RSS

February 20, 2011

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (328)

This is a superb paper, that I highly recommend.

A great companion piece comes from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Their 2009 synthesis report, Climate Change Reconsidered, is peer reviewed with full citations, and may be found at:

http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html" target="_blank" class="external" title=" http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html">http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html

or if that doesn't work (sometimes they re-organize their site), try http://www.nipccreport.org/ and search for the 2009 report.

There have been allegations that the NIPCC was funded in part by industry; as far as I can see, they are not. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if, somewhere along the money trail, one finds some modest amount of corporate funds. However, I do not see any evidence that the NIPCC is unduly influenced by these funds. In my experience, good science is good no matter who funds it, and bad science is bad even if it is funded by the purest NGO. Is the UN IPCC discredited because it is funded in part by the 'ethically challenged' UN, with contributions from felons such as Enron or polluters such as BP? Not necessarily; you have to evaluate the science and decide for yourself.

I've also commented here on A-C a lot about the science and politics of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), Climate Change, or Climate Chaos, Global Weirding (or whatever it's called this year!) You can locate my comments using the 'climate_realism' tag:

http://www.atlantic-community.org/index/tag/climate_realism

For those inclined more towards politics, try the tag 'climate industrial complex'.

Disappointingly, there has been very little discussion of the vitally important ClimateGate scandal, or at least, very little use of that tag so far. The tag 'Climate Research Unit' has seen a bit more activity.

February 24, 2011

Oliver Hauss, -, Platinum Contributor (348)

Unfortunately, there is nothing superb, or even new about the paper. This was to be expected, given that the author choses to analyse views of individuals and then tries to condense scientific fact from it. Where he actually trained in scientific method, which he evidently is not from his vita, he would know that this plain and simply doesn't work. Just because an individual has a concern doesn't mean that the concern is valid. And trying to establish what concerns have to be addressed by people holding a certain opinion without getting your hands dirty on some solid literature research - and that means scientific literature, not mainstream press - is just handwaving.

What this piece is is just what the author criticised: politicization of a scientific topic, Unfortunately, it is utterly devoid of science.

As for the previous poster, the quote
"In my experience, good science is good no matter who funds it, and bad science is bad even if it is funded by the purest NGO."

speaks volumes. "In my experience" translates to "I want it to be the case". Personal experience is an anecdote, and someone considering it as evidence patently invalidates his own judgments on the quality of science. Incidentally, there is plenty of literature - as in academic publications - on the influence of funding on the outcome.

February 24, 2011

George Hamer

Let's just ignore any aspersions cast over where funds come from. Taking money from an environmental or oil industry lobby group does not IN ITSELF constitute evidence of bias.

The article linked to by Jean Pierre Schaeken Willemaers is not, as it claims, a sober and balanced picture of the state of climate science as it currently stands on anthropogenic climate change.

I know very little about either point of view and actually have no preconceptions (unusual in this field, it seems). But it is abundantly clear that the author has selectively quoted literature and evidence to support the view that all climate change is a natural phenomenon, and has not given the same consideration to the counter-evidence or arguments. It actually made me LESS likely to agree that recent climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon, because the evidence he quoted to support this view seemed remarkably thin on the ground, given his claim that there are 30,000 'academics' who agree with this view (I wonder how many of these were climatologists, or even really academics). The rather clumsy spelling, grammar and formatting did not do anything to boost my confidence.

So: if you want a balanced view, don't read NGOs' op-eds (whether 'eco-alarmist' or 'climate change denialist'), and especially not this one.

February 24, 2011

Andrew Holland

I'm glad to see that the comments thread here on Atlantic Community has not been taken over by the climate deniers as has happened in many other places. Cheers to George and Oliver for their comments, which are right on target.

The truth is that the earth is warming- undeniably. We're pretty sure that we're doing it. We don't kow how much it is going to keep warming, but we what we do know should worry us.

That puts climate change as a clear and present "threat". Does that mean it will cause mass disruption? No- but it might. Just because we don't have certainty does not mean that we should not act. I would direct everyone to the recently released report from E3G about risk management planning for climate change. Find it here: http://www.e3g.org/programmes/climate-articles/degrees-of-risk-defi...

We should not allow uncertainty to preclude action. In fact, uncertainty should be the central reason for action.

Also- the canards that Mr. Schaeken Willemaers puts in there about Polls and public opinion are immaterial. The public is reactionary- but it is government's job to be proactive. A government that does not take rational, foresighted action on preventing the dangerous effects of climate change will be held to account by it's citizens in the future.

February 25, 2011

Andrew Robert Holland, International Institute for Strategic Studies, (1)

Just to further follow- up on what I wrote before about polls. Here's some new numbers I found via Keith Kloor's blog at http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2011/02/24/a-climate-claim-in-tatters/

I'll quote directly:

But what about the public at large? Here’s what Jon Krosnic wrote last year about his Stanford Study:

First, we found no decline in Americans’ trust in environmental scientists: 71 percent of respondents said they trust these scientists a moderate amount, a lot or completely, a figure that was 68 percent in 2008 and 70 percent in 2009. Only 9 percent said they knew about the East Anglia e-mail messages and believed they indicated that climate scientists should not be trusted, and only 13 percent of respondents said so about the I.P.C.C. reports’ alleged flaws.

And in the UK, where Climategate got wide and frequent play, here’s the findings from a recent Guardian poll:

Asked if climate change was a current or imminent threat, 83% of Britons agreed, with just 14% saying global warming poses no threat. Compared with August 2009, when the same question was asked, opinion remained steady despite a series of events in the intervening 18 months that might have made people less certain about the perils of climate change.

Last June, a similar poll in the U.S. also found that

public belief that global warming is happening rose four points, to 61 percent, while belief that it is caused mostly by human activities rose three points, to 50 percent.

February 25, 2011

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (328)

@All:

The phrase climate deniers has been introduced to this discussion, so I'll make my position clear: the data show that the earth has warmed by about 0.7 deg C since the instrument record began (about 1850). Therefore, I am not a denier. I am a climate skeptic. I do not believe we can say with a sufficient amount of certainty (95% or 99% confidence interval) how much of this warming might be caused by human emissions. I believe that climate science is an important field that is still in its infancy.

The precautionary principle is not a scientific theory that can be supported or rejected based on evidence. It is an ethical principle governing the relationship between science and society. The precautionary principle is but one principle in an ethical system whose first principle is non-intervention in the face of uncertainty (first, do no harm). Anyone who believes in self-government must concede that non-scientists have the right to interpret and debate these ethical principles.

The simple fact of warming isn't a rationale for a global climate policy until we understand with high certainty critical questions such as attribution: how much of the warming is caused by human emissions. Even the precautionary principle should only be applied in situations of low uncertainty. For example, it would be irresponsible to mandate a worldwide vaccine program, unless the disease is well-understood and the vaccine is known with a high degree of uncertainty (ideally, higher than 99% confidence, at minimum, 95% confidence) to be both safe and effective.

Another example: If, given the state of our climate knowledge today, the precautionary principle justifies strict, global emissions limits, then surely, given the state of our knowledge about AIDS when it first appeared in the 80's, a strict global quarantine would have been justified while working to improve our knowledge of the disease. For the record: I do not think that would have been a good AIDS policy.

Until more certainty is achieved, an apolitical climate policy might be to continue to fund experiments to gather data in order to increase our understanding of the global climate. We would take a monitoring approach, similar to how we monitor the solar system for threatening asteroids but do not, at this time, invest major resources in a system of planetary asteroid defense.

Still: at this point in history, the political dimensions are impossible to ignore. Therefore, my policy also represents a political compromise between those who want to de-fund climate science completely, and those who want to massively fund a global prevention policy.

@George Hamer:

I agree with your point "Taking money from an environmental or oil industry lobby group does not IN ITSELF constitute evidence of bias."

I don't understand why you go on to state:

"...don't read NGOs' op-eds (whether 'eco-alarmist' or 'climate change denialist'), and especially not this one."

By this, do you mean that Mr. Schaeken Willemaers' op-ed shows that he is a climate change denialist? If so, can you please explain why you think this?

My reading of him does not reveal his explicit position on the science, but reading between the lines it seems likely he is a climate skeptic. I might even characterize his position as "climate agnostic" or "climate realist".

But perhaps I am missing something?

@Oliver Hauss:

You write about the author:

"Where he actually trained in scientific method..."

Granted, he defines himself as an industrialist, not a scientist. Still: Can you explain how anyone could have the degrees that he has, without being trained in the scientific method?

That method does not belong to any one profession. Engineers aren't always scientists, but they could not function without using the scientific method as a matter of routine. Bad engineering will kill people or lose money far more quickly than bad science, so engineers who don't understand and follow the scientific method are far more likely to be weeded out.

Also, "In my experience" translates to "I am trying to be polite and leave room for other opinions".

March 5, 2011

Oliver Hauss, -, Platinum Contributor (348)

@ John Hadjisky

Bad engineering isn't defined by using or not using scientific method. Scientific method is used to create new knowledge, engineering is more often than not the application of such knowledge. Grantedly, it helps to have some knowledge of scientific method so that you can judge the quality and reliability of such knowledge, but chiefly if you use primary sources. If you stick to secondary sources, there's little need to know anything about scientific method.

Heck there's plenty of MDs deeming themselves scientists who know precious little about scientific method, and even a lot of science doctors have a pretty shoddy working knowledge of proper scientific method - which is why there's plenty of studies out there which actually do have a low quality. There is a reason why more and more, the medical field moves towards so-called EBM - evidenced based medicine - It's simply a matter of quality assurance and strict enforcement of scientific method.

So no, there's no reason to expect someone with a master's degree in engineering to know scientific method.

March 7, 2011

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (328)

@Oliver Hauss:

The word to describe those who simply follow the instructions is mechanic or technician, not engineer. Engineering requires a mastery of the underlying scientific principles behind the instructions.

Perhaps you have heard the expression "measure twice, cut once". That is a rule that engineers live by. Why do we measure twice? It is the because of the scientific method, which holds that measurements must be both accurate and valid. One of the best ways to establish accuracy and validity is the test-retest method. You can't understand test-retest, without at least a basic understanding of the scientific method. Another example: when you have a sensor reading that is suspect, you have to use scientific deduction, process modelling, test-retest, and all the other tools in the scientific method to determine if that sensor is simply broken, or, if it is pointing to a more fundamental problem. A third example: engineers who design anything new (which happens in virtually every complex job) have to constantly test if their design is performing the way they expect it to...there are no instructions to follow because no-one has ever done it before. So, they use the scientific method. That is what I am talking about. Engineering is far more than just connecting the dots!

Besides, isn't climate science supposed to be settled science? If so, why does it require an advanced, highly specialized degree to evaluate the data? By the time science is settled, validating the results should be a simple matter of applying well-understood principles and formulae. Shouldn't anyone with a basic grounding in science be able to verify it for themselves? Even an engineer? :-)

It doesn't take an advanced degree to see that the global warming trend paused in c. 1995-present (thus invalidating entire categories of "settled" models which demanded that the trend accelerate) and that the long-term warming trend (c. 1850 - present) falls *below* the "settled" ensemble model predictions by much more than their "settled" margin of error.

As an aside, terraforming the planet earth is an engineering problem, not a science problem.

You seem to think that the scientific method belongs to just a few professions, and that using the scientific method without proper license is like practicing medicine without a license. You seem to forget that one of the best scientists of our age had no formal training or degree in science, wasn't even an engineer or a technician, was in fact a simple patent clerk (not even a lawyer; trained as a teacher but never got a job teaching) who taught himself science through diligent correspondence with some of the best minds of his time...and who bested them all, in the end. By your logic, E = mc^2 should be rejected due to lack of formal training in the scientific method!

If we lived in societies governed by philosopher-kings, it would be appropriate to follow the ivory tower scientists without question. But we believe in self-government, don't we? The scientific method belongs to anyone, regardless of credentials, who uses it properly.

January 17, 2012

Talha Bin Tariq, Government College University, Lahore, Pakistan, Gold Contributor (102)

American's Belief on this :
What Americans believe about climate change depends almost entirely on their political affiliation and not their scientific understanding, according to a new national study that found the same dynamic in two regions of Southeast Alaska.

Democrats who claim knowledge of the issue appear to be in firm agreement with the nation’s leading scientific organizations — that human activity and greenhouse gas emissions have become the main drivers behind an accelerating global climate shift.

But Republicans don't buy it. While most do agree that the climate has begun to change, they mostly blame the phenomenon on natural forces that lie beyond human control.

Falling between these two ends of the belief spectrum are independent voters and those who say they don't know much about climate change.

One of the most partisan divides found any where in the country appeared at the northern end of the Southeast Alaska panhandle. The percentage of Democrats blaming climate change on human activities was three times larger than the percentage of Republicans with the same belief -- 77 percent versus 25 percent, according to a survey of 1,021 people from Juneau, Sitka, Haines, Yakutat and nearby communities.


Regards,
Talha Bin Tariq