Quite interesting, even handed, and intelligent:

Part 1 Climate Change — the scientific debate

A basic look at how climate scientists infer that man-made carbon gases are changing the climate, and how this view is contradicted by other climate scientists who are skeptics.
I am a former science correspondent with an interest in reporting the facts, not the media hype. My thanks to 9thgate for checking my script for errors.

~~~

Part 2: Climate Change — the objections

This video, the second in the series, looks at alternative hypotheses explaining global warming. I am only looking at alternative hypotheses put forward by real, professional climate researchers, and the findings of real, professional climate researchers who disagree with them. Yes, I’ve left a lot of the detail out. This is a 10-minute video summarizing the arguments and counter-arguments, not a PhD thesis. The comments forum will be free and open, as always, but if you disagree with what real, professional climate scientists say, please take it up with them and dont expect me to defend their point of view. If you have a stunning piece of scientific evidence that disproves one side or the other, dont waste time on my channel, write a paper, and get it peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal.

~~~

Part 3 – Climate Change — Anatomy of a myth

I had planned to put several myths in this video, but discovered such an appalling web of deceit and fabrication in this first one that I felt I had no choice but to thoroughly debunk it. Like many ingrained myths, this one is so ubiquitous that it takes an awful lot of hard evidence to convince true believers that it’s been fabricated.

Coming soon: Parts 4 5 & 6

Category: Science, UnScience, Video

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

21 Responses to “Climate Change: The Scientific Debate”

  1. FrancoisT says:

    Excellent series of presentations.

    Thank you Barry!

  2. FrancoisT says:

    Here’s an interesting set of videos too:

    Those famous CRU emails:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/6/7nnVQ2fROOg

    “Those emails and the (GAAASP!!!) Censorship of Science:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/5/uXesBhYwdRo

    Note to those who were so happy to see those emails surface as “evidence” of “conspiracy” and “widespread fraud”: You were taken for suckas!

    Big time!

    Legal Reminder to all asshats, gilipollas, crétins and malakias: Hacking into servers is a criminal offense. So, not only were these emails NOT a “proof” of fraud, but they were obtained by willful violations of US and International laws.

  3. tstrah says:

    BR:

    Thanks for the videos. You never disappoint.

  4. davefromcarolina says:

    Great stuff.

    As for the question posed at the end of the third segment:

    What kind of individual would would want to deliberately manufacture misinformation to discredit scientists predicting global warming? Well, in one case, the kind of individual whose paycheck depends on protecting the interests of the oil, gas, and electric utility industries. In the other case, I just don’t know. George F. Will seems to be the Teflon Columnist (what else could you call a guy who committed a serious ethical breach in one year, and won a Pulitzer the next?

  5. davefromcarolina says:

    Great stuff.

    As for the question posed at the end of the third segment:

    What kind of individual would would want to deliberately manufacture misinformation to discredit scientists predicting global warming? Well, in one case, the kind of individual whose paycheck depends on protecting the interests of the oil, gas, and electric utility industries. In the other case, I just don’t know. George F. Will seems to be the Teflon Columnist (what else could you call a guy who committed a serious ethical breach in one year, and won a Pulitzer the next?

  6. walterr says:

    Barry, I want to personally apologize to you on behalf of all of the ungrateful Right Wingers who have sniped and chastized you for your supposed biases when they should be thanking you for all the hard work you put in here to educate and inform us of so many important things…..I really appreciate all the hard work you put in here to bring objective, as unbiased as is humanely possible information.

    The post on cognitive bias weeks ago was one of the most interesting and informative posts…..I’m a psychotherapist and I am actually using this information in my work with clients….our brains are extremely powerful, intelligent machines but they make lots of mistakes on a daily basis….those that can understand this subtle, powerful concept can prosper personally and financially
    Aloha
    Walter
    Honolulu

  7. pvernetto@gmail.com says:

    the debunking based on the wrong ice age predictions of the 1970 is so inconclusive and obsolete that it makes me yawn. those predictions were based on actual cooling caused by the industrial pollution of the 1960, which was later offset by greenhouse effect.
    we are breaking new heat records every year and denial doesn’t help.

  8. [...] of the costs.) This is logically and mathematically rigorous and yet is still argued.Also check out this post from The Big Picture about climate change. Its worth your time.Grantham: Everything You Need to [...]

  9. krbecarson says:

    the thing that gets overlooked in this debate is that the CO2 from burning fossil fuels came from the atmosphere itself. Coal and oil are just carbon that plants extracted from the atmosphere, and then subsequently buried in the earth.

    if plants were able to soak up all the carbon from the atmosphere, this too would be cataclysmic.

  10. gordonq says:

    Some thoughts about this series…

    Too bad there is no double-blind/placebo methodologies for climate data. That nearly all climatologists are government employees or paid for by public funds is troublesome as the potential for “team spirit” is a source of bias. As for climate change being mathematically rigorous, if the formula is flawed but the math is error free does that pass for rigor? I wish potholer54 (apparent source of the videos) would address the methods of data collection – are the current heat sensors nearer urban asphaltic/masonry heat islands now than they were 50 – 100 years ago? Seeming to promise to talk only about science, potholer54 can’t help but drift into and spend a lot of time in character analysis.

  11. A few questions that never seems to be asked, let alone answered:
    .
    1. Is today’s climate is perfect, which is why we don’t want to deviate from it?
    2. Were all other climates in the history of homo sapiens, from very cold to very warm, inferior to today’s climate?
    3. Do we know all the factors that create the perfect climate?
    4. Do we have the technological ability to create a perfect climate?

    Some experts are absolutely positive man is making the world warmer; that this is a bad thing; and we should follow certain protocols to prevent this warming.

    Some experts are absolutely positive man is making the world warmer; that this is a good thing, and we should do nothing.

    Some experts are absolutely positive man is not making the world the world warmer.

    Some experts think no matter what puny man does, the world’s climate is dictated by powerful forces beyond the ability of man to predict or reverse.

    My question to all the climate arguers: What makes you so sure you know what is happening, why it’s happening and what if anything we should try to do about it?

    This all seems to me like arguing about the existence of God. Nobody knows anything, but everyone is sure.

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  12. gordonq says:

    krbecarson, good point. The vast reservoirs of hydrocarbons that we love/hate (coal, oil, gas) came from a time of different climate on the earth. There had to have been vastly more carbon available in the atmosphere to produce these stores. Are the climate change phobia folks (someone help me here, there must be an opportunity to coin a catchy new word) just reactionaries unable to accept change? Tsk tsk for the progressives. Or are they only able to accept their changes? They have streets in every city marked for this type of people – One Way and Do Not Enter.

  13. wkevinw says:

    The last video was interesting in that it spent all of its time talking about refuting a bunch of mainstream media articles. (Disclosure- I did my graduate work in physical chemistry of molecular vibrations; e.g. I have spent a lot of time looking at the energy of the CO2 vibration).

    Usually when there is “scientific debate” there is a poorly formed hypothesis and/or noisy data. I think we have both in this case.

    Without doubt, there is global warming given the right (long) time frame; since the last ice age.

    When you see people like Grantham making his simple explanation, think about the famous quote that things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. I would advise thinking carefully about touting a financial advisor about climate issues.

    The fundamental measurement, temperature, is so noisy prior to about 50 years ago, that the models used to extrapolate into the future have huge uncertainty….sort of like the financial models that blew up if there would have been a more than -5% fall in US residential real estate prices.

    There is not enough reliable data to make a useful model (my take as a conservative scientist). (corollary- economic danger arises to those organizations that bet on man-caused global warming as a “business model”, taxation basis, etc. – those who ignore it in ignorant bliss will have an advantage!) Climate scientists accept higher uncertainty prior to drawing conclusions than more traditional scientists, such as chemists and physicists. The mainstream media, well, good luck with that.

    Beware the noise.

  14. gordonq says:

    FrancoisT

    “Legal Reminder to all asshats, gilipollas, crétins and malakias: Hacking into servers is a criminal offense. So, not only were these emails NOT a “proof” of fraud, but they were obtained by willful violations of US and International laws.”

    Ha ha for the slurs and crude language bypassing the decency filters! However, your rant sounds like supreme inspiration to those that engage in this type of activity.

  15. This series is very informative — I will post the next 3 videos Friday, and keep going until I’ve run the entire series.

  16. wunsacon says:

    FrancoisT, I don’t mind the hackers exposing data. Sure, some of the deniers will “pull a James O’Keefe” and misinterpret the data. Still, more transparency is better in the long run.

  17. wunsacon says:

    gordonq,

    >> That nearly all climatologists are government employees or paid for by public funds is troublesome as

    Have you not seen how Wall Street runs the Treasury/Fed and the fossil fuel industry runs the MMS? Are you seriously worried established, concerned companies lack representation?

    Every large industry hires its own “experts” to help shape public opinion. The fossil fuel industry hires scientists and buys press. If you’re not seeing enough hard science to support their desire to maintain the status quo, it’s probably because they’ve given up trying that and are spending more/most of their money on FUD, buying press, and buying politicians.

    >> Too bad there is no double-blind/placebo methodologies for climate data.

    Because there is no Planet B, you should lend greater credence to the climate scientists’ concerns.

    >> As for climate change being mathematically rigorous, if the formula is flawed but the math is error free does that pass for rigor?

    Their models fit the data collected, from multiple sources.

    >> I wish potholer54 (apparent source of the videos) would address the methods of data collection – are the current heat sensors nearer urban asphaltic/masonry heat islands now than they were 50 – 100 years ago?

    Call Exxon and ask them to sponsor your research on this very issue.

  18. wunsacon says:

    >> Climate scientists accept higher uncertainty prior to drawing conclusions than more traditional scientists, such as chemists and physicists.

    They have to. 6 billion people depend on the life support system of this one spaceship.

    We’re tinkering with that system. And if you personally don’t think we know enough about it, then you must also agree we don’t know where the tipping points are. Correct?

    Now, perform a Pascal Wager here. What if climate believers are wrong? What if you’re wrong?

  19. balanceact says:

    Barry or Anyone:

    These videos seem very straightforward and pretty much summate my own research into Climate Change AND climate skeptics, (I am familiar with Svensmark and Lindzen).

    I would be very curious however to know who this narrator is and who produced the videos..

    I find his comment, “I am a former science correspondent with an interest in reporting the facts” not enough information. Give us the real scoop Barry…

  20. diogeron says:

    Thanks for posting. Res ipsa loquitor, as you lawyers are fond of saying.

    Somebody mentioned George Will in one of the replies and I, also, don’t really understand why he seems to have been taken in by the “climate change is a myth (or man doesn’t contribute to it, if it does” meme. I don’t always agree with him, but I think of George Will as a serious guy with a fine intellect. Of course, there’s Ben Stein who produced that intellectually and morally dishonest film, “Expelled” promoting “intelligent design” so who knows what happens to these guys when they go off the rails of reason. Of course, in Ben’s case, his father was Herb Stein, a good fact to know if someone asks you to explain the concept of “regression to the mean.”

  21. [...] Here is the follow up to Climate Change: The Scientific Debate: [...]