Scientists that switch from Climate Advocates to Climate Skeptics

[LakeEffectKing]

In the climate science field, the "skeptics" have given themselves that name in an attempt to legitimize their position as "the scientific position". In general, all scientists should be natural "skeptics". Often in other fields, the position that is considered the mainstream scientific position is also the "skeptical" position (see debates of science vs pseudoscience).

I'm skeptical that the slowing of warming over the past decade means anything either way for the debate at hand (too short a time period), whereas some "skeptics" seem to think (for no sound scientific reason) that it disproves that AGW is a "significant" climate driver. I believe my position on that specific aspect, for example, is the more "skeptical" position.

My "skeptical" position is grounded very much in the Scientific Method. If you follow it to the "T", we are still in hypothesis mode and therefore a data collecting/testing mode.....the heart of the hypothesis is plausible, and there is certainly EVIDENCE for certain physical properties to ellicit a warming planet with increasing CO2 levels....but the threshold of drawing conclusions, to this point, is just not enough IMO....and it has to do with some evidence that counters the notion of CO2 driving temp. in the past, uncertainty of other known (and most certainly unknown) climate driving factors/feedbacks/interactions, the method of temperature reconstructions of the past, and the potential that agendas, politics, and biases can skew any interpretive data collection (unwittingly or otherwise) in individuals and groups. Not to mention, the most prominent AGW hypothesis (4 or so degrees C of warming by 2100) has an ongoing "test" that ends in about 89 years.

We can all pick our favorite talking point to demean the other side (they are tied to Big Oil, or they wouldn't have a job if AGW was to be falsified) but there are enough prominent scientists on both sides (admittedly more in the AGW camp) that have little or no direct ties to a conscience agenda driven entity...which speaks to the point that the science is not a slam dunk, complete unanimous conclusion. And the more the AGW folk (scientist and advocates alike) alienate, belittle, and demean those that hold a firmer stance on the scientific method vs.highly interpretive evidence and model driven conclusions of a prediction emersed in a very spider web like, complex system, the more the climate agnostic is going to be turned off.

The Scientific Method's beauty is it's ability, on its own, to screen out bias, malicious lobbiests, and bad science when performed in the strict step processes that are universally outlined...a hypothesis is only STRENGTHENED when challanged, by anyone. But when conclusions are drawn prematurely

and ALL skeptics of the hypothesis are allowed to be black listed solely based on their position , it breaks down, and dissolves into a political cesspool that is always awaiting an oportunity to infect, which has taken place in this case.

The hypothesis of AGW is sound....but the testing of it is either extremely early in that phase, or is crafted poorly to provide any sound testability....let the science progress through the methodical steps setforth.....resetting "tipping point" timeframes, or crafting on-the-go "expectencies" will only damage the perception of scientists, as it is on quite a large stage at this point.

If AGW turns out to be a REALLY BIG issue, the true skeptics would cave....and any "blame" would be attributable to the extremes of both sides of the debate, where the vitriol has originated from, not the skeptics.

[Mallow]

My "skeptical" position is grounded very much in the Scientific Method. If you follow it to the "T", we are still in hypothesis mode and therefore a data collecting/testing mode.....the heart of the hypothesis is plausible, and there is certainly EVIDENCE for certain physical properties to ellicit a warming planet with increasing CO2 levels....but the threshold of drawing conclusions, to this point, is just not enough IMO....and it has to do with some evidence that counters the notion of CO2 driving temp. in the past, uncertainty of other known (and most certainly unknown) climate driving factors/feedbacks/interactions, the method of temperature reconstructions of the past, and the potential that agendas, politics, and biases can skew any interpretive data collection (unwittingly or otherwise) in individuals and groups. Not to mention, the most prominent AGW hypothesis (4 or so degrees C of warming by 2100) has an ongoing "test" that ends in about 89 years.

We can all pick our favorite talking point to demean the other side (they are tied to Big Oil, or they wouldn't have a job if AGW was to be falsified) but there are enough prominent scientists on both sides (admittedly more in the AGW camp) that have little or no direct ties to a conscience agenda driven entity...which speaks to the point that the science is not a slam dunk, complete unanimous conclusion. And the more the AGW folk (scientist and advocates alike) alienate, belittle, and demean those that hold a firmer stance on the scientific method vs.highly interpretive evidence and model driven conclusions of a prediction emersed in a very spider web like, complex system, the more the climate agnostic is going to be turned off.

The Scientific Method's beauty is it's ability, on its own, to screen out bias, malicious lobbiests, and bad science when performed in the strict step processes that are universally outlined...a hypothesis is only STRENGTHENED when challanged, by anyone. But when conclusions are drawn prematurely

and ALL skeptics of the hypothesis are allowed to be black listed solely based on their position , it breaks down, and dissolves into a political cesspool that is always awaiting an oportunity to infect, which has taken place in this case.

The hypothesis of AGW is sound....but the testing of it is either extremely early in that phase, or is crafted poorly to provide any sound testability....let the science progress through the methodical steps setforth.....resetting "tipping point" timeframes, or crafting on-the-go "expectencies" will only damage the perception of scientists, as it is on quite a large stage at this point.

If AGW turns out to be a REALLY BIG issue, the true skeptics would cave....and any "blame" would be attributable to the extremes of both sides of the debate, where the vitriol has originated from, not the skeptics.

I don't disagree, nor have I ever, with much of what you are saying here. I don't understand why people seem to think there's a concerted effort in the scientific community to SILENCE skepticism and dissent on a broad, sweeping scale. There simply hasn't been. No self-respecting scientist would want that. So... why shift the debate there? Strawman?

As for whether we should "wait" or not to take any action, that's an economical/ecological decision, not a scientific one. Science can only tell what the possibilities are (and you're right to say we don't know exactly what will happen, or to what extent, in the future), and what we can do to mitigate should the need arise (which we do know to the first order, but not beyond that). You clearly can't say "we aren't 100% sure the impact will be X, so we won't take action Y until we are". You're never likely to be 100% certain. It's a cost/benefit question.

[tacoman25]

In the climate science field, the "skeptics" have given themselves that name in an attempt to legitimize their position as "the scientific position". In general, all scientists should be natural "skeptics". Often in other fields, the position that is considered the mainstream scientific position is also the "skeptical" position (see debates of science vs pseudoscience).

I'm skeptical that the slowing of warming over the past decade means anything either way for the debate at hand (too short a time period), whereas some "skeptics" seem to think (for no sound scientific reason) that it disproves that AGW is a "significant" climate driver. I believe my position on that specific aspect, for example, is the more "skeptical" position.

The term "skeptic" is an attempt to legitimize their position? I disagree, it just reflects the facts that said individuals are skeptical of some aspects of mainstream AGW views. Nothing about the term "skeptic" implies that it is THE ONLY scientific position, by any means.

[tacoman25]

I don't disagree, nor have I ever, with much of what you are saying here. I don't understand why people seem to think there's a concerted effort in the scientific community to SILENCE skepticism and dissent on a broad, sweeping scale. There simply hasn't been. No self-respecting scientist would want that. So... why shift the debate there? Strawman?

I don't think there is a concerted effort in the scientific community to silence dissent (although certain scientists would love to silence skeptics, no doubt). But to think that the scientific community and the peer review process would be immune to bias and group-think would be naive.

[WeatherRusty]

I don't think there is a concerted effort in the scientific community to silence dissent (although certain scientists would love to silence skeptics, no doubt). But to think that the scientific community and the peer review process would be immune to bias and group-think would be naive.

Is it even remotely possible that the majority of scientists who agree with the scientific basis for AGW do so for no other reason than the evidence compels them to? When most of the scientists collectively agree with the scientific basis, a concensus is formed based on the evidence? Why the presumption of bias and group-think? For sure bias and group-think dictate acceptance or lack thereof in AGW science for those outside the active research community. Many a poll result proves as much, but that the active research community and those closely associated scientists and academics are corrupted for non-evidential reasons to the extent of turning the science on it's head is quite presumptive in my opinion and is in itself lacking in firm evidence.

[tacoman25]

Is it even remotely possible that the majority of scientists who agree with the scientific basis for AGW do so for no other reason than the evidence compels them to? When most of the scientists collectively agree with the scientific basis, a concensus is formed based on the evidence? Why the presumption of bias and group-think? For sure bias and group-think dictate acceptance or lack thereof in AGW science for those outside the active research community. Many a poll result proves as much, but that the active research community and those closely associated scientists and academics are corrupted for non-evidential reasons to the extent of turning the science on it's head is quite presumptive in my opinion and is in itself lacking in firm evidence.

Because that's human nature. Science is not immune to it. And in the case of AGW, it is a somewhat unique situation where politics and broader interests have gotten involved more than with most areas of study.

[LakeEffectKing]

I don't disagree, nor have I ever, with much of what you are saying here. I don't understand why people seem to think there's a concerted effort in the scientific community to SILENCE skepticism and dissent on a broad, sweeping scale. There simply hasn't been. No self-respecting scientist would want that. So... why shift the debate there? Strawman?

As for whether we should "wait" or not to take any action, that's an economical/ecological decision, not a scientific one. Science can only tell what the possibilities are (and you're right to say we don't know exactly what will happen, or to what extent, in the future), and what we can do to mitigate should the need arise (which we do know to the first order, but not beyond that). You clearly can't say "we aren't 100% sure the impact will be X, so we won't take action Y until we are". You're never likely to be 100% certain. It's a cost/benefit question.

I wasn't really debating anything...just posting a general comment on skeptisism and my general thoughts on how I perceive myself within the science, politics and general dicourse of the issue, nor trying to create a strawman. And I don't think there is a concerted effort, per se, but certainly there are prominent individuals that exude enough confidence in their conclusions, to stray from one of the most important aspects of performing science, and that is objectivity, even in the face of personal animosities. Evidence of such digressions are well noted in the emails and "tit for tats" that are and have been ongoing within the blogosphere....and even here in this forum. And those "non-scientific" behaviors are abound within the extreme postions of both sides, and the discourse between the extremes provides a polarizing atmosphere for those nearer to the center....those skeptical of both extremes.

As to risk assessment, your points are noted, and spot on...however, the point(s) dissolve a bit when delving deeper into the enactment of such "solutions" presented within a global community and the imbalances of potential extreme financial responsibilities placed on a select few developed countries, all for benefits that woefully fall short wrt the dire proclaimations and corresponding needs assessments.

[WeatherRusty]

I wasn't really debating anything...just posting a general comment on skeptisism and my general thoughts on how I perceive myself within the science, politics and general dicourse of the issue, nor trying to create a strawman. And I don't think there is a concerted effort, per se, but certainly there are prominent individuals that exude enough confidence in their conclusions, to stray from one of the most important aspects of performing science, and that is objectivity, even in the face of personal animosities. Evidence of such digressions are well noted in the emails and "tit for tats" that are and have been ongoing within the blogosphere....and even here in this forum. And those "non-scientific" behaviors are abound within the extreme postions of both sides, and the discourse between the extremes provides a polarizing atmosphere for those nearer to the center....those skeptical of both extremes.

As to risk assessment, your points are noted, and spot on...however, the point(s) dissolve a bit when delving deeper into the enactment of such "solutions" presented within a global community and the imbalances of potential extreme financial responsibilities placed on a select few developed countries, all for benefits that woefully fall short wrt the dire proclaimations and corresponding needs assessments.

If the ultimate goal is to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels then there are compelling reasons to do so other than just AGW. National security, energy independence and the general environmental impact top the list. Moving toward clean, renewable, home grown sources of energy will greatly advantage those countries which successfully make that transition, and the sooner the better. Carbon trading, cap and trade and the like are schemes devised to help make it happen. If there is a better way, then by all means, go for it.

With regard to AGW mitigation, you are largely correct. Due to past, present and inevitable continued global growth in fossil fuel burning, we are committed to at least the lower estimates of AGW already. We will have to deal with the consequences no matter what we do. The goal should be to limit those consequences as soon as possible.

[LakeEffectKing]

If the ultimate goal is to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels then there are compelling reasons to do so other than just AGW. National security, energy independence and the general environmental impact top the list. Moving toward clean, renewable, home grown sources of energy will greatly advantage those countries which successfully make that transition, and the sooner the better. Carbon trading, cap and trade and the like are schemes devised to help make it happen. If there is a better way, then by all means, go for it.

With regard to AGW mitigation, you are largely correct. Due to past, present and inevitable continued global growth in fossil fuel burning, we are committed to at least the lower estimates of AGW already. We will have to deal with the consequences no matter what we do. The goal should be to limit those consequences as soon as possible.

And to what degree would the bill passed by the House 2 years ago limit AGW? A hypothesized .02 degrees or so over several decades??? Certainly not enough to start creating several billions of dollars in new government regulatory agencies (processing/enforcement/etc....) And if you think that would kick start some global development and adherence to such plans, thus bumping up the potential mitigation results by 10 fold or so (still minimal per the most robust AGW predictions), then that is where I would disagree strongly, as developing countries would (nor should they IMO) stifle there own people's potential growth....and history shows that global governance measures fail miserably.

IMO, if we are really at the precipice of seeing dire consequences....dump earmarked $$ for climate change into adaptation.....I bet you'd get more bang for the buck wrt saving people's lives.........but then again, aren't we overpopulated??????

[WeatherRusty]

And to what degree would the bill passed by the House 2 years ago limit AGW? A hypothesized .02 degrees or so over several decades??? Certainly not enough to start creating several billions of dollars in new government regulatory agencies (processing/enforcement/etc....) And if you think that would kick start some global development and adherence to such plans, thus bumping up the potential mitigation results by 10 fold or so (still minimal per the most robust AGW predictions), then that is where I would disagree strongly, as developing countries would (nor should they IMO) stifle there own people's potential growth....and history shows that global governance measures fail miserably.

IMO, if we are really at the precipice of seeing dire consequences....dump earmarked $ for climate change into adaptation.....I bet you'd get more bang for the buck wrt saving people's lives.........but then again, aren't we overpopulated??????

Projections are for the world to use ever increasing amounts of energy as the population grows and becomes better advantaged. Where is all of that energy going to come from? The U.S. uses about 25% of the world's energy, but contains less than 5% of the world's known stores of fossil fuels within it's boundaries. Easily obtained, inexpensive to produced fossil fuels are rapidly being used up. It is becoming increasingly expensive to extract oil from wells, tar sands and shales. Coal is in abundance but it is the dirtiest of all fuels. Natural gas will eventually become more scarce and expensive. Nuclear fission is prohibitively expensive and inherently dangerous. We are maybe 40-50 years away from commercially viable fusion reactors.

We desperately need to diversify our sources of energy and incorporate strong efficiencies into our infrastructure. Renewable energy sources are the only long term solution along with some effective form of population control. The way the world operates today is just not sustainable. Environmental pressures induced by the ever burgeoning human population consuming raw resources at a growing rate such that presently 1.5 Earth are required to sustain the present drain on resources and process our pollution

You paint a picture suggesting that we are incapable of dealing with these things. We have no choice, we must eventually solve these problems, and like I said the sooner the better in order to avoid unimaginable suffering by future generations. Self induced Global Warming will only add to these issues to be faced by these future generations and will serve to if nothing else worsen living conditions for a great many people, particularly the very poor around the world who have not contributed much to the problem, yet will be the most hard pressed to adapt to changing conditions.

I wish this were all a morbid fantasy, but it is not. Humans live way out of balance with nature. It is only our technologies which enable us to prevail over nature. However, this condition is only temporary. We are stealing from future generations the support systems the natural world provides for our existence. When the support fails so will we.

[BethesdaWX]

ole' Rusty:

The Human population will reach a natural equilibrium, to where there just aren't enough resources to go around, and thus the population will not be able to increase. We will never reach a point where Human population continues to Grow, and resources become less and less. That won't ever be a problem, it won't happen.

Your problem is thinking of "oh, the poor hungry people". Guess what dude, if these less-developed countries wanna have alot of kids, ok, but they're digging themselves into a hole doing so. If they don't want to suffer, then they'll have 1-2 kids per family. Same goes for us, and everyone, you don't need tons of kids. No one deserves more than another, and to fix that, just act on your own power, otherwise, just f**k it, its not worth fretting over.

[LakeEffectKing]

Projections are for the world to use ever increasing amounts of energy as the population grows and becomes better advantaged. Where is all of that energy going to come from? The U.S. uses about 25% of the world's energy, but contains less than 5% of the world's known stores of fossil fuels within it's boundaries. Easily obtained, inexpensive to produced fossil fuels are rapidly being used up. It is becoming increasingly expensive to extract oil from wells, tar sands and shales. Coal is in abundance but it is the dirtiest of all fuels. Natural gas will eventually become more scarce and expensive. Nuclear fission is prohibitively expensive and inherently dangerous. We are maybe 40-50 years away from commercially viable fusion reactors.

We desperately need to diversify our sources of energy and incorporate strong efficiencies into our infrastructure. Renewable energy sources are the only long term solution along with some effective form of population control. The way the world operates today is just not sustainable. Environmental pressures induced by the ever burgeoning human population consuming raw resources at a growing rate such that presently 1.5 Earth are required to sustain the present drain on resources and process our pollution

You paint a picture suggesting that we are incapable of dealing with these things. We have no choice, we must eventually solve these problems, and like I said the sooner the better in order to avoid unimaginable suffering by future generations. Self induced Global Warming will only add to these issues to be faced by these future generations and will serve to if nothing else worsen living conditions for a great many people, particularly the very poor around the world who have not contributed much to the problem, yet will be the most hard pressed to adapt to changing conditions.

I wish this were all a morbid fantasy, but it is not. Humans live way out of balance with nature. It is only our technologies which enable us to prevail over nature. However, this condition is only temporary. We are stealing from future generations the support systems the natural world provides for our existence. When the support fails so will we.

Much of what you suggest that should be FORCED to happen (via cap and trade or other non-supply and demand forces), will happen due to market/financial forces....just like it always has, with every other consumable product/service/resource. Energy is no exception...those who can afford a certain level, will continue to do so, but as energy becomes more expensive, individuals will assess their own financial bugets and adjust accordingly...hell, I just did recently by taking the bus to work more frequently, than using my car due to the higher gas prices. And certainly other people are doing likewise. I would suggest that the same would hold true across all class levels in any free market.

IOW, the problems you note, will be solved/adapted to via free market....resources aren't going to just evaporate in rapid fashion as we near the end of a particular resource. The market will self regulate by a gradual increase in price for that particular resource, as supply (or the short term future supply) becomes more difficult to maintain, thus individuals will naturally consume less, by cutting or turning to (at some point) "cheaper" sources of energy. (At some point, the renewables will cross over to be "cheaper", and then the free market will explode to research, development, and implementation(s) of delevery infrastructure). So I'd argue that we ARE capable of adaptation to changing energy availabilities/costs with little or no "assistance" from global interference on the free market.

[WeatherRusty]

Much of what you suggest that should be FORCED to happen (via cap and trade or other non-supply and demand forces), will happen due to market/financial forces....just like it always has, with every other consumable product/service/resource. Energy is no exception...those who can afford a certain level, will continue to do so, but as energy becomes more expensive, individuals will assess their own financial bugets and adjust accordingly...hell, I just did recently by taking the bus to work more frequently, than using my car due to the higher gas prices. And certainly other people are doing likewise. I would suggest that the same would hold true across all class levels in any free market.

IOW, the problems you note, will be solved/adapted to via free market....resources aren't going to just evaporate in rapid fashion as we near the end of a particular resource. The market will self regulate by a gradual increase in price for that particular resource, as supply (or the short term future supply) becomes more difficult to maintain, thus individuals will naturally consume less, by cutting or turning to (at some point) "cheaper" sources of energy. (At some point, the renewables will cross over to be "cheaper", and then the free market will explode to research, development, and implementation(s) of delevery infrastructure). So I'd argue that we ARE capable of adaptation to changing energy availabilities/costs with little or no "assistance" from global interference on the free market.

That's a belief in a system which obviously works wonders in the short term so long as resources are plentiful and we can use the oceans, land and air as free garbage dumps thus disregarding externalities which should be added to the cost of commodities but which in general are not. The cost for energy would presently be considerably higher if not for government subsidies and consideration of these externalities.

The distribution of electricity is something the government by law must be involved in as it entails interstate commerce. The establishment of a new smart electrical grid is essential to the way electricity powers our future. Like the interstate highway system, the government will have to be involved in it's development and employment.

The free market works great in this country and several others (so long as we lgnore externalities). Like it or not, the greater part of the world economy does not operate under a pure free market system and likely will not any time soon. The environmental and resource problems are shared by everyone and every country on this small planet and thus require universally adopted policies to solve. The U.S. can not solve global problems on its own. The global community of nations must act in unison. To be realistic, I don't think we can do it.