Maggie's Farm

DeGaulle: It is difficult to understand why there isn't even some remote consideration that warming might be beneficial.

All climate economic forecasting involves the consideration of beneficial and deleterious effects. Roughly speaking, mild warming {less than 1°C} is projected to be primarily beneficial, with more winners than losers. Significant warming {between 1°C and 2°C} is projected to be primarily deleterious, with more losers than winners. Extreme warming {greater than 2°C} is projected to disrupt the climate system and cause severe damage to human civilization.

DeGaulle: You are merely referring to various models which might or might not have any relationship to reality.

Your claim was that scientists didn't consider beneficial effects of global warming, which was false.

DeGaulle: Science is about experiment and observation, not models of hypothetical situations.

That is incorrect. Hypotheses and observations are two sides of the coin. Models are constrained by observation.

In order to understand global warming, you may want to start with the greenhouse effect, without which the Earth would be a frozen wasteland.

Assistant Village Idiot: The 97% number was never "This is how many climate scientists" subscribe to the level of climate panic that we journalists do." It was a measure of how many published papers seemed to take the idea of some warming for granted.

See Cook et al., Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming,
Environmental Research Letters 2016.

Assistant Village Idiot: Some warming =/= catastrophe. It's just not that hard.

That's correct. Current levels of warming are not catastrophic. However, even if humans stop emitting greenhouse gases, the Earth will continue to warm until the climate system reaches a new, warmer equilibrium. Meanwhile, humans continue to emit greenhouse gases. The leading science indicates a 2-4°C increase in equilibrium temperature for each doubling of CO2. Anything over 2°C in warming will cause significant disruption of the climate system, with all the follow on effects.

Texan99: The fact is that intelligent and discriminating people do have tools available to evaluate technical arguments

Yes and no. Sure, there is a lot of so-called science that people should be able to discern as being without merit. Generally, pseudo-science is disconnected from other fields of study, while valid science overlaps and links with other fields in many different and often surprising ways. For instance, the study of rocks can inform biology.

On the other hand, laypersons people won't be able to evaluate the actual raw data from satellite observations of the atmosphere. Satellites don't measure temperature, but radiation at various wavelengths. Satellite observations are affected by the diurnal motion of the satellite, as well as satellite decay, so the data requires significant adjustments. It's also difficult to separate observations from various layers of the atmosphere, and there is often significant overlap between the layers. All of this has to be accounted for before we come up with something like this.

At some point, everyone relies on others for information, including scientists. Einstein did not observe the eclipse of 1919, confirming General Relativity, but relied on Eddington to make the observations. Those observations have been repeated many times, and now the effects of General Relativity are incorporated into standard technology, such as GPS. If several oncologists say you have cancer, then it is probably time to make some decisions based on a science of which most people have only an inkling.

Again, it's the complex overlap of fields that gives us confidence. Climate science starts with the fundamental physics of the greenhouse effect. The physics leads to various predictions, including the moistening of the atmosphere in response to an increase in greenhouse gases. That leads to effects that can be observed in the overlapping studies of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, and even the biosphere. Meanwhile, the history of Earth's glaciation adds support to the importance of greenhouse gases to Earth's climate.

BornSouthern: you focus on one thing only - to the exclusion of other overlap - HUMANS.

Not at all. Climate scientists have identified many natural influences on climate, including changes in solar irradiance, volcanism, orbital variations, continental drift, mountain building, alterations in sea currents, changes in concentrations of greenhouse gases, differences in albedo, even cometary impacts. When accounting for only natural influences, the Earth would be slightly cooling, rather than warming. Only anthropogenic greenhouse emissions account for the current warming trend, and the amount of warming is consistent with predictions based on both fundamental physics and the history of Earth's climate.

BornSouthern: I don't know that your collective would be inclined to extend the same compliment to most of the people here.

Of course we do. That's why we always attempt to be respectful and provide independent support for our claims.

Our original comments didn't actually address climate science, but how people determine what is valid science and what is not, and how an appeal to authority works.

BornSouthern: However, leaving that aside, do you not realize that your position on AGW has been irretrievably damaged in the minds of most skeptics by just looking at a few of the following tactics of your fellow travelers ...

None of that impacts the science.

Scott Adams is talking about persuasion, not climate science. It's important to note that scientists are not always the best persuaders. Adams promises a discussion of climate science at some later date.


The former he modifies to "Young or Journalists or Scientists".


Here's an example of a hockey stick graph. Does someone doubt the validity of this graph?


Most people (including those with business experience) rely on computer models all the time, for weather prediction, petroleum exploration, engineering, or in science.


Again, most people (including those with business experience) rely on scientific consensus for planning all the time, whether in medicine, engineering, or policy.


While this can be a useful topic of discussion, it is not always definitive. That's because people often pose strawman arguments.

As an instance, someone might say you have to show that the trajectory of global warming is "unusual" in terms of degree, otherwise, they will dismiss any other evidence.


Tony Heller, a.k.a. Steve Goddard, is an electrical engineer by training. That doesn't mean his views are wrong, but it shows how Adams is more interested in persuasion than science.

We'll see when he points Heller's "Top 5".