Monday
Mar092009
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill More climate in St Andrews
Mar 9, 2009 Climate It's very rare that global warming propagandists debate sceptics - bitter experience has shown them that they always lose. Recently however, a couple of greens agreed to a debate hosted by the University of St Andrews debating society, with Richard Courtney and Nils-Axel Morner putting the sceptic case.
The greens seem to have lost again - or at least not to have won enough votes to pass their motion.
Report here (It was originally posted at Icecap, but I can't find a permalink there).
Reader Comments (22)
Here is the opener from Richard Courtney: " They know from past experience that they always lose such debates because there is no evidence that AGW exists and much evidence that it does not."
*No* evidence? Clearly he is a shameless liar or appallingly ignorant. Yes?
Given that, who cares what 'debate' he has 'won', or claims to have won.
Also, since 'debate' is apparently considered by 'sceptics' to be the equal of the scientific method, I see that Greenfyre has challenged Vaclav Klaus to a debate - on economics. If he does not accept then I assume we can conclude that Klaus is scared and also that all economics is incorrect.
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/i-want-to-debate-vaclav-klaus/
It's pretty funny and rather appropriate.
Debating rhetoric is necessarily simplified. Precisely what the "evidence" for catastrophic AGW actually <i>is</i> is hard to pin down. A lot of it is in the form of what are logical fallacies if taken as arguing AGW to be demonstrated truth, although it could be claimed to be evidence in support of it as a hypothesis. For example, "Correlation does not imply Causation" is such a well-known dictum as to be a cliché amongst statisticians. Citing correlation as your proof of cause is a clear logical fallacy, and no argument. But correlation <i>could</i> be considered <i>evidence</i>, and then you'd have to go into some deep technical detail to explain why it was poor evidence. However, trying to get across such a subtle point in the heat of debate, especially when you've got a 7 minute time limit, would be tactically senseless. It's easier to make the statement, and then have your opponent waste <i>their</i> time trying to refute it. At which point the subtle fallacies in the AGW argument become miring traps for one's opponent rather than oneself.
If there's one thing that leads to AGWers losing debates more than anything else, it is the embarrassment of discovering that despite their claims to be science-based and evidence based, most of the people who argue for AGW don't understand the science or know the evidence, such as it is, and in most cases turn out to be simply relying on argument from authority. At a heavyweight debating society, that won't cut it.
90% of the AGWers I talk to don't even understand how the Greenhouse Effect actually <i>works</i>, in terms of the physics. How can they seriously claim to have been convinced by "the science", if they don't even know that much? And then to argue from such a position that one's opponent is tantamount to a flat-Earther for disagreeing is simply debating-circle suicide. In quality debates, at least.
That doesn't apply to every AGW proponent, and of course a lot of sceptics get the physics wrong too, but as a rule AGWers have a lot less reason to feel smugly justified in their superior scientific rationalism than they think.
I don't take the <i>results</i> of debates seriously in coming to my views, or people's willingness to debate, but I do consider the <i>content</i> of debates and their ability to produce good arguments when they do to be worth considering. What makes you think Greenfyre would win?
They still lost though.
"I agree that saying there is no evidence is going too far. "
As was the bit about 'much evidence' against and the bit about 'sceptics' always winning 'debates'.
So, just wrong in every significant detail then - but close enough for the 'sceptics'.
PA,
"If there's one thing that leads to AGWers losing debates more than anything else"
You must live in an parallel universe where scientific matters are decided by 'debates' and AGWers are the ones losing them.
There are three 'debates' of importance - that among knowledgeable people in the scientific literature, the court of public opinion, and the debate about policy/mitigation. The 'sceptics' have so far been trounced in the literature, and for the most part they've lost public opinion also. And I certainly don't see the governments of the world signing off line by line on any reports from your side of the aisle.
In light of that, for the 'sceptics' to claim to be "usually winning" is a bit like Monty Python's black knight claiming that being decapitated is only a flesh wound.
"What makes you think Greenfyre would win?"
This is rather missing the point. Did you read the article?
So, since we are on the subject of the scientific method, I wonder if you would care to comment on the hockey stick? McIntyre & McKitrick debunked it, their findings were endorsed by the Wegman panel, Mann, Bradley & Hughes continue to refuse to engage with McIntyre or McKitrick on their substantive criticisms. Why not? Because "they aren't climate scientists" - i.e. arguing from authority. Not very scientific is it?
I notice you declined the opportunity to comment on this last time round. I presume you are suitably ashamed of Mann et al's unscientific behaviour.
<i>"You must live in an parallel universe where scientific matters are decided by 'debates' and AGWers are the ones losing them."</i>
I have not suggested any such thing. All I've discussed is what happens during debates, I have not said anything in the above about how scientific matters are decided. I didn't even say AGWers usually lost - just that when they did lose it was usually for this reason. This is a strawman argument.
But since the subject has come up, my view is that to the extent that scientific matters are ever "decided", it is by a theory reliably withstanding all attempts to falsify it unscathed, by scientists honest in their intention to do so and open and willing to accept such falsification, with data that could reasonably be expected to falsify it if it was in fact false, over such a period and with such an effort made that we can conclude that it would take an extraordinary new body of scientific evidence to overturn it.
It is <b>not</b> decided by "consensus". It is <b>not</b> decided in the peer reviewed literature. The function of the scientific literature is to record the work in progress - to present interesting hypotheses and the evidence for or against them, so that other researchers can cooperate in trying to either extend them or demolish them. Peer review does not perform, nor is it intended to perform, more than a minimal check on the <i>correctness</i> of the results it reports. If <i>any</i> part of the scientific literature represents "settled science" (and I don't accept it as such unless it meets my definition above), it would be <i>textbooks</i>.
It certainly isn't decided by any collection of governments "signing it off line by line".
I base my views on what I've been able to discover of the scientific evidence. GW I consider supported, although the poor data quality before the era of modern sensors means this could easily be within the bounds of natural variation. That there will be significant AGW over the coming decades I regard as a plausible hypothesis, but too new and with such poor data quality to say, one way or the other, that it cannot be considered confirmed yet. Catastrophic AGW I consider implausible as yet. I consider people trying to claim that the matter is settled, who do so by citing the authority of bodies like the IPCC, journals, or professional societies, are not acting scientifically. The behaviour of a few scientists apparently trying to avoid and obstruct falsification attempts I regard as both extremely unscientific, and highly suspicious. And the evidence of political activists with an evident bias in favour of AGW is no basis on which to decide. From the point of view of science, anyway - <i>political</i> decision making is another matter that could be argued the other way, if you like.
According to the scientific method, the only people who could turn AGW into "settled science" are the <i>sceptics</i>, by being given every opportunity and assistance in their attempts to demolish AGW theory, and still failing. If you want this to be shown by Science, we are your only hope. So long as sceptics remain unfunded, obstructed, and vilified, AGW as a <i>scientific</i> theory is doomed.
With regard to the public and policy debate, it's quite evident that matters are not yet concluded. Despite the media's and politicians' efforts and assertions to the contrary, the debate clearly isn't over, firm action isn't being taken, and scepticism is still rife. We shall have to wait and see which way that turns out. I personally expect it all to go the way of the Malthusian over-population scare of the 1970s, when people were similarly claiming imminent global doom was inevitable. But I'm quite happy that other people don't believe as I do - a diversity of opinion being valuable - so long as they don't irretrievably destroy our future prosperity in the process.
99.9% of scientists studying AGW are measuring or trying to prove the so called effects of AGW. They are NOT looking at or examining cause. If they were, we would not have had all this misunderstanding we have today. Effect is no proof of cause.
When all is said and done, AGW is a political mantra. It cannot be debated as a scientific matter, for science plays no part at all in the current thinking. Of the .1% of scientists that ARE looking at the cause, I would say that most don’t understand the greenhouse effect. I say this as an engineer who has studied this subject for the last 3 years and has yet to find a satisfactory and coherent explanation. In fact I find that the most coherent explanations for the shifts in our climate come from those that link to the Sun and the earth’s variations in orbit and rotation. I have come to the conclusion that the theory of green house gases just does not work. There is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it most certainly does not work in the way that the AGW alarmist community would have us believe. This is what gets discussed in any debate and is why the Alarmist lot will always lose.
As for the greenfyre - I see no name? Maybe I should dig more ? Bjorn Lomborg is a name that Al Gore has assiduosly avoided twice on record. Are you happy with that Frank? (Lets play pre-empt, mine is - Klaus? - who cares? Yours is I guess - Gore? who cares ?) I mean I could line up my brother in law to debate Klaus too (and he is an accountant)
Have you no shame about specious comparisons? Or has visiting sites like greenfyre fried your brain?
"I notice you declined the opportunity to comment on this last time round."
Only because I was busy with other things and wanted to think about it before dashing off a comment - by the time I came back here it was scrolled off the page. As far as it goes, my original comment stands - i.e. as both sides of that argument have agreed the HS is irrelevant to the bigger question of GHGs and T, I'm not especially interested.
As to your followup question which was something like did I think the HS was debunked or not, I would have to answer no. I have not looked into it much (see above for why) - but I would say that it is at least controversial. However the ones who say it is 'debunked' are overwhelmingly 'sceptics' that have a habit of making claims that don't check out. By that I mean claims that I have checked out personally. In fact my interest in this whole topic stems from checking out 'sceptic' claims and finding 100.0% of them to be bogus. I mean, I assume these are your best arguments you are leading with.
Also, though McIntyre has made a few real contributions, as far as the bigger picture goes they have not been significant - i.e. nothing that would refute any of the central planks of the AGW argument or significantly alter the conclusions. Last but not least, it is simply not credible that if the HS was such complete tosh such that anyone on a blog could show it, it (they) would continue to be cited in the literature and feature in the IPCC reports, be defended by scientists (which it has been - even the likes of Pielke). At least this is not credible unless you enter the realms of conspiracy theory, so obviously you can probably find hundreds of 'sceptics' that believe it.
Clear enough?
"As for the greenfyre - I see no name?"
Who cares? Clearly not you unless your mother christened you Steve2.
[snip Steve2's furious flailing at own strawman]
Peter MG,
"No matter what measure you currently care to choose in terms of effect, the evidence is all in the opposite direct to that which the alarmists’ community would have us believe."
This fact seems to have escaped the attention of most of the scientists working on the topic. Why don't you write a paper and make a name for yourself. Too busy? Suppressed? Or just full of it?
But if you'd rather tell us about somebody called greenfyre smacking down Klaus, then fine. Are you sure Klaus knows about it?
In fact it is the claims of the alarmists that don't check out. For example the 'experts' who said the arctic was going to be ice-free in summer 2008.
" It was all over the SPM of the 3rd report published in 2001, but is nowhere to be seen in AR4 SPM published in 2007."
I see - so the 'sceptics' are still going on about an old paper that AR4 doesn't rely on at all?
And there are plenty of hockey sticks in AR4, nor does the relevant text in the FAR contradict the TAR, so clearly all that quibbling has made no significant impact on the scientific literature.
Nah, this couldn't just be another bogus claim or an insignificant correction trumped up as if it demolished the entire edifice of science.
What do you think are the central planks of the AGW argument?
It's a bit difficult to know how to answer this without any details of what you think the evidence and counter-evidence might be.
There's also a game some AGWers play, what I call the cup-and-balls trick, in which whichever piece of argument you choose to address, it always turns out not to matter because it's some other piece that's the important one.
"[...] it is simply not credible that if the HS was such complete tosh such that anyone on a blog could show it, it (they) would continue to be cited in the literature and feature in the IPCC reports, be defended by scientists (which it has been - even the likes of Pielke). At least this is not credible unless you enter the realms of conspiracy theory [...]"
This argument is, I think, an important point, and from the social rather than scientific point of view one of the most critical arguments to understand.
It doesn't require a conspiracy theory - all it requires is that all the other scientists make exactly the same argument you just have, right here. Nobody can believe that if it was so badly wrong, the scientists concerned (or their close colleagues) wouldn't admit it, so they all continue to support it. Everybody supports it because everybody else supports it. You'll note that this argument doesn't require anybody to perform any calculations or look at any data. It is, in fact, a combination of Argument from Authority and Argument from Incredulity, and entirely circular, but it is powerfully self-sustaining once the conditions for it have arisen.
I have the same difficulty from the other direction. I'm as sure as I can be that the Hockeystick methodology is wrong, so I am at a loss to explain why it continues to be defended so widely. That the authors themselves might defend it is a sad but understandable and all too well-known feature of human nature. But why would so many other scientists rely on the community's probity rather than actually checking for themselves? Not all, a fair few have checked it, and are now dismissed as sceptics as a result, but many seem to use the same sort of reasoning that you do.
(For an example of another scientist who has checked it, see the Wegman report: "In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling. [...] The 1902-1995 data is not fully appropriate for calibration and leads to a misuse in principal component analysis. [...] We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.")
Another part of the problem is that it isn't quite true that "anyone on a blog could show it". It took a fair degree of statistical sophistication, a lot of effort, and various details of the algorithm and data that were not published with the original paper, but only years later after Congress stepped in and forced Dr Mann to disclose his methods. People dismiss McIntyre because anyone can run a blog, but they seem to forget that it's possible for people who know what they're doing to run them too.
"The IPCC has abandoned the HS. It was all over the SPM of the 3rd report published in 2001, but is nowhere to be seen in AR4 SPM published in 2007."
Actually, it's still there, but rather less prominent. Chapter 6 figure 6.10 shows a series labelled MBH1999. That's the original Hockeystick.
Several of the other series are also controversial - for example, there is the famous Briffa 2000 reconstruction (labelled B2000) where they cut the graph off at 1960 and didn't show the end of the series because it dived steeply downwards at the end. And several of the others also use Bristlecones or similarly problematic series, and so have many of the same problems as MBH99. (Wegman shows in his report just how much overlap there is in source data between the different reconstructions.) The IPCC certainly knew - Steve McIntyre was one of the reviewers - so why did they choose to ignore the issue? I don't know.
"What do you think are the central planks of the AGW argument?
It's a bit difficult to know how to answer this without any details of what you think the evidence and counter-evidence might be."
The evidence is in the scientific literature, which is summed up well enough by the IPCC, and is arguably too conservative.
At the simplest level, the central planks of the argument are
1) The climate's got warmer recently
2) CO2 and other GHGs have increased recently
3) The CO2 increase is almost entirely anthropogenic in origin
4) CO2 is going to continue to increase
5) T is going to continue to increase due to CO2's GHG effect - together with known feedbacks (and leaving out some positive feedbacks) this is estimated at about 3C per 2xCO2, and I think something like 1.2C without feedbacks
6) The consequences range from severe to catastrophic
7) While there are uncertainties, many of them can be quantified. Everything we know tells it's going to end badly, and the main uncertainty is when.
Of course this is only a simplistic sketch but you'll find 'sceptics' to disagree with even the least controversial of those claims, for no other reason than they don't like the policy implications.
"Another part of the problem is that it isn't quite true that "anyone on a blog could show it"."
To clarify, I wasn't referring to McIntyre but to the 'sceptics' that think that they can interpret his results, while others actually working on the topic can't.
That said, McIntyre should spend more time publishing papers and less time attending that mess of a blog. But then, the stuff he actually gets past peer review doesn't seem to be all that exciting to his peers.
Excellent. 1, 2 and 4 I agree with. 3 I think is very likely but not so certain, but I'm not going to argue because I don't see the questions as being relevant. So we've narrowed it down to 5, 6, and 7. Number 5 I think is the most critical, can you expand on this? It is true that increasing CO2 will very likely make a positive contribution, but what is the evidence/argument that this effect is significant, and larger than other mostly natural effects?
I may come on to 6 and 7 later. But I'd like to try to keep this focussed.
That sounds simple enough, but it depends what you mean by 'climate', how you define/measure 'warmer' and what timescale is 'recently'!
AFAIK, it's been getting cooler for the last ten years...
True enough, although that can be countered by pointing out that climate is commonly (and arbitrarily) defined as averages over 30 years. I could also have argued about whether <i>all</i> the GHGs in (2) had increased recently, (and again, what's meant by 'recently',) but that's just nit-picking.
The major flaw is that this isn't a list of the "central planks in the AGW argument" as requested, or indeed any sort of coherent argument, it's just a partial list of unrelated assertions.
I suspect I was supposed to try to fill in the gaps with arguments myself, for example, to connect (1) and (2) with a "correlation implies causation" argument. This gives the impression of having answered, but means that if I argue against the implicit arguments, I can be accused of making up a strawman that wasn't what was said or meant.
But it's better not to get bogged down. What I was after was mainly in (5). How and why is T going to increase, how do we know it's CO2's greenhouse effect, what are the known feedbacks, what is to be done about the unknown feedbacks, do we have complete and accurate knowledge with which to perform such a calculation, how is it calculated, and how do we know? Frank has just restated the argument's conclusions, with no indication of the argument itself.
In particular, one common line of the argument elsewhere is that if the so-far observed change is outside the range of natural variation, it supports the hypothesis that the observations are confirming the predictions and disconfirming a null hypothesis of nothing significant going on and any changes possibly being due to natural causes. That might or might not be made a part of the main AGW argument - certainly the IPCC have gone to great lengths to maintain the paleoclimate chapter in their report, so the IPCC seem to think it essential. But Frank may know of a way to manage without it. And that's where we would need to ask whether the problems found in the methodology are "...nothing that would refute any of the central planks of the AGW argument or significantly alter the conclusions."
I'm not going to read anything in to Frank's disappearance from the debate - people do often have honest reasons for not being able or willing to carry on with these things. But it's unfortunate because now we won't get to the bottom of what Frank thought the AGW argument was, and whether there is anything to it.