Awhile back, I ran across the web site demanddebate.com (hat tip: Michael Tobis).
The thrust of the website is that everyone should demand debate about climate change instead of gullibly accepting the Gore/alarmist view. Their slogan is, "I'm more worried about the intellectual climate."
I am teaching a "intro to atmospheric science" class and had been trying to find a skeptic to come talk to the students. So I hit the contact button on the web site and asked:
I would be interested in having an expert from your group come speak to my atmospheric sciences class.
Unfortunately, I don't have any money to support travel, so I'm hopeful that you have someone local to the area (we could probably pay for mileage to/from Houston, Austin, Dallas, or other local cities).
Thanks!
I didn't expect to get a response, but Steve Milloy himself e-mailed me back:
Hi Andrew,
Can't think of anyone offhand. But will think about it.
BTW, you could always show them The Great Global Warming Swindle.
We also have a YouTube video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU
Steve
I found that unsatisfactory, so I e-mailed back:
Steve,
The problem, of course, is that watching a movie is not a "debate." I think showing Gore's movie and then Swindle would produce confusion.
I've been quite frustrated in my inability to find a skeptic to come talk to my class. There's no shortage of people, of course, supporting Gore's viewpoint.
I think we all agree that debate is a good thing, but if no one in the State of Texas is willing to defend the skeptical viewpoint, then (in my view) Gore wins by default. [I know skeptics do exist, but I cannot afford to fly one in from, e.g., Israel].
Let me know if you think of any flesh-and-blood skeptics you can point my way.
Regards,
Andy
Milloy promptly responded:
Hi Andy,
I appreciate your problem. I'll see if I can find someone Aggie country.
Steve
Then, silence.
I pinged him back about two weeks later, asking if he could find a skeptic in Texas. Alas, I got no response.
While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case.
Contrast that small group of skeptics with the thousands of climate scientists who agree with the main conclusions of the IPCC reports.
This is consistent with my other attempts to find skeptics. A few months ago, Eric Berger of the Houston Chronicle wanted to set up a discussion between a practicing scientist in Texas skeptical of global warming -- just one -- and me. The skeptic had to be a geologist, climate scientist, or someone whose research was at least tangentially related to global warming. He looked all around the State of Texas and couldn't find one.
Similarly, East Texas Baptist University wanted to set up a discussion about climate change, and they got one of my colleagues, John Nielsen-Gammon, the Texas State Climatologist, to represent the mainstream view. However, they had to fly a skeptic in from Virginia (Pat Michaels) because they too could not find a skeptic in the state.
While advocates against action on climate change claim that there are lots of legitimate climate skeptics out there, it's simply not true. To test this, try to find one. You'll discover they're about as common as Snuffalufagous or unicorns.
The new Senate global warming deniers
20 climate experts call for aggressive U.S. action
Do as Heartland says, not as it does
Comments View as Flat
James Dailey Posted 4:21 pm
21 Nov 2007
Debate is over, nay-sayers are irrelevant. Perhaps
I visited those websites you mentioned. What strikes me is that those of us in the "climate change is happening and there is no debate" camp come across - according to these people - as also saying "there is no debate, you bleedin' idiot". We need not be humble about what the science is telling us, and we need a frontal assault on these specious arguments.
This is actually a problem for the "issue" (nice if it fit into that box) of climate change. My impression is that the vast majority of Americans, not to mention the rest of the 5.7 Billion people on the planet, are NOT fully aware that the debate has been settled on the science, and that we are now in for either a) a very interesting decade of responses; or, b) a slow slide over the edge of the abyss. If people were fully aware, I would presume that they would "vote with their feet", and agree to just about any policy to fight climate change.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 11:10 pm
21 Nov 2007
consensus
While the lack of skeptic scientists is interesting, there's no lack of skeptic citizens out there...consensus in the scientific community so rarely translates into change on the ground, partly b/c scientists aren't always the best communicators. The IPCC is doing well, however, we have to keep bringing the climate issue into the mainstream in every way conceivable.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:45 am
22 Nov 2007
I'm demanding an argument ...
the classic example
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 1:02 am
22 Nov 2007
the real environmental problem ...
The real environmental problem is not finding a rational, intelligent "climate skeptic" but that most Americans seem clueless as what to do about it.
Practical, money-saving, simple, and easy? Whoa, that should appeal to most Americans.
But when Americans are treated as a bunch of clueless, dumb kids who don't know better, it's a tough sell.
I do think it's hysterical that a leading US a leading US scientist and professor, Andrew D., can't find a denier-expert for a debate, though. See, there is something to be thankful for!
Happy Thanksgiving
Onward through the fog
Permalink
StillSkeptical Posted 1:29 am
22 Nov 2007
Debate Idea
You might try having your students research both sides and then host their own debate. There are at least three levels to debate on: The actual physical record, the theory of AGW/models and what action should be taken. When someone is suspected of a crime, they get the benefit of a lawyer arguing their case, even if everyone thinks they are guilty. Your students should do the same.
Permalink
PolluteLessDotCom Posted 2:06 am
22 Nov 2007
If you want some debate...
...have them look at the website below. Seems like there is a lot of controversial stuff there and the language could be nicer. That is at least what I am told occasionally. Still not sure if I should change the language since I am representing the angry, bitter environmental activist. But there is lots of good info there and there has been good debate when my students looked at it. Feedback is welcome.
Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 4:02 am
22 Nov 2007
debate is good
Sometimes us "smart guys" (OK, I'm not all that smart and there are lots of women out there too) can play our own Devil's Advocate better than the naysayers can. Doesn't science teach one to be skeptical in the first place?
It's worth some class time to try it; just split the students down the middle and say "this side is for it and this side is against it: let the debate commence."
I think you'll find some interesting things. There's the "exception to the rule" where some areas are getting cooler and gaining ice, "Kyoto didn't work" which is a political ploy not logic, value systems, economics, and yes, even hyperbole.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
pcarbo Posted 5:39 am
22 Nov 2007
Maybe you're looking in the wrong places
I would suggest:
Permalink
plum Posted 8:08 pm
22 Nov 2007
Try Monckton or Dennis Avery
I'm surprised you couldn't find anyone. I've been hearing on and off on the local sceptic sites that Al Gore won't debate, a fact that Heartland predictably trumpets for all it's worth:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20873
Does your debate opponent have to be a Texas scientist? Because it seems that Monckton and Avery would be all too willing to fly over and debate you.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:21 am
23 Nov 2007
Debating teams?
Andrew, one would think that debating teams must be taking up the climate change question.
As far as finding a champion sophist that won't mind fighting for the denialist side, that's the best source. College debate teams.
Let your students face a really skillful liar tested in battle. One that sets aside their ethics and concern for the planet in the name of victory.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
jfleck Posted 3:01 am
23 Nov 2007
a suggested skeptic
Andrew -
If you're willing to expand the boundaries slightly, you might try Petr Chylek at Los Alamos.
Permalink
EliRabett Posted 4:25 am
23 Nov 2007
Well the window has moved
Eli suggests that this is further evidence that the Overton window has moved, and what you need now is not to try and shove it back but to debate the situation with, for example, Gerald North, who I believe is more skeptical about some of the evidence than you, and somewhat more reticent about taking immediate action.
It seems to me that you can now offer your class a real debate about real choices. Of course, Texas, being Texas, reality is not all it is cracked up to be
Permalink
TheGreenMiles Posted 8:00 am
23 Nov 2007
Debate has shifted from science to economics
The denial movement seems to have shifted from the flat-Earth "climate change does not exist" to "it's happening but we can't/shouldn't do anything about it". If you're need a debate, why not have two GW-accepting scientists debate which solutions would be most effective?
Join the discussion on global warming, recycling, and organic beer at The Green Miles!
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 8:16 am
23 Nov 2007
Debate still goes on in the media unfortunately
On the American Museum Natural History's website:
" Maxwell T. Boykoff of the University of Oxford analyzed 143 news segments about climate change that were broadcast between 1995 and 2004 on programs ranging from the CBS Evening News to CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports. Only 28 percent of the segments paralleled scientific opinion in portraying humans as the main cause of global warming, Boykoff discovered. Just a handful of segments went so far as to suggest that humans had a negligible effect on Earth's climate, but a full 70 percent gave roughly equal play to both sides of the debate."
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/index_samplings.html
scroll down to the warming earth section
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 4:13 am
24 Nov 2007
Jerry North
Eli-
For the record, Jerry North is not a skeptic in the least. I can assure you that he and I agree on just about everything when it comes to climate. He is, perhaps, less outspoken than I, but he is no less supportive of the conclusions of the IPCC WG I report.
Thanks!
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 7:02 am
24 Nov 2007
A few thoughts
Neither Monckton and Avery are scientists, so I discount them. The question here is whether there are lots of skeptical scientists out there.
Petr Chylek is indeed a well-known skeptic, and I consider him one of the several dozen that get recycled continuously --- e.g., he was one of the 60 signatories of a skeptical letter to Canada's prime minister, along with all of the usual suspects.
I don't dispute that skeptics exist, my point is that there are only a few dozen credible climate scientists in the entire world. There seem like more because they get endlessly recycled. I don't think that anything written in the comments changes that.
If there were lots of climate-scientist skeptics in the world, wouldn't there be one in Texas? Compare that to the hundreds of climate scientists in Texas that agree with the IPCC reports ... such as my entire department.
As far as my class goes, I doubt any of the big name skeptics (e.g., Lindzen, Michaels, etc.) would show up without a fat honorarium. I know that EBTU paid Michaels at least $1000 + travel expenses to participate. And I don't have that kind of money for the class.
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 2:08 pm
24 Nov 2007
Sk,eptics
Andrew - If you have already told your class you were going to find a GW skeptic to debate with, then I guess you might have to arrive in class wearing black and sorrowfully announce that all the skeptics seem to be as dead as their arguments. Then point out to the class that the best way to win an argument is to have opponents fade into the woodwork, the same way Christ defended the woman from being stoned - "Is there no one here to condemn you? Then neither do I."
Des Emery
Permalink
EliRabett Posted 2:47 pm
24 Nov 2007
What I meant. . .
I did not mean that Jerry North was skeptical about the IPCC WGI report, rather that from what I have read he is more conservative (and I mean that NOT in the usual political sense) about the situation in general then say Hansen (who is pretty far out there). What I am trying to encourage you to do, is to use him as an advocate of the most conservative position consistent with the evidence, find a Hansenite and park yourself in the middle (where IEHO) you are. Me, I'm more radical on this issue than you (again, NOT in the usual political sense)
Permalink
kwag7693 Posted 2:47 pm
25 Nov 2007
Confusion
Andrew writes:
"I don't dispute that skeptics exist, my point is that there are only a few dozen credible climate scientists in the entire world. There seem like more because they get endlessly recycled. I don't think that anything written in the comments changes that."
I think you are conflating one person's lack of response to you with there being no principled opposition to your viewpoint.
Of course there are scientists out there who don't buy the AGW theory. The science is far from settled. The IPCC models are non-empirical and apparently have no predictive value. That leaves a lot to be desired for a scientific theory. The lack of response you've gotten from Steve Milloy can have numerous reasons, not the least of which being he just doesn't care to respond or put any effort into finding one for your class.
Seeing the vitriol with which the few scientists who are right out there with their problems with AGW are treated, is it really that surprising that many scientists are not comfortable or interested with joining their ranks? Iconoclasm is not a particularly comfortable position.
Permalink
EliRabett Posted 10:41 pm
25 Nov 2007
The issue is not principle
The issue is not principled opposition but expert opposition, and from what Andrew recounts and observation of the very thin bench of denialist scientists, it appears that the later is lacking. Worse, for a scientific theory opposition based on political principles may be effective, but it is destructive. Kwaq goes on to say
"Of course there are scientists out there who don't buy the AGW theory."
But not very many of them. Moreover most of those are fairly old and retired or near to being so, which is a sure mark of a field having passed them by.
"The science is far from settled."
While there are parts of climate science that are not settled (and some of those parts are really scary), the basic principles are well established such as an anthropically enhanced greeenhouse effect.
"The IPCC models are non-empirical and apparently have no predictive value."
This is a) false and b) false. but one wearies.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 1:50 am
26 Nov 2007
No scientists?
kwaq-
I'm amazed that skeptical scientists are joining the ranks of bigfoot and UFOs. I'm sure I'll be seeing this on late-night TV soon:
This is, of course, accompanied by a grainy photo of a flying pie tin.Come on. The argument that, "they're out there, but they're afraid to come out" is a fantastic conspiracy theory because it can't be falsified. After all, how does one prove either side of that statement.
I propose a different rule: if you don't have evidence to support your conjecture, then it doesn't have any place in a legitimate debate.
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 5:09 am
26 Nov 2007
Haberdashery, Hansen, etc..
Andrew, strictly speaking shouldn't that be a flying tin-foil hat?
Someone suggested above that Hansen's ideas form a more proper basis for debate under present circumstances. I agree.
Regarding the comment above about iconoclasm, of course one can express such views and maintain respect in the field. Wally Broecker is an excellent example of that. There is certainly a limit as to how far one go and still maintain that respect, though. When Chylek signed that letter, e.g., he crossed a line. By no means did he entirely lose respect, but it meant that he was taking a firm step into Christy-land (a place where one's research is no longer given the benefit of the doubt and one might find oneself with, e.g., the entire front page of Eos being devoted to pointing out one's bone-headed contrarian errors). Of course just beyond beyond Christy-land is Spencer-land (a province of Wingnuttia), and there be the dragons of overt disrespect.
Permalink
kwag7693 Posted 7:35 am
26 Nov 2007
The importance of being earnest
Eli:
When I referred to principled opposition, I was offering a counter-point to the frequent objection that anyone who doesn't buy AGW is bought and paid for by X. Of course, expertise is important too.
Here's Kevin Trenberth on the IPCC GCMs, interpret this how you may:
"In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers "what if" projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent "story lines" that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable. But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess."
Trenberth is saying the GCMs are striving not for correspondence to the case but coherence with theory, right? I don't understand any other meaning for a claim like that last sentence. I.e. not even a probabilistic scenario and no best guess.
He adds:
"None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate."
I'd file that under non-empirical. But one wearies.
Permalink
kwag7693 Posted 7:58 am
26 Nov 2007
Rules of evidence
I am all for epistemic parsimony. I think a far more parsimonious explanation for you not finding an opponent is that you didn't really look but asked someone else who is probably not very sympathetic to your interests to look.
You can call this tin-hat conspiracy mongering, but you seemed to miss my point that your conclusion was not entailed by your premises.
You offered Milloy no incentive to do your work for you. You specified up front you had no budget to reimburse your debater for his time beyond possibly gas mileage. And your sum total of investigation into this issue appears to be some unspecified hunt for debaters and a few emails from the last of which you didn't even receive a reply.
How would one falsify your claim? You'd find a scientist willing to debate who wasn't a frequently heard voice. How would one falsify my claim? You'd find out Milloy did an excellent search on your behalf and everyone in the state of Texas he talked to was a gung ho AGW supporter. Both are falsifiable. Mine is just more likely.
"I propose a different rule: if you don't have evidence to support your conjecture, then it doesn't have any place in a legitimate debate."
Excellent. Then support your inference that your handful of anecdotes, including Milloy's failure to reply, entails that only a handful of legitimate experts in the world disagree with the AGW theory, i.e.:
"I don't dispute that skeptics exist, my point is that there are only a few dozen credible climate scientists in the entire world."
You are interpreting Milloy's lack of response, odd considering you stated you didn't expect a response from the outset [wonder why?], to mean he did a great job for you and failed to meet your challenge. Your evidence to support that conjecture appears to be slim to none from your posting to date.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 8:32 am
26 Nov 2007
still a non-falsifiable conspiracy theory
Your statement that all I did to look for a skeptic was send off a few e-mails misrepresents my knowledge about the existence of skeptics.
Climate science is my profession, and I go to meetings and talk to other scientists all the time. I can assure you that, with the exception of a few dozen well-recycled contrarians (few of whom I'd describe as "principled"), you never see or hear climate-science skeptics at meetings.
Of course, they may be there, fearful of speaking up, but now we're back to your non-falsifiable conspiracy theory. How can I tell if someone is actually lying to me when they reveal they're mainstream scientists?
I e-mailed Milloy not because I thought he would be able to identify a skeptic --- I was pretty sure he could not --- but because I wanted to cover all bases.
I have no idea if Milloy did a thorough search, but this misses the point: if there were many climate skeptics out there, would he have to do a thorough search? In that case, he'd open his rolodex and send me a name.
If he has to do a thorough search, then the game's mine. Contrast the "thorough search" you suggest against the effort of finding a mainstream climate scientist in TX. To find a mainstream climate scientist takes about 30 seconds of googling.
In any event, I'm quite certain you'll claim that my knowledge of the scientific community is insufficient to falsify your conspiracy theory --- and of course you're right, since conspiracy theories cannot be falsified. No evidence is ever sufficient, because contrary results are seen by you as evidence of another layer of deception.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 8:39 am
26 Nov 2007
I would add ...
It occurs to me that, as far as a thorough search of Texas goes, we don't need Steve Milloy to do it. I've done it myself through my professional interactions with the other climate scientists in the State.
Thus, the exhaustive search for a skeptical climate scientist has occurred. A far better search, in fact, than Steve Milloy could have done.
So I've falsified your claim.
Now, I guess I get to wait for you to argue that my results are just another part of the conspiracy.
Permalink
kwag7693 Posted 9:23 am
26 Nov 2007
The "game"
Andrew wrote:
"Your statement that all I did to look for a skeptic was send off a few e-mails misrepresents my knowledge about the existence of skeptics."
Your statement misrepresents my own despite having it there for reference:
"And your sum total of investigation into this issue appears to be some unspecified hunt for debaters and a few emails from the last of which you didn't even receive a reply."
You've now specified that hunt of yours.
You tell me:
Is the account that you offered above anecdotal or a statistically valid sampling of the world's community with the relevant expertise to debate AGW? Do you, wearing your scientist hat, think anecdotal evidence is sufficient warrant to accept your claim?
That is to say, I don't think anyone would contend that a majority of climate [or related] experts didn't support AGW theory on the whole, but that it is reasonable to contend your claim that only a handful of AGW contrarians exist is not warranted by the evidence you have offered so far. I didn't know that the game was anything other than to invalidate your unwarranted claim that only a few dozen climate scientists exist in the world who disagree with AGW. At least that was my only point of contention; well that and your conclusions are not entailed by your premises.
I grant it is speculative that any given person would be silent about being a contrarian in the current atmosphere of climate science, with the exception of the few scientists who have done so and are treated as idiots or insane, as demonstrated by Steve Bloom above. I absolutely speculate that scientists [and anyone else] would wish to avoid such treatment. Whether or not we can rule out any such person exists from the evidence you have presented is the question at hand.
Further, you weaken your game by arguing both that my claim is unfalsifiable conspiracy nonsense and that you have already falsified it, notwithstanding that the falsification appears to be anecdotal to my lay eyes.
You seem to be pinning your game on the definition of "many". OTOH, I just think you massively overstated your case from the evidence you had at hand in a most unscientific manner.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 10:05 am
26 Nov 2007
ARGH!
Don't feed the trolls!
(Sorry, Andrew, but I just couldn't contain it any longer.)
Permalink
EliRabett Posted 12:09 pm
26 Nov 2007
So,
This has been going on for a while, here there and a lot of places, and Milloy is very quiet. Hmm.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 3:59 pm
26 Nov 2007
Milloy
Eli-
I've convinced myself that the entire "demand debate" effort is just another way of advancing the uncertainty agenda. I doubt that Milloy has any interest whatsoever in any actual debate --- rather he wants to use the lack of a debate to suggest that the skeptical viewpoint is being suppressed.
As I've shown, however, the lack of debate exists not because of suppression of the skeptics, but because virtually no one will stand up in public and defend the skeptical position.
I wouldn't expect to hear anything more from Milloy on this issue.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 2:34 am
27 Nov 2007
sigh...
As I've shown, however, the lack of debate exists not because of suppression of the skeptics, but because virtually no one will stand up in public and defend the skeptical position.
Or, as the denialists will spin it, because the skeptics are suppressing themselves out of fear of... something. headdesk
Permalink
kwag7693 Posted 2:44 pm
27 Nov 2007
Showing
Andrew:
As I've shown, however, the lack of debate exists not because of suppression of the skeptics, but because virtually no one will stand up in public and defend the skeptical position.
And how exactly do your unsupported anecdotes equate to "showing" this? I thought we agreed that premises lacking objective evidence were unfit for public discourse? Or is your subjective impression of whatever conferences you've attended evidence enough?
And Green Engineer: Thanks for all the substance.
Permalink
James Mayeau Posted 11:00 pm
27 Nov 2007
Gore's movie
Hello Andrew,
I was browsing through your earlier posts looking for a debate topic. The accuracy or not of Al Gore's movie sounds good to me.
You said in your post, "Here's my take on this: there is no question that there are a few statements in Gore's movie that make me flinch. Had he run the script by me, I would have suggested he rephrase a few of his points."
So could you list the points in Gore's movie that made you flinch, or you would have rephrased? That way we can ignore the parts we are in agreement about, and concentrate on the argument.
Permalink
James Mayeau Posted 11:15 pm
27 Nov 2007
I though science was about skepticism?
Climate science is my profession, and I go to meetings and talk to other scientists all the time. I can assure you that, with the exception of a few dozen well-recycled contrarians (few of whom I'd describe as "principled"), you never see or hear climate-science skeptics at meetings.
That is a shocking statement. A room full of scientists and not a skeptical voice among you.
Especially considering the subject matter. I dare say it would be impossible to walk down a street anywhere in America and find such unaminity regarding the weather.
Permalink
trock Posted 12:08 am
28 Nov 2007
why its hard.
I'm sure the person who wrote that there wasn't skepticism among scientists would rather have used better language.
One thing that people misunderstand about skepticism is between empty headed and open minded. Open mindedness means that we can have pretty good ideas about what and why things are happening and make us to act on it. Empty headedness is about always having a question about something without good reason.
Easy as hell for someone to say your empty headedness is my open minded, but it's the accumulation of the discussion and evidence that gets someone to a position.
Permalink
Michael Tobis Posted 12:55 am
28 Nov 2007
Misinterpretation
When people don't trust you they jump on everything you say before they understand it.
Case in point:
=I can assure you that, with the exception of a few dozen well-recycled contrarians (few of whom I'd describe as "principled"), you never see or hear climate-science skeptics at meetings.
That is a shocking statement. A room full of scientists and not a skeptical voice among you.
Especially considering the subject matter. I dare say it would be impossible to walk down a street anywhere in America and find such unaminity regarding the weather.
=No, it isn't a shocking statement. We actually don't discuss the matter much because we have plenty of other places to address our skepticism. The IPCC WGI process is a staid and conservative consensus process aimed at identifying what almost everyone in the field regards as true.
That very few practising scientists consider it substantially wrong is not a mark of the failure of scientific skepticisms but of its success. The beauty of science is that under the pressure of skepticism, facts emerge. The IPCC WG1 contents by definition constitute the context in which we operate.
There are plenty of arguments within the field, just not about the things the two dozen skeptics keep flogging, mostlyt because they have long since stopped making any, you know, sense.
Then there's kwaq's misinterpretation of Trenberth. It's hopelessly off base, but it's a much longer story. It has the same flavor, though.
(Of course "misinterpretation" is generous as regards motivation.)
Both Trenberth and Dessler need to be careful about sound bites though. In matters like this, anything that can be misinterpreted or dysinterpreted will be.
mt
Permalink
James Mayeau Posted 2:09 am
28 Nov 2007
Dear MT
I suppose it's possible that climate scientists never take their work home, but at meetings with fellow scientists?
If you are all in agreement why even have a meeting?
Is it for the coffee?
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 2:35 am
28 Nov 2007
Semantics ...
Jim M.-
When I say there are no "climate-change skeptics," what I mean is that virtually no one makes claims that go against the main conclusions of the IPCC: the Earth is warming, humans are very likely to blame for most of the recent warming, etc.
This is neither shocking nor unusual. I think you'd find similar unanimity at meetings of health professionals that smoking causes cancer.
As far as Gore's movie goes, three things I would have changed spring to mind: 1) his discussion of Katrina and the connection between hurricanes and AGW, 2) his discussion of the correlation between CO2 and the temperature record over the last 650 kyrs, and 3) his discussion of sea level rise. The last two I don't think were necessarily wrong, but I think they could have been phrased in a better way. There may have been more, but I haven't seen the movie in such a long time ...
kwaq: You make a good point. "As I've shown" should have been "As I've shown to my satisfaction ..." I've searched hard to find a huge, hidden pool of skeptics and been able to find only the "usual suspects" --- the few dozen endlessly recycled skeptics that everyone's familiar with.
And my search for a single skeptic in TX really drives the reality of this point home.
A classic AGW denier will claim that I didn't really want to find one, or that I didn't try hard enough. And, surprise, no matter what I do, that's what they'll always say. Nothing I do will ever convince them of the reality that is clearly apparent to anyone who looks.
Or they'll come up with the unfalsifiable and ridiculous explanation that scientists out there secretly believe one thing, but say another.
Permalink
James Mayeau Posted 3:46 am
28 Nov 2007
Dear Andrew
You have found a skeptic. I am not from Texas this is true, but since Eric Berger has volunteered to host a debate on XM radio I think we should take him up on it.
I haven't contacted Anthony Watts - we went through a thing before with a radio debate where the host got cold feet and or couldn't find a protagonist - So I don't want to bother him with another goose chase.
But if you are still willing we can do this thing.
Anthony is a meteorologist, but if you would prefer a climatologist, I have reason to believe that Dr. Tim Ball would be interested.
Or you could debate me if you would prefer - just a regular guy no PHD or special skills.
There was a guy who used to play chess by himself at a restaurant where I was working. I offered to play him one time. He turned me down because his ego was involved. He explained it, "If you beat me I'll look bad, if I beat you that's just expected. So for me there is nothing to gain."
What I am trying to say is I realise this is your livelyhood.
Contact me via Email so we can discuss it further.
Domaye77542 - at - peoplepc.com
Permalink
birdbrainscan Posted 6:21 am
28 Nov 2007
I'll pay to see Dessler vs. Tim Ball
If there are any expenses related to the remote link, I'm keen to subscribe--I'd pay real money to watch Dr. Dessler take on Tim Ball. Dr. Ball published four articles in the 80's on ships logs and goose migration as historical temperature proxies. I seriously doubt he could define basic climatology terms (I won't post my picks here lest he read this and go cramming before the event.)
For the game of Climate Skeptic Bingo (http://timlambert.org/2005/04/gwsbingo/) I'd pick Tim Ball as the best bet for getting a full card, not just a single row.
I had to sit through a screening of TGGWS recently and it really set my teeth on edge - too many howlers to keep track.
I once read through a PowerPoint of Dr. Ball's from the Frontier Institute website, and tried to dig up a source for his hand-drawn smooth curvy line graph of temperature since AD 1000. I found another person's PPT (I've lost track of whose) that had even more howlers. I wanted to write them down and pick them apart online, but my brain exploded.
http://birdbrainscan.blogspot.com/
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 6:53 am
28 Nov 2007
I've e-mailed Jim ...
... so we'll see if we can set something up. I'll let everyone know if it's pay-per-view and in an octagon.
Permalink
James Mayeau Posted 10:32 am
28 Nov 2007
Excellent
So let me know what Eric says.
I presume we are in agreement that Gore's movie is an acceptable debate topic, yes?
I sent off an e-mail to Dr. Ball - no I don't know him from Adam - but if he isn't interested I'll still go for it. Sounds like fun.
Permalink
kwag7693 Posted 10:40 am
28 Nov 2007
Interpretation
M. Tobis:
Then there's kwaq's misinterpretation of Trenberth. It's hopelessly off base, but it's a much longer story. It has the same flavor, though.
(Of course "misinterpretation" is generous as regards motivation.)
That was no sound bite. It was a written piece.
Thanks for the unfounded insinuation that I am arguing dishonestly and your equally unfounded rejection of the only interpretation of what he wrote that makes sense.
I got no better from "Eli", but I am curious how you translate Trenberth's fairly plain statement that IPCC makes no predictions and that the GCMs lack the data to offer probabilistic scenarios or even best guesses. He also says the models are non-empirical quite plainly. Looking forward to you lifting the scales from my eyes, Mike.
Permalink
markbahner Posted 11:46 am
28 Nov 2007
Oh, you're demanding debate, are you?
If you're looking for a debate for your classes, I'd be happy to debate the following:
"Resolved: The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report's (AR4's) projections for methane atmospheric concentrations, carbon dioxide emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant temperature increases constitute the greatest fraud in the history of environmental science."
I'll debate the Affirmative. Good luck finding anyone who will debate the Negative.
Mark Bahner
Permalink
James Mayeau Posted 12:18 pm
28 Nov 2007
Hey guys
Butt out. This is my deal here.
Oh well. It's mostly Dr. Dessler's deal.
Andrew - Dr. Ball is willing, so you won't have to suffer the indignity of explaining basic climatology to me.
I'll await your reply.
Permalink
James Mayeau Posted 12:43 pm
28 Nov 2007
Mark
Are you the same Mark Bahner I met on the SciAm blog?
How's it hanging Dude? Long time no see.
I guess the blogisphere is a small world.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 2:00 pm
28 Nov 2007
Debate topic
Jim-
Did you get my e-mail? It might be faster to set this up via e-mail rather than through these forum comments --- I don't check them all that often. You can reach me at adessler@tamu.edu. I'll e-mail Eric letting him know that Dr. Ball is available.
As far as topic goes, I think that Al Gore's movie is a distraction. Who cares what Gore thinks? The real question is whether AGW is real or not. To address that, I propose we debate the primary conclusions of the IPCC working group I:
Permalink
James Mayeau Posted 9:19 pm
28 Nov 2007
The Reason I argue against the climate change
Is because of the way Al Gore has mass produced and mainlined the issue by forcing it on kids.
Not two or three posts ago you were giving AIT "high marks for accuracy", and now you find that Al Gore's movie is a distraction?
No. I think Al Gore's movie is the issue. The other day I went to the county library expressly to check out the movie. They own sixteen copies -just like a video store - all checked out.
16 COPYS! This is unheard of for a county library to have sixteen copys of anything, much less a DVD - and not one was available.
They also offered three book versions - one listed as on shelf. Even better for my purposes really. So I looked at the designated spot. No book there.
The librarian pointed out the problem straight away. Al Gore's nobel prize winning movie in the book form was filed in the children's section right next to three or four tomes on abortion rights.
This "distraction" as you term it being used to poison the minds of children all across the world.
It is teaching them that they are a plague on the face of the planet. This is why I seek out debates such as you proposed and always make a loud noise ("beyond my weight class" is how I termed it to Doc Ball) when I find them.
If you feel uncomfortable with AIT now, imagine how the rest of us feel. Dr let's lay straight in bed, do you or do you not believe that Al Gore is describing the reality of the situation?
If you do fine, let's have the debate.
If not, please join me in denouncing this work of over hyped scare mongering fiction, so that together we insure there is a future generation of students for you to teach the reality to.
Actually I believe with all my heart you would be doing the future generation a greater service by arguing in good faith in support of AIT. The truth needs to be given a spotlight. If you were to have a conversion moment, well then you'll just be another one of the dozen or so usual suspects.
On the other hand, if I am wrong about all of the above, you will surely dispatch Dr. Tim to climate change pergatory. No problem, right?
I agree with your suggestion and will conduct further correspondence via the e-mail.
Good morning to you Dr Dessler.
Permalink
EliRabett Posted 2:59 pm
01 Dec 2007
So
Without objecting to a debate btw AD and TB, let me point out that Andrew's initial statement was
"While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case."
IfTim Ball ain't one of the recycled dozen, who is? Mayeau and Bahner are not climate scientists by any accounting. The bench is really thin over there.
Moreover, having actually read AIT, it is clear that Mayeau is distorting the message of the book and the movie, which is that mankind is responsible for the care of the Earth. A very powerful message to children, but an important and correct one.
Permalink
markbahner Posted 12:24 pm
03 Dec 2007
I thought you were demanding debate?
"Mayeau and Bahner are not climate scientists by any accounting. The bench is really thin over there."
This from a man who comments anonymously, and thinks that the relationship between enthalpy change and temperature in the atmosphere can be accurately described by the equation: delta h = m x Cp x deltaT.
I notice Andrew Dessler isn't interested in debating me. Obviously, he doesn't want his students to be exposed to any inconvenient truths.
Mark Bahner
Permalink
EliRabett Posted 12:00 pm
09 Dec 2007
Mark Dahlin
You ain't a climate scientist and I am a Rabett. Got it now.
PS. That's a pretty good approximation for any parcel of the atmosphere which is what you were blathering on about see on the original Deltoid particularly comments 208, 217, 219, 225 and 235. Pay attention to what Scott Church said in comment 227
Permalink
James Mayeau Posted 12:20 pm
09 Dec 2007
Mr. Rabett
I could say the same about climate change proponents.
The same names always come up.
Hansen Mann Schmidt Jones Thompson Briffa ... hey that's less then a dozen. But who cares really!
It's not as if the airwaves or even print media have been brimming with scientists eager to argue in favor of climate change. In fact one by one starting with RealClimate the pro AGW blogs have shuttered their portals rather then deal with people who dissagree with them.
Poor Mark here has been sporting for a fight since at least since the latest enstallment of the IPCC climate report started trickling out back in January.
Where were you mighty climate avengers then?
Eli if you ever come up with something of substance you want to argue about - just send me or Mark an email. We are at your disposal.
Permalink
markbahner Posted 2:53 am
12 Dec 2007
A one-question true/false quiz
I wrote: " This from a man who comments anonymously, and thinks that the relationship between enthalpy change and temperature in the atmosphere can be accurately described by the equation: delta h = m x Cp x deltaT."
Eli Rabett responds: "PS. That's a pretty good approximation for any parcel of the atmosphere..."
OK, then you should have no trouble labeling these assertions as "true," or "false":
"Surface air temperature alone is inadequate to monitor trends of surface heating and cooling. The SI units for temperature are degrees Kelvin (or Celsius), and the SI units for heat are Joules. The surface air temperature can go up while the enthalpy goes down or remains the same. The surface air temperature can go down while the enthalpy goes up or remains the same. The surface air temperature can remain the same while the enthalpy goes down or up."
Are these assertions true or false?
Mark Bahner
Permalink
mat Posted 3:44 am
12 Dec 2007
get some graduate students
Andrew,
get some graduate students in climate science and provide them with a forum where they have to take opposing views on global warming.
the problem is that the debate has shifted. the USA is behind the curve because we don't believe in science, and we argue for political points now, as a nation and internationally.
i suspect you won't be able to find a 'climate scientist' that will show researched studies proclaiming that global warming doesn't exist or that it exists, but humans's aren't doing any of it.
at least, no climate scientist not bought and paid for by the some conservative energy lobbyist or other. the opposition has now moved on; it is now in the political ballpark, and science is the enemy there.
Permalink
EliRabett Posted 1:47 pm
13 Dec 2007
Pay attention James
Here are a couple of dozen more.
Marion Alcorn, Kenneth Bowman, Sarah D. Brooks, Ping Chang, Don Collins, Craig Epifanio, Robert Korty, Mark Lemmon, Don Lucas, Shaima L. Nasiri, Richard Orville, Lee Panetta, R. Saravanan, Gunnar W. Schade, Courtney Schumacher, Thomas Wilheit, Ping Yang, Fuqing Zhang, Renyi Zhang
Permalink
EliRabett Posted 1:51 pm
13 Dec 2007
Mark
The SI units for temperature are degrees Kelvin (or Celsius), and the SI units for heat are Joules. The gas constant R has units of Joules/mol-Kelvin. Cp=Cv+R. H = Cp T for molar enthalpy of an ideal gases, and the gas phase atmosphere is a pretty good approximation to an ideal gas.
Permalink
markbahner Posted 12:09 pm
14 Dec 2007
True or false?
"The SI units for temperature are degrees Kelvin (or Celsius), and the SI units for heat are Joules. The gas constant R has units of Joules/mol-Kelvin. Cp=Cv+R. H = Cp T for molar enthalpy of an ideal gases, and the gas phase atmosphere is a pretty good approximation to an ideal gas."
So were my assertions true or false?
Or do you have absolutely no idea?
Or (more probably) don't you have the honesty to answer with a simple "true," or "false?"
Mark Bahner
Permalink
Oswald Posted 11:46 am
20 Dec 2007
Why do they have to be in TX?
Why waste the money and further pollute the earth through air/land travel in the age of video conferencing? Just have your department contact one of these 400 scientists from all over the world, set up the video, and have at it?
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minorit ...
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 7:23 am
21 Dec 2007
Trying to help
Andrew - have you tried Dr. Neil Frank, head meteorologist at KHOU TV in Houston? Dr. Frank is retiring in 2008 so he might have a little time on his hands. It is just a short drive to College Station.
He came to a company safety meeting to speak about severe weather shortly before hurricane season. For the first 15 minutes he launched off on global warming. It seemed a bit strange.
There was a retired professor of Chemical Engineering at University of Texas who was rather outspoken on the topic, but I don't recall his name, it has been 15 years or so ago. He may not be around. Seems that the Chemical Engineers might be a good place to find skeptics, as they will know a lot about modeling gas mixtures, heat transfer, and dynamic systems.
Permalink
steven mosher Posted 2:07 am
27 Dec 2007
debate topics
Andrew, you referenced the WG1 conclusions as the "topic" of the debate. Typically, one picks a single question or single issue to debate, but never mind that. You wrote:
"To address that, I propose we debate the primary conclusions of the IPCC working group I:"
You claim these are the conclusions of WG1.
"the Earth is warming"
Most intelligent people won't accept a debate where the question is so vague. The world is always warming and cooling. Every day it is warming and cooling. So, I think to make a good debate you need to circumscribe the parameters of the conclusion. How much warming? with what confidence. warming since when? Last hour? last month? last decade? last, century? I havent found a skeptic who argues for no warming whatsover. debating strawmen doesnt move things forward.
"humans are very likely responsible for most of the recent warming"
This formulation of a debate question will turn into a semantic nightmare. Very likely? Most likely? how likely? an exact probability statement would be more debatable. "most of"
Put an number on it. Do that science thing. Then you have a debate. Otherwise this part of the debate would be mush.
"future warming will be several degrees Celsius"
Argg. Future warming? how far in the future? Several degrees? is 2C Several? is 3C several.
1-3C is few. 4-6 C is several. The other issue here is the SRES. Since the "future warming" depends upon the SRES ( inputs to WG1) then the debate over "several degrees" Will just turn into a debate over the SRES which are economic fairy tales. Do you really want this debate to turn into a discussion of SRES with the wildly diveregent population estimates used in those "storylines"
Finally you wrote
"such warming brings with it a serious risk of catastrophic impacts "
I'm searching for this conclusion in WG1 and am having some trouble finding it. Could you point me to the chapter in WG1 where the risk assesment is done and where the catastrophic impacts are detailed. a link will do
Permalink
steven mosher Posted 2:07 am
27 Dec 2007
debate topics
Andrew, you referenced the WG1 conclusions as the "topic" of the debate. Typically, one picks a single question or single issue to debate, but never mind that. You wrote:
"To address that, I propose we debate the primary conclusions of the IPCC working group I:"
You claim these are the conclusions of WG1.
"the Earth is warming"
Most intelligent people won't accept a debate where the question is so vague. The world is always warming and cooling. Every day it is warming and cooling. So, I think to make a good debate you need to circumscribe the parameters of the conclusion. How much warming? with what confidence. warming since when? Last hour? last month? last decade? last, century? I havent found a skeptic who argues for no warming whatsover. debating strawmen doesnt move things forward.
"humans are very likely responsible for most of the recent warming"
This formulation of a debate question will turn into a semantic nightmare. Very likely? Most likely? how likely? an exact probability statement would be more debatable. "most of"
Put an number on it. Do that science thing. Then you have a debate. Otherwise this part of the debate would be mush.
"future warming will be several degrees Celsius"
Argg. Future warming? how far in the future? Several degrees? is 2C Several? is 3C several.
1-3C is few. 4-6 C is several. The other issue here is the SRES. Since the "future warming" depends upon the SRES ( inputs to WG1) then the debate over "several degrees" Will just turn into a debate over the SRES which are economic fairy tales. Do you really want this debate to turn into a discussion of SRES with the wildly diveregent population estimates used in those "storylines"
Finally you wrote
"such warming brings with it a serious risk of catastrophic impacts "
I'm searching for this conclusion in WG1 and am having some trouble finding it. Could you point me to the chapter in WG1 where the risk assesment is done and where the catastrophic impacts are detailed. a link will do
Permalink