The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change (Page 3)

gsmacleod - 2013-05-02 9:59 AM

tuwood - 2013-05-02 11:27 AM Do you feel that the scientific process is still free and open on the AGW debate?  I know the anti crowd speaks of scientists being influenced by big government because if it's not real then they can't make us pay higher energy taxes and implement things like carbon credits.

Yes; one of the things that most scientists hope for is to make a name for themselves with a huge discovery. Often a huge discovery is one that will go against the existing consensus (see the huge stir with the faster than light neutrino story from a couple of years ago). If someone were able to show that the science of AGW is in error, it would be a huge finding for the scientist or team that determined that and would definitely be discussed.

I've already said that most of my skepticism comes from the side of government taxation and higher energy costs to depress my demand for energy.  I do trust science, but scientists are humans and we all know how humans are. 

Everything I've seen says the science is sound and while one may not agree with the policies or the doom and gloom that is used to push the policies, that doesn't mean that climate change isn't occuring.

I also know there's a lot of potential corruption/influence from the corporate side of the house.  I read a really good report last year that was describing how corporate money was corrupting science and that regulations needed to be put in place.
How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public's Expense

I agree with the report because scientists are human, however I also feel that the largest "corporation" in the world, the US Government, cannot be immune from the same corrupting influence on scientists.  Corporations want certain science to go their way because it either saves them money or makes them money.  The US Government gets to make more money as a result of the planet warming, and the more catastrophic the warming is the more control/revenue they can impose on the people.

I know this gets into the political side of the debate a little which we both agree isn't science, but I'm curious to your thoughts on this effect.

While people are often advised to "follow the money," the reality is that in order to conduct research, everyone needs to get money from somewhere. Further, while many of the organizations that encourage us to follow the money, only want us to follow the government's money and not notice that almost every piece of evidence presented that claims AGW is not happening has been done with research grants from industry. While governments have funded much of the research that confirms AGW, it is also worth bearing in mind that governments fund a great deal of research that is conducted in any field so this, in and of itself is not surprising to me. Further, while many governments are now sporting green industry and will state that AGW is occuring, this has not always been the case and many governments would have been very happy to maintain the status quo. That is not to say governments play no role as currently in Canada it appears that is a concerted effort by the ruling party to muzzle scientists. They need to jump through hoops in order to report and discuss their research and the government gets to decide whether or not they get to share their research. We have also seen departments (such as Environment Canada) have their research scientists downsized when findings consistently showed results that were contrary to the governments position (that the earth wasn't warming - they've since allowed for the fact that it may be warming but that's about as progressive as they are willing to be on the issue.) Shane

Thanks Shane, I always appreciate your responses.

Guys... you are not getting it.

I understand how the real world works and scientific understanding... you keeps saying there is no formal consensus, but an informal one... which is the exact same thing I am saying. Reaching consensus on  a subject is no part of any formal scientific process and holds no special place. Period.

The fact that there is a "formal consensus" on "Climate Change", means that is is outside the norm of informal agreement in the scientific community. Why is that?

It is because climate change has gone political. It is no longer a cool science problem, it is a political one. And hence, political ploys to sway public opinion and score points and use cool catch phrases.... like "climate change". AGW is a much more apt description of what man is doing because we can only fix what we are doing... not the rest of the "climate".

And just to be clear... perhaps it is me that is picking nits.

All I meant was that it was outside the norm. It isn't that I am actually calling it into question and that there is not a consensus... because indeed there is.

And it is the crux of this issue.... it went from a  cool science problem, to a political one... and it had to. Scientists said that we are causing a problem, and in order to actually fix it... instead of just observe and report... then indeed politics (governments) had to get involved. And then the gloves came off and both sides now use all political means available to win the fight.

Yes, the antis most certainly throw mud and try to cast any sort of doubt on the messengers. Undermine, discredit, and smear. Politics 101.

And yes the other side does the exact same stuff against big oil and corporation and the same old stuff that has been going on for decades. They come up with cool marketing and catchy phrases and yes they too distort the info.

At least Segan called it out that scientists originally shot themselves in the foot on the subject with all the infighting and dirty tricks. They may have been right, but they gave the opposition plenty of ammo.

Perhaps you could help us out... I've read your last 5 or 6 posts and I don't understand the point you're trying to make.  

What is the "formal consensus on climate change" that you are referring to?   And how do you see it as different vs. the "informal consensus" that you see for other research topics?

Hey, we agree on something!!!  ;-)

YES EXACTLY!

Hoos, that's all I was trying to say. Not make a judgment, just an observation.

It is a natural progression, yes, when the people are causing the problem, then government of those people have to get involved. But politics is such in this country right now that ... ya... WOW!!!

I do not see this as a red and blue thing, although it is. It is the very life blood that has put this country on the top of the heap. And there are very very powerful institutions in place, including our government, that are not real thrilled with changing that.

Look at Obama... green jobs, green industries, and we will become global leaders. NO.. we won't. What we will do is simply make power more expensive and tie up a bunch of money remaking our infrastructure... that only works if everyone else is doing the same. If we are the only ones, we go broke pricing ourselves out of a ever shrinking market and go bankrupt. When we are a shell of our former selves then China that has crawled to the top off cheap fossil fuels just steals all the technology and does it then.

There is most certainly very big steaks involved... if we do nothing, then we all have no choice at the same time and therefore are all equal. The globe has to change willingly, or unwillingly, but U.S. doing it first, does not win the game.

Not a climate scientist, but an engineer, and my personality type apparently favors logic and accuracy.

Back on page 1, reference was made to surface temperature data, and implied to be accurate.

But who's checking the accuracy of the "raw" source data, and how is that getting weighted?  If a temperature station measures surface air temperature, in a remote area, does that source count higher, if it's assumed to represent a larger area, or do they interpolate between that station and the nearest stations?  Before we had actual measured temperatures, as I understand it they used something involving tree rings, where some assumptions had to be made.

Then I find this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

They reference a report that found many temperature recording stations were next to large parking lots, on rooftops near air conditioning units (that spew out hot air).  They state that 89 percent of the temperate recording stations failed NWS requirement of being 30 meters or more away from any man-made source of heat.

So the raw data could be skewed from the very beginning.  And that could have gone into the model for determining past temperatures.

Nowhere have I seen published the estimated accuracies of all of this data, though I haven't spent much time researching it.

While that may be true, Ray Charles can see glaciers retreating, and ice shelves, caps melting. It's not complicated. Obviously, that does not answer the question "why". But to say the globe is not warming is to deny what is in plain sight. We know we go through glacial ages and retreats. We are retreating right now. The planet is warming, either naturally, unnaturally (by man), or both. Temp measurements could be skewed by urban centers and heat islands, but that does not change what is happening.

Ummm... did you read the rest of the link that you posted?    Where it walks through in painstaking detail, with links to the original data and analysis, how researchers have evaluated this issue?   And establishes that this issue has a negligible impact on the data?

It's an interesting point, but as I understand it, it's been long known, and taken into account.

I watched a nice National Geographic Explorer documentary on glaciers the other night:  http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/a-night-of-exploratio... gave a pretty good overview of how the glaciers are retreating and how global warming might be the cause.  If you have an hour, it's visually stunning, even if you are highly skeptic of GW.

That said, I don't know who funded the program other than NatGeo.  25 cameras, 7 glaciers, one photo for 3 years every hour.  You can really see the decline of the ice.  They compared the data to photos taken 50 years ago and the rate of retreat is stunning.

When I was a kid, I took a class trip to the Athabasca Glacier.   It was 1988.

A couple of years ago, I went back with my family.  There are markings showing the location of the glacier, by year -- how far down the valley did it extend.  So I could stand by the 1988 marker, and see just how far it had retreated in the ~22 years since.   It was disturbing.

Below is a photo (not taken by me) of the 1908 marker.

(Athabasca Glacier 1908 big.jpg)

Just yesterday I watch a  2 hour show on History channel two "Earth 2100". It was hosted by Bob Woodrift, and had a fictional character narrating her life through the upcoming century. It was all "worst case scenario". Sort of interesting, but certainly all doom and gloom. In the end it was total collapse and only a few million people living.

That's the part that get's me... if not global warming, then it is going to be something. human civilization will collapse because we are nothing but a plague of locust on the planet. We can not grow indefinitely, which is what we are doing. The planet has not had it's last mass extinction.

Saw this feature on time.com and I thought about this thread -- some amazing time-lapse satellite photos.  

I loved the Dubai one -- seeing the infamous palm-tree islands was pretty impressive... 

http://world.time.com/timelapse/