Climate change consensus

[Paprika]

Read it again. "Interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed" is met by basic chemistry and geology. If you can do oxidation/reduction (taught in high school), you've covered interactions and behaviors.

Nonsense. You may learn basic oxidation and reduction of certain substances in high school, but that does not imply that you've "covered" or are "trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed".

Nothing in there specifies fluid dynamics

"Fundamental physical...properties of gases, liquids"

[JonF]

No, the petition is not off the table. Whether or not the signers meet your personal approval is irrelevant.

No raging here. I evaluated the qualifications of the signers and presented my evaluation and the reasons for it. Twice. You have not responded. Try actually responding.

Same with other sources I've presented. Instead of raging with genetic fallacies, you might try actually responding.

You have not presented any evidence. Just unsupported assertions. Try actually responding.

And while Forbes is solid in some areas, it's known to bu untrustworthy in science. And Breitbart is untrustworthy in everything. Still if you or they actually presented some, you know, evidence for their claims I'd be glad to discuss it.

Try actually responding.

And, no, the "adjustments" are not localized to the US.

Never claimed they were. I just pointed out that U.S. temperatures are not relevant to an evaluation of global warming. Try actually responding.

As the articles I posted explained, similar "adjustments" have been made by " climatologists " in other countries. It doesn't many of these sharp upward "adjustments" to skew the global average.

The sites you posted made a lot of claims with no evidence. I asked you to provide evidence of adjustments that are not objectively justified. You have not provided any examples or evidence for your claims. Try actually responding.

What happened to my evaluation of your claim that temperatures have been steadily rising since 1800? Oh, you didn't respond. Try actually responding.

Guess linking to woo is your entire repertoire. Too bad.

Carry on regurgitating, I'm done

[JonF]

Well, he did quote Breitbart and Forbes and I pooh-poohed them. For good reason; they are known to be inaccurate sources of scientific information or in Breitbart's case any information at all. That could be taken to be a genetic fallacy.

But the real problem is that his quotes, and indeed all his posts, are just unsupported assertions. If there were some evidence discussion might be worthwhile. As it is there's nothing to discuss.

[Juvenal]

lao, It doesn't sound like you get the point of MMs argument. And this line here, "I can understand that adherents may not wish to hear them. It's a religious thing. People do that for their religion." is all kinds of jacked up. The adherents of Christianity are not ignoring the dead of Pompeii, and to assert that this is something religious people typically do is just all kinds of...wrong.

I get the argument just fine: These guys are no more quiet than these other guys we'd naturally expect to shout louder.

Except we shouldn't, because it's built on the documentary silence of tens of thousands of folks who died in the eruption of Vesuvius. That's ignoring the mountain, and in doing so, ignoring who these other guys are: the dead of Pompeii. It's difficult to agree this isn't typical with someone who's doing just that, but I do agree it isn't typical.

Imagine if the crucifixion of Jesus wiped out Jerusalem. How many gospels would you have now? The silence of contemporary witnesses to the crucifixion is what it is, and as such, can be explained. Things do happen for a reason. Tossing ten thousand thumbs of dead Romans on the scale isn't just wrong, it's sloppy. As sloppy as tossing ten thousand veterinarians on the scale when you're judging the consensus in climate science.

Don't mistake my point, either. I don't judge Christians by their apologists, and I don't judge Christian apologetics by its worst arguments, or even the ones used most often, but there's no denying there are some humdingeresque offspring of apologetics that only a mother would love. Brown's hydroplate theory, anyone? When AiG feels the need to list arguments they think should not be used, it's because they are being used, often enough to catch AiG's notice.

Better for Christians if they get there first, they're thinking.

The real point here is that these arguments are not merely unnecessary, but counter-productive, especially when they take a stroll outside of apologetics, wandering into science with "Christian" in their postbit.

Christians denying the consensus on AGW, and more, denying that there is a consensus, turn the lock against their best fellow adherents. That's a foot they keep on shooting. I see plenty of Christian evolutionists, Christian geologists, and even Christian climate scientists Christians could rally around if they wanted to evangelize successfully, or at least avoid embarrassment. Instead, their best are treated like pariahs in their own nation.

If academia is becoming more secular, there's a reason for that, too.

I know you're not following climate science, but like evolution, you don't have to in order to understand the basic arguments for AGW.

GW is based on:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
CO2 concentrations are increasing.

And other arguments, but those are sufficient.

AGW is based on:

13C/12C ratios in CO2 are lower when they come from fossil fuels.
13C/12C ratios in CO2 are decreasing.

And other arguments, but those are sufficient, too. Sylas understandably prefers the fact we know how many tons of CO2 were released into the atmosphere in the wake of the industrial evolution. A better argument, I'll agree, but mine's cleaner.

Unlike veterinarians, climate scientists can be counted on to know this, and while important details require further research, there is extremely broad consensus on the basic facts above, leading to an extremely broad consensus within climate science that GW is occuring, and that GW is principally AGW. While we're stuck here counting the noses of climate scientists, they're counting 13C/12C in CO2, and then moving on to count other things.

I'm betting they'll get further along that way.

[Adrift]

I get the argument just fine: These guys are no more quiet than these other guys we'd naturally expect to shout louder.

Except we shouldn't, because it's built on the documentary silence of tens of thousands of folks who died in the eruption of Vesuvius. That's ignoring the mountain, and in doing so, ignoring who these other guys are: the dead of Pompeii. It's difficult to agree this isn't typical with someone who's doing just that, but I do agree it isn't typical.

So, your saying that the only people we should have expected to write about the destruction of Pompeii were people from Pompeii? Pompeii was no minor city. Its destruction certainly effected far more lives than just those under Vesuvius' shadow. Others must have written about it destruction.

Imagine if the crucifixion of Jesus wiped out Jerusalem. How many gospels would you have now?

I have no idea, but news of the destruction of a city like Jerusalem out of seemingly nowhere would certainly have been written about, and I imagine quite extensively at that.

The silence of contemporary witnesses to the crucifixion is what it is, and as such, can be explained. Things do happen for a reason. Tossing ten thousand thumbs of dead Romans on the scale isn't just wrong, it's sloppy. As sloppy as tossing ten thousand veterinarians on the scale when you're judging the consensus in climate science.

I think the only thing that's sloppy here is this notion that primarily those who died in Pompeii would have been expected to write about its destruction. It also seems to me that you've been stretching the goalpost a bit. Your main contention with MM's argument initially seemed to be that the archaeological evidence trumps whatever written documentation we have for the event, but that of course misses the point of MM's argument entirely. MM wasn't arguing that there is no good evidence for Pompeii's destruction, but that its notable that there is such a paucity of a certain type of evidence (namely written documentation) for an event that would have certainly affected major regions of the ancient Roman empire, and would have been widely reported. Then you made the curious claim that we (and by "we", I think you mean historians) should only find documentary evidence trustworthy if there is physical evidence to support it. Then you implied that religious adherents routinely ignore things like archaeological evidence, because that's the religious thing to do.

Christians denying the consensus on AGW, and more, denying that there is a consensus, turn the lock against their best fellow adherents. That's a foot they keep on shooting. I see plenty of Christian evolutionists, Christian geologists, and even Christian climate scientists Christians could rally around if they wanted to evangelize successfully, or at least avoid embarrassment. Instead, their best are treated like pariahs in their own nation.

AGW deniers are not comprised solely of Christians. They may not even be primarily Christian. The global warming debate is NOT a religious debate. Its a political debate (a stupid one at that, in my opinion), and the implication that people on the wrong side of the political spectrum are by default Christian is nonsense. There are plenty of Christians on your side of the spectrum, and there are plenty of non-Christian, non-religious people on the other side as well.

If academia is becoming more secular, there's a reason for that, too.

I know you're not following climate science, but like evolution, you don't have to in order to understand the basic arguments for AGW.

GW is based on:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
CO2 concentrations are increasing.

And other arguments, but those are sufficient.

AGW is based on:

13C/12C ratios in CO2 are lower when they come from fossil fuels.
13C/12C ratios in CO2 are decreasing.

And other arguments, but those are sufficient, too. Sylas understandably prefers the fact we know how many tons of CO2 were released into the atmosphere in the wake of the industrial evolution. A better argument, I'll agree, but mine's cleaner.

Unlike veterinarians, climate scientists can be counted on to know this, and while important details require further research, there is extremely broad consensus on the basic facts above, leading to an extremely broad consensus within climate science that GW is occuring, and that GW is principally AGW. While we're stuck here counting the noses of climate scientists, they're counting 13C/12C in CO2, and then moving on to count other things.

I'm betting they'll get further along that way.

If the evidence points towards AGW then I have no problem with that. I need no convincing on that subject.

[Roy]

When AiG feels the need to list arguments they think should not be used, it's because they are being used, often enough to catch AiG's notice.

Better for Christians if they get there first, they're thinking.

The arguments on AiG's list are no worse than many of the arguments they continue to use. The reason for listing them is not because they're rotten, but because either (i) they're widely known to be rotten, and anyone using them is likely to get trounced; or (ii) they're used by AiG's competitors, whom AiG want to usurp. I note they've changed the list since Hovind's incarceration, and many of the arguments Hovind used are no longer unrecommended. Some classics such as the moon-dust calculation have been removed also - are they now good arguments? Or is it simply that they're less circulated than they were twenty years ago?

Roy

[shunyadragon]

So, your saying that the only people we should have expected to write about the destruction of Pompeii were people from Pompeii? Pompeii was no minor city. Its destruction certainly effected far more lives than just those under Vesuvius' shadow. Others must have written about it destruction.

I am sure they likely did. We have one surviving clear accurate testimony and description of the event.

[Truthseeker]

I think most climate scientists are politically biased. Governments (e.g., the UK one) foot the bill for climate-change research, including the question of the role of man's activities in the evolution of climate. The scientists try to avoid displeasing the governments to the extent that they get much less money.

Didn't people complain that their papers were rejected for publication apparently because the papers bucked the consensus?

[phank]

I think most climate scientists are politically biased. Governments (e.g., the UK one) foot the bill for climate-change research, including the question of the role of man's activities in the evolution of climate. The scientists try to avoid displeasing the governments to the extent that they get much less money.

Didn't people complain that their papers were rejected for publication apparently because the papers bucked the consensus?

But your conspiracy theory must also explain how it is that all of these studies are published, with full methodology and detail, get peer reviewed, and get replicated. To put it another way, let's say you are wrong and all of these researchers are as objective as humanly possible. How could they convince you of this? Clearly, not by publishing data and methods. What else?

[Juvenal]

So, your saying that the only people we should have expected to write about the destruction of Pompeii were people from Pompeii? Pompeii was no minor city. Its destruction certainly effected far more lives than just those under Vesuvius' shadow. Others must have written about it destruction.

No doubt others did, but they weren't eyewitnesses, and their stories didn't survive, lacking the conservation efforts of a nascent religious movement that had just lost its center of mass. And to the contrary, Pompeii was a minor city, even judging by the standards of the time. It was a resort town of about 20,000. For comparison, according to Tacitus, first century Jerusalem had a population around 600,000 at the time of its destruction. Josephus put its population over a million.

These exaggerations of Pompeii's importance and the silence of its witnesses are telling. As they're necessary for the apologetic to succeed, they're repeated without question. Which would not be a problem if they checked out. They don't.

I have no idea, but news of the destruction of a city like Jerusalem out of seemingly nowhere would certainly have been written about, and I imagine quite extensively at that.

No idea how many gospels we'd have if all of the apostles were in Jerusalem when it was destroyed, if it was destroyed at the time of the crucifixion?

Please.

And in fact, Jerusalem was destroyed a few decades later, and not suddenly either. How many accounts of its destruction do we have? There's Josephus of course. Anyone else? I don't think so, and in any case, in no sense was it written about extensively.

I think the only thing that's sloppy here is your notion that only those who died in Pompeii would have written about its destruction.

"Only" is sloppy, in both instances here. For the latter, because an accurate representation runs between "mostly" and "nearly all", which neatly explains why the only account we have is from Pliny the Younger, who lived with his uncle in the city across the bay, witnessing its destruction from there.

I'll tell you what's not sloppy, though. Pompeii was chosen for this apologetic, I'm quite sure, exactly because it was a minor city and nearly all of the witnesses were caught up in its destruction. Where better to look for documentary silence? Pump up its importance a bit, push it in front of an uncritical audience, and wrap a bow around it.

It also seems to me that you've been moving the goal post a bit. Your main contention with MM's argument initially seemed to be that the archaeological evidence trumps whatever written documentation we have for the event, but that of course misses the point of MM's argument entirely. MM wasn't arguing that there is no good evidence for Pompeii's destruction, but that its surprising that there is such a paucity of a certain type of evidence (namely written documentation) for an event that would have certainly affected major regions of the ancient Roman empire. Then you made the curious claim that we (and by "we", I think you mean historians) should only trust documentary evidence if there is physical evidence to support it. Then you implied that religious adherents routinely ignore things like archaeological evidence, because that's the religious thing to do so.

My main contention with MM's argument was that it ignored the mountain. That's quickly said, and while I can, and in deference to you, have, spent time spearing the fish floating belly up, this is a distraction from a more relevant expansion on how historicity is actually judged. It's not by documentary evidence. We know comparatively little about the destruction of Pompeii from Pliny's letter, which reads, principally, as a hagiography of his reportedly courageous, if constitutionally challenged, uncle. We know a great deal from the archaeology, none of which supports the fearlessness of Pliny the Elder.

I could create a checklist of events supported solely by documentary evidence that are today considered legendary at best, from the destruction of Atlantis to the exploits of King Arthur. I could similarly go down a checklist of archaeological evidence routinely ignored by religious adherents, starting with the size of David and Solomon's imperial capital, or earlier, to the supposed conquest of Canaan, and running through the absence of Nephites in the archaeological record of the Americas.

I think you'll find that there are number of Christians (and Jews, and Muslims, and Hindus, and maybe even a few theistic Taoists) who have made some amazing inroads into their respective fields in the sciences.

*sigh*

I see plenty of Christian evolutionists, Christian geologists, and even Christian climate scientists Christians could rally around if they wanted to evangelize successfully, or at least avoid embarrassment.

Been there. In better style.

AGW deniers are not composed solely of Christians. They may not even be primarily Christian. The global warming debate is NOT a Christian debate. Its a political debate (a stupid one at that, in my opinion), and your implication that people on the wrong side of the political spectrum are by default Christian is nonsense. There are plenty of Christians on your side of the spectrum, and there are plenty of non-Christian, non-religious people on the other side as well.

I try to substitute naysayers nowadays because of the unfortunate confluence of terms with Holocaust deniers, which serves to poison the debate, albeit unintentionally.

But in fact, the US leads the world in AGW naysayers, who are primarily drawn from today's Republican party, which is disproportionately composed of Christian evangelicals, who are similarly ill-disposed toward toward otherwise uncontroversial scientific theory from the age of the earth through biological evolution.

While I'd agree that theoretically, it should not be a Christian debate, in practice, it is, as here we have a population primed to reject scientific findings, specifically because they run contrary to their religious beliefs. It's a thin thread connecting their beliefs to denial of AGW, but the body of evidence that could snap it has been gutted.

If the evidence points towards AGW then I have no problem with that. I need no convincing on that subject.

Unsurprisingly, neither do I. Yet here we have a thread where these conclusions are being challenged.

[pancreasman]

1610866_844133215649864_2204096236401121794_n.jpg

[jordanriver]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3665[/ATTACH]

yeah well, so can scientists, but it takes a few years to make science texts obsolete

[pancreasman]

yeah well, so can scientists, but it takes a few years to make science texts obsolete

Whereas stupidity is forever.

[sylas]

While I'd agree that theoretically, it should not be a Christian debate, in practice, it is, as here we have a population primed to reject scientific findings, specifically because they run contrary to their religious beliefs. It's a thin thread connecting their beliefs to denial of AGW, but the body of evidence that could snap it has been gutted.

Actually I think the evidence is in that AGW denial isn't religious, but economic and political. Specifically, the problem with AGW is that it can't be addressed without regulating industry in some way -- and many people are adamantly opposed to any form of regulation (or interference) in free markets. The solution has been to deny the problem; or specifically, to support and fund an active campaign to undermine the science which could potentially be used as an argument for regulation.

The classic book on this is "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway; and there's a lot more looking into the phenomenon.

I grant that there is a strong correlation between religious belief and the kind of laisse faire free market economic perspective I'm speaking of; but it's not as far as I can see, a causal link; and that strong linkage seems to be mostly a US phenomenon. Christians are on all sides of politics and economic theory; many Christians are passionate about stewardship and supportive of all kinds of strong regulation of industry in many diverse causes.

Interestingly, for example, John Cook, who is the major author of papers investigating and quantifying the scientific consensus on climate science, is an active and passionate Christian, living here in Australia. (I've met him; we both used to live in Brisbane. Thoroughly nice and gentle guy; not that this should make any difference to evaluating his work.)

On the "consensus":

The claim that his work (and the 97% consensus) has been "debunked" is just silly. The alleged "debunkings" are really low grade stuff and perfectly in line with the flood of second rate "grey literature" that "debunk" all kinds of aspects of climate science that are not in any rational doubt at all. The massive disconnect between the character of climate debate within science, and in the general public, is really obvious to anyone actually reading the scientific literature. More literate naysayers will admit that AGW is accepted by all but a handful of scientists actually working and publishing in climate science, the quantification of this is a detail. The point of such papers isn't really to tell scientists anything; the papers quantifying the scientific consensus are unapologetically aimed at a wider audience that is unaware of the state of play: mainly fence sitters in the generally public who want to be sensible about science and are confused about who to trust.

You can't force people into trusting working scientists; but IF you are willing to be informed by what the vast majority of working scientists in the field are doing, then knowing the extent of consensus is useful. Hence the work done to quantify the views supported in published scientific research.

An aside on models:

PS. I've been glancing at this thread from time to time, because it is a topic where I have some interest and background. But it's hard to know what I could add constructively.

I noted in particular the claim that "Just computer models built to predict what they want to predict."; I think we need a thread specifically on models, what they do, how they work, what they can't do, how they get used, tested, etc.

Simply put, the notion that one could build computer models to predict what you want to predict is a fantasy. If it was true, someone would be able to build a computer model that was able to retrodict twentieth century warming, and project forward without having a lot more warming to come; that is -- the predict what the naysayers want to predict.

But climate models are impossible to control with that kind of fidelity. Can't be done. That's one little point I'd like to add; if models COULD be manipulated that easily then it would already have been done by the people who don't accept the science of climate. But models work by representing underlying physics; not by building in a desired result; and there isn't any physical process on the table that could give you twentieth century warming without also having it keep on going.

But I'm just asserting that for the moment; it would be good to have a thread looking at models in more detail.

Cheers -- sylas

[jordanriver]

Whereas stupidity is forever.

no, the people God made smarter trick them and starve them out eventually.






.........in retrospect, would the Neanderthals have been justified killing off the Cro-Magnons while they still had the numbers