to some aspects of the phenomenon in question, and two models of the same phenomenon may be essentially different, that is to say that the differences between them comprise more than just a simple renaming of components.
Such differences may be due to differing requirements of the model’s end users, or to conceptual or aesthetic differences among the modellers and to contingent decisions made during the modelling process. Considerations that may influence the structure of a model might be the modeller’s preference for a reduced ontology, preferences regarding statistical models versus deterministic models, discrete versus continuous time, etc. In any case, users of a model need to understand the assumptions made that are pertinent to its validity for a given use.”
Steve, I am aware of what modeling is. Perhaps you are not aware that not all real world phenomenon can be tested. The world is not always a petri dish. Modelling is used all the time – in cancer studies, bridge design, nuclear bomb simulation, etc. And if you don’t believe that models have any value in predicting what will happen in nature, then why don’t you go ahead and tell the millions of engineers around the world- who do modelling every day – that they are doing their job incorrectly? That’s how Intel designs new chips, that’s how Bechtel designs new power plants, that’s how Exxon designs new offshore oil rigs, that’s how the US got to the moon. We didn’t just try stuff and see how things went, that is far too costly and far too dangerous.
Chris
Almost right, but dead wrong at the same time.
The “models” you so praise are used BECAUSE the basic designs WERE “built first” (using factors of safety, flight tests – that OFTEN failed and killed test pilots!, test pieces that WERE stressed to breaking point and past their yield point BEFORE today’s FEA approximations EVER started to print their pretty little colored cubes, reactor and physics test units that WERE BUILT using real-world experience and experiments on both simpler geometries and identical instrumented geometries. I’ve seen those experimental and test reactors (run a few of them actually.) Run the testing on the flow models and the test cores.
FEA “models” DO NOT “work” in the real world. They are perfect approximations of assumed conditions of modeled perfect materials and perfect assumed geometries. THEN, the engineers using them apply safety factors and machining and material tolerances to get approximations that are closer to the “real thing” as it performs in the real world.
The “climate models” you trust the world’s economy and health with for the next 85 years, on the other hand, do not even come close to the FIRST STEPS of their supposed 100 year predictions: After ten years running, after 30 years of “calibration runs trying to mimic past temperatures using fudge factors (aerosol levels are the most common adjustment assumed to force the results back to near-life-like temperatures), they begin tracking off-real world immediately.
NONE work. Oh, and when Air France flew its computer-controlled, modeled-by-computer Airbus, it hit the ground during the air show not because the plane was badly constructed, but BECAUSE the program was wrong. Only one step was wrong, but it was wrong when it tried to fly the airplane, run the engines, and stay in the air.
Something that the Wright brothers did by the “seat of their pants” after glider and wind tunnel tests 100 years before models tried the same thing.
No, if you use any model to go straight to a circuit,machine,plant etc I guarantee you the damn thing has been proven based on experiment and verification. I use model simulators to get RF circuits as close as possible to design goals before building a prototype to confirm the models. Spending real money on any model output that hasn’t been built and tested will get you fired. Intels chip models are probably as close as you can get to reality and they’ll still prototype to verify before going into production. Point is that simple circuit models never give an exact right answer. How the hell are you going to model the atmosphere of the earth and expect the right answer?
RA, I fully agree that planes, bridges and other structures are much better able to be tested with actual models than the planet’s climate. We can’t build a 1:100,000 scaled down version of the planet in which to try and test various theories. The earth’s climate is also a far more complicated system than any plane or man-made structure. So we have two options. The first is wait and see. Don’t attempt to figure out if rising CO2 will impact climate – temperature, drought/flooding, ocean impacts – wait and see what happens. If bad things happen, try to mitigate the impacts. If nothing bad happens, then no issue. The second path is to build models to predict what will happen, test them against real world data, and iterate them to make them more accurate.
This is what has been done with short term weather forecasting. We used to be terrible at predicting short term weather, it was basically a crap shoot to know things beyond a few hours. Now, through models – yes, models – near term weather can be predicted more accurately. For example, in the recent flooding in South Carolina, models helped the government plan for impacted areas, arrange evacuations, and take whatever preventive measures could be done in advance. From a blog by Cliff Maas, who writes on weather: “The National Weather Service has flood watches, flood warnings, flash flood warnings, and more posted right now (see graphic), and some areas are being evacuated. This is a serious, unusual, and life-threatening event, one that our models have been warning about for several days.” Note it was models that allowed them to give accurate predictions of the timing and location of the worst problems.
Blog is here: http://cliffmass.blogspot.sg/2015/10/extraordinary-flooding-possible-in.html
Let me see if I have this right. Real world testing over thousands of test cases has allowed us tune physical models to the point where they have reached a rough approximation of reality.
We can’t run such tests on climate models, therefore we should just assume that they are as good as the physical models.
Chris says:
Perhaps you are not aware that not all real world phenomenon can be tested.
AGW cannot be tested for one obvious reason: because it is too small to measure!
And since it is too minuscule to measure, it is a non-problem. QED
Come on Steve, it’s really hard to distinguish between a simulation based on assumptions and infilled guesses and an actual study. Not to mention that the article stated that the simulation tripled the odds of the 2012/2013 heatwaves happening…which means that if there was a 1 in 20 chance of such a heat wave happening on its own, their simulation proved that global warming increased those odds to 3 in 20! Wow!
Interestingly, ENSO and El Ninos and other natural events also double and triple the odds of and severity of heatwaves as well.
Study done with “human influence removed”:
http://theconversation.com/this-summers-el-nino-looks-set-to-bring-more-heatwaves-to-australias-north-and-east-47704
You mean ENSO and El Ninos are not just some modeler’s imagination:)
The greenhouse hypothesis doesn’t stipulate that maximum temperatures will rise; it says that the average temperature will rise, which implies either lower high temps or higher low temps. After all, radiating gases only slow cooling, they do not heat up the air (even the people at Real Climate say so).
From the IPCC downwards one can find many reports that more CO2 cannot be held responsible for extreme weather. There are many predictions to the contrary of course and they are solely based on models (which cannot predict).
I applaud the author for looking at the problem with an open mind and for seeking the truth.
The problem is, most liberals are not interested in the truth – they are already “true believers” in statist ideology which is not about truth, but about controlling the way people live – for the greater good, of course, as they see it. And what they see is not shaped by experience or evidence.
Should add to the list: Northern Hemisphere Ice cores shows we are already heading into the next glacial period (with 6200/1200/60 yr cycles superimposed) and a departure from the interglacial requires actual adaptation or migration strategies. Sounds similar I know…but at least the timescale is very slow.
REally good essay I think. If Mr. Siegel is taking any constructive criticism, I think you need to talk a little bit about your motivation in doing this if you want to sway any opinions. This will definitely be a socially detrimental move, as well as having the potential to hamper your career.
The narratives of many commenters about their journey into skepticism of climate change are important. Thank you all for telling them.
My journey into general skepticism about pretty much everything never occurred, I was already generally skeptical of virtually everything in my early teens in the early 1960’s. Later in life, climate change was just another area to cast my generally skeptical eye on.
John
I’m right there with you, John. I have always been skeptical of two very simple things:
1) How do we measure accurately? (Gets to the heart of “what *is* a meaningful global average temp, and what levels of CO2 and temps are *optimal*?”)
2) How can we predict [let alone affect] global climate in 100 yrs when we can’t even predict local weather within 7 days?
Finally, even if our affect on climate is a subtle “net warming” to the overall climate system, that is very good news, IMO. I’d be a lot more concerned if we had a net cooling effect.
Bruckner8 on October 17, 2015 at 5:43 am
– – – – – – -,
Bruckner8,
I understand and am in agreement.
The critical capacity (skeptical process) of humans is the most wonderful thing, but it must be started voluntarily by each individual human and focus on it must be consciously and intentionally maintained for it to work through to completion; it is not automatically occurring and once started it is not automatically sustained.
Many choose to not start the critical capacity (skeptical process); they consciously to choose purposefully to avoid it.
John