Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility
desmogblog.com
desmogblog.com
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5718
From: Phil Jones
To: "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
...
I can't see either of these papers being in the next
IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I [Phil Jones] will
keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what
the peer-review literature is !
...
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0)REDACTED
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0)REDACTED
University of East AngliaThe other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report.
If you want a better chart for climate change, the hockey stick should do (or better ones of climate data if you have, of course)
But all this is saying is "our team is bigger than the other team". Peer review? Great, who are the peers? Oh the same people that are in favor of climate change theories? Interesting...
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
The two factors — legitimate expertise and expert consensus — can be incorporated to the structure of the statistical syllogism, in which case, the argument from authority can be structured thus: [2]
X holds that A is true.
X is a legitimate expert on the subject matter.
The consensus of subject-matter experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there exists a presumption that A is true.No, we should not because there is no reason to believe that laws of physics are in any way dependent on physicists. Science is based on theories producing verifiable predictions, not "votes" cast through articles.
Yes, if you need to get something done, you hire people with relevant knowledge, skills and experience. But scientific theories should be completely inter-subjective and work the same for everyone.
After all, there is no way for you or I to determine the speed of propagation of gravity, so what choice do we have other than to rely on other's authority?
History and philosophy have much to teach us here, for example about the perils of overconfidence.
No, not at this point. It has always been established and believed. We live on a planet with a dynamic climate that changes and shifts month to month, year to year, decade to decade, millennium to millennium, and has cycles that extend even beyond that.
> We can debate what's causing it, but not that it's happening.
We have no idea what's causing it, why it's happening (or why it happened), not even close to it. It's that complex.
> Biological, physical, meteorological data all point to global warming.
No, they do not. They point to climate change. Some places are getting warmer. Some cooler. Some are static. Again, complex.
Huh? I'm quite sure the overwhelming majority agree with me.
> I'm wondering if you could share your credentials and/or cite the source of your theory that the data does not point to global warming?
The people spouting about global warming are the same clowns who were wringing their hands about global cooling in the 70s. The moment I hear warming or cooling the only word that bubbles up in my mind is idiot.
It's global climate change.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=anthropogenic+global+war...
I read through the article on "Global Cooling" (from the 1970s) - it was missing two things - one, a clear causative description - it was predominantly "observational", and two, a lack of scientific consensus.
As for people who deny climate change, I have found they generally question the effect humans have had on the climate and/or the extent to which we can alter the climate if we wanted and/or how much the climate has changed relative to other periods in recent and ancient history and/or the extent that unchecked climate change will have on the earth/humankind.
But for the pipeline to work, no conjecture should be dismissed without consideration, and no consensus should ever be immune from entering the pipeline yet again for re-examination.
Is climate change happening? Definitely. Is human activity a major cause? Undoubtedly. But that doesn't mean that skeptics and dissenters should be vilified and excluded a priori, even if they're deluded, purchased, or flat-out wrong.
The leap we should be taking is thinking probabilistically: we may lack the ability to model the climate with perfect accuracy, but given that the data we do have indicates that climate change is extremely likely to be human-related, what can we do to act on that likelihood while we continue to refine the science, including the dissenters in that process?
It seems to me that the most sensible solution would actually be out of the libertarian playbook: an ironclad 50-year tax holiday on all revenue generated from both the production of carbon-neutral energy and the manufacture of clean energy generating equipment.
You would get a massive investment in clean energy R&D, especially by those who can afford it like Big Oil and OPEC, without the potentially massive drag on the economy that carbon caps or tax schemes would create.
I think this seemingly obvious solution is ignored because free market solutions are anathema to the left, and because the right could give a rat's ass.
It's really too bad the industrial revolution didn't start 200 years earlier.
Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.
Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."
They are two types of deniers: we have the earth is not warming type, "Look it snowed in Colorado, we're warming uh?" and two those that say it's a natural process and point to the charts where earth went through cycles on it's own over the millions of years.
(Personally I buy the CO2 layer that act as a sheet acts on us during the night.)