Do global warming skeptics have to misinterpret scientific data to make a valid argument?

Question

In a recent question by a denier, a 2003 paper by Soon and Baliunas was cited. This paper analyzed various proxy studies and arrived at the conclusion that the Midieval Warm Period was warmer than today.

Shortly thereafter, 13 of the authors of papers cited by Baliunas and Soon refuted her interpretation of their work.

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0319.html

Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.

http://www.arp.harvard.edu/sci/climate/journalclub/ChronicleEd.pdf

More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-an-old-millennium/

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5762/841

Answer 1

From your first link:

"The Eos article started as a memorandum that Michael Oppenheimer and Mann drafted to help inform colleagues who were being contacted by members of the media regarding the Soon and Baliunas papers and wanted an opinion from climate scientists and paleoclimatologists who were directly familiar with the underlying issues."

So...they sent out a memo to colleagues to tell them what their position should be before the media could ask them pointed questions (this is why suspects are separated during questioning)...sounds about right so far....

From your second link:

Michael E. Mann, an assistant professor of environmental

sciences at the University of Virginia, attacked the study in

language unusually blunt for a scientist. "I believe it is the

mainstream view of just about every scientist in my field that

I have talked to that there is little that is valid in that

paper," he said. "They got just about everything wrong."

So....after giving everyone the cover story, he then states everyone shares his view (just ask them).

Note from your second link the attempts to squash all opposition to AGW through means other than scientific debate:

“According to internal documents from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, made public by the National Wildlife Federation, the administration fought to include

mention of the studies in an agency report on the state of the environment, a move that EPA staff members blocked by deleting all mention of climate change.”

“Mr. de Freitas, the paper's editor, had approved a few other

papers by skeptics of global warming that had also drawn

criticism from scientists, so Mr. von Storch decided to change

the system. He drafted an editorial in which he said that the

review process at the journal had failed in certain ways, and

that all new manuscripts should henceforth be sent directly to

the editor in chief rather than to individual editors, each of

whom operates independently.”

“[Mr. von Storch] says he suspects that "some of the skeptics had identified Climate Research as a journal where some editors were not as

rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common." So he resigned from the board, as did three other members.”

As for the last two links:

[You]:  "Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result."

It goes without saying...change the input, change the results (not really a repeat though, is it?).

Discredit and deny....politics as usual.  What else ya got?

Answer 2

They seldom even use scientific data, preferring instead opinion pieces.

Tat (answer above) linked to the following articles:

1) Op-Ed piece by a retired philosopher

2) Op-Ed piece by an economist

3) Op-Ed piece by a business consultant (who's also famous for suggesting every person should have mandatory monthly blood tests for HIV and any testing positive thrown into compulsory isolation - not exactly a human rights or personal freedom advocate in my mind).

4) Repeat of link #1

5) Press Release from infamous Oklahoma senator loved by every oil executive in his state

6) Op-ed piece by a mechanical engineer who worked for the energy lobbyist group High Park Advocacy Group

7) And finally, a news story that basically says the sun can affect climate (something well known by climate scientists all over the world, yet not something responsible for the current warming).

Why can't people understand the difference between peer-reviewed (i.e. checking for errors in data, technique, or conclusions by people trained in the field) scientific journal articles and op-ed pieces (with no fact-checking or quality control) by people with no education or training in the field?

If 10 electricians told you to rewire you house, and 1 plumber said you don't need too, which would you trust? That's the situation we have when for ever 10 climate scientists saying AGW is real and a concern, there is 1 economist (or philosopher, etc.) that says it's not.

Edit:

Eric - because the Mann study (despite it's imperfections) has basically been substantiated by several additional studies.  See the National Academies of Science study on this very issue here:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id...

Answer 3

Scientifically, there is no debate any longer that anthropogenic global warming is happening.  Anyone who reads scientific journals knows that.  But the skeptics will always try to distort the picture, and since they have huge PR budgets, they can get away with it.

Answer 4

I am curious Dana, would anything ever change your mind about global warming?  How many years of declining temperatures would it take for you and others to rethink your opinions?  How many more years of cold winters destroying crops like last year in SC?  What will it take Dana?

Answer 5

It never ceases to amaze me the double standards use by warmers.  How many people still use the Mann study as proof of warming.  Even warmers admit that he smoothed out the edges.  So why do they still use it.  After it was refuted, how many in nature magazine resigned.  None.  

This study was a cornerstone of the IPCC third assessment report.  It sent shock waves into the media.  So you would think that a paper interested in the truth would welcome any scrutiny of the report?  But they did not.  Obviously they were interested in politics and not the truth.

I will admit that using droughts as a measure of temperature is bad science.  But then again, it is the warmers who claim that warmer weather will bring more droughts.  So if droughts is not an indication of warm weather, stop saying that AGW will cause more droughts.

Anyone who still believes that the MWP and LIA does not exist despite historical evidence to the contrary, is the person who is in denial.  

The people who support such theories rely on tree ring data.  Loehle did a study and gathered as many non-tree ring reconstructions as possible for places throughout the world . There are dozens of very interesting ways to peer into the climatic past of a location, and Loehle included borehore temperature measurements, pollen remains, Mg/Ca ratios, oxygen isotope data from deep cores or from stalagmites, diatoms deposited on lake bottoms, reconstructed sea surface temperatures, and so on. Basically, he grabbed everything available, so long as it did not rely on trees.  His conclusion:  The MWP and LIA were real events.

For more info on why tree rings make poor proxies see:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index....

Edit: Will it take a cooling trend, or will you blame sulphates?

Answer 6

The simple answer to your question is NO.  The reason there are so few studies to refute global warming is that there is no money in it right now, and scientists know better than to publish data that will get their funding cut.

Answer 7

I thought that was the UN's job.

Answer 8

Easily. half the discoveries in science are called bullshit ten years later.

Continental drift, hah! baloney. how does an island get from one side to the other.

The san andreas fault, she's ready to go "anytime!"

if the amazon jungle loses another 25% we will become starved of oxygen.

The earth is flat if you sail too far you will f****** fall off.

Answer 9

No. Check these out if you can put down the Kool-Aid long enough

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa...

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/2...

http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/200802...

Answer 10

They don't "HAVE TO".  Misinterpreting data is more often a matter of free will, no have to about it.

Answer 11

Honestly, the same thing could be said for the GW and AGW crowd, could it not?  

I mean there are scientists on both sides that are attempting to find a cause for 'AGW' and/or 'GW'.  Is it AGW?  Is it just GW.  Then what is causing it?  The Sun?  How much is the sun involved.  

Everything I've read from here and elsewhere, AGW and GW people don't give the sun any credit at all in the heating of the earth, and to me, that's just absurd.

I live in MN, it's going to be -20 tomorrow, we are in one of the coldest winters in MN's history, it's aready in the top 5 coldest winters and we have another 2 months to go.  Lakes here have 4 ft of ice or more on them, some lakes have frozen to the bottom, killing everything in the lake.  4 of the 5 past winters here have been below normal, frigid, cold, very cold.  Yet this is just called 'weather' here...  I know what weather is, this is not weather, this is record cold temps day in and day out.  

Whatever 'global warming' is, I can assure you it's not here in MN.