How to argue with a global warming "skeptic"

Curious only in a very academic sense. I’m not here to nitpick scientists about a couple hundredths of a degree. I understand that climate is a long term thing and projections are probablistic. Whether there heatwaves are only up 17:1 in 2050 vs the predicted 20:1 isn’t really a point of huge interest to me. In either case, it’s going to fricking suck for my daughter… unless I manage to convince my wife that we follow through on our tentative migration plans.

Moreover, since there’s a like 20-year lag in climate response to GHG forcing, the departure you’re talking about is from emissions in the late nineties. So considering we’ve still been emitting quite happily since then, I guess a tiny respite like this just doesn’t impress me that much.

Here’s the big difference in trend you’re arguing over, from the RealClimate blog:

This isn’t special pleading or “re-jiggering” or back-peddling or what-have-you. This is a frickin’ guy who knows what he’s talking about, telling you how it is. The reason you think there’s been such a plateau is because you’re eye-balling the graph, and '98 sticks up so high, it makes it look like everything flattens out after that. But if you do what a statistician like Tamino knows you should do and ignore the outlier - like he says, It’s the Trend - you don’t get that sense.

PS: since, rightly or wrongly I get the sense that you think that guy at RealClimate is just another climate blogger with an axe to grind, here’s who we’re actually talking about:

[quote=“RealClimate”]A physicist and oceanographer by training, Stefan Rahmstorf has moved from early work in general relativity theory to working on climate issues.

He has done research at the New Zealand Oceanographic Institute, at the Institute of Marine Science in Kiel and since 1996 at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany (in Potsdam near Berlin).

His work focuses on the role of ocean currents in climate change, past and present.

In 1999 Rahmstorf was awarded the $ 1 million Centennial Fellowship Award of the US-based James S. McDonnell foundation.

Since 2000 he teaches physics of the oceans as a professor at Potsdam University.

Rahmstorf is a member of the Academia Europaea and served from 2004-2013 in the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU). He was also one of the lead authors of the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC. In 2007 he became an Honorary Fellow of the University of Wales and in 2010 a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union.

Um, I haven’t actually waved my moral finger… except at Mick, for jumping in on the side of the former verbal abuser, instead of on the side of the target.

But I did so first nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nah nah :discodance: :discodance: :discodance:

Oh wait! :blush: :blush: :blush:

Sorry! Forgot about the gracious part!!! :doh: :doh: :doh:

Are we now having fun or are you still taking this seriously?

:discodance: :discodance: :discodance:[/quote]

Indeed you did, my frenemy. And I honestly appreciate it. When people are able to concede points in an argument, admit mistakes, address people’s grievances in a conciliatory way… these are all things I value very highly , though I don’t always succeed in realizing them in my own behavior.

[quote=“Vay”]

PS: since, rightly or wrongly I get the sense that you think that guy at RealClimate is just another climate blogger with an axe to grind, here’s who we’re actually talking about:

[quote=“RealClimate”]A physicist and oceanographer by training, Stefan Rahmstorf has moved from early work in general relativity theory to working on climate issues.

He has done research at the New Zealand Oceanographic Institute, at the Institute of Marine Science in Kiel and since 1996 at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany (in Potsdam near Berlin).

His work focuses on the role of ocean currents in climate change, past and present.

In 1999 Rahmstorf was awarded the $ 1 million Centennial Fellowship Award of the US-based James S. McDonnell foundation.

Since 2000 he teaches physics of the oceans as a professor at Potsdam University.

Rahmstorf is a member of the Academia Europaea and served from 2004-2013 in the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU). He was also one of the lead authors of the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC. In 2007 he became an Honorary Fellow of the University of Wales and in 2010 a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union.

Wrongly. Did you check out Richard Lindzen? I suspect he has just as much if not more credibility. going the appeal to authority route hmmm?

Regarding Argument from Authority: no, I don’t intend to imply expertise guarantees correctness… only that it vastly increases the probability that “guy from RealClimate” has a darn good idea what he’s talking about - enough that one’s gut or ability to eye-ball a graph shouldn’t take precedence over what he says.

As far as Richard Lindzen: there are basically only five names brought up by any climate change deniers; course I know who Lindzen is. Contributes to the George C Marshall Institute (or used to), now works for the Cato Institute, was a keynote speaker for the Heartland Institute, pals around with Fred Singer, all that. As I recall, in 2004, he claimed in 20 years the climate would be “significantly colder”… though he subsequently hem-hawed about it:

Here’s a good article on some of his work from SkS:

Working out climate sensitivity from satellite measurements

[quote]Lindzen and Choi tried to address some of the criticisms of their 2009 paper in a new version which they submitted in 2011 (LC11), after Lindzen himself went as far as to admit that their 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes…It was just embarrassing.” However, LC11 did not address most of the main comments and contradictory results from their 2009 paper.

Lindzen and Choi first submitted LC11 to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) after adding some data from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES).

PNAS editors sent LC11 out to four reviewers, who provided comments available here. Two of the reviewers were selected by Lindzen, and two others by the PNAS Board. All four reviewers were unanimous that while the subject matter of the paper was of sufficient general interest to warrant publication in PNAS, the paper was not of suitable quality, and its conclusions were not justified. Only one of the four reviewers felt that the procedures in the paper were adequately described.

As PNAS Reviewer 1 commented,

“The paper is based on…basic untested and fundamentally flawed assumptions about global climate sensitivity”

These remaining flaws in LC11 included:

Assuming that that correlations observed in the tropics reflect global climate feedbacks.

Focusing on short-term local tropical changes which might not be representative of equilibrium climate sensitivity, because for example the albedo feedback from melting ice at the poles is obviously not reflected in the tropics.

Inadequately explaining methodology in the paper in sufficient detail to reproduce their analysis and results.

Failing to explain the many contradictory results using the same or similar data (Trenberth, Chung, Murphy, and Dessler).

Treating clouds as an internal initiator of climate change, as opposed to treating cloud changes solely as a climate feedback (as most climate scientists do) without any real justification for doing so.

As a result of these fundamental problems, PNAS rejected the paper, which Lindzen and Choi subsequently got published in a rather obscure Korean journal, the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science. [/quote]

Here’s another interesting article, about Lindzen’s recent political activism:

“A disservice to the scientific method”: climate scientists take on Richard Lindzen

One detail from that article I found particularly interesting, is the talk he gave at the House of Commons, where he accused NASA GISS of temperature data manipulation. There are more details on that here:

Misrepresentation from Lindzen

Basically the claim gets ripped to shreds, so clearly even I can understand it. The end result was an apology from Lindzen, though he claimed it was an innocent mistake; RealClimate’s Gavin Schmidt maintains Lindzen’s explanation for the “mistake” was impossible… and in any case, one wonders why he wouldn’t contact NASA GISS before making such a public accusation before members of government in a meeting meant to sway them on climate policy.

Now you’re going the character assassination route, just as climate deniers do with Michael Mann. There used to be a time when liberals used to say “I may not agree with you, but I will defend your right to say what you think”. Now it seems if you say something liberals don’t like they will attack you, call you names, try to publicly humiliate and investigate you to intimidate you. This is what you can now expect if you dare say anything that opposes main stream IPCC thought. The Political Assault on Climate Skeptics

And RealClimate’s Gavin Schmidt said something, you talk as if the gods have spoken. I once watched a debate between Lindzen and Schmidt where Lindzen chides and admonishes Schmidt like an impetuous child for suggesting the sensitivity was a settled issue, Schmidt had no response.

Plus you yet again evaded the question, do you think the guys at Realclimate would have dismissed a similar uptick in the observed measured records spanning 17 years as statistically insignificant?

Then you don’t have a scientific mind. Everything we observe is of interest. When a deviation occurs that wasn’t expected, its very interesting. All vay telling me it doesn’t impress him much translates as vay has no interest in observational data hence has no interest in science and more likely than not is driven by an agenda looking for papers or articles that back up his claims much the same way a denailist would do. A real skeptic entertains and discusses what is being observed not dismisses it out of hand.

Look- Lindzen’s little finger knows more about the topic than I do. That doesn’t change the fact that he got caught out about this accusation. He was totally wrong - the proof is right there, he admitted it himself and it has nothing to do with Schmidt’s being a god or not. Even if we disbelieve Schmidt that Lindzen’s explanation was impossible, the fact remains: Lindzen could’ve taken this accusation to NASA. Instead, he took it to the House of Commons, at a meeting with a clear political purpose. What Lindzen’s behavior in the instance of this “funny mistake” and in so many other bizarre statements he has made points to is an ~agenda~ colored by his ideology - and if you look at his background and personality, it’s no bloody wonder.

And as far as Michael Mann, mm, I haven’t seen Lindzen brought up before any politically-motivated government inquiries (twice, at least). What I have seen is him getting pretty lambasted by his peers for bizarre errors that suggest something going on, and that something, given his biography, is probably that bias has gotten the better of his and is in the driver’s seat. Nothing to be ashamed of there - it does so with everyone, to some degree - which is why we need science.

Hey, you’ve ignored so many of my points now without even a nod to them as I always try to give to you that I wouldn’t know where to start in listing them.

My answer: they probably would’ve done what they did in this instance. Rahmstorf said it himself:

I’m sure - in fact I know - there are scientists who disagree with him about that. That’s fine. But I get the basic logic of his point that short-term variability is what we’re looking at, and like I said, whether there are a mere 17x more heat waves in 2050 as opposed to the predicted 20x just doesn’t interest me that much except academically as I said earlier.

I didn’t say it was of no interest. I said it was of only academic interest and didn’t impress me that much - certainly not enough to call climate models “practically irrelevant” or whatever the statement was that I’ve quoted twice now that you are defending. I read lots of stuff on climate, but I’m not an Internet detective and I’m not gonna pretend to be a climate scientist. I doubt my mind is very scientific - else I’d be a scientist instead of an English teacher and amateur salsa teacher. But if you’d like to call yourself a better skeptic than me, go ahead. At least I’m not afraid to concede a point or give a small apology where it seems one is wanted.

[quote=“Vay”]
I didn’t say it was of no interest. I said it was of only academic interest and didn’t impress me that much - certainly not enough to call climate models “practically irrelevant” or whatever the statement was that I’ve quoted twice now that you are defending. I read lots of stuff on climate, but I’m not an Internet detective and I’m not gonna pretend to be a climate scientist. I doubt my mind is very scientific - else I’d be a scientist instead of an English teacher and amateur salsa teacher. But if you’d like to call yourself a better skeptic than me, go ahead. At least I’m not afraid to concede a point or give a small apology where it seems one is wanted.[/quote]

Whether it impresses Vay or not is of little interest to me. I already linked a study from the Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology and will do so again, will you ignore everything they say too or will you do a character assassination rather than debate the issue on Hans von Storch, Armineh Barkhordarian, Klaus Hasselmann and Eduardo Zorita, because it really isn’t a very convincing argument and doesn’t impress me much. Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming?

[quote]In recent years, the increase in near-surface global annual mean temperatures has emerged as considerably smaller than many had expected. We investigate whether this can be explained bycontemporary climate change scenarios. In contrast to earlier analyses for a ten-year period

that indicated consistency between models and observations at the 5% confidence level, we find that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.[/quote]

This is not a trivial, lets brush it under the rug, irrelevant issue. I've seen climate scientists from East Anglea address this more honestly than I have you. if the models are proven to be false, and at 2% confidence level thats about as definitive as it gets. They become irrelevant. Thats the nature of predictions, if the future falls outside of what  they said would happen, they are wrong, they used the wrong variables, they forgot to factor in something. They are irrelevant and need to be revised.

 Which is what they are doing on AR5 by trying to factor in internal variability which they suggest is the reason for this 17 year period. The irony which seems lost on you is that previous predictions we were told were only possible if one didn't look to internal variability and made that a very small factor. Skeptics like Lindzen have been saying for years the models were wrong in part for this very reason. He's retired now, and wouldn't be surprised if he is playing some politics but you don't disregard his lifes work, or the work of others because he has contempt for the warmist crowd which he views as religious in nature and harmful when it comes to implementing policy based on faulty reasoning.

 His other main point of contention is the IPCC is wrong in calculating the forced feedbacks. This is not a minor issue, it means at the end of the century we may be looking at one and a half degrees of warming as opposed to 4 or 5 degrees. Can you say for sure he is wrong?

[quote=“Vay”]
I didn’t say it was of no interest. I said it was of only academic interest and didn’t impress me that much - certainly not enough to call climate models “practically irrelevant” or whatever the statement was that I’ve quoted twice now that you are defending.[/quote]

Then you would be wrong. If someone says something is not statistically relevant, it does not mean it is of no relevance in the English language sense, it’s a statistical term. Please read Statistical significance

I’m sorry, I may have been harsh on you for not understanding the terminology, in which case I should have done a better job of explaining. Something becomes statistically relevant at the 95% confidence level. Now with the last couple of years and especially this one, I think we move away from saying this period is statistically relevant, but it was very close, right around the 95% confidence level, this is why it was important. Then when you have decided this period is statistically relevant, you need to go back to the drawing board and explain why it’s not factored into the models and at that point they have failed.

You understand that if the models are proven to be false, they become pretty useless yes? I never made the remark, I deliberately stopped short of that, but am aware of the basis such claims are made. Fred may have repeated something he read without much background on how such a remark would be made, I’m not sure. Anyway, even if the temperatures fall outside of the predicted ranges and the models proved false I don’t believe they are irrelevant. So I’m not defending that as much as saying, I can understand how one might make such a remark.

edit/ If we use the “statistically relevant” i.e 95% confident, before we are “impressed” we might as well chuck the entire IPCC report out the window.

Okaaay, well, I’m the person you’re talking to. So shall I retort that I’m not interested in your level of interest over my lack of, impressedness, either? Then given our mutual disinterest, shall we discontinue the discussion?

Look, what are you doing here, exactly? If you’re defending your intercession on Fred’s behalf, please, just give it up. It was a cop-out. Maybe the models aren’t “statistically significant” (I’ll try to touch on that later) but he never made that argument. All he did was throw down an article from The Economist… and it wasn’t only in response to the point about models, but a number of points. If we’re going to argue that way, I think I’ll just start copying and pasting the entire text of SkS, RealClimate articles and so on and not bother to write anything.

Like I said, if you want to have this discussion about models with me, I will do my best. But please at least acknowledge my humanity a bit; give a nod to my disgruntledness over the rather strange way in which your recent decision to become a “buffer” took place. Because it didnt seem much like that to me - a buffer, I mean. More like you jumping in on the side of the aggressor (sorry, Fred). Ok, enough back-seat modding and touchy-feely stuff.

Sorry I haven’t had time to read it; apologies but I suspect you haven’t read my articles either. The name von Storch rings bells, but as for the “character assassination” on Lindzen, look: the guy has done what he’s done and said what he’s said. Far as I’m concerned (though I realize you don’t care what I think) the guy assassinated his own character. He’s been political since the nineties, and the reason you gave is exactly what I’m talking about. Global warming denialism is mainly about ideologically-motivated reasoning - and you just described that reasoning to a T.

But set that aside - assume it’s irrelevant that the guy falsely accused NASA in front of government or hung around with scientific patsies for the cigarette industry. One way for a non-expert to get an idea who’s right in a scientific controversy is to look at what other scientists think about what they say. The info I posted from SkS about the research he did with Choi got simply ~ripped~ into by his peers for a large number of what they apparently consider serious mistakes. The journal wouldn’t publish.

On this question, there’s also the article of the group response to Lindzen I posted. Or recently he did a stint in the WSJ defending Willie Soon - that name ring any bells? In that piece, he had a huge number of demonstrably-false statements that he is quite famous for. Now everyone gets stuff wrong - even geniuses like Lindzen. But mistakes are normally scatter-shot. When they all happen in the same direction, that’s a huge red flag for bias-driven reasoning. I guess you’re still not impressed. Maybe all those “mistakes” were actually not mistakes; I simply took the word of experts whose opinions I prefer over his. Well, maybe. I’ve looked up a few of the issues and it doesn’t seem that way to me.

But I should be skeptical of myself. I’m biased too. So, such a quandry. What to do. I hate to tell ya, it’s the same cop-out answer I’ll give for the discussion that could happen over von Storch or any other research we might dig into: I go with the aggregate, to the best I’m able to determine what that is, because that’s the safest bet for the inexpert. As I told you, I’m not deluding myself that I’m a scientist, or that I’m particularly skeptical. I’m gullible as all hell. That’s why I’m interested in skepticism. And, since I have to beware of the reality that there’s an awful lot of research out there that I haven’t read the pop-science version of, let alone the actual paper (Kahneman calls this the “What you see is all there is” effect), I look to sources that I basically trust. I try to nail down what sources they should be by looking around in the skeptical movement and seeing which sources get the most respect - places like Science-Based Medicine, and yes, RealClimate.

One would expect them to be able to do that, given that they are climate scientists. Also, I hope the snark in that sentence doesn’t have something to do with “Climategate”. And regarding honesty, far as I can see, you dismissed Rahmstorf and Tamino out of hand and called me a denialist (for about the fifth time). So again I ask, what is this really about? Are we having a discussion, or are you mad about something else? I’ve aired my feelings - care to air yours?

No, I definitely can not. I also can’t say that Hansen is wrong when he says the opposite. Can you? There are many climatologists (I can give you a list) who say the IPCC is shell-shocked from all the denialist attacks and has gotten way too conservative (ironic, if true). What about all those scientists and ~their~ life’s work? They’re also ‘rugged individualists shouting against the tyranny of the collective’ so-to-speak.

So my answer to this confusing situation is the same I’ve given above. The bulk of the research points to four degrees, so that’s what Vegas would probably go with, and that’s what I go with. It’s the answer I’m going to stake my family’s future on.

I don’t want to be rude, but you said with the same confidence that the IPCC had “walked back all its predictions”. The graph posted by you showed that to be incorrect. I haven’t looked it up yet, but I’m pretty confident in my recollection that the predicted range for 2100 in AR5 is wider in both directions -which doesn’t equal “walking back”, either. So forgive me if I don’t just take your word for this. Direct me to by whom we were told this and when and how that got turned on its head again, please. If I’m going to read something heavy, it might as well be that.

I’m sure you are aware there’s a lot of stuff out there that you haven’t read as well. There was a recent paper by Kevin Cowtan etc. - and no, I didn’t just dig this up in response to this argument; it was part of my regular news feed - stating that the difference between models and observations is 38% less than previously thought:

Climate models are even more accurate than you thought

And Rahmstorf’s / Tamino’s allegedly “dishonest” discussion of “the Pause” have been the subject of a couple studies recently as well:

The alleged hiatus in global warming didn’t happen, new research shows.

I’ll admit these are recent studies and I only read the pop versions. Nor do they necessarily represent the current prevailing understanding. But they corroborate what sources I trust say- and are in accord with my admittedly primative level of understanding. One more thing on the point - just a footnote really - but I found it clever back in the day. A few years ago, denialists were again claiming cooling based on “the pause”. So the AP did this:

[quote]The Associated Press conducted [b]the blind test by sending global temperature data from NOAA and NASA to four independent statisticians who were not told what the data represented, but simply asked to perform a common statistical analysis to look for trends in the data.

The statisticians “found no true temperature declines over time,” and in fact identified “a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers,” the AP reports.[/b][/quote]

desmogblog.com/statisticians … eptic-spin

That was in 2009, way before the current upswing which I’d be willing to bet is only beginning, based on things I’ve read about a coming “regime change” in climate. And it perfectly corroborates what Rahmstorf, Tamino and the above studies are saying.

Ok this is way too long, so about statistical significance: thank you for clarifying. All I’ll say is this: technically I know what it is: I know P values mean the probability of the data, given the null hypothesis. I also know that it’s falling out of favor in scientific journals because it’s something of an arbitrary cut-off and P values have been shown to be un-replicatable. Effect sizes and Bayesian techniques are the talk of the skeptical community as the potential better ways to talk about actual significance of research. There’s a good video out there called “The Dance of the P Values” which is partly about this, if you’re interested.

But, like with climate science itself, I’m just faking this “knowledge”, because if you’d ask me to calculate P for a set of data I’d have no clue how to go about it. Someone once showed me how statistic significance for the IPCC conclusion in AR5 WG1 was calculated and I was like, uhhhhh…okayyyyy… So showing me that someone thinks the IPCC’s model performance to date isn’t “statistically significant” - if that’s even the claim - is going to lead me back to the same problem I mentioned above. So I’ll just have to give the same answer - is this view widely held among pertinent experts? And is statistical significance even a standard that is used when making public policy decisions? Is that what the CDC uses when making decisions about curtailing epidemics? On that last point I really have no idea.

Have a good one.

Um, yes, I have, repeatedly. Do I have to re-explain each and every time why I am submitting the article? I note that you have no issues with the Economist and so that is why I repeatedly post it. You certainly won’t accept anything else that has even the remotest connection with the Heartland Foundation or the Koch Brothers or anyone else who has been officially labeled a “climate denier” by your pet sites. That is like saying: “Oh he voted Republican! Well, now that we know that, we certainly aren’t going to accept your low-tax proposals.” You do get that the Heartland Institute and the Koch Brothers and many others out there are ALLOWED to share the same interests and VOTE FOR or SUPPORT causes that they believe in. Just labeling something as “oh, gas and oil interests,” isn’t enough to dispel the key points of their arguments AND I note with mirth, it is never an issue when it is the oil/gas company GIVING to your pet green causes. AND the simple fact is that the much maligned ExxonMobil is a company that is ALLOWED to advocate for its interests. When it gives FAR MORE to environmental and green and climate change alarmist groups by far than to the Heartland Institute, you say nothing because I suppose, in your biased view, “ExxonMobil is only doing what’s right because this issue is settled” and its generous donations to causes (that have achieved NONE of their stated goals and have not for 35 years) only shows how much this debate is settled around a consensus that you think negates any arguments in favor of stopping to look at what is really happening in the economy, with energy, how people live and what is achievable. Now, do I have to cut and paste this preamble EVERY time we have a debate so that you know why I am challenging you and your positions? Do I really need to explain why I am posting the Economist editorial when, in the words of the very same, the exact purpose of said editorial is spelled out? Do you need English translated?

Thank you for that Vay, I appreciate you making clear your position, as to what I am doing here it’s a far question. Am I angry? A little and here’s why.

You demanded, repeatedly that the mods do their job, that with regards Freds comments he was getting a pass. I didn’t want to join this thread, you calling me out publicly forced my participation. I think it would have been more discrete if done by PM, but I know you have tried that already, perhaps I didn’t explain myself well enough, but you chose to make it a public and declaring rules shouldnt apply to you if the mods won’t do their job. But here’s the truth, many times a comment goes over you head and you fly off the handle, in many cases its not Fred being a troll, but your own response to something you didnt get that causes sparks to fly.

The recent example is something I see from you and Fred a lot, so lets use that. He made a comment about how the models will soon be redundant. As a moderator, I don't look to see if I agree with that statement, I look to see if that statement could have a basis or reasoning that would allow it to stand. As opposed to an intervention, which might be stepping in and asking him to justify a comment, or sending it to temp, which I really dont like. You don't need to agree with the last few pages I wrote, but I think I aptly demonstrated such a comment could be substantiated, what I wrote might not be the majority view or even turn out to be the truth, but it is not trolling.

 But your response and is something you do quite a lot, outrage. How could he possibly have said such a thing, linked a post from real climate (I still think you made the argument from authority) and declare the subject closed, off limits. What normally and unfortunately happens all too often is Fred repeats his assertion 5 minutes later, perhaps with no further clarity , he's not obliged to do so, and you fly off the wall start calling him a troll and why aren't the mods doing their job. Fred thinks your having fun so throws some insults of his own and it becomes a mess. He may even say "sure I just said that to wind you up", at this point maybe hes having fun, maybe trolling , maybe sees no reason to kow tow to faulty logic and he has every right to say what he just said.

The problem here was you didnt' give him the benefit of the doubt, or the moderators, it was your lack of understanding of putting the comment in context that led to the mess. So in this case I stepped in to demonstrate my point. something you started calling me Freds proxy for. Remember I only joined because you called me out, rudely IMO. But I am here, since you did it publicly to defend myself. 

Now, it doesn't matter if you agree with the comment "models will soon be obsolete" or whatever terminology he used. Now if you were the moderator and given the past couple of pages I wrote that may justify such a comment, would you have assigned this as trolling material? If you agree that in this sort of discussion it was well within bounds, then I suggest you might consider there are a great number of other occasions I see this pattern play out. I sometimes step in and do some cleanup, but never get this involved explaining just why I take the moderating decisions I do on this thread. You can see why, I have to deal with hostility from you, it takes many many pages before the point I am trying to make even start to be proven in a way that you might be able to look at things from my perspective.

Hi Fred.

Um, yes, I have, repeatedly. Do I have to re-explain each and every time why I am submitting the article?[/quote]

Ok, I can accept that - but would like to complain then: how many times have I answered the question of why the warming before and after the mid-twentieth century is different? I recall doing a ‘greatest hits’ post where I quoted many instances of myself answering that question. Ditto with my response to the “can’t have it both ways” assertion. And that one I’ve never heard any answer to from you except “I disagree”.

Well, no issue except that it is nothing remotely close to science journalism, and I think I’ve already responded to that article. But ok. I do appreciate that at least it isn’t a denialist blog like WUWT or Climate Depot.

Sorry to interrupt you mid-paragraph… but like Finley said, some full stops would occasionally be nice. Anyway I do understand that. But the fact remains: sources matter. Especially for non-experts discussing a topic. You in the past have often criticized Skeptical Science, and I have asked you to provide evidence of their bias beyond the fact that they are obviously “believers”. I have given you very specific criteria for bias, and you haven’t gotten back to me. Now if we apply those same criteria to the Heartland Institute’s publications or WUWT’s posts… that’s a can of worms I’ll be glad to dive into. But in that sense, at least, I agree The Economist is heaps better.

I don’t think I’ve ever said that or anything like it. I think it’s good PR for them… that’s what I remember saying.

No I don’t think that. I think the economy, energy, how people live and what is achievable are all valid points for discussion. What I don’t think are valid points for discussion - except as a sort of intellectual learning process for people with the time - are the questions of 1) is it happening and 2) are we the primary cause. Those points are about as settled as can be in science (acknowledging that, by definition, nothing is ever actually settled in science. Heck, scientists just found evidence via the LHC that points towards anomalies in the Standard Model of Particle Physics).

No… but, does that editorial ~really~ address my question about your standards for the required robustness for climate models and temperature measurements? Does it address my point about the “can’t have it both ways” argument? And would you mind maybe at least commenting on the graph, showing models with projections from forcings up to '05, with updated temperature observations showing the observations to be well within the error margins and now angling right towards the middle of the graph? Cuz to my very inexpert interpretation, that says, hmm, things are quite as bad as certain people like to make out. Especially in light of research I posted in my last response to Mick.

Hi Mick and thanks for responding. I do see your position and hope you also see mine. Honestly, if not for the previous instance where Fred was so explicit about mocking me and then you came in on his side, I wouldn’t have minded at all when you spoke up about the models.

One thing you said above though that I do want to comment on:

Ok. Guilty as charged - about the outrage (not the faulty logic!!! Seriously?) But have you considered I’ve been wading through several years of Apostle’s Creed renditions (occasionally pretty funny, I’ll admit), faux surrenders, wild goose chases, not to mention, whether you think my logic faulty or not, innumerable and blatant strawmen arguments (I’ll be happy to provide recent examples that I think are pretty undeniable), red herrings, poisoning the well, on and on. What can I say - it all eventually gets under one’s skin. But as Fred wisely said, maybe the real point is, I lost the fun in it. The personal attack stuff that began in the Oklahoma thread was just kinda the last straw.

So hopefully, anyway, from here on out, maybe things can proceed a little more happily.

Related to concrete issues of discussion between us: about the carbon tax, I’m going to let that one go. Been spending too much time on this, and the science stuff is just way more interesting to me. I think I made a couple good points and you made some too. Theoretically, I’d say the cards favor me, but the area where I have to concede is that the empirical evidence isn’t strong in either direction, at least that I’ve been able to find… and we both know that’s the clincher. Maybe after another five years or so the effects of BC’s experiment with revenue neutral taxation will be clearer. I will continue to keep an eye on that and others.

I’d be glad to continue the discussion with you on climate models, now that things are hopefully cooler between us. There are a lot of points on the table (see my post at the bottom of the last page) though, so it’d probably be best to maybe pick one and focus on it.

I wrote:

[quote]You certainly won’t accept anything else that has even the remotest connection with the Heartland Foundation or the Koch Brothers or anyone else who has been officially labeled a “climate denier” by your pet sites.

That is like saying: “Oh he voted Republican! Well, now that we know that, we certainly aren’t going to accept your low-tax proposals.”

You do get that the Heartland Institute and the Koch Brothers and many others out there are ALLOWED to share the same interests and VOTE FOR or SUPPORT causes that they believe in.

Just labeling something as “oh, gas and oil interests,” isn’t enough to dispel the key points of their arguments.[/quote]

Your comment:

[quote]
Sorry to interrupt you mid-paragraph… but like Finley said, some full stops would occasionally be nice.[/quote]

All of the sentences above are grammatically correct and are appropriately punctuated. Having discussed much with both you and Finley on this site, I fully appreciate your inability to digest complex sentences. I would, however, challenge that any of the four sentences above would be considered by an educated, erudite individual to be somehow excessively long or complicated and, thus, require additional “full stops.” That said, fully aware of with whom I am dealing, how’s this…

You won’t accept anything else.

You won’t accept anything with the remotest connection with the Heartland Foundation.

You will also not accept anything with the remotest connection to the Koch Brothers.

In addition, you will not accept anything from anyone who has been officially labeled a “climate denier.”

The official labeling has been done by your pet sites.

That is like saying: “Oh he voted Republican!”

And it is also like saying: “Well, now that we know that, we certainly aren’t going to accept your low-tax proposals.”

The two sentences are connected because Republicans are well known for supporting lower taxes.

I am comparing Republican support for lower taxes with the Heartland Foundation’s skepticism of the need for “urgent action.”

The “urgent action” in question would be with regard to fighting climate change.

I am suggesting that it is natural for oil companies such as ExxonMobil to advocate in their own best interests.

ExxonMobil would naturally not see the need to focus 100% on green energy.

I say this because ExxonMobil is an oil company.

Because it is an oil company, its key interests are OIL.

Any effort to excessively tax oil would be a challenge.

ExxonMobil has no reason to agree to excessive taxes on its products.

Again, its products are oil and gas.

Climate change efforts have raised taxes on gas and oil.

Higher taxes on gas and oil have not reduced CO2 emissions.

You do get the following point, don’t you?

The Heartland Institute is ALLOWED to share the same interests.

The Koch Brothers are allowed to share the same interests.

Others are allowed to share the same interests.

And they are also all allowed to VOTE FOR those interests.

In addition, they are allowed to SUPPORT causes that they believe in.

Preventing excessive taxation would be a wise business decision.

ExxonMobil would be wise to fight excessive taxation.

The taxation has not resulted in reducing CO2 emissions.

The green brigade has failed to reduce CO2 emissions for 35 years.

The green brigade continues to advocate the same failed policies.

The Heartland Foundation questions whether such actions are necessary.

The Heartland Foundation questions whether such actions are wise.

The Heartland Foundation questions whether such actions are useful.

You cannot just label something as “oh, gas and oil interests.”

That is not enough to dispel the key points.

Those key points stem from their arguments.

Their refers to the Heartland Foundation and Koch brothers.

Their arguments are that urgent action has not led to any result.

The main result would be reduced CO2 emissions.

There.

Does that help you understand?

Or, I could make my sentences even shorter.

It is your decision.

You decide.

Again, there, Fred, maybe Mick will disagree, but other than the bit about full stops, I can’t see that you’ve actually responded substantively to anything I said in my last post. And I say that without a hint of outrage :wink:

There you go! See! Isn’t this fun?!

The editorial calls into question the accuracy and thus relevance of the climate models. The editorial clearly states that, very soon, the climate predictions will have fallen so far out of the band of acceptable and even lowest temperature readings. Because of this, arguments based on the models will be wrong. The key factor will be that predicted temperatures will not match up with reality. Your trust in climate models is misguided. As they have been wrong, your trust in them is wrong. Your belief that this is an urgent problem is wrong. EVEN IF, this is an urgent problem, nothing that you advocate has proved useful. Proposed measures have failed spectacularly. They have failed for 35 years. I believe that spending more money to continue these measures is unwise. I therefore disagree with you. I disagree that climate models are accurate. I believe that climate models have already been tweaked. I believe that they have been tweaked to such a degree as to make the whole exercise futile. I believe that there has to be a limit to how many times a model can be tweaked. After that limit is reached, the model should be declared a failure. In that case, nearly all the models have failed. They have not predicted the climate with accuracy. They have not predicted temperatures with accuracy. Your continued belief in them is religious in its approach. Your faith is akin to that of Christians in the Trinity. No. Self-styled experts or those who speak Latin have not earned my trust. I will continue to examine this issue from two vantage points: 1. Are they accurate? No. 2. Do they have a feasible solution? No. Full stop.

From the Economist editorial… final paragraph:

IF Premise 1:

and IF Premise 2:

and IF Premise 3:

Ergo, the conclusion is:

Hi Fred. I picked through your list of statements a bit.

Mm, I’ll “accept” it in the sense that I’ll deal try to deal with the claim – if the claim isn’t coming from an expert. When you post something from Roy Spencer, for example, I can’t really argue with him… of course he knows more about the topic than I’ll ever know. It doesn’t change the fact though that he often makes public claims which are demonstrably wrong, that his biography suggests motives for bias, and that his peers have found lots of problems with his work – which suggests his bias bleeds into his research. So if you’re using his expert status or research to bolster a point, I do think - and it’s pretty generally accepted - that it’s fair for me to point these things out about him.

On Skeptical Science and Desmog Blog, they have bios of guys like Monckton, showing their ties to denialist organizations (yes, if an organization is paying money to create disinformation about climate change/climatologists or such activities, I think it’s fair to call it “denialist”) and quotes from them that are demonstrably false or contradictory. But if the information given in these bios is ~true~ and appropriate (meaning not cherry-picked or taken out of context), that doesn’t denote bias.

Maybe I need to clarify about that: just taking a position doesn’t equal bias. But if you can show one of my “pet sites” clearly mis-representing science, or catch them in very serious shenanigans, then I’d say that’s evidence of bias… especially if it happens repeatedly. But you haven’t done that… not even once, in my recollection.

That’s debatable. The problem is that taxes aren’t the only things to effect emissions. For example, I read one study from Norway that showed a pretty big drop in emissions after a carbon tax was implemented, but there were later increases in emissions that corresponded with the actions of an industry that was exempt from the tax. To show if such a tax does or doesn’t increase emissions, you have to control for all the variables, and you need a decent amount of time. But you definitely can’t just say, ‘some countries have taxed carbon, yet worldwide emissions are still going up, therefore carbon taxes don’t reduce emissions.’

No argument there. Haven’t said otherwise.

The problem there is defining “excessive”, and it also gets to the question of impacts. If well-implemented carbon taxes could reduce emissions that affect impacts, that would be a very preferable course for industries that could be affected by such impacts… like, you know, the fishing industry, real estate, insurance, forestry, skiing, etc.

They are certainly ok to question the wisdom of policies. My problem is where they push mis-information and fund people who do so. My problem is where they slander scientists, push ridiculous conspiracy theories, distort science and otherwise promote stupidity in the public sphere.

I’ll try to get back to your posts about models sometime soon if not tomorrow. There are some premises in there you’re going to have quite a hard time proving, I think. Have a great night.

[quote=“Vay”]Hi Fred. I picked through your list of statements a bit.

Mm, I’ll “accept” it in the sense that I’ll deal try to deal with the claim – if the claim isn’t coming from an expert. When you post something from Roy Spencer, for example, I can’t really argue with him… of course he knows more about the topic than I’ll ever know. It doesn’t change the fact though that he often makes public claims which are demonstrably wrong, that his biography suggests motives for bias, and that his peers have found lots of problems with his work – which suggests his bias bleeds into his research. So if you’re using his expert status or research to bolster a point, I do think - and it’s pretty generally accepted - that it’s fair for me to point these things out about him.
[/quote]

Of course it is natural to point out if there has been proven bias or if incorrect claims have been made, but if as you did with Richard lindzen who I said supports the claim that the last 17 years appears to depart from its predicted trajectory rather than address the claim go the ad hominem route, its a fallacious argument, and something in a debate we should be careful not to post one fallacious argument after another.

In fact you did address this by linking to a post on realclimate, I’ll post it here again for anyone interested so they need not wade back through the thread. Recent global warming trends: significant or paused or what?

Personally, I think the way you did this was another fallacious argument, an argument from authority.

Of course you then list all his credentials, but in the very next posting claim you are in fact not making an argument from authority. I’ve been reading RealClimate for years, of course I know Stefan Rahmstorf, and we all know who Lindzen and Spencer are. I see this beefing up off your guys credentials and pulling down anyone whos a skeptic as kind of fallacious. you are more than entitled to do so, it just seems pretty pointless since we all know who they are and what their qualifications are, and especially so if disregard the substance.

In fact, that article had four pages of comments, which I read. Stefan Rahmstorf is not beyond criticism, many take issue with his choice a data set, his method of calculation and if he isn't cherry picking his range. He makes some light hearted comments I think it's clear this isn't meant as some definitive scientific paper (and hence should be treated as such), useful, but reference only. But they DO get the point that if the trend continued and was proven not to be noise, and was in fact a trend line, this upsets the predictions a lot. See the response to this comment.

[quote]So, according to Stefan, there has been no pause, no hiatus, only onward and upward. Yet the literature is full of “explanations” (hiding heat in the oceans, etc.) You can’t have it both ways. If there is nothing there than it doesn’t need an explanation.

[Response: The scientific community has indeed been trying to understand the specifics of the variations in temperature that have been observed, and in talking about that work, many scientists use the term “pause”. That’s unfortunate because it implies they agree with the fake-skeptics that the “pause” somehow shows that our fundamental understanding of climate is wrong. They don’t.–eric]

  • See more at: realclimate.org/index.php/ar … /#comments[/quote]

    So it boils down to , we are right, they are wrong.

    Which leads us to this discussion you are having with Fred where he says “The datasets and climate models are not sufficiently accurate/robust.” You deny this, but I would suggest dont realize just how shaky the ground you stand is. Also I would say this is another fallacious argument, this time the Ludic fallacy. This is also perhaps the key point Lindzen has been making for years and years.

    This post is already long, so if you can’t see how the claims that they can make accurate models might be a Ludic fallacy, i will go into more detail in another post.