IntenseDebate - Bart Verheggen

8 years ago @ Michigan Tech News - Consensus on Consensus... · 64 replies · +5 points

Hi Tom,

We've gone over this before (https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2015/08/04/pbl-survey-shows-strong-scientific-consensus-that-global-warming-is-largely-driven-by-greenhouse-gases/).

Essentially what you're advocating is to only look at one of the two relevant questions we asked in our survey, and assume that the large fraction of undetermined responses to that question ("I don't know" and "unknown") indicate that said respondents really have no opinion about whether recent warming is predominantly human GHG induced. I argue that we have evidence that many of them aren’t truly agnostic about that issue, but merely wanted to avoid having to pick a very specific range of values. That is corroborated by respondent comments as well as by comparing the responses to this particular question to those of a similar question.

Without countering my argument you've basically insisted that your approach is better, just because you say it is. I beg to differ and I've laid out my reasoning multiple times.

So no, this article does not misrepresent my findings.

13 years ago @ Collide-a-scape - Our Uncivil Climate (D... · 0 replies · +2 points

Thanks Amac. The problem in the link I wrote was the ")" at the end.

The conversation at the CA link you provide is very interesting indeed. MT has various posts related to that thread, eg http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/06/willar... http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/06/some-f...

I find myself in agreement with most of what MT wrote, though his wording is sometimes prone to be misunderstood. E.g. him using the word "amateur" to express that most readers are not professional climatologists was taken as derogatory, whereas it wasn't meant like that at all.

His words express very well the problem that I (and I suspect many others) have with McIntyre and his fans.

13 years ago @ Collide-a-scape - Our Uncivil Climate (D... · 2 replies · +4 points

In short, "science" was not "supposed to" create yet more reconstructions. The skeptic public, and admittedly also part of the agnostic public who have been fed biased media coverage on "climategate" needed reassurance. Which in the end is good for the scientific literacy of the public. So indeed, this is a success story.

(see for a discussion of the difference between blogs and science also this insightful piece by Bob Grumbine: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/04/1...

13 years ago @ Collide-a-scape - Our Uncivil Climate (D... · 2 replies · +3 points

DeNihilist makes some interesting and worthwhile observations. Yet they also show in which way the scientific and public discussion differ: I suspect that many scientist didn't actively distrust the temp reconstructions out there in the same fashion as a portion of the lay public do (partly based on innuendo following the released CRU emails). So redoing yet another temp reconstruction was not on many scientists' radarscreen, since it wouldn't have created new insights really. Most scientists are not surprised that thorough reconstructions by and large agree. Those that are engaged in communciation of science are opf course releaved that indeed it turned out like this, as it indeed, as you clearly say, helps to increase the trust in existing temp reconstruction and hopefully trust in science a bit, which is highly needed.

13 years ago @ Collide-a-scape - Bridging the Climate D... · 0 replies · +1 points

Keith, Gary,

I agree that some of this may be at play, esp within rabid environmental circles. But for the vast majority of scientists, that's not what guides their scientific insights, as it would be antithetical to the scientific method.

Also note the reasons that I provided up thread for not decoupling climate and energy policy. I think they are valid reasons, and have nothing to do with using climate change as a convenient vehicle to reach other goals.

13 years ago @ Collide-a-scape - Bridging the Climate D... · 0 replies · +1 points

Keith,

Which issues are more urgent is a valid questionf course. About the fossil reserves (and the associated 'peak oil'), it's worth noting that the conventional supplies of oil will likely still last for, what is it, between 50 and 100 years or so, according to different estimates? There's still plenty of coal (which could technically be transformed into a liquid, alleviating the problems of 'peak oil', though it would be environmentally and climatologically disastrous). Then there's unconventional fossil fuels, including oil. I don't see how the fossil reserves could carry the same sense of urgency that I think climate change has. Socio-economic impacts of peak oil, maybe, I don't really know. Declining fossil reserves are an important motivation for technological innovation, but not so much for starting seriously with emissions reductions.

13 years ago @ Collide-a-scape - Bridging the Climate D... · 0 replies · +4 points

(cont'd)
The risk of doing something for the 'wrong' reasons (or for other reasons than the major reason) is that maybe another solution is found for the 'other' problem and then the problem that really needs addressing, but that was strategically left out of the reasoning, is left unchecked. That's the way in which I meant "giving in" to only doing what needs to be done for other reasons than climate change: It carries the risk that not enough is done, or not fast enough, or that it will be stopped if other solutions are found for the 'other' problems (eg new fossil reserves; better filters for pollution; improvement of the geopilitical situation, etc).

I did not mean that even though people may be entirely correct, I'd loath to "give in" to their PoV just because I don't like them, or because they;re in another tribe or something. But I do how it can come across that way, and I phrased it very poorly indeed.

13 years ago @ Collide-a-scape - Bridging the Climate D... · 0 replies · +3 points

Keith,

That's a good point, about the "giving in" part. I wasn't happy with my phrasing of that at all.

There is nothing against emission reductions for other reasons than climate change (and there are many good reasons). What I did try to point out was that I think the climate change issue has more urgency to it than many of the other reasons for decarbonization (though I made a qualifying statement that I don't know the ins and outs of all those other issues of course). Or at the very least that it's a very important reason. (to be cont'd)

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Bart Verheggen

People I'm following

Bart Verheggen