It’s time for a true confession. I don’t believe in climate science.
That’s because I’m a rational person. Belief is important in my life and I apply the term to things involving faith. Faith is how we believe when there is no rational basis for a decision – which doesn’t mean its irrational or wrong, just that there is no evidence to support the view taken. Faith and belief often apply to matters of the spiritual realm. But they also apply to matters of a more worldly nature, where the capacity for faith and belief has framed many positive developments in humanity over history. Despite the lack of supporting evidence, Churchill believed the allies would win WWII and Mandela believed majority rule would come, relatively peacefully, to South Africa. Faith is a powerful driver of human behaviour.
However, I don’t “believe” in climate science because it’s not a religious or a faith question. It’s just numbers and science on which to make rational judgements. The scientists tell us what they know, and what they don’t, and we decide how to respond. This is not a binary question, like the earth is flat or not, this is a system description based on best available knowledge.
Belief is actually a dangerous concept in relation to climate science and we should stop using the word in that context. Because belief is based by definition on “non-rational” thought, framing it this way leads to a tendency to resist counter arguments and associated data. It’s hard for more data to change a belief, because it wasn’t data based to begin with. As a result, interpreting science using a belief based approach leads to sloppy intellectual behaviour, where we discount data that challenges our “beliefs” and exaggerate the importance of data that supports them.
Climate science is at it essence just data. Always incomplete and open to challenge and debate but, fundamentally, just data which we then interpret and act on. We navigate this at times complicated process quite successfully in a range of other fields such as aeroplane and bridge design, food safety and medicine.
Where this process occurs in the absence of strong cultural or economic self-interest, there is little controversy, such as bridge design. As we move into economic self-interest, things get a little complicated, such as the reappraisal of safety levels for volcanic dust during the recent Icelandic volcano, when airlines pushed for a review, based on economic losses, from the application of what they saw as too strict an interpretation of the data. Again it worked out fine.
When we move into areas of strong cultural influence and beliefs, such as medicine and health, things get more complicated. So, for example, whereas many traditional medical scientists would argue the evidence for some alternative therapies is weak, people act on their “beliefs”, spending over many billions on them each year, including some where the science is definitely not proven and sometimes quite disproven.
In all these areas though, from bridges to medicine, as a society overall we accept the dominant scientific conventions. When a body of qualified scientists reviews the evidence and issues their judgements we generally act accordingly and the broad societal level. We make decisions on flight safety, on bridge design and on public health – not without controversy, but in the end we make decisions and we base them on rational thought.
Sometimes, though, it gets really messy, and such is the case with climate change. Here we see a great clash of cultural and political beliefs, mixed up with enormous economic self-interest. The result is quite irrational, belief-based debate and decision making or, in this case, the lack of decision making.
It’s important to recognise what’s going on in this process and to respond appropriately. So, for example, we should by now know that arguing science with a climate denier (as opposed to a genuine sceptical scientist) is as pointless as arguing the benefits of market economics and liberal democracy with an al Qaeda leader. No amount of rational data will help because they don’t want to believe, so they will deny any evidence that confronts their own beliefs.
The right approach with climate deniers is to ignore them. Fortunately their influence is on the wane and their cause now quite terminal because, in the end, we are a rational society and the evidence is clear. As US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
For genuine sceptics, and indeed for all of us, it is very important we maintain an open mind and keep the debate alive and vibrant. We must act urgently to reduce the risk of climate change by eliminating the net CO2 emissions of the economy as a fast as possible. But we must also keep researching, challenging and exploring the details as we do so, not least of all to identify the most effective actions we can take. Not all greenhouse gases are the same and, given what the science tells us about the urgency, it is going to take all of our ingenuity to pull us back from the cliff we seem to be racing towards.
So when someone asks if you’re a climate believer, tell them no, your far too rational for that.
74 Responses to Why I don’t believe in the climate science
Jenny Stirling September 1, 2010
I suppose this is why people who say they don’t believe in the science are so personal about it to the point of taking offense when others accept that climate change is happening. For these ‘believers’ it is a profound change in the way they make sense of the world: a meaning scheme change and that can threaten one’s identity.
liz thornton September 1, 2010
Major news item hits page 7 in the Herald! Bjorg Lombard previous non believer now believes that global warming is happening.Hallelujah
What on earth stops the non Murdoch newspaper from making that a headline ? Are they not the biggest mischief makers ?
John Collee September 1, 2010
Thats a really good point Paul.
We’ve allowed this Belief word to enter the debate without realising that it frames the whole discussion. Australian Opposition leader (and former denier) Tony Abbot mentioned recently on the chat show “Q+A” that he believed in climate change, as though that concession should count in his favour, whereas actually it demonstrated his total lack of understanding – like saying he believes in gravity.
By the way I believe that wain is spelled WANE.
Sylvia September 1, 2010
How timely! I’ve been noticing over the past couple of weeks how people use the word “believe” when they mean “accept” or “agree”. Julia Gillard said she didn’t “believe in” a bigger Australia. I’ve also recently heard someone say “I don’t believe in welfare,” and another, “I don’t believe in inherited money.” These things exist – if you don’t agree with them, or can’t accept them, please feel free to say so!
My personal theory is that there are a couple of things at play here. Firstly we (white middle class westerners at least) are increasingly trained to be nice and not to disagree with others. So when we disagree or don’t accept, we don’t have the language to say so.
Secondly, we’re getting lazier and more disconnected from our physical world. So having to mount a case after you’ve decided to speak for the negative in the debate becomes very difficult. It’s much easier to dismiss the whole case thoughtlessly, saying, “I don’t believe in that.”
Keith Reeves September 1, 2010
The Earth may be going to hell in a hand basket, and that can be argued from many positions. That many hundreds of thousands of people can be killed, murdered and raped in Africa and Europe in recent times is evidence of that. On the more insidious side we have creeping, invisible chemical contamination of our environment which is curiously ignored by the likes of Greenpeace, the UN and various levels of more localized government . Paul Gilding is obviously gifted with some useful skills but demonstrates an unwillingness to inform himself of the reality of Global Warming. Just why is that Paul? As a scientist and more relevantly an engineer with the qualifications to understand the complexity of the worlds biosphere I am amazed that the concept of carbon dioxide being a dangerous contaminant and atmospheric heat enhancer has survived this long. Whatever else we may be guilty of in causing damage to the planet Man’s contribution to our climate through CO2 production is so small and ineffectual as to be a complete irrelevance to any serious scientist. Not so for politicians and the Believers however. CO2 is a gigantic distraction.
Peter Tait September 1, 2010
I understand the point, but medical training and working with people suggests that even rational decisions are based on belief. All decisions and judgements are ultimately emotional even rational ones. That’s how the brain works. That’s why even rational people get challenged to acept a proposition countrary to their own, even in skeptical discourse, without training to do so. So the more fundamental issue is: on what do we base our beliefs?
I believe that the climate is changing consequent to enhanced greenhouse effects from anthropogenic emissions of GHGs because the scientific evidence strongly and reasonably suggests this is the case. I believe there are no fairies under my chair becasue of the absence of evidence that they are there. Religious belief is based in faith; evidentiary support for many of the tenets of religion is thin and comes from authority.
So the problem isn’t the believing but the path to believing.
Ben Wheaton September 1, 2010
Hi Paul,
Your chronicles are always welcome and thought provoking. I do think Peter Tait (previous comment) is making a good point.
In business a lot of focus is put on business cases – which in essence are rational support – but in my experience 90%+ business decisions are based on emotions, with business cases used to justify an already pre-determined position. The result is that business cases are rarely rigorous. This is most obvious when new business leaders look back on a failed project initiated from a previous leadership team and ask “how on earth was that project ever approved”.
Science suffers similarly. We look back on period dramas and laugh when we see doctors blood-letting. But at the time that is what science recommended. Unfortunately science has a checkered history – in which, whilst there are undoubted benefits and advances, there are also many cases where it has pushed the wrong answer. This is commonly compounded by a one-eyed view from scientists that theirs is the only rigorous process. A good example is acupuncture – which for many years was derided by “mainstream” medicine, but is now generally embraced.
Ben Wheaton September 1, 2010
All of which leads me to conclude that belief is actually the right word to use. Because to say I “accept” climate science, brings with it an obligation to continually make myself aware of the latest developments. As someone who makes a living from helping corporates act on climate change and sustainability I cannot afford the luxury of continually reviewing my position!
I accept the irony in this – which is that my livelihood reinforces my beliefs, in the same way that those in oil companies often hold the opposite beliefs. I resolve this by holding a further belief – which is that I am right and they are wrong!
Yours (slightly light-heartedly),
Ben
PS how’s the book coming along?
Andrew Simpson September 1, 2010
Re: liz thornton September 1st, 2010 10:18 am :
Liz, Bjorn Lomborg has never been a “non believer”. He has always had a firm belief that man is warming the planet and CO2 is the culprit. He is a true “believer” because he is an economist, not a climate scientist.
Lomborg reasons that the cost of adaption will be much less than the cost of mitigation. This will provide tangible benefits that can be realised much sooner for people in need, rather than reducing CO2 levels that may or may not happen in the near future. This is the reason why Lomborg was “once compared to Adolf Hitler by the United Nations’ climate chief”. Charming.
I think the Heralds story, including the headline “Sceptical Environmentalist in from the cold”, is more a beat up on the the Herald’s part rather than a conspiracy by Murdoch to keep the story out of their papers.
Paul, I think your post is well reasoned, however, the science of man made climate change, and in particular the notion of catastrophic man made global warming, is far from settled. The science of bridge buildng, to use your analogy, is much more settled. Stresses and strains can be measured and modelled, historical failures analysed and learnt from, factors of safety built in, but it has taken 200 years of building bridges to get to the point we are at now. And still the odd one falls down.
Climate Science is in its infancy and as a long way to go until it gets to the point where we can predict and control the weather/climate the way we can predict how a bridge will respond to various loads. There is still a lot of uncertainty in the predictions of the climate scientists, since the climate is near impossible to model in the conventional sense, since there are too many, independant variables at play. In most cases, the models are “best guesses” and have a poor record with regard to their predicitve powers.
Since most of us are not climate scientists, we must have a certain amount of faith or “belief” what they are telling us. We must also be fully informed of what their uncertainties are in their predictions so that we can make value judgements on what they are telling us.
Scepticism is vital to healthy science. The climate scientists must be put under the microscope, their data and models checked and validated by third parties, their results replicated. This happens in the science of bridge building, but not in climate science. The climate science should be independently audited, much the way bridge designs are independently audited, to allow us to reasonably “believe” their results and predictions.
What if we put all of this effort into reducing CO2 levels, but what if it’s some other pollutant that we can readily stop that is causing the current warming? (think CFC’s & Ozone). This is why climate science must withstand the toughest scrutiny. Too much is at stake.
Sylvia September 1, 2010
Ah yes Andrew, but bridges don’t fall down because of any flaws in the science (theory) of bridgebuilding. They fall down because people fail to take proper note of that science.
Gary Bigelow September 1, 2010
What a remarkably absurd conclusion.
The whole problem with this whole debate is people like you who keep saying the “science is overwhelming” in demonstrating climate change is man made.
In fact, the reverse is true. So your argument actually applies in reverse … the deniers are those who claim man made climate change proven in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary.
As for the pecuniary interest in this debate, they are ALL on the side of the climate science true believers. Most “deniers” as you call them still advocate a reduction of significance in the use of fossil fuels … for real reasons back by real facts. The concept that a tax will reduce usage is just nonsensical. This has not worked for cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, house purchase, income earning etc etc … so what fool assumed it would would for carbon emissions.
There is not a single state in the world that can demonstrate their “ETS” has produced a single percentage point reduction in CO2 emission. NZ is now wishing they hadn’t supported it as it is rapidly destroying their economy.
The “true believers” just won’t tell you what their real agenda is and why they are prepared to tell bold faced lies about the “so-called” facts. Every major debt crises in the world has been followed by a push for a new derivative to drive financial markets and GDP growth in the mistaken belief this will deflate the bubble rather than burst it .. alas, again, there is endless evidence to show this simply results in yet another bursting bubble … of increased magnitude each time.
The whole hysterical argument of climate change evolved from the 1996 IPCC report which relied 100% on Mann’s data analysis of temperature over time. He used the data collected by analysis of the tree rings of a single tree in the Rocky Mountains. This mysteriously re-wrote history, supported by endless data and research, eliminating such well documented temperature anomalies as the Medieval warming and little ice age … so his graph would look convincing. And he then used a statistical computer model which produces a hockey stick at the end no matter what data you provide it.
Faced with enormous criticism from the broader scientific community, the IPCC engaged an independent statistical consultancy to review the work by Mann. Their report ridiculed his result on the basis he had totally ignored all statistical analysis convention …. but the only IPCC published outcome of this review was a statement by Mann that … “their work has fully supported my results”. Who is he denier here?
So, I suggest you go away and take another look at the facts before you decide who the “irrational” are in this debate.
The real “deniers” are those who in the face of overwhelming evidence continue to cite the “Bible” as the basis of their faith … oh, sorry, we aren’t talking about religious beliefs are we …. meant to say the IPCC reports. They are as farcical as the literal interpretations placed on the Bible and I got a little confused. Little wonder the public doesn’t get it.
So you go on just ignoring us. That is the way priests tell their flock how to deal with those who challenge their faith with facts to the contrary … while they molest the children of their flock in the name of God … and then seek to deny that happened as well.
Our Governments want to perform the same acts of abuse on us while telling us to ignore teh deniers… that’s what an ETS is … not a solution to a purported scientific problem.
Andrew Simpson September 1, 2010
10.Sylvia September 1st, 2010 12:33 pm :
“Ah yes Andrew, but bridges don’t fall down because of any flaws in the science (theory) of bridgebuilding. They fall down because people fail to take proper note of that science.”
Sylvia, agree, but there can be any number of reasons why a bridge falls down and your example is only one of them. (In the real world, the person or persons who did not take proper notice can expect a nice long gaol term for their negligence – so there is incentive to get it right!)
My point is that it’s not possible to say that the science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming is as certain as the science behind bridge building. The science of the former is simply not developed enough – in fact it’s still only a hypothesis – and in my opinion, is currently too politicised to be relied on make reasoned public policy. Rigourous and independant scrutiny of their results and recommendations ( a bit of healthy scepticism if you like) needs to be made before any large scale reforms to our economy.
To use your point above, if the government fails to act on the advice of the climate scientists and we all cook, then yes, our government has been negligent. It would also be negligent of the government to act on the advice without doing the due diligence on the “science”. A bridge builder is entitled to question the designer.
In the bridge building world, the builder would not be allowed to ignore the recommendations of the designer. Apart from being criminally negligent, the design and manufacture would be audited by a regulatory authority for compliance and the completed structure “signed off”, before any member of the public ventured onto the bridge.
If building a bridge today relied on same level of uncertainty and guess work as there is currently in the climate science world, then I think I’d cross by boat! :)
Keith Reeves September 1, 2010
Gary I have to disagree with you. The science is overwhelming. The anthropometric component of CO2 has NO impact on global temperatures. Andrew I must also disagree with you. The processes behind the physical, chemical and thermodynamic fluxes in our atmosphere are sufficiently well delineated for us to say that the idea of man made CO2 as a significant agent in global warming is preposterous. As a scientist I KNOW THIS. Others may believe I am wrong. They are entitled to their BELIEFS. The great debate is full of semantics. Listening to warmers attack scientists is to listen to semantics. It’s like reading St Thomas Aquinas discussion the “proofs” of Gods existence. Clever but not based in any significant reality. Good comments by Garry and Andrew but really why do we bother. We will just be howled down.
Sam Stainsby September 1, 2010
Language is fascinating in the way that the meaning of words changes according to the context. The word ‘belief’ is completely different when used in a scientific context to, say, a religious context. Belief in the science world means you think something is very likely to be true after a science community has exhausted the sources of reasonable doubt – or at least the ones that they can think of – through the scientific method.
In summary, I don’t think you are ever going to stop the science community from making statements like “we believe that X causes Y”. You just need to interpret it correctly as you would for any other language.
If you go back through the top-tier climate science journals, that point of ‘belief’ (about human-caused climate change) was reached by climate scientists decades ago, and similar levels of certainty were reached by the more political interfaces of the science community, the national academies of science in the countries of the developed world. I would have thought that only way a politician could ignore this is if they were one of the people that believe that the science community’s conclusions about human-caused climate change were part of a some massive, intricate global conspiracy, with a level of watertight, intercontinental cooperation far beyond any level seen in human history. If only such cooperation were possible there would be no limit to what we could achieve. However any such conspiracy theory is clearly absurd in the current political climate.
Politicians need to be more trusting of the qualified advice from the qualified scientific community that they foster and helped establish. On the other hand, they also need to be cautious about unqualified advice from the same – such as some of the ideas about mitigating climate change through geoengineering and the like coming from certain scientists who are overstepping their domain of knowledge. We also need to acknowledge that scientists have a natural tendency to prefer technological solutions, and are often poor at risk management in their enthusiasm.
Keith Reeves September 1, 2010
Sam points to a long held certainty that “Climate Scientists” have identified the reality of man made global warming. To assess just how “qualified” these climate scientists are just look at the curriculum and course outlines for the American universities who are pumping out “fully qualified Climate Scientists. The real qualifying courses such as orbital mechanics, physics, chemistry, geology, mass heat and momentum transfer are all ABSENT. Restating the problem BASIC science is absent. This leaves qualified Climate Scientists in a limbo area of being BELIEVERS in what they are TOLD. They are not equipped to comprehend the magnitude of the problem they are commenting on let alone tell us how CO2 behaves in the atmosphere.
Sam Stainsby September 1, 2010
PS: I’m a physics PhD.
Sam Stainsby September 1, 2010
Keith, if you look at the authors of a tier A/A* climate science journals (Journal of Climate for example, latest edition: http://journals.ametsoc.org/toc/clim/23/14) you’ll see that the authors active in this field are chockers with ‘hard’ scientists in specialized fields of physics and chemistry: atmospheric scientists, geophysicists, and so on, more often than not with doctoral levels. If politicians are not supposed to trust the veracity of those authors’ qualifications, why would they value your opinion instead?
I’m looking at the course outlines, and they seem fine, as expected: here is a start:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/academics/courses.shtml
Keith Reeves September 1, 2010
That might be the problem. I’m an engineer trained to integrate many different systems from physical, chemical, geological, orbital etc. and make sense of it. All of the loudest shouters in this business are Economists, Politicians and like Tim an expert in something other than the area required for competence to understand Global Warming. Any competent scientist knows that oceans are rising and the earth until recently has been warming. It’s just that man ain’t guilty and most certainly mans CO2 didn’t do it. The rate of ocean rise has been diminishing for the last few thousand years . This is because most of the last great ice sheets have gone. there’s nothing left to melt. Need to get educated guys.
Sam Stainsby September 1, 2010
No competent scientist would attempt to put forward a scientific argument for or against climate change consisting of a sentence or two in the comments section of someone’s private blog, instead of publishing the details of their painstaking research in the aforementioned journals to see if they stand up to scrutiny by those qualified. Especially after having their initial assertions about the qualifications of active researchers in the field shown to be false in that very same blog. Maybe Keith could supply his publications list in such journals – particular those on “orbital systems” and how they relate to climate change. Also, which course did he do on orbital mechanics and where? And did he pass?
Sam Stainsby September 1, 2010
Clues:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/keith-reeves/16/a66/a26
http://www.miscojobs.com/employers/resumes/L_1/C_2/rsm_39.htm
Keith Reeves:
Vice President – Exploration at Zulu Energy Inc
Geologist Vice President – Exploration at Tatonka Oil and Gas Company, Inc
Education
Sul Ross State University
M.S , Geology , 1984 — 1987
University of Arkansas at Monticello
B.S. , Earth Science , 1977 — 1983
Keith Reeves September 1, 2010
Sam I have university qualifications in Metallurgical Engineering with second year level courses in Maths, Chemistry and Physics plus the modeling courses which were obviously of more use to me than the Modeling qualifications of the current batch of climate modelers. The standard “global warming” model omits most, if not all of the relevant factors and for some unknown reason models ONLY CO2 and then only part of the total CO2. Even with only a pass degree I know that something is seriously wrong with the models. IF greenies were really concerned about CO2 from combustion of coal they would be pushing to replace it with the next best and safest replacement but persist with the impractical and expensive options of wind and solar power. Are we dealing with rational science here or a religion?
Sam Stainsby September 1, 2010
“Are we dealing with rational science here or a religion?”
Yes, real science by actual doctorate holding scientists who actively pursue research on climate on a day-to-day basis, rather than engineers specialising in metals, who originally claimed to be scientists, and to be experts in orbital mechanics among other things.
I’m not sure why you sure trying to equate Greenies to scientists now.
Keith Reeves September 2, 2010
Hi Sam
I do appreciate the scholarship and application required of a PhD. You may also agree with me that a PhD in physics from an Australian University is a different thing to the average PhD in the US. Essentially the problem of assessing the role played by man made CO2 in our atmosphere is an engineering problem. It is far from being an ideal lab situation. It is obvious in the literature on Climate Science that liberties have been taken by people who overstate their qualifications and then cobble together a proposition on CO2 activity in the atmosphere. The classic case involves the use of an off the shelf engineering – thermodynamic equation designed for solid state heat exchange which has been used for gases. As I said, some US PhDs may not be as rigorous as their Australian counterparts.
All I am saying is to be careful who you believe. Man made Global Warming theory has devoted followers who feel part of something which has lofty ambitions. In the end though, it is just another group to which people may belong. Belonging to a group brings security and comfort but not necessarily enlightenment. Rugby League and the “Footy Show” are examples of groups which give the thrill of “belonging” to many people.
Keith Reeves September 2, 2010
Hi Sam’
I’m sorry to have been a bit slow on the uptake: ie. “clues”. I went back and clicked on the links. Mostly I don’t do links in a discussion.
It seems that there are two us and by now if you have read my disparaging remarks about the quality of many US university courses you will have sussed that I am probably not from the US.
I can see why greenies would not like my US doppelganger; he’s a geologist and an OIL MAN. One of the enemy.
More importantly though I would suspect that he has no qualifications in the modeling of complex dynamically interacting chemical and physical systems. This would probably make anything he said about the CO2 problem a little less believable.
Stephen G September 2, 2010
“Excuse me! Are you the People’s Front of Judeah?”
“____-OFF! We’re the Judean People’s Front! That’s the People’s Front of Judeah over there….Splitters!”
“Bat’s ears, Otter’s spleens, Wolf’s-nipple chips, get ‘em while they’re ‘ot!”
A not yet famous quote from an unknown, unqualified human, who so being yet unproven, clearly may not actually exist…and clearly it must be utterly irrelevant whether he does or not:
“It’s not what you’ve got it’s how you wiggle it!”
Very scary stuff…nice job Paul…that certainly got the ‘flys’ undone! ;-P Fairly startling evidence in my pointlessly unqualified opinion.
Lets get Warp Drive on the drawing board ey? If this is indicative of the calibre of ‘qualified humans’, then we hardly need Climate Change to stuff us up. I want outta here! :-)
Cheers
Stephen G
Keith Reeves September 2, 2010
Nice to see I got my point across Steve.
salamander September 2, 2010
I say “Climate change is real”. However I can’t accept that Abbott has changed his beliefs about the subject – he is just trying to changed the colour of his spots, hoping that it will allow him to blend into the background more and thereby be first past the post.
Keith Reeves September 3, 2010
Thanks Salamander. You’ve just confirmed that this is about politics, belief and the monetization of carbon dioxide. It’s all about the money, the position, the influence. The science comes dead last. There is no science that implicates CO2 as a dangerous gas in any way. To the contrary, the only real scientific analysis of the situation tells us that there is no correlation between man and climate as far as CO2 is concerned. CO2 is expressed from the oceans as temperature changes.
Adam September 3, 2010
As a practicing engineer for almost 30 years (I also hold a Masters Degree in Eng/Sc) I find it difficult to understand how many people base their attitude to climate change on their projections of other peoples motives.
Is it so hard to look at actual data and see a trend?
Engineers should be the first people to spot suspicious activity (CO2 levels and warming) and apply Occam’s razor style thinking to the cause.
When satellite readings show growing IR absorption in CO2 and Methane bands over recent years then the question needs to be asked “Where is that energy going?”. We also see greater backscatter of IR energy coming back to Earth. Such levels appear to match CO2 levels. We also see Oxygen depletion that maps neatly to new CO2 levels (corresponding to human emissions). Other evidence of CO2 warming includes ocean temps, nighttime temps, low solar activity, isotopic signatures. At some point even skeptical engineers accept observation and move on to using their skills and ingenuity to fix it.
Keith Reeves September 4, 2010
“Occam’s razor style thinking to the cause” — Science or semantics?
“spot suspicious activity (CO2 levels and warming” — Where? Do you have any training in statistics?
“When satellite readings show growing IR absorption in CO2 and Methane bands over recent years” — Do they??
“We also see Oxygen depletion” — where exactly???
And I could go on. You obviously have no training in thermodynamics, geology or chemistry. If you did you would know that we are still in one of the coldest periods Earth has experienced. I am not a sceptic. I am a scientist trained to detect BS and to be offended when people mis-use science for political or financial gain. Additionally I am not one of “people base their attitude to climate change on their projections of other peoples motives” . That’s just an observation on how unqualified people have been led to believe in AGW.
Adam September 4, 2010
Well actually I do have training in Thermodynamics and statistics. Difficult to top the engineering faculty in mathematics at the Australian university I attended without it and then lead engineering teams for many years.
Here are the satellite readings.. http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf
Oxygen depletion… http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html#2-3-1
I *do* have an Engineering degree and Masters degree in Engineering. You obviously have not yet read the research on the topics involved.
Engineering is about finding solutions. To achieve that we *need* to know a lot of science AND ignore the nonsense that faith and other political claptrap noise can make.
Hopefully the references will assist you.
Adam September 4, 2010
I should also point out that engineers are extremely suspicious of any correlated events and apply directed skepticism towards them as to any cause.
Witness extremely large CO2 levels. Essentially a step pulse. (And engineers know the issues relating to step pulse dynamics!).
*And* we also see warming temperatures.
And low solar activity ….
and melting ice…
and record temperatures …
and oceanic pH levels dropping..
hmmm….
What science seems to stand out? We’re all aware of the science behind black body radiation and that of CO2 absorption.
Just those simultaneous cues are enough to cause any engineer to sought out possible correlations.
We also learn in Engineering to account for all inputs and outputs. The energy balance.
Did you ever learn control theory?
I should imagine that upon examining some of the papers looking into data collection regarding temperatures and other physical observations that your engineering nous should kick back into gear.
Keith Reeves September 5, 2010
Exactly ” learn in Engineering to account for all inputs and outputs”. The failure of “Climate Scientists” to do this is exactly the problem. They want to run half a model with a CO2 balance that includes only man made CO2 plus the assumed steady state atmospheric CO2 prior to mans organic combustion of coal, oil, wood and petrol. You must include CO2 trapped in deep ocean layers which originates from core magma. This chemical balance is not done by the modelers. Why does it need to be pointed out to an engineer that such obvious failings as this one and failure to include solar output variations in the thermal balance are serious problems of credibility??
Sam Stainsby September 5, 2010
The assertion that somehow engineers can understand climate science better than climate scientists in general is a logical non sequitur, and reveals a lack of understanding of what scientists actually do. Having been a scientist and then an engineer for a telco, it is clear that engineers, if anything, are more focused on their area of expertise and care less about the theoretical and fundamental underpinnings of the science that they apply. It takes good science, and thus good scientists, to forge a path into the complex realm of climate change.
Keith, you keep claiming to be a scientist, yet you also say you only did science courses to second year level: can you show us your publications list please?
Keith Reeves September 5, 2010
Debate the science guys, not the number of PhDs or MScs you claim to have. You might, possibly, have a more restricted area of interest and view as you go up the ladder and consequently a “higher” qualification may indicate less capacity to see the full picture. I have science qualifications adequate to assess the errors in what’s being put to the world about CO2. My modeling courses at final year degree level allow me to clearly see what are either errors or deliberate fraud in climate models demonizing CO2. This is basic science. None of you have tried to argue the basic science I have put so far. My suspicion is that none of you are scientists, just greenies. “I should also point out that engineers are extremely suspicious of any correlated events” Is this statement rebutting my CO2 mass balance in post 33? Sounds like the IPCC. The climate brigade has totally misrepresented modeling and posted it as proof. Before I will believe any of the models I want all of the volcanic rents in the earths crust sealed off to isolate CO2 exhaust as a factor. Then I want all of the CO2 trapped for hundreds of years in deep ocean layers isolated as an input factor. Just what percentage of the atmosphere’s CO2 does man put into the atmosphere? It is a puny input into a non existent effect. In the mean time we allow chemical pollution of the earth and the murderous extremes of human behaviour mentioned above in post 5. ???
Sam Stainsby September 5, 2010
So no publications then.
Keith: “None of you have tried to argue the basic science I have put so far.”
This is not the place. If you feel you have something concrete, get it published in an appropriate journal and let climate scientists pick it apart. I find that trying to argue the science with purveyors specious tripe is not productive here or anywhere. With deniers, it only leads to one of two strategies: mindless repetition even when faced contra-positive proof, or simply moving onto to a steaming fresh pile of specious tripe.
“My suspicion is that none of you are scientists, just greenies.”
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9306313
Quark-gluon vertex and structure of mesons and diquarks
Samuel J. Stainsby, Reginald T. Cahill
etc.
Keith Reeves September 5, 2010
Two quark propagators with different analytic structure are employed in Bethe-Salpeter type equations for the pion and scalar diquark form factors. One of the quark propagators has been calculated with the inclusion of a trivial (bare) quark-gluon vertex and, as a consequence, contains a complex conjugate pair of logarithmic branch points. The other quark propagator is obtained using a non-trivial (dressed) vertex ansatz and is entire, with an essential singularity at infinity. The effects of these different quark propagators on the BSE solutions are compared.
Refer back to post 35, lines 2 and 3.
Why do climate models not include CO2 produced by microbial content of the top half meter of soil world wide?? This is a massive factor in CO2 input to the model and its omission negates any legitimacy for the models.
Sam Stainsby September 5, 2010
“Why do climate models not include CO2 produced by microbial content of the top half meter of soil world wide?”
Why do you keep making statements that provide and increasing body of evidence that you don’t even read the climate science journals, or perhaps don’t understand them, or that you can’t even operate Google?
Sam Stainsby September 5, 2010
By the way, scientific papers are supposed to be about a very specific topic, not a rambling treatise on life, the universe, and everything. For you information, Keith, quarks are the building blocks of protons and neutrons, the building blocks of all atomic nuclei, and hence (almost) all matter. This paper intended to add insight to our fundamental understanding of the world we live in. I only quoted the paper to show that your another of your assumptions – that we were lying about being scientists – was a false.
Keith Reeves September 5, 2010
Sorry you guys for being so apparently unpleasant but this topic carries with it a strong association with politicians and bankers to whom I have an aversion. I have a natural appreciation for people who try to unravel sciences mysterys at the most fundamental level but continue to be put off by the climate debate which instructs me not to query my betters.
As an example of scholarship I was referred to there is this “http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html#2-3-1″ which is part of the IPCC report. At the surface it appears to be coherent but exists on the basis of reference to many papers and anecdotes which are themselves based on Ifs, Buts and Maybes. Layer on layer of loose connections. Some of the measurements used are far from reliable and certainly not lab standard. A case in point is a measuring station on the island of Hawaii, which I have visited. It measures CO2 levels. Are they joking?? This island is an active volcano. I have seen molten lava boiling the water and pumping out CO2 from the ocean. The entire island chain has sub surface gaseous exchange from the magma to the ocean and the to atmosphere. They place a CO2 measuring device on a volcano. Are they joking???
As Sam says: “scientific papers are supposed to be about a very specific topic, not a rambling treatise on life” but just have a look at the rambling IPCC paper. If you can connect all the dots in that one you are doing well.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html#2-3-1
Adam September 5, 2010
Hi Keith, I understand the unpleasant association with politicians and bankers!
Your concern about the Mauna Loa volcanic influence is a good one.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.html suggests that they exclude the readings where volcanic influence may be occurring..
“The Mauna Loa site is considered one of the most favorable locations for measuring undisturbed air because possible local influences of vegetation or human activities on atmospheric CO2 concentrations are minimal and any influences from volcanic vents may be excluded from the records… .”
I would also note that the readings agree with other CO2 monitoring stations scattered across the globe.
Keith Reeves September 6, 2010
“I would also note that the readings agree with other CO2 monitoring stations scattered across the globe”. Yes , I would hope that if Mauna Loa is being used that the data it is strictly monitored. If it tracks that from Tasmania, which is unlikely to be contaminated, then you can compare changes from both sites but not absolutes.
Keith Reeves September 7, 2010
The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and burning of fossil fuels—the essence of the Greens’ theory of global warming—has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules.
Marxism, Freudianism, global warming. These are proof—of which history offers so many examples—that people can be suckers on a grand scale. To their fanatical followers they are a substitute for religion. Global warming, in particular, is a creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science. If people are in need of religion, why don’t they just turn to the genuine article?
—Paul Johnson
Adam September 10, 2010
Keith, what makes the science behind anthropogenic climate change a “… Greens’ theory..”?
Science actually belongs to us all.
You seem to be assigning a political viewpoint upon scientific observation and conclusions based upon independent lines of evidence.
You seem to dismiss the science based upon what appears to be your own personal belief structure. Does that feel rational to you? You dismiss scientific reasoning because some people don’t follow a ‘genuine’ dogma? Which of the 32000+ religions do you consider genuine?
Trying to frame the science as an affront to religion is pointless. Wishing and praying does not change the logic nor the evidence.
Keith Reeves September 12, 2010
Hi Adam,
I acknowledge that you are more up to date than me in thermodynamics but the core understanding of the scientific principles remains with me and that is especially true in the area of statistics. In the sphere of modelling, however, I would not defer to too many people, at all, who claimed to be able to understand the forces at work in the Earth’s biosphere.
Prominent warmer scientists seem to be trapped into defending a proposition regarding CO2 that they now understand to be wrong. I recently watched a TV talk show involving Professor Schneider (Stamford USA) who sadly passed away shortly after the show.
In answer to one questioner, he posed an answer in terms of a bathtub analogy which was obviously faulty and under consistent questioning refused to address the science behind the analogy. His analogy assumed a basic non human CO2 cycle with static and invariable capacity to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. This system, he asserted, was in balance and unable to cope with human CO2 which he saw as being an extra that was unable to be processed in any way. He then asserted that human CO2 production must therefore accumulate and needed its own system of removal ie. human intervention.
He failed to address the question with science and I guess the reason he didn’t do that was obvious.
There are scientific studies which show that in the lab, and undoubtedly in the atmosphere, that extra CO2 simply increases the rate of plant growth and therefore CO2 absorption.
Additional CO2 simply “forces” more sequestration. There are other systems which work similarly to deal with CO2.
This prominent scientist appeared flustered and confused and not in command of the topic. It was a sad end to a life and a sad episode for science to watch a scientist caught in the political nightmare that is Global Warming.
Politics, belief and science don’t mix.
Adam September 12, 2010
I read that exchange. It was meant to be a simplistic analogy intended for an audience that was composed of laypeople. To that end I reckon it served its purpose well.
His premise was pretty spot on.
In the obvious absence of such natural carbon sinks then you will see accumulation in the biosphere.
The observed CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the oceans have deviated greatly from any expected natural process.
If there were natural sinks existing that would slurp up the additional CO2 then they are not doing a very good job.
We also see large deviations from the steady state Carbon isotopic composition. That suggests that the carbon is not mixing into the large natural system that quickly .
In short, the observations are behaving as the science predicts. No real surprises on a major scale.
Keith Reeves September 13, 2010
“That suggests that the carbon is not mixing into the large natural system that quickly ” Isn’t it known that from this analysis about 50% of man made CO2 is dealt with??
Keith Reeves September 13, 2010
“It was meant to be a simplistic analogy intended for an audience that was composed of laypeople”. This suggests a patronizing approach all too often evident in the Global Warming issue.
The statement that “If there were natural sinks existing that would slurp up the additional CO2 then they are not doing a very good job” also suggests unwillingness to deal with the science.
The first issue is that you can’t assume steady state CO2 production in nature. Unless you know what CO2 has been liberated from ocean floor volcanic sources you can’t assume that nature hasn’t increased its CO2 sequestration. The second point is about the other C)2 sink mentioned above. A PhD recently showed by peer reviewed experiment that ocean life will take up more Ca if it is available. In simple layperson terms this means that the shell part of shellfish just gets bigger if more Ca is available. If at this point you say “what has this got to do with CO2″ then I will just have to give up. Think marble, for example, and CaCO3 one of the worlds biggest CO2 sinks. Professor Schneider obviously wanted to avoid dealing with the basic science.
Adam September 13, 2010
Unsure why you would view it as patronizing. The audience comprised of laypeople. That was the intent of the SBS special.
We suddenly see an abrupt increase in CO2 at a rate that cannot be explained by any observed natural process.
The science has been looking for all manner of possible causes.
The obvious cause appears to be man made CO2 emissions.
It matches the economic estimates of the fossil fuel burning too.
If you think that nature is absorbing the CO2 then you need to explain why the atmospheric carbon isotopic composition is trending suddenly towards a fossil fuel signature. And why the levels are as high as they are. Nature is not absorbing it at a very high rate.
The alternatives to ACC have been pretty much exhausted. There are nobel prizes galore available to anyone who can pull the proverbial rabbit out of a hat and discover/explain not only an alternative source of CO2 to human emissions, but also explain where the amount of CO2 being burned by humans is going.
It seems the most obvious explanation supported by multiple lines of evidence.
You should probably give up. The science is in. The case for human emissions causing the levels of CO2 we see in the air and in the ocean are overwhelming. Better to spend our efforts on deciding what to do next. We were given brains, we should use them.
Keith Reeves September 13, 2010
“The case for human emissions causing the levels of CO2 we see in the air and in the ocean are overwhelming.”
Significant that you didn’t claim it causes temperature increase. Very significant.