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

And can one ask what this "natural design" is, and how it explains, for instance, the rise and fall of moth morphs?wd400_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

WD, Evo Theory & Global Warming emerged at just about the same time. The Peppered Moth's wings turning black to match the industrial soot of Darwin's time was offered up as evidence of Natural Selection. Darwin's biggest mistake was deducing Natural Selection from Artificial Selection instead of Artificial Design. He was so so close to the correct idea - Natural Design. The Industrial Revolution and it's impact on the Evolution of moths to polar bears is yet another example of Artificial Design and yes Natural Design in action. Nature is a sucker for Design.ppolish_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Andre. You should read things more carefully, when you base these silly "insults" on your own misunderstanding of plain English you end up looking a bit foolish. In case a second reading is not enough, the "airborne fraction" is proportion of human emissions that end up in the atmosphere (and not the ocean or land). The fact the fraction is less than one is a problem for anyone that wants to claim the rise in CO2 is not down to human emissions or comes from the ocean, btw.wd400_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

Andre #38 Do you really think that article says that CO2 levels are not rising? Or are you just having us on?Mark Frank_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

@37 Andre, really? Really??? This is even worse than your mis-reading in the 'Proteins are defying textbooks' thread. @38 Oh, goodie. You doubled down.hrun0815_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

This begs the question, why are such reasonable people, such as materialsts always arguing against the science? I wonder.... is it perhaps because they are by far the most superstitious lot known to man? They do after all believe matter made itself and mud just magically became alive don't they?Andre_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

Has CO2 levels risen? The science says....... Nope..... http://bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.htmlAndre_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

LoL! @ ppolishJoe_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

I do find it odd, Wd400, that some IDers adamantly claim Climate Change is Natural while many Evolutionists preach it is caused by Design. Go figure:)ppolish_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Are there any other topics for which IDers think the entirety of a scientific field are either clueless morons or liars?
There are scientists from both fields who agree with us.Joe_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

Pav
I asked if it caused “warming” directly. You say “yes.” But what you do not advert to is this fact: water vapor is more of a “hothouse” gas than CO2 by an order of magnitude. CO2, allegedgly, causes a “warming” of the surface waters, releasing water vapor, which is really what “triggers” the “warming.”
See my comment #20 where I cover exactly this point.
Now, just imagine that either tectonic forces, and/or, magma cause the ocean to warm slightly, what will happen? More water vapor will be released, and the atmosphere will warm up. Given the huge density differences between water and water vapor, it seems the place to look for “warming” should be first the oceans themselves. What about underwater volcanoes for example? What about Iceland for example, which is nothing more than the mid-Atlantic trench coming up to the surface. And how much CO2 does that release?
Do you seriously think that after so much debate and research scientists have not allowed for these factors?
As to models, computer models for a large time frame, will be most accurate at first, and, then, increasingly less accurate. So why have these models been unable to predict the weather for the last sixteen years? Why should we believe these models when it comes from 75 years from now? Why should we spend all this money chasing our tail?
Models are useful but they are not the whole story and you need to understand how they are used. Climate scientists don’t just run one model and say that is how it is going to be. They run thousands and explore what happens under different scenarios and assumptions. Suppose you had to predict traffic levels in third world cities. It would be really hard to predict the exact patterns over the next decade but you predict with some confidence, given the way populations are moving into cities, that traffic will increase significantly. Modelling would give us some idea of how that might develop and best and worst scenarios given key assumptions. Modelling thousands of times under many assumptions would give us even more confidence.
I bet there are whole bunch of the very rich who are just waiting to get their handouts from governments around the world. Have you considered that angle?
Isn't this an ad hominem argument.Mark Frank_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

The low concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is utterly irrelevant and even the most hard-bitten sceptics have abandoned that line.
No. Just go to "Watts Up With That" and you will see differently. The low concentration of CO2 is irrelevant to any climate change.
It doesn’t matter how much non-greenhouse gas there is – it will not dilute the effect of the greenhouse gasses.
The effect of greenhouse gases is nothing when compared to the Sun, our orbit and every thing else I mentioned. Greenhouse gases are great for keeping nights a little warmer by keeping the heat around a little longer, but they are not heat amplifiers. And a warmer earth is a better earth anyway. Increased water vapour from warming equals increased clouds which cool. Sunlit soot melts ice and snow even when the ambient temperature is below freezing. Atmospheric CO2 has been increasing and yet the temperature has not. If you were right that shouldn't happen.Joe_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

How about all the nonsense peddled by the medical profession: - The suppression of natural, 100% effective cancer cures by the whole field of cancer researchers? - How about the nefarious plot to give autism to all those kids in order to see vaccines? - Or all those virologists that are securing research funding by claiming that HIV causes AIDS?hrun0815_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Are there any other topics for which IDers think the entirety of a scientific field are either clueless morons or liars? Or is that only evolutionary biology and climate science?wd400_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

Mark: I asked if it caused "warming" directly. You say "yes." But what you do not advert to is this fact: water vapor is more of a "hothouse" gas than CO2 by an order of magnitude. CO2, allegedgly, causes a "warming" of the surface waters, releasing water vapor, which is really what "triggers" the "warming." Now, just imagine that either tectonic forces, and/or, magma cause the ocean to warm slightly, what will happen? More water vapor will be released, and the atmosphere will warm up. Given the huge density differences between water and water vapor, it seems the place to look for "warming" should be first the oceans themselves. What about underwater volcanoes for example? What about Iceland for example, which is nothing more than the mid-Atlantic trench coming up to the surface. And how much CO2 does that release? As to models, computer models for a large time frame, will be most accurate at first, and, then, increasingly less accurate. So why have these models been unable to predict the weather for the last sixteen years? Why should we believe these models when it comes from 75 years from now? Why should we spend all this money chasing our tail? I bet there are whole bunch of the very rich who are just waiting to get their handouts from governments around the world. Have you considered that angle?PaV_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
It is complicated and important question. The thing we don’t want to do is turn it into an over-simple slanging match.
A hope that does not seem to be universally shared here! What is the connection between the debate over the rate and causes of climate change and the "Intelligent Design" community? PAV:
When you are about to spend hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars to combat a ‘possible’ crippling problem, and, if you’re going to condemn whole sectors of impoverished populations to future poverty by denying them technology based on this ‘possible’ problem, then you better be pretty darn sure about what you’re talking about.
There are plenty of changes individuals can make. Improving insulation, heat-recovery ventilation, incorporating features to take advantage of solar gain like large south-facing windows that are cost-effective in the long run. Burning fuel more efficiently (condensing furnaces) and solar water heating. Exploiting sustainable sources like coppiced timber. No huge investments required and scope for new business to exploit the demand for new technologies. These measures can save money in the long run, as well as conserving fossil fuel stocks for future generations. Where's the downside?Alicia Renard_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

PaV, You might want to check out Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation and down radiations which proves Co2 causes increase in temperature Me_Think_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

PAV
Don’t come here with your global warming (climate change) nonsense.
It is complicated and important question. The thing we don't want to do is turn it into an over-simple slanging match.Mark Frank_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

#24 PAV
Does CO2 in the atmosphere directly cause “warming”?
yes - I am surprised you need to ask that - it follows straight from the physics. However, if that were the only warming effect then it would not be great cause of concern as it is a log function - you have to double the CO2 to get the same increase in temperature. But it clearly is not the only effect - water vapour feedback being one of the strongest. You know there are plenty of sites where you can discuss these things with real experts.Mark Frank_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank: Does CO2 in the atmosphere directly cause "warming"? [Of course, I should be asking you does it cause "change"]PaV_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Graham2: The article goes on to say that this should be relaxed if the consequences of an error are serious: eg: in the case of climate change the standard may need to be lowered to 90% (why not 50% 10%?) because the cost of an error is so great. I couldn't disagree with you more. IMO you have it backwards. When you are about to spend hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars to combat a 'possible' crippling problem, and, if you're going to condemn whole sectors of impoverished populations to future poverty by denying them technology based on this 'possible' problem, then you better be pretty darn sure about what you're talking about. You've swallowed the cool-aid. Don't come here with your global warming (climate change) nonsense.PaV_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

Joe As I said, you need to learn about the subject. The movements of CO2 between oceans and atmosphere and between biomass and atmosphere are indeed much larger then the movement of CO2 from fossil fuels to atmosphere (roughly 20 to 1). However, they are roughly in balance - the movements in equal the movements out - while the flow from fossil fuels is one-way and cumulative over a timescale of decades (eventually the oceans should absorb the excess but not over timescales that matter). We have compelling evidence that a) the level of CO2 is rising (we just measure it) b) it is due to burning of fossil fuels. That is because CO2 from burning fossils fuels has a different proportion of CO2 isotopes from other sources and we can see the proportion in the atmosphere is changing. The low concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is utterly irrelevant and even the most hard-bitten sceptics have abandoned that line. Just as a concentration of arsenic of 10 parts per billion can be fatal a very small concentration of CO2 can have a very large effect. It doesn't matter how much non-greenhouse gas there is - it will not dilute the effect of the greenhouse gasses. There are debateable issues over climate change - particularly over the consequences and degree of change - but you haven't come up with any of them.Mark Frank_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Mark, We know that warmer oceans release more CO2 than colder oceans. We know that sunlight warms the oceans. We know that clean air allows more sunlight through to the surface. The oceans warm releasing their CO2 and that dwarfs man's input. CO2 is parts per million and no one has demonstrated our climate is that sensitive. Plants need CO2 and we need plants. A warmer planet = more plants.Joe_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

#19 Joe I suggest you read up a bit more about the topic. Take water vapour as an example. It is true that water vapour makes significantly the biggest contribution to the greenhouse effect. That is one reason why desert temperatures fluctuate so much. But water vapour is a quick changing effect (the level can change in days or even hours) that causes temporary fluctuations while gasses such as CO2 hang around in the atmosphere for years or even decades and create relatively permanent changes in average temperature. Indeed the level of water vapour is to a large extent determined by the temperature, so you get positive feedbacks - higher temperatures lead to more water vapour lead to higher temperatures. This feedback amplifies the effect of an increase in the longer-term gasses such as CO2. In summary average water vapour levels are a result of increasing greenhouse gasses which amplifies their effect on temperature.Mark Frank_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

The increase in green house gasses and the physics of the greenhouse effect are very established.
The Sun’s output, the earth’s orbit, axial tilt, precession, volcanic output and ocean currents- they affect climate and are well established. And they dwarf anything man does. Deserts are cool at night because they lack water vapor, the CO2 is still there.Joe_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong OopsJoe_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

This is a very interesting, subtle, and complicated debate which deserves more than the usual highly politicised and personal rants. There are several well-known problems with using confidence intervals as a measure of justified belief (a Bayesian approach would be much more justifiable). However, two of the underlying ideas of in Oreske’s piece are surely right: * If we have good a priori reasons for believing something to be true than we do not need such strong additional data to accept it. This is just Bayesian thinking. If we know that there has been large oil spill and we observe sea bird populations have dropped then we don’t need to observe many of them covered in oil to reasonably conclude that the oil is the cause of the decline – if there was no such oil spill then it would require much stronger data to reasonably conclude that was the cause. * If the adverse consequences of a type 2 error (dismissing the hypothesis when it is in fact true) are much greater than the adverse consequences of a type 1 error (accepting the hypothesis when it is in fact false) then logically we should accept the hypothesis on less strong evidence than we would otherwise. This is elementary decision theory and more of a political decision than a scientific assertion. So for example, if someone comes up with what might well be an effective Ebola cure then we might act on the hypothesis it works with less rigorous evidence than we would for a cure for acne – because the downside of a type 2 error - ignoring it if it does work – is so large. This still leaves it open to debate as to how much these points apply to climate change. I don’t think any one can dispute the strong a priori reasons for believing climate change will happen. The increase in green house gasses and the physics of the greenhouse effect are very established. The dispute is more about how much not about whether. The consequences are bit trickier to balance.Mark Frank_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

Maybe you’re just a bad gardener.
Maybe you're just an ignorant troll- oops there isn't any maybe about that. Let's see, every year I have a garden that produces a variety of veggies. This year the garden didn't produce even though I did exactly the same routine as always- the only difference being the chilly summer. Science would say that means the chilly summer is at fault but AVS is too dim to grasp that.Joe_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

Climate scientists dont agree with you.
In what way don't they agree with me? And what is their evidence? BTW I know there are climate scientists who agree with me. Go figure...Joe_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

Another comment on Oreskes's opinion-piece... Playing Dumb on Statistical Significance
"The truth of climate change opinions do not turn on sampling error, but rather on the desire to draw an inference from messy, incomplete, non-random, and inaccurate measurements, fed into models of uncertain validity. Oreskes suggests that significance probability is keeping us from acknowledging a scientific fact, but the climate change data sets are amply large to rule out sampling error if that were a problem. And Oreskes’ suggestion that somehow statistical significance is placing a burden upon the “victim,” is simply assuming what she hopes to prove; namely, that there is a victim (and a perpetrator)."
"...no weight at all."
I will leave substance of the climate change issue to others, but Oreskes’ methodological misidentification of the 95% coefficient of confidence with burden of proof is wrong. Regardless of motive, the error obscures the real debate, which is about data quality. More disturbing is that Oreskes’ error confuses significance and posterior probabilities, and distorts the meaning of burden of proof. To be sure, the article by Oreskes is labeled opinion, and Oreskes is entitled to her opinions about climate change and whatever. To the extent that her opinions, however, are based upon obvious factual errors about statistical methodology, they are entitled to no weight at all.
DATCG_{January 8, 2015
January
01
Jan
8
08
2015
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply