Guest essay by Eric Worrall
An opinion piece published in Nature suggests that admitting there are unresolved uncertainties with climate science, improves your credibility with people who don’t already agree with you.
The abstract;
Sociology: Impacts on climate change views
The risks posed by climate change have been a subject of public policy debate in many countries. In some (most notably the United States), even the existence of an anthropogenic element in climate change remains controversial, despite increasing scientific consensus. Consequently, citizens’ acceptance or rejection of consensus science on climate change has become a topic of interest among social scientists. A 2012 paper by Daniel Kahan and colleagues in Nature Climate Change offered relevant insights and received considerable attention among climate scientists.
…
The stream of social science research on climate risk perceptions, including that of Kahan et al., forces recognition that climate ‘facts’ are not all that matter in judging risks. Values also matter. Climate change and efforts to reduce its risks affect different people and the things they value in different ways that change over time and are not entirely predictable. Climate choices involve trade-offs between different objectives and time horizons, also evoking values.
To inform such choices, science needs to produce more than just physical facts — it should also attend to the social effects of climate choices, including inaction. Climate education needs to recognize that knowledge is evolving and that some uncertainty is inevitable. In addition to facts, it might offer mental models that embody these complexities and encourage dialogue across different points of view. One potentially useful analogy that has been suggested is coping with progressive medical conditions such as hypertension or atherosclerosis, for which there may be multiple defensible responses, each with associated risks, and room for informed disagreement. Science can promote better-informed choices, but not straightforward answers.
Read more (requires free registration): http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n4/full/nclimate2970.html
The full opinion piece is unrelentingly alarmist – it contains several of the usual tired social signals, referencing the fossil fuel disinformation conspiracy theory, and other climate shibboleths, such as the suggestion that climate skepticism is a right wing phenomenon.
The article is correct about one thing – it recognizes that claiming certainty only plays well with people who are already utterly convinced of your point of view.
The authors seem to think the main uncertainty is deciding how to reduce our impact on the global climate. But as the ghastly track record of failed climate predictions demonstrates, there are huge uncertainties yet to be resolved. Climate scientists can’t even make up their minds about the temperature of the Earth, about whether or not there was a pause in global warming, let alone about what the climate might do next.
To suggest the science is in any way settled is utterly implausible. To base expensive policy decisions on models which have yet to demonstrate any predictive skill is a massive misallocation of economic resources.
Updated to fix a typo
They appear to be uncertain that there is ANY argument to begin with- especially about uncertainties.
” despite increasing scientific consensus.”
Take out the word scientific and put in political or media.
rishrac March 26, 2016 at 9:34 am
” despite increasing scientific consensus.”
Take out the word scientific and put in political or media.
—
Science doesn’t have a beast called ‘consensus’, if science departments, institutes or individuals from them have become ‘consensus addicts, this is a direct measure of their lack of scientific productivity, and lack of independence, lack of curiosity, lack of intellectual spine, and lack of irrelevance to being read as credible, or listened to.
There are people posting on WUWT, and related blogs, who somehow manage to speak clearly and independently thinking with their own steam. Those people I can respect even if I don’t entirely agree with their view. If this were a consensus discussion of a collective consensus, grandiosely still self-calling itself ‘science’, it would be thoroughly dead and totally uninteresting.
A consensus is where you are not permitted to do your own thinking.
It is mental tyranny, entirely unlike actual science.
But the fact they’re so perplexed and disturbed by free-speech, free-thinking and free-commenting about topics in science and ‘science’ research, and wish to legally prosecute, or question their sanity, is clear evidence they’re both not free-speakers and are not able to be free-thinkers.
i.e. not scientists at all.
Self-lobotomized and self-neutered dead wood.
” The article it correct about one thing – it recognises ” should be ” The article IS correct about one thing – it RECOGNIZES……… “
Thanks :-). Recognises with an “s” is Australian / English spelling…
Hmmm, so my spell check is anti-colonial…?? Guess I’ll have to find a new version, considering I’m Canadian !! LOL
Do Canadians spell Colour without the u ?
The “u” in color, honor, behavior, etc was there in Canadian spelling long after I became an adult but it disappeared, I think starting with newspapers. This along with such phrases as “oversight committee” which means the opposite to what it used to mean (oversight: a thing you overlooked! missed!) and the politically correct changes to the national anthem has left me more illiterate and unable to sing our national anthem.
As King Lear said: “Thou whoreson zed! Thou unnecessary letter!”
Gary, perhaps the word “oversight” in oversight committee still does mean what it used to. It has been my experience that most such committees intentionally overlook what they are supposed to be watching for. In fact, most are only created to provide the impression that someone is watching and that everything is proper and aboveboard. Those who form such committees rarely want them to actually do their job. The committees formed to investigate the climate-gate emails fall into that category. When investigators refuse to interview the opposing side, you know the outcome has been predetermined. They overlooked the evidence instead of looking over the evidence.
It’s impossible to be neutral when it comes to orange automobiles. You love them or you hate them. You wouldn’t be caught dead in one or you wouldn’t be caught living in any other. This question was rekindled last week when Dodge announced it was reviving the colour Go Mango (which is orange) as an option for its 2016 Dodge Challenger and Dodge Charger SRT models. The colour was unveiled at the Festival of Spring in Irvine, Calif.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/commentary/for-dodge-orange-is-not-the-new-black-go-mango-is/article29360473/
Someone cited Shakespeare?
Hello in-the-news Peter Gleick.
@Clipe my 1969 Dodge Coronet RT 440 6 pack, I had painted in Hemi Orange.
It was my only orange car, but it was the color it belonged in.
And yet The One True Dictionary (Oxford) supports the older “z” (pronounced “zed”) spelling. I try to adhere to that, but my Australian spell-check doesn’t like it. The result is that I am guilty of a shockingly inconsistent variation between “ise” and “ize”, sometimes in a single paragraph!
I don’t know about Gary Pearse, but as far as I know, Canadians (and I) still spell colour, honour and behaviour with a “u”. I seem to recall that some newspapers decided to spell things wrong, but I personally think that that is why readership is so low. That and the improper use of “less” and “fewer”. They now say “less water bottles” instead of “fewer water bottles”. Funny how they never say “fewer water”. Anyhow, just try to find a Shopping “Center” in Canada. It is always a Shopping “Centre”. http://goldenmileshopping.ca/
More typos to fix.
“An opinion piece published in Nature suggests that admitting there are unresolved uncertainties with climate science, improves your credibility with people who don’t already agree with you.”
The rule is “no comma after a subject clause”, so remove the comma after “science”.
” But as the ghastly track record of failed climate predictions demonstrates, there are huge uncertainties yet to be resolved.”
A conjunction, even at the beginning of a sentence, should not be followed by a comma unless there is a subordinate clause following the conjuction. And there is such a clause in the sentence. “As the ghastly …demonstrates” is subordinate. So you need a comma after “but”.
I forgot to put in that under the new math that CAGW uses, consensus can be well over 100% as opposed to the 97 % that has been in use for years.
Hehe . .
We all know that Cook et al left out ~ 66% of the assessed papers because they didn’t fall into the category of having expressed an opinion on climate change, right.
OK, just as a hypothetical, what if that 66% suddenly became believelists: what would happen?
That’s right . . Cook’s ‘consenus’ would still be 97%. 😉
EDIT:
To correct myself I should have used the tilde (~) to indicate an approximate percentage.
The point being, it doesn’t matter much if one triples the number of believelists or indeed halves them.
Using Cook’s methodology, it’ll still work out to a very high percentage figure.
The methodology is all important as are the questions asked.
F’rinstance, I could ask how many climate scientists have NFI what the climate is doing.
Using Cook’s methodology, I’d leave out everyone that expressed an opinion on climate change – ~34%.
That gives me 100% consensus.
Of course I’d have to allow 3% error margin as all credible surveys do which brings it down to a much more saleable 97% again.
Marvellous . .
The track of the true believer, credulous, sedulous.
===============
the uncertainties in natural flows that are stated in the ipcc ar5 (and then ignored) when taken into account show that they are so large that fossil fuel emissions cannot be detected in the carbon budget.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2654191
Something dispassionate observers of this blog are keenly aware of. Arguing against any and all actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is claiming certainty.
?????????????
The entire idea of “climate education” is deeply onerous. It brings to mind tut-tutting wags like NDG Tyson & Bill Nye, whose expertise on the subject consists of drubby little insults, which teach children to be rude and nasty towards scepticism of all kinds….and teaches them the fundamental method of the “sociologists” who wrote this article.
Mods, my comment seems to have disappeared. In the spam filter?
We oppose measures which don’t make sense, such as renewables, but lot of WUWT people are strongly pro-nuclear. Embracing nuclear power on a large scale would have a dramatic effect on greenhouse gasses.
Having said that we recognise that there are serious economic considerations. Until there is credible evidence GHG cause harm, the very real harm caused by restricting emissions, particularly to poor people, should be the overriding consideration.
I like the idea of renewables – I just think they need to be made to work on a level playing field. I have solar panels and they are one of the bet investments I have made! – Yes this is because of the ridiculous FIT I secured but even when I forget to claim it the cost reduction on my bill would still make it worthwhile.
On the other hand – I for one am not keen on Nuclear at all.
The AGW alarmist nonsense should not skew us against alternative technologies.
I’m not so keen on current generation nuclear, though the track record is exemplary in an objective sense, but next generation passive safe systems such as pebble bed seem pretty nearly foolproof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor
Doug UK , ….. when you can power a sub under ice on solar power….for three continous months…let me know .
Yes , solar is wonderful off grid . But not for base load. Or submarines….
Oh now I see? We just need more passion. Be more passionate, that will help your analysis of the science…lol
Didn’t Hillary say ” They just need hugs and a job ” ??…Oh wait, that was the terrorists !! LOL
“Arguing against any and all actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is claiming certainty.”
That’s an interesting, if illogical, opinion you have there. I’ll need to ask some questions before I accept it as a valid one.
First, have you surveyed all “dispassionate” observers of this blog and have they all declared in their own words that they are “keenly aware of” this? Or did the Society of Dispassionate Observers of This Blog just elect you spokesperson and give you permission to speak on their behalf in any manner you wished to?
Second, have all dispassionate observers of this blog noted, cataloged and determined just how many people on this blog actually have argued against “any and all actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”? I’d love to see that number and the empirical evidence myself!
Third, it is perfectly logical to claim UNcertainty about a topic, and thus argue against any and all actions regarding that issue because OF that uncertainty. For example, based upon your statement alone, I am uncertain as to whether or not you actually understand the definition of the word “dispassionate”. So I’ll argue against any and all actions on that issue due to my uncertainty. It would indeed be irrational and illogical to claim I was “certain” that you did not understand the definition.
🙂
Unfortunately Aphan your approach does not work with the converted or those they terrify. When you propose inaction they say “what if it’s true?” This is how they are winning this battle to this point. Nobody reuses to invest in a tank of gas because the gauge might be reading low- they do the prudent thing.
“Unfortunately Aphan your approach does not work with the converted or those they terrify. When you propose inaction they say “what if it’s true?” This is how they are winning this battle to this point. Nobody reuses to invest in a tank of gas because the gauge might be reading low- they do the prudent thing.”
Ah, but THEY don’t get to define what “inaction” means to me. Maybe it means just for now, while we get a handle on things. Maybe it means never ever moving on this topic. Fools rush in….first do no harm…the law of unintended consequences…when they say “What if it’s true”? I reply “So what if it is? There is absolutely no evidence that proves ANYTHING we do can stop or prevent it from happening anyway. So maybe adaptation-which is how the human race has thrived for this long-is a better response to the problem?”
It has been pointed out that the US has yet to “act” in a way that makes the converted or those they terrify happy. I don’t view that as a “win” to this battle personally. I also have no interest in what works with or for them.
john harmsworth,
“Nobody reuses to invest in a tank of gas because the gauge might be reading low- they do the prudent thing.”
Well, it seems to me that a bit more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing overall, potentially saving millions of lives . . though of course I am not certain . . So if I said the “prudent thing” to do is intentionally generate more CO2, wouldn’t you have a problem with my “just in case” logic?
There is no need to (and in fact it would be utter foolishness to) act to reduce greenhouse gasses, since no scientific link has ever been made between our CO2 emissions and the minor warming we’ve experienced, much less that the warming has in any way been bad. In fact, the only thing we do know is that the increased CO2 has been entirely beneficial.
The alarmists realize their precious CAGW religion is on the cusp of disconfirmation.
Accordingly, they’re already planning ahead on how to deal with the inevitable blowback once taxpayers realize governments have wasted $trillions of their hard-earned money on the biggest scientific scam in human history.
There is still a brief window of opportunity for alarmists to slowly inject some uncertainty in their claims, to create plausible deniability when the inevitable Congressionsl hearings are conducted to determine who knew what and when.
That’s what I think paper like these are actually about… The alarmists know the gig is up.
One of my sons has just paid an eye watering sum of money for a property on Kailua beach in Hawaii. He has always tended to accept the anthropogenic climate change orthodoxy but when I asked him what the insurance situation is on his new property, bearing in mind the predictions of massive sea level rise, he said that it’s not a problem. In fact, the beach is actually increasing in size.
I said that can’t be true, because we are told by another new resident in the same area, a certain Commander in Chief, that 97% of scientists believe that man made climate change is real and that it is dangerous. That resident now either recognises that there is sufficient uncertainty in the projections to risk a hefty financial investment in a beach front property, or he just doesn’t believe his own propaganda.
Heh, you think it’s gonna be his money?
=====
Kim: Good point-I’m just a naive Brit.
I’d think the risk of living on a volcanic ocean ridge would outweigh any sea level rise from climate change in the long run. 🙂 But it is stunningly beautiful and I would live there in a heartbeat.
But it does illustrate the hypocrisy or profligacy of those whose money will buy the house(if). Perhaps they’ve been seduced by the beauty and utility of the seaside. It has happened to better people.
==============
Aphan
March 26, 2016 at 12:58 pm
“… living on a volcanic ocean ridge …”
Not a mid-ocean-ridge (MOR) though, it’s a sea mount chain. The only pacific MOR is in the E and SE basin where there are almost no islands as it’s volcanic sea mounts which form these beautiful ocean islands and weathered out coral atolls.
As Buffett pointed out, insurance rates change annually, and they will rise if the sea level starts to rise alarmingly.
There was a great comment at WUWT by the late Robert Phelan about this kind of stuff. Something like:
“These people are right that individuals’ own values influence their opinion on climate change. Unfortunately they fail to apply this principle to themselves”
While it is good to mention this, to mention it in the scientific social context is interesting.
Change your behavior so people will believe you instead of doing valid studies with valid methods and rational conclusions., that also might make people believe you.
maybe this was what Schmidt was talking about when he said less science more “something”
Please remember they have failed with crooked science, and are now obviously socially pushing their agenda, softer softer approach, beware the snakes in the grass
I suggest the following criteria as a minimum threshold for all future discussions on climate change coming from scientists to the general public:
Gavin Schmidt has to be able to explain it to, and field questions in return from… a Texan.
Mark-
“Change your behavior so people will believe you instead of doing valid studies with valid methods and rational conclusions., that also might make people believe you. ”
As opposed to just exhibiting the behavior that the average American expects to see from a non biased, neutral, scientist practicing the Scientific Method. Use acceptable, non biased methods, clearly demonstrate your hypothesis AND conduct any and all experiments that could DISPROVE your hypothesis, show your results-no matter what they are, and include your data with your paper for publication so others can verify or validate your results. Also insist that the margin of error and uncertainties in your results get published IN the press release to the media if there is one.
The most hilarious and ironic thing is that social scientists don’t seem to be able to connect all the dots themselves. They are correct that most people don’t have the intelligence or attention span or desire to understand all of the “science” involved in understanding our climate. BUT…they are oblivious to the fact that most humans are BORN WITH an innate sense/response to being manipulated. They may not understand that prickly feeling in their brains or their stomachs for what it is, but that feeling makes them uneasy/uncomfortable when someone else is speaking to them in ways that instinctively cause a “suspicion” response. Be it tone of voice, or word choices (sound bites and propaganda actually have recognizable traits) or posture, or cultural references, or whatever it might be that triggers it within each person…it’s there. I call it the “used car salesman/woman” response personally. It’s an instinctual response to the feeling that the person speaking to you, has specific-unrevealed motives designed to get a specific response from you. It triggers a “foe” reaction rather than a “friend” one. And once it’s set off, every single negative, judgemental or condescending/contradictory message that comes from the same source only cements that determination deeper and deeper into our human subconscious.
Too bad that most of them have studied “psychology” for years, but haven’t ever really studied people outside of their own bubbles.
I’ve heard it referred to as the “bullsh** detector”. Everybody has one, but some are more finely tuned than others, and some barely even work from long neglect.
I agree 10000%!
As opposed to just exhibiting the behavior that the average American expects to see from a non biased, neutral, scientist practicing the Scientific Method. Use acceptable, non biased methods, clearly demonstrate your hypothesis AND conduct any and all experiments that could DISPROVE your hypothesis, show your results-no matter what they are, and include your data with your paper for publication so others can verify or validate your results. Also insist that the margin of error and uncertainties in your results get published IN the press release to the media if there is one.
____________
Aphan, when and where did you do that – when and where was such your doing going into print –
when and titled what was that broadcasted.
plus pls. count your troops and heavy arms.
“To base expensive policy decisions on models…is a massive misallocation of economic resources.”
More importantly it is economically dangerous to the future health of our nation and socially destructive as these policies will further erode the purchasing power of the middle class and increase dependence by a growing poverty class on the federal government for survival. .
But socialism judges what is best for socialist ideology, not what is best for people.
Venezuela is a perfect example of socialist destruction of economy in recent times, even with oil the socialist government managed to make thins much worse, to the point where it was almost impossible to get bottles of water and toilet roll at one point. In a free market no one makes a profit selling “human rights” like toilet roll and bottled water, so no one sells them. A perfect example of how one eye’d socialist top down forced ideology disregards rational thinking.
Christaina Fuegeres is a perfect example of a rotten mindset full of self hate, being from small costa rica and trained in the London School of Economics, another trash and burn economic thinker. The nutcase I think wants to fit the global economy to suit her ideological gibberish. I wonder if this nut had her communist ideology and went to learn about economics in order to try understand how to destroy them with policy.
Capitalism works mainly, it is the corruption not the greed that wrecks it, greed creates jobs since man has traded, and the fact that banks are not allowed fail, capitalism is supposed to shed the failed companies and banks, that’s the beauty of it. But no, we must keep these financial cadavers on life support with our heard earned worked for taxes. Obama can literally just give 500 million away, that may be given to cowboy builders with contacts in tinpot governments that receive the funds, nice quangos. Obama has seriously and possibly illegally abused executive order use. His “I’m the president so I can do what I like without checks and balances” attitude has been honestly alarming, will following presidents (as no one likes losing power) follow suit and up the ante, possibly in the name of “undoing damage”? I’ll believe voting works when the DoD is not spending $60m PER HOUR of tax payer money.
I always laugh at the way the UN gets these nutcase puppets from tiny member states to front things as if they are not coming from the status quo political sphere. This woman, was chosen precisely because she is a nut, and was willing to do and say anything to push the agenda that fits her first world hating ideology, ethically and morally bankrupt sociopath individuals are perfect tools when your interests can make use of their insanity.
Corruption and/or greed will exist in any type of society/economy. Period. Changing political programs or societies to operate under another system won’t change human nature. It will just force the corrupt and powerful to change tactics to get what they want. There is no known human system or idea in which a fully concerned, responsible, cooperative, altruistic and engaged society will form, because all of those things require voluntary submission to truly exist. If all of those ideals were FORCED upon the American people and enforced by law…they would not only NOT stifle the free will and desire for freedom of choice, action, belief, exercise, etc, but they will cause it to escalate to the point of preserving it even at the risk of death.
We know we’re being pushed. And most people think we’ll allow it until it’s too late. But this people have tasted freedom, lived under it, prospered under it, and fought not only for their own, but for the freedom of others since we became a nation. And I believe completely that there will come a line at some point in which they will say NO MORE. It may be later than sooner, and that’s unfortunate, because the more power we cede to our enemies, the more force will be required to take it back. But trust me, there is a very large, healthy, determined population of people in this country who are ready to do just that when the time comes.
We’re not asleep. We’re watching. Waiting. Hoping for the best while quietly preparing for the worst. And we are not afraid.
..+ 10,000
This is as good a place as any to post this video. It is about the uncertainty in astronomical measurements, but applies very directly to climate projections. It is only 4 minutes and takes a few moments to get started, but it is a gem concerning the psychology of error estimates.
Post this video to Anthony as a new story. I love the comments on the psychology of consensus.
As you requested, I have posted it to Anthony.
They know this. We all know it, we can express it in other forms, caveats, percentage or +-
Astrophysics, is in a bloody mess. People think black holes are 100% real, yet the same amount of unicorns have been discovered as black holes. makes you think, so with that uncertainty, all the theories and numerical systems based on something never discovered, accumulate uncertainty, but it is never expressed, the BH is assumed real and as such no uncertainties make its way from black holes to the following studies, no different than doing papers based on the assumption AGW is valid.
As far as I know the uncertainty from removing every influence except temperature influence on tree rings process, that uncertainty vanishes when it comes to making a reconstruction, each proxy’s % should be added up and part of the total uncertainty % surely.
If this was done in astrophysics, the majority of studies would be less than 50% I’d imagine, maybe much lower for many.
The latest gravitational waves interpretation, BICEP2 was a lesson, “Just because we over interpreted the data it doesn’t mean we were wrong” they said when it turned out they are wrong.
The current claims, for all intents and purposes they might as well interpreted that they detected gravitational waves from two unicorns rotating around each other given there is as much evidence. Mathematical artifacts are not evidences to be relied on
Glad to see that AGW is placed in the same category as black holes. This is a very good comparison. As dbstealey would say, show me one measurement that proves black holes exist. In the absence of such a simple observation, should we assume black holes do not exist?
We might respond that there are huge numbers of observations that are consistent with black holes, that are not explainable by any other thing except black holes. Not proof -just because we have not thought of another explanation does not mean there are no other explanations. One might respond that the vast majority of astrophysicists accept that black holes exist. Ah – consensus is not evidence. In fact, some have gone as far as to say on these pages that when there is a consensus it indicates trouble for the theory.
So as Mark points out, belief in black holes is on just as shaky ground as belief in AGW.
After Bicep2 we had detection of gravity waves from LIGOS. The only explanation we have for these signals in black holes. Not proof, but Dr. Lief Isvalgaard provided very informative and detailed explanations of how the observations matched the theory and predictions. It was very persuasive to me. We could possible have these observations and black holes not exist, but Occam’s Razor suggests that the explanation with the fewest assumptions should be accepted. Since we must assume all sorts of unknown effects for these signals to exist in the absence of black holes, but we do not need to assume much if black holes exist, then we should accept black holes exist.
I am particularly fond of the fact that gravity causes both time dilation and length contraction. So how does one measure changes caused by gravitational waves on the order of .04 the size of a proton when one’s ruler is also changing? Or the fact that most astrophysicists agree there was a big bang and that the acoustics from that big bang may well indicate that the universe is infinite and eternal, ie no big bang in the conventional sense of a beginning of the universe? However, as long as the math works, what the hell?
I think it’s entirely inappropriate to equate good science with bogus CAGW pseudoscience and only serves to make climate skeptics look like rabid deniers indeed.
Firstly note that black holes are a prediction of general relativity – a theory which is more exhaustively tested than perhaps any other and to which there are no known exceptions. Once again I’ll remind the people here who seem to constantly need this reminder that general relativity is so well tested that we routinely use it to insert spacecraft into orbit around outer gas giant moons and comets and drop landers thereupon. CAGW on the other hand is a madcap hypothesis regarding the response of a highly non-linear coupled fluid system to the presence of trace compounds which doesn’t even hang together theoretically. It only exists in models written with the express purpose of confirming a set of completely unfounded starting assumptions.
To say there is no evidence of black holes is just plain wrong. As is using the rather fatuous analogy of unicorns. Stars and gas are observed whipping around a small volume of space at the centre of our own galaxy at orbital speeds which can only be explained by the presence of a massive black hole. These are direct precise astronomical observations made over years. Not computer games. So then, we have an exquisitely accurate and century long tested theory which predicts something and we then observe celestial mechanics behaving precisely as the theory predicts in the presence of the predicted object. We now have further evidence in the form of gravitational wave observations and a whole slew of supporting evidence in the form of mechanisms to power quasars and such like phenomena.
Unlike the extensive evidence for black holes, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever in support of CAGW which is why we’re all here bitching about it I guess. If you don’t find the evidence for black holes compelling then that’s fine and perhaps we’ll discover there’s a highly compact tea pot at the centre of the galaxy one day but whether you like it or not, there is evidence and very good evidence at that.
A source of unending wonder to me that some people here are quite prepared to lump Einstein, Schwartzchild, Chandrasekhar, Thorne, Hawking, Penrose et al and all of their legions of engineering and observational genius colleagues in with a few bumbling corrupt oafs like Mann, Trenberth and Hansen. Seriously, is it like some in-joke troll thing to which I’m not privy?
Seaice1
“Glad to see that AGW is placed in the same category as black holes. This is a very good comparison. As dbstealey would say, show me one measurement that proves black holes exist. In the absence of such a simple observation, should we assume black holes do not exist?”
Ah…let’s see…AGW is the theory that the current warming of planet Earth is being caused exclusively by, or mostly by, human emissions. It is distinctly different from the observation that the Earth’s climate does and has always changed, and that there is such a thing as natural global warming. It is also different from the theory of black holes because if black holes exist, they are a completely NATURAL phenomenon and cannot really be logically or rationally compared to a supposed “human caused” phenomenon.
In the case of black holes, all indications are that SOMETHING exists in certain parts of space that have all of the characteristics expected to be exhibited by what scientists call black holes. But as you say, just because we have not thought of another explanation does not mean that there are no other explanations..
Just like AGW….just because we cannot prove that the warming of the past 100 years is caused by something other than human emissions, does not mean that there is no other explanation. Certainly many, many papers have been published that demonstrate that any “additional warming” since 1950 could be explained by a number of naturally occurring factors other than increased C02.
“but Occam’s Razor suggests that the explanation with the fewest assumptions should be accepted. Since we must assume all sorts of unknown effects for these signals to exist in the absence of black holes, but we do not need to assume much if black holes exist, then we should accept black holes exist.”
Agreed. Occam’s Razor would suggest that if the planet has warmed in this same manner before human’s could influence it, on it’s own, that the assumption should be that it’s doing that again. THAT would be the the explanation with the fewest assumptions wouldn’t it? YOU must, and do, assume all sorts of unknown effects for these signals to have existed in the absence of human CO2 in the past, but we do not need to assume much if natural global warming exists, so then YOU should accept that natural global warming exists and is the cause of the current phenomenon.
What I believe you’ll agree to is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is plenty of evidence that current warming could be caused by many other natural factors, or even grossly exaggerated due to flaws and error margins in data translations. And AGWers have to bend over backwards and tie themselves in many knots in order to justify their belief that an “unnatural” event is occurring when it falls well within the parameters of many other “natural” events of the same type, degree, and speed.
So why do you accept and promote Occam’s Razor rationale for black holes, but not natural global warming?
Aphan,
To answer your last question, ‘seaice1’ is a True Believer. He cherry-picks whatever factoids confirm his measurement-free bias.
Speaking for myself, I accept AGW. But it is obviously so minuscule that it hasn’t ever been measured. So it is a non-problem.
Anyway, thanks for that thorough deconstruction of Mr. seaice1. It will never penetrate his own religion-based belief system. But in that he’s no different from lots of other True Believers.
dbstealey
Oh I know seaice1 is a believer. I highly doubt that anyone can or will ever convince him otherwise, least of all me. But that isn’t my goal anyway. It’s simply to point out the logical flaws/hypocrisy in his arguments.
“Speaking for myself, I accept AGW. But it is obviously so minuscule that it hasn’t ever been measured. So it is a non-problem.”
We’d better have that engraved in steel and mounted above the forum’s header for all to see. It might prevent a lot of future declarations from others about what you believe or do not believe. 🙂 I’m pretty much right there with you. I have no doubt that human emissions COULD influence the climate at some point, but my personal belief is that they would have to be a whole lot higher than they are now, and that with all the uncertainties and estimates and factors at play, the entire theory is built upon too many maybes to take seriously right now. It’s a non-problem. And if it someday becomes undeniable and problematic, I will be perfectly willing to admit I was wrong without hesitation.
Mark March 26, 2016 at 11:17 am
“… The current claims, for all intents and purposes they might as well interpreted that they detected gravitational waves from two unicorns rotating around each other given there is as much evidence. Mathematical artifacts are not evidences to be relied on. …”
___
What always amazes/disappoints me is the psychological need of so many people to make conclusions about inconclusive observation or even models (for goodness sake).
There is actually no rational scientific imperative to assume the unobserved “mathematical artifacts” are either a ‘blackhole’, or a ‘unicorn’, and yet so many grasp at such straws, immediately, and entirely unnecessarily.
Why can’t minds simply realize they need to leave the nature of ‘mathematical artifacts’ in the unknown origins basket?
Why have they be taught or conditioned/habituated to feel ->obligedanxious<- to call it something that's proscribed according to some "theory-fitting" narrative and the resulting BS that calls itself 'exploration', and 'scientific research'?
It's not.
All that theory-fitting interpretive pigeon-hole guff does is impede or limit further insight and understanding. And I don't buy the line that assumptions are necessary to speculate as those assumptions somehow always end up replacing the 'mathematical artifacts' in literature, as something assumed from then on to be real, even when they're as valid a concept as a rainbow-unicorn.
Another example is how "Missing Mass", the original term coined to explain a requirement to meant observations of rotation velocity in galaxies, changed from a mathematical artifact, to an assumption the mass was matter, and the term and concept "Dark Matter" was assumed and replaced the mathematical artifact with another unnecessary assumed 'rainbow unicorn' in all subsequent literature.
None of which is known, or observed, at all.
Why do that? You may need to reliable your 'Discipline' science-fiction.
It's called a discipline as you're supposed to discipline yourself so that you do not do such things! lol
What's wrong with leaving the mathematical artifact as an open question indefinitely? You don't know its meaning, so why the imperative to assume you know?
I will never understand why, nor excuse why people want to make such assumptions into conclusions, in that way and ten expect to be respected for doing it, as they go about defending their unnecessary assumption! lol
The fact is, you don't know.
And more to the point, you probably can't know either, possibly ever, and it just might stay that way.
So why not just accept a fact that you don't know?
Why this endless prompted false-dilemma imperative to presume to know, what we clearly don't know, and probably can't know?
Is that wise? Must we have these rainbow unicorns in our discussions and literature for the next century or two? Really? Is that responsible? How does that make sense?
Science … it's a Discipline … not a Consensus … fer f*^$s s@ke! … lol
I actually enjoy reading Kahan’s work (not the author of the article) but I always find it stunning just how close he can get to the truth without even glancing at it. Bias makes powerful blinders.
The “progressive” ailment analogy the author suggested as being potentially useful, once again, is not useful at all. We KNOW how hypertension and atherosclerosis progress, what the risks are for each method of treatment, and there’s a vast difference between one person’s personal choice regarding those risks and treatment (because all people are different so some options are obviously better and worse per individual) and trying to figure out what would be the best course of action (or inaction) for a situation we haven’t ever seen, and may NOT see. These people are so incredibly inept that even their analogies are stupid.
Further the analogy is false because it assumes that there is something unusual even ‘pathological’ about the post-1950 (or post-industrial) climate that cannot be explained other than by the addition of human-caused CO2 to the atmosphere.
A more useful analogy would be that the alarmists are climate hypochondriacs.
The green blob is a mass movement, a term devised to describe political radicalism. While there is some science used as props and talking points, it has vanishingly little to do with science per se. Consider, as others have, the attitude of the blob towards nuclear power. As the green blob has motivations other than dealing with AGW, the attitude is understandable, if one recognizes that the other motives dominate.
There is a theme of arcadian socialism, that any technology not understood by english lit or political science majors is evil, and reqires education beyond what they have. How can the Leninist Elect rule if evil techs are needed? The general sense of elitism also shows hostility to the general welfare of the non-elect.
“How can the Leninist Elect rule if evil techs are needed?”
They seem to have no problem with computer-generated reality, though.
Even sociologists and tavern philosophers should use the spirit of the scientific method to argue their points. I’m afraid political correctness has made logic obsolete. These sociologists, were they steeped in logic and the scientific method, would naturally have asked themselves what limits on the range of uncertainty should be considered before theory is called into question. If you have estimated that the temperature is expected to go up by 2C +/-3C, you are going to have to consider the possibility that there could be no change or even a decline in temperature. The truly large uncertainty demonstrated by the “Pause” is precisely the reason that they dare not demonstrate the quality of the theory.
These post normal sociologists actually believe that it is an ideological question, that the theory is a “correct” progressive tool and the job is to persuade anti-diluvian dissenters to cross the aisle to the progressive side. All they need is the right, respectful form of coaxing and cajoling we hillbillies to see “reason”. As sociologists, they should not have taken a position at all. They should have suggested a debate and for proponents of anthropo warming to present their findings with the appropriate data (gee, it must be there!) and argue that the uncertainty is within bounds of at least establishing a trend up or down. They instead, start with 100% acceptance of the theory and suggest the reasonableness of also presenting the degree of uncertainty (and presumably how they arrived at it). Shouldn’t the fact that proponents will NOT debate, CANNOT demonstrate the rectitude of the theory, raise a flag in the minds of the sociologists? Wouldn’t they naturally go and ask the team to show the data supports their theory unequivocally? Then, maybe they could help them present it in a compelling and reasoned way.
Let’s have the debate. It will at least point to soft parts of the theory that need work. How can these sociologists know, in addition to the theory being correct, what it is that sceptics are having problems with? If any of you sociologists are reading this, try an experiment. Put the null hypothesis forward and see which side has the least “uncertainty”.
The fundamental issue ignored by the psychologists is the public perception of the appalling consequences of removing fossil fuels, prompting the question – what do we do for energy?
This prompts two deceits. The absolute necessity of doing this allows no dissention from the scientific narrative or even the existence of error bars. The other that “renewables” can replace fossils. The credibility problem arises when politicians, entertainers, academics, businessmen and others, obviously devoid of any scientific ability (and not a few scientists) make grotesquely wild assertions that even dimmest can recognise as BS.
Regrettably (for them) admitting to uncertainty is the last thing that they can do as it will expose the vacuity of their cheerleaders.
One solution proposed is to tax carbon. This does not remove fossil fuels, but prices them appropriately for their external costs. The market could then apportion resources appropriately. It would likely result in less fossil fuel use, but would not eliminate their use. If the externality had been priced correctly we would get an efficient use of resources.
What it very obviously will do is force ever more industry into the developing world where there are no carbon taxes and nox/sox emission controls will not be deployed. Even Kerry knows that much but as we all know – none of this is actually about the climate at all.
Define “external costs” and how far do they extend. Toxic spills are obvious, other claims are nebulous. There will be a huge debate and scope creep over what should be considered.
It is abundantly obvious that considering the net external costs of fossil fuel use (positive minus negative externals) that the fossil fuel contribution to human welfare over the past century or so far outweighs any negatives massively.
And the lack of a carbon (dioxide) tax is no more a subsidy for fossil fuel energy than the lack of an idiocy tax is a subsidy for idiots.
Do you understand that all companies will do is pass that carbon tax on to the consumers? The market would simply increase the cost of gasoline at the pump, and electricity in your home and mine. Until there is another way to support the current energy demands of our society, it will NOT result in less fossil fuel use, and will further cripple a struggling economy and citizenry.
External costs are all value based. Here’s the great illusion. Fossil fuels have internal and external benefits far exceeding costs, by almost any rational values, so to blather on about ‘external costs’ is to wear your mistaken values on your sleeve.
============
In most countries I have lived in have some form of tax on stuff to change usage behavior. A tax on alcohol, people still drink and abuse it, but they have a choice to do so. A tax on tobacco, people still smoke and have a choice to do so. Now in the UK, a proposed tax on sugar, but people will have a choice. People will still drink soda and eat sweet foods and will still be obese. So what is the point of a tax on stuff? To raise revenue for the Govn’t. A tax on carbon (CO2) is a tax on everything, literally, everything where people won’t have a choice.
One solution is to tax ”Too stupid to tell a frigid turbulent light blocking self refrigerating fluid gas bath
from a magic heater.”
You can file yours first.
‘seaice1’ once again demonstrates that he’s completely clueless.
The only verifiable evidence we have regarding the small rise (just one part in 10,000, over the past century) of CO2 (which the ignoratii label “carbon”) is this: the rise in CO2 has been completely harmless, and very beneficial to the biosphere. The planet is GREENING as a direct result of the rise in that tiny trace gas / airborne fertilizer.
There is no downside to the extra CO2. None. Yet the eco-lemmings accept their marching orders and talking points, and push for an enormous tax on the very thing that holds down the cost of food — a life and death issue for the one-third of humanity that subsists on less than $2 a day.
Their hatred of humanity is so thick you could cut it with a knife. ‘seaice1’ and his ilk would prefer to raise the cost of food for those brown and black folks overseas, based on a scientifically falsified conjecture… so he could bask in the schadenfreud of knowing they will suffer just so ‘seaice1’ can claim he was right.
Disgusting, despicable, and larded with a hatred of everyone not in seaice1’s tribe of pseudo-scientists. What a guy…
…not.
‘citizens’ acceptance or rejection of consensus science on climate change has become a topic of interest among social scientists.’
Consensus science? What is that?
The sociable scientists want to make some money on climate, too.
Yes, it bothers them immensely that Americans do not accept “because we said so” as a valid response.
Every time I see the CMIP-5 spaghetti graph of the 73 computer model outputs, I can’t help but think each of these models was developed by a team of scientists and programmers who must think they have it right. So they must also think that all the other modelers got it wrong. Otherwise they’d admit that some other model was better and withdraw their own. Maybe one or maybe a few of these models is actually right (they’d be the ones that are not falsified by observations one would think). But how would any one know which model is good? Certainly averaging 1 or 2 good model results with 70+ bad ones can only produce a bad result.
The CMIP-5 ensemble average projection is neither good science nor good math.
The consensus is a broad house. If they started discarding models because they disagree with reality, they would run out of models.
Cephus0
“I think it’s entirely inappropriate to equate good science with bogus CAGW pseudoscience and only serves to make climate skeptics look like rabid deniers indeed.”
How do you know what it makes climate skeptics look like to anyone else? Anyone who believes in rabid deniers will think what they are going to think with or without evidence. Anyone with a rational, logical mind knows that what one person thinks or says should never be taken as representative of an entire group to which that person might, or might not, belong. IOW, stop worrying about preventing crazy from being crazy. It’s a fools errand.
“Firstly note that black holes are a prediction of general relativity – a theory which is more exhaustively tested than perhaps any other and to which there are no known exceptions. Once again I’ll remind the people here who seem to constantly need this reminder that general relativity is so well tested that we routinely use it to insert spacecraft into orbit around outer gas giant moons and comets and drop landers thereupon.”
Well apparently your constant reminders aren’t appreciated by all. That’s life.
“To say there is no evidence of black holes is just plain wrong. As is using the rather fatuous analogy of unicorns.”
I highly doubt that Mark was being 100% serious and expected us all to agree with his analogy. (I think he’s probably stunned that you took him seriously enough to respond in the manner that you have.) He never claimed there was no evidence. He claimed we’ve never discovered one. Seen one. Observed one.
I believe it’s possible to examine Mark’s statement as saying that we have no DIRECT evidence/proof that black holes exist currently. Since we cannot observe them, the best we can do is indirect observations-observations of the things that would be occurring if a black hole was near by. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (as opposed to AGW and regular GW) is also a theory for which there is no direct evidence/proof that it exists.
“Unlike the extensive evidence for black holes, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever in support of CAGW which is why we’re all here bitching about it I guess. If you don’t find the evidence for black holes compelling then that’s fine and perhaps we’ll discover there’s a highly compact tea pot at the centre of the galaxy one day but whether you like it or not, there is evidence and very good evidence at that.”
So you respond to his fatuous analogy of unicorns with one about a highly compact tea pot. Nice. Way to appear non-rabid and intellectual! Evidence that suggests is not evidence that proves, no matter how amazingly good or overwhelming that evidence suggesting something is. THAT is the problem with the CAGW theory, and I believe it was Mark’s point. But forgive me for examining more than one possible conclusion based on the evidence. 🙂
Maybe better if Mark responds. Sorry if I upset you as his Darwinesque bulldog 🙂
I do so enjoy the charming folks like Dan Kahan who believe completely that what he have here is just a scene from Cool Hand Luke, viz:
The problem in climate science is not a failure to communicate. Instead, it is a failure of trust. To start with, consider the many, many failed predictions of the alarmists. You see, Chicken Little can’t stay in business forever. Sooner or later, someone will point out that if the sky is falling, it’s taking its own sweet time getting started. Meanwhile, cratered predictions of everything from 50 million climate refugees to sea levels overtopping Manhattan to coral atolls being washed away litter the trail of these failed serial doomcasters.
Added to this abysmal record of predictions of our imminent demise, we have had the lies, cheating, collusion, subversion of the IPCC, and outright criminal behavior revealed by the unindicted co-conspirators of Climategate in their own words, along with the Peter Gleick wire fraud.
As a result of these actions, combined with the silence of the majority of the mainstream climate lambs when these actions occurred or were revealed, climate scientists have broken the trust of the public. And once broken, trust is very, very hard to rebuild. Lincoln is known for his famous saying about how you can fool all of the people some of the time, but the previous line of that speech is equally important, viz:
Mainstream climate scientists have forfeited the confidence of their fellow citizens by fooling all of the people some of the time. Now me, I’m not as pessimistic as Lincoln, or perhaps the public has changed. These days, when Bubba the Bible-thumping preacher gets caught with an arm full of hookers and a nose full of blow, trust is not broken forever. But then Bubba the Bible-thumper is apparently smarter than the majority of mainstream climate scientists.
You see, Bubba knows that all he has to do is to produce a few tears and declare that he is everlastingly sorry, that he knows that he’s just a weak sinner, and most importantly, he asks for forgiveness. Americans seem to fall for that same old line every time, whether it is Nixon or Jim Bakker doing the familiar tapdance.
Here’s the bizarre part. Kahan and the rest want to see the climate scientists forgiven and trust restored without asking for forgiveness, in fact quite the opposite. The people who have made the failed predictions are almost all of the Paul Ehrlich brand of failed doomcasters. After predicting the “population bomb” that never went off, and the food riots of the ’90s that never happened, Ehrlich is still sticking by his predictions and saying that they are just a little slow in arriving, but guess what? Because they have taken so long to arrive, the effects will be Much Worse Than We Thought™ …
Not one mainstream climate scientist, to my knowledge, has ever owned up to a failed prediction. Heck, they’re still spreading the bogus claim that coral atolls are at risk. And to my knowledge, not one of the Climategate participants ever owned up to their massive malfeasance.
And as Megan McCardle once remarked,
So to Mr. Kahan I would say yes, you’ve lost the power to convince people but no, it’s not a communication problem. It is a trust problem. So go ahead, widen your uncertainties, because what the heck, they were almost always way, way too narrow in any case.
But don’t expect that to restore the trust. That is a method for improving communication. Improving trust requires very different methods. I do believe it could be restored … but not by changing your communications methods. We’re way beyond that now.
w.
Thanks Willis,
That pretty much encapsulates the thought process in my head when lining up the eight ball, in a game that has taken way too many frustrating turns.
“…despite increasing scientific consensus. ” As if a vote establishes a fact. Well in this case the vote has been shown to be statistically fraudulent.
So, instead of 98% certainty that we are destroying the planet with our “carbon”, make that 97% certainty.
Got it.
Liars figuring out how to lie more ingeniously.
What the paper in effect seems to be saying is that if unscrupulous want the climate hoax to “seem” more credible to the public, the (nasty ol’) facts need to put on the back burner and instead appeal to people’s emotions. Ignore the reality and instead substitute the new government approved “realism”. Apparently, it is felt that if they make the same pitch used with very serious and unquestioned situations such as high blood pressure, kidney disease, and so forth, the public can be “eased” more easily into accepting their propaganda and won’t be so resistant to their bogus sales pitch. Great. Just great!
Amen to that. How can the science be settled when the data upon which the science is based is not? When they constantly make adjustments to the temperature data going back many years, it tells me that yesterday’s data must have been incorrect and that today’s data will likely be deemed incorrect tomorrow. They didn’t hop into a time machine and go back to measure temperatures with more accurate equipment and methods. They simply made assumptions about what they thought was wrong with the temperature data and changed it. Then they changed it again. Then again… How can anything be settled when its foundation continues to move? In science, you don’t change observations to match theory (or theoretical models), you change theory to match observations. So can anyone explain to me how a real scientist could ever make the claim that “the science is settled” when they know that the data the science is based on is not settled and is open to future changes?
..Expandable / Retractable goalposts !!
Hold your horses there pardner.
CO2 emissions have been slowly trending downward, allowing politicians to effusively pat themselves on the back. So you see the problem is no longer CO2, the problem is (drum role),methane CH4. And by the way CH4 is terrifying. According to Bill McKibben anyways.
I am curious what planet Bill lives on that he thinks CO2 is trending downward? Also am curious if this is a trial balloon for an alarmist reboot with the CO2 crisis becoming slowly but surely exposed as the farce it is.
The West’s emissions–or anyway the US’s–have been declining. The global CO2 level has been rising.
There can be no progress with the left. They quickly consume every cooked up calamity and turn it into a n immovable cause.
Look at fracking. The rabid left still hasn’t changed their foolish insistence that it fouls aquifers everywhere.
Even when the EPA didn’t agree with them.
Pick any topic and it’s the same. No learning curve, no corrections and no interest in pursuing the truth.
‘Values also matter’, Eric Worral, you believe.
Good luck.
Johann,
I realize your first language isn’t English. But it would be good if you tried to be a little more clear in what you’re trying to communicate.
the freedom of others since we became a nation. And I believe completely that there will come a line at some point in which they will say NO MORE. It may be later than sooner, and that’s unfortunate, because the more power we cede to our enemies, the more force will be required to take it back. But trust me-
____________
Yes Aphane you talk about the socialist brothers Gracchi in ancient Rome – developing news about them lastly?
Science can promote better-informed choices, but not straightforward answers.
Thanks Eric Worral – the beat goes on:the beat goes on.
Won’t get stuck in ‘same as it ever was.’
Best Regards – Hans
The Who:
“Won’t Get Fooled Again”
We’ll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that’s all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain’t changed
‘Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
No, no!
I’ll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I’ll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?
There’s nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Are now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
Don’t get fooled again
No, no!
Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
Submit Corrections
Because the logic presented here is upside-down I’d like to reframe the article. People react badly when scientists withhold the complete truth or shade what truth is provided. Including a little additional truth but less than the entire truth doesn’t change a damn thing.
That graph by Roy Spenser (in the head post) is a picture worth MORE than a thousand words. Other discussion in this thread is interesting but the picture (graph) tells the story. I haven’t seen a credible challenge to date.
Sorry, Roy Spencer for my hasty spelling.