Why do you not trust the experts?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Hi, Bushy, and welcome to NW. You've chosen a lively subject to start your posting on!

I don't think it's a good idea to accuse a person of being a bigot, especially if you know very little about them. Do you have any reason to believe that SF hasn't looked at 'both sides' of the argument? No. You suggest that 'the other side of the argument have research and evidence to hand and equally sound reasons for their stance', but this appears to be one of the key problems that's coming up. The 'other side' appears to have evidence and appears to have sound reasons, but the evidence and the reasons have been studied and refuted many times over; but 'the other side' ignores this and continues to present the same arguments. What I would ask you is why you don't trust the experts? What is it you think they have done wrong?

I hope you enjoy being on NW, but please be careful about the words you use...

:)P

Hi P3,

If I may just leap in to Bushy's defense, his use of the word "bigot" was a quote from SF himself and not Bushy's own choice of words.

:lol:

CB

[BUSHY]

Hello all and thanks for the welcome. Please read my post again, I was quoting and adding a little of his/her own medicine.

[parmenides3]

Hello all and thanks for the welcome. Please read my post again, I was quoting and adding a little of his/her own medicine.

Fair comment, but the implication of your statement was reasonably clear (at least to me). I wasn't that 'heavy' with you, was I?

I am still curious to hear your answer to my question...

:)P

[BUSHY]

In my humble opinion by way of many hours delving into both sides of the argument I have come to the conclusion that there is reasonable doubt to the popular theory that we are forcing climate change.

The reason I particularly find the "experts" untrustworthy is the use of the words (will, is, no-doubt) etc when none of their predictions can be shown without doubt to be true or accurate. I will try to keep an open mind and not become a fanatic of either camp.

[parmenides3]

In my humble opinion by way of many hours delving into both sides of the argument I have come to the conclusion that there is reasonable doubt to the popular theory that we are forcing climate change.

The reason I particularly find the "experts" untrustworthy is the use of the words (will, is, no-doubt) etc when none of their predictions can be shown without doubt to be true or accurate. I will try to keep an open mind and not become a fanatic of either camp.

I am perfectly happy to accept that your opinion is founded on your own studious research and evaluation, but I would be interested to know what the source of your 'reasonable doubt' is. I'd also point out that the conclusion that we are forcing climate change went way beyond a 'popular theory' in science circles about twenty years ago; these days, it is a rigorously examined and clearly established fact.

And now you will say, 'ah, but that is why I doubt; you claim it is a fact...' This is hopeless; if someone with a scientific inclination comments in terms of 'likelihood' and 'probability', people complain (incorrectly) that 'there is an element of doubt'; if instead a clear and simple message is given, you respond 'I can't trust you if you're being so unequivocal, because I know nothing in Science is certain...' How is a person expected to say anything at all?

You say that the experts predictions cannot be 'shown without doubt to be true and accurate', but I would point out to you that the GISS model in 1989 estimated a warming for the present, and it is very nearly bang on; certainly, it captured the trend after it made the 'prediction' extremely well. Is this not evidence that the experts have some idea what they are doing?

What you appear to be saying is that you don't believe in the possibility of 'prediction'. Is this a fair assessment?

You mention two 'camps'. Such camps exist here on NW and in the blogosphere, to some extent, but they do not exist in climate science; there is one 'camp' , made up of almost every 'climate scientist' in the world, and there are one or two scientists who disagree that we are forcing climate change. All the other people who present 'contrary' 'science' are not climate scientists and are not presenting 'science'...

:)P

[jethro]

Just thought I'd throw a couple of things into the pot of distrustfulness; firstly the much vaunted Hockey Stick graph is shown to be wrong, then we have the juggling of USA temp data shown by Mackintyre to be incorrect, the 30's have been the hottest decade over there - I know it's only one country but it's a vast continental one with a large proportion of the worlds' weather stations and if the CET is valid and counts then the USA must too. And now this....

http://www.informath.org/WCWF07a.pdf

Is it any wonder people question when it seems there is so much uncertainty over such basics as temperatures being accurate?

[parmenides3]

Just thought I'd throw a couple of things into the pot of distrustfulness; firstly the much vaunted Hockey Stick graph is shown to be wrong, then we have the juggling of USA temp data shown by Mackintyre to be incorrect, the 30's have been the hottest decade over there - I know it's only one country but it's a vast continental one with a large proportion of the worlds' weather stations and if the CET is valid and counts then the USA must too. And now this....

http://www.informath.org/WCWF07a.pdf

Is it any wonder people question when it seems there is so much uncertainty over such basics as temperatures being accurate?

Me again.

http://fergusbrown.wordpress.com/2007/08/3...so-warm-period/

Next; there was no 'juggling' of US temperature data; a mathematical error was found and adjusted. It made absolutely no discernible difference to the global temperature trend.

Next; we argued about the CET and the US data on another thread, somewhere. If you want to measure Global Warming, you need to have a Global average; it's that simple. The signal is not materially effected by any subset of surface data (unless the majority of the measurements are in that subset). Note also that we now also have satellite data to compare with surface measurements, and these two a cross-referenced with some care; there is no indication that there is any difference between the two.

And this new thing is another work of art from CA, I presume? Sorry to say this, but it is yet another irrelevance; despite the implication, it makes no difference to the global measurement.

The thing here, jethro, is that the folks at CA want us to believe that the surface temperature data is wrong, so they clutch at any piece of peripheral evidence they can to demonstrate this. But think about it; what they are trying to claim is that somehow, in the past, we could measure temperatures quite accurately, but nowadays, with satellites, computers and lots more knowldege, we can't. is this a reasonable assumption to make?

Once again, this is CA trying to undermine the authority of science and the people who do it, to generate doubt about GW by ignoring the obvious, huge lumps of measurement which show GW and focussing on a couple of teensy-weensy niggles, and to convince us that GW is some kind of hoax.

I hope you understand that 'seems' is the operative word here; all that CA has is 'seeming' contradictions, rather than actual science done by actual people who actually know what they are doing. Which takes us back to the original question, I suppose; why would you feel inclined to 'trust' the material presented at CA (by non-specialists), but not to 'trust' the material presented elsewhere? Is there a logic to your selection of whom to trust?

Respectfully, (see, still smiling...)

:)P

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Fair comment, but the implication of your statement was reasonably clear (at least to me). I wasn't that 'heavy' with you, was I?

I am still curious to hear your answer to my question...

:)P

P

I want go into posting names as they are easily found but for me there are an awful lot of professors/scientists/astrophysicists/climatologists etc etc who do not subscribe to AGW or catastrophic effects due to AGW and these are top people in their field and they are far from convinced and so am I. That is why I don't trust what is mainly down to Global model simulations on warming. No right or wrong here just why I am not on board the AGW boat. As you know I believe natural cycles cause us to warm and cool but I do concede we are in the mix a little.

BFTP

Edited October 2, 2007 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[laserguy]

I post this with all sincerity. Might not even belong in this thread so I apologise in advance. But what I would like is the opinions of the very learned minds on here on why the effect of water vapour is rarely or maybe never mentioned? After all,its potency as a GHG is far in excess of that of CO2,methane,etc,and of course its abundance makes the amounts of other 'GHGs' probably insignificant. Does it not follow that any rise of ocean temperature for whatever reason will result in a collosal increase of the far more potent water vapour? Of course it would seem reasonable that a warmer ocean would liberate more CO2 as well but again the amounts would be practically as nothing to the increased evaporation of water. The attitude of climate scientists in their (as far as I'm aware ) refusal to entertain the effects of the most important GHG and to concentrate almost solely on CO2 is to my mind highly suspect. Can't see the wood for the trees?

The answer I'm expecting is that CO2,once it is released stays around in the atmosphere and accumulates rather than being reabsorbed into the system,but that must be the case with water vapour too otherwise we'd be seeing massively increased worldwide precipitation,would we not? No condescending replies please,a genuine query which I hope someone could shed some light on and thoughts/reasons as to why it (water vapour ) doesn't get a mention in the climate change melee. I've not been up for long (working nights) so my head is even thicker than normal (!). But apparently there has been recent discoveries of huge numbers of ocean floor volcanoes which must collectively affect water temps,thus causing the rise in temps and consequently liberation of water vapour and CO2. Just because they've only recently been discovered doesn't necessarily mean they weren't there all along,of course,but if they are fairly recent...? Calling Viking,where are you?

[BrickFielder]

The water vapour argument has a few holes in notably that up in the stratosphere where the green house affect of CO2 is strongest there is very little water vapour. It is valid to argue about cloud variability and the IPCC reports admit this is a bit of a wild card. Temperature records do vary although it is generally accepted that temepratures have warmed 0.5C over the last decade or so. Included is a graph from south africa which is not typical but shows that arguing from the perspective of local temepratures is risky.

You can also argue that CO2 is not that well a mixed gas although recent modelling as taken this into account. What probably is not taken into account is that as the stratosphere cools CO2 will become heavier and sink reducing the greenhouse affect (This probably is not a large affect).

Similarly I don't think the volcano argument will hold up as in times past there have always been volcanoes in the sea. You might argue that we have not had a large volcanic eruption in a while so that the dusts in the upper levels of the atmosphere (mesosphere and thermosphere) have not been renewed. This surprisingly does have an affect on the chemical balances up there and can affect surface temperatures over a period of decades(affects at the moment are not thought to be as large as CO2 increases).

[Gray-Wolf]

Water Vapour;

The more water vapour (with the increased load of hygroscopic particulate pollution) must lead to more cloud cover. As I see it the greatest heat loss we suffer is radiation back into space over night. We all know what cloud cover does in terms of reducing (blanketing in ) this heat loss. I'm struggling to find the reduction in heat inputs here. I do not see the 'desert belts' of our planet becoming more cloudy so , even if the mid latitudes/higher latitudes are blighted with more cloud the major inputs are still 'on', it's just that as it reaches higher up the globe (beyond the desert belt) less heat gets lost at night-time.

Edited October 2, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

Perhaps we're getting way off-topic here, but more water vapour does not necessarily mean more clouds. An even distribution of water vapour throughout the atmosphere can be invisible (depending on its density) but still be there, and still trap heat. Remember, a muggy, humid day may be a cloudless day, but the humidity is caused by water vapour.

CB

[parmenides3]

P

I want go into posting names as they are easily found but for me there are an awful lot of professors/scientists/astrophysicists/climatologists etc etc who do not subscribe to AGW or catastrophic effects due to AGW and these are top people in their field and they are far from convinced and so am I. That is why I don't trust what is mainly down to Global model simulations on warming. No right or wrong here just why I am not on board the AGW boat. As you know I believe natural cycles cause us to warm and cool but I do concede we are in the mix a little.

BFTP

Hi Blast: I am waiting for my paper to be published in EOS. It was co-authored by Roger Pielke Sr and James Annan. In it, I present the results of an opinion poll conducted among 1800 climate scientists. Though it is only preliminary work, the poll does indeed suggest that there are a number of scientists who do not agree with the science of the IPCC WG1, to some extent or another. Of the scientists who responded, slightly less than 1% expressed the opinion that GW was entirely natural. This is why I disagree with what you have said above; my experience with the scientists does not match the claim taht 'there are an awful lot...who do not subscribe to AGW.'

:)P

[Roo]

Hi Blast: I am waiting for my paper to be published in EOS. It was co-authored by Roger Pielke Sr and James Annan. In it, I present the results of an opinion poll conducted among 1800 climate scientists. Though it is only preliminary work, the poll does indeed suggest that there are a number of scientists who do not agree with the science of the IPCC WG1, to some extent or another. Of the scientists who responded, slightly less than 1% expressed the opinion that GW was entirely natural. This is why I disagree with what you have said above; my experience with the scientists does not match the claim taht 'there are an awful lot...who do not subscribe to AGW.'

P

I think this is the right approach: we have to go into chapter and verse, whatever chapter and verse that might be.

[pottyprof]

Perhaps we're getting way off-topic here,

CB

Yep... We are drifting a little off the mark. The actual science can be debated elsewhere. Create a new thread if need be and break it down into individual elements so each part of the jigsaw doesn't get mixed up.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Hi Blast: I am waiting for my paper to be published in EOS. It was co-authored by Roger Pielke Sr and James Annan. In it, I present the results of an opinion poll conducted among 1800 climate scientists. Though it is only preliminary work, the poll does indeed suggest that there are a number of scientists who do not agree with the science of the IPCC WG1, to some extent or another. Of the scientists who responded, slightly less than 1% expressed the opinion that GW was entirely natural. This is why I disagree with what you have said above; my experience with the scientists does not match the claim taht 'there are an awful lot...who do not subscribe to AGW.'

:)P

P

There are different polls too but yours is interesting. Note though that I mention other fields of 'experts' who disagree. Re entirely natural indeed I have mentioned that I concede we are in the mix....but not to a controlling extent IMO as i believe that there are much stronger drivers than CO2, especially when our input is 0.11% to 0.3% of the atmosphere?.

BFTP

[Nick H]

I think part of the reason why people are reluctant to believe scientists is because, at the moment, their primary mouth organ are politicians.

As I have said before on here, I am inclined to believe, on current evidence, that man is contributing to GW. But when the public have been led into an illegal war on a pack of lies by the Labour Party, I can fully understood people's recalcitrance in being told by these same people to change their lifestyles, particularly when it involves paying more tax.

Interesting thread btw.

Edited October 2, 2007 by Nick H

[West is Best]

I'm deeply saddened when I run into this kind of dismissive 'coverall' .

Hi GW - my point was the one Noggin was making, simply that I just don't believe there is a collective noun of experts as if they all agreed on this topic 100%.

[HighPressure]

Some interesting threads to catch on a lot of reading to do

I don't believe anyone or anything without question fullstop, if they can demonstrate to me either in theory or practice (preferably both) that they have a full understanding of the subject under consideration then I will accept their views. It is true that many scientists believe that GW is a product of man, but the exact composition and percentage impact on climate remains an unknown entity. A scientific answer requires an exact equation that can be repeated time and time again and obtain the same results, anything less is only theory. However you dress up the case probabilities of unknowns cannot be considered as scientific fact and scientific history is littered with individuals solving problems against the backdrop of the consensus of the time. I have used this simple analogy before, Columbus against all consensus proved by deed that the earth for not flat, no deed or experiment has yet been performed that can be repeated to show human's exact effect on climate change. Therefore AGW remains just a scientific theory with circumstantial evidence only, although many may claim that this is enough to convict, and this is where it gets extremely difficult and becomes very emotive. I would argue that because this is our only planet and the stakes are high we should be actively looking to reduce not only our carbon emissions but the way in which we treat our environment as whole. This does not mean I subscribe fully to the circumstantial evidence merely that I believe caution is best served, however the scientific debate needs to continue and all views, theories should be given equal validity until scientifically proven to be wrong.

Human nature plays a big part in this debate as it does every other facet in life, and there are scientists on both sides of the argument that only seek to further their own aims either financially or politically, that is just a fact of life. Politics is for another thread but is deeply rooted in any responses made by governments the world over, simply funding is provided by many governments and bodies who have a vested interest in obtaining a single result.

Back to the science, there remains a number of theories which could significantly alter the current consensus and which at this point in time are not fully understood and therefore impossible to discount, while that remains the case I remain firmly a sceptic on the IPCC findings.

[Guest Viking141]

In the case of modelling, if some runs showed warming, and others showed cooling, then I would have sympathy with the sceptics, but as it is the models vary only in the extent to which they project warming.

And its this very lack of an alternative outcome that to me suggests there is a problem with the models. The fact that they do not show any other possible outcome than warming suggests to me that they are showing what the modeller wants them to show, not what the full range of possibilities may be.

You're right, science relies on scepticism, but it does so in the same way that the legal system relies of proof. Anyone can sit idly by and have a contrary OPINION: what's impressive, though - at least to this reader - is when somebody has a REASON for that opinion. Many's the bigot with a strongly held opinion; what they tend to lack is sound reason.

A really unnecessary comparison, equating skeptisicsm with bigotry. Bigots have strongly held opinions. Some people have reasons for strongly held opinions. Therefore those without reasons for their strongly held opinions are bigots. Syllogistic reasoning at it best.

Edited October 3, 2007 by Viking141

[Roger J Smith]

I've been inside the mother ship on numerous occasions, so I know what atmospheric scientists are really like. They are scaly, have green skin, and breathe mostly methane.

Okay, hands up if you believed that.

I wouldn't call my own attitude "distrust" -- I think the majority have reached their opinion after reasonable effort and valid thought processes. I just happen to be of a different opinion myself for the same reasons. Note there is a certain amount of self-fulfilling prophecy involved in this debate. If I were to state that I was an atmospheric scientist, the howls and scowls would begin all over again, so I just don't bother any more. But I am not the only skeptic who has been vilified, mostly privately to those who might wish to hear a different viewpoint, by the establishment in my own country.

What I don't trust about all this, is the very close relationship between politics and the emerging science. It seems to me that this science is being driven along more by political opinion than scientific reasoning. It seems also that any reasonable person without a political axe to grind, would concede that we cannot easily distinguish between natural and anthropogenic sources of the observed warming, and that the IPCC report probably over-estimates the anthropogenic component. But as I've said before here, if the mix is somewhere between 70-30 natural-AGW and 50-50, then you get into a grey area where the science is just slightly flawed instead of seriously flawed, and to that extent one's objection to it would decrease. I think I am inside that grey area in my own opinion, 30% would seem plausible to me.

I'm not sure, really, why the pro-AGW lobby keeps bringing up this topic and insisting that we all toe the line of political correctness. Does it really bother you that much that we distrust the expertise of climate scientists? After all, look back and you'll see that they are generally bottom drawer from the overall stock of university science graduates. Climate science is easier than real science, at least in terms of graduating from university without facing ultra-difficult study. I remember how many sleepless nights intervened between my own first reading of special relativity and my eventual understanding of it, to the extent that I could pass an examination on that subject.

Climate science exams today must be pretty easy to pass. The first question would be an essay as follows:

1. Write a 2,000 word essay on how urgent the global warming problem has become, or alternatively, how eager you are to become a manual labourer or security guard.

Then the second question would be, why do we not mention what happened in the 1930s when the media are present?

* gotta learn to trust those experts, Rog *

** too late now **

[Gray-Wolf]

I thought it was common knowledge why the 'drop off' in global temps post 1930's occurred (and why global temps were rising up until that point) To keep on banging on about the pre-Globally dimmed period as though it was an 'anomalous blip' tends to look foolish when you put the 'pre' temp rise graph hard up against the 'post' dimmed temp rise graph and see the continuity there.

The real issues should be the change in 'rate of change' from the late 90's onwards (surely?)

[Devonian]

And its this very lack of an alternative outcome that to me suggests there is a problem with the models. The fact that they do not show any other possible outcome than warming suggests to me that they are showing what the modeller wants them to show, not what the full range of possibilities may be.

Why does it suggest that to you?

[jethro]

I thought it was common knowledge why the 'drop off' in global temps post 1930's occurred (and why global temps were rising up until that point) To keep on banging on about the pre-Globally dimmed period as though it was an 'anomalous blip' tends to look foolish when you put the 'pre' temp rise graph hard up against the 'post' dimmed temp rise graph and see the continuity there.

The real issues should be the change in 'rate of change' from the late 90's onwards (surely?)

Morning GW, from what I've read it isn't that simple, there's quite a large on-going debate in scientific circles about this one, dimming isn't universally accredited with cooling, it warms too. The post 90's sharp increase is thought in part to be due to the dimming qualities being reduced due to the changes in particulate pollution; that sharp step up in temps is, if you like emphasised and exagerrated to a degree because of this.

[Bobby]

And its this very lack of an alternative outcome that to me suggests there is a problem with the models. The fact that they do not show any other possible outcome than warming suggests to me that they are showing what the modeller wants them to show, not what the full range of possibilities may be.

Instead of that explanation, a more simpler explanation would be that the reason the models only show warming is simply because that's the only thing that seems likely? It sounds like you ignore the models for the reason that they aren't showing what you want them to show. Bit like saying because there is no alternative to 2+2=4, then maybe it's wrong.