At the End of the Day
So this past week many of us have been feeding at the trough where religion, politics, and science is ground up. It’s not been a pretty sight.
In this Poynter article, a truism is observed:
[Tom] Yulsman, the Colorado professor, noted that a [Presidential] candidate’s positions on scientific wedge issues tend to serve as a proxy for his or her values on broader topics, such as the role of government in the free market and the role of faith in American life.
“At the end of the day, that’s what the political debate is about,” Yulsman said. “It’s not about the science.”
It’s not just on science, political discourse quickly throws fact and reality out the window in preference for idealogical purity and simplistic reduction.
Apparently the sight of extreme positions wrestling each other on the national stage is supposed to somehow lead to a fair middle ground instead of the worst aspects of both.
The combination of left and right ideas should create high minded goals that seek to improve the lot of all but be implemented with a thorough understanding of how the world really is and was. Instead we get unrealistic ideologically pure goals that nobody wants implemented incompetently only for the betterment of special interests.
Sharper00,
I reject the implication that the liberals in the Democratic party are some kind of leftist equivalent of Perry and Bachmann on the right. Certainly the liberals value communitarianism, but do not totally reject the value of free enterprise and the value of individual effort and economic incentives, which are the values held by the right. In addition one doesn’t find the rejection of modern science based on motivated reasoning.
#2 Eric Adler
“In addition one doesn’t find the rejection of modern science based on motivated reasoning.”
Interesting comment. But I think the opposite is true. Those who choose to reject “modern science” usually do so out of “motivated
reasoning” which suits them.
Then there’s this concept of “modern science” as though it was some kind of monolithic all-knowing singularity… which again, I think is the opposite of the reality. Real science is always questioned by real scientists motivated by a search for the objective truth, and the history of science is littered with ‘debate is over’ consensus opinions that proved to be wrong.
Perhaps you are confusing the term “modern science” with The Consensus Opinion?
In any case, when it comes to AGW there are plenty of entirely rational and logical reasons to reject The Consensus opinion.
Why anybody rejects the theory of evolution is beyond me. Its happening now (e.g. evolution of drug-resistant ‘superbugs’ or insecticide-resistant insects, etc.) and to a naturalist like myself it is evident everywhere I look. But some people NEED there to be a higher power ‘designing’ this process (and watching over everything else) because the alternative is too scary and/or uncomfortable.
But I do see a lot of effort to conflate the rejection of evolution by religious types and the rejection of AGW by skeptics, and I see zero similarities except the end result. That said, there ARE no doubt religious types who do reject both for the same reason but that must be a tiny minority of ‘skeptics.’ Just don’t see any/many comments that reflect that vierwpoint.
“In any case, when it comes to AGW there are plenty of entirely rational and logical reasons to reject The Consensus opinion”
could you list a few just for fun?
Well I will list one just for fun:- Despite models that posit a high climate sensitivity to CO2, and an increase in atmospheric CO2 of at least 20ppm, there has been no warming trend at all over the past decade.
#4
It is impossible to falsify AGW. Warm winters, cold winters, earthquakes, floods, droughts, shark attacks…whatever happens, it’s because of AGW. Models can be wrong, results wrong, data incomplete… it does not matter.
Sort of reminds me of Catch-22.
#5
groan…
“It is impossible to falsify AGW. ”
Not impossible. Although you need to state exactly what you trying to falsify. You say “AGW”, so I’ll just assume that you mean it is “impossible to falsify” that there are anthropogenic (emissions) causes to the current trend upwards in mean temperature of Earth during a time of low solar influence. Yes, that is hard to falsify, especially when there are many lines of evidence (google and Skepticalscience.com are your friends) that support that theory. So I think your statement should be something like, “AGW is very hard to falsify in time to prevent political action that many people disagree with.” I find this argument much more logical than the other.
Jarmo,
Could you be more specific? Are you denying the radiative properties of CO2? The accumulation of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere? The instrumental temperature record? Ocean heat content? Decline in summertime arctic sea ice?
If the earth experienced a sustained (i.e. multi-decadal) decline in temperature (or heat content in the case of the oceans) while GHGs and aerosols and solar activity remain relatively unchanged this would ‘falsify’ AGW ‘theory’.
@5
Liar liar pants on fire!
#9
Could you be more specific? Are you denying the radiative properties of CO2? The accumulation of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere? The instrumental temperature record? Ocean heat content? Decline in summertime arctic sea ice?
No, while data has gaps I find it largely reliable. I believe that if you increase GHG’s, temperature will rise. That’s 1 degree per doubling of CO2 equivalent. The feedback part is full of holes.
Natural events (storms, warm winters etc.) are used as proof of global warming. Is there any event that is proof of the opposite?
If the earth experienced a sustained (i.e. multi-decadal) decline in temperature (or heat content in the case of the oceans) while GHGs and aerosols and solar activity remain relatively unchanged this would “˜falsify’ AGW “˜theory’.
I think you must trust the science more. IPCC claims 2-4 degrees C global increase if CO2 hits 500 ppm. You need a little ice age to prove them wrong. Wasn’t the sun supposed to be insignificant?
How about if the temperature rise stays within 1 degree C while emissions grow and hit 500 ppm?
“The feedback part is full of holes”
Can you be more specific? which feedback (s)? Ice/albedo? Water vapor? clouds? What do you mean by “holes”?
“How about if the temperature rise stays within 1 degree C while emissions grow and hit 500 ppm?”
I think we’re essentially saying the same thing. If we hit 2X pre-industrial levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in 2050 (while holding other forcings more or less constant) and the temperature anomaly hasn’t exceeded 1 degree this would falsify AGW ‘theory’.
The “.1C” is really a fictitious number. It is based on a “no-feedbacks” simple model. It’s a good teaching tool, but does not resemble anything remotely likely, as feedbacks start to change the answer immediately. The climate has feedbacks. Feedbacks have uncertainties, but the idea is to get as close as a range as possible. You can use models, or try and extrapolate from recent observations and paleo data. From this, the sensitivity is very likely between 2-4.5, and the most likely 3.0C. Now since I’m sure you don’t believe a word of that I’ll rest my case.
#11
Water vapor does not seem to act according to models, which predict increase of water vapour with warming:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1219.abstract
Clouds also raise questions. The basic thing is that climate sensitivity estimates depend a lot on assumptions made by scientists, not based on observations.
Can you point me to the part where the study you link to says that water vapor ‘does not act according to models’? Cuz i don’t see it…
“Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000″“2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.”
And to answer the fallibility question, it is almost as if John Nielsen-Gammon was reading here and dedicated today’s blog post to it. It’s actually a great response from someone who understands the issue and if you take the time to read and understand yourselves, you will have a much perspective on climate science in general
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/08/roger-pielke-jr-s-inkblot/
#14
As Solomon says in the end of her paper, models assume that stratospheric water paper has a weak link to warming. According to Solomon, it is strong. Abstract gives a hint:
stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.”
The real question: what causes the water vapor fluctuations that have a strong impact on surface warming? Nobody knows. Might be ENSO, some unknown cause or, heaven forbid, do we have a negative feedback?
#4 – Sorry. If you don’t know them you are ignoring one half of the debate.
The simplest one for me has always been that all the warming is the ending of the Little Ice Age.
Then there’s climate history – of the Vostok or Greenland ice cores which show NOTHING unprecedented about what is happening now.
And show CO2 LAGGING warming, not preceding it.
The list goes on. The flat-lining of temperatures in the last decade
doesn’t fit the CO2 story.
And now there’s the CERN results.
On the other side, those promoting the CO2 story have told so many wild stories, used such propagandistic techniques, and been so anti-science – the debate is over and all that – that their credibility is as low as Gore’s.
Too bad. The damage this has done to the credibility of ALL science is a real tragedy with long term negative consequences.