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
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.
I’m always happy to provide others with opportunities for glibness and sarcasm. Let’s see what you can do with the World Health Organization
Third World bears brunt of global warming impacts, University of Wisconsin-Madison News, Nov. 16, 2005
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?
For a good example of climate science corrupted by ideology, I would highly recommend this article Revelle-Gore. It is long, so for those who don’t have the time, herewith a quick summary:
Roger Revelle was one of the great oceanographers of the 20th century. He was director of the Scripps Institute and he taught at Harvard. He was also among the first to measure the increase in atmospheric CO2 and to speculate on the implications. For these efforts, he has been called the “grandfather of global warming”. Still, not many would have heard of him were it not that one of the undergraduates he taught at Harvard – the young Al Gore – incessantly refers to him as his “mentor” and claims that it was he who got young Al fired up about global warming.
The story takes an interesting twist, though, in that Revelle authored a paper in the early 1990s with another world-famous scientist, named S. Fred Singer. In this paper, they argue that the CO2-temperature link was way too uncertain to justify public policy of any sort, and that it would not likely become certain for many decades. You can imagine what an embarrassment this was for Al Gore: his “mentor”, the “grandfather of global warming”, writing an article with the arch-enemy Fred Singer which said, in effect, “don’t worry about global warming”.
In another interesting twist to the story, Revelle died just 3 months later.
So, what did Al Gore do? Al Gore the great scientist, the rationalist, the author of “The Attack on Reason”, along with two environmental groups, recruited a junior scientist at Harvard to attack Singer and issue a demand to the journal that Revelle’s name be taken off the paper. Why? The young scientist claimed that Revelle had been senile and that Darth Vader Singer had duped him into signing his name on the article prior to publication.
Isn’t that just great. What a way to honor the memory of your “mentor”. What a way to preserve the sanctity of reason and science.
Fortunately, for those of us who care about honesty, Singer had the galley proofs with Revelle’s handwritten comments, and it was clear from a little research, that far from being senile, Revelle had travelled and lectured right up to his death. Singer sued for libel and won. The young professor was forced to write a retraction, apology, and counter-statement of fact. The whole thing is laid out in court documents, including the shenanigans orchestrated by the office of the honorable Albert Gore. So, Dean Scourtes will not be able to scurry off to a left-wing site to find a “rebuttal” since there is none.
So, Jim Holman, which side in this debate uses facts, and which ideology?
It’s worth asking again. Jim, did you read the article?
Tom C writes: “Did you bother to read the article on which the thread is based? ”
I read what there was of it, plus the rest of the posts. The whole article is not available except to subscribers of some paper.
Tom C: “In 1992, 15 years ago, Al Gore said . . . ”
I know you folks have a very interesting fascination with Al Gore, but I’m not sure why. I heard about global warming before his movie. I didn’t see the movie in a theater, and when I rented the video I fell asleep on the couch watching it. Any views that I have about global warming have nothing to do with Al Gore. He is a popularizer of the issue, and even if he doesn’t get all the details right, at least his stuff provokes debate.
Tom C: “Now you bragged over in another thread that you were part of the “reality-based community”.
It’s not a boast, it’s a fact. What I mean is that I don’t have beliefs that are cast in bronze. On any particular issue, if you make a sufficiently compelling case, hey, I’m on board — religion, economics, politics, whatever.
Tom C: “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?”
In my observation, conservatives tend to attach themselves to the experts that support their case, even to the point of manufacturing experts when they don’t exist.
For example, a couple of years ago, when global warming began to be discussed here, people were actually quoting a “poll” from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine showing that “over 1,000” scientists opposed global warming, etc. It turned out that the poll was completely bogus. And the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is basically a metal shed located in Cave Junction, Oregon. (For you folks who don’t know where Cave Junction is, it’s southwest of Grants Pass, located at the intersection of highway 199 and state road 46.) In other words, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a large metal shed in the middle of nowhere, staffed by people who sell survivalist information, and who, before they went off the deep end, got advanced degrees in science. Check it out. Here you can see the eminent scientists standing in the gravel parking lot in front of the Institute:
http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p16.htm
But to this day, around the conservative blogosphere, you can still see web site with links to this place. It is thought to be the place to go if you really want to “stick it to the enviros.”
Another important source of information for folks here was Michael Crichton, the famous author and opponent of global warming.
And a couple of years ago, a friend who is a retired philosophy professor came across an anti-global warming article by another expert, who turned out to be a former colleague who turned himself into a global warming expert. In other words, this dude, in his previous incarnation, was also a philosophy professor in a small college, but then he was reborn into a global warming expert.
So forgive me if at this point I’m a little skeptical about who conservatives do and do not consider experts on the issue. As far as the “blustering of a self-obsessed politician,” if I ever actually see his movie, then I might end up with opinions that are based on his blustering.
But help me out here. In a nutshell, what exactly IS your view of global warming. That’s it’s not happening? That it’s happening but is completely due to natural variation? That there is a man-made component, but that component is insignificant? That the man-made component is significant, but that nuclear power is the best approach to fixing it? That global warming is a good thing so there’s nothing to fix? In the midst of all the criticism of Gore, it becomes difficult to know what the positions of the individual posters are.
By the way, I like the idea of nuclear power except for one thing, and that is the principle that whatever can go wrong will go wrong, whether in the reactor facility itself or in the storage of nuclear waste. I don’t know about you, but I like living here in the northwest, and it would be very irritating if I had to flee the area, abandon my house and all my possessions, and not come back for 5,000 years. Radioactive waste is already leaking from storage tanks at the Hanford nuclear reservation and heading toward the Columbia river at this very moment. I like to eat salmon, but it would be kind of creepy to eat fish that glowed in the dark.
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/NUCSAF/HCleanup.shtml
Now if someone can come up with a foolproof reactor and waste storage facility, great, I say bring it on.
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.
Jim Holman –
I don’t know anything about the Oregon Petition Project, but the photo on the web page you linked to was of Martin Kamen – who was a very famous physicist. Apparently the petition was started by Fred Seitz, who was president of the National Academy of Engineering and president of Rockefeller University. Lots of brainpower so far – maybe you should re-think your adversion to metal sheds in Oregon.
Polling of climate and metereological researchers has been undertaken continually for the last twenty years. If you want to read more up-to-date polling you can google “Hans Von Storch” and “climate poll”.
As far as Michael Crichton goes, here is his CV in brief
Clearly not a dummy. I have read Crichton’s essays on environmental scares, and in my professional judgement, as a chemical engineer who worked in the environmental field and who has read a lot on these topics, he has grasped both the technical and sociological principles at play better than anyone I’ve ever read.
Every time Fr. Hans posts a global warming article, Dean Scourtes makes the claim that anyone who denies global warming is an industry shill or a charlatan. Then you pop in an give the yarn about your friend who had a friend who pretended to be a global warming expert. But in the last couple of weeks you were given the following information:
*Missourian cited three highly respected climate and metereology experts who were testifying against global warming alarmism in Congress – D’Aleo, Herman, and Gray.
* I gave brief bios of two pioneers in the filed of climate modeling who vigorously dispute global warming alarmism – Lindzen and Tennekes.
* I related the Revelle-Gore story, which included information on Fred Singer and Roger Revelle (the grandfather of global warming) who advise against public policy based on computer modeling and say warming might be a good thing.
* You inadvertantly brought Kamen and Seitz into the discussion.
* Here are a couple of more that just crossed my mind, Zbigniew Jaworowski is the guy who pioneered the use of ice cores to determine pre-historic concentrations of gasses in the atmosphere. He says global warming is the “scientific scandal of out times”. Freeman Dyson is one of the great physicists of the last 50 years. If I can find it I will send on the links of Dyson explaining problems with global warming theories – of which he says there are many.
OK, there you have 11 highly respected, influential scientists who have expertise in and around the issues under contention, who vigorously dispute the alarmist spin, and have no conflicts of interest. If you want 20-30 more take a look here IceCap
Now here is the funny thing, if Fr. Hans should post another article on global warming, I have no doubt that you and Dean Scourtes will chime in with the exact same claims about “industry shills” and “metal sheds in Oregon” and “I knew a guy who knew a guy…”. You are supplied with well documented information along with relevant biographies. You respond with ad hominems, hearsay, citations from left-wing political groups, and so on. All along, the basis of your argument rests on the 2,500 unnamed UN scientists and the size of the number and the fact that they are attached to the UN apparently trumps all else.
It is you two who have your ideological blinders on, who are impervious to information and reasoned argument.
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 C writes: “Lots of brainpower so far – maybe you should re-think your adversion to metal sheds in Oregon.”
No doubt they are brains. But Robinson in apparently the only one who makes a salary from the Insitute, which I think is probably derived from sales of his books on home schooling and surviving nuclear war. I guess the others show up from time to time. I don’t know, maybe if the building were concrete it would change my opinion. . . .
But let me address a few of your other points, keeping in mind that there are many of you and only one of me, and there are only 24 hours in a day.
First, D’Aleo:
Roger Revelle – died in 1991, 16 years ago. Much research has gone on since then.
Zbigniew Jaworowski – has many critics who discuss many of what they explain are his errors. The scientific discussion is largely beyond me. Has Jaworowski published articles on global warming in peer-reviewed journals? My reading suggests either no, or minimal, though he publishes in other venues.
Freeman Dyson – another brain, definetly, but not a climatologist, and without research on global warming published in peer-reviewed journals as far as I know.
Tom C: You are supplied with well documented information along with relevant biographies.”
There is no doubt that a number of well-respected scientists doubt various aspects of global warming. What I look for are climatologists, especially with published research in peer-reviewed journals. Is there something wrong with that? In other words, I look for what specialists in the field have to say.
For example, consider this from the NASA web site:
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
Of course, Fred Singer is an atmospheric scientist. But he was a contractor for the tobacco industry, and many of the organizations he worked for have been funded by Exxon. So I think it is fair to question his objectivity.
Now what’s interesting to me is that in this venue the opponents of various aspects of global warming rely on the existence of individual contrary opinions. But I think we need to look instead at the large volume of contrary opinion. For example:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
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.
Look at it this way. Imagine that you have a blood test with atypical results. You consult ten physicians. Eight of the ten physicians suggest that you get a painful and expensive biopsy necessary to reveal whether you have a potentially fatal, but possibly treatable illness. Two physicians say that while your blood values are abnormal, they believe that the values are simply due to normal variation among people. Do you get the biopsy? I would.
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.
Tom – No I won’t. I was being too charitable up above. The sources you cited are are a vertitable rogues gallery of hacks and stooges and I’m not going to let you get away with misrepresenting them as respectable scientists.
Did you know that Dr. S. Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz , who you cited as a global warming expert, generated bogus scientific findings as paid researchers for the Tobacco Institute and the Reverened Sun Myung Moon ?
More documented evidence on the corruption of S. Fred Singer.
The Indisputable Corruption of Frederick Seitz
Dr. Roger Revelle, who you also cited was neither a hack or a stooge, but is known as the Father of Global warming theory, and as you say a major influence on the young Al Gore. However, there is evidence that he was either confused about or disagreed with the assertions in Singer’s paper that he signed while at a very advanced age. On the margin’s of the galleys of the manuscript for Singer’s paper are corrections that are scratched out.
http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.htm?programID=94-P13-00008#feature1
Revelle is honored for his commitment to science for the benefit of society, as well as for his pioneering work in climate science. He wrote articles as early as the 1950s examining the role of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, and its potential impact on climate. He died more than fifteen years ago, before much new evidence of global warming was reported. The entire argument that Revelle would support Singer’s premise that we should do nothing about global warming in the face of today’s evidence is wildly implausible. To invoke his name in such a way is shamefully dishonest and an insult to the man’s legacy.
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.
Missourian – that is absolutely wrong! We are not talking about the future, but the present. We are not engaging in “speculation” but discussing actual climate trends that are occurring right now.
The Northern polar ice cap is melting now.
Glaciers in Switzerland, Montana, Patagonia and Mt. Kilamnajaro are melting now.
Vast expanses of frozen peat bog and permafrost in Siberia and Alaska are melting now.
Huge pieces of the ice shelves in Greenland and Antartica are melting and breaking off now.
The great forests of the Western United States are drying out and becoming infested with beetles now.
Islands in the Pacific are experiencing rising ocean levels and evacuating populations now. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/368892.stm
Global warming is reducing crop and food production now.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-03-16-crop-losses_N.htm
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.
Tom C writes: “All this got kick started by a 1968 book by Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich called the Population Bomb . . . 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.”
Let me offer a suggestion that might have a chance of being accepted by a number of posters here.
I did not read the Population Bomb, nor do I know who may have endorsed its ideas. But here is an interesting quotation from Reason magazine (conservative publication, I believe) in an article that was critical of the Population Bomb and other such works:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28411.html
Note the emphasis above on articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Can we agree that in a discussion of things scientific, the touchstone should be what’s going on in peer-reviewed journals? In other words, if the preponderance of articles published in peer-review journals says that we should be not worried, concerned, or alarmed about any particular topic, then a reasonable position for laypersons is to be not worried, concerned, or alarmed. Does that make sense?
I don’t like this whole game of “zinger” articles, and the idea that because some brainy person says this or that, then we should believe this or that. To some extent I have played that game, but there’s always this little voice inside telling me that that’s not the way to form an opinion. In other words, I think a better approach is to try to discern, as much as is possible from the lay perspective, what is the weight of scientific opinion in peer-reviewd journals, and where is that opinion headed. I would hope that the majority of posters here would agree with that. If so, that would largely eliminate this whole “liberal vs. conservative” thing that leads to nothing by endless discussion, uncontrolled by any shared criteria.
Tom C: “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.”
My general impressions is that an appropriate response would be serious concern, but less than alarm. That said, “concern” indicates that there are serious issues that we need to consider.
Tom C: “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?”
I am not familiar with either the person or the web site. In general, I shy away from web sites with a large amount of boldface and exclamation points. In looking at the global warming players, I prefer Sourcewatch.org.
Missourian writes: “Proof is science. Consensus is politics.”
With all due respect (and I mean that) I don’t think that you know what you’re talking about. I am not a scientist, but as a philosophy major I studied philosophy of science. When you’re talking about the leading edge of scientific theory it is rare that scientists “prove” things. Scientists construct models that hopefully have some degree of isomorphism (similarity of process or structure) with the “real world.” But models can be altered or even rejected as new data are available. Scientific knowledge tends to be provisional and contingent, not proof. (In philosophy “proof” is a term only used within the domain of logic or math.) Eventually, given enough time and data, scientific knowledge can approach what the layperson would call “proof.” The effect of smoking tobacco is an example of this.
Michael Bauman writes: “I don’t have the information, nor the expertise to evaluate the evidence being used to support global warming claims or refute them.”
Dude, welcome to the club. And there are a lot of members. I have tried on a number of occasions to read the original sources, and with their equations and jargon they are quite beyond me.
Augie writes: “I just started reading Meltdown, by Patrick J. Michaels.”
I look forward to your take on that text.
Augie: “So which is it?”
Let’s be real. The typical layperson (which I assume we all are here) simply does not have the background to interpret and understand original articles in scientific journals. But I believe that we can, with a little effort, come to understand what is the weight of scientific opinion as is published in peer-reviewed journals. As I stated above, that’s what I want to look at, rather than individual opinions.
Best wishes to all, and thanks to all for their responses.
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.