“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
—Attributed to 19th-century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881)
If you follow my blog, you likely believe that global warming is real and that most of it is our fault. But there are also times when you’ve participated in a discussion or read something that challenged those beliefs. Often you’ll be exposed to a “scientific argument” or the latest information that seems to refute either that global warming is indeed happening or that it’s because of our human activities. Deep down, you still believe the facts. You’re strong in your convictions but you wish you knew the whole story and suspect that somehow the truth is being distorted with these “arguments.”
I’ve certainly found myself in that situation from time to time over the last few years because I realize that I don’t know everything about climate science. It doesn’t happen as frequently now for the simple reason that writing a blog on the climate crisis forces you to learn much of the “science” used out there to argue against global warming.
Wouldn’t it be nice to have the rebuttals at your fingertips to some of these comments?
- Climate has changed before.
- Global warming is due to the sun.
- The planet is actually cooling.
- There’s no consensus among the world’s scientists.
- Carbon dioxide rise lags behind temperature rise, not the other way around.
Thanks to the website Skeptical Science, you can now have all of those answers and over a hundred more in your smart phone. They’ve previously published rebuttals to these one-liners on their website so you can easily access the information without a smart phone, but now they’ve created free apps for the iPhone and Android that will keep those answers handy for you whenever you need to check on them. If someone tries to point out to you that the planet stopped heating up in 1998, within just a few seconds you can respond with the facts and point out how that frequently-used statement is incorrect. Or if you’re reading a blog and the claims seem far-fetched, you can quickly get the truth.
I’ve downloaded the app and find it very handy. There’s a “Top Ten List” of the most common arguments disguised as “facts” which are used against global warming. There are also different categories such as “It’s not real” or “It’s not us” where you can easily access all of the various arguments used within those subheadings.
All of the proper science is found within the rebuttals including charts, graphs and references. They also add updated information and the latest news on climate change as it comes available.
Some of the rebuttals are lengthy, but it usually requires a great deal of explanation to properly refute one-liners, so the authors are making sure you have all of the information you need as well as the references to support their claims if you’d like to explore the information in greater detail. I think everyone who likes to keep abreast of the fallacious arguments used to try to refute that global warming is real or that it’s our fault would benefit from this handy app.
Nothing will ever convince the die-hard skeptics and deniers out there from their own beliefs, but at least you’ll have your responses handy when one of them throws some of their “facts” your way.
You are trying to cash in on AGW with your book. But readers know that
Skeptical Science – John Cook is unreliable
* Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.
And your references to ThinkProgress are telling.
You have nothing new to say. And you are too late.
Readers have clear information at climateaudit.org. Steve McIntyre
Do a search for YAMAL at his website.
Thanks for your comments Jane. I can clarify one thing for you: I’m not trying to cash in on anything. Writing a book and maintaining a blog has taken time and money and doesn’t compensate me financially for either. As a cardiologist, I guarantee you I could use this time and effort and see more patients, making good money that way. I do this because I believe that people like me have to help get the message out there.
Steve McIntyre and his Climate Audit website provide a lot of information for people who lean toward the skeptic / denier side of the spectrum, and doesn’t really reflect the mainstream opinions among climate scientists. But I agree that I’m not trying to say anything new. I’m trying to sift through the extensive information out there and pass along items that are meaningful and interesting for people who want to see what the mainstream is thinking.
But I fear you may be right most of all when you say I’m too late. I fear that no amount of effort will save our planet from a major climate catastrophe in the future, but I still think efforts to combat it are worthwhile.
Jane… Skeptical Science happens to be a website where ALL the articles are fully cited with the published scientific research. If there is anything you don’t trust you can always click the link to the sources and check it for yourself.
Skeptical Science is also unique in that it tries to keep new research as it comes out. That does cause some confusion in the comments section at times. But since when do you go to any blog for the purpose of reading the comments section? Did a commenter get unfairly treated somehow? My take is, who really cares? Denier blogs dish out unfair treatment to actual climate scientists as business-as-usual. What really matters is the published science.
With regards to McIntyre’s work, there is a fundamental problem with what he does. It’s not necessary and it’s not how science progresses. McIntyre has tirelessly attempted to “audit” Michael Mann’s work. So, what if Mann’s work was completely flawed? What if he used terrible statistical methods, selectively used data and focussed on on some tree ring series to get his data to show a hockey stick shape? What would the chances be that he would accidentally get the correct results with bad methods? Slim to none. But science is inherently skeptical, that’s why no individual research paper is ever considered definitive in and of itself. We have something called “replication.”
Since Mann’s original 1999 paper there have been nearly a dozen other research projects that have attempted to see if they got the same results from different types of data, using different statistical methods. And you know what? Every one of those projects has supported the conclusions of Mann’s work. In science that is considered a “robust conclusion.” Could they ALL be getting the wrong answer? Maybe, but the likelihood is astronomically small.
So, I have to ask, why has McIntyre NOT produced a multiproxy reconstruction of his own? The data is clearly available. He clearly has the skills to produce one. If he came out with different results and his methods were sound it would surely cast doubt on all the other research. But he’s chosen not to do this. Why? He’s had over a decade to do this work. Why has he not done so?
Admittedly, McIntyre has done an amazing job of creating an illusion of corruption in the minds of an unsuspecting public. Fundamentally, his work has had zero impact on actual scientific research.
Thanks Rob, for a very detailed response to Jane’s comments. I appreciate your knowledge and expertise on the subject, and thank you for the time you took to make your comments.
For the record, the ‘John Cook is unreliable’ comment is parroted from climate denier blog WattsUpWithThat. Just about everybody outside the climate denial blogosphere agrees that Skeptical Science is about as reliable as science blogs get – certainly far more reliable than WUWT, which can only be relied upon to get the facts wrong!
It’s also worth noting that the Skeptical Science app has been available for a year or two now, but it’s a great tool and certainly worth the plug! Though full disclosure – I write for the site. And we do appreciate the plug.
Thanks Dana. I thought it was a great app and wanted to pass it on to anyone following my blog. Thanks for your efforts in what you do for the site!
Hi Brad: I’m just laughing out loud at Jane’s comment “You’re trying to cash in.” Well, DUHHH!!! That’s like telling a computer salesman in the 1990s, “You’re just trying to CASH IN on the growth of PCs!” Haha! There is only one difference here: You just happen to be trying to help save humanity from the innevitable ravages climate change will wreak upon the feeding of 7 billion people, too! Your role is indeed one of often reframing the same message for different audiences and in my book you do a FANTASTIC job of it and I congratulate you. Your work is important. We need this message to penetrate farther and faster and I think you are doing your part to help it along.
Hey Jane! If you want to join the winning team, you might consider jumping off the AGW denial boat. We’ll all gladly welcome you over here!!! Are your pattern recognition skills on? Because renewable energies are gaining momentum decade on decade. We just need it to happen faster. For the record, though, fossil fuels are dying. Let’s talk again in 15 years, Jane, and see where fossil fuels are…
Thanks for your supportive comments, Kyle. You’ve summarized what I’m trying to do perfectly. I figure there are so many different demographics of people out there, the more people trying to get this message out in their own unique ways, the better.