Sceptic Links Discussion

[Osbourne One-Nil]

...but I am somewhat bemused as to why, when given the chance, do the pro camp decline to discredit the so called nonesense that we sceptics site as reasons for our questions? All too often sceptics are dismissed with one line comments

I think you'll find many have provided exactly the responses you seek, but perhaps not in this thread, and that is probably due to the nature of the discussion in the past resulting in much banging of the head against the wall. Perhaps a browse through past topics might give you what you're looking for?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Ok, if they're wrong lets see you restimates (?) of natural forcings and how you arrived at them.

That's a little unfair, Devonian! HP quite clearly stated "I am not qualified to present this as a scientific argument, they are just my thoughts on what I have read, seen and heard:" But regardless of this, many skeptics have this deep-seated feeling that natural effects are more powerful than they are given credit. Now, fair enough, you can argue that it's just a feeling and not science, but these feelings are compounded by such actions as the IPCC's revision of Solar effects which, from the information I have seen, do not bear this out. If Solar effects are being arbitrarily diminished or dismissed then what other natural factors are being sidelined?

Has it, solar activity, increased? Perhap by a little but not by enough to explain all the warming seen. What solar change data do you approve of?

To the best of my knowledge there has been no significant increase in solar activity in the past decade, I concede (although I believe volcanic activity is supposed to have been on an increase - I'll double check that...), but HP's point was that "they have the trend in net solar activity plus volcanic forcing as negative in recent decades.". How can the net trend be negative if there have been no actual decreases in these events?

(HP)My third area of concern is that at no time in history can high solar activity be matched with a large hole in the Ozone layer and therefore its combine effects on GW cannot be fully understood?

Ahh, the old 'I want proof' argument re worded. Sorry, proof isn't available.

No, not a rewording of the "I want proof" argument at all - I think what HP is saying (sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, HP!) is that we know of no similar time in history when both high solar activity and the ozone "hole" coincided. That isn't to say that it has never happened before, but we don't know whether it has happened before. This being the case, how can the current warming be conclusively linked to human activity when it is certainly possible that any perceived "extreme" changes could be as a result of purely natural coincidences?

I think you'll find many have provided exactly the responses you seek, but perhaps not in this thread, and that is probably due to the nature of the discussion in the past resulting in much banging of the head against the wall. Perhaps a browse through past topics might give you what you're looking for?

Hi OON!

I know that a lot of skeptic viewpoints have been debated in the past and that this thread runs the real risk of getting repetitive and rehashing old ground. The difference between now and then is that there are more skeptics on the board now who may not have been able (or brave enough!) to get involved in those debates. I'm hoping that we may be able to go back over some old ground that wasn't adequately defended in the past, and to bring up new points that have not been previously addressed.

:lol:

CB

[Devonian]

That's a little unfair, Devonian! HP quite clearly stated "I am not qualified to present this as a scientific argument, they are just my thoughts on what I have read, seen and heard:" But regardless of this, many skeptics have this deep-seated feeling that natural effects are more powerful than they are given credit. Now, fair enough, you can argue that it's just a feeling and not science, but these feelings are compounded by such actions as the IPCC's revision of Solar effects which, from the information I have seen, do not bear this out. If Solar effects are being arbitrarily diminished or dismissed then what other natural factors are being sidelined?

It is surely highly contradictory to claim not to be qualified and then claim those that are qualified don't know what they're talking about?

What makes you think solar effects are being 'arbitrarily' diminished? Isn't it possible that what study of the evidence has shown? Likewise, what suggests to you natural factors are being 'sidelined' rather than evaluated properly?

[Admiral_Bobski]

It is surely highly contradictory to claim not to be qualified and then claim those that are qualified don't know what they're talking about?

What makes you think solar effects are being 'arbitrarily' diminished? Isn't it possible that what study of the evidence has shown? Likewise, what suggests to you natural factors are being 'sidelined' rather than evaluated properly?

It is possible to read scientific papers and get the general gist of what they're saying without actually being sufficiently qualified to offer alternative hypotheses (which is basically what you asked HP for).

It is also possible to read scientific papers and identify what would appear to be leaps of logic. Whether such leaps are down to personal bias or poor writing is harder to determine.

There are Creationists out there who know exactly what they're talking about, but it's still possible to pick out flaws in their arguments. (That's just an example - perhaps not a very good one, but an example all the same!)

What makes me think that solar effects are being arbitrarily diminished is the fact that I haven't yet read a paper that suggests that solar effects are being overestimated (and the couple of papers I have read which hint that there may be a possibility of this don't suggest anything like the 50% reduction the IPCC announced).

My thoughts on natural factors being sidelined...

Let's start with the obvious: Earth's a big ol' planet which comes complete with its own set of extremely complicated systems and cycles, most of which we don't understand in any great depth and many, I should imagine, that we don't even know about yet (admittedly that final statement is speculative, but since science is still discovering things we didn't know about Earth it seems like a pretty reasonable assertion). How we can claim to be able to pinpoint one factor (man's influence) and attribute the lion's share of the blame to it when we don't fully understand the various other natural factors is beyond me.

With regards to CO₂, I find it hard to accept (and have found little evidence to support the notion) that mankind's additional contribution of CO₂ since the Industrial Revolution (perhaps as much as 150ppm) has caused temperatures to increase by the better part of 1°C. CO₂ levels have topped 2500ppm without there being a commensurate increase in temperatures. While I accept that CO₂ does cause a warming effect at a basic level, there's a world of difference between a sealed glass box and the Earth's atmosphere. For a start, a sealed glass box has a true "greenhouse effect" whereas the Earth's atmosphere does not.

In addition, it is quite clear that the current warming is well within the Earth's natural variability - this supported by the Vostok Ice Core (look at the little lines, not the big ones!) and this graph:

The Vostok Ice Core seems to indicate that 2-4°C warming can occur as rapidly as we see today, and the graph above shows that we are far below the Earth's "maximum" temperature (the "maximum", incidentally, being the far more commonplace temperature level).

In short, there seems to be a lot of research based on the premise that "Mankind is Causing Global Warming" and nowhere near enough research asking the question "Is Mankind Causing Global Warming".

:lol:

CB

Edited June 19, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[jethro]

[

No link?

But this is interesting. Why some people trust people others mistrust and vice versa is I guess the essence of this debate. Why is this House of Lords report more trustworthy than the IPCC IYO? I find some politicians (not scientists) saying there is politics in the IPCC rather unconvincing. But, I guess the idea is those politicians don't have agendas...

My view is that the weight of the evidence points one way.

[Guest Viking141]

Execellent post Capn B and I find myself in agreement with most of what you have said, particularly your first 2 paragraphs which apply to me! Just for your info the question as to whether volcanic activity is on the increase you asked earlier, this was asked before on my volcanic activity thread and I did some digging around. According to the USGS (US Geological Survey) and The Smithsonian Institute, there is no appreciable increase in volcanic activity at the moment. That situation can change dramatically in a short space of time however!

Edited June 19, 2007 by Viking141

[Devonian]

It is possible to read scientific papers and get the general gist of what they're saying without actually being sufficiently qualified to offer alternative hypotheses (which is basically what you asked HP for).

It is also possible to read scientific papers and identify what would appear to be leaps of logic. Whether such leaps are down to personal bias or poor writing is harder to determine.

I really don't see how if, that's if, you're also claiming to be not qualifed so to do :lol:

There are Creationists out there who know exactly what they're talking about, but it's still possible to pick out flaws in their arguments. (That's just an example - perhaps not a very good one, but an example all the same!)

What makes me think that solar effects are being arbitrarily diminished is the fact that I haven't yet read a paper that suggests that solar effects are being overestimated (and the couple of papers I have read which hint that there may be a possibility of this don't suggest anything like the 50% reduction the IPCC announced).

My thoughts on natural factors being sidelined...

Let's start with the obvious: Earth's a big ol' planet which comes complete with its own set of extremely complicated systems and cycles, most of which we don't understand in any great depth and many, I should imagine, that we don't even know about yet (admittedly that final statement is speculative, but since science is still discovering things we didn't know about Earth it seems like a pretty reasonable assertion).

Again, if you've not a qualified to know or say, how do you know? How do you know what there is left to be discovered? I don't, but I think when I go in a room I'll see the elephant before the mouse. But, perhaps sceptics are just better at spotting things that experts haven't?

How we can claim to be able to pinpoint one factor (man's influence) and attribute the lion's share of the blame to it when we don't fully understand the various other natural factors is beyond me.

But, if you're not an expert how do you know enough to say that?

With regards to CO₂, I find it hard to accept (and have found little evidence to support the notion) that mankind's additional contribution of CO₂ since the Industrial Revolution (perhaps as much as 150ppm) has caused temperatures to increase by the better part of 1°C. CO₂ levels have topped 2500ppm without there being a commensurate increase in temperatures.

Ocean current were different then as were the configuration of the continents. You can't (well, an exPert wouldn't B) ) compare apples with oranges and say 'look, they're the same!'

While I accept that CO₂ does cause a warming effect at a basic level, there's a world of difference between a sealed glass box and the Earth's atmosphere. For a start, a sealed glass box has a true "greenhouse effect" whereas the Earth's atmosphere does not.

In addition, it is quite clear that the current warming is well within the Earth's natural variability - this supported by the Vostok Ice Core (look at the little lines, not the big ones!) and this graph:

The Vostok Ice Core seems to indicate that 2-4°C warming can occur as rapidly as we see today, and the graph above shows that we are far below the Earth's "maximum" temperature (the "maximum", incidentally, being the far more commonplace temperature level).

In short, there seems to be a lot of research based on the premise that "Mankind is Causing Global Warming" and nowhere near enough research asking the question "Is Mankind Causing Global Warming".

CB

It takes time for the climate system to respond to a forcing like CO2.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I really don't see how if, that's if, you're also claiming to be not qualifed so to do :lol:

It's remarkable the number of laypeople who can talk - even if only just a little bit - about physics simply because they've read A Brief History of Time, or The Elegant Universe, or any one of John Gribbin's popular science books. These laypeople aren't scientists (hence the term) and yet they can have an understanding of the subject matter. Some people grasp it much better than others. None of these laypeople are "qualified", and yet they can talk with some degree of knowledgability about the subject matter.

If they read a "rival" book that proposes an alternative view of physics then most of them would be able to spot the differences between the two works, and some may even be able to spot some incorrect conclusions of the rival theory. They're still not "qualified" or "experts", and yet they have some concept of the subject matter.

You can't dismiss a skeptic argument purely on the grounds that the skeptic in question is not qualified to propose that argument. Delve a little deeper. Find the root of their concerns. But don't just dismiss them based on a preconceived notion of that person's degree of knowledge.

But, perhaps sceptics are just better at spotting things that experts haven't?

It's not a question of being "better" than the scientists. I am not so arrogant as to presume that I somehow know more than the scientists, or am less biased than the scientists, or whatever it is you seem to think of skeptics. The point is that many skeptics (the ones who are at least somewhat rational) have genuine misgivings about issues in the science which they feel are not being addressed.

Many skeptics don't agree with the conclusions in scientific papers because what they have read in those papers doesn't seem to support the summary - as I said earlier, this could be due to bad writing or genuine logical leaps, or a misunderstanding on the part of the reader. Whatever the cause, the disagreements are not necessarily irrational.

Ocean current were different then as were the configuration of the continents. You can't (well, an exPert wouldn't B) ) compare apples with oranges and say 'look, they're the same!'

I wouldn't call it "comparing apples with oranges" - it's more like comparing a Granny Smith with a Golden Delicious.

This is a retort I have read many times - "you can't compare what's happening now with what's happened in the past". Well if that's the case then we may as well forget about global warming all together. If we're "not allowed" to make comparisons with the past then what are we to base our understanding of climate on? Since climate is all about long-term large-scale weather trends, we have to make comparisons with the past. By dismissing the historical record you are effectively leaving a completely blank page upon which to construct your own theory - a theory with no historical support whatsoever.

It takes time for the climate system to respond to a forcing like CO2.

I don't think I understand the relevance of this comment...

However, do you accept that the experiment often referred to (the glass box experiment, into which CO₂ is pumped) describes a true "Greenhouse Effect", and that the Earth does not have a true "Greenhouse Effect"?

CB

Edited June 19, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

It's not a question of being "better" than the scientists. I am not so arrogant as to presume that I somehow know more than the scientists, or am less biased than the scientists, or whatever it is you seem to think of skeptics. The point is that many skeptics (the ones who are at least somewhat rational) have genuine misgivings about issues in the science which they feel are not being addressed.

You're not arrogant but you ARE presuming to know better, ok you call it misgivings but it amounts to the same thing. You think they're wrong, and you think you know why. But you also claim not to be expert. That's a hard circle to square.

I've read a brief history of time. I don't think I know better than Hawking.

I wouldn't call it "comparing apples with oranges" - it's more like comparing a Granny Smith with a Golden Delicious.

The further back in time you go the more radically the make up of the continents, and ocean curents differ. Radically differ.

This is a retort I have read many times - "you can't compare what's happening now with what's happened in the past". Well if that's the case then we may as well forget about global warming all together. If we're "not allowed" to make comparisons with the past then what are we to base our understanding of climate on?

A comparable time? How about since the the last ice age? Perhaps as far back as several million years. The further back you go the less comparable.

Since climate is all about long-term large-scale weather trends, we have to make comparisons with the past. By dismissing the historical record you are effectively leaving a completely blank page upon which to construct your own theory - a theory with no historical support whatsoever.

I don't think I understand the relevance of this comment...

I'm saying the distant past, not the historic (thousands, few million) record, has problems of lack of comparability for the reasons I gave.

However, do you accept that the experiment often referred to (the glass box experiment, into which CO₂ is pumped) describes a true "Greenhouse Effect", and that the Earth does not have a true "Greenhouse Effect"?

CB

The Earth isn't surrounded by glass :lol: . Nonetheless the effect is known as the GH effect. We're enhancing it - question is: by how much.

[

No link?

But this is interesting. Why some people trust people others mistrust and vice versa is I guess the essence of this debate. Why is this House of Lords report more trustworthy than the IPCC IYO? I find some politicians (not scientists) saying there is politics in the IPCC rather unconvincing. But, I guess the idea is those politicians don't have agendas...

My view is that the weight of the evidence points one way.

No idea why the link didn't come up, hopefully this time will be more successful.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/l...onaf/12/12i.pdf

From my perspective, it isn't so much a matter of trust, more that if a statement such as the IPCC with its'broad sweeping predictions and the ensuing decisions made from such advice; afterall it will impact everyone; should be the subject of scrutiny from all quarters. It has been scrutinised by the Lords Select Committee and they have raised concerns. If the IPCC case is water tight then no matter how stringent the scrutiny nor the origin of such scrutiny, there surely should be no cause for issues or concerns to be raised.

Er hum, no one is claiming the IPCC case is 'watertight'. They use words like 'likely' or 'very likely' to describe probabilities. I think they're likely to be right about their probabilities. Am I/they 100% sure? No. Are you feeling lucky?

[Admiral_Bobski]

You're not arrogant but you ARE presuming to know better, ok you call it misgivings but it amounts to the same thing. You think they're wrong, and you think you know why. But you also claim not to be expert. That's a hard circle to square.

I've read a brief history of time. I don't think I know better than Hawking.

I don't presume to know better - I have misgivings because I have questions that aren't being answered. You must have missed my point, because I wasn't claiming that those who read A Brief History of Time knew better than Hawking, or even that they were on a par with him - the point is that someone who has read A Brief History of Time and understood any part of it can claim to have some knowledge in that area.

The further back in time you go the more radically the make up of the continents, and ocean curents differ. Radically differ.

The fact is that if we had a good grasp, or even a basic working knowledge, of climatic processes then it would be possible to extrapolate backwards and make comparisons with ancient climate. You talk about the makeup of continents and the differing ocean currents - do you think that these differences would have a greater effect than a tenfold increase in CO₂? And, if so, how much of an effect do you attribute to carbon dioxide?

A comparable time? How about since the the last ice age? Perhaps as far back as several million years. The further back you go the less comparable.

I'm saying the distant past, not the historic (thousands, few million) record, has problems of lack of comparability for the reasons I gave.

And yet the graph I posted earlier shows that despite the great changes over billions of years the Earth's temperature varies almost exclusively between 12 and 22°C. The differing layout of the Earth's oceans and continents doesn't preclude all comparisons.

The Earth isn't surrounded by glass :lol: . Nonetheless the effect is known as the GH effect. We're enhancing it - question is: by how much.

There's more to it than that - the actual process by which the Earth retains heat is different from the way a greenhouse retains heat. The term "Greenhouse Effect" is a misnomer. Since the Earth is not defined by a true greenhouse effect it is not appropriate to use the behaviour of CO₂ in a greenhouse environment as a proof of how CO₂ affects our climate.

"How much", though... That is the question...

CB

[Devonian]

I don't presume to know better - I have misgivings because I have questions that aren't being answered. You must have missed my point, because I wasn't claiming that those who read A Brief History of Time knew better than Hawking, or even that they were on a par with him - the point is that someone who has read A Brief History of Time and understood any part of it can claim to have some knowledge in that area.

The fact is that if we had a good grasp, or even a basic working knowledge, of climatic processes then it would be possible to extrapolate backwards and make comparisons with ancient climate. You talk about the makeup of continents and the differing ocean currents - do you think that these differences would have a greater effect than a tenfold increase in CO₂? And, if so, how much of an effect do you attribute to carbon dioxide?

And yet the graph I posted earlier shows that despite the great changes over billions of years the Earth's temperature varies almost exclusively between 12 and 22°C. The differing layout of the Earth's oceans and continents doesn't preclude all comparisons.

One minute you say 'The fact is that if we had a good grasp, or even a basic working knowledge, of climatic processes then it would be possible to extrapolate backwards and make comparisons with ancient climate." the next minute you present a graph which purports to show just that - doh! I find that graph odd, do we really think climate moved between 12 and 22C and only 12 and 22C? I think it's a schematic.

There's more to it than that - the actual process by which the Earth retains heat is different from the way a greenhouse retains heat. The term "Greenhouse Effect" is a misnomer. Since the Earth is not defined by a true greenhouse effect it is not appropriate to use the behaviour of CO₂ in a greenhouse environment as a proof of how CO₂ affects our climate.

CB

Well, then I suspect that's not what they do. But then I trust the scientists :lol:

[jethro]

Er hum, no one is claiming the IPCC case is 'watertight'. They use words like 'likely' or 'very likely' to describe probabilities. I think they're likely to be right about their probabilities. Am I/they 100% sure? No. Are you feeling lucky?

[Admiral_Bobski]

One minute you say 'The fact is that if we had a good grasp, or even a basic working knowledge, of climatic processes then it would be possible to extrapolate backwards and make comparisons with ancient climate." the next minute you present a graph which purports to show just that - doh! I find that graph odd, do we really think climate moved between 12 and 22C and only 12 and 22C? I think it's a schematic.

Well, then I suspect that's not what they do. But then I trust the scientists :lol:

I really don't understand the way you interpret things, Devonian (that's not intended as an insult - I honestly don't read things the way you do).

There is no contradiction between saying "a good understanding of climate enables easier comparisons between past and present" and then presenting that graph. The graph makes no comparisons - it is a schematic. That's not to say that it isn't accurate, just that it's simplified.

The graph presents historical fact, entirely separate from any comparisons. The comparisons can be construed from the graph or from other sources, but the graph is a graph (or a schematic, if you prefer). I see no contradiction whatsoever, and the only possible reason I can think of to claim I am making contradictions is so that you can somehow undermine my arguments...

You seem to think that schematics don't show accurate information, or somehow distort the information. A schematic is intended to simplify the data, and although it does not show precise information that doesn't mean that the information is not accurate.

The problem with the "Greenhouse" experiment is that it shows a causal link between CO₂ and temperature that may well not actually exist (at least, not as directly) in the real world. This experiment is often championed by AGW Advocates as proof of the devestating effect of CO₂ on temperatures, but it's actually an unfair comparison. I don't suggest that scientists make this error, but non-scientists often do - AGW is often, sadly, as much about rhetoric as it is about science.

CB

Edited June 19, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Admiral_Bobski]

Execellent post Capn B and I find myself in agreement with most of what you have said, particularly your first 2 paragraphs which apply to me! Just for your info the question as to whether volcanic activity is on the increase you asked earlier, this was asked before on my volcanic activity thread and I did some digging around. According to the USGS (US Geological Survey) and The Smithsonian Institute, there is no appreciable increase in volcanic activity at the moment. That situation can change dramatically in a short space of time however!

Sorry Viking - I missed this post! Thanks for that info about volcanic activity. What that means is that since solar activity hasn't actually decreased and nor has volcanic activity, even if there has been no increase then there is no way anyone could or should claim that there is a net decrease in solar and volcanic forcings. So the point I made is still valid (phew!).

CB

[HighPressure]

Thank you Captain for putting many of my feelings forward, simply the majority of earth inhabitants are not qualified scientists. The very people needed to implement large scale changes to the way we live are laypeople when it comes to the science, it is those that have to be convinced by the arguments. Now after having a genuine interest in this subject I have read many articles both for and against but am left with questions which I posted on here. That does not mean I can present a scientific case for these, but then again I don't need to as I have no axe to grind either way on this issue and am trying to be totally unbiased.

I may not be a qualified scientist but I do have a decent IQ can grasp arguments and have spent many years looking at and reading from graphs and working with prediction models. All models rely on some form of constants and or known variables to achieve an output by varying these even slightly you can get almost any output you like. In order to have some degree of confidence in a model output you have to have belief in the constants you use by way of historic evidence to show they achieve a reasonable close projection. The IPCC model outputs appear to me to be based on many mathematical 'unproven' theories for which there are no historical evidence to show them as correct, at the very least we need to see correlation's in historic data to at least some of these constants.

The IPCC expect us to accept that we are now on a totally new course in climate for which their is no previous data to explain or show their theories at work. They state that the total natural forcing over the past few decades is negative whereas our historic data tells us that solar maxima leads to net positive forcing? So if the solar effect is not great enough to cause warming on Earth it would not be causing GW on Mars either? I also note from IPCC projections no slowing down of GW in 20 or 30 years time when the Solar effect starts to diminish, surely any negative effect on natural forcing would show a kink in the trend even if it was believed to be continuing upwards?

Simply by saying that scientists have fantastic new mathematical theories does not constitute confidence in their projections. The IPCC themselves have no historic record of being correct previously either??

Edited June 19, 2007 by HighPressure

[trevw]

The problem with the "Greenhouse" experiment is that it shows a causal link between CO₂ and temperature that may well not actually exist (at least, not as directly) in the real world. This experiment is often championed by AGW Advocates as proof of the devestating effect of CO₂ on temperatures, but it's actually an unfair comparison. I don't suggest that scientists make this error, but non-scientists often do - AGW is often, sadly, as much about rhetoric as it is about science.

CB

I think you are hanging a little too much on a misnomer that originated from a need to explain the process of the absorbtion of longwave radiation by carbon dioxide in a way that the general public could understand from a 10 second news spot. That CO2 absorbs and re-emits radiation across a certain range of EM radiation frequencies is as sure a fact as that the sun will rise tomorrow - actually surer as the sun could always explode through some hitherto undiscovered process. This doesn't mean that the result is simple, various feedbacks could obscure or massively multiply the effect and this is where I (personally) believe any doubt still lies.

I tend to the view that there will be an initial re-inforcing of the warming effect due to a compensating increase in water vapour and albedo changes (currently IMHO being seen) followed by a plateau beyond which additional CO2 has little extra effect - at what concentration that would kick in I have no idea. However I am open to the possibility that some Natural cycle is responsible for a proportion (possibly a large one) of the current warming but even if this is the case the CO2 absolutely 'has' to be making things worse - just maybe only by a little bit..

Trev

[Admiral_Bobski]

I think you are hanging a little too much on a misnomer that originated from a need to explain the process of the absorbtion of longwave radiation by carbon dioxide in a way that the general public could understand from a 10 second news spot. That CO2 absorbs and re-emits radiation across a certain range of EM radiation frequencies is as sure a fact as that the sun will rise tomorrow - actually surer as the sun could always explode through some hitherto undiscovered process. This doesn't mean that the result is simple, various feedbacks could obscure or massively multiply the effect and this is where I (personally) believe any doubt still lies.

I tend to the view that there will be an initial re-inforcing of the warming effect due to a compensating increase in water vapour and albedo changes (currently IMHO being seen) followed by a plateau beyond which additional CO2 has little extra effect - at what concentration that would kick in I have no idea. However I am open to the possibility that some Natural cycle is responsible for a proportion (possibly a large one) of the current warming but even if this is the case the CO2 absolutely 'has' to be making things worse - just maybe only by a little bit..

Trev

To be honest I am not too troubled by the "Greenhouse" experiment - as I say, I fully accept that CO₂ does contribute to a warming effect. My little gripe was with the way that experiment is portrayed as being a direct parallel with global warming, which is clearly not the case - it's too simple to be used as a parallel in that respect.

As you do, I appreciate that the various processes and feedbacks that occur in the real world vastly complicate the situation, and I believe that this is the fundamental problem with AGW Theory - the interactions between the various processes and feedbacks are so horrendously complex that it seems absurd that manmade influences could be so straightforwardly determined as is claimed.

I pretty much agree with your last sentence, but it rather depends on your definition of the phrase "has to be making things worse". If by "worse" you mean "contributing to warming in some way" then I'd probably agree with you, but it's a bit of a loaded phrase because it suggests that the degree to which CO₂ is contributing to warming is relatively substantial. (The reason I pretty much agree with you is because of the line at the end: "just maybe only by a little bit".

I honestly believe that CO₂'s influence has been grossly overestimated. I'm still trying to substantiate that claim, but at the moment I only have circumstantial evidence of it. But then I would argue that there's only circumstantial evidence supporting the notion of Anthropogenic Global Warming too!

CB

[Devonian]

Er hum, no one is claiming the IPCC case is 'watertight'. They use words like 'likely' or 'very likely' to describe probabilities. I think they're likely to be right about their probabilities. Am I/they 100% sure? No. Are you feeling lucky?

I'm not talking about the accuracy of their predictions per se. If their science gives a probability of likely or very likely then taken at face value, it has to be correct. What troubles me is how they reached those conclusions. If data is left out for political or any other reason, if scientists with published, proven data are edited out or their work misquoted/misrepresented then the IPCC predictions are invalidated. If the summary of the scientists work, (even those accepted by the IPCC) is written and edited by those unqualified to judge what should or should not be included, then how reliable is that summary? It's akin to me asking "does my bum look big in this?" to a dozen people and only listening to those who say no, you look stunning.

humm,

If fossil fuel companies were funding certain scientists to write science to their liking, science that disputed there is a significant AGW effect, we'd have good reason not to trust that science wouldn't we? That's if they were doing that. Right?

[trevw]

I pretty much agree with your last sentence, but it rather depends on your definition of the phrase "has to be making things worse". If by "worse" you mean "contributing to warming in some way" then I'd probably agree with you, but it's a bit of a loaded phrase because it suggests that the degree to which CO₂ is contributing to warming is relatively substantial. (The reason I pretty much agree with you is because of the line at the end: "just maybe only by a little bit".

I honestly believe that CO₂'s influence has been grossly overestimated. I'm still trying to substantiate that claim, but at the moment I only have circumstantial evidence of it. But then I would argue that there's only circumstantial evidence supporting the notion of Anthropogenic Global Warming too!

CB

seems like we agree mostly then on the uncertainty of the severity of the current situation but lean towards the opposite ends of the range when it comes to our 'beliefs'.

[Admiral_Bobski]

humm,

If fossil fuel companies were funding certain scientists to write science to their liking, science that disputed there is a significant AGW effect, we'd have good reason not to trust that science wouldn't we? That's if they were doing that. Right?

I don't think Jethro's talking about scientists "writing science to their liking", but rather about so-called "Independent" groups (primarily the IPCC) taking legitimate science and "interpreting the science to their liking", which is a somewhat different thing.

It is frequently stated that the IPCC report is the work of 2,500 scientists, but this is not actually true. The original scientific papers from which the IPCC compiled their report were written by a grand total of 2,500 scientists, but the report itself is written by maybe one or two dozen people, not all of whom are themselves scientists.

Several of the scientists whose work was cited have asked to have their names removed from the final report. Okay, it may not be many who have actually done this but that's not the point - the fact is that 2,500 scientists are alleged to have been involved in the compilation of the report and yet some of them don't want anything to do with it. Maybe a lot more of them want nothing to do with it. There may even be some people who aren't even aware that their names are on the report (this is speculation, again, but it shows the kind of chain of reasoning which arises when considering the reality of the situation as opposed to the IPCC version of events).

But, once again, instead of refuting or countering Jethro's comments you choose to try and attack the credibility of the skeptic argument.

CB

seems like we agree mostly then on the uncertainty of the severity of the current situation but lean towards the opposite ends of the range when it comes to our 'beliefs'.

Yes it does, doesn't it?!

It seems I have a lot in common with a lot of "Pro-AGW" folk (for want of a better term), but I seem to have drawn totally opposite conclusions.

Is that indicative of the complexity of the debate or the twisted and terrifying state of my brain?!

CB

Edited June 19, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[jethro]

humm,

If fossil fuel companies were funding certain scientists to write science to their liking, science that disputed there is a significant AGW effect, we'd have good reason not to trust that science wouldn't we? That's if they were doing that. Right?

Absolutely. All scientific data should be above reproach. Funding should be made in equal measure for research into manmade and natural causes, this has always been one of my main gripes. I do however find the constant dismissal of sceptic questions with the standard "funding with oil money" rebuttal to be very tiresome. Not all scientists and lay people who raise doubts and questions are funded off the back of oil, nor are all those scientists unqualified quacks.

[jethro]

But, once again, instead of refuting or countering Jethro's comments you choose to try and attack the credibility of the skeptic argument.

Thanks Capt'n for coming to my defence and hitting the nail on the head, alas it appears to happen a lot of the time, I interpret it as speaking volumes about the lack of a valid counter argument.

CB

Is that indicative of the complexity of the debate or the twisted and terrifying state of my brain?!

Definately the latter, welcome to my world

[Admiral_Bobski]

But, once again, instead of refuting or countering Jethro's comments you choose to try and attack the credibility of the skeptic argument.

Thanks Capt'n for coming to my defence and hitting the nail on the head, alas it appears to happen a lot of the time, I interpret it as speaking volumes about the lack of a valid counter argument.

CB

Is that indicative of the complexity of the debate or the twisted and terrifying state of my brain?!

Definately the latter, welcome to my world

No problem, Jethro!

Maybe I should change my signature to Captain Bobski: Psychotically Standing up for Skeptics!

What do you think...a bit OTT...?

CB

[Iceberg]

Absolutely. All scientific data should be above reproach. Funding should be made in equal measure for research into manmade and natural causes, this has always been one of my main gripes. I do however find the constant dismissal of sceptic questions with the standard "funding with oil money" rebuttal to be very tiresome. Not all scientists and lay people who raise doubts and questions are funded off the back of oil, nor are all those scientists unqualified quacks.

There was a 50/50 split around 10-15 years ago, since then however the debate has moved on, who on earth is going to fund something if it's already largely been discounted by existing reputable institutions.

Several of the scientists whose work was cited have asked to have their names removed from the final report. Okay, it may not be many who have actually done this but that's not the point - the fact is that 2,500 scientists are alleged to have been involved in the compilation of the report and yet some of them don't want anything to do with it. Maybe a lot more of them want nothing to do with it. There may even be some people who aren't even aware that their names are on the report (this is speculation, again, but it shows the kind of chain of reasoning which arises when considering the reality of the situation as opposed to the IPCC version of events).

"Maybe a lot more of them want nothing to do with it", there is no evidence for this statement what so ever, yes a small hand full of scientists of objected to the IPCC reports over the years, but this is mainly due to the fact that they didn't get what they wanted when drawing up the conclusions, toys out of prams.

"Okay, it may not be many who have actually done this but that's not the point ", I disagree it's exactly the point you can't please 100% of the people all of the time, the fact that by and large they've pleased 95% is pretty impressive.

There may even be some people who aren't even aware that their names are on the report (this is speculation, again, but it shows the kind of chain of reasoning which arises when considering the reality of the situation as opposed to the IPCC version of events).

You may have that chain of reasoning but be honest it's completely baseless. All the scientists involved might be receiving payments of 1 million a year from Greenpeace but's it's very unlikely.

I've not really seen much from the sceptic POV or links really based on facts and hard researched science and there in lies the problem. It's always an unknown x that gets quoted instead of any of the real climate science.

[Iceberg]

http://newsbusters.org/node/13282

The above link proves my point perfectly. Science whats that ?.