I see I’ve managed to attract another anthropogenic global warming denialist in the comments again, I figured that now is as good a time as any to post this video. True, it’s over a year old, but it does as good a job of describing the multiple interlocking strands of evidence supporting the concept that the climate is warming and that human activity is causing it.
In particular, I like how this video sums up multiple lines of evidence supporting AGW. The same sort of reasoning applies to every major scientific consensus, be it evolution, the germ theory of disease, the scientific consensus that vaccines do not cause autism, or whatever. There is no single study that “proves” a scientific consensus. Nearly always, there are many lines of mutually supporting evidence that converge on the same conclusion or set of conclusions. That’s the one thing advocates of pseudoscience just don’t get. They have a tendency to think that there’s a “magic bullet,” one study that “proves” the consensus, hence their demand for “just one study” that “proves” a consensus, a demand I’ve seen from creationists, anti-vaccine activists, and supporters of various forms of quackery. In most cases, there ain’t no such beast. That isn’t how science works.
41 replies on “The best ten minute summing up of a scientific consensus I’ve seen in a long time”
Uh, hate to point out a problem, but this is a video on cancer research…AGW may well be a symptom of a cancer, but I’m pretty sure that isn’t what you intended.
Never mind.
Huh? It looks fine to me…
Somebody I know thinks AGW is a hoax because most of the scientists rely on a small amount of research to base further research upon. Therefore, a small group of scientists could have faked the original evidence, and every well-intentioned scientist afterward would have based their research on that. Think of it like a pyramid where a couple faked studies led to a large base of inaccurate yet valid data.
I never know how to most effectively refute this argument. What would you say to this person?
Somebody I know thinks AGW is a hoax because most of the scientists rely on a small amount of research to base further research upon. Therefore, a small group of scientists could have faked the original evidence, and every well-intentioned scientist afterward would have based their research on that. Think of it like a pyramid where a couple faked studies led to a large base of inaccurate yet valid data.
I never know how to most effectively refute this argument. What would you say to this person?
I would say that if this small cabal knew how to fake the data taken by future researchers, we should all find out who they are going to tell us will win the Derby this weekend and get all our money on that horse.
What, you’re laughing? You think this is a joke? You’re right, it is, and so is the “argument” from your friend.
Scientists re-run statistical tests on old data sets all the time. They also re-run the old experiments that generated the data sets. They do this because they are skeptical buggers who worry about other scientists making mistakes.
@Aaron, I would further point out that (a) temperature data is continuously coming in from stations quite literally all over the globe, under the control of thousands of different teams; (b) new ways of measuring old or ancient data from proxies is always under development; (c) there are also thousands of glaciologists in the world, who look not only at the behaviour of modern glaciers, but at the past behaviour of glaciers as well, who contribute to this dialog; (d) biologists are yet another set of researchers in an entirely different area, who make thousands of field observations every year which they compare against historical record and prehistoric evidence (such as palynology, the study of pollens, especially as trapped in soils) to document historical ranges of a variety of species, many of which depend on certain climates; etc.
Even if only a few dozen researchers were interested in this problem to begin with, back in the 50s and 60s, there have been many thousands of people involved ever since, many of whom have their own ways of examining past and present climates. All these people, and all of their data, would all have to be part of a conspiracy. To get an idea of the sheer amount of this data, I recommend a visit to a big university library, and check the climatology, paleoclimate, glaciology and ecology journals. This will give you a fraction of it.
Considering that of the academics I’ve known and worked with, people from two departments in the same university are reliably incapable of maintaining a conspiracy to get free coffee. The idea that this amount of data from this number of people in many different countries, many of whom not only have different languages and religions but also different political affiliations — that this data is all faked just isn’t realistic.
Thanks for the responses.
@Aaron
Even if there was a conspiracy, the evidence of past temperatures is there for anyone to look at. The fossil fuel industry has large financial resources and a strong interest in disproving it. If it were possible to do to come to a different conclusion from this data they would be funding these studies. Instead, what do they fund a few professional contrarians and conservative or libertarian think tanks.
OT ( but are facsimile psychological meanderings about truth and conspiracy by woo enterpreneurs *ever* _truly_ OT @ RI?)
Today (@ NaturalNews) Mikey goes all cognitive-styles on us and explains the inner workings of the “Gullible Mind”- seems that “psychological processing” “malfunctions” and
“filters information” based on *sources* that are acceptable- such as the government, institutions, mainstream media, doctors, scientists, and authorities- these poor souls lack “common sense” and display “inward gullibility” and thus cannot see their own lack of self-evaluation. Alas, poor us.
He goes on to explicate how many conspiracy theories turn out to be *true*. (paraphrase) “Hey, don’t you dudes ever think that like 2 other dudes _ever_ sat down together to plot much to rip off other dudes, like really, dude?” Then goes on to list “Awakened people” who have “fought the power” or “smelt the coffee” or whatever, including: Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, Charlotte Gerson,_ David Icke_,Jesse Ventura, Gerald Celente, Andrew Wakefield, Suzanne Somers, George Noory. However, although he doesn’t mention it here, he is *not* an AGW denialist.
Oh well, I guess it’s *Cinco de Mayo* in Tucson and he got into the organic, fermented agave nectar or suchlike early.
It’s interesting that AGW deniers are resorting to the tactic of attacking the very idea of scientific consensus. Their main arguments in this vein seem to be that 1)there is no such thing as scientific consensus at all, or 2) that scientists are being pressured into agreeing with the “consensus” for fear of losing their funding, jobs, friends, etc.
#1 is belied by the fact that there are areas where the scientific consensus is quite clear (nobody seriously questions things like gravity, for example).
To address #2, it is interesting that, somehow, Richard Muller was able to obtain funding to prove the evidence for AGW wrong by reexamining it, and is still working at Berkeley. He was also invited to testify before Congress.
The kicker is that he is also now admitting that the evidence is looking correct (see the LA Times or the post that lead to this one)
I weighed in on this over at PZ’s place, where “Holms” was claiming in response to the Sinclair video that dendroclimatologists deliberately omitted inconvenient tree-ring data sets from their analysis. I initially characterized this assertion as “baloney” but then loosened up a bit on the language. The parallels between Harry Eagar’s methods and (for example) J.B. Handley’s are striking, and deserve a more careful examination than I have time for at the moment. Were I a supercomputer like Orac, I’d just spawn a child process and keep chugging. As it is, though — back to the salt mines.
“What would you say to this person?”
I would ask them if they thought those rogue scientists could also change the laws of the physical universe, and somehow cause CO2 to stop being a greenhouse gas. Because there is a smoking gun in the AGW debate, and it is these pesky elevated CO2 levels that simply can’t be ignored.
Gingerbaker writes:
Because there is a smoking gun in the AGW debate, and it is these pesky elevated CO2 levels that simply can’t be ignored.
Lots of creative ways to futz with that reality. (Don’t tell me all about how screwed up the following is. I know. I’m listing various more or less risible denialist “arguments” I’ve seen on your point.)
– CO2 levels are rising but it’s not “anthropic.” We didn’t create the problem and we can’t stop it. CO2 levels were up in the age of dinosaurs and *they* weren’t filling up on hi-test, right?
– Other sources of warming dwarf CO2’s effects: Sun cycles, sunspots, water vapor, ocean water….
– This stuff about the atmosphere being transparent to incoming radiation but opaque to outgoing doesn’t make intuitive sense, and therefore must be misinformation and propaganda from a global cabal led by Al Gore.
One of the more common refrains from pseudoscience boosters is to ask/demand that supporters of science name “the one piece” of evidence that best supports _____. This is a tactic that allows them to either continue to think that there is just one piece or line of evidence, or to push that idea on others. But in virtually all forms of science there are multiple lines of evidence each with many pieces of evidence all pointing to a result, and that’s what makes scientists certain of a given finding.
When people ask for “the best piece of evidence” I think the best response is to say the best piece of evidence is that there are multiple lines of evidence each with many pieces of evidence all pointing to the same answer.
Absolutely!
Yes. We constantly run into confirmations of warming especially those of us who work in the north and the high Arctic. Not to slight those who work in the Antarctic either–read Frasier’s Penguins…an excellent book on the changes happening in the south.
The scientists I’ve known seem to view people in the same sub-department (but a different research group) as rivals and competitors, even when they’re best friends at the same time. Heck, even data coming out of your own lab is a target if you can get a paper out of it. If they spotted holes in another team’s data they’d be all over it because the publicity would result in lots more funding for them. It is utterly inconceivable that there could be a fifty-year, worldwide conspiracy going on between groups of people who’d publicly argue against their own spouses if it benefitted their reputations.
Taking in turn:
– CO2 levels are rising but it’s not “anthropic.” We didn’t create the problem and we can’t stop it. CO2 levels were up in the age of dinosaurs and *they* weren’t filling up on hi-test, right?
A: Why doesn’t burning fossil fuels (hydrocarbons) in an Oxygen rich atmosphere not cause CO2 and H2O like all other combustion events?
– Other sources of warming dwarf CO2’s effects: Sun cycles, sunspots, water vapor, ocean water….
A: Sun cycles cycle. therefore they go up, the come down. If it goes up and up and up, it isn’t a cycle. Sunspots are colder than the sun, and are cycles again. Our sun isn’t one huge sunspot. Water rains. ocean water isn’t a gas…
– This stuff about the atmosphere being transparent to incoming radiation but opaque to outgoing doesn’t make intuitive sense,
But the stuff about x-rays being able to see through solid bone makes no sense either. So why pay for an xray, mamogram, etc?
This video is embarrassing. The geometric shapes of CO2 and methane are wrong. Anyone who has taken freshman chemistry knows CO2 is linear and methane is tetrahedral. The idiot who did the animation has CO2 and H2O with the same shape and methane flat. WTF? I have a hard time taking this seriously.
Wow @18 –
Of course, but now we’re already into the game of “Wack-a-mole” where the denialists will raise yet other points and/or questions, will return to many that have already been answered, on and on ad nauseum.
Gingerbaker’s point AIUI was “It’s simple – CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its atmospheric levels are rising.” I agree (how could one scientifically do otherwise?), but just wanted to point out some of the responses I’ve seen that seek to deflect the conversation from that simple salient point to the endless Gish gallop of denialism.
I haven’t commented in a long time. I am with you on most issues, but not this one. Unlike evolution and vaccines, the criticisms of catastrophic AGW are not psuedoscience.
Yeah, you have a lot of right-wing people who don’t “believe” in AGW for predictably wacky reasons. You also have a lot of wacky environmentalists who “believe” in AGW because people are like totally destroying the earth, man, and don’t really have any idea about why they think that. I bet a bunch of the anti-vacciners buy into AGW (you gotta be all natural).
My own criticisms of catastrophic AGW are:
-We don’t know what the background rate of warming is. I find the evidence showing that the non-greenhouse gas forcings are not a factor to be unpersuasive. I also find the multiplier effect to be unpersuasive.
-The statistical models are not good. This is bolstered by the fact that they have no predictive power, and have predicted nothing over the past 10 years. They also extrapolate well beyond the dataset.
-The uncertainty in the historical dataset is much higher than most scientists realize, give it credit for, or admit. Whether the uncertainty is caused by UHI, measurement mistakes, microclimates, or data normalization, the uncertainty is significant.
-Humans are very bad at modeling macro-systems, whether it is climate, the ocean, wind patterns, or the economy. We are much better at figuring out how a reaction occurs or how things behave in a closed system.
-Certainly CO2 is causing some increase in temperature. In my mind, the question is: is it significant compared to the natural fluctuations in the Earth’s climate. Looking at history on the geological scale, I think the answer is most likely no.
And like one of your old commenters, I am skeptical of anyone claiming that some problem requires giving the government more power. Even if the earth is warming at an unnatural rate, the implications of such warming are not clear. The earth, the environment, and humans are very good at adjusting.
I left some things out.
I have heard much of the evidence against the points I have made. As I said, I find it unpersuasive. I understand most of you will disagree. Nonetheless, I think my points are not psuedoscience, and not crazy.
I see there was some debate over what “catastrophic” means in the previous post’s comments. The “catastrophic” adjective means that the effects any AGW are going to be so horrible that it justifies huge expenditures of money now. It refers more to the policy implications of a warming world, and the possible end point of any warming. We have no idea what climate will actually be like 50 years from now, and assuming it will be warmer, we have no idea if it will really be terrible for mankind or the environment.
TomB, I’m going to try to be respectful, as you’ve obviously made some attempts at thinking this through, unlike Neil Craig:
“We don’t know what the background rate of warming is. I find the evidence showing that the non-greenhouse gas forcings are not a factor to be unpersuasive. I also find the multiplier effect to be unpersuasive.”
This is pretty generalize and I might be incorrect in stating that it appears you don’t believe in the study of paleoclimate or using proxies to generate historical reconstruction data.
What “non-greenhouse gas forcings” are you talking about? I can’t even assume something here, it just doesn’t make sense to me.
As for “multipliers” which part of the physics about energy absorption in the IR wavelengths is confusing? I can direct you to multiple explanations of the science, but I don’t know to what level to direct you. Simply, the understanding that methane, CO2 and water vapor make up the majority of upper atmospheric gases that absorb IR wavelength energy.
“The statistical models are not good. This is bolstered by the fact that they have no predictive power, and have predicted nothing over the past 10 years. They also extrapolate well beyond the dataset.”
This is a good point and actually shows some insight. Perhaps the analogy to a large moving object maintaining velocity through the concept of momentum might be best in explaining the predictive powers of climate science. Perhaps you are unaware that heat is being absorbed in much higher amounts by the oceans, which is easily observable by acidification which was not modeled correctly in early simulations. I can assure you that the models are receiving updates, but oceanic heat studies are slow and a lot was riding on the satellite data that didn’t happen.
As for the statistical methods not being “good” can you provide a citation for why you believe this? Mann’s data has been recreated by independent scientists using other data and methodologies. The most recent is Richard Mullar’s Berkeley team. They presented that data to Congress 2 months ago.
“The uncertainty in the historical dataset is much higher than most scientists realize, give it credit for, or admit. Whether the uncertainty is caused by UHI, measurement mistakes, microclimates, or data normalization, the uncertainty is significant.”
Really? Citations are required for this claim. Again, refer to Richard Mullar’s Berkley team’s recent data.
“Humans are very bad at modeling macro-systems, whether it is climate, the ocean, wind patterns, or the economy. We are much better at figuring out how a reaction occurs or how things behave in a closed system.”
Really? I’ve done a significant amount of modelling of large complex systems. Do you have a citation that might justify your concerns or is this just something you’ve decided yourself from reading Anthony Watts’ blog? I admit, this was snarky, but there aren’t many people that mention UHI anymore that aren’t associated with his amateur science.
“Certainly CO2 is causing some increase in temperature. In my mind, the question is: is it significant compared to the natural fluctuations in the Earth’s climate. Looking at history on the geological scale, I think the answer is most likely no.”
I’ll ignore your teaparty/libertarian comments. Too easy.
Yes, it is significant for the continuation of species in many ecosystems around the world. Perhaps you might be familiar with keystone species that are facing extinction due to elimination of ecosystems? Frog species extinction is incredibly high and many of those species are considered important to ecosystem stability.
The earth, the environment, and humans are very good at adjusting.
The concern is that the adjustments made by the first two will not be compatible with the continued survival of the third.
Completely unevidenced, apparently.
@TomB #21:
The most straightforward implication of a warming planet is that the oceans will also warm, and therefore seawater will expand. Sea levels will rise; I think that is very clear. Unfortunately many of our population centres and much of our agriculture is based on the coastline and along estuaries and tidal rivers. Even wealthy countries are going to find it difficult to adjust to a rise in sea levels over the next few centuries.
See the paragraphs on impacts.
Gosh is this the same Orac who was defended from the charge of ecofascism on the grounds that he didn’t blog about eco subjects?
Now so desperate to defend the alleged catastrophic warming “scientific consensus” that he is bringing in unrelated videos as “support”.
And yet still unwilling to even attempt to name a single scientist, anywhere in the world, who supports this alleged “consensus” and is among the 60% of scientists not paid by the state.
Who woulda thunk it?
“We are much better at figuring out how a reaction occurs or how things behave in a closed system.”
We sit here at the bottom of a deep gravity well in what amounts to a closed system. Well, more energy is being introduced constantly from the sun (mostly), but very little is leaving. That’s the problem.
More amusing tripe from neil.
Not surprised by this at all but still amusing to laugh at.
Gosh. Nobody at all capable of disputing the facts and Novalox reduced to an ad hom.
Who woulda thunk it?
TomB @21:
I find this a rather odd statement. What do you mean by the ‘background rate of warming’? Are you suggesting that Earth has been continually warming throughout the eons for some intrinsic, yet unknown, reason? It sounds remarkably like magic or the power of crystals to me.
@neil
I still see that you are deluded enough to keep a score on your preconceived and perceived “victories” on the bottom of your posts.
And since you seem so intellectually dishonest and totally unwilling to engage in an honest debate, throwing ad homs at everyone here while accusing others of doing so when they have not, your postings are nothing more than amusement, like seeing a petulant child rant and rave about something.
So keep posting, if you wish, for the utter laughs that you bring me and the rest of the readers.
(And if you still so insistent on keeping “score”, just remember that all it does it make you look even more infantile than you already are)
Anyways, I watched the video. I think that it was very informative. Probably won’t change the minds of some hard core deniers, but it does present the information very clearly.
I do not have links to the specific studies that support my points. I usually form an opinion by looking at other’s opinions, looking at the data or studies that support them, then decide for myself. I recognize that evidence (and many, many scientific studies) supports global warming. I also recognize that I am subscribing to the less supported position, and that my adoption of this position is based on my natural inclination to be (perhaps overly) skeptical.
However, here is a link to Richard Lindzen’s congressional testimony (which is a good summary and many people have seen this before).
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf
I occasionally read Anthony Watt’s blog (much as I occasionally read this one), along with Pielke Jr.’s blog, and icecap.us. I think Watt’s blog is where I originally saw the UHI concern.
I think my concern about modelling complex systems is my own (from my education and experience), but it could have been influenced by blogs.
Anyway, if you want to argue over the science, and provide supporting studies/evidence, etc., I will lose the argument because I am not that knowledgeable. My own impression is that there is a reasoned basis for disagreeing with the majority opinion on catastrophic AGW. I think “deniers” or skeptics get unfairly grouped with proponents of pseudoscience. I just don’t see the arguments made by skeptics to be in the same league as psuedoscience.
TomB, the UHI theory was ruled out when it was learned that there were confidence numbers to the measurement stations and when ruling out all but the highest confidence measurements were done it aligned exactly with the original data. It sounds like you would understand the idea of curve fitting, so when the comparison was done between the larger data set and the higher confidence data set was done, the curve fit was right on top of the original. UHI was just a false accusation thrown out by Anthony Watts and Pielke. I read Lindzen’s testimony a long time ago, it didn’t impress me then, and probably isn’t worth my time now. His stance is strictly contrarian and appears to have far too high of an ego to allow him to overrule a consensus of younger and more knowledgeable climate scientists.
BTW, I’ve seen Anthony Watts claim that snow is indicative of how global climate change is wrong, and I’ve observed him doing it repeatedly. He’s charismatic and has attracted a following of non-scientific useful idiots to his comment threads. Yet I’ve rarely seen him get any of the science right, rather he applies it wrong, often, just like with the snow. Wouldn’t that make him a panderer of psuedoscience?
For the definitive treatment of UHI, at least as far as the US temperature record is concerned, see Menne et al.
Consensus still has no place in validating a theory. Testing and predictive accuracy do. When the consensus of German scientists denounced Einstein’s early postulations, his response was, “it only takes one to prove me right.”
The IPCC’s predictions from mean temperatures to sea levels to glacial recession have come up way short. Tuvalu is far from sinking. There is no mass exodus. Contrary to IPCC warnings their population has almost doubled in the last two decades. There has been no significant warming trend in the last decade. Cyclonic activity has not increased in the last 100 years. Despite an explosive industrial growth from 1949 to 1980, temperatures dropped during that period. Also, the IPCC has not accounted for the average 800 year lag in CO2 rise after temperature rises, as evidenced in the Vostok Ice Core proxies.
So please, just don’t dismiss skeptics as tea party libertarian denialist conspirators. That would be too easy. As easy as Al Gore’s refusal to debate the debate that never took place. Just show us what we seek – evidence strong enough to show you can predict within in reasonable margin of error what the Earth does naturally. Once you can prove and predict what nature does, only then can you quantify the effects of man on the climate. We have failed at both.
And while your at it, what are the falsifiable parameters of AGW theory? At what point would we consider man made global warming to have stopped? This is never offered up in any AGW theories. Without falsifiability your theory has no legs.
And then there’s that pesky Co2. At 38 parts per million, and not as impressive radiative capacity as alarmist suggest, it’s classification as climate enemy # 1 is hinged on larger anti industrial and revenue generating agendas. Here’s some good reading from a peer reviewed paper on its radiative capacity and a falsification of Co2 / greenhouse gas theory. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf. Before your slings an arrows, please read it with an open mind.
I watched the video and aside from it cinematic techniques that would’ve made Josef Goebals proud, the narrator lost me in the first minute when he claimed AGW was based on studies of the Earth’s temperature of from the last 150 years. He can’t be serious? 150 years – how old is the earth? And then he holds up the Wang Study of global measurements, and oddly enough the map shows virtually no readings from the country that has had the most accurate and technologically advanced temperature reading systems in the last 150 years – the United States. This omission while glaring, had it been included would have really skewed the results as US mean temperatures unlike most of the other global reading sites have remain virtually unchanged over the last 100 years. Then the last omission is tropospheric temperature data. This is considered considerably more accurate than surface data as the heat island effects from the surface are virtually non-existant. Again, this data shows no significant rise in temperatures. And people wonder why some are skeptic.
Well little necromancer, you’re a dumbass. You don’t understand how the temperatures are calculated, you don’t understand how trending works and worst of all, you’re just an idiot that doesn’t understand how UHI was debunked as a completely bullshit argument. Go play with Anthony Watts at his Blog of Pancakes.
Oh, and necromancer? Next time you try to do a citation, learn how to do it correctly. Your link is broken.
Oh, the troll misformated the link, probably a copy and paste job from someone that has never actually done any research.
Professional rebuttal:
Halpern, J. B., Colose, C. M., Shore, J. D., Zimmermann, J., Ho-Stuart, C., & Smith, A. P. (April 20, 2010). Comment on “falsification of the atmospheric co2 greenhouse effects within the frame of physics”. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 24, 10, 1309-1332. DOI: 10.1142/S021797921005555X
THAT is how you do a proper citation. Gerlich made some insanely ignorant things in his attempt to conclude that CO2 isn’t the main driver in long term AGW.
Maybe a certain egotistical meteorologist can apply some salve to your bruised ego, troll.
When the consensus of German scientists denounced Einstein’s early postulations, his response was, “it only takes one to prove me right.”
I can’t find where Einstein used those words, Mr Naylor, so I’ll be boring and predictable and ask for a citation.