TTI Forums

Well, there are some serious problems with some fundamental assumptions used in the IPCC report. A blogger has gone into great detail on a website he's set up to explain his problems with catastrophic interpretations of IPCC and similar reports.

It'll take you quite a while to read through all of it. But you said you wanted information and there's quite a lot there. And no, he's not some sinister plant of the coal industry. He's a dude who runs a bunch of caravan parks, who used to be an engineer and thus knows enough about science to get rather irritated when scientists make high-school howlers in the process of exaggerating the dangers of climate change*.

Like myself, he's certainly not a denier. His position is similar to mine in that mankind's emissions are warming the planet, but it's difficult to tell how much is because of that and how much is due to other factors which aren't well understood yet. However, the scientific position for the more apocalyptic forecasts is really easy to debunk. We aren't doomed, not unless a great deal of physical processes start acting radically different in the next few years than they have throughout the earth's history. (And I mean in the David Hume 'Moon Turning to Cheese' sense)

In particular, the climate's sensitivity to CO2 would need to be 3-4 times greater than what has been observed. Many people talk about amplifying feedback, but that would presume the earth's climate is an unstable system rather than an equilibrium-seeking system. Paleoclimatology data suggests that it, like most systems, is equilibrium-seeking, as the earth's climate has been fairly stable despite great variations in CO2 levels in different eras of the earth's history. In other words, manmade CO2 would somehow have to have some unique property which caused the earth's climate to react to it differently than natural CO2. Since CO2 is just a molecule, this is a rather obviously ridiculous assumption to base climate models on, but many climate models are indeed based on it. (Or the assumption that the earth's climate reacts to CO2 differently than in reality, and I shouldn't need to tell you how useful models which operate on that assumption are)

As I've stated elsewhere, I'm more concerned that poorly thought out responses taken without proper understanding of what's going on, in the name of Being Seen To Be Doing Something About It as being a much greater danger. They are likely to cause considerable economic damage and political instability, in my opinion probably more than changes to the earth's climate are likely to.

*And I do get annoyed at the black and white thinking some people have that people can either believe global warming is an existential threat or that it isn't happening at all. I occupy a middle ground position where I think it is happening, but is not a dire threat and is within our technological capacity to adapt to.

Arakasi Takeda wrote:These are both the discussion of the 'Hockey-Stick' controversy, which was touched upon earlier. The problem you face here is that the McIntyre report has been discredited by subsequent reports. It's a dead issue. Trying to resurrect it from the grave is not evidence in your favor. I suggest you look at more recent analysis of the problems with McIntyre's discussions.

Here's a website, as balance to 'Climate Audit', which directly addresses the myths perpetrated by McIntyre. It provides links to subsequent publications demonstrating both the political bias and faulty analysis of McIntyre.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

The fact is, the 'Hockey Stick' has been independently confirmed by multiple analysis, not just Mann. The American Meteorological Society published an analysis of Mann in "Journal of Climate" that addresses Mann's data and conclusions in light of McIntyre objections, using both Mann's analysis and a separate, different methodology, and still arriving at the same results. A link to that paper is available at the site above.

Mann's hockey stick is 'not trash'; it has been independently confirmed by peers, using multiple different methods, including those directly addressing McIntyre's issues. Meanwhile, McIntyre himself has been discredited as a political hack whose analysis was itself deeply flawed. If you had broadened your research horizons, you would be aware of that before pulling up this old canard.

No, McIntyre's report has been supported by others. It has not been confirmed by his "peers". Moberg 2005 for instance, which aside from some minor faults are held in high esteem, does not present a hockey-stick. Notably, it still uses Bristlecones, which has been proved to give very erroneous results. Von Storch 2004 also disproved the hockey-stick, correctly naming it as trash. And there are numerous others.

Then you refer to Mann's website, which by the way is also closely related to desmogblog.com, a site dedicated to discovering sceptics funded by the oil-industry. As to the reply of Mann there, it is hardly satisfactory.

And McKintyre has not been discredited. Rather, his blog is being read with great interest and comment from the scientific community. Science has abandoned the hockey stick, but IPCC are sticking to it.

By the way, Tolthar, here's an interesting read about CO2 "harming" temperature from the blog Ginuad linked.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/ ... tastr.html

Looks like temp/co2 relation is _really_ weak and nothing to bother.

I am somewhat aware of the Climate-Skeptic website. Since I haven't given it a full read, my opinion of it will have to wait for a time. I will, instead, list a couple of things I'll be looking at while I read it:

1) Is it a good scientific source - does it follow the scientific method?

The first thing I always try to discern is the intent of the website. While it is apparently impossible to remove all bias from every site, you can atleast attempt to be discerning about them. In that case, this site already has a strike against it - the author clearly states a bias in his paper in the introduction. It doesn't necessarily invalidate what is contained within, just makes it all the more important to carefully study each statement and its support. The same would be true of a site named 'climate-skeptics-are-idiots.com', or some such thing. Wearing your bias on your sleeve is not a good way to start.

What I like to see in a site presenting itself as a 'science' site is a neutral introduction of the subject. List the phenomenon being studied, using value free words. Do not bias the data by including your conclusions in the very first statements of your premises.

2) Who's the audience?

I noted from the description that this is a 'layman's' document. This is also generally an alarm for me. I _am_ a scientist, not a layman. I actually do understand the physical processes being described. Since science is an approximation of reality, and a 'layman' understanding is an approximation of science, there is a real danger of over-generalization in any such document. I have an inbuilt filter for such over-generalizations because of my exposure to the scientific method. The audience for whom this is intended may not, which could result in misunderstandings of what consitutes good science practice or conclusions, and which may be politically motivated statements. This is particularly a problem in such a controversial debate - people who don't understand science are being fed lines, by both sides, that are not supported by science fact, but are, instead, motivated by politics.

3) Good Peer Review - real science is a method of proposing hypotheses, making predictions, and putting your results out for others to test. One excellent measure of a 'good' science site is whether or not its premises and conclusions are presented along with its detractors. Does the author reference challenges to the data or conclusions, or do they hide them? There's not one scientific theory in existence that hasn't had any challengers - if the author suggests that their results are 'self-evidently' true, then you know you have problems. Good science reports on the concerns/challenges of peers, and then systematically addresses those disputes. It does not make believe they don't exist.

4) Validation/Falsification based on Physical Observation - Scientific theories do not rise and fall based on who suggests them. They do not rise or fall based solely on logical reasoning. Challenging one hypothesis by promoting another is not falsification of the first hypothesis. [This is the number one error made by both sides - just because you have a different explaination for the same physical results doesn't mean your hypothesis is the right one and the other is wrong. For a perfect example, look at the Evolution/Intelligent Design discussion. ID proponents have a different theory which meets exactly the same physical results (in their minds), and which attacks Darwin's hypothesis for perceived weakness - what is does not do is prove Evolution wrong.] The only thing that 'proves' a hypothesis is physical observations that confirm a hypothetical prediction. The only thing that falsifies a hypothesis is a physical observation that does not conform to the hypothetical prediction.

If the author is only suggesting alternatives, and cannot address why a particular hypothesis fails in physical observations, they are not doing real science. Global Climate Change supporters must demonstrate that their models match physical measurements. Global Climate Change deniers must demonstrate that the models of the supporters do not match physical observation.

The biggest strike this website is going to have to overcome is that the physical observations of tempurature DO conform to the models of Climate Change proponents. Nothing will overcome that fact. So far, the models match reality. If he offers alternate explainations, then all he is doing is offering an alternative. He is not _disproving_ the model of the proponents. To truly make his case, he has to physically demonstrate an error between the climate model and the climate reality.

5) Does the website offer a verifiable scientific prediction -

Related to #4, if the site is truly interested in science, it must do more than just poke holes at another theory. It must offer an alternative that _makes predictions_. It has to show that there is a difference between those predicitions and the predictions of the proponents, and demonstrate through physical observation that his model is right and the other wrong.

6) Where did the research come from?

The simple fact is that, in this political environment, there are plenty of people who stand to gain from having the science 'fall in their favor'. The Pro-Business side wants to escape potential regulation. The Pro-environment side stands to gain considerably from donations and political influence. So where the research comes from matters.

Thankfully, Good Science is not based on the 'source' of its funding. Good science is interested in the physical laws of nature, which are, as far as I can tell, immune to purchase. Therefore, any good scientific study will present its funding front and center on the website. There's no reason to be ashamed if you are doing good work. If you have to go to outside sources to track down the funding on a particular piece of data, then there's usually a good reason to be suspicious. It's not proof, but let's not be naive - if it's hidden, there is _some_ reason for that fact. That reason must stand scrutiny.

So, once I get a chance to read the site and address the points above, I'll report back on them.

AT

6) Where did the research come from?

The simple fact is that, in this political environment, there are plenty of people who stand to gain from having the science 'fall in their favor'. The Pro-Business side wants to escape potential regulation. The Pro-environment side stands to gain considerably from donations and political influence. So where the research comes from matters.

Thankfully, Good Science is not based on the 'source' of its funding. Good science is interested in the physical laws of nature, which are, as far as I can tell, immune to purchase. Therefore, any good scientific study will present its funding front and center on the website. There's no reason to be ashamed if you are doing good work. If you have to go to outside sources to track down the funding on a particular piece of data, then there's usually a good reason to be suspicious. It's not proof, but let's not be naive - if it's hidden, there is _some_ reason for that fact. That reason must stand scrutiny.

Could you clearify this? It seems like you are saying that the author must be looked and to see why he is writing it. Then the next statement seems to be saying that the 'source' shouldn't really matter if its good research.

5) Does the website offer a verifiable scientific prediction -

Related to #4, if the site is truly interested in science, it must do more than just poke holes at another theory. It must offer an alternative that _makes predictions_. It has to show that there is a difference between those predicitions and the predictions of the proponents, and demonstrate through physical observation that his model is right and the other wrong.

I'm not sure I agree with this, but maybe I miss-understand what you are saying. Are you suggesting that one shouldn't try to prove that something is unreasonable without thinking of an explaination of it themselves?

I'm not sure I agree with this, but maybe I miss-understand what you are saying. Are you suggesting that one shouldn't try to prove that something is unreasonable without thinking of an explaination of it themselves?

No, I think I rushed through my typing and my meaning got lost - you are correct to question.

What I meant was that 'if' one is suggesting an alternative theory, then one should also demonstrate that the alternative being offered is, itself, a good hypothesis. To do that, it must also make predictions and be testable. I go back to the ID example - they have offered an alternative, but this alternative is not really scientific at all - it makes no testable predictions.

Further, to be a true alternative, there must be a difference between the predictions made by the alternate, and the predictions made by the original. If there is no difference, then no meaningful comparison can be made, because there is nothing to discern one from the other. Where there is a difference, a determination of accuracy of one model over another can be accomplished.

But, going back to what you did say, you raise an interesting point - it is enough to try to prove that something is unreasonable without thinking of an alternate explaination?

I would say that the only argument of that kind that can be made is demonstrating that the model doesn't conform to experimental evidence (which is, itself, sufficient to bring the original hypothesis down), or that the predictions made by a model cannot possibly be derived from the model itself - an error of calculation. That is the type of argument which McIntyre and McKintrick were attempting to demonstrate on Mann's work - that somehow the mathematical method he used could not possibly derive the hypothetical prediction he arrived at (the Hockey Stick). The problem there is that Mann's work has since been duplicated, using both the same method he used AND alternate methods (Moberg 2005 and Rutherford 2004). Moberg's results are not exactly the same - the hockey stick 'breaks' at the very end, but, contrary to Petter's assertion, Moberg's results do match the hockey stick within the acceptable margin of error of analysis of those data sets (see the National Academy of Sciences report of 2006 for verification).

So, if you can demonstrate that the model and methodology DO arrive at a particular prediction, and the physical observations DO match those predictions, but you still insist that there is something wrong, you have to do far more than just try to poke holes at it. You have to offer an alternative, it has to be predictable, and it has to demonstrate a testable difference.

AT

Actually, I was thinking something similar when I asked, but I think a little different.

Based on the fact that corrolation does not mean causation, it can be enough to break some premise of their argument. Then all you have is a corrolation which might be worth looking into, but doesn't mean causation by itself.

Based on the fact that corrolation does not mean causation, it can be enough to break some premise of their argument. Then all you have is a corrolation which might be worth looking into, but doesn't mean causation by itself.

Well, corrolation does not imply causation, but it doesn't automatically negate causation either. Simply trying to 'muddy' the corrolation/causation connection is not sufficient - you would need convincing logical reasons to exclude the connection proposed. You end up back with the ID example - attacking 'holes' in a hypothesis (ones you created in questioning the corrolation/causation) is not sufficient to falsify a hypothesis in and of itself. Questioning the corrolation of fossil data to the predictions of evolutionary causation does not, in and of itself, automatically falsify Evolution as a theory - even if you are only attacking that connection, and not mentioning the ID creator at all (which would be your proposed case of attacking the argument without any reference to an alternative).

AT

Arakasi Takeda wrote:... you would need convincing logical reasons to exclude the connection proposed.

AT

Wouldn't that be proving the negative?

I'm not sure what you mean by "holes", I guess. Let me give a really simple example of what I mean.

If I were to put forth the argument: Mac and cheese is good for you. My reasoning is: human bodies need yellow foods to survive, and mac and cheese is yellow.

Now one of those premises are obviously wrong. Would showing that, the human bodies don't require yellow foods, enough to dissolve the argument?

Oleksandr wrote:

Arakasi Takeda wrote:... you would need convincing logical reasons to exclude the connection proposed.

AT

Wouldn't that be proving the negative?

No, it is falsification a la Popper.

Arakasi:
6) Where did the research come from?

The simple fact is that, in this political environment, there are plenty of people who stand to gain from having the science 'fall in their favor'. The Pro-Business side wants to escape potential regulation. The Pro-environment side stands to gain considerably from donations and political influence. So where the research comes from matters.


Quote:

Thankfully, Good Science is not based on the 'source' of its funding. Good science is interested in the physical laws of nature, which are, as far as I can tell, immune to purchase. Therefore, any good scientific study will present its funding front and center on the website. There's no reason to be ashamed if you are doing good work. If you have to go to outside sources to track down the funding on a particular piece of data, then there's usually a good reason to be suspicious. It's not proof, but let's not be naive - if it's hidden, there is _some_ reason for that fact. That reason must stand scrutiny.

Could you clearify this? It seems like you are saying that the author must be looked and to see why he is writing it. Then the next statement seems to be saying that the 'source' shouldn't really matter if its good research.

I'll try to be more precise.

You should look to see if the funding of a particular piece of research is stated up front on a website. A legitimate scientist does not hide who pays the bills, because a legitimate scientist is not influenced by money - they are only influenced by the facts.

If you have to go hunting for the funding of a particular piece of research because the author never mentions it, you should be suspicious. While it is not proof of malicious intent, you may legitimately ask _why_ this piece of information was left off or hidden. Individuals posing as legitimate scientists while trying to peddle political statements usually hide their funding, rather than openly declaring it. The absence of such a declaration is another warning to carefully scrutinize all statements.


AT

If I were to put forth the argument: Mac and cheese is good for you. My reasoning is: human bodies need yellow foods to survive, and mac and cheese is yellow.

Now one of those premises are obviously wrong. Would showing that, the human bodies don't require yellow foods, enough to dissolve the argument?

Whether or not you are putting forward rational counter-arguments depends on how you present it. For instance, in your example, I could 'show' that human bodies don't require yellow food' in the following ways -

1) "Because they just don't" - this is not a rational statement, it is just a declarative, and has no rational weight.

2) "Because the author of that statement is foolish" - an Ad Hominen - again, not a rational argument (and please understand, there was no intentional offense in it towards yourself).

3) "Because it is not the yellow in the food that human's need" - this is the beginning of an appropriate response, but is not sufficient in and of itself. Again, it's just a declarative. If I were to go on and explain what it _is_ in Mac and Cheese that is nutritious, then I would be offering an alternative explaination - one that could be tested (showing something in mac and cheese that isn't present in other yellow foods, for instance).

4) "Because 'X' study, done under these conditions (1, 2, 3) clearly demonstrates that a human body can exist without ingesting yellow foods, the statement is falsified" - this would constitute the scientific argument, subject to verification that conditions 1, 2, and 3 were repeatable and scientifically valid, and that the study could be independently verified.


There are lots of other arguments that get at the same idea, but you can see that there are good arguments for or against your statement, and then there are bad ones. A bad argument, even with the correct result, is not good science - I believe that is a direct quote from one of Petter's sources

Personally, I don't accept bad arguments, even if they come to correct conclusions. Perhaps some of the global climate change deniers are ultimately correct - they still aren't doing good science if they aren't giving good arguments. I'm not convinced by the arguments I have seen from them.


AT

What about: "Because there is no evidence supporting the claim that human bodies need yellow foods"?

What about: "Because there is no evidence supporting the claim that human bodies need yellow foods"?

The validity of that argument only lasts until the first person comes forward stating they _have_ evidence in support of that claim - at which time you will be required to test their evidence to verify it's validity and either falsify your own statement, or give reasoned arguments why their evidence does not, in fact, support their conclusion.

The 'No evidence' statement is a good skeptical 'first' position to assume, but its utility as a rational argument is actually pretty limited. You cannot rationally maintain it beyond the first counter-hypothesis without direct appeal to one of the other arguments as supplementary support.

AT

It seems like you just said the same thing as me here, just one level of premises back.

So you look at their evidence (the premises to their argument) and figure out why it doesn't support their claim. Aren't you essentially just going back through the tree of premises until you find something that doesn't support their claim (or premise)?

It seems like you just said the same thing as me here, just one level of premises back.

So you look at their evidence (the premises to their argument) and figure out why it doesn't support their claim. Aren't you essentially just going back through the tree of premises until you find something that doesn't support their claim (or premise)?

I don't see the logical connection you are trying to make - looking at a person's evidence is not the same thing as saying 'there is no evidence'. I may question either their logic (the reasoning of their arguments), or their physical data (the observed, measured facts). There may be nothing wrong with their facts, but something wrong with their reason. Equally, their reasoning could be correct, but their facts wrong.

Either way, saying 'there is no evidence' is no longer a logical 'reason' for dismissing a claim. You might use that statement as a conclusion once you have sifted through their argument and data, but it isn't a falsification on its own anymore.

AT

Again, I think I just don't know what you mean by "holes". It seems to me that when you say "holes" you are referring to showing that there isn't a connection somewhere. That is usually valid argument; its saying that there is evidence lacking somewhere.

Again, I think I just don't know what you mean by "holes". It seems to me that when you say "holes" you are referring to showing that there isn't a connection somewhere. That is usually valid argument; its saying that there is evidence lacking somewhere.

Sorry - let me attempt to clarify - I'll continue using the ID argument, since it is a very useful demonstration.

ID proponents usually attack evolution by going after perceived 'weak spots' in the theory (also referred to as 'gaps' or 'holes'). What they are attempting to do is raise doubt about portions of the theory that do not, as of yet, have strong support, and using just the 'doubt' about those small sections as a justification for declaring the theory falsified.

The best example of a 'gap' exploited by ID proponents is 'The missing link'; according to evolution, there should be some trace of an ancestoral creature whose features are a mix of primate and human traits - a direct 'link' between humans and a primitive ancestor we share with other primates. To date, no such fossil has been located. ID proponents state that because no fossil has been found (there is a 'hole' in the evolutionary record), it must be proof that evolution is wrong.

This is an error in reasoning. Just because a fossil hasn't been found yet doesn't mean that none exists. There is plenty of _other_ evidence that evolution as a theory is a strong one - the absence of this small piece is not proof in and of itself that evolution is false.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as the summation goes. Absence of evidence is not sufficient for falsification - to falsify a hypothesis, you must have a contradiction between model and physical observation.

The logical fallacy of arguing against a theory 'due to gaps' is one practiced by many global warming deniers. Since many climate models exist which predict global warming, and those models have so far not been falsified by a contradiction between model and physical measurement, deniers instead try to cast doubt on portions of the theory, attacking the 'gaps'. This is what I mean by 'poking holes' at the theory. It is not sufficient to falsify a hypothesis by casting doubt on portions where evidence is 'sketchy' - you need to demonstrate an actual contradiction.

No one who supports the hypothesis that global climate change is occuring, who actually takes the subject seriously as science (as opposed to those who support it on purely political grounds) is suggesting that their models are inerrant. Scientific theories and models evolve over time, becoming more accurate as more data is collected and fed into the models. So, currently, there are weaknesses in some of the predictions, and some of the premises might be 'questionable', but, so far, they haven't been falsified. And that is why I support the global climate change hypothesis as the more valid of the two - the hypothesis is sound as it can be with out current understanding, and the data so far supports it. That's good science. The global warming deniers have only given me doubt and uncertainty - they have given me nothing, in all the literature I have come across, that actually falsifies the hypothesis.

From the standpoint of what we should do about global warming, the question becomes one of risk assessment. There is some 'doubt' in the model, as the 'deniers' have pointed out. Our decisions must take that uncertainty into account. But look at the costs of our alternatives -

1) We do nothing, and the hypothesis proves to be true in nature. According to that result, we are dead, or our civilization is, at least, very damaged. This is an extremely poor result.

2) We scale back our industry, knowing its going to be economically painful in the short run, but it turns out down the road that the model was incorrect. To my mind - this is something we can reverse, because we will still be here to reverse it. It would be wrong to say there is no cost for this option, but I believe it is a _prudent_ choice.

3) We may scale back our industry, accepting the cost, and find out that the hypothesis was correct. In this case, we have taken the correct action to preserve ourselves.


Now, if I were a CEO assessing the risk of a particular venture, and the potential costs/benefits of that venture were either the complete bankruptcy and close of my business, or making a small amount of extra profit, I certainly would take a very serious look at that 'complete bankruptcy' problem - especially if that was the way the current status of the venture was going, as evidenced by physical observation. All the 'market indicators', so far, are telling me that global climate change is a real threat. The market may suddenly veer away from my prediction, but, until it does, I think I am perfectly justified in taking a conservative approach in regards to the risk. It's going to cost me some potential profit, but it may save my business. The global warming deniers are the ones telling me to 'risk it all' without being able to put their fingers directly on why the model, and all the physical evidence, is against them.

Would you hire an risk manager that was that careless with your business, who made assessments on their ideology, rather than the facts on the ground?

AT

More scepticism from scientists:

Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts

More freedom of speech control from the government on global warming:

"Senators' Letter Is a Violation of ExxonMobil's Freedom of Speech"

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page= ... _ctrl=1366

And yet it's OK for environmentalists to fund studies of catastrophic global warming scenarios of extremely dubious scientific merit?

Oh, the wonders of single-entry bookeeping politics.

This scientist has much good to say about science and global warming (though a couple bad things too)

Basically says how dumb the hype is about Global Warming models. Its amazing really. "Their models are only as good as their input... they don't have good input". Talks about how its more important to observe the facts than make dramatic computer models like the IPCC does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU

Here's some more goodness:

http://www.theglobalwarmingdebate.net/

Take a look at 4 part series:
Climate Change - is CO2 the cause?

I said before I accept that there is global warming. I don't think so anymore. There is no global warning at all.