Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL

In newspapers and magazines it is rarely the authors of articles that write the headlines. It is usually an editor who will be looking to get attention.

I think there is a misunderstanding here based on the word "skeptic." Muller meant that he wasn't an ideological skeptic, but rather skeptical the way a scientist should be skeptical of all claims. Note that even in that article he says that he is still skeptical in the way that Curry and Alex are skeptical. Not on whether warming is occurring, or whether it is caused by man, but on the ramifications of that warming.

Maybe Alex himself could clear this up, but I got the impression he doesn't think warming is happening at all and certainly not that man is causing it.

Also, read the very first line of the article (which Muller certainly wrote himself),
CALL me a converted skeptic.

Even if the title was not written by Muller, the newspaper just rearranged the words of a line he did write.

Also, this whole debate is about whether humans are causing global warming.

Again, Muller:

Humans are almost entirely the cause.
 
Last edited:
You might disagree, Stephen Leslie, but John McLean's an actual expert reviewer for the IPCC. The process he mentions, which includes doctoring the science to fit in with the political spin of the report for policymakers, is documented all over the web. That's how it actually works, and no one can deny it. The science doesn't drive the consensus, the consensus drives the science.
 
Last edited:
Maybe Alex himself could clear this up, but I got the impression he doesn't think warming is happening at all and certainly not that man is causing it.

Also, this whole debate is about whether humans are causing global warming.

Did you listen to the podcast? Alex was pretty clear that he knows that there is global warming and that man has caused at least some of it.

Earlier in the thread, I put down what I thought Alex's position was and he wrote:

exactly! again, I look at someone like Dr. Judith Curry... does she accept man-made global warming? yes. does she think that the uncertainties in the climate system make it impossible to predict, yes.

as you point out there are a lot of positions along this continuum. the fact that we've been sold this idea that anyone who isn't on-board with "catastrophic climate change" is a "denier" should give all of us that uncomfortable feeling... the one we've grown all too familiar with.

I think the real debate is not whether there is man caused global warming (maybe that is where "97%" of climate scientists agree) but whether the ramifications will be catastrophic, and what the best way to deal with the problem is.
 
I think the real debate is not whether there is man caused global warming (maybe that is where "97%" of climate scientists agree) but whether the ramifications will be catastrophic, and what the best way to deal with the problem is.

I disagree with the idea that there's a 97% consensus--that figure's just the result of bogus statistics. However, I do agree with the overall force of what you say. No scientist I can think of on either side of the issue denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that anthropogenic sources may have had some part to play in global warming of around 0.8 deg C since around 1860. The real issue is how much and what the consequences are.

Sceptics/lukewarmers maintain not much, and that it's inconsequential, quite possibly beneficial. Alarmists claim most or all, and that it's catastrophic. That was the assertion from day one, when the IPCC was set up. Data has been cherry picked and massaged ever since, and not enough attention has been paid to other possibilities, like the predominance of natural variability. That's why the climate models are so appallingly bad, why their predictions haven't eventuated, and why the IPCC has recently and furtively begun to backtrack.
 
Did you listen to the podcast? Alex was pretty clear that he knows that there is global warming and that man has caused at least some of it.

I based that statement on some of his forum comments, ratings of other people's comments, and his assertion that there has been no warming in the past 13-15 years (or 16 years?). He said that in the podcast. But Alex himself can clarify his position. I cannot speak for him. Does he still believe there was no warming in the past 15 years?
 
Last edited:
@Michael Larkin

Maybe we're getting somewhere...

Okay, so what is your confidence level that global warming will not be a significant problem? 50%?, 75%?, 90%?, 100%? If it is 100%, I worry about you.

So we have to do a cost versus risk analysis. If there is a 10% chance that catastrophic global warming is real, do you want to bet human civilization on that? What is your number? I would argue that even if you are pretty confident that humans are not going to cause very serious global warming, it still makes sense to buy insurance in terms of carbon controls. This is what you do when you buy health/home/auto insurance. If your house burns down (civilization collapses), you'd regret not buying insurance!

Think of carbon controls as an insurance policy we buy from our current lifestyle (taxes, investment, and regulation). What would you charge if you were the actuary?

So what is your level of confidence in your views?

I am ~95% confident that global warming will become a very serious problem and it makes good sense to take political action. I may be wrong. We often have to make decisions in life without perfect knowledge. There will never be a perfect climate model. But the evidence is good enough that the range of outcomes we expect is cause for grave concern.
 
Last edited:
To everybody,

We are doing a massive scientific experiment on our planet by taking large amounts of carbon from the ground and putting it into the air, bringing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to levels which are double of what has ever been present in human history. Especially if you are not sure about the science, is this really an experiment you want to be doing on our only planet?
 
Dear Alex Tsakiris,

Jules gave me a good idea for an experiment related to the spiritual aspect of this blog. Ask a group of spirit mediums about global warming! Find people with records of accuracy, of course, but don't you think it would be interesting to see what they say?
I have sent you Radin's email. I would also suggest Maureen Caudill who is a remote viewer ("Suddenly Psychic"). It should be easy enough. We just need indicator localities which are vulnerable to GW. Coordinates suffice for some psychics. Give them dates in the future and ask them to go take a look. If you do it this way you need seers.
 
...John McLean's an actual expert reviewer for the IPCC.

Swing and a miss. One only has to read the comments section below the article to gain the necessary insight into it. I then found this Guardian article which is in reference to McLean's opinion piece:

While "reviewer" gives the impression that the person was involved in the process of writing or checking the report, in fact, it just means that the person read the IPCC report. John McLean had no role in reviewing the IPCC report, other than as someone who read it, and then subsequently commented on it.

Also, at the end of the McLean piece he's identified as being a member of the International Climate Science Coalition.

Back to the Guardian article:

What is the International Climate Science Coalition?

It's website claims that it aims to "move debate away from "implementation of costly and ineffectual 'climate control' measures" and "publicising the repercussions of misguided plans to 'solve the climate crisis'. This includes, but is not be limited to, the dangerous impacts of attempts to replace conventional energy sources with wind turbines, solar power, biofuels and other ineffective and expensive energy sources."

Heading the ICSC is a former Canadian energy company public relations consultant, and the ICSC earlier this year released a report attacking the United Nations climate report alongside ultra-conservative climate denialist group Heartland Institute.

Amongst its policy advisory board sits Christopher Monckton, international climate crank, and other scientists involved have a chequered history with tobacco apologist groups.

The piece by McLean is part of a long and highly successful attempt by denialist groups to create confusion and doubt.

These groups, like the ICSC that McLean represents, have links to fossil fuel industry backed institutes and foundations. The role that the ICSC plays as part of the climate denialist machine is explained in this DeSmog Blog article from earlier in 2013.

It is now widely documented that fossil fuel corporations have followed in the footsteps of the tobacco industry in creating faux-scientific organisations to attack the mounting scientific evidence pointing to fossil fuels' principal contribution to global warming...

There's other interesting stuff in the article I won't get into here but I highly recommend reading it.
 
I based that statement on some of his forum comments, ratings of other people's comments, and his assertion that there has been no warming in the past 13-15 years (or 16 years?). He said that in the podcast. But Alex himself can clarify his position. I cannot speak for him. Does he still believe there was no warming in the past 15 years?

He did say that there hasn't been warming in the past 15 years or so, but that is different than saying there hasn't been warming at all. Alex is using the last 15 years to show that the models being used to forecast catastrophe were flawed.
 
A new posting from Jim Torson


The discussion I wrote that Psiclops posted was a personal message I wrote to him. He suggested that it be posted to the Skeptiko forum, and without thinking much about it I said, sure go ahead and post it. I realized later that I should have updated it to clarify some things that would probably not be obvious to others.

The most important thing I should have clarified was my statement that, "This illustrates that "debates" like this are really a total waste of time."

I think this is related to Alex's question about control - not so much control of the climate, but control of us. Who is doing the controlling? Why are they doing it? And, how are they doing it?

Naomi Oreskes, who studies the history of science, has done an excellent job of discussing these issues. Very briefly, the "why" is ideology and politics. The "how" is by using the techniques developed by the tobacco industry. This consists of creating doubt about the science in order to delay action to address the problem. For anybody who wants to understand what is really going on with all the climate change debates, I would highly recommend looking at what Oreskes has to say .

For the most part, discussions of details of the science create and perpetuate the incorrect impression that there is a valid scientific debate within the scientific community. Yes, the climate system is complex and there are things we don't fully understand. However, in reality, there is no valid debate about the important basics: climate change is happening, it is largely the result of human activity, and it is a problem. We know enough to know that it is way past time to move on to discussions of what we should do about the problem.

The following page contains two videos of Oreskes discussing these issues:

Naomi Oreskes and the Merchants of Doubt
http://climatecrocks.com/2011/09/16/the-weekend-wonk-naomi-oreskes-and-the-merchants-of-doubt/

The first video (34 minutes) is a good overview and discussion of the use of the strategy of creating doubt about the science.

The second video (59 minutes) starts with a very good discussion of the history of global warming science, beginning more than a hundred years ago. Decades ago this reached the point where it was not really controversial that it was accepted that there was a problem. Then, at about 26 minutes into the video, she starts discussing how and why all this became controversial.

The following page contains a review of her book, and it includes another video of Oreskes (an hour and 14 minutes) discussing these issues:

Review of the must-read book:
Merchants of Doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from smoking to global warming
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/07/14/206422/merchants-of-doubt-naomi-oreskes-review/

The video includes some discussion of the question of uncertainty in science. The review begins with this:

"In Merchants of Doubt Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway take us on a fascinating trip down what they call Tobacco Road. Take the journey with them, and you’ll see renowned scientists abandon science, you’ll see environmentalism equated with communism, and you’ll discover the connection between the Cold War and climate denial."

I would suggest that you start with reading the review of her book. There is some overlap in the three videos, but there is enough difference that I would highly recommend watching all three. I would suggest starting with the first 34-minute video.

Oreskes says that it is relatively easy to "follow the money" in the funding of things like think tanks that are creating doubt about climate science. However, more recently it appears that this is changing so that much of the funding is now being done such that the funders are kept secret:

Conservative Donors Pump $1 Billion A Year Into Climate Denying Groups, Study Finds
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/22/3099141/climate-denying-groups-funding/
 
Hi Alex, thanks for that. Firstly, people may not know that the Global Warming Policy Foundation, who wrote the report you reference on the inquiries that exonerated the University of East Anglia CCU scientists "risks being dismantled after complaint it persistently misled public" from the UK Telegraph, June 2013

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...nt-it-persistently-misled-public-8659314.html

Bob Ward, head of policy at the Lord Stern’s Grantham Institute, former communications director at the Royal Society.

" "The foundation arrogantly ignores any challenges to the accuracy of the information it spreads, and has not been held to account for misleading the public. As I have discovered on numerous occasions, when the foundation is notified of inaccuracies, it simply refuses to admit it is wrong or to apologise,” said Mr Ward, who is a reviewer for the forthcoming International Governmental Panel on Climate Change report that will shape the action the world agrees to combat global warming."


Just an "update" on this from Bob Ward from July 2013 and the incredible timing of the setting up of the GWPF after release of the Climategate mails:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/archives/34578

The Foundation was publicly launched on 23 November 2009 by its chair, Lord Lawson of Blaby. In a truly astonishing coincidence, this was just a few days after the publication of e-mails that had been hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. Lord Lawson used the so-called ‘Climategate’ e-mails as an opportunity to promote his Foundation in an article in The Times while stating his opposition to efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He also claimed that global warming had stopped, denied there was a scientific consensus, and accused the CRU researchers of “manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend” and other serious misconduct. [my emphasis]

I think we can safely discount the views of the GWPF?
 
The post from Jim Torson via Psiclops contains a couple of quotes which can apply not just on this issue, but on almost everything which is discussed on this Skeptiko site:
The "how" is by using the techniques developed by the tobacco industry. This consists of creating doubt about the science in order to delay action to address the problem.

Merchants of Doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from smoking to global warming

If we take out the issues discussed in this thread and replace them with other topics such as near-death experiences or psi, it is pretty much a perfect fit. We see the sceptics on this forum eagerly creating doubt at every opportunity, but they never offer any explanation of their motives. If we consider "in order to delay action to address the problem", that could be a very plausible motive for the sceptics activities.

The comment about the "handful of scientists" sounds an awful lot like the "guerilla sceptics" frequently highlighted by Craig Weiler, where a relatively small number of people are attempting to disrupt the way in which certain topics are viewed.
 
The post from Jim Torson via Psiclops contains a couple of quotes which can apply not just on this issue, but on almost everything which is discussed on this Skeptiko site:

If we take out the issues discussed in this thread and replace them with other topics such as near-death experiences or psi, it is pretty much a perfect fit. We see the sceptics on this forum eagerly creating doubt at every opportunity, but they never offer any explanation of their motives. If we consider "in order to delay action to address the problem", that could be a very plausible motive for the sceptics activities.

The comment about the "handful of scientists" sounds an awful lot like the "guerilla sceptics" frequently highlighted by Craig Weiler, where a relatively small number of people are attempting to disrupt the way in which certain topics are viewed.
Typoz> I have no doubt everyone is arguing from a position of deeply held belief here, but I ask you to consider what's at stake here. Quite apart from people living on islands that won't be there soon, if Skeptiko becomes associated with a group of people who 'batted for the wrong side' on climate change, everything which has been achieved by Alex as a warrior against ignorance in the psi debate is jeopardised.
 
@Michael Larkin

Maybe we're getting somewhere...

Okay, so what is your confidence level that global warming will not be a significant problem? 50%?, 75%?, 90%?, 100%?

Please, not the old playing about with subjective Bayesian statistics. That's been a serious problem: People whose livelihoods depend on coming up with high probabilities of catastrophe stick their fingers in the air and come up with high probabilities of catastrophe: surprise, surprise. In AR5, despite recognising greater uncertainty, their probabilities get even higher: black is the new white. Unfortunately, actual empirical data is proving them wrong.

We're not getting anywhere: you believe in the primacy of subjective consensus, and I, in that of objective empiricism. Climate is driven by physics, not opinion.[/quote]
 
Please, not the old playing about with subjective Bayesian statistics. That's been a serious problem: People whose livelihoods depend on coming up with high probabilities of catastrophe stick their fingers in the air and come up with high probabilities of catastrophe: surprise, surprise. In AR5, despite recognising greater uncertainty, their probabilities get even higher: black is the new white. Unfortunately, actual empirical data is proving them wrong.

We're not getting anywhere: you believe in the primacy of subjective consensus, and I, in that of objective empiricism. Climate is driven by physics, not opinion.

Scientists always quote uncertainties in their work. There's an error bar with every measurement. So for you to assert complete certainty that anthropogenic global warming is not going to occur or is going to be very minor is very disturbing and not scientific.

Every individual scientist can make mistakes and have systematic errors in a measurement. That's why in the practice of science, we never believe in new phenomena or stop believing in old based on the reports of an individual scientist or a small group of scientists. Science is fundamentally consensus driven - this is to wash out individual systematic errors in measurement or analysis.

In science, your results must be replicable by other scientists. If 97% of other scientists get a different answer, the scientific community has every right and is even obliged to assert with high confidence that the 97% are correct and the 3% wrong.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top