The thing(s) with climate change

[Theo520]

Ahh, the bogeyman argument again: “They’re bad people, just ignore them.” It is of course more difficult to ignore them when it turns out some of “them” are both climate scientists and believe in AGW. Still, I’m sure other excuses can be invented to ignore them as well. This seems to be the only defensive tactic left: ignore what cannot be disputed.

Ender

They’ve got this covered. Below is the official definition of a “Climate Denier”.
You can be labeled a ‘denier’ if they deem you’ve expressed any differences from Catastrophic Group Think position, regardless of the merits of your argument. So if you simply believe in an ECS at the low end of the IPCC range, you are still a denier.

Climate change denial, or global warming denial, involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, or about the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential for human actions to reduce these impacts.

 

[styrgwillidar]

They’ve got this covered. Below is the official definition of a “Climate Denier”.
You can be labeled a ‘denier’ if they deem you’ve expressed any differences from Catastrophic Group Think position, regardless of the merits of your argument. So if you simply believe in an ECS at the low end of the IPCC range, you are still a denier.

About that ‘scientific consensus’

forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warm

“Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.”

news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2010/02/01/meteorologists-reject-uns-global-warming-claims

“Only one in four American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agrees with United Nations’ claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming, a survey published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society reports.”

 

[Ender]

And I am still waiting for your demonstration that even 10% of the Church’s bishops agree with you on that broader claim.

Given that it is the rare bishop indeed who has done his own investigation of this topic, “their” opinions are generally nothing more than the opinions of their advisers. They carry neither the moral authority of their office nor the authority of science. They are personal opinions, moreover they are opinions they should be quite circumspect in expressing. I doubt, for example, that more than one or two could hold his own debating the topic even among the members of CAF.

This is not to disparage them. Inasmuch as their responsibilities have nothing to do with science I should in fact be disappointed to find that they had spent the time necessary to become proficient on the subject. They have their areas of expertise…it’s just that this is not one of them.

Ender

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Quoting the opinion of a magazine editor does not constitute a refutation of the Penn State exoneration. If you want to support that opinion here in this forum, you will have to do that from scratch, not from an appeal to a questionable authority.

I know that it benefits your job in the debate to reduce the question to the characters of a few people. But your initial claim was that the whole field was corrupt. To support that view you have to either show, one at a time, that the majority of researcher are similarly flawed in character, or else you have to show how these few people you have highlighted are somehow in as position of power to as to control all the other researchers in all the other countries and belonging to all the other independent scientific organizations that I listed earlier as supporting global warming theory. …

When yer right yer right. I will try harder.

And I am still waiting for your demonstration that even 10% of the Church’s bishops agree with you on that broader claim.

We both know that is not that is not possible. I am not about to undertake the cost of a survey. All I can offer are Archbishop Pell from Australia and Bishop David Kagan, the only bishops I’ve “polled.”

I am 100% confident that if I cross-examine the climate establishment in their presence they will find the same to be not trustworthy.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

They’ve got this covered. Below is the official definition of a “Climate Denier”.
You can be labeled a ‘denier’ if they deem you’ve expressed any differences from Catastrophic Group Think position, regardless of the merits of your argument. So if you simply believe in an ECS at the low end of the IPCC range, you are still a denier.

Theo and Ender:

There is a further category to contend with: Lynn’s "oily denialist, " which needs further formal definition. Lynn?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

“Only one in four American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agrees with United Nations’ claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming, a survey published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society reports.”

How about quoting what percent of the AMS broadcast meteorologists agree that there has been recent global warming? Then contrast that with the oft-quoted claim that there has been a “pause” in global warming for the past 18+ years? If you are going to hold up AMS members as authorities we should listen to, you can’t pick and choose which of their opinions to believe.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Given that it is the rare bishop indeed who has done his own investigation of this topic, “their” opinions are generally nothing more than the opinions of their advisers. They carry neither the moral authority of their office nor the authority of science. They are personal opinions, moreover they are opinions they should be quite circumspect in expressing. I doubt, for example, that more than one or two could hold his own debating the topic even among the members of CAF.

This is not to disparage them. Inasmuch as their responsibilities have nothing to do with science I should in fact be disappointed to find that they had spent the time necessary to become proficient on the subject. They have their areas of expertise…it’s just that this is not one of them.

Ender

Given that the question at hand is not primarily scientific, your criticism is off base. We are discussing the question of corruption - something a bishop ought to be particularly well-suited to judge. And I don’t reference them because of their authority in the Church. I reference them because they are the least likely to be tainted themselves by this supposed corruption. Any other authority in the climate science field who says the field is not corrupt is automatically suspect in the eyes of those who are convinced the whole field is corrupt. So to convince ferd and others that the field is not corrupt, I must look outside the field. Hence my choice of a standard of reasonableness.

 

[Ender]

Given that the question at hand is not primarily scientific, your criticism is off base. We are discussing the question of corruption - something a bishop ought to be particularly well-suited to judge.

The bishops are even less well suited to discuss the possible corruption of scientists than they are to discuss the science that may or may not have been corrupted. If fact, if they are familiar with Aquinas’ position on judging others, they would surely not offer any opinion at all.*three conditions are requisite for a judgment to be an act of justice: first, that it proceed from the inclination of justice; secondly, that it come from one who is in authority; thirdly, that it be pronounced according to the right ruling of prudence. If any one of these be lacking, the judgment will be faulty and unlawful. *(ST II-II 60,2)
Given that they manifestly have no authority to judge the activities of the scientists, we should under no circumstances expect to hear from any of them on the subject of who is or is not corrupt.

And I don’t reference them because of their authority in the Church. I reference them because they are the least likely to be tainted themselves by this supposed corruption. Any other authority in the climate science field who says the field is not corrupt is automatically suspect in the eyes of those who are convinced the whole field is corrupt. So to convince ferd and others that the field is not corrupt, I must look outside the field. Hence my choice of a standard of reasonableness.

Your standard is inadequate.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The bishops are even less well suited to discuss the possible corruption of scientists than they are to discuss the science that may or may not have been corrupted. If fact, if they are familiar with Aquinas’ position on judging others, they would surely not offer any opinion at all.three conditions are requisite for a judgment to be an act of justice: first, that it proceed from the inclination of justice; secondly, that it come from one who is in authority; thirdly, that it be pronounced according to the right ruling of prudence. If any one of these be lacking, the judgment will be faulty and unlawful. (ST II-II 60,2)
Given that they manifestly have no authority to judge the activities of the scientists, we should under no circumstances expect to hear from any of them on the subject of who is or is not corrupt.

If the bishops have no authority to offer opinions on the corruption of the climate science field, by what authority do you and ferd offer such opinions?

Your standard is inadequate.

At least it is objectively independent of my own particular biases, which is more than I can say for the standard of reasonableness apparently used by you and ferd.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Hi Leaf, Ender and all:

Back in post 79 I said this:

Let establish what kinds of evidence should convince a reasonable person that the climate science establishment is untrustworthy. I will then attempt to supply (and resupply) such evidence.

Leaf then responded in post 82:

Let’s see. The climate science establishment is untrustworthy, eh? I’ll make it real easy on you. Just present some evidence to that effect that is deemed reasonable by at least 10% of the Catholic bishops.

And in 84 I sed:

Ha! You are indeed being generous. Think about it. You have just invented a new legal construct: The 10% of Catholic Bishops standard!

I embraced Leaf’s standard, as I explained to Ridge in 90:

The original question was what kind of evidence should convince a reasonable person that the climate science establishment is untrustworthy. A “reasonable person,” of course, does not exist. It is a legal construct (fiction) employed in certain contexts.

Leaf’s 10% of US bishops standard, of course, is equally hypothetical (If, after presenting our evidence to all US bishops, would ten percent agree that the climate science establishment is untrustworthy?).

Bishops, being better educated than most folks, and being more acutely aware of their epistemic duty to test truth claims than most folks, I feel pretty confident I can pass Leaf’s test.

I would also add that research on climate change attitudes shows that they are quite correlated with political beliefs and values. Conservatives are more skeptical and than liberals. I am certain that at least 10% of bishops are conservative and would be predisposed to distrust the climate science establishment being exposed to my devastating impeachment of the same.

But note that I am still employing the 10% bishop standard hypothetically, just as the law does with the reasonable person standard. Leaf, it appears, wants me to conduct an actual poll.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I would also add that research on climate change attitudes shows that they are quite correlated with political beliefs and values. Conservatives are more skeptical and than liberals.

Well, they are more skeptical on this issue. On other issues liberals are more skeptical. But I take your point, since we are talking about this one issue now.

I am certain that at least 10% of bishops are conservative and would be predisposed to distrust the climate science establishment being exposed to my devastating impeachment of the same.

That would be an error in applying statistics. Let me explain. Given that more than 10% of conservatives are skeptical of global warming claims, can we assume that a particular subset of conservatives (namely the bishops) are skeptical at the same percentage? That would only be true if the bishops are a random sampling of all conservatives. Let’s take another percentage of conservatives. About 50% of conservatives are women. Would it be correct to conclude from this that 50% of conservative bishops are women?? Of course not. That is because the conservative bishops are not a random sampling of all conservatives. Similarly, conservative bishops tend to be better educated than the average conservative. There are other possible characteristics I could name that distinguish conservative bishops from conservatives in general. I don’t have to hypothesize which one of these characteristics might explain why bishops might not believe your mass corruption hypothesis while many general conservatives do believe it. Your conclusions from the statistic you mention is just flawed from the start and needs to explicit refutation.

Leaf, it appears, wants me to conduct an actual poll.

That would be one way of proving your point, but not the only way. You could draw inferences from public statements already on the record by bishops. It seems odd that something of such import that it is referenced in a papal encyclical would not inspire some comment from a few bishops. And I remind you that I am not talking about skepticism over the science in general. I am talking about the specific claim of widespread corruption in the field. Imagine for a moment that the pope had written an encyclical that relied in a positive way on views expressed by those involved in human sex trafficking. Can you imagine the bishops remaining silent and failing to point out the foolishness in trusting the word of sex traffickers? Yet that is the situation you would have me believe now, that the bishops are aware of widespread corruption in the climate sciences, and still have no comment on Pope Francis relying on the work of these people.

 

[Ender]

If the bishops have no authority to offer opinions on the corruption of the climate science field by what authority do you and ferd offer such opinions?

It is one thing for the man in the street to express an opinion about a public figure, but quite another for a person with a wider audience to make an accusation about corruption. At that point the laws relating to slander come into effect. If a bishop was to accuse (e.g.) Michael Mann of deliberate deceit he would find himself in court, right alongside Mark Steyn, who is in the middle of a four year court case defending his comments about Mann.

At least it is objectively independent of my own particular biases, which is more than I can say for the standard of reasonableness apparently used by you and ferd.

The standard may be objectively independent of your biases, but the selection of a standard that cannot be met surely is not.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is one thing for the man in the street to express an opinion about a public figure, but quite another for a person with a wider audience to make an accusation about corruption. At that point the laws relating to slander come into effect. If a bishop was to accuse (e.g.) Michael Mann of deliberate deceit he would find himself in court, right alongside Mark Steyn, who is in the middle of a four year court case defending his comments about Mann.

1. If bishops could be sued for speaking out against corruption, I am quite sure they would do it anyway - just like the apostles defied their government’s injunction against speaking about Jesus.
2. And if they did want to avoid charges of slander, they could still speak out against the field in general without mentioning any names. And that is the charge that you and ferd are making.

The standard may be objectively independent of your biases, but the selection of a standard that cannot be met surely is not.

In my previous post I mentioned a quite practical way of meeting that standard.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

But back to the task at hand: How to show—whether to a reasonable person or 10% of bishops—that the CSE is untrustworthy?

Chapter 1. This Has Happened Before

First, look at the history of science. This (false scientific knowledge becoming the norm) has happened before. See Michael Crichtons’s essay on the parallels between modern climate science and pseudo-sciences such as eugenics and Lysenkoism.
michaelcrichton.com/why-p…-is-dangerous/

Crichton says:

But as Alston Chase put it, “when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.”

That is the danger we now face. And this is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest.

The knowledge produced by the climate science establishment led by the IPCC cannot be trusted because the science has become so politicized. It is not disinterested and honest. That’s the charge.

The parallels with eugenics (borrowing heavily from Crichton’s essay):

1. We have a “grand new theory”: Human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming.
2. Once again the theory has drawn the support of politicians (Gore, Wirth, Waxman, Markey…), scientists (Hansen, Schneider, Holdren…), and celebrities (DiCaprio, Prince Charles…).
3. Once again the theory is being promoted by major foundations (Ford, Gates…)
4. Once again the research is carried out at prestigious universities (Penn St., UEA, Berkeley…)
5. Once again legislation is passed and social programs are urged in its name (Cap and trade, divestment from fossil fuels, ethanol mandates, wind and solar subsidies…)
6. Once again critics are few and harshly dealt with (Lomborg, Tennekes, Deming…)
7. Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science (We will take this up in earnest later. But for now consider that the EPA chief has admitted her clean power plant regs will have no effect but are the right thing to do anyway.)
8. Once again, groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded (population control, communism, world governance, environmentalism, crony capitalists…)
9. Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions. Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences. (Let’s shut down the coal industry to “save the planet.”)
10. Once again, vague terms like sustainability and generational justice—terms that have no agreed definition—are employed in the service of a new crisis.

So the parallels with eugenics are not superficial.

In addition, Crichton observes:

An open and frank discussion is being suppressed.
Leading journals are taking editorial positions on the side of GW.
Most outspoken critics are tenured or retired professors without anything to lose.

I urge you, good bishops and everyone else, to read this essay. The allegations are serious and ought to give you reason to question the conventional wisdom on global warming. It is entirely possible for an entire discipline to buy into a false theory.

 

[Ender]

1. If bishops could be sued for speaking out against corruption, I am quite sure they would do it anyway - just like the apostles defied their government’s injunction against speaking about Jesus.
2. And if they did want to avoid charges of slander, they could still speak out against the field in general without mentioning any names. And that is the charge that you and ferd are making.

In my previous post I mentioned a quite practical way of meeting that standard.

All of this presumes the bishops have more than a superficial knowledge of the science, the scientists, and the societies involved. It is doubtful that even a handful of them have investigated the issue to the extent that it would allow them to even fruitfully discuss it, let alone to a depth that would suffice to issue a judgment about corruption. They are no more likely to comment on this than they are to comment on whether Hillary’s email server actually contained secret government information. It is one of the (all too few) areas which they must surely recognize as beyond their level of competence.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

All of this presumes the bishops have more than a superficial knowledge of the science, the scientists, and the societies involved. It is doubtful that even a handful of them have investigated the issue to the extent that it would allow them to even fruitfully discuss it, let alone to a depth that would suffice to issue a judgment about corruption. They are no more likely to comment on this than they are to comment on whether Hillary’s email server actually contained secret government information. It is one of the (all too few) areas which they must surely recognize as beyond their level of competence.

Ender

If it takes “more than a superficial knowledge of science and scientists” to credibly evaluate the claim of corruption in the climate sciences, only those here in this forum with “more than a superficial knowledge of science and scientists” can credibly make that claim too. Therefore it is an appeal to the authority based on the poster’s special knowledge - not knowledge that is generally known. Yet I hear you and ferd arguing that this conclusion of corruption ought to be realized by us all. You can’t have it both ways. Either it is a question that takes special training to evaluate, or it is not. Take your pick.

 

[styrgwillidar]

But back to the task at hand: How to show—whether to a reasonable person or 10% of bishops—that the CSE is untrustworthy?

Chapter 1. This Has Happened Before

First, look at the history of science. This (false scientific knowledge becoming the norm) has happened before. See Michael Crichtons’s essay on the parallels between modern climate science and pseudo-sciences such as eugenics and Lysenkoism.
michaelcrichton.com/why-p…-is-dangerous/

Crichton says:

The knowledge produced by the climate science establishment led by the IPCC cannot be trusted because the science has become so politicized. It is not disinterested and honest. That’s the charge.

The parallels with eugenics (borrowing heavily from Crichton’s essay):

1. We have a “grand new theory”: Human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming.
2. Once again the theory has drawn the support of politicians (Gore, Wirth, Waxman, Markey…), scientists (Hansen, Schneider, Holdren…), and celebrities (DiCaprio, Prince Charles…).
3. Once again the theory is being promoted by major foundations (Ford, Gates…)
4. Once again the research is carried out at prestigious universities (Penn St., UEA, Berkeley…)
5. Once again legislation is passed and social programs are urged in its name (Cap and trade, divestment from fossil fuels, ethanol mandates, wind and solar subsidies…)
6. Once again critics are few and harshly dealt with (Lomborg, Tennekes, Deming…)
7. Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science (We will take this up in earnest later. But for now consider that the EPA chief has admitted her clean power plant regs will have no effect but are the right thing to do anyway.)
8. Once again, groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded (population control, communism, world governance, environmentalism, crony capitalists…)
9. Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions. Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences. (Let’s shut down the coal industry to “save the planet.”)
10. Once again, vague terms like sustainability and generational justice—terms that have no agreed definition—are employed in the service of a new crisis.

So the parallels with eugenics are not superficial.

In addition, Crichton observes:

An open and frank discussion is being suppressed.
Leading journals are taking editorial positions on the side of GW.
Most outspoken critics are tenured or retired professors without anything to lose.

I urge you, good bishops and everyone else, to read this essay. The allegations are serious and ought to give you reason to question the conventional wisdom on global warming. It is entirely possible for an entire discipline to buy into a false theory.

Don’t know if you’ve seen this yet, it along with many similar reports by folks looking at the adjustments to the data sets certainly proves global warming is man made.

mrctv.org/blog/

Man causes it by simply changing numbers instead of using the data, vice coming up with a theory that explains the data.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Don’t know if you’ve seen this yet, it along with many similar reports by folks looking at the adjustments to the data sets certainly proves global warming is man made.

mrctv.org/blog/

Man causes it by simply changing numbers instead of using the data, vice coming up with a theory that explains the data.

This link says “Page not found”. However, even without following the link, I see that it is a blog. I don’t recall a blog ever “proving” anything.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Chapter 2. The History of Climate Science

We have to admit CO2 did look guilty. Carbon dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases, along with water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. These gases absorb and radiate infrared radiation, which causes heat to be retained longer in the atmosphere before being emitted back out into space.

That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not controversial. As Professor Spencer Weart explains in his book The Story of Global Warming, the physical properties of CO2 were known for a long time.

So, yeah, there was reasonable suspicion that CO2 was guilty of causing dangerous global warming. Read Weart’s book to understand the basic story, albeit from the perspective of someone sympathetic to the CO2 theory of global warming.

What you won’t get from Weart, however, the involvement of Maurice Strong in the formation of the IPCC, the primary summarizer and interpreter of the case against CO2. Maurice Strong was a Canadian energy tycoon who served at the UN. He recently died in China where he was holed up after he engaged in shady dealings at the UN.

As I stated in 177:

A key figure was Canadian Maurice Strong, who characterized himself as “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” He was also a senior member of the Club of Rome. In 1990 he wrote:

What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?..In order to save the planet, the groups decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?

So if you want to attack industrialized civilization, what better way than to suppress fossil fuel production and consumption.

From a Club of Rome report, King and Schneider wrote:

In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill…

Strong chose the UN as his vehicle. See Tim Ball’s book The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, wherein he quotes extensively from Elaine Dewar who interviewed Strong and got it straight from the horse’s mouth.

In short, Strong designed the IPCC from the get-go to serve his agenda. There never was any intention to give CO2 a fair trial.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Don’t know if you’ve seen this yet, it along with many similar reports by folks looking at the adjustments to the data sets certainly proves global warming is man made.

mrctv.org/blog/

Man causes it by simply changing numbers instead of using the data, vice coming up with a theory that explains the data.

Hi styrg, I can’t open it either