Global warming and scientific consensus

[Old Greg]

In my opinion this thread and others like it have less to do with global warming and more to do with winding up other posters.

You will never get a consensus.

I think there is a false impression that we're bored to tears at work so that we are having bit of fun with a "Yah boo sucks" argument.

I don't think that impression is false.

Obviously I am bored at work, but I am interested to see the extent to which skepticism re climate change goes along with skepticism in other controversial and politicised areas of science.

Where do our resident climate change skeptics stand on passive smoking?

[EternalOptimist]

Obviously I am bored at work, but I am interested to see the extent to which skepticism re climate change goes along with skepticism in other controversial and politicised areas of science.

Where do our resident climate change skeptics stand on passive smoking?

Passive smoking?
Before I knew too much about passive smoking, I knew a fair bit about pneumoconiosis (black lung) and also asbestosis. So it was clear that taking stuff into the lungs was something to be taken seriously. But I know lots of miners, heavy smokers, heavy passive smokers and I never knew anyone who had a serious problem.

So I put passive smoking in the same category as seat belts and speed cameras. A measure aimed at a population rather than an individual, statistically based rather than forensic.

[Mich the Tester]

I have noticed two trends in all global warming discussions here on CUK AND elsewhere.

1 Any discussion will end up filled with appeals to authority and ad hominem arguments.

2 Political preference seems to be a good predictor of the position on AGW. Obviously thre are exceptions, but it seems to me that if you know whether somebody's right winged or left winged you can predict with about 90% accuracy whether he is a 'climate skeptic' or believes the AGW idea.

Personally I am uncomfortable with these trends; while I perhaps do not know enough to be convinced either way, I shall at least try not to draw my conclusions based on obvious fallacies.

Now I don't mind trawling through scientific publications for information; I already do that for purposes of OU studies and for seeking out information on sports training that might give me and some of the peopel I train a little advantage. But that means I just don't have time to trawl through all the research on AGW as well. So when I'm on the train I read popular science mags, like New Scientist, National Geographic, Scientific American plus one or two Dutch or German mags, as well as watching Horizon, the German show 'Planet Wissen', the Dutch 'Noorderlicht' etc. Maybe it's a big conspiracy, but most of the articles and programs seem to point in the direction of at least partly man made global warming.

So I'm still not sure, but I can't see any harm in attempting to use energy resources more efficiently, I can see benefits in using them in a cleaner fashion, and I certainly don't have a problem with diversifying electricity production to use 'renewables', especially if that's part of a strategy to make us all a bit less dependent on the goodwill of Arab dictatorships.

[pjclarke]

Exactly. Professor Curry is an expert in atmospheric physics, specialising in tropical storms. As she says in that thread

paleoproxies are outside the arena of my personal research expertise, and I find my eyes glaze over when I start reading about bristlecones, etc.

Which is no doubt why she feels qualified to pass judgement on the work of people who have studied such matters as their life's work, and further to tacitly accuse them of dishonesty.

I'll let Gavin Schmidt answer:

You have gone significantly over the line with this post. Accusations of dishonesty are way beyond a difference of opinion on how a graph should be displayed.

If you thought that a single, smoothed graph of estimates of paleo-temperature told the whole story of paleo-climate reconstructions is far more a failing at your end than it is the authors involved. How can a single graph say everything that can possibly be said?

Summary graphs are by their very nature, summaries. The graphs you pick out were summaries of various estimates of what paleo-temperature estimates from the literature were. It is therefore not surprising that they show only the reconstructions where the authors had confidence that the reconstructions were actually of the temperatures.

Problems with modern divergence – which only applies to the Briffa et al curve in any case – are issues to be dealt with in the technical literature, as they still are. [....] Try actually reading the papers on the subject, and perhaps you would be less confused. Start with briffa et al (1998): Briffa et al (2001): or D’Arrigo et al (2007):

But if you think that the divergence problem makes Briffa et al (2001)’s reconstruction unreliable for whatever reason, go ahead and ignore it. It doesn’t affect Moberg et al, Ljundqvist 2010, Mann et al 2008 or Osborn and Briffa (2006). And it doesn’t make Briffa dishonest.

[BlasterBates]

I believe "scientific" things where there is no sceptism. So I don't question passive smoking because no scientist has told me it is "bollox". I don't question Einstein's theories. I do however question Stephen Hawking because I know there are scientists wo disagree with him.

I don't question Asbestos kills, but I question the danger of radiation because it has been challenged. Until it was challenged I didn't question it. There seems to be new evidence that small amounts of radiation are good for you. I don't question that large amounts are bad for you.

Now on climate change, there actually plenty that question the so called consensus:

So I question it too.

If a professor of meteorology says it's bollox, I listen. if a professor of geology who has spent his life studying the paleo-climate to understand glaciers and says the climate scientist's paleo-climate record is bollox, and a professor of Atmosphere also says their record is bollox I question it too.

Let me reverse the question to AGW believers.

Do you always ignore scientific opinion because it isn't as prevalent in the media?

[Mich the Tester]

I believe "scientific" things where there is no sceptism. So I don't question passive smoking because no scientist has told me it is "bollox". I don't question Einstein's theories. I do however question Stephen Hawking because I know there are scientists wo disagree with him.

Isn't skepticism at the heart of science?

[BlasterBates]

Indeed, and a "heated debate" in science for anyone who's followed any scientific debate is normal.

I've heard of at least one PhD student who's career has been ruined by a professor defending his life's work. The student had a great case, but the professor got himself the job as external examiner, and basically asked huge amount of major revisions that killed the PhD. This wasn't climate science.

That is what is happening in climate science, an important group of scientists, sometimes referred to the "hockey stick team" are now under attack.

Quite normal, and it will be resolved.

It's quite interesting if you're into it.

But there are certain things that are resolved and until someone comes up with an alternative, why question it.

[sasguru]

I believe "scientific" things where there is no sceptism. So I don't question passive smoking because no scientist has told me it is "bollox". I don't question Einstein's theories.

You really dont understand science at all.
Nothing is proven in science, including Einsteins "theories", which supplanted Newtons "theories".
They obviously contain deep truths but since we can't unify the very small and the very big must also have some missing bits.
Likewise AGW is not "proven" nor can it ever be, although the data does indicate its a valid theory.
You rant against AGW for all the wrong reasons.

Incidentally please point me to one piece of research that passive smoking is harmful.

[Old Greg]

I believe "scientific" things where there is no sceptism. So I don't question passive smoking because no scientist has told me it is "bollox". I don't question Einstein's theories. I do however question Stephen Hawking because I know there are scientists wo disagree with him.

I don't question Asbestos kills, but I question the danger of radiation because it has been challenged. Until it was challenged I didn't question it. There seems to be new evidence that small amounts of radiation are good for you. I don't question that large amounts are bad for you.

Now on climate change, there actually plenty that question the so called consensus:

So I question it too.

If a professor of meteorology says it's bollox, I listen. if a professor of geology who has spent his life studying the paleo-climate to understand glaciers and says the climate scientist's paleo-climate record is bollox, and a professor of Atmosphere also says their record is bollox I question it too.

Let me reverse the question to AGW believers.

Do you always ignore scientific opinion because it isn't as prevalent in the media?

Fred Singer would dispute that passive smoking is a cause of cancer and indeed would say that the data was 'cooked'. Fred Singer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think the answer to your question is no, but I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

[EternalOptimist]

Likewise AGW is not "proven" nor can it ever be.

and that is why it galls when we are told, and our children are taught, that the science is settled