Climate Change

[tomorton]

Hi Tom,
Déjà vu - we've been here before, I think! ;-)
Your premise makes perfect sense and I'd happily sign up to 100% - but for one fatal flaw in its logic. Namely, that some aspects of the science relating to climate change is - as far as a layman like me is able to ascertain - empirical fact that no scientists anywhere disagree with. Namely, as the two learned gentlemen in the respective videos point out, Co2 and temperature have a logarithmic relationship so that an increase of X number parts per million of Co2 does not cause a corresponding increase in temperature. That assumes of course that Co2 causes temperature to rise in the first place (which some scientists dispute). The analogy of painting the barn red illustrates this point very vividly. So, what I want to know is this: where are the climate change scientists that say this isn't true and that the correlation between Co2 and temperature is in fact linear and not logarithmic? As far as I can tell there are none, and the only reason for that that I can see is that this is indeed 'settled' science and no one with a shred of credibility would question it any more than they would that night follows day or that the earth is round and not flat. Just ignoring this 'inconvenient truth' because it negates the whole climate change narrative is as ridiculous as it is bizarre. For this reason, in this specific context, I'm afraid I can't subscribe to your premise.
Tim.

Hey Tim -

Yes indeed, we've been here before.

But my question is on the justification in general for lay people to disagree with specialists. If there were 100 specialists in a room and 51 held the opinion that A=X and 49 said that A=Y, I'd go with the 51.

I'd still do that even when some lay people and some of the 49 in A=Y faction said that the 51 had used inappropriate methodology: because obviously the 51 don't believe they made such an error.

I can only promise that when (or do I mean if?) the majority of the world's scientists say this climate change theory is all a hoax, I will agree with them.

 

[timsk]

. . . But my question is on the justification in general for lay people to disagree with specialists. If there were 100 specialists in a room and 51 held the opinion that A=X and 49 said that A=Y, I'd go with the 51. . .

Hi Tom,
Well, this is the thing - I'm not disagreeing with them! I can only find scientists that say the relationship between Co2 and temperature is logarithmic and not linear. If there were 49 of them that say that and 51 that's say otherwise - you'd have a case.

How far will you take your approach? For example, if someone came up with a climate change theory predicated on the world being flat and 100s - if not 1000s - of people supported it, and there was only a relatively small number of scientists pointing out that the world is in fact round, ergo the theory doesn't stand up - would you still support the majority view even though anyone can see that it's predicated on a known false/untrue belief?

Unless you want to, don't feel obligated to answer the question posed: I just thought it worth providing additional clarity as to why I don't - and can't - subscribe to your outlook, even though I accept the basic principle and I can see that it will work well when there aren't any empirical facts available.
Tim.

 

[Pat494]

The present huge bush fires in Australia and those recently in California are the result of inadequate fire precautions.
They are too mean to spend a bit of cash to properly organise. The locals should be trained in situ with what to do and equipped. A huge force should have been instantly ready to tackle the fires when called upon. Sitting on the beaches won't stop the flames.

 

[tomorton]

Hi Tom,
Well, this is the thing - I'm not disagreeing with them! I can only find scientists that say the relationship between Co2 and temperature is logarithmic and not linear. If there were 49 of them that say that and 51 that's say otherwise - you'd have a case.

How far will you take your approach? For example, if someone came up with a climate change theory predicated on the world being flat and 100s - if not 1000s - of people supported it, and there was only a relatively small number of scientists pointing out that the world is in fact round, ergo the theory doesn't stand up - would you still support the majority view even though anyone can see that it's predicated on a known false/untrue belief?

Unless you want to, don't feel obligated to answer the question posed: I just thought it worth providing additional clarity as to why I don't - and can't - subscribe to your outlook, even though I accept the basic principle and I can see that it will work well when there aren't any empirical facts available.
Tim.

Tim - This is a strange question. At the risk of sounding as pedantic as Sheldon Cooper, the opinions of lay-people on the science of climate change are of no value to mankind: it is what the scientists say that should form our beliefs on the question, because it is a scientific question.

Don't actually think I answered you directly, but you can see where I'm coming from I think.

 

[tomorton]

The present huge bush fires in Australia and those recently in California are the result of inadequate fire precautions.
They are too mean to spend a bit of cash to properly organise. The locals should be trained in situ with what to do and equipped. A huge force should have been instantly ready to tackle the fires when called upon. Sitting on the beaches won't stop the flames.

I know these fires are truly huge. But its astonishing to see Australia has lost control.

 

[counter_violent]

Tim - This is a strange question. At the risk of sounding as pedantic as Sheldon Cooper, the opinions of lay-people on the science of climate change are of no value to mankind: it is what the scientists say that should form our beliefs on the question, because it is a scientific question.

Don't actually think I answered you directly, but you can see where I'm coming from I think.

Proper scientists doing proper science are objective and open to any outcome. That is what science is.
This current lot who pretend to be doing proper science have a polarised viewpoint and anything that doesn't fit their agenda is dismissed out of hand.

This climate change discussion is exactly what we had with the Brexit thread. Polar opposite views and a total refusal to acknowledge or answer any genuine counter arguments.
Solar Activity
Maunder Minimum.
Clouds and water vapour.
The list is endless, but that will do for starters.

As far as Greta Dumberg is concerned. I have a lad with Aspergers, where everything in his world is black and white. Fixed opinions on stuff, none of it grounded in reality. So as far as Greta is concerned, she should be dismissed, her opinions are truly worthless and her parents sent back to school for re-education in proper parenting, especially given that they are letting their daughter down.

 

[tomorton]

Proper scientists doing proper science are objective and open to any outcome. That is what science is.
This current lot who pretend to be doing proper science have a polarised viewpoint and anything that doesn't fit their agenda is dismissed out of hand.

This climate change discussion is exactly what we had with the Brexit thread. Polar opposite views and a total refusal to acknowledge or answer any genuine counter arguments.
Solar Activity
Maunder Minimum.
Clouds and water vapour.
The list is endless, but that will do for starters.

As far as Greta Dumberg is concerned. I have a lad with Aspergers, where everything in his world is black and white. Fixed opinions on stuff, none of it grounded in reality. So as far as Greta is concerned, she should be dismissed, her opinions are truly worthless and her parents sent back to school for re-education in proper parenting, especially given that they are letting their daughter down.

But it isn't for lay-persons to investigate and respond to scientific questions. You criticise pro-climate change scientists for incompetence and bias, but you seek rejection of their arguments by the scientifically unqualified man in the street.

 

[counter_violent]

But it isn't for lay-persons to investigate and respond to scientific questions. You criticise pro-climate change scientists for incompetence and bias, but you seek rejection of their arguments by the scientifically unqualified man in the street.

It is for everyone to question everything they are told.

If you watch Timsk's videos, i'd say the Two Professors are eminently qualified to discredit the climate science brigade and as they have pointed out, the models used are at best inadequate and at worst willfully misleading.

 

[counter_violent]

It is for everyone to question everything they are told.

If you watch Timsk's videos, i'd say the Two Professors are eminently qualified to discredit the climate science brigade and as they have pointed out, the models used are at best inadequate and at worst willfully misleading.

The real truth of the matter is that climate science is far too complex to model.
The very same logic can be applied to the remoaner economists position on Brexit.
Economists have no idea on the post Brexit era and climate scientists have no idea on future warming trends either.

 

[tomorton]

It is for everyone to question everything they are told.

If you watch Timsk's videos, i'd say the Two Professors are eminently qualified to discredit the climate science brigade and as they have pointed out, the models used are at best inadequate and at worst willfully misleading.

Well the logic here is plain wrong. Or missing. The fact that some scientists disagree with the majority of scientists does not disprove the theory.

It is impossible for the lay-person unqualified in science generally or climate science specifically to decide whether climate change is real or a hoax. It is a scientific question and I would no more dream of asking a bunch of traders to decide this than to ask a bunch of traders to build a rocket to Mars.

 

[barjon]

Well, hic 🍾, a Happy New Year to y’all and may you make plenty in two thousand and twenty with your stoplosses never challenged.

 

[timsk]

Mornin' Tom,
Happy New Year!

Tim - This is a strange question. At the risk of sounding as pedantic as Sheldon Cooper, the opinions of lay-people on the science of climate change are of no value to mankind: it is what the scientists say that should form our beliefs on the question, because it is a scientific question.

Don't actually think I answered you directly, but you can see where I'm coming from I think.

You are correct, this doesn't address my question at all! ;-)

. . . You criticise pro-climate change scientists for incompetence and bias, but you seek rejection of their arguments by the scientifically unqualified man in the street.

I realise this comment was in reply to c_v and not me but, for the record, I'm certainly NOT seeking "rejection of their arguments by the scientifically unqualified man in the street". I have no interest in what lay-people think other than their reasons for backing one side of the argument or the other - as per this discussion with you. I'll decide what I think on the issue by listening to professional scientists such as Profs Happer and Dyson.

. . . It is impossible for the lay-person unqualified in science generally or climate science specifically to decide whether climate change is real or a hoax. It is a scientific question and I would no more dream of asking a bunch of traders to decide this than to ask a bunch of traders to build a rocket to Mars.

I agree completely that it's extremely difficult - perhaps impossible - for lay-people to arrive at a conclusion about the cause(s) of climate change. And, as I've made clear already, I wouldn't draw any conclusions from what other non-scientists like me say. However, surely it's reasonable and legitimate for lay-people like us to question why one side of the argument is being shut down and ask why basic scientific facts (such as the logarithmic relationship between Co2 and temperature that scientists themselves - not lay-people - agree on) are being overlooked and/or ignored?

I mentioned your approach (i.e. of siding with the majority view) on this issue to Pam yesterday and it reminded her of a conversation she had with her head of department when she was a planning officer working for Dartmoor National Park. There was a particularly contentious application that had received an unusually large number of letters of objection from the public. Her boss commented that their job was to decide whether or not to grant permission based on the facts before them and not on how many letters of support or objection they received.
Tim.

 

[new_trader]

My 2 cents in random bullet points

• I don’t dispute that the climate could be changing; I am challenging the notion of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
• The problem with climate change as far as I am concerned is that it can’t be seen directly, it can only be inferred. I can’t look outside my window and observe the climate today, then 1 year later look outside again and see if it has changed in any way.
• Believe it or not, there is a flat earth society who actually believes the earth is flat and all the scientific evidence to the contrary is a hoax. However, if at any cost you had to change their opinion, you could build a rocket and take them up into space so that they could see the earth with their own eyes. This might change the opinion of all but the most ardent sceptics who might claim that it is just an elaborate optical illusion. If at any cost you had to convince the sceptics that climate change is directly the result of human activity, what could you do?
• Imagine you were locked in a room with 10 of the world’s top scientists and the room had no windows or connection with the outside world. You have all the standard comforts, beds, sofas, bathroom etc. You were left in the room long enough to lose track of time. Now someone walks in and asks you to guess what time of day it is, not to the minute, just whether it’s morning, midday, afternoon or night time. Would you just go along with what the majority of the scientists say or would you rather go outside and see with your own eyes?
• Anthropologists think that early humans may have learned to control fire as far back as 1 million years ago. If this is correct, then humans around the world have been burning fossil fuels for around 1 million years. Does anyone really think that we can undo all of that with the simple changes the climate warriors want us to make now? The runaway greenhouse process may have already started and even if we took drastic action like killing all humans or forcing everyone to live like in the Stone Age may not be enough to prevent it from continuing. Earth may end up being like Venus and the same process may have started years ago. Scientists think that long ago Venus once had a climate similar to Earth.
• Volcanoes have been erupting on earth since the birth of the planet.
• Apparently the bushfires in Australia have so far contributed as much CO2 as nasty Australians contribute in 6 months. How many climate warriors are helping fight the fire...or were they too busy bravely protesting New Year firework displays?
• The hypocritical liberals gladly parade children in the spotlight when it suits their agenda. Anyone else would be accused of child exploitation. Whenever these children stand up to authority in protest of climate change they are hailed as heroes. I suppose these children have read all the peer reviewed journals, conducted their own research and as a result feel it’s their duty to convince all the poor stupid adults that climate change is so simple even a child can understand it.
• Just to set the record straight, I am doing things in my life that are beneficial to the environment but this is because they are of direct economic benefit to me, not because I think I am saving the planet.

 

[tomorton]

Happy New Year all!

2020 is so far another year without the answer to the key question - why believe some experts and disbelieve others?

If 51% of scientists in the world say that its a scientific fact that A = X, and the other 49% say that actually A = Y, what would be the rational criteria for giving more weight to the 49% than the 51%?

Scientific arguments are excluded of course because the scientists are all equally well trained and educated and equally dedicated to the principles of scientific inquiry and to reporting observations and conclusions with integrity.

So what other rationale could be used to convince, let's say, a High Court bench, that the majority scientific opinion should be discounted?

 

[Signalcalc]

Proper scientists doing proper science are objective and open to any outcome. That is what science is.
This current lot who pretend to be doing proper science have a polarised viewpoint and anything that doesn't fit their agenda is dismissed out of hand.

This climate change discussion is exactly what we had with the Brexit thread. Polar opposite views and a total refusal to acknowledge or answer any genuine counter arguments.
Solar Activity
Maunder Minimum.
Clouds and water vapour.
The list is endless, but that will do for starters.

As far as Greta Dumberg is concerned. I have a lad with Aspergers, where everything in his world is black and white. Fixed opinions on stuff, none of it grounded in reality. So as far as Greta is concerned, she should be dismissed, her opinions are truly worthless and her parents sent back to school for re-education in proper parenting, especially given that they are letting their daughter down.

I am waiting for a pro-man-made climate change climate scientist to address the question of the relationship of sun spot activity with gamma rays in the context of the earth's climate, I've not seen any scientific comment anywhere from that community that addresses this question and provides the disconnect needed to rule out the sun from climate change.

I expect I'll be a long time waiting for that scientific explanation from the climate change alarmist science community.

Therefore the sun and climate change are inextricably linked, no question, no if's, no but's, it is the main driver of the climate in my layman's opinion, until a climate scientist actually makes this study and draws some conclusions, then how can the science be anywhere near settled?

 

[Signalcalc]

So what other rationale could be used to convince, let's say, a High Court bench, that the majority scientific opinion should be discounted?

Lack of rigour in the scientific approach, easy one, nothing is ruled in or out until all possible avenues of scientific study have been explored, until then, there is not enough evidence for either argument and the case is thrown out until more investigation is undertaken to a standard that is acceptable to those that are going to have to cough-up for the solutions.
Be that either a reduction in CO2 or investing in indoor growing methods to prevent us from starving to death whilst simultaneously taking advantage that higher levels of CO2 (and raised light and heat levels) bring to crop growing.

Or a completely different cause and effect and therefore new unheard of solutions, or in fact do nothing because natural processes cannot be stopped, but we still find ways of using less plastic and producing less pollution.

 

[tomorton]

Lack of rigour in the scientific approach, easy one, nothing is ruled in or out until all possible avenues of scientific study have been explored, until then, there is not enough evidence for either argument and the case is thrown out until more investigation is undertaken to a standard that is acceptable to those that are going to have to cough-up for the solutions.
Be that either a reduction in CO2 or investing in indoor growing methods to prevent us from starving to death whilst simultaneously taking advantage that higher levels of CO2 (and raised light and heat levels) bring to crop growing.

Or a completely different cause and effect and therefore new unheard of solutions, or in fact do nothing because natural processes cannot be stopped, but we still find ways of using less plastic and producing less pollution.

To summarise, your rationale for discounting the majority expert view would be -
1. lack of scientific rigour
2. incomplete evidence/investigation
3. possible unidentified alternative causes

But this is just skirting round the issue. So, the High Court judges ask the world's scientists -
1. Was this investigation scientifically rigorous? 51% say Yes.
2. Is the evidence complete and thoroughly examined? 51% say Yes.
3. Are there any unidentified possible causes? 100% say this is a futile question at this stage in our knowledge, as this possibility is always present. Anyway, a currently unidentified cause could as easily be man-made as natural.

So back to the core issue, what is the rational for discounting a majority of experts and relying on a minority?

 

[Signalcalc]

3. Are there any unidentified possible causes? 100% say this is a futile question at this stage in our knowledge, as this possibility is always present. Anyway, a currently unidentified cause could as easily be man-made as natural.

So back to the core issue, what is the rational for discounting a majority of experts and relying on a minority?

On the basis of No3 (in fact the following question really applies to all 3 points), judge asks what standards have been applied? What acceptance levels of a theory have been applied, is the scientific norm being applied, or is this a special case, the judge is unable to make a judgement until more information is known about the standards being applied?

I cannot believe that a scientific community would revert to 'futile' as being appropriate when an extremely high level of scientific rigour is required when dealing with a question of such importance, do the scientific community not apply a high level of rigour, understanding and standards when tackling such questions? They certainly appear to when it comes to the production of, let's say, new drugs, so let's adopt that approach and see where the judgement lands?

 

[counter_violent]

To summarise, your rationale for discounting the majority expert view would be -
1. lack of scientific rigour
2. incomplete evidence/investigation
3. possible unidentified alternative causes

But this is just skirting round the issue. So, the High Court judges ask the world's scientists -
1. Was this investigation scientifically rigorous? 51% say Yes.
2. Is the evidence complete and thoroughly examined? 51% say Yes.
3. Are there any unidentified possible causes? 100% say this is a futile question at this stage in our knowledge, as this possibility is always present. Anyway, a currently unidentified cause could as easily be man-made as natural.

So back to the core issue, what is the rational for discounting a majority of experts and relying on a minority?

Follow the (Climate Change) Money

The first iron rule of American politics is: Follow the money. This explains, oh, about 80 percent of what goes on in Washington. Shortly after the latest Chicken Little climate change report was published last month, I noted on CNN that one reason so many hundreds of scientists are persuaded...

www.heritage.org

 

[Signalcalc]

Follow the (Climate Change) Money

The first iron rule of American politics is: Follow the money. This explains, oh, about 80 percent of what goes on in Washington. Shortly after the latest Chicken Little climate change report was published last month, I noted on CNN that one reason so many hundreds of scientists are persuaded...

www.heritage.org

Spot on, climate change is the latest industrial complex: Climate Change Industrial Complex