Climate Change: The Burden of Proof

[Torie]

Here is the article. I am not qualified to further opine.

[Ebsy]

Torie at it again with his old tricks!

[Virginiá]

There are at least 2 parts of this article that either directly state or at least imply that warming is good and we may need to warm the planet more. Come the #*@(! on.

It almost isn't even worth debating anymore. Deniers are wrong, and they are in the very, very small minority. Eventually they will run out of ways to sound even remotely credible and they will disappear into obscurity as the planet starts going to hell.

However, I do thank you Torie for reminding me why I always avoided that site like the plague. You are a good man!

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Never heard of this site before, and the low-energy Jebra ads on it don't help its case.

Climate change is real, kthxbye

[Seneca]

Torie, what will you and your ilk do when Fred Singer finally kicks the bucket?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So far this sounds accurate. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wait a second here. The Null hypothesis only establishes the burden of proof in a limited formal sense.  There is also the issue of precaution. If someone claims "if you eat that, you'll die," that person will not have to provide much evidence if any before a reasonable person will hesitate to take a bite.
 
And then, the article becomes sort of 'alarmist' when it comes to a cooling climate.  So, that whole discussion of what is or isn't the null hypothesis becomes irrelevant if you are proposing two different potential relationships, rather than the presence or absence of a single proposed relationship.

There are rational reasons to be concerned about a warming climate. There are rational reasons to be concerned about a cooling climate.  The difference I would guess is that we have already seen climate warming going on already, and its related problems, and have good reasons to believe that human activity is a large contributing factor (though human activity in the pre-industrial age leading to warming and cooling periods can't be ruled out either).  Whether we need to be concerned about cooling in the medium term is much less clear, even if there is some suggestion for it based on past long-term trends.

[Torie]

Torie, what will you and your ilk do when Fred Singer finally kicks the bucket?

Well, it's reassuring that you think I will outlast Singer.

I am just passing this on, for discussion purposes. Where's Snowguy? He might actually have something useful to say, because I certainly don't.

I do agree that the burden of proof thing misses the mark. The odds that global warming is a threat might be say 30%, and that may be enough depending on the severity of the consequences, to take action. So this is one instance, where a court of law legal approach is not really appropriate.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Torie, what will you and your ilk do when Fred Singer finally kicks the bucket?

Well, it's reassuring that you think I will outlast Singer.

I am just passing this on, for discussion purposes. Where's Snowguy? He might actually have something useful to say, because I certainly don't.

I do agree that the burden of proof thing misses the mark. The odds that global warming is a threat might be say 30%, and that may be enough depending on the severity of the consequences, to take action. So this is one instance, where a court of law legal approach is not really appropriate.

RIP Torie's principles

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

[Torie]

Sometimes Grump I think you post more images than words.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Sometimes Grump I think you post more images than words.

A picture says a 1000 words, and I'm far too lazy to type that many. 

[Ban my account ffs!]

This will never happen, Torie.  For some time now, the scientists have been working hard to make the data fit the model.. not the other way around.  They adjust the temperature data every few years, and each time the warming trend gets steeper than it was prior to the adjustments.  Before you accuse me of buhying into "vast conspiracy theories"... it is a small number of people at a single organization that control the surface temperature data.  So when Jfern trots out his 'BUT MULLER AT BERKELY CONFIRMED IT".. I say simply.. yeah.. using the same adjusted data that every other agency uses to compile global temp.

They adjust to make warming appear more extreme by making the past colder and the present warmer.  And because most people don't understand statistical methods, they can hide it in plain sight.

THe satellite temperature data does not confirm the amount of warming the surface record shows since 1979 and they don't justify the adjustments either.  And despite their adjustments, the trend is still well below all but the lowest model predictions (those low model predictions assumed a massive drop in CO2 emissions after 2000 when in fact there was such a huge rise that something like 30% of all carbon emitted by humans ever has been emitted sicne 2000.. during the infamous "pause").  Again, the satellites show a slow warming trend since 1979 that would be well below any model prediction.

So the small handful of high profile climate scientists that are involved with these adjustments engage in smear campaigns against the satellite temperature data... projecting the many criticisms that skeptics have of their surface temperature data onto the satellite data.

But really I've given up on the issue.  I'm still passionate about it and I believe I'm right that the human component of climate change will be mild to moderate and will not cause great harm to humanity or the planet.

But the alarmists have won.  They can now argue, and often convincingly to the unwashed masses, that CO2 driven global warming is causing more cold outbreaks and blizzards as well as more heatwaves, floods, and droughts.

They didn't win on science.  They won using messaging, hysteria, and sensationalism.  And not even scientists can surmount that.  So it's best to just give up.

[Seneca]

Snowguy, who's paying you?

[Frodo]

Snowguy, who's paying you?

Not everything is a vast right-wing conspiracy, you know.  As hard as it may be for you to grasp, some just became skeptics through personal research of the issue.  It happens. 

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yeah, let's just stop trusting climate scientists when it comes to climate change.
And while we're at it let's ignore medical doctors too and their alarmist nonsense about vaccination. Let's trust instead the conspiracy nuts and stop vaccinating our kids.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Yeah, let's just stop trusting climate scientists when it comes to climate change.
And while we're at it let's ignore medical doctors too and their alarmist nonsense about vaccination. Let's trust instead the conspiracy nuts and stop vaccinating our kids.

He's not really faulting the reasoning of the scientists though. He's faulting the source data that would have led any reasonable scientist to the conclusion they've reached. And it's a claim I can't dispute. "Trusting the scientists" seems intellectually lazy if there's also a plausible counter-explanation for why they might be wrong.

One thing that doesn't quite square for me though is how we can just ignore the science, or observable physics, of RAGs. Whether the temperature data proves it or not, it seems to me that enough greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would produce warming. And even though it may be "mild or moderate" now, the phenomenon is concerning enough to take precautions, no? Especially if the precautions can actually have net benefits for the economy.

Also, what is to be made of the increased incidence of extreme weather events? Or the "northern amplification" of climate change (the idea that warming is much easier to observe in arctic and antarctic regions, even while it might go virtually unnoticed in areas where most of the world's population lives)? I know this is very unscientific, but it just "seems" like climate change is indeed happening.

[Ljube]

Snowguy, who's paying you?

Not everything is a vast right-wing conspiracy, you know.  As hard as it may be for you to grasp, some just became skeptics through personal research of the issue.  It happens. 

I am one of those sceptics. I was a strong believer in global warming theory.
Back in 2008 I decided to research it thoroughly. After about six months of reading, I found the evidence less than compelling.

Warming is there, but the amount of warming wasn't as large as it was predicted. I also found that historical data were changed to account for inconsistencies and different methods in the past, but regularly towards cooling the past.

Bottom line, we're still not sure what will be the trajectory of warming in the future. If you ask any honest climate scientist the same thing, he/she is going to tell you that.

I recommend that everybody do a personal endeavor and research this topic for wider knowledge and clearer understanding. Don't form uninformed opinion on such an important issue.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Richard Muller was a major skeptic who had a lot of problems with the existing research. So he did he own research to look into each of those problems. He realized climate change is happening after all. So all you skeptics should just read his study.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Richard Muller was a major skeptic who had a lot of problems with the existing research. So he did he own research to look into each of those problems. He realized climate change is happening after all. So all you skeptics should just read his study.

Like a broken record...

... So when Jfern trots out his 'BUT MULLER AT BERKELY CONFIRMED IT".. I say simply.. yeah.. using the same adjusted data that every other agency uses to compile global temp...

[CapoteMonster]

The biggest problems with modern Climate Change skepticism's "much historical change" argument is that ignores how this period was thought to be colder based on historical patterns and weather disasters. Scientists like Muller quickly changed their mind as a result. But even if you view the IPCC as alarmists, the world should still be cautious due to the risk of a ecological tipping point causing irreversible resource shortages and dangerous erosion.

[Frodo]

Yeah, let's just stop trusting climate scientists when it comes to climate change.

They are scientists -not priests.  Their opinions and publications are not sacrosanct.  Their findings should be doubted and questioned, not accepted as if they are the literal Word.  

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yeah, let's just stop trusting climate scientists when it comes to climate change.

They are scientists -not priests.  Their opinions and publications are not sacrosanct.  Their findings should be doubted and questioned, not accepted as if they are the literal Word.  

And that's the job of their colleagues. Whenever a new theory comes out the other scientists try to poke holes in it, they never accept it with no questions asked. It's called peer review.
If after all the scrutiny the theory is accepted by the scientific community then it's not the job of unqualified politicians to try and dispute it.

[MaxQue]

Yeah, let's just stop trusting climate scientists when it comes to climate change.

They are scientists -not priests.  Their opinions and publications are not sacrosanct.  Their findings should be doubted and questioned, not accepted as if they are the literal Word.  

"That's false, since it goes against the interests of oil companies funding my campaigns" isn't a scientifical argument.

[136or142]

Yeah, let's just stop trusting climate scientists when it comes to climate change.

They are scientists -not priests.  Their opinions and publications are not sacrosanct.  Their findings should be doubted and questioned, not accepted as if they are the literal Word.  

Doubted and questioned is one thing, having their research intentionally lied about is quite another.  I think the vast majority of scientists welcome questions about their research from both scientists and non scientists and I think the vast majority of scientists would also say that one doesn't have to be a scientist to find discrepancies, inconsistencies or even mathematical errors in a scientific paper, especially one that's been rewritten without the scientific jargon!

However, we all know that that has nothing to do with global warming denialism.

[136or142]

This will never happen, Torie.  For some time now, the scientists have been working hard to make the data fit the model.. not the other way around.  They adjust the temperature data every few years, and each time the warming trend gets steeper than it was prior to the adjustments.  Before you accuse me of buhying into "vast conspiracy theories"... it is a small number of people at a single organization that control the surface temperature data.  So when Jfern trots out his 'BUT MULLER AT BERKELY CONFIRMED IT".. I say simply.. yeah.. using the same adjusted data that every other agency uses to compile global temp.

First of all, I believe that is wrong.  I think there are several stations around the world (obviously in several different countries) that record and report on surface temperature data.

However, this article from the publisher of Skeptic Magazine, Michael Shermer, summarizes why the data backing up the global warming theory is so robust:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-climate-skeptics-are-wrong/

"It is not because of the sheer number of scientists. After all, science is not conducted by poll. As Albert Einstein said in response to a 1931 book skeptical of relativity theory entitled 100 Authors against Einstein, “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.” The answer is that there is a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry—pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap melt, sea-level rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the unprecedented rate of temperature increase—that all converge to a singular conclusion. AGW doubters point to the occasional anomaly in a particular data set, as if one incongruity gainsays all the other lines of evidence. But that is not how consilience science works. For AGW skeptics to overturn the consensus, they would need to find flaws with all the lines of supportive evidence and show a consistent convergence of evidence toward a different theory that explains the data. "