Is it reasonable to be a global warming skeptic?

[iggypkrebsbach]

Talk to folks like Judy Curry who got red-pilled after climate gate.

Talk to Bjorn Lomborg, who believes in AGW but thinks it might be better to help the wretchedly poor now get clean drinking water rather than try to avert disasters 50 years from now. Ask him what it was like having to endure the Danish Inquisition.

Talk to researchers whose careers were destroyed for questioning climate change dogma.

Talk to the children of the Oregon state climate officer whose academic careers were destroyed because their father didn’t tow the line.

 

[dvdjs]

There are two suspects, but some folks choose to ignore one and blame the other - that’s dunb at best and dishonest at worst.

Who are these “folks”?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It can hardly be irrelevant to note that 66% of scientists offered no opinion on AGW while at the same time suggesting that 97% of scientists believe the theory to be true.

Suppose one study offered an opinion that global warming was caused by improper grazing practices. Since (assume) no other paper expressed an opinion on the matter, according to you if the number of papers that don’t offer an opinion is irrelevant, the claim that 100% of climate scientists support that theory…

I already covered that case when I said that the sampling results are a valid representation of the population as a whole as long as the numbers were statistically large enough. One paper is not enough.

And based on his own sampling, 66% of scientists were silent on the question of AGW. Apparently in Cook’s world silence signifies assent.

I already answered this one too. The image that you are trying to invoke is that of Cook approaching a scientist and asking him directly “do you agree with AGW?” In that case I would agree with you. Silence would indicate real doubt if not outright disbelief. Why else would the science be “silent” when asked this direct question? But that is not the kind of “silence” we have here. We have papers that were written for whatever reason the scientists wrote them. These scientists were not specifically tasked with answering the question of AGW. All we know is that their paper had something to do with climate science. There are many sub specialties subjects in climate science that do not directly address the question of AGW. For example, the paper may have been about methods of calibrating satellite temperature readings to compensate for orbital decay. There is no reason in the world why such a paper would have any cause to offer an opinion on AGW. This absence of an opinion can only mean that the initial screening of papers (which was necessarily automated) was not precise enough. So throwing out those papers is exactly the same as having a more precise initial screening of abstracts, which is exactly the same as subset sampling. It applies to the whole population in the same manner that all proper sampling applies to the whole population.

Since those papers didn’t address the subject, nothing can be said about their position on AGW, and that includes suggesting they believe in it.

Nothing other than what the normal science of statistical sampling says.

Cook’s paper may have said “97% of scientists who expressed an opinion” but it has been marketed as “97% of scientists.” Even the former claim is unjustifiable; the latter one is laughable.

This is no different than asking 0.01% of the population about Pepsi vs. Coke and the “marketing” that survey as applying to the whole population. “53% of people prefer Pepsi!” Do you find that claim (with appropriate adjustment in my made-up numbers) equally laughable?

 

[Theo520]

This is no different than asking 0.01% of the population about Pepsi vs. Coke and the “marketing” that survey as applying to the whole population. “53% of people prefer Pepsi!” Do you find that claim (with appropriate adjustment in my made-up numbers) equally laughable?

It’s more like they sampled people on what they were drinking and found
~95% were drinking water, tea, coffee, juice
~ 3% said they were drinking pop
~ 2% said whether they were drinking Pepsi or Coke. 53% of this group picked Pepsi
.
Doing your marketing saying 53% of all Americans prefer Pepsi

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

This is no different than asking 0.01% of the population about Pepsi vs. Coke and the “marketing” that survey as applying to the whole population. “53% of people prefer Pepsi!” Do you find that claim (with appropriate adjustment in my made-up numbers) equally laughable?

It’s more like they sampled people on what they were drinking and found
~95% were drinking water, tea, coffee, juice
~ 3% said they were drinking pop
~ 2% said whether they were drinking Pepsi or Coke. 53% of this group picked Pepsi
.
Doing your marketing saying 53% of all Americans prefer Pepsi

OK, how that tie to the Cook paper?

 

[SuperLuigi]

People aren’t making minorities do anything.

 

[vz71]

So Trump was only elected President in specific locations and not nationally?

Makes about as much sense.

OK.
You win.
It is not really a global climate change, it is really a representative democracy.

If you intend on using the word global, you better mean global.
Otherwise people will stop taking you seriously.

 

[vz71]

OK, how that tie to the Cook paper?

Following the analogy, Cook is the one claiming ‘New Coke’ is a good idea.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If you intend on using the word global, you better mean global.
Otherwise people will stop taking you seriously.

Of course global warming means global. But when someone objects to global warming by saying “I don’t see it where I live,” it seems they don’t really mean global - they mean local. So maybe they should not be taken seriously in the first place. I didn’t see you challenge them when they said that.

 

[vz71]

But when someone objects to global warming by saying “I don’t see it where I live,” it seems they don’t really mean global - they mean local. So maybe they should not be taken seriously in the first place. I didn’t see you challenge them when they said that.

Were it just one person, I would agree.
It is a lot of people. It is a lot of different places.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

The earth has a history of natural cycles of heating and cooling. If it is heating now, one cannot rightly claim that it is due to pollution, because it could be due to natural heating cycle. There are two suspects, but some folks choose to ignore one and blame the other - that’s dunb at best and dishonest at worst.

Hi Glark,

There are actually multiple suspects. Yet the IPCC, true its founding charter, was programmed from the get-go to convict CO2. So the other suspects have been systematically ignored or dismissed on inadequate evidence.

One has to first approach the subject of CO2’s possible guilt skeptically. On the face of it, it is implausible that CO2 is the climate “control knob”, as scientists such as Richard Alley describe it. CO2 is a trace gas comprising 4% of 1% of the earth’s atmosphere. Granted, it has greenhouse properties, but its warming ability is third-rate compared to water vapor, the dominant greenhouse gas.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

And one’s natural skepticism increases if we examine all the things we have to have proved before we can conclude the human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming.

First, the earth is warming and this warming is unusual both in terms of magnitude and rate.
Second, rising CO2 is the primary cause of this unusual warming.
Third, human CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are the primary cause of rising CO2.
Fourth, the warming caused by our CO2 emissions will be dangerous.

I can assure you none of the above have been proved by even a preponderance of the evidence. Not even close. And here is the kicker: All have to be proved by some reasonable standard of proof before it is rational for any government to adopt any of the measures proposed by the global warming movement. In addition, even if all the elements have been proved, any specific mitigating measures should only be adopted after a rational public policy and cost-benefit analysis which has its own proof elements.

The complexity of the problem is obscured by the propagandists such as Cook.

 

[Aloysium]

The issue is climate change, not global warming.

I don’t think anyone who is in close contact with nature can deny the negative impact of our negligence.

From the comments here, it’s as if the issue were purely political.
Some people see the world as us and them, them in this case being the Pope and scientific research.
Given that the latter two seek the truth, where does this put the OP, and those who share his/her belief.

And, the key world is belief, an idea held by the person, which can sometimes be merely a wish.
The belief is that we are not in the process of making this planet uninhabitable by future generations.

Revealed truth tells us we are meant to tend to this garden. I guess believing that everything is great and that we are not making a mess of this gets you off the hook for not doing anything about it. Rather than fixing what is already wrong with how we are managing things individually and collectively, by ignoring it, you become part of the problem friends. And, this is likely to leave you out of the solution.

I know people who were in the fur industry; anyone see fur coats any more? Cars are turning electric and coal better find a way to become clean, or it will be on the way out, taking those jobs with it. It’s always better to be aware of what’s going on. Any political battles won, will be short-lived against the rising tide of change. So, no it’s not reasonable to be a “global warming skeptic” because it puts you out of touch and unable to act effectively.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

But when someone objects to global warming by saying “I don’t see it where I live,” it seems they don’t really mean global - they mean local. So maybe they should not be taken seriously in the first place. I didn’t see you challenge them when they said that.

Were it just one person, I would agree.
It is a lot of people. It is a lot of different places.

The trouble with using individual casual observations to draw scientific conclusions is that the method is just not scientific. There is no attempt at uniform coverage of the globe. There is no guarantee of precision. (A person’s subjective impression of the climate trend is not as precise as instrumental measurements.) There is more noise in the signal, and the signal is biased by who you happen to be hearing from.

 

[Theo520]

So you are saying the greenies are like the BORG, they are inevitable and will assimilate you?

They way you lump everything together into an equally weighted common argument is frankly lacking in substance. Real pollution is not the same as fake pollution. We’ve been very good at dealing with real pollution since the 70’s. CO2 is not real pollution.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And one’s natural skepticism increases if we examine all the things we have to have proved before we can conclude the human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming.

First, the earth is warming and this warming is unusual both in terms of magnitude and rate.

This is too simplistic a statement of the claim. The claim is that the warming is unusual in rate but not in magnitude. Even more striking is the CO2 concentration rate, which is unusual. The magnitude of the CO2 is not unusual when looking back throughout all the history of the planet. We had higher CO2 levels before man showed up. But it is unusual over the the last 100,000 years.

Second, rising CO2 is the primary cause of this unusual warming.

It is not proven, but the evidence strongly suggests this based on laboratory evidence of how CO2 reacts with infrared radiation.

Third, human CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are the primary cause of rising CO2.

This has been proven beyond a doubt by carbon isotope analysis.

Fourth, the warming caused by our CO2 emissions will be dangerous.

The only way to prove this is to wait until it is dangerous enough that almost everyone is suffering. But from past evidence of other imbalances that have occurred in nature, it is not a very far out assumption that it will not be good.

The complexity of the problem is obscured by the propagandists such as Cook.

Cook addressed one small aspect of the issue. He did not imply that it is the only issue. So he is not obscuring anything.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

The issue is climate change, not global warming.

Hi Aloysium,

Nope. The core of hypothesis is that human CO2 emissions are causing the atmosphere to warm. Secondarily, this warming will cause the climate to change in dangerous ways.

 

[Aloysium]

We are failing in our obligation to God in tending to this garden, and in more ways than one. Doing so in the service of greed, pleasure, honour and power.

 

[Aloysium]

I go by this definition:

“Climate change refers to a broad range of global phenomena created predominantly by burning fossil fuels, which add heat-trapping gases to Earth’s atmosphere. These phenomena include the increased temperature trends described by global warming, but also encompass changes such as sea level rise; ice mass loss in Greenland, Antarctica, the Arctic and mountain glaciers worldwide; shifts in flower/plant blooming; and extreme weather events.”

 

[Ender]

I don’t think anyone who is in close contact with nature can deny the negative impact of our negligence.

This is not the debate. The issue for this thread is global warming, not our generic impact on nature whatever that may happen to be.

Revealed truth tells us we are meant to tend to this garden. I guess believing that everything is great and that we are not making a mess of this gets you off the hook for not doing anything about it.

Again, “tending this garden” has nothing specifically to do with the topic of global warming. Global warming is one aspect of “tending”, but you cannot reasonably speak of the two issues as if they were the same.