More pseudoscience involving the global warming issue.

As I was perusing through the Independent, I noticed this article and the headline screamed pseudoscience.

Here is the title of the article:

Humans must be to blame for climate change, say scientists

So here we have scientists who are using the absence of information to declare the causal nature of something.

These "scientists" should be ashamed of themselves. I want to clarify that I am not taking any position in the climate change debate.
I am solely pointing to flaws in the methodology and logic employed to infer causality.

Here is the first bit of the article.

Climate scientists have delivered a powerful riposte to their sceptical critics with a study that strengthens the case for saying global warming is largely the result of man-made emissions of greenhouse gases. The researchers found that no other possible natural phenomenon, such as volcanic eruptions or variations in the activity of the Sun, could explain the significant warming of the planet over the past half century as recorded on every continent including Antarctica. It is only when the warming effect of emitting millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from human activity is considered that it is possible to explain why global average temperatures have risen so significantly since the middle of the 20th century.

Link to the sourced article.

I can say this until I am blue in the face, but people fall into this trap EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Correlation does not imply causation.



[edit on 3/12/2010 by Josephus23]

every time i take a bath, the water gets all brown.

must be because humans turn water brown, or it could be that im bathing in a mud pit.

must be humans instead of my environment doing what it does.

The scientists were citing a new study that apparently concluded that no other source could possibly account for the rise in temperature. Obviously, this study must have been the absolutely thorough, ultimate accumulation of astrophysical and geophysical data with 100% understanding of all mechanisms involved.

Originally posted by Son of Will
The scientists were citing a new study that apparently concluded that no other source could possibly account for the rise in temperature. Obviously, this study must have been the absolutely thorough, ultimate accumulation of astrophysical and geophysical data with 100% understanding of all mechanisms involved.

haha.... yea i bet it does...... N'T

2nd

Well you guys have obviously done decades of research that proves the opposite. So where are your papers?

Or do you just work on the basis that whatever science says must be wrong and you know this because you are so much better than everyone else and know everything and can;t possibly be wrong.

There were a lot of guys like you around in Gallieo's time (Okay, he was wrong, but nonetheless not as wriog as your ancestors)

ive also heard recently numerous times about how AGW is now even more 'solid'...but..how can a 'science' thats supposedly already settled become more solid?

[edit on 12-3-2010 by alienesque]

reply to post by Essan


I think that you may have missed the gist of my post.

I stated that I was not taking a side in the global warming debate, but merely pointing out pseudoscience.

People must learn to think critically because the system of information dissemenation is being used to force falsified half-truths down out throats.

If I can point out any flaws in the logic of the main stream view on MMGW, then I most certainly will. Especially when this idea is being used to promote a tax.
It all stinks to high heaven, and the worst part is that the earth, which is being systematically destroyed by a small number of very large corporations, gets lost in the shuffle.

I find it very difficult to blame Co2 for global climate catastrophes more than say, the process of refining Uranium 235, or the extreme amount of water pollution due to pharmaceuticals and FLUORIDE.

But as I said, I am not taking a side but merely pointing out flaws.

[quote]Originally posted by Josephus23

I stated that I was not taking a side in the global warming debate, but merely pointing out pseudoscience.


What pseudoscience?

Sorry but the conclusion of scientists based on decades of research is not pseudoscience. Regardless of what some folk's religions might tell them.

It may be proved wrong in time - as Gallieo and Newton were later proved wrong. But that's the nature of science. It's simply the sum of our current knowledge. And every scientist wants to find something new and prove his predecessors wrong.

However, the current sum of our knowledge is ...... that human activity is having an effect on global climate, through a variety of different causes.

reply to post by Josephus23



Well, of course humans are the cause of global warming. It's obvious!

I mean, you can't tax nature, that's for sure, and it seems like all they are after is the money in our pockets, and really don't give a flying **** about the planet.

What I think is funny, and has been pointed out by others, is that in the 1970s, the scientists were positive we were heading for another ice age. They were certain of it.

So, somehow, in the past 40 years, we went from a coming ice age, to neutral, to global warming. Pretty interesting.

reply to post by jerico65


Yeah....

We are the victims in an information war. That much is so for sure.

What you have pointed out regarding the 70's and another ice age is very true, if memory serves me correctly.

I am old enough to remember the 70's (I was in grade school), and we discussed the possibility of mass pollution creating another ice age.

The funny thing that people keep forgetting is that the Earth is a living creature that must maintain homeostasis, similar to us humans.

A drastic increase in temperature must meet a decrease in another part of the planet.
If I am not mistaken, and I could very well be mistaken, that was the reason for the fear of another ice age in the 70's?

And it was supposed to be an ice age, but the ice would be polluted.
I am trying to jog 30 year old memories, thus the comment stating that I could be very wrong.

I like to fancy myself as a scientist and nothing, and I mean nothing, eats at me more than pseudoscience.

Thanks for the addition to the thread.

[edit on 3/12/2010 by Josephus23]

reply to post by Essan


Here is a link defining pseudoscience.

I am very appreciative of your tone.
We can peaceably disagree. Seriously. Thank you.

I am not refuting decades of research in this thread.
I am pointing to an obvious logical fallacy committed by the researchers in the referenced article.
As I stated previously, the researchers referenced in the article have used the absence of evidence to establish causality.

That is pseudoscience.

The scientists in these studies are a disgrace and they should have their lab coat taken away from them, in my very humble opinion.
When a group of people are taught to think critically about issues then it becomes a wee bit more difficult to pull off the lies and propaganda that we are subjected to daily.
But TPTB are giving it their best shot; however...

The many scientists and engineers currently being educated will one day have no choice but to either embrace the truth, or very much conscientiously accept and promote a lie.

reply to post by Josephus23


Ok, first of all... your link and your assertions didn't need an entire thread dedicated to them. Even if you acknowledged that AGW is real, I don't think this article is anything new in the realm of science.

As for your opinions... they're inaccurate and overblown. First of all, the article/headline wasn't written by scientists, it was written by a journalist/editor for The Independent. That article is NOT to be read like a scientific paper, it's to be read like a news article. Therefore, buzzwords, short summary/snippets, and generalizations are far more common/acceptable than in an actual scientific paper. So, if you don't like the headline, blame the writer, not the scientists. Here are the specific quotes from the scientists:

"There is an increasingly remote possibility that climate change is dominated by natural rather than anthropogenic [man-made] factors," the scientists concluded in their study, published in the journal Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews of Climate Change.

"The observations cannot be explained by natural factors," Dr Stott said

"The fingerprint of human influence has been detected in many different aspects of observed climate change. We've seen it in temperature, and increases in atmospheric humidity, we've seen it in salinity changes. We've seen it in reductions in Arctic sea ice and changing rainfall patterns," Dr Stott said. "What we see here are observations consistent with a warming world. This wealth of evidence we have now shows there is an increasingly remote possibility of climate change being dominated by natural factors rather than human factors."

Asked whether climate sceptics would agree with the findings, Dr Stott said: "I just hope people look at the evidence of how the climate is changing in such a systematic way. I hope they make up their minds on the scientific evidence."

Those seem to be pretty sound/scientific statements to me, carefully choosing their words not to be sensational or inaccurate, but at the same time acknowledging that AGW is quite real and any alternative explanation for global warming is becoming increasingly impossible as new studies/data come out.

It's kind of silly how you not only focus on very superficial aspects of the article while completely ignoring the actual MEAT of it, but your complaints are essentially false. It baffles me how denialists have somehow arrogantly accepted the belief that they're more sensible/educated on the matter of global warming than the bulk of professional scientists who actually STUDY global warming. Reality is- they're not, nowhere near it. These scientists are pulling their hair out over the rampant skepticism because the vast majority of skepticism over global warming is dis/misinformation that's been already proven wrong by the actual data, but the power of belief and confusion has overtaken the masses' sensibilities (nothing new) and trustworthy facts are not easy to find. Even The MEAT of the article, btw, factually disagrees with your assertion that AGW isn't real and simply a hoax perpetrated by thousands of scientists worldwide, and that somehow a handful of dissenting "scientists" (most of whom are either NOT scientists, aren't in the field of climatology, have a history of supporting ridiculous pseudo-science [like cigarettes being safe for people], and/or are funded directly/indirectly by fossil fuel industry/think-tanks).

As for correlation is not causation being a smoking gun argument... I am once again baffled by your silliness and arrogance that SOMEHOW scientists missed that crucial factor in logic! The sobering reality is, THEY DIDN'T. They work every single day with rigorous constraints on their data and conclusions, correlation-is-not-causation being a very important part of that scientific method. Also, the science behind anthropogenic global-warming is not based on loose theories of mere correlation, the data is very deep, thorough and widespread- the Earth is warming rapidly; no natural sources/cycles can explain this warming; greenhouse gases cause a greenhouse effect; humans emit incredible amounts of greenhouse gases which linger in the atmosphere; when data for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and subsequent radiative forcing are plugged into the warming trend against all natural forces, it beautifully explains why the world has been warming; 1 + 1 = 2; 2 = human emissions of GHG are causing the planet to warm relatively rapidly within the past century or so. The assertion that theories behind AGW are relying upon a weak correlation-is-causation approach is a willfully oblivious one which assumes that scientists are leaving out large gaps in logic and large chunks of data when deciphering what is causing our current warming. But once again, the gaps in logic/data don't exist, any potential gaps have been covered time and time again. If you truly believe they exist, I challenge you to SCIENTIFICALLY point out any gaps that cannot be explained away by demonstrating the actual data/truth; and please don't over-exaggerate or use percieved gaps manufactured by popular denialists.


Visit these links:

Union of Concerned Scientists report- "Smoke, Mirrors, & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science"
www.ucsusa.org...

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets research project on how Exxon distorts and propagandizes the discussion on global warming
www.greenpeace.org...

A blog post detailing actual skeptic groups positions versus skeptic/deniers of global warming
greenfyre.wordpress.com...

The actual Skeptic Society's article on Anthropogenic-Global Warming being real, regardless of limited uncertainties
www.skeptic.com...

Skeptic Society's debunking of the OISM Petition Project
www.skeptic.com...

Originally posted by jerico65
What I think is funny, and has been pointed out by others, is that in the 1970s, the scientists were positive we were heading for another ice age. They were certain of it.

So, somehow, in the past 40 years, we went from a coming ice age, to neutral, to global warming. Pretty interesting.

Actually... that's not fully accurate. The global cooling theory wasn't well-supported by scientists and was merely a science news blurb. Global warming dwarfed any notions of global cooling in the scientific community:

reply to post by jerico65


Hmm... First Cold then Hot Flashes of Brilliance from these esteemed Climatologists . Sounds like they All suffer from PMS to me ...........

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Hahaha...

Good try with the straw man, but you made up an argument that I have not referenced.

If you read all of my OP then you will notice that I did not take a stance of MMGW.
In fact, in one of my follow up comments I recognized that several global corporations that dominate our lives are having a disastrous effect on the global climate. (I think that I may have left out the part about corporations, but they are the subject of my reference in the comment about refining Uranium and poisoning our water supply)

What I have a problem with is asserting a conclusion based on the absence of evidence, which is exactly what the researchers in the story did.

That is without a doubt.

Let's look at the exact quotes that you have referenced.

"There is an increasingly remote possibility that climate change is dominated by natural rather than anthropogenic [man-made] factors," the scientists concluded in their study, published in the journal Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews of Climate Change.

This is asserting a conclusion based on the absence of evidence.

"The observations cannot be explained by natural factors," Dr Stott said

This is asserting a conclusion based on the absence of evidence. Seriously. That is so undeniable that I am actually interested in seeing you refute it.

"The fingerprint of human influence has been detected in many different aspects of observed climate change. We've seen it in temperature, and increases in atmospheric humidity, we've seen it in salinity changes. We've seen it in reductions in Arctic sea ice and changing rainfall patterns," Dr Stott said. "What we see here are observations consistent with a warming world. This wealth of evidence we have now shows there is an increasingly remote possibility of climate change being dominated by natural factors rather than human factors."

This is asserting a conclusion based on the absence of evidence. I will say that it is very well veiled, but it is still asserts a conclusion based on the absence of evidence.
The researchers in question are not saying that humans are responsible for "global warming", but they are saying that they have seen "the fingerprint of human influence...detected in many different aspects of observed climate change... this wealth of evidence we have now shows there is an increasingly remote possibility of climate change being dominated by natural factors rather than human factors."

Please focus on the bold printed letters.

That is what I call asserting a conclusion based on the absense of evidence.
But please let me rephrase.

The researchers are essentially saying that they can't say that this supposed global climate change is due to man, for sure 100%, but they think that it correlates highly with observed human activity, in certain isolated instances, where climate change was observed. This then leads one to think that there is an "increasingly remote possibility of climate change being dominated by natural factors rather than human factors.

Look... You seem to have a fairly good grasp on the scientific method and the English language.
So tell me.
What about that is not correlation does not imply causation?

And as for the last quote.

Asked whether climate skeptics would agree with the findings, Dr Stott said: "I just hope people look at the evidence of how the climate is changing in such a systematic way. I hope they make up their minds on the scientific evidence."

I must have read that article 4 times before I posted it, and I did not see one shred of scientific evidence anywhere in the article.

Thus the title to the thread and the allusion to pseudoscience.

Thanks for the reply, but please take the time to adequately understand my position before you completely misrepresent what I have said.


Edit 1:

I already see this argument coming, so let me diffuse it.

In this quote

"The observations cannot be explained by natural factors," Dr Stott said

The conclusion is not presented. So if you wanted to make a technical argument based on that then fine, acceptable, but I would expect someone who understands the research process to acknowledge that the researcher is pointing to an absence of evidence...

That they use as reason to state the global warming is man made; however, not in the exact sentence that (you) quoted.

This is the overall theme of the paper.



[edit on 3/13/2010 by Josephus23]

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


That was truly funny.

Star for the humor.

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Good try with the straw man, but you made up an argument that I have not referenced.

If you read all of my OP then you will notice that I did not take a stance of MMGW.
In fact, in one of my follow up comments I recognized that several global corporations that dominate our lives are having a disastrous effect on the global climate. (I think that I may have left out the part about corporations, but they are the subject of my reference in the comment about refining Uranium and poisoning our water supply)

What I have a problem with is asserting a conclusion based on the absence of evidence, which is exactly what the researchers in the story did.

Though you didn't explicitly state your stance on global warming, I think you can forgive me for interpreting your thread title and contents and implying your stance. Considering the content of your thread, I highly doubt you're a supporter of AGW as a real thing. Though, if you are, please correct me!
I'm not sure what you mean by absence of evidence... the researchers quoted in the story have an entire library of evidence backing them up, not to mention their own studies they conducted themselves. You act as if there are these giant gaps in the evidence for global warming, and if I am to assume you are an AGW denier, then I can see why you'd think that, but for anybody who objectively researches the hard science on AGW, it's pretty apparent that the evidence is vast, trustworthy, solid, and growing with each new study. I'd first like to point you to my thread here where I posted a series of videos which break down in-depth many of the denier arguments:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is asserting a conclusion based on the absence of evidence.

This is asserting a conclusion based on the absence of evidence. Seriously. That is so undeniable that I am actually interested in seeing you refute it.

Once again, you keep mentioning the researchers conclusions based on the absence of evidence, but I really don't know what you're talking about. I don't want to repeat myself again, but there really is a great amount of evidence behind the assertions in each of those quotes. I challenge you, once again, to point out the specific gaps. For instance, point out the gaps in natural vs. anthropogenic factors, point out the gaps in the human influence behind global greenhouse gas emissions and subsequent atmospheric greenhouse effect. The science is pretty plain and obvious when you even take the basics of our situation- our atmosphere has been inundated with greenhouse gases at an incredible rate within the past century; the greenhouse effect of greenhouse gases is undeniable; studies of Earth's solar absorbtion and radiative forcing can account for the increase in heat/infrared trapped in our atmosphere; natural forcing such as volcanoes (whose eruptions actually cause a net DECREASE in global temps and whose CO2 emissions are one one-hundredth that of humans not vise versa) and solar/cosmic rays (which have actually decreased in recent decades while temps have risen independently) can AT MOST account for perhaps one-fourth of the rise in temps.

This is asserting a conclusion based on the absence of evidence. I will say that it is very well veiled, but it is still asserts a conclusion based on the absence of evidence.
The researchers in question are not saying that humans are responsible for "global warming", but they are saying that they have seen "the fingerprint of human influence...detected in many different aspects of observed climate change... this wealth of evidence we have now shows there is an increasingly remote possibility of climate change being dominated by natural factors rather than human factors."

Please focus on the bold printed letters.

That is what I call asserting a conclusion based on the absense of evidence.
But please let me rephrase.

The researchers are essentially saying that they can't say that this supposed global climate change is due to man, for sure 100%, but they think that it correlates highly with observed human activity, in certain isolated instances, where climate change was observed. This then leads one to think that there is an "increasingly remote possibility of climate change being dominated by natural factors rather than human factors.

Look... You seem to have a fairly good grasp on the scientific method and the English language.
So tell me.
What about that is not correlation does not imply causation?

Well I think your whole argument hinges on your own quote, "human activity, in ceratin ISOLATED INSTANCES, where climate change was observed." What makes you think global warming data is based on weak/isolated climate readings? If you're talking about the modern temperature record then it's actually quite thorough, and the use of proxy data is quite useful/accurate when discerning past temperatures. Like I've said before, scientists have quite a rigorous ethic on their work, they simply must because their fellow scientists will go over their work with a fine-toothed comb looking for inaccuracies and lapses in logic. I'm not saying all scientific reports are infallible, but what I am saying is that they are vastly trustworthy and respectable in what they present and who they're presented by. The climate record is quite extensive in depth and breadth. The records come from many different sources from all over the world and the picture has already become quite clear. You claim that they must be 100% sure about their theory before they speak with any certainty about it, but that's foolishly disregarding the entirety of science! No scientist is 100% on ANY theory/law, thus is the nature of science, always open to new truths/findings if they prove accurate. However, the truths we have now have proven quite trustworthy, within an impressive margin of error enough to send rockets into space, forecast climate with great accuracy, build super-computers and particle accelerators and so on. If I may use an analogy- just because you're looking at a picture of a sunset that is maybe 5% out of focus doesn't mean that it'll mysteriously turn into a picture of a banana creme pie once that last 5% is in focus.

...Continued...

...Continued...

So as I bring the picture into 100% focus, to say, "there is an increasingly remote possibility of that picture depicting a banana creme pie rather than a beautiful sunset." is not quite within the realm of correlation implying causation (at least in a visual analogy sense). Once again I stand by my notion that the researchers' statements were not only correct but actually somewhat cautious on showing TOO MUCH certainty. So you should actually be lightly commending them for staying objective about the data. But somehow I think, even after I've explained myself, that you'd scoff at such a suggestion.

I must have read that article 4 times before I posted it, and I did not see one shred of scientific evidence anywhere in the article.

I don't think the point of the article was to provide much actual data but simply the conclusions/findings of researchers who have compiled lots of data on the subject. It presented a more generalized consensus on the subject of global warming via the totality of the data. However, when reading the article, how did you miss these?

-"the Earth has warmed by about 0.5C and is now warming at a rate of about 0.16C per decade, with even higher rates at higher latitudes such as in the Arctic."
-"We've seen it in temperature, and increases in atmospheric humidity, we've seen it in salinity changes. We've seen it in reductions in Arctic sea ice and changing rainfall patterns"
-"If the Sun was responsible then both the upper and lower atmosphere would be getting warmer, instead of just the lower atmosphere as predicted by computer models of greenhouse gas warming."

And like they say... if you want the actual data, you need to read the actual reports/assessments and not this news article.

Thus the title to the thread and the allusion to pseudoscience.

If you take the actual definitions/analysis of pseudo-science, I don't think the article you posted displayed any form of it...
www.quackwatch.org...

And come to think of it, such definitions of pseudo-science almost PERFECTLY match the arguments/tactics put forward by deniers and the "experts" they source.

The conclusion is not presented. So if you wanted to make a technical argument based on that then fine, acceptable, but I would expect someone who understands the research process to acknowledge that the researcher is pointing to an absence of evidence...

That they use as reason to state the global warming is man made; however, not in the exact sentence that (you) quoted.

This is the overall theme of the paper.

Once again, you're pointing to the article writer's quoting of the researchers, but that's, again, a bone you can pick, I suppose, with the writer. The actual researchers probably had quite a bit more to say, and even so, the data exists and there is absolutely no need to cover the data within that article. The article was simply a reporting of the findings of the researchers, and the researchers obviously presented a very simple conclusion- that observations of global warming cannot be explained by natural factors and that, according to the wealth of data, human influence provides the vast majority of the explanation for rise in temps.

Originally posted by jerico65
What I think is funny, and has been pointed out by others, is that in the 1970s, the scientists were positive we were heading for another ice age. They were certain of it.

Actually, in the 1970s most scientists were predicting global warming due to increased CO2 emissions.

There was speculation that the next Glacial epoch ought to be due, but uncertainty as to when this might start or whether human activity might even prevent it altogether.

Of course, just as today, there were a few people predicting an imminent ice age - and just as today, the media picked up on this. But such predictions were no more representative of the prevailing scientific opinion of the time than similar predictions are today.

You might like to have a read of this:

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus