On October 16, I launched a 9,000 word essay on my conversion from a climate-change believer to skeptic. Anthony liked it and decided to run a short summary on WUWT.
That page now has over 450 comments, the essay has been viewed over 50k times, and it has had over 9k reads. It has led to discussions across the web, and, via the survey at the end of the essay, has led to a surprising 46% conversion rate of people becoming climate skeptics. These are small numbers, but they are also small steps toward an important goal. My essay is capable of reaching liberals, challenging their assumptions, and getting them to change their views.
The essay prompted a group of global-warming enthusiasts to write a long rebuttal essay, titled Climate Change is Real, and Important.
It starts with a large picture of a menacing fire in 2006, which the authors presumedly believe represents the fire and destruction of human-caused climate change. They have also attacked me on Twitter, using the standard name-calling and association techniques that have come to be the norm.
If you’re interested in the rebuttal and our response, please go to Climate Change: Is it Real and Important
We hope you find it worth reading.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The political objective in pressing the alarmist agenda is clear. Politicians gather and retain power by trading in favors—favors with value. As was discussed on a recent CATO podcast, In economics, there are two kinds of value assigned to a commodity—that of usefulness (the value of water was used as an example for this), and the value of exchange (diamonds were used as an example of this kind of value). Value was further expanded upon by differentiating Capital value versus consumer end product capital. The highest thing of value are thing with a high exchange price AND capital usefulness. The politicians’ objective is clear here—emission of CO2 is a non-scarce commodity, and one of usefulness, since we generate energy this way. The objective is to take a relatively abundant commodity and to turn it into a highly-valued commodity with a high exchange price, so that favors can be traded. Often people lose sight of these basic incentives that drive the political agendas. They think of government (and by extension politicians) as selfless and without incentive, but people are people, and politicians even more so. The chain of government money and favors has become quite strong since the early 90’s, when I first started arguing against jumping to conclusions on this subject—after all real science is based on data, not merely hypotheses turned into code (models). Unfortunately, we are dependent on the awareness and knowledge of the population in general and the alarmist merely on their desire to do the right thing. We are at a significant disadvantage.
“real science is based on data, not merely hypotheses turned into code (models)”
But nowadays people have been conditioned to trust output from computers (even if it’s obviously wrong) because usually the error will be caught later and corrected. If the output of computers is intentionally manipulated it’s very difficult to catch those who mean to deceive and layers upon layers of excuses can be generated until the “problem goes away” due to complexity, emergence of a new, more important “issue” or just fatigue on the part of those doing the diligence.
Certainly people put too much confidence in something said to come “from computers”—but of course the computers don’t actually have an opinion, they only summarize the relationships that people code in. That’s the crux of the matter: the modelers have to assume that they know everything and every relationship, or that what they don’t know is unimportant. But of course we all know that the models are deeply flawed—missing things that real science might find, if the alarmist would stop creating models of their own arrogant thoughts and try to learn something new about how the system works. That’s one of the things Freeman Dyson used to rail about—that all the effort went into describing hypotheses in code instead of taking good measurements and admitting how little is known.
One can create a finite element model of a system, but it doesn’t matter how fine the elements may be if the input assumptions are wrong. Being able to admit you’re wrong and seeking out people to help prove you’re wrong is one way we learn and our knowledge grows, but don’t hold your breath on that one.
One of my teams (I’ve done lots of things) used to measure and model the gravitational field around Earth. We didn’t assume we knew the precise mass distribution, but measured its effects on low earth orbit satellites. We used a model for precise orbit predictions, and even that long-used, long tested model was constantly being updated, based on new actual data. And the measurement techniques grew ever more precise—and more accurate. The modelers should be embarrassed by the fact that, not only is there no provable cause-effect accurate prediction between CO2 concentrations alone and average global temperature, but they’ve even lost the correlation, yet they still proclaim the models to be correct.
For me, I say we know shockingly little, and we don’t even seem to be trying to actually learn—not in a serious way. The science atrophied when the subject moved into the political arena. And, climate gate SHOULD have spelled the end of some careers. It’s a sad thing that’s being done to real science and truth seekers. Another example: Even the articles about planets around other stars are written as if we have direct observation, rather than inference from orbital periods and star wiggles. I’d bet many people believe we’ve seen earth-like planets, from the articles. The basic math of understanding the resolving power limits of a telescope—something I learned in high school—are apparently thought to be beyond the ability of the average person to understand, or explain. Science is becoming a religion and scientists are treated as a priesthood. This despite obvious on-going mistakes—even the food pyramid has been wrong for decades.
@David Seigel. I would just keep at it. I posted your first WUWT post on my “social media” and maybe got 2 responses. I am not a scientist, but I do believe in “The Key to Science”, as has been posted here many times by me and others:
Ouch!
After 116 comments,”believe” is used 29 times, “belief” 14 times, and “science “62” times.
Based on this quantitative evidence, this is still a science rather than a religious blog. My compliments to our host.
I hate not being able to respond to posts at a certain “comment depth.”
Knute, China’s estimated 2015 GDP is 11.3T. The US is 18T. The former is not 2T higher than the latter.
You’re using PPP adjusted numbers, which are A) wrong and B) do not paint the country with the lower living standards as “richer” in a meaningful way.
If you want to append numbers with “well, things are cheap in China (especially life)”, that’s one thing. But saying their GDP is higher (or higher per person) is dramatically wrong.
Kind of like continuously changing past temperatures to get new records on the books and in the papers.
http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/index.html
I used the IMF numbers.
It has a variety of ways to break it down, GDP, per capita yada yada.
The ________ is the richest (by GDP) country in the world.
What would you put in that sentence ?
The United States of America, by actual GDP numbers. By an extremely large margin. The site you linked mentioned the numbers were adjusted, but they don’t list the raw numbers.
Here are both: http://knoema.com/nwnfkne/world-gdp-ranking-2015-data-and-charts
This is also the debate wandering away from the obvious facts.
Thanks Mero
I like your link better. The PPP listing China as first is also very interesting.
The wealth of a country is not relevant to the science of CAGW, but is relevant to the potential bias of who supports the movement.
In any event, thanks for taking the time to answer me.
I lose interest in debating the science of CAGW because the I see no reason to debate the science when it’s obvious that we were warmer in the past 5000 years (Greenland ice cores). What I mostly see is that CAGW supporters gain tremendous momentum and attention by engaging folks down rabbit holes of meaningless measurements. Scientists take the bait because ummmm ahhhh well they are either being polite or enjoy the chance to debate.
It’s quite the con job.
My reply to Climate Change is Real etc’s…response to David Seigel:
You seem to have fallen for the “observation = fast track to causation” fallacy; but then again I’m certain that you and fallacy are old friends if not already in an incestuous relationship.
In your claim that “firestorms” such as those in Australia, where I live, are “burning more fiercely”, you have fallen at the first hurdle.
The incidents that you quote were all due to poor fuel load management resulting from the banning of “prescribed burns” by local, state & territory governments which were all infected by the “green rash” of ideological stupidity.
If you didn’t know this, then you are not to be trusted as your opinion is formed in ignorance. On the other hand, if you were aware of the situation, you are guilty of perpetuating a fraud. get it?
Where does the “total solar irradiation (TSI)” data back to 1800 come from?
Terrific essay.
Dr Who has been at it again. Or perhaps it was Captain Kirk
The rebuttal to David’s essay is drivel. Lazy. Intellectually vacuous.
Two examples of the ‘scientific backing’ of the counter claims made by David’s detractors: 1) summer heat wave in France several years back was exacerbated by global warming. Links you to a paper that does not test this notion in the slightest. The abstract makes no mention of climate change at all. Nevermind an analysis of the number lives saved due to warmer winters; 2) A recent finding that global cooling of ocean temps until 1800s followed by a rise (the latter is implied by David’s detractors to be due to industrialization) links to a paper that concludes the cooling trend was primarily due to unusually high levels of vulcanism over that period. So the null hypothesis predicts warming reflecting a return to baseline as the effect of vulcanism wears off.
Much of it is a mixture of different rhetorical fallacies with ad hominem arguments most prominent.
I would have appreciated some dates in the story.
How many years did you blindly follow the orthodox story?
You wrote a book on the subject, didn’t you research anything before writing it?
How long did you fight with the logical paradox of Climate Change and Everything’s Normal?
While it’s great that you did FINALY take a look into the subject. It bothers me greatly that sceptics have been arguing against this nonsense for 30 years. I have little sympathy for you, but I’m glad you finally understand that people lie.
It takes courage to move away from the herd. David Seigel has done a thorough job. When I look at the loney tunes spouting nonsense I can see doubt on their faces but rather than face the truth they are doubling down in a vain attempt to save face.
The rebuttal, posted on Sow from Cowabungadownunda’s web site, written by Laden the liar and his ilk, referring to that highly respected psychological researcher, Lewpaper, is something I could write. It’s really funny to see the projection that happens on the alarmist side. Things that affect us evil deniers, those irresistible psychological motivators, magically don’t affect alarmists at all. It’s a friggin miracle that this horrible affliction knows how to avoid the alarmist good guys, who, after all, are saving the planet. I smell Mother Gaia’s wise and profound influence in this deep and ancient magic. Or maybe it’s just a rat.
or a Crazy Cat Lady…
I have not read the paper (but perhaps it is only an online thing, suitable for people who say “I like” to anything Mr. Zukerberg says). In Europe, as in any (intellectually) developped area of the world, we tend to consider anything which refers to things as a matter of faith as passé (outdated, for you English speakers).
Very well written and worth the time even for those long engaged.
When you look to learn it’s surprising what you find. The science is for the scientists to hash out. The politics we can all understand.
If you watched the Dem’s debate last night, you now know that all of the dem candidates agree that Climate Change was the Real Reason behind the attacks in Paris.
Seriously. They actually said that.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
–
Interesting discussion in the comments. Perhaps overly heated, but interesting.
For me, I’ll give people the benefit of the doubt. I’ll watch the reality of the situation, and if someone gives me evidence that what they say isn’t true, well, reevaluate then.
“……..On October 16, I launched a 9,000 word essay on my conversion …………..”
CONVERSION ??
Interesting choice of words Dave Seigel uses. It should tell all of us how the “true believers;” think; or more precisely don’t think.
Its great that Dave decided to actually turn on his brain and STUDY THE DATA !!
In his original essay he states he “believed” the AGW thesis. Does he mean that he simply accepted, without question, what the “experts” (or in the case of Al Gore, Obama, et.al.,the con men) were saying.
Why did he do this?
Because they had the same POLITICAL IDEOLOGY as Dave Seigel? Because Obama also believes in the AGW thesis? Because as a liberal progressive and believer in big government, he is convinced that govt. will not lie, mislead or even become a tyrannical, despite ample historical precedents?
Because the “experts” would not dare to lie?
Why did he not check out for himself, PRIOR to his being prompted by a friends remarks, to do his research?
Dave, despite his “conversion,” is your typical, non thinking MORON; your typical liberal progressive “useful idiot.”
Yea, it’s great he finally decided to use his brains.
I guess better late than never (but tell that to all those working families that have LOST their jobs !! as a result of this phony AGW BS).
Climate Change is real, i.e. it has been going on ever since the Earth acquired a climate roughly 4+ billon years ago. Man made CO2 is not the primary cause of the change. Remember we are in a Warm period following an Ice Age. Man made CO2 is not the cause of the warming that brought us out of the Ice Age.
Climate Change may be important, but man has survived one Ice Age by adapting.
David Siegel, thank you for your essay. I’m sorry I missed it when it was posted in October, but I’ve read it now and am sending the link to my friends.
I still do not understand what being a vegan has to do with believing or not, science!
That’s because you are most likely not a liberal progressive.
To a liberal progressive, being a vegan is just not a dietary choice; it is a STATEMENT that they are different, superior, more moral than we mere human refuse. (Let’s ignore the fact that humans evolved on fat and protein) . Sort of like most (not all) folks that eat only gluten free foods yet have zero idea what gluten is or how it MAY affect one’s metabolism.
To believe in the AGW thesis (assuming you are not receiving monetary grants supporting this religious endeavor) is to ascribe to the BELIEF (irrespective of the facts) that because humans are destroying the planet, some humans – the AGW zealots – are superior, better than those humans who ARE destroying the planet .
It is a statement of of moral superiority by the self anointed.
Hitler was not a vegan, nor even a vegetarian.
I would take exception only with “mainstream audiences like Huffpo, Slate, Forbes, The Atlantic, and others.” Presumably the author would include the NY Times and the Wash. Post. None of this is “mainstream media any more.” This is DemocRAT party propaganda machine which wishes nothing less then the demise of this country. Let’s quit the semantics and call things what they are.
David Siegel.
You need to be introduced to Brad Keyes.
Climate Nuremberg.
Your delivery could use a little help in reaching your target audience, i suspect you could find some help there.
Also Pointman has been working on your angle for years.
Google is our friend?
Can anyone explain this doublespeak from the University of Southampton
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2015/11/thermal-sensitivity-study.page
The sensitivity of marine communities to ocean warming rather than rising ocean temperatures will have strong short-term impacts on biodiversity changes associated with global warming, according to new research.
EricHa
Do I get a prize ?
“to ocean warming rather than rising ocean temperatures”
Using an example to explain, it looks like they are referring to biota that live in target areas such as the edge of the estuary versus the bigger body of water.
I’m suffering from a need to take an of this seriously lately since ice cores show we were warmer over the past 5000 years. The increasing dive into the rabbit hole bugs me. I feel baited over and over.
Aha so it isn’t “rising ocean temperatures” but the “ocean warming” that is the problem. Got it. NOT!
It continues
Study co-author Dr Amanda Bates, from Ocean and Earth Science at the University of Southampton, said: “In 100 years from now, 100 per cent of species in many communities will be lost and replaced by new species able to tolerate warmer conditions, leading to a redistribution of species across the globe.”
So nothing to worry about then.
I am much taken with your experience of converting “liberal” CAGWT believers away from the faith.
I do have a major reservation, however, about applying the term “liberal” to this cultural/political group. They seem, not liberal, but mentally stunted acolytes with not a liberal synapse in their crania. And this is whereI trot out my “Bertrand Russell Liberal Grading Scale.” Russell was a prominent and very respected liberal of the 1950s. He wrote what I consider is still the touchstone definition of liberalism. So, here goes ̶
As a liberal,
1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
2. Do not think it worthwhile to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness. . . .
Number 10 falls a little flat. As alternate, here’s a George F. Will paraphrase:
“Do not trust any excuse that closes debate; it means the debate is raging and whoever is saying that is losing.”
There are other, far older versions of the Ten Commandments that also apply.
I think I have read your entire essay … but … there are many spaces where it appears I should be seeing a graph or chart, but all I see are lightly shaded rectangular shapes — no charts in them.
Perhaps related to my Apple MacBook Pro computer not seeing your charts, because they require software I don’t have?
Since I do see some of your charts online, and in my screen shot of your article, I have no idea what I am missing, if anything.
Thanks for the clear writing — you definitely know how to communicate.
I don’t recall reading anything about the fact that warming is GOOD NEWS, for two reasons:
(1) The post 1850 warming follows quite a few cool centuries from 1300 to 1800 (“regression to the mean”?), … and
(2) People LIKE the type of warming satellites have actually measured: The most warming is in the northern half of the Northern Hemisphere, where few people live, mainly at night, and mainly in the winter!
If it doesn’t get as cold during the night, in normally cold areas of the planet, and that extends the growing season = it’s GOOD NEWS global warming.
If tropical areas were getting higher temperatures during the day, that could be BAD NEWS global warming, but that’s not a summary of what the weather satellites actually see.
While agreeing with many of Mr. Siegel’s assertions, I’ll focus on a point of sharp disagreement. He asserts that “A skillful model would successfully predict future observations” but climate models do not “predict.” They “project.”
A “prediction” is a kind of proposition. A “projection” is NOT a kind of proposition.
That a prediction is a kind of proposition contrains a model that makes predictions by logical principles. That a projection is not a kind of proposition frees a model that makes projections from this constraint.
Can’t follow you Terry. Projections as put forward by, for example, Hanson, are merely predictions with prepended “if” clauses. “if we do business as usual, this is what will happen.” This “projection” can be falsified just as clearly as any simple prediction. And in this case has been.
Kudos to David Seigel for a devastating fisking of his critics’ arguments.