They call this a consensus?
Financial Post | Lawrence Solomon | June 02, 2007
“Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”
So said Al Gore … in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren’t sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn’t think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.
Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.
More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.
My series set out to profile the dissenters — those who deny that the science is settled on climate change — and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world’s premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop — the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.
. . . more
123 comments | 
| 
|
Jacobse | Junk science |
The Archbishop Desmond Tutu explains that it is the poor and needy of the world, whom as Christians we are explicitly directed to assist, that will suffer the most from global warming.
Three Billion Reasons For Bush to Take Action on Climate Change at G8
As we think about global warming let us remember that selfishness, willfull ignorance, and denialism are not Christian values, but tools of the devil.
Didn’t realize Desmond Tutu was a climatologist, Dean. Thanks for the heads up.
Dean, it’s an editorial masquerading as a news. Here’s the point of the piece:
Here are the assumptions informing the politics:
But, as Tom C. makes clear, these assumptions should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism. Let’s hear what the critics (scientific, not theological) say before we swallow them whole.
Too much secular apocalypticism here Dean. Watch out for the predications that forecast global warming doom in increasingly dire terms (especially from a place like Madison).
As for Tuto, you call it sarcasm, but I call it sobriety. I don’t accept your terms that global warming is a moral crusade and that Christians questioning your terms are in league with the devil, Desmond Tutu notwithstanding.
Here is what is bizzarre about this entire conversation: When the lives of millions of people are at risk, why is the burden of proof placed on those who want to stave off disaster and save lives, and not on those who argue that we should gamble with those lives by remaining blithely indifferent and oblivious to a very credible potential threat?
If you wanted to drive to church Sunday morning in your car, but your wife wanted you to jump off a cliff in a hang-glider and fly over electric power lines and into the church parking lot, which one of you do you think should have to work harder defending their proposed mode of transportation?
Shouldn’t the burden of proof should be on those who are advocating the most risky, and not the least risky course of action. Right now the most risky course of action is inaction, because the consequences of that inaction will be environmental changes that place hundreds of millions of human lives at risk.
Taking steps to reduce the emission of carbons into the atmosphere, on the other hand involves very little downside risk. Even if current climate trends suddenly reversed themselves and global warming abated, the worst that would happen is that we would have cleaner air, a more favorable balance of payments as result of reduced oil imports and thousands of new jobs in new industries creating alternative forms of energy. If global warming does not abate, the consequences of drought, famine, disease and war caused by migrating populations would be a bit more painful.
“…why is the burden of proof placed on those who want to stave off disaster and save lives,…”
Because I don’t trust the scientific objectivity of the people who say they want to do that.
I suppose that when Trofim Lysenko unfurled his quack biological theories in the Soviet Union in the twenties and thirties, it was morally correct for people to believe him. After all, he claimed to be staving off disaster — a disaster of starvation that was very real at that time and place.
It would have been nice if so many conservatives who are so skeptical about global warming would have exercised the same degree of skepticism about invading Iraq. Question: in the conservative mind, what are the criteria for accepting or rejecting expert opinion? For example, when Gen. Shinseki said that hundreds of thousands of troops would be necessary to occupy Iraq, and Wolfowitz said that was “wildly off the mark,” why was Shinseki’s opinion rejected and Wolfowitz’s accepted? When the vast number of scientists reject intelligent design, and a few accept it, why do conservatives accept the opinion of the few and reject the opinion of the many? How do conservatives decide on whom to listen to? Is it all based on ideology?
#8 Jim Holman
Did you bother to read the article on which the thread is based? In 1992, 15 years ago, Al Gore said
Yet as the author demonstrates, this was absolutely false, as shown by the poll of scientists involved in global climate research. If you repeated the same excercise today, a somewhat higher percentage would express a positive opinion that warming had occurred and that there might be a component due to human activity, but the majority would still reject alarmist scenarios.
Now you bragged over in another thread that you were part of the “reality-based community”. So what is the “reality” here? Is it Al Gore’s pronouncement? Or is it the opinions of the experts, arrived at by some sort of structured sampling of opinion? Why is it, that when my opinion is consonant with that of the experts it is due to my “ideology” but when you base your opinion on the blustering of a self-obsessed politician it is cool, hard, rational reasoning?
Over in the other thread that veered off into global warming land, Michael and I both clearly expressed the view that Al Gore was guilty of exaggerating the consequences of warming and minimizing the burden of reducing emissions. Why, then, did Dean Scourtes repeatedly accuse us of denying that temperatures had increased, or that there was any scientific basis to CO2-induced warming? Our nuanced position is due to “ideology”, while the repeated mischaracterizations, strawmen, and ad hominems of Dean are due to careful reasoning?
Why, if millions of people are going to die from global warming, do environmentalists rant and rave about hybrid cars and fancy light bulbs, when these measures would reduce emissions by less than 5%, while widespread adoption of nuclear power (as in France) would lower emissions by 20-25% but is resisted at all costs? Who is being ideological and who is rational?
It’s worth asking again. Jim, did you read the article?
Here’s a tidbit from the first paragraph of the article: “Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren’t sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun.”
Fifteen year old poll results are hard to find. For example, I searched through the New York Times from January 1991 through December 1993, but found no results. But here’s what the Environmental Defense Fund has to say about those numbers, that apparently came from Rush Limbaugh and/or George Will:
One blogger says that he found the following information in Lexis-Nexis, a service to which I do not have access:
http://radamisto.blogspot.com/2007/02/puzzler-solved.html
Jim, my own impression is that, to the extent global warming is happening, it is consistent with changes that took place in the last thousand years, unaided during that time by humankind. Have humans contributed to the changes alleged to be occuring now? I don’t know. I’m not sure anyone else knows, either. Also, I have some concern about whether the time periods chosen for the “change” have been cherry-picked to tell a more alarming story than would otherwise be warranted.
My impression is also that some people have lost their jobs due to their heresy regarding global warming. This fact does not leave me well disposed toward advocates — and especially toward cheerleaders — of global-warming theory.
In fact, the cheerleaders for “doing something about” global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove. It really does largely come down to whom one trusts. For you as much as for me, I’m sure. (I gather you don’t much care for scientists who work in sheet-metal buildings out in the sticks. 8>)
I am concerned that the hoopla about global warming is another opportunity for self-righteous people to push others around and for politicians to generate support and to bash opponents.
Beyond having these impressions, I take seriously your challenge to become better informed. I will try to take you up on it. I’m going to start by re-reading the appendix to Crighton’s State of Fear. Then I’ll hit the thirteen “denier” interviews by Solomon. If I have time, I’ll read Patrick Michaels’ Meltdown, a book my daughter brought home from a college class. Yeah, I’ll watch Gore’s movie, too.
Per your admonition, I’ll try to stay away from sheet-metal buildings in rural Oregon.
If you have any recommendations for further reading, let me know.
By the way, Jim, you mentioned Michael Crichton disparagingly.
One of the hallmarks of truly excellent scientists is that they are eager to take on well-reasoned challenges. That is how science advances.
If Crichton, or anyone else, makes reasonable challenges and the global-warming advocates are silent, then my conclusion would be that their science is weak.
Augie writes: “I am concerned that the hoopla about global warming is another opportunity for self-righteous people to push others around and for politicians to generate support and to bash opponents.”
That’s a legitimate concern. No one should take anything for granted. That’s what I mean by being part of the reality based community. You do your own research and come to your own conclusions. You may be right, you may be wrong, but at least you make the effort.
Augie: “Yeah, I’ll watch Gore’s movie, too.”
Dude, if you can make it through that, you’re a better man than I. For me it was the cure for insomnia. I don’t know if coffee is sufficient. Maybe crack or meth. If you’re awake through the movie let me know how you did it.
Augie: “Per your admonition, I’ll try to stay away from sheet-metal buildings in rural Oregon.”
I don’t recommend them for science. But I have good friends who produce superb hand-made flamenco guitars in a sheet-metal building in rural Oregon. I am the proud player of a Shelton-Farretta flamenco blanca, guitar #2048, with ebony tuning pegs, spruce top and cypress back and sides. Yesterday I played por tarantas and bulerias for a friend who is a renowned Moroccan oud player and flamenco guitarist. He tried out my guitar and was extremely impressed. So not everything that comes out of sheet metal buildings in rural Oregon is bad.
Excellent point! We have also seen it displayed here by the “global warming” loyalists who quote studies and fail to address the issues raised by the criticism. I posted ealier that C02 makes up only 0.0314% of the atmosphere (that’s why the express it in parts per million) yet no explanation has been given by anyone how such a infinitesimal amount of an odorless and clear gas can be responsible for “warming” while the hundreds of billions of watts of sun energy hitting the earth’s surface can be ignored.
This is sheer madness, yet these folks continue with the Chicken Little arguments based on “computer models” that can’t even predict next’s month’s climate changes let alone what will happen in 5, 10, 15, or 20 years. Despite this we are asked to “believe” despite the enormous complexity of the issues involved and the lack of solid verification (I mean CAUSE and EFFECT, not annecdotal observational “science” that is passed as fact) of their “theories.” But heck, given the religious fervor of these false prophets who are we to question their motives. Funny though how many of these people deride and insult Christianity for “lack of proof”, yet they demand we agree with their global warming claims based on “evidence” that is orders of magnitude less credible and reliable.
OK, Jim. I took your challenge. As I said, I’m devoting a fair amount of time to becoming better informed and and more responsibly articulate about environmental issues — particularly the relationship of greenhouse gases to temperature change.
Are you going to do the same? A good start would be to respond to Tom C’s list in note 16. These are deep enough questions that I would not expect a quick answer from anyone. But a commitment to study them and respond later would be welcome.
It’s not as easy as changing the subject to whether Bush reacted properly to military advice. It would, however, provide credibility points.
Tom –
1. Will you acknowlege that the sources you cite are outliers whose views place outside the norm in terms of their views on the causes of global warming? Isn’t it true that the sources you have quoted represent the viewpoint of a tiny minority within the scientific community?
2. Will you acknowlege that there have been measurable changes in the earth’s climate as result of global warming, for example the melting of great glaciers and polar icecaps?
3. Will you admit that a worsening of some of the effects of global warming, drought in some areas, flooding in others, events that are not speculative but currently occuring and worsening, would have a disasterous impact on hundreds of millions of human lives?
4. World leaders in government and business disagree on the proper response to global warming. However, can you deny that an increasing majority of world leaders and heads of major corporations view global warming as a serious problem directly resulting from the release of man-made carbon emissions into the atmosphhere?
5. Isn’t it true that it is better to address problems, any problems, in their early stages rather than wait for them to worsen ant get out of control?
6. The Earth is hotter today than it has been in four centuries and likely warmer than it has been in the past 1,000 years Can you think of any other plausible event, other than a reduction in the release of man-made carbon emissions, that coud reverse thie upward trend in temperature?
#20 and #21
I will use Dean Scourtes’ questions as a basis for replying to both of you.
No, I won’t. The big problem in discussing this topic is keeping front and center the exact nature of the claim and the support for it. The persons I cite are very much in the mainstream, they just have the courage to keep the discussion focused and to speak openly and honestly, despite being libeled by people like you (Dean). Keep in mind that one of the publications that Dean likes to refer to has called for Nuremberg-like trials for scientists who fail to endorse the UN position. Is this the kind of atmosphere (pun intended) that is conducive to good science and good public policy?
There are two questions 1) “is there cause for alarm”?, and 2) can we “do anything about it”? By reading Time magazine, listening to Al Gore, and reading UN documents, most people say yes. I say no.
Ill-posed question. Of course there has been retreat of glaciers, but that has been going on for about 400 years since we emerged from the Little Ice Age. There is apparently less ice in the arctic now than there was 30 years ago, but there is more in the antarctic. In sum, I don’t see any of the talk about glaciers and polar ice as relevant to anything.
Absolutely not. Claims of hurricanes increasing due to AGW are not supported by the organizations and experts that study them. Media outlets like Time run to the same small group (IPCC-connected) of reasearchers that does make that claim in order to generate the headlines, but the authorities do not agree. Likewise, the 2003 heatwave in Europe has been shown in peer-reviewed publications to be part of natural variation. That does not stop media outlets from using it to sell more magazines. Polar bears are doing just fine in areas where they are not hunted.
Do you (Dean and Jim) realize that far more people die of cold-related weather than heat-related weather every year. What does that mean for public policy?
I think that politicians (with the honorable exception of the Czech president) and corporate leaders (with the honorable exception of Lee Raymond) view this in completely cynical terms. The stampede has begun; better to ride it and position yourself for good PR gain.
As long as people view this in abstract terms, we will be surrounded by global warming hysteria until it starts to cool down. If “doing something” ever became concrete, the whole thing would evaporate (pun intended) overnight. To actually reverse the accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere, you would have to cut emissions by (some say) 80%. Seems to me that the number is more like 95%. Can you imagine cutting emissions to that level? As an example, it came out recently that livestock produce more than 10% of GHGs. OK. 80% cut in emissions. The man from the UN is here, Homer, git yer rifle and start killing those cows!
That is the point about nuclear power that both of you won’t face head on. If the situation is really that dire, the AGW proponents should be pushing nuclear like it’s nobody’s business, since that is easily the biggest chunk of emissions that could be removed. Since they don’t, in fact since they do the opposite, I conclude that there are other socioeconomic objectives involved.
It was clearly hotter in the 900 – 1100 period than it is today. Can you think of any other plasusible event, other than the production of man-made carbon, that led to these hot conditions?
The warming due to CO2 is very easily calculated – in fact it was first done about 100 years ago. For a doubling of pre-industrial CO2, which everyone uses as a benchmark, this should lead to a little less than 1 C of warming. What most people don’t understand is that the current projections are based on computer models that have built-in positive feedbacks. In other words the initial warming will cause other processes to kick in that then amplify the warming. These feedbacks all revolve around the role of water vapor, aerosols, and clouds. But, the models don’t handle these phenomena well at all. That is why weather forecasting is still so difficult.
When engineers and scientists who do numerical modeling learn that the warming scenarios are based on these complex feedbacks, high levels of skepticism kick in. I know it did with me. I just don’t believe that the models reflect reality.
So how many people are there working on these models? Is that the 2,500 figure we hear about? Well, it’s probably more like 50-100. And within the group of some are vocal warmers, some are not. You can bet which ones get the press. The whole chain of scientists, national academies, etc that says AGW is a problem hangs on the word of the 50-100 that are doing the models.
When you add up the whole thing, the uncertainty of the models, the media-driven hysteria, the political intimidation of scientists, you should be skeptical. It is a sign of gullibility if you aren’t.
P.S. What did you guys think about Gore’s attempt to libel Revelle after he had gone to the grave? Do you think that politicians might try to expolit this issue for their gain? BTW, Jim – despite the 16 years, every one of Revelle’s thoughts on AGW still apply
Augie writes: ” . . . I’m devoting a fair amount of time to becoming better informed and and more responsibly articulate about environmental issues — particularly the relationship of greenhouse gases to temperature change. Are you going to do the same?”
What I like to do in discussions is to familiarize myself with the source materials, when possible. But in the case of climate change I don’t have any background in the hard sciences, have not drilled for ice cores, have not built mathematically complex climate models, and so on. So most of the original literature is incomprehensible to me.
On topics such as this I have to rely on the opinions of specialists publishing in peer-reviewed journals who can interpret the research for me. And as far as I can tell, the vast majority of those people all believe that human-caused global warming is occurring. Not all, but the great majority.
So on the one hand, you have the great majority of specialists who publish in peer reviewed journals, and on the other side you have a handful of climate specialists, people with Ph.D.s in other fields, Michael Crichton, and so on.
Also, I think it’s fair to look at the religious conservative rhetorical strategy on global warming in the context of other like discussions. In particular I’m thinking of creationism and geocentrism. And what you find is a consistent strategy across several issues. And this strategy consists of the following components:
1) the trumpeting of individuals with or without Ph.D.s who accept the position. (Yes, even the geocentrists have Ph.D.s on their side.)
2) the extensive use of “zingers” to attack the other side. These are individual facts (inasmuch as they may be facts) that are thought to demolish the other side in one blow. (“The Earth is NOT rotating because, there is no centrifugal force! You would weigh twice as much in Vancouver, Canada, as on the Equator.”) (“Helium concentration in the atmosphere is proof of a young earth.”) They are often accompanied by language such as “no one can explain why . . . “, “this proves beyond a doubt that . . . ,” “they refuse to acknowledge that . . .,” and so on. Note Chris’s zinger in post #18.
3) negative characterization of the other side as junk science, and of themselves as “mythbusters.”
4) negative characterization of the majority of scientists as pagans, biased, or even insane. (“This is sheer madness,” as Chris said in #18 above.)
Now I’m not saying that global warming skeptics are on the same level as geocentrists. I am saying that the rhetorical strategy used to advance the contrary position is largely the same.
In the middle of all this, what gets lost is the elephant in the room — the fact that the scientists working and publishing in the field do not accept the contrary position. As in the research survey I noted above, out of 928 published articles on climate change, not one article took the contrary position. How is it that all of these scientists miss the boat? How is it that they all succumb to this “madness,” as Chris calls it?
#20 and #21 -
I plan to further address your comments at some point, but I just want to make clear that we have strayed from the main point of the posted article. The claim is frequently made that scientists who dispute global warming alarmism are either crackpots or in the pay of industrial concerns. The author of the article and posters to this blog have produced strong evidence to the contrary.
So, at a minimum, I would expect you to cease and desist from the “crackpot or shill” claim. OK?
RE Note #21: Group think.
Michael – I am so disappointed when you take the brilliant and penetrating mind I see at work when you write about theological issues, and just switch it off so you can conform the ideological party line on other subjects.
Why don”t you try answer the questions Jim and I posed in numbers 20 and 21, instead of being evasive and dismissive?
Jim said:
“So I would ask you to consider why it is that the overwhelming number of scientists with specialties related to climate science who publish in peer-reviewed journals hold that global warming is real, and caused to a significant extent by human activity. In other words, it’s not enough to say “here are these brainy guys with Ph.D.s who doubt global warming,” and then basically ignore the legions other other brainy guys with Ph.D.s who hold the contrary opinion.”
Earlier he said:
“No one should take anything for granted. That’s what I mean by being part of the reality based community. You do your own research and come to your own conclusions. You may be right, you may be wrong, but at least you make the effort.”
So which is it?
Note 26, Jim misunderstands science: consensus is political; proof is scientific
Hitler once said that he had 250 scientists that disagreed with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Einstein stated that it only took one scientist to disprove his theory. Needless to say, no one came forwade with the proof.
Proof is science. Consensus is politics.
Everything about the global warming scare is based on projections extending many years into the future. Projections are not proof. Such projections are always speculative. Have you noticed that we cannot reliably forecast even local weather more than 1 or 2 days ahead? Hmm, should make you think shouldn’t it.
When I was in Jr. High School we were constantly badgered about the “population bomb” (note the use of precise non-inflammatory language – like bomb). No wonder, the airwaves, magazines, newspapers, and television of the time were filled with dire warnings about the coming population catastrophe. Nearly everyone would starve, diseases would be rampant, wars over food would break out all over the globe, etc. etc.
All this got kick started by a 1968 book by Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich called the Population Bomb (Stand back! It’s a bomb!) In the book Ehrlich claimed that:
Hundreds of millions of people would die of starvation within 10 years
The population of the US would fall to 20 million
Life expectancy in the US would fall to 42 years
The British Isles would be “uninhabited” by 2020
Etc.
Etc.
It was not just Ehrlich, the national academies of (fill in the blank) countries joined in, as did various UN agencies, and just about any “scientist”. Yes, the “scientists” were all on board with predictions of the coming Tribulation.
What actually happened? It is a misuse of language to say that Ehrlich was “wrong” since that implies that these was some sort of discernment that was needed to arrive at the conclusion. It would be better to say that he was perversely wrong, or grotesquely wrong, or something to that effect. On every single issue, the world unfolded exactly the opposite of what was predicted. Food consumption and nutritional value has skyrocketed everywhere (except North Korea and Cuba); inner cities of the US are plagued by obesity; standards of living have increased beyond imagining in just 40 years; energy is used in much higher quantity and much more efficiently than ever; and so on and so on.
So, given the facts on the ground what happened to Ehrlich? If life were fair or rational, he would slink away somewhere, never to be heard of again. But, as Ehrlich’s bete noire Julian Simon complained
Indeed, Ehrlich is still running around winning awards, being feted as a genius by NPR, issuing updated disaster predictions, warning of the dangers of global warming, etc. How can this be? Can you imagine another field of human endeavor that operates in this manner? Would a mutual fund manager that achieved spectacular losses for 30 straight years get all the industry awards? How about an engineer that designed medical devices that killed everyone that used them? Would he be profiled in glowing terms by various media outlets? What is it about eco-catastrophes that shuts off common sense in people? British Isles uninhabited by 2020. What nonsense!
It is important to remember that back in the 60s and 70s, there were experts who actually studied issues of population, scarcity, and distribution of resources. They were called…uh…economists. Not surprising since economics is the study of scarce resources that have alternate uses. They thought the population thing was completely nuts, which of course, it was. But they lacked cultural power, and so there voices were never heard. People confuse cultural power with scientific authority.
The same thing redounds today. So much of the global warming alarmism is complete nonsense, but the rational voices, for one reason or another do not have cultural power.
Tom – That is a false, simplistic and misleading analogy.
Basically what you are saying is this:
“Once there was a scientific study. It was wrong. Therefore, all science is wrong.”
RE #27: Dean, I don’t have the information, nor the expertise to evaluate the evidence being used to support global warming claims or refute them. I can, however, attempt to assess the political and cultural attitude surrounding them. The “brilliant and penetrating” conclusion to which I come is the whole thing is mired in group think regardless of which side of the issue is taken. Missourian is right, the global warming debate has long since been taken out of the scientific realm (if there is one anywhere anymore) and has become a political and cultural issue. Consequently, no matter what happens we are all going to get screwed.
The population bomb fiasco has done great cultural harm because it spawned the zero population growth movement that had an effect on the reproductive rates in western cultures which along with abortion has left us vulnerable to fecund cultures such as the Hispanics and the Muslims. The Global Warming Movement has the potential for even greater harm. Since I am incapable of learning Arabic, I’m am going to work on my prayer life so that when they come to take my head I can respond with love.
If you really think that I have a “brilliant and penetrating” mind on theological matters you need to drastically increase your exposure to quality Orthodox thinkers and writers. There are several just a click away. Others whom I would recommend, Fr. John Behr, Elder Sophrony, Dr. George Bebawi, Archmandrite Zacharias, Met. Anthony Bloom, Dr. Tristram Englehardt among modern writers. You can never go wrong with “On the Incarnation” by St. Athanasius.
If you want a less formal approach, visit Fr. Stephen Freeman on his blog, Glory to God for All Things (see the blog roll on this site).
#26 Dean Scourtes -
Wow! If you think the web site that you linked to in this comment is an authoritative source of information you are one messed up guy.
And regarding the interview about Revelle, you have once again linked to an article that disproves your contention, in the mistaken hope that no one will read it. Here is an excerpt:
#23 Jim Holman -
It’s a shame we can’t view these articles isn’t it? When Naomi Oreskes was challenged to list them she “lost track of them”. So I guess we will have to trust her, eh?
The vast majority of scientists don’t believe in the alarmist scenarios. Various media outlets have told you that they do but it is not true.
Michael: Mainly what I respect is your insight that all of humanity’s problems will ultimately remain beyond repair until we correct our spiritual problems and broken relationship with God. We aren’t going to be able to throw off our political or economic chains until we first free ourselves of the chains of sin. Until we address the problems of the human heart, all the well-meaning humanitarian and government programs in the world are just exercises in baling water out a rapidly leaking boat.
You have also spoken about how love for God also expresses itself in respect and stewardship for God’s creation. There is a preponderance of evidence indicating that the earth’s climate is changing and that these changes are causing damage to the planet. If current climate trends persist, many species of plants and animals, which we believe God created, will be driven to extiction. If current climate trends persist, many human beings, whom Christ taught us we have an a duty to care for, will be displaced and/or driven to extinction.
As Jim Holman stated, the overwhelming majority of climatologists and scientists, people who are competent authorities in their field, believe that man-made activities contribute to climate change. The tiny minority of sceptics on the other hand, are almost all tainted by relationships with industry and/or ideological think tanks, funded by industry. Two of the experts Tom C mentioned, Singer and Seitz, have produced work funded by the Tobacco Institute, for example. Richard Lindzen was a paid advocate for the Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities.
Global warming is perhaps symptomatic of a larger spiritual malady, one where our pursuit of profit, wealth and ease robs us of an awareness of the damage we do to the planet and an empathy for the suffering we cause other human beings.
#32
This piece of climate porn from USA today was a great example of an ignorant media promoting hysteria. Buried in the article, halfway down, is this sentence
Isn’t it strange that this is a dead-end sentence? Which scientists? What are their arguments? How many of them are there? What do they see as problems with this study?
For all we know, 95% of knowledgeable people in this area might think the study is crazy. But if that is true it will not help to sell newspapers.
My take on it is that anyone who thinks they can calculate the worldwide effect of a 0.6 C increase in temperature on crop yields is either lying or deluded. If you have ever undertaken to calculate something highly complex you would understand.
Note 37 Tom, my exploration of air pollution studies comes into play here
I think I may have mentioned that in another debate with Dean I spent at least 5 hours studying a report that Dean claimed supported the idea that coal burning electric plants produced serious negative health effects. I was sympathetic to the idea UNTIL I read the report. One guesstimate was laid end-to-end with another guesstimate which in turn was laid end-to-end with yet another guesstimate. In order to obtain the total margin of error for this logical edifice, one had to multiply the individual margins of error in a string calculation. The total margin of error for the entire study was well above 45%. This fact was admitted by the authors in a footnote buried in the back. However, a study with a 45% error rate is worthless for any purpose, let alone crafting public policy
The introductory summary, however, the part which would actually be read by journalists revealed no such uncertainty. It posited a direct and unambiguous relationship between so many particulants per volume of air and a fixed number of lung cancer deaths. It was sheer propaganda. Unfortunately, most journalists don’t have the scientific training to evaluate the strength of the study or the value of the conclusions so it was cited hundreds of times as truth.
The policy recommendations would have virtually eliminated any free market in energy in the United States. Oddly enough the “cure” to all environmental problems is the curtailment of free markets and the imposition of control by an enlightened commission of our betters.
Jim Holman -
You seem like a pretty reasonable guy, so I’m wondering what your take is on this. Dean Scourtes went to this web site Ecosyn to get information about Richard Lindzen.
What do you think about that?
Michael, you said, “I don’t have the information, nor the expertise to evaluate the evidence being used to support global warming claims or refute them. I can, however, attempt to assess the political and cultural attitude surrounding them. The “brilliant and penetrating” conclusion to which I come is the whole thing is mired in group think regardless of which side of the issue is taken.”
I agree that the politcal and cultural trappings are most significant.
I admire your honesty and modesty. I hope they do not lead you to a false sense of “intellectual equivalence” about this topic. I hope they will not cause you to be absent from public discussion of it over the long term.
#38 – Missourian
I appreciate your sanity. BTW, you should collect your lengthy pieces on Islam several months back and turn them into a book.
Isn’t there a saying about how if anyone saw how hot dogs were made they would never again eat one? I feel the same way when I read about these studies.
I work in the medical device industry. We spend enormous amounts of time and money studying small, well-defined systems of known composition machined to high tolerance. Despite every possible technical advantage, we most often we end up scratching our head saying “the data are inconclusive”. When I read these articles about how many beetles will be living in New Mexico in the year 2050, or how much rain will fall in Brazil in the year 2030, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Whatever conclusion is reached is at the end of a long chain of assumptions of highly dubious accuracy. They are, therefore, worthless. Most scientists understand this. Most non-scientists don’t understand it.
The scientists who publish this global warming alarmist stuff without admitting the uncertainty do so for ideological reasons.
I just started reading Meltdown, by Patrick J. Michaels. It was used in one of my daughter’s college courses. Looks pretty good for getting one’s bearings in the topic. I haven’t gotten far into it yet. Along with lots of data, it seems to have a definite point of view. So I won’t take it as the last word. But it looks like a good starting point. Here are the chapter titles:
Missourian, wrong again.
You write:
The cure could well come from free markets, for example the creation of new industries producing alternative forms of energy, vehicles less reliant on fossil fuels, or the trading of carbon emission credits.
Maybe you missed it, but Toyota’s sales of the Prius just topped one million.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/06/07/toyota-hybrid-sales-top-o_n_51071.html
While Ford and GM are having trouble moving their gas-guzzlers and losing market share, Toyota just became the number one automaker in terms of market share. The environmentally friendly Prius was one of the main reasons for their success.
Tom – The Ecosyn web site might be a little over the top, but they did provide solid attribution for their assertion that both Dr. Singer and Dr. Seitz contributed to research paid for by the Tobacco Institute, which is why I decided to refer to it.
The fact that both men produced research showing no link between smoking and cancer should discredit them as reliable experts on the subject of global warming and reveal them for the propagandists that they are.
Richard Lindzen seems a little more credible, but the fact remains that he also has worked as a paid advocate for the coal industry. Lindzen’s suggestion that Dr. Roger Revelle had second thoughts about global warming shows the lengths he is willing to go to distort the facts.
Once again, you can’t deny that the sources you are citing are outliers representing a minority viewpoint not shared by the overwhelming majority of climatologists and scientists.
Note 43, Dean Scourtes and Roger Revelle
Dean, it is simply not scientifically legitimate to dismiss this gentleman because he may (or may not) have obtained financing from an industry source. The only valid refutation is scientific, period. Can you identify a factual or logical error, IF YOU CANNOT, then the fact that he may have received financing from a souce of which you disapprove is irrelevant.
Tom, re Islam
I don’t want to hijack this thread off to another topic but the phenomenon which I find most upsetting is the utter refusal of Westerners to take Islam as what Islam says it is, a political/religious system which is based on an entirely different set of values than the Judeo-Christian tradition. We keep getting told this by Muslims and we keep ignoring it.
I, myself, have worked and studied with Muslim men who were very polite to me in the course of our business together. However, those same Muslim men then went on to contribute to Islamic websites that promoted polygamy, described monogamy as hypocritical and complained that Islam was mischaractered as brutal to women just because men could lawfully beat their wives. These same guys came back and worked me with quite politely in science labs. They were dead serious about everything in the Koran and were in no way interested in being “moderate.” Perhaps they weren’t prepared to kill anyone but they had in no way rejected any teaching of Islam, none, absolutely none. America was providing these guys an advanced science education. Terrific.
Given that so many Orthodox Christians have been martyred by Muslims, I would have thought that I would encounter less mindless obfuscation in Orthodox circles.
Augie & Dean, the history of science in the 20th century with few exceptions is a story of greater and greater captivity of the scientific community to the money provided by industry and government and ideology. Dean is correct to be suspcious of environmental studies paid for by those with an interest in the outcome that all is well. He fails to be as suspicious of those supporting global warming and other eco-activist agendas.
When one combines the corrupt scientific establishment with the even more corrupt political establishment and ideological purists who have cultural power (regardless of where on the spectrum they are), no good can come of it.
It does not matter how long I cry out, no one whose power, fame and/or money is at stake will care or change one thing.
If I did not have at least some honest faith in Jesus words, “Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world”, I might become an anarchist. However, because of that faith I can say with confidence that the only actions that matter with regard to the environment are the ones that I decide to take personally. I cannot control anyone else, the attempt to control the actions and behaviors of others is futile and ultimately at odds with the fundamental nature of Christ’s sacrifice for us.
If we Christians do not submit our own lives to the love of Christ and act toward others from that love nothing will change and we ourselves risk our own salvation. Prayer does not change things, it changes those who pray.
If I speak out, it must be founded upon my own life, not just theory and even less from any ideology. Since I routinely fail to practice the asceticism in my own life that is appropriate, the best that I can do is say that the solutions offered by politicians and ideologs are wrong. They are wrong because they are founded upon a false view of man, culture and creation. Even if the facts are exactly as reported, the soltions these people will derive from the facts will do nothing but cause greater harm and destruction. It is far better than we do nothing at all.
#45 – I agree
#43 –
No, it is not over the top, it is both vile and sophomoric. The fact that you would consider this a valid source of info tells all. Your posts don’t deserve any more responses.
#46 – Michael
My concern is that, just as in the case of DDT, leaving others to follow the eco-fundamentalist path results in much misery. You will notice that the pro-warmers steadfastly avoid the DDT topic whenever it is brought up.
Note 50, Jim, I do know whereof I speak
What I bring to the discussion:Jim, I am a degreed applied scientist (electrical engineer) with a honors degree from a nationally accredited institution, I do know what I am talking about. I find the idea that a philosophy major should instruct me in science to be rather rich. How many semesters of advanced mathematics did you take in college? I have at least 5 under my belt and with a more liberal definition of mathematics, as many as 20. I have five academic years of physics under my belt. There is very little difference between physics and math at the advanced level which you have clearly never even approached. Puleeze don’t instruct me in science, Jim.
.
Jim’s assertion about the “contingent nature of scientific knowledge Jim asserts with great confidence that
. Actually the vast body of physics known to humankind is very stable. Humanity has been buildilng on the work of the Greeks and Newton and Leibniz for centuries. Although Einstein added to the store of knowledge, Newton’s work has not been displaced. Newton’s laws have been found to hold true over and over and over again. As each year passes, proofs amount higher and higher.
Jim’s assertions about the “leading edge of scientific knowledge.” Jim asserts
This is purely, simply and demonstrably false. Einstein’s theory of relativity was a monumental advance in the field of physics. However, he was able to arrange for an experiment which allowed him to prove to the satisfaction of the entire world scientific community that his theories were correct. Einstein noticed that a couple of stars which normally slowly rotated around each other would come within a relatively close distance of each other. Einstein postulated that the gravities of the stars would bend the light emanating from each one. This “bend” in the light could be measured by objective observers located on different spots on planet earth. When the proper moment approached observatories in several cities recorded the same results, thereby PROVING Einstein’s major premise in his theory of relativity. The proof thus produced is as deep, as certain and as clear as any proof that the human mind can hold short of the Archangel Michael appearing with a golden tablet and a back-up choirs of angels.
Why does Jim think that this piece helps his position? This little exercise in showing off small knowledge of a field about which one is generally ignorant, actually favors the so-called “global warming” skeptics.
If, according to Jim, science is so contingent, then why should be destroy our economies, plunge the world into poverty and halt the advance of progress based on such ephemeral stuff as science.
Lastly Jim you cannot both tell me that you “respect me” and then tell me that “you don’t know what you are talking about.”
A quiz Jim for ten points what is Euler’s identity and why is it important?
You have a month to answer that.
Missourian writes: “I am a degreed applied scientist (electrical engineer) with a honors degree from a nationally accredited institution, I do know what I am talking about.”
That’s great, but I’m talking about issues related more to epistemology and methodology.
Missourian: “I find the idea that a philosophy major should instruct me in science to be rather rich.”
Philosophy of science is different from science. If you want to dismiss philosophy of science, great, but your argument is not with me but with philosophers of science.
Missourian: “Actually the vast body of physics known to humankind is very stable. Humanity has been buildilng on the work of the Greeks and Newton and Leibniz for centuries.”
How about particle physics? How about astrophysics? How about the best treatment for someone with cancer? Sure, basic physical laws are well known and demonstrable, but vast areas of theoretical physics, as well as other sciences, are very much in flux.
Missourian: “As each year passes, proofs amount higher and higher.”
The fact that you use the term “proofs” with respect to issues in philosophy of science demonstrates that you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof. Proof is deductive. Science is inductive. Again, your argument is not with me but with professional philosophers. You learn this sort of thing in Philosophy 101.
Missourian: “Einstein’s theory of relativity was a monumental advance in the field of physics. However, he was able to arrange for an experiment which allowed him to prove to the satisfaction of the entire world scientific community that his theories were correct.”
Right! In other words, the confirmation of Einstein’s theory was contingent upon experimental confirmation. Note the word “contingent.” You’re arguing my case for me. Thanks.
Missourian: “Why does Jim think that this piece helps his position? This little exercise in showing off small knowledge of a field about which one is generally ignorant, actually favors the so-called “global warming” skeptics.”
I’m not trying to help or hurt anyone. I’m trying to be honest about the methodology of science. If that costs me “points” in the discussion, so be it. With the larger scientific questions — note the word questions — we’re not dealing with certainties. But in many areas of life we have to act on the basis of incomplete knowledge.
Missourian: “If, according to Jim, science is so contingent, then why should we destroy our economies, plunge the world into poverty and halt the advance of progress based on such ephemeral stuff as science.”
Well, why should you stop smoking? Just because science is contingent doesn’t mean that some issues are settled. And just because the science on global warming is contingent doesn’t mean that we should ignore the issue. Look, we’re ultimately talking about how we should respond in situations where the knowledge is incomplete and subject to change. My position is that we go with the best available knowledge, especially when the great majority of scientists tell us that we should be concerned. I don’t believe that I’m arguing for an extreme position here.
You’re speculating about the possible effect of taking action on global warming — effects that are pure speculation. (Another aspect are the possible effects of doing nothing.) Much of science is contingent. Have you read about the recent studies of using stents in patients with heart disease?
Missourian: “Lastly Jim you cannot both tell me that you “respect me” and then tell me that “you don’t know what you are talking about.”
Sure I can. I can respect you in the sense that I believe that you are a sincere and well-meaning person who is serious about the issues. Isn’t that respect? I can also say that you are mistaken about issues related to philosophy of science.
Missourian: “A quiz Jim for ten points what is Euler’s identity and why is it important?”
There are all sorts of formulas that I don’t know anything about. But more on the topic, how are you with Bas Van Frassen’s constructive empiricism, critiques and defenses of scientific realism, Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, modal logic as applied to scientific laws, and so on. In other words, you’re talking about scientific conclusions; I’m talking about methodology and epistemology.
Issues of global warming aside, can no one see the benefit to reducing our dependence on foreign resources, especially those from countries hostile to us? Our dependence renders us vulnerable to economic instability and complicates foreign policy when dealing with rogue leaders such as that of Iran.
Investments in hydrogen fuel seems to be the way to go, although there are still some kinks to be worked out of course.
Note 51, My refutation of your original primary point stands
First, in an attempt to anchor the discussion I restate Jim Holman’s comment to me in Note 50
Missourian writes: “Proof is science. Consensus is politics.”
Let’s look at Jim’s assertion that “when you’re talking about the leading edge of scientific theory, it is rare that scientists “prove” things.”
I supplied a very, well-known example of precisely that. Einstein was the source of the most revolutionary set of ideas in physics since Newton AND he conducted an experiment, observed by hundreds of physicists from many different parts of the world which proved the central thesis of his theory. I therefore refuted Jim’s assertion that “when you’re taking about the leading edge of scientific theory, it is rare that scientists “prove” things.
In point of fact, Jim’s assertion stands refuted, whether he realizes he is or not. I don’t think he does.
Missourian: “I supplied a very, well-known example of precisely that. Einstein was the source of the most revolutionary set of ideas in physics since Newton AND he conducted an experiment, observed by hundreds of physicists from many different parts of the world which proved the central thesis of his theory. I therefore refuted Jim’s assertion that “when you’re taking about the leading edge of scientific theory, it is rare that scientists “prove” things. In point of fact, Jim’s assertion stands refuted, whether he realizes he is or not. I don’t think he does.”
Ok, let me try again.
I believe you are using “proof” in a commonsense or legal way. I’m using “proof” in a more technical, limited, way, in the way that philosophers of science talk about scientific theories.
Really, even my initial statement was inaccurate. I should have said that scientific theories are never “proven,” in the sense of being true and accurate pictures of reality for all time.
In the experiment you described, Einstein’s theory was confirmed by that experiment. But it doesn’t mean that it would be confirmed by all future experiments. Someone could come up with future experimental results that could not be explained by Einstein’s theory. That wouldn’t mean that his theory was “wrong,” but rather that it had limited applicability, or more simply, that is explained some things but not others. In that sense, science is always limited and contingent, because you never know what new data will show up that will turn everything on it’s head.
I found a web site that discusses scientific method. I’ll provide a link so you can go there yourself, but here are some introductory quotations:
Here’s the intro from the article:
You can read the entire article here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
Jim Holman -
Missourian’s comment at #30 employed a common usage of the word proof and her point was valid.
I agree that the peer-reviewed literature is a good place to start in order to get at the truth in a scientific dispute. The problem is that the peer-reviewed literature on climate topics does not support the wild claims of alarmism presented in various media outlets.
I could produce 100 examples, but here is just one. Dean Scourtes linked to a article in the Guardian about how the peat bogs in northern Russia are “melting” and releasing huge amounts of methane which will heat us up even faster, etc. etc. But the latest peer-reviewed study indicates that this process could not occur over time frames remotely of interest to our present concerns. Further, data from all the national agencies shows that atmospheric methane concentrations have not increased in 5-7 years, and many people think they are going down. The media seized on information they did not understand, found a few scientists who were willing for whatever reason to make a dire prediction, and presto! more hysteria.
So, I’m all for peer-reviewed literature. Having said that, however, I should add that peer-review can often function to enforce group-think. The same reviewers who reject or accept papers are used to accept or reject funding. There is tremendous pressure on researchers to toe the line in order to receive funding and advance their career.
Also, industry expertise is unfairly tarred as being inherently biased when it is often not. In fact, I acknowledge the bias of industry, but in my experience it is less than that of academia (due to the pressure for governmental funding).
Speak for yourself. I have been doing this for a living for 25 years. Many of the climate-related papers I have read are shoddy beyond belief. Not surprising in an area corrupted by political pressures and tidal waves of funding.
Note 56, Tom, Jim H.’s favorite techniques are “drop back” and “scatter”
Thanks for the comment. I have had my say on the topic I raised in Note 30.
I don’t have anything more to say to Jim on the topic.
You have probably already noticed that Jim Holman’s general debating techniques fall into two categories. The first is what I call the “drop back.” He stops explicitly supporting climate change alarmism and claims that he has only been arguing that the public should be concerned if reputable scientists make note of some instances of climate change. He essentially distorts the issues and somehow suggests that those who speak out against the climate change alarmists want to shut down research in meteorology and astronomy. His position suddenly contracts down to a premise that is so inocuous that no rational person would debate it, that is, that informed citizens should be interested in the research results of climate scientists.
Secondly, he employs the “scatter shot” technique. He introduces somewhat related but not “on point” issues in his reply, leaving you with 20 potential issues to reply to and thereby completely obfuscating the original point of disagreement.
After a certain point, I conclude that I have said what I have to say and just stop responding to Jim Holman. Readers can draw their own conclusions.
#53 JamesK
Like it or not, oil is a fungible commodity that is traded on world markets. As the biggest consumer, the US is vulnerable to any market instability. I think the idea of “energy independence” is just not realistic.
Hydrogen is an energy transfer medium. Any serious move to hydrogen has to entail nuclear as the ultimate source of the energy.
Tom C writes: “Missourian’s comment at #30 employed a common usage of the word proof and her point was valid.”
Valid to a point. “Proof” implies that a kind of certainty attaches to scientific theories that just isn’t there. This is a non-trivial distinction.
Missourian writes: “I don’t have anything more to say to Jim on the topic.”
In other words, after being shown definitively that your terminology, when used in the context of scientific theories, was inappropriate, you take your ball and go home. Another response might be “Thank you Jim for taking the time to refine my understanding on that issue.”
Missourian: “The first is what I call the “drop back.”
That’s an interesting term. I sometimes change my mind on issues based on discussion, new evidence, and reflection. This is a bad thing? I thought that was the whole point of having a discussion.
Missourian: “He stops explicitly supporting climate change alarmism . . . ”
I never was an alarmist. Not my position. Rather, I am a skeptic of many of the global warming deniers.
Missourian: ” . . .and claims that he has only been arguing that the public should be concerned if reputable scientists make note of some instances of climate change.”
If you feel like you have some need to rip into me, I would appreciate it very much if you would at least have the courtesy of addressing my actual position. What I said in note 50 was
You present this honest statement as some kind of deceptive debating strategy. Frankly, if you just want a pound of flesh off of me, then just call me names, or something. But please don’t misrepresent my position.
Missourian: “Readers can draw their own conclusions.”
Yes they will. But since many here agree with your conservative views on other issues I think you’ll survive intact.
An OCA parish in Santa Rosa, CA shows the way.
http://incommunion.org/articles/previous-issues/an-orthodox-parish-turns-to-solar-power
Dean, this is a local choice made locally in a community with a common belief further united in the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. As wise a choice as it is, it in no way translates to any support for the political idelogy of the global warming crowd. I hope you do not think it does.
#60 Jim Holman -
Good grief this is tiresome. Your comment
suggests you are either purposefully mischaracterizing or are uneducable.
When did I or any of the eminent scientists I cited ever “deny” that the world has warmed somewhat over the last century and that CO2 could contribute to that warming? I have probably put up 20-30 posts on this topic over the last two weeks and have made it absolutely clear that it is the exaggeration of the threat and the discounting of the burden of “solutions” that I am disputing. The term should be global warming “non-alarmists”, not “deniers”.
The term “global warming denial”, BTW, was purposefully coined to suggest, not so subliminally, “holocaust denial”. Yet another example of mendacious dishonesty from the alarmists.
Enough of this nonsense. Over and Out.
Note 64. James writes:
This is the duality you like to construct that I mentioned upstream: an idea is posited against personal behavior, as if ideas and behavior are the same thing. It creates an air of objectivity, but in fact the objection is not substantive.
Note 5. Dean writes:
Ever hear of Rachel Carlson? If she were around you would singing her praises with the same moralistic tone and the same prophesies of doom. (Shazamm! Who could be against the enviroment!!)
Yet millions died because of this liberal high mindedness.
I’m curious. What was your reaction to the phrase “environmental Orthopraxy”, used by the Priest of that parish?
At the end of the article he says,
Do you agree with that? How does a duty to be good stewards of the planet relate to the global warming debate?
Note 67. Dean asks:
In a strict sense the phrase is functionally meaningless. But the priest probably was not using it in a strict sense but as a sound byte. As a sound byte, it has a natural cadence: five syllables followed by four, soft consonants cascading into hard, etc.; plus the air of intelligence encased, as it is, in an exotic, foreign sounding word. Call it the Nieman Marcus version of something commonly sold at Wal Mart.
How can I agree with anything so vague, so empty of substantive content? “(R)estraining from the harm which commercial electricity does to our neighbors and all the earth”? Is it really that black and white? Last time I looked, commercial (as opposed to free?) electricity has done boatloads to raise our standard of living. Maybe he’ll feel a bit different the next time he needs some help from a hospital, or perhaps the fire department.
It begins with being a good steward of one’s mind, by applying real intelligence to scientific questions rather than subsuming one’s mind to vacuous moral appeals. The same degree of intelligence that was applied to, say, the development of the steam engine, or, God forbid, the design of a coal fired generating plant, can tell us if the science behind global warming is accurate or bogus.
Unfortunately, clear thinking is a tough sell these days. Look at the difficulty that the global warmers have with Tom C’s objections.
Speaking of which…
You still have not answered whether Gore’s crusade and his ownership of the most prominent “carbon credits” corporation constitutes a conflict of interest.
“Environmental orthopraxy”
“…As a sound byte, it has a natural cadence: five syllables followed by four, soft consonants cascading into hard, etc.; plus the air of intelligence encased, as it is, in an exotic, foreign sounding word.”
Not to mention that, having a religious sound, being in a religious environment, and coming from a clergyman, it could be intended or taken as carrying a religious mandate.
Your comments could be applied to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, known as the Green Patriarch and spiritual leader of the world’s estimated 300 million Orthodox Christians.
On January 9, 2006, he wrote:
Message of His All Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, on the Day of the Protection of the Environment
Do you want to accuse His All Holiness of engaging in soundbites also?
Fr. Hans writes: “You still have not answered whether Gore’s crusade and his ownership of the most prominent “carbon credits” corporation constitutes a conflict of interest.”
Here’s one definition of “conflict of interest”: A person has a conflict of interest when the person is in a position of trust which requires her to exercise judgment on behalf of others (people, institutions, etc.) and also has interests or obligations of the sort that might interfere with the exercise of her judgment, and which the person is morally required to either avoid or openly acknowledge.
In other words, just because a person makes money from a business that is related to his publicly advocated position does not mean that there is a conflict of interest. Example — someone who advocates weight loss writes and sells a book on weight loss.
I don’t know if you think Gore has a conflict of interest, but if you do, then that principle would apply to many businesses. A veterinarian who advocated for pet health would have a conflict if he were a paid veterinarian. An advocate for classical music would have a conflict if he were a paid performer. Celebrities would have a conflict if they did paid endorsements for products. And so on.
For people who share Gore’s concerns there are many options, many possible actions that do not involve his company. Gore’s interest in the issue of global warming is well known; in fact, he may be the best-known advocate of that position. His interest is already well-disclosed.
More importantly, he is not in a position of trust that requires him to exercise judgment on how other people’s or institutions’ money is spent or invested. So no, there’s no conflict of interest.
Note 71. Dean, if Patriarch Bartholomew endorsed global warming with the same uncritical fervor that you do, I would criticize him as well.
earthquakes?
ROFLOL
Re Gore
The issue is not one of “conflict of interest”. Gore accuses his opponents of taking the positions they do for financial gain. There is precious little evidence of that, contra the fever swamp web sites. Gore, on the other hand, has immense financial interest in the position he advocates. It’s called hypocrisy, not conflict of interest.
Note 70. Dean writes (about Al Gore):
Yes, this is exactly what he is doing.
Couching his politics as a crusade, and then urging his followers to funnel funds into companies he controls as expatiation for excessive energy consumption (like he does), has the smell of one who lives above the rules and thinks he can make them for others, while pocketing a good amount of change along the way.
Tom C: “It’s called hypocrisy, not conflict of interest.”
Really, it’s not even that. There’s nothing wrong or unethical about making money off of the issue of global warming, on either side of the issue. The issue not money, but the possibility of deception.
People make big money all the time for advocating for certain issues. We call them lobbyists or paid spokespersons. But there’s not deception involved, because everyone understand that these people are paid for their advocacy.
For example, nobody thinks that Tony Snow actually believes all the things that he says in press conferences. More precisely, we don’t really care what “he” thinks, because he’s paid to articulate someone else’s position. So we don’t evaluate what he’s saying on the basis of his own personal credibility, expertise, or reputation.
In the case of someone working as a scientist, the situation is completely different, because to a significant degree we do rely on his expertise and reputation in evaluating his claims. When we find that a scientist is drawing a salary from an organization whose opinion he articulates, then it calls into question the status of the scientist — is he really working as a scientist, or as an undeclared lobbyist? This is especially true when the source of the paycheck is not apparent, or even concealed behind an industry-funded institute with a nice-sounding name.
To some extent, industry-funded research is unavoidable. When a pharmaceutical company needs clinical trials on a new drug, that research is typically farmed out to medical universities and run by physicians. But in that situation you have disclosure all over the place. The university knows about the relationship. The human subject committee knows about it. The university compliance office knows about it. Human research subjects are informed about it through signed disclosure forms.
Now let’s tweak the Gore situation and turn it into actual deception. Let’s say that someone else owns what is now Gore’s company. The owners of the company then give money to the Americans for Sound Science Institute. The Institute then hires Al Gore to make presentations on the seriousness of global warming. But Gore does not willingly disclose the ultimate source of his paycheck. Yes, that would be deception, plain and simple. But that’s not the situation as I understand it.
Again, money per se is not the problem. The real issue is disclosure, and the extent to which a person may be selling his reputation for a paycheck in a quid pro quo relationship.
#77 James K
We have already been through the Cheney angle on this. This money all goes to charity. I suppose it is technically a conflict of interest, but a strange one.
I have always thought Neil Bush was a slimy guy and don’t particularly want to defend him. Some of this stuff looks a bit suspect.
I never thought or said that Republicans are all angels. They demonstrate prodigious amounts of greed and corruption. That’s why I don’t fill blog posts with encomia to Republican politicians like others do for Al Gore. I was just pointing out that it is galling to have Gore accuse scientists – many of whom have had their careers ruined by sticking to their opinions – of financial corruption when the evidence all points the other way. My point was never one of Gore vs. Republicans; it was Gore vs. the scientists he libels.
As far as the question of energy goes, the Arab states will always be the low-cost suppliers, so no matter how the market may adjust to new sources of energy, they will get the first dollar of oil revenue. Unfortunately, windmills and solar panels will not have a big effect on the revenue realized by OPEC.
Why on earth do you think that I or any other conservative would oppose the development of new energy sources? I’m all for them. What I’m not for is mandating their use despite what is usually very unfavorable economics. Paying the higher prices might be OK for you, but it is hard on low income folks and ties up money that would otherwise be spent or invested.
There are immense sums of money being invested at all levels of the private sector and by government in trying to develop cheap new sources of energy. But it is not something you can count on to happen, just as you can’t assume that a cure for cancer will be found because of all the money spent on research. If and when a breakthrough comes, let the oil companies wither and die for all I care.
Note 77. James K. writes:
Really? There are laws against this type of contract manipulation. But let’s run with your thesis a second. Are you suggesting that the charge of hypocrisy against Gore is mitigated by hypocrisy elsewhere? If so, you are calling him a hypcrite — that’s self evident. If not, you are nonetheless implying Gore is a hypocrite (which it appears you are trying to avoid) because your latter charge has a sting only if the former is true.
Where do you get the idea that investigating global warming claims means we shouldn’t lessen dependence on Arab oil? What you find in looking more closely in fact, is that the liberal environmentalists who believe the global warming hype are the same people that object to the drilling of oil in Alaska, building new refineries, developing safe nuclear power, and other options beyond windmills and solar power (as long as the machinery is not built or functioning in their neighborhoods). It’s not that they don’t like Arab oil, it’s that they don’t like oil at all, thereby ensuring a continued dependence on Arab oil through their activism.
For the purposes of this blog, does one’s individual behavior and actions have any bearing on the validity of one’s argument? My impression is that it should not. In a way, this is sensible. None of us, if we are honest, completely live up to the values we claim to uphold. If our ideas were judged solely on whether we are consistent in our application of those ideas, discussion would be pretty much fruitless since no argument would be valid. Thus, I think it’s fair to suggest that one can be a thrice-divorced philandering senator and still make coherent arguments in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, and it’s fair to suggest that one can propose “environment-friendly” policies and still drive a gas-guzzling SUV. Perhaps we should just be consistent in our discussions, however.
Here is where the consistency needs to be: If you are discussing an idea, pointing out a person who lives differently does not negate the idea. Counter an idea with an idea.
For example, look how Tom C. argued. When challenging Dean’s assumptions on global warming, he showed how the assumptions were flawed. When challenging Dean’s assertions that global warming critics were hypocrites, he pointed out how Al Gore profits from his politics.
But, pointing out Al Gore’s hypocrisy to challenge Dean’s factual claims won’t work, because the claims stand regardless of the hypocrisy. It is not that the hypocrisy does not matter, but only that the hypocrisy is irrelevant in this context. You’ll notice Tom C. never made this error.
My critique of your approach is that you tend to challenge ideas and facts by citing the hypocrisy of the critic, as if this negates the challenge. It doesn’t.
Fr. Hans writes: “My critique of your approach is that you tend to challenge ideas and facts by citing the hypocrisy of the critic, as if this negates the challenge. It doesn’t.”
Certainly true in one sense. But the larger issue here in the blog is that the purpose of many of the articles posted here is to discredit those perceived as liberals, either individually or collectively. The unstated message behind many of these articles is that modern liberalism in its various incarnations is bad.
And that’s fine. You have a point of view. You’re the blog owner, and you rightfully can and should post articles that reflect your point of view.
The problem is that with few exceptions the articles present only one point of view, and not infrequently the articles play fast and loose with the facts. (Or, as William F. Buckley once said, they “transcend the truth.”) Taken as a whole, they give the wrong perception that only liberals are hypocrites, liars, evildoers, mistaken, exaggerators, etc., since we rarely hear about the sins of conservatives. As I mentioned before, many of the discussions here start with the ball on the “liberal” five yard line, with the conservatives in possession of the ball.
So when the few non-conservatives in this venue note that those on the right are also hypocrites, etc., that is simply a way of trying to bring some small level of balance into the discussion. As you say, that doesn’t “negate the challenge,” but it does help move the ball from the five yard line closer to midfield.
Excerpted from the the Capitol Times, Madison, WI,
“Local scientist calls global warming theory ‘hooey’
Samara Kalk Derby — 6/18/2007 8:01 am
Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.
The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.
There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the “Little Ice Age,” he said in an interview this week.
“However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We’ve been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It’s been warming up for a long time,” Bryson said.
The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said.
Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said.
“It’s like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It’s just a total misplacement of emphasis,” he said. “It really isn’t science because there’s no really good scientific evidence.”
Okay Chris, I’ve been doing some research. Lets take your first point
You say:
Do you wonder why Carter only went back to 1998? It is because 1998 was an El Nino year, in fact the year of the strongest El Nino systems ever recorded, which produced one of the hottest years on record.
1998 produced an extreme value – what statisticians call an “outlier. Temperatures decreased from 1999 through 2001 and then rose again producing with temperatures in 2005 as hot or hotter than in 1998. The only difference was that 1998 was an El Nino year and 2005 poduced temperatures just as warm without the El Nino, which is alarming.
So Carter is playing games with numbers. If you remove the extreme value for 1998, there is an unbroken upward trend. Typically statisticians adjust for outliers by using logarithmic smoothing or moving averages. If you apply these, the upward trend in temperatures continues beyond 1998 uninterupted.
Here’s a more detailed explanation about how Carter fudged the numbers: http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/bobcarter.html
Okay, I’m off to correct your other statement regarding how “CO2 representing only 0.0314% of our atmosphere can influence “global warming”. Be back soon
Re #87, #88
The temperature record since 1998 does not really support either view, since the interpretation varies depending on the type of smoothing algorithm used. Another 5 or so years of data are needed.
Unfortunately, the temperature record moving forward and backward is increasingly suspect. The 20th century data has recently been “corrected” with the effect of making temps early in the century cooler and temps later in the century warmer. USHCN Data
What these guys lack in honesty they more than make up for in chutzpah.
Here we go again… So you’re admitting that it’s not CO2 that caused most of the warming in 1998, but it was El Nino’s fault? Wait a second, are you now saying that there are other major climate events that overshadow “human created CO2″ ? Wow, thanks Dean for making my point!
I did some more research and it appears that the temperature deviations are not cumulative or incremental. The graphs represents by how much the annual global temperature “average” deviates from the 15 C baseline. So yes, we have had consistent warming trends, but despite the increasing CO2 levels (from 280 parts per million = 0.028%, to 377.5 parts per million 0.0377%) representing a 34% increase. While the warming continues, the warming has not been steadily increasing and in fact has not surpassed the 1998 numbers.
How is that possible logically and scientifically if we’re to believe the premise that increasing CO2 levels from human activity are causing the warming? When a theory is contradicted by the objective data, shouldn’t the model be adjusted and the theory debunked? We’re not just talking 1 or 2 years here, but 9 entire years! That’s pretty darn significant.
Also, the idea that there is a “perfect” and “static” global temperature for the earth is also somewhat silly, don’t you think? We know from the geological records and ice core samples that our planet has been undergoing constant climate changes, some minor, some major, for hundreds of millions of years; without any help from humans. Climate, by its very nature is dynamic and subject to massive variables. The most significant of which, I believe, is our sun that probably contributes 95% of the energy that’s causing this, plus the cloud cover that traps a vast majority of the heat.
Several climate scientists in have have strong data that indicates the sun and the clouds are what’s causing the warming, and have related the sun spot activity level to the radiation the earth receives. But look, even taking the 15 Celsius number as a “fixed” baseline (which I personally think is strange), we are barely only 0.6 above it and still not above the 1998 heating despite the increasing CO2 levels. As an amateur scientists and fellow skeptic this shows that there are huge problems with the mantra “human caused CO2 is a major reason for global warming.” Of course, these type of critical issues are of no bother to the climate zealots who are more interested in propaganda and blind faith than objective data, logic, and common sense.
“Do you want to accuse His All Holiness of engaging in soundbites also?”
Oh yes, and that would be generous. This “Green Patriarch” has simply fallen into the latest fad, out of either a silly idealism he confuses with Christianity or an effort to be “relevant”, a great concern of so many bishops these days (one reason why this period in church history will not be remembered for it’s exceptional churchman).
Sad to say, but whatever this patriarch says, it is safe to simply assume the opposite is the truth…
Archbishop Desmond Tutu explains that it is the poor and needy of the world, whom as Christians we are explicitly directed to assist, that will suffer the most from global warming.
Tutu is a Unitarian, not a Christian. He directly supported and campaigned for the “right” of abortion to be included in the South African constitution. He is wrong about the poor, global warming, and even basic morality. Your posting his evil philogophsy here is a good example of being a Troll…
It would have been nice if so many conservatives who are so skeptical about global warming would have exercised the same degree of skepticism about invading Iraq.
Hey, it took all the way to post # 8 before one of the two resident trolls brought up Iraq. Perhaps Fr. Jacobse could create a “Troll” graph, with the data points being the post number of the first mention of “Iraq” or some other obvious liberal attempt to change the converstation…;)
Christopher writes: “Perhaps Fr. Jacobse could create a “Troll” graph, with the data points being the post number of the first mention of “Iraq” or some other obvious liberal attempt to change the converstation…;)”
I offer my congratulations to you. You are well on your way to becoming an immoral right-wing propagandist. The little smiley face is a nice touch.
You reference one post that I wrote. If you look at all of my posts on this thread, as well as the related “Rachel Carson Murder” thread, I have 16 other posts that are completely on-topic or direct responses to what others posted.
In other words, your comment addresses 5.8 percent of the posts that I made — the shortest post I think, while you ignore the rest. Nonetheless you present that as evidence that I am a “troll.”
This is a standard tactic of right-wing fanatics and blowhards. Dude, you are really on the right track. All that stuff about “not bearing false witness” — that doesn’t apply to you, only to normal, moral people. So I say go for it. You’ve found your calling. Be all you can be!..:)
Re #95
I have never heard a “Warmer” offer a plausible explanation as to why sunspots just happened to cease completely ( the Maunder Minimum ) at exactly the coldest part of the Little Ice Age. It seems to me that it could not have just been a coincidence. This one fact is far more powerful than all the speculation about trace gasses and tree ring records in trying to discern what drives climate change.
Further to #96 – Jim Holman
The Wikipedia page you cite is maintained by William Connelly, a strong IPCC advocate and member of the Realclimate cabal. Everything he writes is tendentious in the extreme.
Tom C writes: “Anyway, I did see Dr. Patterson (ref above), who apparently is someone who needs to be WATCHED! Here is the page on him Sourcewatch-Patterson . . . I found this quite amusing. What followed was an impressive list of the guy’s accompishments and credentials.”
SourceWatch lists all sorts of people, including Noam Chomsky and Al Gore. The site has an obvious anti-right slant, but being listed there doesn’t mean that the person should be under surveillance, or something like that.
Tom C: “I’m at a loss as to what is damning or disqualifying about Dr. Patterson.”
I don’t see anything damning. I just wanted to know if the results of the research mentioned in Chris’ post had been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Tom C: “I was even more amused as I did a little research on who is doing the watching for us.”
Who do you think would be doing the watching on a site such as SourceWatch? Rush Limbaugh? As long as the information is accurate, what does the political orientation matter?
Tom C: “The Wikipedia page you cite is maintained by William Connelly, a strong IPCC advocate and member of the Realclimate cabal. Everything he writes is tendentious in the extreme.”
With respect to his comments on the two surveys I mentioned, he is making factual assertions that can be verified or disproved. He’s either right or wrong, regardless of his political orientation. In the case of both surveys I was able to find other sites that told the same story, but I was unable to access the source material. I found one site that had what was said to be the actual text of the von Storch 2003 survey, but had no way to verify that. I didn’t find any evidence that the Wikipedia comments on the surveys were incorrect.
By the way, when I research someone on SouceWatch or in general on the internet, I don’t care if the person is on the political right. What I look for in particular are financial relationships, institutional affiliations, interesting personal relationships (is the person a drinking buddy of Gary North or Pat Robertson, for example), publication history, career, and so on. After reading a SourceWatch entry, sometimes the person in question has more credibility (e.g., Timothy Patterson), sometimes less credibility (e.g., Steven Milloy).
Note 100 and 102
Tom C. writes:
The list of Staff Biographies is in alphabetical order. Yes, Patricia Barden does not appear to have relevant experience in understanding environmental science, but her title is “IT Director”. Why would you pick her? Nowhere in her bio does it state that she is the one doing the watching. In fact the site is Wiki format. You, I or anyone else in the world can make entries, corrections, suggestions, etc…
Had I not gone to the site myself, I would have taken your word for it. Yes it’s a liberal based site, with liberal minded founders, but you were misleading in your example of the lesbian bicycling, playing guitar, bird watching, and taking walks with dogs under achiever.
Correction:
Aside from Bird watching, nowhere in her bio does it state that she is the one doing the watching.
#103 and #104
You know Drew, I opened up the first one, had my suspicians confirmed, and did not bother to read further. I assumed that she covered the enviro beat since she worked at an Environmental Resource Center, but you are correct that it was probably not a good asssumption.
I think you are missing a larger point. The name of the web site implies that those profiled are up to no good and, thus, they or their funding sources must be “watched”. Or maybe that the site functions as a “watchdog”. I don’t know. What I do know is that under the global warming section, the majority of those on the list were simply experts in their field, and descriptions of their experience or publications actually enhanced their stature.
So, why exactly are they on the list? What wrongdoing or conflict of interest are they accused of? Do you make the list of someone to be “watched” just because they hold informed opinions that the staff does not approve of.
It’s is really just a strategy for trying to discredit your political opponents and is easy to see through.
Tom C writes: “The name of the web site implies that those profiled are up to no good and, thus, they or their funding sources must be “watched”. . . .So, why exactly are they on the list? What wrongdoing or conflict of interest are they accused of? Do you make the list of someone to be “watched” just because they hold informed opinions that the staff does not approve of.”
Tom, I think you’re looking for some nefarious purpose behind the site that simply isn’t there. As I mentioned, Al Gore and Noam Chomsky have entries. It’s not a hit list or enemies list. That said, the main focus of the site is to inform people about what those on the right are up to.
Tom: “What I do know is that under the global warming section, the majority of those on the list were simply experts in their field, and descriptions of their experience or publications actually enhanced their stature.”
But that speaks to the fairness and objectivity of the site, does it not? Just because someone is a global warming dissenter doesn’t mean that he’s going to be trashed on SourceWatch — in fact the opposite — his stature may be “enhanced,” as you say. Show me a similar conservative site that operates in the same spirit. I’d like to hear about it.
#106 Jim Holman -
I’m sure there are consevative sites that use the same modus operandi. I’ve never seen one. Can you direct me to one?
I can tell you this: when someone that I am debating quotes a person who holds opinions contrary to mine I do not scurry off to some site that has insta-discredit lists on it. In my experience debating you and Dean S. I run against that tactic constantly.
In a post above I commented on the identity of the Wikipedia editor merely to point out that he was not a neutral observer, but very much part of the debate.
Well, I suppose being labled a “global warming dissenter” is a mite bit better that “global warming denier”
Tom C writes: “I can tell you this: when someone that I am debating quotes a person who holds opinions contrary to mine I do not scurry off to some site that has insta-discredit lists on it.”
But as you said in #105 “the majority of those on the list were simply experts in their field, and descriptions of their experience or publications actually enhanced their stature.” So . . . if the information on the site enhances their stature, then it’s not insta-discredit, is it?
As far as “scurrying off,” heck, everyone does that here. You think Fr. Hans stays awake nights worrying about whether Uganda has enough DDT? Of course not. But inasmuch as the issue can be used to discredit “the left,” he’s all over it. If liberals were pouring DDT on Uganda, we’d never hear about it from Fr. Hans. Look, I’m not trying to “diss” Fr. Hans. I love the guy, even as I disagree with him on many issues. But let’s be honest. Everyone here scurrys off to find material that supports their point of view. We do that not because we’re dishonest, but because we’re not scholars on every possible topic that shows up here. Through the sharing of “scurried” material, hopefully we all become a little more informed.
Frankly, if there is a conservative site like SourceWatch I would invite you to use it. And if I quote someone who turns out to be a former FMLN commander and currently Noam Chomsky’s gardener, I would expect you to consider that datum in evaluating the person’s statement.
In many of these discussions, people are cited as experts about whom I know little or nothing. And I want to know some details about the person who is being presented as an authority. So if a Professor Smith is quoted as saying that welfare causes cancer, then I want to know who Professor Smith is. Is he with the Cato Institute? Is he an employee of James Dobson? Is he affiliated with an “institute” that consists of a wooden shack located five miles east of Big Tick, Wyoming? Is he a renowned public health researcher with a hundred research articles published in professional journals? Who is he?
Tom C: “In a post above I commented on the identity of the Wikipedia editor merely to point out that he was not a neutral observer, but very much part of the debate.”
Yes. And I hope you notice that I posted the link precisely so that you and others could read and evaluate the information and its source for yourselves.
Tom, believe me, I have nothing to hide. Many topics are discussed in this blog, and like most people, I don’t have any particular personal expertise. In a few areas I have a certain body of knowledge based on my own experience and education. Beyond that I have to rely on sources. I expect others to critique my sources, and if I pick bad sources, I expect to have my hand slapped.
“Global warming dissenter” is the more appropriate term because global warming is undeniable occuring. The only “debate” has to do with the causes of global warming, and whether it is the result of human activity or independent natural phenonomena. It is a debate being waged between people who believe in evidence and honest science versus industry stooges, hacks and charlatans and ideologues who believe that saving the planet is some sort of leftist plot.
Trackback
I know the answer! The answer lies within the heart of all mankind! The answer is twelve? I think I’m in the wrong building
Mr. Scourtes #110.
Your second sentence is a simplistic, rude insult to everyone who disagrees with you. Don’t worry though, I won’t take it personally.
I assure you that the debate isn’t between those who believe in evidence (good) versus stooges, hacks and charlatans (evil); at least not in the way that you think. Believe me, as a scientist and engineer I can assure you that scientists who think simplistic computational models can predict global climate for thousands of years, while they cannot predict the weather more than two weeks out, are at the least misinformed, or are at worst hacks and charlatans. I would also tell you that when one arcane discipline (climatology) is dominated by a “consensus” opinion, and other perhaps more pertinent disciplines are not, there is reason to be suspicious of the consensus.
Of course, for all you know I could be a hack, charlatan, or an industry stooge, but let me ask you: Are you a scientist or engineer? Have you studied higher and applied mathematics, the sciences, and numerical simulation? Have you studied historical geology and the earth sciences at depth? I’m curious, because you seem to think you can identify charlatans, but given the technical nature of the subject that would be very tough for most people, be they journalists, politicians, or reactionary environmentalists, to do.
It would be very difficult without the necessary training to determine whether the scientific process is working as it should (although people getting their research funding cut and ostracized from publications for arriving at conclusions that contradict the “consensus” should be a clue to anyone), or whether many scientists, facing threats to their research funding, are adopting assumptions that achieve desired results (editing the temperature record is evidence of this). I, for example, could call scientists who rely on government money “government stooges,” with just as much validity as you call those who rely on private money “industry stooges.”
When one has studied science at depth, one no longer idolizes scientists or the scientific process. These people are not saints any more than the rest of us, and they are just as susceptible to group-think and economic pressure.
The same is true of all higher education and all those Ph.D.s that float around thinking themselves above the “common” man. As a university professor for the last 7+ years I have been around such characters and seen first hand how politcally correct, susceptible to group-think, biased, and delusional these highly educated and intelligent individuals can be. Some even more so than the average person, since they consider themselves so much better and superior than everyone else that they think they are always right despite objective proof and data that contradicts their ideas.
Dean, as a Christian, especially an Orthodox Christian, how can you think that any human action can “save the earth”? Millennialism is not Orthodox, especially materialistic Millennialism. My understanding of Orthodox anthropology and the miniscule faith I have in Christ’s victory lead me to the conclusion that neither the state of fear that environmental activists continually attempt to foment, nor the solutions that come from that fear will achieve any positive ends. What is more likely to result is tryanny. If I am faithful to my Lord, it makes no difference in which type of polity I live, but I’d rather live in a polity that is more free rather than less.
“Saving the earth” has already been accomplished by our Lord, God and Savior, we have but to enter into that salvation in the Church to particpate in the fullfillment. That requires consistent application of the spiritual praxis of the Church in our daily lives. Without that, nothing else we do will matter, if we do that, everything we do will help.
112.
– Count Leo Tolstoy, “Education and Children” 1862
quoted in The Underground History of American Education
A Schoolteacher’s Intimate Investigation into the Problem
of Modern Schooling by John Taylor Gatto former New York
State and New York City Teacher of the Year
One of my friends is a hydraulics engineer who designs levees and who has been invited by the Army Corp of Engineers to come to New Orleans. He attended a conference this week in which he learned that engineers in his field are already adjusting their models to account for global warming.
Here in California (the nation’s most populous state with over 35 million people) global warming will have a very severe impact. We don’t have the luxury of pretending that there is some sort of “debate about global warming that we have to wait years to be settled. We have to act now.
First, California gets most of it water for drinking and irrigation from the Sierra winter snowpack which gradually melts over the course of the summer filling rivers, streams and reservoirs. Under most global warming models there will be much less snow and more rain , which unlike snow will not melt into the soil filling aquifers, but runoff into the ocean. Not having water will cripple one of the nation’s richests agricultural areas – a major souce of exports – and create problems for at least three of the nation’s largest metroplitan areas.
Second much of the water from the snowpack runs from north to south through the Delta which empties into the San Francisco Bay . If ocean levels rise, low lying islands in the Delta, already protected by levees could collpase and become submerged filling the Delta with salt water and cutting off the flow of fresh water from Northern to Southern California.
People in the eastern half of the country don’t realize that once you get into the western Great Plains and further West the amount of annual rainfall received drops sharply.
It’s not only California that depends on melting snowpack but all the States and regions the draw water from the Colorado River. That includes much of Utah, Nevada, Arizona and San Diego. The portion of the Colorado River that runs through Utah courses through what was once a great salt water inland ocean, and it is here that the river picks up a great deal of salinity. if there is less water from melting snowpaclk the remaining water that is received may be too salty for use in agriculture or for drinking.
Washington State and Oregon, despite their reputation for precipitation, have also seen their annual snowpack decline. This is bad news for them since they depend on largely on hydraulic-generated power for electricity.
So you people in the East, insulated from reality, go ahead have your little pretend debates if you want. We Westerners are going to do what we have to do to survive and that means taking Global warming seriously.
Note 109. Jim writes:
Not really. The DDT example supports my thesis that much of the liberal fervor for the environment is apocalyptic in nature and is best understood in religious terms. If someone comes up with a theory that some practice or another will lead to the complete and final destruction of the earth — Paul Erlich’s neo-Malthusism, Rachel Carlson’s DDT approbations, the ozone hole theory a few decades back, Al Gore’s global warming crusade today — liberals tend to fall for it hook, line, and sinker and organize the next secular crusade filled with all sorts of moral opprobrium against those who challenge it.
As for the charge you don’t hear criticism from the other direction: I’ve been criticizing the right (and left) on the misguided policy on Kosovo for years, even when almost everyone believed those genocide reports and other propaganda splashed through the Western press. Do you remember those debates?
Excellent! You must have found a way to control the intensity of the sun and the multi-hundred year long sun spot cycles. You will definitely be given a Nobel Prize for this amazing feat. (PS – Still waiting on the quantitative experiments and objective data that show and prove in laboratory conditions how a 30% increase in 0.0314% concentration of CO2 in air contributes significantly to warming.)
Dean, You don’t get it do you! I ask for scientific experiments and hard data, showing a CAUSAL CONNECTION between CO2 and warming and you keep giving me opinion pieces with annecdotal information. Here, let me simplify it further since your “scientific” mind has still not grasped what I’m looking for.
Causal Connection Experiment on CO2 Influence on Air Temperature
===================================================
Step 1 – Create 2 heavily insulated chambers with the same volume of air.
Step 2 – Place air in Chamber A with concentration of Carbon Dioxide of 280 parts per million at set temperature, pressure and humidity.
Step 3 – Place air in Chamber B with concentration of Carbon Dioxide of377.5 parts per million at same set temperature, pressure and humidity as Chamber B.
Step 4 – Confirm the same starting average temperature of Chamber A and Chamber B to enough significant figures to measure change.
Step 5 – Shine the same amount of light energy for the same amount of time on both Chambers A and Chambers B.
Step 6 – Monitor and record average temperature in Chambers A and Chambers B after x amount of time has passed.
Step 7 – Temperature Difference (if any) between Chambers A and B will represent the additional warming caused by the extra CO2 in Chamber B.
Got it now? Show me the scientific experiments and papers on that and let’s see how much CO2 really contributes to the warming. I’ll be waiting…..
Math check time again…
Dean, your scientist must have missed something ’cause his math is off:
He claims 25% of CO2 from human activity. Ok, let’s go with that. NOAA and NASA’s data show maximum increase of only 0.6 degree Celsius from 15 C global temperature baseline in 1998 (highest increase). So 25% x 0.6 degrees Celsius = 0.15 degrees Celsius, NOT 0.7. His calculations are off by a factor of 466%. But heck what do I know, I’m just a lowly lawyer and university professor. My JD is only a professional doctorate and not an “academic” one, so I should just mind my business and stop confusing the issues with logic and reason…
Chris Banescu writes: “Step 1 – Create 2 heavily insulated chambers with the same volume of air,” & etc.
The assertion isn’t that there is some kind of reaction between CO2 and light. The assertion is that CO2 accumulates in the upper atmosphere and creates a kind of “blanket,” for lack of a better word, trapping heat underneath. Is that correct? Time will tell.
In that sense, your experiment is kind of like this: take two sealed containers and place a feather comforter in one. Heat both containers equally, and then see if the one with the feather comforter gets hotter — which it probably doesn’t. Conclusion: you won’t be any warmer at night by putting a feather comforter on your bed.
A more appropriate experiment would be this: take two identical planets. With one planet, pump X billions of pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere over a couple hundred years. Then compare the effects.
That’s basically the experiment we are doing, minus the control planet. In other words, our planet is the experiment. Maybe nothing happens. Maybe disaster happens. In the words of the great environmental scientist Clint Eastwood, “do you feel lucky? Well, do you?” I hope you are lucky, because I live on the same planet.
Chris: “But heck what do I know, I’m just a lowly lawyer and university professor.”
I feel your pain.
Mr. Scourtes #116:
“He attended a conference this week in which he learned that engineers in his field are already adjusting their models to account for global warming.”
I don’t blame him or his organization. Without the kind of training I mentioned in post #112, it would be tough to know what else to do. In fact, I don’t blame anyone who would not understand the wild assumptions being made and the dangerous reliance on simplistic computational models for being convinced that we cause climate change, and that the consequences will be catastrophic. It is all one hears in the media, most of our politicians have caved on the issue, even the oil companies are pretending they think that humans cause global warming for the sake of PR, and people who disagree with the “consensus” are being compared with holocaust deniers.
Still, you did not answer my question: Are you trained in higher mathematics, numerical simulation, and the earth sciences?
“So you people in the East, insulated from reality, go ahead have your little pretend debates if you want. We Westerners are going to do what we have to do to survive and that means taking Global warming seriously.”
Actually, why do you think all of us who dispute that the cause of climate change is anthropogenic are from the east? I lived in the west for ten years, much of the time in California, and my wife grew up on the high plains. I am familiar with the water supply issues. In fact, the in-laws have seen drought for the past ten years.
Besides my familiarity with the west, and my plans to spend most of my life in the west, and my in-laws being westerners, I am also a trained scientist and engineer and I can see that the case for anthropogenic global warming is full of holes. As a trained earth scientist, I understand that climate has fluctuated many times in the past, and that the American west frequently sees lengthy drought cycles.
“We don’t have the luxury of pretending that there is some sort of debate about global warming that we have to wait years to be settled. We have to act now.”
Just please be careful about what actions you advocate. It sounds as if you are panicking, and panic often leads to severe unintended consequences. Let’s say you are right and I am wrong, and humans cause global warming.
Should we wreck our economy? Should we kill off most the livestock (methane emissions from livestock are worse than our fleet of vehicles, per a recent report from a “consensus” scientist)? Is it worth starving the world’s poor in an attempt to reverse climate change? Furthermore, in light of Mr. Banescu’s salient point (#120) concerning China, whose amoral leaders could care less about pollution, does it make sense to ruin our economy when any cuts in our CO2 emissions will be more than made up for by increased emissions from China?
#112 D. George
Very well put. My experiences in industry and academia have led me to the exact same conclusions.
#109 Jim Holman
Nice try. The preface to the list includes these quotes:
and
So, the strategy is to introduce the list with these damning words, and then assume that most readers will not delve into the details.
Jim – I can read and largely understand global warming scientific papers. When I saw that Emmanuel and Mann used a data smoothing technique known as “end-point pinning” in their 2006 paper on hurricanes I knew that they had performed a trick and were dishonest. I also knew they would not perform the same trick in 2007 (which they didn’t) since it would not work. My “rogues gallery” is composed of guys that I have seen being dishonest in their science.
Chris Banescu -
You are a little off in your approach here, but your instincts are good, and you are on to an important point.
The warming effect due to carbon dioxide is easy to calculate and was first done about 100 years ago. CO2 has risen 25% since 1850. If it rises 100% at some point, it will – in itself -bring about a warming of about 1 oC. What most people don’t realize is that the highly parameterized models that the climate guys use are filled with assumptions about positive feedbacks involving water vapor, clouds, and aerosols. As Richard Lindzen points out, most experts in atmospheric aerosols don’t even know the sign of the contribution to warming. In other words, they don’t know if they will cool or warm, let alone how much. The model parameters for these unknown effects were assigned by fitting past temperature records.
Anyone who has done math modeling in other fields has their warning bells going off at this point. Models with 100s of parameters, most of which are unknown, being fit to past data and then used to predict future data. As Lindzen says ‘this is just curve fitting”. Indeed, to make the models going forward match the models going backward the climate guys have claimed that there is some unknown factor that has cancelled out 60% of the warming over the last 150 years, but just went away recently. Right guys, right.
The bottom line is that CO2 will lead to warming, but it is highly unlikely that it will to the degree claimed by the IPCC gang.