Smokeys comment

[Sunsettommy]

Found this nice comment from this LINK

Quote: Smokey (11:36:34) :

As someone who has followed this site from when it emerged from Surface Stations, I have seen so many commentators post their experiences of the time they changed their minds, due to the rational arguments and facts presented here, that it fascinates me when a few cling to their belief system in the face of voluminous evidence to the contrary. A six year anomaly at one of the Poles, from 2004, is cited as some sort of proof of …what, exactly?

We have seen the progression of those claiming an imminent ice age [when I was a young buck in Viet Nam], to the approaching global warming debacle that never happened, and which then morphed into anthropogenic global warming [AGW], and from there to “climate change” [as if it doesn't always change]; runaway global warming and climate catastrophe, in which the seas will rise eighty feet — complete with maps of the future showing submerged cities. The fact that the rise in sea level is moderating is ignored, as is all other contrary evidence.

Most people begin by accepting what the media tells them, and those with an interest [and especially those with a background] in science look more closely, and find that nothing unusual is occurring, and so become skeptical of the claims of impending doom.

We see the accounts here regularly from those who accepted the CAGW scare, and gradually became scientific skeptics. What fascinates me is the few who see the evidence that the climate is fluctuating as usual within its historical parameters, and then assume Orwell’s doublethink as expressed by his character Winston Smith, who wonders if everyone believes that 2 + 2 = 5, does that make it true? There are actually some people like that. As Spock would say: “Fascinating.”

In response to Antonio San, R. Gates says that changes in wind patterns could also be due to AGW. It’s all AGW, all the time. And all in the Arctic. It can never be admitted that natural variability is sufficient to explain the current climate.

Wind, currents and precipitation all have a much more significant effect on ice extent than a 0.7 increase in temperature over the past century. If not, then the Antarctic charts would be very similar to the Arctic charts, not ‘polar’ opposites.

A hallmark of the subset of climate alarmists who ignore all evidence contrary to their belief is cognitive dissonance, and everything is seen through the lens of certainty — while skeptics simply ask for testable evidence of their hypothesis. Such evidence is, of course, never provided.

As those who are only asking for testable, verifiable evidence of CAGW, scientific skeptics are generally immune from cognitive dissonance [CD], because they are simply asking for reproducible raw data and methods used to construct the new CAGW conjecture. Skeptics didn’t invent CAGW, and they have no hypothesis of their own to prove [despite the psychological projection of a few alarmists who wrongly claim that any statement of skeptics constitutes a hypothesis].

The famous psychologist Leon Festinger pointed out the cognitive dissonance of Mrs Marian Keech and her followers when the flying saucers didn’t arrive as predicted. The failure of her prophecy did not, as expected, cause the group to disband. Instead, they became even more convinced that the flying saucers were coming — an irrational response following the disconfirmation of their belief.

Dr Festinger shows that unlike the average person, those afflicted with CD become even stronger in their beliefs when shown they are wrong: “Show [the CD afflicted person] facts or figures, and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic, and he fails to see your point… Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief… finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.”

Despite the linking of dozens of charts showing that the planet has gone through identical cycles many times in the past, and despite the fact that with a one-third increase in CO2, the planet has only warmed but a fraction of what is predicted for a CO2 increase of that magnitude [and the fact that the CO2 rises as an effect of warming, not as a cause], some individuals become even more convinced of their belief in an imminent tipping point, runaway global warming, and climate catastrophe than ever before. Contrary evidence has no effect on the CD afflicted. It is simply ignored.

A similar group afflicted by CD was the Watchtower International Bible Students [Jehova's Witnesses], who repeatedly predicted the end of the world in 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1918, 1920 and 1925. Following every disconfirmation of their predictions, like Mrs Keech’s flying saucer group, the Watchtower followers became even more convinced in their beliefs.

The catastrophic CAGW conjecture is blamed on CO2 — a minor trace gas that is pretty well mixed globally — which would mean, if CAGW had any validity, that the Antarctic would be affected by carbon dioxide very similarly to the Arctic. In fact, there is no evidence that is happening. As harmless and beneficial CO2 steadily rises, the global climate warms and cools just as it always has: click1, click2.

There is zero empirical evidence that CO2 has anything to do with the natural cycles evident. But a subset of those, who have made up their minds otherwise, will never be convinced even if sea ice advanced to the equator. People are evil, and the approaching climate doom must be blamed for the one CO2 molecule out of every 34 that is emitted by humans.

PG sharrow also makes a good point. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the Arctic at the very North Pole has been completely ice free in 1958, 2000, and a few other times over the past century. Yet today it is frozen solid. Did CO2 take a breather? A union negotiated break from overheating the planet? A time out from its warming duties? Never fear, an ad hoc explanation will be provided.

The true believers in catastrophic AGW will invent ad hoc explanations fro the re-freezing of the North Pole, like medieval astrologers attempting to explain the retrograde movements of the planets as being attached to crystal spheres within spheres. That’s how silly their arguments have become. Even Dr Trenberth expresses astonished disillusionment that the data is not conforming to the alarmist conclusions.

All Trenberth needs to do is accept the null hypothesis, because everything now occurring is fully explained by natural climate variability. It has all happened many times before, and it is currently well within the same parameters.

Occam’s Razor states that additional entities such as CO2 should not be included in any explanation unless it is necessary. But the CAGW debate is not about science at all. If it were, it would have already been settled by the normal response of the planet.

Jehovah's Witnesses also predicted the world would end in 1975,and when that failed,they lost a significant number of people right after wards,but the rest continues on despite the evidence that their religion is in serious error.

I have seen that CD phenomenon many times already.

I am still waiting for an actual verified AGW hypothesis paper to show up.

[Sunsettommy]

Here is another Smokey comment:

Quote: Smokey (19:24:56) :

Nickname (16:20:42),

Excellent analysis of the catastrophic global warming conjecture. As you point out, “a really meaningful prediction is about what isn’t going to happen, not what is.”

Karl Popper gives the reasons why AGW is pseudo-science in #2 below [emphasis is mine]. Popper says:

It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations. [Such confirmations include variability in Arctic ice, disappearing islands, frog extinctions, etc.]

1. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.

2. Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory, but a vice.

3. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

4. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory.

5. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status.

One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

Popper wrote this when scientists were generally willing to share their data and methods with other scientists, in an effort to arrive at an accepted theory. But current AGW proponents refuse to even discuss working with skeptical scientists to formulate tests of AGW, and they routinely refuse to share their raw data and methods with scientific skeptics.

AGW is not a theory. Neither is it a real hypothesis, because those promoting it routinely stonewall requests for their data, algorithms and methodologies. Thus, AGW is simply a conjecture; an opinion. It is not science, because its proponents, by their secrecy and unwillingness to cooperate with other scientists, make it impossible to move beyond conjecture.

The scientific method has been abandoned in the case of AGW for clearly self-serving motivations: money, professional status and political aggrandizement. But those are not ethical or legitimate reasons to jettison the scientific method, therefore their conclusions carry no scientific weight; they are used for public relations purposes only, in order to advance their agenda.

As you point out, what is obvious throughout the AGW scare is that the conclusion always remains constant, and the ad hoc auxiliary assumptions, thought up on the spur of the moment, change over time to accommodate the conclusion.

The chameleons who argue here on behalf of a non-existent AGW “theory” are fooling no one. AGW is simply a story designed to transfer wealth, and to reassign and expand political power. It is intended to benefit the few at the expense of the many who will be saddled with the enormously increased costs and additional new taxes under the guise of fighting “carbon.” And it will make no perceptible difference in the global climate.

If its proponents want to elevate AGW into a genuine hypothesis, which it is currently not, then they must “open the books” by providing all their data, code and methods, and by answering all questions raised by skeptical scientists fully, completely, and without reservation, rather than treating them like enemies. They have not even begun to take the first steps in that regard.

I have long wondered why the AGW believing scientists are so easily irritated when skeptical people ask questions designed to try disproving the claims made in favor of the AGW hypothesis.

[JohnWho]

Who is this "Smokey" guy and why isn't he posting here?