'Naysayers Guide to Global Warming.

[Stratos Ferric]

I make this point in answer to some above who seem to suggest that a sceptic has to provide an alternative scientific argument. This is not true of any sceptic in any argument, the onus is on them that believe to convince by their arguments those that do not or those who believe as I do in something in the middle. It is for those who seek changes in the behaviour of the many to place and win their argument for it is them that wish to alter the status quo.

Whether those who whole hearted believe in every word of the IPCC report think I or people like me are total idiots is irrelevant as there are enough desenters to make their voices important, simply you cannot do it without us. No amount of challeging or banging fists on tables is going to make that any different, you will have to go back and come up with better arguments won't you?

There's a difference between informed scepticism, head in the sand ignorance, and pig headed denial. If I followed your argument then I'd be in a bizarre situation wherein a criminal who decides he doesn't agree with the common definition of law, simply because he doesn't want to, can justify pretty much whatever behaviour he or she likes.

There is statistical proof of warming the basis of which in science is as immutable as the law of the land ought to be in other circumstances. The fact that non statisticians do not understand statistical concepts does not make them any less robust, just as a drunk has no defence before the law in momentary incapacity.

The problem of playing the "make a case" card is that it assumes the other side is willing to listen, and in any case listening. There are one or two on here of whom that isn't true. Say what you like about my point of view, I will always post a reason for disagreeing with a sceptical comment - where I can find one; to do that I must at least have listened. I don't think there's a single sceptic that has paid me the same degree of attention when I have presented statistics; the best that one or two can muster is along the lines of "I don't accept it" and "it's happened before".

Sceptics don't have to say anything, but for my part, the respect in which I would hold a sceptics view is going to be driven by the extent to which that scepticism can be explained. Holding a view simply because it's the view you hold is just another form of bigotry; yes, hold a view, but please have a thought through reason for doing so, one which you are proud to shout and defend.

[Mondy]

I'm not sure it's a risable question, more a philosophical point for you to ponder.

Say you entered a town in which there were only two people, one of whom was known for always answering a question the same way, whatever the evidence to the contrary, and one that did not. If you wanted a considered opinion on a subject which one would you ask?

The two people being you and I?

You clearly being the one in the know and me not is how i read that, SF.

Far be it from me to say, but i think you're becoming rather juvenile and silly now.

If you are so sure of yourself, why post/reply on here[a thread for sceptics]?

I really don't know what else to say when you and I clash...let's just leave it, eh?

Edited February 26, 2007 by Mondy

[HighPressure]

There's a difference between informed scepticism, head in the sand ignorance, and pig headed denial. If I followed your argument then I'd be in a bizarre situation wherein a criminal who decides he doesn't agree with the common definition of law, simply because he doesn't want to, can justify pretty much whatever behaviour he or she likes.

There is statistical proof of warming the basis of which in science is as immutable as the law of the land ought to be in other circumstances. The fact that non statisticians do not understand statistical concepts does not make them any less robust, just as a drunk has no defence before the law in momentary incapacity.

The problem of playing the "make a case" card is that it assumes the other side is willing to listen, and in any case listening. There are one or two on here of whom that isn't true. Say what you like about my point of view, I will always post a reason for disagreeing with a sceptical comment - where I can find one; to do that I must at least have listened. I don't think there's a single sceptic that has paid me the same degree of attention when I have presented statistics; the best that one or two can muster is along the lines of "I don't accept it" and "it's happened before".

Sceptics don't have to say anything, but for my part, the respect in which I would hold a sceptics view is going to be driven by the extent to which that scepticism can be explained. Holding a view simply because it's the view you hold is just another form of bigotry; yes, hold a view, but please have a thought through reason for doing so, one which you are proud to shout and defend.

I partly put my argument in a Devils avocate way and I see your point about the drunk who does not accept his behaviour is out of line but in all honesty if thats the only type of people opposing the argument the believers would be home and dry. The problem is that I am not drunk, I am not stupid but I would also admit to not being a technical expert on Climate and I do listen to both sides. For every graph and figure coming from the lets call them total believers there is another one coming from the total sceptics. Now I have a decent IQ and I am listening but I cannot lie neither you (the total believer) or them the total non-believers have not convinced me and there are millions and millions of others like me. I would love to be able to agree with your view SF but the truth is you have not convinced me, I am here on this site wanting to be one or another but it ain't happening and that is surely not my fault is it? So what you going to do with us less drunk folk just ignore us or force us to do what you want because you understand these things and that the scientists on the otherside of the argument are all mad and are actually US double agents. You cannot just dismiss us in that way if you want the man in the street with you, you will have to talk to him in his own tougne. That is simply my point!

[Gray-Wolf]

Still trying to make 90 cents into a Dollar eh? As far as I know my sceptics, honarable though they are, they need 'proof' (it's all I ever hear) and 'proof' is 100%. Unless they have some fundimental change ,via an 'enlightenment' their black will remain your white.

This is a 'Sceptics thread' , unless your proof is 100% you need not apply........Geddit?

[Stratos Ferric]

I partly put my argument in a Devils avocate way ...You cannot just dismiss us in that way if you want the man in the street with you, you will have to talk to him in his own tougne. That is simply my point!

Marketeers use a concept called adoption of technology (in fact it goes back a long way before marketing was a "pure" subject); there are early adopters, people who rushed to buy 8-tracks and Betamax videos and MicroCD players and Sinclair C-5s and Deloreans, none of which persisted very long: there are people like me who know that the price falls and the glitches get worked out only after a year or two - at least - of product life: and there are those who simply never go there, for whatever reason, perhaps they live in Cumbria.

The tipping point for each of us is at a different point in any argument. For some people there is no tipping point, no amount of reason that will convince, and the reasons for this stance can be anything from totally legitimate to totally illegitimate (from the perspective of sound reason), that's not to say that nobody has a right to think as they please.

At the moment all we have is some compelling statistics. If people can't get their head around them then so be it; it's no different to people buying a lottery ticket and honestly believing they are likely to win, or even that there's a worthwhile chance.

I think plenty of arguments have been put forward in the simple words of the layman, and more will come if the trends continue as they are. Glaciers retreating, growing seasons lengthening, species migrating polewards, other species declining as habitats suffer or predators thrive. There are plenty of evidential pointers towards undeniable warming. Is man to blame? Well, given that the argument hinges on a lot of physics and chemistry then you have to either be able to get your head around the arguments yourself, or trust those who can, if you're going to make your mind up.

But amongst those who doubt the chemistry and physics, why don't you also doubt medicines, the workings of which you don't understand? Why do you trust E-numbers? Why do you trust metal tubes with wings to stay in the sky?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I firmly believe in GW because, fact, we are warming. It's impossible to look at a plot of global temperature and say anything else unless you're looking through a curvy mirror. There is hardly a sane person out there who denies we're warming. And of those many, there are very few who attribute all the warming to man.

I have stated time and over why I am no longer inclined to the natural warming view, there are just too many coincident factors to suggest unusual warming and a degree of man induced forcing. We are now outside reliably measured limits and seem to warming at a rapid pace at present. I have occasionally remarked that we are probably still just about at a point where it might be entirley natural, but with each passing year that, statistically, becomes a less and less tenable position to take.

I'm not sure it's a risable question, more a philosophical point for you to ponder.

Just to add my bit in what seems to be developing into a "Naysayers vs Stratos Ferric" argument; take particular note of the points I've just quoted.

If someone says "GW is definitely happening, humans are largely responsible, we're all going to die etc" then okay, I can understand the feeling that GW-believers are being narrow-minded and like a religion and unwilling to consider other views. What I see in the points above, though, is not the stance of a "GW-believer" per se, but rather someone who has considered the weight of scientific and observational evidence, and arrived at conclusions that reflect the most probable reality.

Honestly, I would much rather believe that the world wasn't warming up, and that humans couldn't significantly impact the global climate. However, I have a personal motto of always searching for the absolute truth, even if it isn't what I want it to be. The IPCC reports are by no means infallible (some relevant contributors at UEA's Climate Research Unit recently admitted to me that this was the case, for example), but it's hard to take in the weight of evidence and not conclude that there is, at least, a high probability that human activities are affecting the climate, and an even higher probability that the globe is warming up. The reason why I praise the IPCC reports is because leading scientists have at least made an effort to make it as unbiased as they can; something often lacking in climate change reports.

[Stratos Ferric]

TWS,

I do tend to suspect that in some "naysayers" there's a vein of not altogether altruistic thinking. It has disappeared of late, but not so long ago there was a near reliable siamese twinning of "I don't believe" and "it's just another way of taxing me".

The distinction you make between reasoned disbelief and principled disbelief is an important one.

[Stratos Ferric]

Here's some links for you all to click on and digest. They probably won't interest the pro GW'rs, but for those unsure or wanting to reinforce their sceptism, have a looksie:

12. Forget global warming. Let's make a real difference. By Bjorn Lomborg

That'll do for now.

Not sure that's a sceptic Mondy in your terms; just someone who doesn't buy in to the arguments about what to do about warming. Different argument.

Datasets show inconsistent trends in global temperatures

Statistically, Global Warming may not be real

Clouds and Global Warming

Glaciers in India not melting

If you own cattle and believe in Global Warming......tut, tut!

Humans do not cause Global Warming

Meteorologist launches website to counter media's global warnming hysteria

Most of the climate changes we have seen up until now have been a result of natural variations

Mondy, the second one in no way questions whether we are warming. It is a test of different approaches to describing HOW we are warming. I see nothing that says that we are not warming, just that we may not be doing so linearly, which again, most of us on here would not argue with.

[HighPressure]

But amongst those who doubt the chemistry and physics, why don't you also doubt medicines, the workings of which you don't understand? Why do you trust E-numbers? Why do you trust metal tubes with wings to stay in the sky?

Yes but there are very few top scientists arguing that these medicines don't work and showing me cases of it, there are many top scientists that suggest AGW is not entirely down to man and our role in this is much lower than suggested by the IPCC report. The suggestion that these are all cranks or somehow conspirators does not wash. As for chemistry and physics, I know enough to know that theories are just that until science finds a way to provide mathmatical proof.

In my own mind I have decided that action is required to reduce our carbon footprint and you will see comments of mine on other threads, but this is not because I am convinced by the argument put forward by the IPCC or by people like yourself. Its because I cannot argue against the evidence that man is having at least some impact on GW but I don't know how much and how significant this is or whether as I suspect mother nature has more than enough up her sleve to deal with us and our messy ways.

[The Eagle]

The whole GW agenda is within vested interests and therefore will not be taken seriously until facts are established on the issue in my view. The others, i.e most of those pushing it here are fanatics - twisted into a 'green' mindset from which they wont recover.

Have a read of the FACTS:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/pproject.htm

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Bryson/g...e_thoughts.html

2. It is a fact that the warming of the past century was anthropogenic in origin, i.e. man-made and due to carbon dioxide emission.

Wrong.

That is a theory for which there is no credible proof. There are a number of causes of climatic change, and until all causes other than carbon dioxide increase are ruled out, we cannot attribute the change to carbon dioxide alone.

Edited February 27, 2007 by Darkman

[Roger J Smith]

I've read all this with interest, but I continue to think that almost everyone is missing the whole point of this situation --

The warming is real and documented, but more indicative of a natural warming cycle at work than the AGW lobby cares to admit.

Given that fact, we appear to be increasingly on the wrong road here, a road of starry-eyed optimism that if the right kind of politics (perhaps I should say the left kind) prevail, then we human beings can (shucks) reverse global warming and set things right in the world again.

This invites an economic disaster for two basic reasons. First, we will be committed to costly programs that don't actually work, and introduce the real possibility of severe economic recession in the developed world at just the time where we are coming more and more under attack from a vigorous adversary with our ultimate destruction in mind.

Secondly, while there is still some time left to realize that we face the consequences of a natural cycle of warming, which will inevitably lead to sea level rises and various other effects (not all of them bad, people in North Dakota won't mind their winters being milder) this political crusade will divert any possible attention away from a sensible response, which would be to begin aggressively planning for sea level rises and the necessary engineering projects to ameliorate the effects.

I don't wish to be too strident here, but from my own political and scientific perspective, I believe that public opinion is being stampeded in the wrong direction on this important issue, and that we would be wiser to take a different approach, which I would call "integrated response to climate change."

This would manage the uncertainty by proposing as follows --

-- All industrial nations, whether developed or developing, should equally commit to cleaning up their greenhouse gas emissions, for any number of beneficial reasons, one of which could be to assist in the reduction of global warming, but also, to promote a more healthy environment especially in urban areas.

-- There should of course be a wide range of initiatives to develop alternative energy sources, once again for the basic reason of the desirability of technological advancement.

-- At the same time, it should be accepted that a natural cycle of warming could be reaching a critical phase where at least the north polar ice cap is threatened in the next half century, with predictable consequences for sea level rises, and therefore all affected countries should be planning for various means to combat the effects of rising sea levels as well as shifting agricultural production zones. These effects should be expected rather than "prevented" as basic public policy, and once this fundamental shift in thinking takes place, we had better act aggressively and quickly or we will run out of time before sea levels begin to rise more significantly than we have known in the past few decades (a slight rise that has still had some serious effects locally).

That's my take on it, and it's not so much a repudiation of AGW as an effort to restore some balance and dare I say logic to a situation where emotions are running high but quite possibly common sense is not -- this warming will not go away just because we may succeed in slowing down our production of greenhouse gases, and who realistically thinks that we can make giant cuts in these emissions? I think that it would prove to be ineffectual in any case against the power of a natural cycle, but given the uncertainties, the wisest public policy should surely be to work on both assumptions and expect the worst case scenario of a natural cycle running full steam ahead for many decades to come.

If it then just cools off and the north polar ice cap remains intact, and global warming fades out of the public agenda, this policy would gradually adjust to that new reality by scaling back on planning, while at the same time going ahead with the benefits of a cleaner environment.

The Kyoto process brought in a fundamentally flawed set of values for this question, in my view, even if you accept the science of the AGW lobby, because there is no way that we should be establishing different rules for different types of economies -- this will just be expanded upon in future rounds so that the process can be used not only to prevent global warming but to cure social injustices perceived by the same people who perceive the AGW science, and this is basically just rubber-stamping a political agenda that has not passed the test of the voters in the various participating countries, in other words, establishing a socialist paradigm through an international treaty instead of through electoral politics. This is why Kyoto will not sell in North America, people see through that part of it and don't accept that China for example should be allowed to remain outside the general framework of environmental improvements -- this was the same thing that we allowed the former Soviet Union to use to its advantage, and all the world got out of that flawed paradigm was massive pollution and eventually Chernobyl.

Who knows what environmental horrors lie ahead if China is given the message that they don't have to meet the same standards as the rest of the world? Who for that matter knows what horrors have already taken place? Another point being widely missed in this debate is that a good deal of the change in arctic ice cover can be attributed not so much to warming as to soot deposition, and much of that comes from eastern Asia and its widespread coal and wood burning practices.

Edited February 27, 2007 by Roger J Smith

[Devonian]

Have a read of the FACTS:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/pproject.htm

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Bryson/g...e_thoughts.html

The Oregon petition. The one signed by one of the spice girls? It's a joke!

[VillagePlank]

All people come in different flavours.

Before the adolescents amongst us get too excited, I think I'd better explain. There are not two camps. There is an infinite division amongst all of us.

Consider this; each and everyone of us takes in the same information through the same senses. How we process that information is what makes us individual. There is certainly a case for saying the construction of the brain, perhaps the distance in the synaptic cleft or dendritic length, is solely down to gene construction but that is, in and of itself, another argument, another discussion, and irrelevant to my point.

Anyway, I digress; we all accept the same information. What happens to that information is what I think is important. We all build what I shall call filters. Filters are mechanical means, born mainly from experience, of sifting through vast tracts of information and coming to a conclusion. Without such a process, we’d all keel over from some sort of overload.

It’s clear to me that education has a large part in this. I am not talking of intellect, nor am I talking of whether or not you attending a grammar school; I am talking about that of which you have learnt.

I’ll take SF, as an example – and I hope he doesn’t mind. Clearly SF has a strong learnt background in statistics, and, I presume, statistical analysis. This, you might be surprised to learn, is somewhat of a problem. If you look at his profile and read through a large majority of his posts you will see a strong bent on ‘I rely on statistics’ This is a dangerous stance. It might not be wrong but it is a perfect example of an individual applying their own filter set to a problem domain.

The implication in SF’s case is that if he can accept the statistics, then the chances are he will believe the conclusion derived therein (indeed if we can provide strong statistical evidence, I’m sure he would listen to the argument more cogently) If he can’t accept the statistics – perhaps the author is ‘no good with numbers’ then regardless of the argument the incorrect statistics might get in the way.

This is, of course, vastly vastly simplified; and one should not consider this as a critique of SF’s ability at logic (or anything else) just picking up an (obvious) example. Indeed I’ve taken this example to it’s nth (unlikely) extreme – so apologies if you’re offended, SF.

Let’s look at someone else. Consider anyone’s post. Can you see their filter set? Do you **care** about how it is they process information, or do you only see the words. It is, after all, ultimately, what they believe. And it’s incredibly hard to change filters that we’ve built in over many many years – especially one’s we starting constructing when we were born.

There is an human need for a higher purpose.

We all know this, and it’s been demonstrated socially. For some on **either** side of the debate GW is that calling. It is, for some, an analogy of a priest calling people to God. Behaviorally, it’s identical.

Consider the basic Christian bible story. Beautiful planet (Eden) Man screwed up (ate the apple) Saviour turns up (Christ) Gives us the chance for redemption (Crucifixtion) Hell to pay until we’re saved (Armageddon)

I do not need to spell out how this relates – directly – with the story of global warming. Pick any major human belief system and it’s always the same pattern. Man made something good really really bad; but fortunately there’s a chosen few who know the path to redemption.

This is, I’m afraid, standard human behaviour. It is the same for both sides of the GW camp. Both sides. Some feel they are going to save us from economic doom by stopping action to mitigate global warming. Others believe that by lobbying strongly for GHG emission cuts we’re going to save ourselves from certain death.

Both sets of beliefs are the same topological filter. A filter we gained from our parents, our friends, our childhood, and our education, indeed - from our very existence.

There is not one member of the human race who can escape this reality. We all have them, we all implement them, we are all **bound** by them.

This is the reason for hot-headedness, for anger: why is it that someone else simply can’t see what I can see. They can see it; they just process it differently.

Some people hide this strength of human nature and deride it as bias. Human beings cannot live without bias. Everything we turn our hand to has bias. Everything. Even mathematics (**especially** mathematics)

But something remains. An important something. I believe that with us all subject to filters we **need** each other to point out ideas, concepts, and beliefs that we just wouldn’t see because of our own filter set.

This leads cleanly to an old adage . . .

We, the forum, are greater than the sum of the parts.

[Devonian]

Consider the basic Christian bible story. Beautiful planet (Eden) Man screwed up (ate the apple) Saviour turns up (Christ) Gives us the chance for redemption (Crucifixtion) Hell to pay until we’re saved (Armageddon)

I do not need to spell out how this relates - directly - with the story of global warming. Pick any major human belief system and it's always the same pattern. Man made something good really really bad; but fortunately there's a chosen few who know the path to redemption.

VP, I'd just urge you to be careful with this religious analogy. I would not be alone in taking some offense with the 'Oh, you're just religious nuts/believers and thus not rational' type argument that it comes close to, and I'd add others don't like it. For example, those who run 'ClimateAudit' (a site with which I normally and profundly disagree) jump on anyone making religion/ious comments.

Btw, I don't think you're views are religious, ie belief, based. No, you and I and everyone here are surely capable of rational thought?

Edited February 27, 2007 by Devonian

[VillagePlank]

VP, I'd just urge you to be careful with this religious analogy. I would not be alone in taking some offense with the 'Oh, you're just religious nuts/believers and thus not rational' type argument that it comes close to, and I'd add others don't like it. For example, those who run 'ClimateAudit' (a site with which I normally and profundly disagree) jump on anyone making religion/ious comments.

Btw, I don't think you're views are religious, ie belief, based. I'd hope we could accept that applies to us all?

Devonian; this is not intended to cause offense - so I'll apologise instantly for those for whom it does. But I think the point remains - there are people on both sides of the debate who use the GW debate as their higher calling. I stand by that.

And I didn't conclude that those who do are not rational in the same way that I'd expect some fervent Christians to be exceptional scientists, too.

One further point, is that I think that all of our views are belief based. How can it be anything else but thus? It is, I think, a physical impossibility to consider all current scientific thinking at an instance in time in order to make a cogent, and utterly justified conclusion. Of course, this line of reasoning leads to the simple axiom that the more you read the less you rely on your belief; but it does remain, of course, that we cannot irradicate belief.

Any acceptance of the existence of bias corroberates this claim.

Edited February 27, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Osbourne One-Nil]

When I was at school, I supported Cambridge United because everyone else supported Ipswich. I hated Duran Duran and U2 because everyone else liked them.I got so un-upset when Princess Diana died partly because everyone else went so overboard. I find Little Britain completely rubbish. I like to be different. I like to go against the norms sometimes. I think everyone does this to an extent, if you get what I mean.

[VillagePlank]

When I was at school, I supported Cambridge United because everyone else supported Ipswich. I hated Duran Duran and U2 because everyone else liked them.I got so un-upset when Princess Diana died partly because everyone else went so overboard. I find Little Britain completely rubbish. I like to be different. I like to go against the norms sometimes. I think everyone does this to an extent, if you get what I mean.

Certainly. There is certainly a contrarian filter in there somewhere! Do you come from a family with large amounts of siblings (>3)?

Edited February 27, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

Devonian; this is not intended to cause offense - so I'll apologise instantly for those for whom it does. But I think the point remains - there are people on both sides of the debate who use the GW debate as their higher calling. I stand by that.

And I didn't conclude that those who do are not rational in the same way that I'd expect some fervent Christians to be exceptional scientists, too.

One further point, is that I think that all of our views are belief based. How can it be anything else but thus? It is, I think, a physical impossibility to consider all current scientific thinking at an instance in time in order to make a cogent, and utterly justified conclusion. Of course, this line of reasoning leads to the simple axiom that the more you read the less you rely on your belief; but it does remain, of course, that we cannot irradicate belief.

Any acceptance of the existence of bias corroberates this claim.

Sorry, but I profoundly disagree with the 'all' bit. Read what scientists write. When there is doubt (and doubt has no place in religious type belief by definition) they use words expressing doubt. Those of us on the 'warmer' side use expressions of doubt all the time. 'Likely', 'very likely', 'unlikely', 'possible' are littered across the most recent IPCC SPM. Those aren't statements of belief.

But, doubt and uncertainty are just that. They don't mean that the opposite will happen or even that the opposite is likely, or that the science is wrong. No, doubt means doubt, it's not certian becuase we can't say for certain, belief it aint, probability it be.

Now, to be fair, lets see how many sceptics express doubt about their positions? Do you, for example, have doubts about your assertions above about us all are right? Would any of the prominant sceptic here conceed the IPPC might be right?

Edited February 27, 2007 by Devonian

[VillagePlank]

Sorry, but I profoundly disagree with the 'all' bit. Read what scientists write. When there is doubt (and doubt has no place in religious type belief by definition) they use words expressing doubt. Those of us on the 'warmer' side use expressions of doubt all the time. 'Likely', 'very likely', 'unlikely', 'possible' are littered across the most recent IPCC SPM. Those aren't statements of belief.

I think that they are statements of belief. It could, in my opinion, be re-written: 'I believe, with 90% certainty that x will occur' It contains the same semantics, regardless of the syntax, and expresses belief.

But, doubt and uncertainty are just that. They don't mean that the opposite will happen or even that the opposite is likely, or that the science is wrong. No, doubt means doubt, it's not certian becuase we can't say for certain, belief it aint, probability it be.

Consider Bayesian probability, for instance; this indicates the degree of belief of an uncertain outcome. It is entirely based on rational mathematics, but expresses belief.

Now, to be fair, lets see how many sceptics express doubt about their positions?

My position is that we all hold a position of belief. It is for them to express that as they see fit.

Do you, for example, have doubts about your assertions above about us all are right?

Yes, many.

Would any of the prominant sceptic here conceed the IPPC might be right?

That is a matter for them. Edited February 27, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

I think that they are statements of belief. It could, in my opinion, be re-written: 'I believe, with 90% certainty that x will occur' It contains the same semantics, regardless of the syntax, and expresses belief.

Well, you can believe that if you like . I do not believe with 90% certainty, I think it's 90% likely. Indeed, can you have 90% certainty? It sound oxymoronic to me. Even at 90% I don't rule out that it's wrong, but I think the science is, probably, right.

[VillagePlank]

Even at 90% I don't rule out that it's wrong, but I think the science is, probably, right.

That's a very good point.

Doesn't the summary say that the evidence they have collected is 90% certain, but they don't attribute a likelyhood to their climate model output for the future. Indeed it is, by definition, uncertain, so they attribute what effectively is the same as GFS ensembles.

Can you say with certainty that the weather that has actually occured has fit within the GFS ensemble range T+240? I haven't done the exercise but I'd be immensely surprised if that is GFS's success rate at that range.

I can go through a curve fitting exercise (high-degree polynomial, for those interested) with 90% accuracy, say, with regard to the CET, but it certainly doesn't mean that the curve will be correct as we move into the future; indeed I've tried it in the CET thread a number of times, and I've been wildly out!! (those 'in the know' will point out that, infact, linear least squares is one of the worst possible ways of prediction )

Edited February 27, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Admiral_Bobski]

Would any of the prominant sceptic here conceed the IPPC might be right?

Let me jump right in with both feet and say "Yes".

It would be arrogance above and beyond the call of skeptical duty (!) to deny the possibility that the IPCC are right. I, for one, have never said that the IPCC are unequivocally wrong. I know, on the other hand, that their conclusions are contrary to my (inherently limited) conclusions. I believe that they have missed or misinterpreted information, as this is a possible explantion for the disparity, though I accept that my thoughts on the subject could be wrong.

So basically I believe that the IPCC are wrong, but accept that this might not be the case. I'm with VP on the issue of belief

Toodle-pip!

C-Bob

[Stratos Ferric]

That's a very good point.

Doesn't the summary say that the evidence they have collected is 90% certain, but they don't attribute a likelyhood to their climate model output for the future. Indeed it is, by definition, uncertain, so they attribute what effectively is the same as GFS ensembles.

Can you say with certainty that the weather that has actually occured has fit within the GFS ensemble range T+240? I haven't done the exercise but I'd be immensely surprised if that is GFS's success rate at that range.

I can go through a curve fitting exercise (high-degree polynomial, for those interested) with 90% accuracy, say, with regard to the CET, but it certainly doesn't mean that the curve will be correct as we move into the future; indeed I've tried it in the CET thread a number of times, and I've been wildly out!! (those 'in the know' will point out that, infact, linear least squares is one of the worst possible ways of prediction )

VP,

You're right, linear least squares (regression) is no basis for extrapolation in an unstable short-term data series. It works when there's a trend apparent, which is essentially what IPCC are doing (in simple terms) - though their curve is likely polynomial not linear.

They have predicted a certain outcome (warming) but within wide bounds. I think the 90% reflects the potential that there are as yet potential unknown drivers of the detected change in climate, together with the fact that statistically we are not yet quite out of the bounds where routine variability can be absolutely dismissed for most intents and purposes. With each passing year the latter problem diminishes (i.e. the longer a trend continues for the more certain you can be that it's a trend not a blip awaiting correction); progress in reducing the former can also be expected.

We keep saying, comparing GFS to a climate model and extrapolating uncertainty from one to the other is like the difference between trying to prejudge the precise track of a ball across 90 minutes of a football match between Man United and my old Sunday league XI as opposed to predicting the final result. Modelling climate and weather are two very different things, just like modelling the economy and modelling daily spending patterns.

Let me jump right in with both feet and say "Yes".

It would be arrogance above and beyond the call of skeptical duty (!) to deny the possibility that the IPCC are right. I, for one, have never said that the IPCC are unequivocally wrong. I know, on the other hand, that their conclusions are contrary to my (inherently limited) conclusions. I believe that they have missed or misinterpreted information, as this is a possible explantion for the disparity, though I accept that my thoughts on the subject could be wrong.

So basically I believe that the IPCC are wrong, but accept that this might not be the case. I'm with VP on the issue of belief

Toodle-pip!

C-Bob

Ah, but are you going to share the wisdom and insight that you have and which the massed ranks of IPCC scientists might have missed?

Yes but there are very few top scientists arguing that these medicines don't work and showing me cases of it, there are many top scientists that suggest AGW is not entirely down to man and our role in this is much lower than suggested by the IPCC report. The suggestion that these are all cranks or somehow conspirators does not wash. As for chemistry and physics, I know enough to know that theories are just that until science finds a way to provide mathmatical proof.

In my own mind I have decided that action is required to reduce our carbon footprint and you will see comments of mine on other threads, but this is not because I am convinced by the argument put forward by the IPCC or by people like yourself. Its because I cannot argue against the evidence that man is having at least some impact on GW but I don't know how much and how significant this is or whether as I suspect mother nature has more than enough up her sleve to deal with us and our messy ways.

HP, can I check something here please? Are you assuming that I am attributing all warming to man's activities?

[VillagePlank]

We keep saying, comparing GFS to a climate model and extrapolating uncertainty from one to the other is like the difference between trying to prejudge the precise track of a ball across 90 minutes of a football match between Man United and my old Sunday league XI as opposed to predicting the final result.

I disagreee; the methods to manage uncertainty (ensembles) are identical, and considering the England team the track could be the basis for a superb random number generator (rather like my wife and kids shopping in Bluewater . . . )

Edited February 27, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Stratos Ferric]

The two people being you and I?

You clearly being the one in the know and me not is how i read that, SF.

Far be it from me to say, but i think you're becoming rather juvenile and silly now.

If you are so sure of yourself, why post/reply on here[a thread for sceptics]?

I really don't know what else to say when you and I clash...let's just leave it, eh?

Not at all Mondy: read again please. I did say "YOU", not "one", but "you". Now answer from your perspective. GIven the knowledge, which one of the two would you (i.e. you, Mondy) ask?

Yes but there are very few top scientists arguing that these medicines don't work and showing me cases of it, there are many top scientists that suggest AGW is not entirely down to man and our role in this is much lower than suggested by the IPCC report. The suggestion that these are all cranks or somehow conspirators does not wash. As for chemistry and physics, I know enough to know that theories are just that until science finds a way to provide mathmatical proof.

...

Oooh, I don't know, top of head in the recent past I offer you:

- do mobile phones cause cancer?

- do power lines cause cancer?

- are multiple vaccines safe?

- aspirin: good or bad?

- salt: good or bad?

- DDT: good or bad?

- cannabis: good or bad?

- does a healthy diet matter? What is a healthy diet?

- are high incidence cancer cells close to nuclear power stations evidence of the fact that nuclear power is unsafe?

I think you'll find that there are plenty of areas of controversy, and pretty much any substance on earth is open to critical assessment (if, often, only due to spurious correlations), it's just that we tend to be sensitised either to what the media is hot on, or those where we suffer no loss of utility by addressing the issue. I suspect that from today there will be fewer people now breaching the law re use of mobile phones whilst driving.