The Bad Science Scandal - Research Fact Fabrication - UK News article.

by *lost* 73 Replies latest social current

• 

  besty

  @SBF

  How come historically CO2 levels increased following rather than preceding global temperature increases?

  CO2 levels do lag warming, and yet CO2 also produces more warming. It's a positive feedback loop where 90% of the warming occurs after CO2 rises. So it's a bit more nuanced than the half-correct statement you made.

  The sequence of moving out of an ice age is well understood and is backed by empirical evidence. Any claims of scientism are unfounded in this case.

  Changes in earths orbital cycle forces a small amout of warming which makes the oceans release CO2. (this is what you are referring to). Then the increased CO2 in the atmosphere produces more warming. (greenhouse gas effect - you with me?) The further warmed planet releases yet more oceanic CO2 etc. And so warming and CO2 are correlated, leading and lagging each other.

  Glad to have cleared that up for you.
• 

  Comatose

  It's amazing to me that some people think we live on an indestructible rock that is impervious to anything we do. I've never understood it. Everything is so finely balanced and interconnected. How could it make sense that man could do anything to the earth and its atmosphere without causing damage?
• 

  slimboyfat

  From what I gather the climate is such a complex system that various interactions, causes and feedbacks are postulated, but it remains very difficult to attach any degree of certainty to models because of the complexity. Maybe the idea that CO2 is the driver of change will endure. Or maybe it will be superseded by another idea about what is most crucial within the complex climate system. That's the thing about science: you can't distinguish between a scientific theory that accurately reflects reality and one that is simply waiting to be replaced by a better theory.
• 

  besty

  From what I gather the climate is such a complex system that various interactions, causes and feedbacks are postulated, but it remains very difficult to attach any degree of certainty to models because of the complexity.

  Climate models successfully replicate past known climate conditions, so there is no reason to suspect they can't model the future.

  97% of climate scientists have a high degree of confidence that humans are casing global warming.

  The burden of proof is with you - to align yourself with the contrarian 3% means you have highly specialized climate knowledge (and are probably wrong) or are adopting an anti-science position for other reasons.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Have 97% of scientists ever supported mistaken ideas in the past?
• 

  Simon

  I don't think they have when there is evidence to back things up. Only when there is superstition and threat of inquisition ...
• 

  metatron

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

  Weather is what happens daily. Climate is what happens over longer periods. 16 or now 17 years of plateau seems to be in a grey area.

  I accept that graphs show gradual warming over long periods and that people in Greenland see thawing they never saw before.

  The 97% figure has been criticized elsewhere. And our Earth has been hit with catastrophes so great we cannot imagine - long before humans evolved.

  I observe little certainty in this as regards the future. A number of European and Russian scientists seem to think we are headed into cooling.

  At any rate, there is no reason for smugness by scientists as to their speculative predictions. The average person in most of the developed world is vastly more threatened by political or economic collapse than by eroding shorelines or a greater need for air conditioning.

  If anyone thinks otherwise, just watch the news for the next two years and observe how radical the world gets. People have a right to judge their own threats and that right needs to be respected.

  metatron
• 

  besty

  @SBF

  Have 97% of scientists ever supported mistaken ideas in the past?

  Define scientist. Define past.

  Whilst the intricate details of climate change specifics are still in various stages of understanding eg the contribution of clouds or the role of AMO - the scientific method has produced 90%+ consensus at 90%+ confidence that humans are affecting the climate. The overall process is extremely well understood having been researched and documented for almost 120 years now.

  So to take an alternative view - ie AGW denial - means you have highly specialized climate change knowledge and are in a tiny minority amongst your peers and therefore 'probably' wrong, OR you are anti-science.

  I don't expect to change your mind, as you have non-rational reasons for holding the views you do - just making you aware of the facts.
• 

  besty

  @metatron

  thanks for the Daily Mail link - if ever I need cherry-picked data to support my right wing ideology I now know where to look. In this case they used a record high temperature from the late 1990's and a 'low' point in 2012, drew a straight line and said - 'see - no global warming'. Classic cherry picking.

  Climate change is a multi-decade observation usually 30 years, but you won't find that in the Daily Mail - you need to check the scientific literature for that kind of data. Maybe start with some research on deep ocean heat accumulation with a side of ocean acidification - two hugely important issues not covered by the Daily Mail article.

  The 97% figure has been criticized elsewhere

  If you want to add your criticism please do - the paper can be found here http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024

  In summary:

  11,994 climate science papers published for peer review between 1991 and 2011 were analyzed. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

  At any rate, there is no reason for smugness by scientists as to their speculative predictions.

  I don't get the sense that scientists are smug about their predictions. The main emotion seems to be frustration at their own ability to effect the change in public perception that is neccessary prior to governmental action.

  The average person in most of the developed world is vastly more threatened by political or economic collapse than by eroding shorelines or a greater need for air conditioning.

  The average person will be dead soon. Climate change is about future generations.

  In any case if political and economic instability is your primary concern you should research the US military position on climate change.
• 

  slimboyfat

  What views? What non-rational reasons?

  Since scientific representations of reality have been subject to revision in the past it is safe to assume it can and will happen again. A perfectly rational conclusion from the available evidence.

  Otherwise how do you distinguish between a scientific theory that accurately represents reality and one that appears to reflect reality at the current state of knowledge but will be replaced in the future?

  In truth all scientific theories are rejected and replaced eventually. That is what history shows.

  Reality is so hopelessly complex that we delude ourselves if we think we can capture its essence in mere words. What we have instead are various stories about the world, none of them correct and none of them false. So how do we choose between them? Not on the basis of some fictitious notion of truth, but rather on the basis of what works. If a view of the world is pragmatic it produces efficient, ethical and pleasing outcomes. Let's not worry about whether it is true or not, there's no such thing.

  So is climate change a true story? That's an impossible question to answer and a bit boring too. Is it a useful story? Well that depends. How did the story arise? Within what discources? What actions does it call for? Whose interests does it serve? Those are more interesting questions.