Sceptic Links Discussion

[Admiral_Bobski]

Hi everybody!

Since there have been several comments cropping up in the pinned links thread it seemed like a good idea to have a separate thread for discussion of those links. Wibs seemed to think it was a good idea, and others seem interested too, so here it is!

I thought we could also use this thread to discuss side issues and points of order, but that can be a separate thread if people prefer.

"I Was on the Global Warming Gravy Train" has generated a few comments, so I'll start with that one. I thought the article started well but became a little fuzzy towards the end, to the extent that I wasn't entirely sure what he was saying - I have to admit to having got a little lost in the middle of this sentence: "None of the new evidence actually says that carbon emissions are definitely not the cause of global warming, there are lots of good science jobs potentially at stake, and if the scientific message wavers then it might be difficult to later recapture the attention of the political system." The past few days have been very tiring for me so maybe that's the problem, but I couldn't quite figure out what he was getting at (and I'm a skeptic!).

Anyone else care to have a pop?

CB

[Michael Winston]

Hi everybody!

"None of the new evidence actually says that carbon emissions are definitely not the cause of global warming, there are lots of good science jobs potentially at stake, and if the scientific message wavers then it might be difficult to later recapture the attention of the political system."

Hi, Captain.

I'll have a go! A rough (and accurate?) translation:

''There's no new evidence to say that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming. Plenty of jobs riding on the outcome of this one. If the scientific community dithers, politicians will lose interest.''

I think that's what it says, but I can barely speak English meself!

Kind regards,

Mike.

[HighPressure]

I am not even sure what a sceptic is? I get the impression from many pro supporters that it is some sort of anti humanist, carbon creating devil like creature? Is a total non believer a sceptic or is it someone who still thinks the arguments are up for debate as there is one hell of a difference between the two.

Also is a sceptic someone who may believe in AGW to some extent but think the chances of the human race being capable on a global scale to implement meaningful measures to reduce carbon emissions less likely then the pope backing contraception?

You will never get global agreement on anything especially when money is concerned so you either run will half the countries support or water down so much to get everyone on board that the deal is not worth the paper its written on.

[noggin]

I belong in the sceptic camp (sounds a bit like septic tank!). I believe there may be degrees of scepticism and certainly the word "sceptic" is bandied around a lot on here. For me, my scepticism is with regard to the cause of the current warm spell, in that I firmly believe that it is entirely natural and is not caused by what mankind is doing. It warms up and it cools down......all natural cycles.

Always the rider though that respect for our planet is vital as it is our "home".

Many of the authors in the links refer to the fact that they come across supression from governments and organisations for whom AGW is a moneyspinner. Also many mention the fact that more and more scientists are doubting the current perceived wisdom of the "A" in AGW.

Wait until the day when AGW is dismissed in the light of further evidence and they will all be jumping on the "it's all natural cycles" or whatever bandwagon.

Edited June 13, 2007 by noggin

[Admiral_Bobski]

I am not even sure what a sceptic is? I get the impression from many pro supporters that it is some sort of anti humanist, carbon creating devil like creature? Is a total non believer a sceptic or is it someone who still thinks the arguments are up for debate as there is one hell of a difference between the two.

Also is a sceptic someone who may believe in AGW to some extent but think the chances of the human race being capable on a global scale to implement meaningful measures to reduce carbon emissions less likely then the pope backing contraception?

You will never get global agreement on anything especially when money is concerned so you either run will half the countries support or water down so much to get everyone on board that the deal is not worth the paper its written on.

The dictionary definition of the word "sceptic" (or "skeptic") is this:

One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

The word itself is a negative one since it infers that the doubt is irrational, although it has come to be used in a more positive way as a description of someone who questions the orthodoxy in preference to following it blindly.

It could be said that Scientists, by their very nature, are skeptics with regards to everything they study. Science is effectively founded on the principal that everything we know is wrong - we study things because we want to learn the truth. So the word "skeptic" does have a positive side when used in reference to scientific endeavours.

On a slight side-note, I was reading an old article yesterday that attacked Michael Crichton's State of Fear, especially the phrase "If it's Science it's not consensus - if it's consensus it's not Science." The argument was that there is a scientific consensus on many things, such as the fact that a given isotope has a half-life of x years and so on. What they failed to grasp was that this example is not an issue for consensus.

Here's the dictionary definition for the word "consensus":

Majority of opinion; an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.

So a consensus is to do with opinions, not facts. Those opinions may have been drawn from the facts, but they are still opinions. Opinions are subjective, not objective and Science - true, pure Science - is all about objectivity. Hence Michael Crichton's remark.

Going back to the original question, though, I imagine that the word "skeptic" covers absolutely everyone who does not agree with this "consensus" - from those who quibble over numbers but don't doubt the basic principal, all the way down to those who absolutely (irrationally) reject AGW out of hand. So it is a very broad term that covers a variety of positions.

I hope that has helped, and that I've not rambled on too much!

CB

PS - People have told me I belong in a Septic Tank before...

[parmenides3]

The word 'sceptic' is used in several ways in the media, but has a reasonably clear meaning within discussions of climate science. When climate scientists describe someone as a 'sceptic', they are referring to the opinion expressed by that person, that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), caused largely by CO2, is either a false hypothesis, or is not well-founded; this is extended to those who claim that the impact of atmospheric CO2 on climate is not sufficient to qualify as a 'risk'.

From this come the ideas that: recent warming is natural, or will be explained by natural processes when these are better understood; CO2 is not the major contributor to changes in climate trends over the past 100 years; emissions of CO2 do not need to be reduced.

This is the 'baseline' sceptic position. You don't have to think all of these things to be a climate sceptic, but it is likely, if you doubt the role of CO2, then at least some of the other views follow from that.

I'll take (a little bit) exception to HP's assertion that he and his ilk are 'demonised' by people who are not sceptics. Whilst this may be the case for some environmentalists, it is rarely the case amongst either students of climate science or posters on NW. OTOH, his question as to whether a person who does not believe that policy will help the situation is a sceptic, the answer is no; not a climate sceptic, anyway. Such a person might be a political sceptic, or a cynic (not pejorative intended), but is not as such necessarily claiming that CO2 is not the major contributor to recent warming trends.

(noggin) I still don't understand the argument that AGW is supposed to be a 'moneyspinner'. Most of the interia from governments stems from the point that action to prevent more warming would cause a recession, therefore, it is not in governments' interests to promote the idea of AGW to generate wealth.

(C-Bob) too selective; '...an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole..' Consensus need not be based on opinion. In particular, a scientific consensus comes from persistent testing and evaluating of hypotheses and evidence in an attempt to verify or falsify it, which results in a general conclusion that the hypothesis is well-founded (it is mostly verified and not falsified by testing).

I hope this helps individuals to understand whether or not they count as a 'sceptic' in the sense that the term is normally used in discussions of climate science.

:)P

[Admiral_Bobski]

(C-Bob) too selective; '...an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole..' Consensus need not be based on opinion. In particular, a scientific consensus comes from persistent testing and evaluating of hypotheses and evidence in an attempt to verify or falsify it, which results in a general conclusion that the hypothesis is well-founded (it is mostly verified and not falsified by testing).

:)P

P3, I agree wholeheartedly with you with regards to the "demonisation" issue - it is certainly true that some AGW advocates demonise skeptics, but it is similarly true that some skeptics demonise AGW advocates, so it works both ways. In either case, the demonisation is perpetrated by the few rather than the many.

I disagree with you on the issue of being "too selective", though. Virtually all dictionary definitions of the word refer, in some way, to the concept of "agreement of opinion", the inference being that the position you highlight is a position reached (by the group) on the basis of the individuals' opinions. At the end of the day, facts are objective but opinions are subjective, and therein lies the problem.

The reason there appears to be a consensus on, for example, the theories of relativity is because there is as yet no other alternative theory that is fully self-consistent. Further, the predictions of the theory are well-tested and match observation. (In fact, though, there is a growing belief that Relativity Theory is wrong, largely as a result of its incompatibility with Quantum Theory - so much for the consensus!)

AGW theory, on the other hand, has not been supported by observation to anything like the extent that Relativity theory has been - there is a great deal more scope for error in AGW than in Relativity. In addition to this, there are potentially other theories that may explain warming that have not yet been sufficiently explored to be able to dismiss them. So the "consensus" on AGW Theory has been reached on the basis of incomplete information (far more incomplete than Relativity theory), which places that consensus squarely in the realm of subjective opinion as opposed to objective fact.

Regardless of this, I maintain that "Good Science" should walk hand in hand with a hefty dose of healthy skepticism!

Hoping this clarifies my thoughts,

CB

[parmenides3]

What this boils down to, then, is whether the 'AGW hypothesis' has been sufficiently well tested to be confident of its veracity. As most if not all published work tends to verify the hypothesis and none (as yet) has falsified it, the conclusion of 97%+ of scientists (figures from my own research- soon to be published) is that the AGW hypothesis is sufficiently well tested to count as a sound working hypothesis at least, and, in most cases, the best and/or only possible explanation of the facts as they are known. Therefore, your comment that a 'consensus' has been reached on inadequate grounds is at best debatable, and more realistically, not true.

This does not eliminate the possibility that it may at some time be falsified, but the more time passes with it not failing, the stronger the case comes for assuming its veracity.

I'm not sure the comparison with relativity theory is a good one; very few people even understand the physics of general relativity, or quantum theory, and neither was originally posited as the only answer to a unified field theory of energy in the universe. Both, however, supplant the theory of gravity in certain ways. This does not mean that the theory of gravity is wrong, only that there are circumstances in which it cannot explain the physical phenomena being observed. To say that Newton has been falsified is therefore not correct or fair, even though it is the case that Newton's theory does not cover all possibilities, and therefore, something beyond it is needed to account for the physical properties and behaviour of particles of sizes smaller than an atom.

None of this, of course, addresses the question of how much you trust science to come up with the answers; this is often a subjective opinion.

:)P

[Admiral_Bobski]

What this boils down to, then, is whether the 'AGW hypothesis' has been sufficiently well tested to be confident of its veracity. As most if not all published work tends to verify the hypothesis and none (as yet) has falsified it, the conclusion of 97%+ of scientists...that the AGW hypothesis is sufficiently well tested to count as a sound working hypothesis at least, and, in most cases, the best and/or only possible explanation of the facts as they are known. Therefore, your comment that a 'consensus' has been reached on inadequate grounds is at best debatable, and more realistically, not true.

The problem I have is that the basic hypothesis of AGW isn't the same hypothesis as it was twenty years ago - it has been subtly altered and amended to accommodate new findings (in much the same way that the "Steady State" theory of the Universe has been adapted numerous times to accommodate any findings which contradicted it). It's not so much that AGW Theory has been "well tested" so much as it has been adapted to bring it in line with observations. The problem with this is that a robust theory should be capable of actively predicting the subsequent observations, and not merely be amenable to alteration to fit the observations after the fact.

This does not eliminate the possibility that it may at some time be falsified, but the more time passes with it not failing, the stronger the case comes for assuming its veracity.

Not true - once Relativity Theory had become more mainstream (it was rejected initially simply because the scientists of the day refused to accept that the Universe really worked like that) its validity became more and more accepted as the years went by. It was not until after Quantum Theory came along (in the 1920s) that people started to realise there may be a problem with Einstein's work (and even then this didn't happen until scientists knew enough about Quantum Theory, around the 1960s to 1970s). In fact, the more time that passes, the less satisfied people become with Relativity. Don't get me wrong - Relativity works...that's the beauty of it. It just doesn't explain everything, much the same way that Newton's theory of gravity didn't. It's not that Relativity is wrong exactly, it's just that there's more to it. Having said that, though, AGW Theory doesn't have the same solid foundation of prediction and confirmation that Relativity has, and there is almost certainly a lot more to the story than AGW grants.

I'm not sure the comparison with relativity theory is a good one; very few people even understand the physics of general relativity, or quantum theory, and neither was originally posited as the only answer to a unified field theory of energy in the universe. Both, however, supplant the theory of gravity in certain ways. This does not mean that the theory of gravity is wrong, only that there are circumstances in which it cannot explain the physical phenomena being observed. To say that Newton has been falsified is therefore not correct or fair, even though it is the case that Newton's theory does not cover all possibilities, and therefore, something beyond it is needed to account for the physical properties and behaviour of particles of sizes smaller than an atom.

The comparison with Relativity was intended to differentiate between the acceptance of Relativity and the consensus on AGW. The point is that the Physicists themselves understood Relativity and Quantum Mechanics well enough to be able to accept their veracity. The consensus on AGW Theory is held by many scientists from many disciplines, most - if not all - with incomplete understandings of the Theory itself. Therefore, their "consensus" must be opinion based, not fact based, since they do not actually understand (or even know) all the facts.

Does that help at all?

CB

PS - I never claimed that Newton was wrong! Indeed, Newton's laws of gravity and motion still work admirably at the level at which they were intended. Einstein's theories will still work at the levels they were intended, long after another theory has sprung up that supercedes them. The thing about AGW is that previous incarnations of the theory were superceded and discarded because, with the newer information, they no longer work.

PPS - When I say "previous incarnations" I am talking, more specifically, about models that didn't take into account factors that were, at the time, unknown (like, for example, the fact that plants give off methane and so on). These later factors had to be added to the original theory and somehow incorporated to maintain consistency. Einstein's theory of Relativity has, to the best of my knowledge, never required any additions and has tolerated no adaptations.

EDIT:

None of this, of course, addresses the question of how much you trust science to come up with the answers; this is often a subjective opinion.

I trust science to establish the facts. Too many of the "answers" in AGW are inferences and extrapolations rather than direct consequences of the established facts.

An extreme example (and I'm not trying to say that this is honestly what anyone thinks, but I'm just highlighting the issue) is this:

FACT 1 - The Earth has experienced some warming of late.

FACT 2 - Humans are on Earth now.

FACT 3 - Humans weren't churning out CO₂ last time there was a similar degree of warming

CONCLUSION: Humans are responsible for the current warming.

This "answer" is, indeed, based on the indisputable facts, but it is merely inferred by those facts. Additional facts (for example - The Sun is Warmer now than in the past) make the inferred answer less robust.

:unsure:

Edited June 13, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Admiral_Bobski]

Both [relativity and quantum theory], however, supplant the theory of gravity in certain ways. This does not mean that the theory of gravity is wrong, only that there are circumstances in which it cannot explain the physical phenomena being observed. To say that Newton has been falsified is therefore not correct or fair, even though it is the case that Newton's theory does not cover all possibilities, and therefore, something beyond it is needed to account for the physical properties and behaviour of particles of sizes smaller than an atom.

Actually, as a quick erratum to my previous post, Newton has, in fact, been falsified.

Newton's Theory of Gravity claimed (or at least assumed) that Gravity's effect was instantaneous. Several people after Newton were unhappy with this idea, but it was Einstein who finally proved that this notion was wrong and that Gravity's effect travels at the speed of light. In addition to that, Newton himself refused to address the issue of how gravity works (a fact that he cheerfully concedes in his Principaea Mathematica).

So Newton's Theory was wrong, although his equations were good enough that they work at the level of normal day-to-day dealings.

Similarly, Einstein describes gravity as working by virtue of the fact that space (and time) warp when in the presence of massive bodies, and that objects appear to be subject to gravitational influence because they are following straight paths through curved space. Quantum Theory, on the other hand, suggests that gravity is caused by the transmission of gravitational "messenger" particles - so-called "Gravitons".

These two theories, Relativity and Quantum, can't both be right and yet they are both fully supported by experiment, they are both independently self-consistent, and they have both provided predictions that have been experimentally confirmed.

Funny old world, isn't it?!

CB

Edited June 13, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[HighPressure]

Surely a consensus of opinion is not a scientific argument? Science is built on mathematics delivery of a result from an equation time after time and until that happens the extent of CO2 impact on climate remains a theory. If you stick 100 scientists in separate labs their results would all vary due to the variables used in the equation. I am not aware of any scientific theory being proved by the process of consensus as history tells us that the opposite is true. Consensus normally falls to the challenge of an individual theory, there was a consensus that the world was flat.

I think that we can be almost 100% sure that the IPCC projections are incorrect. I am not a scientist by would ask those that are if consensus = scientific fact or is it just a guess no matter how qualified the guessers?

[Admiral_Bobski]

I am not a scientist by would ask those that are if consensus = scientific fact or is it just a guess no matter how qualified the guessers?

In this case, the consensus is the general acceptance that the conclusions derived from certain facts are correct. To put it another way, scientists accumulate a collection of facts and then make conclusions based upon those facts. These conclusions may or may not be valid. The consensus is when many other scientists accept those conclusions. Note, though, that the scientists who form the consensus may not have the foggiest idea what the individual scientific papers are rambling on about, but they support the conclusions (they form an opinion).

Science really isn't about opinions. Cold hard facts should lead to cold hard truths. If something is true then you can't form an opinion - saying "this is true in my opinion" is redundant and irrelevant: it's either true or it isn't. There's no room for opinion.

This does start to get into the territory of "Who Can You Trust?", but I'm not being conspiratorial here. The fact is that the IPCC (and others) keep on mentioning this concept of a concensus among the scientific community, despite the fact that it is an anti-scientific concept. Science is about facts. Circumstantial evidence can be handy, but you can't build a working theory on it, and you certainly shouldn't start drawing hasty conclusions from it.

Am I rambling now? I suspect I'm edging that way...

CB

[Devonian]

Surely a consensus of opinion is not a scientific argument? Science is built on mathematics delivery of a result from an equation time after time and until that happens the extent of CO2 impact on climate remains a theory.

What is plate tectonics then? Or evolution? Equally as dismissable I presume?

If you stick 100 scientists in separate labs their results would all vary due to the variables used in the equation. I am not aware of any scientific theory being proved by the process of consensus as history tells us that the opposite is true. Consensus normally falls to the challenge of an individual theory, there was a consensus that the world was flat.

I think that we can be almost 100% sure that the IPCC projections are incorrect. I am not a scientist by would ask those that are if consensus = scientific fact or is it just a guess no matter how qualified the guessers?

What, we can be '100% sure...'? A fine example of a guess being promoted as a certainty.

In this case, the consensus is the general acceptance that the conclusions derived from certain facts are correct. To put it another way, scientists accumulate a collection of facts and then make conclusions based upon those facts. These conclusions may or may not be valid. The consensus is when many other scientists accept those conclusions. Note, though, that the scientists who form the consensus may not have the foggiest idea what the individual scientific papers are rambling on about, but they support the conclusions (they form an opinion).

Science really isn't about opinions. Cold hard facts should lead to cold hard truths. If something is true then you can't form an opinion - saying "this is true in my opinion" is redundant and irrelevant: it's either true or it isn't. There's no room for opinion.

This does start to get into the territory of "Who Can You Trust?", but I'm not being conspiratorial here. The fact is that the IPCC (and others) keep on mentioning this concept of a concensus among the scientific community, despite the fact that it is an anti-scientific concept. Science is about facts. Circumstantial evidence can be handy, but you can't build a working theory on it, and you certainly shouldn't start drawing hasty conclusions from it.

Am I rambling now? I suspect I'm edging that way...

CB

To much certainty being asked for. Again, the same applies to plate tectonic and evolution, both are theories - so you dismiss both? No, I don't think you do. I think you're being inconsistent. Why? Because you don't like what AGW theory (yup, theory) says. All very human but not very scientific

[jethro]

At the risk of upsetting Mods - and apologies if this does, it's not supposed to.... I thought the whole point of this thread was to discuss links posted on the sceptics thread. If I'd posted a link saying the sea is made of lemon curd or there really is a man in the moon, I would have expected this thread to be the place where discussions as to whether or not it were true, if so, how, why etc and vice versa. There are a lot of us sceptics out there and a lot of links in the sceptic thread to back up the scepticism, can we discuss these please?

[Admiral_Bobski]

To much certainty being asked for. Again, the same applies to plate tectonic and evolution, both are theories - so you dismiss both? No, I don't think you do. I think you're being inconsistent. Why? Because you don't like what AGW theory (yup, theory) says. All very human but not very scientific

I'm not asking for "too much certainty" at all - just more (and/or better) evidence. But, while we're here, why not have a look at the two theories you mention.

Firstly, Plate Tectonics: This has a great deal of support, so let's ask ourselves why. We know for a fact that the Earth is layered: crust, upper mantle, lower mantle, outer core, inner core. The depth of these layers can be determined using seismic waves (which is surprisingly easy for a geologist to do). We know that the crust has fissures in it which form large plates that all fit relatively neatly together (thanks largely to satellite images, although the theory arose before this visual confirmation). We know that magma comes out of these fissures at certain points - we've seen it - and we know that Earthquakes happen at or around these fissures - we've felt it.

So we have a crust that almost, but not quite, fits together like a jigsaw. We know that the edges of these "jigsaw pieces" are particularly prone to causing large-scale geologic events. Plate tectonics, as a theory, describes this set-up. Yes, there are contentious aspects of plate tectonics, but the basic premise is pretty indisputable - it's the exact details which cause some consternation.

Secondly, Evolution: This also has a great deal of support, but it is generally attacked more often, more vocally and more publically than the theory of plate tectonics. However, the basic underlying principal of evolution is that all life today is related in some way to life from the past, even though it doesn't look the same. Again, it's the exact details that are most often contested (except by Creationists who tend to dispute the whole thing) - some Evolutionists believe that evolution is a long, slow process that continues all the time, others believe that evolution doesn't happen that often but that every now and again there's a big spurt of evolutionary change, and others think something in between.

The basic principal of evolution, though - that things change from generation to generation, altering those things' appearances and physiology - is pretty indisputable. We've managed to create highly differentiated breeds of dog using this basic principal. It's been done with fruit flies and cats and cows and pigs and chickens. There's also extremely compelling evidence that humans used to look different - largely by dote of our redundant appendix and our vestigial tails.

The thing both plate tectonics and evolution have in common is that they explain so much so well, and that they have been able to make useful predictions. While AGW theory does explain a great deal, it does so by embracing new information and altering itself to fit - and, as yet, it has not predicted anything previously unseen that could only be explained by that theory (and, no, increases in temperature don't count).

Anyway, gotta daDoh a dumb swear filter got the better of me

CB

At the risk of upsetting Mods - and apologies if this does, it's not supposed to.... I thought the whole point of this thread was to discuss links posted on the sceptics thread. If I'd posted a link saying the sea is made of lemon curd or there really is a man in the moon, I would have expected this thread to be the place where discussions as to whether or not it were true, if so, how, why etc and vice versa. There are a lot of us sceptics out there and a lot of links in the sceptic thread to back up the scepticism, can we discuss these please?

A very valid point, Jethro, and one which I was tempted to bring up myself. I thought I'd follow the thread wherever it took me, but we do seem to be going far, far away from its initial intent.

Any particular links you would like to talk about? Perhaps we should start way back at the beginning...

I'll be back later...!

CB

[jethro]

A very valid point, Jethro, and one which I was tempted to bring up myself. I thought I'd follow the thread wherever it took me, but we do seem to be going far, far away from its initial intent.

Any particular links you would like to talk about? Perhaps we should start way back at the beginning...

I'll be back later...!

CB

Edited June 13, 2007 by jethro

[smith25]

Well this is my first post for awhile... And i stumbled upon this video clip:

http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html

Wait for his conclusion at the end and discuss

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I have a few bones of contention.

1 Cooling occurred as CO2 continued to rise

2 Arctic was warmer in 30s than now although CO2 is much much higher.

3 The oceans have warmed at same rate as land/air at same time....this states to me that oceans are warming first

4 CO2 warming is non linear.

I haven't read anything yet that satisfactorily explains why this is the case if CO2 is such a player it is meant to be. A player [partial] a controller? Not satisfied

BFTP

[Devonian]

I have a few bones of contention.

1 Cooling occurred as CO2 continued to rise

There is a warming trend being imposed on natural variability. NV is quite large, it's till possible to get cold years. Also, of course, the effects of aerosols needs to be considered.

2 Arctic was warmer in 30s than now although CO2 is much much higher.

Possible but not, as you have, something anyone can state. Figures? I suspect (I'm not stating...) the Arctic is right now is relatively very warm.

3 The oceans have warmed at same rate as land/air at same time....this states to me that oceans are warming first

I doubt this, what's your source.

4 CO2 warming is non linear.

I think this is right, but so what? Do you discount feedbacks? Other anthro effects?

I haven't read anything yet that satisfactorily explains why this is the case if CO2 is such a player it is meant to be. A player [partial] a controller? Not satisfied

BFTP

True if you points 1-4 are right. I doubt they are.

[noggin]

(noggin) I still don't understand the argument that AGW is supposed to be a 'moneyspinner'. Most of the interia from governments stems from the point that action to prevent more warming would cause a recession, therefore, it is not in governments' interests to promote the idea of AGW to generate wealth.

:)P

What I meant was the old gravy train business, as referred to in one very recent "sceptics link". Vested interests and all that!

[Devonian]

What I meant was the old gravy train business, as referred to in one very recent "sceptics link". Vested interests and all that!

Applies to contrarianism as well - anti AGW people get paid as well. So, since it's on both sides of the equation, cross them off and stick to the evidence?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Not really, I've posted links which I believe to be relevant/credible, I'd expected those who believe in AGW and the theory that the science is certain enough already, to be here to tell me why sceptics are wrong, or what is wrong with the links I've posted.

Yes, I was also expecting that - I thought this thread would be a good place for AGW advocates and skeptics to discuss the links in the pinned thread, with the intention of defending many of those links. So far there's not been anything link-related in this thread except for noggin's contribution (which I tend to agree with). Other than that we seem to be spending a lot of time arguing semantics...hmmmm....

Maybe we should start with the "Gravy Train", as it clearly suggests that AGW Theory is a moneyspinner... What do people think of the idea that Science is being artificially directed by means of financial incentives...?

CB

[Devonian]

Yes, I was also expecting that - I thought this thread would be a good place for AGW advocates and skeptics to discuss the links in the pinned thread, with the intention of defending many of those links. So far there's not been anything link-related in this thread except for noggin's contribution (which I tend to agree with). Other than that we seem to be spending a lot of time arguing semantics...hmmmm....

Maybe we should start with the "Gravy Train", as it clearly suggests that AGW Theory is a moneyspinner... What do people think of the idea that Science is being artificially directed by means of financial incentives...?

CB

There are two posts directly above that discuss that. What do you think of my point? Don't prominent contrarians have financial incentives (in that they work for and are paid by organisations with certain views) to say what they say? As I say, where does this get us if it's on both sides (I'm not sure it it, just making the argument) thus surely it's better to look at the evidence and data not ascribe motives?

[Admiral_Bobski]

There are two posts directly above that discuss that. What do you think of my point? Don't prominent contrarians have financial incentives (in that they work for and are paid by organisations with certain views) to say what they say? As I say, where does this get us if it's on both sides (I'm not sure it it, just making the argument) thus surely it's better to look at the evidence and data not ascribe motives?

Yes, I saw those posts, but just two brief posts wasn't quite the discussion I was hoping for!

Yes, there are skeptics who are paid by the oil industry, but there is a case for saying that the oil industry isn't channelling in anything like the same funds as governments are - there aren't academic positions that exist solely on the basis that AGW isn't real, but there are positions that only exist because of the belief that AGW is real. The "Gravy Train" debate was intended, I believe, to ascertain exactly how much the funding is skewing the research.

Personally I am all for discussing just the science, but there are two problems with this: Firstly, discussions about the science are somewhat limited by individual posters' breadth and depth of knowledge (and I've had discussions along these lines which have sputtered out when both debaters have run out of information). Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, discussions based on science rely on scientific papers - if the papers themselves are unreliable due to suspicious funding then one can't fairly refer to those papers.

Also, all too often a discussion becomes more about the words used than the actual science being discussed. Take this thread as an example - it was intended to discuss the links posted in the pinned thread and yet the entire first page of posts is arguing over what constitues a "skeptic" or the "consensus". Semantics, not science... If the skeptics' links are so flimsy then why are we arguing semantics rather than ripping them all to shreds?

CB

[Devonian]

Yes, I saw those posts, but just two brief posts wasn't quite the discussion I was hoping for!

Yes, there are skeptics who are paid by the oil industry, but there is a case for saying that the oil industry isn't channelling in anything like the same funds as governments are - there aren't academic positions that exist solely on the basis that AGW isn't real, but there are positions that only exist because of the belief that AGW is real. The "Gravy Train" debate was intended, I believe, to ascertain exactly how much the funding is skewing the research.

Exxon Mobil spend quite a bit of money funding sceptics otoh, it's estimated that it costs more to monitor local government in the UK than climate research worldwide - or what the US spends on crisps each year. Whatever, there are largeish sums involved on BOTH sides. As I say, lets forget it and assume all are expressing things as they honestly see them rather than try to just tar one side.

Personally I am all for discussing just the science, but there are two problems with this: Firstly, discussions about the science are somewhat limited by individual posters' breadth and depth of knowledge (and I've had discussions along these lines which have sputtered out when both debaters have run out of information). Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, discussions based on science rely on scientific papers - if the papers themselves are unreliable due to suspicious funding then one can't fairly refer to those papers.

There's an assumption here, it's that science you don't like is unreliable due to suspicious funding but that you do isn't. I'm not even sure the evidence exists for this claim, let alone than it's a given.

Also, all too often a discussion becomes more about the words used than the actual science being discussed. Take this thread as an example - it was intended to discuss the links posted in the pinned thread and yet the entire first page of posts is arguing over what constitues a "skeptic" or the "consensus". Semantics, not science... If the skeptics' links are so flimsy then why are we arguing semantics rather than ripping them all to shreds?

CB

So, you didn't get into the 'what is a sceptic' discussion? I think you did...

Edited June 14, 2007 by Devonian