You can stop shaking your heads right now. Never mind all the reasons why the Old man shouldn’t rise to the bait, he did.
On the Netweather blog (weather geek heaven – see blogroll) , a regular said this:
Hello folks,
As everyone is aware I have questions and doubts concerning all the AGW malarky. I don’t want to have doubts or questions, I’d quite happily join the pro-camp, if I could be convinced…
Then went on to ask if anyone was willing to give it a go. You can imagine the nature of most of the responses. Since nobody else seemed so inclined, the Old man, trusting fool that he is, weighed in with the following effort. It might not be the best aswer, but it was what i thought of as I wrote it. Is it persuasive?
_ _______________________________________________________
Hi xxxxx. As I know you are a sincere person, I don’t mind having a go. If any of my assumptions are uninentionally patronising, please accept an apology in advance, and if any are questionable, please question them.
I will work on the assumption that what you are having doubts about is the scientific basis of AGW. Since ‘all that AGW malarky’ could also cover issues to do with politics, energy, the environment, and a number of other things, if we agree to deal with the underlying idea – AGW – first, then other concerns or doubts can be put into context at another time.
Let’s be clear first what the discussion is about. First, there are the observations, made over time, of mean temperatures. In some areas/countries/regions, these go back to the 1600’s (the instrumental period). There are many observing stations around the world which have been collecting weather data since the middle of the 19th century, independently. Direct meaurements of the entire globe only begin in the satellite era, with reliable and regular data going back at least to the 1970s. In current times, since there are both local and global measurements being made, these are often cross-correlated, to test reliability and ensure accuracy.
In the late 1800’s, it was first observed that, on average, over a large number of discrete measurements, there was a small trend upward on mean temperatures, year-on-year. Even at this early stage, the idea was suggested that a known phenomenon of the atmosphere- carbon dioxide – might be increasing, and thereby causing the upward trend. The source of this increase was speculatively suggested to be human activity, in particular, the relatively short-term and rapid acceleration in the burning of coal and other industrial processes. this idea was largely ignored at the time, little known and little understood.
The idea of a ‘global warming’ became a matter of interest again in the 1930’s, when widespread droughts, heat waves and unusually warm weather were experienced in the USA and Europe. Because of the timing of this warm period, during the great depression, the impact on humanity was considerable, causing widespread hunger and suffering, loss of living and long-term damage to farming and other land phenomena. The original notion that the warming phase might not be entirely natural in origin was revived, and a considerable amount of theoretical work done to establish whether the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere could cause changes such as the ones which had occurred.
The question of the nature of the world’s climate and the possibility that human activities might have an influence on it was revisited in the 1970’s. One famous case relates to the paper which suggested that a thirty-year trend in slightly decreasing temperatures could be the signal that the period of warming which had previously occurred had since stopped, and a new cycle of climate might be beginning which, if it continued over many centuries, could lead to a new ice age. The idea was abandoned fairly quickly, not least because the trend stopped, and mean temperatures once again began to rise.
By the late 1980’s, following several years of much more intensive research (and the development of computers, which allowed for large data calculations to be made), the scientists who were studying climate had concluded that the global mean temperature was rising, was likely to continue to rise,and was rising at an unexpectedly rapid rate. By this time, a fairly broad range of factors which influence global climate had been identified and their relative roles calculated. After analysing the relationship between the known forcing factors (the forcings) and the changes in global temperature, it was understood that not all of the rise in mean temperature could be accounted for by natural forcings, so some other factor, forcing global warming, must be in operation.
Since the people working in this field already knew about the work done on atmospheric chemistry and physics, and the radiative forcing effect of CO2 on global surface temperature, and since the idea had already been posited that it was the increased CO2 from human industrial activity which had released many billions of tonnes of this into the atmosphere since the 1750’s, the conclusion that some, if not most, of the warming in the global record since the 1850’s was probably down to this forcing.
The AGW story since then has been much more complex. Much work has been done on the chemistry and physics of the atmosphere, and more components of it are now understood to have an effect – positive or negative – on the temperatures we experience on average. As well as CO2, Methane, Ozone, Sulphates (various), nitrates and, of course, water vapour, all contribute to the mix, and all have some effect or another. As understanding and measurement of all of these components has developed, it has become progressively easier (though still not without controversy) to allocate various effects to various components. By the early 1990’s, scientists were broadly satisfied that they had identified at least the broad picture, and the principle causes of changes in global climate, which had been experienced largely as global warming. Both the natural forcings, and the ‘human-pruduced’ forcings have been further studied and elaborated on since then, so that we are now at a stage, (summarised by the frist section of the IPCC AR4, the WG1 section) – where pretty much all of the people who specialise in studies related to the way the climate and the atmosphere works can agree that it is pretty much certain that a proportion of the global warming since the late 1800’s has been caused by human activity, and that it is very likely that most of the warming since the 1950’s has a human origin.
So, the ‘anthropogenic’ part of AGW is now understood to include a great many human activities which have as at least one of their consequences, a change in the capacity of the ‘natural system’ to absorb or ‘sink’ the excess ‘greenhouse gases’, and other effects such a changes in the location of tropical convection zones, changes in patterns of atmospheric circulation, and changes in long-term patterns of weather and climate in many regions around the world.
One way of understanding what is being referred to when ‘climate change’ is discussed is to recall those lovely pictures in the atlases we had when we were schoolkids. Next to ‘fascinating’ bar graphs showing the mean precipitation and temperature, month by month, of Rio de Janiero, London and Vladivostok, was a big world-map which showed the various ‘climate regimes’ around the world. Some I can recall are; desert, tundra, deciduous forest… remember?
Now, when a scientist talks a bout ‘climate change’, one of the things he/she could be talking about is where, and how, that map is changing. Places which were once tundra are now taiga, some arid grassland is now desert, etc. etc. So what we are dealing with is the notion that, over a period of a century or less, what was once considered to be a ‘stable regime’ of climate has been seen to be variable. Beyond this, there is the notion that the more recent changes are all in a broadly similar direction – towards a warmer world, with less rain over land and more over ocean, less extreme cold in the higher temperate zones, and rapid changes to the polar latitudes.
Some of the changes which are in the process of occurring are to do with the way in which people in some regions live in relation to the land. Widespread deforestation, overfarming and inefficient irrigation, as examples, as well as badly-conceived major public works such as the damming of rivers, all contribute to these changes. On top of these, even relatively small changes in the global average temperature can ‘knock’ a system out of kilter, and thus damage it in the long-term.
We live in a very complex society, in the sense that many of our current practices are based on certain assumptions about geophysical stability, amongst which are assumptions about the way the weather will effect agriculture during a year, what crops work where, and what sort of buildings are needed to survive extremes. Much of our infrastructure has been coinstructed on an assumption of a certain range of climate variability.
Back to the point: what AGW is pointing to is twofold; first, the identifiable causes of the measured changes in global climate, and secondly, the interrelationship between the impacts of these changes and our society.
If I wanted to understand the physics and chemistry fully, which explains how, why and how much human-produced greenhouse gase are changing global mean temperatures, I would probably have to do the postgraduate diploma in climate change at UEA, or a similar course. Since my area of specialisation is environmental ethics, I don’t have the time (and arguably, not the talent) to do this, so to a certain extent I have to engage in a act of trust. I have to decide whether or not I can trust the people who work in the fields related to climate, such as atmospheric chemistry, to know their jobs, report their work honestly, and understand the implications of the research they do and the discoveries they make. Whilst not all of them do this, on balance, most them do, and therefore I choose to trust them. Since their work is overseen by others with experience and knowledge, and criticised and studied by fellow scientists all around the world, and since their reputations (and livelihoods) depend on them not making bad mistakes, I am reassured in my inclination to trust their words and work, but also concerned that the entire system is imbued with an innate conservatism, so that the more radical notions of consequences migh not come out so clearly.
My suggestion, in a nutshell, then, is that, if you are not in a position to spend a year or more studying the basic equations and formulae directly, instead you should decide whether, on the balance of things, you are willing to trust other people – dedicated, hard-working, honest and assiduous people – who are expert in their fields, to tell you what is or is not happening. Please note, though, that there is a difference between not trusting and not wanting to trust; if your case is the latter, it may be that you could consider whether your wish to not have to trust these people is founded on the underlying wish that AGW isn’t really happening.
It is a simple truism that none of us can know everything, and few of us have the talent or skill to study and analyse in depth the work of scientific specialists. This does not stop us from trusting that an engineer has designed a bridge well enough to allow us to cross it in safety, or a that a doctor has correctly diagnosed and treated an illness. Living in a technological society, in fact, we place an implicit trust in literally thousands of different kinds of specialists and experts, every day; we even trust them with the safety of our own children. Some of the people who inhabit NW are experts in their own fields.
So, I am afraid, in a sense my simple response to your question ‘why should I believe all this AGW malarky’ is ‘because the experts tell us so’. They might be wrong. They could have missed something, or left something out. Some of them might be jumping on a bandwagon. But the sheer weight, the mass of material which supports their assertion that AGW is real, especially when measured against the material which attempts to contradict it, should also, in itself, be convincing testament to the rigorousness of the original hypothesis.
This is a rather longer reply than I had planned. I know there are weaknesses and errors in it, and that some matters are not addressed, but I hope that the underlying reasoning is itself persuasive.
14 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 17, 2007 at 2:04 am
tamino
Well said.
December 17, 2007 at 11:52 am
fergusbrown
Thank you for the moral support. 🙂
December 17, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Aaron Lewis
It is good. I always get too technical and have problems with people’s eyes galazing over. I think I will put this in my palm pilot and when people ask, why should they should accept AGW, I will just read it to them.
Or better someone might use it as a base for a film script, with authoritative figures in the leading roles, and post it on YouTube. That would be good university film project.
December 18, 2007 at 5:09 am
Jon
While I do enjoy your blog and check in on it regularly, I have to say that I am not sure how I feel about this answer. You do a wonderful job of non-technically setting the stage so to speak, and then promptly abandon it in what seems to be little more than a fallacious appeal to authority. Of course the level of response is completely dependent on the audience, and a logically fallacious argument does not itself mean its conclusions are incorrect, but I wonder that there can’t be a greater balance struck between technical explanation and the “trust them, they’re experts” thrust.
I don’t mean to be overly critical, but logical fallacies, however earnestly presented, are blood in the water to those of opposing or unconvinced sentiment, particularly it seems in internet discussions.
Two routes that I might have taken differently are explanations of greenhouse warming fingerprints and the failure of any model to account for the current warming without taking elevated GHGs into account.
Perhaps also a bit more on what GHGs are (carbon blanket rather than greenhouse metaphor maybe), how we’ve positively identified the increase to human action (Keeling curve) and isotopic testing, and the surpassing of natural variability.
In any event, I think the first half to two-thirds was well written and easily understood. I don’t know that any single response could answer such an obviously demanding query. I look forward to future posts as always.
Cheers,
Jon
December 18, 2007 at 10:18 am
fergusbrown
Hi Jon, nice of you to chip in. Your point is well made, but I think I have a response.
The problem I (and many others, I am sure) face when discussing AGW with doubters is that, whilst many of these people are intelligent and broadly well-informed on a range of subjects, they are not necessarily proficient in the processes of logical reasoning or the practice of science. It is all very well telling someone to go and read the source material, but they won’t, and in some cases, they don’t understand it when they do (though, in fact, it is simpler than many people imagine). Therefore, there is always a gap between the actual evidence and their perception of it. In general, this gap is filled by either the mass media or the internet. The process of discussion often goes:
‘Why should I believe?’
‘Because this shows it is so…’
‘This doesn’t help me understand, it is too complicated; I still don’t know..’
In the face of such a situation, I feel that the appeal to authority is a proper and rational response. If you had a pain in your kidneys, you could spend time doing your own medical research and come up with a diagnosis and treatment for your pain. Or you could go visit the doctor. The choice to visit the doctor would not be based on any false reasoning, and is not the kind of ‘appeal to authority’ which characterises a fallacy in logical argument.
The occasions when such an appeal constitute a problem is when the appeal is used as a premiss on which a subsequent conclusion is reached. Here, the claim is not that AGW is real because the experts say it is, but that a member of the general public would be acting rationally if she concluded that, as in many other instances in contemporary life, the experts in the field are better placed than she to provide both a diagnosis and a treatment. The argument for the existence of AGW is not dependent on an appeal to authority. The decision to defer the process of discovery and evidence to others, and to accept what they conclude, is both reasonable and sensible, if the principal is not in a position to do the discovering and research for themselves.
The response was never intended to be a complete ‘answer’, but I will post the next ‘chapter’ of the discussion later…
December 18, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Jon
That is a perfectly reasonable point. I think any rational person wouldn’t have a problem with it. It’s just been my experience that people that do not trust mainstream science prove to be less than rational, again, especially on the internet. Let me read your follow up post and see what happens next. Thanks for the response!
December 20, 2007 at 1:13 am
xxxxx
Surely Fergus, your first point of call, should be to seek the permission of the one asking the question, before taking it and using it for your own purposes? Politeness costs nothing, you have a means of contacting me directly. If I had wanted to pose the question here, I would have done so; I did not. Your presumptions on this matter, follow the pattern of your presumptions that you have greater intellect, knowledge and understanding on this subject than anyone else, other than scientists. It is this aspect of your arguments, in promoting the theory of AGW that I find the most off-putting and the fundamental reason why you lack any progress in our discussions.
December 20, 2007 at 12:01 pm
fergusbrown
Hello xxxxx; was it presumptuous of me to use a sentence that you wrote as a lead-in to an extended piece of writing on the subject in general? If I had referred to you in person (rather than use your question as a generic example), or written about you or your opinions, then it could be seen as presumptuous, perhaps. But your question was posted on a popular, open, public website (where it is likely to be read by more people than on here), and was asking for an open response from ‘anyone’. In transferring across my response, which took a long time to write, all I have done is extend (very slightly) the range of my outreach. The use of your question is merely a contextual device, to place my own thoughts within an understandable context for readers of my blog.
Should I, then, have sought your permission to quote you? Where you and others might think me presumptuous is that this hadn’t even occurred to me. You know me to be a polite person, so the omission is not a matter of bad manners, rather it is a question of relevance. It is normal on blogs to quote, cite and make use of others’ comments in the way I have here, and it is not normal to seek the permission of the originator, unless one is citing a large piece of text, in which case a link is normally considered sufficient ‘consideration’ of the originator. When I quote from personal correspondence (emails, for example), I generally check with the other party beforehand, but even this is not always necessary. Since your question was already in the public domain, and since I made use of it only as a device, in a general way, I didn’t perceive that there was a need to seek your permission. I am happy for others to express their own opinions on this, (if anyone does actually read it).
Do I presume a ‘superior’ intellect, knowledge or understanding than others? I wouldn’t dare; there are a small number of visitors to this blog, some of whom are scientists and some of whom are intelligent; they do not hesitate to point out the errors in my thinking or knowledge when these occur (as they frequently do).
But your response perplexes me. You asked somebody to address your question, which I think I can presume means you wanted somebody to try to answer it, but when I offer a response, you complain that in doing so, I am presuming a greater knowledge than you, or an intellectual superiority. If I am not even permitted to attempt to answer a question you have yourself put, what is the point of your asking the question? If I do not offer some kind of answer, then I have nothing to say (nor does anyone who thinks they can help you answer your own question). If I do answer your question, I am being arrogant or presumptuous. It is almost as if you are complaining that I have had the temerity to think I have an answer at all.
I would ask you what sort of response you were expecting or hoping for when you asked the question? I’d also like to know whether you disagree with my reasoning, since that is the purpose of the exercise. You may feel that my style of writing reveals an attitude which you find distasteful, or that it demonstrates a lack of respect for others’ intellectual capabilities. This may be the case (I am not able to be my own judge on this), but I do not know that it is a feeling that others share with you. This being my blog, and therefore an expression of my thoughts, ideas and research, it ends up having a style which is characteristic of me as a person. Some people like it, others may not, but I can’t pretend to be something I am not, and don’t want to spend my time carefully considering my choice of words for an imagined, nonexistent audience; people who read the blog choose to do so; some get pleasure from it; it is what it is, and I am what I am. If it turns out that a lot of people think I am a smartass, or that I ‘talk down’ to them, then that is a shame (since I wouldn’t want to be or do either), but it is what you get if you choose to read my blog, and I have to live with it. I am not going to change who I am for the sake of a few people’s sensitivity, and to expect me to do so is unreasonable.
What is a matter of regret to me is that, clearly, I am failing to persuade you. I did think that what I wrote in response to your question was honest, balanced and fair, and addressed the question you had put. But you have not objected to my comments, but my supposedly superior attitude, which appears to be a consequence of me having the confidence to write a straightforward response. Would you object in the same way to anyone who dared to address your request? Would you object if another person, perhaps a scientist, gave you a similar reply? I simply do not understand why you feel that my response is off-putting.
It would be interesting to know what others thought of our dialogue here. Perhaps some might infer that the problem is not that I am being arrogant in presuming to offer an explanation, but that you do not, really, want to be convinced at all, and that your objection is a way of avoiding addressing the matter in hand. It has often been suggested to me that discussing skepticism and doubt is a waste of time, since most skeptics don’t want to be persuaded anyway, regardless of their claims to open-mindedness. That I continue to do so should be evidence that I persist in the belief that this is not true of everyone, and that trying to talk with people about their doubts is a useful expenditure of my time. I still don’t want to believe that you, or some others, are so irrational as to be beyond persuasion, but my own feelings, having to respond to your objection, are close to dismay at the moment. Perhaps I have been naive, after all.
Sincere best wishes,
December 20, 2007 at 4:02 pm
xxxxx
Fergus, you take exception that I suggest you are presumptuous and at times bordering on arrogant condescension. Do the phrases “weather geek haven”, “you can imagine the nature of most of the responses”, “rising to the bait” read to you like an open minded person? I have to say, they imply a degree of superiority which I find distasteful. You are, at the end of the day, no more than a lay-person offering an opinion so the difference between you and I, and the rest of the geek haven is what exactly?
You then go on to follow it with this:
” The problem I (and many others, I am sure) face when discussing AGW with doubters is that, whilst many of these people are intelligent and broadly well-informed on a range of subjects, they are not necessarily proficient in the processes of logical reasoning or the practice of science. It is all very well telling someone to go and read the source material, but they won’t, and in some cases, they don’t understand it when they do (though, in fact, it is simpler than many people imagine).
Mmmm, patronising, arrogant and condescending; good effort.
This may well be your blog, your world to do with as you please but it is also my right to complain when you publicly quote my words. Given that you refer to me as a regular, provide a link and identity to the “geek haven” and include my quote and title of the thread then quite how you think that is not referring to me in person, is beyond me.
Common courtesy should have dictated that you at least check with me first, whether or not I minded my question and words being used here.
I suggest you look elsewhere for inspiration for your blog in future or learn the correct meaning of the term “generic”:
FORMAL shared by, typical of or relating to a whole group of similar things, rather than to any particular thing.
MAINLY US describes a product that is not marked with the name of the company that produced it.
An alternative and correct title for your blog would have been “How to make a person believe in AGW” or possibly “How to answer a sceptics questions”.
December 20, 2007 at 5:18 pm
guthrie
I’m afraid that I have no qualms about being refered to as a geek, in any of the subjects in which I am interested. I know many, many people who self identify as geeks. It is not now generally used as a derogatory term, except perhaps amongst people who think that knowledge and studying are bad.
I note also that you complain about Fergus’ complaining about people who do not read source material or references. Unfortunately you can complain all you like, but it happens all the time. I myself recently directed someone to the IPCC FAR for evidence for global warming, however my opponent then made some elementary errors, and compared the total human forcing with the total solar insolation and claimed that there was nothing to worry about. This is wrong because of several factors, including the fact that around 30% of the solar insolation actually gets reflected back and doesn’t play any part in the warming. They had merely cherry picked numbers to support their idea and currently show no knowledge of the science. When faced with apparent wilful ignorance, what am I to think but that they have some issues?
Essentially, I suggest that XXXX go and grow a thicker skin, since all this mountain building out of a molehill suggests that they are less interested in learning about climate change, and more interested in having an excuse not to do so.
If you find my above comments inflammatory, tough. If you flounce out of here and go and complain about how viscious people who believe in global warming are, you will merely confirm my opinion of you. If instead you stay and engage in the science, I shall genuinely be glad to be proved wrong. After all, an opinion is a personal thing that can be changed, and us humans foul things up all the time, opinions included.
December 20, 2007 at 7:11 pm
fergusbrown
xxxxx: you appear to have taken against me personally, which is a disappointment to me, since like everyone else, I don’t want to be disliked. As a result of this, you have a different interpretation of my words to that of some others, and see them in a certain light; for example, you saw my previous response as ‘taking exception’, whilst to me, all I did was ask the question, and offer an explanation why, prior to my original post, I didn’t consider it necessary to seek your permission.
You then go on to characterise as arrogant what I, and at least one other person (thanks G.), simply consider to be a statement of how things are. Is there an implicit criticism or judgement of people who don’t do the reading or don’t try to understand the science? No; instead there is the recognition that this is so, and an explanation, in the same comment, to another person, why the approach I propose is logically sound and, again, worth trying.
You will note that I have allowed you to complain; censorship doesn’t generally happen here at the cave; and I have also tried, politely, to explain myself, but your second comment is no more than a repetition of the point that I should have asked your permission, anyway, and the fact that I didn’t shows that I am arrogant and presumptuous. I could have simply blocked your comment and ignored it, but in my opinion that would have been arrogant, and unfair to you, so I didn’t, even though I run the risk of other’s opprobrium by bring seen as an intellectual snob.
Since you post on the site under an avatar (and a male one, at that, so that the link to your identity is not transparent), and since the only ‘link’ I provide is one to the website’s main page, I think it is unlikely that anyone would go to the trouble to go and seek out the specific page and thread just to find out which avatar asked the question I made use of. As I, too, am a regular on the site, I have ipso facto identified myself as a ‘geek’ as well; is this a patronising attitude, or a mildly self-deprecating one?
You are the second person who has complained about my ‘attitude’ (to date), afaik, other readers have not identified the same faults in me that you have. This doesn’t mean that I’m not sometimes an asshole, nor that I don’t make mistakes, but since I go out of my way to be polite to people, even in the face of hostility, and since I am one of only a very few people who actually bothered to do as you asked, rather than dismiss the question or simply not bother, I can’t help wondering if, as I suggested at the outset, you have a predisposed notion of what sort of person I am, and find offence or ‘attitude’ where others do not.
I also note that you have not, as such, responded to my suggestion, that there is a reason why you should believe in ‘all this AGW malarky’. Do you reject my answer? Are you dissatisfied with it? If so, perhaps you would like to take the opportunity to explain why trusting the experts is not good enough for you. There is a small chance that one of these experts might even respond to you. Perhaps you will find them more persuasive than me.
If you are, as you claim, looking to be convinced, my final question would be, what is allowed as an acceptable response to this request, if the past suggestions to read the source material is not to your taste, and if my poor effort is presumptuous? What sort of a response do you want to get?
Best wishes, and seasonal goodwill, as ever,
Fergus.
December 20, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Aaron Lewis
It is Fergus’s blog. Here, he is master. I may argue with him, but I would not criticize him here anymore than I would spit on his floor after drinking his whiskey.
Anyone that still does not comrehend AGW is lazy or stupid. Do your homework, ask Fergus an intellegent question, and you will get a polite and respectful response. For example, Fergus disagrees with me by about 200% on some issues, and yet he still adresses my points.
December 23, 2007 at 11:35 am
guthrie
So is XXXX still around on the weather blog?
January 3, 2008 at 8:38 am
Nell
Oh yes…. xxxx is definitely still about. Sigh!