I recently left a comment over at nice Mr Watts' place. It received a favourable response, so I thought I would expand it a little and reproduce it here. The relevant background is that a number of commenters had explained that they had been subjected to abuse when leaving comments on another blog (which shall remain nameless but which does not welcome comments from me). That blog takes an extreme view on the catastrophic man-made global warming issue. Its editorial policy appears to be that the IPCC's computer games are beyond any criticism whatsoever and anyone who dares to challenge any part of them is too stupid to understand the issues and/or actuated by malice or greed.
Some practitioners of an infant science might say “this is our hypothesis, now we’re going to study what actually happens and make any necessary adjustments”. But not, it seems, those wedded to this particular idea. They like to say “the science is settled” but it seems to me that they really mean “our minds are closed”. On hearing that some measures suggest global average cooling within the last decade rather than global average warming, they reply in two ways and adopt both replies, mindless to the conflict between the two.
On the one hand they assert that measured cooling is not cooling at all. This is just legerdemain, by selecting particular starting and finishing points they create trend lines on graphs to argue that lower readings from thermometers actually display continuing upward movements in average temperatures. Yet you only need to adopt different start and end points to show something different. On the other hand they say “this is what should be expected because warming causes cooling”. No. Warming means temperatures going up, cooling means temperatures going down. You cannot create ice by applying heat to a pan of water, nor can you bring tepid water to the boil by adding ice. These two positions are wholly contradictory.
There is a credible explanation available to them but it involves a concession of uncertainty, so they will not propose it. They could say “temporary blips are only to be expected because we are dealing with a vastly complex interaction of factors and we do not fully understand them all”. That would stand alongside their hypothesis and would not cause the batting of a single eyelid. But it would require them to accept that they do not know everything and, therefore, that their hypothesis has not yet been proved. Such a position appears to be unacceptable to them because they have pinned their colours unequivocally to the “the science is settled” mast.
Acceptance of uncertainty lies behind all honest debate, whether scientific or otherwise, until such time, if ever, that all the evidence points in one direction and nothing that is observed in real life is inconsistent with the position being advanced. Unjustified certainty requires dissenting voices to be dismissed rather than challenged on the merits of the points they put forward. Debate and challenge are the tools of those with open minds. Scoffing, sneering dismissal is the tool of those unprepared to accept that their belief in a hypothesis might not be well-founded. It is also the tool of those who know their hypothesis can be subjected to legitimate challenge but are not prepared to risk the personal loss (whether financial, reputational or both) that would result from such a challenge being successful.
What makes their certainty all the more absurd is that they are forever tinkering with both their hypothesis and their computer models, something that would be wholly unnecessary if they really had all the answers already.
Posts
7 comments:
Kudos to you FB. I remember reading your post and giving you a virtual thumbs up at the time. It wasn’t that long ago that I was a believer in the god of AGW and regularly worshiped at the altar of global warming....or is it climate change these days?. I’m ashamed to admit, that up until a couple of years ago, I didn’t even realise there was a debate on it. I did honestly and firmly believe the science was settled. After all, this is what I had rammed down my throat day after day by the mainstream media. And the AGW champion had just won a Nobel peace prize to boot. How could HE be wrong. As luck would have it, I stumbled upon your blog one night and then from yours to WUWT. I’m with David Icke on the whole ‘the truth shall set you free’ thing here although admittedly, I don’t wear the purple shell suits. Since then, the world of real ‘fact’s has been my oyster...or something. So, for opening my eyes and allowing me those oysters, I thank you and your blog.
What MMW said, at least up until the David Icke bit...
Don't know if you read The Register, but this seemed apposite:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/02/people_like_congenial_news/
Pretty obvious stuff really, but I liked the line: "it is those with little confidence in their own beliefs who are least willing to consider opposing views". Could have been written with AGW (and the blog-that-must-not-be-named) in mind!
Thank you gentleman, it's very kind of you.
F.B., it was an excellent post on WUWT and it has lost nothing in the translation here.
Good job.
Thank you Mr R.
It is amazing that those proponents of AGW are so recklessly betting their political and professional futures on nothing more than a theory; a theory centred around computer models (and see WuWT quote of the day re those.)
There will be HUGE anger when the rort is finally exposed, and science will expose it, in spite of the science phonies who are still desperately clinging to their theories.
An interesting time to be blogging...
Hi, Mr Fatbigot, I'd like to tackle the points you raise - and the very lawyerish arguments you're using.
1. When you're posting comments on a blog that are contrary to the views of the hosts and other commenters abuse is the norm unless there's strict moderation.
2.The models are not beyond criticism, in reality they're continually being questioned and modified to try and achieve a better fit with observation.
3. While political thinkers are all too often certain of their conclusions, scientists know there are still a lot questions to be answered about AGW, assuming the blog you're referring to is RealClimate, I'd agree too often they seem to me to advocate conclusions beyond what I understand the science supports. Mind you, blogs tend to be mediums for political advocacy, and that applies across all perspectives.
4. “this is our hypothesis, now we’re going to study what actually happens and make any necessary adjustments” is what happens in science - including in climate science, but don't expect to see much of it on blogs.
5. "they assert that measured cooling is not cooling at all. This is just legerdemain, by selecting particular starting and finishing points they create trend lines on graphs to argue that lower readings from thermometers actually display continuing upward movements in average temperatures" and "you only need to adopt different start and end points to show something different."
Across this whole debate those accepting AGW theory argue that it's important to look at observations over longer time frames, it's the denialists who consistently pick out short term trends to support their position, just look at that post at Mr Watts blog, highlighting sea level over just 3 years, sea ice over just 2 years, and then there's the usual "no warming since 1998" meme, if you look for periods of these lengths of time that show no sea level rise, or no sea ice decline, or no surface temperature rise over the last few decades or since measurements were started, you'll find many such periods despite there being very definite long term trends of declining sea ice, rising sea levels, and rising surface temperatures. Trends over such short time just aren't statistically reliable.
6."“this is what should be expected because warming causes cooling”. No. Warming means temperatures going up, cooling means temperatures going down. You cannot create ice by applying heat to a pan of water, nor can you bring tepid water to the boil by adding ice. These two positions are wholly contradictory."
This is a gross misrepresentation of the AGW'ers arguments Mr FatBigot, the predictions are for an increase in extreme weather events, so more droughts and more blizzards are forecast. (Also if you check with any refrigeration engineer he'll tell you warming does cause cooling - just not in the same place at the same time :-) )
7. "There is a credible explanation available to them but it involves a concession of uncertainty, so they will not propose it. They could say “temporary blips are only to be expected because we are dealing with a vastly complex interaction of factors and we do not fully understand them all”."
Where have you been?! that's the argument I advance in point 5 above, that's why the research goes on, that's why the models are continually revised, I've seen that exact phrase (or close variations of it) used numerous times on blogs and by scientists studying these matters!
There's a good maxim that the more you know about a matter, the more you realise how much there still is to learn, while the people involved in the political advocacy over AGW see certainty, those closer to the science know there's still plenty to learn, there are still big error bars, but it's getting very hard to build a plausible theory that's consistent with observation that doesn't include a sizable anthropogenic contribution to observed climate trends.
Regards
Andrew W.
Post a Comment