Skepticism about Climate Change

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

FYI,

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

1. Introduction

Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing recent global warming. The consensus position is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that 'human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century' (Qin et al 2014, p 17). The National Academies of Science from 80 countries have issued statements endorsing the consensus position (table S2). Nevertheless, the existence of the consensus continues to be questioned. Here we summarize studies that quantify expert views and examine common flaws in criticisms of consensus estimates. In particular, we are responding to a comment by Tol (2016) on Cook et al (2013, referred to as C13). We show that contrary to Tol's claim that the results of C13 differ from earlier studies, the consensus of experts is robust across all the studies conducted by coauthors of this correspondence.

Tol's erroneous conclusions stem from conflating the opinions of non-experts with experts and assuming that lack of affirmation equals dissent.
[...]

The research agrees: Humans are causing climate change (consensus on consensus)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEb49cZYnsE

Cheers,
Bart

[Ray]

Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing recent global warming. The consensus position is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that 'human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century' (Qin et al 2014, p 17). The National Academies of Science from 80 countries have issued statements endorsing the consensus position (table S2). Nevertheless, the existence of the consensus continues to be questioned. Here we summarize studies that quantify expert views and examine common flaws in criticisms of consensus estimates. In particular, we are responding to a comment by Tol (2016) on Cook et al (2013, referred to as C13). We show that contrary to Tol's claim that the results of C13 differ from earlier studies, the consensus of experts is robust across all the studies conducted by coauthors of this correspondence.


Cheers,
Bart

Of course there's a consensus. All organizations require a consensus on the fundamental goals and motives of the organisation. If you disagree with those basic principles you'd be better off leaving the organization.

If a bank employee were to disagree with the bank's goal to make a profit, he'd be better off getting other employment.

If a member of the Conservative Party in the government were to disagree with the basic principles of the party, he'd get nowhere. He wouldn't be nominated for re-election. He'd be advised to start his own party, or leave politics, or join the opposing party.

Likewise, one would expect there to be a high degree of consensus among theologians who have written papers on Christianity, that God exists.

My focus on such issues is always on 'facts'. These are the relevant facts as I understand them.

(1) Climate research centres are funded by governments on the basis there is a perceived threat from rising CO2 levels. That's the justification for the funding. The research centres were not set up in order to do theoretical research about the processes of climate change just out of curiosity, or to make weather predictions more accurate.

The continuing existence of such climate research centres relies upon the perceived threat of catastrophic results arising from increased CO2 levels being maintained.

(2) For the reasons mentioned above, consensuses of opinion are not a major part of scientific validation. Scientific validation, always provisional and subject to change as our knowledge progresses, relies upon the soundness of the evidence which in turn relies upon the repeatability of experiments in accordance with the fundamental principles of the scientific methodology, which requires the situation of a controlled environment in which one variable at a time can be changed, the creation of accurate models of the subject under investigation, and the observation of results within relatively short periods of time, as opposed to several decades or centuries.

It's impossible to create an accurate model of the planet with all its complexities, its gravitational effects, and its interface with the vacuum of outer space.

In other words, the subject of climate change does not lend itself to the stringent rigours of the scientific methodology. It's a 'soft' science, and any scientist who expresses a high degree of certainty that rises in CO2 from their current minuscule levels will be catastrophic, is either wearing his political hat or is very confused. 

[ppmax2]

It's impossible to create an accurate model of the planet with all its complexities, its gravitational effects, and its interface with the vacuum of outer space.

Similarly it's impossible to have an accurate model of how the human body works. By your logic we should abandon all medicine 
 

[Alan Klein]

Similarly it's impossible to have an accurate model of how the human body works. By your logic we should abandon all medicine 
 

A lot of medicine is bad medicine.  We often change remedies when we realize our medical research was wrong because the studies were flawed, prejudiced, or didn't have all the data required to analyze it properly.  How do we know that we have all the parameters for climate change?  Thinking that no changes in our understanding of climate or medicine are possible is a fool's errand.   It's not the "deniers" who are closed-minded but rather the advocates.  too many scientific theories have been proven wrong.   We should all be open-minded that these change and may change back.  Our knowledge is limited.  We can't know everything. 

[Farmer]

That's true, Alan, but we don't stop treating people in the meantime.  We use the best knowledge currently available.  When that changes or improves, then so do the treatments.  The point is that we don't abandon medicine because it's not perfect, we don't say "we can't do anything in case some portion of this turns out to be wrong in the future", not when the overwhelming evidence is that most of it is working (extended life spans, critical interventions to save lives, and so on).

[ppmax2]

A lot of medicine is bad medicine.

The quality of medicine (bad or good) is irrelevant since it's not remotely related to the flaw in the OP's logic that I cited.

Though you probably didn't intend it, the rest of your post hints at an iterative process known as the scientific method, whereby observations are recorded, hypotheses are created to explain the causes of the observed, which then afford predictions, which are then tested to match observations. Refinement occurs when hypotheses and predictions don't match observations....and thus our understanding of the natural world matures.

To be pedantic, *predictions* of global warming (or any other prediction) aren't absolute; they are expressed with degrees of confidence, which is a statistical technique employed to hedge against uncertainty and error. To whit, there is a high-confidence that average global temperatures are rising causing ice to melt, sea levels to rise, etc. etc.

Developing a complete model of the atmosphere isn't the goal. The goal is to develop a model that is sufficiently accurate to predict future states of the atmosphere such that action can be taken to avoid undesirable outcomes.

You and the OP are of course free to believe or be skeptical about anything you wish. But this thread isn't really a discussion of climate change science per se; it's just a bunch of handwaving about conspiracy theories and the like.

If the OP has an issue with the application of the scientific method in this particular case, doesn't that also imply an issue with the scientific method in all other cases? If so, the computer he uses to post would not be, since it's very existence owes itself to the application of those methods in all of the relevant fields from which it arose.

[Ray]

Similarly it's impossible to have an accurate model of how the human body works. By your logic we should abandon all medicine 

There seems to be confusion about the time scales involved. Medicines can be effective within days, weeks and months. We can experiment with animals such as mice and rats which have a much shorter lifespans than ours, but which share a large percentage of our genome.

Before a drug or medicine is approved, many studies have to be carried out, including comparisons with placebos. Such experiments take place within a relatively short time frame which is irrelevant in relation to the long periods for changes in climate to become certain.

Even after such studies, long term adverse effects of a particular drug are sometimes discovered to have devastating consequences.

I'm not suggesting that we abandon research into climate change issues. I'm suggesting that we pay more attention, and more money, to more certain issues which we know can harm human beings and our environment.

For example, the certainty that the severity of natural, extreme weather events of the past will continue into the future, is more certain than the projection that such weather events will become more extreme in the future.

If we can't be bothered to protect ourselves from natural weather events, such as hurricanes, droughts and floods, how are reductions in CO2 levels going to help?

We should spend our resources fixing the immediate problems of extreme weather events first, and then consider the possible effects of rising CO2 levels.
For example, if one builds a house in an area that has experienced a number of category 4 cyclones in the past, then one should build one's house to withstand category 5 cyclones, just in case the climate, for whatever reason, changes for the worse.

Likewise, if one builds a house in an area which has been flooded on several occasions in the past, one should build one's house above the level of those previous floods, but not just a few inches above, but perhaps a whole metre above in order to protect oneself from the uncertain event that a future flood, influenced by anthropogenic climate change, might be the worst on record.

[Farmer]

Someone is on the ground, not breathing.  They have multiple cuts all over them - dozens, in fact.  They have broken bones protruding, too.  You have resources available to patch all the wounds and take 10 minutes to do so.  By the time you finish, the person is dead beyond recovery.  The brain has been dying for minutes, way beyond the survivable period of lack of oxygenation.

There's a reason you follow DRABCD.  Airway and breathing before you get to compressions/circulation.  There's no point patching the easier, more obvious problems if the fundamental basic requirement for life is not attended to.  Sure, sometimes a bleed is so bad you have to stop that because otherwise you're just going to pump them to bleed out.  Sometimes you need to deal with the immediate environmental issues such as a cyclone.  But at the end of the day, if you don't take care of the breathing - if you don't fix the underlying basic problem - then the patient dies.

You can't just ignore the big ticket item because it requires lots of resources or because you don't have 100% confidence.  You know something's wrong and you know that you're contributing to it.  You have the ability to stop contributing to it AND deal with other issues.  If there's an element of doubt, give the benefit of doubt to the planet and stop adding to the problem.

We spend only a small fraction of GDP globally on scientific research, and only a small fraction of that on environmental research.  http://theconversation.com/infographic-how-much-does-the-world-spend-on-science-14069

We can afford to do more research AND take action.

[Ray]

You can't just ignore the big ticket item because it requires lots of resources or because you don't have 100% confidence.  You know something's wrong and you know that you're contributing to it.  You have the ability to stop contributing to it AND deal with other issues.  If there's an element of doubt, give the benefit of doubt to the planet and stop adding to the problem.

We spend only a small fraction of GDP globally on scientific research, and only a small fraction of that on environmental research. 

We can afford to do more research AND take action.

Take what sort of action? That's the question. Do we take action to prevent the possibility of extreme weather events getting worse, based upon the projections of flawed computer models, and despite the fact that the latest IPCC report states there is no sound evidence that extreme weather events have been getting worse during the past several decades, globally?

Or, do we take action to protect ourselves from the severity of past extreme weather events recurring? It's too expensive to do both, effectively.
As I've mentioned before, I live in a general area which has been subjected to flooding and droughts for millennia. The levels of numerous riverine floods have been recorded for the past 150 years or so. We haven't been able to fix the problem; not because we don't know how, but because we'd rather spend money and resources doing other things, like building desalination plants instead of dams because climate change alarmists have been advising the government that the climate will be getting drier in the future.

The local government has also been encouraging economic growth by approving the construction of homes in areas that have previously been flooded, apparently in denial of the fact we live in a land of floods and droughts.

The last major flood in Brisbane, Australia, occurred in early 2011. It caused massive damage. The damage bill was far more expensive than any previous flood in the area. The flood was described at the time as the worst on record, the worst in living memory, and a once-in-a-century event. It was touted in the media as being the result of anthropogenic global warming, and I bet that many members of the public still believe that.

However the records at the Bureau of Meteorology tell a different story. It was the 7th worst flood in that area since records began about 150 years ago. The previous major flood in 1974 was one full metre higher.

As a result of attempting to reduce CO2 levels by subsidising sustainable and alternative energy supplies, electricity prices have risen significantly in Australia during the past decade or two, and in certain states, such as South Australia, electricity supply has become much less reliable than it was during the days of coal-fired power stations. Fixing the problem will result in electricity prices rising even higher, and in the meantime thousands of families will remain vulnerable to natural, extreme weather events that are probably unrelated to CO2 levels.

[Ray]

Since this is a photographic forum, I'll show a few photos I took during the 2011 floods whilst trying to get home one day. I had to park the car on an area of high ground a few kilometres from the house, then take a boat along the flooded highway for part of the journey, then walk the rest of the way sometimes wading knee deep through water.

My house is near the river and I was crossing my fingers that I wouldn't find it flooded. The photo of the rear deck shows how close to the deck the river rose.

Fortunately, I made sure that the house was built above the level of the previous flood in 1974, which I discovered later was a metre higher than the 2011 flood. Many others would have forgotten about the flood that occurred 37 years ago. That's part of the problem. People have short memories, including the government officials who create the building regulations and approve the construction of dwellings in flood-prone areas.

We often fail to do basic and obvious things like protecting people from natural, extreme weather events that have been occurring for centuries without any help from CO2, yet you think we can miraculously stabilize our climate by reducing CO2 emissions. That's crazy! 

[Alan Klein]

That's true, Alan, but we don't stop treating people in the meantime.  We use the best knowledge currently available.  When that changes or improves, then so do the treatments.  The point is that we don't abandon medicine because it's not perfect, we don't say "we can't do anything in case some portion of this turns out to be wrong in the future", not when the overwhelming evidence is that most of it is working (extended life spans, critical interventions to save lives, and so on).

Often the cure is worse than the ailment.  I'm personally going through that with my wife and wish we had left well enough alone.  Often surgeons push things because that's what they do.  Of course I'm not saying all medicine is bad.  But sometimes, you have to thread lightly.  Starting a hundred year project to change the world's climate seems like a fool's errand. 

[Ray]

But this is probably my best shot during the times of the 2011 floods, taken a few days before I got stranded on the way home. 

[LesPalenik]

Often the cure is worse than the ailment.  I'm personally going through that with my wife and wish we had left well enough alone.  Often surgeons push things because that's what they do.  Of course I'm not saying all medicine is bad.  But sometimes, you have to thread lightly.  Starting a hundred year project to change the world's climate seems like a fool's errand.

But not starting it at all, will be fatal to future generations.

[LesPalenik]

Germany's Development Minister Gerd Müller warns about 100 millions of refugees from Africa to Europe if the global warming can't be stopped.

"If we continue as before, the people in many parts of Africa have no other chance than to get on our way." Müller called for a Marshall Plan, a large-scale investment program for Africa.

Federal Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel had recently criticized the plans for a "Marshall Plan" in the "Spiegel" as insufficient. For every euro that you put in defense, one must invest 1.50 euro in crisis prevention, explained Gabriel.

http://www.huffingtonpost.de/2017/06/18/fluechtlinge-millionen-10_n_17191626.html

[Alan Klein]

Germany's Development Minister Gerd Müller warns about 100 millions of refugees from Africa to Europe if the global warming can't be stopped.
"If we continue as before, the people in many parts of Africa have no other chance than to get on our way." Müller called for a Marshall Plan, a large-scale investment program for Africa.

Federal Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel had recently criticized the plans for a "Marshall Plan" in the "Spiegel" as insufficient. For every euro that you put in defense, one must invest 1.50 euro in crisis prevention, explained Gabriel.

http://www.huffingtonpost.de/2017/06/18/fluechtlinge-millionen-10_n_17191626.html

Sounds like the Germans are looking for an excuse not to pay the NATO 2% for defense.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Sounds like the Germans are looking for an excuse not to pay the NATO 2% for defense.

How insensitive. He's talking about a humanitarian crisis, people dying as they try crossing hostile countries and the Mediterranean Sea, after being raped and stripped of their possessions by human traffickers.

Bart

[pegelli]

Sounds like the Germans are looking for an excuse not to pay the NATO 2% for defense.

To the contrary, he's only saying they should spend more on crisis prevention.

I also hate to pop your bubble, but the spending 2% on defense is not a hotly debated topic over here. Trump's erratic and untrustworthy behaviour made most people realise it's just a pet peeve to appease his local supporters and boost the US military industry and therefore have moved on to discussing more important things. A clear example how Trump's style achieves the opposite of what he wants.

[Alan Klein]

How insensitive. He's talking about a humanitarian crisis, people dying as they try crossing hostile countries and the Mediterranean Sea, after being raped and stripped of their possessions by human traffickers.

Bart

I didn't know the Germans were that sensitive or humanitarian.  He said they were concerned that all those people would come to Germany and they already got too many refugees.  That's why he wants to help.  To keep them in Africa. 

Here are the words Les posted that they said.  Maybe they should just build a wall and have Mexico pay for it. 

"Germany's Development Minister Gerd Müller warns about 100 millions of refugees from Africa to Europe if the global warming can't be stopped.
"If we continue as before, the people in many parts of Africa have no other chance than to get on our way." Müller called for a Marshall Plan, a large-scale investment program for Africa."

[Alan Klein]

To the contrary, he's only saying they should spend more on crisis prevention.

I also hate to pop your bubble, but the spending 2% on defense is not a hotly debated topic over here. Trump's erratic and untrustworthy behaviour made most people realise it's just a pet peeve to appease his local supporters and boost the US military industry and therefore have moved on to discussing more important things. A clear example how Trump's style achieves the opposite of what he wants.

If I was European, I wouldn't increase spending for defense either.  Let the Americans spend their money. 

[pegelli]

If I was European, I wouldn't increase spending for defense either.  Let the Americans spend their money.

Fortunately you're not European