A Global Warming Debate on PENSA
Posted By John Moore on July 3, 2009
This post is meant to be the head for a debate about global warming that started on the PHX PENSA notification email list. Global Warming, Antropogenic Climate Change (AGW) and green folly are frequent topics on this blog.
The thread started with a posting by the moderator linking to the BBC’s Great Global Warming Swindle video.
The initial response, posted here with permission from the
-
anonymous
author, was
There IS a lot of publicity that plate tectonics occurs. Darn that publicity! However, there isn’t a lot of publicity that the earth sits on the back of a turtle. Wonder why?
There IS a shortage of publicity for the “contrarian” view that the moon is really papier-maché. Why? That claim hasn’t gone through the gauntlet that is science, the scientific method and publishing system.
It is the same with the contrarian view regarding global warming: where are the peer-reviewed research projects?
The problem with the material on the contrarian side is that, for the most part, it is self-published, non-journaled, non-peer reviewed. Why are these processes important? They are the gauntlet through which science puts its work to ensure objectivity and accuracy. This gauntlet works surprisingly well; we can name on just a few fingers the times that bad science was published in the last three decades in respected journals – think Fleishman and Pons of “cold fusion” fame and SNUPY, the dog of South Korea cloning fame.
Imagine a doctor about to open you up for surgery saying, “Well, I read about this new procedure on a web site sponsored by bodyparts.com. In fact, I’m inserting into you a part made by Ennox, a multi-billion dollar company. They sponsor the web site…..but keep that part quiet. I just found about about this as I’m really clever.”
“Have the procedure or implant been verified?” you ask?
“No, but this has to be true as it is contrarian and links to several pieces on quite a few op-ed pages.”
You look skeptical. “Is there any original peer-reviewed research on this surgery?”
“Well……uh…..those peer-review folks are all alike. They are wacky. Trust me.”
I think you’d probably get off the operating table.
Imagine boarding a new jet that hasn’t gone through the testing process. Do you think you’d fly when the captain says, “Well, we’ve not really verified anything, but we didn’t agree with the way the old planes were designed and now we’re going to try this plane. Sit down and enjoy the ride.”
Science really IS a rigorous process. Scientists are conservative by nature; they aren’t into making outlandish claims or statements. Most often when their extrapolations err, it is on the conservative side. Add to this inherent careful nature of true scientists, the processes of science, which create even more layers of rigor. There is a difference between peer-reviewed, synthesis-based, journaled work and self-published, non-peer-reviewed material. Sadly, most Americans can’t distinguish the two.
On the other hand, Steve Milloy and his ilk, often secretly funded through fossil fuel “think tanks”, frequently “publish” their work on the internet, write articles and op-ed pieces, and self-publish books. They don’t go through peer review. Wonder why? I think the answer is obvious. It is the same reason the “tobacco-smoking-is-good-for-you” “research” didn’t get peer review. It wasn’t true. It didn’t hold up to rigorous examination.
Here is a review of a recent denier book. The review has some good points to make. Either listen or read. here.
In the 1970s and ‘80, we were warned about the damage to the ozone hole. We changed our actions. Those changes are having a measurable effect now. Lessons? 1) Human actions DO cause changes on a global scale. 2) You can get a lot accomplished when there isn’t a large industry spreading misinformation. (Read here )
Before arguing AGAINST something, it might be nice to know what the something is. You can read the original AR4 Synthsis report at here. Doing so would seem to be logical, unless data don’t matter and one’s mind already is fixed.
Some handy FAQs are here
This led to numerous replies, which were not forwarded by the list owner (this list is a notification list, not a mailing list).
My response was is the first response on this post. Please feel free to comment.
Anonymouse wrote:
There is no comparison with plate tectonics skepticism and AGW skepticism. See CO2 Science dot Com for a very large number of peer reviewed journal articles (there is no such thing as a peer reveiwed research project), if \peer reviewed\ toots your whistle.
If you would like to read some very fine reasoning on the subject, see Climate Skeptic blog. I know the authors of these sites and they most assuredly are not cranks.
This is not true.
If you are going to bring up pathological science, then you had better look closely at the global warming hypothesis. Although you may not realize this, almost all of the alarming warming is based on computer model assumptions of positive feedback in the system. The \greenhouse effect,\ which is accepted by all reputable skeptics and proponents, will not produce significant warming – about 1 degree C per DOUBLIING of CO2 (in other words the effect is logarithmic due to well understood negative feedback).
All of the rest is based on models which can not accurately simulate physical processes. The models are grossly under-sampled in both spatial and temporal dimensions. The cannot even resolve a tall mountain range or a super-cell thunderstorm. All of those processes are modeled using what is called paramaterization. Parameterization is the use of estimates, in equations, heuristics or other forms, to deal with very mportant sub-grid scale processes in determining the future state of an entire grid volume for a given process.
Because of this poor resolution, using these models is like using a spreadsheet for your finances which rounds everything at the $1000 level, and then applies guesses (parameterizations) based on the category of spending to better estimate the actual amounts.
The models are especially bad at predicting cloud droplet size sensitivity to CO2 concentrations, yet this is one of the most significant factors in determining the albedo of the earth.
This is the old \energy companies finance skeptic research\ canard. It is another form of ad hominem attack, and disregards two things:
The method of science in theory (and the author appears to like the theory) is independent of funding (in reality it is not… see point #2). However, only a small percentage of scientists will provide false results as a result of their funding source. Much stronger is the effect of selectively reporting.
Global warming alarmism has become a huge industry, which itself generates serious agency problems (incentive distortions). For example, approx 1500 scientific articles have been published relating surfing and climate change. See http://www.tinyvital.com/blog/2009/03/15/climate-change-gold-mine-for-all-kinds-of-scientists/ for an example of how the global warming industry is radically distorting science.
Furthermore, because global warming has such strong support from the left, and from the environmentalists, and they have so much influence on the government, and the scientific community it is difficult for a skeptic to even get funding for a project. I personally know several PhD climatologists who avoid the subject and do research in other areas because they know that their research in climate change would lead to career damage and lost of funding. I
Yes, imagine that. Please tell me which AGW models have been tested(or more accurately, survived good attempts at falsification – the real test in science).
Do you know how GCM’s used for weather or climate sensitivity modeling actually work?
Lets try a different analogy: Someone wants you to invest a large amount of money in his ideas. He has all sorts of untested computer models supporting him. There are various peer reviewed articles which suggest the possibility that he is right. However, the only actual testing of his ideas have been either equivocal, or clearly wrong. THAT is the state of global warming research. It also accurately describes cold fusion for several years.
For clearly wrong, check the models vs the actual climate record since 1998 (the \warmest\ year in modern history, if one ignores the medieval climate optimum).
First of all, only non-scientists worship the peer review process. Peer review is not conservative – it is a herd phenomenon. Once a theory gets enough popularity (not a scientific measure), research against that theory often fails peer review. More often, is is simply not accepted. Peer review is an important process, but by itself produces plenty of pathological science.
You brought up plate tectonics. How long did it take before positive articles appeared in peer review journals on this very correct theory? The same is true of the Helicobacter Pylori genesis of most stomach ulcers.
Global warming science is mostly rigorous. However, that part of the science does not lead to alarming predictions. In fact, what it leads to are large numbers of detailed studies, none of which and the sum of which do not come close to \proving\ the hypothesis.
Global warming advocacy is far from rigorous. It takes the most extreme extrapolations and feeds them to the public. Some scientists are guilty of this. Some leading AGW scientists refused for years to release data, and when forced to, their peer reviewed research was found to be wrong (GISS temperature time series, the Mann hockey-stick). Are you aware that the much publicized IPCC reports are really summaries, written by government representatives, not scientists? The real reports, with large numbers of discussions of uncertainty in results, are rarely seen. Furthermore, many scientists who are claimed as supporters of IPCC summary conclusions and recommendations are actually strong critics.
Also one should examine the phenomenon of very senior scientists popping up and attacking the AGW hypothesis and its proponents. Notice the word \senior\ – these are scientists who do not have to fear for their careers, because they are either too well established, or more often, retired. For example, the \father of Climatology,\ now retired, had strongly condemned the climate change advocates.
Steve Milloy is a skeptic, but not a scientist. He is also not representative of the SCIENTIFIC skeptical community. In other words, bringing him up in this debate is just a strawman part of the ad hominem tactic.
Here’s a quiz for you: when Enron was in business, what kind of global warming results did they favor?
Here’s a few links for those curious about some scientific details. I am using primarily climate-skeptic.com because he does such a good job of clearly presenting the issues, with plenty of real data.
I would also suggest that people read \The Skeptical Environmentalist\ and books by our local (former state climatologist) Dr. Robert Balling for some good scientific looks at the AGW hypothesis from the skeptic’s viewpoint.
Feedback in climate
Models vs observed
Hockey Stick statistical problems
The missing global warming signature
Massaging data to get what you want
The data behind many peer reviewed papers is wrong
Dr Hansen (main AGW proponent) blows it big time
Ignoring data that doesn’t fit the narrative
Hypocrisy on politics free science
This response by Anonymous and the comment by John Moore exemplify typical AGW / Skeptic discussions. The AGW Believer strings together nebulous beliefs, model results, predictions, accusations and insults to the Skeptic’s intelligence, but presents few facts. The Skeptic answers with facts specific to each point.