Category: Science and Skepticism

Something Deeply Hidden by Sean Carroll ★★★★★

by Josh Hedgepeth, posted in ARC Review, Books, Favorites, Reading, Science, Science and Skepticism
I was granted an ebook ARC of Something Deeply Hidden by Sean Carroll by the Publisher Dutton on NetGalley to provide a fair and honest review.

See my full review and discussion on my YouTube Channel!

Introduction

I am beyond grateful to be offered the opportunity to review this book. I just recently finished one of Carroll’s older books, and it is one of my favorites of the year. I know this book is already out. Nevertheless, the copy I was granted expires on the 31st of December, so intend to finish it before then to provide feedback for the copy I received. When I reviewed From Here to Eternity, I tried to review each part of the book. I think the result was a bit of mess; it was also a lot of work. Here, I will stop after each chapter to very briefly summarize his points and to discuss how effective it was as a chapter. Summarizing it will help me get a sense of how well I really understand it. Basically, I’m blogging my entire experience with the book. When I’m done, I’ll summarize my thoughts above my blogging experience (right after this).

Final Thoughts

I absolutely adored this book. I am so grateful to NetGalley for providing me with an e-ARC of this. I didn’t even realize it was already out, and I ended up using the audiobook (also amazing) to read the book. I still am happy I got the ARC because I may not have read it otherwise. I have only just started on NetGalley. I am a fan of Carroll, so I wanted the chance to review his newest book early. Even if it was already out, I may not have read it without the ARC because that was really the biggest motivator (the need to provide a review).

Otherwise, I might have read a different book by him because I was honestly very afraid of this book. The first time I saw the synopsis (prior to finding it on NetGalley), I read quantum mechanics and thought this was not for me. I have never understood it and was unlikely to start trying now. Then, with the added incentive, I decided to give it a try. Dear Sagan am I happy I did. I left this book feeling as though I actually understand quantum mechanics. Then add on the extra benefit of being beyond fascinated, intrigued, and excited by his discussion of Everett’s Many World’s hypothesis. I go in depth in my thoughts on that in my live blogging where I responded after each chapter. I would refer you there, jjoshh.com, if you are interested in reading that.

All in all, this book did everything I want from a science book. It challenged my fundamental way of thinking all the while in a clear and structured manner. What’s more, it is one that doesn’t shy away from the tough parts of science while not creating a story that completely hinges on your reader to have an expert level understanding to follow along. I highly recommend this book and Sean Carroll (and his podcast Mindscape). This will probably be one of my top 10 books of the year. 5/5 stars

I will probably do a review on my channel as well, but that will be in a week or so when I have time.

Rating Break Down
Writing Style: 10/10
Content: 10/10
Structure: 10/10
Summary: 9/10
Engagement: 10/10
Enjoyment: 10/10
Comprehension: 8/10
Pacing: 9/10
Desire to Reread: 10/10
Special: 10/10
Final Rating: 4.785/5
Note, each rating is weighted based on personal importance (see blog for more details).

Live Blogging

Started 12/13/19

The book is already out, so I should be okay to quote it. Lastly, I am reading this via the e-arc in conjunction with the audiobook (on Scribd). The audiobook is narrated by Carroll himself, and it is very well done. If you haven’t already, check out his podcast, Mindscape where he gets guests to discuss leading topics in science. I mention that here because the first thing I noticed was how much the audiobook was like listening to this podcast. It feels natural well performed.

Carroll uses the Prologue of this book for a very simple purpose. He is here to talk to us about Quantum Mechanics, but before he does that, he has to make has to make us care. He takes a subject that, I suspect, most people assume is resolved, and explains why what we think we know is wrong. What’s more, he hints at how he intends to make us look at Quantum Mechanics in a brand new way. He does it in a way that highlights how skilled a science communicator he is, and it gets me beyond excited to dig deeper into this book.

Part One: Spooky

Continued 12/14/19

In Chapter 1, His first step is to explain exactly what quantum mechanics tells us, generally speaking, and where it sits within the realm of physics. Basically, it is a foundation chapter. He discusses how quantum mechanics compares to classical mechanics in how we go from a world of concise reality to one of probability. He sums it up as follows: “What we see when we look at the world [through quantum reality] seems to be fundamentally different from what actually is.” Quantum mechanics works similarly to classical; that is, the system is set up and is let to evolve. The difference comes with the act of measuring. The fundamental problem addressed in this chapter is to understand that quantum theory, as it currently exists, doesn’t explain how reality works only that it is how it is.

The concept seems simple enough, and his background feels like a good description of what quantum mechanics is. In Chapter 2, Carroll takes us on a journey to how this all came to be understood. He tries to make his point, stated in Chapter 1, that there is something missing in our understanding. Carroll explains the difference between epistemology which is the state of our knowledge versus ontology which is the state of reality. Essentially, this says there are ways of getting to the result without fully understanding how we got there. I get a little lost as he transitions to thinking about QM in a different manner. He treats the idea of a wave function as reality. where everything is literally a wave and when we observe it as otherwise, we aren’t observing a fact of reality, simply a piece of reality lacking a bigger picture. The impression I get from this is that the problem with QM isn’t an ontological one but an epistemological one.

I can’t pin point exactly how he goes from each point to the next, but I find his explanation overall effective. I’ve never quite understood what it meant to be a wave function. Now I think I do. Waves aren’t just a construct, they are a fact of reality, where reality acts fundamentally different than we perceive it in classical mechanics. That is, the universe is as much in a state of superposition as the quantum particles that make it up. That leads Carroll to the idea of Many Worlds, where many worlds are simply an extension of quantum theory. “The potential for such universes was always there,” and each world is a realization of that each position. This may be the best explanation of the many worlds theory that I’ve ever read (not a cosmologist). What’s more, Carroll doesn’t hold back that this could be wrong, and he takes the time to address other possibilities.

Continued 12/27/19

Chapter 3 felt like an introduction to quantum mechanics. Carroll provides a reader with the history of the science that lead to our current understanding. He concluded by explaining how the scientific community came to the understanding that quantum mechanics is fundamentally probabilistic despite many attempts to assign it a deterministic nature. It was a fine review, but I found myself wondering what the point of it all was until he spelled it out that they never really explored the implications. Overall, I can’t help leaving the chapter unsure what it means to be probabilistic. Ideally, that is the point; I just wish I could, as a reader, have ascertained his point without him spelling it out.

Continued 12/28/19

Carrol is an apt story teller and science communicator. He uses Chapter 4 to explore probabilities, or more specifically, the nature of uncertainty, further. It seems the most important thing to understand is that the wave and uncertainty descriptions are not a broad description that works with gaps of knowledge. The physics that governs this world is fundamentally different than the rules of classical mechanics. I’ve got a background in that area, and it makes sense to me.

Continued 12/30/19

He finishes his discussion by focusing on the nature of what it means to be a wave. It was probably the most difficult material he has covered yet but still easily understood. He gets into a conversation on spin that feels esoteric and a bit over my head. Luckily, he doesn’t leave us stranded. He uses the information to guide us in our understanding. The nature of waves is a confirmed fact. The act of measuring quite literally appears to alter the wave like nature of a “particle.” I think he explains it best but it is fascinating.

Chapter 5 is what feels like, a concise discussion of the nature of entanglement. It is a doozy. I’m here reviewing the material trying to make sense of what Carrol is saying, but I am having a tough time. It seems entanglement is when two electrons share the same spin. The trick is, their spins are in superposition, and they don’t consolidated until measured. The trick is, once one is measured then the other is guaranteed to be measured as such too. What I don’t get is how we know this isn’t a correlation; why must it be an entanglement.

If a photon is used to force particle a into a fixed spin that doesn’t change the spin of what it is entangled to, it only passes that entanglement on to the photon used to change the spin. That suggests a shared dynamical relationship not an intrinsic entanglement. I have to assume there is an independent way of identifying them as entangled.

My initial impression at the start of the chapter was that entanglement is the way the wave function of the universe (or of these two particles) is intertwined. That is more than a coincidental correlation. All that is to say, the chapter is complicated, and I hope it becomes clearer later in the book.

Part 2: Splitting

Chapter 6 was easier to read. It discusses the nature of decoherence and it’s implications on the many worlds hypothesis. I can’t say I left the chapter absolutely convinced, but it was a much more compelling story to read. Now we are getting into the nitty gritty.

Chapter 7 tackles the nature of probability and the effect on the multiverse. I think the first very compelling point was how it doesn’t feel like we live in a multi-world universe, but the same was said about the earth rotating or the earth orbiting the sun. Sometimes, our intuitive senses aren’t enough. I found this chapter immensely fascinating. The nature of probability means all that can happen does happen. Now I’ve heard that before, but I’ve always wondered what the realistic effect is on the macro scale (vs micro/atomic).

If the position or spin of an electron can be in superposition, what difference does that make on the classical physics of the world. I still don’t really know, but one fantastic point Carroll makes is how we can discuss probabilities. Say we do a random number generator our interpretation of that will vary. If we assume the RNG is quantum (which Carroll’s actually is) then a string of 16 spin directions (1/0) will produce a world where every possible line of 1’s and 0’s exists. In that world, Carroll’s use of this list in his discussion would be directly effected by unlikely results like all 1’s or weird patterns. It’s fascinating to think of the different directions his book and life would take in those scenarios. It’s debatable how big of an effect it would have, but it’s a substantial example of a direct influence of these quantum superpositions on the macro world.

Carroll finishes the chapter exploring how we might differentiate between more likely scenarios. This part highlights my biggest problems with the book which my inability to comprehend the more esoteric discussions. That said, Carroll continues to keep us grounded by walking through each piece such that I leave understanding (I think) the points he is trying to make. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to study what he’s saying to fully appreciate every step along the way.

The fascination continues in Chapter 8 as Carroll begins to attack, head on, the question of whether the Many Worlds perspective is (1) the most logical conclusion and (2) really science. The quintessential simplicity of the theory is that anything else would have to add on or change the laws of quantum mechanics as we understand it. Basically, if you want to deny the existence of an infinite number of worlds, you have to complicate our own. As far as occurs razor is concerned, that just doesn’t work. Then as far as science, it is said that a theory must be falsifiable, and one cannot deny that the law that implies the multi-world perspective is entirely falsifiable simply by disproving the laws of quantum mechanics.

Chapter 9 is dedicated to the opposing theories that have been proposed to counter the Everett Many-Worlds interpretation. I thought it was a great overview and comparison. To be fair, we have multiple theories condensed to one chapter with 2/3 of this book to talk about Everett’s view, but I thought it Carroll did a good job defending against them. Granted, I may struggle to explain this myself without further review.

What we got in Chapter 10 is really what I’ve been waiting for all along. He talks about the implications on us. He delves into the question of free will, consciousness, and whether these quantum processes can really be assumed to extend to the choices we make. He makes a compelling case that it is unlikely that our choices are in fact quantum. That is to say, the processes that govern it are probably not probabilistic. Nevertheless, he talks about opportunities that we might introduce such randomness into our decisions. We can use quantum number generators to help make decisions to ensure multiple versions of our-self, however minor.

My thoughts while reading chapter 10

Now, I came to this revelation last month, and ever since, I’ve been striving to make decisions by it. Right now, I’ve used it to decide which books (or the order by which) I read. This may be minor, but books can have profound effects on us. I can imagine a world where I read one book and not another and it seriously effecting me. This book is a prime example of that. I may expand on this discussion in another post, but I’ll summarize with how exciting I find this all to be. The ability to actively create multiple versions of one’s self is so enthralling to me.

Part 3: Spacetime

Continued 1/28/20

In Chapter 11 Carroll begins to explore what this actually means for reality. That is, where are the other worlds, and how are they connected to us. My understanding is that these states all coexist in the quantum realm, but there is something about our entangled selves that then experience these physical laws for our specific reality given. However, the others can be thought to be there, experiencing reality slightly different. I think he did a good job explaining this. It is still very abstract but overall a good take on how this relates to the greater universe.

Continued 1/31/20

I found Chapter 12 to be a bit esoteric. He seems to be discussing the nature of quantum field theory, and, while interesting, I didn’t understand the point as it relates to the Many Worlds interpretation. I think he was trying to highlight the fundamentally difference between the way reality works in quantum mechanics than in how we perceive reality. That is to say, particles aren’t strictly what we perceive them to be. Perhaps this suggests the same may be true for Many Worlds? It may be that it has nothing to with that and Carroll is branching off into another tangential area of research.

On that note, Chapter 13, the last chapter, is all about quantum gravity. He makes sure to be very clear: this is purely hypothetical. Quantum gravity may be an intriguing idea, but it is not yet on the same level as say even the Many Worlds interpretation which at least is based on an understood scientific idea. I think it did a really good job bringing this section to close. While it is very theoretical and ongoing research, I can better appreciate how chapter 12 was building up to this idea which is essentially that space, and maybe time, is emergent. That is, the nature of entanglement of particles brings space into existence as we perceive it. As such, that might explain why we perceive our world from a different world where the quantum state is a bit different.

Epilogue and Appendix

This was pretty straightforward close to the book. I like that he read the appendix (or selected parts) on the audiobook.

The Mismeasure of Man, Stephen J. Gould ★★★

by Josh Hedgepeth, posted in Books, Reading, Science, Science and Skepticism, Uncategorized

Read 1/18/20 to 1/19/20

The Mismeasure of Man was a poignant book about the use of racism, sexism, and xenophobia to fuel misinformation and bad science to support the bigoted views of scientists throughout history. Gould tells a story about how bigotry can drive us to believe things that aren’t true, even in science. I read this novel right after How We Know What Isn’t So where it talked all about human bias and how it can lead us to believe in untrue things because of our, or someone else, preconceived beliefs.

A key point in that book is how science is probably our best tool to try in avoid said deception. Of course, that makes this book all the more discouraging considering how rampant bias has allowed racist and sexist bias to exists throughout scientific history. In this way, it is clear that science is not immune from such biases. It highlights how even scientists need to be acutely aware of these biases not only in our everyday life but also in the science that we do. If our goal is to reach the truth, then there is a clear path forward to do so.

Gould uses this book to discuss a series of cases where scientists use bad judgement, lies, and bad methodology to reach what are clearly preconceived conclusions based on their personal bigotry. They do so by manipulating their approach, manipulating the data, or outright misrepresenting what they find to get to their conclusion. This is a necessary book, and I implore every scientist to read it. It doesn’t matter if this is your field. Don’t assume you are a immune to this type of fallibility (in your science and in how you treat people).

My biggest problem with this book is it overall structure. The way Gould presents the book is very in-cohesive. As I said, it covers a series of examples where bias has produced bad science. He does not shy away from this shameful side of science, but he fails to create an overarching narrative. Each example felt separate. Moving from one example to the next meant I had trouble retaining the details of most of them. I don’t expect to memorize everything he tells me, but I would have liked a more succinct conclusion to each example that tied it to the next one so we have a better overall picture. The book doesn’t flow well. Sure, I leave the book with the point across, but I think each example could have been tied together more effectively.

All together, I do not regret reading this. I’ve already said I think other people should read this too,especially scientists. Not all works of science are the easiest to read. Some people would rather ignore history rather than acknowledge the fallibility or the harm that the that their history has caused. As I am a part of this institution. Therefore, I am have to be able to defend science against these actions that abuse the institution of science. It is the job of scientists to demonstrate how science is still the best tool to avoid misinformation, misdirection and bigotry. Still, I am not rating this on principle but on its merit as a book. 3/5 stars

Stephen J. Gould discusses the use of IQ tests to suggest black people are less intelligent.

Rating Break Down
Writing Style (7%): 7/10
Content (15%): 10/10
Structure (15%): 5/10
Summary (1%): 7/10
Engagement (5%): 5/10
Enjoyment (25%): 5/10
Comprehension (20%): 6/10
Pacing (2%): 5/10
Desire to Reread (5%): 2/10
Special (5%): 10/10
Final Rating: 3.11/5
Note, each rating is weighted based on personal importance.

The God Delusion: 10 Years Later

by Josh Hedgepeth, posted in Books, Personal, Politics, Reading, Science and Skepticism

This book had a profound effect on me. I don’t want to pretend it is the singular reason I became an atheist; that was a series of things that had morphed my beliefs as I entered young adulthood. What this novel did was open my eyes to the world of nonbelievers of which I lacked any real knowledge of.

I recall meeting two people in high school once who told me nonchalantly that they were atheist. Of course, they seemed so nice and so normal. I was so confused. I asked why? They had no good reason, so I went on believing. Perhaps, had they actually put thought into what the believe, I would have stopped believing sooner. Sadly, I didn’t. It took a long time for me to appreciate the level of uncertainty and debate around the concept of a god. This novel was a pivotal part of that revelation.

On Goodreads, I rated this 4/5 stars, but I decided not to feature that here because I read it so long ago. I thought this was a good opportunity to share my thoughts on religion and Dawkins as a whole.

The novel worked for me: someone curious about religion, what they believe, and pretty much on the edge of disbelief. I had become a very liberal christian. Public school mixed with the literature I read in school (and on my own) had really began to challenge my perception of morality. More specifically, I was struggling with the idea of evil and the nature of beings influencing their actions. For example, is Grendel (of Beowolf) an evil monster or simply a creature who was doing what he was born to do. His incompatibility with the surrounding village was clear, but that doesn’t mean he should be punished for all eternity. Ideally, he (it?), like a wild animal, ought to have the chance to live on his own, in a way that won’t conflict with the lives of humans.

When I was finally faced with the notion that religion is not the default (in fact, it is an outrageous notion if we think about it) I fell victim to an emotional swapping of sides. It took a great deal of time for me to settle on my final, agnostic atheist position (a disbelief acknowledging ones inability to know) with a gnostic atheism towards specific gods with outright falsifiable claims attributed to them.

That took a long time. I even went through a period of deism (a greater disconnected higher power), and a period of asshole atheism. I am sure there are some who would say I am still that. However, I no longer go out of my way just to get people riled up about religion (usually). That said, I don’t think it’s not my responsibility to “respect” a religion or a religious practice. I am not a member of said religion, so don’t expect me to acknowledge it. That is to say, people get offended by the mere notion that I don’t believe it. If speak ill of their god or religious figures, they take it as a personal attack. I’ll respect your right to practice your religion however you see fit, but understand, me blaspheming Jehovah or Allah is no more immoral than me blaspheming Zeus.

In any case, when I discuss the topic of belief with people, I’ve come to appreciate the problem of religion lies less on theism itself, but rather a lack skepticism and logical way of thinking. It is also easier to address minor things like how someone approaches a problem rather than trying to undermine a fundamental belief. If a person can abide by logical reasoning in everyday life, recognizing their religion is held to a separate, lower, standard, then I am all for it. In practice, I have don’t have much faith in most people to be able to do such a thing. That said, there are some. I know of one scientist, communicator, and skeptic Dr. Pamela Gay is one such person. Even if it is a failed endeavor, the approach is still more likely to do at least a bit of good, if not what I would consider the ideal result.

That is where I think this book fails. It relies so heavily on the emotional side of the debate. Granted, there are some valid points, but atrocities of religion is not evidence against a creator (maybe an all good creator). I would recommend the Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan to most people in search of informative ways of thinking. The ideas and principles of that book should lead you to the same, or similar, conclusion. What’s more, it is a measured approach to pseudoscience and religion.

The last thing I want touch on are the problems with this author. Dawkins is an excellent scientist, but his atheism pushes on racism. There is a difference in attacking the institution than the people themselves. He is also a misogynistic asshole. Perhaps that influenced my own atheistic asshole phase. Overall though, take this work with a grain of salt. Sure, most of what he says is fair, so far as I can remember, but it isn’t the best way of convincing anyone who hasn’t already taken themselves part of the way. Nor does it promote a good approach to handling religion either.

In Defense of Science: a Response to Pseudoscience in the Health Industry

by Josh Hedgepeth, posted in Books, Politics, Science, Science and Skepticism, Uncategorized

A couple years ago, I started to read In Defense of Food by Michael Pollen. I was aware of his first book, the Omnivore’s Dilemma and somewhat intrigued, but I never got around to reading it. When this came out, I decided to read it because I was hoping for a good science based description of our diet. In the end I only made it through a few chapters before I decided to DNF it. I still had plenty to say on it because the book is founded in fundamentally bad science that people often fall victim when thinking about their nutrition. I came across my review of the book on goodreads, and I thought it would work as a good thing to talk about in a blog discussion.

As I said, I did not finish this book. He was saying some things I found concerning, but I wanted to hear him out because I thought he might get more into the science as the book progressed. Afterall, his suggestions aren’t inherently bad; it’s the logic he used to get there that fails. Here are his basic principles with my own description of why it is actually a good thing to strive for.

Unfortunately, he eventually gets to his point, and it is a concerning one at that. It all comes down to the age old traditionalist argument. In his mind, our problems started when we wandered away from the traditional methods of food gathering. This argument isn’t new, but it is very flawed. I don’t disagree that such a diet will be mostly good for you. As it turns out, it provides a large variety of nutrients that we need while limiting excess of nutrients that are harmful in high amounts. It’s the underlying way of thinking that is flawed; he asserts that one must eat traditionally to achieve the right balance of nutrients.

In truth, you can eat processed and sugary foods. However, you have to recognize how to balance it and how it easily it is to over do it with these types of food. They are not bad because they are not natural; the harm is the pattern that we have in consuming it. That is what the science says, but Pollen tries to muddy the waters by painting the current science as flawed, inconsistent, and forever changing. He incorrectly tries to portray the efforts of industry and pseudoscience fades as science because these things come and go.

And there in lies his mistake. First, science has not changed as much as he would like to assert because the thing he wants to paint as science just is’t. Science is hard. It is complex, and it is easy for it to become mixed with fake science. Science has been fairly consistent with its instructions through the years: eat a varied and balanced diet, avoiding over doing it in any one area. That’s why his style will probably work; it is mostly the same as the science.

The problem is he relies on bad arguments and bad science as a means to try and undermine the actual science as a whole. I must, as a scientist and skeptic, take issue with it.

I want to take a moment to discuss health science because I recognize people who agree with Pollen aren’t going to just change their mind because I assert it. I am not a nutrition scientist. Although, I am skilled in the method of science and skepticism. I try to understand the science and reliable sources that discuss it. This means investigating science journals and the experts who work in the field (actual scientists not “nutritionist” or other buzz words); as with any field of science, you don’t have to be an expert in it to interpret what the experts are actually saying.

I took issue with what he was calling science and the way he was trying to instruct the reader to distrust it. That is the first red flag because this is a common techniques in the realm of pseudoscience. Naturally, I became skeptical of what he was saying. However, I was trying to hold an open mind and even decided to investigate the papers he cited to compare his assessment with what the paper said. It was the conversation on fats that led me to DNF the book.

There is a new idea that fats are wrongly labeled as bad, and it is proposed by Gary Taubes, in a revolutionary (cue sarcasm) new book. According to him, there are no good calories or bad calories. This is something I’ve heard of before. Specifically, I had read about Gary Taubes less than a week before I saw him mentioned here on Science Based Medicine, a site of medical experts dedicated to addressing pseudoscience in medicine and health. In the article on Taubes, SBM describes his argument and the basic science that contradicts it.

This is not intended to be a walk through of the science of health. Science Based Medicine offers a tone of nutrition based resources (here is another breakdown of nutrition and “clean eating”), each with direct references to the science to back it up. Instead, I want to promote a good resource for science based health information to help people understand how to make productive changes to their diet.

Conversations with a Climate Change Denier

by Josh Hedgepeth, posted in Personal, Politics, Science and Skepticism

I hope he doesn’t read this. The first thing he told me was how much he hated the phrase Climate Change Denier, but it’s hard not think of him as one. He isn’t stupid. He’s an engineering grad student, and that’s not for the weak minded. He seems reasonable. He understands the fact of evolution, the age of the earth, and other things that many climate change deniers tend deny. Except, we’ve only just begun to delve into this beyond talking face to face. We’ve done some email correspondence, and I’ve sent my first round of rebuttals. If he ever gets the time we’ll see how he responds to the facts.

That is one thing that bothers me. If he, by chance, ends up accepting climate change is real does that prove he wasn’t a denier? Is mere ignorance justification? I can’t help but think not. Whether he’s denying the facts or has yet to be presented with them, he’s chosen to make a conscious decision to deny that it’s real. I don’t blame him because he is only human, and it’s likely its motivated by political or ideological thinking. There is no shame in admitting you’re wrong, so denier or not, if he’s willing to accept the facts then that is really all that matters. But will he? Only time will tell.

In the mean time, I want to share our conversation. I think it can be at least a little informational, but I’d love feedback if anyone is willing and able to do so. Because this is a learning process for myself too. I may get things wrong, or I may just do a poor job of defending it. After all, I’m not a scientist. However, I understand the consensus among scientists, and I am capable of at least a superficial understanding of the evidence.

I considered reformatting and reorganizing the email and response so it would flow better, but I’ve spent enough time on this as it is. I’ll show you what he wrote, and my responses will be italicized. Obviously you don’t have to read it all, but I appreciate you reading this far!

—————————————————————————————————————

Hey Josh,

Sorry for the late and (unfortunately) under-researched response. This is a really fascinating subject, and I have learned a lot in a short period of time. I can’t dedicate as much time to this as I would like, but here is a starting point:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/

You will probably be quickly repulsed by the rhetoric on this site, but try to look at the data.

This has taken me while to review and understand. The writers point seems clear though: the ice cap data and the planta stomata do not match. I found it difficult to understand, and I may be misunderstanding it. If so, try to explain it for me because just the link isn’t going to do. But this is what I got out of it: The stomata are a much more granular than the ice caps. It can offer snapshots that are closer in time while the ice caps are a much broader look that gives an overall average but that do not represent the short term variability. But it’s the overall view that we care about. The differences may arise from that variability.

Now, take that with a grain of salt, because I had a hard time understanding what they were getting at and at understanding other sources on the net. What I really took away from it though was that essentially it looked like a bad comparison (like apples to oranges). There are other sources of evidence to verify their accuracy. We have atmospheric data spanning back 50 years from infared recordings. Since the 19th century we’ve had chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and both of these match the ice cores. And there are other ways to calibrate the “paleoclimate thermometer” that the ice represents. They’ve compared independent measurements (figure 3 of paleo link). It can also be used to understand the atmosphere’s composition overall which in turn is testable in other ways.

I tried to correlate CO2 and temperature, but I’m having a lot of trouble finding accurate measurements for either. It seems like we only have about 100 years of temperature data and 50 years of CO2 to compare. Even so, it is difficult to access the accuracy of the data, and a strong trend doesn’t seem to appear (to my eye). Granted, I didn’t spend enough time trying to make an “apples-to-apples” comparison. I simply won’t have the time to do this matter justice (aka get a Ph.D. in climate science), which is why I try to keep an open mind. Here are my main concerns (and they are somewhat deep-seated):

1) Not enough historic data that is accurate.

We can study the effects of CO2 on temperature and infer their relationship. We also have a great deal of CO2 data. The deeper in the ice you go the further back in time you travel. Using these samples we’ve been able to track the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere back hundreds of thousands of years. What is more, we can study how much CO2 we are releasing, and we can make projections based on the current state of things and on what will occur if the current rates of pollution continue.

Also, climate is long term, but 100+ years of data tells us a lot still. Even so, there are other ways, like the ice caps, to analysis the temperature further back.
2) Failure of the models to predict periods of pause in warming while at the same time claiming that the models are more accurate (http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Climate-Model-Comparison.png)

Okay, we may have talked about this already, but the main issue with this claim is that they are essentially saying these models are failing to do something that they never were even created to do. It’s akin to saying if evolution is real, then how did life begin? It’s a non sequitur as evolution doesn’t claim to know how life started. Similarly, climate models don’t make year to year predictions. That sort of short time span is a look at the weather. The climate is much broader. We are talking two to three decades worth of averaged data. That’s what these models are attempting to do. And it’s worth noting that when using the initial conditions present in the past, they are able to accurately predict what has occurred since then.

I have other issues with this graph. One, there is no information given on how it was gathered or where it came from. I found the article it was posted in—I even contacted the author of it but didn’t get a reply (surprise surprise)—there was nothing providing a source. So, in that sense, it’s circumspect. We are unable to judge their methods nor the data. For all we know it could be completely false (at worse) or cherry-picked and misrepresentative of the whole.
3) Money (certainly goes both ways and I am skeptical of both)

This isn’t unique to Climate Change. Funding exists for all sects of science. I saw a video a month or so ago from a creationist who compared fossils to the crumbled up remains of sheet-rock to the fossils used in anthropology. She showed how unorganized and chaotic the crumbled remains were but how, if you try hard enough, you can find a pattern. But why would they do that? Where is the motivation? Obviously, they want the funding. The funding for their research biases them and leads them to infer things that just aren’t true. Now, you and I both know that’s bullshit. Or I assume you do; let me know if you don’t.

If you’re going to judge climate change based off of this you have to do it for every other discipline. If not, then you have to clearly define the characteristics that make it different. The process of scientific investigation and discovery is not perfect, but it is the best we have. And it’s been proven to work time and time again.
4) A desire to “do-good” before we know what we actually need to do. Those claiming to have the answer (e.g. Al Gore) scare me the most.
I want to touch on a few things here. First off, there was the question, earlier in our conversation, of whether or not anything could be done even if we found out it could. I still stand by the fact that there is. We can work to limit our output and begin to forgo our reliance on fossil fuels. Even supposing our measures did not work as examples and motivations to other countries it still does not prevent us from slowing down the process. It is also absurd to think that just because we can’t solve a problem at all there is no point in even trying.

But all of this is irrelevant in the question of whether anthropogenic climate change is real. It’s another side step. It’s as if, because it would feel that much worse if it were true, that somehow effects how real the problem is.

This knowledge is clear. You can continue to move that line a little bit further every time, but it doesn’t change the fact that there is a clear consensus among scientists and among scientific societies and organizations. We can quibble about the details later, but the first step is acknowledging that the problem is real. Then we can begin discussion on how best to tackle the issue.
I am in no way arrogant enough to think I understand the situation. I’ll argue that 99% of us don’t have a firm grasp on it. What is a great thing is for us to have this discussion, learn something, and try to enrich others. I can admit when I’m wrong, and will do so when I see enough evidence to convince me. However, at the present, I remain skeptical of the climate machine. My last point of clarification- I believe that the climate is changing, recently the trend has been warming, but I’m not ready to say that this is entirely caused by humans. Certainly we have an effect, but the real key is to try and quantify this.

To conclude, I must say the most persuasive piece of evidence for me is the consensus, and that isn’t even new. All that’s happened with it is that through the years it has become more and more extreme. It represents the view of the community at large—not just one person or group. It represents the overwhelming view of independent scientists and organizations.

—————————————————————————————————————–