Climate deniers refuse to accept skeptical scientists’ results

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So you know how we kind of use "climate change deniers" and "climate change skeptics" interchangeably, because news stories get super boring if you don't mix it up? We're not wild about doing that, because skepticism is in fact a great scientific value that people should embrace, whereas denialism is just sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la." And nothing has made that clearer than the skeptical scientists who, despite their Koch funding, found evidence of global warming -- and the dogmatic deniers who refused to accept their results.

Richard Muller and his team at Berkeley approached climate change with actual skepticism; they needed to examine the evidence in order to be convinced, but they were willing to examine it assiduously. They did, and their reexamination found that global warming is real. So far so good.

But then there are the climate deniers, who aren't going to be swayed by anything so prosaic as fact. For instance: Denier Anthony Watts, who had pledged to accept the results of Muller's investigation no matter what they were, is now claiming that he can't get behind the findings because -- really -- they incorporate too much data.

Mr. Watts, a former television meteorologist, contended that the study’s methodology was flawed because it examined data over a 60-year period instead of the 30-year-one that was the basis for his research and some other peer-reviewed studies. He also noted that the report had not yet been peer-reviewed and cited spelling errors as proof of sloppiness.

Watts is right that the report hasn't been peer-reviewed, though deniers claimed the peer review process was fundamentally untrustworthy until approximately ... now.

This raises the question: What will it take to convince deniers? What if they burned up in their shoes, would that do it? What if God came down and drew a hockey stick graph on the wall? What if Dumbledore explained it using his Pensieve? Look, if science doesn't work, it's going to have to be God, magic, or spontaneous combustion; that's just a fact of nature.

straight to the source

• Climate Deniers Still Not Happy With Koch-Funded Climate Study, ThinkProgress
• Climate Study Does Not Placate Skeptics, New York Times

[slim 1,525]

Is Berkeley where the good science comes from?

[scandal 951]

Is Berkeley where the good science comes from?

Apparently so.

From their faq.

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php

What is Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature?

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature aims to contribute to a clearer understanding of global warming based on a more extensive and rigorous analysis of available historical data. The study has reviewed data from over 39,000 temperature measurement stations across the globe. This is more than five times the 7,280 stations found in the Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly data set (GHCN-M) that has served as the focus of many climate studies to date.

Why is the work being done by Berkeley Earth important?

Existing data used to show global warming have met with much criticism. The Berkeley Earth project attempts to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses by making available an open record to enable rapid response to further criticism and suggestions. Our results include our best estimate for the global temperature change and our estimates of the uncertainties in the record.

We believe that science is nonpartisan and our interest is in getting a clear view of the pace of climate change in order to help policy makers to evaluate and implement an effective response. In choosing team members, we engage people whose primary interests are finding answers to the current issues and addressing the legitimate concerns of the critics on all sides. None of the scientists involved has taken a public political stand on global warming.

Who is carrying out this work?

The project is headed by Richard Muller and the main scientific work is carried out by Robert Rohde. Richard Muller is a Professor of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley, Faculty Senior Scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, and President of Muller & Associates LLC. Robert Rohde is a scientist who obtained his PhD in experimental/theoretical physics at the University of California at Berkeley. His expertise includes the analysis of large data sets, with estimates of statistical and systematic effects. Together they have co-authored a series of papers on the analysis of bio diversity in the fossil record. A full list of the project's team members is available here.

What is project chair Richard Muller's expertise in climate?

Richard Muller's published works on climate have appeared in some of the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals including:

1. Science (vol. 277, pp 215-218, 11 July 1997; vol. 288, p 2143-2144, 23 June 2000).

2. Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences (vol. 94, pp 8329-8334, Aug 5, 1997).

3. Geology (vol. 25, pp. 3-6, 1997; vol. 25, pp. 859-861, 1997).

4. Paleoceanography (vol. 17, pp. 2-1 to 2-12, 2002).

5. Geoch. Cosmochim. Acta (vol. 67, pp 751-763, 2003).

6. Nature (vol.377, pp 107-108, 14 September 1995).

and also in other journals such as Eos. He has been active in the American Geophysical Union on climate research, and wrote “Ice Ages and Astronomical Causes”, a technical book published by Springer.

Richard was also deeply involved in the hockey stick issue, and was a named referee chosen to review the report of the National Research Council of the US National Academy of Sciences.

What exactly has Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature done so far?

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature has set out to:

1. Merge existing surface station temperature data sets into a new comprehensive raw data set with a common format that could be used for weather and climate research

2. Review existing temperature processing algorithms for averaging, homogenization, and error analysis to understand both their advantages and their limitations

3. Develop new approaches and alternative statistical methods that may effectively remove some of the limitations present in existing algorithms

4. Create and publish a new global surface temperature record and associated uncertainty analysis

5. Provide an open platform for further analysis by publishing our complete data and software code as well as tools to aid both professional and amateur exploration of the data

The Berkeley Earth team has released four preliminary papers with our findings, together with our data base and analysis programs. They are currently available here.

Our papers have been sumbitted to peer reviewed journals, and we are making them available to the public in order to invite additional scrutiny.

How did the project come about?

The Berkeley Earth project was created in 2010, by Richard Muller and his daughter Elizabeth Muller who had been previously collaborating on energy and climate issues. Together they observed a real need for a new project to analyze current global surface temperature records in order to respond to concerns of critics and calm the debate about global warming. After connecting with Michael Ditmore, the Executive Director of Novim (a non-profit funded by donors), and joining with lead scientist Robert Rohde, Berkeley Earth was created as a project within Novim.

Who is funding the project?

A complete list of our donors and the amounts that they contributed is available here. We have received financial support totaling more than $600,000 from the Folger Fund, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates), the Bowes Foundation, the Koch Foundation, and the Getty Foundation. Together, the people who created these organizations span a wide range of political views. We have also received funding from a number of private individuals, totaling $14,500 at this time.

All donations were provided as unrestricted educational grants and donors have no influence over our methodology or our published results. Our results have now been made public and will be presented with full transparency, and our data are available to those who wish to carry out their own analysis.

It appears that Berkeley Earth's analysis shows a temperature rise greater than others had previously published. Is this so? Can you explain?

Berkeley Earth has not yet begun to analyze ocean temperatures (we hope to do this in the next year), so the plotted data is land only. Land warms more than oceans, so when we include the ocean we expect the total global warming to be less.

We started with the land data for several reasons:

1. It is the data that is most greatly affected by the most contentious issues: data selection bias, urban heat island, and station integrity issues. These are major concerns that we wanted to address.

2. The temperature rise on land is greater than in the oceans, greatly due to the oceans distribution of heat over the mixed layer thereby reducing the temperature rise. Because land keeps the heat mostly on the surface, the land temperature is actually more sensitive to greenhouse gases than is the world temperature.

3. With 1.6 billion measurements, culling land temperature data was a major effort. It made sense to divide the project into two stages.

[^_^ 5,021]

Climate deniers refuse to accept skeptical scientists’ results

Climate deniers?

Who are these people who deny that climate exists?

[scandal 951]

Climate deniers?

Who are these people who deny that climate exists?

There is no climate. It's all in your mind.

(The article does start off referring to "Climate change deniers", which is then shortened to "Climate deniers" and "deniers" in the body of the article.)

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Science

I am just saying.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Crusty Old Perv

[웃 910]

Science

I am just saying.

What are you saying?

For comparison:

Religion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyjBWWnXYBI&feature=related

I am just saying!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Science, and other religions, I am just saying...

[scandal 951]

There is more to this, you know.

For example, you might want to read up on the anarchistic views of science popularized by Paul Feyerabend.

In his books Against Method and Science in a Free Society Feyerabend defended the idea that there are no methodological rules which are always used by scientists. He objected to any single prescriptive scientific method on the grounds that any such method would limit the activities of scientists, and hence restrict scientific progress. In his view, science would benefit most from a "dose" of theoretical anarchism. He also thought that theoretical anarchism was desirable because it was more humanitarian than other systems of organization, by not imposing rigid rules on scientists.

Feyerabend's position was originally seen as radical in the philosophy of science, because it implies that philosophy can neither succeed in providing a general description of science, nor in devising a method for differentiating products of science from non-scientific entities like myths. (Feyerabend's position also implies that philosophical guidelines should be ignored by scientists, if they are to aim for progress.)

Feyerabend described science as being essentially anarchistic, obsessed with its own mythology, and as making claims to truth well beyond its actual capacity. He was especially indignant about the condescending attitudes of many scientists towards alternative traditions. For example, he thought that negative opinions about astrology and the effectivity of rain dances were not justified by scientific research, and dismissed the predominantly negative attitudes of scientists towards such phenomena as elitist or racist. In his opinion, science has become a repressing ideology, even though it arguably started as a liberating movement. Feyerabend thought that a pluralistic society should be protected from being influenced too much by science, just as it is protected from other ideologies.

Starting from the argument that a historical universal scientific method does not exist, Feyerabend argues that science does not deserve its privileged status in western society. Since scientific points of view do not arise from using a universal method which guarantees high quality conclusions, he thought that there is no justification for valuing scientific claims over claims by other ideologies like religions. Feyerabend also argued that scientific accomplishments such as the moon landings are no compelling reason to give science a special status. In his opinion, it is not fair to use scientific assumptions about which problems are worth solving in order to judge the merit of other ideologies. Additionally, success by scientists has traditionally involved non-scientific elements, such as inspiration from mythical or religious sources.

Fun stuff. "Science", rain-dances, astrology, religion -- all essentially equal in Feyerabend's view.

I thought you would enjoy reading up on him. In my view he is a total loon, but it's good to think about looney ideas sometimes.

BTW, a really good intro to the subject of philosophy of science, with an overview of Inductivism, Falsificationism, Kuhnian paradigms and revolutions, Lakatos research programs, and Feyerabend anarchism - is Alan ChalmersWhat is this thing called Science?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Science, and other religions, I am just saying...

Science is a religion? Where did you go to school?

[웃 910]

There is more to this, you know.

For example, you might want to read up on the anarchistic views of science popularized by Paul Feyerabend.

Fun stuff. "Science", rain-dances, astrology, religion -- all essentially equal in Feyerabend's view.

I thought you would enjoy reading up on him. In my view he is a total loon, but it's good to think about looney ideas sometimes.

BTW, a really good intro to the subject of philosophy of science, with an overview of Inductivism, Falsificationism, Kuhnian paradigms and revolutions, Lakatos research programs, and Feyerabend anarchism - is Alan ChalmersWhat is this thing called Science?

You got anything that bashes religion to a pulp - completely decimates it into oblivion? Just kidding, unless you do?

...I am on page 180 of 600 on Bryson's book. Just fvcking phenomenal!

I have Why Evolution is True and Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon on deck.

[scandal 951]

You got anything that bashes religion to a pulp - completely decimates it into oblivion? Just kidding, unless you do?

...I am on page 180 of 600 on Bryson's book. Just fvcking phenomenal!

I have Why Evolution is True and Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon on deck.

I knew you would like Bryson's book. It's a great read. So is Coyne - you'll love that one, I'm sure. Don't forget Shubin. Put him on your list (I learned about the Shubin book from Coyne, he mentions it).

Also, I really do recommend Chalmers book for you. Seriously, you'll enjoy it. It's much dryer than something like Bryson, but you'll thank me later for suggesting that you read it.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Science is a religion? Where did you go to school?

Evidently, your education was incomplete.

A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed

by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe

hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.

Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot (1994)

Edited October 25, 2011 by Crusty Old Perv

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Not really Perv. I asked because I have read Adventist "science" books and they are a trip.

Despite your Carl quote, which isn't exactly equating the two anyway, science is hardly the same as religion. Polar opposites in my view in fact.