The pro-anthropgenic global warming comments on the FM site (and emails to me) are so similar that a generic reply will save everybody time and effort. This post examines 7 8 common elements. These are general statements. They do not apply to every individual comment on the FM site or to material elsewhere (in any medium).
- Pro-AGW comments often display no signs of having read the skeptics’ work.
- Pro-AGW comments often invent assertions which they can easily refute.
- Pro-AGW comments usually show little or no awareness of the authoritative reports on this issue.
- Pro-AGW comments usually show little or no knowledge of the long struggle to force some climate scientists to release data and methods.
- Pro-AGW comments usually show little understanding of the scientific method.
- They illustrate the pro-AGW faith in computer models.
- They illustrate the irrationality of the “precautionary principle” as commonly used.
- Update: Pro-AGW comments usually consider scientists to be authorities, unless they disagree with AGW orthodoxy. Then they’re cranks. Example here.
This post concludes with a quote from George Orwell, a prescient observer of trends in western culture.
1. Pro-AGW comments display no signs of having read the skeptics’ work
Pro-AGW Comments seldom make any specific rebuttal to actual skeptics arguments or data. Often comments indicate that the author writing a rebuttal clearly has not the post in question. I have seen few pro-AGW comments showing evidence that the author has read much (if any) of the AGW skeptics’ literature in journals, general media, or the Internet.
For an educated audience there are many sites providing easy to understand evidence undercutting the basis for AGW, such as Climate Audit or Anthony Watt’s Watts Up with That. Of special note is perhaps the best modern example of citizen-science: Anthony Watt’s surfacestations.org— showing that the US surface temperature measuring system, while accurate for its intended purpose of collecting weather data, is grossly inadequate for measuring long-term climate changes to fractions of a degree.
2. Pro-AGW comments often invent assertions which they can easily refute.
This is a weird form of the straw man logical fallacy. “Skeptics deny the existance of climate change” is the most common example. This is a bizarre claim, as the existence of natural climate cycles — and the difficulty of assigning a weight to human-caused impacts — is central to the “skeptic’s” case. The world has been warming for centuries as we rebound from the Little Ice Age.
In fact, the opposite is more often the case. Ask even a well-educated believer of AGW about past climate fluctuations; often they have little knowledge about their magnitude and frequency. Sad, as this was widespread knowledge a generation ago. To raise fears about future climate change, discussion of past cycles was eliminated from many textbooks and most mainstream media stories. Goebbels would be proud of this, another successful use of his methods.
3. Pro-AGW comments usually show little or no awareness of the authoritative reports on this issue.
Pro-AGW comments prattle on about the “consensus” but tend to go silent when asked about the various authoritative reports on climate change — those done by experts outside the climate change fraternity, such as the North Report, the Wegman Report, and the analysis by Richard L. Smith. For links, see section 4 on the FM reference page about Science, Nature, and Geopolitics.
4. Pro-AGW comments usually show little or no knowledge of the long struggle to force some climate scientists to release data and methods.
Much of what we know about the data and methods of the pro-AGW case comes from the skeptics long fight to get vital information into the sunlight. Freedom of information act requests, pressure from Congress, requests to have professional journals enforce their requirements for disclosure of data support articles — all these and more were used in this long struggle. A dark one, since the mainstream media refuses to report its existence. Needless to say, this long campaign of concealment does not create confidence in the pro-AGW case — and prevents the normal routines of scientific progress from operating in climate science.
One of the classic examples of this attitude of many (not all) climate scientists is this vignette.
In response to a request for supporting data, Philip Jones, a prominent researcher {University of East Anglia} said “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
— From the testimony of Stephen McIntyre before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (the July 2006 hearings which produced the Wegman Report).
There are even stories of retaliation against scientists publishing data critical of AGW. For example, the case of Dr. Lloyd D. Keigwin. He published a climate reconstruction based on analysis of Sargasso Sea mud in (“The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea”, Science, v274, 1996). The backlash was formidable, especially when Exxon ran an advertisement mentioning his work. Fortunately for his career and continued research funding, he wrote a public letter to Exxon rebuking them for using his work to criticize the AGW paradigm. (No word yet if upon mailing the letter he muttered that “The mud does not lie.”). For a brief description of this episode see this: “Exxon Mobil Uses Scientist’s Data As Evidence of Natural Warming“, Wall Street Journal, 22 March 2001 (subscription required).
For a briefing on this vital subject see “Data Archiving, Disclosure and Due Diligence” at the Climate Audit website.
5. Pro-AGW comments usually show little understanding of the scientific method.
20th century work to understand the process of science has focused on the role of replication and testing of theories (Karl Popper saw falsification as the key element). The pro-AGW emphasis on consensus is a step backwards from rigorous science to an almost religious-like process. In theology church leaders appropriately meet to decide doctrine, and can declare anything outside that approved circle of belief is heresy — to be condemned and prosecuted.
Michael Crichton documents the spread of this into science, using science as a lever to force political change. This was perfected by Carl Sagan in his campaign about nuclear winter. For more on these things see:
- “Nuclear winter: science and politics“, Brian Martin, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 15, No. 5, October 1988, pp. 321-334.
- “Aliens cause global warming”, Michael Crichton, lecture at the California Institute of Technology, 17 January 2003.
6. They illustrate the pro-AGW faith in computer models.
The faith of many lay pro-AGW advocates in computer models is touching, despite their poor track record in so many fields — including climate science, finance, and economics. Would you like to buy some AAA-rated collateralized debt obligations (CDOs); computer models show that the risk is small! Or perhaps invest in Long Term Capital Management— the Nobel Laureates on their staff have excellent risk control models.
This is not an idle comparison. The common elements are striking. Perhaps most important are these.
- Calculations on the edge of known data and theory.
- No outside or 3rd party review of the models, let alone auditing of data and methods used.
- Those using them profess exaggerated confidence in the model’s output.
7. They illustrate the irrationality of the “precautionary principle” as commonly used.
Another justification for aggressive action to prevent AGW is “We are better safe than sorry, and it is not as if taking steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a dangerous policy.” (source)
More to the point, it is an expensive policy. And there are many other vital needs that deserve funding, needs far more substantial. There are a large number of high impact – low probability scenarios (“shockwaves”), of which AGW is just one. We can not defend against them all. I discuss this in greater length at this post; here is the key point:
Commission a group to collect as many shockwave scenarios as possible, with a brief analysis of each. Fortunately there are thousands of interest groups willing to pitch in and help! Then apply a common analytical framework to rate them on both dimensions: probability and impact. The results would prove quite interesting, and allow more rational public policy discussion about which to act upon.
A note from George Orwell
As seen in the comments on the FM site’s climate change posts, most of pro-AGW advocates seem unable to even perceive what the skeptics are saying — despite the skeptics firm basis in traditional concepts of science. This brings to mind the prophetic warning of George Orwell in 1984:
Don’t you see the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. … Even now there is no reason or excuse for committing thought-crime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control.
For more information from the FM site
To read other articles about these things, see the FM reference page on the right side menu bar. Of esp relevance to this topic:
- Posts about Science, Nature, and Geopolitics
Posts on the FM site about climate change:
- A look at the science and politics of global warming, 12 June 2008
- Global warming means more earthquakes!, 19 June 2008
- An article giving strong evidence of global warming, 30 June 2008
- Worrying about the Sun and climate change: cycle 24 is late, 10 July 2008
- More forecasts of a global cooling cycle, 15 July 2008
- Update: is Solar Cycle 24 late (a cooling cycle, with famines, etc)?, 15 july 2008
- Two valuable perspectives on global warming, 4 August 2008
- President Kennedy speaks to us about global warming and Climate Science, 7 August 2008
- Solar Cycle 24 is still late, perhaps signalling cool weather ahead, 2 September 2008
- Update on solar cycle 24 – and a possible period of global cooling, 1 October 2008
- Good news about global warming!, 21 October 2008
- One of the most interesting sources of news about science and nature!, 27 October 2008
- “Aliens cause global warming”: wise words from the late Michael Crichton, 15 November 2008
Afterword
Please share your comments by posting below. Per the FM site’s Comment Policy, please make them brief (250 words max), civil, and relevant to this post. Or email me at fabmaximus at hotmail dot com (note the spam-protected spelling).
