How It All Ends: Risk Management (pt 3 of 7)

[MiauZi69]

I really learned a lot already in this video ... I had courses on how to do literature research, but till now I never heared of peer-review and of aaas (but thats because I am German ... I think). Ofc I heared of Science and Nature and their high standard, but now ... Thx! :)

[m1aws]

lol. I love this video. Does not stand up to the scrutiny of time. Ultimate proof AGW does not exist and all the sources speak through their pockets.

I hope youtube doesn't delete this.

[danielm2222]

What do we do if we are not the ones causing "global warming"? Many scientists think that this is happening not just to the Earth, but to all planets in our Solar System. Of course, we may be accelerating the process, but in the scenario that I proposed, we cannot stop either, not even if we stop consuming oil or other natural resources like coal.

I'm guessing that in that case, the best thing we can do is be prepared.

[shadezofgrayfulness]

@phantomscolts2

"I understand a fury in your words,

But not the words."

Othello, Act IV, Scene II

I may regret asking, but just for the sake of clarity, if you were Master of Global Affairs with plenipotentiary powers, what course might you be inclined to set for human affairs on Earth?

[limosalimosa]

oops that was a reply to another comment of a year ago, not to your video.

[repap1a]

you should ccross refernce your scale with personal (or organisations) benifits like money or power, and how these affect your source selection.

[apopheniacMCMLXXXIX]

I never got this argument that the government is behind spreading the global warming "propaganda".The implications of climate change mean that the gov will need to spend billions of dollars to fight it. Is it so they can tax us more? And hurt the economy in the process? What makes more sense, is oil companies spreading in anti-science propaganda. They stand to loose TRILLIONS of dollars if people take action on climate change. And this is exactly what's happening. So who has more of a bias?

[SSedmak]

@apopheniacMCMLXXXIX So... After looking at 5000 years of human civilization, you've come to the conclusion that governments do not have a strong bias for aggregating power and taxing subjects? What history books did you read???

[apopheniacMCMLXXXIX]

@SSedmak

Don't you think they'd come up with something a little less rube goldberg-esque than "secretly manipulate the scientific community into creating lies about anthropogenic climate change so we can justify taxing people"? It sounds like some comic book super villain's super evil sinister master plan. Seriously ask yourself if this is at all realistic or whether it's born of some paranoid conspiracy fantasy.

[SSedmak]

@apopheniacMCMLXXXIX It's not that complex. People say something that a politician likes, for whatever reason? Politician gives them more money to keep talking, and a symbiotic relationship develops. Simple patronage and politics is rife with it. Not exactly a supervillain. A moron with a fat checkbook could do it.

[tarcal87]

jesus you repeat yourself so much though, praising those guys

[FLPman]

I just get why we struggle to hold on to our use of non renewable resource enegery.. global warming or not.. we're going to have (and are currently having) major issues. Imagine how global politics and conflicts would be affected if we as a society were not interested in oil

[FLPman]

@FLPman

sorry.. i meant i don't get why we struggle..

[FlashySenap]

LoL watching this I feel that I cannot trust anything or anyone anymore XD

[ArthurBiele]

AAAs and the NAS have been totally refuted on their naieve stand on behalf of the human-caused global Warming myth. Are you man enough to admit your error in declaring them infallble. Their views were not scientifically established. They simply caved in to government powers that hire them and pay their salaries. It was not that hard for the powers that be to get these two agencies to 'SEE' something there that wasn't there before. Now they get what they deserved, MUD ON THEIR FACES!

[Celebrindan]

@ArthurBiele It is proven, through core ice studies, that at a point in the history of the earth, MOSS AND LICHENS changed the atmosphere and climate of the earth.

Adding so much Oxygen to the atmosphere, that Plant and Animal life forms were forever changed.

And you still don't think we can do it too?

[handplanty]

Really? I didn't know that, please cite your source. Who refuted them? If they said something similar to you, for example, I wouldn't be convinced. Plus, measures against global warming is costing the government millions, so I'd say it would be more logical for the government here to instruct NASA to disprove global warming, or to ridicule it, rather than sending extensive earth and sun satelites up to study more of the climate.

Unless, of course, they're doing science and they're just right...

[Paddis92]

There are people who have been members of the IPCC and have left because they weren't satisfied with the IPCC. After that, they remained in the IPCC's list of "Top 2500 scientists", or something similar, and when they had to threaten to take legal action for their name to be removed.

I'm sceptical so the IPCC and their work because of this and a lot of other things that simply make them lose a lot of credibility.

[alexkvaskov]

Joint statement from 11 national academies of science. Issued 7 June 2005, by the national science academies of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada, Brazil, China and India, the statement begins with:

[KawaitaSakebi1]

The two most respected science organizations in the world are both American? Wow, what are the odds?

[alexkvaskov]

how about the royal society in the uk? how about many other very respected think tanks and scientific communities around the world?

[alexkvaskov]

"There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the worlds climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems.

[alexkvaskov]

It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001). This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate."

source: nationalacademies (dot) org/onpi/06072005 (dot) pdf

[gazmaticc]

the debate isn't if climate change exist or if it is caused by humans but how fast it is occurring and whether or not we'll experience the effects now or later on in the future. anybody that says otherwise is just plain ignorant and has a bias and shouldn't be listened to. when new york in the fall feels like California in the spring and there are RECORD BREAKING temperatures... hmmm...who should I believe. and for the religious... The Bible foretold of the ruining of the earth revelation 11:18

[shadow1piece]

what happens to the credibility of a company (or person or what ever) changes their oppinion, says that they were wrong. their credibility (according to you who have given me an opinion) goes up. but what if they are to then again (think about it with and without new evidence) they change their opinion. i can see ppl saying then their original statement is beyond even more credible and ppl saying that company is a load and cant keep their shit together and shuld stop brown nosing whoever

[cmoleon]

CAP trade is lucrative business for politico-corporate world both in terms of power and wealth redistribution. big corporations calling for increased political action in this field might get all your alarm bells ringing 'credibility-wise' rather than put you to sleep... obviously he is oblivious of his own credulity, and the way this conflicts with his attempt at scientific objectivity. the more science becomes 'establishment' the more it is inseparably linked to corruption.

[dbrotman]

You are right. CAP and trade is lucrative business. It also represents a tremendous concession to industries that emit carbon. A carbon tax has a lot more teeth.

[alexkvaskov]

there is one word for people like you, moaninglory: scum

[112048112048]

the way you wrote google looked like googk lol

[insanezenmistress]

please forgive my psychosis but, i find myself asking this question. Is there any possible way that the people of NAS could be bought or coercced to tweaking this kind of dire prediction in order for some evil government control scheme to have credence? ( ignoring momentarily the fact that my experience makes me agree with NAS "them' but i must ask anyway) All the more reason for people to educate themselves and correct our corupt sociatal woes as part of the solution IMO. might cost less

[doctorsamadams]

it's also possible that there are no corrupt social woes to coerce people into believing in manmade global warming--peer pressure and simply a "follow the leader attitude" can be just as effective, even in the scientific community. look how this guy is using it! scientists are just as bad at questioning authority and their own belief systems as anyone else is. theyre sometimes more deluded because they believe the integrity of the scientific method guarantees the integrity of its conclusions.

[dbrotman]

Sure, there is always a possibility that some evil conspiracy is taking place and that what comes out of scientific journals is not objective at all. But when hundreds of other journals that are not at all related to one another basically say the same thing as the NAS, that tends to throw water on the conspiracy argument.

[danben72]

Although this could be very intelligent in its own way, but only if you're looking to climb the social ladder (Universities, Government, Companies). But I assume this is not what we are looking for.

Keep it up!

[danben72]

To back up my thoughts

How did Warren E Buffett start his investing career?

So always remember smartness is random. The only sure route to go is to make sure you rely on people with the least bias in terms what you are trying to solve and with a certain degree of intelligence.

Because not even the most intelligent person can escape our human trait of being social beings and looking for approval from our peers. cont....

[danben72]

wonderingmind42, great work, but please consider scientastics point with a lot of weight.

What was the approval rating for Bush when he started the war in Irak?

Was he therefore correct, or were the masses mislead including the great brains of the US lead by fear and other agendas.

So sometimes it is better to go with the minority given that it has no bias (vested interest) et al even if it doesn't have a lot of resources.

[scientastic]

Devil's advocate. You've addressed a lot of things, but I haven't heard you address the problem of group bias or groupthink. This is a well-known and common problem in society and also affects science.

[Terlin1466]

Reading the documents that lead to the saying at 6:00 foward

("2 we are the ones doing it.") Their is no evidence claiming this in the second document. So 50% of that stament is wrong. ) :-)

[tigerboy1966]

My tool for weighting is; who will gain financially from this? For instance, if a source claims that Human activity causes Climate Change, I ask myself "How many of these people would be out of a job if their claim was not true?"

[szara]

That is a good tool. However, you also have to weigh the people who may get financially hurt and who will still advocate human caused climate change into this. Solar and wind energy is not exactly cheap. Investing in that carries a risk. Maybe oil prices will go down or someone develops a better technology. Which would lead to people losing their jobs. That doesn't influence whether man-made climate change is real, it just shows us where the money flows.

[darkciti2]

Climate change is a macrosocial issue, not a microsocial one.

[darkciti2]

Not everything is about money.

How much will your money be worth if the world falls into total anarchy and chaos? Very little, I would think.

[Zepthire]

yes, if there were floods every where money would be useless but what i think szara is trying to say is that if we spent lots of money on wind energy and it was pointless people would lose jobs and get financially hurt

[mopkcop]

besides that, i totally agree with most of what you're presenting, and keep it up!

[mopkcop]

you say these larger corporations (AAAC/NAS) have a larger risk of consequences should their statements be proven wrong(as stated in the original video how it all ends)vs. an individual scientists risk of negative consequences should they be proven wrong, i have to disagree, especially since they both have been wrong before. A single scientist making a statement puts his personal career on the line more since, if he is wrong he will lose credibility and have trouble finding support in the future

[darkciti2]

That's why peer review and esteem is so vitally important. It's basically a board of scientists that critically evaluate and dissect any scientific breakthroughs for flaws or inconsistencies.

Earning a place among these peers is no simple task considering the high amount of regard, respect and responsibility that one carries.

[astrologyrox]

awesome videos... time for the next one!

[jayhellcat]

Just a detail, but shouldn't 'time' be a part of that 'more credible - less credible' scale? How reliable is information given in the 1980s for example compared to information available now? Even when provided by a professional organisation.

[21433H]

If this entertaining and informative set of video's, or something similar, could be shown to a mass audience I wouldn't be the only one questioning my stance on the issue.

[21433H]

I think Al Gore's "an inconvienient truth" has done more harm than good. It recieved mainstream publicity and was then accused, in court, of being misleading, a view agreed with by the judge presiding. The majority of people I know, and myself, took this as confirmation that the whole issue was politically motivated to further an unknown agenda.

[funmonsterUK]

Has anyone done any research into mean temperature changes on all the other planets in our solar system? I can find no real data on the net. Many thanks for any info :)

[Cythil]

Well the sun do move around the earth. But that is just because of one prescription of the event. As we all know having studied a bit of physics that the gravitational center of the Solar system is very close to the center of the sun. At least more close then it is to earth so with that view in mind one can argue that the sun is at the center. Still i am going of point really. Though the right thing to do is to understand what the smart people are trying to tell you and judge for you self. ;)

[Cythil]

Perception. To bad there is not a edit button. My spelling is terrible

[itCameFromEarth]

I'm pretty sure that the sun orbits the earth... besides if Einsteins relative motion theory is right... then saying the sun orbits the earth IS a valid statement.

If the message here is NOT 'don't use your brain just blindly follow authority'.

[andylew]

Funding funding funding. Follow the money. Without global cooling....I mean global warming...I mean abrupt climate change, there is less money for research, and in turn, less desire for careers in research. This hurts universities and the scientific community as a whole. "Everyone" is biased, it's those that say they aren't whom we should be worried about. Great set of videos by the way. It really assists the lay person in uncovering the truths in a world of sensationalism.

[andylew]

Funding funding funding. Follow the money. Without global cooling....I mean global warming...I mean abrupt climate change, there is less money for research, and in turn, less desire for careers in research. This hurts universities and the scientific community as a whole. "Everyone" is biased, it's those that say they aren't whom we should be worried about. Great set of videos by the way. It really assists the lay person in uncovering the truths in a world of sensationalism.

[Reproductivist]

Academics are a bunch of socialists. They are biased in support of government intervention in just about everything. The science establishment is FUBAR. The rational people (Objectivists and such) say so and that man-made climate change is bullshit and would oppose intervention even if it was all true. Go read some Ayn Rand, people.

[guffpot]

Dunno about that Repro. I have met a lot of academics with surprisingly right wing outlook.

Something that tends to get on my nerves is the rhetoric that business cannot be trusted and doesn't do "science". The other side of that is the rhetoric that academia is remote and doesn't understand business.

We would all be better off without these attitudes. It just separates two lots of good people who both believe they are trying to achieve something for a greater good.

[guffpot]

OK - I admit it. I'm never going to study theology. But I can see authorities in all their majesty, the most impressive religious establishments, countless millions of followers.

And theologans have my interest at heart. They want to save my soul.

WM42 is right - who am I to argue with all that? You got me there. So which church should I dedicate my life to?

(ps. save the "it's not fact" stuff. As WM42 correctly says, there's no absolute certainty out there - science or religion.)

[TempestStormwind]

But there is a fundamental difference between faith and rationality. By definition, faith is belief in absence of evidence, while rationality requires evidence to make decisions.

In arguments on theology, I am not as qualified to speak as a religious scholar. However, on matters of my personal faith, *I* am the expert.

The other key difference is that my faith or lack thereof doesn't impact anyone but me. My choice of action or inaction on climate change *does*. Different morals apply.

[guffpot]

I have sympathy for what you say Tempest. And WM42 "trust the doctor".

My post challenges the tactic of appealing to authority. I don't like it.

At what point does it become an appeal to faith?

That is usually a matter of convincing lay people with compelling evidence.

I can see lots of evidence for AGW, but also lots against. We also don't have the benefit of a test in laboratory conditions. So your arguments need to be really convincing.

What was the slam dunk for you?

[TempestStormwind]

For me, there wasn't a slam dunk -- I'm a physicist by training, and I'm used to two things when it comes to science:

1) Hearing from those who are better qualified than I am in physics, and

2) Being able to *learn* from them, and eventually replicate their results.

1 shows you why I trust them (and accept we all may be wrong). 2 shows you why it won't be a matter of faith.

For those without science training, I say: Bust out the credibility spectrum and see HIAE: Why There Is Still Debate.

[iandarken]

Look up Milankovitch Cycles (how eccentricity, obliquity, and precession affect solar exposure).

The "hotter" sections of the Milankovitch Cycles have always coincided with increased CO2 atmospheres. CO2 levels on earth do not control our orbit. It's the other way around.

[waspbloke]

"CO2 levels on earth do not control our orbit"

Orbit?

If you must spam, at least make sense.

CO2 and temperature are *coupled* through feedbacks. It self regulates. Until we came along and started burning fossil fuels, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and burning the forests.

[vladsilvacce]

"Professional organizations?" is at the top of your list? Do you know ANY professional environmental organizations that do not make their living off people believing in GCC? Come on, you cannot be this naive.

[TempestStormwind]

The "professional organizations" he's referring to aren't enviro clubs (he lists those down with think tanks).

He's referring to groups like the AAAS (the largest scientific body in the world) and the Royal Society (which is older than the United States).

These groups make their living based off of sound scientific research, not jumping to conclusions, and being thoughtful and thorough. These non-advocacy groups are making advocacy statements; that should say something about the science.

[watchumeen]

I don't want to wait for the world to take action, how can i better prepare myself and my family for the worst case scenario?

Geographically: where is the best place to move or live if the worst case scenario happened, increased sea level, scarcity of land, where can i move to now, that would be considered a better more habitable area if the worst case scenario were to happen

[Tastentier]

That's something I wondered about too. But it seems that in the absolute worst case, there won't be a safe place. Imagine drastic climate changes everywhere, causing local plants to die and animal life to die in turn, a food shortage. Homeless refugees from the flooded coastal areas, diseases spread among the weakened population, new diseases evolve as viruses adapt to the changed environmental conditions, governments break down... I'd say the best precaution is to try and prevent the worst case

[guffpot]

Please go easy on the "new diseases evolve" stuff. Do you really suggest that action on CO2 will help to avoid emergence of new disease?

Want a bad scenario? How about loss of productive land in the temperate northerly regions. That's what cooling will do.

There is evidence to say that interglacials are not the norm.  What would life be like 7 degrees C below present? (or just getting there)

[TempestStormwind]

Guffpot: That reasoning's just bizarre.

The same evidence that pegs interglacials as the norm is also saying that the next interglacial is, at *least*, 1000 years away, and more likely further than that.

That *same* evidence (paleoclimate) is part of the myriad evidence we have for AGW.

You'd trust it some of the time but not all of the time? That's just dishonest.

[guffpot]

Hey Tempest - I never said anything about trusting paleo.

Some suggest the current interglacial is longer than average. So we're due ...

Sure about the 1000 years? No evidence for that (future). We could already be on the turn or on the downward slope from the Holocene Optimum.

Evidence from the past suggests change can be very sudden.

[KamiKaziChicken]

Warmer conditions are a worse scenario for disease than cold conditions. Its closer to the optimum temperature (37'C) for pathogenic organisms, so its clear that it can spread a lot more effectvely.

It'd take an idiot to say only one (extreme haeting or cooling) will effect us. Both can be catastrophic. In quantitive terms, i'd probably prefer the colder side though.

[guffpot]

So long as "our CO2" equates to "warmer conditions".

My question was basically repeating a challenge: do you believe we control the climate?

[Tastentier]

I don't think we can effectively control the climate. Yet. But since it has been satisfactorily proven (by the NAS and AAAS for example) that our CO2 output increases the greenhouse effect, we should hopefully be able to slow the global warming down (not reverse it) by producing less CO2. As for pathogenic germs: They adapt pretty fast to new conditions, especially when they're forced to, which might be the case underchanged environmental conditions. I admit that was a bit speculative though.

[guffpot]

This seems to be a matter of climate sensitivity - commonly expressed as "what rise in temperature for CO2 doubling".

Controversial!

It is commonly recognised that the effect diminishes as GHG concentration increases (e.g. closure of IR bands).

First principles say that temperature is not very sensitive to a doubling at around current GHG levels.

Answer: cue the feedbacks.

Controversial!

Doesn't this start to make you think?

[Tastentier]

Let me give you one example: My doctor recommends a properly tested drug and two other MDs confirm that this would indeed be the best prescription for my condition. Along comes an alternative practicioner who claims that this drug will make me even worse and I'd be better off if buying some healing crystals. He backs up his claims with some pseudo-science which sounds almost convincing to the relative layperson that I am. Does this mean that medical science is controversial? I don't think so.

[guffpot]

Thre is no controversy in many aspects of medicine, but it is hardly free from controversy. (For example, should toddlers use mobile phones?)

It's a poor analogy in any case. Climatology has nothing remotely like double-blind testing used in medical testing. There is nothing like a laboratory test, blind or otherwise.

That leaves AGW particularly prone to potential defects in the scientific method. The evidence needs to be pretty good to compensate fof this. But it's not!

[Tastentier]

The same applies for me in this matter. I'm no expert in this field. I admit that I only understand half of the science behind it, at best. All I know is how to evaluate the credibility of my information sources. I trust what the majority of unbiased experts agrees on. If you can give me sources that support your theories, I'll read them and consider their information as well as their credibility in comparison to the NAS/AAAS.

[TempestStormwind]

I know a bit more of the science, and can address one of your concerns.

"First principles say that temperature is not very sensitive to a doubling at around current GHG levels."

First principles were all that was available back in 1896, when Arrhenius combined the radiative physics of CO2 with the Clausius-Clapeyron relation (here, for water vapour) and concluded a doubling of CO2 would lead to 5-6C of warming.

Current estimates put it at about half that (2.5-3C).

Your claim doesn't hold.

[guffpot]

CA comes back to this time and again.

See a contribution from "a thoughtful climatologist" (SM's words) on 2 Jan 08.

The contributor says: "..you had asked for any clear reference providing a direct calculation that climate sensitivity is 3C (for a doubling of CO2). The simple answer is that there is no direct calculation to accurately prove this, which is why it remains one of the most important open questions in climate science."

No need to take my word for it Tempest.

[TempestStormwind]

Someone isn't reporting Annan 2006, which surveyed the previous estimates and methods and concluded that climate sensitivity is 2.5-3C. (If you have issue with models, one result is entirely empirical.)

This is supported by a large number of additional studies (i.e., Royer 2007 shows that it CANNOT be lower than 1.5C based on 420 million years of data; Tung 2007 statistically determined 2.3-4.1C from 20th century data alone).

As time goes on, the 2.5-3C figure is looking more and more likely.

[guffpot]

Tempest - those are the words of James Annan. Did you not look at the CA thread?

Royer assesses CO2/temperature sensitivity. Is this not just another correlation thing? You know, correlation not causation. What does the Royer say about cause?

If you look at my points above: the science doesn't get the "desired" sensitivity without feedbacks (as James Annan says on CA).

Climate feedback is controversial and highly uncertain (e.g. cloud response)

[theangryocelot]

"ooooo, cliffhanger!" You make me laugh at the end everytime. This is a very informative, entertaining series, I can't wait to read more!

[henderixson]

'Up from the skies' jimi..

[joyoust]

I admire this guy. He's teaching me. I have concerns about our environment. I've whittled my expenses to the basics, take the bus, live on the tiniest income imaginable, shop sales, use coupons, etc. It pisses the living hell out of me when conjecture, elitists/NWO shills & corrupt govt. impose taxation I can't afford, illegals rape our soc. sec. & med care, citizens starve, homeless, poverty and a shitty economy IN THE PRESENT TIME are what we 'cannon fodder' suffer. BUT NO! Fuck Al Gore.

[TempestStormwind]

You'd find the expansion pack video "Get What You Want" surprisingly interesting, then. Plus the rest of this Risk Managment one, which should be seen before Get What You Want.

For instance, under green power generation, you wouldn't be contributing as much to the carbon problem, and could therefore use enjoy a higher standard of living than you currently do with the same (or lower!) impact.

[wesman83]

great videos! its nice to see someone slow down for a second and break the argument down to the basics.

im concerned about using companies breaking from their status quo at thhe top of the credibility list. all a public statement from those companies means is that there is enough public pressure or movement has gotten large enough that they need to enact some public relations to cover themselves. it says nothing on the facts

[TempestStormwind]

There's more than just those companies, though -- the Pentagon also fits that bill.

While I agree we can't be certain of their motives, the point remains that they've said such statements. You'd be amazed how many times that's enough to get people to take pause and think.

[wesman83]

giving pause is not his point tho. we, as the public, are trying to figure out whose analysis of the evidence is most credible; why should shell/bp/ford be the most credible source when there is a significant possibility their statements are not based on actual analysis of evidence but a calculated public relations move.

[TempestStormwind]

Because Shell et al are interested in one thing: Protecting and improving their bottom line. If they were calling for action on their own as a PR stunt, they would make sure it wouldn't harm their bottom line.

Even though it may very well be a PR move, you can take this as evidence that taking action is NOT going to be bad for the economy, at least so far as USCAP is concenred.

[guffpot]

Price elasticity of demand for oil and oil products should tell you that the bottom line is safe on this issue.

Why suffer bad publicity by arguing with public opinion? Play along. And hey, maybe even argue for subsidies. Ouch - that's another hit for you and me.

[Edukator99]

The public in general does not know which sources to trust (I certainly didn't until I watched this video) so the media is actually creating a false ANTI global warming bias by trying to present a balanced argument.

[TempestStormwind]

I agree with you.

The only way to combat that is to snipe the mistruths as accurately as you can. You come across as snarky and annoying, but anyone who would be convinced by debate (instead of just feeding their own biases) will be able to see past that.

I've actually seen this happen (watch?v=ZYlbvJEZA_4 ; the man in question shows up in part 3). Fundamentally, he's acting as an information warrior.

What was it Gandhi said about being mocked?

[Edukator99]

I dunno...what DID Ghandi say about being mocked?

Did you attach a clip or something in your message? I just see a code.

[TempestStormwind]

No, I was just out of space, 500 characters and all.

The line was:

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

This is why I suggest keeping your head and fighting misinformation with information.

[Edukator99]

So you invite say 3 scientists from each side.

On one side you have three scientists who represent the conclusions of 90% (ok I plucked the number out the air) of the scientific community including our gold standard bearers and peer reviewed magazines.

On the other side you have 3 scientists who represent the miniscule dissenting minority.

They both get 50% of the debate in the public forum, however, which makes it appear as though science is largely divided.

[Edukator99]

Here's an interesting thought I had the other day. Is it possible that a the media's desire and, in fact, responsibility to provide balanced debate actually magnifies the anti global warming debate?

Think of it this way: In order to attempt to provide a balanced discussion parties from both sides will be invited on to a show to discuss whether or not global warming is being caused by human activity.

[caudelac]

further: what benefit would scientists like these have in being right, honestly?

[joakimoi]

If 100 people claims that all cars are red, and one has proof that there is a car that isn't red, then consensus is without value unless the one man's argument is considered and disproved. So is the nature of science.

[TempestStormwind]

Which is correct.

And it has happened.

For instance, Henrik Svensmark has a theory relating to cosmic rays being the primary cause of climate change. The general idea he puts forward is that cosmic rays can affect cloud cover, and as a result affect the world's climate.

[TempestStormwind]

However, this theory has been attacked by several scientists for data fraud. One such response (Damon, P. E. & Laut, P. Eos 85, 370--374 (2004)) states that "Among several flaws, including arithmetical errors, they noted that the cloud data that had been used originally did not represent total global cloud cover, and that when the correct data were used the correlation broke down."

This continues for other experiments, too.

[TempestStormwind]

Until Svensmark et al produce a working version of their theory -- to use your analogy, until they have solid evidence to back up their claim that a car isn't red -- we are forced to reject their theory.

The same cannot be said for the (well-established) greenhouse gas effect of CO2, the (repeatedly-found) surge in CO2 concentrations since industrialization, and similar foundations of AGCC. The more evidence dug up, the sounder it looks.

[TempestStormwind]

THIS is one of the reasons why no professional science organization in the world of national or international repute has issued a statement opposing AGCC: As the evidence mounts up and the experiments are repeated, the picture becomes clearer and clearer -- so much so that a few scientific statements actually use the word "consensus", such as it can exist in science.

[TempestStormwind]

Now, I have to ask you, a single, very specific question.

What is your reasoning for choosing to dispute AGCC? What would it take for you to admit you are wrong? Is your claim falsifiable (which is the key to scientific statements *and* reasoned debate)?

My claim is falsifiable. I will admit that AGCC doesn't exist, if given the right evidence. WM42 is the same way, actually -- see How It All Ends: No Holds Barred.

[ronarprfct]

Your willingness to admit it doesn't exist if "given the right evidence" has nothing to do with falsifiability. The claim is falsifiable if it is possible to test whether or not it is false in a meaningful way. The statement "God exists and his skin is blue" is not falsifiable, since there is no possible test that could prove that statement false.

[darkciti2]

Much the way Bush "kept us safe from terrorists" is a logical fallacy.

One could suggest that he has also kept us safe from "Squirrel monsters from Mars". The inability to prove something is false because it can't be proven, doesn't make it true.

[ronarprfct]

The fallacy committed by people saying, "If not for the actions of Bush, there would've been further successful terrorist actions in the U.S." was referred to-when I took a course in logic in college-as the "hypothesis contrary to fact" fallacy. The hypothesis is "Not the actions of Bush", or "If Bush hadn't taken such and such actions".  It is contrary to fact because Bush did take those actions, and it isn't remotely possible to know for certain what would've occurred had he not taken them.

[ronarprfct]

Correlation equals not causation. CO2 concentrations going up since industrialization doesn't indicate that industrialization was the reason or even the primary reason for their increase.

[limosalimosa]

On itself this is true. No-one will deny that you're able to use reason to some extent, Ron. Now guess what this worldwide legion of climate scientists has been trying to falsify over the last two decades? exactly this causation story. Time and again they failed. They only disagree on nuances, not on the main story.

[joakimoi]

1. You have mistaken authority for truth.

3. Consensus is not science. "None of us is as dumb as all of us".

[TempestStormwind]

You're right: Authority, logically, isn't truth.

Problem: This isn't a logical issue. It's a scientific one. Once you step outside logic, appeal-to-authority is no longer fallacious -- which is why we do things like listen to our lawyers on legal issues and our doctors on medical issues: because they know the material better than we do.

In matters of climate science, the climate scientists are better qualified than WM42, you, or me, thus we should listen.

[ronarprfct]

Sorry,appeal to authority is always fallacious, since the fallacious part of it is that the authority being appealed to has nothing to do with the subject being discussed. If you ask a well-respected biologist his opinion on quantum physics, and cite his opinion saying, "look at what this well-respected scientist believes about quantum physics", you've committed the fallacy. If you actually cite him talking about something in his field of biology, you haven't committed the fallacy.

[TempestStormwind]

Again, you're right: Consensus isn't science.

However, if you walk into a room and shout out "What's two plus two?" you're quite likely to get a consensus of "Four!".

Consensus isn't science, but if the science independently leads the scientists to the same point (which is more or less what's happened here), it is *usually* indicative of the right answer.

[duffster17]

Great. Now I want chips. Darn you! All joking aside, I really liked your point about believing authority. I never really thought about it before, and GCC is an issue that requires a lot of facts from authority.

[RoelGeurtsen]

analegies analegies,tabacco compagnies know very well smoking is terrible ,in fact u will find nobody thinking otherwise these analegies really arent working for me!!

[TempestStormwind]

That's... remarkably non sequitor.

Especially because even today, you'll find a few people who deny the link between smoking and lung cancer -- and some are even extremely well educated (for instance, Dr. Richard Lindzen is one such person. Interestingly, he's also one of the scientists speaking out against human-caused climate change.)

It's for this reason we rate professional individuals, like single scientists, at the bottom of the spectrum.

[tristie84]

this does a good job of helping people evaluate statements. I have heard from various sources, credible and reliable, that in peer-reviewed journals, there is no debate on climate change. the debate happens in popular media. look it up!

any uni student knows the value of sources. I work at a university, if your published work is highly cited, that is gold. That means you idea or theory is more than a crack pot theory. Use logic!!!!

[ronarprfct]

"published work is highly cited". Do you mean that said work cites a lot of references, or that many people cite IT as a reference?

[quathar]

This might be the most important video on the subject. Ever. The fact is that all valid arguments denying the issue are based on citing less than credible sources, and failure to omit the overwhelming, credible, amount of data that supports it. This point can NOT be stressed enough.

[jthomp3120]

thanks for clarifying that the middle of the credibility spectrum could be mixed up. I was wondering about it in #2

[Zulu424]

nice cliffhanger

[rsnifty]

I think this is Risk Managment #3; it says part 2 in the title. That would explain why it seemed like you jumped from one subject to the next.

[wonderingmind42]

Thanks! Fixed.

Keep going!