What do you think of climate change?

[Ender]

This is an excellent op-ed piece by Judith Curry written for a Spanish (Madrid) newspaper for release during the Climate Change Conference being held there.

For the past three decades, the climate policy ‘cart’ has been way out in front of the scientific ‘horse’… There has been tremendous political pressure on the scientists to present findings that would support these treaties, which has resulted in a drive to manufacture a scientific consensus on the dangers of manmade climate change.

Apart from uncertainties in future emissions, we are still facing a factor of 3 or more uncertainty in the sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

We have been told that the science of climate change is ‘settled’. However, in climate science there has been a tension between the drive towards a scientific ‘consensus’ to support policy making, versus exploratory research that pushes forward the knowledge frontier. Climate science is characterized by a rapidly evolving knowledge base and disagreement among experts.

…rapidly reducing emissions from fossil fuels and ameliorating the adverse impacts of extreme weather events in the near term increasingly looks like magical thinking.

 

[Theo520]

As a scientist, I strongly tend to go with the consensus since we do not work in isolation away from other scientists in our respective fields.

Proper surveys of scientists show a majority agreement, not a consensus.
Cook’s work is rubbish, as is any research that tries to read tea leaves from what’s been published.

 

[Kindnessmatters]

I will maintain that AOC is responsible for empty headed rantings I also will stick to the position that tearing down every building in America is a stupid idea and would cause tremendous environmental harm.

I am passionate about pushing back against lies. I am passionate about maintaining that “loud” and “true” are not the same thing. As for science…we presently are in a political, social culture in which scientists who disagree with climate change alarmists are being silenced. That is not science but politics.

Yes…NOAA. You got my point of who I was speaking of…no need to be snarky about it. The agency itself conceded the data was bad, was known to be bad and was published anyway. They played semantics with it but yes, it was bad data.

I also find it problematic that climate alarmists are not making personal changes and instead push for political change…the old “somebody needs to change but not me…let the little people change!”

Our use of energy and pollution are very personal. The major players aren’t people like me who think this is overblown hype yet live modestly and avoid wastefulness. Far more damaging are liberal loudmouths such as California democrats who absolutely refuse to responsibly manage forests or water resources and cause millions of acres to burn annually as a result. There’s some carbon for you.

And what of the point already made…cold weather patterns are viewed and reported as only “weather” whereas warm events are lauded as “climate change”? Simply dishonest.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is an excellent op-ed piece by Judith Curry written for a Spanish (Madrid) newspaper for release during the Climate Change Conference being held there…

And this is an excellent article by Naomi Oreskes and Michael Oppenheimer that shows how scientists have been underestimating the pace of climate change.

And this is a an excellent article by Timothy M. Lenton, Johan Rockström, Owen Gaffney,Stefan Rahmstorf, Katherine Richardson, Will Steffen & Hans Joachim Schellnhuber about the growing threat of abrupt and irreversible climate changes.

And this is an excellent article from the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute about how the damaged ozone layer is interacting with climate change.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I also will stick to the position that tearing down every building in America is a stupid idea and would cause tremendous environmental harm.

Since this is a straw man, I would agree. Do you know anyone who is proposing that solution? I don’t.

I am passionate about pushing back against lies. I am passionate about maintaining that “loud” and “true” are not the same thing.

Well, you can’t extol the virtues of passion at the same time as you are calling for “dispassionate” response from others.

As for science…we presently are in a political, social culture in which scientists who disagree with climate change alarmists are being silenced.

They are being silenced, yet, somehow, you hear them.

Yes…NOAA. You got my point of who I was speaking of…no need to be snarky about it. The agency itself conceded the data was bad, was known to be bad and was published anyway. They played semantics with it but yes, it was bad data.

If you would provide a source for this claim we might see if it holds water or not. Or you can simply pass it off as an empty claim. Your choice.

I also find it problematic that climate alarmists are not making personal changes and instead push for political change…the old “somebody needs to change but not me…let the little people change!”

On the contrary, the call is for the big people - the powerful people - to change.

Our use of energy and pollution are very personal.

Yet personal choices are often constrained by public policy. Climate change is not unique in this regard.

Far more damaging are liberal loudmouths such as California democrats who absolutely refuse to responsibly manage forests or water resources and cause millions of acres to burn annually as a result.

Have you consulted the experts in forestry management to come to this conclusion, or is it based on your armchair assessment of what you see on the news?

And what of the point already made…cold weather patterns are viewed and reported as only “weather” whereas warm events are lauded as “climate change”? Simply dishonest.

When all the evidence is taken together, not cherry-picked to benefit one view or another, the mathematical conclusion is that average global temperature is rising. That is honest.

 

[Ender]

And this is an excellent article by Naomi Oreskes and Michael Oppenheimer that shows how scientists have been underestimating the pace of climate change.

From the article:

Recently, the U.K. Met Office announced a revision to the Hadley Center historical analysis of sea surface temperatures (SST)…

The ratchet at work: the historical data is constantly being altered, and the alterations are always in the same direction: to show more global warming. Was the alteration necessary? Perhaps. Was it accurate? Not a clue.

These recent updates, suggesting that climate change and its impacts are emerging faster than scientists previously thought…

The updates always suggest this because they are always made in the same direction.

This is important for the interpretation of the scientific evidence…

Let’s at least understand this much: data have to be interpreted. In the case of climate science both the data and the interpretation of the data are contested. The referenced book contains the interpretations of its authors based on their understanding of the facts. Their opinions are not facts themselves.

We found little reason to doubt the results of scientific assessments, overall. We found no evidence of fraud, malfeasance or deliberate deception or manipulation.

This is an interesting comment, suggesting that the authors recognized that fraud has in fact been a problem in the past, but isn’t an issue in this case. I suspect that virtually no books on sciences other than climate science would such a concern ever be raised. That they found little reason to doubt the results is unimpressive given that they don’t have the scientific ability to credibly analyze the adjustments.

This article is not a scientific analysis (not surprising as Oreskes is not a scientist). You didn’t indicate why you thought this was an excellent article; you simply asserted it. It is an opinion piece, and her opinion has little scientific value.

 

[Kindnessmatters]

AOC’s climate plan, embraced by Democrat leadership, includes the provision to replace every building in the country.

The “powerful” people you cite as being asked to change are the very same people calling for the change. They are not changing. Celebrities, Democrat politicians…not changing. Calling for conservation from their jets, yachts and mansions.

Your argument about passion is silly. I am passionate about Christ, faith, the Church, improving myself, truth, my family…as for science, I don’t let passions overrun what is simply observable fact, nor force unproven conclusions to suit my emotions. For example, as much as it bothers liberals, human embryos and fetuses are human…scientific fact. Killing them is murder of a human being. Fact. We should not let our emotions so control us that we ignore empirical evidence, nor such that we manufacture it.

In any event…you have your position, with which I disagree. Not worth going point for point as you don’t accept the potential validity of an opposing claim. Why must I, for example, point you to publicly available information? Look it up. The climate deal pushed by AOC is widely published, as was the NOAA debacle, and the polar bear fraud, as are opposing claims by many scientists.

Typically, you presume I am unread, rely on fake sources and am ignorant…because I disagree with you…such as calling my factual statement about AOC"s climate plan a “straw man” argument. Please be honest. It is you who didn’t read it, not me. Her plan to stop selling beef…also dumb.

You illustrate my point with this behaviour toward me and others who disagree with you on this string.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

And this is an excellent article by Naomi Oreskes and Michael Oppenheimer that shows how scientists have been underestimating the pace of climate change.

From the article:

Recently, the U.K. Met Office announced a revision to the Hadley Center historical analysis of sea surface temperatures (SST)…

The ratchet at work: the historical data is constantly being altered, and the alterations are always in the same direction: to show more global warming. Was the alteration necessary? Perhaps. Was it accurate? Not a clue.

The evolving analysis takes into account new information that informs the interpretation of the data, a point I believe you made too. Dismissing these improvements based only on the fact that they seem to strengthen the case for climate change is not logical. If you truly distrust the analyses of experts, then become an expert yourself and verify the methods, or find other experts who have looked at the adjustments and their justifications and have found fault with those justification.

This is important for the interpretation of the scientific evidence…

Let’s at least understand this much: data have to be interpreted. In the case of climate science both the data and the interpretation of the data are contested. The referenced book contains the interpretations of its authors based on their understanding of the facts. Their opinions are not facts themselves.

We found little reason to doubt the results of scientific assessments, overall. We found no evidence of fraud, malfeasance or deliberate deception or manipulation.

This is an interesting comment, suggesting that the authors recognized that fraud has in fact been a problem in the past…

No, not all all. This statement recognizes the fact that there has been a loud chorus of complaints claiming fraud. It is like when doctors state that they find no evidence of a causal connection between vaccines and autism. These doctors are by no means recognizing that a causal connection has been a problem in the past.

I suspect that virtually no books on sciences other than climate science would such a concern ever be raised.

Whenever there is a loud vocal accusation of fraud, the concern would be raised in defense, whether or not the accusation had any merit.

That they found little reason to doubt the results is unimpressive given that they don’t have the scientific ability to credibly analyze the adjustments.

But average posters on CAF do have that credibility? It seems so.

You didn’t indicate why you thought this was an excellent article; you simply asserted it. It is an opinion piece, and her opinion has little scientific value.

Now please consider applying all of these critical data analysis skills to the Judith Curry piece that you declared “excellent”, which was also an opinion piece.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

AOC’s climate plan, embraced by Democrat leadership, includes the provision to replace every building in the country.

This continues to be a straw man argument because it argues against a position held by no one. If you think otherwise, present evidence of some Democrat who said what you just said they are saying.

Your argument about passion is silly.

It was your argument, calling other people’s arguments corrupted by passion. Perhaps that was silly, because what is wrong with being passionate about scientific truth?

Not worth going point for point as you don’t accept the potential validity of an opposing claim. Why must I, for example, point you to publicly available information? Look it up. The climate deal pushed by AOC is widely published, as was the NOAA debacle, and the polar bear fraud, as are opposing claims by many scientists.

If you are posting in order to win over anyone to your view, it would help your case to support your claims, rather than telling people to “look it up”. I have looked it up and what you claim just isn’t so. There was no NOAA debacle. There was one film that made some inaccurate claims about polar bears. But that in itself does not condemn the entire field of climate science.

Typically, you presume I am unread, rely on fake sources and am ignorant…because I disagree with you…

I have tried very hard to address issues and facts, not personal characteristics of other CAF members. If I have failed in that I apologize. I do not presume you are unread. But I do think you are echoing fake sources, not because you disagree with me, but because you disagree with the majority of scientists.

such as calling my factual statement about AOC"s climate plan a “straw man” argument. Please be honest. It is you who didn’t read it, not me.

AOC is of no consequence, as her plans have very little support. But even still, she never claimed that every building in the US needs to be torn down. That just never happened.

Her plan to stop selling beef…also dumb.

It would not be dumb to reduce our reliance on beef, as it is much more resource-intensive than other forms of agriculture. However I do agree that cows are not the biggest problems with climate change, and so it would be foolish to start with them.

 

[Ender]

Dismissing these improvements based only on the fact that they seem to strengthen the case for climate change is not logical.

True, which is why I don’t do it. To say that I don’t simply accept someone’s assertions doesn’t mean that I necessarily reject them.

If you truly distrust the analyses of experts, then become an expert yourself…

Should your not becoming a politician suggest you are unjustified in mistrusting them?

…find other experts who have looked at the adjustments and their justifications and have found fault with those justification.

Yes, this is the approach I take.

This statement recognizes the fact that there has been a loud chorus of complaints claiming fraud.

To hold that there has not been significant fraud in the climate science community is to disassociate oneself from reality. If we can’t agree on that fact then “facts” about historical temperatures are irrelevant.

But average posters on CAF do have that credibility? It seems so.

The average poster doesn’t write books on the subject. A man’s got to know his limitations.

Now please consider applying all of these critical data analysis skills to the Judith Curry piece that you declared “excellent”, which was also an opinion piece.

I did, that’s why I cited several of her comments. As for opinions, hers is at least an informed one given that she is in fact a well known (actual) scientist.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If you truly distrust the analyses of experts, then become an expert yourself…

Should your not becoming a politician suggest you are unjustified in mistrusting them?

Not as individuals. But if the majority of political leaders around the world agreed that such-and-such was threat to world peace, I think I would tend to agree with them, as they have information I do not have, and it is hard to imagine them agreeing on something factual without that thing likely being true.

This statement recognizes the fact that there has been a loud chorus of complaints claiming fraud.

To hold that there has not been significant fraud in the climate science community is to disassociate oneself from reality.

…which is a fancy way of saying “is so!”

But average posters on CAF do have that credibility? It seems so.

The average poster doesn’t write books on the subject. A man’s got to know his limitations.

This doesn’t quite answer the criticism. You claimed that the authors I cited do not have scientific credibility to analyze the adjustments, even though those authors are recognized as experts relevant enough to be published by Scientific American, and even though those authors made a concerted study of the subject for the article. And yet you claim that any CAF poster here ought to be able to see the problems in the adjustments without having looked at the justification given by the scientists who made them. If scientific malfeasance is that obvious, how is it that it seems to have fooled so many scientists?

Now please consider applying all of these critical data analysis skills to the Judith Curry piece that you declared “excellent”, which was also an opinion piece.

I did, that’s why I cited several of her comments. As for opinions, hers is at least an informed one given that she is in fact a well known (actual) scientist.

Since you brought it up, let’s consider how Judith Curry is known, starting with the fact that she retired from academia in 2017. I find it suspicious that this year she stated that she would not “bother with” peer-reviewed journals, in favor of publishing her own papers so that she could editorialize and write what she wanted “without worrying about the norms and agendas of the ‘establishment.’” This is not common. Most scientists respect the scientific process of peer-review. She clearly has opinions, but does not represent anyone but herself.

 

[Kindnessmatters]

It appears Leafbyniggle wishes not to consider/respect that others might just know something.

 

[Ender]

To hold that there has not been significant fraud in the climate science community is to disassociate oneself from reality.

If there had been no email dump from the CRU it would still be a hard sell that there was no fraud in the climate community, but to ignore what was released or to claim the information proves nothing is to cooperate in ones own deception.

This doesn’t quite answer the criticism. You claimed that the authors I cited do not have scientific credibility to analyze the adjustments, even though those authors are recognized as experts relevant enough to be published by Scientific American, and even though those authors made a concerted study of the subject for the article. And yet you claim that any CAF poster here ought to be able to see the problems in the adjustments without having looked at the justification given by the scientists who made them. If scientific malfeasance is that obvious, how is it that it seems to have fooled so many scientists?

No, I assuredly said no such thing, and it is disappointing you would conclude this from what I did say, especially when I explicitly said my approach was to “find other experts who have looked at the adjustments and their justifications and have found fault with those justification.”

Most scientists respect the scientific process of peer-review.

That respect was severely and legitimately damaged by the ClimateGate emails I referred to above.

She clearly has opinions, but does not represent anyone but herself.

It is not about opinions; it is about arguments, and who can make the most convincing ones. I don’t dismiss “mere” opinions, but I give weight to those that are informed and supported by reason.

 

[DissidentMantis]

I think it’s a globalist/Marxist tool. And I have a degree in Environmental Science. I am not saying it’s 100 percent Fake News, but it is totally politicized and half of the people pushing for legislative changes are doing it to increase their own profits, like myself honestly, since I am an environmental policy analyst at a renewable energy company. I spew the same lines to people every day about Climate change like a snake oil salesman will tell people that his product will cure all of their ailments. Meanwhile we both know it’s somewhere between 50 and 100 percent BS. This is also why I am looking for a new Job.

Just being completely candid with you since I have anonymity.

Nietzsche predicted that after the death of God, Environmentalism would replace religion. The Church of Sweden has already declared Greta Thunsperg to be the successor to Christ.

 

[Bird_lover]

There’s a difference between meteorologists and climatologists. They do not study the same thing.

I read an article that the longest ice core to date was collected recently from Antarctica. There was a record of over 2 million years of data in the core (every layer of ice in a core is an entire year, much like every ring in a tree is a year of growth). 2 million years of ice is a better record for global temperatures (and a better record for pollen records) and effects of global temperatures than are human records of local temperatures only a few centuries old.

 

[HarryStotle]

Before you swallow whatever junk someone puts on YouTube, you should at least know who it is that is doing the shoveling. That video does not seem to identify the speaker. I would disregard it.

Hoisted with your own petard.

YOU are an unknown on the internet, so we should at least know who it is doing your shovelling. We don’t so, according to your own lights, you are advising everyone reading your posts to disregard your posts.

Nice play Shakespeare.

For my part, I have faith in people making their own judgements when presented with strong evidence. They don’t need to buy it holus-bolus, they only need to take it into consideration along with all other evidence.

What you are asking is for everyone to merely trust the experts. However, there are experts who line up on both sides of the argument, and even the experts can only decide a scientific issue by looking at and analyzing the data and evidence on the whole. Your position is merely to trust whichever side has the most supporters, irrespective of evidence.

That has not held up well, historically, for scientists. Every discovery in science has been met by opposition by the consensus view among scientists until that consensus view eroded away and the so-called established view became disestablished.

That will occur again with the climate “crisis.” A few long cold winters and cool summers in a row proving that the alarmists and their models aren’t very reliable will send the consensus into a tailspin. And those advocating for wasting billions and trillions on “sustainable” sources of energy that really aren’t very sustainable (or reliable) will cause a huge backlash among those who have been suckered in by the alarmists.

As you say, “the causes of temperature change” are legion. To put what is turning out to be a hiatus of warming to a spike in CO2 is a losing proposition. Scientists worth their salt would not hold such a dogmatic position.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Before you swallow whatever junk someone puts on YouTube, you should at least know who it is that is doing the shoveling. That video does not seem to identify the speaker. I would disregard it.

YOU are an unknown on the internet, so we should at least know who it is doing your shovelling.

I am not putting myself forward as an authority. Your YouTube guy (whoever he is) is doing just that.

For my part, I have faith in people making their own judgments when presented with strong evidence.

That is an appeal to arrogance. (“I can figure out truth from fiction by my own intellect.”) It is a mistake for someone to think their judgments on technical matters are just as valid as judgments of experts in that field.

What you are asking is for everyone to merely trust the experts.

Yes, that’s right.

However, there are experts who line up on both sides of the argument…

Not very many on your side of the argument.

Your position is merely to trust whichever side has the most supporters, irrespective of evidence.

That’s right, because the so-called evidence that you claim exists is not accessible and verifiable to non-experts.

That has not held up well, historically, for scientists.

Statistically it has held up well. Are you planning on picking some cherries?

Every discovery in science has been met by opposition by the consensus view…

No. Most often discoveries in science settle open questions in which there was no “consensus view” before the discovery. In a very few cases there have been discoveries that challenged existing theory, such as Einstein’s Relativity. But once the data was shown, the “established” scientists accepted it. Scientists by their training are supposed to be skeptical. That is why new discoveries are not immediately embraced until the scientific process is satisfied. That’s what keeps science from accepting every crackpot theory that comes along. Remember cold fusion? That might have been a groundbreaking discovery, but it turned out to be false, and skepticism by established scientists was exactly what was called for. It is a strength, not a weakness.

That will occur again with the climate “crisis.” A few long cold winters and cool summers in a row proving that the alarmists and their models aren’t very reliable will send the consensus into a tailspin.

That would have to be a few long cold winters around the world and few cool summers around the world to do what you say. Regional differences would not disprove the theory. But we can hope. Believe me, I would like nothing better than for global warming to turn out to be a non-issue.

As you say, “the causes of temperature change” are legion.

It is a question of degree. Yes, there are other causes, but they act over different time scales and in different manners than man-made CO2.

 

[HarryStotle]

I am not putting myself forward as an authority. Your YouTube guy (whoever he is) is doing just that.

Well, no actually. He or she is merely laying down the data and argument for why alarmism isn’t warranted regarding the climate.

S/he makes no claims about their authority and merely let’s the evidence (and data) speak for itself.

That is how it ought to be.

This continual appeal to authority on your part is utter nonsense. As if the “authority” does anything except look to the data and study the case to be made.

If there is something errant about the data in the presentation, then refute it. You keep evading that task using the excuse that the person is not a proper “authority.”

And yet it is YOU determining who it is that we ought to trust as the authority. So what is your authority for determining who the proper authorities are?

Claiming the person is not an “authority” is a deflection from actually contending with the case being made.

You seem to do that a lot, actually. As if you have the “authority” to determine who is and who is not a proper “authority,” while completely ignoring the argument or evidence presented.

 

[HarryStotle]

That is an appeal to arrogance. (“I can figure out truth from fiction by my own intellect.”) It is a mistake for someone to think their judgments on technical matters are just as valid as judgments of experts in that field.

In some quarters that would be called due diligence. Apparently it is now the height of arrogance to be responsible for what ideas and conclusions we permit to enter our brains, leaving all of that to the proper “authorities.”

Yeah, no. If God is going to hold me accountable then it is I who will be accountable. I won’t slough that off to some “proper” authority.

Have you met some of these intellectuals now running the institutions of higher learning lower impulses and some of the ideas they are spouting? Some appear fine, others no so much. It is still on me to make the distinction between which of the authorities to trust and which not to. Mere “authority” doesn’t do it, I have to resort to assessing the evidence they present even at the risk of being wrong.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

However, there are experts who line up on both sides of the argument…

Not very many on your side of the argument.

If you believe the propaganda. I haven’t seen many who present a legitimate case who are alarmists.

Those who dominate the media are typically left wing and tick off all of the progressive check boxes. That hardly makes them trustworthy, although it does give them enormous coverage and the impression of being “very many.”

And merely echoing the same message endlessly does not make it true – it merely provides the false impression that “everyone” on the consensus bandwagon is in full agreement, while denying a voice to those who are not.