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
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.
I’m proud to be long to a Church led by a man known as the Green Patriarch.
The Very Rev. Vladimir Berzonsky of the Ortodox Church of America writes:
http://www.oca.org/CHRIST-thoughts-article.asp?SID=6&ID=244
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 63: Since the threat is exaggerated, the proper response from the Right is to apparently continue our consumption of a nonrenewable, finite resource and essentially do nothing?
There are numerous reasons to invest in alternative energies, even if global warming’s threat is not as dire or imminent as some say, among them:
a) reducing the financing of regimes hostile towards the US such as Iran
b) avoiding the likely spike in oil prices that would devastate the economically disadvantaged should demand continue to increase and supply decrease
c) providing a more environmentally-friendly means of energy production
It just seems that the risks of continuing our current path are so great as to constitute negligence. Why the resistance to innovation and change? Or am I misreading?
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.
Gore’s involvement with that company falls into a gray area requiring fuller disclosure and greater transparency.
Al Gore is the founder and part owner of the company that “invests” the carbon credits he and others have paid to offset their use of fossil fuels. The company invests in companies engaged in environmentally-friendly activities such as solar energy and wind mill electricity generators.
To the extent that these activities may help reduce carbon emissions, somewhere, there is an “environmental” offset. However, because Gore has a financial interest in the company it is inaccurate to say that there is a “financial” offset. Strictly speaking he is not buying a credit, he is investing in stocks from which he may profit.
The relatively new, unstructured and unregulated nature of the market for carbon emissions makes it vulnerable to fraud and abuse. The Financial Times found:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
Al Gore has been an articluate and passionate advocate for the environment for decades. I strongly believe that his continued advocacy is motivated by his deep concern for the future of the planet and not financial gain.
However, given the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest, the unstructured and unregulated nature of the carbon credits market and the large number of political enemies and industry henchman seeking to discredit him, it would really be in Gore’s best interest to more fully disclose and more clearly explain the nature of his financial dealings.
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 writes: “Gore, on the other hand, has immense financial interest in the position he advocates. It’s called hypocrisy”
So, if someone endorses an environmental policy (understood as liberal) and stands to gain financially from it, it is hypocrisy. If someone stands to gain financially from endorsing military or economic policies (understood as conservative), it is a startling coincidence.
Fr. Hans notes: “an idea is posited against personal behavior, as if ideas and behavior are the same thing”
Well, isn’t that what’s going on when Gore’s behavior (his investments) is referenced against his ideas on warming? Personally, I believe it’s rare for politicians to not gain in some way personally from the policies they advocate. They are politicians, after all.
The question still comes down to what we’re going to do (if anything) about our current dependency on Arab oil, since that region of the world is the prime source for this commodity. Do we continue as we have been at the rate we have? What’s the proposal here? All I seem to be hearing is that change is unnecessary because conservatives disagree with one of the liberal reasons for change. This seems an unwise course of action.
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.
More nails in the coffin of the “gloabal warming” myth from NASA:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html
The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.
Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).
Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.
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.”
Dean,
Please review NASA’s own graphs:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005_fig2.gif
Bob Carter, is correct, overall there has been zero increase in measured Global Warming since approximately 1998.
If you look at the graph the peak happened in 1998 at +0.6 degree Celsius and has since not passed that mark. There have been fluctuations in between, BUT, and here’s the big but, the 1998 peak has not been surpassed since. Why are the global warming alarmists not mentioning this, rather important, bit of objective fact? So the “load of garbage” argument is again looking very silly.
You still have never addressed the point I made many times now regarding how CO2 representing only 0.0314% of our atmosphere can influence “global warming”. That’s like saying somone pouring a cup of boiling water in a large swimming pool will “significantly affect” the temperature of that outdoor swimming pool more than the Southern California sun beaming down on it. That’s the point Dean! Until you and all the other alarmists can overcome that Gigantic Common Sense and Logical issue you lack all credibility.
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!..:)
Major Scientific Studies CONFIRM Direct Correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate (NOT CO2 levels). Wake up Dean and smell the truth!!!
Read the sunspots
The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change – and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4
Revelant excerpts:
Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long “Younger Dryas” cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade — 100 times faster than the past century’s 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.
Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.
….
Using various coring technologies, we have been able to collect more than 5,000 years’ worth of mud in these basins, with the oldest layers coming from a depth of about 11 metres below the fjord floor. Clearly visible in our mud cores are annual changes that record the different seasons: corresponding to the cool, rainy winter seasons, we see dark layers composed mostly of dirt washed into the fjord from the land; in the warm summer months we see abundant fossilized fish scales and diatoms (the most common form of phytoplankton, or single-celled ocean plants) that have fallen to the fjord floor from nutrient-rich surface waters. In years when warm summers dominated climate in the region, we clearly see far thicker layers of diatoms and fish scales than we do in cooler years. Ours is one of the highest-quality climate records available anywhere today and in it we see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic. For example, in the middle of a 62-year slice of the record at about 4,400 years ago, there was a shift in climate in only a couple of seasons from warm, dry and sunny conditions to one that was mostly cold and rainy for several decades.
Using computers to conduct what is referred to as a “time series analysis” on the colouration and thickness of the annual layers, we have discovered repeated cycles in marine productivity in this, a region larger than Europe. Specifically, we find a very strong and consistent 11-year cycle throughout the whole record in the sediments and diatom remains. This correlates closely to the well-known 11-year “Schwabe” sunspot cycle, during which the output of the sun varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots, violent storms on the surface of the sun, have the effect of increasing solar output, so, by counting the spots visible on the surface of our star, we have an indirect measure of its varying brightness. Such records have been kept for many centuries and match very well with the changes in marine productivity we are observing.
In the sediment, diatom and fish-scale records, we also see longer period cycles, all correlating closely with other well-known regular solar variations. In particular, we see marine productivity cycles that match well with the sun’s 75-90-year “Gleissberg Cycle,” the 200-500-year “Suess Cycle” and the 1,100-1,500-year “Bond Cycle.” The strength of these cycles is seen to vary over time, fading in and out over the millennia. The variation in the sun’s brightness over these longer cycles may be many times greater in magnitude than that measured over the short Schwabe cycle and so are seen to impact marine productivity even more significantly.
Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called “proxies”) is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia’s Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.
…..
Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star’s protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth’s atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun’s energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these “high sun” periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.
The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright. More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth’s atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s climate on long, medium and even short time scales.
In some fields the science is indeed “settled.” For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that “the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases.” About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.
……
Chris Banescu writes: “Major Scientific Studies CONFIRM Direct Correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate (NOT CO2 levels). Wake up Dean and smell the truth!!!”
Has Timothy Patterson published his finding in a peer-reviewed journal?
Chris, quoting the article: “But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll . . . ”
It is interesting to me that the author mentions the number of papers, but does not discuss their content. Then, he moves quickly to the results of a controversial poll:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#_note-7
A previous survey of the actual content of papers published in peer-reviewed journals came to a different conclusion:
[same reference as above]
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.
# 96 Jim Holman –
Dr Patterson’s prodigious publication corpus is given here: Patterson
There are numerous publications from recent years covering the material excerpted in the National Post article.
After you have waded through these, please check out this posting by the eminent climate researcher Roger Pielke Sr. of Colorado State University. Pielke
Pielke is the acknowledged world authority on the surface temperature record. In this posting he meticulously documents how the authors of the IPCC chapter on this topic avoid citing peer-reviewed literature that contradicts their own viewpoint. (Quick! Jim, go to SOURCEWATCH to check out this Pielke character.)
Oreskes study was preposterous on its face. Only quasi-political studies would contain the phrase “global climate change” to begin with. Real studies that “contradict the consensus” would likely have phrases like “Present-day climate forcing and response from black carbon in snow” and have keywords like: Black carbon; snow reflectance; snow albedo feedback; and index terms like:0305 Atmospheric Composition and Structure: Aerosols and particles (0345, 4801, 4906); 0360 Atmospheric Composition and Structure: Radiation: transmission and scattering; 0740 Cryosphere: Snowmelt; 0750 Cryosphere: Sea ice (4540); 0798 Cryosphere: Modeling.
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.
#96 – Jim Holman
I thought I would save you some time, so I went to SOURCEWATCH.ORG to check out this Pielke character. I was surprised that he was not on some sort of black list. Maybe they are behind in updating the lists of people who need to be WATCHED!
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. I’m at a loss as to what is damning or disqualifying about Dr. Patterson. Nevertheless, his life’s work has led him to believe that global warming is not a big problem. So, he must be WATCHED!
I was even more amused as I did a little research on who is doing the watching for us. I opened up the first staff bio and found
Three whole years as a web developer for an Environmental Resource Center! But, that’s not all
Reality-based community indeed!
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).
#96 and #100 – Jim Holman
One of my posts was erased for some reason. Sorry for the confusion.
Anyway, in that post I passed along Dr. Patterson’s formidible publications list, which is here Patterson
The work described in the Post article comes from several publications of his over the last 10 years.
I also sent along a great example which casts much doubt on the Oreskes study. Well, actually, demolishes would be a better way to describe it. Anyway, Roger Pielke Sr. who is an eminent climate researcher at Colorado State University and the acknowledged world authority on the surface temperature record, provides meticulous evidence in this blog post of how the authors of the IPCC chapter on this topic deliberately avoided citing abundant peer-reviewed research that contradicted their viewpoint. The post is here Pielke.
Let’s pause and summarize (after you have read all the citations, of course). Here we have an acknowledged world authority specifically citing 20-30 peer-reviewed papers that contradict “the consensus”. And this is only on one narrow topic. You, though, would prefer the testimony of the Oreskes study, which could not find even one paper that contradicted “the consensus”. This study was performed by a “historian of science” who somehow “lost” the citations that formed the basis of her study.
Actually, with a little thought, you should have been able to see the preposterous nature of the Oreskes study. Scientific papers rarely have keyword phrases like “global climate change”. That is a political phrase. Scientific papers usually have titles and keyword phrases like “Comparison of Collocated Automated (NCECONet) and Manual (COOP) Climate Observations in North Carolina.”
Finally my aim in citing the bio of the sourcewatch staff member was to show how thin her relevant experience was vis-a-vis understanding environmental science topics