climate skeptic or propagandist?

bloodyminded · July 4, 2011

So where's the global warm up?

On Earth. Come check us out sometime.

Saipan · July 4, 2011

On Earth. Come check us out sometime.

I did. Every day.

In Europe too.

And Southeast Asia.

No warm up anywhere, and here we now heat houses EVERY month of the year, so far for the last three years.

bud · July 4, 2011

I did. Every day.

In Europe too.

And Southeast Asia.

No warm up anywhere, and here we now heat houses EVERY month of the year, so far for the last three years.

it's easy to confuse current weather events with long-term climate trends, and hard to understand the difference between weather and climate. it's a bit like being at the beach, trying to figure out if the tide is rising or falling just by watching individual waves roll in and out. the slow change of the tide is masked by the constant churning of the waves.

in a similar way, the normal ups and downs of weather make it hard to see slow changes in climate. to find climate trends you need to look at how weather is changing over a longer time span. looking at high and low temperature data from recent decades shows that new record highs occur nearly twice as often as new record lows.

Bonam · July 4, 2011

No warm up anywhere, and here we now heat houses EVERY month of the year, so far for the last three years.

Wear a sweater?

Oleg Bach · July 4, 2011

Question: If you are over 30 years of age do you remember the weather being different when you were a kid? It probably was...but I do remember similar days as today. What is all this climate change stuff all about anyway? I remember as a kid there were organizations that were put in place to fight a thing called POLLUTION. What happened to that campaign? Pollution was a problem directly linked to industrial waste - to general human activity that usually generated great profits.

It seems that maybe this climate change stuff is in place to propagate the idea that pollution no longer exists and that it is all about a mysterious gas that naturally raises atmospheric temperature. Could it be that the possible ruse that is climate change could just be a diversion from the fact that industry and the products people buy such as cars still generate poisonous waste - and as long as we are enthrawled in the idea of global warming and it's unsolvable mystery - that polluters generate great profits while we debate a matter that seemingly causes us to forget what profiteers are doing? The problem is still an over load of poison in the air - water and soil...not a lot to do with temperature - sure is hot today..damned global warming while China and we fill the air with more garbage in the hope of more luxury --- a luxury covered in soot.

dre · July 4, 2011

Of yes, roll out the "conspiracy" canard. A sure sign that you have no counter argument. You are naive if you believe that science funding bureaucracies objective and unbiased. They are human organization like any other and are no more altrusitic than a corporation. They obviously construct rationalizations for why their biases are justified but that does not make them any less biased.

That said, that does not mean that all science produced by science funding bureaucracies is useless. One just has to take the biases of funders into account when looking at it.

Counter argument to WHAT? You provided not a shred of evidence to support your claim that scientists that publish research either directly for the government or through research grants, universities etc, approach a level of bias anywhere what you see when an industry hires scientists to produce material that supports a certain view point.

And in fact, there is DISSENT among government funded researchers... they dont all speak with once voice and some of them doubt some of the core conclusions.

Dr. Vincent Gray for example...

UN IPCC Scientist: 'No convincing scientific arguments to support claim that increases in greenhouse gases are harmful to the climate'

A quick search on google will find lots more.

But I dont imagine youll find a scientist thats employed/funded by Shell Oil or Opec writing papers that compromise the position of the FF industry.

Youre comparing apples to oranges, and it most definately IS cospiracy theory.

Michael Hardner · July 4, 2011

They are human organization like any other and are no more altrusitic than a corporation.

True. You don't have to go beyond the stated missions for corporations, versus educational institutions to see the difference.

Corporations make money for shareholders, education institutions pursue knowledge and gain repute for doing so.

There's nothing altruistic about being honest and ONLY being honest because the costs of getting caught are high.

TimG · July 4, 2011

Corporations make money for shareholders, education institutions pursue knowledge and gain repute for doing so.

You are attempting to create a irrelevant strawman. In my previous posts I talked about the science funding bureaucracies like NSERC - not educational institutions. These are the bureaucrats tasked with doling out government funding and their biases do affect which projects get funded. More importantly, scientists learn to pitch projects which are more likely to get funding which creates circular loop where science that suits the science bureaucrats is produced which supports more science that suits the bureaucrats.

What I am saying is these science funding bureacracies are not free of bias and are constantly lobbying politicians for funding. That means they favour research topics that will bring in funding and this has resulted in an emphasis on climate alarm because science that says there is nothing to worry about offers very few avenues for follow on funding. Tell politicians that the world is going to end and more research is needed and more funding flows.

I find it strange that these biases which are part of eveny human instiutions are simply ignored by many. Scientists are not some class of uber human. They have bills to pay like everyone else and they need government funding. That ensures that their research will be biased by the priorities of the funders whether they like it or not.

TimG · July 4, 2011

You provided not a shred of evidence to support your claim that scientists that publish research either directly for the government or through research grants, universities etc, approach a level of bias anywhere what you see when an industry hires scientists to produce material that supports a certain view point.

And you have not provided any evidence that science funded by oil companies is baised. You are simply assuming that.

And in fact, there is DISSENT among government funded researchers... they dont all speak with once voice and some of them doubt some of the core conclusions.

A few well established scientists have taken sceptical positions but this avenue is not open to new grads trying to establish their careers. If you are new in climate science the message is clear: toe the line on alarmism or forget about a career. This creates a self selection loop where new post docs find another field to specialize if they are sceptical of the claims.

As for oil company funded studies: shell, BP and other oil companies have funded climate science research at UEA for years. I doubt that it all supports you notions on what the "objectives" of the oil companies are.

Michael Hardner · July 4, 2011

I find it strange that these biases which are part of eveny human instiutions are simply ignored by many. Scientists are not some class of uber human. They have bills to pay like everyone else and they need government funding. That ensures that their research will be biased by the priorities of the funders whether they like it or not.

Yes, science is made by humans, but the end goal is knowledge not consensus. It's one thing to say that funding for research will follow popular biases, or whatever you want to call them. It's another thing to say the results will be wrong.

For the example of warming, we here on these pages (and elsewhere) that warming *isn't* happening. So how could that be ? There would be a huge reward for any research that determined the truth if that were the case.

GostHacked · July 4, 2011

Question: If you are over 30 years of age do you remember the weather being different when you were a kid? It probably was...but I do remember similar days as today. What is all this climate change stuff all about anyway? I remember as a kid there were organizations that were put in place to fight a thing called POLLUTION. What happened to that campaign? Pollution was a problem directly linked to industrial waste - to general human activity that usually generated great profits.

I've said it too, the sky is not a deep blue from what I recall as a kid. And you are right about the pollution. I want to address pollution, but this whole CO2 thing is all the craze these days.

It seems that maybe this climate change stuff is in place to propagate the idea that pollution no longer exists and that it is all about a mysterious gas that naturally raises atmospheric temperature. Could it be that the possible ruse that is climate change could just be a diversion from the fact that industry and the products people buy such as cars still generate poisonous waste - and as long as we are enthrawled in the idea of global warming and it's unsolvable mystery - that polluters generate great profits while we debate a matter that seemingly causes us to forget what profiteers are doing? The problem is still an over load of poison in the air - water and soil...not a lot to do with temperature - sure is hot today..damned global warming while China and we fill the air with more garbage in the hope of more luxury --- a luxury covered in soot.

It's how illusionists and magicians work. Making you believe something that is not true. Slight of hand, and trick of the light.

WIP · July 4, 2011

That is what journalists said about blogs 10 years ago. Now you have a glorified blogging outfit called HuffPo was sold for billions.

That was 315 million, not billions! And Ariana sold out her unpaid bloggers...many of whom quit over this.

Blogs have a place in scientific discussions which have public impact - climate science is perhaps the best example.

I follow many climate bloggers, but you just cite the oil-funded propagandists who try to deny or obfuscate the growing evidence of climate change.

Michael Hardner · July 4, 2011

It's how illusionists and magicians work. Making you believe something that is not true. Slight of hand, and trick of the light.

Actually, Oleg and GH, they're scientists. They publish their results, and others dissect them to see that it's true.

TimG · July 4, 2011

Yes, science is made by humans, but the end goal is knowledge not consensus. It's one thing to say that funding for research will follow popular biases, or whatever you want to call them. It's another thing to say the results will be wrong.

Read what I read on this thread. I said quite explicitly that bias does not equal error. The point I was making is the bias of government funded papers is no less than the bias in oil industry funded papers.

For the example of warming, we here on these pages (and elsewhere) that warming *isn't* happening. So how could that be ? There would be a huge reward for any research that determined the truth if that were the case.

As I have said before, on the points where there is really no debate there is no serious debate (i.e. warming has occurred, humans have caused the CO2 levels to increase, more CO2 means higher temperatures). On the points where there is debate (AGW is a likely to be a catastrophe) there is a lively debate. The only problem are arrogant alarmists who would like to presume that agreement on some points means agreement on all points.

bloodyminded · July 5, 2011

Read what I read on this thread. I said quite explicitly that bias does not equal error. The point I was making is the bias of government funded papers is no less than the bias in oil industry funded papers.

As I have said before, on the points where there is really no debate there is no serious debate (i.e. warming has occurred, humans have caused the CO2 levels to increase, more CO2 means higher temperatures). On the points where there is debate (AGW is a likely to be a catastrophe) there is a lively debate. The only problem are arrogant alarmists who would like to presume that agreement on some points means agreement on all points.

Well, perhaps you don't give yourself enough credit. (Or you give an awful lot of "sceptics" too much.) The majority of self-described sceptics here on this board take as their primary argument the "fact" that there is no evidence for warming at all.

TimG · July 5, 2011

Well, perhaps you don't give yourself enough credit. (Or you give an awful lot of "sceptics" too much.)

The proprietors of all of the major sceptic blogs agree with the above. As do many of the posters. There are a few who dispute it but they don't represent a majority.

That said, you are mispresenting the sceptical arguments. It is a fact that for the last decade there has been no warming. That does not imply there was no warming up until 2000 - just that the warming has stopped. The debate is about the significance of this observation. Alarmist argue that it is noise. Sceptics argue it is a sign that computer models exagerrate warming. Both are scientifically sound opinions.

Edited July 5, 2011 by TimG

bloodyminded · July 5, 2011

The proprietors of all of the major sceptic blogs agree with the above. As do many of the posters. There are a few who dispute it but they don't represent a majority.

That said, you are mispresenting the sceptical arguments. It is a fact that for the last decade there has been no warming. That does not imply there was no warming up until 2000 - just that the warming has stopped. The debate is about the significance of this observation. Alarmist argue that it is noise. Sceptics argue it is a sign that computer models exagerrate warming. Both are scientifically sound opinions.

No, I'm not misrepresenting the sceptical arguments. I'm accurately reflecting their overwhelming tendencies here, on this board, and only here. If you contend that the "sceptics" here (who actually are deniers) do not accurately represent sceptics elsewhere, I see no reason to disbelieve you. I believe you.

Your argument is with the self-described sceptics here, on MLW, who are further away from your own view, in matters of scientific understanding, than are those who you deem "alarmists."

Edited July 5, 2011 by bloodyminded

Oleg Bach · July 5, 2011

co2 is the craze these days - what about common dirt floating about?

WIP · July 5, 2011

The proprietors of all of the major sceptic blogs agree with the above. As do many of the posters. There are a few who dispute it but they don't represent a majority.

That said, you are mispresenting the sceptical arguments. It is a fact that for the last decade there has been no warming. That does not imply there was no warming up until 2000 - just that the warming has stopped. The debate is about the significance of this observation. Alarmist argue that it is noise. Sceptics argue it is a sign that computer models exagerrate warming. Both are scientifically sound opinions.

The real facts are that warming has not stopped, and is increasing...and why shouldn't the world by getting warmer! All of the factors forcing the increase in global temperatures: an accelerating rate of carbon dioxide increase, increase in methane and other greenhouse gases, and the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice allowing for more sunlight to be absorbed -- are all pointing the way towards a warmer planet. The so called "skeptics" have to provide reasons why natural factors that are tipping the planet towards increased temperatures would have no effects...then they could deal with the temp data that shows the past decade was the warmest on record.

TimG · July 5, 2011

The real facts are that warming has not stopped, and is increasing

Only if you cherry pick which datasets you use and apply a large enough smoothing factor. Most people understand that such arguments are statistical games.

...and why shouldn't the world by getting warmer!

Because the climate models have underestimated the effects of other facts from the sun to natural variations and these factors appear to be large enough to cancel out a mild GHG induced warming.

...then they could deal with the temp data that shows the past decade was the warmest on record.

Again, a strawman. A naturally oscillilating climate system would periodically reach peaks from which temperatures decline so there is nothing special about having a 'hottest ever decade'. Of course, such statements are meaningless because we have no reliable data from the MWP so we can't really say that the current decade is actually the warmest ever (don't bother posting the statistical jokes which alarmists use - the algorithms used are cherry picked and designed to produced the desired result. They contain no real information). Edited July 5, 2011 by TimG

Saipan · July 6, 2011

Corporations make money for shareholders, education institutions pursue knowledge and gain repute for doing so.

All those professors make no money for shareholders, they make money for themself.

There's nothing altruistic about being honest and ONLY being honest because the costs of getting caught are high.

No it's not. They can back out of any OPINION scott free. Evidence is everywhere. "We didn't know then - now we know".

Michael Hardner · July 6, 2011

All those professors make no money for shareholders, they make money for themself.

If they were caught fabricating evidence then they would have nothing. They are all tenured - we hear that complaint enough - so they get their university salaries anyway.

On the other hand, if a company spokesperson goes on a talk show and tells out-and-out lies, then what happens ? He gets paid - since that is his job.

No it's not. They can back out of any OPINION scott free. Evidence is everywhere. "We didn't know then - now we know".

That's not an OPINION. An OPINION is what the Conservative desk jockey throws out - and the fact that it IS opinion is what protects him from being called a liar.

What these scientists produce are supposed to be theories of FACT supported by evidence. If the data changes, then of course they change their opinion - isn't that a good thing ?

Fabricating evidence, and all the other conspiracies that are alleged of climate scientists are more than an opinion change.

TimG · July 6, 2011

What these scientists produce are supposed to be theories of FACT supported by evidence. If the data changes, then of course they change their opinion - isn't that a good thing?

The problem is the evidence is often ambiguous and often deliberately manipulated to correct 'errors' using ad-hoc algorithms. This gives scientists enought wiggle room to force the data to conform to their pet theories even if the raw data does not.

Adjusting data is not considered sceintific fraud per se so it is not sanctioned yet it can create a false picture of reality. This is what is happening in climate science.

Saipan · July 6, 2011

If they were caught fabricating evidence then they would have nothing.

They were. But as usual said that "now we know" (it was a mistake) Just like declaring living creature "extinct for 60 million years"

Michael Hardner · July 6, 2011

The problem is the evidence is often ambiguous and often deliberately manipulated to correct 'errors' using ad-hoc algorithms. This gives scientists enought wiggle room to force the data to conform to their pet theories even if the raw data does not.

Ambiguous to the layman, or to the overly suspicious. There's no ambiguity around the idea that warming is happening, but in the 'real' world, or on this board, some will tell you that there is.

Pet theories would indeed do this, TimG, and I think you have a handle on that. But pet theories would not be widely adopted, unless there indeed was a conspiracy afoot.

Adjusting data is not considered sceintific fraud per se so it is not sanctioned yet it can create a false picture of reality. This is what is happening in climate science.

You yourself have said that warming is happening, and they adjust that data as well. What are you saying - is warming happening or not ? Again, open discussion sheds light on things and brings fallacies to light - but I concur that there are *common* fallacies that groups of people, even scientists, can miss. Not in this example though.