A couple of recent discussions with people who I would describe as a part of the ‘general public’ in respect to climate science, have left me somewhat perplexed and concerned. These people are ‘otherwise rational sceptics’, in the sense that these are reasonable folk who nonetheless have seriously felt doubts about the science and the consequent policies of climate change. Their feelings on the subject and the issues are not of the same order as the rantings of some well-known bloggers, and they have no obvious agenda or loyalty to a particular dogma or worldview which might explain their hesitancy when it come to this subject.
The problem I have had is how to express my opinions, which I believe are well-informed and rational, based on my own research over a year and more, in a way which allows them the opportunity to question their own doubts, without being perceived as ‘pushy’ or ‘aggressive’ about the subject, yet at the same time presenting the science and the scientific evidence, which is pretty unequivocal itself, about the causes of global warming and the implications for policy.
Here is the ‘communication challenge’ in a nutshell, then: if I respond by asking for explanation or evidential support, more often than not, I either get a reiteration of the original doubt, couched slightly differently, or a citation of a source which is one of two things; an article in the media (normally from online), or a link to a website whose history, financial support or track record for ‘objectivity’ is well-known to bloggers, but not necessarily to my co-conversationalists.
How does one respond to such offers of ‘evidence’? Often, it involves pointing to hyperbolic or deceptive use of language in an article, which has generated an impression, which amounts to a message, of something which is at best highly dubious – such as the idea that there is a lively scientific debate about much of ‘AGW theory’. Alternatively, there is often a resource available amongst the blogs, debunking the proffered quasi-scientific material.
But the responses to this aren’t especially positive. People will say they don’t ‘trust the media’, but still persist with the impressionistic response to the ‘signals’ in an article, repeating their doubts. ‘Debunking’ blog articles are dismissed on the grounds that they are biased, or that they are ‘dismissive of alternative points of view’; there’s a kind of ‘Mandy Rice-Davies’ response to material which is offered in contradiction to their original opinion (‘Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?).
The effect of politely presenting what, to me, are clear and decisive refutations of familiar misunderstandings, is to have any evidence which contradicts the original view/opinion dismissed in one way or another, as not valid, or as, in their own way, evidence of the existence of a ‘range of opinions in science’, but hardly ever as authoritative or decisive.
If you believe, as I do, that a sound understanding of the science of climate change is important in communicating the issues or the implications, or even if you simply want people to ‘see’ what is to you ‘self-evident’, there is at least one alternative; to present the evidence bluntly and simply; ‘Here is what the science says…’ . I have tried this several times, and the response is worrying. Firstly, I am accused of being an advocate or otherwise biased myself. Then I am accused of being dismissive of another person (not their argument, but their ‘right to have a doubt’, if you like. Then I might be accused of using bullying tactics, or of being ‘aggressive’ in my bluntness. Whatever the response, it tends to indicate that my bluntness has stimulated not ‘doubt about the doubts’, but hostility and defensiveness, anger and then entrenchment.
Whatever way I try to communicate a message which responds to ‘doubt’ about the science of climate change, it seems that I am failing to get to what is really the issue, or the underlying problem, that these people have with AGW. This is worrying, because I tend to think of myself as a reasonably competent communicator, with a fair-minded approach. But I am failing. In some essential way, my attempts to offer reason in response to doubt do not result in any change in the view of the correspondent (actually, this is probably an exaggeration; there are times when it seems that we can reach agreement on certain things).
Am I missing a trick? Is there some methodology of communication which I don’t know about, which can address this problem? Is it me who even has the problem, or is there something about these people which is blocking the possibility of progress in reaching a better understanding?
I feel that this is an important issue, because my sense is that there are still a substantial number of people like this around – never mind what the opinion polls tell us. And if these views exist among the ‘general public’, they probably also exist in the corridors of power. Further, there is the question of how politicians who are committed to ‘managing’ climate change and its impacts can get the ‘necessary’ response from their electorate/constituency.
So if you have a bright idea how to handle this problem, please let me know…
Old man in a cave 
29 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 9, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Ian Hopkinson
I have a similar problem!
I think there are a number of people who hold the ‘denialist’ viewpoint for political reasons (either free-marketeers or small-governmentists). There’s another group who haven’t thought about it much, but feel there should be ‘two sides’ to the argument – they were very fond of “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. My approach of demanding peer-reviewed supporting evidence for their counter theories, and pointing to the peer-reviewed evidence supporting AGW doesn’t appear to work on most of those willing to join the debate – it might work on the silent bystanders.
I think most people are unwilling to be seen to back down, or change sides in an argument (including me) – and they don’t like to be told that their favoured information source is contaminated. Most people seem to believe they have an ‘equal vote’ in deciding if a piece of science is correct. I’m a scientist who’s worked in a range of fields and have no such delusions of competence!
I suspect the appropriate response is indirect, I wondering whether having loud Socratic dialogues with a willing accomplice on the train every morning on the way into work would be the best persuasion technique.
October 9, 2007 at 7:09 pm
William Connolley
I think that the thing to understand, when you carefully present good science to oppose bad and find that it bounces off, is that you are failing to address peoples real concerns (there are secondary points, like people not understanding what P-R means, or that its easier to present trash in an appealing way, but those are probably secondary. Not backing down is a good point but probably not major either).
In many cases I suspect that the main factor is that the skeptics are telling them what they want to hear, and you are telling them what they don’t want to hear. Which is, that they are going to have to restrict their carbon emissions and therefore their lifestyles. They probably think that the restrictions are going to be even more severe than you would suggest, so they are defensively rejecting the need.
One possible approach to this is to try to clearly differentiate between the underlying science of GW and the economic responses to it. For example, Lomborg nominally accepts the IPCC position but still says we don’t need to do much. Which brings up the idea that rather than going through the science (yawn) you bring up well-known people who they respect who accept it.
October 9, 2007 at 8:47 pm
tamino
I feel your pain!
I’ve found that when people take a side in verbal discussion, it’s too much of a “defeat” for them to admit they even might be wrong, so they’re generally resistant to your arguments. But it’s valuable, and important, nonetheless. For one thing, just because they stick to their guns during the cocktail-party discussion, doesn’t mean you didn’t get through; don’t expect to persuade people in a single conversation, but do expect to get ’em to think about things. Perhaps most important, usually *other people are listening.*
Nothing worth doing is easy. Persevere.
October 9, 2007 at 9:43 pm
fergusbrown
It’s interesting to see the similarities and differences between just a few people with experience of this, such as you three.
I do often write on the forum with the invisible reader in mind, staying polite and sounding ‘fair’ seems to count for a lot in these circumstances, certainly, being identified with one particular POV or the other is an invitation to be discounted as a ‘partial’ participant. Why you should be ignored if you have a POV is sort of understandable; many people appear to be looking for ‘independent arbitration’ as much as ‘compromise answers’, though the second may be a deeper desire than the first.
I agree, William, that these people may be unreachable in the short term because they ‘don’t want to hear’ the message, but I am less sure that the anxiety/denial is based on the expectation of having a self-sacrifice demanded of them. It is possible that the acceptance of the problem of AGW requires a recognition of both shared responsibility and shared duty to others, and the environment. The response to this may not be to feel responsible, though, but to feel guilty and ashamed, of ourselves, our society, and our species in general. Where this comes from isn’t easy to pin down, but some of the cause may be down to the ‘environmental’ TV and magazine output of the last thirty years, which has often laid the guilt trip on thick as a part of the ‘message’.
This makes me think that we could usefully draw a distinction in two uses of the word ‘responsible’; our correspondents are not ‘responsible’ for the problem, in the sense that they are personally to blame, but they should be able to identify that having a ‘responsible’ attitude to the environment and climate change is a positive thing.
There have been signs, tamino, that people do go away and think, and come back with a revised POV, but often, these same people then come up with another, and another, ‘reason to doubt’; their ‘conversion’ seems to be temporary rather than Damascene.
I am going to persevere, I just wish it was easier to see that some progress was being made, and that the way I try to go about it has some value.
October 10, 2007 at 9:25 am
Rob M
Hi Fergus!
What’s particularly interesting about your post above is that I feel much the same way, despite the fact that I’m approaching the situation from the Other Side of the Fence. I know what it is I am trying to say, I put it across as eloquently as possible and yet my comments are misinterpreted or misunderstood by the vast majority of people from The Opposition (for want of a better word!).
I think the problem is twofold – firstly I think there may be a fundamental mismatch between “Skeptics” and “Pros” which scrambles the point that is being made. This sounds like pseudo-psychobabble, but if you accept the fact that the two viewpoints differ, and that they have often followed the same process of reasoning but reached diametrically opposed viewpoints then surely it must be the actual thought process which differs. So perhaps it is a clash of opposing thought processes that causes the problem.
The second issue is the Wonderful World of the Web. Posting blogs or comments on message boards is a convenient way of debating issues with people from many different places and with many different views, but it is very difficult to have an active discussion in written form. I think you (or even I!) may have more success if we were to speak with people in person. Written communication lacks verbal nuances (or at least it is much harder to get these nuances across, which is why I use so many italics and emoticons in my posts, as do you). Writing also lacks the immediacy which can be vital to a debate – it is easy to lose the thread of the discussion, to become distracted by semantics, to misinterpret and, perhaps most importantly, to ignore and be ignored. Add to this the fact that many of those who post on the web (not intending to point fingers at anyone here) have a less-than-fantastic grasp of spelling, grammar and syntax and it becomes still harder to have a rational discussion.
I have great sympathy for your frustrations because, as I say, despite being your Nemesis(!), I feel many of the same frustrations.
All the best,
Rob
October 10, 2007 at 11:53 am
fergusbrown
Actually, Rob, You aren’t really a ‘sceptic at all (though I promise I won’t tell anyone). The subjects on which you and I disagree are very many fewer than those on which we have already both reached the ‘rational’ conclusion.
Questioning the reliability of the numbers attributed to certain forcings, or wondering whether the sum of ‘minor’ influences’ constitutes a significant enough amount to add to the uncertainties, is not in itself the kind of ‘scepticism’ that frustrates and perplexes us. This is rational curiosity derived from a perceived lack in the available material. Whether the lack is actual, or only imagined, is a part of the source of our disagreements, but not demonstrative of an irrational refusal to see the obvious when it is presented; hence, you started off wondering whether CO2 was a potent forcing, and now seem to be reasonably satisfied that the evidence shows it is. That you are still curious about the relative strength of the forcing of CO2 probably suggest that you’d be well served to pursue this particular question in more depth, as it is a complex matter.
Where we share frustration is probably in the tendency of others to make assumptions about our capacity for impartial analysis based on the observation of our apparent opinion on some matters.
October 10, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Rob M
Fair play to you there – I suppose I am not a “Traditional Skeptic”, although I am technically still a skeptic by dote of the fact that I am skeptical about the broad truth of AGW. It seems the source of your frustration stems more from “Denialists” who – and I shall be honest here – drive me completely up the wall too! Nothing damages a sensible skeptic argument more than some raving lunatic jumping up and down spewing nonsense – it shows all skeptics in a bad light, rather unfairly I feel.
🙂
Rob
October 10, 2007 at 1:32 pm
fergusbrown
If you are a person who harbours seriously-held doubts about the science of AGW then you are, by my description, Rob, an ‘otherwise rational sceptic’.
If we can agree that a rational person is one who impartially determines the truth or falsity of a statement, or the strength of an argument, by means of the application of the principles of reason, then we need to establish what statement about AGW you might be challenging, and the grounds on which you think the statement is false.
rather than presume, I would ask you then to either make your own comment, or offer a comment about AGW which you think is false, and we can go from there…
October 10, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Rob M
That is precisely what I intend to do but, to avoid confusion and misinterpretation (as has happened to me a bit on The Board) I need to word my issues carefully and clearly. So bear with me for a bit while I sort out the best way of putting things..!
😉
Rob
October 11, 2007 at 12:02 am
John Mashey
For Rob M:
So, I ask my standard questions for rational skeptics:
0) What do you mean when you say AGW? And between 0.0 and 1.0, what is your estimated probability that it is real?
1) What are your top 5-10 specific reasons for being skeptical of AGW?
These can be things like:
Evidence X seems to contradict it
OR
I don’t understand why Y.
OR
I haven’t seen any evidence of Z.
and
2) If those were resolved, would you be much less skeptical? Or put another way, what evidence would be convincing?
My observation: a rational skeptic who is actually interested in learning and is being methodical should have such a list. I certainly did when I started looking at this. Of course, if the answer is “I don’t know, but I’ll know it when I see it” doesn’t help much, or if the answer to is “There is no evidence that could convince me.” there’s not much point in further discussion.
October 11, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Rob M
Ah-ha! I like quizzes! (Joke! 😉 ) Answers below…
0) AGW = Human-induced Climate Change (Anthropogenic Global Warming) I have been asked the Probability Question before (by Fergus, in fact!), so I shall reply as I did before: I can not apply a probability estimate to something about which I (we/science) do not know enough. If I rolled two dice but had no idea what numbers were on the faces then how could I assign a probability to the prospect of rolling a 7?
1) Reasons for skepticism:
a – (Top Reason) Lack of understanding – that is on behalf of the scientists, rather than my own lack of understanding! Much like my answer to your first question, how can we assign likelihoods of culpability to various Forcings when we have comparatively little understanding of those forcings? We have identified the culprit as Human CO2 emissions (largely), and we claim to have a “High Level of Scientific Understanding” of their effect on climate. Virtually all other forcings are rated as “Medium”, “Medium/Low” or “Low” level of scientific understanding. Furthermore, the smallest error margins seem to be associated with those forcings of which we have the least understanding, which seems pretty counter-intuitive to me.
b – It is often announced that we are currently experiencing the most rapid rise in temperatures ever seen on this planet (or within the last million year, or last 450,000 years, depending on who says it, but it is frequently defined as “ever”). Looking at the Vostok Ice Core graph of CO2 and temperature change, most people (it would seem) focus on the large peaks and troughs. In between those peaks and troughs, though, are relatively rapid oscillations in temperature – granted that the resolution of the graph makes it hard to say for certain, but the speed of these changes seems potentially comparable with current trends (a temperature change of 3-4C over a period of 500-1000 years would equate to an increase of between 0.3 and 0.8C per century, which is comparable with what we see now).
c – There are things that we just don’t know. I have recently been discussing with Fergus the recent discovery of over 200,000 undersea volcanoes over an certain area, which has been extrapolated to equate to a total of around 3 million previously unknown volcanoes (below 1km in height, I believe) around the world. Regardless of specific details of how much oceanic heating they may or may not be responsible for, the simple fact is that we don’t know what these volcanoes were doing even 5 years ago, let alone 100, 1000 or 10,000 years ago. It is hard to accept that we have “found our suspect” in CO2 when we don’t know many other things – it seems roughly akin to a murder investigation in which only 1 man is interrogated, and he is brought to trial on the basis that he was in the same country as the victim at the time of the murder.
d – The lack of empiricism in Climate Science, and the Jell-o-like qualities of AGW. It would appear that there are no physical experiments that can be performed to test the AGW Hypothesis. I do not think that all climate scientists are liars or cheats or fraudsters, I don’t think that there’s some conspiracy amongst front-line scientists, but what makes a hypothesis into a good hypothesis (or even a theory) is the ability to disprove it. If the hypothesis withstands the disproof then it is a good, solid hypothesis (at least until the next possible disproof comes along!). A theory that cannot be tested this way is no more a “Good” science than the theory of Intelligent Design. In addition, AGW is hard to rigidly define since, it seems, any new information that comes along can be absorbed, processed and accomodated within its overall conceptual structure. It reminds me somewhat of Fred Hoyle’s determined defense of the Steady State Theory of the Universe against the then up-and-coming Big Bang Theory – it didn’t matter to Hoyle that so many facts fit the Big Bang Theory because he could just adapt the Steady State Theory to accomodate them.
e – More ideas are rushing around in my head, but I must think how best to define them before I write them down! I hope the above gives you some understanding of my thoughts and stance.
2) Yes, if my objections were resolved then I would be much less skeptical. If I actively refused to accept evidence then I would hardly be a “Rational Skeptic”, would I?! 😉 I do accept that there is potentially a circumstantial case against CO2, but if it were brought to trial then currently I would acquit.
All the Best,
Rob
October 12, 2007 at 8:34 am
John mashey
Sigh, I’ll make one more try, but I’m afraid I’ve just drastically revised downward the probability of a fruitful discussion.
0) AGW: I know what the acronym is, but that’s not a definition of the term.
We really need to have a meaningful definition to have any sensible discussion. If you don’t have one, Fergus can certainly provide one, or I can (except I’m off to bed).
IPCC manages to provide likelihood estimates.
However, “We don’t know everything” is unfalsifiable, and is very much from the “”Intelligent Design” style of argument, it’s endless, and exactly what nobody wants to waste time on.
Now, if you want to list:
“There are many volcanoes, and maybe they are producing the extra CO2, not humans”,
that is a concrete hypothesis that can be discussed. [it’s wrong, but at least it’s a specific falsifiable hypothesis.]
Anyway, please try again … but there really wasn’t very much specific in that list. beyond a), … but of course, with no definition of AGW…
BTW: there is rock-solid evidence that the bulk of the recent CO2 increase comes from burning fossil fuels….
October 12, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Rob M
Dear John,
if that’s going to be your attitude then I have nothing more to say – I have had my fill of patronising, disdainful and sneering comments from “Pros”.
Yours disgustedly
Rob
October 14, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Steve Reynolds
I think Rob has good reason to be disgusted, but I will try this too:
0) What do you mean when you say AGW? And between 0.0 and 1.0, what is your estimated probability that it is real?
Measurable temperature increases with global impact, caused by human activity.
Probability = 0.8
0.5) I think we also need a definition of ‘AGW crisis’: The plausible effects of AGW from near future ‘business as usual’ are so severe that roughly 1% or more of world product should immediately (or even starting within the next 10 years) be dedicated to mitigation.
Probability = 0.02
1) What are your top 5-10 specific reasons for being skeptical of AGW?
Accuracy of measurements and model feedback effects is relatively low (or even unknown) in most cases, so quantitative results are just barely distinguishable from natural variability.
Too many climate scientists appear to be unwilling to share their data and methods openly. This causes considerable doubt about the accuracy (and maybe in a few cases, honesty) of their results. Read http://www.climateaudit.org for detailed explanation (and I’m not defending all the comments there).
Skepticism of AGW crisis:
Accepting IPCC estimates of temperature increases, effects predicted by some (Stern, for example, which is not peer reviewed) seem exaggerated and mitigation costs underestimated (especially compared to most peer reviewed economists).
Some potential costs are value judgments (are polar bears as important as people?).
and
2) If those were resolved, would you be much less skeptical?
Yes, although value judgements will be hard to resolve.
October 14, 2007 at 10:40 pm
fergusbrown
One surefire way to almost guarantee making someone feel disaffected or alienated is to start from an assumption that you are not talking to an equal, and patronising a person’s attempt to make an honest statement. That you may feel their reasoning faulty or misguided, or that you are repeating a process conducted many times before, does not justify comments such as those made at the beginning of John’s post.
I see no sign in Rob’s post of the irrational polemic commonplace in discussions on the web, and think it needs to be taken at face value and treated with patience. There is also no indication that Rob would not have been willing to at least try to understand an explanatory response.
Therefore, a slap on the wrists goes to John, a thank you to Steve, and an apology to Rob, who I hope will continue to visit blogs and seek to understand the science and his uncertainties more.
As the inventor of the ‘potato print’ as a response to a certain type of scepticism, I’m not averse to deriding obvious wing-nuts, but I still tend to the view that people with what are to them reasons to have doubts should be taken seriously and assumed to be capable of rational evaluation, given the opportunity. One of our tasks, then, is to provide that opportunity.
As the rugby has shown in the past few weeks, patience is a very effective strategy.
October 15, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Ian Hopkinson
I’ve been thinking about how to respond to this for some time
I guess the summary of all I write below is “Climate science works the same way as the fields of science I’ve worked in, therefore when a large consensus of climate scientist say ‘this is how things work, this is what we fear for the future’ I believe them. The moral question (should we do something about potential impacts) and the economic question (what are the costs) are separate questions that I haven’t thought about in any where near as much detail.” And it’s written in the tone that I assume all people are as rational as I am and if they think differently then they have some reason for it.
I’ve been working as a scientist for the past nearly 15 years, mainly in universities but more recently in industry (if you search Google Scholar then I’m the polymers/ granular materials/ proteins Hopkinson rather than the wounds or genetics Hopkinson). Climate science looks like my own fields (but with the addition of the IPCC). That’s to say it’s no more or less empirical, it has observational, theoretical and modelling components that all rub along together. There are elderly men who tell you at the poster sessions that what you’ve done is all wrong / they did 30 years ago, only to find later they’re talking utter cobblers. There are also chaps working away in the 19th century who turn out to be quite awesomely insightful.
Interestingly the CO2 greenhouse effect relies on the same type of calculation (radiative transfer theory) that I use currently (for completely different applications).
To me the existence of warming looks sound (boreholes, satellites and temperature sensor networks give the same results), the CO2 greenhouse effect follows from something I’m familiar with, water vapour feedback is pretty straightforward from a physical chemistry point of view. Ice-albedo feedback seems fairly obviously qualitatively. Clouds and aerosols present some problems, but you don’t research these things intensively for 30+ years without at least get some idea of what’s going on. The best estimate of CO2 doubling sensitivity has been pretty much constant for 30+ years.
I’d argue that the field has had empirical successes (Sawyers prediction ~1972, Hansen’s 1988 predictions and also the temperature dip following Mt Pinatubo).
To me the more open scientific questions are about the possible regional changes in rainfall, hurricanes, heat waves, disease – all of which global warming very plausibly influences, all of which have large potential impacts and all of which are potentially already happening. These are questions at the limits of scientific understanding (as far as I can see).
As far as economic impacts go, it’s not something I’ve thought a great deal about. To me there is a whole bunch of stuff to do with reducing emissions (i.e. more efficient car, more efficient domestic usage and similarly in business) that it just makes financial sense to do anyway. I really don’t have any confidence that we (as a species) are set up to deal with things that have impacts on a global scale over periods of hundreds of years.
I guess I’ll go away and read the IPCC WGII & WGIII reports as a starter for this but I’d be interested if there are any other sources you’d recommend. I have to say that the behaviour of a range free-market institutes in the US over the scientific question of global warming makes me exceedingly skeptical of anything they might say about anything (regardless of any apparent qualifications).
As for sharing data and methods openly; climate science looks pretty comparable to the fields I’ve worked in – there are repositories of some ‘raw’ data, some analysis programs are available openly, some aren’t. The standard for publication is generally that methods are described but source code and raw data isn’t supplied.
You can be sure of this: if a self appointed auditor went around implying that I’d dishonestly handled data, and that I was covering stuff up and then demanded I hand over my raw data and analysis programs then they’d get a pretty blunt reply!
…better get back to work now!
October 15, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Rob M
Thanks to both Steve and Fergus for your comments – I don’t like to think that I’m that short-tempered or snappish, and I am usually polite, patient and somewhat more eloquent than my last comment may have people believe!
Nonetheless, while I shall continue to read relevant blogs (such as this) and study the evidence insofaras I am able, I shall not be commenting for some time to come, either here or elsewhere. Sadly I have taken far too much abuse (no need to play the violins!) in these debates and, over the past few days, have finally had my back broken by several final straws.
Perhaps I shall return to the active debate in the future (especially if we enter a significant cooling trend!! 😀 ), but for now I will step out, bidding thanks to all those with whom I have had pleasant debates – not least your good self, Fergus.
All the best,
Rob
October 15, 2007 at 4:17 pm
fergusbrown
Thanks to you, Ian, for an articulate and interesting response, which should raise some valid points to some reasons for scepticism, and to you, Rob, for replying once more.
I can’t honestly say I understand any better how to handle the fundamental problem of how to engage with someone with doubts so as to best encourage a better mutual understanding, but this is a matter which will no doubt reappear on the blog from time to time, as one of the central areas of interest to me.
October 15, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Steve Bloom
Fergus, you say that Rob doesn’t engage in irrational polemics, but he says this kind of thing:
“The lack of empiricism in Climate Science, and the Jell-o-like qualities of AGW. It would appear that there are no physical experiments that can be performed to test the AGW Hypothesis.”
An irrational polemic stated on measured tones is still an irrational polemic. The 200,000 volcano gambit is further proof. Ron is literate enough to have gone out and found out for himself why volcanos aren’t the culprit for the current warming, but instead wants to spend your time playing games with that speculative factoid. Once you answer it, he’ll fall back to asking you to prove some other aspect of long-settled climate science. The game continues until you give up in frustration.
October 15, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Rob M
Okay, I said I’d given up and wasn’t going to write any more, but I just had to take the bait on Steve B’s comment…
How is the line you quoted an irrational polemic?
Why do you call the 200,000(+) volcano issue a “gambit”? Did I ever state that I believed these were responsible for Global Warming? No. I didn’t. They were used specifically as an example of a recent discovery which was previously unknown.
I appreciate that it is extremely unlikely that any amount of recent vulcanism is entirely responsible for the current warming. However, not allowing any form of contrary speculation is anti-scientific, and you know it!
Okay. That’s enough from me.
October 15, 2007 at 9:11 pm
fergusbrown
Hi Steve. I’d argue that Rob is at least taking a rational approach. I have communicated frequently enough with him to have concluded that he is probably rather more rational in most instances than an average mottle, for example. This doesn’t mean that his reasoning on AGW is sound, however.
Ian’s post addresses the ‘lack of empiricism’ suggestion and probably does so well enough. Climate science is no more or less empirical than many other branches of science, so this cannot be an issue of this particular science, but only of science in general. I suppose the reference to ‘jell-o-like properties’ is intended to convey the intangible and imprecise nature of the science. This should be readily refutable by reference to the source literature. Rob’s comment about physical experiment comes from a particular school of thought about what ‘proper science’ is, and I am not sure how it applies to AGW, or whether it is a legitimate criticism of science anyway.
I know you are well experienced in dealing with the lame-brains who inhabit the nether regions of the blogosphere waiting to pounce, but I don’t think Rob is one of them. However, I would point you and others to the ‘cabbage argument’ which I have just posted. The bottom line is, how open-minded is Rob, really? He may think he is open-minded, but does his scepticism possibly conceal an underlying assumption which has, if not even consciously, already been made? If he is open-minded, then persuasion and argument are worth the effort. If he is not, I am wasting my time. Your experience tells you to make one assumption; my naivete points me in the other direction. Only Rob truly knows the answer…
October 15, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Rob M
Thanks for your comments, Fergus. Just to clarify on the one about physical experiment and “proper science” though, I would like to say that my view isn’t that a lack of empiricism makes for “improper science”. My point is that theoretical science’s only real means of validation is by its contact with empirical science. A theory can be robust and stand the test of time in the theoretical realm, but it cannot be vindicated or refuted until some experiment is performed which relates it to the real world. So this is not a “criticism of science” – it is highlighting the uncertainty of science (and, yes, I do mean science in general, not just AGW…assuming I’m allowed to use that acronym! 😀 ).
I do believe I am open-minded, though I concede that my belief may be a false one (who knows what lurks in the mind of man?). On the other hand, playing Devil’s Advocate is also a mainstay of analytical science – if one doesn’t look at the flip side of an argument then one risks leaping to the wrong conclusions. And at the end of the day, if my skepticism only serves to reinforce your certainty then surely even that’s a good thing, isn’t it?
Okay, I think that really is my final word now!
Ciao 😉
October 15, 2007 at 10:13 pm
fergusbrown
Hi Rob,
Pleased to see you are at least lurking still. I think my concern with your argument that Climate science is not empirical, and that AGW is hard to pin down, is that what you seem to be relying on is a ‘sense’ that there is something wrong, rather than a specific example. There is nothing wrong in this in itself, but I be interested in your response to the suggestion.
As I pointed out (while your post was sitting waiting to be appro’d) Steve is a bit of a hard-nut in the climate blogosphere (I am sure he won’t mind the description), and if you can respond to his provocation with particular issues, I expect he will respond reasonably civilly. He’d better.
If you feel inclined to answer the question I post in the comment above this, I’d be interested to hear…
Edit: and once again our posts cross like ships in the night. On your behalf, I’d like to posit this suggestion: what confidence should we have in the attribution values given in the AR4 WG1? It seems that there is not enough yet known to make clear prognostications about several suspected/known forcings. Under these circumstances, how accurate can the estimate of the forcing of CO2 be?
October 15, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Rob M
You’re making it very hard for me to leave, Fergus! (Maybe I should just stop looking at the threads altogether.) So…My Final final word…!
There have been certain assertions that I perceive as being wrong, or unjustified at least, such as the suggestion that the current warming is unprecedented – over on the forum I recently had this argument (which I have had with your good self before) that the Vostok Ice Core (if not others) allows for the distinct possibility that there have been warmings as rapid as the current one many, many times in the past (the rapid oscillations between the big peaks and troughs, if you recall). In this most recent argument I believe the final comment was that there hadn’t been such a rapid increase in the instrumental record. This is a somewhat different boundary from the original assertion. (There was other nonsense about how – to paraphrase – “obviously there were rapid warmings when coming out of ice ages”, but the rapid oscillations to which I pointed were not “Ice Age Oscillations” at all.
On the whole though, I would agree with your suggestion that I have a “sense” that there is something wrong, though this sense is corroborated by certain inaccuracies such as that mentioned in the previous paragraph. Or, in fact, perhaps the suggestion should be turned on its head – it’s not so much that I sense that there is something wrong so much as I object to the claimed certainty of a theoretical science. As I have intimated before, I feel that one can start claiming some degree of certainty once there has been some empirical substantiation for the theory.
I shall not hover on the climate pages as much from now on, I think, since my “retirement” doesn’t seem to be working out very well at the moment! However, I promise that I will check back in from time to time and respond as I feel appropriate. I would like to say, though, that – with all due respect to Steve B – I find it irrelevant to post a response to a question which is borne through misinterpretation. Steve’s response above has thoroughly misinterpreted the intention of my prior post, it suggests an element of deliberate obfuscation (not to mention blind, stupid ignorance)on my part with regards to the 200,000 volcanoes, which was not present in my original post, and ends with the suggestion that my sole purpose in life is to go around climate pages winding people up.
To this I object.
🙂
October 16, 2007 at 1:05 am
Steve Reynolds
Ian> You can be sure of this: if a self appointed auditor went around implying that I’d dishonestly handled data, and that I was covering stuff up and then demanded I hand over my raw data and analysis programs then they’d get a pretty blunt reply!
That sounds like a perfectly normal human response, but not the response of a good scientist, who should welcome someone trying to find something wrong with his data or analysis.
So what is more important here, your feelings, or confidence in your results?
Fergus, don’t I get any comment on my AGW probabilities?
October 16, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Ian Hopkinson
Steve – that’s sort of the point I’m making: Good scientists are all normal humans (okay – this is slightly debatable – but you see where I’m coming from 😉 ) Doing science is very human – the way it comes out at the end, formalised into peer-review literature and textbooks, hides all of that stuff.
There is a second thing here though: scientists have a very different view of how to gain confidence in scientific results. I guess scientists tend to cut out the ‘formal audit’ stage, because there is an ultimate audit: Does nature agree with you? The way we ‘audit’ a result is seeing it confirmed along independent lines and seeing it build into a wider picture. From this point of view, a more administrative audit doesn’t add much value for scientists.
October 16, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Andrew Dodds
Steve R –
As far as the probabilities go.. unless you would go as far as to say that the level of CO2 from any source has no effect on climate, then it’s hard to say that man-made warming is not happening.
When it comes to action/mitigation, that’s a much harder question. We can work around many of the effects of AGW with appropriate technonogy; the big unknown is sea level. Air conditioning, desalination, buulding redesign, new crops – these are ‘do-able’ adaptations. Relocating that proportion of the population that lives within 6m of sea level is a bit harder. As far as I can tell, the speed of sea level rise manages to be both the biggest potential problem for humans AND one of the most uncertain results of AGW.
As far as costs go.. the US in particular seems happy to spend 2.5% of it’s GDP presumably protecting oil in the middle east; if an investment of (for example) $100bn a year for a decade could stop US oil imports whilst incidentally reducing CO2 emissions, it would appear to be a bargin..
October 16, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Steve Reynolds
Ian> From this point of view, a more administrative audit doesn’t add much value for scientists.
You may be correct for most science, although I can see no justification for any withholding of data or methods (developed at public expense) once a paper is published.
In the special case of climate science, where the allocation of trillions of dollars of resources may depend on the result, independent auditing is essential, IMO.
If audits are required to convince ‘rational skeptics’ and if reducing opposition from skeptics is important to the cause of mitigating AGW, shouldn’t climate scientists be willing to accept audits?
October 16, 2007 at 3:20 pm
fergusbrown
Steve R: if AGW = recent positive trend in global mean temperature relative to a historic 30 year baseline, a significant proportion of which can only be explained by anthropogenic intervention, then 0.95 would be my conservative choice.
Confidence and auditing: there are, of course, methodologies for both these standard procedures in place already. I’d draw attention to a distinction between ‘psychological’ confidence, and ‘confidence-levels’, which are, of course, quite distinct matters. I’d also suggest that, insofar as most science has a demand of internal rigour placed upon it, that ‘auditing’ is an inherent part of the process of research – test – analyse – publish.
One useful ‘auditing’ process also seems to be the open-access methodology used in the EGU online publications; here, interested parties from outside the originating institutions/working teams can draw attention to potential pitfalls and uncertainties/ambiguities, prior to final presentation; this strikes me as an admirable activity, and worthy of serious consideration elsewhere.
Andrew: I find myself in disagreement with you, sorry. Firstly, the capacity to adapt on the required scale is unevenly distributed and favours those nations/regions with the greatest present development, as well as being most necessary in those places least able to provide adaptive technology (‘vulnerability’ is key, here); therefore, to find an equitable adaptive strategy implies the need to subsidise and support the vulnerable, transferring both cash and technology from wealthier to poorer nations. The alternative is to decide that someone else’s suffering or death is unavoidable and therefore, whilst not desirable, possibly necessary.
I’m also not sure about the sea level being the biggest problem. My guess is that the availability and distribution of ‘survival’ resources (food and water, medicine,) and the transfer in developing economies to new (potentially environmentally destructive) cash-crops for international trade and internal development, may be the more pressing problem. With primary resource markets such as wheat already showing considerable volatility and reserves reaching new global lows, the possibility of global recession cannot be ruled out, either.
I’d also suggest that there is a unique problem with respect to the military capability issue, which has direct implications arising from the ‘peak oil’ scenario. Put simply, at present, military force is a function of technology and logistics. The USA isn’t ready to enter an era where it’s troops travel around the world on bicycles, especially if other nations’ troops still have the fuel to operate tanks and aircraft. The question of whether ‘global supremacy’ is more or less of a risk than global climate change is not a simple one to answer.