Forum

'Anti-catastrophic principle' is Pascal's Wager

In the Autumn 2014 NZ Skeptic, Martin Manning stated:

"But some are using the fact that climate scientists admit to uncertainties as reason for not making changes, or at least for delaying responses until we can be sure."

And

"However, Cass Sunstein has suggested that for issues such as climate change it would be better to adopt an anti-catastrophic principle."

Prof Manning's article encourages us to believe (the majority of) climate scientists' explanations, predictions and recommended behaviour change despite uncertainties (and inconsistencies) in their data and understanding, because rejecting their beliefs and behaviour changes may lead to very bad outcomes. This is essentially Pascal's Wager applied to the greenhouse gas theory instead of a god theory. The reasoning is fallacious in both cases.

Prof Manning claimed that consideration of all known factors that might have "contributed to" global warming showed the "predominant cause" since 1950 was "increases in greenhouse gases". It is surprising that any scientist would claim to have proven (or disproven) causal relationships with correlational data. While it may be justified, as in the case of tobacco and lung cancer, to assume a causal relationship when many different scientific approaches have produced correlational findings of similar strength and direction with other variables controlled for in various ways across those different research approaches, that does not seem to be the case for the greenhouse gas theory either in the range of research designs or the consistency of the correlations.

Lastly, it's surprising how few people remember to distinguish the phenomenon of global warming (which appears to be sufficiently proven) from beliefs about its causes.(abridged)

Hans Laven

Tauranga

Thank-you

Thank-you for your reasoned response to Gold's statement on climate change. It is clear which of the two of you is the better skeptic. Many people share your "alarm bells" at the amalgam of passion, left-wing politics, speculation, and science that now characterises the global warming movement. Long may you promote debate in the interests of finding objectivity. Silencing any one view would be anathema to good skeptics. Let the creationists and homeopaths publish in our magazine. And those who dare to suggest that we are not all doomed to roast in the hellfire of global warming.

Rob England

Porirua

Climate consensus a broad church

I see (NZ Skeptic 111, p10) our Society is determined that its formal position on climate change will align with the scientific consensus - whatever that may be from time to time.

This is a very odd principle for a group brought together by scepticism. Shouldn't reason and data always trump a head-count of believers?

The current consensus (represented by the IPCC's fifth assessment) is a very broad church covering all equilibrium climate sensitivities from 1 - 4.5°C. The NZ Climate Science Coalition doesn't have a "position statement", but I don't know of any members who wouldn't be quite comfortable with the lower end of this range. The Green Party prefer the top end. For the first time, the IPCC has been unable to agree upon a "most likely" ECS figure.

It is scarcely helpful for Gold to point out that there are apparently 24 (out of 13,950) outlier papers that are obviously outside the debate. Does Gold suggest some of the eight articles/letters appearing in NZ Skeptic were also outside the IPCC range?

If not, then what is the case for shutting down the debate? Finally, there is an error in the Position Statement: there is no evidence that global mean temperatures "are rising". Even www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php demonstrates that all the recognised series are showing declines over the past eight years.

Barry Brill

Paihia

Global models inaccurate

So NZ Skeptics supports the pseudoscientific consensus on Climate Change? My first reaction was to resign on the spot. What has happened to scepticism?? But then I noticed you still seem prepared to publish letters on the subject so maybe it is possible to point out what is being missed.

Nobody mentions Climate Science. This is a subject that has been studied for thousands of years and has become the discipline of Meteorology. It is concerned with measuring properties of the climate and has all come together in the weather forecasting service.

Since the computer came along the data are processed by numerical models. They can be applied to small and larger regions and also to the whole globe. Accuracy goes down as you go up so global models are the least accurate. All are limited by the number of levels and frequency of the data, by the reliability of the physics, the power of the computer and the accuracy of the starting point which brings on the dreaded CHAOS.

The climate change models are currently in trouble because the temperature has not risen for 17 years. The sea level is not rising as anyone can confirm by checking the map at www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/map.html

Then the Arctic ice has got to the end of being shoved around by ocean oscillations and is now expanding. We all know what happened to the Antarctic when a gang of climate changers hired a boat to prove it was warming. (abridged)

Vincent Gray

Wellington

Position Statement causes concern

I was exceptionally disturbed and concerned on reading the latest NZ Skeptic.

Gold is certainly entitled to freely express his personal position on climate change as detailed in his article, as is any other member. However, he and the committee have absolutely no authority to issue a "NZ Skeptics Society Position Statement: Climate Change". The membership has never been polled on this matter, neither at a conference nor via the NZ Skeptic. To issue such a statement, especially on such a controversial matter, is an insult to all members, no matter what their opinion may be. This society consists of all its members; not just Gold and the committee. Gold should rescind this 'Position Statement' immediately with an apology to all members. Failing that he must resign.

This statement astonishingly ends with: "The society will adjust its position with the scientific consensus". Surely a consensus is exactly what we Skeptics should be challenging; not blindly accepting, especially based on the ridiculous statistics that Gold presented! His "references" are mostly blogs…he needs to realise that not everyone lives in the blogosphere and many of us treat it with indifference, disdain or even contempt.

In my lifetime many scientific consensus have been proved wrong (eg ulcers are caused by stress and continents do not move). In the past presumably Gold would have had us Skeptics accept unquestioningly the prevailing consensus that the Earth was the centre of the Universe. I also object to Gold's final quote. This kind of language has no place in our publication, especially as it goes to many school libraries. (abridged)

Alastair Brickell

Whitianga