Politics And AGW/GW

[Thundery wintry showers]

Tell me how either of the arguments that Iceberg has presented constitute "common sense"?

[Gray-Wolf]

I think the protest is something I'd like to witness/be involved in.

To think in 84' I was at the Monkwearmouth picket line fighting pit closures!!! LOL.

[Roo]

it's a work of pure common sense

'Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.' Albert Einstein.

[noggin]

Tell me how either of the arguments that Iceberg has presented constitute "common sense"?

Not with you here, TWS. Is this a rhetorical question? Is it a question for me, or am I being a bit thick? Apologies if I have missed something here...

'Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.' Albert Einstein.

Thank you for that, Roo. I disagree with him. I don't want to take things OT, so I will not explain why I disagree with him.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Not with you here, TWS. Is this a rhetorical question? Is it a question for me, or am I being a bit thick? Apologies if I have missed something here...

Thank you for that, Roo. I disagree with him. I don't want to take things OT, so I will not explain why I disagree with him.

Yeah, me too. Afterall it is only Einstein, what does he know!? :winky:

Regarding funding for sceptic scientists being cut, I'm afraid that is one conspiracy story that might well hold some truth. It is hard to get to hear the other side of the story as we know. One only has to look at the big corporation bias such as the BBC. Even the METO have been under fire for the way they have handled the climate change issue. It is seen with a jaundiced and rather withering eye to be sceptical of climate change. Even now. Against a popularist wave of opinion, anyone who speaks out against fanatical opinion does risk gagging, and will find it much harder to get the sort of financial backing that the AGW fraternity enjoy. It will only be when global flatlining turns into global cooling that the worm might turn.

Edited March 2, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Roo]

Regarding funding for sceptic scientists being cut, I'm afraid that is one conspiracy story that might well hold some truth.

I think we need this posting again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7092614.stm

There is no evidence of skeptical science being turned down or not being funded. Not one bit. Nada, Nicks, Niente.

[And noggin, it doesn't matter whether you disagree or not. You need evidence. I could disagree that the sky was blue and that the grass was green, but it still wouldn't mean diddly squat.]

Edited March 2, 2009 by Roo

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I think we need this posting again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7092614.stm

There is no evidence of skeptical science being turned down or not being funded. Not one bit. Nada, Nicks, Niente.

I would accept that this is a first sign that things might be starting to change for the better. But the premise behind sceptical science has held true, and we will have to see whether any encouraging trend gathers sufficient momentum to bring it to parity with the pro AGW science side.

Edited March 2, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Gray-Wolf]

I would still hold that we are beyond the "Who Dunnit" stage of climate shift and would rather recognise that we have real problems facing us (and our current global population) that are climate driven.

Rather than fiddle whilst Rome burns I feel it would make more sense to drop our differences and adddress the issues.

Edited March 2, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Iceberg]

Are there any papers that have been turned down by the likes of Nature and then published in something like geophysics with the same amount of evidence ?.

If nothing can be demonstrated to have been turned down and then picked up by another publisher without any alterations done, then its wrong to keep saying that skeptical science is being biased against.

I know of work that either isn't good enough to pass peer review or hasn't tried to be presented.

I would have thought that scientists that don't pass peer reviewing for anti skeptical reasons would be shouting this evidence from the roof top.

[Methuselah]

I would accept that this is a first sign that things might be starting to change for the better. But the premise behind sceptical science has held true, and we will have to see whether any encouraging trend gathers sufficient momentum to bring it to parity with the pro AGW science side.

But, we are all sceptical, NSSC; that's why our minds remain openish to alternative hypotheses...But, it isn't a matter of equal airtime, though. If it were, our schoolchildren would be snowed-under with every conceivable thesis, antithesis, anti-antithesis ad infinitum going. Would they ever learn anything or trust anything?

IMO, if the 'refuseniks' want equal airtime, they need to earn it with evidence, and not just cry 'conspiracy', 'coverup' or 'no one will fund me'!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Not with you here, TWS. Is this a rhetorical question? Is it a question for me, or am I being a bit thick? Apologies if I have missed something here... unsure.gif

"The existence of climate variability in the past has long been an embarrassement to those who claim that all climate change is due to man and that man can control it".

The first point is clearly trying to make out that the AGW argument is saying that all climate change is due to man and that man can control it. In essence an extreme straw man argument, attacking a vastly weakened version of the position. Only the most stupid of fringe extremists would make a statement like that.

So how is that common sense?

" Research papers with scientific finding contrary to the dogma of climate calamity are rejected by reviewers, many of whom fear that their research fuding will be cut if any doubt is cast on the coming climate catastrophe."

Strangely enough, I've seen quite a number of peer-reviewed papers that argue that there could be natural forcings that were underestimated. Solar activity has been picked up as a factor in a few of the papers I've read, and some suggest that up to half the Northern Hemisphere warming in the 1980s/1990s could be explained by the NAO. It is possible that some peer-reviewers might be more critical of papers that challenge accepted thinking rather than going along with it- the peer-review system is not perfect by any means. But it does not stop anywhere near all scepticism from getting through. The "funding" argument is wide of the mark as well- there will always be a need to learn more about climate, not just the anthropogenic side but also the natural side, we do not need alarmism in order to justify funding for climate research.

This kind of stuff is only common sense if you take the line, "AGW doesn't exist, therefore anything that says so must be common sense, and since it's common sense, AGW doesn't exist".

[Roo]

Are there any papers that have been turned down by the likes of Nature and then published in something like geophysics with the same amount of evidence ?.

If nothing can be demonstrated to have been turned down and then picked up by another publisher without any alterations done, then its wrong to keep saying that skeptical science is being biased against.

I know of work that either isn't good enough to pass peer review or hasn't tried to be presented.

I would have thought that scientists that don't pass peer reviewing for anti skeptical reasons would be shouting this evidence from the roof top.

Exactly!

In the journal I am involved with, albeit a different subject, if something has been refused in one and accepted by another it has to be stated.

As you say, there is not a huge commotion about rejected material. Why not? Hmmmmm.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I would still hold that we are beyond the "Who Dunnit" stage of climate shift and would rather recognise that we have real problems facing us (and our current global population) that are climate driven.

Rather than fiddle whilst Rome burns I feel it would make more sense to drop our differences and adddress the issues.

I'm all for action where and when best required GW . The problem is I am yet to be convinced (far from it) that acting on a theory alone is the right action. A cautious and then full costing of all feedbacks, postive and negative are required before action (and money required to take the action) are committed. I fear that IPCC judgements are both too vague and uncertain, as well as selective in their choice of feedbacks and assessments of them. The cost of taking incorrect or wasteful action is greater than the supposed risk against the planet we are saving. Think also the amount of time that taking potentially incorrect action might take? Then it might just very probably be too late. I am all for sustainable conservation of energy and resources, what I am unhappy about is that the overriding reason rammed down our throat for environmental prudence is always linked back every time to climate change. That is where the political battles have a source and a lifeblood. I am not sure that the obsession is healthy or being done dispassionately.

Acting now on the urging of AGW'ists is to take the most automatic assumtion that their judgements is correct, that they know best. This could also be construed as arrogant as well as premature. The saying act now, repent at leisure is so true.

Much more investigation in natural and cyclical forcings is required without trying to fit CO2 into every equation. A good analogy I have with AGW is that it is a bit like with the stratospheric thread this winter where some believed that the theory behind the thread was trying to fit a cold spell into an MMW. Although that wasn't actually the case with the thread, it is easy to see why people believed so. But there is a proven link between stratosphere and troposphere - it just doesn't always replicate the same outcomes through use of analogue. Similarly, with AGW theory, if the objective is set that the theory is actually fact, then the positive amplified feedbacks of warming drivers will be shaped and moulded to fit the theory, on the assumption that they are correct in the first place. However the theory is yet to have sufficient tenure to be presented as fact. The best test of a theory IMO is to approach from the view that it doesn't work and try not to make round holes with square objects. Therefore a redistributed approach by the IPCC, which is less selective in its analysis of forcings and less under pressure from political derivatives would provide that more balanced costing approach, audit if you will that I repeatedly mention.

As far as PT's point is concerned the approach I suggest above should be sensible to ensure that all-comers in the debate, pro AGW or sceptic, have equal value in 'airtime' in order to stand the best chance of getting to the truth. And putting aside conspiracy theories etc on both sides, I am sure deep down it is the truth that everyone wants. Maybe it is a case of the AGW brigade giving a little more to gain perhaps a lot more in terms of truth.

Whatever that truth maybe, warmer or colder, wetter or drier, CO2 or no CO2 etc etc.

Edited March 2, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Chris Knight]

Are there any papers that have been turned down by the likes of Nature and then published in something like geophysics with the same amount of evidence ?.

If nothing can be demonstrated to have been turned down and then picked up by another publisher without any alterations done, then its wrong to keep saying that skeptical science is being biased against.

I know of work that either isn't good enough to pass peer review or hasn't tried to be presented.

I would have thought that scientists that don't pass peer reviewing for anti skeptical reasons would be shouting this evidence from the roof top.

See "small comets" thread in Space, Science and Nature for one example.

Exactly!

In the journal I am involved with, albeit a different subject, if something has been refused in one and accepted by another it has to be stated.

As you say, there is not a huge commotion about rejected material. Why not? Hmmmmm.

It is either "Jump on the bandwagon" or get sidelined.

Edited March 2, 2009 by Chris Knight

[noggin]

I think we need this posting again:

[And noggin, it doesn't matter whether you disagree or not. You need evidence. I could disagree that the sky was blue and that the grass was green, but it still wouldn't mean diddly squat.]

The sky is blue (I won't be facetious and say things like "apart from when it is grey"). The grass is green. I imagine that those are the colours that most people observe them to be.

However, for Albert Einstein to say that "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" shows that although he may have been brilliant in some fields, in others he was sadly lacking.

As I said earlier, I do not want this thread to be derailed, so I shall say no more on the subject and you can infer, from that, whatever you like.

------

[Iceberg]

Chris, Can you provide a brief summery i.e the papers involved or link to the bit about AGW ?.

I've started following the links but seem to get lost with a lot of space stuff on what seems to be a theory that was started many years ago.

[Roo]

It is either "Jump on the bandwagon" or get sidelined.

Examples?

for Albert Einstein to say that "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" shows that although he may have been brilliant in some fields, in others he was sadly lacking.

Common sense does not mean anything: it is a collection of reactions held by an individual derived from their personal experience and understanding and bears no relation to evidence or learning.

How on earth can that be used to dismiss the whole mass of resarch and information detailing AGW?

Chris, Can you provide a brief summery i.e the papers involved or link to the bit about AGW ?.

I've started following the links but seem to get lost with a lot of space stuff on what seems to be a theory that was started many years ago.

Yes. I couldn't find a reference to it being turned down anywhere.

Edited March 2, 2009 by Roo

[Chris Knight]

Just goes to show that Ice and Roo have not bothered to read the links in the topic I pointed to. All that is needed is to click on the links and read. Understanding is optional, and somewhat dependent upon the intellect of the reader.

No, it is not AGW, it is a parallel case, a phenomenon which divides the closed- and open-minded.

In there is a specific case of Nature (the Journal) turning down the paper that it considered unsuitable for publication, (reasons given) and the sidelining of genuine researchers on the cusp of novel research that makes the old authorities unsettled, since the old school would have to rethink their comfy theories that they have fed off for years.

To Quote Prof. Frank in 1997:

But the shabby treatment I've received at the hands of some science journals has continued. Last year, Nature rejected one of our team's new small-comet papers by saying: "We are unable to conclude that the paper provides the sort of advance in understanding that would excite the immediate interest of a wide, general audience." How wrong can you be? When we announced our results from Polar at the end of May, the story drew the attention of CBS, CNN, NPR, most of the major daily newspapers in this country, including this one, as well as Time, U.S. News and World Report, and Science.

Edited March 2, 2009 by Chris Knight

[Iceberg]

That's no really fair Chris, I have read numrous links by people today, but equally I have a life, a job and a family All I've asked is could you be a bit more specific about where it points it out.

But we are talking about AGW here and AGW should really be the example.

[Chris Knight]

That's no really fair Chris, I have read numrous links by people today, but equally I have a life, a job and a family All I've asked is could you be a bit more specific about where it points it out.

But we are talking about AGW here and AGW should really be the example.

I apologise, not fair.

AGW, though, is not fairly treated from either side of the divide. The issues are contentious and nothing is settled.

[noggin]

Common sense does not mean anything: it is a collection of reactions held by an individual derived from their personal experience and understanding and bears no relation to evidence or learning.

How on earth can that be used to dismiss the whole mass of resarch and information detailing AGW?

1) Re your first line above.........Then what, pray, was the point in posting the quotation? Can I take it also that you too disagree with Mr Einstein's definition, because it looks as if you do, from what you have written?

2) Re your second line above.........What are you wittering on about? You have made a statement in your first line above and then have implied that people have used it ("it" being your idea of common sense, which differs from Mr Einstein's) to dismiss the whole "mass of research and information detailing AGW". Stop putting words into peoples' mouths, Roo.....it is you who has said it.......nobody else.

[Chris Knight]

derived from their personal experience and understanding and bears no relation to evidence or learning.

...does seem to be a wonderful contradiction

[Roo]

...does seem to be a wonderful contradiction

Not at all....what someone understands something to be is not necessarily what it is. Similarly, what you think you experience has nothing to do with methodological research and evidence.

And Noggin, my reason for posting the original Einstein quote was as a reaction to your backing of a theory because it was 'common sense'.....

Chris, can you please give examples of where people, papers, research, etc has not been treated fairly? This argument is being used so often that I really think chapter and verse is called for as I have yet to see even one example of this.

[Thundery wintry showers]

The definition of "common sense" is a bit tricky. It can refer to sound practical judgement (which I always associated with the term, and which is always righteous) or it can mean something that is widely accepted to be right- which doesn't mean that it necessarily is right.

I don't see many of Noggin's link's assertions falling into either definition of "common sense". The arguments don't add up when analysed, and they aren't arguments that are widely accepted- the general consensus is pro-AGW not anti-AGW.

Later, the researchers wrote a comment piece emphasising that values above 4.5C were very unlikely. GRL and one other journal have collectively turned it down a total of five times.

"I think it does count as bias to some extent," Dr Annan told me.

"But it's not really a 'sceptical' or 'alarmist' bias; it's more a political thing to do with not wanting to offend the wrong people. It's a bit of gentlemen's club."

That bit from the BBC article suggests to me that the claims of "bias" aren't entirely unfounded, but that most of any bias results from politics getting in the way of science, rather than the scientists themselves being the problem. Which is something I've always suspected anyway. But at the same time, there's a difference between "not unfounded" and "100% correct"- the claims that sceptical pieces are ignored, or scientists are desperate to push AGW to maintain their funding, is total twaddle. The reality is a long way short of that.

[PersianPaladin]

Then again....the general consensus can sometimes be misguided or deceived by those policy makers who enforce the accepted parameters of the prevailing paradigm.

Edited March 2, 2009 by PersianPaladin