Comment on this entry
Clarifications re Climate Skeptics and Deniers
Keith Kloor’s recent blogged description of my “Climate Skeptics and Deniers” article from Skeptic magazine (based on this earlier blog article I wrote) drew hundreds of comments.
...
Complete entry
COMMENTS
Posted by Valkyrie Ice on 07/27 at 02:22 PM
Alright, let's try this again.
I fit firmly in the camp Mr Brin is addressing. I am skeptical about the "consensus" because I personally have read many studies from BOTH sides, which lead me to the conclusion that we do NOT have sufficient evidence to support the CLAIMS made by either side. That puts me FIRMLY in the MIDDLE - a Climate Skeptic
I also have personally read the CRU emails. In my opinion, they created sufficient doubt about the validity of the data that to restore public trust, a strong effort on the part of climate science to re-establish the validity of the Data is needed.
I can and do support every effort being made to reduce pollution, find non harmful energy sources, and create a sustainable future, but I am unconvinced of the "consensus," and as I see things developing atm, I am seeing no effort on their part to provide answers to the doubts being raised by the "denialists", just an effort to prevent any real scrutiny of the data which has been cast into doubt. This hinders any sort of a recovery on the part of the climate sciences, and gives denialists ever more ammo, and harms the public trust in science in general.
I understand that many others are firm believers in AGW, and I support many, but not all, of the actions being taken by the AGW "consensus" to try an reduce the human impact on the planet, but I think climate science is doing itself and humanity no favors by refusing to permanently end the doubts and failing to investigate and disprove the charges arising from the CRU emails by re-examining the data transparently.
Posted by Mike Treder on 07/27 at 02:42 PM
Valkyrie: Did you not see all this news? Or did you not want to see it?
1. Inquiry: Climate data not manipulated
2. 'Climategate' Investigation VINDICATES Scientists, Finds Research Reliable
3. Third Inquiry Clears 'Climategate' Scientists of Serious Wrongdoing
4. Climategate Continues to Crumble
I question the sincerity of your claim to be a skeptic in the Brin mold. Looks to me like you're just another denier trying to pose as something else.
Posted by Valkyrie Ice on 07/27 at 04:56 PM
And it seems at long last, what I am advocating is FINALLY starting to be done.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727710.101-climategate-data-sets-to-be-made-public.html
The Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in the UK, recently at the centre of the hacked emails controversy, is launching a pilot study into how best to make public three major temperature data sets and detailed records of how they are processed. They will include data repeatedly requested by climate sceptics under freedom of information legislation.
Posted by iPan on 07/27 at 05:45 PM
Ok, there's a difference between between having healthy doubt, and ignoring the evidence.
"Everything you know is wrong"
To question the unquestioning of the mind.
Oh, dear goddess, why do I bother?
People are going to flock of together, to the sunset another to kill, steal or screw.
We don't live in a void. We are not absconded from our enviornment.
How hard is that to understand?
Seems to me to be the very underpinnings of responsibility.
If you do something to change the environment, then something is going to change.
Posted by DaFreak4ever on 07/27 at 06:11 PM
"I think climate science is doing itself and humanity no favors by refusing to permanently end the doubts"
That's just the way science works. They can only give you probabilities. In this case it is highly likely that we are contributing to global warming. Scientists have no other way of saying that. They can never be a 100% certain of anything because they are not a religion or god. If tomorrow we discover new data, this might shed new light on this phenomenon that changes our opinion. It is however HIGHLY unlikely, especially with a consensus swinging this far in the direction of GW.
For example, by analogy we can be relatively certain that the speed of light is a barrier BUT we can not be a 100% certain simply because we don't know the future and we don't have all the data. The same goes for the scientists themselves. it's practically impossible to get each and every single scientist to agree on any given topic. That's how science advances. If there weren't any people that believe the light speed might not be the ultimate barrier that everyone says it is, we wouldn't be looking for tachyons (hypothetical particles that travel faster than the speed of light). They could be out there and we would never know. However, just because a few lone scientists out there are looking for them does not mean they exist or that the lightspeed barrier isn't real.
I hope you can see the analogy? Even though we need a few deniers and contrarians, they don't automatically draw into question the validity of a widely distributed opinion amongst members of the science community in general. If these deniers manage to persuade more than 75% of the climate scientists then we will talk again.
Anyway, in my opinion this whole debate isn't worthy of much time and energy for the simple reason that everything we need to do to halt global warming are, like Mr Brin said, "things we ought to do anyway".
Posted by David Brin on 07/27 at 07:59 PM
At last!
Valkyrie Ice is the first "skeptic" who has responded to my article (or the followup) by actually accepting the challenge to make statements that separate her from the political Denialist cult, before then demanding respect as a critic of possible human and/or scientific failings in the scientific establishment. That she did so without reciting MY specific wordings, but instead by paraphrasing the same meanings in her own words, simply increases my respect.
Fine. Then how can we help people like Valkyrie join their voices together and gain leverage to become useful critics? Instead of being crammed together with the same basket of culture warriors who brought us Creationism and the Chicago School of Economics?
I don't have an answer. But if such people were to congregate with each other, while adding their voices in support of TWODA precautions, and parsing their complaints as well-worded QUESTIONS... then I would help to bring their group to the attention of some genuine atmospheric scientists, and I would try my best to talk them into lowering their hackles enough to get a conversation going.
We do not benefit from this chasm that was artificially created by genuine enemies of civilization.
Posted by Valkyrie Ice on 07/27 at 09:55 PM
Thank you, Mr. Brin. What you are failing to see though are the two OTHER posts I attempted to make, as well as the e-mail from Mike dismissing my words as "bogus". He denied my first post, allowed the second only to make his "case" that I was a denier, and refused to publish my defense, though he did post the follow up link I posted following my second response...
Which simply illustrates your case even more. As someone who does try to keep a balanced view, and analyse evidence objectively, all too often I am attacked from ALL SIDES for failure to be at one of the polar extremes. Even getting to voice doubt is often disallowed on sites such as this where the mods are "true believers" in AGW. All too often, every dissenting voice to the "consensus" is dismissed by simple refusal to allow questions.
I firmly support all efforts to create technology which can repair and prevent ecological harm, but I do not think some of the most drastic "solutions" proposed by the "AGW" movement will produce any positive effect. Carbon cap and trade especially, since it will simply control carbon in a few countries, will not be controlled by others, and without universal adherence, will encourage the corporations who are the main target to simply move their industries to those nations which do not place pollution limits.
I'm a strong advocate of finding alternatives for all polluting technology, and such developments as this: http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=17198.php which details a non-legislative solution that seems far more practical, scalable, and useful than any of the legislation I've seen advocated.
My main complaint with the "AGW" camp is the overwhelming politicization of the entire climate science issue. It's become far less than "encourage the creation of technologies which promote the health and well being of the planet" and much more "let's dictate to the 3rd world what they are not allowed to have so that we don't have to find new and innovative ways of coping with the mess we made." Even more disturbing is this "lockstep groupthink" mentality which has come to pervade the "AGW" camp.
I don't deny that "denialists" exist, and that many of them are batty as batty can be, but disallowing any contrary viewpoints doesn't make a case for AGW, all it does is drive people like me, who are unconvinced of the AGW "consensus", into supporting the denialist case by default, whether we wish to or not.
Posted by Mike Treder on 07/27 at 10:23 PM
In my defense as moderator, I will note that: 1) we have stated repeatedly that our blog is focused on promoting solutions to problems, and that we're not interested in providing a forum for industry-fueled denialism; 2) every time we publish an article calling for action on climate change, we receive numerous comments from people who sound like they are simply repeating what they've heard from Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck; 3) this time is no exception, as I have had to disapprove several comments from people claiming there is "no evidence" for AGW, etc.; and 4) after I read the first comment that Valkyrie submitted in this thread, which called AGW "a cult", I wrote back explaining that it would not be approved. When another comment using less inflammatory language was submitted, I approved that one.
Posted by Valkyrie Ice on 07/27 at 11:44 PM
I understand that Mike, which is why I rewrote the first post. However, I used no language or descriptions of AGW which have not been used BY AGW defenders against me.
What you are not aware of is that this is an OLD and exceedingly tired argument with me. One in which I have had to defend myself from EVERY side simultaneously. The "denialists" can't accept that I am for 80% of the goals of the AGW movement, I am simply unconvinced of the "catastrophism" and the "primary cause". Yet I also am attacked repeatedly for expressing that doubt by the AGW crowd, for whom that disagreement is enough to catagorize me as "a Rightwing nutjob denialist"
I never claimed there was no evidence for Global Warming, Mike. I have claimed there is INSUFFICIENT evidence of the catastrophic nature of that warming, and a lack of clear enough indications that CARBON and CARBON ALONE is responsible for that change, as opposed to a single factor among many, for ME to make a judgement one way or the other. I used to side with the AGW crowd. Sufficient evidence has come to my attention to call that former 100% support into doubt. Expression of that doubt lead to the AGW crowd tossing me wholesale to the denialists. Your response to my first post, which was written in haste and did indeed have far stronger language due to my frustration at NEVER BEING ALLOWED TO HAVE A DISSENTING POSITION ON AGW, merely aggravated that further. Had you simply stated that you found the language too "inflammatory" and requested a revision and resubmittal, then I would not have felt the need to point out your refusal to post either my first post, or my response to your calling me a "denialist" Instead, your email was needlessly belittling and insulting.
I freely admit to having fallen into a couple of bad cliches in my first post, as well as expressing far too much resentment at not being allowed to express an opinion that differed from the "consensus", but your response did little but reinforce the point Mr. Brin was making. I may not be the model skeptic he was hoping to find, but regardless of whether I am or not, refusal to post dissenting views is not the way to prove the validity of any argument.
I don't have to agree with you on everything to share many of your goals, Mike. Neither does failure to agree with every goal make me an enemy - unless you insist I have to be one.
And, for the record, if you ever accuse me of listening to limdumbo or that treason spouting clown Beck again, I might have to thump you one. (jk, though I do find the insinuation highly insulting) Limdumbo and Beck the clown are exactly WHY I am worried about the "denialists " not being addressed in the manner I advocate, namely restoring the credibility lost by the CRU emails. I may not agree with AGW completely, but I am FAR MORE OPPOSED to the rampant idiocy and ludditeism of the radical rightwing conservatives. I would really appreciate not being lumped in with them again.
Posted by Mike Treder on 07/27 at 11:53 PM
Valkyrie, I didn't say that you were the commenter who claimed there is "no evidence" for AGW. That was someone else. I also didn't say (and didn't mean to imply) that you are a person who listens to Limbaugh or Beck, nor do I think you are. But believe me, if you saw some of the comments that don't get approved, you'd have little doubt where they are getting their talking points.
Posted by Valkyrie Ice on 07/28 at 12:40 AM
Ah. My misunderstanding.
What it seems we have here is a case of us both being a little too haired triggered. If Beckisms and Limbo Dittoing are your primary response, I suppose a hasty reading of my post would sound similar. For my part, I spend so much time being accused of being a "dittohead" that I seem to have come to sound a bit resentful. I will have to try and watch that.
Posted by Bruce on 07/28 at 04:31 AM
David - I very much like your SF, particularly Uplift War and The Practice Effect. However I threequarters disagree with your argument here.
Science has comprised the development of hypotheses, which are tested against data and if successful become theories, which are generally regarded as true (although with provisos - for example the Standard Model is very successful, but is continually being poked and prodded).
This requires interpretation of the data and matching against the hypothesis. Not matching against the output of models (which you correctly imply are not quite there yet). As a scientist and modeller for most of 30 years this is what I've been doing with my time in my own field. In my case I validate models against the real data and chuck them out if they don't work.
Now, look at the temperature record, even from GISS (which tends to print the higher numbers). The data is lower than Dr Hansen's case C, which was a model output for an artifical case assuming zero further anthropomorphic CO2 release from about 1988 (if I recall).
Now that to me says there is something seriously wrong with the assumptions behind the models.
On the other side, alternative hypotheses are evolving towards theory status, as for example scientists start to look at which are really the statistically significant variables. So, if you use the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Urban Heat Island effect you can explain as much as 75% of temperature rise in a century. That leaves little left for CO2, N2O, CH4 and aerosols (especially diesel particulates). So hypotheses such as by Dr Roy Spencer the lead scientist on the most well regarded satellite temperature series fit the data and the hypotheses from Dr Hansen and other climatologists do not seem to.
On this basis, where CO2 and other greenhouse gases account for perhaps 0.2-0.3C /century (with questions whether some of this is actually from aerosols) why should anyone destroy their economy for the sake of the precautionary principle? The cost benefit analysis are unlikely to work at whatever multiplier you use. NEAR impacts are more likely on the data!
On top of this, other data suggest a solar driven cooling period of perhaps 50 years is just commencing, which would be made even more harmful by inadvised anti global warming economic actions.
A reasonable analysis would also look at the merits of adaptation as a precautionary principle activity as well. Yet this is rarely done, and never by those most furiously arguing for immediate catastrophic economic actions.
Apologies for giving you a hard time with this post, but I would recommend you interpret the actual data against the statements of CAGW proponents. Also remember the hard time that Alfred Wegener went through when he proposed continental drift.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Add your comment here:
| 
IEET Blog