If this survey is real the messages these young people are receiving are completely wrong.
We need to reduce our impact on our planet but CO2 is a complete red herring. The current ECS (temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is centred around 3°C (IPCC AR6). The 2°C will destroy civilisation is simply made up.
Peter Bernard Ladkin:
First, AU quoted an assertion of climate science, and asked for an opinion as to whether this was right or wrong and why. I gave my opinion (that it's wrong) and said why, quoting data from a reputable source. The response from AU is not to attempt to refute that data, but to find someone on-line commenting on the source in general terms.
Not seeing the difference between "someone on-line commenting on the source in general terms" and a publication on Researchgate by a reputable professional - which in fact was an article in Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union - looks like an indication of not bothering to check the link I provided, or an attemp to deceive the ones who did not have a look themselves. I could bet that there have been little, if any, changes in general "settled science" tonality of that textbook since 2005. I would certainly not rush into buying a $99 book to take a look at a graph.
You are certainly free to keep your opinion; I remain open for changing mine when new scientific evidence provides a cause.
BTW, if had had used the rhetorical style used by this entity to promote his preferred view, I could have written: ...
I would have had no problem with that; establishing competence of a witness is reasonable. As I have mentioned before, I prefer to make decisions based on input from dedicated professionals, not agitated teenagers. I have used that style to avoid accusations in relying on dubious sources. However, I agree with you that even a reputable source is not necessarily always right; one must apply own grey matter to draw a conclusion. Whether I am greeted with fulminations like "Ni!" or "How dare you!", no shrubbery until the real need is established credibly enough.
The IPCC is exemplary in regularly trying to summarise the entire state of knowledge in its science. ... The panels attempt to survey all the reputably-published literature in their field, and summarise the advances in knowledge, in detail, over the course of a couple of years.
In theory, this description should be right. In practice, I have seen too many comments from disillusioned IPCC experts claiming that the processes are biased and politically steered. In addition, I have noticed "skeptical" climate scientists complaining that it is hard to get financial support for research that may end up with "unsettled" output in the first place, and then research results even hinting on factors other than AGW are refused by publications, or held up in peer review process for months, even years. I would guess that this might be the cause why many scientists publish on websites and in blogs so much. That should explain at least to some extent why there are more of "climate bolshevik" research articles published, available for IPCC for analysis. I do not doubt that there are many devent people there, too.
There is a significant literature on science&pseudoscience and their controversies. All of it recognises the need for historical accounts. If you don't have a handle on the history, then you don't know when your “favorite” issues were raised, nor how they were handled, nor by whom.
That is true, history of climate science and developing differences in views is important. I would recommend a peek into somewhat superficial but entertaining "A Short History of Climate Alarm!" by Paul Homewood. And not to forget - the ClimateGate events analysis, not the watered-down Wikipedia writeup.
Interesting that you are fond of quoting “Professor so-and-so, of <prestigious institution>”, and preface many of your references with “peer-reviewed”, but when it comes to those who discuss contrarian contentions, they are no longer “Professor so-and-so of <Oxford, Harvard, Pennsylvania State, Exeter>”, all with extensive “peer-reviewed” publications, but merely “alarmist heavyweights".
As I have noted, I do value professionalism, therefore I avoid pseudoscience and do not bother reading stuff on conspiracy theories served by poorly informed bystanders. I am sure that every scientist has their motivation behind their claims; my goal has been trying to understand it before deciding whether to believe their theories when I am not able to verify them myself. After learning that government scientist Doctor Yamaka proved that a woman's brain is "the size of squirrel", I tend to look for second opinions on any government scientist claims ;)
Specifically which “incorrect assertions” are you referring to? What are their refutations?
As you have said yourself, the information is out there, hopefully answered satisfactorily when searched for properly. I have no time to start serving everything up here, I believe that we have spent already too much time. Beyond ClimateGate revelations, just enter Mann or Oreskes at some comprehensive skeptical websites run by scientists and read what analysis comes up.
I recall that you present yourself as an entity who is not a specialist in this science. How do you tell if an assertion is incorrect? Is the number of “refutations” an indicator of something scientifically useful?
Indeed I am not a climate scientist; my closest formal encounter with the subject was in mid 1990's when I created and run a minor undergraduate course at a technical university called "Environmental measurement". AGW was not in focus those days yet, content was purely technical. However, with background in electronics, measurement and data analysis, I sympathize with those criticizing manipulation of historic temperature measurement data and discounting significant inaccuracies that could render trending meaningless. Dr. Brown's excellent essay referred to by Jon Steward above also touches that aspect. I would join in to carry his banner "Keep your hands off of my money while the theory is still unproven and not in terribly good agreement with reality!"
I would consider the number of “refutations” an indicator of something scientifically useful when such refutations agree with my general understanding of the subject, although as Albert Einstein once pointed out, even one should be sufficient. In case of climate science, there are so many that I find it hard to consider all these people "bots"; I would rather guess that personal integrity is at play. If science is too foggy, have a look at what these former NASA engineers have to say - I find their conclusions most reasonable:
"We, a group of retired and highly experienced engineers and scientists from the Apollo, Skylab, Space Shuttle and International Space Station eras, have volunteered our time and effort conducting an objective, independent assessment of the AGW alarm and reality of the actual threat. We have reviewed hundreds of reports and technical papers relevant to the subject matter, and discussed key issues with experts on both sides of this controversy. ...
There is no convincing evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) will produce catastrophic climate changes."
Sorry for a long posting, I tend to asnwer questions adn accusations. When I find some time next week, I'll certainly have a look at publications of the still ongoing 14th International Conference on Climate Change to judge the weight of skeptical arguments:
Peter Bernard Ladkin:
First, AU quoted an assertion of climate science, and asked for an opinion as to whether this was right or wrong and why. I gave my opinion (that it's wrong) and said why, quoting data from a reputable source. The response from AU is not to attempt to refute that data, but to find someone on-line commenting on the source in general terms.
Not seeing the difference between "someone on-line commenting on the source in general terms" and a publication on Researchgate by a reputable professional - which in fact was an article in Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union - looks like an indication of not bothering to check the link I provided, or an attemp to deceive the ones who did not have a look themselves. I could bet that there have been little, if any, changes in general "settled science" tonality of that textbook since 2005. I would certainly not rush into buying a $99 book to take a look at a graph.
You are certainly free to keep your opinion; I remain open for changing mine when new scientific evidence provides a cause.
BTW, if had had used the rhetorical style used by this entity to promote his preferred view, I could have written: ...
I would have had no problem with that; establishing competence of a witness is reasonable. As I have mentioned before, I prefer to make decisions based on input from dedicated professionals, not agitated teenagers. I have used that style to avoid accusations in relying on dubious sources. However, I agree with you that even a reputable source is not necessarily always right; one must apply own grey matter to draw a conclusion. Whether I am greeted with fulminations like "Ni!" or "How dare you!", no shrubbery until the real need is established credibly enough.
The IPCC is exemplary in regularly trying to summarise the entire state of knowledge in its science. ... The panels attempt to survey all the reputably-published literature in their field, and summarise the advances in knowledge, in detail, over the course of a couple of years.
In theory, this description should be right. In practice, I have seen too many comments from disillusioned IPCC experts claiming that the processes are biased and politically steered. In addition, I have noticed "skeptical" climate scientists complaining that it is hard to get financial support for research that may end up with "unsettled" output in the first place, and then research results even hinting on factors other than AGW are refused by publications, or held up in peer review process for months, even years. I would guess that this might be the cause why many scientists publish on websites and in blogs so much. That should explain at least to some extent why there are more of "climate bolshevik" research articles published, available for IPCC for analysis. I do not doubt that there are many devent people there, too.
There is a significant literature on science&pseudoscience and their controversies. All of it recognises the need for historical accounts. If you don't have a handle on the history, then you don't know when your “favorite” issues were raised, nor how they were handled, nor by whom.
That is true, history of climate science and developing differences in views is important. I would recommend a peek into somewhat superficial but entertaining "A Short History of Climate Alarm!" by Paul Homewood. And not to forget - the ClimateGate events analysis, not the watered-down Wikipedia writeup.
Interesting that you are fond of quoting “Professor so-and-so, of <prestigious institution>”, and preface many of your references with “peer-reviewed”, but when it comes to those who discuss contrarian contentions, they are no longer “Professor so-and-so of <Oxford, Harvard, Pennsylvania State, Exeter>”, all with extensive “peer-reviewed” publications, but merely “alarmist heavyweights".
As I have noted, I do value professionalism, therefore I avoid pseudoscience and do not bother reading stuff on conspiracy theories served by poorly informed bystanders. I am sure that every scientist has their motivation behind their claims; my goal has been trying to understand it before deciding whether to believe their theories when I am not able to verify them myself. After learning that government scientist Doctor Yamaka proved that a woman's brain is "the size of squirrel", I tend to look for second opinions on any government scientist claims ;)
Specifically which “incorrect assertions” are you referring to? What are their refutations?
As you have said yourself, the information is out there, hopefully answered satisfactorily when searched for properly. I have no time to start serving everything up here, I believe that we have spent already too much time. Beyond ClimateGate revelations, just enter Mann or Oreskes at some comprehensive skeptical websites run by scientists and read what analysis comes up.
I recall that you present yourself as an entity who is not a specialist in this science. How do you tell if an assertion is incorrect? Is the number of “refutations” an indicator of something scientifically useful?
Indeed I am not a climate scientist; my closest formal encounter with the subject was in mid 1990's when I created and run a minor undergraduate course at a technical university called "Environmental measurement". AGW was not in focus those days yet, content was purely technical. However, with background in electronics, measurement and data analysis, I sympathize with those criticizing manipulation of historic temperature measurement data and discounting significant inaccuracies that could render trending meaningless. Dr. Brown's excellent essay referred to by Jon Steward above also touches that aspect. I would join in to carry his banner "Keep your hands off of my money while the theory is still unproven and not in terribly good agreement with reality!"
I would consider the number of “refutations” an indicator of something scientifically useful when such refutations agree with my general understanding of the subject, although as Albert Einstein once pointed out, even one should be sufficient. In case of climate science, there are so many that I find it hard to consider all these people "bots"; I would rather guess that personal integrity is at play. If science is too foggy, have a look at what these former NASA engineers have to say - I find their conclusions most reasonable:
"We, a group of retired and highly experienced engineers and scientists from the Apollo, Skylab, Space Shuttle and International Space Station eras, have volunteered our time and effort conducting an objective, independent assessment of the AGW alarm and reality of the actual threat. We have reviewed hundreds of reports and technical papers relevant to the subject matter, and discussed key issues with experts on both sides of this controversy. ...
There is no convincing evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) will produce catastrophic climate changes."
Sorry for a long posting, I tend to asnwer questions adn accusations. When I find some time next week, I'll certainly have a look at publications of the still ongoing 14th International Conference on Climate Change to judge the weight of skeptical arguments:
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
