The Climate Change “Consensus” Isn’t What the Washington Post Thinks
I am really getting sick of people thinking “humans contribute to climate change, therefore Washington should impose a big carbon tax” is a no-brainer. It’s not. My latest IER post:
Now don’t misunderstand, Richard Tol (the developer of the FUND model which shows net benefits for moderate warming) supports a carbon tax. But that’s because he thinks the benefits of warming are already baked into the cake, and he’s concerned about what will happen decades from now. So would Stromberg—since he is so committed to empiricism and science—want the senators to vote on how many more decades of benefits from global warming humanity will receive, according to one of the models chosen by the Obama Administration? I bet a lot of Republicans would line up for that one, so Stromberg should be glad to see their commitment to truth.
And I bring in Freeman Dyson, of “Dyson Sphere” fame (among sci-fi nerds):
Also on this point, notice that even if you thought it would be worth restricting carbon dioxide emissions and crippling economic growth, if that were the only option, it still wouldn’t mean it was the best way to deal with the potential threat. That was one of Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson’s points, and why he is now labeled as a “skeptic” and considered a pariah in some circles even though he used to be a cool “eccentric” scientist with amazing ideas. (My brief and cynical summary of the treatment of Dyson: Dyson’s brilliant imagination of the potential of humanity was great until he started thinking of cheap ways our kids could deal with the possible dangers of climate change. After his musings wandered on tothat topic, fashionable people threw him under the bus.)
The liberal tactic you identify here is annoying, but it’s also partially of our own making. By spending so much time questioning well established science, we’ve made it easy for the left to just ding us on that and then move straight to their non sequitur solutions.
And by “we” you mean Rush Limbaugh, Josiah? Or do you actually mean me and yourself? I have no regrets on anything I’ve said regarding the climate science, and I would be surprised if you said anything like “ha ha it’s snowing Al Gore, you idiot!”
I mean conservatives and libertarians generally. I don’t think you or I have personally written anything stupid on climate change, but guilt by association is a powerful thing.
Especially when it is sanctioned, right Josiah? I mean, that’s what blaming people who shouldn’t be blamed, and not blaming those who should be blamed, really is.
“By spending so much time questioning well established science…I mean conservatives and libertarians generally. I don’t think you or I have personally written anything stupid on climate change, but guilt by association is a powerful thing.” Indeed.
For example, remember urban heat island effect? The generally accepted (by scientists) atmospheric temperature trend was questioned, since the apparent rise was said to be due not to rising temperatures but to urban areas encroaching on the temperature monitoring stations. Lots of effort was put into spreading this particular dis-information. Anthony Watts was the champion, but not the only one. John Christy , Roy Spencer , S. Fred Singer , Tim Ball and his “Friends of Science” , Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels have used UHI to explain away temperature rise. Along came BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) study. This reported that UHI was insignificant, as had been said by the scientists all along. Since BEST was run by scientists skeptical of climate change and was funded by the Kochs and run by scientists on the skeptical end there was little option but to accept the result.
Since BEST was run by scientists skeptical of climate change and was funded by the Kochs and run by scientists on the skeptical end there was little option but to accept the result.
If only.
Harold,
That brings up an interesting point. I’ve been reading some articles and papers recently about bias and the value of having a diversity of ideas in scientific research. The reason for this is that assumptions can be baked into the research and lead to wildly inaccurate results. One paper talked about this in the context of liberal bias in social psychology. When a greater diversity of political opinion was present in research, the results tended to be more accurate, because the biases would get weeded out. The study you mention is evidence of this in action. We have more knowledge for having conducted this research than we would have if the UHI objection were never raised. So I see it as an argument in favor of a healthy dissent, rather than an argument that the consensus was right all along and so should never be doubted.
Most people don’t understand this though. They see things as a kind of competition of ideas, where you have to constantly slander and deride any opponent, lest their ideas start gaining ground politically. In a way, this is fact, because political authority very often does act from inaccurate or outdated information. This is one of the many ways that politics corrupts the scientific process. Consider, would people be so polarized on this topic if they didn’t believe that their very lives depended on the outcome? How much better off would the science be if many differing viewpoints could be expressed without one side trying to crush the other at every opportunity?
“They see things as a kind of competition of ideas, where you have to constantly slander and deride any opponent, lest their ideas start gaining ground politically”
The more politicised an issue becomes, the more this is true. Even matters of pure academic interest suffer to an extent as treasured theories are not relinquished easily. However, ultimately reputation can only be enhanced by accepting changes to your ideas when evidence suggests you should.
Harold, BEST is not “run by skeptics.” That’s just a complete lie. You really should do your homework instead of repeat talking points. But anyone who throws around “The Kochs” like you do is probably not capable of doing anything else.
A case in point, you list several people as “explaining away” temperature rise as “UHI” but many of the people in question never asserted that UHI explained all temperature rise. Many of them weren’t even talking about UHI specifically. If you’d actually bothered to do your homework, you’d know the concerns were much more subtle than that. And as for whether BEST addressed them by testing for UHI, well, no, you can’t address concerns over biases that aren’t UHI by testing for UHI.
From wiki: Berkeley Earth has been funded by unrestricted educational grants totalling (as of December 2013) about $1,394,500.[3] Large donors include Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Charles G. Koch Foundation.” Anthony Watts said “So now (pending peer-review and publication) we have the interesting situation of a Koch institution, a left-wing boogy-man, funding an unbiased study that confirms the previous temperature estimates…” I think the Koch foundation was the largest single donor to the original study. I think that could be construed as “funded by the Kochs”, but I can see one could argue with the phrasing if you wanted to find fault through pedantry. Nonetheless it is clearly not principally funded by Govt. grants that critics of climate science often cite as a reason to doubt the results. However you want to spin it, the result was that the mainstream climate science view was vindicated by a group that had no vested interest in doing so.
Judith Curry is clearly at the sceptical end of the spectrum of climate scientists. From “the register”: “Muller, professor of physics at UC Berkeley, is often regarded as a climate sceptic…” If you want to take issue with me describing this as “run by sceptics”, then OK, but again it does not affect the argument. This study was run by people that were sceptical of the corrections applied to the temperature measurements to account for factors like UHI.
“A case in point, you list several people as “explaining away” temperature rise as “UHI” but many of the people in question never asserted that UHI explained all temperature rise.”
It dos not require them to attribute all temperature rise to UHI. They have stated that temperature rise was exaggerated by mainstream scientists due to UHI or something similar.
Some quotes:
Dr Roy Spence: “My last few posts have described a new method for quantifying the average Urban Heat Island (UHI) warming effect as a function of population density…Taken together, I believe these results provide powerful and direct evidence that the GHCN data still has a substantial spurious warming component, at least for the period (since 1973) and region (U.S.) addressed here.”
Fred Singer “There are so many problems with SFC data that we will just list a few here and discuss them more fully later:
1. Urban heat island effect: well-recognized warming bias but difficult to eliminate.”
Friends of science: “Although official agencies take corrective measures for the UHIE there is considerable concern about how this is done and whether it is done correctly and adequately.”
Mckitrick and Michaels: “—in other words, the adjustment models were not removing the contamination [from economic development] patterns as claimed. If the contamination were removed, we estimated the average measured warming rate over land would decline by about half.”
It does you no good to by-pass the central argument and nit pick about phrasing, especially when the comment was about people refusing to accept valid arguments. Marks out of 10 for homework?
Harold, bringing up that you brought up “Koch funding” was mocking you for openly shouting a shibboleth exposing yourself as ignorant. You belabor the point as if it was necessary to prove that BEST is “Koch funded”
Not to “nit pick” though I’m entitled to do so with my own words, but I never disputed BEST was “Koch funded” I just thought it was hilarious you think the funding source is so important.
“clearly not principally funded by Govt. grants that critics of climate science often cite as a reason to doubt the results.”
I have literally, never heard this argument made. It would throw out pretty much everything Roy Spencer, John Christy, or Dick Lindzen have ever done, most of it being funded by NASA and the Department of Energy, respectively. I think you’re confused, since you’re obsessed with where the funding for research comes from, as many climate advocates are.
“However you want to spin it, the result was that the mainstream climate science view was vindicated by a group that had no vested interest in doing so.”
Again you make the positive claim, that the people behind BEST had no vested interest in “vindicating the mainstream position.” You cite as “skeptics” that “run BEST” Muller and Curry.
Muller is on record denying having *ever* been a skeptic. Got that?
Curry is, at best, a recent convert to the view “it’s more complicated than we thought.” Perhaps you don’t recall when she was writing papers blaming hurricanes on our emissions?
Were you commenter on Climate Audit when she, completely unbidden, made a comment complaining about Rush Limbaugh? I was there. Wow, that was an interesting day.
Do you recall when she and her colleagues insinuated that Bill Gray was senile? Nah, probably not, the most you know about this issue is talking points.
“It does you no good to by-pass the central argument and nit pick about phrasing, especially when the comment was about people refusing to accept valid arguments.”
Excuse me if it is “nit picking” but you’ll notice something about your McKitrick and Michaels quote? It doesn’t contain the words “Urban Heat Island”. So, again, BEST’s test for UHI, even assuming it “vindicated the mainstream view” so beyond a shadow of a doubt, did not address their concern. Just as I stated. You’re not entitled to interpret my words however you wish, you know, nor are you entitled to engage in mote and bailey arguments that ignore that BEST no longer supports your position.
Do you know what “economic development” means? Do you know how they did their tests? Do you have the slightest idea of what the differences were between their tests and BEST’s?
I suggest you come back when you’ve done your homework, not when you think you know more about this issue than I do because you’ve read some popular press articles or wikipedia.
Here’s a suggestion: Why don’t you do what I do: read the papers in question. Or, I don’t know, look at some of the papers written in response to BEST. Shouldn’t be to hard, see if you can understand the arguments, and counter arguments. I have no interest in discussing this issue shallowly with someone who thinks arguments are settled by “who funded who.”
Andrew_FL:
The socialist mentality is that government financed research is generally honest and unbiased, while voluntarily funded research is generally dishonest and biased.
You seem to have missed the point again. I find it incredible that you have NEVER heard the argument that climate scientists exagerate warming in order to attract grants. It has been made so often it is very difficult to believe you have missed it. I suggest you read about a bit more. Here is one report
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
They say “The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into a question have we inadvertently created a selffulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?”
In other words, public funding has created incentive to produce biased science exagerating warming.
Ever heards of the Great Global Warming Conspiracy -a film by Martin Durkin? The film asserts that the publicised scientific consensus is the product of a “global warming activist industry” driven by a desire for research funding. If one belives these accusations, then any study from mainstream funded climate science will be doubted.
Pointing out that BEST was funded differently yet still produced the same results shows that in this case the public funding had not produced a bias. It is therefore important to this particular argument – and has pretty much put an end to this particulart debate. I think it is a great testament to the scientists involved that they found results that the funders presumably did not want. You only find it hliarious that I mention the funding because you have somehow missed this entire debate.
To seek common ground, perhaps if I say it was run by people who were sceptical of the corrections applied to surface temperature data? We can then avoid pointless debate about whether these individuals are “sceptics” or not, and focus on the entire point that they had no reason to be biased in favour of supporting the established results, either through funding or to support their previous publications.
You appear not to have understood the difference between “Public funding biases science because it’s public funding” and “People who receive funding because there might be a problem, have every reason to perpetuate the idea that a problem exists that justifies their funding.” But it’s subtle so clearly beyond your ability to comprehend the difference.
“To seek common ground, perhaps if I say it was run by people who were sceptical of the corrections applied to surface temperature data?”
I can’t read their minds and neither can you. But I will say it would not surprise me at all if Muller was a complete liar and never had any doubts whatsoever about the corrections applied to the data. There’s not positive evidence he was skeptical of the either. For a man to say “I was never a skeptic” would strongly cast doubt on whether he could have entertained doubt about something so fundamental.
I’m not going to reply again because it’s clear you still are obsessed with the idea that the source of funding is SO IMPORTANT and refuse to actually understand the substance of the issues at hand, considering it satisfactory to note that if the government funds research that agrees with research funded by “TEH KOCHS OMG” well, the actual science must be pretty airtight, airtight enough to answers questions the research didn’t ask!
Complete was of my time.
I agree it is time to stop it here. I think you have demonstrated my point well enough.
OK, so your neighbor Dr. Karlossus is building something in his garage. You ask what is it and he tells you it is a device to end man made global climate change. So yiu say cool how does it work and he tells you its is simple, a large nuclear blast goes off eliminating man made global climate change. You say WHAT, EVERYONE WILL DIE! How many jelly beans are left in the jar?
42
Ugh that’s the meaning of life!
What counts as “established” science, and what counts as not?
I think it would be difficult to show that such a blanket statement is true, in general, that claims were being question when they were already established.
Sure, you can find some people that question well agreed upon points even now, but it’s difficult to prove this is sufficiently widespread to justify believing not only that there are no people who don’t question those claims but still have more reasonable quibbles, but leaping straight from the unquestionably true claims straight to the normative imperatives.
It’s a non sequitur with a failure to grasp the is-ought distinction thrown on for good measure.
For the record I think (and I’ve done more personal research into this than most):
1. That there has been some change is well established.
2. That humans have increased concentrations of certain gases in the atmosphere is established even more firmly, with the certtainty of an accounting identity.
3. That some of those gases have the effect reducing the rate at which an Earth loses energy by radiative heat transfer at a given temperature is established, and the magnitude of that reduction relatively well established.
4. That the temperature of the of such a body must increase if the rate at which it gains energy is to once again match the rate at which it loses energy, is about as certain as a physical law. Because it is not known, however, the degree to which other determinants of the rate at which the Earth gains or loses energy themselves respond to temperature, the exact amount the temperature of the Earth must increase to restore balance is similarly uncertain.
All of the above positions would put me firmly within the “consensus,” by the way, and I would even add:
5. It follows logically from points 2-4 that through point 2, humans are probably a contributing factor to point 1
Here I differ only from mainstream opinion in hedging my bets slightly more. Because humans have also done other things that could contribute in the opposite direction. However:
I note that point 4 implies that just how much of a contributing factor our activities are to point 1 would be uncertain even if there were no possibility of countervailing influences also from human activities and:
I note that if we were more certain about point 4, then the contribution to point 1 by human activities would be justifiably regarded as established fact beyond reproach, again excepting the possibility of countervailing influences also from human activities.
I claim again: some one of “mainstream opinion” could fault me only for being too cautious.
The above pretty much exhausts the points on which there is truly universal agreement. We might suggest:
6. The degree of contribution to point 1 by human activities is greater than not
As a rough statement that, if agreed to, would mean I could not reasonably be accused of questioning anything considered established science.
Do you think for one second that someone would then, not be accused of questioning established science for agreeing with all of the above, but disagreeing that any of the above represents a problem requiring government intervention to “do something about it?” I don’t. Because I know people who agree with all of the above, and then some, and even agree that “something should be done” and, because they question the slightest thing, something that is emphatically not “established” by any reasonable standard, still get accused of questioning “established science.”
What counts as “established” science, and what counts as not?
Cue long tedious debate. If someone wants to argue that the Big Bang hasn’t been scientifically established, etc., then I’m not terribly interested. I’m pretty sure Bob knows exactly what I’m talking about.
That’s not a helpful answer to my question. Although if you knew anything about the standards for evidence in physics you would know that next to nothing in “Climate Science” is as well established as the Big Bang.
Which, for the record, yes, is very well established (warning: Very is a term lacking scientific rigor and precision. Do not ever use very the way I have just now.) Can we treat each other with mutual respect now?
So the standards for evidence do not require observation or repeatability. Thank you! The fact is people don’t care about science and when I say people I mean scientists. Disagree all you want but the core of human learning is an appeal to authority. this is why education can take an ignorant man and make him into an idiot.
Ah yes because we totally can’t measure the cosmic background radiation.
Knowing that something is there is not knowing why it is there. My aim isn’t to deny anything but to point out we don’t know half as much as we say we do. Climate scientists are not proposing active control of the earths climate because they don’t know how it works and they will begin trying to control it before they know how it works.
“Climate scientists are not proposing active control of the earths climate”
Au Contraire, mon ami. This is called “Geoengineering.” But yes, they don’t know enough for this to be a good idea. Not that it’s stopped them from suggesting it.
My point is, the evidence for the Big Bang is literally orders of magnitude better than evidence for virtually any “Climate Science” proposition you’d care to name. Not that there is proof.
Sorry Andrew. I agree with you.
“the evidence for the Big Bang is literally orders of magnitude better than evidence for virtually any “Climate Science” proposition you’d care to name. ”
Yet you claim in your earlier post that it is established with similar certainty to accounting identities and physical laws that ceteris paribus, adding CO2 to the atmosphere must cause the temperature to rise. Since this proposition is pretty much central to climate science, I think your assertion is on very shaky ground.
Harold, do I need to get you a dictionary so you can look up the word “virtually”?
“Very nearly, almost entirely.” I still think you are on shaky ground.
You appear not to understand the standards for evidence in physics, either.
Climate change, whether man made or earth made, is simply part of the circle of life. One form of life force has to be extinguished for another to survive. The world of lions and zebras operates this way as does everything else. There’s nothing good or bad about any of this, it just is.
Does Z stand for Zen?
No, for zebra
Wrong! It is short for Zee
Nah, I bet it’s Zed. Probably a Canadian.
“Who’s Zed?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7Yp2L6c2KM
I thought it was Zombie recently… Zombie, Zen, nearly the same…sort of.
😉
You’re all wrong. It stands for ‘Zebra faced zombie’
Z:
“Climate change, whether man made or earth made, is simply part of the circle of life. One form of life force has to be extinguished for another to survive.”
So you’re saying that because you haven’t off’d yourself, you have extinguished the survival of other humans?
Life is not a zero sum game. Not when there is Reason.
That is correct. Another human could have cannibalized me and gained a lot of minerals. Selenium in particular, since I am a big consumer of garlic.
Z:
Oh haha, you were just kidding about every human living necessarily as an extinguisher of other human life.
We should talk about that more over a couple of beers in a nuclear holocaust.
The circle of Reason … it moves us all.
If you want to really know about the circle of life and how it moves us all, watch my buddy Russ’ video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE8kENlqOPU
Warning: Graphic content
LOL @ 01:55
😀
Your game is fun.
My turn:
Honest Trailers – The Lion King (feat. AVbyte)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFtBjc1dz7w
Haha it’s snowing Al Gore, you idiot!
You are history’s greatest monster.
He’s Joel Schumacher?
I had a lecture with Richard Tol (Uni of Sussex) on this subject just a week ago. Coincidence to see his name dropped here.
Interestingly this is eerily reminiscent of how the Leninists and Stalinists dealt with scientists who did not incorporate Marxist dialectics into their research.
Environmentalists are populated by a large number of watermelons.