Majority of Americans Still 'Believe' in Global Warming

pineinthegrass wrote: Hey Rockdoc,

I certainly respect your expertise in your field, and appreciate your posts.

I do wonder about the source you've quoted in your post, though. I've heard about the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine before, and when I've looked into them in the past they just don't appear to be a legitimate scientific organization. They had a petition in the past claiming thousands of "scientists" have signed it (30,000 or so last time I checked a couple of years ago, and conservative talk show hosts loved quoting them, I'm sure the number is much more now) rejecting the idea of human caused global warming. But when I went to that site, I saw all you had to do was fill out a form and claim to be anyone you wanted to be. The did say you should have a degree in some science related field, as I recall, but that hardly made you a global warming expert.

Anyway, here are a couple of links about them. Any comments? Am I missing something, since while I'd qualify for their petition as an "expert" (physics degree, but an electronics engineer by trade), I make no claims about being an expert or scientist regarding global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/OregonInstituteOfScienceAndMedicine.html

Many thanks for the links. I find them interesting but not necessarily something that warrants dismissing the linked data. I do not necessarily agree with some of the authors approaches and business practices, it does not negate the presentation of information. Being eccentric has no bearing on this matter. If I understand correctly you question the validity of the data given the source and type of expertise?

Becoming an expertise in a field does not require you to be schooled in a particular field. You could become an expert on global warming by doing original and literature research. It is after all how all of us become experts in one field or more. I for example, received my expertise in paleontology, through academics (6 years of graduate school). Then I retooled myself as a carbonate sedimentologist (30+ yrs of research an applied science) in industry. I've also pursued a life-long passion for reef ecology through some original research and extensive reading. While I qualify as an expert in reef ecology, yet I do not present myself as such. If I wished, I could publish my original research results in professional journals and thereby gain appropriate recognition or attacks for that. But you already know about those things.

Perhaps another angle that I have experienced will help make a little more sense. I'm, lets say, somewhat eccentric myself by some people's perspectives when it comes to my field of expertise. This is because of the the way my thinking is able to see relationships other do not. As a result I've harvested my share of dogmatic adversaries. As a consequence several contradictory things happened. My work would be undermined and essentially put on the shelf and dismissed especially when it contradicted the views held by many in the organization. While i was an "idiot and poor scientist" internally, I published the same work with one article receiving best paper award. In other words my research was considered eccentric by those who had an ax to grind, whereas those who have no interest other than science had a diametrically opposing view. I told some there that cream always rises to the top when I left. Ten years and millions of dollars later spent on consultants, my work is being pulled off the shelves as it is being corroborated over and over again. Similarly, I now clash with dogmatic "experts" in the field of evaporite geology. My original research challenges some of their long-held beliefs and consequently I gather a growing list of bitter opponents. Those with clout on a managerial or political level can successfully suppress my results for now. However, I do plan on publishing these controversial findings and am confident that my research will stand up to scrutiny. My opponents will bring their guns to bear by challenging my expertise, presenting their own research in which they conveniently leave out critical observations that do not support their views or even inventing data. I've seen it all past and present. There are far too many dishonest scientists out there whose motives often find root in jealousy.

The fact that the research presented by Robinson is challenged or that he is not an anointed expert does not deter me from evaluating his findings. He presents information that you never hear about elsewhere. Why is that? Why is it that there is no work that refutes these data as something invalid on that basis of opposing data. Why is it that his data is consistent with the long term geologic record? I suggest this is true because there is non that honestly opposes it. There are opposing beliefs (another story about science for another time).

All that aside, I find it difficult to believe given the geologic record of many climatic cycles that involve global warming and cooling long before man arrived on the scene that "we are the cause" of the present global warming trend. Where in the hell were we to start up the other cycles? That fact alone points to an extrinsic cause unrelated to human activity. Given that the sun's radiation intensity has a long term cyclicity as does the earth's orbit it seems perfectly consistent that these two factors play a major role in the climate not only of our planet but the rest of the planets in our solar system that also have eccentric orbits. One need only look at correlation between planet climate and distance of from the sun to know it is a major determining factor. Less is understood as clearly about solar radiation variations. If you only look for causes in one area, you always only find some correlative factor there.

I realize this is a long winded diatribe, but I hope to have given you a clearer insight into how i think and evaluate other's work. Finally, all we postulate is merely a theory. These are ideas, interpretations about how something works. They are only as good as the data you bring to bear or have available to you. Personally, I do not think we know all the variables involved in global warming and that climatetologist fail to give adequate consideration of the fossil record. The most funding finds its way into pockets of those who are in political agreement on global warming rather than on the merits of the science done.

In the end it comes down to what you want to believe. If you want to dismiss the data, you certainly may. I'll choose to look at as much data as possible and my belief is we are once again being very egotistical.

RCCL wrote: I still wonder what percentage of individuals in the 70's really believed we were plunging ourselves into the next ice age... that would be an interesting comparison, right? I mean... while we're on the topic of percentages....

It is an interesting comparison on beliefs. I do not know about you, but I froze my buns off during that last ice age.

a) I accept the assertion that temperatures are changing, and that the direction of the change is positive.

b) I believe the magnitude of the changes may be over-stated due to changes in global measurement. (specifically, the reduction in measures from northern latitutudes raise some question as to whether or not the stated global termperature is biased by these changes)

c) I believe the models that explain climate change are not as robust as we might imagine, therefore, I question the conclusions (specifically that anthroprogenic emissions are the main cause).

Let me explain -

As a graduate student in economics and statistics, I was trained to use the same statistical tools that researchers use to model the climate. In fact, my teachers and colleagues pioneered some of the tools (SPSS, but one of my classmates works for SAS, now). Econometric analysis is a robust statistical field. The tools developed to study economic data were adapated later to study the sceientific problems, such as animal populations and the climate (I see no problem with this). My point is this - I know how to study and interpret statistical models.

Scientists often state the relationships observed in statistical models without stating the confidence interval of those measures.

For example, I might observe that as age goes up, income goes up, as well (let's say 5 percent per year). The confidence interval of the stated relationship is actually more important than the relationship. If the confidence interval of the 5 percent is +/- 8 percent ---- then I don't really have that much confidence that 5 percent is what's really happening.

The second thing I don't see in the press releases --- is the degree to which a stated variable actually explains variance in the variable I'm interested in.

For example - if changes in age explain only 10 percent of variation in income --- then there's still 90 percent of variation un-explained.

Finally - it's possible that age is simply a proxy for time - and what really matters is time (model specification error).

Climate scientists are reasonably certain both theoretically and empircally that CO2 emissions impact temperature.
Climate scientists have yet to show (as Rock Doc mentions) that human activity is the the key source of greenhouse gasses (the ocean is, in my opinion).
Finally - I think that models that show vehicle registrations or population - might have proxy variable/specification problems.

I do not feel the models merit the conclusion that activists have drawn.

I'm waiting for a statistical model that is not vulnerable to measurement error, that has conclusive predictive power (R square of 0.3 or higher) -- that is is unambiguously positive (strong beta coefficient, with low probability of it being zero), that is empirically and theoretically sound.

Right now, with the condition of climate models, you're better off betting on a horserace (even if you know nothing about the horses) than betting that a change in vehicle emissions results in a change of climate.

Oh crap!! You have unleashed the beast!! :VeryScared: Well, It was a fun run while it lasted.

I'm still struggling with correlation versus causation with regards to anthropogenic climate change. The time between the end of WWII and about 1970 saw a large increase in greenhouse emissions, but an overall cooler climate. We've saw a warming trend for the next 30 years, but the last decade has trended towards cooler once again. Overall, we have seen a warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, but wouldn't that also be expected? Isn't it a warming of the climate that always ends a cycle of cooling of the planet and a cooling of the planet that ends a cycle of warming of the planet? We all hold that the climate is a cyclical event and I just haven't reached a point yet where I'm convinced that the figures show a causation and not a correlation.

I also struggle with the volumetrics in assigning an anthropogenic causation. Current CO2 levels are what, less that 4/100 of 1% of the composition of the atmosphere and roughly 30% or so higher than what climate scientists say was a median concentration prior to the inception of the industrial development of our species. And then there is the number of variables within the models and the reality that only a fraction of them are accounted for and that their interrelation is far from fully understood.

Bailey Bud mentioned one of my concerns which has to do with how the data has been presented and massaged using statistical methods. I don't think the recent "climategate" stuff indicated the warming data is anything but genuine, but we do see signs that the researchers have been feeling pressured and respond in sometimes inappropriate ways.

Rocdoc's first post had a graph produced in a 1996 paper which clearly showed a warming period during medieval times where temperatures were warmer than today. But more recent papers, maybe starting with Michael Mann's famous "hockey stick" graph, no longer showed that "inconvienient" medieval warming period. Eventually it was found that there was a fault (accidental, or on purpose?) in the computer program used to produce that hockey stick, and in fact even radomly produced numbers would result in a hockey stick graph. Michael Mann wrote it off saying there was plenty of other proxy data which also produced a hocky stick graph. But some of that is in question too, particularly tree ring data which hasn't really followed measured temperatures since around 1960. So since that time, the tree ring graphs have been "adjusted" too, using measured data instead. At least that's how I understand it.

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/13830/?a=f

I too have noticed that geologists seem to question human caused global warming, perhaps more than other scientists (not that I have the numbers). The people that want to politicalize it have a simplistic explanation, that geologists tend to work for mining and oil companies, and are thus biased. But I reject that and think there is more to it, maybe based on scientific approach. But I haven't seen what that might be.

So far as CO2 levels go, I don't think anyone questions they have been going up since the industrial age. And I think most agree recent CO2 increases are mostly human caused. I think the question is how much effect an increase of CO2 from .03% to .04% in the atmosphere has on surface temperatures.

And Printsmith, that claim that global temperatures haven't gone up, or have decreased, in the last decade has been around the last couple of years. I think its just a result of normal fluctuations in temperature. 1998 was a particularly warm El Nino year. Most years after that were cooler, but still at near record highs for the last century. So naturally skeptics picked 1998 as a starting point and said temperatures have been cooler the last decade. But that decade has been over now, for the last two years anyway, and a 10 year "trend" isn't all that significant in the very long scheme of things.

Forget the paper. Address the data. Indeed there is a bias among geologist. This is because we look at long term history not short blips in geologic time. We see that major global climatic changes lasting millions of years transpired multiple times long before man's arrival. This alone is enough to tell you there are extrinsic causes concerning global warming and cooling events.

My citation of the paper in question is only to give credit for the data I used to illustrate the relationship between global temperature and sunspot activity and the onset of glacial shortening, a feature that translates directly into rising sea level. Those are data not conclusions or interpretations. What I conclude form those are my own interpretations subject to modification or rejection given additional data.

Ultimately, all of that matters little as the geologic data concerned attests to climatic changes not induced by man. And, that is my only issue with the current popular perceptions.

"Now, 8 years later in 2007, they publish essentially the same exact paper again (also a frowned-upon practice): this time in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons! Yes, you read that right - a "medical" journal. Why? Because no mainstream journal will publish science that is misrepresented as this is. See below for more info on JAP&S. And mass-mailed it again to thousands of PhDs along with a petition. Who did they mainly send it to? Not climatologists, but computer scientists, engineers, geologists, and biologists - anyone with a PhD who either doesn't have the expertise to understand the subtle misrepresentations, or scientists whose world-views are predominantly earth-based rather than atmospheric-based (not to knock you Rockdoc, but there are a higher percentage of geologists who don't support AGW and my humble opinion is that it's an inherent bias that must be examined)."

Whether the practice of republishing a paper is frowned upon or not is irrelevant. It happens all the time (much to my dismay as I end up reading the same thing twice). And let me digress a moment here to point out that one can always find fault with a paper as 1) lacking peer review, 2) repackaged and then republished, etc. This does not change data. I find it interesting that so much energy is being expended on attacking this paper on a very personal level. It is even more interesting that those attacks originate from within the climatological community, a community that has a dog in the fight. I find common ground with the questions by an engineer from Penn state

"The GWPP packet also included a note from “FredercK Seitz” who identifies himself as past president of the National Acadamy of Sciences and Rockefeller University. I looked him up on the web and it appears this is true. These are pretty serious credentials. I ask myself: why would a highly respected scientist put his name out as supporting a review that is such poor science? Regardless of his personal biases, a good scientist, we believe, does not support a paper that is scientifically erroneous. Do we conclude that Dr. Seitz has no scientific ethics? Do we conclude that a former NAS president has allowed personal biases to overcome scientific scrutiny? There was no mention of Dr. Seitz made in the commentary “Oregon Institute of Science and Malarky,” yet the inclusion of his letter urging support for the petition is probably much more important to the “anti Gobal Warming cause” than the article. Is Frederick Seitz a dishonest person and a poor scientist? How did he get to be president of the NAS? I really would like to understand this."

Using your link SC http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -malarkey/
Since this is a rehash of the previous paper plus a few more cherry-picked statistics of dubious relevance, instead of tediously going through the whole thing ourselves, we are going to try something new – an open source debunking.

What is the nature of this debuking?

"I’m no more a climate scientist than Lomborg, but even I begin to recognize his creative use of statistics–for example, not mentioning well-established severe weather increases, or creating a false dilemma between spending to combat global warming and spending to combat malaria. Seems to me that this article is another candidate for the wiki. – Peter Buck"

"Roger Smith says:
10 October 2007 at 12:08 PM
I’d suggest renaming it “Oregon Institute of Scientific Malarkey” so as not to imply they do actual science when not working on utter malarkey."

These are only a few of a plethora of similar comments. I hardly call that a scientific but popular opinion debuking. I hardly consider this site worthy of a "meat and potatoes" label.



You and I can debate this issue ad nausium when we get together. From discussing global warming with my colleagues, I can conclude that geologist consistently reject the human factor in global warming because of our historical geologic data base. Basically it comes down to the fact global climatic changes happen repeatedly throughout geologic history and man never had anything to do with them.

As a final parting comment. Since the debunking also attacks other scientists on the basis of where they work, I'll state right now my connection to the oil industry is totally irrelevant. I could care less what the petroleum industry does. What I care about is the science. Show me the data I illustrate has been fabricated or misrepresented and I'll acknowledge it and remove it as supporting evidence. But until someone focuses on the two specific pieces of data I cite instead of character assassinations and "cherry-picking data" acusations, I will reject all those who have their own dogs in the fight.

I've got interrupted in my diatribe and see a number of other good posts on this topic since including the more common view of geologist not supporting the human element. As I stated above it is not that we work for mining or oil industry. It has everything to do with the geologic data available to us. We do not get excited about global warming, we do not try to refute it is taking place, instead we readily accept it as just another of many such cycles.

PrintSmith wrote: I'm still struggling with correlation versus causation with regards to anthropogenic climate change. The time between the end of WWII and about 1970 saw a large increase in greenhouse emissions, but an overall cooler climate. We've saw a warming trend for the next 30 years, but the last decade has trended towards cooler once again. Overall, we have seen a warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, but wouldn't that also be expected? Isn't it a warming of the climate that always ends a cycle of cooling of the planet and a cooling of the planet that ends a cycle of warming of the planet? We all hold that the climate is a cyclical event and I just haven't reached a point yet where I'm convinced that the figures show a causation and not a correlation.

I also struggle with the volumetrics in assigning an anthropogenic causation. Current CO2 levels are what, less that 4/100 of 1% of the composition of the atmosphere and roughly 30% or so higher than what climate scientists say was a median concentration prior to the inception of the industrial development of our species. And then there is the number of variables within the models and the reality that only a fraction of them are accounted for and that their interrelation is far from fully understood.

Once again, you are clear and concise with your presentation. You point at the very issue we geologists have with the global warming presentation. There is no disagreement that global warming is taking place. It is causation that is at issue. Of course if you descended into a valley you will need to climb out of it. If you go into an ice age, then you need to come out of it with that expressed as a global warming trend. What started the global cooling? Why did the ace age end? We know it was not because of the industrial revolution. Perhaps it is because prehistoric man ate too many beans?

So that is a flippant statement, but lets get real. Some of the climatology science is equally absurd once it gets caught in politics or ego. Disturbingly, I've seen far to many examples of dishonest science in my lifetime especially when there is a bandwagon welcoming them on board. It takes a whole lot more backbone to stand up and say enough.