Steps Toward Accepting Change

[snowsure]

I know that this has been talked about many months ago but I cannot immediately recall the full process.

1 - A sceptic denies all acceptance of an event (eg GW).

2 - In the face of increasing evidence they accept parts of it but still claim that the main event is not happening.

3 - Some time later they agree with all aspects of the event that they were sceptical of.

4 - Finally they claim (with reference to point 3 and complete denial of point 1 and 2) that they have always supported this event.

This process normally takes more than a month per part. Passing quickly through the process, whilst commendable and honest, is seized upon and you become discredited.

The above is my own recall of a more lucid process that other members have referred to. Please could you help me locate the original text.

[Roger J Smith]

Actually, the skeptical position is gaining ground rather than going through any such retreating phases.

Today on the Metoffice site, there is a rather veiled statement of concern that things are not going well for climate change at all. I saw this statement as a first faint admission that the AGW theory is dead in the water with the advance of polar ice and the rather obvious signs of widespread cold weather.

The "steps" are actually more like this:

1. A vocal entrenched lobby asserts a very controversial theory which not everyone believes to be true.

2. Skeptics are ridiculed during times such as Britain's unusually hot summer in 2006 and the following very mild winter.

3. Skeptics are not so easy to ridicule as the weather turns colder and colder relative to recent averages through the summer of 2007. A somewhat mildish winter halts the bleeding, but the events of summer 2008 and winter 2008-09 bring the climate change theory into almost complete public ridicule, on both sides of the Atlantic (if you don't like the truth, don't read my posts).

4. Now a talking head has been wheeled out to try to spin this a new way, "yes we always knew natural variability was a big part of the picture, etc (see Metoffice blurb)." Well guess what, that was never mentioned back in the old days of skeptic-roasting. We were told very (over-) confidently that natural variability was going down for the count in the "new climate" especially in "even larger teapot."

5. One by one, scientists who tied their colours to the AGW-IPCC-CC mast will sneak off the sinking ship and show up somewhere else with amnesia.

Those are the actual steps ... welcome to the future.

[Roo]

Today on the Metoffice site, there is a rather veiled statement of concern that things are not going well for climate change at all. I saw this statement as a first faint admission that the AGW theory is dead in the water with the advance of polar ice and the rather obvious signs of widespread cold weather.

Do you mean this article?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...pr20090211.html

“When climate scientists like me explain to people what we do for a living we are increasingly asked whether we “believe in climate change”. Quite simply it is not a matter of belief. Our concerns about climate change arise from the scientific evidence that humanity’s activities are leading to changes in our climate. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.”

I'd hardly say that her last paragraph suggests AGW is dead in the water.....

[Gray-Wolf]

Roger, with the greatest of respect the polar ice could reach the equator over winter but if it all melted back ,and then some, over summer we have an issue.

Last year ice recovered in a late spurt ,late winter, as such the ice area melted last summer was in excess of ice area melted in the record year of 07'.We also lost a shed load of shelf/perennial ice to boot leaving us with the lowest ice volume on record.

We should talk about sea ice in mid sept, 09' to draw conclusions as to any 'recovery'.

[ghrud]

Do you mean this article?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...pr20090211.html

“When climate scientists like me explain to people what we do for a living we are increasingly asked whether we “believe in climate change”. Quite simply it is not a matter of belief. Our concerns about climate change arise from the scientific evidence that humanity’s activities are leading to changes in our climate. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.”

I'd hardly say that her last paragraph suggests AGW is dead in the water.....

If you're a goverment funded body perhaps you have to say what you're told to say. I think the term is "spin"

Edited February 12, 2009 by ghrud

[noggin]

Do you mean this article?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...pr20090211.html

“When climate scientists like me explain to people what we do for a living we are increasingly asked whether we “believe in climate change”. Quite simply it is not a matter of belief. Our concerns about climate change arise from the scientific evidence that humanity’s activities are leading to changes in our climate. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.”

I'd hardly say that her last paragraph suggests AGW is dead in the water.....

Have you nothing to say about the general tone and content of the article, Roo? Cherry-picking by you, I feel.

The overall tone of the article is moderate and for me this is much more the sort of thing that I could give some credence to, rather than the blatant alarmist and Armageddon-type stuff that we usually have to put up with.

It certainly reads to me like a moderating of their previous stance.

I'm with Roger on this.

[Thundery wintry showers]

For the time being, I don't think the believers will win out over the sceptics for a while, because although the balance of evidence still points towards AGW, there is some room for argument- some limited evidence that it is still possible that human input may be having a negligible effect (assisted by the lack of warming over the last decade). There are some sceptics on these threads who make quite a fair case for the amount of uncertainty- I remember Captain Bobski making some strong counter-arguments to the mainstream pro-AGW arguments recently, for example. Unfortunately for every sceptic on these threads there seems to be two or three deniers whose arguments for lack of AGW are decidedly circular, and who would not look out of place in Snowsure's description if the globe was to start warming rapidly again.

I can't find the original text that Snowsure refers to - any takers?

The statement from the Met Office is entirely representative of the relatively moderate views of most of the scientists at the Hadley Centre- perhaps it does represent a moderation of the stance they've previously brought out, but it's a lot more in keeping with the mainstream view that has prevailed among climate scientists for some time. I think in the past, there has often been a fair amount of exaggeration, assisted by the media- which is referred to in the article itself, as it happens.

[Devonian]

If you're a goverment funded body perhaps you have to say what you're told to say. I think the term is "spin"

So, if the Met Office said AGW isn't happening then, erm, it is? You see the problem?

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

The statement from the Met Office is entirely representative of the relatively moderate views of most of the scientists at the Hadley Centre- perhaps it does represent a moderation of the stance they've previously brought out, but it's a lot more in keeping with the mainstream view that has prevailed among climate scientists for some time. I think in the past, there has often been a fair amount of exaggeration, assisted by the media- which is referred to in the article itself, as it happens.

There's nowt wrong with being an AGW 'denier' as you put it BUT they are wrong if they don't accept GW.

Now the moderation is sensible and like it or not what has happened over the last decade and is happening was NOT anticipated by the AGW camp. Its a sensible lead because of that.

BFTP

[Methuselah]

IMO, GW is an observable fact whereas AGW is a theory. So I'm with BFTP and the MetO on this one...

[pottyprof]

I'm a big believer in climate change..

Thats what the climate does.... It changes.. <_<

There, that wasn't too hard to come to a full on 100% agreement.....

[Thundery wintry showers]

There's nowt wrong with being an AGW 'denier' as you put it BUT they are wrong if they don't accept GW.

Now the moderation is sensible and like it or not what has happened over the last decade and is happening was NOT anticipated by the AGW camp. Its a sensible lead because of that.

BFTP

It depends on how you define 'denier'. By 'denier' I meant someone who has a closed view that AGW is a myth and refuses to objectively consider the evidence for and against- and I do see a lot wrong with that. Scepticism, on the other hand, is certainly a healthy thing.

Other than that, it's a good point- indeed, I don't think the AGW camp expected the plateau over the last decade. There were tentative predictions of a small period of slower warming, perhaps, but not to the extent that we're seeing- perhaps adding some hope that the human input into the climate system might not be as big as is feared. Only a 'might' though!

It strikes me that while the MetO/CRU have been fairly accurate with their annual global temperature predictions over the last decade, they have always erred too much on the high side. Some food for thought there perhaps.

[ghrud]

So, if the Met Office said AGW isn't happening then, erm, it is? You see the problem?

You need proof to blame mankind for warming the planet. The climate is and will always change but are we to blame, the goverment and the METO want us to think so. However, they provide no proof only theory.

[Methuselah]

You need proof to blame mankind for warming the planet. The climate is and will always change but are we to blame, the goverment and the METO want us to think so. However, they provide no proof only theory.

What sort of proof?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Well, should we dismiss the idea of evolution then, since it's based on theory and not proof?

Or should we dismiss the idea that March will probably be warmer than February since it's based on theory and not proof?

Well, should we dismiss the idea of evolution then, since it's based on theory and not proof?

Or should we dismiss the idea that March will probably be warmer than February since it's based on theory and not proof?

[Solar Cycles]

IMO, GW is an observable fact whereas AGW is a theory. So I'm with BFTP and the MetO on this one...

Nothing to add to that, sums it all up really!

[osmposm]

Well, should we dismiss the idea of evolution then, since it's based on theory and not proof?

Or should we dismiss the idea that March will probably be warmer than February since it's based on theory and not proof?

Well, should we dismiss the idea of evolution then, since it's based on theory and not proof?

Or should we dismiss the idea that March will probably be warmer than February since it's based on theory and not proof?

Um, four good points, TWS.....or perhaps two doubly good points?!

[laserguy]

Guys! Lots of mumbo-jumbo going down in this fledgling thread. How about the AGW types starting to take steps in accepting that their game is up?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Um, four good points, TWS.....or perhaps two doubly good points?!

Oops, it posted twice for some reason!

[HighPressure]

There is nothing wrong with being a skeptic, the furtherment of science depends more on them then believers. The problem on the issue of climate is that it involves complex mechanics and the many and varied views that exist are bundled up and put into one box "those on the other side of good" which is simply wrong and unfair. Even the IPCC are not 100% sure on climate change therefore other possibilities need to be looked at and you need dissenters to make that happen otherwise the research will not get done. This does not mean that the globe is not warming or that we should not try and do something about it, but we should be very careful about the road we take. My conclusion of the road signs I have seen so far does not give me confidence that we will end up at the right destination and I assure all paid up members of the AGW club that there are far more of me then there are of you.

[7andY]

Well, should we dismiss the idea of evolution then, since it's based on theory and not proof?

Or should we dismiss the idea that March will probably be warmer than February since it's based on theory and not proof?

I don't normally put my toe into these murky waters, but I'm not sure these two (or four!) points are good ones to make, whichever side you are on!!

We can surmise evolution, and see its effects over previous time. We cannot predict evolution. We can also surmise previous Climate Changes, and see the effects of previous Climate Changes, but our current predictions of Change Change are just that - predictions with no certainty in the outcome.

We can be fairly confident that March will be warmer than February, because we've seen it before - we have experience of it. Climate Change no-one (alive!) has experienced (ie a previous episode)...

So I'm not too sure what your analogies are trying to say

Cheers, 7&Y

[Kained]

We cannot predict evolution.

Charles Darwin disagrees with you...

Charles Darwin's prediction:

Darwin first saw this astonishing orchid from Madagascar, Angraecum sesquipedale, in 1862. Its foot-long green throat holds nectar—the sweet liquid that draws pollinators—but only at its very tip. "Astounding," Darwin wrote, of this strange adaptation. "What insect could suck it?" He predicted that Madagascar must be home to an insect with an incredibly long feeding tube, or proboscis. Entomologists were dubious: no such insect had ever been found there.

Charles Darwin died in 1882, and more than 40 years later, his insight was confirmed. A naturalist in Madagascar discovered the giant hawk moth, which hovers like a hummingbird as its long, whip-like proboscis probes for the distant nectar. The moth's scientific name, Xanthopan morganii praedicta, honors the prediction of the scientist who never saw it, but whose theory told him that it must exist.

[Hiya]

Well, should we dismiss the idea of evolution then, since it's based on theory and not proof?

That is not a good analogy, you can watch evolution in the lab using bacteria and virii.

Humans in general seem to not want things to change, the climate must remain constant to keep everyone happy. We find it hard to let a species become extinct, even if it isn't our fault, we like animal populations to remain constant also.

Human nature will make a big deal of anyting that changes.

[Thundery wintry showers]

There have, as it happens, been laboratory experiments relating to AGW simulation (I don't recall the exact details though). But nothing on the scale of laboratory 'proof' of evolution, it has to be said.

What I was trying to get at is that just because we don't have proof that AGW exists, and only have a theory, doesn't mean that the idea should be rejected. The theory is based on a lot of evidence- and obviously while it remains a theory it isn't going to be 100% certain to be correct- but it isn't 100% certain to be incorrect either.

I could just as easily argue that the "AGW is a myth" position should be rejected because it is based on theory and not proof. Not that I would do that, for the argument contains gaping wide holes regardless of which direction it is applied in.

Humans in general seem to not want things to change, the climate must remain constant to keep everyone happy. We find it hard to let a species become extinct, even if it isn't our fault, we like animal populations to remain constant also.

Human nature will make a big deal of anyting that changes.

This is true- but I very much doubt that this is the main reason why there are strong suspicions that humans could well be affecting the climate. The main reasons for the suspicions are scientific analysis and, in more recent years, climate models.

[VillagePlank]

I have to say it's certainly a 'hats-off' to Dr Pope from me; what she says, in the main, to me, seems rational and reasonable.

Roger, with the greatest of respect the polar ice could reach the equator over winter but if it all melted back ,and then some, over summer we have an issue.

Last year ice recovered in a late spurt ,late winter, as such the ice area melted last summer was in excess of ice area melted in the record year of 07'.We also lost a shed load of shelf/perennial ice to boot leaving us with the lowest ice volume on record.

We should talk about sea ice in mid sept, 09' to draw conclusions as to any 'recovery'.

"Ice loss in Greenland has had some climatologists speculating that global warming might have brought on a scary new regime of wildly heightened ice loss and an ever-faster rise in sea level. But glaciologists reported at the American Geophysical Union meeting that Greenland ice's Armageddon has come to an end."

As reported in Science