How to properly check for conspiracy ideation in climate change science believers and skeptics
To adequately address the correlation (but not causality) of skeptics and conspiracy theory:
- A large sample size (preferably 500 or more—the larger the sample, the more reliable the results and the higher the probability of it being truly random). If one wants to use the internet, a Google ad on a wide variety of websites should provide a reasonably random sample. As a subset, a Google ad targeting climate change site searches (both sides) could assure the taker is familiar with the issue. The wider sample would apply to the general public. All must be meticulously documented—what sites the ads were posted on, what ads and sites had hits and surveys filled out, etc, in case there are questions about the methodology or sampling procedures.
Ideally, one would use a mass mailing. However, this would be quite expensive (if one figures only about 10% or less of the survey recipients will return filled out survey) and would only be practical if funding is available.
If using an internet survey, care must be taken to make sure one individual does not repeatedly fill out the survey. This could be done with the use of a password unique to the survey taker or a check of the IP address to verify the same computer is not responding. (This is not foolproof. One eliminates as much of the problem as possible and lives with the rest.)
- A survey that avoids as much prejudice as possible. It should include a title that is neutral (such as “Social Science Study”.
Questions should be arrange randomly on the survey, meaning there are multiple versions of the survey that differ only in the order of the questions. This helps assure that the order of the questions do not influence the answers.
As for the questions:
One may ask political party affiliation (for later use when you want to use the survey to correlate politics and climate change), random information (college degree, occupation, if one believes in big government, if one gives to charities, etc). The random questions yield information but also draw undue attention from the point of the survey, helping insure the answers to the climate and conspiracy theories are not unduly influenced.
Next, include the questions on conspiracy and science theories. The wording of these questions must be as neutral as possible. For example, “Do you believe smoking causes cancer?” is not suitable. “Do you believe smoking causes cancer in some people?” People who are very precise with language may answer “no” to the first version because they know people who smoked and did not get cancer. Another variant is “Do you believe studies that show a link between smoking and cancer?” Questions like these and “Do you believe vaccines cause autism?” measure how much one believes in the accuracy of scientific research. It indirectly may indicate one’s belief in science itself. More properly, it indicates the level of skepticism the individual has in some areas.
For conspiracy theory, one asks about 9/11, faked moon landing, illuminati, UFO hidden research (not UFO’s in general—there are unidentified objects flying around), aliens, one world government, etc.
When addressing climate change, a series of questions is preferable. Does the person believe the climate is changing more than in the past? How much of this does the person attribute to humans? (A sliding scale of 1 to 10 or something similar will give a more accurate reading.) How much does the person trust the IPCC to accurately report climate change? Is consensus important in science? How far should humans go in trying to stop climate change (list of proposals with y/n options—things like switching to renewables, shutting down coal plants, giving money to the UN, and so forth. The proposals should range from minor changes to worldwide changes, voluntary versus involuntary).
If one does not get a wide variety of responses from both sides of the debate, the ad should be ran again. Ideally, the pro and con should be close to equal. If you cannot achieve this, it needs to be clearly indicated in the study.
The data from the surveys is then compiled. One then separated belief from skepticism (if you used a sliding scale for belief that humans caused climate change, this variable should be subdivided to each section of the scale—how many believed it was a 5, how many believed it was a 6, etc). One then separates the conspiracy/science belief data for each group. Then one calculates what percentage of each group answered affirmatively to the conspiracy/science questions. Both sides scores must be reported. It is not appropriate to report only one side.
This shows only the correlation between beliefs, not the reason or cause for the beliefs. That should be made clear. It may be that the people who believe in conspiracies are more likely to question things, resulting in a higher number questioning or disbelieving climate change. This does not mean that those who question climate change are conspiracy theorists—it means conspiracy theorists question things more and are less trusting, resulting in their questioning climate change. They may perceive it as a conspiracy, also. Not all persons will believe in climate change and conspiracies, not all skeptics will believe climate change is in error and conspiracies are true.
Such a study is only useful if one is looking for ways to approach people about climate change science in the hope of changing their views to reflect the view preferred by the presenter. If one wants to know how to convince skeptics of climate change and human causes, it may be useful to know if they are also believers in other parts of science. It does not prove the individual’s belief in climate science is wrong—people can easily be wrong in one area and right in another.
Limitations:
If you use the internet, you only survey those who are into electric media. This may not be a serious limitation since much of climate science is debated on blogs, but it is worth noting. Persons who are very much into conspiracy theories may avoid the internet. Their beliefs will not be represented. A mailing might help, though admittedly some persons will be too suspicious to answer the survey.
Results of the survey, if properly set up, can be used to look at other correlations between religion, politics, etc. Again, none of this addresses the truth or falsity of the beliefs, only correlation. The results may be useful in formulating a possible way to convert those with unwanted views (unwanted from whomever’s point of view) or to attempt to discredit the opposing view, as in the case of the unscientific Lewandosky. In other words, this is a marketing study.
Watching Those "Who watch the Deniers" 
It’s worth a try, don’t you think? One issue at a time and I will respond and go from.
One issue,
your equating my long explanations with a lack of desire to adress anything real is consistent with your other assertions that have no substantive basis. The fact is that I try to be careful about what I wrtie so that it cannot be misconstrued, and Iadddress caveats that are relevant. I want to be accurate so that constructive dialogue can take place. Since you rarely adress my responses with relevant responses that have substantive support and you often mischaracterize what I write it is nearly impossible to make any progress toward determining reality. As such I will comment on your posts. Trying to keep them to one issue and we will see if you do actually want to engage in constructive discussion.
I have repeatedly asked you to address ONE point at at time. Since you cannot follow a simple request like that, I see little point in responding to you. You are welcome to continue with your diatribes and contrived “innocence” as far as not wanting to insult and demean people. It is obvious you have a deep-seated need to do this and if that makes you feel better, go ahead. I will tolerate this for a while, but if you insist on basically writing a blog on my blog, things could change.
Repeat: ONE issue at a time. If you TRULY want an answer. I will take your writing lengthy comments as proof of your lack of desire to address anything for real.
As is typical in people with an agenda against ACC you adress none of my substantive issues. You almost never have, as anyone who would bother to read this site would quickly see. and then you accuse ME of not accepting well reasoned rational arguments.
I of course am not writing this for you,, but in case others read what is on these blogs they can at least compare what i say and waht you say and see who is willing to address the real issues and who is willing to change theor mind and who actually cannot accept well reasoned rational arguments.
I have in fact repeatedly accepted your arguments that ARE rational and well reasoned. i have specifically told you when you have done so, and i have been supportive of those arguments. You of course, being an ideologue cannot accept any arguments that i make becuase you consider yourself in a battle with me and you must “win”. Since I am actually interested in the truth as well as it can be understood, I am happy when you make good points and show me info i was unaware of.
I have repeatedy accepted the possibility that ACC could be worng in important substantial ways, and I have eepxlained what types of things would sway me toward that belief.
You continue to make arguments agains me that are completely contradicted by what i write.That is really quite sad>
my goal has never been to insult you, nor has it been to convince you of anything. My GOAL has been to read waht you have written and see if there is anything substantive that undermines ACC as i understand it beyond the issues of uncertainty that i am already familiar with. You have made many unsupported assertions that COULD have swayed my opinion, IF you had actually provided references taht supported tyour assertions. over and over again you don;st do that.
Over and over again you ignore or distort the substantive points I have made,
and you pretty much totally ignroed the much more sophiticated and researched points that Glenn makde. instead of discussing them rationally you have just either attacked or gone off on tangents.
I am sorry that others besides Peter, who have an agenda agisnt cliamte change have not cometo your blog and given you the kind of uncritical support aht they do the more popular anti aACC blofgs. I imagine you would feel much better about this blog if they would do so.
I have nothing personal agaisnt you , and if you do present substantive information that seriously questions ACC beyond, as i said the uncertainties i am already aware of i am happy to ave that information change my mind about this issue.
Good luck.
Ithe reason i address mor ethan one issue at a tie is because I am addressing all the issues that you bring up in a post. If you want only one issue, then you might only post about one issue at a time. I also try to present fair assessments of an issue which can take some time.
In this case i acknowledged taht there are warmist who incorrectly use conspiracy theories, and i explain the differences between them
I am sorry that you are not interested in looking at this issues with the intent of learning from each other. It is funny becuase i have some very socnservative friends, with whom I m have serious disagreements, but we actually narrow down the areas of disagreement and learn important things from each other. that actually causes us to respect each others different view points and we become more mature and get a more nuanced understanding of issues. Clearly that is not happening here. You are right it is a waste of your time.ut i ma learning impotat things as well, i ahve seen how your whole presentation has changed from when you started, and it helps me understand the process people go through when trying to convince people just based on ideology.
You are not interested in reality. You have your belief in ACC and anyone who doesn’t believe it has an agenda. You are not interested in facts to prove your case, just rhetoric copied from advocate sites.
You cannot accept a rational, well-reasoned refutation of your belief because it goes against your value system. You repeat rote data because you do not understand science and can only parrot information. I find this parroting and lack of knowledge very common among advocates for science that doesn’t really work. If they addressed the science, they would have nothing.
I am concluding you only post here to be annoying to me and try to bully me into believing what you believe. I do understand you can reject all errors and omissions in the theory and still cling to it. I see it all the time. I do understand.
It seems your only goal at this point is to insult me into believing that ACC is correct. Sorry, I follow facts and data, not insults. You seem to feel if you keep telling me how deluded I am, I will suddenly “wake up” and agree with you. Sadly, I have no such belief in your case. I don’t think anything I say will make any difference to you and I do not understand why you feel compelled to keep commenting here. You know it’s a waste of your time in my case–you know I won’t listen. You’ve made that clear. So why do you comment?
There are a handful of scientists saying what the public hears about ACC. Plus the non or former science ones that are now advocates, adding to the hysteria surrounding the issue. In virtually any occupation, only a select few present information that the public hears. ACC is no different.
That’s all I am going to answer here. You just go on and on and on. My position is very clear and so is yours. I have provided an explanation of the scientific method, as has another commentator and you just ignore it or reject it. I again repeat, you demand I provide evidence and then you reject every single piece I present or twist it to your view. This is a complete waste of my time. You may comment away for whatever reason, but do not expect answers. It wastes my time.
It would help in your quest for my answers to your questions if you would address ONE issue at a time. When you write these very long responses, I do end up skipping much of it. Ask one question at a time if you seriously want a response.
REALITY,
it seems pretty clear that you are not interested in reality. That you have your beliefs. ACC is a flawed theory and anyone who accepts it as likely is making exices and not looking at the obvious facts that prove your case.
You can not accept reasonaed rational explanation and logical analysis of your postions because they contradict your beleif. therefore you distort and ignore the inforamtion and wuestions that i give or Glenn gives you and you find excuses to rational discarding anything that contradicrts your view. I find it quite common and it seems to come from a strong odeological framework that is tied deeply to onse self image.
That is the conclusion i am reaching because you so systematically distort what I say and accuse me of distroting your words when it seem pretty obvious that I have not.
As an example you point to Lovelock. He was probably the most extreme alarmist predicitng the almost complete destruction of the human race and the near total devastation of the earth’s biosystem. Now that there is really no objective or theoretical support (there really was never any scientific support for his conclusions) for his assertions he has moderated his position and seems to hold soemthing closer to what the IPCC has been saying for the last decade. This in now way undermines any thing about current ACC theory and is a good thing. it showns he is willing to change his conclusions when the evidence shows his intitial views to be totally unfounded.He did not say “the scientists had been alarmists” He said a few people including him and Gore had been more alarmist than was warranted by the facts. Of course he was MUCH more alarmist thatn Al Gore, or anyone else for that matter, so maybe it makes him feel good to think he wasn;t the only fanatic talking abut the end of humanity
then you present some perfectly reasonable points about uncertainty and that there are many factors. This I have agreed with you over and over again, yet you seem to not understadn how I can say these things ans still consider ACC to be a reasonable and at this point convincing theory. ACC theory INCLUDED uncertainty and many different facotrs, yet you wirte as if it does not.
Then you say atmospheric temps DID fall as “you admit”. Yet. i not only did NOT admiot that I specifically contradicted you saying they have fallen they have not fallen by any reasonable assessment. Again I question why you would write something, knowing I would read it and popint out a blatant innacuracy. It seems bizarre behavior when i can just read my comment above yours and see it is flat out wrong..
I think a big part of the problems is your agenda, is seriously interfering with your ability to deal honestly with the various ussies. You often make statments that the scientist say or do this thing. As if there are a handfull of scientists that support ACC and they talk to each other to discuss how to portray it to the public. And when they say soemthing wrong then they huddle togehter to figure out some way to get their foor out of their mouths. I understand it is a technique to simplify arguments but in your case you use it as if that is really waht happens. Again there are thousadns of scientists who do research and there are many different points of view about the science. You make assertions about what “scientists’ say, but you don’t substatiate them with verifiable sources and you mishcaracterize the actual arguments and you make jusdgements that are based on perception and not on fact.
there is no moving of the goalposts. If you read SKS, you will see that the ocean heat content is and has been astandard part fo their explanation of OCean Warming. And the lack of increase in warming is an unresolved issue. If tmeps DO decrease ( which they have not in over 30 years) then that would pose a serious problem for the theory unless something like a huge volcano was the culprit. Snd then you provide facts that are bizarely wrong. there is no where near 150 years of deep ocean temps. there are less than 10 years so the infor form them is quite prliminary. STILL the preliminary data shows significant ocean warming, so even though it si far from conclusive. what you call moving the goal posts, so far, and tentatively, seems like saying the goalposts actually ought to be over there is this field and trainign yoru binoculars and seeing th golaposts there. this is again the exact OPPOSITE of those with an agend agaisnt ACC who ALL predicted Arctic Sea ICE recovery, and gave NO alternative explanation that would allow decreasing SIE, and then having the SIE fall precipitously, and then scrambling to find some excuse after being objecitevely completely wrong. You ahve yet to acknowledge that point, which seems so much stronger than the point you are trying to make with ocean temps. Again if you can find me ANY anti ACC blogger who said AMO might continue artice SIE loss before 2007, I would be happy to change my mind.
your saying the temperature records are being manipulated to show higher temps now and that there are records that show no warmer sounds like conspiracy to me. All the major record analysis of the last hundred years shows warming and they are from different sources and they match to within a fairly small range. Satelite. and earth based systems all show similar warming and all show the same general changes for the same periods of time. the one DEFINite mistake was the satelit records by Christie and he admitted that he was worng and adjusted the tempeartures to be corrected which had them not only in line iwht the other sources but HIGNER than the records from hadcrut. So in tour conspiracy the Those with the anti ACC Agenda have manipulated their temps HIGHER than the lying cliamte gate scientists. Does that not say ANYTHING to you about the reality of recent temps?
You are making assertions and my denying them does not make them false. But I don’t just “deny them” I present you with verifiable facts that contradict your assertions or ask you for something to substantiate you assumptuons that you almost never give. Why should I accept your assertions when All i do is ask for you to back them up and prvide substantive reasons for saying your assertions are not valid.
Also you do not need to guess about distorting my words. in every istance I tell you specifically what you are distroting and then explain to you what your distortion is. Again it is bizarre that you question this because I or anyone else can actually read what you adn i have written and see that i am clear about each instance.
then you make a crazy comment such as “I have given you science that calls into question a great deal of the science, but you will not accept that the violation of the scientific method is reason to reject something as being science.”
Of course I do not accept science that violates the scientific method. As far as I can tell You have not provided ANYTHING that shows any aspect of the theory of ACC violating the scientific method. You ahve recently pointed to the Marcott paper, but the only thing that might qualify is the part where they specifically said their study was not capable of a legitimate conclusion. Or lewandowsky, which is not a scientific paper about ACC Please remind me of what science you are referring to that is part of the many lines of evidence supporting the current theory of ACC?
I am happy to condemn any research that is not scientific and that comes to fraudulent conclusions based on data that is not valid.
your methods are not working for me becuase there is almsot never any substance to your assertions. You repeatedly ignore or distort my analysis of your “evidence” when i point out the flaws in it. When i accept aspects of points that you make you do not acknowledge that either becuase, I imagien then you would have to engage my full analysis and that does not support waht you are trying to proive. that ACC is an unacceptable scientific theory and as such there is no reason to to proceed with any action based on the potential consequences of the theory.
only reject that aspects of your poitns that have no merit. the parts that do have merit I acknowledge and support. Unfortunately when it comes to the actual science you hae yet to provide any compelling reason not to accept the current theory as at least generally valid.
What is fascinating to me is that Both glenn and i have shown you a large amount of reasearch that undermines your points> You ahve found nothing substantive to rebut what we have shown you> Glen specifically has presented you with long detaield reasoned accurate and totally relevant to respnses, for which you have no valid counter to his points. Yet you are unwilling to even consider that some fo your postions may be wrong.
Does it not strike you as odd that you can’t accept anything he has written that conflicts with you views, even though you are unable to find any information that contradicts waht he ahs written?
It seems to me someone with the name “reality check” should be able to acknoswledge that.
I have no concern about your previous work. If you were a CEO of an oil company I would not dismiss your views if they were rational and based on valid research that was confirmed by other researchers.
But it is phrases like “realized how very worng and dangerous the movement was”. that is clearly an ideological statment. Your agend is to try to limti the damage thios movement does. But it appears that you are som convinced of this ideological view that you cannnot accpet any evidence that your perspective is not accurate.
I actually applaud people pointing out how politics has politicized this issue and people like McKibben and Hansen and some others have a bias that exaggerates the science. I don;t care HOW right someone is, I want them to be telling the WHOLE truth the reality of the situation adn what we do know and what the uncertainsties are and where there is disagreement. In four years I ahve become pretty familair with many of those aspect. I am not nearly as knowldegable as glen, so I respect his views and do not disagree with them unless i find real evidence to contradict him. He is a thoughtful and reational and realistic person, as you are fully aware, and i have yet to see him exaggerate or mishcarteacterize any substantive issue aroudn the science.
I have poitned out numerous mistakes in both your reasoning and in your facts, and as far as i can see you have pointed out no mistakes in my facts. that is becuase i am very careful about only using facts i am confident about, and am quite willing to change my mind if those facts are show to be innacurate.
Bing movitvated to do the right thing is in general good. But only if you are willing to modify what “right” is when presented with more information. One of my faovrite sayings is ” a fanatic is some one who redoubles his efforts when he has forgotten his aim” I am quite open to ACC being wrong in imporitnat ways. I have detailed you what those reasons would be. You have provided no evidence that supports any of those things. it is possible that in the future somathing will.When and if that occurs I will change my mind
I have not noticed a lot of skeptic bloggers or any other bloggers defending their ideas. I often wonder why I answer. I suppose it depends on why you have the blog. However, failure to respond to questions on a blog may be construed as rudeness or uncertainty, it really may mean the purpose of the blog was something other than a “dialogue”.
Lovelock did not claim there was no warming–he claimed the scientists had been alarmists. He said they made a mistake and exaggerated things:
He said: ‘The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing,’ he told ‘We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened.
‘The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world.
‘[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising – carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134092/Gaia-scientist-James-Lovelock-I-alarmist-climate-change.html#ixzz2REKFYAqE
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
What is rejected is the certainty of the hypothesis. Uncertainty is important when deciding whether or not to accept the hypothesis is true. 95% would be great, 35% not so good. It depends on the gravity of changes needed and the damage any changes could do. Acceptance of GHG theory is not universal, either. However, I have not found convincing research or papers refuting it. So the basic idea remains. With climate, however, there are many, many factors, not just GHG.
Atmospheric temperatures did fall–as you admit. There is less than 150 years of deep ocean instrumental readings, which means proxies again are what all of this is based on. I did find that deep ocean temps were always part of the equation. When the warming above stopped, then the climate change advocates put the ocean at the top of where the heat goes. This makes them appear to move the goal posts–Oh, we forgot to be very specific that the ocean is warming and maybe the atmosphere won’t so if the anomalies above the ocean level off, we will then assume the heat went into the ocean.
I have seen multiple sets of data for temperature extremes. Many start in 1950 and 1970, eliminating the hotter years of 1930 and 1920. One can pretty much come up with whatever temp they want–this is statistics and what data goes in or gets adjusted is up to the researcher, within bounds. There are plenty of data sets that do not show warming and the record years are recent records. Even the Met and IPCC seem to be backing off the claim of “hottest” years.
I am making assertions I know you will insist are wrong, but your insistence does not make them wrong. Just as your insistence that your numbers are right do not make them right. There is so much “adjustment” of data, virtually any outcome can be created. It’s a major problem in the science and why it is often rejected.
As for distorting your words, I would have to guess I do not actually understand what you are meaning? If you see problems, then you appear to be willing to accept a theory that has problems and use it to act on. I am waiting for the better, less problematic theory.
I have given you websites to check out and there are books out there–try http://www.theinconvenientskeptic.com. He has information on problems with the ACC and is very good at answering questions. He had no agenda, so maybe you would find him a good reference.
I have given you science that calls into question a great deal of the science, but you will not accept that the violation of the scientific method is reason to reject something as being science. What can I do? You rejected all my references–again. Yes, you are confusing and difficult. You want an answer, then you reject the ones I give you . I do believe you honestly are asking for something that you can accept as proof the theory is wrong, but if you reject all my references and my rejection of the “science” based on the poor methodology, I probably will never be able to give you that. All I can suggest is you keep reading and maybe something will click. I try to explain things in many different ways but I can see that my methods are not working for you.
If you find Glen reassuring, perhaps you and he could sit around and discuss how right you both are. I am curious what bias you think I have. I have worked in the oil business, as a nanny, for the state unemployment office, as a secretary, and as a credit counselor. Will you jump on the “oil” and assume that’s it? Or maybe you might consider that I had no intention of writing blogs or entering any of the climate fray until I realized how very dangerous and wrong the movement was? Is doing the right thing, as you see it, a bad motive? I am curious.
Reality,
I don’t know Lunig, but almost all the others have been decrying ACC for years. Curry pretends to be a voice of rational moderation but i have seen her do nothing at all to correct comments that completely contradict her stated beliefs. Also she has engaged numerous times in petty and hominem attacks and baseless insinuation. I understand her doing so since she has been atttacked, but I have little sympathy because I find her behavior often hypocritical and opportunistic
the BIG excpetion is Lovelock, who as far as I recall has said that we are doomed and there is no hope. Please refer me to links where he is saying there is no danger form cliamte change. That would be a shocking revelation. Vahrenholt is an odd person, he has not shown any scientific analysis I am aware of that undermines ACC theory.
I do not ignore ANY individuals. I read what they have to say and compare it to what other scientists say and look at the conclusions. There are areas of uncertainty, and there are possible unknown mitigating effects. i have told you this many times. but there is no actual evidence of ACC being wrong. Even Michaels, Spencer and Curry accept the basic theory. they cling to uncertainty or to unproven hypothesis. There is nothing wrong with that and in general I would support people with this approach , but they make conclusions based on those things, and that is not science.
Also your contention that temps “did start to fall” is absolutely wrong. 2010 is the hottest year of global temps on record, and that was in a partial la Niña year. Why state something you know I know is just incorrect? At best one can say atmospheric global temps have not increased significantly in the 21st century. Scientists hypothesized that the lack of MORE atmospheric warming went into the Oceans. This was the basis of Trenbeth’s famous totally distorted quote about the “trajedy” we can’t find missing heat. Well recent data suggest that this is indeed accurate. So in this case there was a problem with the theory. A hypothesis was made and current data is so far supporting that. This is the opposite of what you are contending happened. Again why do you insist on making assertions that you know I am knowledgeable enough to critique them as being innacurate?
What qualifies as moving the goalposts is to state for YEARS that arctic SIE was in recovery, and then when shown to be completely wrong to an extent only predicted by the most extreme alarmists, to insist that this doesn’t matter and it is some NEW physical property that is causing the melt and it will be fine in a few years. That is literally moving the goal posts. and refusing to even consider the possibility that this prediction, a very concrete unambiguous one supports the current theory of ACC.
Once again you are distorting my words. I NEVER said that I se no problems with ACC. How can you over and over again distort what I clearly write. I think there are NUMEROUS ways that ACC might be worng, or innacurate in ways that make a huge difference in how we respond to it. What I HAVE said is that there is NO compelling evidence that it is wrong and no consistant competing theory that explains all the facts in all the diciplines.
That is a huge differnece from merely making assertions. I have repeatedly asked you to provide compelling science that undermines ACC in any substantive way and I am still waiting for that. There certainly are many areas of uncertainty of varying degrees. But uncertainty does NOT undermine a theory.
I have stidied the science, the politics the sociology of this issue extensively. In fact my major interesst that I have followed have been working with some leading academics around the psychology and reasoning around self delusion, and on understanding rationality and the role of emotions in distorting reality. I have studied childhood development extensively to understand how world views get established and how people self decieve in order to preserve ideology. I have spent a lot of time with very talented people in looking at my own biases and their sources and how to spot thought patterns and activities that indicate bias. And I use these understandings to analyze the issues and personalities around climate change. I certainly am not immune to bias, but I am to a large degree aware of it, and therefore am capable of conclusions that go agaisnt my bias.
if you have substantive explanations of how the science is flawed why are you refusing to show them to me?
You have had Glenn explain to you every specific issue you have brought up, and his expanations and have been clear, direct, curteous and relevant to every issue you have brought up. His resposnes have all passed the rational relatively unbiased tests that I use to assess opinions. He has provided facts and concrete evidence and supported explanations. he has not ignored important points you have brought up or denied valid points you have made.Yet I have yet to see you undermine any argument that he has made in any substantive way.
You are of course free to believe whatever you want.
You are correct that arctic melting does not prove ACC and sites like SKS will actnowledge that it is possible there are other possible explanations, but it is PREDICTED by ACC, and it was specifically DENIED by those with an agenda agaisnt ACC. If you can find me ONE person who denied ACC who said the Arctic would continue to melt, but it would be because of AMO, PLEASE point that out to me. I would be very interested in someone that had an alternative view BEFORE the SIE broke the record last year.
and the current lack of atmospheric INCREASE in warming is certainly objective data that could undermine ACC. If the temps start to go down as is the norm for cyclical climate events, then that wil cause a serious problem for the theory, as there is really no way, as I understand it, that global temps can go decrease significantly without some sort of major volcanic eruption or other incontrovertable mitigating event.
You say i need to study something mroe form the advocate side. But ocne again you do not provide any specific criticism. You seem to repeatedly dsitort what my actual analysis is. If there is some way that I am accepting informationt aht is innacurate or dismissing information that contradicts waht i have acutally written, I really do want to know about it. I am interested in what is really happening, but you have not shown me any instance of asertions I have made that are innacurate.
You however insist you KNOW the science is flawed yet you provide no substantiation for that. Please indicate specifically how your knowledge of scienitifc method, sociology and politics, all areas i am very familiar with lead you to a COPNCLUSION that the science is flawed.
reality,
i do not have time to respond to all your assertions in the above, but again point out that waht they are is assertions. I have been looking inot this issue very heavily for the past 4 to 5 years and do not see the things you are asserting. you have ben asked repeatedly to supply evidecne to back your assertions and almost never do so.
yes of course failure to adhere to the scientific method is serious and requiresquestioning the results. this is what I see over and over again on sites that have an agenda agaisnt ACC. When these unscientific exmaples are poointed out, they are either ignored or suported with more unscientific blather.
You point out that Mckibben has exaggerated or distorted inofrmation, and I agree that is wrong ans should be pointed out. The same with Hansen. But you have yet to point out any sciecne that contradicts ACC. you say that the theory is unfalsifiable. that is absolutely ludicrous. Clearly if temps start to fall significant;y over the next few years and there is no cuasal mechansims ( like a huge volcano) it would seriously bring ACC into question. Is the stratoshpher started heating up. if the arctic Ice started a major recovery. if ocean acidification decreased, if Nights stopped warming, if ocean temps decreased. ANY of these things would go a long way toward falsifying the theory. I am sure there are numoerous other tests that ACC could fail. the fact that make make an assertion just makes you sound like you are insisting what you want to believe is true.
Saying Warmisnts control peer review is meaningless. Evolutionists control it in Biology. Quanumists and relativists control it in Physics. It matters not who “controls” the peer review there is NO fooling thousands of scientists by a false consensus. there are just too many people expert enough in the various discipleines who have integrity who would not support falsified science. what you are describing would take a conspiracy and some form of coersion that, as I said, i have only seen efectively practiced by Stalin. Are there people who abuse their influence and who may damage peoples reputations or career possibilities? yes. But that is science and scientists are human and vain and have emotions. the ENTIRE ediface of science is not like that. I know cliamte scientists and EVERY one I have talekd to has shown integrity and is open to the possibility of there being even major mistakes in ACC. But they are unconvinced that there are any because NO ONE has provided any serious evidence that stands analysis by experts that cotnradicts the theory. PERIOD.
If there was a serious problem with the theory you would see scientists who previously had supported ACC start to question it. To date this has not happened. There are questions about climate sensitivity, and numeprus other areas, but nothing that questions the physics or the physical processes we know of that support current theory.
YTou mention a second physicians with other tests. Well, I would NOT accept the second diagnosis without getting a THIRD party to assess the two first diagnosis. So far the THIRD parties are all saying doctor number two does not have any tests shwoing no cancer. the tests showing cancer from the first grpoup seem valid, and doctor number two is just showing resutls that question some elements of the conclusion.
So you are worng. if cooling occurs it WILL cause a serious problem, and scientists will have to sort out what is wrong with the theory. there is NO reason to reject ACC as science jsut because you majke unsopported assertions claiming it does things that I see no evidecne of it doing.
What you are describing is EXACTLY what I see those withthe anti ACC agenda. It is what they have done with MArcott., with BEST, with Arctic SIE, with Glacier melt, with UH almost eveI, with cosmic rays, with every area that gives any support to ACC.
I just pointed out how SkS did NOT reject the Nic lewis paper. They did OT reject it and in fact praised hm for subjecting his research to peer review. then the made actual substantive critiques of it. If more papers come out that undermine their critiques and support Lewis’ conclusions and methods, then even SkS will accept that they have been wrong about ACC in those ways.
Arcitc Ice was something that was ABSOLUTELY going to recover and refte ACC on almost every site that has an agenda agaisnts ACC, yet with the devastating record last year, I have seen NONE of them say, hmmm. maybe we have been missing something and maybe there is some possibility that ACC is correct. if you can find me any post on the typical anti ACC site, i will happily eat my words.
Temps did start to fall, the scientists ignored it, then said the heat went into ocean. The warming was predicted to go into the atmosphere until the temps dropped. It’s called moving the goal posts.
There certainly is the ability to fool scientists. Plus, the numbers are artificially inflated by improper surveys and polls. There have been hoaxes in the past–the Piltdown Man comes to mind. A lot of scientists fell for that one. Many scientists with degrees identical to the climate scientists and several past “believers” disagree with the conclusions. To ignore all of these individuals is foolish.
Making assertions that you see no problems with ACC seems pretty obvious. It should also be obvious to you that I do not see any reason not to reject ACC. Repeating these positions will not change them. You are free to insist your view is right. I will do the same. The science is flawed. I know this because I understand scientific methods, sociology and politics which are all an integral part of climate change science. You are free to not believe me.
As SkS would point out, the lack of Arctic Ice recovery yet is not proof the theory is right any more than it refreezing proves it wrong. It could be that it will refreeze further into the future, just like the warming will return later on in the atmosphere. SkS always argues that it’s a complex theory and one instance does not prove or disprove the theory. Perhaps you need to study this a bit more from the advocate side.
There are multiple scientists who have gone from believers to skeptic. This is an old list, and I am guessing you will automatically throw out David Evans:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42
Others who either changed position or have degrees and careers in climate related areas:
Sebastian Lunig
Roy Spencer
Nils-Axel Morner
Judith Curry (you have commented on her, yes)
Roger Spencer
Patrick Michaels
Fritz Vahrenholt
James Lovelock (downgraded the urgency)
Actually, looking at the behaviour of scientists IS sufficient evidence for many people. Failure to adhere to the scientific method is a very serious violation and should immediately call into question the science results. It was not sufficient for you. You are not everyone. Therefore, it could be reasonable and sufficient for many other people.
Dyson is not a believer and it does not matter why for my point here. I was addressing his politics, which are very, very liberal.
Warmists control peer-review and only accept peer-review. So for warmists, they do control everything. However, they cannot control the internet or scientists in other countries, so science opposing the ACC theory does get out. There are many, many reports of people losing jobs, never being hired, students being threatened with failure and so forth if they do not tow the ACC line. Also, now that the science is “settled”, what are the odds any peer-reviewed journal would publish data against the theory? The reason there are so few peer-reviewed articles opposing the ACC is because climate science has a vested interest in maintaining the theory.
If you were diagnosed with cancer and awaiting treatment as the doctors figure out treatment, then when a second series of tests revealed you did not have cancer, would you vehemently insist you do have cancer, or it will happen in the future and demand immediate action be taken? Would you claim the doctor is wrong and just does not want to treat you because you don’t have good enough insurance and he would bear part of the cost. Would you scream at him he is not a scientist because cancer cannot cure itself? This is what climate science does. If cooling occurs, it does not mean the world is not threatened, it just means we have a bit more time. Everything proves the ACC theory (which is another reason to reject it as science) They demand that the diagnosis is correct no matter what. This would be considered a strange reaction in the case of a cancer patient–should I not consider it strange and questionable when it comes climate science and the insistence that a theory is irrefutably right no matter what the latest “test results” show?
As to the snipped comment: We have been over this and over this. I cannot prove anything to someone who calls non-believers irrational and refuses to look at anything but peer-reviewed literature. I have explained repeatedly that the behaviour of the scientists is not scientific. I can provide dissenting opinions, but it becomes he said/she said. You can read what I write and believe or not. I have posted multiple links to literature on Marcotti and on other studies. Accept them or not–I am finished arguing over this and will snip all future comments of this nature. You are correct–we are wasting our time, yet you keep on commenting on the blog. Think about that.
reality, Once again you are distorting what I wrote.
I did not say that warmists DON’T attack valid scientific research, I very specifically said that warmist conspiracy theorizing does not NECESSITATE that. I am not sure why you continue to insist on distorting what I write. I am after all going to read your distrotion and corect you, so it is just a waste of both of our time.
I also did not say, nor does Lewandosky say that it is necesary to be a conspircay believer in order to have an agenda agaisnt ACC. And clearly “A look at the science, the behaviour of the scientists, etc, is sufficient to cause one to stop believing.” is NOT sufficient cause to stop beleiving becuase I have done just that and still “believe” quite firmly in ACC.
I have already adressed the example of Dyson, his is a case I explored carefully, becuase he is a very respected scientist. As he clearly states his rejection of ACC is NOT based on any science, it is based on his “hunch” that models are wrong, and he freely admits to now knowing the speciifc arguments but he also has no interest in learning the specifics. his view is not in any way scientific, and in my view is not a credible argument agaisnt ACC. he DOES bring up valid theoretical issues , and some of his questions about ACC mirror my own.
Your trying to make an equivalence of warminst controlling the “field” to skeptics who ofen distort science or make totally invalid claims is specious. Where is this “plenty of valid science outside what warmists approve of. Have you seen anyone attack the NOAA paper you just posted on? I have yet to see scientist outright reject valid science just because it goes agaisnt ACC, WITHOUT making valid arguments agaisnt the science. Warmist supporters of ACC do NOT control the entire edifice of science that has some relation to ACC. It is a practical impossibility. there are literally millions of scientists that would quickly rebel against such a thing. the only case I know of is Lysenko in Russia where under threat of death or torture scientists HAD to accept the fake science. the science did NOT come out of an ideology, and there are too many conservative scientists who accept ACC who would absolutely not if they questioned the science or thought that the ideology was determining the science.
(remainder of comment removed–we have been over this)
It is not in any way necessary to believe in conspiracies or a specific political position to reject to idea of ACC. A look at the science, the behaviour of the scientists, etc, is sufficient to cause one to stop believing. One interesting example of this is Freeman Dyson, who reportedly has an Obama sticker on his car. His left-wing politics did not prevent him from questioning ACC nor did questioning ACC lead him to conservatism.
Again, I have to repeat that not accepting an argument that is not in line with one’s life philosophy may NOT be close-mindedness, but rather that the argument is not persuasive. There is is tendency to try and blame everything EXCEPT the lack of believability in the argument.
I would disagree that warmists do not attack any valid scientific research. They DEFINE what is valid, which basically means they can dictate any “theory” they want. When you own the ball, the bat and the field, you control the game. There is plenty of valid science outside what the warmists approve of. They just reject it as not being valid. Same as skeptics do the warmist science. (Like politics–both sides make the same claims against each other).
My theory on why ACC believers and conspiracy believers do not show up on the net comes from personal experience–those who are “naturalists” who want society to go back to eating berries and living in the woods (I mean this literally–they are all for anything that leads to a socialist utopia based on living in harmony with nature) do not have a presence on the internet. These people do not want to be noticed at all. I can’t prove it, of course, but that is my experience. Your experience may be different.
reality
a very interesting and reasonable proposal. Clearly not what Lewandosky did. And I agree that the
“study” has serious problems and is in no way a rigorous unbiased exploration of the connection between conspiracy theorists and those who have an agenda against climate change (in my view this includes people like Curry, who I excluded from the “banned word” list).
As such it’s conclusions should not be given a lot of weight.
it is however an interesting study and to a certain degree it confirms my experience. I have not found any beleif among those with an agenda against ACC regarding moon landings or the illuminati or zionist conspiracies, but I HAVE seen many many posts and especially comments related to ideological issues of which ACC is an important part. Certainly many who have an agenda against climate change are convinced of Obama’s Kenyan birth (Steve Goddard is still posting about that), of UN one world conspiracies in various forms, of socialist conspiracy’s around Obama and people like George Soro’s, and most recently around Benghazi and the idea that regulating the use of firearms is against the second amandment. Almost all are linked to an extreme libertarian or conservative paranoia, and almost all have only a tenuous connection to reality.
As I have repeatedly suggested a major indication of this sort of thinking is not being skeptical of any idea as long as it atttacks the idea one is opposing, even if the attacks are logically incompatible.
I am happy to provide examples of this from sites such as WUWT, Goddard, Jo Nova, Delingpole, Curry, etc.
I WILL also state that there is somewhat of a conspiracy theory on the warmist side. The idea that energy companies are subsidizing and the main force behind the attacks on ACC. It is a conveneint argument that fits in with a left leaning ideology about greedy evil corporations, but I do not see much reality to it. Certianly it is unquestionable that Exxon Mobil, Koch and other energy and right wing groups have been a major source of funding for places like Heartland, Cato, Marshall and other right wing think tanks. But I would at best give them the status of seeding opposition rather than leading the charge. There is no need for these companies or organizations to do that much becuase there is such a huge base of people with the ideology that is already so primed to look for any issue that is threatening to their belief system. ACC fits that pattern perfectly. it contends that industrialization has had a serious unintended consequence, and these ideological fanatics beleive it is an attack on capitalism and free enterprise. Therefore they invent a conspiracy that the science is based on a political agenda, and as such have to attack any science that supports the idea of ACC. Of course the culprit is NOT specifically capitalism but the way the world industrialized. Certainly the Communist powers Soviet Union and China were almost totally unconcerned about any environmental issues as long as they could avoid them.
The warmist conspiracy theory, in my view, while basically wrong, is much less dangerous because it does not require attacking any valid scientific research (see SKS review of the Nic Lewis paper. While not a glowing recommendation and a critical review it is not an unsupported attack on the study), whereas the anti ACC conspricay theory necesitates an attack on ALL research that in any way support ACC. this also often includes seriously distorting research that DOES support ACC in ways that appear to undermine it. Right now a common distortion is the idea that total polar SIE is normal or above normal so the loss of ice in the arctic is of no consequence.
The lewandosky paper’s data seems to support my hypothesis pretty well, however flawed the methodology is. And the response to the paper only reinforces that idea.
But it would be valuable to have a really serious scientific study around this issue.
Unfortunately, many people have no idea how a proper survey is conducted and may be inclined to think there was nothing wrong with what Lewandowsky said. This is to give them the proper methodology.
You are correct however–enough said.
“Most people can’t think, most of the remainder won’t think, the small fraction who do think mostly can’t do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion — in the long run these are the only people who count.” – Robert A. Heinlein
I don’t think any more need be said on the subject of Lewandowsky.