The thing(s) with climate change

[LeafByNiggle]

Why is it necessary to point out that his is a blog site, not an open forum?

Because sps49 called it “an open commentary”, otherwise I would not have mentioned it.

CAF is certainly more open. It is equally certain that it is also much less well informed.

Of the comments I read on Watts blog, the proportion of snarky put-downs was much higher than here on CAF. When you spend time, effort, and space on snarky put-downs, you have a lot less informed commentary.

If we are to ignore the Watts site because of this “deficiency” then this criterion would rule out nearly all information sites (at least 97%) on the web. If you truly believe this characteristic disqualifies a site from being taken seriously…

I was not claiming that. The only reason I am mentioning this is to refute sps49’s claim that Watts is an open commentary. My reason for not taking it seriously has nothing to do with this fact, but an example of my reasons is the thing I first mentioned - that the headline was misquoted for better effect, which is a sign of a lack of dedication to the truth - which is fine if you are The Onion.

I already responded to this. His assertion (which was actually a guest article, not one he wrote himself) was an exaggeration of the headline in the article he was critiquing. It was not, however, an exaggeration of the content of the article. It was the original article that created a headline that did not match the position of the interviewees. Which headline more accurately summarizes this assertion: "She…puts this [depression in dogs] down to climate change…"
1) Global warming might be causing dogs to become depressed, or
2) Global Warming is Causing Dogs to Become Depressed?

The headline is supposed to summarize the entire content, not just the response of one of the interviewees. If you want the headline to be about that one interviewee, then it should be: Ms Menteith Says Global Warming is Causing Dogs to Become Depressed.

But that does not give much to ridicule, does it?

Talk about a tempest in a teapot. One of the greatest differences between the two sides in this debate is how opposition arguments are addressed. There are virtually no arguments raised by the pro-AGW side that are not directly addressed on their substance, while the most common approach by AGW supporters to assertions by their opponents is to invent reasons to ignore them. It’s all about discrediting the people making the arguments in place of rebutting the actual arguments.

Don’t you think the anti-AGW arguments are about discrediting Cook and Hansen and the whole IPCC along with every other scientist who has ever come out strongly in favor of AGW? I read a lot about how scientists need to make money too and are beholding to corrupt government grants, and how they are all in pockets of left-wing new-world-order power-hungry regulators. I am not making this stuff up. I did not dream it, did I?

 

[Ender]

Don’t you think the anti-AGW arguments are about discrediting Cook and Hansen and the whole IPCC along with every other scientist who has ever come out strongly in favor of AGW?

No, I don’t. There are two valid issues here: rebutting a person’s argument and pointing out his corrupt practices. If a person makes an assertion it needs to be contended with quite apart from any reason why he might make it. This is mostly what you see both here and on anti-AGW sites like Watts’. If a person acts in a demonstrably dishonest way it is certainly appropriate to call him out on it, but this does not obviate the need to rebut whatever argument he has made.

Your reaction to the Watts article is out of all proportion.The author cited the position taken by the only person the original Independent article quoted who commented directly on the question. Even if your contention was accurate it would be at worst a mild exaggeration; it hardly rises to the level of the blatantly dishonest activities we have seen practiced within the AGW community.

I read a lot about how scientists need to make money too and are beholding to corrupt government grants, and how they are all in pockets of left-wing new-world-order power-hungry regulators. I am not making this stuff up. I did not dream it, did I?

Those arguments have been made, and if they are used to suggest that the AGW claims don’t need to be responded to then they are invalid. If, however, they are used as a “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” rebuttal to the claim that anti-AGW scientists are just in it for the money, then the argument is reasonable. If scientists can be bought we should at least admit that both sides can buy them.

Ender

 

[sps49]

Because sps49 called it “an open commentary”, otherwise I would not have mentioned it.

LOL! “Open” is in the eye of the beholder, eh LeafByNiggle? Ender is correct, there is far more invective on Watts comments section than CAF. And, he does provide direct links to sites with opposing views. Your narrow definition of “Open” seems to have more to do with what irritates your sensibilities than any consideration of “openness.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LOL! “Open” is in the eye of the beholder, eh LeafByNiggle? Ender is correct, there is far more invective on Watts comments section than CAF. And, he does provide direct links to sites with opposing views. Your narrow definition of “Open” seems to have more to do with what irritates your sensibilities than any consideration of “openness.”

If you choose to believe that Watts is an open exchange of ideas, that is your choice. But one is still struck with the hypocrisy of criticizing Cook for mischaracterizing his 2013 results in a later reference, and at the same time mischaracterizing an article about dogs, which by the way, was about pet behaviorists, not climate scientists.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No, I don’t. There are two valid issues here: rebutting a person’s argument and pointing out his corrupt practices. If a person makes an assertion it needs to be contended with quite apart from any reason why he might make it. This is mostly what you see both here and on anti-AGW sites like Watts’. If a person acts in a demonstrably dishonest way it is certainly appropriate to call him out on it, but this does not obviate the need to rebut whatever argument he has made.

You made an observation about the general tendency of AGW supporters to use discrediting of AGW skeptics more often than AGW skeptics use that tactic against AGW supporters. This claim is false, as I have shown. Now you are defending the right of AGW skeptics to use discrediting of their opponents as an appropriate call-out of demonstrably dishonest behavior. Why don’t you also defend AGW supporters when they call out AGW skeptics for their demonstrably dishonest behavior? I suspect it is because we disagree about what is demonstrably dishonest behavior. What is demonstrable to you may not be demonstrable to me.

Your reaction to the Watts article is out of all proportion.

The Watts article was a joke about depressed dogs, and I treated it like a joke by comparing Watts blog to The Onion. It was all light-hearted up to that point. It was only after defenders of Watts got all serious about their precious blog being compared to a work of satire that things started getting darker. You can’t blame me for that.

If scientists can be bought we should at least admit that both sides can buy them.

Hear, hear!

 

[sps49]

If you choose to believe that Watts is an open exchange of ideas, that is your choice. But one is still struck with the hypocrisy of criticizing Cook for mischaracterizing his 2013 results in a later reference, and at the same time mischaracterizing an article about dogs, which by the way, was about pet behaviorists, not climate scientists.

Evidently hypocrisy is also in the eye of the beholder. I am not particularly affected by your perception of hypocrisy or “mis-characterization,” because it seems to be attached to a fearsome case Watts Derangement Syndrome.

 

[vz71]

If you choose to believe that Watts is an open exchange of ideas, that is your choice. But one is still struck with the hypocrisy of criticizing Cook for mischaracterizing his 2013 results in a later reference, and at the same time mischaracterizing an article about dogs, which by the way, was about pet behaviorists, not climate scientists.

Then you do see why the paper on the scientists opinions based upon papers instead of an actual survey is dishonest.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Then you do see why the paper on the scientists opinions based upon papers instead of an actual survey is dishonest.

No. The only misrepresentation I see by Cook is when he later said “the main cause” instead of “one of the causes”. There is no dishonesty in publishing a survey of scientific papers, as long as it is clear that it is in fact a survey of scientific papers. And Cook never misrepresented that fact. He never said it was based on personal interviews, for example.

 

[Ender]

The only misrepresentation I see by Cook is when he later said “the main cause” instead of “one of the causes”.

Well, at least we are agreed on this. I’ll also point out that practically everyone could agree that man has had at least some effect on global warming. The acknowledgement that cities are heat islands demonstrates that, so the difference between “a” cause and “the main” cause can hardly be overstated.

Although this is hardly well known, Cook’s own study demonstrates the distinction: of the 12,000 papers he analyzed, the number stating that man is responsible for *most *of the warming is…65. Given that there were 78 papers explicitly rejecting AGW, it should be apparent that there is much less to his paper than has been trumpeted through the media.

There is no dishonesty in publishing a survey of scientific papers, as long as it is clear that it is in fact a survey of scientific papers. And Cook never misrepresented that fact. He never said it was based on personal interviews, for example.

I have no problem with the idea of surveying papers. That should not be taken as an endorsement of the way Cook did the survey. It was his method of evaluating the papers that was inadequate, not to mention the conclusion he drew.

To combine issues here, suppose Cook had found one paper where the author asserted “global warming causes depression in dogs” and no other authors commented on the topic. Would it be accurate for him to assert that 100% of scientists believe this? You can hardly say yes because it would be absurd; on the other hand it will be hard to say no since this is the same approach Cook took with the papers he reviewed.

Let’s be clear about this: Cook cooked up this project for the express purpose of reinforcing the idea of a large consensus among scientists supporting AGW. It was never a scholarly study; it was a scam from the beginning. They had their promotional campaign ready before they even had their results.

Let me also point out (I love this one) that John Cook is a blogger, just like Anthony Watts. So, everything you’ve said about Watts’ web site applies equally to Cook and his Skeptical Science site. What is true of Cook, however, has no parallel with anything Watts has done.

Ender

 

[Theo520]

The numbers don’t add up, and you can check it yourself at skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=a&a=&c=&e=&yf=1991&yt=2011

Only 65 papers are identified as “quantifying AGW as 50%+”.

Excluding the “No Positions”, there are 4011 papers classified in total, thus the number of papers confirming that “humans are the primary cause of recent global warming” is only 1.6%, far below the 97% claimed from this research.

97% reflects how many scientists would likely agree that humans have some effect on climate, even if only urban heating or deforestation.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Well, at least we are agreed on this. I’ll also point out that practically everyone could agree that man has had at least some effect on global warming.

Not true. There are plenty of people here on CAF that say that global warming is not actually occurring. Those people would certainly disagree that man is a cause of global warming.

The acknowledgement that cities are heat islands demonstrates that…

No, the premise of AGW is not about localized effects. So the heat island effect would not ever be counted in a survey of supporters of global warming.

so the difference between “a” cause and “the main” cause can hardly be overstated.

Cook’s misrepresentation of the results was not in the original paper but was only in a subsequent retelling of his results some years later. So I think the error he made in the retelling can be overstated, and it bears not at all on the validity of the original results, except as a tangential potential indicator of Cook’s character.

Although this is hardly well known, Cook’s own study demonstrates the distinction: of the 12,000 papers he analyzed, the number stating that man is responsible for *most *of the warming is…65. Given that there were 78 papers explicitly rejecting AGW…

Did those 78 papers all reject that global warming was happening at all? Or did they reject that man was the main cause? Or did they reject that man was** a cause**?

These are the questions that have been asked of the AGW-supporting statistics, so it seems only fair to ask the same questions of the AGW-opposing statistics.

I have no problem with the idea of surveying papers. That should not be taken as an endorsement of the way Cook did the survey. It was his method of evaluating the papers that was inadequate, not to mention the conclusion he drew.

I found nothing in the link you provided that convinced me that Cook’s fundamental process of evaluating papers was flawed. You will have to be more specific.

To combine issues here, suppose Cook had found one paper where the author asserted “global warming causes depression in dogs” and no other authors commented on the topic. Would it be accurate for him to assert that 100% of scientists believe this?

This is an irrelevant analogy because there was a lot more than one paper commenting on global warming.

Let me also point out (I love this one) that John Cook is a blogger, just like Anthony Watts. So, everything you’ve said about Watts’ web site applies equally to Cook and his Skeptical Science site.

I have no problem criticizing Cook if he were to change the headline or a summary of previous results, as I have already done.

But let me ask you, if there are so many people opposed to the Cook result, where is a comparable study done by AGW skeptics that is as comprehensive in scope and open for review as Cook’s?

 

[Ender]

There are plenty of people here on CAF that say that global warming is not actually occurring.

Cite specifics. There is no possible refutation of what “some people” say.

No, the premise of AGW is not about localized effects. So the heat island effect would not ever be counted in a survey of supporters of global warming.

Read more carefully. My comment went to the question of whether man has had *any *effect on the climate. Heat islands are proof that he has.

Did those 78 papers all reject that global warming was happening at all? Or did they reject that man was the main cause? Or did they reject that man was** a cause**?

Well, you could look at the Cook paper and determine this for yourself, but here are his criteria. Those 78 papers fell into one of three categories:

• Implicit rejection (minimal impact)
• Explicit rejection with quantification (rejects that humans are causing warming)
• Explicit rejection without quantification (rejects that man is primarily responsible)
  That is, they rejected the idea that man was the main cause.

I found nothing in the link you provided that convinced me that Cook’s fundamental process of evaluating papers was flawed. You will have to be more specific.

• …by including “global” before “climate change,” Cook et al “dropped 75% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution.”
• …by including “global” before “climate change” the Cook team “dropped 33 of the 50 most cited papers.”
• …the Cook team also skewed the results of their findings by the database they chose to draw papers from, using the Web of Science (WoS) rather than SciVerse Scopus. “Choosing exclusive WoS over inclusive Scopus, Cook et al. dropped 35% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution,”

In Cook’s paper, only 65 abstracts fell in the top category: Explicit Endorsement of AGW with quantification. Fully 75% of them (2933 of 3932) were in category 3: Implicit Endorsement of AGW, which included sub-categories such as: *Paleoclimate papers that link CO2 to climate change.

*Saying that man is responsible for climate change is not exactly supported by showing a “link” between CO2 and climate change.

This is an irrelevant analogy because there was a lot more than one paper commenting on global warming.

No, the approach is identical. Cook’s position was that 97% of scientists “who expressed an opinion” agreed that man was responsible for global warming. In my example, 100% of scientists “who expressed an opinion” agreed that global warming was responsible for doggy depression. The procedures are exactly the same.

But let me ask you, if there are so many people opposed to the Cook result, where is a comparable study done by AGW skeptics that is as comprehensive in scope and open for review as Cook’s?

The discussion here is about Cook’s study. Whether there are other studies is irrelevant to the validity of his…or rather the invalidity of his.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Read more carefully. My comment went to the question of whether man has had *any *effect on the climate. Heat islands are proof that he has.

But that question was not one of the categories in the Cook paper, so it is irrelevant.

Well, you could look at the Cook paper and determine this for yourself, but here are his criteria. Those 78 papers fell into one of three categories:

• Implicit rejection (minimal impact)
• Explicit rejection with quantification (rejects that humans are causing warming)
• Explicit rejection without quantification (rejects that man is primarily responsible)
  That is, they rejected the idea that man was the main cause.

Then the most you can say from this data is that there were slightly more papers rejecting the premise that human activity is the main cause of global warming than accepting that premise.

• …by including “global” before “climate change,” Cook et al “dropped 75% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution.”

• …by including “global” before “climate change” the Cook team “dropped 33 of the 50 most cited papers.”

Citing the consequences of a decision made by Cook in the construction of his survey does not prove the methodology is flawed. What exactly is wrong with including “global” before “climate change” that should have been known before finding out empirically what effect that has on the results?

• …the Cook team also skewed the results of their findings by the database they chose to draw papers from, using the Web of Science (WoS) rather than SciVerse Scopus. “Choosing exclusive WoS over inclusive Scopus, Cook et al. dropped 35% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution,”

You are assuming devious motives without proof. What is wrong** a-priori** with using WoS? And why do you assume that the 35% of papers that were dropped were relevant papers? And what do you mean by changing disciplinary distribution?

In Cook’s paper, only 65 abstracts fell in the top category: Explicit Endorsement of AGW with quantification. Fully 75% of them (2933 of 3932) were in category 3: Implicit Endorsement of AGW, which included sub-categories such as: *Paleoclimate papers that link CO2 to climate change.

*Saying that man is responsible for climate change is not exactly supported by showing a “link” between CO2 and climate change.

The rise in CO2 and its causes are much more firmly established than global warming. The data is clear. Isotope analysis confirms most of the new CO2 is coming from fossil fuels, not the decay of modern organic material. Linking CO2 with global warming is as good as linking man with global warming.

No, the approach is identical. Cook’s position was that 97% of scientists “who expressed an opinion” agreed that man was responsible for global warming. In my example, 100% of scientists “who expressed an opinion” agreed that global warming was responsible for doggy depression. The procedures are exactly the same.

The procedure may be superficially the same, but the relevancy isn’t. 4000 papers expressing an opinion about something that is in the news and a hot topic of scientific inquiry is not as relevant as one paper about an obscure observation that nobody bothered to consider before.

The discussion here is about Cook’s study. Whether there are other studies is irrelevant to the validity of his…or rather the invalidity of his.

It would be a lot easier for you to make your case if there were several other studies with very different results. I can’t help but think that the relevancy of the existence of such studies would be much greater in your eyes than the relevancy of their non-existence.

 

[Ender]

But that question was not one of the categories in the Cook paper, so it is irrelevant.

Good grief, I was responding to your comment. I would have thought it had some relevance to you.

Then the most you can say from this data is that there were slightly more papers rejecting the premise that human activity is the main cause of global warming than accepting that premise.

That isn’t what I would have said, but I will point out if there were more papers rejecting the premise than supporting it we can be pretty sure there is no 97% consensus.

The rise in CO2 and its causes are much more firmly established than global warming. The data is clear. Isotope analysis confirms most of the new CO2 is coming from fossil fuels, not the decay of modern organic material. Linking CO2 with global warming is as good as linking man with global warming.

Establishing a link between CO2 and warming does not establish that most of the warming has been caused by CO2. Cook’s paper was not about a “link”, it was a claim that 97% of climate scientists believe that man, because of his CO2 emissions, is responsible for most of the warming we have seen. This claim is utterly bogus.

The procedure may be superficially the same, but the relevancy isn’t. 4000 papers expressing an opinion about something that is in the news and a hot topic of scientific inquiry is not as relevant as one paper about an obscure observation that nobody bothered to consider before.

Actually, only 65 of those papers explicitly endorsed AGW. 65 is a lot closer to 1 than it is to 4000.

It would be a lot easier for you to make your case if there were several other studies with very different results.

Nothing said about Cook’s study is made more or less relevant by the existence or non-existence of other studies. Cook’s stands or falls on its own merits, which seem to be remarkably few in number.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Good grief, I was responding to your comment. I would have thought it had some relevance to you.

My comment as always been that the heat island effect is irrelevant to our discussion, ever since you introduced it here.. I have never commented on this question, other than to say it is irrelevant, so is not “my comment”.

That isn’t what I would have said, but I will point out if there were more papers rejecting the premise than supporting it we can be pretty sure there is no 97% consensus.

That is illogical. Just because there is no consensus on the most extreme form of the global warming premise does not mean there is not a 97% consensus on the premise to which Cook initially ascribed the 97% consensus.

Establishing a link between CO2 and warming does not establish that most of the warming has been caused by CO2.

It does have to do this to qualify for one of the lower categories of AGW support.

Cook’s paper was not about a “link”, it was a claim that 97% of climate scientists believe that man, because of his CO2 emissions, is responsible for most of the warming we have seen.

His paper was clearly about more than the most extreme category of support. And a paper that establishes a link with CO2 can reasonably be classified as supporting one of the lesser categories of AGW, since it can be assumed that all scientist know about the link between CO2 and man, which is not disputed.

Actually, only 65 of those papers explicitly endorsed AGW. 65 is a lot closer to 1 than it is to 4000.

The 97% result was not about those 65 papers. It was about the 3880 papers or so that supported some form of AGW, and 3880 is a lot closer to 4000 than it is to 1, or to 78.

Nothing said about Cook’s study is made more or less relevant by the existence or non-existence of other studies. Cook’s stands or falls on its own merits…

Are you saying that if there were a huge National Academy of Science study that analyzed 8000 papers and found that 80% were total rejecting AGW, that you would not bother to present it as evidence that something might be wrong with Cook’s methodology?

 

[Theo520]

I think this actual survey is properly designed and reflective of reality.

AMS Survey (PDF)
89% agree climate is changing,
4% say no, and
7% say more info needed.

Specific to the 89%:
**- 59% believe that humans are primary cause

• 11% believe man and nature are equal**
• 6% believe nature is the primary driver
• 24% say more research required.

So, it shows a majority but no 97% consensus of man as primary cause.

 

[Ender]

My comment as always been that the heat island effect is irrelevant to our discussion, ever since you introduced it here.. I have never commented on this question, other than to say it is irrelevant, so is not “my comment”.

Question: has man had any effect on global warming?
Answer: yes
Proof: the heat island effect

This all goes to the nature of how the question about man’s influence on global warming is phrased, and rather highlights the difference between “is man a cause” and “is man the cause”.

Just because there is no consensus on the most extreme form of the global warming premise does not mean there is not a 97% consensus on the premise to which Cook initially ascribed the 97% consensus.

Look how you phrase this - the “most extreme form of the global warming premise” is simply this: AGW is true. Are you saying belief in AGW is an extreme position? That assertion is what people understand the 97% refers to when in fact that position is actually held by, what, 1.6%?

Of the 4000 papers Cook deemed to have taken a position on AGW (implicit or explicit), 3000 of them fall in the lowest category, a category that includes subsets that merely find “links” between CO2 and warming. Nobody who cites the “97% consensus” figure actually understands this.

The 97% result was not about those 65 papers. It was about the 3880 papers or so that supported some form of AGW, and 3880 is a lot closer to 4000 than it is to 1, or to 78.

Everybody accepts some form of AGW - see my first comment. This argument survives on its ambiguity; it says one thing but implies something very different.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Question: has man had any effect on global warming?
Answer: yes
Proof: the heat island effect

This all goes to the nature of how the question about man’s influence on global warming is phrased, and rather highlights the difference between “is man a cause” and “is man the cause”.

The heat island effect does not prove that man has any effect on global warming. I could just as well say:

Question: has man had any effect on global warming?
Answer: yes
Proof: my house is warm and cozy.

Look how you phrase this - the “most extreme form of the global warming premise” is simply this: AGW is true. Are you saying belief in AGW is an extreme position?

If you want to be precise about the categories in the Cook survey, you have to go back to their definitions. You cannot conclude anything precise by first simplify everthing into AGW.

That assertion is what people understand the 97% refers to when in fact that position is actually held by, what, 1.6%?

I agree that most of the public has not bothered to find out what the 97% refers to, and probably does misunderstand the results. But the 1.6% figure is not well-understood either. The (incorrect) implication is that 98.4% of scientists actively disagree with the premise that man’s activities are the main cause of global warming.

Of the 4000 papers Cook deemed to have taken a position on AGW (implicit or explicit), 3000 of them fall in the lowest category, a category that includes subsets that merely find “links” between CO2 and warming. Nobody who cites the “97% consensus” figure actually understands this.

I do.

 

[Theo520]

Anyone who understands the ‘97% consensus’ understands **the science is not settled **on the breadth or scope of man’s contribution to Climate Change.

They would never use the phrase to shut down discussion.

I do.

 

[HelenRose]

Anyone who understands the ‘97% consensus’ understands **the science is not settled **on the breadth or scope of man’s contribution to Climate Change.

They would never use the phrase to shut down discussion.

97% of climate scientists who are receiving grants from the Government are certainly in compliance with the catastrophic predictions that will turn the control of fossil fuel over to Government control.