Skepticism about Climate Change

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Would you be so kind as to explain that cryptic comment?

Gladly, though Ray already explained what I meant on page 1 of this thread (bold mine):

I think you are misinterpreting the statement from Slobodan. My interpretation is, he's not saying that he is one of those who believes that science is a religion. He's saying that some people have transferred their emotional need for a religious belief to a belief in science. Such beliefs in science then begin to take on the characteristics of a religious belief...

Also, there is this excellent post by George (N80) that is pretty close to my views on science and religion (bold mine):

One of the problems with the whole global warming discussion is the synthetic pessimism that has been injected into by those who would use the science as an ideological weapon. Taken as a whole, the science behind anthropogenic global warming has its flaws, most of which are paved over by consensus (which is the weakest kind of science). And too many ideologues have taken up its cause because it supports their socio/political views. This has lead to two problems: 1) They have sullied what good science there is behind the study of climate change by attaching extra and scientifically unsupportable baggage to it which gives skeptics much fuel from branding the entire endeavor as socio/political maneuvering. 2) Because it fits their various causes, they have created an atmosphere in which the science cannot be questioned. They have elevated it to the status of religion or cult. It is to be taken, with all the ideological and non-scientific baggage, as gospel and without question. To do so invites ridicule and accusation. It has lead to many, though far from a majority according to the polls, to accept the science faithfully, while having little or no understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of it. And this is a problem for the real science because there is no science that is above question. That is the nature of science, it is ALWAYS open to re-evaluation.

The evidence of this is everywhere and has been magnified by the popular media who understand none of the science and less of the geopolitics that they are so willing to endorse.

That evidence is the pessimism itself, reflected perfectly by DeanChriss's post above. In a real and statistical sense the probability that all consequences of global warming, regardless of the cause, are going to cause bad things for all of even most species is astronomically low. In a real and statistical sense the probability that the consequences of global warming in the balance are going to cause more bad things than good is also highly if not astronomically improbable. We are talking about a planet and its myriad species and daily we hear prognostications that all is lost due to several degrees of global temperature change. This is possibly the greatest nonsense that has ever been foisted on a presumably educated public.

It simply is not possible to introduce a few variables, of even a lot of variable into a global system and have all or even most outcomes be what we would call undesirable.

And yet, I defy anyone to find any substantial article that discusses the good things that will come from global warming and this is an indictment of the media. Likewise, find studies that show how global warming will result in benefits to society and culture...this is an indictment of the ideologues. The worse part is that the scientific community has not adequately examined the potential of good things to come from it. This oversight is bad science and tarnishes the good.

I have read, seriously, that global warming will be beneficial to some species. So far those species are mosquitos, sharks, spiders and poison oak. Compare this with the species that will be harmed. Here's a hint: They are all fury and have large limpid eyes.

A lot of people disbelieve the idea of man-made climate change because it does not fit their political beliefs and because they don't understand the science. They are, in general, referred to as idiots. There are a lot of people who likewise don't understand the science, who believe in it because it fits their agenda, they are typically thought of as progressive, caring and thoughtful. There isn't much anyone can do about either of these groups.

But for populations and governments to respond to global warming appropriately it is going to require dropping the baggage of unfounded ideological pessimism which is being used as means to socio/political ends and a media willing to report on climate change in a rational and unbiased way. As it stands now, this ideological baggage is far more damaging to the cause of a responsible reaction to climate change than any of the scientific weaknesses inherent in its propositions.

And a quote from another post by N80 (bold mine):

... I also see a growing, popular blind faith in anything labeled as science. I often point that out. It is the new religion and like any religion it has its zealots and priests. The difference is that they will all deny what they are...

[Alan Klein]

There are none. 

Science is provable, repeatable fact.  Religion is precisely the opposite.

Let's bring back lobotomies and leeches.  I miss my carbs. 

[Robert Roaldi]

Let's bring back lobotomies and leeches.  I miss my carbs.

Both of those methods are still used.

[Alan Klein]

Both of those methods are still used.

Well, thank God.  You never know when you might need  a lobotomy or leeches.   Can I start enjoying my carbs again as well? 

[Ray]

He won't, because he doesn't recognize that it also benefits the growth of weeds, and that the net effect is that droughts will kill more crops than the CO2 could add to biomass (and we often do not eat the leafs (but rather the seeds/tubers/roots/fruits/etc.). Also, more (non-indigenous) insects will damage a.o. the crops (and increased use of insecticides will pollute the drinking water/aquifers), and the reduced evaporation of plants at elevated CO2 levels will increase temperature further, and also increases erosion and run-offs (which will also change marine biotopes). The increased precipitation from a warming atmosphere will also cause local erosion and runoffs, and huge economic and human damage.

Okay! Lets unpick the nonsense that Bart has expressed in his comments above. 

(1) Does he really think that I don't recognize that increased CO2 levels also increase weed growth? Increased CO2 levels encourage the growth of all plants, to varying degrees according to the species, whether a food crop, a tree or a weed. Nature does not discriminate between weeds and other plants. The concept of a weed is a human construct. It's a name given to a species of plant we can't find a use for.

If there's a particular species of 'weed' that thrives really well in elevated levels of CO2, then that's a potential benefit that mankind could exploit, to create mulch, sequester carbon in the soil, help fertilize the deserts, or use for organic farming.

Another basic fundamental of mankind's success and prosperity, is adaption. We survive by adapting to changing conditions. Change itself is another fundamental. We might be able to slow the rate of change, or alter the direction of the change, but nobody can stop change from occurring.

(2) Bart's idea that 'droughts will kill more crops than the CO2 could add to the biomass' is not supported by the evidence. It's another nonsensical argument. There have been many experiments that have demonstrated that increased CO2 levels result in the greatest degree of increased growth for plants that are water-stressed.

In circumstances where a doubling of CO2 levels, under ideal conditions of sufficient water and essential nutrients, results in a 30% increase in the biomass of a particular species of plant, that same plant when grown in dry or arid conditions, will increase growth by around 60% for a doubling of CO2 levels.

This is because the leaf spores of plants shrink in size as a result of increased CO2 levels, and less evaporation takes place as a consequence, and the plant can thrive with less water. This brings me to the third nonsensical point made by Bart.

(3) He claims, 'the reduced evaporation of plants at elevated CO2 levels will increase temperature further'. What have you been drinking, Bart? 

The evaporation per leaf, or leaf area, is reduced, but the total number of leaves, and/or the size of the leaves, is increased as a result of increased plant growth, therefore the total amount of evaporation, which produces cooling, is approximately the same, or even greater if we exploit the benefits of increased CO2 and replant forests and irrigate arid regions, and so on. Cor Blimey! 

(4) Lastly, 'The increased precipitation from a warming atmosphere will also cause local erosion and runoffs, and huge economic and human damage.'

Bart and I have argued about the significance of comments in the technical report of the latest IPCC report which state that, due to a lack of evidence, there is low confidence that hurricanes, droughts and floods have been increasing since the 1950's, globally.

However, the AR5 does claim with greater confidence that precipitation levels have been increasing, globally, during this period, and I would not disagree with such claims, just as I would not disagree that some slight warming has taken place since the Little Ice Age.

If the climate warms a bit, it is to be expected that more evaporation will take place, more clouds will form, and more precipitation will occur.

However, as populations expand and/or grow in prosperity, more water is required to wash cars, wash solar panels on the roof, wash peoples' bodies, water the garden, grow food, and so on, therefore more dams are built to meet the increased demand for water.

Increased precipitation should help to meet that increased demand, if we organize our affairs sensibly. What's the problem? Certainly not CO2. 

[Robert Roaldi]

Well, thank God.  You never know when you might need  a lobotomy or leeches.   Can I start enjoying my carbs again as well? 

http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicine/modern-treatments/leeches-in-modern-medicine.htm

http://modernnotion.com/history-of-lobotomy/

I never stopped enjoying carbs, why would anyone think there was a problem with them? No dietitian ever did. I think that may be one problem in these discussions. People read some idea in the media, like you shouldn't eat red meat say, and they get the idea that "scientists" are telling them that they're not allowed to enjoy steak. Trouble is it's not true. It always turns out to be an exaggerated claim by no one of consequence and reported in the popular media for the sensation. But if you check the literature from the research offices that matter, they say nothing that even resembles what the media reported. But people only remember the silly headlines, "red meat is bad", "coffee is bad", "coffee is good", you name it and it has probably been written somewhere.

Scientific reality is complex, subtle and nuanced, and thus requires people to read and to study, but in general we don't train people to think like that. Some schools try, I suspect, but against the barrage of popular TV, the wild west of the web, drunken rumours, they don't stand a chance.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Oh, please! Every such claim was quoted based on a scientific study by some university or research institute.

[Alan Klein]

http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicine/modern-treatments/leeches-in-modern-medicine.htm

http://modernnotion.com/history-of-lobotomy/

I never stopped enjoying carbs, why would anyone think there was a problem with them? No dietitian ever did. I think that may be one problem in these discussions. People read some idea in the media, like you shouldn't eat red meat say, and they get the idea that "scientists" are telling them that they're not allowed to enjoy steak. Trouble is it's not true. It always turns out to be an exaggerated claim by no one of consequence and reported in the popular media for the sensation. But if you check the literature from the research offices that matter, they say nothing that even resembles what the media reported. But people only remember the silly headlines, "red meat is bad", "coffee is bad", "coffee is good", you name it and it has probably been written somewhere.

Scientific reality is complex, subtle and nuanced, and thus requires people to read and to study, but in general we don't train people to think like that. Some schools try, I suspect, but against the barrage of popular TV, the wild west of the web, drunken rumours, they don't stand a chance.

What you're describing is also the media's attention to climate change.  It sells.  So they're on the bandwagon for it.  Every nature program I watch has to have some inane and unsupportable comment on how we have to stop climate change or the species the show is about will die out.  It's become a knee jerk reaction.  It seems like they have to say this or else their video would not be shown.    It's like what's happening in Hollywood. If you don't speak "liberal" you're ex-communicated from the industry silencing conservative viewpoints from artists who think differently.  This is what Trump ran against.  The political correctness that you're required to espouse or be burned at the stake.  We like to think we're so modern and free-thinking.  But it often appears we're no better than the Middle Ages or frankly not better than ISIS.  We don't cut heads off yet.  But we're willing stop free speech and to destroy people and their careers if they don't conform with the PC brigade. 

[Robert Roaldi]

No, they were cherry-picked for sensational content, misreported for effect, and not presented in the larger context of that field.

All I am saying is that if you want to understand complex subject matter, the headline and first paragraphs of newspapers/popular web sites is not the place to look.

So if you read a headline tomorrow morning that coffee is bad for you, and then another next week that it's good for you, and your conclusion is that science is untrustworthy, you have deluded yourself several ways, the most egregious of which is that you think you have been exposed to science when you haven't.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Oh, dear Lord! I rest my case.

Pretty clear which side of the fence you are sitting on.

[Robert Roaldi]

What you're describing is also the media's attention to climate change.  It sells.  So they're on the bandwagon for it.  Every nature program I watch has to have some inane and unsupportable comment on how we have to stop climate change or the species the show is about will die out.  It's become a knee jerk reaction.  It seems like they have to say this or else their video would not be shown.    It's like what's happening in Hollywood. If you don't speak "liberal" you're ex-communicated from the industry silencing conservative viewpoints from artists who think differently.  This is what Trump ran against.  The political correctness that you're required to espouse or be burned at the stake.  We like to think we're so modern and free-thinking.  But it often appears we're no better than the Middle Ages or frankly not better than ISIS.  We don't cut heads off yet.  But we're willing stop free speech and to destroy people and their careers if they don't conform with the PC brigade.

What are you talking about? Trump won the election. The PC bandwagon can't be that powerful, can it? I mean, it seems to be ok now for presidential candidates to call Mexicans rapists, no one arrested him for saying so.

No one is stopping you from holding your opinions about climate change. No one is preventing Ray from writing what he writes. No one is shutting down Breitbart or the National Enquirer (I assume it still exists). People are allowed to disagree with you, you know, it doesn't mean that your rights are being violated when they do. I thought you believed in freedom of speech.

[Alan Klein]

No, they were cherry-picked for sensational content, misreported for effect, and not presented in the larger context of that field.

All I am saying is that if you want to understand complex subject matter, the headline and first paragraphs of newspapers/popular web sites is not the place to look.

So if you read a headline tomorrow morning that coffee is bad for you, and then another next week that it's good for you, and your conclusion is that science is untrustworthy, you have deluded yourself several ways, the most egregious of which is that you think you have been exposed to science when you haven't.

But you're simplifying it too much.  Carbs for example use to be good when the "science" claimed that fats especially animal fats were no good for you.  As an aside, this was pushed by the sugar industry at the time who stood to gain by people eating more carbs and sugar.  The federal government supported this idea until recently.  It now understands that carbs are the large reason so many Americans are so fat and have diabetes problems.  It wasn't the fat that was dangerous but the carbs.  So the so-called science is reversing itself.  The media did not make this up,  It was supported by "science" and the government.  The idea that people just read headlines is not true. 

A few decades ago, the science and the headlines were that the earth was cooling.  That the population was increasing so much that we would have mass starvation.  Well,  the science on those things were wrong too.  And people weren't just reading headlines although like global warming today, the media has pushed it because it sells.  People like disasters.  That's why so many movies are about disasters.  Did you ever slow down passing a car accident so you can get a better view?  Well, global warming is the new disaster.

[Tim Lookingbill]

All I am saying is that if you want to understand complex subject matter, the headline and first paragraphs of newspapers/popular web sites is not the place to look.

So if you read a headline tomorrow morning that coffee is bad for you, and then another next week that it's good for you, and your conclusion is that science is untrustworthy, you have deluded yourself several ways, the most egregious of which is that you think you have been exposed to science when you haven't.

Then climate scientists don't understand how to communicate such complexity to the public. I still don't understand it and I've read so much that I'm just tired of it.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Albert Einstein

[Alan Klein]

What are you talking about? Trump won the election. The PC bandwagon can't be that powerful, can it? I mean, it seems to be ok now for presidential candidates to call Mexicans rapists, no one arrested him for saying so.

No one is stopping you from holding your opinions about climate change. No one is preventing Ray from writing what he writes. No one is shutting down Breitbart or the National Enquirer (I assume it still exists). People are allowed to disagree with you, you know, it doesn't mean that your rights are being violated when they do. I thought you believed in freedom of speech.

Thank God for social media.  It does allow people to express opinions different then mainstream media.  But mainstream media still has the most power to influence opinion.  And yet, as has been discussed lately, even social media like Facebook., Google, and other important internet outlets are putting their thumb on the scale of openness and freedom of speech.  They're stopping opinions being posted that are not politically correct in their opinion.  Algorithms for searches tend to favor one thought or another, mostly liberal.  When you go to the News section of Google, they always have the liberal anti-Trump Washington Post and NY Times articles being favored.  So even social media has joined the liberal establishment.  Frankly, it's amazing that Trump won considering all the one-sided bias.  Kids who are being raised on "man-is-bad", global warming, and other liberal political thinking.  They're being brain-washed by the last liberal generation. 

[Tim Lookingbill]

I'll give you a recent example of science being used to push an agenda to redirect global priorities and the funds to support it.

I'm for the environment and thus against all pollution of land, air and water.

The recent Harvey floods in the Houston area brought to mind an old agenda and priority I had long forgot about because I thought it was fixed which is "The Super Fund". The media was mentioning this to tell folks to avoid wading in the flood waters that are now polluted by the toxins from these old Super Fund sites.

So we still don't have enough money to clean up these Super Fund disasters but we do have money to spend on climate science research so we can reduce the frequency of these cat 5 storms that create floods that stir up these toxic dumps that should've been cleaned up years ago.

I say redirect all global climate change moneys to cleaning up all polluted sites across the US.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

What Robert and Bart are saying is it is science the last 24-hours, and it wasn't science before that. Or, it is science when it is right (for the time being) and it wasn't science when it is proven wrong.

[Robert Roaldi]

I'll give you a recent example of science being used to push an agenda to redirect global priorities and the funds to support it.

I'm for the environment and thus against all pollution of land, air and water.

The recent Harvey floods in the Houston area brought to mind an old agenda and priority I had long forgot about because I thought it was fixed which is "The Super Fund". The media was mentioning this to tell folks to avoid wading in the flood waters that are now polluted by the toxins from these old Super Fund sites.

So we still don't have enough money to clean up these Super Fund disasters but we do have money to spend on climate science research so we can reduce the frequency of these cat 5 storms that create floods that stir up these toxic dumps that should've been cleaned up years ago.

I say redirect all global climate change moneys to cleaning up all polluted sites across the US.

Why does it need to be one or the other? We always proceed on several fronts and always have. I'd add another front. Let's put some money into lobbying so that laws can be passed to prevent these things from happening in the first place. Prevention is usually cheaper than treatment (or cures).

We seem to have enough money to gamble on NFL games every Sunday, so it's not as if there's a shortage of money.

[Robert Roaldi]

Thank God for social media.  It does allow people to express opinions different then mainstream media.  But mainstream media still has the most power to influence opinion.  And yet, as has been discussed lately, even social media like Facebook., Google, and other important internet outlets are putting their thumb on the scale of openness and freedom of speech.  They're stopping opinions being posted that are not politically correct in their opinion.  Algorithms for searches tend to favor one thought or another, mostly liberal.  When you go to the News section of Google, they always have the liberal anti-Trump Washington Post and NY Times articles being favored.  So even social media has joined the liberal establishment.  Frankly, it's amazing that Trump won considering all the one-sided bias.  Kids who are being raised on "man-is-bad", global warming, and other liberal political thinking.  They're being brain-washed by the last liberal generation.

I'm sorry, you've lost me. What one-sided bias? Do mean the Corporate lobby that is succeeding in rolling back even health and safety regulations? Is that what you mean? Or do you mean the rollbacks in wider consumer protection in the financial domain? I know, those lefties have really crippled Wall Street, it's a tragedy to watch.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Why does it need to be one or the other? We always proceed on several fronts and always have. I'd add another front. Let's put some money into lobbying so that laws can be passed to prevent these things from happening in the first place. Prevention is usually cheaper than treatment (or cures).

We seem to have enough money to gamble on NFL games every Sunday, so it's not as if there's a shortage of money.

The "Prevention" horse has already left the barn. I'm talking about existing Super Fund sites, and there's a lot of them that need to have more money to clean them up completely because apparently the current amount ain't getting it done.

It's ironic that it took a global climate change induced cat 5 hurricane in Houston, TX to reveal this fact to the media.

[Robert Roaldi]

Then climate scientists don't understand how to communicate such complexity to the public. I still don't understand it and I've read so much that I'm just tired of it.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Albert Einstein

I am not sure how to respond to this. The number of science publications and web sites are too numerous to list. And I don't mean the hard-core scientific literature, I mean the more popular blogs and media out there.

If what you're saying is that there is too much of it, and that the debates and disagreements are overwhelmingly difficult for a layman (in the science sense) to follow (especially since it's part-time), then yes that's true. That's what it is, it's big and it's complex. No escape from this.