Climate Change - the big debate (Part 3)
Discussion
This is the continuation of Climate Change - the big debate (Part 2)
Sorry for the inconvenience in having to pull quotes across from the other thread.
Thanks.
Edited To Add:
MOD NOTE
Good people,
Firstly some background;
There is only one PH Moderator who comes anywhere near these climate threads. There's a reason why that person is me.
About the time the first debate thread was closed and then finally restarted by kinky, it was clear that the mods could not follow the pace of posting. Hence there was a real risk that, for a mod not following the debate and the contributors closely their only option was to simple close the thread.
I felt this was unacceptable. It was grossly unfair to the genuine debaters and posters who spend an inordinate amount of their time contributing to these threads. So I volunteered to moderate.
My motives were simple:
In my mind the quality of discussion on these threads here at PH is genuinely of such quality (and I don't mean right or wrong in terms of the topic), that it would be a massive shame to lose this arena. (Remember there are a lot of 'lurkers' who come here to read opinions without contribution - a great loss to them I felt).
I began with a single mission statement in my mind. "Minimum intervention, keep the threads open, and keep the bans to an absolute minimum" (Yeah I do know that's three).
... and what a thankless and frankly incredibly difficult task it can be at times.
I will now remind ALL posters on these threads that when they joined PH they agreed to a set of posting rules. There is a link at the bottom of every thread.
Rule 2 states
Post any material likely to provoke, annoy, upset, embarrass or alarm any other person.
Rule 3 states
Deliberately provoke arguments or continue arguments that have calmed down, or have had the thread closed.
I would encourage all posters to take a quick review of the rules, and then ask themselves if they are honestly contributing to this thread in a manner and with the decorum befitting the topic and in line with the posting rules.
Banning posters, closing threads etc, is not my style, but unless you all manage to police yourselves a little better you will find that moderator intervention will increase, in intensity and action. (My motives already explained - I refuse to see these threads closed because a few people insist on trying to tear strips out of each other and return to the inevitable attrition looping).
Before clicking the submit button, I would encourage every poster to think, 'Is this post really contributing to the spirit of discussion and debate worthy to the topic?' and also 'Do I really need to respond to that previous comment'.
I sincerely hope you are all in agreement with this stance.
Thank you.
Sorry for the inconvenience in having to pull quotes across from the other thread.
Thanks.
Edited To Add:
MOD NOTE
Good people,
Firstly some background;
There is only one PH Moderator who comes anywhere near these climate threads. There's a reason why that person is me.
About the time the first debate thread was closed and then finally restarted by kinky, it was clear that the mods could not follow the pace of posting. Hence there was a real risk that, for a mod not following the debate and the contributors closely their only option was to simple close the thread.
I felt this was unacceptable. It was grossly unfair to the genuine debaters and posters who spend an inordinate amount of their time contributing to these threads. So I volunteered to moderate.
My motives were simple:
In my mind the quality of discussion on these threads here at PH is genuinely of such quality (and I don't mean right or wrong in terms of the topic), that it would be a massive shame to lose this arena. (Remember there are a lot of 'lurkers' who come here to read opinions without contribution - a great loss to them I felt).
I began with a single mission statement in my mind. "Minimum intervention, keep the threads open, and keep the bans to an absolute minimum" (Yeah I do know that's three).
... and what a thankless and frankly incredibly difficult task it can be at times.
I will now remind ALL posters on these threads that when they joined PH they agreed to a set of posting rules. There is a link at the bottom of every thread.
Rule 2 states
Post any material likely to provoke, annoy, upset, embarrass or alarm any other person.
Rule 3 states
Deliberately provoke arguments or continue arguments that have calmed down, or have had the thread closed.
I would encourage all posters to take a quick review of the rules, and then ask themselves if they are honestly contributing to this thread in a manner and with the decorum befitting the topic and in line with the posting rules.
Banning posters, closing threads etc, is not my style, but unless you all manage to police yourselves a little better you will find that moderator intervention will increase, in intensity and action. (My motives already explained - I refuse to see these threads closed because a few people insist on trying to tear strips out of each other and return to the inevitable attrition looping).
Before clicking the submit button, I would encourage every poster to think, 'Is this post really contributing to the spirit of discussion and debate worthy to the topic?' and also 'Do I really need to respond to that previous comment'.
I sincerely hope you are all in agreement with this stance.
Thank you.
Edited by The Excession on Tuesday 15th February 15:05
Great - let's open with those question which were dodged in the last thread:
Dean Morrison said:
Can anyone point me to a credible source of information on the science behind 'climate scepticism'?
Who are the scientists working in this field and where?
Is there anyone in Britain working in this field?
Is there anyone publishing any scientific papers?
Where do these scientists get their data? Do they have any satellite programmes? Are they drilling ice cores in Antarctica, or from marine sediments?
Where are there labs, and where do they share their data and code?
How are the 'top ten' climate sceptics that are scientists active in research, as opposed to commentators?
Five will do if ten is too much to ask for.
As you can see I'm a bit sceptical about whether any such 'sceptic scientists' actually exist.
Dean Morrison said:
Can anyone point me to a credible source of information on the science behind 'climate scepticism'?
Who are the scientists working in this field and where?
Is there anyone in Britain working in this field?
Is there anyone publishing any scientific papers?
Where do these scientists get their data? Do they have any satellite programmes? Are they drilling ice cores in Antarctica, or from marine sediments?
Where are there labs, and where do they share their data and code?
How are the 'top ten' climate sceptics that are scientists active in research, as opposed to commentators?
Five will do if ten is too much to ask for.
As you can see I'm a bit sceptical about whether any such 'sceptic scientists' actually exist.
I note that even climate 'sceptics' are now deserting Lord Monckton as a credible candidate as the pre-emininent British 'Sceptic Scientist':
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/02/lord-monck...
It would seem that his eyes are just a bit too swivelly for some people, whilst others think he's gone soft by accepting the laws of physics.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/02/lord-monck...
It would seem that his eyes are just a bit too swivelly for some people, whilst others think he's gone soft by accepting the laws of physics.
The Carbon Brief said:
Prominent climate sceptic and hereditary peer Viscount Christopher Monckton has been attacked by fellow climate sceptics who claim his "faux scientific certainty" and "over-inflated ego" make him an 'easy target' for debunking.
But while some sceptic commentators are criticising the UKIP deputy leader for his over-the-top arguments, another group believe Monckton is vulnerable to ridicule because he accepts basic physics.
As far as I can see that leaves you sceptic guys without any credible British 'scientist' to champion your cause. Since no-one seems to be prepared to defend Piers Corbyn, who do you have left?But while some sceptic commentators are criticising the UKIP deputy leader for his over-the-top arguments, another group believe Monckton is vulnerable to ridicule because he accepts basic physics.
Guam said:
Sorry E I think that was a retrograde move and just serves the trolls, I for one cant go through the reposting of all that stuff again on a third thread and directing people to two previous ones I am going to pass on this thread!
Cheers
That's a convenient excuse to duck a tricky question. Cheers
Dean, how are you defining skeptic? What level of doubt is ideologically acceptable. I don't think a single climate scientist would say 100% that man-made co2 is the predominant driver of climate change. Is using words like "may" and "possibly" expressing too much doubt? What about "almost certainly" does that get the scientist into the AGW camp or not? What about using terms like "we do not know" or "the data are inconclusive" does that banish the climate scientist to the hinter-land of climate denier? I'm interested in how your combative "us and them" mentality effects your ability to objectively approach contentious issues?
The real Apache said:
Agreed, as can be seen by Deano's post (which was addressed in part 2) It's still there if he wants to look
Nope - can't see it - care to provide a link? Wouldn't it just be easier to name these supposed 'sceptic scientists' rather than pretend their names are buried amongst a pile of posts somewhere?
Some people just don't understand the basic concept of proof.
I don't care who the 'names' are
I don't care who the 'interests' are
I don't care about hypotheses
I do care about seing irrefutable scientific proof. If irrefutable proof is forthcoming I don't care whether the author is a swivel-eyed wierdo or a Prof Emeritus.
I don't care who the 'names' are
I don't care who the 'interests' are
I don't care about hypotheses
I do care about seing irrefutable scientific proof. If irrefutable proof is forthcoming I don't care whether the author is a swivel-eyed wierdo or a Prof Emeritus.
Guam said:
Sorry E I think that was a retrograde move and just serves the trolls, I for one cant go through the reposting of all that stuff again on a third thread and directing people to two previous ones I am going to pass on this thread!
Cheers
I don't see how parts 1&2 are any less reference-able.Cheers
Towel not accepted - get your arse back in the ring
Dean Morrison said:
Can anyone point me to a credible source of information on the science behind 'climate scepticism'?
Who are the scientists working in this field and where?
Here's 700ish to get you started...Who are the scientists working in this field and where?
Report said:
The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers...
ETA an updated list - up to over 1000 now...Edited by nelly1 on Monday 14th February 13:03
Dean you are 'tarded. (don't be offended, it's a favourite in-house insult here!)
Nobody is going to name a favourite sceptic scientist.
Good scientists have no beliefs, they just do the work.
Just because nobody is nominating a sceptic posterboy doesn't mean that very qualified people aren't doing work in the field of climate research that does not strengthen the case for man made global warming/climate change or whatever they're calling it now. This doesn't make them sceptic or a believer, just a scientist doing work.
Repeated calls ad nauseum asking for some representative is a waste of our time and yours, so please desist.
If you have something to actually contribute to the debate then by all means fire away, but asking for a plea to authority will always fall upon deaf ears as that is the very antithesis of science, which you should know coming from a "bad science" forum but then Goldacre himself doesn't apply the same rigour to the science behind mmgw as he espouses in his book.
BTW when I say contribute I mean discuss, not shout something and run away, (like I am doing here, I cannot contribute anything that other posters can't do more effectively, I can however comment on the quality of the debate which I am doing here) which means calm rational discussion of the points you raise, this isn't about point scoring, it is about honest debate. Were you to raise a geniuine point, it would be discussed with you however your current pleas for nomination of a posterboy or representative so you can attack their credential is pointless because even if we did, to attack a scientist on their beliefs or qualification rather than what they are saying is another antithesis of science, the ad hom, a favourite of the predecessor to this thread!
Everyone else, can we please stop pointlessly attacking KP, he is the only resident who will try to have a discussion sometimes! I know he has said contentious and insulting things in the past but that is the past. Leave him alone until he makes another mistake, which I expect he will as it is quite an emotive subject when you think of the drowning bunnies and kids blowing up! Seriously though, can we leave the pointless back biting out for a while?
Same goes for FF, he's made mistakes but has apologised for them, we have also changed his mind slightly which is a triumph as he believed the science was entirely settled before, now he has a tiny amount of doubt which is good.
Otherwise, I'd just like to say thank you to the posters here who are conspiring to make one of the most interesting threads in the internet!
Nobody is going to name a favourite sceptic scientist.
Good scientists have no beliefs, they just do the work.
Just because nobody is nominating a sceptic posterboy doesn't mean that very qualified people aren't doing work in the field of climate research that does not strengthen the case for man made global warming/climate change or whatever they're calling it now. This doesn't make them sceptic or a believer, just a scientist doing work.
Repeated calls ad nauseum asking for some representative is a waste of our time and yours, so please desist.
If you have something to actually contribute to the debate then by all means fire away, but asking for a plea to authority will always fall upon deaf ears as that is the very antithesis of science, which you should know coming from a "bad science" forum but then Goldacre himself doesn't apply the same rigour to the science behind mmgw as he espouses in his book.
BTW when I say contribute I mean discuss, not shout something and run away, (like I am doing here, I cannot contribute anything that other posters can't do more effectively, I can however comment on the quality of the debate which I am doing here) which means calm rational discussion of the points you raise, this isn't about point scoring, it is about honest debate. Were you to raise a geniuine point, it would be discussed with you however your current pleas for nomination of a posterboy or representative so you can attack their credential is pointless because even if we did, to attack a scientist on their beliefs or qualification rather than what they are saying is another antithesis of science, the ad hom, a favourite of the predecessor to this thread!
Everyone else, can we please stop pointlessly attacking KP, he is the only resident who will try to have a discussion sometimes! I know he has said contentious and insulting things in the past but that is the past. Leave him alone until he makes another mistake, which I expect he will as it is quite an emotive subject when you think of the drowning bunnies and kids blowing up! Seriously though, can we leave the pointless back biting out for a while?
Same goes for FF, he's made mistakes but has apologised for them, we have also changed his mind slightly which is a triumph as he believed the science was entirely settled before, now he has a tiny amount of doubt which is good.
Otherwise, I'd just like to say thank you to the posters here who are conspiring to make one of the most interesting threads in the internet!
MilnerR said:
Dean, how are you defining skeptic?
A sceptic is someone who is sceptical of all claims. Whilst so called 'climate sceptics' are very sceptical of what the sceintific community tells them, it seems to have something of a blind spot when it comes to examining the claims of cranks like Lord Monckton and Piers Corbyn. Whist it finds it easy to believe there is a global international conspiracy of scientists and politicians from the USA, Russia, China, India, the UK and Brazil; it seems to find it incredible that Oil Companies that sponsor right-wing think tanks could be acting out of self-interest. Although scientists supposedly have a 'conflict of interest' because they are paid to do science - the fact that Piers Corby makes his living from secret astrological weather forecasts, Monckton from his speaking circuit, and others from direct Oil company sponsorship does not seem to attract any interest, or 'scepticism'.MilnerR said:
What level of doubt is ideologically acceptable.
Doubt everything.Doubt everything.
However don't be so open minded that your brains fall out.
MilnerR said:
I don't think a single climate scientist would say 100% that man-made co2 is the predominant driver of climate change.
Of course there are many factors which influence climate change, such as orbital cycles and volcanic eruptions. CO2 is a very important one, but not the only one.However in terms of the current rapid climate change we are experiencing now, CO2 has been identified as the predominant driver of that change - other background changes such as orbital wobbles and solar irradiation are simply not sufficient to account for the changes alone, and in fact ought to be leading to cooling if anything.
MilnerR said:
Is using words like "may" and "possibly" expressing too much doubt?
Words which scientists use al the time of course. They also go further and quantify doubt in terms of statistical signifcance - which is why for example we can say with at least 95% statistical certainty that there has been global warming over the last twenty years. There's a one in twenty chance that the warming is just a random event, but a 19 in 20 change that it's not.I don't see any words of doubt expressed about claims of a global conspiracy between scientists and politicians to defraud the public. I don't see words like 'may' or 'possibly' being used very often by people making such claims.
MilnerR said:
What about "almost certainly" does that get the scientist into the AGW camp or not? What about using terms like "we do not know" or "the data are inconclusive" does that banish the climate scientist to the hinter-land of climate denier?
If you read the IPCC reports you'll find they quantify the degree of certainty they attach to different aspects of climate change. For example they'll say that on the basis of independent measurements of CO2 around the world that it's almost certain that global CO2 levels have risen. In reality not even the most ardent 'sceptic' denies that, although I wouldn't exclude the possibility altogether. Other things are expressed in terms of the amount of certainty that the evidence provided by thousands of scientists around the world permits. The fact that the globe is warming and the fact that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere are the result of human emissions are 'almost certain' - and in practice beyond any reasonable doubt. There's a high degree of certainty that global warming is because of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Things that are less certain are things like the amount of global warming in coming decades, the amount of sea level rise, and the impacts on humanity. The uncertainty about such things is compounded by our inability to know whether we'll take effective action to combat global warming. However there's a high degree of certainty that if we do nothing then things will get worse.However there are vested interests who wish to exploit such uncertainty in their own interests. Like the tobacco industry before them, they are exploiting the impression of 'uncertainty' in science to pretend that scientists are simply clueless, and they know as little about climate as did scientists who claimed that cigarettes cause cancer. Rather astonishingly they they employ the very same people that the tobacco companies used to deny the cigarette/cancer link to advance their cause.
If you're going to be sceptical, I'd suggest you are sceptical about prominent 'climate sceptic' Fred Singer - who made his living for many years as a spokesman for the tobacco industry.
MilnerR said:
I'm interested in how your combative "us and them" mentality effects your ability to objectively approach contentious issues?
That's funny, given the attitude of most of the posters here. So let me turn the question back on you. Why are you so confident about the claims of 'sceptic scientists' - especially 'sceptic scientists' no-one is prepared to name.
I have work to do now - but I'll come back if someone is prepared to answer my original question. Who are these 'Sceptic Scientists' and why is it seemingly impossible to name any British ones???
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff