Is it reasonable to be a global warming skeptic?

[LeafByNiggle]

I imagine a good portion of them learned from the examples of the few brave heretics who got squashed by the establishment for speaking out. Sometimes it is more about avoiding the stick rather than pursuing the carrot.

You are highlighting an ineffective stick. In my “fame” posting I gave an example of a real stick that is of much more concern to scientists. That is the risk of being exposed as a scientific fraud. The example I gave was the team that initially announced they had observed cold fusion, only to find out that their instrumentation was actually responding to some electrical noise from a nearby elevator. No amount of “squashing” by establishment people compares with the disgrace of being remembered for that big boo-boo.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

Your argument is circular.

Hi LBN,

Based on reasons X,Y, and Z, I conclude that climate science is corrupt.

You argue that it isn’t possible that climate science is corrupt because scientists’ inherent qualities, including the desire for fame, would expose faulty research, fraud, etc., and thus prevent the field from becoming corrupt. Basically you are saying that science isn’t corruptible.

And you say my argument is circular?

Your fame argument is testable. It can be refuted by pointing out specific instances where bad science, misconduct, etc. have occurred, which has been done. What you say is impossible has obviously happened.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

Rather than proposing the irrebuttable presumption that science is incorruptible, the proper way to argue this is to say X, Y, and Z do not–for whatever reasons–support the inference that establishment climate science is corrupt.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Your argument is circular.

Hi LBN,

Based on reasons X,Y, and Z, I conclude that climate science is corrupt.

But the premises that you use in your proof are not premises that are themselves proven. You are using one unproven claim to back up another unproven claim.

You argue that it isn’t possible that climate science is corrupt because scientists’ inherent qualities, including the desire for fame, would expose faulty research, fraud, etc., and thus prevent the field from becoming corrupt. Basically you are saying that science isn’t corruptible.

Do you dispute the claim that scientists throughout history have been driven by fame? Certainly there have been isolated incidents of fraud, but there has never been an instance where the majority of scientists in an entire field rejected the chance for fame and cooperated in a corruption. It takes more than citing one or two instances of questionable science to establish that fantastic scenario.

Your fame argument is testable. It can be refuted by pointing out specific instances where bad science, misconduct, etc. have occurred, which has been done.

Remember, my fame argument is statistical. It cannot be refuted by pointing out specific instances. It can only be refuted by a statistic. To make the this clearer, if you made the claim that in most bird species, the male is more colorful than the female, I could cite the Brown-winged Kingfisher and the White-bellied Sea Eagle where the males and females are equally colorful, and your claim would still stand because it said “most species.” Similarly, I have claimed that most scientists are strongly motivated by fame and reputation. You have cited several instances where you think this rule is broken. Without getting into a discussion of whether those instances are indeed true, the claim still stands unrefuted that most scientists are motivated by fame and reputation. So the most you can support is the position that there are a few bad eggs. But you have done nothing to support the broad claim that a controlling majority of climate scientists are all corrupt.

Rather than proposing the irrebuttable presumption that science is incorruptible…

That was not my proposition. My proposition was that the vast majority of scientists are not easily corruptible.

 

[Theo520]

That was not my proposition. My proposition was that the vast majority of scientists are not easily corruptible.

But are they being corrupted if they focus on alarmist papers that will get funding, put food on the table?

If you are a Forestry expert or Zoologist, you won’t get funded to study what happens if the climate doesn’t change.
So instead you study the worst case scenario of RCP 8.5 with rapid warming, per the model projections. That proposal gets funded, and makes for juicy “what if” reading. These papers add to the hysteria but have zero bearing on likelihood of the warming actually happening.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

That was not my proposition. My proposition was that the vast majority of scientists are not easily corruptible.

But are they being corrupted if they focus on alarmist papers that will get funding, put food on the table?

If you are a Forestry expert or Zoologist, you won’t get funded to study what happens if the climate doesn’t change.
So instead you study the worst case scenario of RCP 8.5 with rapid warming, per the model projections. That proposal gets funded, and makes for juicy “what if” reading. These papers add to the hysteria but have zero bearing on likelihood of the warming actually happening.

Now that is a slightly different claim than iggy was making. Here you are proposing that scientists can choose which area to study based on what can get funding. And that might be true. But it does not explain why a majority of scientists would produce fraudulent results upon doing that research. Doing so might help them in the very short run to put bread on the table. But I doubt if many of these scientists are that hard up for cash. And producing fraudulent results does nothing good for their reputation. If they know the results are fraudulent, they know the fraud will be discovered. And then their funding will dry up. So it is not a good long-term career strategy. So it does not seem to be very likely that a lot of them would risk it.

 

[Theo520]

Now that is a slightly different claim than iggy was making. Here you are proposing that scientists can choose which area to study based on what can get funding. And that might be true. But it does not explain why a majority of scientists would produce fraudulent results upon doing that research. Doing so might help them in the very short run to put bread on the table. But I doubt if many of these scientists are that hard up for cash. And producing fraudulent results does nothing good for their reputation. If they know the results are fraudulent, they know the fraud will be discovered. And then their funding will dry up. So it is not a good long-term career strategy. So it does not seem to be very likely that a lot of them would risk it.

I don’t think the majority of scientists are producing fraudulent results. It’s only a few scientists who initiate adjusting the temperature record, everyone else just takes it as an (name removed by moderator)ut into what they do. I think among this group there is evidence of collusion to hide contradictory evidence and tell a story, rather than just follow the science.

The Zoologist may in turn produce an alarmist report, but it’s not fraudulent since they state their assumptions and (name removed by moderator)uts.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Now that is a slightly different claim than iggy was making. Here you are proposing that scientists can choose which area to study based on what can get funding. And that might be true. But it does not explain why a majority of scientists would produce fraudulent results upon doing that research. Doing so might help them in the very short run to put bread on the table. But I doubt if many of these scientists are that hard up for cash. And producing fraudulent results does nothing good for their reputation. If they know the results are fraudulent, they know the fraud will be discovered. And then their funding will dry up. So it is not a good long-term career strategy. So it does not seem to be very likely that a lot of them would risk it.

I don’t think the majority of scientists are producing fraudulent results. It’s only a few scientists who initiate adjusting the temperature record, everyone else just takes it as an (name removed by moderator)ut into what they do.

But that’s not how scientists behave. They don’t just take the word of the researchers who “adjusted” the temperature record. They question that too. They see the same news you do. They know about the claims. You still need to hypothesize a large number of scientist being either very incompetent or outright fraudulent.

I think among this group there is evidence of collusion to hide contradictory evidence and tell a story, rather than just follow the science.

The number of scientists needed to collude effectively is greater than the number of scientists one can easily believe are incompetent or corrupt.

 

[Theo520]

But that’s not how scientists behave. They don’t just take the word of the researchers who “adjusted” the temperature record. They question that too. They see the same news you do. They know about the claims. You still need to hypothesize a large number of scientist being either very incompetent or outright fraudulent.

They are called ‘skeptics’ and ‘deniers’. Perhaps you’ve heard of them? They are not very popular, people seem to rely upon ad hominem rather than engage on the science.

The number of scientists needed to collude effectively is greater than the number of scientists one can easily believe are incompetent or corrupt.

As I’ve noted, if you are not a climate modeler, you are taking their projections as an (name removed by moderator)ut scenario into your separate field of expertise.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The number of scientists needed to collude effectively is greater than the number of scientists one can easily believe are incompetent or corrupt.

As I’ve noted, if you are not a climate modeler, you are taking their projections as an (name removed by moderator)ut scenario into your separate field of expertise.

You really think the number of scientists qualified to understand surface temperature modelling is that small?

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

Hi LBN,

I said: Based on reasons X,Y, and Z, I conclude that climate science is corrupt.

But the premises that you use in your proof are not premises that are themselves proven. You are using one unproven claim to back up another unproven claim.

My X, Y, and Z were short-hand for all the reasons I’ve given so far (scandals, fraud, bias, bad science). Are you saying none of them have been proved?

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

Do you dispute the claim that scientists throughout history have been driven by fame? Certainly there have been isolated incidents of fraud, but there has never been an instance where the majority of scientists in an entire field rejected the chance for fame and cooperated in a corruption. It takes more than citing one or two instances of questionable science to establish that fantastic scenario.

Of course some scientists are motivated by fame. But history shows that fact is not sufficient to prevent pathological science from developing and becoming dominant. See Crichton’s essay here: Why Politicized Science is Dangerous - MichaelCrichton.com

Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.

This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.

I don’t mean global warming. I’m talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.

Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.

These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.

Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.

The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful — and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing — that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well know to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated…

Crichton goes on to cite another example: Lysenkoism.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

I would also add this observation. Someone can become famous for being a scientific revolutionary and bringing down the dominant paradigm. But one can also become famous for sounding the alarm about impending catastrophe. Jim Hansen comes to mind. His 1988 stage-crafted testimony before Congress brought him all kinds of fame, not to mention money and the opportunity to hang with blond bimbos like Daryl Hannah. Other scientists noticed, which contributed to overall bandwagon effect and no end of virtue signaling, “Me too”… And, of course, they all wanted in on the government funded gravy train.

 

[Theo520]

You really think the number of scientists qualified to understand surface temperature modelling is that small?

The response is obvious. Scientists who disagree are called ‘skeptics’ and ‘deniers’. Perhaps you’ve heard of them?

They are not very popular, even scientists like Mann and Hansen rely upon using the ‘denier’ ad hominem rather than engage on the science.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Hi LBN,

I said: Based on reasons X,Y, and Z, I conclude that climate science is corrupt.

LeafByNiggle:

But the premises that you use in your proof are not premises that are themselves proven. You are using one unproven claim to back up another unproven claim.

My X, Y, and Z were short-hand for all the reasons I’ve given so far (scandals, fraud, bias, bad science). Are you saying none of them have been proved?

That’s right. At least you haven’t proven them here.

 

[godisgood77]

No, it is not reasonable to remain a climate change skeptic at this point.

 

[Vonsalza]

The Holy Father doesn’t agree with us. People call us “deniers” or “denialists”, as if we deny something as accepted as the Holocaust or gravity. Some think we ought to be rounded up and prosecuted in Nuremburg-style trials. Some flat-out wish us dead. In my defense I offer this 12 part series starting here:

Am I unreasonable for doubting the received wisdom from the climate science establishment led by the IPCC and for wishing the Holy Father didn’t place his faith in them?

There’s nothing wrong with being skeptical about anything. With that said…

Not all climate scientists are “in cahoots” with radical “Global Warming” orgs nor are they all in cahoots with often-religious denier orgs.

But the general consensus is that it’s happening and mankind is driving most of it. The pics of the radical changes in glaciers during just my lifetime are pretty convincing. As a group, they are speeding up in their demise, one or two anecdotal cases aside.

So if you’re a global warming skeptic, I think you’re flatly wrong. But is it reasonable to be a skeptic? Sure!

(yes, yes. I know I’m getting in late)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Do you dispute the claim that scientists throughout history have been driven by fame? Certainly there have been…

Of course some scientists are motivated by fame. But history shows that fact is not sufficient to prevent pathological science from developing and becoming dominant. See Crichton’s essay here: Why Politicized Science is Dangerous - MichaelCrichton.com

Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.
…(snip stuff about eugenics)…

Eugenics is not a good example to prove your point. Eugenics is primarily a moral problem, not a scientific one. The fact is we can change the traits of humans by selective reproduction and selection of certain traits. Notice that I said “change” and not “improve” and that I said “certain traits” and not “desired traits.” Concepts of “improve” and “desired” are not scientific concepts. They are political, moral, and sociological concepts. The fact that many scientists signed on to this view says nothing about their work as scientists. They were acting like normal political beings. And in that sphere they are no different from anyone else. I don’t claim that scientists are morally superior to other people. I claim that their self-interest in their work causes them to avoid following a known corrupt scientific finding. This story about eugenics fails on two counts. First, as I described above, it is more about politics than science. In some sense you might say this is analogous to scientists who recommend specific actions to combat global warming. And to that I agree. When a scientists offers an opinion about what should be done, he is acting as a normal person. But when a climate scientist reports an objective result of what is happening or what will happen given certain conditions, he is acting like a scientist. Also, the eugenics example fails because it was never embraced as uniformly as the objective theory of global warming is. Also, even if eugenics was embraced uniformly and was considered science, it still is not an instance of the proponents knowingly promoting a fraud. They probably actually believed what they were promoting to be true. In this sense it is no different from many other theories, like geocentrism, that were once universal and are now supplanted by later theories. There was no conspiracy to hide the truth about the earth going around the sun by people who knew better. So the best you can do is claim massive incompetence by the scientific community. But you could only do that from the perspective of a time when better science was known and global warming was disproven. Are you a time traveler from the future come to enlighten us? If not, how do you come to be so sure of science that is misunderstood by the vast majority of scientists today?

 

[Theo520]

If climate scientists were acting like legitimate scientists, they wouldn’t use the media to profess their opponents are ‘deniers’ - public shaming

Instead of attempting public shaming, they would engage and identify where they agreed, and differed. Areas of legitimate difference would be targets of additional investigation and research.

Why is it only in the field of climate science that researchers engage is such extensive public shaming, as a matter of course?

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

Hi Godisgood77,

Why? My reasons are given in this 12 part series starting here:

You can also find brief summaries in this thread starting at 364 and running through 392