Climate Change: Fact, Fiction, Something in Between?

[Spartan_Warrior]

So I just started a thread asking about everyone's carbon footprint, but I forgot I was posting somewhere that might find climate change controversial. So in a pre-emptive attempt to keep my original thread on topic, I'm starting this thread for the purpose of discussing whether the global science community is correct that human action is influencing climate change, that there is a positive feedback loop between C02 and temperature, etc.

What do ERErs think? Any recommended reading or resources?

[jacob]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empiric ... effect.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empiric ... ediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empiric ... vanced.htm

[JohnnyH]

I'm somewhat agnostic on the issue... Separating agenda from evidence is more hassle than it's worth to me. I suppose I feel this way because I share Tom Clancy's view on government; 'What the government is good at is collecting taxes, taking away your freedoms and killing people. It's not good at much else.' Even if everyone was on board various govt bodies would still badly bumble it.

I'm content to put my feet up and watch. With the exception of a global carbon tax structure/exchange. I'll fight that unholy banker/govt/big business abomination until the end.

[slimicy]

Greenhouse gasses are bad. I fully admit that. But the entire system is too complex to model with any certainty. Anyone crying about the end of the world is falling victim to funding induced hype, and has a good chance of getting stuck in the ice near the antarctic while trying to prove there's no ice in the antarctic. Anyone saying greenhouse gasses have no effect on climate are ignoring some basic scientific facts. The answer is somewhere in the middle, and we simply don't know enough about all the other factors (sun spots/flares/cooling, ocean warming, historical cycles) to know the whole story.

[Tyler9000]

http://www.climatedepot.com/

[jacob]

http://skepticalscience.com/settled-science-basic.htm

[jacob]

Oh well, might as well published the whole list then.

http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

[jennypenny]

I have two (sincere) questions...

1. Similar to slimicy's point, is the system too big to model accurately at this point?

2. Are we trying to extrapolate too much from too small a sample of data?

[jacob]

No and no.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... ediate.htm

[jennypenny]

Ok, using that example of the sea ice melting faster than predicted...what if there are other reasons the sea ice is melting that haven't been considered or discovered? What if some predictions are right but for the wrong reasons? (like the expression in trading that people confuse brilliance with a bull market) The amount of time measured (<200 years) seems small to me.

[jennypenny]

Oh well, might as well published the whole list then.

http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

So, I poked around that site. The problem isn't the science, it's the argument.

Terms found on the site:
Climate Myth
Guide to Skepticism
Climate Misinformers
The Debunking Handbook
Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand

Maybe they'd convince more people if they didn't use language that implied that anyone who doesn't buy into the entire argument is an idiot?

[jacob]

First, it's science using hypothesis, verification, and validation; not a "debate" using rhetoric and arguments. The end-result is to find the truth, not to win. The techniques employed in either are almost mutually exclusive. This is why websites like that come in handy when skeptics want to "debate" the science. Then the science side don't have to waste time debating what is already known but can simple point towards the site. Now, debating the unknowns, is what science is all about. However, the same points come up over and over in the "climate debate" which is why they've been cataloged. In the name of efficiency.

Ok, using that example of the sea ice melting faster than predicted...what if there are other reasons the sea ice is melting that haven't been considered or discovered? What if some predictions are right but for the wrong reasons? (like the expression in trading that people confuse brilliance with a bull market) The amount of time measured (<200 years) seems small to me.

There's a bunch of points to be made here.

The difference between accuracy and precision. Accuracy is a measure for how close your answer is to the true answer. Precision is the uncertainty with which you give your answer. Ice models are hard (accounting for fissures, underground tunnels, cracks, ...) so precision is not very good, however, they are accurate in the sense that they point in the correct direction.

(Investing/trading is a bad/dangerous analogy since market participants care far more about precision than accuracy.)

It is true that a theory can be right for the wrong reasons. The Ptolemaic system comes to mind. However, scientific progress is always convergent(*) on two counts. First it gets more and more accurate. Second, due to Occam's razor, the simpler explanation is preferred. So the simpler version is used.

(*) Most likely you'll see improved ice models in the next generation of climate models. Keep in mind that ice melting can be independently tested and form it's own theory (<- I'm using the scientific definition of the word). It is this theory, then, that's inserted into the climate theory.

In that regard, if the skeptics---which I think for most people is a far too generous a term when denier is more accurate---actually did some science and came up with a model that explained the temperature variations to the same precision _without_ needing the anthropogenic CO2 contribution, that would certainly create a very strong case against in their favor.

Where did the 200 years come from? The graphs? There is data (tree rings, ice cores) and models going far further back than that.

[Tyler9000]

Unwinnable science debates aside, my issue with the modern debate about climate science is twofold:

1) The issue is so political (with literally trillions of dollars on the line) that honestly the science has become irrelevant. If someone discovered a free technology tomorrow that made all fossil fuels carbon neutral, mainstream global warming proponents outside of the science sphere would not be satisfied. Climate change has become synonymous with social change, and the core ideology is truly not about data. Us engineers arguing data sources are missing the broader issue here.

2) Even stipulating that climate models are 100% accurate and that anthropogenic carbon is warming the planet at an unusual rate, I still have seen no convincing evidence that a warmer planet is a bad thing. The earth has been much hotter in its past than it is now. Is fighting climate change truly the most pressing issue deserving all of our best resources today? I'd personally rather spend money fighting famine and poverty for people struggling today than redistribute world GDP to fight a cause where the effectiveness of our "solution" cannot even in the best case be measured in our lifetimes. It's a matter of priority. I recommend people read the Skeptical Environmemtalist by Bjorn Lomborg for more on this.

EDIT: Link added
http://www.amazon.com/The-Skeptical-Env ... 0521010683

[jennypenny]

First, it's science using hypothesis, verification, and validation; not a "debate" using rhetoric and arguments. The end-result is to find the truth, not to win. The techniques employed in either are almost mutually exclusive. This is why websites like that come in handy when skeptics want to "debate" the science. Then the science side doesn't have to waste time debating what is already known but can simple point towards the site.

Yes, I understand it’s science. But you realize who the general audience is, right? If you stopped 100 people on the street and asked them what CO2 was, how many would answer correctly? You can’t just point to a chart and say “There!” They won’t get it. You have to draw them in and explain enough of the science for them to understand without making them feel inferior or stupid.

In that regard, if the skeptics---which I think for most people is a far too generous a term when denier is more accurate…

To be fair, I think most people don’t understand the science. Can they really be called a denier if they don’t understand? That’s why the harsh language bothers me. It’s elitist and derogatory. My in-laws went to high school 60 years ago and never went to college. Do you really think they’ll understand the issue by looking at some charts? Is that even their fault? They need it explained to them in a way that doesn’t make them feel foolish for not understanding.

Ice models are hard (accounting for fissures, underground tunnels, cracks, ...) so precision is not very good, however, they are accurate in the sense that they point in the correct direction.

But that’s what’s always used to confirm the hypothesis. See my point? Again, it’s the argument (not debate, argument). Look, I’m not debating the science. I’m just trying to point out that the science community should make their case in a way that the general population can understand without just pronouncing that their research is correct. Do you know when I was in grade school I was taught that the dinosaurs died out because they were too large and cold-blooded? I’m sure my parents were taught something else. We have those 'scientific' debates here (carbs are good, carbs are bad). That’s the backdrop the science community needs to keep in mind in all of this. The most common phrase the general public hears on the news in science-related stories is "The latest scientific reseach..." implying that new research in the future might contradict current research. Who wouldn't be skeptical?

Where did the 200 years come from? The graphs? There is data (tree rings, ice cores) and models going far further back than that.

I know we have data on the planet that far back. I’m interested in data since we’ve generated enough pollution to have a measurable effect. Does that make sense?

[jacob]

Just to get the last question straight? You want to wait another 200 years to get more pollution data?

As for the rest, I say this is not a scientific era. Most are scientifically illiterate. Unless, this is corrected by a change in educational policy (which I doubt because a critically thinking populace is not desirable for the powers that be), I say the public is best ignored when it comes to technical matters. I'm quite elitist in that regard thinking that people know actually know better are able to make better decisions. This is not an issue of deciding about preferences but rather about acknowledging reality. Science is not a democracy.

In particular, I'm not sure that countering the fossil fuel propaganda with more propaganda is the way to go. That just lends credence to the "fair and balanced" fallacy.

[jennypenny]

Well, then we'll agree to disagree. The tradition in the US has always been to go before the public on the big issues, explain your position, and make a case for action. To me, it's a sign of respect for the public at large. It's also how things get funded since Congress holds the purse strings and they are elected every two years. If the issue is important enough to ask people to change how they live their lives, then it's important enough to take the time to make a case directly. (relying on the media to do it for you is lazy IMHO)

[jennypenny]

LOL...no, I don't need another 200 years of data. Sorry, I'm not explaining myself well. Long day. Forget it.

[jacob]

@jennypenny - The problem in the US is that business interests and science which is close cousin to the technology which people worship (moreso than on the rest of the planet) are in disagreement. Hence, it would be impossible to present a case of "it's been scientifically proven that if we continue along this path, things are going to miserable if not catastrophic; now could you please democratically decide whether to give up your cherished values for the sake of future generations or preserve your way of life for another 30-50 years and then pay a much bigger price."

That would be the objective/rational way to go about it. However, human nature dictates that THAT is never gonna happen, especially not when political "choices" are given by the entrenched powers that be.

Therefore, the only viable _political option_ is then to try and discredit the science rather than own up to the fact that technology (and science) is in conflict with the economic and cultural growth paradigm.

And so that's what's happening...

PS: I view this [climate change] "debate" as being very similar to evolution vs creationism, which is another and analogue example of technology disagreeing with cherished beliefs. Except, climate change is serious since it affects all of us whereas it's up to the individual creationist to somehow double-think their way through through the use/acceptance of modern medicine. The first amendment separates state and religion. Maybe we need an amendment separating science and culture?

[jacob]

On the meta level, the problem is that science (and its representatives) is now discrediting the growth paradigm (business, especially the fossil fuel business, and US culture) as unsustainable (a euphemism for deadly for a large number of people).

This, using a scientific argument.

In turn, the representatives of the growth paradigm are trying to discredit science.

This, using a debate argument.

The public, being largely clueless, don't know what do think of this. But being clueless, guess who comes out on top? Arguments based on scientific reasoning or arguments based on psychology and marketing research?

This is why I have given up on humanity...

[Chad]

I can't even believe we have to discuss this.