New Intro for the Genuine Science Papers Supporting Confidence in the AGW theory and Relevant Environmental Concern

Because I’m tired of talking to someone I have no interest in talking to (ie. Andrew) I’ve changed the intro for the list to the following;

Almost a decade ago, I was cleaning up the many catalogues that lay across the coffee table and couch (my partner at the time had an unnatural obsession with them which drove me mad) and happened to notice an unusual book for sale. It was titled 50 predictions of doomsday (from memory – the net is alight with paranoid discussions regarding 2012 that a quick google search cannot retrieve the book).

To the bewilderment of my partner back then, I found this hysterical. It’s no more than predicting (or more appropriately guessing, without meaningful evidence) how many jelly beans are in the jar. That the book provides 50 “predictions” if anything weakens it’s position, rather than strengthens it.

All you need for anything is one hypothesis that that is tested and retested rigorously and independently and supported by other complimentary studies also carried out in a like fashion – that is to say, it’s not how many hypotheses you have, but rather how many times you’ve tested the one hypothesis, by various methods and forces to draw the same conclusion.

Another way to explain it would be to have a box of chocolates. It’s a pack of 30, laid out in three trays of ten. Only one has been consumed.

Of the nine that remain, you can tell that all are caramel centred; does this suggest that the one gone was also caramel centred? Maybe, but not necessarily.

Further investigation reveals that the second tray is also completely full of caramel centred chocolates, but still you could be cautious. Even when the third tray reveals nothing but caramel centred chocolates, you could argue that maybe it was an unfortunate (or fortunate depending on your tastes) statistical streak, but you would certainly argue, with greater confidence as you explored the trays, that the one missing chocolate was very likely to also have been caramel centred.

That is the type of confidence expressed in science. It’s based on increasing evidence.
Opposed to this is the more natural behaviour as expressed by the book above. It’s an assertion that relies on there being so many hypotheses as support; so many people have guessed of a doomsday, therefore it’s inevitable. And it is inevitable – the solar system cannot live forever, so we can be asserted of a kind of doomsday, but not because some prophet guessed it, but because science has increased our understanding of the behaviour of suns.

This is in many ways my problem with Andrew’s (aka Poptech) list of 800 papers supporting scepticism of AGW alarm.

To return to the chocolate analogy, no one chocolate alone proves or disproves the caramel centre of the missing piece – it is all the chocolates together that increase our certainty. It’s that the evidence of each piece together reinforce the conclusions of the others leading us to make assumptions about the unknowns.

Let’s say that the process line isn’t perfect. Occasionally a dud chocolate is spat out that don’t have a caramel centre and sometimes – not too often – some nuts from a neighbouring conveyor belt spill and contaminate the caramel centred chocolate process. Of course, these imperfections would need to be weeded out – welcome to the peer-review process.

Andrew effectively pushes the box of climate science box of chocolates side and fills a new 30 piece box. Some are indeed caramel centred, while others are from the reject bin and others still are from a completely different manufacture. Now deducing what the missing piece is becomes impossible.

There is no meaningful expression in the assortment. Some of the chocolates even impossible to classify. Some may appear reasonable – without reference as to why they were in the reject bin. Does this disprove that the missing piece was a caramel centred chocolate? Of course not. Such a list does nothing to prove or disprove anything. It’s just a random collection that supports no conclusions of any sort at all, except that they are in fact chocolate, which is more or less meaningless to the point.

This whole annoying episode start with Adam challenging me with Andrew’s list;

“I gave you 800 peer reviewed scientific papers supporting skeptisicm of AGW/AGW alarm… when there are over 850 scientific papers supporting skeptisicm of AGW, surrely to any same person, that would at least provide some reason to question the theory.”

I’ve tried in great detail to explain the problems inherent in such a preposterous position; it’s not a game of who has more papers or what one paper states by itself – but rather a coherent conclusion drawn by many independent studies that all together in our confidence in a certain conclusion.

For what it’s worth, Andrew has fragmentally stated as much about his list;

“No claim is made that the list is only of natural science papers (though many of these exist on the list) but rather that they are all peer-reviewed. The list does not only include papers that support skepticism of AGW but also ones that support skepticism of AGW Alarm, defined as concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic. The list is not a unified theory but a resource.”

I’ve gone on to ask if I’m correct in stating that the list is nothing but a haphazard list of random science, social and economic articles that while together cannot form a sensible coherent alternative – indeed many of the papers even contradict each other – but rather forms an inconsistent catalogue of various reports to encourage various forms of AGW “scepticism”.

As you can see from his comment above, he surely must, but so far I’ve not received an answer – instead he’s gone on to complain about the language in my original introduction (even at my joking suggestion that he stumbled upon my initial comment referring to him by magic – honestly, I mention him once in a comment to a notorious troll and he shows up out of nowhere; am I wrong to wonder how that happened?). I provide it here as he seems unwilling to meet me half way (it’s pretty boring and really worth anyone’s time).

Anyway, in the general style of such people, he’s gone on and on and on and on and… I’m sick of making the required corrections, explaining why certain changes won’t be made and basically wasting my time talking to someone I don’t I just don’t want to talk to.

To some up, I really don’t think his list stands as a tower, opposing some orthodoxy of AGW (not that I’m suggesting Andrew does, but certainly fans of his do), but instead is little more than a random scattering of bricks that he has laid out so that the so-called AGW “sceptics” can hurl them at us “alarmists” or “warmist” and has little to do with scientific reasoning and investigation. It’s just an easy go-to place for the busy troll to stop by, chose a paper and demand others in the blogosphere “prove it wrong” (or if they’re lazy, link back to the entire list and demand as Adam did).

I, on the other hand, will slowly build by a counter list that more rigorously focuses on the science – the observed, the tested, the modelled and projected – of all matters anthropogenic global warming, related environmental concern and impacts on humanity, thereby not providing a chaotic assortment of ideas, but rather mutually supporting studies that have led to our confidence in the AGW theory (I assure you, not as easy a task as it would be to grab any “sceptical” paper available – ie. it’s harder to accumulate evidence to support the conclusion about the missing chocolate than it is to collect chocolate of any sort).

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “New Intro for the Genuine Science Papers Supporting Confidence in the AGW theory and Relevant Environmental Concern

  1. I’ve gone on to ask if I’m correct in stating that the list is nothing but a haphazard list of random science, social and economic articles that while together cannot form a sensible coherent alternative – indeed many of the papers even contradict each other – but rather forms an inconsistent catalogue of various reports to encourage various forms of AGW “scepticism”.

    You are incorrect. The list cannot be one that is “haphazard” because it is clear resource for the peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against AGW Alarm. It is not “random” but intended to be comprehensive. Categories are included where possible and it will continued to be further organized. Repeating the strawman of them not forming a unified argument as you define does not change the fact that this is not the intent of the list. A resource is designed to be referenced. Many of the papers do not contradict each other. The few that are mutually exclusive do not even mention each other in a contradictory sense.

    So your statement is inaccurate and misleading.

    [Haphazard is defined as; “characterized by lack of order or planning, by irregularity, or by randomness.”
    Strictly speaking, if it does not represent a unified theory, and in fact catalogues multiple hypotheses – some, where they true, would therefore contradict others proposed on the list – I’d argue there to be a certain level of randomness/irregularity inherent. One couldn’t be expected to “debunk them all” – that would simply be absurd. It’s like setting up 800 bowling pins and expecting someone to knock them all over or admit they can’t bowl. I’m no longer “Repeating the strawman of them not forming a unified argument” (not that I ever did really – you admit it’s not a unified theory as do I which I then argue makes it all the weaker) please re-read it if you’re still confused.
    “The few that are mutually exclusive do not even mention each other in a contradictory sense” – but rightly, it can’t be all of them. You can’t argue that climate sensitivity is low and then argue a large medieval warm period, or that it’s not warming and then that the warming is the result of the sun etc. This is why I suggest the list is haphazard – it inherently promotes irregularity between competing ideas.]

    Like

    1. Incorrect, the list has a purpose, is categorized and formatted, thus ordered. Your use of the word haphazard is an attempt to smear the list and is inaccurate and misleading.

      [Smear and strawmen… you really need to increase you vocabulary. I’m not smearing at all. I’m simply starting that no general conclusion can be drawn as you state in the following line]

      You can state that some of the papers are mutually exclusive but this was never denied as it is a resource that does not reject competing independent skeptical theories.

      Actually you can argue that there is low climate sensitivity to CO2 and there was a larger MWP than today. One has nothing to do with the other.

      [Actually, this is wrong.. dare I quote SkS (oh no: not the alarmists!): Monckton’s favorite argument is “climate sensitivity is low“. But if the MWP was particularly hot, that means there was a fairly large temperature change about 1,000 years ago. The hotter the peak of the MWP, the larger the temperature change, and the more sensitive the climate was to the factors causing that change (mainly increased solar activity and decreased volcanic activity). Arguing for a hot MWP is arguing for a high climate sensitivity to these natural factors, and if the climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance caused by a change in solar or volcanic activity, there’s no reason it wouldn’t also be sensitive to changes in greenhouse gases as well.
      In short, a hot MWP also means a high climate sensitivity. By arguing for a hot MWP, Monckton is contradicting his own favorite argument.]

      The list doesn’t promote any unified theory so it is not promoting anything outside that these papers exist. The list can correctly be used to argue that peer-reviewed papers exist supporting skeptic arguments against AGW alarm.

      [True that from an outsider view, you’re list is “peer-reviewed papers exist supporting skeptic arguments against AGW alarm” – but a closer look reveals that not all those paper could possibly support the same ” skeptic arguments against AGW alarm” – as you say, it’s not a unified theory. This is what makes it random. Why must you fight everything so pedantically?]

      Like

      1. “Your use of the word haphazard is an attempt to smear the list and is inaccurate and misleading.”

        But it’s not lying, nor is it purely subjective, that’s good enough for us 🙂 It’s not our fault people will be misled, just like you don’t care if idiots take your list as a coherent argument against AGW (forgetting the word “alarm” which is left vague).

        “The list doesn’t promote any unified theory “
        Because there ain’t one. And you try very hard to avoid admitting it.

        The list can [ONLY] correctly be used to argue that peer-reviewed papers exist supporting skeptic arguments against AGW alarm.

        (insertion by me). Which doesn’t mean much for scientists and honest people, but enough for idiots, and deniers on your side to think there’s a scientific debate about it (you apparently don’t care about people believing what is untrue or misleading facts, as long as it serves your purpose). I dare you tell me you have no agenda or purpose.

        Like

      2. If anyone challenges any of Andrew’s ideas or those he supports, it seems that he’s convinced it’s “an attempt to smear”… Strange for someone who’s labelled me “deranged”, “like a scared little child”, “ignorant”, “alarmist”… etc… It’s reminiscent of Scientology’s or Monckton’s rushing to sue anyone who says a bad word about them… And he supports Monckton’s article on free speech all… hmmm… Apparently free speech doesn’t include coming to an alternate conclusion to Andrew – nope, that must be a smear. All you can do is shake your head!

        Like

      3. The language you used was an intentional attempt to smear the list with a strawman argument. I used proper language to describe your behavior.

        [Yes, I refer to your list as haphazard in the ideas it provides, and this is a strawman to smear. You call me deranged, like a scared child and an ignorant alarmist and that’s proper language… Right – now we follow! Thanks for clarifying]

        Stating that no general conclusion can be drawn from the list is false as the conclusion can be drawn that these papers exist. Implying that no unified competing theory can be drawn from the list is a strawman as no such claim was made.

        [lol – so the conclusion to your list is that the papers exist?!? I’ve added “except that they are in fact chocolate, which is more or less meaningless to the point” – so, as you say, you’re list is not (please excuse my continuing the metaphor) to make any conclusion about the missing chocolate, but only to prove that you have chocolates! lol.. Well, I guess you win on that point – you’ve certainly proven that you have papers. Of course, the meaning of those papers is where I refer to the “haphazard” so your and I ain’t discussing the same fact]

        The Skeptical Science site is a joke as they use bogus graphs that combine proxies with thermometer records, discredited proxy recreations and an argument that is a logical fallacy,

        if the climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance caused by a change in solar or volcanic activity, there’s no reason it wouldn’t also be sensitive to changes in greenhouse gases as well.

        Acceptance of one does not mean acceptance of the other. (Notice you cannot resist discussing Monckton supporting my theory of you.)

        [Ok (to quote a mechanic) here’s ya problem… Funny, you can waffle on about the IPCC and yet, remain quick to jump on again about Monckton. You’re such a hypocrite. Like most things – I’ll leave you to you’re own conclusions. But it is easier, of course, to simply disregard anyone who disagrees with you as “smearing” and building strawmen than to actually reply.]

        Random implies there is no order to the list. This is false, the list has an explicitly defined purpose, is categorized and formatted, thus ordered. Including more than one competing theory in the list does not make it “random”.

        [The list isn’t random, the conclusions drawn from it are – AS OPENLY STATED IN THE NEW INTRO!!!]

        I will correct any misrepresentation of my work.

        Like

      4. I see the Internet Stalker IPKA has showed up. He obsessively posts about me on his blog and cannot handle that I do not pay him any attention after I embarrassed him on a forum he is now banned from so he follows me around in a desperate attempt to harass me. Sad and pathetic.

        Like

      5. Moth, so your comments were an attempt to promote my list in a favorable light? Really? Please explain.

        [So, unless it’s in a favourable light, it’s a smear? lol. No, I’m not trying to promote you list in a favourable light. Likewise, I’m not saying that it’s a random jumble. It’s well ordered, but many of the conclusions are haphazard in the context of many others.. That’s all and I explain as much above.. Why can’t you just let it go? Honestly, you admit it’s not backing a unified theory and so I’m stating that no conclusions can be drawn from such a haphazard collection of discussions, except for that indeed such papers exist… You’re arguing about nothing.]

        Like

      6. From the magical rants here.
        “He creates a meaningless analogy to chocolates that has nothing to do with science or AGW”
        No – actually, I’m making a point about the results of good science compared to grabbing random papers that together obscure these results without providing a sensible alternative in their own right (except to make a pointless argument that such papers indeed exist). For someone who loves to resort it, “It’s a strawman” this is hypocritical.
        “He falsely implies that papers on the Popular Technology.net list have been rejected by the manufacturer”
        No I never make the claim that all have been rejected. You of all people should be aware that a number of them have been highly criticised – you also post some of the rebuttals. Thus some have failed or are no longer acceptable in light of newer evidence (and no, I’ve seen how you react when people point out a certain paper so I will not feed your insanity by going further into this other than pointing out Lindzen and Spencer.
        “He falsely claims there is no purpose to the list”
        No – I say the only purpose it to provide a resource and demonstrate that such papers indeed exist.
        “He falsely claims that the list does not prove anything”
        No, it proves such papers exist, but it does not demonstrate any coherent conclusion at all – you admit that it is not a unified theory.
        “He keeps repeating this strawman argument that the list is not a unified theory”
        You do actually read what I write? I point out that you admit this – are you making a strawman argument about your own list? Bloody hell, this is stupid.
        “He presents a totally nonsensical and false description of the list, “…the list is nothing but a haphazard list of random science, social and economic articles that while together cannot form a sensible coherent alternative – indeed many of the papers even contradict each other – but rather forms an inconsistent catalogue of various reports to encourage various forms of AGW ‘scepticism’.”
        You problem with semantics which I’ve explained.
        “He falsely states that I would surely agree with a totally nonsensical and false description of the list”
        Not “would” – I never stated that. But after explaining why I’ve come to my conclusions and suggestion that you “should” (must) come to an equal conclusion. It’s my opinion, which by all rights I’m entitled to. You don’t need to agree, but it doesn’t change the fact that this quote is wrong.
        “He falsely implies that the real purpose of the list is for “trolls” to use against alarmists”
        Again, this is a bitch about semantics. You say it’s a resource for AGW “sceptics”, I sat it’s a resource for trolls..
        “He hypocritically includes journals in his list not in the SCI, yet uses lack of a SCI listing to reject journals presented by skeptics”
        Get over it – I at least state when they are not. You insist that the SCI list is irrelevant (you even finish this post by stating as much! lol) – you can’t have it both ways. This is a more pathetic strawman Andrew. It’s not hypocritical that I include them and so far I’ve got less than 10 of close to 300 papers. I flag them so that readers can check the journals credentials for themselves – I don’t blindly let them use references from journals willing to publish papers of an iron made sun! lol. I’m no longer making the point about your list and SCI listing (what is said in other comments is done and dusted).

        Every single point you make is laughable! As I’ve stated under alfoil hat, I think you need to take a step back, take a deep breath and re-read your writing and mine, because you’re seriously off the mark at the moment. Please feel free to include this reply on your thread.

        Like

    1. You happen to be correct – logging in this morning I found out that he has since taken offence to this new list. It’s clear nothing I could do would please this chap. Not that I care really. His badgering it solely to encourage me to remove my list. I don’t think I should’ve been so accommodating to begin with – correcting his suggestions – for it’s only added fuel to his strange little fire.

      Like

      1. Just because you removed your other misinformation does not mean none exists in your new statement.

        I am not sure why you would believed I would accept any mischaracterization of my work? Don’t make false statements about my work and I would not be responding.

        [Mischaracterisation of your work? Please – we both come to the same conclusion; that you don’t provide a unified theory opposed to the AGW theory, but simply a resource for the “sceptics”. I then go on to say that as a basis, it’s flimsy in that you don’t provide a coherent picture.. how is that a smear attack or a false statement? Will this nuttiness ever end??]

        Please prove where I have ever suggested you remove your list.

        [I never suggested that you stated as much – it’s my conclusion that you will fight me on every last point until I say nothing at all.. It’s just madness how much you push semantics so badly… Geez!]

        Not correcting my suggestions will only mean I will without tiring respond with my original rebuttal where ever your list is mentioned. It is archived for this purpose, otherwise it will stay archived.

        [What? Not removing “haphazard” and “random” will ensure you will not tire in commenting? Are you serious? Don’t I make it clear, by quoting you, what you believe your list to be and then state that it therefore is.. in my own opinion? I thought you were in favour of free speech. Have I not quoted your argument (being fair to give the audience your stance)? Have I not made it clear that I am drawing my own conclusions (leaving it up to the reader to make up their own mind)?!?! What the hell is wrong with that?]

        Like

  2. Good job, let’s do the next step, take PopTech’s list and chop it down to

    a) strictly scientific papers
    b) actual papers which deal with greenhouse effect
    c) Papers of alternative warming theories, that which have not been answered and debunked

    That’ll be a good comparison (to be fair, I haven’t looked at your total 250 papers list yet)

    for your comic relief, enjoy this one.
    http://forums.enidnews.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/54310611/m/2122067491?r=4162067491#4162067491

    Like

    1. Cheers for the kudos and link!
      I’d suggest such an effort would be difficult. Many others have tried to take short handed approaches to demonstrate that his list is not as a whole anything meaningful. He celebrates that he has debunked all of this however and any reference that questions the motives of the most prolific authors on his list are deemed to be smear attempts and invalid. Basically, the premise that his list is a meaningful conglomerate written entirely by ethical “researchers” (highlighted as a quick scan demonstrates that not all have qualifications in natural sciences – some have no relevant qualifications at all) is one of faith. He will of course disagree with me. Put simply, if a crime were committed, who has a stronger evidence base; the one that has copious witnesses that independently give statements which all give roughly the same picture of the crime carried out or the one that has many more witnesses, many of which give conflicting accounts (some of whom have good personal relationships with the main suspect and therefore reason to protect them)? You wouldn’t bother discrediting each person from the latter group – that would be needlessly time wasting. The coherent message built by a large group independently coming to the same conclusion is far more likely.

      Like

    2. Any such attempt would have nothing to do with my list anymore as it would not fall under the criteria I have layed out. Silly attempts like this have been done in the past none of which invalidate my list. They are simply strawman arguments.

      [I’m no longer trying to invalidate your list, but rather stating that it is a list, it is a catalogue, but it doesn’t stand as a compromising argument against the AGW theory… Are you sure you’re actually reading what I wrote? Seriously, I think you’re seeing what you want to see… This is getting quite pathetic.]

      Do you also reject the WGII and WGIII sections of the 2007 IPCC Report (AR4) as “scientifically valid”?

      [Do you simply cut and paste the same argument over and over again? I spot a fair amount of also identical statements. I personally hand-type everything.. That could explain why your so quick to reply, with so little to say. I thought we have moved on from the IPCC report (honestly, you like to put the boot-in about Monckton whenever you can, but you’re oddly fixated on the IPCC report, Andrew)]

      Like

      1. “it would not fall under the criteria I have layed out. “
        I am well aware of the fact you’re a denier with purely subjective criteria, so we don’t seek your approval.

        They are simply strawman arguments.
        Actually Andrew, you started the strawman argument yourself. Your list is “papers supporting skepticism of AGW alarm”, what we never asked you was, what papers actually SUPPORT AGW ALARM, is there a SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS FOR AGW ALARM(ISM)? If not, your list is useless as it’s arguing against something nobody stated.

        “Do you also reject the WGII and WGIII sections of the 2007 IPCC Report (AR4) as “scientifically valid”?
        Better, I reject ANYTHING, EVERYTHING from IPCC as scientific resource, and I NEVER take IPCC as an indicator for something to be “scientifically valid”. So you can safely say, I reject IPCC publications, (all of it) as scientifically valid, unless validated from other scientific sources.

        Like

  3. If anyone challenges any of Andrew’s ideas or those he supports, it seems that he’s convinced it’s “an attempt to smear”…

    Correct. And it’s OK for him to call people idiots, zealot, liar, but when somebody says anything negative about his side, it’s “ad hominem”.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s