Global Warming & Climate Change Policy

[Jonathan Scott]

What I don't understand is why so many people have opinions. While we may have more varialbles than scientists, we certainly have far more opinions than we do people qualified to have one.

It seems to me that the main problem is more related to gambling and everyday human psychology than specifically to climate science.

We have some scientific but not totally conclusive evidence of what may be happening, and people are trying to guess what will come up next. If some people are right, then it is very important that we take one course of action, as the cost of the consequences could otherwise be unacceptable. However, if others are right, then a different course of action may be better.

It appears to me that rather than exposing these factors (the risk and the potential costs or benefits of each outcome) separately, some people are becoming (intentionally or unintentionally) biased in their evaluation of the risk because they feel that the cost of the consequences is so high. This then makes them vulnerable to criticism and undermines their own position. This then results in polarization of positions as usual, and a general slanging match.

I'd like to see quantified risks and costs rather than a naive polarized "Oh yes it is! Oh no it isn't" approach. Of course this is tricky, as on balance it might maximize the potential benefit in the short term to decide to take action based on a risk which might not even be the majority scenario, simply because of the potential cost of the consequences, and this could be difficult to accept. However, that's how insurance works, and we live with that.

 

[vanesch]

The only reason for such a sweeping ban, IMO, would be that mentors have not found a way to keep discussion appropriately focused on the science, and we are putting a fence around the area where they have not succeeded.

This is entirely correct. Moderating GW threads has not only been a difficulty in execution, but also a difficulty in agreeing on what to do exactly, as within the mentor crew, you have almost the same "spectrum" of opinions as in the forum itself. So I think that Greg decided to amputate the leg instead of having gangrene infect the whole body.

I know of one other instance where there is a similar problem, although there is no politics, and certainly no society-related issues connected to it, and that is in the battle field of "beyond the standard model". It is there where a lack of genuine field expertise is a problem, because you need that expertise to separate the "outside of the bulk of the mainstream but a knowledgeable suggestion/criticism/observation" from the "unfounded opinion/crackpot/conspiracy" idea. In the end, such a decision is always somewhat subjective for borderline claims. If you have some people rather knowledgeable of the field on board, you can rely on their intuition to make those decisions.

If you know a field rather well, you know what is "so rock solid that it is silly to dispute it" from "rather well established but with some known/unknown criticisms" and "the more speculative parts of the domain". We have people on board for most of the sciences to make these decisions. We don't have such persons on board for GW. So we do (did) the best we can, all with our own conceptions, (ill) understandings and opinions. And those opinions, uneducated as they may be, don't agree within the Mentor crew. On top of that, there is a certain, justified or unjustified, suspicion towards at least part of the top scientists in the field, so that some within the mentor crew don't take their word for granted.

Of course, the proposed philosophy, "let's strictly stick to peer-reviewed material", was supposed to handle this. However, even there, you need expert knowledge, because of course not EVERYTHING can have peer-reviewed sources. In mechanics, nobody is going to require you to come up with a peer-reviewed source of Newton's laws, or of basic material that is taught at the level of the first years of university in the field. Point is, you need to have some expert knowledge to even be able to *recognize* that. Some strictly non-peer-reviewed sources are probably thrustworthy, like some data that are on public servers. Even though that is (probably unrightfully, but if you're not an expert, how do you really know) put in doubt with the hacked e-mails. It would also be simpler if we had several scientific experts who were at the same time not involved in any "political" action. If we had climate scientists that had the viewpoint "I want to find out what is going to happen to climate, but I really don't care how society will act onto this or what are the moral implications of my work, I only want to find out, that's all". Because, as said otherwise, how to know if a "scientist" that is at the same time an "activist" is wearing his scientist hat, or his activist hat.

All this means that the "stick to the peer-reviewed material" doctrine, nice as it looks, was more difficult to put in place than it may sound.

On top of that, there's another difficulty. The "social" utility of discussing AGW on a forum like PF is probably because what the public wants to know, to a certain extend, is: "how seriously should we take those climate scientists and their claims ?". If we start already with the answer: "what can be discussed here is what climate scientists say", that essential question cannot be answered. If that's the point we take on, there's much more interesting material on something like RealClimate. My personal view on a GW discussion here - on the public utility of a GW discussion here - would have been to try to explain, to try to discuss what should be taken seriously, and why, because it is "basic science" and what is more prone to doubt or error, even though it is published and peer-reviewed. And NOT refer "just" to "peer-reviewed authority" without the ability to back it up. That's also only possible with enough expertise on board. Then you can refer eventually to peer-reviewed material, but if you master it enough, you can also explain it. You also know the extend of the certainties and uncertainties of the field.

However, if constantly you have the discussion between "you put the words of the IPCC in doubt, how dare you, heathen " against "I think many climate scientists are lead by a small group of influential people whose aims and objectives are suspicious and misuse their scientist statute to push through an agenda" and the entire spectrum in between, it is, as a non-expert, very difficult to intervene. Especially because among the non-expert moderators, almost just as large a spectrum of uneducated opinions is present. So any moderation action taken by one mentor is then put in doubt by others, reversed, or not, and this is a very unhealthy state of affairs.

Hence, I suppose, Greg's decision.

Yes, it is a failure of the PF crew. No, we shouldn't be proud of it. But because there's a lot of other nice scientific stuff here at PF, where things DO work out great, Greg wanted to protect that part from all the hassle of GW.

 

[Borek]

It appears to me that rather than exposing these factors (the risk and the potential costs or benefits of each outcome) separately, some people are becoming (intentionally or unintentionally) biased in their evaluation of the risk because they feel that the cost of the consequences is so high. This then makes them vulnerable to criticism and undermines their own position.

Are you trying to describe the situation or to word new definition of groupthink?

 

[sylas]

Climatology is a frustrating science. There are more variables than scientists. The geological record tells us it does as it pleases. Given the ebb and flow of climate change over the history of earth, I doubt human activity greatly disturbs whatever cycles are preferred by nature. Human contributions to the atmosphere are undoubtably significant, but only over a century or two. Climactic volatility supercedes the human factor by billions of years. Our hubris exceeds our understanding.

I'd rephrase the first part of this.

Science is frustrating. There are more variables than scientists and more questions than answers.​

... except that I don't find it frustrating. I *like* living in a complex world with a depth of detail that leaves no apparent end to the questions and no easy path to answers. Science is fun, and difficult, and worthwhile, and makes progress with no apparent end point.

Why single out climate? What about cosmology, or anthropology, or medicine, or a host of other examples we could mention? I don't think there is anything particularly different about climate that makes it in a class of its own. Each field of science has its particular problems. If they didn't science would be much easier -- and more boring.

You make some assertions in the rest of the post that seem odd. You state them apparently with a degree of confidence, and then complain about hubris. That doesn't ring true to me. Why would the ebb and flow of climate over Earth's long history mean that human activity cannot greatly disturb things? The scientific evidence is pretty unambiguous that human activity has indeed disturbed things significantly. Can this be quantified? Well, yes, it can, though as is common in science the estimates come with uncertainties. This isn't unique to climate.

You acknowledge that effects on the atmosphere are significant, but the assertion that this is only over a century or two is unsupported and dubious on its face. The scale and duration of impacts are an open question; but they are investigated, and in line with physicsforums we should not be just soliciting opinions, but looking to see if the question is actually being addressed in the actual practice of science. It is.

Contrary to what some posters seem to suggest, you really don't need to have an expert on hand to look into the question. It would help, of course; but the literature is not that hard to survey and the Earth forum guidelines already has a sticky thread with pointers that would be enough to get good appreciation of what is being done.

Also, contrary to what some posters have suggested, we really do have people involved here right now who can pick up such questions and address them with reference to the actual practice of science, and we've had them for some time. I'm one of them, and I am not the only one. Nor am I limiting myself only to individuals who share all my views on the various specifics of climate. There are a number of contributors, with a range of views, who are all well able to back up their posts with useful and directly relevant references from the work of science being done right now. (Me, Andre, mheslep, Xnn, joelupchurch, Skyhunter, chriscolose, Bill Illis, and my apologies to lots of folks I have omitted. Every now and again I notice some really first rate contribution coming in from a contributor who is not all that regular.

I do not mean contributions that merely state a point I agree with. Indeed, some of the folks I list don't agree with me. What makes a good post, in my opinion, is one that actually gets substantive on the questions of a thread, and backs up the information with references people can use to explore further what is actually being done on the subject within working science.

You don't need to have one person who can cover all the bases. Indeed, I think the whole desire to get a climate scientist on the staff is fundamentally missing the point. I support whole heartedly support the idea of finding someone like that, it would be great. It would help a lot. They wouldn't even need to be a mentor, frankly.

And yet... this won't get to heart of the problem -- which is that too many people, even some within staff, simply don't trust climate scientists.

On how best to deal with a question relating to climate

This is not a debate thread, so I am not proposing at all to debate the question raised. But Chronos makes a claim above, and it is worth looking at HOW it might be addressed without trying to actually make that debate here and now, which would be off topic.

The claim I mean is this:

Human contributions to the atmosphere are undoubtably significant, but only over a century or two.​

Seeing the claim made I immediately recognize without even looking up the papers that this is a fairly hot topic in climate being actively investigated, and there are a couple of recent papers that explore the likely duration of significant consequences of the anthropogenic impact. I think I have at least one of those recent papers already in my own private collection of downloaded resources that I have been using as I've studied this whole area for myself.

If this claim had appeared in the relevant science forum, and if the forum had remained open to actually talking about such questions in the light of existing work on science, I would very likely have noticed, and presented a brief explanation of what durations are thought likely, and why, and with a reference to one or more papers that deal specifically with the topic.

I know already, from the responses I have received from different people, that this kind of contribution is useful and appreciated. It doesn't tell you what you must believe. It gives information about what is going on in existing science in relation to the question. And that, in my opinion, is what physicsforums is all about.

No personal criticism of you in intended, Chronos! Indeed, just the reverse. Having input like this, so that it can be addressed, is really useful. I would not expect anyone to be immediately satisfied with my response. The idea, IMO, is simply to give people the background and the pointers to explore further if they are interested. If anyone actually changes their mind, that's their own doing and their own thinking through resources from the discussion and from whatever else they look into. (I've touched on the nature of debate generally at my blog as well; links are in my signature.)

On why a substantive response still has problems

And yet, even given a substantive, properly referenced post, that gives some insight into the actual practice of science on the matter, there are going to be people who object.

(1) There's an unrealistic desire for a complete answer. There's no such animal. Scientists actually DON'T have the hubris, in general, to think their work resolves such things with a final answer or finished understanding.

(2) There's an unrealistic desire for equal time to some other allegedly equivalent alternative perspective. The expectation by many contributors that climate science is about equally credible alternatives is flatly mistaken. Contrasting ideas exist, of course, and the work of science is focused on resolving discrepancies and identifying those ideas that are wrong. Think "falsification". The work of science includes minority views, and they are perfectly on topic for the forum. But a presumption of equal legitimacy is not any part of science. For instance... the idea that changes will persist only over a century or two not really backed up by any scientific work of which I am aware. The best you can get is a lack certainty on potential longer durations for the effects of a human impact to dissipate; and that is already a part of the work I'd be citing on the matter.

Be that as it may, anyone else who wants to add depth to discussion by giving properly referenced alternative is making a useful contribution. Anyone who remains skeptical of the scraps provided by one contributor is perfectly within their rights. It's not a good idea to post with the objective of changing someone else's mind. The proper objective is simply to give some useful additional information.

(3) There's an unrealistic desire for authority. Science doesn't depend on authority. It's great to have an expert available, but for a basic question like this one, a student who has looked at bit at climate science will already have some useful contributions to make. Anyone who takes the time to try and learn about the subject will quickly come to a point of making useful substantive contributions. We don't need final authoritative answers to everything, or complete agreement even within staff, before the discussions become helpful.

(4) People confuse the lack of answers to some questions with the lack of answers to all questions. There are a heap of wide open problems in any area of active science. That's what keeps it active. At the same time, there are some useful discoveries and fundamental theories that make a solid foundation for pushing back the boundaries of what is known.

Of course there's a heck of a lot unknown in climate science. But frankly, the biggest problem is with people who think everything is unknown, or at least behave as if they think that. I listed back in [post=2523110]msg #26[/post] some foundational points that are often disputed in climate discussions but which could (I hope!) be usefully recognized by staff as a common basis that is not actually in any credible dispute. They are:

• Temperatures are increasing over recent decades, with a total gain of roughly 0.7 C since the start of the twentieth century. Even if people question the importance of this, the actual change itself is real and significant.
• The greenhouse effect is real. The atmosphere does interact with thermal radiation and this does result in a much warmer surface temperature than would exist otherwise. (About 33 degrees warmer, on average.)
• Atmospheric carbon dioxide has a significant effect on climate. (A forcing of about 5.35 W/m² per lateral log of atmospheric concentration.)
• Humans have a significant effect on carbon dioxide levels. (The 30% increase in atmospheric levels since the start of the industrial revolution, and the measured increase in the present, is being driven by human activities.)

All of these are solidly established well quantified information. It is by no means a complete account of everything that matters, but it is a solid foundation not in any credible doubt. We can easily explain and reference these points for newcomers, and recognition still gives full reign to all manner of "skepticism" on various points of climate.

(5) People mix up confidence in scientific theories with the importance of scientific theories. That's a distraction from dispassionate consideration of what we can actually know and with what confidence. This is a very politically charged topic, and we should not even attempt to resolve all the political questions of appropriate policy responses. The unique contribution of physicsforums, and our greatest strength, is the capacity to help people learn more about the scientific questions. That will, no doubt, inform their views on policy as well, and I don't see why we can't allow for political discussion in the designated subforum. But our prime business is education in the science itself, regardless of how important you think it is. We'd still consider it as an interesting scientific topic even if there were no immediate pragmatic consequences; and policy considerations should be ruled as a divergence of topic for a thread that focuses on a scientific question.

I'm not saying that it is easy to manage this issue. I continue to support the new policy, albeit reluctantly, and to hope that it might indeed be temporary, without presuming so. But I do think it is a failure of physicsforums to achieve its stated aims, at least as far as this one topic is concerned, and that the major problem has been lack of unity within the staff. This isn't surprising; it is a reflection of deep lack of unity in the community. If it was only disagreement between different competing ideas in science the problem would be manageable; science takes competing ideas in its stride.

The problem is far deeper, with disagreement as to whether scientists are actually really doing honest science at all. And that makes it very hard indeed to keep to the physicsforums mandate: "to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community". If people think the current status of science practice is riddled with fraud or incompetence or distortion, then the whole basis for this physicsforum mandate is undercut. And so -- most regrettably -- this active area of science is going to be ruled off limits here. Not because physicsforums has determined that the practice of science is compromised, but, in my opinion, because the staff cannot even agree on whether the practice of science in this area is something that should be the basis for education.

--------

Sorry this has been over long. I'm presuming this thread will probably close off as well, though I'd like to see it open for a little bit longer to let people comment on whether they would like to see physicsforums find a way to manage this, or give some more thoughts as to what that might take.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Xnn]

Could somebody explain what would be required of and expected of an appropriate expert?

I would like to help in the search.

 

[Evo]

Could somebody explain what would be required of and expected of an appropriate expert?

I would like to help in the search.

Vanesch summed it up.

It would also be simpler if we had several scientific experts who were at the same time not involved in any "political" action. If we had climate scientists that had the viewpoint "I want to find out what is going to happen to climate, but I really don't care how society will act onto this or what are the moral implications of my work, I only want to find out, that's all". Because, as said otherwise, how to know if a "scientist" that is at the same time an "activist" is wearing his scientist hat, or his activist hat.

 

[Wallace]

So you mean, almost any climate scientist? The idea that the line between professional scientist and activist is blurred in climate science is a myth plain and simple. There are activists with science backgrounds but the professional research scientists are just doing science.

Once again I'm truly shocked, saddened and disappointed that there are staff members of this fine place actively spreading this kind of ignorant disinformation. Once again it flies in the face of the very things PF stands for (or that I thought it did).

 

[Mark24]

Unless you are already an expert, how do you know that what you learned was correct? It certainly isn't because we had any qualified climate scientists moderating the discussions. It isn't because the threads were populated with qualified climate experts, because they weren't. Whether something seems to make sense, or not, is irrelevant unless you have the proper background.

Frankly, your post is a great example why [based on the constraints] I support the ban on the topic.

Who decides if the person responding to an inquiry is an expert or not? You? This sounds like an appeal to authority, and science should not be subject to that. Science should be able to stand on its own based upon the evidence. IMO, this attitude demonstrates the whole problem with the AGW debate, and it has been exemplified by the arrogance shown by climate researches in the hacked e-mails toward people who voice any degree of skepticism.

I do not simply rely on being told by an expert which way is up from down. I am capable of examining the validity of the evidence as it is presented to me by doing further research into the premise on my own. I, as most people here I suspect, do not simply take for granted what I am told by the "experts." If I did, I would have long ago hopped aboard the AGW express to begin touring the country with Al Gore.

For those who are skeptical in nature (as I believe all scientists should be), the GW discussions on the Earth forum made for an environment to obtain more information about the foundation of the AGW theory including it's limitations, from contributors who do not consider themselves above responding to an honest inquiry. Banning discussion simply because Gavin Schmidt isn't moderating it does a disservice to the pursuit of knowledge here IMO.

 

[Xnn]

Thanks Evo;

When I find a few experts that are not involved in political action, where should they be directed?

 

[Count Iblis]

Put another way, and briefly, the Mentors are tired of arguing amongst themselves without reaching consensus on how to moderate numerous CC/GW threads. That is the simple reality of the situation.

 

[Count Iblis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement" , so why can't physicsforums?

 

[D H]

Wikipedia's moderation in this regard has become quite suspect. Wikipedia is a good, and sometimes excellent, source for non-controversial, mainstream science topics. Things start going downhill in areas where the science is not fully developed or where science, politics, and religion interact.

 

[sylas]

Wikipedia's moderation in this regard has become quite suspect. Wikipedia is a good, and sometimes excellent, source for non-controversial, mainstream science topics. Things start going downhill in areas where the science is not fully developed or where science, politics, and religion interact.

Not only that... the fights that go on behind the scenes over moderation and administration and so on at wikipedia make our little disagreements here look like a group hug.

Not to mention that they are trying to do something rather different to what physicsforums is about: it's not really comparable.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Count Iblis]

Wikipedia's moderation in this regard has become quite suspect. Wikipedia is a good, and sometimes excellent, source for non-controversial, mainstream science topics. Things start going downhill in areas where the science is not fully developed or where science, politics, and religion interact.

The interesting thing is that in such cases were there are controversies, the Wiki-articles become biased toward the scientific opinion, despite the fact that everyone can edit Wikipedia, despite the fact that the wiki-Admins have different views and despite the fact that only a small fraction of the wiki-contributors and Admins are scientists who could theoretically have an agenda.

 

[D H]

The problem in a nutshell:

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/cityofate/point-counterpoint.jpg

Climate debates, on both sides, tend to degenerate to "Jane, you ignorant slut".

 

[Andre]

For the wikipedia moderation on climate issues, it may be revealing just to google 'wikipedia climate moderation' to judge whether or not it might be biased.

 

[ZapperZ]

Who decides if the person responding to an inquiry is an expert or not? You? This sounds like an appeal to authority, and science should not be subject to that. Science should be able to stand on its own based upon the evidence. IMO, this attitude demonstrates the whole problem with the AGW debate, and it has been exemplified by the arrogance shown by climate researches in the hacked e-mails toward people who voice any degree of skepticism.

But this is a fallacy. I can give you all the raw data from, say, a photoemission experiment and argue with you that this is why your modern electronics work. Now, are you able to then correctly analyze and decipher such "evidence"? How long do you think it would need, to study the physics of photoemission spectroscopy for one to be able to know enough not only how to interpret such evidence, but also to know all the various details and intricacies so that one is aware of the limitations and conditions under which the evidence was obtained? At some point, YOU have to appeal to some authority that your GPS works the way the experts tell you it should such that you can depend your life on when each time you fly.

It is utterly amazing that people seem to think that the data from various climate studies are THAT easy to decipher, and that everyone and their grandmother have the expertise, not only in statistical analysis, but also in geology and climate physics. It is insulting to that field of study that one really doesn't have to learn anything to be an "expert" in that field.

The National Research Council, an arm of the Academy of Science, commissioned in 2006 the http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676" of all the published work related to climate change. I challenge anyone here to point to a more comprehensive review than that. Would you have not only the expertise, but also the patience and the resources, to study and collect ALL of the evidence THAT meticulously? Let's get real now because this is the "authority" that you are questioning.

And using Al Gore as a scapegoat is weak. The only people who considers him as an "expert" are the type of people who considers Rush Limbaugh as an expert in politics and social policies. They both deserve each other.

We ALL depend on the decisions of authorities that are more knowledgeable than us in many areas, whether you are aware of it or not. To somehow single out this very issue while ignoring the others is extremely deceptive.

Zz.

 

[aspergers@40]

At the same time, I think this topic is deeply rooted in basic physics,.

This is the reason for the heatedness and circular nature of the arguments imo. Basic understandings of matter and gravity are not yet complete and watertight. The climate models don't marry-up with the weather models. Only when the climate models can reproduce the Arctic oscillation data can you say that they are properly validated imo. It's a fun topic which anyone can participate in with around a years intense interest and study of scientific papers..Shame to miss it.

 

[ZapperZ]

This is the reason for the heatedness and circular nature of the arguments imo. Basic understandings of matter and gravity are not yet complete and watertight. The climate models don't marry-up with the weather models. Only when the climate models can reproduce the Arctic oscillation data can you say that they are properly validated imo. It's a fun topic which anyone can participate in with around a years intense interest and study of scientific papers..Shame to miss it.

The argument over climate change has nothing to do with "basic understandings of matter and gravity are not yet complete" (whatever that means)! Can you cite one specific issue in which this has come into play?

The complexity comes in because it is a situation where many factors come into play to varying degree. The various climate models aren't "exact" not because of our understanding of matter and gravity, but because these non-linear phenomena requires a lot of parameters, many of them themselves depend on past observations.

Zz.

 

[sylas]

Gentlefolks, we aren't meant to be debating the climate matter here. The question before us is rather: do we want to have a place for this discussion, and if so, under what general principles can it be managed?

Cheers -- sylas

 

[sylas]

This is the reason for the heatedness and circular nature of the arguments imo. Basic understandings of matter and gravity are not yet complete and watertight. The climate models don't marry-up with the weather models. Only when the climate models can reproduce the Arctic oscillation data can you say that they are properly validated imo. It's a fun topic which anyone can participate in with around a years intense interest and study of scientific papers..Shame to miss it.

I'm making a completely different point, in support of the same final conclusion. I am saying that climate science is rooted in basic physics that we do understand very well indeed. But our differences on that are not the point here. The question is how should our discussion be managed.

I don't see any good reason to say we may not discuss our difference of opinion in the forums, with firm application of the guidelines on actually using properly credible scientific references. Mere opinion, from either of us, won't cut it. The goal of the forum is to help people learn about the current practice of science.

It is more than merely a shame we cannot discuss this. It is a failure of the forum. It's not the end of the world, and a break may help the staff have a needed rest and then perhaps find a way to do better. We still have a host of other active and valuable discussions so I'm not blowing this out of proportion. But it does mean that on this matter physicsforums has decided, for now, to give up; and this is an admission that we have failed.

The fundamental problem, in my view, has been the divisions within staff. Disagreements within the staff on the proper answers in climate and on the trustworthiness of scientists working in this field has prevented the staff from working effectively together on this one topic.

There are, of course, all kinds of open questions in climate science. There are also basic discoveries, grounded in well understood physics. It is not particularly difficult to tell the difference between basic foundational discoveries and tentative solutions to open questions, if you are willing to trust in general the competence and honesty of scientists publishing in this field.

It is possible, in principle, for the whole of some active field in science to be founded on a misconception. That applies for EVERY field of science, and it should not make a blind bit of difference for the need to learn about the current state of science. If the current state of some field of science is all messed up, then it will eventually get fixed, and it will be fixed by people who actually understand the current state of science.

It is not the place of physicsforums to identify which fields of science are flawed in such a sweeping way, or to propose resolutions. What we do here is discuss the current state of science in practice. This already includes the work of minorities in science who are making sweeping proposals against a much larger majority.

The National Research Council, an arm of the Academy of Science, commissioned in 2006 the http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676" of all the published work related to climate change. I challenge anyone here to point to a more comprehensive review than that.

ZapperZ, we probably broadly agree on how to approach this issue, but you are mistaken.

That NAS report is a very useful resource, but it is very tightly focused on one narrow little part of climate change; the inference of historical changes by proxy data from the last two thousand years. It does not consider the big issues of what is causing the recent increase or the physics involved in causes of climate change, or a host of other matters. It's about measuring one little aspect of climate change (temperature only) and then only over one limited span of time and without any more than passing reference to causes. It's a careful look at one tiny part of climate science.

The more comprehensive reviews that covers the whole field are the IPCC assessment reports, and the latest report (the 4th, from 2007) is already linked in a sticky thread at the top of the Earth science forum as a standard reference. Even so this report is not complete. It is specifically focused on those aspects of climate science that address questions of relevance to policy makers.

No one review, not even this IPCC report, sets out one true set of answers that discussion must be based upon. Indeed, each successive report has taken into account published work since the previous report that argued for changes in methods or conclusions from the earlier report.

Our gold standard at physicsforums is not one review, however useful, but the practice of science... including that minority of working climate scientists who may have quite drastic disagreements with the IPCC reports. But if staff members simply think that this whole field is riddled with incompetence or dishonesty, then that is highly disruptive, since the proper goal of physicsforums is the study of the actual practice of science.

If all staff were willing to acknowledge that the great majority of published work is honest and competent; and that legitimate criticisms of existing conventional scientific theory can manage to get published eventually by someone; then the problem is solvable.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Count Iblis]

For the wikipedia moderation on climate issues, it may be revealing just to google 'wikipedia climate moderation' to judge whether or not it might be biased.

It may be biased toward keeping out sceptical fringe opinions. But the interesting thing here is that there are plenty of climate sceptics among the Wiki-Admins. So, if there is some form of censorship, it is due to the wiki-system itself, not due to some Admins who are fans of Al Gore imposing their will on Wikipedia.

 

[ZapperZ]

ZapperZ, we probably broadly agree on how to approach this issue, but you are mistaken.

That NAS report is a very useful resource, but it is very tightly focused on one narrow little part of climate change; the inference of historical changes by proxy data from the last two thousand years. It does not consider the big issues of what is causing the recent increase or the physics involved in causes of climate change, or a host of other matters. It's about measuring one little aspect of climate change (temperature only) and then only over one limited span of time and without any more than passing reference to causes. It's a careful look at one tiny part of climate science.

The NAS report had a very narrow and specific target - to look at ALL the published data and see if there is any trend in global temperatures. It wasn't a review of "the whole field". I've looked, and in terms of a comprehensive and meticulous collection of evidence on this very matter, I haven't seen any better. Have you?

NAS reports tend to go for specifics issues, because if not, it would be too cumbersome of a study since they tend to do this meticulously. For people who still question if there really is a "global warming" (and we all know there are plenty out there), one would think that this collection of evidence would be something one would pay attention to.

The difference between NAS studies, and IPCC is that the NAS has a very prestigious and respected track record. People often bashed the IPCC as been "political". It is difficult to do the same type of bashing to NAS based on what they have produced so far for all their studies through the NRC.

The whole debacle and confusion with AGW is that, one has to fight so many different battles. There are those who deny that the Earth is in a warming trend. So you have to fight that. There are those who say that yes, there is a warming trend, but it's part of a natural cycle. So now you have to fight AND those who said there's no warming. And then there's those who claim that there is a warming trend, and that an anthropic cause isn't the source. Etc...etc. The NAS study is meant to address the first issue. Until that can be well-established, it is difficult, and one can even argue that it is moot, to fight the other battles.

Zz.

 

[aspergers@40]

Gentlefolks, we aren't meant to be debating the climate matter here. The question before us is rather: do we want to have a place for this discussion, and if so, under what general principles can it be managed?

Cheers -- sylas

We all want a place for the discussion. That's for sure. All the members appeared to be managing themselves rather well on both sides of the debate I thought. Everything was going okay as far as I was concerned..

 

[sylas]

The NAS report had a very narrow and specific target - to look at ALL the published data and see if there is any trend in global temperatures. It wasn't a review of "the whole field". I've looked, and in terms of a comprehensive and meticulous collection of evidence on this very matter, I haven't seen any better. Have you?

On climate science generally, the IPCC reports are far more comprehensive. But on the specific question of reconstructing temperature from proxies over the last 2000 years, I agree that this review is the hard to beat, and probably the best.

NAS reports tend to go for specifics issues, because if not, it would be too cumbersome of a study since they tend to do this meticulously. For people who still question if there really is a "global warming" (and we all know there are plenty out there), one would think that this collection of evidence would be something one would pay attention to.

I was simply disputing the previous description of this as the "most comprehensive review of all the published work related to climate change". I was pointing out it was actually on one much more focused and specific issue. You are now confirming that; and I agree with your paragraph above.

Yes, you should certainly point to this report, as long as it is actually relevant to a particular thread. The report is, as you note, dealing with a specific issue. If the topic is the "hockey stick" reconstruction, then this is an essential reference.

Getting back to the question of how to manage discussion in this potentially contentious subject, I believe one of our major concerns should be helping our members keep threads focused on specific topics.

For example, if a thread is about a skeptical paper proposing low climate sensitivity, then replies should be related to sensitivity as well, and even better should be specifically focused on the actual argument and evidence described in the paper. It would be inappropriate to reply that global warming is real because of proxy reconstructions; that was not the topic.

Similarly, if a thread is about proxy reconstructions over the last 2000 years compared to the rate of temperature increase over the twentieth century, then it would be inappropriate to reply with a skeptic paper about an alleged dominance of solar activity on trend. It is just not the same topic.

The load on mentors for this task can be kept manageable, I think, by having a couple of other people who are interested in the topic (regular members should be fine) encouraged to keep reporting topic problems. Having people with different views on climate engaged in this would be a positive advantage.

One thing I have felt in the past is that I really don't know what happens with my reports. I am not sure if they are appreciated or whether I should scale back or report more often. I've ended up deliberately trying not to report too often, for fear it isn't helping. Some feedback to people making a report (which I have received once or twice) might help either encourage the kind of reports that are useful and let members know what reports are not needed.

The difference between NAS studies, and IPCC is that the NAS has a very prestigious and respected track record. People often bashed the IPCC as been "political". It is difficult to do the same type of bashing to NAS based on what they have produced so far for all their studies through the NRC.

It shouldn't matter, I think. I do not believe that physicsforums should single out one reference as definitive. Giving some resources in a sticky thread is useful, but for management of discussion we should stick to a generally stated guideline which works across all the different areas of science: the published scientific literature.

In my opinion, anyone who merely dismisses any of the NRC or the NAS or the IPCC because they think it is "political" is failing to stick with the guidelines. If some poster believes there is a problem in a scientific hypothesis, then that should be addressed on its own scientific merits. This applies for responding to skeptical writings or NAS reports or IPCC reports or anything else.

I think it has been good that people have tended to cite specific published papers on some issue of interest. The IPCC report works very well as a comprehensive reference to help find related literature on almost anything in climate science that is likely to crop up, frequently also for finding the minority view points. It might also be handy to have a sticky thread with a list of general review papers or reports, like the NAS report on proxy reconstructions, to give a survey of work by many scientists related to a particular topic. Review papers are very useful for learning about a focused topic, and I have a number that could be considered in this way.

The whole debacle and confusion with AGW is that, one has to fight so many different battles. There are those who deny that the Earth is in a warming trend. So you have to fight that. There are those who say that yes, there is a warming trend, but it's part of a natural cycle. So now you have to fight AND those who said there's no warming. And then there's those who claim that there is a warming trend, and that an anthropic cause isn't the source. Etc...etc. The NAS study is meant to address the first issue. Until that can be well-established, it is difficult, and one can even argue that it is moot, to fight the other battles.

To be honest, I think the importance of the hockey stick is often greatly overrated -- and I can back that up with reference to well established climate scientists saying so specifically. The problem is that it doesn't do much at all about finding causes. It gives a correlation based argument, in that the sharp rise at the tail of the stick aligns with the sharp rise in greenhouse gases. But correlation based arguments are very unsatisfying. We have a much stronger physically based reason for identifying greenhouse gases, which goes back to work predicting the effect well in advance of its measurement. Alas, I am now diverging into making an argument over climate again, sorry!

It seems to me that as staff, we should be able to manage a lot of this relatively easily -- as long as we get all the staff on board with agreed common ground. That won't include a single perspective on AGW, and I don't believe it needs to.

• Identify an agreed set of battles that we DON'T have to fight. This has been done in other areas of science, and it should definitely be done here. I've proposed a brief list of such topics... one of them is the idea that there is no actual warming. Threads on trying to argue for this are best deleted immediately, or locked, as "overt crackpottery".
• Stick to focus. There are many points to discuss, and as long as it can be done using adequate references, this should be okay. What you don't want is for every thread to expand and cover every topic.
• Stick to the guideline on proper referencing. Ideally, no thread should ever start out with a controversial claim having no reference. A controversial claim, in the context of physicsforums, means one that is not obviously known to have good published scientific support. It's not good enough to wait until someone challenges and the original poster gets around to making some kind of case. By default we should encourage such threads to be reported, and either delete, lock, or add a mentor advisory post instructing the poster to give support within, say 24 hours, or the thread will be deleted.

Do you think strategies like this would be workable? As a mentor, you have a better insight on that than me. I think it's going to be important to have something that does not require all staff come to agreement on the actual substance of global warming and climate change; but agreement on a policy for managing this discussion may be possible, given a bit of time without the hassle of actually having to manage it right away.

I'd like us to reopen this topic, eventually, and I think there is enough support for that to make it worthwhile to see how it can be done.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm not making the argument for the hockey-stick figure. In fact, after discussing with many climate scientists, such figure can only be a supplement to the various climate models.

I am one of those who stopped caring about the Earth forum for at least a year now. To me, the diligent moderating and monitoring that is being done with the physics sub-forums have not and could not be done with the Earth forum due to our lack of expertise in the area of climate science. We could boast several working physicists for the physics forums, both in the Mentors and in the participating members - we could not find even one for climate science.

So because I stopped caring about it, I see no loss for this forum if that topic is not catered to. That makes me the last person you want to ask for an opinion on how to moderate that topic.

Zz.

 

[BobG]

I'd rephrase the first part of this.
Science is frustrating. There are more variables than scientists and more questions than answers.

... except that I don't find it frustrating. I *like* living in a complex world with a depth of detail that leaves no apparent end to the questions and no easy path to answers. Science is fun, and difficult, and worthwhile, and makes progress with no apparent end point.

Why single out climate? What about cosmology, or anthropology, or medicine, or a host of other examples we could mention? I don't think there is anything particularly different about climate that makes it in a class of its own. Each field of science has its particular problems. If they didn't science would be much easier -- and more boring.

The difference is that the average person has to make decisions about climate change when they consider the policies supported by politicians they may or may not vote for, decide how much sacrifice in extra money/reduced lifestyle they may or may not be willing to accept, etc. And the average person has to make these decisions with few qualifications to decide which info they get is true or bogus.

GW/CC is more relevant to decisions we have to make today than cosmology, anthropology, etc, which is exactly why it generates much more heated discussions than other sciences.

And that also makes it sad that it's relevance, and the discussions that go along with that relevancy, make it a topic beyond the capability of PF to discuss.

 

[Skyhunter]

We all want a place for the discussion. That's for sure. All the members appeared to be managing themselves rather well on both sides of the debate I thought. Everything was going okay as far as I was concerned..

I wholly agree.

This was the only place on the web where the two sides actually engage in constructive dialogue.

 

[ZapperZ]

I wholly agree.

This was the only place on the web where the two sides actually engage in constructive dialogue.

You have been shielded from all the posts that were deleted, and all the hate mail that we got. It does look pristine and nice on the surface, doesn't it?

For a forum that is only a VERY SMALL PART of PF, it required an inordinate amount of moderation and argument.

Zz.

 

[sylas]

You have been shielded from all the posts that were deleted, and all the hate mail that we got. It does look pristine and nice on the surface, doesn't it?

Yes, it really has been working pretty well for users of the forum -- and since Greg has allowed for regular users to comment, I think we should allow that their perspective matters. I appreciate that there have been problems behind the scenes.

For regular members of the forum, the situation in these discussions has improved considerably over the last year, with an influx of contributors who really do have a good level of familiarity with the state of science in climate, and who have given some good high quality engagement. By high quality, I mean actually using proper references, as is expected, and actually explaining what those references are doing rather than just spinning them to some amateur perspective or trying to undermine them as a way of reforming the practice of science.

• Xnn stated posting just over a year ago, and has quickly become a great asset.
• I stated on this subforum in May, and have been appreciated as a useful contributor by readers of all perspectives.
• joelupchurch joined in May, and has done a great job in sticking with substance and valid references.
• chriscolose joined in May, and is a strong contender for the single most technically competent PF contributor in climate science; very strong on actually working with the literature and with working scientists, and with explaining underlying technical and physical theories. (But unfortunately does not have a great number of posts.)

I'm sure I missing others; and I note that I am not considering longer term contributors. It's not enough to be well read in a substantial amount of background literature and theory; it is also important HOW people engage. The above are examples of people who have been mostly an asset in that regard as well -- though none of us is perfect, of course.

The other thing that has happened is a new stronger policy, which was intended to deal with the problem that mentors are not able to judge quickly whether a proposition expressed in a post is grounded in the practice of science or is an ungrounded misunderstanding. The principle is simple; controversial claims must be supported from the literature.

One of the major problems is that this policy has not been applied consistently. It has definitely helped, and it would help more if applied more. I've said a number of times that having a genuine working climate science on hand would be very useful, but that I am quite sure this is not really your biggest problem. Don't get me wrong -- it would be very nice to have. But it is far more important to have a set of understood and consistently applied guidelines, which will STILL need to be stronger than in other forums, simply because of the heat this topic can generate.

If you guys actually let hate mail stand in your way of giving a good education resource on a hot topic of science, that's appalling. But I think there is a lot more to it than this.

Furthermore, I do know it has been very hard on mentors, and I support the idea of taking a break. But I think that

• given that the forum HAS been working pretty well
• given that the topic IS one of considerable interest and importance (even if you disagree with AGW completely it remains important because of policy implications)
• given that there are a substantial number of members and staff who would in principle like to find a way to manage the topic better

it is legitimate to hope that the ban might be temporary and that some solution might eventually be tried and the topic reopened. People who don't have an interest in it should not be impacted by this; everyone has their favourite topics to engage.

Cheers -- sylas