Is Global Warming a Leftist Urban Legend?

[ToadBrother]

Your problem is you think there is an absolute truth to be discovered. There is not. Almost all of it is opinion dressed up as statistics. This allows people to fool themselves into believing things which are not necessarily true.

And your problem is that you use a liberal dose of special pleading to insist that climatology is filled with fraudsters and incompetents, but seem woefully ignorant of the fact that similar statistical approaches are used in everything from population genetics to radioactive decay.

Tell me, are geneticists and physicists also fraudsters and incompetents? Is there even a real scientific community in your view?

[Michael Hardner]

Mann has been producing junk science for years. Every hi profile paper that he has produced is filled with statistical dirty tricks designed to produce the result that he wants. He has been called on this over and over again but no one cares because he supports the "cause".

Every paper has errors, ok. But hundreds of papers being absolutely wrong ? And nobody alerting us ? It's possible, but not plausible.

McIntyre has been evicerating dendro papers for years but nobody in the science establishment cares.

I wonder why. There are definitely scientists who disagree with AGW. Wonder why they haven't picked up on that.

Your problem is you think there is an absolute truth to be discovered. There is not. Almost all of it is opinion dressed up as statistics. This allows people to fool themselves into believing things which are not necessarily true.

I understand statistics, and if they're being faked out it would be easy for somebody to find them out.

[TimG]

that similar statistical approaches are used in everything from population genetics to radioactive decay.

First, climate scientists love to invent their own statistical techniques that are used no where else. I would be similarly sceptical if geneticists and nuclear physicists did the same. Second, using well established procedures means nothing if the source data is suspect. Lastly, the theory behind genetics and radioactive decay can be verified in the lab an in repeatable real experiments.

[TimG]

Every paper has errors, ok. But hundreds of papers being absolutely wrong ? And nobody alerting us ? It's possible, but not plausible.

Hundreds of papers absolutely wrong? I did not say that. I said the literature is biased so a particular view is over represented in the literature. Only some papers are absolutely wrong. Used Mann as an example of scientist who produces junk over and over yet does not pay any price.

I wonder why. There are definitely scientists who disagree with AGW. Wonder why they haven't picked up on that.

Some have. But most scientists don't bother to learn about the details. If Mann insists he is right they will believe him over McIntyre because it is in their best interest to believe Mann.

I understand statistics, and if they're being faked out it would be easy for somebody to find them out.

Yep. And that is what McIntrye and others have done. But the problem are people like you who seem to be unwilling to educate yourself about the disagreement simply read the (non)rebuttals provided by Mann and others and assume the issue has been dealt with. If you actually read and understood the original criticisms you would realize that the (non)rebuttals ignore the key points and instead attack strawmen. Edited October 1, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Hundreds of papers absolutely wrong? I did not say that. I said the literature is biased so a particular view is over represented in the literature. Only some papers are absolutely wrong. Used Mann as an example of scientist who produces junk over and over yet does not pay any price.

Well, they're right or they're wrong. They either show warming or they don't.

Some have. But most scientists don't bother to learn about the details. If Mann insists he is right they will believe him over McIntyre because it is in their best interest to believe Mann.

It's not a popularity contest. They discuss these things through papers.

And that is what McIntrye and others have done. But the problem are people like you who seem to be unwilling to educate yourself about the disagreement simply read the (non)rebuttals provided by Mann and others and assume the issue has been dealt with. If you actually read and understood the original criticisms you would realize that the (non)rebuttals ignore the key points and instead attack strawmen.

In the end, McIntyre is a blogger. He does have a scientific background, but from what I read, the issue is with discarded tree ring data. I admit I haven't looked at this in about a year, so feel free to provide a link and I will look again.

[wyly]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm implying. It's an open system, so if there were a loophole, we would find out about it quickly. A single paper could blow the whistle on this.

can't help but notice the dearth of peer reviewed papers contradicting AGW...denier blogs hundreds/thousands, actual evidence not so much... you would think with our government full of denier supporters the funding research supporting a cooling planet would be passed out by the bucket full...

Or, it could be that hundreds, thousands of scientists world wide have been conspiring to openly lie, although the truth can be figured out by anybody who is equally qualified as them. And this has been going on for twenty years.

yup just follow the money trail back to Margret T and Big Al...

you've officially passed over to the socialist, tree hugging, Dark Side now Michael....see Waldo for the secret conspirator password and handshake...

Edited October 1, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

Well, they're right or they're wrong. They either show warming or they don't.

It's not a popularity contest. They discuss these things through papers.

In the end, McIntyre is a blogger. He does have a scientific background, but from what I read, the issue is with discarded tree ring data. I admit I haven't looked at this in about a year, so feel free to provide a link and I will look again.

Mann made questionable errors but it had little effect on the results, others have reproduced the same hockey stick graph, it's solid...of course no one in the denier world wants to discuss those...

[Michael Hardner]

you've officially passed over to the socialist, tree hugging, Dark Side now Michael....see Waldo for the secret conspirator password and handshake...

Hey - meet me over on the mitigation vs adaption thread, where I am much more hard-headed !

[eyeball]

So has anyone put up a website with a counter showing the number of scientists and experts who agree vs the number of those who don't? A simple pie chart would work.

I'm no expert but I can wrap my head around pie.

[samcin]

List of scientists opposing the assessment of global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

[waldo]

Hundreds of papers absolutely wrong? I did not say that. I said the literature is biased so a particular view is over represented in the literature. Only some papers are absolutely wrong. Used Mann as an example of scientist who produces junk over and over yet does not pay any price.

Some have. But most scientists don't bother to learn about the details. If Mann insists he is right they will believe him over McIntyre because it is in their best interest to believe Mann.

Yep. And that is what McIntrye and others have done. But the problem are people like you who seem to be unwilling to educate yourself about the disagreement simply read the (non)rebuttals provided by Mann and others and assume the issue has been dealt with. If you actually read and understood the original criticisms you would realize that the (non)rebuttals ignore the key points and instead attack strawmen.

as always, comic relief from those dispensing the 'gospel according to McIntyre'... the self-appointed (but most selective) climate auditor... the guy who does no research, has no climate science background, has limited (targeted) education, and publishes no papers. Oh wait... he was recently given a token co-authorship to a much failed paper... a gimme co-authorship as the decades old crescendo calling for him to put-up (publish) or shut-up, simply became too much to handle!

it's also quite illuminating to see how silent McIntyre has gone over McShane & Wyner (MW2010) - hey? Don't bother to tout his most recent blog drivel... where he absolutely fails to even attempt to address the criticism of MW2010 coming forward. You know, McIntyre's much hyped introduction of MW2010... where, finally, "real statisticians", had managed to expose all the denier claimed failings of MBH (Mann et al). Oh ya - big time! As always, rather predictable, after his blog hype and the resulting denialsphere run with it, sanity begins to settle in and legitimate rebuttals to MW2010 begin to came forward... hence... the silent McIntyre (oh nooossssss... auditor gone mute)

[Saipan]

There's nothing like having one's own thermometer. And access to Weather Network.

We can be fooled by no Suzukistas.

Edited October 2, 2010 by Saipan

[waldo]

There's nothing like having one's own thermometer. And access to Weather Network.

We can be fooled by no Suzukistas.

thread drift is inevitable; however, I would suggest this thread be targeted as one more politically aligned - perhaps you could take your position (your apparent challenging climate science/change position), to an assortment of the many climate change related threads that appear within the MLW sub-forum titled "Health, Science and Technology"... perhaps you may realize more response to your posts within that forum.

[Saipan]

thread drift is inevitable; however, I would suggest this thread be targeted as one more politically aligned - perhaps you could take your position (your apparent challenging climate science/change position), to an assortment of the many climate change related threads that appear within the MLW sub-forum titled "Health, Science and Technology"... perhaps you may realize more response to your posts within that forum.

I just got one

[Michael Hardner]

List of scientists opposing the assessment of global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

You've got 3 who say AGW isn't happening.

Tim Ball, who was a former Geography professor.

Robert M. Carter, geologist.

Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist.

Not a climatologist among them.

Edited October 2, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[ToadBrother]

You've got 3 who say AGW isn't happening.

Tim Ball, who was a former Geography professor.

Robert M. Carter, geologist.

Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist.

Not a climatologist among them.

This is an identical tactic to the one used by Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates. As long as a guy has a PhD in anything, he immediately is qualified to make grand pronouncements on fields in which he has no expertise. Creationists, like AGW deniers, love to compose lists of scientists who claim AGW doesn't happen, regardless of whether said scientists actually are in any meaningful position to judge the data themselves.

[Michael Hardner]

This is an identical tactic to the one used by Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates. As long as a guy has a PhD in anything, he immediately is qualified to make grand pronouncements on fields in which he has no expertise. Creationists, like AGW deniers, love to compose lists of scientists who claim AGW doesn't happen, regardless of whether said scientists actually are in any meaningful position to judge the data themselves.

Ball went so far as to define himself as a climatologist. From his words (he's a frequent guest of Coast To Coast, a conspiracy theory radio show) his specialty was in history and geography, and historical views on climate. It was, he said, considered to be an Arts discipline although it meandered into science.

He's also a proponent of the theory that there's a grand conspiracy theory. Frankly, I don't think he really understands the science.

[Smallc]

Ball went so far as to define himself as a climatologist. From his words (he's a frequent guest of Coast To Coast, a conspiracy theory radio show)

He's also a frequent guest on Adler Online and The Roy Green Show. Climate deniers like to keep eachother's company, I guess.

Edited October 2, 2010 by Smallc

[Keepitsimple]

You've got 3 who say AGW isn't happening.

Tim Ball, who was a former Geography professor.

Robert M. Carter, geologist.

Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist.

Not a climatologist among them.

You might want to look at the list of scientists who are listed as believing that Climate Change is mostly a natural occurrance - or the cause is unknown....and read their individual quotes. It doesn't mean they are right....it just means that the debate clearly is not over:

[Michael Hardner]

You might want to look at the list of scientists who are listed as believing that Climate Change is mostly a natural occurrance - or the cause is unknown....and read their individual quotes. It doesn't mean they are right....it just means that the debate clearly is not over:

No one should say that the debate is over. That statement itself discredits Gore, and diminishes the adversarial nature of scientific debate.

However, there aren't any climate scientists that I know of that say that warming is due to unknown causes. Skeptics like Lindzen, Shaviv, and Christensen submit their own reasons for warming in their papers, but they don't just shrug their shoulders and say "it's natural".

[wyly]

No one should say that the debate is over. That statement itself discredits Gore, and diminishes the adversarial nature of scientific debate.

However, there aren't any climate scientists that I know of that say that warming is due to unknown causes. Skeptics like Lindzen, Shaviv, and Christensen submit their own reasons for warming in their papers, but they don't just shrug their shoulders and say "it's natural".

the skeptics preferred leader Lindzen has said there is warming, CO2 is a GHG, and an increase in CO2 should produce an increase in average global temp...that the skeptics keep using him as there go to guy indicates to me they don't understand what's being said...

and the Christiansen you mentioned is that the same person who said he his work on solar activity was deliberately altered and misinterpreted by skeptics?

[Michael Hardner]

.

and the Christiansen you mentioned is that the same person who said he his work on solar activity was deliberately altered and misinterpreted by skeptics?

I believe he did say that... but since he is a real scientist he bases his opinions on the science and now:

There is, he said, a clear "divergence" between the sunspots and global temperatures after 1986, which shows that the present warming period cannot be explained by solar activity alone.[10]

Egil Friis-Christensen

Seems like there's one less serious skeptic out there.

[Keepitsimple]

I believe he did say that... but since he is a real scientist he bases his opinions on the science and now:

Egil Friis-Christensen

Seems like there's one less serious skeptic out there.

Duh! Of course warming cannot be explained by solar sunspots alone. Nor can it be attributed to CO2 alone.....and by extension, even less can be attributed to man made CO2. Richard Lindzen said this:

"We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[10] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[11][12]

Many so-called sceptics - like Lindzen - have similar positions that end up saying the same thing - we don't know how much man-made CO2 contributes to Climate Change.

Michael....if you haven't read the Royal Society's newly released guide that I posted in the other section of the forum under Climate Science 101....I'll post it here. It's a fairly refreshing look at the state of Climate Science and has sections that list what is well established, what is still under debate, and what is poorly understood.

Royal Society Guide: http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/

Edited October 3, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Duh! Of course warming cannot be explained by solar sunspots alone. Nor can it be attributed to CO2 alone.....and by extension, even less can be attributed to man made CO2. Richard Lindzen said this:

Many so-called sceptics - like Lindzen - have similar positions that end up saying the same thing - we don't know how much man-made CO2 contributes to Climate Change.

Michael....if you haven't read the Royal Society's newly released guide that I posted in the other section of the forum under Climate Science 101....I'll post it here. It's a fairly refreshing look at the state of Climate Science and has sections that list what is well established, what is still under debate, and what is poorly understood.

Royal Society Guide: http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/

and Lindzen has zero... zero... credibility in regards CO2 attribution/sensitivity - his papers have consistently been refuted... he himself has retracted aspects of his most recent collaborative effort (Lindzen&Choi - 2009); notwithstanding that paper has taken serious criticism that Lindzen has not countered to date... eg. Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top‐of‐atmosphere radiation - Trenberth et al... eg. Constraining climate sensitivity with linear fits to outgoing radiation - Daniel M. Murphy... eg. Lindzen and Choi Unraveled

in previous MLW climate change related threads, we've expounded on Lindzen's associations with denier think-tanks/organizations... his early work (completely outside the science related to climate change) is where he made his name... he's had no significant input/contribution in adding to climate change related science. A New York Times article offers a pointed quote from Gavin Schmidt, one that provides both a token nod to Lindzen's prestige (which, again, has nothing to do with Lindzen's work or skeptic contributions in the climate science arena), but also a much needed reminder to deniers at large (one that many on MLW should take to heart before jumping on the next denialsphere blog wave); specifically:

Even if it now turns out that the analysis was not robust, it was not that the analysis was not worth trying, and the work being done to re-examine these questions is a useful contributions to the literature –-

even if the conclusion is that this approach to the analysis is flawed.

More generally, this episode underlines the danger in reading too much into single papers. For papers that appear to go against the mainstream (in either direction), the likelihood is that the conclusions will not stand up for long, but sometimes it takes a while for this to be clear. Research at the cutting edge – where you are pushing the limits of the data or the theory – is like that. If the answers were obvious, we wouldn’t need to do research

.

emphasis added

as for the recent Royal Society 'layman guides' update... Simple, your cautious reserved parroting is noted (the usual suspects are labeling the guide update as a 'bow to skeptics'). Point in fact, the guide does not introduce any change to the prevailing science consensus or accepted uncertainties... it entirely supports the mainstream scientific view of man-made climate change as summarized by the IPCC. The chair of the Royal Society group of scientists that developed the updated guide, John Pethica (Royal Society vice president), has been quoted as stressing the revamped guide approach does not signify an acceptance of criticisms that scientists had overstated their case in the past..... "If the report sounds cautious, that's because the IPCC is cautious … There is no change in the science."

Simple... since you've now twice highlighted the Royal Society 'layman's guide' update and linked to it (twice), perhaps we should hold you to it's key findings on points of scientific consensus. Would you like those quoted and attributed to yourself?

[Saipan]

There is no change in the science."

And neither is in climate change. It just keeps changing, which is what it does best.

Like the weather - rain dance or not.

Btw, we could use some of the warm up. Minus 5 this morning.