But climate scientist so-and-so says it's not a big deal...

6/4/2014

Do you have a piece of paper handy? If so, grab a beer and something to write with.

1. Write down all the names of climate scientists that you can remember -- anyone you've read about or seen. If you're a super cool person, you'll do this before you scroll down to the next step.

2. Now, circle the names of the climate scientists who you like to read.

In many cases, I think skeptics will have written down more names of prominent skeptical or lukewarmer scientists -- perhaps Judith Curry*, Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielke Jr., or Lennart Bengtsson -- compared to the number of mainstream "consensus" scientists.

If that's what you did, why is that? Why do you only know the scientists who agree with your view? Why do you only read them?

This is what I've seen a lot of climate skeptics do: They come into the climate debate with preconceived notions, and they latch on to those handful of dissenting scientists who agree with them. They don't know the names of a lot of non-skeptic scientists, except perhaps for a couple of people they view as arch-villains. This is pure confirmation bias. You're less likely to get to the truth if you only read people who agree with you. Do you read champions of the "mainstream" view like Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth, and Drew Shindell? Why not?

A critical reason why this approach is faulty is that skeptical climate scientists are significantly outnumbered by scientists who are more confident in human-caused warming and in future warming scenarios. I think some of the research on the climate science consensus is garbage, but even if the numbers are inflated, it looks like a large consensus will still be there if you fix the studies and revise them downward (there's a lot of room to go down from 97% and still have a very high number). That said, those of you who are gung-ho pro-consensus might want to at least deploy some attention to the minority scientists. Minorities can be right.

If you're looking in on the field from the outside, and you don't have the background to evaluate the scientific research in depth, then you ought to pay at least as much attention to the majority as to the minority. I want to be clear -- I agree that a scientific consensus won't always be correct. History is replete with examples, and most recently I think some of the consensuses put forward on diet and nutrition were flawed. Moreover, I really don't like the centralization of science into formal authorities and pompous organizations, especially when they push partisan politics. A scientific monoculture abrades against the epistemic and sociological requirements of good science. But climate scientists are not morons. They know about the sun. They are aware of volcanoes. They've heard of cloud feedbacks. They have answers to most of your arguments, and you might want to check them out.

* I don't have a problem with skeptical climate scientists. I don't know enough to have a problem with them, and I have a lot of respect for Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, and Roger Pielke, Jr. I'm aware that just saying that will infuriate some AGW activists... sigh. All I'll say for now is that evil is somewhat rare, in climate science as much as anywhere else, and I get nervous when a field has no dissenters, or when dissent is demonized. I like contrarians, and I think they're quite valuable even if they're wrong. More on that another time.

15 Comments

Jim Bouldin link

7/23/2014 10:13:37 am

Bingo.

I've said before, that for many self proclaimed "skeptics", it's when they tear into Anthony Watts and similar serial bullshitters with the same vengeance (actually, more) that they do with certain climate scientists, is about the time I will start to trust that they are actually objective on the science instead of driven by hostility.

Brad Keyes link

9/12/2014 08:45:50 am

Jim,

please explain (if you can) why you believe you're entitled, or perhaps even ethically required?, to propagate the idea that Anthony Watts is a serial bullshitter.

I'm not aware of any justification for your language.

But this doesn't mean there is none!

You might, for all I know, be right.

If your explanation checks out, I guarantee here and now that I'll execrate Watts mercilessly and to your total satisfaction. In fact I'll probably go too far, in your opinion, and you'll beg me to dial back the hate speech.

(I fucking HATE liars though, so don't expect any of your appeals to moderation or proportion to register even as a flicker in my rage-drugged eyes.)

If NOT, at least you'll have your answer as to why nobody is seconding your insult.

Ted O'Brien.

8/7/2014 03:58:52 am

Well, yes, but:

What motivates these scientists on both sides of the argument?

There are a great may more scientists employed to build a warmist cause than there are employed to maintain integrity in that cause.

Fred V

8/7/2014 05:41:12 am

Excellent article. When I first became interested in global warming I accepted what I heard in the media and read a lot of invective about "deniers".

At some point I realized that there was way more anger in that camp than should be expected from scientists and came to realize that most of these people where, in fact, believers. They held a religious view that was more faith than science.

I then entered the camp of the deniers, seeing some of their points but also seeing that they often relied on misinformation to make their case.

Finally I discovered some of the more reasoned views that seem to get
little notice. And yes, I read research articles...these tell me again and again that, yes, 97% of scientists SHOULD believe that man is causing climate change, but they also tell me again and again that natural variability is likely much stronger than anthropogenic sources and that much is not known at this time.

So what do we do now? Well, I recently drove through New Mexico and saw thousands upon thousands of wind turbines...all turning with the wind. That seems like a good start to me.

Backslider

8/7/2014 06:12:11 pm

"Well, I recently drove through New Mexico and saw thousands upon thousands of wind turbines...all turning with the wind. That seems like a good start to me."

Oh puke! Please take the time to look at all the wind farms which have run out of subsidies and are sitting there rusting away.

Oh yeah, it's lovely to maybe get a little bit of electricity for a few hours a day.... maybe

Paul Matthews link

8/7/2014 06:47:32 pm

Jose, you ask whether climate sceptics read people like Gavin Schimdt, and if not, why not. The answer to these questions is not hard to find.
I suggest you go to Climate etc and click on the 'denizens' link and do a search for Realclimate, Gavin's blog (Jim Bouldin used to be a part of that team as well). Here is some of what you will find:

I found the most important sites associated with global warming (climate audit, WUWT, Realclimate, DotEarth, etc), and read them extensively in the evenings for a few months. I was appalled at what I found. (MS engineering)

I asked a question to Gavin at RealClimate – on Climategate weekend. I got a crazy answer which pissed me off. (handful of peer-reviewed papers)

I found RealClimate, and quickly realised that discussions there were quite unlike normal scientific discussions. (PhD in Chemistry, Cambridge)

My experience at RealClimate, with its censorship of my questioning comments, was an eye-opener into what appeared to be the censorship of dissenting opinion (PhD in physics)

Like many, I got into climate science about 5 years ago reading realclimate and climate audit. After trying to post a couple of comments on realclimate when it drifted into an area where I thought I had some expertise, I was shocked at the level of censorship (mathematics degree + MBA)

My first serious introduction to the subject was shortly after RealClimate’s birth, when I began following both it and ClimateAudit.
(Brandon Shollenberger)

I spent some time posting on RealClimate five or so years ago, then lost interest. I’m an ardent (evangelical even) advocate of open-mindedness, and did not find many with that mindset there.
(PhD Atmospheric sciences)

8/7/2014 06:58:34 pm

A few more from the Climate etc Denizens thread:

... the arrogance, deceipt, hubris and sheer dismissive sneering tone of Mann and especially Gavin Schmidt towards anyone who questioned their work. These may be strong words, but I would wager that any intelligent and curious scientist who spends a few weeks reading up about climate science at realclimate would come away quite disgusted. (PhD, Physics, Oxford)

I hung around RealClimate for a bit to learn about the science, and discovered that the characteristic form of explanation (to paraphrase freely) was “if you weren’t such a stupid troll, you would have read the paper I referred you to and then you would know!” (PhD, physics)

I don’t know if RealClimate and other Team blogs are aware how much they have alienated a lot of people who might have trusted them (PhD in Math from Berkeley)

A Google search led me to RealClimate, where I read a positive review of AIT that insulted my intelligence (PhD in Chemistry)

Now, for you, as a social scientist, this might be quite interesting? Perhaps you might reconsider your, err, preconceived notion, that skeptics "come into the climate debate with preconceived notions"?

8/8/2014 05:36:50 pm

I have also had very negative experiences at RealClimate and SkepticalScience. I was quickly made to feel like I had better toe the line or get lost and several of my comments quickly disappeared.

Yes, I was treated very much like Backslider treated my comments above...with disdain.

8/8/2014 05:37:24 pm

Jeff Id

8/30/2014 04:39:51 am

I don't know about others but I have read papers from primarily what would be considered mainstream science. I find them robustly biased, often exaggerated and occasionally un-supportive of their own conclusions. For instance, you can find articles on sea ice with very marginal trends that have no mechanism for prediction of the future, yet contain language about global climate change having no relation to the data or results discussed. The same is true in paleoclimate papers, Briffa loves to slip paper killing facts in the middle of the article followed by wildly overconfident conclusions at the end.

Confirmation bias in my case comes from both directions, articles that make sense on one side, and articles which don't on the other.

9/12/2014 04:53:45 am

>> You're less likely to get to the truth if you only read people who agree with you.

Well said.

And well known, understood, accepted, etc., in my experience.

>> Do you read champions of the "mainstream" view like Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth, and Drew Shindell?

Yes Joe. *Exclusively.*

That's. WHY. We. Are. Skeptics / deniers / infidels.

Non-skeptic climate "science" is THE ONLY evidence I have ever had, considered, needed or cited for disbelieving "orthodox" notions.

And I'm presumably not the only person on the planet who knows how to reason scientifically, Joe.

So instead of bemoaning the unwashed millions of climate kuffir who are doing it wrong because they weren't lucky/privileged/interested/highborn enough to get a tertiary Science degree and therefore have never been taught how to do it (let alone kidding yourself that the other "side" is even a tenth of a percentage point "more" educated—hint: they're not!), may I make a friendly suggestion that you pay more attention to the *strongest*, non-strawman elements of climate-denier thought?

Which is what Skepticism itself *requires* Skeptics to do.... from the outset... on every topic.... no ifs, ands or buts?

And has always required?

For millennia?

Anyone? Hello?

9/15/2014 04:51:19 pm

Oops, I didn't write that very well. (The bit about the obligations of skepticism.)

What I meant was that if you agree with what you think is a mainstream view, you must consider the arguments of the *best* critics thereof—or more precisely, you must consider the *best* arguments against it.

Someone who *doesn't* believe in (what you think is) a mainstream argument has exaactly the same obligation except vice versa, mutatis mutandis, hoc genus omne et cetera et cetera.

So a "denier" must read the *best* arguments in favor of whatever she denies.

These principles are true in general, whatever the controversy is.

*Science,* however, adds a unique twist.

In science the propositions one believes, disbelieves, doesn't believe, denies, doesn't deny, agrees with, has no opinion about, or knows, (etc.) are *hypotheses.*

In *scientific* disputes there ARE no "two sides," no prosecution vs defense, no Affirmative and Negative teams.

Instead we have a null hypothesis, a proposition that wins BY DEFAULT.

The null hypothesis doesn't NEED an advocate, which is why "denier" scientists are 100% superfluous.

Denialism is right if and only if the theory being denied FAILS to overcome its null.

So there is one, and only one, scientifically-literate basis to be a climate denier: the weakness of the evidence/case/argument for believing whatever hypothesis one is denying.

Anyone who says some supposed tenet of climate science is wrong for any reason other than the one I just specified is not making a scientifically valid argument.

They may be right, but even if they are right they're not right *for the right reason.*

9/15/2014 07:26:17 pm

Joe, it's semantics time.

Q: What's the difference between a mainstreamer and a dissenter?
A: Nothing.

There are more of the former than the latter—that's all.

That's it.

It's NOT more complicated than that.

Sheri Kimbrough

9/17/2014 06:19:30 am

Actually, at one time, when a person asked me to verify something I wrote about climate science and skepticism, I realized I had far more articles that agree with AGW than those that did not. I also have taken to task the bad behaviour of skeptics. I've noted that skeptics and advocates are often equal in bad behaviour. It would never occur to me not to read those who originated the theory. How else would I know what the flaws in theory are or if there are flaws?

There are those skeptics who so care about the science, and will correct errors they make, and read both sides. Few and far between, yes. However, they do exist.

Barry Woods

5/6/2015 03:42:35 am

I went to Realclimate with an open mind (I had never heard of it, nor WUWT, nor Climate Audit) . I had just read about the climategate emails and did not know what to make of them, the actions to avoid FOI and delete emails in the face of FOI request got my attention. (seemed politics, not science) And I asked a very good friend of mine at my local University about it..

They directed me to Realclimate as the authoritative source. I survived about 3 comments at Realclimate, before I experienced the RealClimate approach to sci-coms,(rudeness and comment deletion) and you will find me, in Judith Currys Denizens thread (me, BSc Applied Chem, MSc Cybernetics)

A by the way, I only realized a few months later, that my friend was an editor of the third IPCC assessment report, and had numerous emails nothing contentious) in the leak. At that point I had never heard of the IPCC

But climate scientist so-and-so says it's not a big deal...

Leave a Reply.

José L. Duarte

Archives

Categories