Harvard Professor: When it Comes to Climate Alarmism, Scientists Should be More Like Religious Adherents

_{Barry Arrington

January 7, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The 95 percent confidence limit reflects a long tradition in the history of science that valorizes skepticism as an antidote to religious faith.

But when it comes to climate alarmism, it is time to dump that standard.

Comments

Mark @ 69
Yes I read the article and your quotes. None of them indicate they based climate models on the presence of this organism. It was used to estimate what the climate was like in the geologic past – far too long ago to be relevant to climate models.
OK, perhaps my post was confusing. When I said "climate models", i didn't necessarily mean models of global warming, but rather models of hoe the climate changed in the ancient past. How much this effects current models of global warming or if it affects them, I don't know for sure. I didn't intend to make that claim. Perhaps this was not the best discussion to pick to post this. The article did say this: " With that idea in mind, scientists have developed a concept of what the ocean and climate was like in the past." "That idea" is the false idea that these creatures only existed in well oxygenated environments. So this false assumption/belief means that their understanding of what the climate was like in the geologic past is probably wrong.tjguy_{January 9, 2015
January
01
Jan
9
09
2015
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

Bing Search... Germany's coldest winter China's Coldest Winter India's coldest winter coldest day in 44 years - Delhi coldest Jacksonville, FL weather in 30 years Russia's coldest winter Obama's home - Chicago's Coldest Ever Winter in History since records began 142 years ago. Does climate "change?" Obviously, but is todays climate change due to industry and transportation generated CO2? Or cows?DATCG_{January 9, 2015
January
01
Jan
9
09
2015
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

... "Senior Research Scientist" Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past That was the year 2000. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. What has happened since then? Britain's Heaviest Snowfall google search from a person tracking snowfall for fun... "2010/11December 2010 will go down as an infamous winter month in the UK (perhaps it should be added to our famous winters run down?). Temperatures were around 5c below average which made it the coldest December in over 100 years, and there was significant and widespread snowfall to go with the cold." headlines on search for coldest winter seem to agree with him... uk coldest winter One of the links from the search... UK faces coldest winter in 30 years – forecasts - The Guardian I think if anything, with research scientist like Dr. David Viner and others, we should renew our skepticism and demand better standards.DATCG_{January 9, 2015
January
01
Jan
9
09
2015
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

What kind of "model" predicts 50 million refuges due to Global Warming by 2010, fails and can then be modified? Evidently the kind where predicted Refugee MAPS are pulled down. Fortunately, we have websites and easily accessible archives. Directly from UNEP(United Nations Environment Programme) itself. The failed 50 Million Climate Refugee MAP. Taken down after it was discovered a gross failure. Failed Prediction? - Pull Down the Map Did New York Times, NBC, or PBS report failures of these Climate Predictions by UNEP? I briefly searched, googling - failed unep climate predictions - with New York Times and PBS. Searched New York Times site for failed climate predictions as well. Nothing at their site, maybe bad search engine or need better search terms. Many areas UNEP predicted for 50 Million refugees now have populations increases across China and much of Asia. Bangledesh has increased land nass, not lost it. These type of disastorous failures by Global Warming Alarmist naturally leads to distrust. That's not peoples fault, nor is it about ignorance. Unless it is the ignorance of Alarmist and activist within these organizations. The fault of alarmist who tossed aside scientific standards to forecast predictions hyped on a Fear Index for End of the World conclusions. When their wild predictions failed, they decided a name change from Global Warming to Climate Change would suffice. Does that sound like science? Or, public relations? As if people were still reading newspapers, do not have access to the internet and cannot verify for themselves failed predictions. Most people's radar went off and asked, if Global Warming is true, why the name change? People want clean environments and less pollution. Certainly I do. But extremist and politicians predicting and chanting Global Warming, End of World, Doom and Gloom did a disservice to science. As did many scientist who joined the fringe or political edge. Truth is, Global Warming was never just about science. Advocating the loosening of standards now after failed predictions of Global Warming is bad science in the name of activism. Renaming Global Warming to Climate Change is not science. It's public relations propaganda and re-imaging after failure.DATCG_{January 9, 2015
January
01
Jan
9
09
2015
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

tjguy
Did you read the article? They told me! I gave some of the relevant quotes in the post above. Did you miss them?
Yes I read the article and your quotes. None of them indicate they based climate models on the presence of this organism. It was used to estimate what the climate was like in the geologic past - far too long ago to be relevant to climate models. I do respect the sceptical case, there are important points to be made and it is a complex subject; but some of the responses from the sceptics in this discussion amaze me. It is late - but tomorrow I will make an effort to list them.Mark Frank_{January 9, 2015
January
01
Jan
9
09
2015
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

Mark @66
tjguy
AND, the kicker is, they based a lot of their climate models on this wrong belief/assumption!
This seems a bit unlikely. Who told you?
Did you read the article? They told me! I gave some of the relevant quotes in the post above. Did you miss them?
First of all, I’m guessing they will find a way to either question the interpretation of the discovery or tweak the model to accommodate it.
Another way to describe “tweaking the model to accommodate it” is “modify the model in the light of new information” which is exactly what you should do. Models are really the only way of exploring what will happen to such a complex thing as the climate. The trick is to make them as accurate as possible and also explore how sensitive they are to various assumptions.
Yes, when done honestly, but sometimes they go all out to dream up theory saving devices to try and make it work. They can't test their ideas, but still claim their theory is valid as a result. Making stuff up to save a theory is not science. One example is that of inflation which is a theory rescue device for the big bang. Another would be the amount of dark matter and dark energy that are claimed to exist. This is necessary to save the Big Bang theory. You are right that models are the only way of exploring what will happen to such a complex thing as a climate which should remind us that we probably don't know squat! We do the best we can with what we have, but who is willing to bet that all our assumptions and interpretations are correct or even close? Not me!tjguy_{January 9, 2015
January
01
Jan
9
09
2015
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

MarkF: Well of course for increased warming it is not the absolute number of volcanoes but the additional volcanoes that matter. Or, as I said above, the magma becomes hotter via a change in earth's core---something that recently has been documented to have happened.
There are many things that influence the global temperature record. A crude correlation of temperature against CO2 is far too simple and really only relevant to those that want to play political games (on either side of the debate).
You've stopped being scientific. I ask you a simple, straighforward question, and you run for the hills.
So knowing the spread is one of the aims. If you do this under a wide range of assumptions then you can have some confidence the results are somewhere within the spread. More importantly you can relate the different outcomes to different assumptions and thus increase your understanding of what matters.
You still have the spread I was talking about. You can average the spread, if you want, and feel good about that. But what happens when everything falls "outside" of the "spread," which it has done now for almost 18 years? What's the point of the models?
I don’t deny that politics is also involved. That is why it is important for the likes of you and I not to be driven by our own politics (but also to recognise our own ignorance).
Mark, my political ideology has nothing to do with my scientific understanding of this alleged "warming." I need proof. I live in California. The Spanish Mission throughout California, mostly built in the late 1700's and early 1800's, were ruined by earthquakes for the most part in, and around, the 1810-1835 time period. This corresponds to a time when the latest round of warming began. Why the earthquakes? Likely because of magma intrusion--a once disclaimed possibility, but one for which evidence is now mounting. Look at the warming in the late 1800's and early 1900's, massive volcanic explosions, just when temperatures start to shoot up. There are two sources of heat: the sun and the earth's core. If you're interested in the source of heat, you should exclude both those sources before diving into "man-made global warming." And, BTW, what is the contribution of "man-made CO2" emissions out of the total CO2 geocycle? 4%! That's right: 4%! So completely shut everything down, all man inspired origins of CO2, and you reduce the effects of CO2 on the planet by 4%! Please! This is just ridiculous.PaV_{January 9, 2015
January
01
Jan
9
09
2015
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

tjguy
AND, the kicker is, they based a lot of their climate models on this wrong belief/assumption!
This seems a bit unlikely. Who told you?
First of all, I’m guessing they will find a way to either question the interpretation of the discovery or tweak the model to accommodate it.
Another way to describe "tweaking the model to accommodate it" is "modify the model in the light of new information" which is exactly what you should do. Models are really the only way of exploring what will happen to such a complex thing as the climate. The trick is to make them as accurate as possible and also explore how sensitive they are to various assumptions.Mark Frank_{January 9, 2015
January
01
Jan
9
09
2015
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

About climate change, here is an extremely interesting article on Phys.org about a false assumption on which most models of climate change in the past have been built on. http://phys.org/news/2015-01-scientific-underwater-methane-seeps.html Recently, a particular species of foraminifera was found that was previously
thought only to live in environments with high levels of dissolved oxygen. [Previously] When scientists found the shells of this creature in the fossil record, they [always] have thought that the presence of the species indicated a well-oxygenated environment at a specific time in geologic history. With that idea in mind, scientists have developed a concept of what the ocean and climate was like in the past. "The species is really interesting for us, and it's used to figure out what the climate was like in the geologic past." "Scientists have used the presence of the species as an indicator of well-oxygenated environments," Burkett said. "But this may not be the case. It may have been that there was an absence of nice rocks to colonize in the soupy sediments of poorly oxygenated environments."
Now this is good science!! We have some real data to go on. The interpretation of it is the tricky part, but at least now we know that forams CAN live in poorly oxygenated environments. Up until now, scientists did not know this. In fact they thought that was NOT the case. AND, the kicker is, they based a lot of their climate models on this wrong belief/assumption! This just goes to show how difficult it is to reconstruct history. Scientists must make many assumptions in these models and even if these assumptions seem to be plausible, they can turn out to be false, like this example shows. They are doing the best they can, but here is a good example of the problems we encounter when doing historical science. It is very different from real science that uses the scientific method because of how much interpretation and the need for assumptions that normally cannot be tested to draw conclusions. How many other false assumptions/beliefs are included in current day climate models? Perhaps we will never know! So, does more work have to be done here? Sure. These results must be properly interpreted - another challenge that is susceptible to the same problem of not being able to test your interpretation. Can the data be tweaked to save the models of climate change that have been built on top of it OR will these climate change models come crashing down? No doubt, it will take lots of convincing for something like that to happen. Beloved models are never easily parted with, but this discovery certainly shows that these previously held climate change models are now questionable as to their accuracy. Now we have actual data that shows one of the assumptions used to create these models is questionable. Let’s do more work and see where it leads. Up until now, no one knew that this species of foraminera was able to live in poorly oxygenated environments. Now we have evidence that it can! We need to remember that the important thing is that science progresses, not that models are saved! This should also be a lesson for climate alarmists and all scientists who deal in the area of historical science. Building models on similar "plausible" assumptions and untestable models might be the best we can hope for, but it is not conclusive by any means. It’s just not as simple as many would have us believe. QUESTION: If these findings hold, how many years do you think it will take text books, TV, science articles, & climate models to accurately reflect this new found knowledge? Predictions anyone? First of all, I'm guessing they will find a way to either question the interpretation of the discovery or tweak the model to accommodate it. I'm not holding my breath for models to come crashing down! That would be too embarrassing. Like I said, beloved models are hard to part with! Often times, contradictory data is simply tweaked to save the model. We'll see.tjguy_{January 9, 2015
January
01
Jan
9
09
2015
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

Andre, you have demonstrated that on two completely different occasions you completely misinterpret the fi dings of an article to fit your forgone conclusion.
Andre, are you turning into a materialist/evolutionist? ;)Joe_{January 9, 2015
January
01
Jan
9
09
2015
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

Andre, you have demonstrated that on two completely different occasions you completely misinterpret the fi dings of an article to fit your forgone conclusion. And Sven after repeated corrections you are completely unwilling to even entertain the possibility that you might be wrong. Your posts now, similar to maybe BA77, simply evoke scrolling.hrun0815_{January 9, 2015
January
01
Jan
9
09
2015
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT}

Atmospheric CO2 has been steadily increasing and yet the temperature has not been steadily increasing. The CO2 alarmists have lost.Joe_{January 9, 2015
January
01
Jan
9
09
2015
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT}

Pav
I got into a discussion with someone who worked in the field, and whose penchant it was to silence the skeptics. I argued that higher magmatic activity could easily account for what we’re seeing. He did a calculation and said that there needed to be 300,000 underwater volcanoes to account for the higher CO2. I googled, and found a site that estimated that there were 300,000 underwater volcanoes. I thought this was interesting.
Well of course for increased warming it is not the absolute number of volcanoes but the additional volcanoes that matter. But more to the point this little anecdote is not evidence. I repeat – do you seriously think that climate scientists have not considered other sources of ocean warming?
Here’s what I asked him (and I’ll ask you, wd400): the warming we’re experiencing started in the 1800?s. If man-made CO2 is the cause of global warming, then why did it start way back then when emissions were almost, if not, completely negligible?

Follow-up question: If man-made CO2 production is the culprit, then why did it warm up more quickly (or, at the very least, as quickly) during the first part of the 20th century as it did in the second half, when CO2 emissions were much, much higher? Why wasn’t the slope angling upwards?

And, of course, why has temperature been roughly the same for the last 16 to 17 years?
There are many things that influence the global temperature record. A crude correlation of temperature against CO2 is far too simple and really only relevant to those that want to play political games (on either side of the debate). What matters is if the temperature is higher than it would have been without anthropogenic greenhouse gases. This then provides evidence of the contribution of these gases and some indication of what the effect might be if the concentration continues to increase. Also the global temperature record is only one piece of evidence – although an important one.
Ah, yes, men and their numbers. A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
Absolutely – which is you and I both should be very careful of jumping to conclusions based on what we read on our favourite web sites.
Yes, you would assign a range of values for a multiplicity of variables. But, at the end of a particular year, with some consensus figure, you would then use those “outputs” as “inputs” for the next year. And if your equations are anyways off, the error simply multiplies itself year-by-year. And the uncertainty grows, year-by-year. So, if you’re off at the beginning—way off–then 100 years from now you have meaningless numbers.

Likewise, run the model backwards and see if you can retrodict known climate data.

It seems it would give you “even more” spread, and, hence, less confidence.
I think you are confused about the purpose of this type of modelling. It is not unique to climate change. It is used widely whenever there is a very complex system which cannot be rerun for real multiple times e.g. economics and urban planning. The idea is not to make a single prediction but to explore the limits given different assumptions. So knowing the spread is one of the aims. If you do this under a wide range of assumptions then you can have some confidence the results are somewhere within the spread. More importantly you can relate the different outcomes to different assumptions and thus increase your understanding of what matters.
BTW, there’s this whole controversy over the summary of the international climate report, and the actual report itself, with it being said that the summary, not put together by experts, does not always comport with what the actual scientists have concluded. IOW, politics.
I don’t deny that politics is also involved. That is why it is important for the likes of you and I not to be driven by our own politics (but also to recognise our own ignorance).Mark Frank_{January 9, 2015
January
01
Jan
9
09
2015
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PDT}

ppolish @ 54
MrThink, how does unguided purposeless Evo explain the emergence of a mother earthly coal powered steam engine?
You make less sense now than in comment # 51 ! Drunk ? Cheers! :-)Me_Think_{January 9, 2015
January
01
Jan
9
09
2015
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT}

Here are two papers saying no to manmade climate change.... http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/greenland-ice-melt-is-geothermal-not-manmade.html http://www.pnas.org/content/111/40/14360.abstract Not man made climate change Sorry.....Andre_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT}

hrun0815 The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. The paper I quoted in #37 showed clearly that the oceans have the ability to absorb and recycle the CO2 much better than we anticipated. But did you see this paper? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GB004743/abstract from the paper above; "The export of organic carbon from the surface ocean by sinking particles is an important, yet highly uncertain, component of the global carbon cycle. Here we introduce a mechanistic assessment of the global ocean carbon export using satellite observations, including determinations of net primary production and the slope of the particle size spectrum, to drive a food-web model that estimates the production of sinking zooplankton feces and algal aggregates comprising the sinking particle flux at the base of the euphotic zone. The synthesis of observations and models reveals fundamentally different and ecologically consistent regional-scale patterns in export and export efficiency not found in previous global carbon export assessments. The model reproduces regional-scale particle export field observations and predicts a climatological mean global carbon export from the euphotic zone of ~6 Pg C yr?1. Global export estimates show small variation (typically?<?10%) to factor of 2 changes in model parameter values. The model is also robust to the choices of the satellite data products used and enables interannual changes to be quantified. The present synthesis of observations and models provides a path for quantifying the ocean's biological pump." Biological pump...... chew on it for a while...... Design everywhere, engineering solutions everywhere!Andre_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT}

OK, bye.wd400_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

C’mon Wd400, some of the CO2 molecules bouncing around the atmosphere are guided. They’re there on purpose. Guided molecules directing Evolution in a small way. Oh a big way sorry.ppolish_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

Right, but what I'm asking for is evidence, not your own (seemingly uniformed) opinion.wd400_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

MrThink, how does unguided purposeless Evo explain the emergence of a mother earthly coal powered steam engine? Wd400, completely black "peppered" moths. Unguided and purposeless within a decade? Nope, they were designed with that capability, Design was there pre-black.ppolish_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

Can you explain how "guided" responses to environment could explain the example you mentioned (the peppered moths), or why the standard (non-guided) explanation fails.wd400_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

ppolish @ 51
Designed purposefull guided environmental change (like global warming) is a better fit within an ID theory though.
I don't get it.What do you mean by 'purposeful'. You mean Global warming is deliberately designed to change environment to guide change in species ? Are you implying ToE never said environment was not a factor in evolution ?Me_Think_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT}

Environmental change is a factor in ID also, Methink. Designed purposefull guided environmental change (like global warming) is a better fit within an ID theory though. And how does Nature respond? Purposelessly and unguided? Nope, sorry.ppolish_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

ppolish @ 46
WD, a quick google search reveals info on critters “evolving quickly” in response to climate change.
Isn't environmental change a factor in evolution ?Me_Think_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

PaV @ 45
You might enjoy reading Spetner’s newest book, and about what he calls “rapid” evolution. (pp70-80 roughly) He proposes NBEH, the “non-random evolution hypothesis.”
Those 365 originally created Jewish species of beasts and 365 birds are sure handyMe_Think_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

PaV @ 44
He did a calculation and said that there needed to be 300,000 underwater volcanoes to account for the higher CO2. I googled, and found a site that estimated that there were 300,000 underwater volcanoes. I thought this was interesting.
Wow. Another case of fine tuning ?
the warming we’re experiencing started in the 1800?s. If man-made CO2 is the cause of global warming, then why did it start way back then when emissions were almost, if not, completely negligible? Follow-up question: If man-made CO2 production is the culprit, then why did it warm up more quickly (or, at the very least, as quickly) during the first part of the 20th century as it did in the second half, when CO2 emissions were much, much higher? Why wasn’t the slope angling upwards?
Your questions seem to be too common. Entire section exist to answer such questions at skeptical science Me_Think_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

Yeah, but what's "natural design" and how does it explain the evolution of the example you mentioned?wd400_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

WD, a quick google search reveals info on critters "evolving quickly" in response to climate change. I'm sure we will be "surprised" many a time by how fast seemingly purposeless unguided managed to do the job. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2461314/Global-warming-causing-animals-evolve-migrate-claims-scientist.html Evolutionists should be terrified of global warming on many different levels;)ppolish_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

And can one ask what this “natural design” is, and how it explains, for instance, the rise and fall of moth morphs? You might enjoy reading Spetner's newest book, and about what he calls "rapid" evolution. (pp70-80 roughly) He proposes NBEH, the "non-random evolution hypothesis." I didn't realize there's this whole history with lizards and guppies showing sympatric populations diverging genetically so quickly. Sure looks like environmental cue-ing.PaV_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

MarkF: Do you seriously think that after so much debate and research scientists have not allowed for these factors? I got into a discussion with someone who worked in the field, and whose penchant it was to silence the skeptics. I argued that higher magmatic activity could easily account for what we're seeing. He did a calculation and said that there needed to be 300,000 underwater volcanoes to account for the higher CO2. I googled, and found a site that estimated that there were 300,000 underwater volcanoes. I thought this was interesting. Here's what I asked him (and I'll ask you, wd400): the warming we're experiencing started in the 1800's. If man-made CO2 is the cause of global warming, then why did it start way back then when emissions were almost, if not, completely negligible? Follow-up question: If man-made CO2 production is the culprit, then why did it warm up more quickly (or, at the very least, as quickly) during the first part of the 20th century as it did in the second half, when CO2 emissions were much, much higher? Why wasn't the slope angling upwards? And, of course, why has temperature been roughly the same for the last 16 to 17 years? Ah, yes, men and their numbers. A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. They run thousands and explore what happens under different scenarios and assumptions. Yes, you would assign a range of values for a multiplicity of variables. But, at the end of a particular year, with some consensus figure, you would then use those "outputs" as "inputs" for the next year. And if your equations are anyways off, the error simply multiplies itself year-by-year. And the uncertainty grows, year-by-year. So, if you're off at the beginning---way off--then 100 years from now you have meaningless numbers. Likewise, run the model backwards and see if you can retrodict known climate data. Modelling thousands of times under many assumptions would give us even more confidence. It seems it would give you "even more" spread, and, hence, less confidence. BTW, there's this whole controversy over the summary of the international climate report, and the actual report itself, with it being said that the summary, not put together by experts, does not always comport with what the actual scientists have concluded. IOW, politics.PaV_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply