The Taboo Of Not Subscribing To Anthropological Global Warming

[VillagePlank]

Rewrite these things to use a decimal representation

At which point you can't represent 1/3 accurately, although you can now represent 1/10 accurately.

Pop quiz: Do you think the real world actually uses exact rational numbers?

Yes you can. Any decimal representation would hold the numerator and denominator separately thus representing it exactly for both 1/3 and 1/10 (and every other conceivable combination of integers) Not only that, the maths to manipulate these are understood by just about every 13 year old on the planet.

As for your pop-quiz you should have used the irrational series or even complex numbers to make your point more succinct (and accurate) The square root of two would have made me laugh!

Edited March 2, 2012 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[songster]

Yes you can. Any decimal representation would hold the numerator and denominator separately thus representing it exactly. As for your pop-quiz you should have used the irrational series or even complex numbers to make your point more succinct (and accurate) The square root of two would have made me laugh!

Fair enough. The planet is (almost) a sphere. Therefore, pretty much any coordinate system you choose will have pi in it somewhere. That's not only irrational but transcendental. How accurately will you represent that in your model? The fundamental point is that the real world has infinite precision, while computation does not. The minute additional error from choosing one digital representation over another isn't exactly the largest source of error in the process!

[VillagePlank]

Fair enough. The planet is (almost) a sphere. Therefore, pretty much any coordinate system you choose will have pi in it somewhere. That's not only irrational but transcendental. How accurately will you represent that in your model? The fundamental point is that the real world has infinite precision, while computation does not. The minute additional error from choosing one digital representation over another isn't exactly the largest source of error in the process!

You'd hold Pi as an expression: simple algebra: c= 2PIR. You'd just need to accurately measure the radius and circumference of any circle and keep that as a constant - of course, your circle would be constructed to give integers (is this circular reasoning from me? Perhaps!) We do similar things with the SI system of weights! (PI = c/2r, by definition of the constant - and given a suitable circle will (should!) be two integers)

This, of course, is done all the time with polynomials. If you used intervals (as suggested above) and the integer solution (as suggested above) then you'd know the error which leads me onto your last point. You don't know how much of an error is caused by faulty computation. Indeed, as alluded to above, it may well be completely OK; the point is we don't know, and there seems to be no plans to make it known, either.

I suspect, given the arm-bending tactics that are used to get climatologists to release their source-code, that they're worried about this too.

(oh, and I wouldn't use the current gridding strategy either. I know that there are some pretty good explanations of why this perfectly acceptable, but it just, kind of, feels wrong somehow - yes, I know that this is loose, but you did mention the geoid)

Edited March 2, 2012 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[VillagePlank]

You'd hold Pi as an expression: simple algebra: c= 2PIR. You'd just need to accurately measure the radius and circumference of any circle and keep that as a constant - of course, your circle would be constructed to give integers (is this circular reasoning from me? Perhaps!) We do similar things with the SI system of weights! (PI = c/2r, by definition of the constant - and given a suitable circle will (should!) be two integers)

WRONG!!

PI is irrational which means it cannot be represented by the fraction of two integers. Back to bed for me, then - getting even the basics wrong, now ....

(I suppose 22/7 just won't do, will it? I didn't think so. Self-flagellation for me, tonight, then)

Edited March 2, 2012 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[summersnow]

Whilst I don't agree with your views here, putting that aside for a moment... couldn't you apply the same logic to all anti-AGW stuff too. After all, they are just humans too, with the intrinsic human flaws you've mentioned.

You're still demonstrating a warped view of the peer review process.

Each journal has it's own standards and reviewers, in order to maintain a high level of research. It's like you shouldn't go to a qualified, experienced doctor because all the "true doctors" were stopped from making it into the profession by the difficulty of studying medicine!

I tend to have a cynical view of many aspects of humanity, but you appear to be beyond cynical. You cannot apply your logic to only one half of the debate. If humans are controlled entirely by money, then so are both the "alarmists" and the "deniers".

There's nothing warped about my view of the peer review process - certainly when it comes to the science of AGW, the people who have most sway over what gets published are those of the orthodox view. The parallel you've made to qualifying as a medical doctor is not comparable. That's a much more straight foward case of staying the course - albeit very arduous! If however, a medical researcher were to try putting forward an alternative thesis which challenges mainstream views, I strongly suspect a similar outcome. The point you seem determined to miss is that I do not think that this is anything particularly unique to the study of AGW, it happens across all of communities in one form or another, due mainly to the powerful motives we have as part of and parcel of the human condition. You have also completely ignored the examples I gave of how some our most eminent leaders in the debate have acted extremely unethically - and this clearly serves to undermine the process.

I completely agree that the same may well be true of the skeptics side of the divide, but at the moment, I personally believe that there is enough bias in the peer review process to render it effectively a farce. Until more alternative theories are accepted & published by the current mob, my suspicion will remain. I believe this will happen eventually. The more time that goes by where the observed temperature record doesn't back up model predictions, the more questions challenging orthodox view will be raised.

There is pretty stong evidence in the study of multivariate ocean cycles/solar cycles etc, that may well emerge as we slide further off the edge of the warming period, which appears to have plateaued over the last decade. I suspect the work of people such as Prof Don J Easterbook et al will finally begin to make some head way, which will at least for a while balance the debate and also help steady the peer review process. If however, such theories eventually achieve mainstream status, the new scientific community will probably be filled with cronies, who control the debate and the process in a way similar to that which currently exists.

[summersnow]

Summersnow, why doesn't the same human failing you accuse climate scientists of apply to the work you accept from blogs and climate sceptics?

Doh, BFTV beat me to it...

I'm amazed at how partisan some people are! I don't know what gives you the impression that I regard AGW scientists any more flawed than skeptics. Please view my last post for evidence of this.

The fact remains however, that the debate is biased in favour of orthodox view.....but as I keep on maintaining, that is the way the world works. If alternative theories were to gain the upper hand, then I'm sure the debate would eventually become biased in their favour as they gained acceptability and able to eventually become regarded as the mainstream view.

In terms of being a skeptic, yes I am very skeptical of AGW science because I happen to believe for a number of the reasons (I have already presented) that the science is very tenuous at best. But I am at least equally skeptical of what is currently regarded as skeptical science in relation to AGW.

Perhaps most importantly, as regards this particular topic however is, do I think it's taboo not to subscribe to AGW? Well, yes I do, but not for any easily identifiable reason, other than all I can describe as something akin to religious bigotry. Established to maintain the status quo, I actually feel pretty sure, the debate will ultimately go full circle - a bit like a naturally ocurring climate cycle. As we slip even further off the end of the warming period, which has plateaued over the last decade, ever more questions will be raised of AGW theory. The resistance may well survive for some time to come, but once modelled warming fails to materialise, or is even reversed for a few decades, alternative theories will prevail and a new orthodox theory will hold sway. Not that will necessarily be a good thing - it will depend entirely on the integrity of the science behind it. Time will be the ultimate judge!

Edited March 2, 2012 by summersnow

[Methuselah]

Aren't the climate models being tested all the time? Surely their outputs/predictions are forever being compared to reality in an ongoing system of verification? How can anyone categorically call the models 'wrong' if they're not being tested? Or is it just another assumption?

[BornFromTheVoid]

There's nothing warped about my view of the peer review process - certainly when it comes to the science of AGW, the people who have most sway over what gets published are those of the orthodox view. The parallel you've made to qualifying as a medical doctor is not comparable. That's a much more straight foward case of staying the course - albeit very arduous! If however, a medical researcher were to try putting forward an alternative thesis which challenges mainstream views, I strongly suspect a similar outcome. The point you seem determined to miss is that I do not think that this is anything particularly unique to the study of AGW, it happens across all of communities in one form or another, due mainly to the powerful motives we have as part of and parcel of the human condition. You have also completely ignored the examples I gave of how some our most eminent leaders in the debate have acted extremely unethically - and this clearly serves to undermine the process.

I completely agree that the same may well be true of the skeptics side of the divide, but at the moment, I personally believe that there is enough bias in the peer review process to render it effectively a farce. Until more alternative theories are accepted & published by the current mob, my suspicion will remain. I believe this will happen eventually. The more time that goes by where the observed temperature record doesn't back up model predictions, the more questions challenging orthodox view will be raised.

There is pretty stong evidence in the study of multivariate ocean cycles/solar cycles etc, that may well emerge as we slide further off the edge of the warming period, which appears to have plateaued over the last decade. I suspect the work of people such as Prof Don J Easterbook et al will finally begin to make some head way, which will at least for a while balance the debate and also help steady the peer review process. If however, such theories eventually achieve mainstream status, the new scientific community will probably be filled with cronies, who control the debate and the process in a way similar to that which currently exists.

Every time your points are addressed, you skip on to the next one and after a while, come back to the old points!

You keep saying the peer review process is controlled by something or someone, which is not true.

The whole way along you've been claiming the inherent greedy nature of humans is ultimately to blame for the accepted climate change stance being wrong, whilst exclaiming all the other valid alternatives which nobody pays attention to should be published, as if they're somehow immune to greed and bias?

There is loads of evidence of ocean and solar cycles impacting our planet, and they are being taken into account. The long solar minimum caught most by surprise, but that doesn't mean a thing with regards peer review and the current consensus. Other cycles, as I've already mentioned, are not being ignored.

Not that the actions of a few represent the whole, but you'll have to present the evidence for the unethical actions of the most eminent leaders in this debate (I don't have time to go searching right now), though I'm unsure as to how you believe that evidence and not others, given what you think of humanity... There have been unethical actions from the anti AGW side too, much of which is in the news at the moment, but it seems pointless bringing it up as it doesn't represent the entire side of the debate.

It seems as though you don't believe, and won't believe whatever is accepted as consensus... I really don't see where this debate can go from here considering you your reply to any evidence should be an unequivocal "I don't believe it".

[summersnow]

Aren't the climate models being tested all the time? Surely their outputs/predictions are forever being compared to reality in an ongoing system of verification? How can anyone categorically call the models 'wrong' if they're not being tested? Or is it just another assumption?

Models are being continually tested - I guess....in a garbage in/garbage out kind of way. But, crucially the 3 temperature scenarios that Dr James Hansen originally projected some 20 years ago, using computer models have all ended up higher than than what has actually been oberved. It may well be that the warming trend has decided to have a little break (for more than a decade!) before it spikes up again, but if that is the case, it had better get with it, & start warming again quickly, otherwise those modelled projections will start to look really silly!

Edited March 2, 2012 by summersnow

[summersnow]

Every time your points are addressed, you skip on to the next one and after a while, come back to the old points!

You keep saying the peer review process is controlled by something or someone, which is not true.

The whole way along you've been claiming the inherent greedy nature of humans is ultimately to blame for the accepted climate change stance being wrong, whilst exclaiming all the other valid alternatives which nobody pays attention to should be published, as if they're somehow immune to greed and bias?

There is loads of evidence of ocean and solar cycles impacting our planet, and they are being taken into account. The long solar minimum caught most by surprise, but that doesn't mean a thing with regards peer review and the current consensus. Other cycles, as I've already mentioned, are not being ignored.

Not that the actions of a few represent the whole, but you'll have to present the evidence for the unethical actions of the most eminent leaders in this debate (I don't have time to go searching right now), though I'm unsure as to how you believe that evidence and not others, given what you think of humanity... There have been unethical actions from the anti AGW side too, much of which is in the news at the moment, but it seems pointless bringing it up as it doesn't represent the entire side of the debate.

It seems as though you don't believe, and won't believe whatever is accepted as consensus... I really don't see where this debate can go from here considering you your reply to any evidence should be an unequivocal "I don't believe it".

Actually I agree with you on this as I don't think there is much point in continuing this exchange because actually you are the one who is either deliberatley ignoring or is unable to comprehend the points I am trying to make. You also appear so brain washed by what is continually presented as "concensus" that you are unable to give credance to any other opinion.

Please read more carefully my previous posts to gain a better understanding of my views of both AGW proponents and skeptics alike and stop cherry picking my posts to prove your point. For example...."It seems as though you don't believe, and won't believe whatever is accepted as consensus... I really don't see where this debate can go from here considering you your reply to any evidence should be an unequivocal "I don't believe it". Whereas in fact I very clearly made the point in an earlier post that rather than not accepting AGW, I didn't believe the science to be settled - "a possibility, but far from settled", is what I stated. So, please explain how you reconcile this statement with your assertion that, I don't and won't believe?

Edited March 2, 2012 by Osbourne One-Nil
No need for insults.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Actually I agree with you on this as I don't think there is much point in continuing this exchange because actually you are the one who is either deliberatley ignoring or is unable to comprehend the points I am trying to make. You also appear so brain washed by what is continually presented as "concensus" that you are unable to give credance to any other opinion. You are in fact a stereotype of the kind of person who represents the party line promoting any alternative view to AGW as taboo. You're probably even proud of it. No doubt you feel so self righteous in your stance, that you're prepared to malign those with alternative theories in the same way that people with racist or bigotted views are rightly called to task.

Please read more carefully my previous posts to gain a better understanding of my views of both AGW proponents and skeptics alike and stop cherry picking my posts to prove your point. For example...."It seems as though you don't believe, and won't believe whatever is accepted as consensus... I really don't see where this debate can go from here considering you your reply to any evidence should be an unequivocal "I don't believe it". Whereas in fact I very clearly made the point in an earlier post that rather than not accepting AGW, I didn't believe the science to be settled - "a possibility, but far from settled", is what I stated. So, please explain how you reconcile this statement with your assertion that, I don't and won't believe?

The fact that you are resorting to insults and sweeping statements, shows just how fickle your viewpoint is.

I'm afraid I'm not going to bother with someone who lashes out and rants in the manner you do.

First time I'm ever been compared to a racist. That's nice, logical, scientific work summersnow, keep it up :lol:

[summersnow]

If this debate has achieved one thing, it has proven categorically how partisan opinion can be on the part of both AGW proponents and skeptics alike. AGW theory in particular though, has become like a religion, in the sense that people who passionately believe in the science behind it, are often clearly happy to malign and discredit anyone who presents an alternative view. For the most part, skeptics seem keen to point out the flaws in AGW science, which while petulent, those flaws remain many and glaring. To the extent that it often appears politically incorrect to even suggest that flaws in AGW science exist or that there may be alternative explanations for the warming trend, this is a true signature of how the debate has been manipulated.

There is no doubt however, that a great many skeptics are also guilty of being so partisan that they are not even prepared to consider the notion of AGW as even remotely plausible. There needs to be an open and honest debate on both the strengths and weaknesses of AGW science. But, I fear this will not happen due mainly to the incredibly polarised opinion, which has been so clearly reflected on this forum.

[summersnow]

The fact that you are resorting to insults and sweeping statements, shows just how fickle your viewpoint is. I'm afraid I'm not going to bother with someone who lashes out and rants in the manner you do. First time I'm ever been compared to a racist. That's nice, logical, scientific work summersnow, keep it up :lol:

Actually, once again...if you read my last post to you carefully, you will see that I was not comparing you to a racist! I was in fact suggesting that you appear to be accusing people who challenge AGW theory as being on a par with racists - such is your arrogance and piety.

You have also yet again failed to address my point about your assertion that I refuse to believe in AGW science! You are very typical of one who displays a very polarised view, much like a biggoted religious fanatic - that comparison, I will make unashamedly as that is what you have presented through your posts!

You are also guilty of more in the way of sweeping statements than I am, through our exchanges and you have been quite willing also to hand out insults through your wrongly based assertions that I don't and won't believe AGW theory. You have made no genuine attempt to read properly or understand the points I have made, simply because they don't chime 100% with your own views....or maybe there's a simpler explanation!!

Edited March 2, 2012 by summersnow

[pottyprof]

Is there really any need to reduce this thread to yet another childish name calling session? Can we move on and discuss the subject? It gets boring having to go through deleting posts that must have taken a while to compose.

Just as a reminder for those who haven't seen it, here is a link to the code of conduct.

Following feedback from forum members, the team will take a zero tolerance policy when enforcing the code, any member who doesn't abide by it will be stopped from posting within the environment forum for 1 month, with any subsequent issues resulting in a permanent suspension.

[summersnow]

Is there really any need to reduce this thread to yet another childish name calling session? Can we move on and discuss the subject? It gets boring having to go through deleting posts that must have taken a while to compose.

Just as a reminder for those who haven't seen it, here is a link to the code of conduct.

Apologies!

[BornFromTheVoid]

Actually I agree with you on this as I don't think there is much point in continuing this exchange because actually you are the one who is either deliberatley ignoring or is unable to comprehend the points I am trying to make. You also appear so brain washed by what is continually presented as "concensus" that you are unable to give credance to any other opinion.

Please read more carefully my previous posts to gain a better understanding of my views of both AGW proponents and skeptics alike and stop cherry picking my posts to prove your point. For example...."It seems as though you don't believe, and won't believe whatever is accepted as consensus... I really don't see where this debate can go from here considering you your reply to any evidence should be an unequivocal "I don't believe it". Whereas in fact I very clearly made the point in an earlier post that rather than not accepting AGW, I didn't believe the science to be settled - "a possibility, but far from settled", is what I stated. So, please explain how you reconcile this statement with your assertion that, I don't and won't believe?

What you did there was ignore every single point I made, focused on the last line and went in to rant mode.

But hey, I'll once more address your points in the hope that you will afford me the same courtesy

You also appear so brain washed by what is continually presented as "concensus" that you are unable to give credance to any other opinion.

Another baseless insult, but whatever. At no point did I rubbish anything against consensus, you haven't yet produced a single piece of evidence or presented any other theories. Aside from that, I'm not the biggest fan of the IPCC, I don't believe all the dire media hype about CO2 causing the end of the world (I don't actually trust most mainstream media), and there are aspects of climate change that I believe don't quite fit the picture (Antarctic sea ice expansion being one) and need a lot more investigating.

"It seems as though you don't believe, and won't believe whatever is accepted as consensus... I really don't see where this debate can go from here considering you your reply to any evidence should be an unequivocal "I don't believe it". Whereas in fact I very clearly made the point in an earlier post that rather than not accepting AGW, I didn't believe the science to be settled - "a possibility, but far from settled", is what I stated. So, please explain how you reconcile this statement with your assertion that, I don't and won't believe?

Ok, here is how I reconcile.

(I) I personally believe that there is enough bias in the peer review process to render it effectively a farce

(II) the peer review process is controlled by those who have a serious interest in maintaining the status quo

(III) T'was always thus in science and t'will remain so long as scientists have agendas

(IV)I completely agree that the same may well be true of the skeptics side of the divide

(V) just, that's how the world works and always has done

(VI) If alternative theories were to gain the upper hand, then I'm sure the debate would eventually become biased in their favour as they gained acceptability and able to eventually become regarded as the mainstream view

(VII) If however, such theories eventually achieve mainstream status, the new scientific community will probably be filled with cronies, who control the debate and the process in a way similar to that which currently exists.

The list really does go on. So you believe the peer review process is a farce controlled by those who want to maintain the status quo. So we can knock peer reviewed evidence off the list.

You believe that this is human nature and is applicable to the sceptic side of the debate. So there goes the alternative view points.

I'm amazed at how partisan some people are! I don't know what gives you the impression that I regard AGW scientists any more flawed than skeptics. Please view my last post for evidence of this.

You've said nothing but negative things against "AGW scientists". But I'll have to go and quote more of what you said or you'll just deny it.

-the peer review process is contolled by proponents of the mainstream theory

-There are several very plausible theories that are simply not getting any air time because the peer review & publicity processes are so well sown up by the IPCC et al. Worse still, alternative theories are seriously maligned purely, simply because they challenge mainstream theory

-All those theories espoused concerning natural variability, ocean cycles, solar cycles etc all have every bit as much credibility as AGW theory (as if those that subscribe to AGW don't consider other cycles)

-AGW research, what chance of that process being regarded as anything other than a shambles of mutual back scratching?

Once again, there are more examples. The only thing you say about alternative views is that you apply the same scepticism to it... though by the content of your posts, you appear to target that scepticism almost directly at anything pro-AGW theory.

As for your other points which I've already addressed.

The unethical actions of certain scientists... I asked you to provide evidence and demonstrate how it applies to all peer reviewed work.

I also disagree that everything in human society is corrupted by our nature to the level you describe.

So summersnow, can you see how perhaps your posts can be, shall we say, misinterpreted? Is there anything else I'm deliberately ignoring? Or can we get on with debating the science?

[summersnow]

What you did there was ignore every single point I made, focused on the last line and went in to rant mode.

But hey, I'll once more address your points in the hope that you will afford me the same courtesy

Another baseless insult, but whatever. At no point did I rubbish anything against consensus, you haven't yet produced a single piece of evidence or presented any other theories. Aside from that, I'm not the biggest fan of the IPCC, I don't believe all the dire media hype about CO2 causing the end of the world (I don't actually trust most mainstream media), and there are aspects of climate change that I believe don't quite fit the picture (Antarctic sea ice expansion being one) and need a lot more investigating.

Ok, here is how I reconcile.

(I) I personally believe that there is enough bias in the peer review process to render it effectively a farce

(II) the peer review process is controlled by those who have a serious interest in maintaining the status quo

(III) T'was always thus in science and t'will remain so long as scientists have agendas

(IV)I completely agree that the same may well be true of the skeptics side of the divide

(V) just, that's how the world works and always has done

(VI) If alternative theories were to gain the upper hand, then I'm sure the debate would eventually become biased in their favour as they gained acceptability and able to eventually become regarded as the mainstream view

(VII) If however, such theories eventually achieve mainstream status, the new scientific community will probably be filled with cronies, who control the debate and the process in a way similar to that which currently exists.

The list really does go on. So you believe the peer review process is a farce controlled by those who want to maintain the status quo. So we can knock peer reviewed evidence off the list.

You believe that this is human nature and is applicable to the sceptic side of the debate. So there goes the alternative view points.

You've said nothing but negative things against "AGW scientists". But I'll have to go and quote more of what you said or you'll just deny it.

-the peer review process is contolled by proponents of the mainstream theory

-There are several very plausible theories that are simply not getting any air time because the peer review & publicity processes are so well sown up by the IPCC et al. Worse still, alternative theories are seriously maligned purely, simply because they challenge mainstream theory

-All those theories espoused concerning natural variability, ocean cycles, solar cycles etc all have every bit as much credibility as AGW theory (as if those that subscribe to AGW don't consider other cycles)

-AGW research, what chance of that process being regarded as anything other than a shambles of mutual back scratching?

Once again, there are more examples. The only thing you say about alternative views is that you apply the same scepticism to it... though by the content of your posts, you appear to target that scepticism almost directly at anything pro-AGW theory.

As for your other points which I've already addressed.

The unethical actions of certain scientists... I asked you to provide evidence and demonstrate how it applies to all peer reviewed work.

I also disagree that everything in human society is corrupted by our nature to the level you describe.

So summersnow, can you see how perhaps your posts can be, shall we say, misinterpreted? Is there anything else I'm deliberately ignoring? Or can we get on with debating the science?

Thanks for highlighting my points and deliberately misrepresenting some of my views. Actually, I don't believe human society to be inherently corrupt but I do believe, as I have stated on several occasions, that it's when lots of money, power and influence is at stake, that any system becomes subject to very powerful human motives - the peer review process (especially within the field of AGW research) being one such system. It is precisely the very nature of the highly emotive issue that it is, that attracts the publicity and the funding, that also makes it so suseptible to being manipulated by motives that work against what the peer review process is designed to do. I have tried to put this point across is several ways but you're obviously not buying it whichever way I express it because you are actually the one who "refuses to believe" that there can be anything at all tainted within the peer review process.

OK, as for the next point, please don't try to deny that someone with the influence of Dr Michael Mann or Prof Phil Jones, or Dr Gleik don't have massive sway over what makes it into key scientific journals. I don't have time at the moment to dig out examples of how this works but I will in due course and then I will deliver examples of how the process within AGW research breaks down. Clearly, it will be open to debate, because all the cronies involved in the process are bound to work incredibly hard at covering their asses. No-one will openly admit, "Oh by the way I'm a peer reviewer and also happen to be one of Dr Mann's cronies", now are they? I'm perfectly sure that the same is true of other scientists who represent the skeptical side of the divide but let's face it, that's not currently where the public funding is going.

As for arguing about the science, first of all, this thread is about the taboo of challenging AGW science- not about the science per se - although I do concede there has to be some reference to the primary scientific principles. If the science was indeed settled to the same extent as say.. "the earth is roughly round and not flat", then I would fully subscribe to the opinion that if anyone were to challege such a view, they would clearly be a nut case! But this is not the case with AGW science, all we have, as I have already pointed out, is the theory that CO2 does have the physical properties that can potentially alter the radiative balance of the atmosphere. Beyond this, massive assumtions are made about the positive feedbacks and in this respect, there remains an almost infinite number of problems. It is pretty much agreed that CO2 alone has a minimal warming effect, and that most of the modelled warming actually comes from positive feedbacks such as water vapour. This is the very tenuous bit and where the the orthodox view either disregards or vastly under estimates the possibility of feedbacks that aren't outrageously positive or the role of natural variability.

The points I made earlier have therefore nowhere near been addressed. Why the plateau of recorded global temps for over a decade, when the modelled projections suggest continued and accelerating warmth? Why are we so hell bent on believing that the 20 years of late 20th Century warming is so unusual within a 10-15000 year time frame - especially as Michael Mann's hockey stick is no longer straight and has some serious upward (and downward) breaks in its shaft? Why do we insist on using data from an unreliable temperature record? Why have senior scientists in the debate felt the need to act so unethically, if there is no need to cover tracks? This is not to suggest the same is not true of some skeptics but their research isn't publically funded - is it?

My original point was to suggest that total trust in the peer review process to ensure balanced and open debate was niaive. Not that AGW proponents were wrong and skeptics were right! I have read nothing in the subsequent posts that would even begin to alter this view!

I have in fact been very positive about AGW science by stating that I agree with the basic premise that CO2 can in theory alter the radiative balance of the atmmosphere. I have also stated that I think most scientists act in good faith but that they are suseptible(just like all of us),to feeling the need to protect their territory and livelihoods. This isn't negative, it IS just the way life is!

[BornFromTheVoid]

Alright ss, I'll let you continue on your merry way, slán agat!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Just chiming in to address some of Summersnow's points here.

I don't have time at the moment to dig out examples of how this works but I will in due course and then I will deliver examples of how the process within AGW research breaks down. Clearly, it will be open to debate, because all the cronies involved in the process are bound to work incredibly hard at covering their asses. No-one will openly admit, "Oh by the way I'm a peer reviewer and also happen to be one of Dr Mann's cronies", now are they? I'm perfectly sure that the same is true of other scientists who represent the skeptical side of the divide but

let's face it, that's not currently where the public funding is going.

...

I have in fact been very positive about AGW science by stating that I agree with the basic premise that CO2 can in theory alter the radiative balance of the atmmosphere. I have also stated that I think most scientists act in good faith but that they are suseptible(just like all of us),to feeling the need to protect their territory and livelihoods. This isn't negative, it IS just the way life is!

I think it's right to suggest that humans are prone to bias and prone to covering their own point of view, but the world isn't black-and-white (i.e. "either they don't do the above, or they do and therefore this casts serious doubt on the science". I think there is a small element of confirmation bias in many areas of climate science but there is certainly scope for people with alternative theories and counterevidence to get their papers accepted and published- there are quite a number of papers referenced in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report which claim that overall anthropogenic contributions may have been overestimated, and that solar activity might play more of a role than previously thought. The IPCC reports also don't give large uncertainty bounds on AGW for nothing- they recognise the areas of substantial uncertainty, suggesting that if human fossil fuel consumption/emissions remain high then the most likely 21st century warming (relative to pre-industrial times) is 3-4C but might be as low as 2C or as high as 6C. In short, yes there is a limited element of what you describe but not enough to make it anywhere near impossible to get alternative theories taken seriously.

Beyond this, massive assumtions are made about the positive feedbacks and in this respect, there remains an almost infinite number of problems. It is pretty much agreed that CO2 alone has a minimal warming effect, and that most of the modelled warming actually comes from positive feedbacks such as water vapour. This is the very tenuous bit and where the the orthodox view either disregards or vastly under estimates the possibility of feedbacks that aren't outrageously positive or the role of natural variability.

There's actually a sound piece of science behind the water vapour effect- water vapour is effective at absorbing and radiating longwave radiation but not shortwave radiation- hence the view that increased water vapour leads to increased trapping of solar radiation near the Earth's surface and producing a warming effect. The extent of the positive feedback between water vapour and temperature is unclear though.

Not sure which "feedbacks which aren't outrageously positive" are discounted- the "global dimming" phenomenon is established as a likely negative feedback, and low-level clouds are mostly considered as a source of negative feedback (with high-level clouds producing a positive feedback).

The points I made earlier have therefore nowhere near been addressed. Why the plateau of recorded global temps for over a decade, when the modelled projections suggest continued and accelerating warmth? Why are we so hell bent on believing that the 20 years of late 20th Century warming is so unusual within a 10-15000 year time frame - especially as Michael Mann's hockey stick is no longer straight and has some serious upward (and downward) breaks in its shaft? Why do we insist on using data from an unreliable temperature record? Why have senior scientists in the debate felt the need to act so unethically, if there is no need to cover tracks? This is not to suggest the same is not true of some skeptics but their research isn't publically funded - is it?

The plateau in global temperatures can be at least partly explained by the fact that the 1980s and 1990s had an unusually high incidence of the El Nino ENSO state, and an unusually positive North Atlantic Oscillation (which contributes to anomalous warmth over Eurasia)- this led to an inflated level of global warming. Those states have switched to neutral or slightly negative during the last 14 years and provided a correction to the overall level of warming. Overall the rate of global warming is still within IPCC estimate bounds but rather at the low end of the estimate range.

It isn't really an "unreliable temperature record" when the vast majority of national weather records show the same picture as the global temperature record.

My original point was to suggest that total trust in the peer review process to ensure balanced and open debate was niaive. Not that AGW proponents were wrong and skeptics were right! I have read nothing in the subsequent posts that would even begin to alter this view!

Tthe peer review process doesn't have to be perfect for it to still be strongly preferable to having nothing at all. It isn't perfect- there is probably a modest amount of confirmation bias at times- but from experience projects that fail the peer review process usually fail due to gaps in the scientific argument, rather than the position that is being argued. Literature that is peer-reviewed is more likely to be grounded in sound reasoning than literature that isn't, although there are exceptions (occasionally you get the odd critically flawed paper passing through peer review, and there may be the occasional paper that gets rejected due to reviewer prejudices, but for the most part peer review does work OK).

[pottyprof]

there are quite a number of papers referenced in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report which claim that overall anthropogenic contributions may have been overestimated, and that solar activity might play more of a role than previously thought.

This is the main reason that I've shut up arguing the toss about things being wrong. This admission on its own should promote the discussion of all available ideas put forward from all scientists. I think that after having a fair sized slap with their own predictions, they'd be foolish not to take advantage of the respect gained by admitting they were more than a tad off the mark.

[summersnow]

Alright ss, I'll let you continue on your merry way, slán agat!

And you on yours, Mar sin leibh agus tapadh leit!

[Methuselah]

Models are being continually tested - I guess....in a garbage in/garbage out kind of way. But, crucially the 3 temperature scenarios that Dr James Hansen originally projected some 20 years ago, using computer models have all ended up higher than than what has actually been oberved. It may well be that the warming trend has decided to have a little break (for more than a decade!) before it spikes up again, but if that is the case, it had better get with it, & start warming again quickly, otherwise those modelled projections will start to look really silly!

I'm not sure that they would look 'silly'. They would be wrong, of course - many things are! But, since when were scientific theories 100% correct in the predictions, from the moment of their conception? Was Newton 'wrong' or was he merely incomplete? Einstein introduced a constant becuse he couldn't accept an expanding Universe. It was an error, yes, but it's hardly invalidated relativity theory...

IMO 'garbage in, garbage out' is the only way to test computer models - against reality, at least??

[summersnow]

I'm not sure that they would look 'silly'. They would be wrong, of course - many things are! But, since when were scientific theories 100% correct in the predictions, from the moment of their conception? Was Newton 'wrong' or was he merely incomplete? Einstein introduced a constant becuse he couldn't accept an expanding Universe. It was an error, yes, but it's hardly invalidated relativity theory...

IMO 'garbage in, garbage out' is the only way to test computer models - against reality, at least??

I guess I can't really argue with this..... but if the many of the initial assumptions are a long out at the input stage, the error can only be compounded?

[summersnow]

Just chiming in to address some of Summersnow's points here.

I think it's right to suggest that humans are prone to bias and prone to covering their own point of view, but the world isn't black-and-white (i.e. "either they don't do the above, or they do and therefore this casts serious doubt on the science". I think there is a small element of confirmation bias in many areas of climate science but there is certainly scope for people with alternative theories and counterevidence to get their papers accepted and published- there are quite a number of papers referenced in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report which claim that overall anthropogenic contributions may have been overestimated, and that solar activity might play more of a role than previously thought. The IPCC reports also don't give large uncertainty bounds on AGW for nothing- they recognise the areas of substantial uncertainty, suggesting that if human fossil fuel consumption/emissions remain high then the most likely 21st century warming (relative to pre-industrial times) is 3-4C but might be as low as 2C or as high as 6C. In short, yes there is a limited element of what you describe but not enough to make it anywhere near impossible to get alternative theories taken seriously.

There's actually a sound piece of science behind the water vapour effect- water vapour is effective at absorbing and radiating longwave radiation but not shortwave radiation- hence the view that increased water vapour leads to increased trapping of solar radiation near the Earth's surface and producing a warming effect. The extent of the positive feedback between water vapour and temperature is unclear though.

Not sure which "feedbacks which aren't outrageously positive" are discounted- the "global dimming" phenomenon is established as a likely negative feedback, and low-level clouds are mostly considered as a source of negative feedback (with high-level clouds producing a positive feedback).

The plateau in global temperatures can be at least partly explained by the fact that the 1980s and 1990s had an unusually high incidence of the El Nino ENSO state, and an unusually positive North Atlantic Oscillation (which contributes to anomalous warmth over Eurasia)- this led to an inflated level of global warming. Those states have switched to neutral or slightly negative during the last 14 years and provided a correction to the overall level of warming. Overall the rate of global warming is still within IPCC estimate bounds but rather at the low end of the estimate range.

It isn't really an "unreliable temperature record" when the vast majority of national weather records show the same picture as the global temperature record.

Tthe peer review process doesn't have to be perfect for it to still be strongly preferable to having nothing at all. It isn't perfect- there is probably a modest amount of confirmation bias at times- but from experience projects that fail the peer review process usually fail due to gaps in the scientific argument, rather than the position that is being argued. Literature that is peer-reviewed is more likely to be grounded in sound reasoning than literature that isn't, although there are exceptions (occasionally you get the odd critically flawed paper passing through peer review, and there may be the occasional paper that gets rejected due to reviewer prejudices, but for the most part peer review does work OK).

Thanks for your very thorough clarification on a number of points. Unfortunately I've become a real cynic over the years and I know too well the way agendas can corrupt even the best designed processes. We only have to go back to the 1970's to see that climate theory was very different and that actually AGW theory struggled to make any headway. I completely concede that climate scientists at this time must have had to present something extremely compelling to gain the predominance that they now have.

However, there remains in my mind a number of very conflicting messages the science currently conveys. For example, I do accept that water vapour does have a warming effect, but the obvious counter is that more water vapour might mean more clouds. Maybe not, but what is certain, is that this is not a well understood feedback and currently the models seem to discount the negative feedback from low level cloud more than they accept the massively positive feedbacks from water vapour.

Another major problem I have is why Antactic sea ice isn't melting - in fact it's on an upward trend. If we are to believe that sea ice loss in the Arctic is due to AGW, why is this not also true of Antarctica.

On CO2, yes we can show in theory how CO2 can trap heat or alter the radiative balance but our historic temperature reconstruction over the last several millennia, does not express such a relationship.While I concede that doesn't mean it can't happen, it does cast serious doubt.

As for peer review and the viable alternative....very good question! I'm sorry, I don't have the answer but ultimaltely you are probably right - it is better than not having anything. All I will say is that the process must by definition completely depend on the integrity of those who have most influence over it - which in the case of climate science currently, a serious question must be asked!

Thanks again however, for taking the time to put together a very well reasoned response to my questions - this is how the debate moves forward!

Edited March 7, 2012 by summersnow

[Guest]

Does anyone here think it right that the case for AGW should be over-stated in order to motivate change?

I think it is quite overstated enough, especially when you consider that quite a lot of our carbon taxes go to line the pockets of the already wealthy earning a substantial income on commercial wind farms and photo-voltaic cells whist the pensioner lining on a state pension has to decide between food or wamth in the winter.

It would have been far better if the money generated by the carbon taxes were to be directed at ordinary citizens and communities in order to encourage them to install alternative energy systems and insulation in the form of grants thereby achieving a situation whereby cheaper heating would be availalble to all.

As it is, the current policies appear to have been designed from Machiavellan concepts.