Thanks!!!

Quote: Regarding the warming effect of CO2 being “a well-established scientific fact.”: It has been known since 1859 (Tyndall) from laboratory studies that there are greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that trap heat. By now this is basic physics, and not accepting that indeed amounts to being in denial. It is physically impossible for more greenhouse gases not to cause warming.: End Quote

Here is an example where the discussion is oversimplified. As I understand the reality, the physics suggest that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in Global Mean Temperature of about 1 deg F, or about 0.6 deg C. I have never seen anybody contest that.

Where the controversy lies is that Hansen particularly goes on to state that the sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 in atmosphere is 3 deg C, which I am sure you agree a very different proposition to 0.6 deg C. The difference lies in the assumptions made about feedback loops. Rather than give you my own interpretation, I prefer to directly quote Roy Spencer (from http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/).

Quote: Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)

BUT…everything this else in the climate system probably WON’T stay the same! For instance, clouds, water vapor, and precipition systems can all be expected to respond to the warming tendency in some way, which could either amplify or reduce the manmade warming. These other changes are called “feedbacks,” and the sum of all the feedbacks in the climate system determines what is called ‘climate sensitivity’. Negative feedbacks (low climate sensitivity) would mean that manmade global warming might not even be measurable, lost in the noise of natural climate variability. But if feedbacks are sufficiently positive (high climate sensitivity), then manmade global warming could be catastrophic.

Obviously, knowing the strength of feedbacks in the climate system is critical; this is the subject of most of my research. Here you can read about my latest work on the subject, in which I show that feedbacks previously estimated from satellite observations of natural climate variability have potentially large errors. A confusion between forcing and feedback (loosely speaking, cause and effect) when observing cloud behavior has led to the illusion of a sensitive climate system, when in fact our best satellite observations (when carefully and properly interpreted) suggest an IN-sensitive climate system.

Finally, if the climate system is insensitive, this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years — some natural mechanism must be involved. Here you can read about my favorite candidate: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. End Quote.

In effect, Roy Spencer is saying that the feedback loops are about balanced or negative, thus warming from a doubling of CO2 levels would be around 0.6 deg C. In contrast Jim Hansen is saying that the feedbacks are strongly positive and will result in a 3 deg C warming from a doubling of CO2 levels.

Demonstrably there is not a consensus on this matter and perhaps we should be focussing our attention on determining who is right on this matter.

Regarding the issue of replication.

Quote: –“The defence of secretiveness about data. For instance, we find heated defences of any climate scientist who does not produce data on request. There seems to be a view, which is basically an appeal to authority, that to demand that these scientist produce their data and code so that their results can be verified is insulting and unfair. We need, the feeling is, to trust the experts. “

This is indeed not the ideal situation, though it is understandable nevertheless. For instance, we find heated attacks of any climate scientist who does not produce data on request. The request is often not born out of a sincere desire to further our understanding, but rather to undermine the science and paint it in a bad light. The scientist finds himself in a situation where he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. From a scientist’s point of view, what matters is that his colleagues could reproduce his results if they wish to do so. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to assist the general public in trying to reproduce their work, especially if it takes a lot of effort to provide enough help and if the sincerity of their attempts is questionable. As a commenter at RC put it: “A lot of this demand for code is driven by a desire to find reasons to ignore the implications of the work while putting in as little effort as possible.” See also the latest thread at RC on this issue: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/02/on-replication/langswitch_lang/sp Endquote

I think that this whole issue of replication and request for disclosure of data, processes and methods has become bogged down in detail.

The real issue is that if climate scientists are concerned about CO2 emissions causing AGW, and want the world to take expensive and decisive action to deal with it, they had better be sure that there statements regarding the matter are true, and can be demonstrated to be true.

Rather than focus in what science means by replication, aren’t we here discussing the policy implications of the AGW thesis. Policy is decided not by scientists but by the politicians and their policy advisers. The politicians are very sensitive to the views held by the electorate. And unfortunately, it appears that Al Gore et al have been successful in alarming the electorate with material that, shall we say, is subject to challenge. It has been reported for example that something like 70% of the population of developed western nations consider AGW caused by CO2 to be one of the most serious problems facing mankind. At least that was the position before the development of the current Global Financial Crisis.

The main stream media also is sensitive to where the bulk of public opinion lies, since their revenues depend on accessing the largest markets. It would seem obvious that they will tend to give their customers what they think that they want.

Given that context, is it not reasonable for those sceptical of the claims being made by AGW proponents, that are receiving widespread media coverage, be asked to substantiate their claims.

A more useful analogy than scientific practice in this context might be to look at commercial practice relating to statements made to the public, and particularly to practice in the area of Prospectus disclosure for fund-raising purposes. There is stringent legislation in many countries requiring promoters to make sure that their disclosures and statements are “full, true and plain”. In some cases that is Corporations Law of some form. There are usually additional protections in Trade Practices Law. In any case, there are compelling legal reasons for promoters to make sure that their statements are true, and can be demonstrated as being true.

Given that there can be serious legal consequences if a promoter makes a statement, practice has developed to ensure that those preparing a Prospectus for example put together a verification file that provides detailed support for each statement made. The support would provide references to sources, copies of relevant contracts, etc. The support is designed to demonstrate that the promoter was responsible, and did what a “reasonable man” would do in ensuring that his statements are full, true and plain. When I say “Promoter”, I mean the management of the company, and particularly the directors who have serious legal responsibility for such matters.

The verification file is put together so that it can be produced in the event of legal action as evidence that the promoter/directors did what they should reasonably be expected to have done to ensure that statements made are full, plain and true. That is, the verification file is intended as a defence.

This approach is widely accepted in the commercial world, and provides a very effective means of ensuring that statements made to the public are true plain and fair.

For some reason, we find that those interested in climate science are not held to the same standards. In fact, leading AGW proponents such as Al Gore and Stephen Schneider have both argued that the problem of AGW is so serious that it is OK to exaggerate so that the public are aware of the issues, and can put pressure on the politicians. In their world, apparently, the end justifies the means.

The pertinent quotes for those who doubt this are:

Quote: Al Gore responded to a question in an interview with Grist 2006/05/09 (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/) as follows:

“Q. There’s a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What’s the right mix?

A. I think the answer to that depends on where your audience’s head is.
In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem.

Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there’s going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions.”

Stephen H Schneider made an interesting comment that has been widely circulated. The following from Wikipedia:

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider) discusses the issue:

“Schneider once spoke of the difficulties scientists face communicating their work to the public:

‘On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well.

And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.’

(Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989; for the original, together with Schneider’s commentary on it misrepresentation see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996. [3]).

Various distorted versions of the Discover quote noted above have also been circulated on the Internet and in print publications, apparently beginning with a version by Julian Lincoln Simon which omitted crucial text and inserted new material. Schneider did not say “Scientists should consider stretching the truth”; see [3] above.” See Wikipedia for detailed cites.” End Quote

Sorry for the very long post.

There are many people who don’t accept the scientific evidence because they don’t like the perceived policy implications. Some even invent the craziest conspiracy theories you could imagine, in an attempt to make the rest of us distrust the scientists: “Many of them are positively SALIVATING over the prospect of seeing us shivering in the dark, with drastically curtailed travel privileges, severely rationed food and water consumption, draconian restrictions on electricity usage, etc.” (Michael Smith on WUWT; just one example.)

Most requests for data & code come from the same quarters, and I have a strong impression (though not proof; I cannot look inside their head) that their motives are similar: creating distrust of the science and of the scientists. It is however unfortunate that the few requests borne out of a serious desire to further our understanding of the issues are the victim of this polemical battle.

Michel Tobis (http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/) is a strong proponent of complete openness of the code (while also being a strong proponent of the scientific consensus) in order to avoid such battles altogether. But I’m skeptical if more code-sharing would avoid these battles, since it is easy to find something, no matter how small, to use as a stick against “AGW”: Scientists are damned if they do, and damned if they don’t share the code, I’m afraid. But again, perhaps I’m wrong on this point. I’m not very strongly against the sharing of code, but to do so for laypersons without the background knowledge to put things in perspective (and perhaps not even a willingness to put things in perspective), I see little point in doing so.

Regarding the warming effect of CO2 being “a well-established scientific fact.”: It has been known since 1859 (Tyndall) from laboratory studies that there are greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that trap heat. By now this is basic physics, and not accepting that indeed amounts to being in denial. It is physically impossible for more greenhouse gases not to cause warming.

I completely agree that “the term “skeptic” is kind of silly, because only an absolute fool agrees with every study that shows one side or the other.” That is why the term “skeptic” is not descriptive of the attitude of many so-called skeptics, and they would be better characterized as ‘absolute fools’ as you suggest. But I’d like to refrain from name-calling. Scientists are skeptical in the real sense of the word, so some strange word-twisting has been going on indeed. See e.g. this discussion http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/how-to-be-a-real-sceptic/langswitch_lang/sp

Bringing up Galileo and Einstein doesn’t help your argument, unless you want to claim to be similarly brilliant. Forgive me for being skeptical in that case. Galileo was up against people who opposed his ideas for ideological (religious) reasons, in a way similar as climate science is these days.

Sure everybody has a right to speak out (I haven’t claimed otherwise). I just hope that the rest of us can see their arguments for what they are: Endless repeating of ideologically driven nonsense. In the absence of time or background information, you’d have to take some shortcuts to gauge the credibility of an argument, see for a discussion of that e.g. here: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/who-to-believe/

Bart

Now that I think about it for awhile, even this statement grinds my axe:

“When someone claims that CO2 has no effect on climate (s) he is in denial of a well established scientific fact.”

I don’t know how you are the purveyor of what is “well-established scientific fact.” You seem to be going back to the “consensus” idea of science, which is totally anti-science. Give me some solid FACTS that support that statement (I mean empirical evidence, not other “scientists” claiming the same thing, or radiative equations which “show” this, by ignoring ALL other relevant variables). Perhaps you need to read about Galileo and Einstein!

Here’s another quote: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate

You can call these people stupid, sceptical, morons, etc. etc. etc., but they all have a right to speak out, without some sanctimonious, eruidte, elitist slob saying that they should NOT speak out. You, sir, may be a Luddite.

I can understand and see some truth in most of your positions. But this one I strongly disagree with:

“For instance, we find heated attacks of any climate scientist who does not produce data on request. The request is often not born out of a sincere desire to further our understanding, but rather to undermine the science and paint it in a bad light. The scientist finds himself in a situation where he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. From a scientist’s point of view, what matters is that his colleagues could reproduce his results if they wish to do so. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to assist the general public in trying to reproduce their work, especially if it takes a lot of effort to provide enough help and if the sincerity of their attempts is questionable. As a commenter at RC put it: “A lot of this demand for code is driven by a desire to find reasons to ignore the implications of the work while putting in as little effort as possible.” See also the latest thread at RC on this issue:”

Please show us ONE example where someone has asked for data only in order to “undermine the science and paint it in a bad light.” If there is one thing that gives climate science a terrible black eye to an impartial observer (including lay-people), it is this refusal to come clean on data and code. And in every case that I know of so far, where there was such a refusal, the study has been shown to be seriously flawed, once the data were finally made available.

Also, the term “skeptic” is kind of silly, because only an absolute fool agrees with every study that shows one side or the other. If you are not skeptical, you are not a good scientist, IMHO. For example, do you accept all these things about AGW? http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

You make an interesting argument, and in it are contained some good points of advice on how (not) to communicate. But I think some important aspects are missing. I’ll raise my perspective on the points you make:

- Heavy moderation: I don’t know what is censored where, but there are many examples where a constructive discourse is aided by some filtering, e.g. the repeating of the same old and tired and debunked arguments is not constructive, namecalling isn’t, etc.

– “Hypersensitivity to criticism. It seems that the smallest criticisms of any aspect of AGW theory provoke a reaction of an intensity out of all proportion to their significance.”

That is an interesting perspective, though different than mine. What I see in reading different blogs is that so called criticism is often blown out of proportion as if it undermines the entire foundation of climate science. However, I agree that scientists would be wise not to react too defensive, because ‘innocent outsiders’ could indeed get the impression you state (which ultimately is a reaction on what I raise here).

– Personalization of the debate: Happens on both sides and should indeed be avoided. I find it sometimes hard to avoid though, eg in the few cases where a long history of disinformation is clear. Think thinktanks and long-term lobbyists with a history in the tobacco debate. But even in those cases, not he messenger should be attacked, but the message. Still true.

– “Attribution of motives by projection, as when a question is raised about some detail of some study, and it immediately provokes a chorus of replies refuting what the posters assume must be what the original question is ‘really’ about – which is usually thought to be some devious effort at undermining the theory as a whole.”

I think it very often is. Many of the so called critics are not interested in advancing out knowledge, but seem intent on poking holes and painting climate science in a bad light, because they don’t like the perceived policy implications of climate science. Maybe I’m wrong, but after years of following the debate and being a scientist myself, that is the impression I have. I’m willing to be proven wrong though. Of course, there will always be exceptions. The sincere critic will get the same negative reaction as the politically motivated crook. That indeed is a shame, and should be avoided.

– “Class membership arguments, as when anger about some point is made in the form of an expression of disgust at ‘people like you’.”

Indeed, should be avoided. It is a consequence of the polarization of the internet-based debate, and the divergence of this debate from the scientific debate at conferences and in the literature that makes scientists -understandably in my view- less patient than they should ideally be.

– “The use of epithets like ‘denialist’ – that is, the assumption is made that no rational basis of dissent can exist, in which case the only explanation of a different point of view is bad faith or mental disorder.”

That is not the assumption that I see being made. It is the denial of basic science that gives rise to the term denialist/denier. When someone claims that CO2 has no effect on climate (s) he is in denial of a well established scientific fact. The terms may however be too widely used now, to also include criticisms of points which are not as well established. The strong dislike people (understandably) have to those terms is for me reason to use the term ”skeptics” instead, even in cases where their attitude has nothing whatsoever to do with skepticism (see eg http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/climate-skeptics-out-of-touch-with-reality/)

– “The view that to frequent skeptical sites is dangerous and potentially contaminating and to be avoided.”

There are websites that have a clear political agenda, and bend science to serve that agenda (thinktanks come to mind again). People searching for scientific information are not equally well served at different places, and it’s difficult to weed out the good from the bad.

– “The view that there are people who are professionally trying to lead astray the innocent.”

There are, though perhaps not very many. The amplification power of the internet does the rest.

–“The defence of secretiveness about data. For instance, we find heated defences of any climate scientist who does not produce data on request. There seems to be a view, which is basically an appeal to authority, that to demand that these scientist produce their data and code so that their results can be verified is insulting and unfair. We need, the feeling is, to trust the experts. “

This is indeed not the ideal situation, though it is understandable nevertheless. For instance, we find heated attacks of any climate scientist who does not produce data on request. The request is often not born out of a sincere desire to further our understanding, but rather to undermine the science and paint it in a bad light. The scientist finds himself in a situation where he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. From a scientist’s point of view, what matters is that his colleagues could reproduce his results if they wish to do so. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to assist the general public in trying to reproduce their work, especially if it takes a lot of effort to provide enough help and if the sincerity of their attempts is questionable. As a commenter at RC put it: “A lot of this demand for code is driven by a desire to find reasons to ignore the implications of the work while putting in as little effort as possible.” See also the latest thread at RC on this issue: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/02/on-replication/langswitch_lang/sp

“However, the conduct of its adherents in all these respects has elements of the cult about it.“

Now you lost me.

From your comment I gained some understanding of how someone with a different point of view than mine looks at these discussions. Hopefully that goes both ways.

Thanks,
Bart

R.E. Phelan

Apology Accepted. Comment removed