>In our society smart people are strongly incentivized to invent bizarre risks in order to reap fame and glory. There is no social penalty if those risks never materialize, turn out to be exaggerated or based on fundamental misunderstanding.
Are people here not old enough to remember how much Ralph Nader and Al Gore were mocked for their warnings despite generally being right?
Ralph Nader: "Everything will be solar in 30 years" (1978)
Al Gore: "Within a decade, there will be no more snows on Kilimanjaro due to warming temperatures" (An Inconvenient Truth, 2006).
Everything is not solar. Snow is still there. Gore literally made a movie on the back of these false claims. Not only has there been no social penalty for him but you are even citing him as an example of someone who was right.
Here it is again: our society systematically rewards false claims of global doom. It's a winning move, time and again. Even when your claims are falsifiable and proven false, people will ignore it.
I don't think "generally being right" is the same thing as "literally never getting anything wrong". Not every specific claim in "An Inconvenient Truth" was correct. That doesn't tell us much about whether Al Gore was "generally right" about climate change. His opponents at the time were mostly claiming that it either wasn't happening at all, or wasn't largely the result of human activities. What do you think is the current credibility of those claims?
I don't quite see how "everything will be solar in 30 years" is a prediction of global doom, by the way. If Nader said that and it's false, doesn't that mean things are worse than Nader thought?
This thread is really a perfect demonstration of my point. Our society is so in thrall to self-proclaimed intellectuals that you can literally make a movie presenting falsifiable claims with 100% confidence, people can say at the time "this is absurd and will not happen", you can spend years attacking those critics, it can then not happen and still you will have an army of defenders who dodge behind weasel-words like "generally right".
Of course the usual trick is to express only 95% confidence. Then when it doesn't happen you say, well, I never said for sure it would, just that it seemed likely at the time.
See? It's a winning playbook. Why would anyone not deploy it?
> His opponents at the time were mostly claiming that it either wasn't happening at all, or wasn't largely the result of human activities. What do you think is the current credibility of those claims?
Pretty high, having looked at the evidence. The usual rebuttal is to express disgust and displeasure that anyone might decide these claims via any method other than of counting "smart people". But those "smart people" are who Al Gore was listening to when he made that claim about Kilimanjaro, so they can't be that smart can they?
Well, obviously what I say must be wrong if you guessed that someone might say it.
Indeed, someone might say "95%" because they want to make the same sort of impression as if they said "100%" but to be able to hide behind it if they're wrong. Or, y'know, they might say "95%" because they've thought about the strength of the evidence and expect to be right about such things about 95% of the time.
(I'm not sure how relevant any of this is to "An Inconvenient Truth" since you say it makes its claims with 100% confidence. I haven't watched the movie. I don't know exactly what it claims how confidently. It's basically a work of propaganda and I would expect it to overstate its claims whether the underlying claim is largely right or total bullshit or somewhere in between.)
Of course I don't think counting smart people is the only way to find out what's true. It couldn't be; you need some engagement with the actual world somewhere. Fortunately, there are plenty of people engaging with the actual world and reporting on what they find. It turns out that those people almost all seem to agree that climate change is real and a lot of it is caused by human activities.
Of course they could be wrong. And you've looked at the evidence, so no doubt you know better than they do. But ... in that case, this is a field so confusing that most people who dedicate their whole careers to investigating it end up with badly wrong opinions. If so, then why should I trust that your looking at the evidence has led you to the right answer? For that matter, why should you trust that? Shouldn't you consider the possibility that you can go astray just as you reckon those "smart people" did?
If I really wanted to be sure about this, then indeed I wouldn't go counting smart people. I would go into the field myself, study it at length, look at the underlying data for myself, and so forth. But that would mean abandoning the career I already have, and taking at least several years of full-time work before arriving at an opinion. So instead I look to see who seems to be (1) expert and (2) honest, and see what range of opinions those people have.
I find that the great majority of experts think anthropogenic climate change is real and a big deal. They could be wrong or lying or something. Do they look less expert than the people saying the opposite? No, it mostly seems like the people with the best credentials are on the "orthodox" side. Do they look less honest? Hard to tell for sure, but there sure seem to be a lot of people on the "unorthodox" side who just happen to be funded by the fossil fuel industry, and I don't see any strong financial incentive in the opposite direction for the "orthodox" folks.
What if I look at some of the particular claims they make? Some of them are really hard to evaluate without those several years of full-time work. But e.g. 10-15 years ago pretty much everyone on the "unorthodox" side was pushing the idea that warming had stopped, because if you look at the temperature graphs from 1998 onwards there was little or no upward trend. The people on the "orthodox" side replied that when you have signal plus lots of noise you will inevitably get periods that look that way. I did some simpleminded simulations and verified that the "orthodox" folks are right about the statistics. And there's a reason why this argument has disappeared into the memory hole: looking at the graph now no one would suggest that it's flat since 1998.
My impression from the limited amount of "looking at the evidence" I've done myself is that, while the "orthodox" folks haven't been infallible, they've done better than the "unorthodox". For instance, since we're looking at things produced by political figures rather than scientists, here https://web.archive.org/web/20071015042343/http://www.suntim... is an article by James Taylor of the Heartland Institute criticizing "An Inconvenient Truth". Claim 1: Gore says glaciers are shrinking but an article in the Journal of Climate says Himalayan glaciers are growing. Truth: (1) Taylor's alleged quotation isn't from that article but from something else Taylor himself wrote; (2) what the article (https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/19/17/jcli38...) actually says is that in one particular region summer temperatures are falling while winter temperatures rise, and the result is "thickening and expansion of Karakoram glaciers, in contrast to widespread decay and retreat in the eastern Himalayas". So: no, Gore isn't wrong to say glaciers are shrinking, but in one very particular place things work out so that the reverse happens, which is odd enough that someone bothered writing a paper about it. Claim 2: Kilimanjaro. Truth: Yup, Gore got that one wrong. Claim 3: Gore says global warming causes more tornadoes, and the IPCC says there's no reason to think it does. Truth: I dunno, but if the IPCC says that then this is specifically an argument about Al Gore rather than about climate orthodoxy. Claim 4: similar, for hurricanes instead of tornadoes. Truth: again, this seems to be specifically about Al Gore rather than about climate orthodoxy. (Looking at e.g. https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ it seems that the conventional wisdom today is that yes, hurricanes are getting worse and are expected to continue gettings worse, but we don't know with much confidence exactly what the causes are.) Claim 5: Gore says that African deserts are expanding because of global warming, but in 2002 someone found them shrinking. Truth: the Sahel region of the Sahara desert had an extra-severe drought in the 1980s, after which in the short term it improved; this is like the "global warming hiatus" post-1998. The Sahara seems to have increased in size by about 10% over the last century, partly but not wholly because of climate change (https://www.jstor.org/stable/26496100). Claim 6: Gore says Greenland's ice is melting, but actually it's thinning at the edges and growing in the middle and the overall effect is that it's gaining a bit of mass. Truth: take a look at the graph at https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/; it oscillates within each year but there is an extremely clear downward trend over the entire time NASA's satellites have been measuring. Claim 7: similarly for the Antarctic. Truth: Look at another graph on that same page. There's more random variation here, and circa 2006 you could claim that there isn't a decrease, but the trend is extremely clear.
Gore doesn't come out of this looking anything like infallible, but he's done a lot better than Taylor. And, in general, this is the pattern I see: no one is perfect, especially people who aren't actually scientists, but the claims of the "orthodox" tend to hold up much better over time than those of the "unorthodox".
There's a ton of stuff here and this isn't a climate thread, but briefly:
1. Yes I believe independents are more reliable than full time researchers because the latter are deeply conflicted and independents aren't.
2. They don't work for the oil industry. I've checked. That's propaganda designed to stop people listening.
3. There was in fact a very real pause, not simply due to statistical chance. Climatologists didn't predict that and fixed the problem by altering the historical record to erase it. That's why you can't see a pause now - not because there wasn't one, but because any time temperature graphs don't go according to plan, they change the databases with the measurements so they do. Look into it. There's another pause going on right now! In fact temperatures seem to have been stable for about 20 years modulo an El Nino in ~2015, which is natural.
4. A big part of why they're unreliable is that these guys don't engage with the real world. A major embarrassment for them was when people started driving around and looking at the actual ground station weather stations and discovered what an unusable data trash fire the ground network was - this was something climatologists themselves hadn't bothered to ever look at! You'd expect these experts to know more about the quality of their data than random bloggers but it wasn't so.
5. Where do you think Al Gore got his original claims? He didn't invent them out of whole cloth. They came from climatologists, of course.
You can go back and forth on climate related claims all day and get nowhere because the field is so corrupt that half the data is truncated, manipulated, tipped upside down, cherry picked, or wholesale replaced with the output of models whilst being presented as observation. It should go without saying but if the people who control the data also make the predictions, then they will never be wrong regardless of what happens in reality!
1. Noted. (I don't think this is a strong effect and think it is outweighed by the fact that the full-time researchers know and understand more.)
2. I said "funded by" rather than "employed by". For instance, consider James Taylor of the Heartland Institute, mentioned above. He doesn't "work for the oil industry" in the sense of being on the payroll of an oil company. (So far as I know, anyway.) But the Heartland Institute, before it decided to stop disclosing its sources of funding, took quite a bit of money from ExxonMobil and at least some from the Koch Foundation. (Also Philip Morris, of course; before the Heartland Institute got into casting doubt on the harms of fossil fuels, it was into casting doubt on the harms of tobacco smoking.) Ross McKitrick is a senior fellow of the Fraser Institute (funded by, among others, the Koch Foundation and ExxonMobil) and is on the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which claims not to take funding from people with connections to the energy industry but takes plenty from Donors Trust (an entity that exists, so far as I can tell, solely to "launder" donations between right-wing organizations so that e.g. the Koch Foundation can send money to the GWPF without the GWPF literally explicitly getting it from the Kochs) and other entities with substantial ties to the fossil fuel industry.
None of which, again, is literally "on the payroll of fossil fuel companies". If you find that that's enough to stop you being bothered by the connections, that's up to you; I am not quite so easily reassured.
3. I would be interested in details of this alleged falsification of the historical record. The graph looks to me exactly like what you get if you combine a steady increasing trend with seasonal oscillation (El Nino) and random noise. After a peak in the seasonal oscillation it looks like the warming has slowed for some years. Then it looks like it's going much faster than trend for some years. If you can look at the graph I pointed you at and say with a straight face that the people saying in ~2010 that "global warming has stopped" were anything like correct, then I'm really not sure what to say to you.
Anyway, I'm going to leave it here. I don't get the impression that further discussion is very likely to be fruitful.
Whilst there's no need to reply, here is some information on the rewriting of history they engage in, as requested.
Here are two graphs from the same government agency (NASA), measuring the same thing (temperature), for the same time period, drawn twenty years apart. The data has been fundamentally altered such that the story it tells is different:
The 2000-2015 pause is the same. You've been told that only "unorthodox" people were talking about it. Here's a brief history of the pause, as told by climatologists publishing in Nature.
In 2013 we read that "Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century". The IPCC 2013 report is reported with the headline "Despite hiatus, climate change here to stay". Climatologists claim that maybe the missing heat has disappeared into the oceans where they can't find it.
Two years later everything changes. "Climate-change ‘hiatus’ disappears with new data", there's a new version of history and the past 15 years are gone:
"That finding [that global warming actually did happen], which contradicts the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is based on an update of the global temperature records maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)."
Climatologists have an interesting methodology - when observations don't fit the theory, they conclude the observations must be wrong and go looking for reasons to change them. Given a long enough search they always come up with something that sounds vaguely plausible, then they release a new version of the old data that creates new warming where previously there wasn't any. Although this isn't entirely secret they also don't tell people they're doing this, and the media certainly isn't going to tell anyone either.
And that's how it goes. You look at the edited graphs, remember people talking about a pause and think golly gosh, how badly informed those awful skeptics were. We have always been at war with Eastasia!
You've made two complaints that I can't reconcile with one another. (1) That it was discovered that the data from ground weather stations were a mess. (2) That it's terribly suspicious that between 1999 and 2019 NASA's estimates of historical temperature changed. Of these, #1 sounds very plausible, and precisely for that reason #2 seems entirely wrong. I don't mean that the specific changes you're pointing at are necessarily about fixing #1. I mean that pointing out #1 shows that you are aware that our best estimate of something in the past can change as we discover more, correct errors, understand things better, etc. Which means that "look, the historical estimate from 1999 differs from the historical estimate from 2019" really isn't any sort of gotcha. Unless you have actual evidence that the changes were the result of something other than better data and/or analysis.
(Also, that pair of graphs can't possibly be an example of changing historical data to get rid of a hiatus starting in 1998, for obvious reasons.)
I think you have misunderstood in multiple ways what I was saying about the "hiatus" starting in 1998.
Firstly, I was not claiming that only the "unorthodox" mentioned it. I was claiming that the "unorthodox" represented it as showing that global warming had stopped and the "orthodox" said otherwise. Your pair of Nature links are of "orthodox" climatologists saying things along the lines of "here is what we think may be the reason why the last few years haven't seen a short-term increase; the underlying trend is still upward": in other words, they are examples of the orthodox saying what I said they said.
Secondly, perhaps what I said about "signal" and "noise" gave the impression that I think, or think that "orthodox" climatologists thought, that the "noise" is measurement error. That's not what I meant at all, and I apologize for not being clearer. The point is that the temperature at any given place and time is a combination of lots of factors; some operate on a timescale of decades (global warming due to rising CO2 levels and all that), some on a timescale of multiple years (El Niño), some on much shorter timescales still ("random" variation because the atmosphere is a chaotic system). However accurately you measure, you're still seeing this sort of combination of things, and a time series lasting (say) 10 years will not necessarily reflect what's happening on longer timescales.
The 15 years starting in 1998, viewed in isolation, really do show a slower warming trend than the claimed long-term behaviour. There's nothing unreal about that, and so far as I know "orthodox" climatologists never said otherwise. What they said, and continue to say, and what I am saying, is that this sort of local counter-trend variation is perfectly normal, is exactly what you should expect to see even if global warming is proceeding exactly the way that orthodox climatologists say it is, and is not grounds for making claims that global warming has/had stopped or never been real in the first place.
The "everything changes" article you quote isn't saying what you're trying to make it out to be saying. (You can find the PDF here: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tr-Karl/publication/277... .) The authors have done two things. First, some corrections to historical data. (If you look at the graph at the end of the article you'll see that these corrections are pretty small. Their description of what they changed and why sounds perfectly reasonable to me; if you have good reason to think it's bogus other than the fact that you liked the old version better, do by all means share it.) Second, including more recent data. 2013 and, more so, 2014 were pretty warm years.
But what makes me think that the "unorthodox" were wrong to proclaim the end of global warming in the early 21st century isn't tiny adjustments in the data that make the difference between a +0.03 degC/decade trend between 1998 and 2012 and a +0.11 degC/decade trend between 2000 and 2014. It's the fact that after that period the short-term trend gets much faster, exactly as you would expect if the "hiatus" was simply the result of superimposing short-term fluctuations on a long-term trend that never went away.
I bet you are not 100% wrong about the tendency to adjust things to try to correct perceived anomalies. That's human nature, and while scientific practice has a bunch of safeguards to try to make it harder to do it would be surprising if they worked perfectly. But note that the sort of small local tweakage this might produce can't do much in the long term. Let's suppose those people writing in 2015 were completely wrong to make the adjustments they did, whether out of dishonesty or honest error (which maybe they were more inclined to overlook because the adjusted data looked more plausible to them). Then, yeah, they get a faster rate of warming between 1998 and 2014. But those same adjustments will produce a slower rate of warming between, say, 2014 and 2024 when someone comes to estimate that. And the rate of warming between 1998 and 2024 will scarcely be affected at all by tweaks to the numbers circa 2010.
Your last paragraph is (at least as far as I'm concerned) completely wrong, though. I think it was perfectly reasonable to say that the warming trend between 1998 and say 2012 was much slower than the alleged longer-term trend. What I think wasn't reasonable, and what I think has been refuted by later data, and what the "orthodox" climatologists said was wrong all along, was claiming that that short-term slower trend meant that the longer-term trend had gone away, or had never really been there in the first place. That was just statistical illiteracy, and Team Unorthodox were pretty keen on it, and that doesn't speak well for their competence and honesty.
Are people here not old enough to remember how much Ralph Nader and Al Gore were mocked for their warnings despite generally being right?