Thanks for the measured response Giardiasis. Sorry for not responding sooner, but time has been a bit limited recently.
Giardiasis said:
A general consensus is not good enough to drive the changes demanded upon society. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. That is why we always hear about dodgy data (e.g. Mann's Hockey Stick). If the evidence was so clear, we would not be hearing about so many instances of bad science. You may think that these are trivial matters that don't change the so called consensus, but how many more examples of collusion, trimmed data, retention of data that fits the theory while disregarding data that does not, or forging data will it take to finally be enough? It seems that it if evidence is presented that is based on fraud, it does not matter because we still have a consensus. That is what scepticism is about. That is why so many doubt what we are told. It comes down to how strong our scientific methods are, and I for one feel politics has taken a hold of scientific endeavour. I’ll explain below, first I’ll address your second paragraph.
Well if a general consensus is not enough to drive change, then science will struggle to influence any change in our society. As I discussed in my previous post science is founded on confrontation between competing ideas and interpretations of empirical data. The theories that currently stand (ie the scientific consensus) is that the is best supported by the body of data that exists. To suggest that the conclusions need to be rock solid to support change is a far too dangerous course of action. If the data supports a particular conclusion I feel it it is the responsibility of policy makers to act upon those conclusions.
Climate change is occuring, even the deniers admit that (do you dispute it?), however they deny the influence of humans in the process. This is why your reference to the "Mann's Hockey Stick" is disingenuous. It is one of the classic denier "go-to" points and yet it isn't a scientific controversy. Read
this article and comments therein about climate history and predictions in relation to the hockey-stick graph and
here specifically about the Mann data and their claims that have been misrepresented by political bodies on both sides of the debate. This does not make the actual data and scientific conclusions drawn from it any less valid and yet the scientific consensus is still that AGW is occuring. These conclusions aren't based on political angling, but the data collected.
As for you accusations of fraud and "bad science", I would be very interested for you to support the claim. If you are referring to the 'climategate' emails, I would like you to point out where the correspondence revealed such fraud and/or bad science. All the claims I have read reveal ignorance on what was being discussed by the scientists (ie claims about the "trick") or poorly drawn conclusions about the tone of the scientists in the context of their private conversations. Nothing to suggest a problem with the data used to support the general consensus in regard to AGW. Another point is that any claims about a global scientific conspiracy with regard to these emails suggests a complete ignorance of the scientific process and the adversarial nature of the process. I appreciate your lesson on skepticism, but if you do have legitimate grounds for such skepticism, how about you support such assertions with specific examples of weaknesses in the current consensus or evidence of a global scientific conspiracy to misrepresent the data. As I have said before, in the absence of such support, your position is one of denial, rather than skepticism.
If the mechanism is so extremely reliable, and climate change so accurately described, why can’t we accurately predict climate? I call it faith because you ignore the many instances of where the scientific method fails because as you call it, there exists a general consensus. Mann’s hockey stick, the numerous mistakes in the IPCC report, Jones’ weather station comparison journal etc. are these all examples of rigorous science? Why did Mann’s hockey stick appear in the 2001 report, yet was omitted in the 2007 IPCC report? There are just so many examples that make the whole thing stink. Personal reasoning involves looking at the evidence, how it has been collected, checked and given the green light. It involves not relying on authorities to tell you what your opinion should be, but actually developing one yourself. You might argue that the current model is the best we have, but it is still a dog. Society is not going to make major changes to their way of life based on a dog.
Climate models aren't perfect and are constantly being refined as new data is generated. The limitations of these models are known and quantified and yet the conclusions drawn are still scientifcally accepted. Why do you think that is? I always find it amusing that deniers point out the limitations of models, something that is absolutely required for the scientists to publish such data and to frame their conclusions within the context of these limitations.
Your faith claims are, again, ill-founded. You cite some classic denier talking points, and yet you don't deal with the responses to thee issues by the scientists that know this science. All of these issues have been discussed extensively and the problems with the deniers position have been pointed out, or where the conclusions has been refined that has been pointed out (that is how science works!). I would claim that denying the scientific conclusions supported by the vast majority of experts in the field of climate science, without clearly pointing out the problems in the body of evidence is more of a faith position than accepting those findings. If you (or any of the more high-profile deniers) have legitimate points that dispute the current consensus, the scientific literature is the place to air such refutations. If they can stand up to the rigours of the peer-review process then I would pay them more credence. Publishing on personal websites, or denialist forums is not a very convincing (nor scientific) method for airing such concerns.
As for your lesson on skepticism (again) I am well aware of how to critically analyse the conclusions of scientists or trusting authorities in a particular area. The difference we have is that I don't blindly follow those conclusions, but look over them, see what they are based on, look at their limitations and look at the response from other groups in the discipline. I don't know if you are an expert in climate science, but I personally can only take my critical analyses in these scientific discipline so far. I am not an expert and have to trust the scientific processes (which have a proven track record) to eke out the most accurate conclusions. As I stated in a previous post, this is not faith, but a reasonable position for someone ignorant of the intricacies of the science. If you disagree I would be very interested to know a better way.
Your "dog" assertion is just that, an assertion, not supported by any valid claims.
(Going to go off on a tangent here) Most scientific bodies are funded by governments, so we already have politics controlling the money. How are grants approved? Governments now have a narrative they want to be told again and again. They don’t want to hear the other tale (e.g. the publically funded book “Klimafakten: Der Rückblick - Ein Schlüssel für die Zukunft“ written in Germany in 2000) . This isn't enough on its own to cause bad science, as the peer review process should ensure it is weeded out. So how good is peer review? This is a fundamental question regarding the strength of climate science knowledge. You I take it would argue it is robust, free from politics and largely honest. I think there is sufficient cause for doubt in it. It comes down to who are the reviewers? How are they picked? Are they independent from the author? From my understanding, many peer reviewers review journals that support their own work. This is a serious conflict of interest. Peer reviewers should be totally independent from the author with a sceptical leaning at the forefront of their mind. I don’t hold much trust in peer review while this conflict of interest exists. The other issue I have is how journals are approved in the first place. Who wants to read about a study that shows sea levels have remained static as opposed to one which shows sea levels have risen? I know which one I’d pick to put in my publication as an editor. Science should be about the boring results as much as the sensational ones. I fear this is not the case, and why a large body of sceptical journals are given no spotlight.
Peer-reviewers of scientific papers do not reject a paper out of hand, but point out where the problems lie and in some cases where further data is required to support the conclusions drawn by the authors. Grounds for rejection can't include "I reject your ideological position" but have to be be evidence-based. Conflicts of interest have to be explicitly laid out as well. All scientists should have a critical viewpoint, especially when reviewing or reading scientific papers.
Of course politics is going to influence science, that is an inescapable reality of the world we live in. This is why the scientific process and the peer-review process is critical. It provides a formal and transparent BS-detector to eke out the most plausible conclusions. Having published in the peer-reviewed literature myself, I am well aware of the attention to detail and logical approach one must take to have work published. It is a tried and tested method for producing accurate models of the world we live in. Again, I would be interested to hear of a better method from you. Blind assertions from both sides of a debate?
As for scientific editors wanting topical topics published in their journals, that is true, but how you could think data that refutes the current scientific consensus in an area (ie AGW) would not be considered topical and hot property is beyond me!
So I take it you have read the 1000s of articles? Or are you basing your opinion of their conclusions on what authorities such as the IPCC have told you they say? If you haven’t read them, then I consider that faith.
So you have read the 1000s of articles? Your skeptical opinion is based upon the measured analysis of these papers and you have published these flaws?
have discussed above why this is not a matter of faith.
Personally I think that agreeing with the conclusions of authorities that are stained with political influence to be gullible. Many scientists have published journals that do not validate the AGW theory, they are out there for all to read.
Well, in the absence of valid evidence to the contrary I will accept the scientific conclusions. You and other deniers can choose not to and stick to your buzz points (the hockey stick model etc.) and continue to ignore the counterpoints made in regard to these issues. As I have said, evidence that disputes the current consensus that can stand up to scientific scrutiny would be hot property in the scientific literature and wouldn't have to rely on self publication in dodgy journals (in many cases journals that have been set up on specific anti-AGW ideologies or supported by industries potentially damaged by changes made in response to AGW). Should I pay credence to young-earth creationist journals that publish 'scientific papers' that refute evoulutionary theory and old-earth geology? Why not?
I appreciate the time taken in your response and you sticking to the issues. Some of your fellow deniers should take a leaf out of your book (especially those that think that you're great ;D)
-X) over this issue has evolved over recent years - talk of change is much more prevalent now then it was 5 years ago - informed by the latest scientific data. With recent events, it is obviously not politically expedient that change happens now. 
