Are Climate Skeptics always Anti-Science?

[PloddingInsight]

Mr. Money Mustache yesterday:

Climate change skeptics aren’t really uncomfortable with the science, they are uncomfortable with the implication that their fossil-fuel dependent lifestyle is immoral and endangered. This is an incurable condition that will lead to lifelong unhappiness, because the science is not going away.

Try as you might, you are not going to out-science the scientists. They’ll just keep collecting evidence until you’re the last one standing on the shore insisting the world is flat and those sailing ships are falling off of a giant waterfall at the edge of the horizon.

Um.  As we used to say in grade school, "Exqueeze me?"  I consider myself a pro-science warming skeptic.  Specifically I am skeptical of the amount of warming predicted and the catastrophic nature of the impact.  I don't fault anyone for taking the scientific consensus at face value, but I get my back up when people try to explain to me that my views are insincere and irrational.

Science is not a club or a religion.  It is a methodology that basically runs on self-doubt and skepticism.  I get it that the views expressed by "Jared" are not all that rational, but if we are all going to be judged by the dumbest expression of agreement with our views, I don't think anybody is going to come out looking that great.  There are dumb, embarrassing people that agree with you, too.

[Gin1984]

Yes, climate skeptics are anti-science.  When you disagree with all research on a topic, with no actual research to back you up, you are either an idiot, or, well I can't an or.  Sorry.

MOD EDIT: Rule #1 - don't be a jerk.

[PloddingInsight]

Yes, climate skeptics are anti-science.  When you disagree with all research on a topic, with no actual research to back you up, you are either an idiot, or, well I can't an or.  Sorry.

Hmm.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-08-12/only-stupid-people-call-people-stupid

I’m always fascinated by the number of people who proudly build columns, tweets, blog posts or Facebook posts around the same core statement: “I don’t understand how anyone could (oppose legal abortion/support a carbon tax/sympathize with the Palestinians over the Israelis/want to privatize Social Security/insert your pet issue here)." It’s such an interesting statement, because it has three layers of meaning.

The first layer is the literal meaning of the words: I lack the knowledge and understanding to figure this out. But the second, intended meaning is the opposite: I am such a superior moral being that I cannot even imagine the cognitive errors or moral turpitude that could lead someone to such obviously wrong conclusions. And yet, the third, true meaning is actually more like the first: I lack the empathy, moral imagination or analytical skills to attempt even a basic understanding of the people who disagree with me.

In short, “I’m stupid.” Something that few people would ever post so starkly on their Facebook feeds.

[GuitarStv]

Can you provide the peer-reviewed research upon which you base your climate skeptical views?

[rocksinmyhead]

Specifically I am skeptical of the amount of warming predicted and the catastrophic nature of the impact.

You sound like you have given this a lot of thought. I too am curious about the basis of your views.

To answer your question, I would have said "yes" but I'm waiting to hear what you say because I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

I do think there are a lot of financial motives for corporations and politicians to promote a "skeptical" view, and far fewer motives for anyone to promote the view that recent global climate change is real, completely or mostly anthropogenic, and is a significant threat. Likewise, there are a lot of emotional/psychological motives that make it easier for people to believe the former, and none (that I can think of) that make it easier to believe the latter (which I think is part of what MMM is saying...)

[PloddingInsight]

Can you provide the peer-reviewed research upon which you base your climate skeptical views?

No, but I can compare the temperature record of the last 15 years to the predictions generated by the peer-review process.

Keep in mind I believe CO2 emissions raise the global temperature.  I just think the extent and consequences have been exaggerated.

[Dr. Doom]

Specifically I am skeptical of the amount of warming predicted and the catastrophic nature of the impact.

Because the worst-case outcomes are fairly catastrophic, it's important to ask yourself if you're willing to accept the immense risk of continuing down the same path. 

If you are driving along a road on a plateu in zero-visibility fog and you know there is a cliff coming -- but you don't know when it's coming up (could be 1 mile in front of you, could be 1000) are you going to progress at the same speed throughout your blind journey?  If your guess is wrong, you are dead.

[Gin1984]

Can you provide the peer-reviewed research upon which you base your climate skeptical views?

No, but I can compare the temperature record of the last 15 years to the predictions generated by the peer-review process.

Keep in mind I believe CO2 emissions raise the global temperature.  I just think the extent and consequences have been exaggerated.

So you think your knowledge base is higher than those whose career is to study this?  And what do you base that on?  And, please do provide those peer-reviewed articles that you are comparing against the temperature record. 

[PloddingInsight]

I do think there are a lot of financial motives for corporations and politicians to promote a "skeptical" view, and far fewer motives for anyone to promote the view that recent global climate change is real, completely or mostly anthropogenic, and is a significant threat. Likewise, there are a lot of emotional/psychological motives that make it easier for people to believe the former, and none (that I can think of) that make it easier to believe the latter (which I think is part of what MMM is saying...)

Wow really?  Oh my goodness where do we start?  First, environmentalism takes the place of religion for a lot of people, so it can be instructive to line up the ideas of environmentalism with religious ideas to see how similar they are:

third world village life = adam and eve before the fall

Pre-industrial revolution earth = the garden of Eden, pristine and idyllic.

Industry = human sinfulness

oil companies = the hostile world (the whore of babylon or whatever)

carbon offsets = indulgences

concern about the environment = piety

using less energy = religious fasting

etc etc.

Also:  Progressive anti-capitalism generally allies with environmentalists in seeing industry as the enemy.  Basically the 50% of people on the "left" are predisposed to believe any accusation against "Big Oil", "Big Energy", etc because of their ideological narrative.

[GuitarStv]

Can you provide the peer-reviewed research upon which you base your climate skeptical views?

No, but I can compare the temperature record of the last 15 years to the predictions generated by the peer-review process.

Keep in mind I believe CO2 emissions raise the global temperature.  I just think the extent and consequences have been exaggerated.

So you think your knowledge base is higher than those whose career is to study this?  And what do you base that on?  And, please do provide those peer-reviewed articles that you are comparing against the temperature record.

+1

What you've described as the basis for your opinions is hardly a "pro-science" approach.

[PloddingInsight]

Specifically I am skeptical of the amount of warming predicted and the catastrophic nature of the impact.

Because the worst-case outcomes are fairly catastrophic, it's important to ask yourself if you're willing to accept the immense risk of continuing down the same path. 

If you are driving along a road on a plateu in zero-visibility fog and you know there is a cliff coming -- but you don't know when it's coming up (could be 1 mile in front of you, could be 1000) are you going to progress at the same speed throughout your blind journey?  If your guess is wrong, you are dead.

I'm only one person, who is kind of busy.  Let's set policy aside and talk about whether the consensus view that we're headed for a cliff is something on which reasonable people can disagree.

[GuitarStv]

By refusing to find evidence to argue your case, you're not disagreeing in a reasonable way.

[PloddingInsight]

So you think your knowledge base is higher than those whose career is to study this?  And what do you base that on?  And, please do provide those peer-reviewed articles that you are comparing against the temperature record.

Come now, there are people far more knowledgeable that I am on both sides of this issue.  The same is probably true for you.

With respect to the consensus view, I don't have to wade through the peer-reviewed journals.  The IPCC produces handy-dandy summaries explaining the current views of the scientific community.
Here's a graph comparing the IPCC prediction from 1990 to the subsequent temperature record:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/clip_image0061.png

[PloddingInsight]

What you've described as the basis for your opinions is hardly a "pro-science" approach.

Can you explain what a pro-science approach looks like, according to you?

[PloddingInsight]

By refusing to find evidence to argue your case, you're not disagreeing in a reasonable way.

I'm pointing out that the temperature record (which I consider to be "evidence") contradicts the consensus predictions of the scientists.  What is your complaint, exactly?

[Dr. Doom]

Specifically I am skeptical of the amount of warming predicted and the catastrophic nature of the impact.

Because the worst-case outcomes are fairly catastrophic, it's important to ask yourself if you're willing to accept the immense risk of continuing down the same path. 

If you are driving along a road on a plateu in zero-visibility fog and you know there is a cliff coming -- but you don't know when it's coming up (could be 1 mile in front of you, could be 1000) are you going to progress at the same speed throughout your blind journey?  If your guess is wrong, you are dead.

I'm only one person, who is kind of busy.

No idea what you meant by this, but it's hard not to take offense.    Because no one else on these boards is busy at all.
Well done.

[Bob W]

Don't know if climate skeptics are anti-science or not?  Really doesn't matter.  Climate change is here to stay.  The issue now is what remediation steps we can put in place at the lowest cost to start removing the CO2.  It will be science that finds that answer.   

Not a good time to own beach front property.   

The skeptics seem to generally agree that earth is getting warmer.  They often state that we can't prove that is man's fault though.   This is pretty silly since CO2 has radioactive markers that distinguish between regular co2,  volcanic co2, and fossil fuel co2.  It appears all the new co2 is fossil fuel derived.

Best we prepare our children and societies for this issue.  It ain't slowing down and the end is pretty much baked into bread.

[clarkm04]

Come now, there are people far more knowledgeable that I am on both sides of this issue.  The same is probably true for you.

With respect to the consensus view, I don't have to wade through the peer-reviewed journals.  The IPCC produces handy-dandy summaries explaining the current views of the scientific community.
Here's a graph comparing the IPCC prediction from 1990 to the subsequent temperature record:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/clip_image0061.png

The problem with your premise is two-fold:
A) This isn't an equal fight in the scientific committee, it's 98% to 2% amongst climatologists.  The press always treat this as an equal debate, it's not.  Furthermore, most of the 2% is funded by oil and gas companies.  Not exactly a non-biased bunch.

B) Using the best forecast from 24 years ago and stating that because this is wrong, it means climate change isn't a big deal is missing what science is.  Science is incremental and self correcting.  It's not dogmatic. 

Yes, 24 years ago, that was the best data and predictions at the time.  Now, we have better models and better data and the situation is actually more dire.  The models 24 years ago, underestimated how much CO2 the oceans could hold.  So yes, the most dire predictions from 24 years were off, but now we're acidifying and killing the ocean more than originally considered by the leading scientists in the late 1980s/early 1990s.

[PloddingInsight]

I'm only one person, who is kind of busy.

No idea what you meant by this, but it's hard not to take offense.    Because no one else on these boards is busy at all.
Well done.

I really don't know what to say.  No offense meant, at all.

My expectation going into this thread is that I'll be fending off remarks from several people who want to take the conversation in several different directions.  I just want to keep it manageable.

[Dr. Doom]

I'm only one person, who is kind of busy.

No idea what you meant by this, but it's hard not to take offense.    Because no one else on these boards is busy at all.
Well done.

I really don't know what to say.  No offense meant, at all.

My expectation going into this thread is that I'll be fending off remarks from several people who want to take the conversation in several different directions.  I just want to keep it manageable.

Don't worry about it and apologies for my reaction. I usually know better than to post on threads like this to begin with.  Carry on - hope you find what you're looking for.

[clarkm04]

To your first question, yes there are few remaining climate scientists who are skeptical and don't get bias funding from businesses who benefit from lying about climate change.

In college, I worked for one.

(Full disclosure: I have a science degree, but I'm NOT a climate scientists.  Just answered a posting for a job.  I did organize his various power point presentations and had to become familiar with his work in handling media requests, etc and though initially he checked my ppts I learned quickly what research went where and for what audience, so he was normally just perused it quickly before approval.) 

He had a very nuanced view of climate change.  Felt land use changes (planting grass in the desert/water parks in Phoenix) were more serious and damaging to climate than CO2 levels. 

He was a very respected scientist, then when other researchers poked holes in his research, he failed to respond and slowly turned into a denalist.

Right after I left, he did a "documentary" for Fox News on climate change and all of his funding started coming from energy sector businesses and most of that was to push him onto the public to muddy the waters.

It was kind of sad to see someone who had good ideas and solid research within the five years I worked under him refuse to change or consider anything new in the face of new evidence and then dive head first into organizations that value bias over good science.

[VirginiaBob]

These are the MMM forums.  You don't know the rules:

1.  Religion bad
2.  Abortion good
3.  Climate change skepticism is bad.
4.  Republicans  bad
5.  Democrats good

Get with the program or get on the back of the bus.  No room for opposing views here.  Nice and homogenous is the way we like it.

[Gin1984]

To your first question, yes there are few remaining climate scientists who are skeptical and don't get bias funding from businesses who benefit from lying about climate change.

In college, I worked for one.

(Full disclosure: I have a science degree, but I'm NOT a climate scientists.  Just answered a posting for a job.  I did organize his various power point presentations and had to become familiar with his work in handling media requests, etc and though initially he checked my ppts I learned quickly what research went where and for what audience, so he was normally just perused it quickly before approval.) 

He had a very nuanced view of climate change.  Felt land use changes (planting grass in the desert/water parks in Phoenix) were more serious and damaging to climate than CO2 levels. 

He was a very respected scientist, then when other researchers poked holes in his research, he failed to respond and slowly turned into a denalist.

Right after I left, he did a "documentary" for Fox News on climate change and all of his funding started coming from energy sector businesses and most of that was to push him onto the public to muddy the waters.

It was kind of sad to see someone who had good ideas and solid research within the five years I worked under him refuse to change or consider anything new in the face of new evidence and then dive head first into organizations that value bias over good science.

It sounds that there was one.  This man no long qualifies nor does any other scientist, to my knowledge.  Climate change is as much a scientific theory as gravity.  There is no reason to not still investigate and try to poke holes but when the entire scientific community agrees on something, disagreeing without the basis of any facts, does make you unscientific. 

[clarkm04]

These are the MMM forums.  You don't know the rules:

1.  Religion bad
2.  Abortion good
3.  Climate change skepticism is bad.
4.  Republicans  bad
5.  Democrats good

Get with the program or get on the back of the bus.  No room for opposing views here.  Nice and homogenous is the way we like it.

Four of those five things are legitimate issues with opposing views with some level of weight and rely on some aspect of personal opinion or morality. 

Climate change is different. 

[VirginiaBob]

To your first question, yes there are few remaining climate scientists who are skeptical and don't get bias funding from businesses who benefit from lying about climate change.

In college, I worked for one.

(Full disclosure: I have a science degree, but I'm NOT a climate scientists.  Just answered a posting for a job.  I did organize his various power point presentations and had to become familiar with his work in handling media requests, etc and though initially he checked my ppts I learned quickly what research went where and for what audience, so he was normally just perused it quickly before approval.) 

He had a very nuanced view of climate change.  Felt land use changes (planting grass in the desert/water parks in Phoenix) were more serious and damaging to climate than CO2 levels. 

He was a very respected scientist, then when other researchers poked holes in his research, he failed to respond and slowly turned into a denalist.

Right after I left, he did a "documentary" for Fox News on climate change and all of his funding started coming from energy sector businesses and most of that was to push him onto the public to muddy the waters.

It was kind of sad to see someone who had good ideas and solid research within the five years I worked under him refuse to change or consider anything new in the face of new evidence and then dive head first into organizations that value bias over good science.

It sounds that there was one.  This man no long qualifies nor does any other scientist, to my knowledge.  Climate change is as much a scientific theory as gravity.  There is no reason to not still investigate and try to poke holes but when the entire scientific community agrees on something, disagreeing without the basis of any facts, does not make you unscientific.

Here is a list that is not all inclusive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

[clarkm04]

To your first question, yes there are few remaining climate scientists who are skeptical and don't get bias funding from businesses who benefit from lying about climate change.

In college, I worked for one.

(Full disclosure: I have a science degree, but I'm NOT a climate scientists.  Just answered a posting for a job.  I did organize his various power point presentations and had to become familiar with his work in handling media requests, etc and though initially he checked my ppts I learned quickly what research went where and for what audience, so he was normally just perused it quickly before approval.) 

He had a very nuanced view of climate change.  Felt land use changes (planting grass in the desert/water parks in Phoenix) were more serious and damaging to climate than CO2 levels. 

He was a very respected scientist, then when other researchers poked holes in his research, he failed to respond and slowly turned into a denalist.

Right after I left, he did a "documentary" for Fox News on climate change and all of his funding started coming from energy sector businesses and most of that was to push him onto the public to muddy the waters.

It was kind of sad to see someone who had good ideas and solid research within the five years I worked under him refuse to change or consider anything new in the face of new evidence and then dive head first into organizations that value bias over good science.

It sounds that there was one.  This man no long qualifies nor does any other scientist, to my knowledge.  Climate change is as much a scientific theory as gravity.  There is no reason to not still investigate and try to poke holes but when the entire scientific community agrees on something, disagreeing without the basis of any facts, does not make you unscientific.

I totally agree with your assessment.  It was weird working those two years as he moved from respected scientist to shill.  Last I heard, he is retired or will be shortly.

[PloddingInsight]

Peer reviewed journal articles: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2389.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2387.html

A few images of ocean temperatures and sea levels that overlap with the IPCC data in the chart you posted:



Edited to correct the images posted.

I'm aware of the theory that the heat is hiding in the deep oceans.  I don't think even climate change believers would call that settled science.  It is one of several competing theories to explain the lack of warming in the last 15 years.

[beltim]

Peer reviewed journal articles: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2389.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2387.html

Edited to correct the images posted.

There's probably relevance of your charts to the OP's question of the accuracy of climate change models in predicting future temperature changes, but I think you need a sentence or two to provide it.

A much better link is: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

Which provides data like:
The climate models are getting better because we're including more factors:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-2.html

And the climate models show differences between natural and anthropogenic causes:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-29.html

[PloddingInsight]

The problem with your premise is two-fold:
A) This isn't an equal fight in the scientific committee, it's 98% to 2% amongst climatologists.

I'm well aware of that.

  The press always treat this as an equal debate, it's not.

I don't think that is true at all.  I'd guess the press is at least as convinced as the scientific community, possibly more.  They do report that there is a debate, because there is a debate.

Furthermore, most of the 2% is funded by oil and gas companies.  Not exactly a non-biased bunch.

No bias in academia though, right?  LOL

B) Using the best forecast from 24 years ago and stating that because this is wrong, it means climate change isn't a big deal is missing what science is.  Science is incremental and self correcting.  It's not dogmatic. 

Yes, 24 years ago, that was the best data and predictions at the time.  Now, we have better models and better data and the situation is actually more dire.  The models 24 years ago, underestimated how much CO2 the oceans could hold.  So yes, the most dire predictions from 24 years were off, but now we're acidifying and killing the ocean more than originally considered by the leading scientists in the late 1980s/early 1990s.

Are you actually claiming that the oceans are absorbing so much CO2 from the atmosphere that they are preventing the global warming from our CO2 emissions?  That can't be right, please clarify.

[VirginiaBob]

Check out http://climatechangereconsidered.org/ for a scientific report which results in an alternative conclusion.

[PloddingInsight]

There's probably relevance of your charts to the OP's question of the accuracy of climate change models in predicting future temperature changes, but I think you need a sentence or two to provide it.

A much better link is: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

Which provides data like:
The climate models are getting better because we're including more factors:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-2.html

And the climate models show differences between natural and anthropogenic causes:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-29.html

Your first link contains the following statement:

Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections. {1.2, 3.2}

But that was in 2007, and the "pause" in warming has continued for seven more years.  At this point the overall warming is about 0.13 per decade, and all of that is due to warming before 2000, when the CO2 in the atmosphere was lower than it is today.

[Timmmy]

These are the MMM forums.  You don't know the rules:

1.  Religion bad
2.  Abortion good
3.  Climate change skepticism is bad.
4.  Republicans  bad
5.  Democrats good

Get with the program or get on the back of the bus.  No room for opposing views here.  Nice and homogenous is the way we like it.

I disagree with all 5 of those.  I guess I'm in the wrong forum...

Anytime there is money involved I get skeptical.  There is massive amounts of money involved in climate change science AND climate change skepticism.  In fact there are entire industries that are based largely on the fact that humans believe they are negatively impacting the environment and that they should stop doing that. 

It's way above my pay grade to decide what's accurate and to what extent.  It's just my nature to look at things with a skeptics eye. 

[beltim]

There's probably relevance of your charts to the OP's question of the accuracy of climate change models in predicting future temperature changes, but I think you need a sentence or two to provide it.

A much better link is: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

Which provides data like:
The climate models are getting better because we're including more factors:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-2.html

And the climate models show differences between natural and anthropogenic causes:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-29.html

Your first link contains the following statement:

Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections. {1.2, 3.2}

But that was in 2007, and the "pause" in warming has continued for seven more years.  At this point the overall warming is about 0.13 per decade, and all of that is due to warming before 2000, when the CO2 in the atmosphere was lower than it is today.

Fine, then look at the 2013 version:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/

Also, what "pause?"  The last year that wasn't above the 1880-2013 trend line was 1996.  Here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/ocean/ytd/12/1880-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1976&lasttrendyear=2013

[PloddingInsight]

Arguably THE most important points in understanding climate change skepticism: Feedback.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/example-issue-positive-feedback

[MDM]

Can you provide the peer-reviewed research upon which you base your climate skeptical views?

I'm not at all skeptical of climate.  Climate exists.  I am very skeptical of anyone's ability to provide an accurate forecast of either
1. How climate will change
2. How that change will affect humanity.

That skepticism is based on personal experience with mathematical modeling of physical processes.  In short, that is how I made my living prior to retirement.  In that world matching past data was nice but ultimately worthless.  Making a public prediction of "here's what will happen if we do thus-and-so" - and having that prediction come true - was worth a lot. 

The lack of agreement between predicted vs. measured global temperature increase would get those modelers laughed out of the room if they tried to make changes in my previous business.  It is certainly possible that, as more data becomes available, predictive modeling accuracy will improve.  If and when it does, I'll be interested. 

It's interesting to see people who disbelieve in God, thus betting against Pascal's Wager, but make an analogous argument that "we must do something about global warming just in case it is true".  Haven't checked any individual posters here so this may not apply to anyone here.  Did think of this while looking at some of the posts on the currently-popular "Religion" thread.

For an article in a peer-reviewed journal, here is one example: http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf

And for the claims about "97% agree..." see http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/ and http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136.

[clarkm04]

Furthermore, most of the 2% is funded by oil and gas companies.  Not exactly a non-biased bunch.

No bias in academia though, right?  LOL

In hard sciences, if academic fraud is committed, your career is effective over.

Even assuming academic fraud (which I don't), that would require thousands of scientists in unrelated fields all over the world who have never met nor have anything in common besides being a scientist and they are all committing fraud?  This seems unlikely, no?

[HappyRock]

Mr. Money Mustache yesterday:

Climate change skeptics aren’t really uncomfortable with the science, they are uncomfortable with the implication that their fossil-fuel dependent lifestyle is immoral and endangered. This is an incurable condition that will lead to lifelong unhappiness, because the science is not going away.

Try as you might, you are not going to out-science the scientists. They’ll just keep collecting evidence until you’re the last one standing on the shore insisting the world is flat and those sailing ships are falling off of a giant waterfall at the edge of the horizon.

Um.  As we used to say in grade school, "Exqueeze me?"  I consider myself a pro-science warming skeptic.  Specifically I am skeptical of the amount of warming predicted and the catastrophic nature of the impact.  I don't fault anyone for taking the scientific consensus at face value, but I get my back up when people try to explain to me that my views are insincere and irrational.

Science is not a club or a religion.  It is a methodology that basically runs on self-doubt and skepticism.  I get it that the views expressed by "Jared" are not all that rational, but if we are all going to be judged by the dumbest expression of agreement with our views, I don't think anybody is going to come out looking that great.  There are dumb, embarrassing people that agree with you, too.

To be fair, there has been countless scientists researching this topic and it is scientific fact that human activity is warming the planet. You can't classify yourself as pro-science if you claim global warming isn't a problem.

[PloddingInsight]

Fine, then look at the 2013 version:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/

Now it says:  "In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and
interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to
the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming
over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller
than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5"

So we went from "1990-2005 confirms our predictions" to "the past 15 years do not reflect long-term trends"

Also, what "pause?"  The last year that wasn't above the 1880-2013 trend line was 1996.  Here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/ocean/ytd/12/1880-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1976&lasttrendyear=2013

Here's the chart from the website you linked, plus green lines added by me to indicate what I'm talking about.  There's a positive trend up to approximately 2000, and then it flatlines.

https://plus.google.com/photos/+KevinHughesFCAS/albums/6067896151648346769/6067896157296440818?pid=6067896157296440818&oid=108796079782158436161

[Cheddar Stacker]

These are the MMM forums.  You don't know the rules:

1.  Religion bad
2.  Abortion good
3.  Climate change skepticism is bad.
4.  Republicans  bad
5.  Democrats good

Get with the program or get on the back of the bus.  No room for opposing views here.  Nice and homogenous is the way we like it.

I disagree with all 5 of those.  I guess I'm in the wrong forum...

I can't say I disagree with all of them, but they certainly are not tenet's of mustachianism. I support anyone's right to speak freely here, and welcome any opposing viewpoints as long as they're respectfully argued. I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment either.

Obviously there are some hard and true beliefs among the majority here, but I think this list is pretty out of line with reality. I think the biggest "offense" you can commit around here is being closed minded to the other side of the argument, whatever it's about.

[HappyRock]

"It's interesting to see people who disbelieve in God, thus betting against Pascal's Wager, but make an analogous argument that "we must do something about global warming just in case it is true".  Haven't checked any individual posters here so this may not apply to anyone here.  Did think of this while looking at some of the posts on the currently-popular "Religion" thread."


Can you elaborate more on what you are saying?

Disbelief in god is INCREDIBLY different than arguing on global warming's effects.


" It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.)."

This is one of the most pitiful beliefs I have ever heard and it is one reason why I believe Christianity will die out as time passes. I think this also assumes people can "choose" to believe. To think of it as a "wager" doesn't make much sense to me.

On a side note, to believe absolutely that god doesn't exist can almost be as bad as claiming on religion is correct while all others are wrong.

[HappyRock]

These are the MMM forums.  You don't know the rules:

1.  Religion bad
2.  Abortion good
3.  Climate change skepticism is bad.
4.  Republicans  bad
5.  Democrats good

Get with the program or get on the back of the bus.  No room for opposing views here.  Nice and homogenous is the way we like it.

I disagree with all 5 of those.  I guess I'm in the wrong forum...

I can't say I disagree with all of them, but they certainly are not tenet's of mustachianism. I support anyone's right to speak freely here, and welcome any opposing viewpoints as long as they're respectfully argued. I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment either.

Obviously there are some hard and true beliefs among the majority here, but I think this list is pretty out of line with reality. I think the biggest "offense" you can commit around here is being closed minded to the other side of the argument, whatever it's about.

+1, In my opinion this is one of the best forums to debate about opposing beliefs and ideas.

[PloddingInsight]

In hard sciences, if academic fraud is committed, your career is effective over.

Even assuming academic fraud (which I don't), that would require thousands of scientists in unrelated fields all over the world who have never met nor have anything in common besides being a scientist and they are all committing fraud?  This seems unlikely, no?

I agree with you!  I'm not alleging that anyone is committing fraud, and there certainly isn't a conspiracy.  However, group-think and confirmation bias are likely contributors.

Long term climate changes are predicted using computer models that are very complex.  As anyone that has tried doing the same thing with the stock market can tell you, it's easy to create a computer model that works great on the historical data.  But making accurate predictions about the future is a whole different story.

[beltim]

Fine, then look at the 2013 version:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/

Now it says:  "In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and
interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to
the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming
over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller
than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5"

So we went from "1990-2005 confirms our predictions" to "the past 15 years do not reflect long-term trends"

Also, what "pause?"  The last year that wasn't above the 1880-2013 trend line was 1996.  Here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/ocean/ytd/12/1880-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1976&lasttrendyear=2013

Here's the chart from the website you linked, plus green lines added by me to indicate what I'm talking about.  There's a positive trend up to approximately 2000, and then it flatlines.

https://plus.google.com/photos/+KevinHughesFCAS/albums/6067896151648346769/6067896157296440818?pid=6067896157296440818&oid=108796079782158436161

Are you saying trends based on short records are not sensitive to beginning and end dates?  If so, consider the stock market returns starting from 2000 and starting from 2003.  If you agree that trends based on short records are sensitive to beginning and end dates, then using on climate data starting in 2000 seems counterproductive.

[KayakMom]

These are the MMM forums.  You don't know the rules:

1.  Religion bad
2.  Abortion good
3.  Climate change skepticism is bad.
4.  Republicans  bad
5.  Democrats good

Get with the program or get on the back of the bus.  No room for opposing views here.  Nice and homogenous is the way we like it.

OMG. so true. MMM forum is like Universities- they love "diversity." Unless, of course the diversity includes people who don't hold all of their political views. 

[PloddingInsight]

Are you saying trends based on short records are not sensitive to beginning and end dates?  If so, consider the stock market returns starting from 2000 and starting from 2003.  If you agree that trends based on short records are sensitive to beginning and end dates, then using on climate data starting in 2000 seems counterproductive.

I'm well aware of the issues involved with the end-points of trends.  I study trends for a living (just not climate-related).

Global temperatures were roughly flat 1940-1970 and human-emitted CO2 before 1940 was probably negligible for the purposes of this discussion.  That means the only warming consistent with the theory is the 30 years from 1970-2000.  30 years of warming followed by 15 years of no warming should be a matter of concern, to say the least.  If human-emitted CO2 is necessary to explain the warming from 1970-2000, and that same force is ongoing, then there is a large cooling force acting on the climate that hasn't been identified.

Old climate skeptic joke:  "If only there were some alternate explanation for the temperatures we have observed.  Such a heat source would have to be very large, however, on the order of magnitude of the sun itself!"

[HappyRock]

These are the MMM forums.  You don't know the rules:

1.  Religion bad
2.  Abortion good
3.  Climate change skepticism is bad.
4.  Republicans  bad
5.  Democrats good

Get with the program or get on the back of the bus.  No room for opposing views here.  Nice and homogenous is the way we like it.

OMG. so true. MMM forum is like Universities- they love "diversity." Unless, of course the diversity includes people who don't hold all of their political views.

Can you elaborate? I think the problem is many of these views contradict logical, rational thought, and REAL evidence. I think I am correct in assuming Mustachians are more logical and smarter than the average person which is why many of us don't accept backwards beliefs/ideas.

[VirginiaBob]

These are the MMM forums.  You don't know the rules:

1.  Religion bad
2.  Abortion good
3.  Climate change skepticism is bad.
4.  Republicans  bad
5.  Democrats good

Get with the program or get on the back of the bus.  No room for opposing views here.  Nice and homogenous is the way we like it.

OMG. so true. MMM forum is like Universities- they love "diversity." Unless, of course the diversity includes people who don't hold all of their political views.

Can you elaborate? I think the problem is many of these views contradict logical, rational thought, and REAL evidence. I think I am correct in assuming Mustachians are more logical and smarter than the average person which is why many of us don't accept backwards beliefs/ideas.

Understood.

1.  People that believe in religion - irrational, dumber than us, illogical, backwards beliefs.  Check.
2.  Don't believe in Abortion choice - irrational, dumber than us, illogical, backwards beliefs.  Check.
3.  Climate change skepticism - irrational, dumber than us, illogical, backwards beliefs.  Check.
4.  Republicans = irrational, dumber than us, illogical, backwards beliefs.  Check.
5.  Democrats = all their ideas have no flaws and prove we are smarter.  Check.

Nice and homogenous now - sigh of relief. 

The leader is good, the leader is great.  We surrender our will, as of this date (repeat).

[HappyRock]

These are the MMM forums.  You don't know the rules:

1.  Religion bad
2.  Abortion good
3.  Climate change skepticism is bad.
4.  Republicans  bad
5.  Democrats good

Get with the program or get on the back of the bus.  No room for opposing views here.  Nice and homogenous is the way we like it.

OMG. so true. MMM forum is like Universities- they love "diversity." Unless, of course the diversity includes people who don't hold all of their political views.

Can you elaborate? I think the problem is many of these views contradict logical, rational thought, and REAL evidence. I think I am correct in assuming Mustachians are more logical and smarter than the average person which is why many of us don't accept backwards beliefs/ideas.

Understood.

1.  People that believe in religion - irrational, dumber than us, illogical, backwards beliefs.  Check.
2.  Don't believe in Abortion choice - irrational, dumber than us, illogical, backwards beliefs.  Check.
3.  Climate change skepticism - irrational, dumber than us, illogical, backwards beliefs.  Check.
4.  Republicans = irrational, dumber than us, illogical, backwards beliefs.  Check.
5.  Democrats = all their ideas have no flaws and prove we are smarter.  Check.

Nice and homogenous now - sigh of relief. 

The leader is good, the leader is great.  We surrender our will, as of this date (repeat).

**** I just threw up in my mouth.

[Kaspian]

You can hold the view that light from a star doesn't take 1,000 years to get here.  That doesn't place your view as valid on the same level as physicists and astronomers. 

Like Jon Stewart said recently, even arguing this is like "pushing a million pounds of idiot up a mountain."

[VirginiaBob]

You can hold the view that light from a star doesn't take 1,000 years to get here.  That doesn't place your view as valid on the same level as physicists and astronomers. 

Like Jon Stewart said recently, even arguing this is like "pushing a million pounds of idiot up a mountain."

It would depend on the star.  The sun?  8 minutes.  Sirius? 4 years.  Most stars that you can see with a telescope?  Less than 1,000 years.