Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[TimG]

But when someone uses the word "denier," it doesn't automatically follow that they are doing so precisely for the reason you state.

Only if the person using the word is completely ignorant of the science. If someone understands the science they understand that all AGW claims depend on the assumption that climate models are reliable predictors of the future. If you then call someone a denier for expressing skepticism in the models you *are* claiming that the models are infallible and cannot be disputed (even if you are not aware of it).

Of course, most alarmists are incredibly dishonest and if asked directly if the models are infallible they would likely mumble a lot. That does not change the implications of their word choice when it comes to describing skeptics. If they disagree with that interpretation then they should look at different word choices when it comes to describing people they disagree with.

Edited October 18, 2012 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

I'm not sure you've been following this thread, but there are a few specific posters that rabidly label anyone who even questions the science as a 'denier'.

Ah. so when I ask "who?" the answer is, "a few specific posters."

Just to clarify what we're talking about here.

So, there we go: asked and answered, I guess.

[bleeding heart]

Only if the person using the word is completely ignorant of the science. If someone understands the science they understand that all AGW claims depend on the assumption that climate models are reliable predictors of the future. If you then call someone a denier for expressing skepticism in the models you *are* claiming that the models are infallible and cannot be disputed (even if you are not aware of it).

Of course, most alarmists are incredibly dishonest and if asked directly if the models are infallible they would likely mumble a lot. That does not change the implications of their word choice when it comes to describing skeptics. If they disagree agree with that interpretation then they should look at different word choices when it comes to describing people they disagree with.

I'm afraid that the promiscuous overuse of the word "alarmists" is inextricably married to the use of the word "deniers." There's no going back now, unless both agree to drop it. PResumably, sometime around a successful peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians.

[TimG]

I'm afraid that the promiscuous overuse of the word "alarmists" is inextricably married to the use of the word "deniers."

"alarmist" is a correct description of people who are "alarmed" at the prospect of CO2 induced warming and want immediate action. There are few other words that properly describe them. "Denier" is a dishonest propaganda term designed to imply that people expressing doubts about alarmist claims are disputing irrefutable facts.

In any case, you asked a question and I answered: anyone who uses the term "denier" is asserting that the climate models are an infallible truth that cannot be questioned. If they do not believe that and think that questioning the reliability of the models is a legitimate exercise then they are being dishonest in their choice of words.

Here is an example "denier" being used in the so-called "scientific" literature:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n8/full/nclimate1532.html#/affil-auth

Edited October 18, 2012 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

"alarmist" is a correct description of people who are "alarmed" at the prospect of CO2 induced warming and want immediate action. There are few other words that properly describe them. "Denier" is a dishonest propaganda term designed to imply that people expressing doubts about alarmist claims are disputing irrefutable facts.

No one believes this silly dichotomy of meaning, including yourself. You know that "alarmist" is not a values-free qualifier, mere reportage, an apt descriptor: it is explicitly, intentionally used as a sneering pejorative.

That you've used it against me (show me a single "alarmist" comment I've ever made on the subject....just one) tells me that it is used dishonestly, all-encompassingly, and by definition is used as a "propaganda term" in your words.

[TimG]

No one believes this silly dichotomy of meaning, including yourself. You know that "alarmist" is not a values-free qualifier, mere reportage, an apt descriptor: it is explicitly, intentionally used as a sneering pejorative.

Really? What context is the word "alarmist" used other than in the climate debate? What word other than alarmist is suitable to describe people who think that immediate action to reduce CO2 emissions is required no matter what the cost? CO2-phobes? anti-CO2 activists? Edited October 19, 2012 by TimG

[Moonbox]

Ah. so when I ask "who?" the answer is, "a few specific posters."

Just to clarify what we're talking about here.

So, there we go: asked and answered, I guess.

If you'd been much a part of this thread you would already know. Go back and read anything waldo or wyly has written in here. They're not the only ones, but they're among the most rabid on this forum.

[Pliny]

Who said they are infallible?

No one has to say it out loud, the implication is that I must believe the models. Must I believe in "fallible" models as fact? I would assume as a proponent of the AGW theory that you would have irrefutable proof and infallible models so that the term "denier" was well warranted and not just a pejorative for those who may have qualms about the conclusions. It's sort of like the words "infidel" or "heathen".

The question is itself rather obtuse.

[Mighty AC]

If you then call someone a denier for expressing skepticism in the models you *are* claiming that the models are infallible and cannot be disputed (even if you are not aware of it).

Skepticism is a great thing. The world needs more of it. Imagine how much better off we'd be if more people questioned religion, astrology, holistic medicine, the motives of government and business, etc.

However, questioning should be done with respect. Well, at least a sliding scale of respect. For example, beliefs or opinions without evidence or even a good chance of being true can be challenged with very little respect. Views backed by observation and agreed upon by 93% of climate scientists, the experts in this field, should carry more weight.

[Pliny]

Skepticism is a great thing. The world needs more of it. Imagine how much better off we'd be if more people questioned religion, astrology, holistic medicine, the motives of government and business, etc.

However, questioning should be done with respect. Well, at least a sliding scale of respect. For example, beliefs or opinions without evidence or even a good chance of being true can be challenged with very little respect. Views backed by observation and agreed upon by 93% of climate scientists, the experts in this field, should carry more weight.

You should have quit when you said "questioning should be done with respect". Many new ideas were not given the respect they deserved when they flew in the face of the prevailing truth.

Skepticism though doesn't allow for individual critical thinking. We are supposed to agree with science and not have ideas on our own and are sometimes even denigrated for expressing our own experiences which are designated "anecdotal". Try to explain some weird experience you had in life that you have no explanation for and science will probably have an explanation, however unsatisfactory it may seem to you as an explanation. After that you don't mention it.

[TimG]

Views backed by observation and agreed upon by 93% of climate scientists, the experts in this field, should carry more weight.

Your statement is a logical fallacy for a couple reasons:

#1 - you assume that all climate science claims are backed by observation - this is not true. Many claims are based purely on computer models and have no observational support. Other claims are based on observations where the quality of the observations is suspect.

#2 - you assume that 93% of climate agree on all claims. - this is not true. Many important claims are a subject of debate among scientists. For example, many scientists feel there is absolutely no evidence of a link between extreme weather and CO2 yet most activists pretend that this is true.

Bottom line; respect is a two way street. If climate scientists want to be treated with respect they need to treat the people who have legitimate concerns about the reliability of the data used to make the claims with respect.

[Moonbox]

While the climate 'scientists' have shown consensus, and I'll respect and believe their conclusions indicating more carbon in the atmosphere can lead to warmer temperatures, they've shown a fairly obvious inability to accurately predict much of anything. The timeframe has been fairly short, so that doesn't mean they're wrong, but it does shed some doubt on the hockey stick graphs and climate models showing us a doomsday scenario. Making multi-billion dollar decisions, like Dalton McGuinty's green energy plan, based on relatively near-term end-of-days predictions doesn't seem very smart to me, especially when any of the hard data we have for the last ~15 has shown the world hasn't been warming over that time.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Moonbox

[bleeding heart]

Really? What context is the word "alarmist" used other than in the climate debate? What word other than alarmist is suitable to describe people who think that immediate action to reduce CO2 emissions is required no matter what the cost? CO2-phobes? anti-CO2 activists?

Then you'd best dredge up my "alarmist" remarks, so you can educate us all on how the term is accurate and warranted...when you use it, never mind anyone else.

And if you can't find my "alarmist" remarks, why, then that means (thanks to your formulation) that you were using it as a pejorative--and as dishonest propaganda, as you put it.

Which would then rather dilute your charges here...since you can't be angrily opposed to that which you gleefully practice.

So...once you've uncovered my alarmist remarks, we'll continue.

Edited October 19, 2012 by bleeding heart

[TimG]

Then you'd best dredge up my "alarmist" remarks, so you can educate us all on how the term is accurate and warranted...when you use it, never mind anyone else.

If the term does not fit you then it does not fit you. It is no more perjorative than calling someone an NDP supporter when they are not.

[bleeding heart]

Skepticism though doesn't allow for individual critical thinking.

???

We are supposed to agree with science and not have ideas on our own and are sometimes even denigrated for expressing our own experiences which are designated "anecdotal". Try to explain some weird experience you had in life that you have no explanation for and science will probably have an explanation, however unsatisfactory it may seem to you as an explanation. After that you don't mention it.

So this "science" entity sure is bullying you, Pliny?

[bleeding heart]

If the term does not fit you then it does not fit you. It is no more perjorative than calling someone an NDP supporter when they are not.

Uh...you're rather dodging your reasoniong for using the word.

And your use of it as a pejorative.

You're not going to start debating dishonestly, are you? I mean, you seemed to be speaking against dishonesty earlier in this very thread.

[TimG]

Uh...you're rather dodging your reasoniong for using the word.

What I am dodging? I said I use it describe people who feel that immediate action on CO2 is required. If you don't hold those beliefs then I was incorrect to use that word with you.

I happen to have little respect for people obsessed with CO2 mitigation so any word I use to describe that group of people will be pejorative according to your definition. That does not change the fact that the word itself is neutral and has no meaning outside of the climate context. This is not true for "denier" which is a blatant attempt to associate climate skepticism with holocaust denial.

[WIP]

I'm not sure you've been following this thread, but there are a few specific posters that rabidly label anyone who even questions the science as a 'denier'.

And there are a few specific posters here that clearly are deniers! Because they go beyond 'questioning' the science to extrapolating all the way to the conclusion that if any climate model, temperature readings, or predictions based on data are wrong, that means that global warming doesn't exist and we can burn all the goddamned oil we want till hell freezes over.

That's the denier -- the one who uses any shards that are/or may just appear to be contrary evidence (like the reported modest increases in Antarctic ice in some regions) to get to the conclusion that there is not, and never will be global warming regardless of all of the sequestered carbon in the earth that we've unleashed since the start of the industrial revolution. So, where does your questioning of science lead to?

[Mighty AC]

Your statement is a logical fallacy for a couple reasons:

#1 - you assume that all climate science claims are backed by observation - this is not true. Many claims are based purely on computer models and have no observational support. Other claims are based on observations where the quality of the observations is suspect.

#2 - you assume that 93% of climate agree on all claims. - this is not true. Many important claims are a subject of debate among scientists. For example, many scientists feel there is absolutely no evidence of a link between extreme weather and CO2 yet most activists pretend that this is true.

Bottom line; respect is a two way street. If climate scientists want to be treated with respect they need to treat the people who have legitimate concerns about the reliability of the data used to make the claims with respect.

To clarify: 93% of climate scientists support anthropogenic climate change

Also, respect is not an equal two way street. For example: I am not a doctor so my doctor should not respect my self diagnosis based on a Google search of symptoms and the fact that I have watched House a few times. She is the expert and as such should listen to the information I provide, evaluate it, use what she can and disregard the bullshit. Now if I were a doctor or a specialist my opinions would carry more weight.

Climate models are not perfect but they are not required to be. While there are uncertainties with models, they can successfully reproduce land, air and ocean temps back to 1900. They have also made climate predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations. So, the tools aren't perfect but they are very good and getting better all the time....and they are trusted by the experts. The people best qualified to judge the effectiveness of the tools.

Non climate scientists like us, disputing what a massive consensus of the true experts believe because we think the models are not accurate enough is an ignorant and silly thing to do. You wouldn't disagree with your doctor's diagnosis of a broken bone because the x-ray machine uses electricity and we don't completely understand how electricity works yet?

[WIP]

Really? What context is the word "alarmist" used other than in the climate debate? What word other than alarmist is suitable to describe people who think that immediate action to reduce CO2 emissions is required no matter what the cost? CO2-phobes? anti-CO2 activists?

How much is your life worth? Probably a lot more than the lives of future generations that should come after us! This is the conclusion that can clearly be drawn from the way you and other deniers, and the mushy, middle-of-the-road greenies give us through their words and deeds. Because environmentalism was the cause...even combating global warming, until the evidence started to trickle in that the problem goes deeper than electric cars, windmills and changing lightbulbs.

If there is any consensus among liberals and conservatives, it's the decision to live in denial of the obvious and act like today's economic problems and increasing weather disturbances are mere glitches on the road to a better and brighter future. For example, where is the opposition today to tar sands development and the exploitation of Arctic gas and oil that is only possible because of global warming that's already occurred! It appears to have shrunk, because a lot of people are willing to trade longterm survival for short term comfort, and that turns a lot of people who claim to be concerned about climate change into acting like deniers also. Conservatives were also for the environment back in 1970 when Earth Day started, and it looked like solutions would be cheap and easy. And since conservatives are more focused on their personal advantages, they turned against environmentalism first. But, liberals have also turned...in their actions if not in their ideological claims; because they just want a few minor adjustments to our present economic system, they aren't willing to face the implications that an economic system based on consumption and continuous growth cannot be environmentally friendly, or deal with the rarely mentioned crisis in nonrenewable natural resources, which are becoming scarce, rising in price, every time consumption starts to increase.

So, conservatives will declare global warming a hoax, while liberals will invent nonsense terms like "sustainable growth," and pretend that all that's needed are a few tweaks and adjustments of the present system. And, an "alarmist" is anyone who says how serious the crisis will be, and that the system itself has to change before any real impact on global warming and other environmental crises actually occurs.

[Moonbox]

That's the denier -- the one who uses any shards that are/or may just appear to be contrary evidence (like the reported modest increases in Antarctic ice in some regions) to get to the conclusion that there is not, and never will be global warming regardless of all of the sequestered carbon in the earth that we've unleashed since the start of the industrial revolution. So, where does your questioning of science lead to?

My 'questioning the science' leads to the conclusion that we're making some really expensive and really bad decisions based on predictions that so far have proven unreliable. The computer models on which we've been making multi-billion dollar decisions haven't proven anything and haven't been able to predict anything accurately, which means that nobody has as good an understanding of the climate as they're trying to say. Sure, I believe we're warming the planet. How quickly, I'm not so sure. The world warmed by around 1 degree or something over the last 100 years or so and hasn't warmed much over the last 15 years. This leads me to believe that we have time to do more research, spend money on clean energy research (rather than wasting it on primitive, inefficient and ineffective tech in its infancy) and not blow our loads on feel-good inititatives that don't solve any of the underlying problems.

Paying farmers guaranteed, hugely premium rates on energy generated by solar panels they install on their farms, which won't even have an noticeable impact on the grid, was the type of idiotic idea that resulted from climate hysteria. Politicians have been taking advantage of it for votes and then companies like Samsung have milked it for all its worth. How did Ontario end up with their finances in such shambles? $7B solar/wind deals that will be screwing Ontario taxpayers and energy consumers for a LONG LONG time is a good example of how.

[TimG]

Also, respect is not an equal two way street. For example: I am not a doctor so my doctor should not respect my self diagnosis based on a Google search of symptoms and the fact that I have watched House a few times.

Actually, a good doctor would respect the fact that you have a vested interest in your medical care and would be prepared to explain why your information is wrong. A good doctor would also acknowledge that patients can sometimes find things that they need to investigate further even if it is not true in every case.

Climate models are not perfect but they are not required to be. While there are uncertainties with models, they can successfully reproduce land, air and ocean temps back to 1900.

First: no they can't. If you actually look at what models produce you will find that they have no resemblance to the past when you look at parameters other than the mean global temperature. Second: hindcasts are a meaningless measure of model skill. All a hindcast shows is the modellers are were able to tune their models to a match a known dataset. The *only* true measure of model usefulness is the ability to predict the future and so far - they models are looking like they exaggerate the amount of warming we will see.

So, the tools aren't perfect but they are very good and getting better all the time....and they are trusted by the experts. The people best qualified to judge the effectiveness of the tools.

Actually many people work with computer models all of the time and many people are qualified to judge the effectiveness of the computer models and find them wanting. It is no coincidence that the people who stand to benefit the most from a public belief in these models are the most insistent that they are infallible.

You wouldn't disagree with your doctor's diagnosis of a broken bone because the x-ray machine uses electricity and we don't completely understand how electricity works yet?

Actually, if I had no pain or other symptom of broken bone and the doctor has no evidence that anyone had ever had a broken bone and the doctor was telling me I needed to amputate my leg then I would have to be an idiot if I did not question what the doctor was saying. Edited October 19, 2012 by TimG

[WIP]

Yep, plant some trees.

http://www.china.org...nt_17427454.htm

http://en.wikipedia....n_Wall_of_China

Arrgghh! Here comes the bs about geoengineering our way out of a jam from the other side of the world this time. The first issue I have with the effectiveness of their plans is that trees do not automatically = carbon reduction. Trees can respirate and give off CO2 when the sun isn't shining and photosynthesis isn't occurring. As a result, it's been determined previously, that planting trees above 30 degrees latitude would have negligible benefits for reducing carbon, while going too far north...I forget the estimated latitude...could actually be counter-productive. Fixing environmental problems invariably become more difficult than planners originally envision, because climate is a complex, chaotic system that we barely understand, while engineers think almost exclusively in linear progressions with few variables.

Don't know if anyone's started a thread on this story yet, but this idiot - Russ George, has been at it again with another geoengineering scheme. This time he was dumping iron oxide off the B.C. coast, where he convinced the Haida that it would spur an increase in salmon. In reality, algal blooms are volatile and unpredictable -- it's just as likely that the effects may be to kill off salmon and other fish. As for carbon sequestration - it's also possible that the algae will consume oxygen from deeper depths and totally backfire. The fact that our Government apparently knew about his plans and allowed it to proceed, should be investigated!

[Mighty AC]

My 'questioning the science' leads to the conclusion that we're making some really expensive and really bad decisions based on predictions that so far have proven unreliable. The computer models on which we've been making multi-billion dollar decisions haven't proven anything and haven't been able to predict anything accurately, which means that nobody has as good an understanding of the climate as they're trying to say.

Based on your perception of climate models I can see why you would would oppose a switch to clean energy; but, your belief about the effectiveness of climate models is wrong. The models can reproduce land, air and sea temperatures back to 1900 and have made future trend predictions that have been observed to be true. There has been a lot of misinformation spread about the effectiveness of the tools.

[WIP]

My 'questioning the science' leads to the conclusion that we're making some really expensive and really bad decisions based on predictions that so far have proven unreliable.

No doubt; but as I recall from when I used to post here regularly, I always had a hard time figuring out what your conclusions are.

The computer models on which we've been making multi-billion dollar decisions haven't proven anything and haven't been able to predict anything accurately, which means that nobody has as good an understanding of the climate as they're trying to say. Sure, I believe we're warming the planet. How quickly, I'm not so sure. The world warmed by around 1 degree or something over the last 100 years or so and hasn't warmed much over the last 15 years. This leads me to believe that we have time to do more research, spend money on clean energy research (rather than wasting it on primitive, inefficient and ineffective tech in its infancy) and not blow our loads on feel-good inititatives that don't solve any of the underlying problems.

And I have taken the fact that the climate models underestimate changes like melting Arctic sea ice and the time scales for when they were predicted to occur, as a sign that any leeway has to occur on the side that actual changes are likely worse than climate model predictions.

Paying farmers guaranteed, hugely premium rates on energy generated by solar panels they install on their farms, which won't even have an noticeable impact on the grid, was the type of idiotic idea that resulted from climate hysteria. Politicians have been taking advantage of it for votes and then companies like Samsung have milked it for all its worth. How did Ontario end up with their finances in such shambles? $7B solar/wind deals that will be screwing Ontario taxpayers and energy consumers for a LONG LONG time is a good example of how.

I'm a skeptic of Big Green solutions also. But that doesn't mean climate change doesn't exist or won't continue, likely at an accelerating rate, if we consider the time lag between ocean warming and air temperatures. The windmills and solar panels are fine in my view, as long as it is taken into account that we are already consuming too much energy, and replacing the consumption with windmills and solar panel sources won't do much to solve the problem...because building windmills in particular, has a significant carbon footprint, and with the increased prices acting as a leading indicator of non-renewable resource scarcities, it's not even going to be possible to build enough high-tech windmills requiring some of the most exotic rare earths to match conventional power generation.