Discussion > Why Do Climate Scientists Believe That There's a Debate To Be Had
I suspect I'm getting near the time when I part company with mainstream scepticism."
Do you seriously believe there's a "mainstream" skepticism? And if there was do you believe one of us announcing leaving it would be met with anything but apathy? I think you're taking yourself a little too seriously TBYJ. Get a grip.
geronimo
Almost none of these can be counted as improvements in science.
The downward march of 'sensitivity', and its corresponding rebuttals illustrate how sensitive the metric is to its methods of calculation and inclusion of accruing data. The other elements squarely illustrate the non-synchronicity of climate indices with the sociopolitical goals of the climate movement, rather than any advancement in scientific knowledge. Give these people another 15 years and they would definitively diagnose the 'pause'.
shub
sorry geronimo : /me gets a grip. What I meant to say is : Drake is an irritating oik, and gets far too much leash here, so I'm probably going to pee off for a while.
TheBigYinJames
All I've asked is for some evidence to support your increasingly bizarre claims since you assigned credit to yourself for rescuing 'MAINSTREAM climate scepticism', as you put it, from a wholly imaginary abyss five days ago. I can imagine how irritating that has been if you couldn't actually produce any evidence, which you certainly haven't. But the ad homs have been fizzing off the page, well done. I'm not sure things will be the same without you.
Richard Drake
Twat.
TheBigYinJames
Excellent evidence, thanks.
Richard Drake
TBYJ said:
" From outside, we look like flibbertigibbets, never learning from our mistakes, always lurching from one messiah to the next, always wrong, never slaying the beast, never winning.
Part of the collective amnesia is a growing 'denial' that we have ever made these mistakes. When you start denying the obvious, your whole position moves towards the ridiculous. And if someone is asking you about something they know is true, and you deny it happened, then you start to anger them. If you are trying to convince them that you are neither stupid nor evil, then lying to them is not the way to convince them."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Who is this "we" you refer to as looking like flibbertigibbets? I for one have never leapt on any messianistic bandwagons such as you describe, for the simple reasons that I am not a scientist and am also deeply suspicious of messianistic crusades of any stripe. And I am far from alone in this.
Same goes for "denying" that something or other happened in the past. Or the strange reference to "collective amnesia." Who did that, when, and about what?
I still don't know what you mean by the "they," the "we," or the "what" in these sweeping generalisations.
johanna
Geronimo (I think)
> I will remind everyone to think of a scientist who spent
most of his life trying to change base metals into gold, yet
gave us equations that could get men to the moon, and left a
body of work almost unrivalled in scientific history. Should
we reject the Laws of Motion because their progenitor
believed he could turn base metals into gold, or should we
look at what he’s saying about motion and decide whether
he’s true, uncertain or false?
Do you take that seriously? You are judging Newton on the basis of knowledge, common today, that couldn't have been imagined in his time.
The way a person interprets the available information is important. From it we can tell whether his or her opinion on other issues is likely to be valid. The operative word there is 'available'. In Newton's time the necessary atomic physics was unknown, so a belief that he could find a way to turn base metals into gold was not unreasonable (and indeed, had he been able to create a handy supernova in a bottle he might well have achieved it). Your implication seems to be that because Newton got something amusingly wrong when he had no way of knowing any better, we should take seriously those who today get things bizarrely wrong when they clearly should know better.
---------
When I read the posts from TBYJ earlier today I thought, wow, things are changing. Sceptics are recognising what is wrong with their positions. Reading the replies makes me realise that such thoughts were wishful thinking. One swallow doesn't make spring. The unwillingness of others to recognise the truth in what TBYJ was saying is the same as their unwillingness, as I have mentioned elsewhere, to credit any harm to fossil fuels. It is exactly that which makes 'sceptics' into deniers in the eyes of people like me.
Chandra
TBYJ: I'm guessing you're a Jock, and a Glaswegian Jock at that. So what you have to keep in mind that there are only two groups of people outside of Scotland who understand the physce of Glaswegian Jocks, or indeed Jocks in general. Geordies and Scousers. Outside of these two groups there is no empathy with the Glaswegian Jock mentality, outside for Dublin. So you being pissed of with Richard may be understandable to your group of empathisers, but not to anyone else on here. As for johanna getting peed-off that's something given that she's a Kiwi and by definition a Southern Hemisphere Jock.
What I'm saying is we'll miss you when you go, I personally enjoy your robust style, but stay and give some thought to forgiving the shortcomings in the rest of us. Your opinions are appreciated. But cut some slack to those unable to tell you "to boil your heed" like the Scousers and geordies would do when you get off your bike.
geronimo
" As for johanna getting peed-off that's something given that she's a Kiwi and by definition a Southern Hemisphere Jock."
Oy! I am an Australian who was born in The Netherlands! :)
johanna
The unwillingness of others to recognise the truth in what TBYJ was saying is the same as their unwillingness, as I have mentioned elsewhere, to credit any harm to fossil fuels. It is exactly that which makes 'sceptics' into deniers in the eyes of people like me.
We are, a priori, deniers in your eyes, as anyone can see from your post history. Clean your own house before daring to pass judgement on ours.
Simon Hopkinson
Simon: quite so. The support TBYJ has received from Chandra throughout this episode - I would include use of almost identical language about me on Denying the science - has been especially heart-warming alongside accusations of my running a 'set of sockpuppets' to further my nefarious ends.
Geronimo: Who knows what any of this means but my mother is a Kiwi and Bishop Hill has as yet no idea how deeply her family is embedded in the bonny county of Perth and Kinross. (I didn't myself until I looked at Google Maps recently.) But Gorbals Micks they ain't.
Richard Drake
My deepest apologies johanna, I had assumed you were a Kiwi, now I know that I can tell you about the time when I was giving a talk on some re-organisation or other our company was involved in to our staff in the antipodes. I was, of course, in Sidney where the bulk of our staff in the antipodes were employed and the Kiwis where on an audio hook up (thank god as I was able to say I was an Indian guy), during the talk I was asked if I could move it along by the regional CEO because New Zealand was two hours ahead of Australia. I don't know where it came from but I proceeded to say:
"Trevor has just asked me to move a little faster because New Zealand is two hours ahead of Australia. I'm sorry I didn't know that, the conventional wisdom being that it's 20 years behind." Uproarious laughter from Aussies and I didn't pay for a VB all night. Made it up with the Kiwis later telling them I'm unable to resist smart-arsed funnies and the All Blacks are invincible. Oh, and I bought the beer all night.
I think that about ends this thread don't you?
geronimo
Just about. But while we're shooting the breeze, geronimo, can we go back to:
Richard Drake: Am I the anonymous sceptic saying something stupid you referred to?
and when I answered flippantly, thinking you were joking, the sequel:
Richard Drake, The typo isn't mine, So if you wouldn't mind answering the question I'd appreciate it. And if it is me I'd also appreciate which part of what I wrote you thought stupid. One can always learn from one's betters.
I made clear I didn't mean you and I'm now going to make public my assumption that the last phrase was sarcastic. If so, do you still feel that way about me?
Richard Drake
Richard, I didn't think anything of you then, one way or the other, and still don't, except that you come across as a little pompous, which is no crime for me, but others clearly find it irritating. If I'd said something stupid I wanted to know what it was, because you can always learn from ones betters. "Stupid" is not a word I'd use personally as it raises discussion to an emotional level, so if it was directed at me I wanted to understand why.
Hope that that clears it up for you.
geronimo
Hmm. Sorry I couldn't oblige in assisting your learning, as I wasn't thinking of you. I took you to be sarcastic partly because you didn't stop to say "Sorry I got that wrong." This is how one treats people one feels superior to. I have taken to calling some sceptics stupid, in line with Martin A's 'gobbledegook to the power of tosh' (speaking of Claes Johnson). I don't think the pomposity thing is shared by those who know me well. Stubborn I have been called by some of those people! Relationships online have their limits.
Richard Drake
Simon Hopkinson:
> We are, a priori, deniers in your eyes, as anyone can see from
your post history. Clean your own house before daring to pass
judgement on ours.
If you don't deny things and are uniformly sceptical (as opposed to being credulous of anything that harms the AGW hypothesis) I call you a sceptic. If you deny things I call you a denier. It is that simple and the beauty is that you get to choose the name that fits.
Chandra
Denier is name-calling - especially once we register our huge distaste for it due to its history within the climate debate. Don't excuse the inexcusable.
Richard Drake
If you don't deny things and are uniformly sceptical (as opposed to being credulous of anything that harms the AGW hypothesis) I call you a sceptic. If you deny things I call you a denier. It is that simple and the beauty is that you get to choose the name that fits.
This is just your self-delusion of puppet-mastery, nothing else.
Simon Hopkinson
"I took you to be sarcastic partly because you didn't stop to say "Sorry I got that wrong.""
Richard, can we close this down please. First of all while I could get an answer wrong getting a question wrong is much more difficult. You're assuming I thought you said I was stupid because I asked you if you meant me. I asked you because I didn't know if you meant me. You said you hadn't so there was no further point in continuing. However if it closes it down, thanks for the answer.
You don't have to defend yourself to me I told you you come across as a bit pompous to me. That's an observation not an assertion of fact, please take it that way and be comforted by the fact that I'm always wrong. If you don't believe that I'm sure Mrs. geronimo would be pleased to provide you with an affidavit of confirmation.
geronimo
My main point was that if you feel you see pomposity in another you tend to feel superior to them. And in practice we all do rate everyone we meet. But the cyber window on the soul is a glass very dark indeed - the cloud of unknowing it should perhaps be called. I try to take this view of those I have not met in person, as well as replaying the old promise 'judge not if you don't want to be judged yourself'. I appreciate your ending.
Richard Drake
I can see some value to both sides of this debate. TBYJ is right, sceptics struggle to maintain credibility because of the roots of science scepticism as a whole, climate science scepticism specifically and the more err… colourful members of our non organisation. Unfortunately it’s all we have to work with. If we tried to maintain to strict a membership, by driving away or frequently criticising those who are less logical, we’d all have to depart because we’re nearly all guilty of thinking or writing something dumb at some point. What holds us together is not what agree is right about AGW but what we agree is probably wrong.
I disagree that the need for scepticism is almost over. Climate science hasn’t substantially changed from the early days. The huge goal posts of sensitivity haven’t changed from the first IPCC report. The temperature records are probably ‘ok’ but are they really accurate enough to form the key to unlocking climate? Are the procedures for climate science suitable for such an important issue? Can software really see into the future? Are the solutions any less stupid and expensive? Are key political warmists any less dumb, arrogant or mendacious?
Personally I think it’s important that climate science continues to receive a hard time. They need to raise their game and the only way it will come about is if people call for it. It’s not going to happen because we let them sort things for themselves. Any progress they’ve made is because of Climategate, Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, Andrew Montford, books, inquiries (however flawed), newspaper articles, and all those things that sceptics have triggered in the last 6 or 7 years. Do you think they would have happened without the weight of sceptics? It’s needed quality AND quantity to effect the changes.
Richard Betts and many others like him want the debate to move onto what we do about AGW. A bit like getting stuck over how to build the foundations of a house and deciding to move onto the walls while you think about it. I think it’s important they don’t have a free hand to build shaky towers, especially as the most moderate AGW supporters are happy to let the least moderate make all the decisions.
TinyCO2
Tiny, I have a lot of time for you and your posts, but I think that you have missed the mark here.
I absolutely reject the notion that climate sceptics are some sort of coherent "movement" with dubious origins. We are not, and never have been, anything like that. What we are is a very loose coalition, plus a lot of individuals who are not even covered by that description.
The fact that some people who dispute CAGW have shady or dubious origins is utterly irrelevant. That sort of smearing by association is, as the great contemporary philosopher Daffy Duck would say - desssshPICABLE!
In a serious debate about science and policy, the idea that if you can find someone in the past who supported something, and that person is a creep or a crook - that invalidates everything - what nonsense. I can't believe that this is even raised as a debating point.
As I said above, there are loonies dotted all over the spectrum. I don't blame the reasonable people who support CAGW (and they do exist) for Michael Mann and Joe Romm, any more than I blame sceptics for some of the oddballs that accrue on the other side of the debate.
All this personalia is missing the point.There are scientific issues, and there are policy issues. They need to be considered on their merits in today's world. I couldn't give a rat's about the personal history of this or that person, unless they are heavyweights in the current discussion.
johanna
I'm with you and Daffy Duck johanna. I'd add that there are some people called sceptics we can be proud of. We're not forced to be proud of them, it is as you say "a very loose coalition", but it ain't a crime either.
So I think it's striking that since I asked TBYJ eight days ago for evidence of his assertions going back to 1988 the only names he's used of people that go back earlier than 2004 in this field are Drake, which he uses as a swear word, and Richard Lindzen, about whom he says nothing positive except that Drake likes him (and I didn't take that as a positive).
Now it's possible to be a sceptic and think Lindzen's efforts since 1988 have been crap. (I don't know any that do but it's possible.) But if you put forward such a tendentious view of the origins of scepticism as TBYJ did and you don't give one real name, what they said and the date they said it, in the first fifteen years from Hansen's landmark statement to Congress in 1988, to back up your theory, I say you're pissing in the wind and wasting everyone's time.
Richard Drake
Science and the 'situation' has been moving for a while now. The signs:
The downward march in the estimate for climate sensitivity is the main one. The IPCC recognising that it can find no significant link between extreme weather and CO2. The reluctant inclusion of sceptical voices both in the media and at government panels. The BBC not mentioning it in every single unrelated news story. Public fatigue with the climate scare. The recent floods being blamed on the EA and not AGW, despite the BBCs best efforts. Govts across the world starting to make the right noises about energy policy and green taxes. It's all in the right direction.
You don't agree?