Scientific expertise lacking among 'doubters' of climate change, says Stanford-led analysis

Posting just after watching some wonderful lecture on biotechnology. It is amazing how many bright fellows are discovering new useful technologies changing our lives. And there we have science dude, who proved impotent to discover anything of substance, therefore gravitated into the gutter of science (climate studies), and who's only purpose in life became advancing his believe system.

Posting just after watching some wonderful lecture on biotechnology. It is amazing how many bright fellows are discovering new useful technologies changing our lives. And there we have science dude, who proved impotent to discover anything of substance, therefore gravitated into the gutter of science (climate studies), and who's only purpose in life became advancing his believe system.

If you have something to say, then say it- why are you wasting everyone's time with a lame ad hominem? Is it because his conclusions are supported by rigorous science, that refutes your position, and you are unable to find any fault in them?

"When you stop to consider whether some sort of 'group think' really drives these patterns and could it really exist in science in general, the idea is really pretty laughable," he said. "All of the incentives in science are exactly the opposite.

This is a very important concept, that people who claim conspiracies just don't seem to get. In science, going with the flow is the *worst* thing you can do. In science, you get the best results by coming up with a new theory; the second-best by refuting an existing theory; and distant third by supporting an existing theory. So new young bucks coming into the system will be looking for something to kill, and will NOT be interesting in joining a conspiracy.

So new young bucks coming into the system will be looking for something to kill, and will NOT be interesting in joining a conspiracy

That is, unless they want to get grant money, earn tenure, or pass peer review to get published.

"The small number of scientists who are unconvinced that human beings have contributed significantly to climate change have far less expertise and prominence in climate research compared with scientists who are convinced"

-Point of order, that doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong. You know.

"That is, unless they want to get grant money, earn tenure, or pass peer review to get published."

-Or suffer harassment and rejection like poor pons and fleischman.

...In science, you get the best results by coming up with a new theory; the second-best by refuting an existing theory; and distant third by supporting an existing theory...

Never think of conspiracy where plain incompetence would do.

Your assumption that GW theory is a science is wrong to begin with. It is "soft" science, at best. Soft sciences are magnets of all kind of charlatans and rejects that failed to succeed in fundamental fields.

The motivation to kill is still there, however, the rules of the game are much fuzzier. Due to sheer complexity of the problem one have to make a lot of assumptions. A paper going against the flow would be simply teared down by reviewers emphasizing weak assumptions.

...In science, you get the best results by coming up with a new theory; the second-best by refuting an existing theory; and distant third by supporting an existing theory...

Never think of conspiracy where plain incompetence would do.

Very true. Obviously true of you, and exactly the author's point.

Your assumption that GW theory is a science is wrong to begin with. It is "soft" science, at best. Soft sciences are magnets of all kind of charlatans and rejects that failed to succeed in fundamental fields.

Your inability to correctly differentiate "GW theory" and the SCIENCE of Climatology disqualifies you from rendering judgement.

A paper going against the flow would be simply teared down by reviewers emphasizing weak assumptions.

No, it would fail the review process if it wasn't rigorous research, internally logical and cosistent, the conclusions of which were supported by the data.

That is, unless they want to get grant money, earn tenure, or pass peer review to get published.

Sorry, you don't get grant money by aiming for research which ends in "me too"-papers. unless your statet aim is to do something unique (attack an existing theory or do something entirely new) the grant money will go somewhere else.

The small number of scientists who are unconvinced that human beings have contributed significantly to climate change have far less expertise and prominence in climate research compared with scientists who are convinced

Big surprise. Not.

Perhaps some questions will help us judge the credibility of AGW. These are not rhetorical. It is reasonable to expect answers to these questions by anyone taking a stand:

1. What character and intellect drives one to pursue a career in politics, and what proportion of politicians have this character and intellect?

2. The precision of a process is related to the precision of its input data. What are the precisions of the several most notable data sources in climate science wrt AGW and what precision is necessary to make a point about AGW?

3. If the government tries to enforce laws to curb carbon production, how effective will it be, how much will it hurt the economy, and will it set a very bad precedent?

4. Are there any ulterior motives of countries that back the IPCC? If yes, how notable are those ulterior motives?

I'm going to make a prediction that this post, which consists entirely of valid pertinent questions, will be rated poorly by at least one ignoramus.

And another non-rhetorical question:

If AGW will, as is claimed, continue to get worse, how irreversible is it when we all begin to realize its consequences? Specifically, imagine governments finally and successfully enforcing laws to curb carbon production; how quickly will the climate be repaired?

Is the question of human-caused climate change an issue to be voted on, with votes of "prestigious" scientists having a greater weighting in the voting?
Is Freeman Dyson a "lightweight" whose views can therefore be dismissed?
How many other scientific beliefs, once supported by the majority of scientific experts, were later found to be otherwise?
The earth has previously gone through climate changes that were not caused by humans and that were much more extreme than the changes that it may be going through now, e.g., the ice ages. Even if climate change is happening, how do we know that human activity is the cause?

Is Freeman Dyson a "lightweight" whose views can therefore be dismissed?

No, but valid science is in a vast majority of all cases done by people who keep at it and do a lot of small steps (which most people neverhear about). The "revolutionary geniuses" who claim to contradict an entire field of enquiry are few and far between (and the majority of THOSE turn out to be nutjobs).

So for those of you who have no idea about science in general and climate science in particular you'd better bet your money on the experts.

Are there any ulterior motives of countries that back the IPCC?

Economic motives? Hardly. since if we agree that man made global warming is real (and must be combatted in some way) then this will cost a lot of money.

However, I would suppose there is an idealistic ulterior motive: survival of the human species.

And another non-rhetorical question:

If AGW will, as is claimed, continue to get worse, how irreversible is it when we all begin to realize its consequences? Specifically, imagine governments finally and successfully enforcing laws to curb carbon production; how quickly will the climate be repaired?

That is a good question, fleem, but unfortunately, for all the obvious reasons, it is difficult to answer.

Much like in the case of finding a hit-and-run victim bleeding in the gutter- there is little doubt that he was struck, but at what rate of speed? Did the victim sustain injury? How severe is it? Is he gonna make it?

Before science and academia became highly politicized with group think being the norm, discussion and criticism was required and critical to the search for the truth. In today's world the surest way to get into trouble in academia is to reach an unpopular conclusion or cast aspersions on the accepted group think. Outside of academia, people require validated models verified by back testing and subjected to intense scrutiny before they accept that something as significant as man caused global warm er climate change exists. Current science in this matter refuses to engage in any serious scrutiny and, as such, seems more like teenagers crying fire or an academic circle jerk than anything serious. Good luck with your crusade!

NillG - it seems that you have no clue about how academia works. "Group think" is anathema to scientists. If we had any inclination towards that we'd have gone into religion or politics.

Antialias - I have a very good idea how academia works and that is why I think academics have the same level of credibility as politicians. Sad really.

"The small number of scientists who are unconvinced that human beings have contributed significantly to climate change have far less expertise and prominence in climate research compared with scientists who are convinced, according to a study led by Stanford researchers."
What makes science great is that consensus can be killed by those few who are not convinced.
If the star ratings here are any indication, people are more worried about what others think of them instead being right.

What makes science great is that consensus can be killed by those few who are not convinced.

Very true - BUT those few need to show their data. Just doubting stuff or formulating an alternative hypothesis isn't enough.

What makes science great is that consensus can be killed by those few who are not convinced.

Very true - BUT those few need to show their data. Just doubting stuff or formulating an alternative hypothesis isn't enough.

How do they show their data if the 'peer' reviewed journals won't publish their results?
It would be interesting to see all the climate science papers that were rejected.
Any web sites out their where these papers can be posted?

What makes science great is that consensus can be killed by those few who are not convinced.

Very true - BUT those few need to show their data. Just doubting stuff or formulating an alternative hypothesis isn't enough.

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”, Max Planck

Any web sites out their where these papers can be posted?

You can still go to conferences to present papers that don't make it into journals. Acceptance rates at conferences in my area of expertise range between 30 and 60 percent, so if your paper is rigorous then it's not hard to get in - even if it is controversial.

Even if you don't get in then you still might get in at the poster presentation (which has even more lenient admission standards).

All presented papers (at least those given as oral presentation) are published in the conference proceedings.

Any web sites out their where these papers can be posted?

You can still go to conferences to present papers that don't make it into journals. Acceptance rates at conferences in my area of expertise range between 30 and 60 percent, so if your paper is rigorous then it's not hard to get in - even if it is controversial.

Even if you don't get in then you still might get in at the poster presentation (which has even more lenient admission standards).

All presented papers (at least those given as oral presentation) are published in the conference proceedings.

Conference proceedings are usually not available to the public. If they are anything like SPIE conferences, they can be rather light, (no pun intended).

Well, at the chance of sounding elitist: The public isn't really qualified to evaluate scientific papers (neither from journals nor from conference proceedings). These papers aren't written for the public.

Such articles never start from the beginning but require a lot of previous knowledge about the field in question (and a lot of articles today require an in depth knowledge of statistics - and its pitfalls - to interpret correctly...something most scientists don't even have.)

That said if you really want the papers then you usually find them somewhere on the web - either on the author's website or by some 'creative' use of google scholar.

Lastly, if you really can't find it anywhere, then ask the author nicely and they will usually give you a drawft copy.

How many scientists will provide the raw data and the algorithms used to analyze the data for a third party review?
Who but the creators of the global climate models have the ability to review the algorithms and validate the data?
I may begin to trust the data if the 'solutions' proposed by the 'science' community don't involve more government control of the worlds' economies.

How many scientists will provide the raw data and the algorithms used to analyze the data for a third party review?

They will provide them when they publish (and the data from many global data gathering systems are publicly available if you google for "public climate data")

Certainly they won't provide them to every Tom, Dick and Harry who thinks he's a self-styled climatologist because he's watched a weather report on FOX. If you're researching stuff and generating data then it's not a pretty picture if some chinese think-tank comes along and syphons off all your effort just to have it published by them. But the raw data on meteorology or seismology or similar is usually pretty easily obtained.

Who but the creators of the global climate models have the ability to review the algorithms

Creators of competing systems have that ability. That is who reviews this stuff when they go to publication.

I notice the author ignores the votes of ignorant supporters. This stuff IS complex and there is an incredible possibility that almost everyone who has an opinion for or against is doing so based on faith.

We live in a world of 6.8 billion opinions of which a small handful actually have an understanding of what is likely to be 'real'. I wonder how many opinion holders have performed their own tests to validate their hypothesis or at least read other people published works, including the squiggly lines that make no sense to 99.99% of everyone?

Climate Science research has been financed by US ($90 B), UK and EU Politicians, driven by popular media and special interest groups generated Fear and Greed.

"The Journal Climate" was formed by (government funded insider) research scientists, first published in 1988, 2 years before the US general election in 2000. "The Journal Weather, Climate and Society" was formed in 2009 preceding Copenhagen II.

Stanford's academic analysis is a disservice to Science, misses the bias inherit in political funding and institutional politics. The IPCC revelations,$90 B in US Funds, and doubts raised by climate researchers not equally endowed to pay for publications are enough reasons to demand a Special Prosecutor Investigate US government funded climate research, research grants, and journal boards.

Why is a court of law required to declare CO2, a gas we all exhale, a pollutant?

Why is a court of law required to declare CO2, a gas we all exhale, a pollutant?

Same reason why a court of law is required to declare that Waterboarding is torture- as opposed to mere "incentive breathing therapy".

Why is a court of law required to declare CO2, a gas we all exhale, a pollutant?

Same reason why a court of law is required to declare that Waterboarding is torture- as opposed to mere "incentive breathing therapy".

What does water boarding have to do with science?

Why is a court of law required to declare CO2, a gas we all exhale, a pollutant?

Same reason why a court of law is required to declare that Waterboarding is torture- as opposed to mere "incentive breathing therapy".

Yes, I agree, it all as to do with politics, not science.

@marjon : “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”, Max Planck

An interesting choice of quotes since another of the details in the study was that the doubters in the field *tend to be older* than the non-doubters.

I notice that Big Tobacco is in court again today. That just demonstrates how well deniers can do when they are well organized and well funded (even without a shred of technical evidence in their favor).

Snowhare: It could be that the 'doubters' have more experience and their scientific career, their paycheck, is not dependent upon government supported AGW grant funding.

Stanford's academic analysis is a disservice to Science, misses the bias inherit in political funding and institutional politics.

And what is the alternative? PRIVATE funding? Like that is going to led to reports without bias. [sarcasm]

Stanford's academic analysis is a disservice to Science, misses the bias inherit in political funding and institutional politics.

And what is the alternative? PRIVATE funding? Like that is going to led to reports without bias. [sarcasm]

With private funding, the incentives are known. The incentives given for government funding are mostly lies. The real motive for AGW funding is to acquire more power for the state, not to 'save the planet' which 'useful idiots' parrot.

I know some of the scientists that were included in this paper and they tell me that paper's author didn't even bother to get their data accurate and up to date.

Some of the citation tallies are years out of date and the paper's authors have systematically downgraded the number of publications of some sceptics.

Science truth has little or nothing to do with level of qualifications of those who carry out the science, provided they are conversant in the field
[and this is not necessarily an absolute requirement].

Science by conscenus is pseudo-science. Papers like this should be condemed by those who believe in and who wish to defend the Scientific Principle.

Snowhare: It could be that the 'doubters' have more experience and their scientific career, their paycheck, is not dependent upon government supported AGW grant funding.

You are trying to have it both ways - 'old guard' dying off so a new idea can be finally be accepted and 'age and experience' over youth.

So which is it?

"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives." -- Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project.

Note: The Leahy quote was not posted by Marjon. I didn't realize it would like like I was attributing it to him until after I posted it.

"I know some of the scientists that were included in this paper...."

Well, don't keep us in suspense....who, exactly?

What are their positions on AGW?

Note: The Leahy quote was not posted by Marjon. I didn't realize it would like like I was attributing it to him until after I posted it.

Planck's quote was meant to suggest that once some people get an idea into their head, it is very difficult to change. The AGCC scam has been in the works since the early 70s.
Regardless, science is about what can be validated with experiments, not how many believe in the model.
What are the uncertainties in the climate model?

AGCC scam you say. Looks like someone's mind is made up.

But if it isn't then may I suggest on getting a university undergraduate level textbook on atmospheric physics. It doesn't matter which, they're all good and all provide a similar background you'll need to be upto speed with if you're going to evaluate scientific papers. And deniers do not write texts as yet - I guess university students are not their target audience, but rather they target those who refuse to provide themselves with available background information, experiments and data.

But, if you truly believe then I am hoping I may be able to convince you of putting your finger in front of a CO2 laser in front of a TV camera and when it fails to remove your finger you would have debunked AGCC at it's very source by proving conclusively that CO2 molecules are not IR active. What do you say?
I've offered elsewhere but take up for far has been zero.
http://galahs.blo...ser.html

Dave, I have been working with IR systems for years and understand how CO2 absorbs energy in very narrow, specific bands.
Which is one reason why I question the ability of 350ppm CO2 to absorb enough solar energy to cause global climate change.
Especially when the only way the climate models can work is when CO2 is pegged as the cause. That suggests to me the model is incomplete and subject to great uncertainties.

Dave, I have been working with IR systems for years and understand how CO2 absorbs energy in very narrow, specific bands.
Which is one reason why I question the ability of 350ppm CO2 to absorb enough solar energy to cause global climate change.
Especially when the only way the climate models can work is when CO2 is pegged as the cause. That suggests to me the model is incomplete and subject to great uncertainties.

Is that so? I remember from a previous post that you claim to be a diver by trade.

Interesting.

Dave, I have been working with IR systems for years and understand how CO2 absorbs energy in very narrow, specific bands.
Which is one reason why I question the ability of 350ppm CO2 to absorb enough solar energy to cause global climate change.
Especially when the only way the climate models can work is when CO2 is pegged as the cause. That suggests to me the model is incomplete and subject to great uncertainties.

Is that so? I remember from a previous post that you claim to be a diver by trade.

Interesting.

Ever hear of sport diving, aka SCUBA?

Ever hear of sport diving, aka SCUBA?

So which is it then- professional diver by trade, or sport diving enthusiast -in addition to your expertise in IR systems/CO2 interactions research?

Ever hear of sport diving, aka SCUBA?

So which is it then- professional diver by trade, or sport diving enthusiast -in addition to your expertise in IR systems/CO2 interactions research?

Why do you care?

Why do you care?

Who told you that I did?

Why do you care?

Who told you that I did?

Why did you ask?

What are the uncertainties in the climate model?

Since 1/2010, climate research scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Labs are able to model one-cubic-Kilometer of the atomsphere.

Dr. Jones, IPCC, answers now suggest that the "Hockey Stick" is at best a hypothetical. Since the IPCC database of the original observatory and World temperature database are now reported lost by Dr. Jones, IPCC experiments are not reproducible.

Question: Should the revelations invalidate a small, yet potentially growing, number of the publications cited by Dr. Anderegg and colleagues, will the retraction appear in Science, Nature, or the Examiner?

Why did you ask?

Why did you ask if I ever heard of SCUBA?

Since 1/2010, climate research scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Labs are able to model one-cubic-Kilometer of the atomsphere.

How well does that model match all atmospheres?

Wiki: The effective volume of the Earth's atmosphere is about 4.2 billion cubic kilometers.

We will have Saved the Earth from AGWCC before such an accurate Climate model has your Answer. Massively parallel computers of the future will need to be (2**30) faster.

Wiki: The effective volume of the Earth's atmosphere is about 4.2 billion cubic kilometers.

We will have Saved the Earth from AGWCC before such an accurate Climate model has your Answer. Massively parallel computers of the future will need to be (2**30) faster.

@AI777,

So you're saying that, in order to be accurately computed, scientists would have to model the entire 4.2 billion cubic kilometers of earth's atmosphere at a resolution of 1k^3?

@caliban,
No, but will policymakers demand more accuracy from future climate models? Will more advanced models include ocean circulation and salinity, the biosphere and carbon sinks, crustal subduction and subsea volcanoes, or world demographics and human population energy demands.